Sitting of 15 February 1844

MINUTES.
New MEMBERS SWORN.—Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron, Esq., for Wilts. (Northern Div.)—Nicholas Maher, Esq., Tipperary.
BILLS. Public.—3° and passed:—Offences at Sea.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. French, from Scarborough, respecting Window-tax on Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. W. O. Stanley, from Denbigh, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Mr. Watson, from Solicitors in the Court of Chancery, for Enquiry into the late Compensations.—From Herningby, and 11 places, against any Change in the Corn-laws.

STATE OF IRELAND—ADJOURNED DEBATE—THIRD NIGHT.
On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the State of Ireland,
Mr. Rossspoke to the following effect; I am heartily in favour of the proposal of the noble Lord, the Member for London, to go into a Committee of the whole House. Nothing has fallen from Ministers to supersede the necessity of such a course. I have anxiously watched for some indication of a desire to do that full justice to Ireland which has been so earnestly sought, so long delayed, and which now more than ever is so essentially necessary to the well-being, not of Ireland alone, but of the United Kingdom. I make light of the hon. Baronet's petty improvements; his gentle alteratives are quite insufficient to cure the complicated diseases of that country. I lament the absence of such a disposition on the part of the Government and the majority of the
926
House. I am unwilling to charge them with conscious and deliberate injustice, but I must say, that their apprehension of Irish grievances is so faint and imperfect, their estimate of Irish rights so narrow and illiberal, as to leave them at issue on the definition of justice with the great mass of the Irish nation, including a majority of its representatives, a large proportion of the British people, and the whole world of impartial spectators of this struggle for equality, to whom their Irish policy has ever seemed inexplicable. If there were now present any intelligent foreigner, moderately acquainted with the history of these countries, but knowing no more than foreigners generally do of the hidden influence—the class and party motives that have governed and perverted our legislation—he would be sorely puzzled to reconcile with his political knowledge and experience these extraordinary facts;—that after a connection of six centuries with Ireland, and a nominal incorporation of forty-three years, no real union and consolidation of strength has yet been effected; and that we, the representatives of a people accounting themselves the wisest and most understanding upon the face of the earth—knowing the full extent of the evil—with the warnings and the encouragements of history before our eyes—with the opinions of statesmen and sages recorded for our guidance, and with the broad light of recent experience shining on our path, seem yet undecided which way to go, or rather seem obstinately bent on perseverance in the old, dull, disastrous circle of expedients to which our counsels appear to be confined and spell-bound. Thus is what fills the civilised world with astonishment. We have found a way to govern our immense eastern empire in peace. The North American colonies acknowledge our beneficent intentions, and are grateful. After a period of barbarous and rapacious rule, we changed our hand, and secured Hindustan by governing with equity, and by wisely conforming our politics to the genius and spirit of its populations. Even our aggressions on the frontier tribes have been followed by assurances, that we neither seek to plunder nor to oppress, nor to insult the vanquished, and by the introduction of something compensatory to the mass of the inhabitants. If charity should begin at home, so should justice. You have little to spare for Ireland. But I may be told, as I have been told, that Ireland is not to be conciliated. A strange assertion! Indi-

927
vidually we are allowed to be placable and grateful: how can we be otherwise in the aggregate? I suppose we may be proved so by the logical process which from a multitude of meetings, each of which is legal, constructs illegality. Bad and threatening as I admit the aspect of affairs to be, I hold it unreasonable to doubt the possibility of thoroughly and at once tranquillising that country. Sir, any man in this House possessed of firmness and strong common sense, freed from the trammels of party, and, if such a thing may be for a moment imagined, clothed with dictatorial power, could do it. The Legislature is absolute, and wants not the way, but the will. No doubt there are difficulties to be encountered, but difficulties of our own creation—none of them insurmountable to vigour and manly determination. Every month's delay, however, arguments the difficulty, and in a rapidly increasing ratio. The Irish mind is not now, unhappily, in the grateful, confiding, hopeful state, produced by the administrative government of two successive Lords Lieutenant who sought and gained the affections of the Irish people; nor could that golden opportunity, which the madness of faction cast away, be restored by ordinary means. But a successful experiment—successful beyond all possibility of doubt—stands fully established, inviting the rulers of the country to repeat it, in hope of a like result. No man can deny that, for some years, while the feelings of my countrymen were soothed by the novelty of a gentle, impartial, considerate administration of the law, and a discreet exercise of patronage, and while their hopes were sustained by the efforts made by those in power to enlarge the boundaries of popular privilege, that peace, order, and contentment prevailed throughout the land, to a degree theretofore unknown; that the gaols were tenantless—troops not needed—and that it required all the wit and mischievous ingenuity of political leaders to keep the dying flame of party spirit alive. Peace was established; concord would soon have followed. If there were great grievances yet unredressed, the people were willing to endure them for a season. The clouds that had thickened over Ireland, in the long night of her calamity, were too heavy to be dispersed in a moment; but there was a general confidence that the day which would scatter them was at hand, and already their skirts were tinged with the promise of a gracious dawn. During that lull in the Irish storm,
928
the Government of the day found itself engaged in a contest with one of the colonies, and a noble and learned and very eloquent person, charging the disorders of Canada upon its rulers, contrasted the lenity and indulgence of their Irish policy with what he considered the harshness and severity of their Canadian. Why do I advert to these events? Because, from both cases we derive conclusive evidence that kindness and justice are better pacificators than monster indictments and military repression. Lord Brougham, after commenting on a saying of Charles Fox's, in a manner which the noble Lord, the Member for London, who had quoted it, would probably think more ingenious than just—thus expressed himself on the 2nd of February, 1838,—
"Give them (the Irish) all they ask. But for Canada, refuse all they ask—turn a deaf ear to every complaint—mock them with hopes never to be realised—insult them with rights which, if they dare to use, shall be rudely torn from them, and, for abiding by the law in seeking redress of their wrongs, punish them. We have all seen, or we have read, of the contrast between a parent and a step-mother in the treatment of a child—the contrast between tenderness, self-denial, self-devotion, and cruelty, self-indulgence, studied neglect. The one exhausts every resource of kindness and conciliation, anticipates all wants, yields to each wish that ought to be granted, studies to prevent offences by judicious training, and to reclaim from error by gentleness alone, nor ever have recourse to punishment until all means of prevention fail, and the safety of the cherished object forces her to do violence to her feelings rather than neglect her duty. But I have known conduct the reverse of all this. Who, indeed, has not heard of the step-mother watching for the occasion of quarrel, taking offence at everything and at nothing, fostering every little failing of temper in the child, till it ripen into disobedience, and furnish the pretext for the wished-for punishment; alternately too indulgent and too severe, by fits and by caprice, harsh and gentle—now flinging to it some plaything, and the instant the child uses it, flying into a fury, and snatching it away, and giving vent to anger by punishment or by restraint—now visiting on the offspring the faults of her own mismanagement, and never for an instant pursuing a steady, or a just, or a rational treatment. These things have I witnessed, and who has not? But never have I known an example of contrast so marked, so violent, so outrageous, as between the parental care of Ireland, and the step-mother treatment of Canada."
Alas, for Ireland! how has the picture been reversed! Where is now the "parental

929
care" of which she was the object when these reproachful words were uttered. I grudge not the Canadians what they have gained—far from it. I trust all has been well and wisely arranged, and for their permanent happiness. But I cannot help asking, in bitterness of soul—towards whom is the deaf ear now turned? Whose complaints are unheeded, whose hopes are now mocked? Who, for abiding by the law in seeking redress of their wrongs, are accused of traitorous designs? Happy Canadians! on you tenderness and parental care have wrought their wonted effect, subduing you invincibly to feelings of affectionate respect, which may no mistakes or temporary inconvenience ever weaken! Fortunate colonists! We, less happy, an integral portion of the Empire, as we are told, have been doomed to experience something very like the harshness and injustice of the stepmother, watching the opportunity, fostering little feelings of temper and pouncing down upon the victim, when offences, long unrebuked and unnoticed, have grown to such a head as to furnish a pretext for vengeance. What wonder, then, if Ireland, exchanging the parent for the step-mother, has exchanged also her new born feelings of gratitude and confidence, which might have been turned to such excellent account, but which have been chilled and blasted by unkindness, for suspicion and hatred? The leader of the Repeal Movement has been treated with injustice as well as with great severity; he has been prosecuted to conviction for endeavouring to effect an object, which, however impolitic, none have asserted to be illegal; and now he is charged, most unjustly charged, with insincerity and hypocrisy. His words, you say, are "smoother than oil," but his thoughts are bent on mischief and violence. Now, in my conscience I believe that Gentleman to be as sincere as I am myself, in his exhortations to the people, not to disturb the peace of society. Had not that hon. Gentleman again and again, stated in the presence of congregated thousands, that one drop of blood—the life of one fellowcreature—was too dear a price to pay for any political advantage.* Sir, I have heard much vaunting language about the victory just gained over the conspirators.
* At this moment the hon. Member was interrupted by Mr. O'Connell entering the House, and by his entrance having been welcomed with cheers by the Opposition. When the cheering had ceased, he proceeded.
930
Let the House judge by the reception which the head conspirator has just met, whether there be much cause for triumph. You may put that man in gaol—but what will you gain? What security will that afford for the preservation of peace in Ireland. Suppose Louis Philippe were to declare war [Cries of "Oh! oh!" from the Ministerial Side of the House.] would it not be acknowledged to be unwise thus to have alienated the affections of a people so well able to contribute to our defence? Gentlemen may cry "Oh! oh!" but I have a right to treat this as a great political question—and to take into account all possible chances—and I tell you, your Irish policy is fraught with danger. Sir, the unhappy change I have spoken of, is not the consequence of levity and fickleness of disposition. Quite the contrary. Remember, that the party which succeeded to power in 1841 was the same which had denounced every measure of conciliatory administration, and thwarted their opponents in every attempt at remedial law. The result has been a curious coincidence in some respects—a remarkable contrast in others—between the growth and manifestation of Irish and Canadian discontent. In Canada, at the time I speak of, dissatisfaction was evinced by combinations of a dangerous character. Meetings were held, which were so menacing in the judgment of the Governor-general, as to call for the dismissal of many magistrates and public functionaries for attending them. This was the first parallel case; but in Ireland the meetings partook of no such character, and the stigmatized magistrates were at all events above suspicion of disloyalty, or of being aiders and abettors of public disturbance. They were thrust out of their commissions, for seeking a lawful object, by means which no man there ventured to call unlawful; for attending meetings, when their presence was a guarantee for the preservation of the peace. Next in the progress of Canadian discontent—we hear of the formation of central, district, and local committees. Something analogous occurred in Ireland. Lastly, the ordinary tribanals of justice were discountenanced, and as far as possible set aside by the appointment of amiable compositeurs, in other words, courts of arbitration. Here the parallel ends; for the next step of the Canadian leaders was to commence a military organization under the name of police—It is absurd to talk, as some do, of "the O'Connell Police;" they were appointed in good faith to preserve order at the meet-

931
ings, and they had nothing of a permanent character. Here I say the parallel ends. Canada broke out into open revolt; Ireland—though the fire was at her heart—preserved a calm and peaceful demeanour. Ireland—wronged as she is and taunted by those who wish her ill,—has shown no disposition to follow the example of Canada. She was warned by O'Connell, as the noble Lord well remarked, against that example. I trust both leaders and people will maintain their present attitude of patient expectation, and enlist the sympathies of all their fellow subjects who can admire true greatness, by firm and temperate conduct; but I also fervently trust that Ireland's exemplary abstinence from violent courses will not furnish to Parliament a mean and base motive for dealing with her less leniently—less kindly—with less consideration for her manifold claims on the justice of the Empire—than with the once turbulent, but now, in spite of some drawbacks, happy and peaceful Canada—and that her misfortunes will find at length a like satisfactory termination. But no exercise of forbearance, no temporary control of excited feeling, no wisdom, no authority can avail, unless Parliament interpose, and apply itself seriously and with entire determination of purpose, to extirpate the roots of discontent from the Irish soil. Something might have been done last Session. What was done? You abolished a useless and irritating custom. I thank you for that. But as a set-off against that trifling boon you attempted to impose upon the country a frightful Arms Bill. Thanks to the artistic skill of Her Majesty's Opposition, the grim features of the original were so much softened, that its parent would hardly have recognised his own offspring; and now, I think it best described in worthy Dogberry's language, as "very tolerable and not to be endured." But what good end has been gained by this bill? Has it deprived the fierce administrators of their own bloody code of agrarian laws of the means of executing their decrees? That was the noble Lord's object—has he gained it? Have those who backed the noble Lord on grounds of their own obtained their wish? Macroom was a failure—the Abbeyleix lecture was read in vain. We have more arms in the country than ever, and what is worst of all, and exactly what I predicted, ardent leaders have instigated their adherents to arm in expectation of what is to follow. Sir, I was roundly re-
932
buked last Session for pointing out the probable consequences of this unfortunate bill. The partiality which I foresaw did break out, and was only suppressed by the noble Lord's grave admonition, for which he has my thanks. But there are evils connected with the Bill which the noble Lord's authority cannot reach. What will the House think of combinations to arm under pretence that men's lives and properties are in danger? Will the House believe that gentlemen of rank and station—clergymen of the Established Church—went about last autumn begging subscriptions to supply the Orangemen with arms and ammunition? If I do not greatly err, the noble Lord is my witness to the fact. Will the House believe what I believe—because I have it from excellent authority—that in a town belonging to an English duke, there was lately a magazine of muskets which were distributed among men of "the right sort," on the easy terms of payment by small instalments? The fruit of your Arms Bill is general arming, and mutual terror greatly heightened by the military precautions taken in the most tranquil districts. Remarking on the amount of force employed, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the loopholes in barracks at Belfast, and of sentries mounting guard before the church doors during service on Sundays; and asked, "Is this ever to end?" Can nothing be done to give peace and prosperity to afflicted Ireland? What price, I ask, is too high to be paid for the affections of a people whom the misdoings and neglect of the Government have greatly alienated? Is the sacrifice of some few prejudices, some petty interests, what you cannot contemplate? If you can, you may purchase what is of inestimable value. How? By scrupulous practical regard to the religious feelings of the people, which have been outraged; by satisfying the cravings of the nation for justice and protection, which have been withheld; by affording countenance and favour to men and classes on whom you have frowned, or at least treated them with a stinted and half-hearted semblance of liberality; by searching out with a keen eye, and plucking up with a bold and vigorous hand the roots of abuse and dissatisfaction; by expending on the improvement of a country, capable of pouring back into the lap of Britain with grateful and abundant interest, that wealth which you are now lavishing—disguise it as you will—in the maintenance of fleets and armies for keeping down a

933
spirited people—lavishing as fruitlessly as if you sowed it upon the waves. Sir, this is sound advice. I may say so without a boast, for I claim but the merit of a judicious borrower. I took it from one who wrote for all time and all countries—one before whom the most sagacious statesman of modern days ought not to be ashamed reverently to bow his head—I mean Lord Bacon. Touching the Queen's service in Ireland—that great man thus opened his mind—but first let me quote a passage in which he expresses his sense of the value of Ireland in language not since matched by the loftiest encomiums of her most gifted sons:
"Another Britain—endowed with so many dowries of nature, considering the fruitfulness of the soil, the ports, the rivers, the fisheries, the quarries, the woods, and other materials; and especially the race and generation of men—valiant, hardy and active—as it is not easy—no, not on the continent, to find such confluence of commodities, if the hand of man did join with the hand of nature."
Such was Bacon's estimate of Ireland and the Irish in James the First's time. Have we degenerated since? Now for his advice; now let us see how the hand of man is to be joined to the hand of nature. The passage I am about to read was quoted some weeks ago in the Spectator. It runs thus:—
"The reduction of that country, as well to civility and justice as to obedience and peace—which things, as affairs now stand, I hold to be inseparable—consisteth in four points: first, the extinguishing the relics of the war; second, the recovery of the hearts of the people; third, the removing the root and occasions of trouble; fourth, plantations and buildings. Towards the recovery of the hearts of the people (he says) there be but three things in rerum natura; first, religion; second, justice; third, obligation and reward. For obligation and reward, it is true no doubt what was anciently said, that a state is contained in two bonds, prœmium and pœna, and I am persuaded if a penny in the pound which had been spent in pœnâ, had been spent in prœmio, things had never grown to this extremity. But to speak forwards, the keeping of the principal Irish persons in terms of contentment and without cause of particular complaint, and generally the carrying of an even course between the English and the Irish as if they were one nation, without hath been held by the governors and counsellors there, that some have favoured the Irish, and some contrary, is one of the best medicines of that state."
I appeal to the House and to the coun-
934
try, whether we are not as much open to the reproof, and in as much need of the advice contained in this passage, as ever were the Counsellors of Queen Elizabeth or King James. One other short sentence I will quote, for it is strictly applicable to the matter in hand. Bacon's lofty theme is "the true greatness of Britain." After specifying four particulars in which that greatness stands, he adds these remarkable words:—"Fifthly, it consisteth in the temper of the Government fit to keep the subjects"—what, in order? In subjection? No, sir; but "in good heart and courage, and not to keep them in the condition of servile vassals." Oh, that these words were graven on the hearts of Her Majesty's Ministers, that they might feel the grandeur of that sentiment, understand their high mission, and keep stedfastly in view the worthiest object of a glorious ambition! What have they done to raise from the dust of servile vassalage to the dignity of freedom and independence a race of men worthy of a better fate? Which of their measures have been prompted and informed by the spirit of the philosophic statesman? Far other tendencies characterise their legislation than that of keeping up "the heart and courage" of my downtrodden countrymen, who, if they have heart and courage, owe it to God, and not to man. You have done much to depress them—little, indeed, to elevate. But, perhaps, the noble Lord has mistaken the views of the right hon. Baronet; perhaps the right hon. Baronet may make some amends for past errors and neglect, by infusing into the Registration Bill, which is now in preparation, some portion of the lofty and generous spirit of Lord Bacon. Whether the House will or will not consent to an immediate investigation of Irish grievances, the day cannot be far distant when it will be forced to turn its attention that way. Meanwhile all who have any hope of a final issue out of all these troubles, ought to consider well the nature of the evils that beset us. Some hon. Gentlemen have told you, that if the physical condition of the mass of the people were bettered, discontent would pass away like a summer cloud. If so, how comes it to pass that where the people are poorest, they are not the most turbulent? I take upon me to assert, that, setting aside the deplorable case of expelled families, and keeping in view only the settled occupiers of the land, none are more quiet and orderly than those who would be but poor people if they

935
paid no rent at all—I mean the tenants of little patches of four or five acres of land. As to those who, from their own fault or misfortune, or the heartlessness of their landlords, lose the shelter of a cabin, and a little plot of ground, their lot in such a climate as ours is indeed, appalling; and, yet it is strange how seldom these poor creatures think of wreaking their vengeance on a society to which they owe so very little. In my opinion, Irish wrongs are more keenly felt as national wrongs by those who enjoy comparative comfort, and most keenly by those who have had some education, and whose minds are disciplined to control their feelings. Do not, then, imagine that the poor alone are discontented. Every true Irishman, rich or poor, who sees a defective representation, and a constituency crumbling to decay before his eyes, is, and ought to be, discontented; every Irishman who sees immense sums drained from his country—without the pretence of representation—by imperative presentment under despotic authority, is, and ought to be discontented; every Roman Catholic—that is, eight out of every ten men you meet, who sees a pompous State Church, with which he has no connection, and from which he derives no benefit—gorged with the proceeds of public taxation—is necessarily and most justly discontented; and all the remaining portion of the community, as far as they are influenced by a sense of justice, participate in that discontent. Sir, these things being so, I confess I see no safe medium between a ruthless trampling down of Ireland, an utter extermination of her liberties, and a thorough satisfaction of claims which some hold to be exorbitant, and others, I believe, simply ridiculous. The first plea, which has its advocates—to say nothing of its barbarity—is full of hazard, and even if successful, would be attended with serious loss to yourselves. It never was in your contemplation; that I feel assured of. The second must, no doubt, be very distasteful to many; but a patient in extremity submits quietly to swallow a nauseous dose, or to endure a torturous operation, and this is a case of life or death. In one word, you must make up your mind to let Ireland be a Popish country. I am not talking about toleration—a word which a noble Lord opposite, declared to my great satisfaction, he hated—but I mean that the profession of the religion of the Irish people should be as much unconnected with loss, disability, or inconvenience, as that of the
936
Anglican faith. Less than Scotland gained for a system which is more opposed to the Church of England than is the latter to Roman Catholicism, will not suffice. And if the people of Ireland are bent on rejecting a State provision for the Clergy, why in that case, you must arrive at equality by another process; always preserving to every clergyman the enjoyment of the property he now possesses. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I am firmly of opinion, and I am not singular in my judgment, that all other reforms however valuable in themselves, will prove inadequate to the establishment of durable peace, if unaccompanied by this sweeping, but most reasonable of all reforms. I am no lover of innovation for innovation's sake. "Let well alone," appears to me a safe rule; and I might hesitate to destroy what has the sanction of ancient usage when endurably bad. But here we have to do with what is, as it stands, intolerably bad—vicious in principle, galling in operation, and by no means of palliation to be reconciled with the feelings of millions of men. A word in conclusion upon means. If the Gentlemen who are now in power will try to conciliate Ireland, well—they shall have my humble support. If they shrink from applying the great principle of free government to the institutions of Ireland; and turn away in disgust or in despair from the work of needful reformation,—if they have nothing better to propose for the healing of the nation than their old nostrums and quack remedies, let others try their hand who see their way to a happy issue, and who will be cheered on and assisted by the British people in their generous effort to satisfy the claims of their wronged brethren. Men equal to the emergency are to be found, and Ireland may be saved. To adopt the language of the oracle I have before consulted, language singularly applicable to the present time and circumstances,
"I know Her Majesty shall not want the information of persons expert and industrious who have served her there and know the region; nor the advice of a grave and prudent council of estate here, which know the pulses of the hearts of the people, and the ways and passages of producing great actions."
Mr. Borthwicksaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had added another to the many proofs afforded by the whole course of that debate, that one of the most desirable, and he was inclined to believe, one of the most

937
effectual methods for tranquillizing the tumults of Ireland, was the infusion into the discussions of this House something of moderation in temper and expression. He would endeavour to follow so good an example. The hon. Gentleman had begun and ended an able speech by medical figures and illustrations. He had begun by complaining of the gentle alteratives proposed for Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and he had ended by speaking of the stronger essences which he meant himself to prescribe. But he had been singularly vague and uncertain in his definition of the latter. He had spoken of the Church of Ireland, but he had not signified his plan of reforming it; he had complained of the state of political rights and privileges, but he had not signified in a definite manner any plan for its amelioration. He was sure that if the parallel drawn by the hon. Gentleman between Ireland and Scotland were intended to point to an establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in the former, as the Presbyterian faith had been established in the latter, the most strenuous opponent to his plan would be the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. And this was the objection to the noble Lord's motion—that though there were many parts in all the speeches by which it had been supported with which, if proposed in the shape of practical legislation, he and others would be most happy to agree, yet the motion itself was, to all hope of effecting the measures so hinted at, the most entire and utter extinction. If the noble Lord really had such measures in contemplation he could not have adopted any plan more effectual to prevent their adoption than the motion propounded from the Chair. What would be the effect of that motion? Nor certainly to carry any beneficial measure for Ireland, but to displace one set of Ministers from those benches, and to occupy their places by others; would this be desirable for Ireland? Why, most certainly not in the sense of the hon. Gentleman opposite—for the noble Lord had already held office for ten years, during which Ireland had the same Church and the same Civil State, and all the other evils now complained of; and in those days the noble Lord was an advocate for the Church, and left the State as he found it. Had truth, then, changed its eternal principles, or had the noble Lord sought to move this House for the
938
purpose of faction only, and party? But this was a question all too large for the tiny grasp of faction. When party attempted to use—or abuse it rather—for her pitiful purposes—she herself must fail. It was too deep and too broad for her limited vision. Yes, be the politician whom he might who should try to rise upon the admitted sufferings of the Irish people—not to the moral dignity of their alleviator and physician—but to the miserable exaltation of a more miserable party—such a man must acquire an infamy which must live for all time—an infamy which must attach to the party and its leader too; and here he must be permitted to state firmly, but respectfully, to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), whom he regretted not to see in his place, that in some parts of his speech he had employed means only suited to so ignoble an end. He had asked at one time a question which, perhaps from the delicacy of his position, had, he thought, been feebly answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. The noble Lord had stated he could inform the House, upon the authority of his late official confidence with the Crown, that Her Majesty was full of the most liberal and the most benevolent wishes for all Her subjects in Ireland, and that she contemplated them all of every creed and sect with uniform and strong kindness. Why, it needed not that the noble Lord should assert this, nor that his right hon. successor should confirm it. Every one who had marked her career, from the moment of her accession to the Crown down to that instant, knew that our Sovereign Lady Victoria was of a high and generous nature, worthy of the sires from whom she was descended, and worthy of the mighty empire which she ruled. God long preserve her! But for what purpose did the noble Lord state this so well-known fact? Why, that he might ask this question—and eloquently and indignantly did the noble Lord put it to the House—"Who is he," said the noble Lord, "who shall stand between this fountain of Royal grace and the objects of its destiny?" This was the substance of the noble Lord's inquiry. He would tell the noble Lord who—not the conspirators in Ireland, the firm hand of the law had temperately but effectually put them down—not any new shape which their mischievous agitation could take; but he who could effectually

939
prevent the Royal good-will from taking effect in Ireland must be a man who, to the honours of ancient lineage and noble birth, should add the weight of distinguished moral worth, one who should possess large intellectual endowments ripened by consummate scholarship and extensive observation—one who by those great qualities crowned all and adorned by an amiable temper, which should gather to him in affectionate respect a mighty party in the state whom he should lead and control. Ay, when such a man should descend from the lofty position he so deservedly occupied to join hands with convicted conspiracy, and insinuate against his great rival the miserable taunt that he was the obstacle between the Royal heart and its dearest and noblest aim—he said when such a man should so act, he would be indeed, a great and effectual barrier between the wishes of his Sovereign for Ireland and their fulfilment. He would only ask the noble Lord and the House, in the words of Pope—
"Who would not laugh if such a man there be?
"Who would not weep if Atticus were he?"
So much for the first question of the noble Lord. Now, he had asked a second question, which he (Mr. Borthwick) would also take leave to answer. The noble Lord had demanded—what benefit did the Administration promise itself from the recent trials in Ireland—
"You have obtained, (said he), your conviction; but what else have you gained? Have you not rather added strength to the hands of agitation than bound them up? Is not Mr. O'Connell likely to address the people of Ireland with more effect, when he appeals to them no longer as their liberator and friend merely, but as their suffering martyr, convicted and imprisoned for their sake?"
Now, he admitted that he had at first, when these prosecutions were undertaken, entertained a view not unlike that of the noble Lord. He thought that it was an enterprise on the part of the Government of which the failure must weaken themselves and the success strengthen their enemy. He had thought so; but he found now that he had overrated the influence of the agitators, and under-estimated the loyalty of the people. He was convinced that two great benefits must follow from this conviction. The first was, that it laid the wide field of Irish legislation fairly open to the Government. It freed the Imperial Parliament from fetters
940
which had hitherto bound them when they attempted to achieve any improvement of the Irish condition. Admit, for example, that the Act of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 was a great benefit to that country, did they not hear from day to day in that House that half its value was lost in the fact that it had been wrung from Ministerial fears, and not awarded from Ministerial justice? Well; but now the Crown had begun by placing the finger of the law upon dangerous agitation. It had first silenced the menace of disaffection, and could now effectually, and of its own proper and becoming motive, advance and bestow whatever justice should require. It would be now no longer said that that beneficial legislation was wrung from fear. It must be admitted, on the contrary, that it was as spontaneous as willing—as generous as it was just. And a second important benefit conferred on Ireland by these convictions must be, that the people of that country would now be undeceived as to the source from which they could derive the improvement of their condition. They would not any longer look upon Her Majesty as Queen, with Mr. O'Connell Viceroy over her; but they would see that Mr. O'Connell himself must be subject to the law, and that the power of legislation rested not with him, but with the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons of the realm. These were advantages which had been obtained by the convictions, and which never could be derived from such motions as that of the noble Lord. He (Mr. Borthwick) was most anxious, upon this point, not to be misunderstood. Indeed, he had chiefly risen to prevent the misconstruction of his vote, for he could not fail to observe on the other side of the House a disposition to misconstrue every vote given in favour of Ministers, and to attribute it to hostile feeling against Ireland and the Irish people. He for one entertained sentiments of the most opposite character. He admired the Irish people; he believed them to be warmhearted, generous, and loyal; and he wished to vote on this question for their benefit. He claimed for himself, and for every English Member, this construction of his vote. No English interest could be advanced; all English interests on the contrary, must be fearfully impeded or annihilated, by the injury of Ireland. But did Ireland derive benefit from that tumult and sedition of which her valleys

941
had been the scene, and herself the victim? And that very night, when Mr. O'Connell had entered that House, he had been greeted with cheers. Yes, and it was inferred, because he and those who sat on his side of the House, did not join in those cheers, that they hated Ireland. Now, he would say, that he for one did not doubt the accuracy and justice with which the hon. Members who had spoken last, had described Mr. O'Connell as sincere in his love to his country—honest in his zeal and devotion to her interests. He did not for a moment doubt it. He never had doubted it, and he had sometimes encountered the disapprobation of his political friends for saying so. But he was not there nor were they, to judge of motives. He was there to legislate for the United Kingdom. They did not meet in their character as members of society, but as Members of Parliament; and he avowed that any public man, as a public man who gave public expression to sympathy—not with Mr. O'Connell—but with seditious conspiracy—was offending against the law and the safety of the realm. He admired Mr. O'Connell's great abilities; nay, his devotion to his country; but, however he might think on that point, he must avoid all approval of conspiracy and sedition. Nor let it be inferred from this vote, that he was averse to the improvement of Ireland. The very contrary—he pledged himself to assist any motion which should have such an object. The present motion was, of all plans that could have been devised, in method the least effectual, in effect the most mischievous. Suppose it were carried—suppose the House now in committee—what would follow but angry words, bandied from those to these benches, and perhaps returned with interest? Would those stormy and inflammable accusations fail to communicate their contagion to Ireland, and to excite the causes already too active to fever and vex her quiet and her very existence? No, the agitation had ceased in Ireland, and been transfered to that floor. The agitator was no longer Mr. O'Connell, but the noble Member for the city of London. He, at least was sure, that whatever severity or violence of language Mr. O'Connell had used at those monster meetings of his, he had used no expressions more unworthy of a Member of that House, more degrading to a public man, than had the noble Lord
942
in opening that debate. And must not Ireland suffer from this? Why, what could more fully prove this charge—for he charged the noble Lord with it—than the busy zeal with which he had ransacked the annals of electioneering orgies, the files of provincial newspapers, to seek if haply he might find some strong expressions uttered by some happy Conservative over his cups which he might torture to his purpose? The noble Lord had succeeded in finding some phrase or other, spoken, or snore probably never spoken, by an hon. Gentleman; and forthwith he charges the great political party with entertaining sentiments which every one of their Members abhorred from his heart. Was this fair? But more unworthy still was the misinterpretation of the noble Lord of the words attributed by him to the Lord Chancellor—misinterpretation, he would not say wilful, yet he did not understand how it could be otherwise. He would bend, however, his judgment to his opinion of the noble Lord's honour. The noble Lord had quoted the word "alien," used by Lord Lyndhurst many years ago, and reasoned as though that learned Lord had employed it in contempt of some portion of the Irish people. Now, what was the fact? What said Hansard, and the seports? Why, that Lord Lyndhurst had thus described Ireland:—
"There are in Ireland, (said he) two distinct races, alien to each other in blood, alien in language, and alien in religion."
Why this applied the word "alien" equally to each party, but most certainly did not attribute the character of alien as from this country to either, Such was the ingenuity with which the noble Lord had tortured the words of that distinguished personage to suit a most unworthy purpose; such was the degradation to which he had stooped. He was sorry the noble Lord was not in his place; it was not his fault; but as he was absent, he would use no severer terms; and the noble Lord had not hesitated, first to misconstrue and misrepresent the Lord High Chancellor, and next to assert what was beyond his knowledge, had it been even possible namely, that Lord Lyndhurst had been appointed to the woolsack only because he had used that expression. Why, was it credible, that the leader of a great party could stoop so low? Not only the nature of the case—the character of public men

943
made it impossible, but the appointment by the same Government of the noble Lord to the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland would have foiled their own purpose. He did not doubt, in like manner, that the hon. gentleman had equally misconstrued the charge of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. If any Judge were so wicked, surely there could be none so foolish, as to employ the word "opposite" so as to imply partiality in an open court. Now, he wished his vote to be clearly understood. He was opposing no measure for Irish improvement either in Church or in State. He was only voting against a motion for kindling and strengthening sedition in Ireland. The noble Lord wished to wrest the reins of power from the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. If he succeeded, would he control the power he would raise? We had experience of this. When the noble Lord was in power, he too, had to deal with Mr. O'Connell; and how? By a Lichfield House compact. He (Mr. Borthwick) was disposed, of the two, to prefer the temperate administration of the law to a league between a Government and Repealers. But he was most willing to admit that there remained upon the Government a solemn responsibility. They had deserved the thanks of the Empire for the manner in which they had obtained these convictions and silenced the voice of sedition which had shaken that Empire, and, it was not too much to say, had startled Europe. So far it was well; but they had not done. Yes, he would as frankly appeal to the one side as to the other. He recommended the Government to be firm and patient—to la the wasps of party sting on—to bear unmoved the whispers of faction and the thunder of sedition—to proceed in the spirit of a large and liberal charity—to bear favour for none, and affection to all—and in this spirit, acting alike for the benefit of Catholic and Protestant, they would secure the peace and lasting tranquillity of Ireland. He challenged the noble Lord to act in a similar spirit—to point out the reforms required. He would not stop at scruples. Let him show that the wrongs of Ireland could be redressed by establishing the Roman Catholic religion, and he would give him his support. But let him remember, that he and Lord Normanby had no monopoly of knowledge about Ireland, or of sympathy with her. On the country,
944
they saw with the eyes of party. He would this Session anxiously watch the measures proposed by both sides; and by no partial affection, but by the necessities of the people, he would decide. He venerated the Roman Catholic Church—he admired her great learning and signal piety—he did not forget the number of Christians who worshipped at her altars, nor their worth. It was because he loved Irishmen, and respected their faith, that he would oppose the motion of the noble Lord.
Sir H. W. Barronasked the House and the people of England, if, after a dominion of some centuries, the people of Ireland, were to be governed by means of military occupation? Yet such was the confession of the Minister of the Crown in that House! Such was the confession of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ireland, he confessed, was held to the British Crown by military occupation. He asked, in sober sadness, of the people of England, of the people of Scotland, of the people of Wales, and of the civilized world, if this were a state to which any people could submit who had the spirit of freedom existing in their hearts and in their hands? He told them, and he said it not in menace—as He who was above him would judge—he said it not in menace, but he said it in sober sadness, did they think that the people of Ireland ought to submit to it? He asked them ought the people of Ireland to submit to it? Ought they to submit to be kept in military bondage to any nation that ever existed? The people of England would not submit to it. They, the English, had given a noble example when they put down tyranny, when they forced the concession of Magna Charta from a tyrant; when they thought it to be their duty, (and he did not say whether they were right or wrong) to bring another king to the block, because he had desired to submit their lives and liberties to his dictation, and not to the laws of England. Why, then, should the people of Ireland submit to such a state of things, and, he now asked them, did they think that it was in human nature long to submit to it? He was satisfied that the people of Ireland would not long submit to it. He for one would never join, under any possible circumstances that he could foresee, in an opposition to the law of the land. He for one would never join in anything approaching to a military array against the

945
Government of the country. Powerless, perhaps, he may be, still he should be found on the side of the law; but then he asked them, did they think that seven or eight millions of men would thus reason, or that they would have the reasons that he had, for being on the side of the law? The country was in a state approaching to disorganisation; and why? He arraigned the British Government; he did not arraign the British people for this. Had the people of Ireland grievances? And were these grievances to be put an end to? That was the great question; and he was going to answer it, not on the authority of any demagogue, or, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had said, of any "convicted conspirators," but he was going to answer it on the authority of men of the highest rank in Ireland—of men having property to the amount of of 500,000 l or 600,000 l per annum in that country. He answered it on the authority of that petition which had received the signatures of the Duke of Leinster, Lord Charlemont, and others which had been alluded to during this Session by other hon. Members. That petition states, and states truly, that the electoral body is not proportioned to the population; that in England you have nearly five times as many Members as in Ireland, whilst your population is little mere than double; that in England all householders vote for Municipal Corporations; in Ireland (the poorer country) none but persons rated to 10 l. houses possess that privilege. In England the Established Church is the Church of the majority; in Ireland the Church of one-seventh of the people is the Established Church. In England, the professors of the Church of the majority are promoted to nearly all the high offices of State and the law; in Ireland, few or none of the Church the majority are found in these stations. Are these grievances? Is this justice? Is it prudent? Is it politic? Is it wise? But are the grievances of Ireland limited to these points? Far from it. Many of the Irish Members met at the close of last Session, and addressed the people of Great Britain on numerous other grievances. Amongst other things they demanded a larger expenditure of the income of the State in Ireland. Of all other matters the most urgent and useful would be to develope the resources of that country by useful public works and thereby give employment
946
to the population. Then again another serious grievance is, that offices in Ireland were not filled by Irishmen, but by Englishmen and Scotchmen, and Irishmen felt insulted by not being allowed to govern themselves. You have an English Lord Lieutenant, English Secretary, English Lord Chancellor, Englishmen at the head of Customs, Excise, Police, Post Office, and nearly all public departments. Austria did not dare to do this in Italy, though it was the most despotic government, what England did in Ireland. Austria did not dare to do this in Hungary; Holland had dared to do it in Belgium, and they knew the consequence. He hoped that Ireland would not follow this example. But you may exasperate a nation beyond their power of endurance. In reciting these grievances, it is said sometimes, "but your taxation does not entitle you to more Members." This we deny, and challenge enquiry. The taxation and population taken jointly (which are the grounds of English representation) would entitle Ireland to, at the lowest calculation, 140 Members out of 658 that this House contains. As to the Irish electors, he conceived them to be more independent than those in England. He could cite a case to prove this, that occurred lately in an English county, which, whilst a late nobleman of Whig principles was a large proprietor, the electors always returned a Whig; but when that nobleman was succeeded by his son, a Tory, the electors for the first time in their lives returned a Tory. As property changed hands from Whig to Tory, or from Tory to Whig, in England, the electors changed too, and always voted with their landlords. This, did not occur in Ireland, where the electors voted always according to their principles. Then, with respect to the towns, there was not a single town in Ireland which had been convicted of bribery. But, look to England—look to the Election Committees in this House—look to the use made of the Chiltern Hundreds—look to Sudbury, Stafford and Bridport—look to sundry others in this country which had been convicted of bribery. He defied the House to show any instances of the like kind in Ireland. He certainly did not recollect any two cases, there might be one, in which a Member had been unseated on the ground of bribery, for an Irish borough. He had, therefore, a right to maintain that

947
the Irish people had proved themselves worthy of the franchise and its extension. With respect to taxation, it was said that in Ireland it was only one-fifth per head what it was in England, and that it was all spent in Ireland. This was a most unfounded assertion. This statement had been made by a Gentleman who had lately written a work upon Ireland, and who had recently been appointed to office by the present Government—he presumed—in recompence for his libels upon Ireland. The late Lord Fitzgerald, then Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer, in 1816, made a very different statement. He stated, that Ireland had actually paid since the Union 78,000,000 l. of taxation, being 46,000,000 l. more than her proportion since that period. But he would cite also as an authority the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sat opposite. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in 1822, that Ireland had been taxed more than she was able to bear. The proportion allotted was 2–17th's; and this was what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said was more than Ireland was fairly entitled to bear. Lord Sydenham, too, in 1833, stated in this House, that although increased taxes had been imposed upon Ireland since 1807, they had failed of producing an increased revenue. His words were:—
"A case is established in the instance of Ireland which is written in characters too legible not to serve as a guide to future financiers—one which ought to bring shame on the memory of its authors. The revenue of Ireland in 1807 was 4,378,000 l. Between that year and the conclusion of the war, taxes were successively imposed which, according to the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to have produced 7,700,000 l. Yet the result was, that in 1821, the whole revenue was 3,844,000 l.! Here is an example to prove that increase of taxation does not tend to produce increase of revenue, but, on the contrary, an actual diminution."
A Finance Committee of this House in 1815 reported to the House that "Ireland had advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain herself." Mr. Leslie Foster stated in 1816, "that taxation in Ireland had been carried to the ne plus ultra." Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Huskisson, and others bore similar testimony. The question before the House was the state of Ireland, and one of the most important features in her state was the amount of her taxation. Such was
948
the state of the case as related to taxation between the two countries; and how was Ireland maligned—how unjustly was she treated by the Government of the present day. The noble Lord who was at present Secretary of the Irish Government had professed himself to be disposed to promote the interests of that country, and to sympathise in her distresses. For his part, he gave the noble Lord full credit for sincerity in these professions; but, unfortunately, he was prevented from carrying them into effect by the men who surrounded him in Ireland and by his supporters there. The fact was, the noble Lord was in a false position. Why, then, if he found himself unable to do his duty with honour to himself and usefulness to the country, did he not retire from the position which he held? He would certainly prefer that the noble Lord should remain in office, because he thought that he might yet avert much of the mischief that his Colleagues might otherwise do in Ireland. He came now to the question of trade and manufactures, which were said to have increased under the operation of the Union with this country. This statement he denied. With the exception of the cotton manufacture, every branch of industry had decreased since that period. In support of his views he would read a short extract from a speech of the Rev. Dr. Bayton, a champion and talented advocate of Protestant ascendancy in Ireland, and a very decided Conservative. He says:—
"The exports and imports as far as they are a test of a decay of profitable occupation—so far as the exports and imports are supplied from parliamentary returns—exhibit extraordinary evidences of the condition of the labouring classes. The importation of flax seed (an evidence of the extent of a most important source of employment) was in 1790 339,745 barrels; in 1800 327,621 barrels; in 1830 168,458 barrels. The importation of silk raw and thrown was in 1790 92,091 lbs.; in 1800 79,060 lbs.; in 1830 3,190 lbs. Of unwrought iron in 1790 2,791 tons; in 1800 10,241 tons; in 1830 871 tons. Formerly we spun all our own woollen and worsted yarn, we imported in 1790 only 2,294 lbs; in 1800 1880 lbs.; in 1826 662,750 lbs. An enormous increase. There were upwards of thirty master manufacturers in the woollen trade in Dublin, who have become bankrupts since 1821. There has been doubtless an increase in the exports of cotton. In 1800 9,147 yards; 1826 7,793,873 yards. The exports of cotton from Great Britain were in 1829 402,517,196 yards; value 12,516,247 l., which will give the value of our

949
cotton exports at less than a quarter of a million. Poor substitute for our linens which in Ulster alone exceeded in value 2,200,000 l."
Another of the extravagant statements of Mr. Montgomery Martin was, that at the time of the Union the Irish Parliament was about to impose high duties upon English manufactures. This was a most unfounded assertion—it was entirely contrary to the fact, as he could prove by reference to public documents. The fact was, that previous to the time of the Union all the resolutions of the Irish Parliament were strongly in favour of free-trade between the two countries. What was required for Ireland now was, that her industrial capabilities should be called into operation. She was endowed with vast natural resources, and it was the duty of Government to call them into operation, and give employment to the people. They should encourage railroads, fisheries, and public works of every kind, which would extend the resources and the industry of the country. But, instead of this, Government only thought it necessary to increase their armies. They had been only three years in office, and had added 11,000 men to the military force in Ireland. They had ceased to govern except by the sword. Did they think they could long continue to govern on such terms? If so, they were mistaken. The right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, had said, on one memorable occasion, that Ireland was his "great difficulty." Yes; and it will continue to be so, until they learned to govern the people of Ireland by the heart instead of by the sword. How had the Conservative press both in Ireland and in this country maligned the clergy of the great body of the Irish people? He regretted also to see that some men distinguished for their learning and ability in this country had lent themselves to the aspersions made against the Irish priesthood, at Exeter Hall and elsewhere—aspersions made with no other view, as he believed, than to influence the minds of the people against their Irish Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. He held in his hand one of these publications headed "Awful perjury of popish bishops," and dated "Protestant Association Exeter Hall." Was this decent? Are you astonished at the indignation of the Irish people, when such infamous slanders are poured out against all they hold sacred. Their bishops called perjurers, their clergy
950
termed "surpliced ruffians," and other similar epithets that would disgrace the lowest meeting at Billingsgate. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had said, that he could not tax himself with the commission of one act in the course of his connection with the Government of Ireland, that was calculated to do an injustice to the Roman Catholics. But he must tell the noble Lord that many of the acts of the Irish Government had tended to check the confidence of the Irish people, especially as to the administration of justice in that country. Take, for instance, the appointment of all their judges—they being most violent political partizans. The first was the Chief Justice Pennefather, who had recently distinguished himself so much by that charge which was described by the lawyers in Ireland as "the speech in evidence." He was informed, on undoubted authority, that the most intense feeling of indignation prevailed amongst the barristers of the Dublin bar as to that charge, the manner of delivering which, they said, was even more objectionable than the matter; and that never before had any similar act taken place in a Court of Justice—not even in Ireland. This was the opinion of men who had no feeling in common with the traversers. And what was the course taken by this same learned Judge in another case—a charge of libel brought against an Irish newspaper—in speaking to the jury? The terms he used in addressing the jury upon the article which formed the subject of the action, were—"This diabolical libel," thus pronouncing, ex cathedra, an opinion of the fact which the jury had to try. The hon. Member also complained of the appointment of Mr. Baron Lefroy, and Mr. Justice Jackson, but solely on account of their political partizanship. The next great error committed by Government was the dismissal of a large number of the Magistrates. That was a most injudicious step, and had shaken the confidence of the whole body of the people in the impartiality of those minor courts over which the Magistrates presided, and it was felt now that those courts were constituted solely by political partizans, and that justice could not, therefore, be fairly administered by them. The last fatal blow was the removal of all the Roman Catholics from the jury panel in the late State Prosecutions in Ireland. They might tell him that the men whose

951
names had been struck out of the list were implicated with the traversers, and were themselves members of the Repeal Association. It might be so; but whether or not, the act of the Crown lawyers in this respect had shaken the confidence of the people in the administration of justice, and they believed, that the only object was to deprive the Roman Catholics of all share in it, and to pack the jury against the traversers. This opinion was not confined to Irishmen. He had recently conversed with an English gentleman of high station, who, upon enquiring about the trials, and being told they were over, replied, "Yes, over, indeed, with a packed jury, a pistolling Attorney-general, and a Judge Jefferies; such proceedings would not be tolerated in England." Here he might remind the English people how different was the state of Ireland when governed by Lord Normanby and Lord Fortescue, to what it is now. Crime had diminished—the army considerably reduced—confidence in the law—little agitation—party frauds almost totally extinguished. Now crime increasing—the army nearly doubled—barracks fortifying—all confidence in the law extinguished—agitation in the ascendant—party feuds and religious animosities on the increase. He appealed to the Government to change their policy, and to conciliate the Irish people; he asked the House and the Minister—he implored them—in the name of his country, to govern her by her affections, and not by force. Let them adopt that course, and agitation and discontent would cease.
Mr. Reptonsaid, that although he was unconnected with Ireland he could not but feel interested in the welfare of that country. He had recently visited Ireland, and he was bound to say, that no one could leave it without feelings of kindness and sympathy for the Irish people. There was no country in the world possessing greater resources, and it ought to be in a more prosperous condition. He believed that the great cause of the decline of commerce and manufactures in that country of late years, of which they heard, and which all deplored, was the agitation for Repeal. Many persons of high authority in Ireland had declared that previous to the commencement of that agitation a great change for the better had taken place, and was spreading over the land, that capital was flowing into it every day, and great improvement was going on.
952
He had felt great anxiety when the Repeal meetings first commenced and wished to see them at once put down by the law. He had, however, since then, seen reason to applaud the wisdom of the Government in the course they had ultimately taken; for he believed if they had failed to prove those meetings illegal they would have increased tenfold, and been tenfold more mischievous. He rejoiced, therefore, that the Government had allowed them to develope themselves in their own proper character, and had then taken a judicious course to put them down. He wished to say one word as to the charge made by Members opposite against the Government on account of the number of troops stationed in Ireland. But, if any outbreak had taken place, and there had not been a sufficient military force to put it down, who would have been the first to say to the Government, "You had sufficient warning, why were you not prepared for the emergency—Ireland is now swimming in blood because you have neglected your duty." One of the greatest curses of Ireland was, that it was always made the battle field of party and religious contention. The people of Ireland were, in common with the people of England, the subjects of the Sovereign, and the good of one country was mixed up inseparably with that of the other. That was his feeling, and it was therefore his most anxious wish to see both countries treated with perfect equality. There was another point in regard to which he would make a single observation. There were some hon. Gentlemen who advocated a State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. It was his opinion that any Government which should now propose a grant from the State to the Roman Catholic priesthood would commit an act of perfect insanity, for of this he was convinced, that quite as many meetings of agitation would take place upon that subject, were such a proposition made, as had prevailed there during the last three years on the Repeal of the Union.
Mr. More O'Ferrallhad heard with much satisfaction the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and it was somewhat remarkable that every hon. Gentleman, when first speaking upon the subject of Ireland, was disposed to treat it with great liberality. He was surprised that in the course of a debate on a matter deeply involving the character of the Go-

953
vernment, and still more so the interests of Ireland, that up to that moment—with the exception of an Irish Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Young)—not a single Gentleman on the other side had risen to express his unqualified approbation of the conduct of the Government in reference to their Irish policy. It was remarkable that in the Speeches from the Throne, or made by the Members in their places, they had never been able to ascertain what the policy of the Government really was, either in regard to England or Ireland. It was true that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had declared, in reference to the Corn-laws, that he meant to adhere to the sliding-scale; and with regard to commercial matters generally he had admitted the principle of free-trade, though he declined to put it in practice. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had enlightened them on another subject. That right hon. Baronet had distinctly told them what was to be the future policy towards Ireland. He had stated that Ireland (admitting at the same time that it was governed by the Constitution) must, from the force of circumstances, be occupied by troops, and that the Government must, therefore, be one of force. Having, then, this distinct and clear line of policy before them, he must presume that the dodging system had been giving up, and they were now in a condition to call upon the Opposition to consider what course it would take in regard to the Government. He hoped, that all doubt and difficulty would now be at an end with regard to what were the real opinions of Ministers, and that to all parties who differed, and might have differed, as to what would be done on other points, the policy of Ministers in regard to commercial matters in England, and as to the mode of governing Ireland, was clear and decided. [Sir J. Graham: The right hon. Gentleman has not correctly represented my words.] The right hon. Gentleman certainly admitted that Ireland was not to be governed by force, that properly the Government of Ireland was the same as that of England, but he immediately afterwards stated that the country was generally occupied by troops. [Sir J. Graham: Those were not my words.] At all events the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was necessary, that it was his determination to maintain the Esta-
954
blished Church in its present state. Then I say that was the same thing. That was equivalent to saying the country must be occupied by troops, for you cannot maintain the Church in its present state without the presence of troops. I may not have given the words of the right hon. Baronet, but the substance was as I have stated it. [Sir J. Graham: I do not admit the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is mine.] He must be allowed to repeat an opinion he had before expressed on the subject of the Established Church in Ireland. His objection to that Establishment was not a religious objection; he objected not to any human being on account of his religious opinions, but he objected that when a clergyman was appointed for a specific purpose, and was paid for the performance of certain duties, he neglected the great object for which he was appointed, and applied himself to other purposes. In Ireland the Established Church met you at every turn; it was impossible to take a single step in that country without meeting with the Clergy in some shape or other. In executing a power of attorney, in transferring stock, in every transaction connected with public charity (and possibly in those it was least objectionable), the Protestant clergyman interfered in some way or other. And what he contended was, that he assumed, on the credit of being an established clergyman, a position which no other clergyman took. He was constantly appearing in the character of an officer of the Government, and, from the circumstances in which the Established Church was placed in Ireland, he complained that the clergyman was taken out of his proper sphere and placed in a false position. No one could deny that of late years, since political animosity had run high, the Established Church did interfere to a great extent in secular affairs. What he stated was fact, and he was observing on the effect. A feeling had grown up in Ireland, more especially among the farmers, that if they were for any cause to be turned out of their farms, their places would be filled up by Protestants; and this he believed was owing to the anomalous position of the Established Clergy, a position half secular and half clerical. In his opinion it would tend much to the peace of the country, as well as to the advancement of religion, if this anomaly were put an end to, and the clergy con-

955
fined to their clerical duties. As the law now stood, if a man wished to prove a case in a court of justice, in which a certificate of baptism or of marriage was necessary, the certificate would not be admitted—supposing the marriage or the baptism had been solemnised by a Roman Catholic priest—unless signed by the Protestant clergyman, or supported by some other evidence. Then there were the Ecclesiastical Courts—every will must be registered in those courts, and all matters connected with devised property—of whatever religion the testator might have been—must be referred to those Courts. Why were those Courts managed exclusively by the Clergy of the Established Church? Why not open them to secular officers? Why not place the registration of wills and baptisms on the same footing as the registration of other deeds? He thought there was every reason and every ground why Members on that side, who had been separated on so many points, should now unite upon this question of Irish policy. There were some who desired the Repeal of the Legislative Union, while others were opposed to that and advocated other measures; but he would suggest to those hon. Gentlemen that it would be far better to unite with the Liberal party upon general points, than by taking a separate course upon this question, and upon that, weaken their party, which it was their object to strengthen. The Repeal of the Union was, no doubt, a delicate question. He did not conceal his opinion with regard to the effects of the Legislative Union. His opinion was, that one of two things must happen from it—either Ireland must be raised to the level of England, or England must be lowered to the level of Ireland. He believed that, to some extent, this result was indicated by the present condition of England. The great national distress which now existed here was fast reducing the condition of the English labourer to that of the Irish labourer. Ireland was like a diseased part attached to a healthy body, which, unless it could be either cured or got rid of, would certainly bring the healthy portion of the body into its own condition. This ought to show that it was not Irishmen alone, but every man in this House and in the country, were interested in raising the condition of Ireland. Then why, if this was admitted, were not steps taken for carrying it into effect? There was a
956
strong feeling in Ireland that supporting the Church there in its present condition was a wound to the vanity of the nation. But the right hon. Baronet opposite had stated, as regarded the remedial measures to be applied by Government, that permission was to be given to the Roman Catholic's to endow their own church. But they had already done so. They had endowed it very largely. Every parish had its church and churchyard, but which were now in many instances the property of Protestant clergymen. He should be glad to see the Catholic Church provided for by its own Members; but under the existing circumstances he felt that the measure was not what would be productive of much practical benefit. As to the proposed Bill for the Registration of Voters, he, of course, could say little until it should be before the House, but he thought it strange that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had refused to answer a question upon this subject put to him lately by a friend of his, in the public papers after he had seen that Mr. Barker, the late candidate for Tipperary county had stated, that he should contest the county with better chances next time, as they would then have polling places in different parts of the county. Was that announcement official? He would now come to the most important question, that of the late State Trials in Ireland, a subject which had as yet been rather avoided during the progress of the debate. He had already expressed his opinion upon the conduct of the Government in striking off all the names of Catholics from the jury panel. He was, at first, under the impression that there were not so many jurors on the list of known and declared Repeal opinions as it appeared there were. But two of the number struck off, at least, were not Repealers, nor members of the Repeal Association. Now, on the other hand, what were the politics of the persons who had tried the traversers? Had none of them ever subscribed to the Kildare-street Society? Were none of them people of strong—of violent political opinions? Had none of them expressed feelings of hostility and aversion to some of the principal traversers? But, in fact, it was impossible to find a jury against which no man and no party could bring a charge of partiality. Was not that the very best of reasons for not having the trials at all?

957
The object of punishment was rather to deter, by example, than to inflict retributive pain on the individual. With this view the law should always be vindicated in soberness and with mildness. The Government had got a conviction, but had they obtained any advantage by it? He asked if the conviction was a fair one? He did not believe it was. In fact, he had viewed with great dissatisfaction the whole proceedings of the trial. It had not produced the effect that such a solemn proceeding should have. Had the traversers been brought to the Bar in a dispassionate manner, with no appearance of prejudice, a conviction would have produced a great moral effect; but what effect had it actually produced? A feeling of anger and hostility, and a conviction that the accident which occurred to the jury-list had been the result of intention. He did not hold or avow this opinion, but there had certainly been a most culpable degree of negligence upon the part of the authorities in whose hands the management of the proceedings had been placed. In fact, the whole proceeding, from beginning to end, was a system of blundering most discreditable to any Government. One point to which he would direct attention was the fact, that when the indictment was sent up, and when the traversers asked for the names of the witnesses on the back of the bill, the request was refused, because such was not the practice in Ireland. It was stated to be the practice in England; but the representation produced no effect. It was a bad practice also to find bills of indictment from written depositions—instead of the actual examination of witnesses. The Irish judges had on those points frequently made law for themselves, differing from the rule and practice in England. However, even all that might be passed over; but when he saw the spirit of animosity which the Chief Justice infused into his charge, he could not but express a wish that the tribunal had set a very different example. He wished proper decency of behaviour in court. He wanted that if, when before a magistrate, one man challenging another would be immediately sent to gaol, that were a similar thing to occur in a court of justice, a similar punishment should be inflicted. A friend of his own, having been cross-examined by a very impudent lawyer, sent the latter a three-cornered note. It was immedi-
958
ately handed to the judge, and before four hours had elapsed the challenger found himself lodged in Newgate. He did not find fault with that; but he found fault with the practice having been laid aside in the case of the Attorney-general for Ireland. The object of the Government in the late prosecutions was, as he hoped and believed, to show that the law could and would be vindicated. But if this was their object, should not they remember that it was of the utmost importance that all matters of a legal kind should be so sacred as deeply to impress upon the people the conviction that the most impartial justice was done. When he heard of the challenging of the Catholics from the jury list, he was very indignant. If the course of Government had not been to villify the Catholics generally, if they had not in many cases before the State Trials been objected to, because they were Catholics, he should have thought that the challenges recently made had taken place merely on the ground of the parties objected to holding Repeal sentiments. But he could not think so when he heard the declarations of a person in another place upon the subject. The right hon. Baronet opposite did not hold such views, for he had repudiated them; but when they heard the man-of-all-work of the Government that person who carried about his Billingsgate for hire, when that man was heard in such an outrageous manner to villify a body of men who had never done him any injury he could not but be conscious of the effect of all this in Ireland. Yes, it was notorious that that person had become the supporter of Government. His noble Friend near him had spoken of another person, who presided in the House of Lords, and stated that he apprehended that he held his place in consequence of opinions which he had expressed upon the Irish people. When he heard this, he did not agree with it; but he had seen reason to agree with it since; for when he saw another noble Lord take up the villification of the Irish people, heaping on them insulting imputations, when he saw that man, who had never done an act good or bad, without a personal motive, when he saw that man take the same course, he could not but agree with the noble Lord. It was the putting things together, which had happened in the course of the late trials, that induced the people of Ireland to conclude

959
that there was no more hope for them. With the verdict returned against the traversers government, had obtained a triumph but still they were in a worse position than ever. The country, believing that the conviction was an unjust one, expected that there would be an insuperable difficulty in carrying on any after proceedings. If he were to attempt to state what it was possible might occur, such remarks might have a tendency to produce that which was dreaded. He should not, therefore, state it; but he entertained such strong opinions, that there was no consideration which would induce him at that moment to stand in the position of the right hon. Baronet opposite. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) might not agree with him, for he knew the noble Lord's rash confidence, and he regretted that the first expression of the noble Lord's antagonism and violence were displayed in Ireland. He would tell the noble Lord also, that he believed, that the agitation for the Repeal of the Union in 1831 and 1832, never would have risen to the pitch which it reached, were it not for the intemperate language then used by the noble Lord. He well recollected the noble Lord's letter, published at that period—a letter which did more to exasperate the people than almost anything which occurred at the time. When he saw the noble Lord, now a Member of Government, knowing the number of strong animosities, which the noble Lord never hesitated to express—was not the spectacle enough to create the utmost feeling of alarm in his mind. As to the people in Britain, the worst they had to expect was the maintenance of a large army, to be supported, perhaps, by a doubled and prolonged income-tax. But what was to become of those who had property, and wives and families in Ireland? People, too, who had taken no part in the agitation, who deplored the course of events—what was their position? He did say—and he regretted that, if the right hon. Baronet felt it, the noble Lord near him did not feel it—that the right hon. Baronet held a position of deep and awful responsibility. It had been stated that the troops in Ireland had been reduced. He told the right hon. Baronet, that if he had done so, he ought to beware of what he did. He had had full notice; and if he was determined to govern by the sword, it must be by a long and a strong sword. He understood that there were no
960
more than 23,000 soldiers in Ireland; but if the policy and intentions of Government were what that policy and these intentions were stated to be, instead of an army of 23,000 men, there must be one of 50,000 in Ireland.
Sir James Grahamwould strictly confine himself to an explanation. He understood, the hon. Gentleman to say, that he had announced the policy of Government to be that of retaining and occupying Ireland as part of the British dominions by military force, and by military force alone. It was in the recollection of the House, that he had stated distinctly, that in his opinion, the Protestant Church of Ireland must be maintained in all its rights, privileges, and property. He had stated, that it had been necessary, at a period so late, as, he thought, the commencement of March, 1843, to increase the military force in Ireland; but up to that period of March, 1843, from the time when Her Majesty's present Government had come into office in 1841, so far from an increase being made in the military force in Ireland, that force had been actually diminished. He had gone on to state, that attempts having been made to intimidate the Government, by demonstrations of physical force, it became necessary to augment the army; but he had also added, that he was convinced that it never could be the permanent policy of this country to hold possession of Ireland by military force, without any hold upon the affections of the people; and he had added, that he was convinced that the vindication of the powers of the law, coupled with steady impartial Government, neither leaning towards timidity on the one hand, nor intemperate counsels upon the other, would without the aid of military power, preserve to the Crown of this country that inestimable portion of Her Majesty's dominions.
Mr. Shawshould probably not have troubled the House during the debate, but certainly not at that period of it, had he not been pointedly referred to by the noble Lord whose motion it was, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in relation to the alleged omission of sixty names from the Dublin Jury lists. Moreover, as much misrepresentation had gone forth, and much real misapprehension prevailed on the subject, he hoped the House would excuse him for taking that opportunity—the first legiti-

961
mate one which he considered had presented itself—of explaining what never yet had been explained to the public, the real facts of the case and the manner in which they had occurred. The subject must be necessarily dry and uninteresting to the House, involving the provisions of the Act of Parliament regulating the formation of the Jurors' Book for the City of Dublin and some of the minute details by which it had to be carried into operation. But if the House would indulge him with a few moments' patient attention he would be as brief, and use terms as little technical, as would be consistent with the full and explicit explanation he desired to afford them. He would, in the first place, assure the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that when he (Mr. Shaw) ventured to correct the noble Lord in stating that he read from an affidavit, he did not mean to rely upon any difference of form between an affidavit and a statement, but substantially to deny the accuracy of the statement itself, which was made in a formal pleading and not sworn to, and was, that sixty names had been omitted from the special panel; it was nothing to the purpose to say that the Crown Counsel had by their demurrer admitted the statement. It was true that they had in fiction of law, and that on the argument of that demurrer, the fact must have been assumed, according to the averment in the pleading; but that could not affect the fact itself as it was in truth. Now, he would, in the first place, state what was the full amount of the real error that had been committed, and then, he hoped to satisfy the House, that the error had been perfectly accidental, without the slightest fraud or wilful suppression on the part of any person. First, then, it had been alleged that sixty or sixty-five names had been omitted, and that thirty-five were those of Roman Catholics; instead of which the fact was, that nineteen were omitted and five misplaced—making altogether twenty-four names, which were the entire number omitted—in transferring from a general list of between 4,000 and 5,000, 741 names which were to constitute the special panel, and which by that omission were reduced to 717. With the permission of the House, he would explain how the error had occurred having made a strict personal investigation of the matter; but, for that purpose, the House must bear with him while he
962
gave them a short account of the process by which these lists were formed. It was under the 3rd and 4th William 4, c. 91. By that act, the parish collectors had to make out lists of persons liable to serve on Juries according to a form given by the act, and to deliver them to the clerk of the peace. The collectors complain, and he (Mr. Shaw) thought justly, that while the act requires them to make out lists, setting forth the full name, residence, rank, or business, and qualification of every man residing in their district, it did not give them any authority or means whereby to obtain the necessary information. The parties themselves were generally unwilling to be placed on the lists, and refused to give the information. The collectors, therefore, could seldom know more than their surnames and residence, consequently the lists from the passing of the act to the late occasion had been very incomplete. The Sessions Courts, and in Dublin, the Recorder's Court, before which, under the act, the lists came for revision, could not add nor alter a name unless upon the application of the parties, or that a regular notice had been served upon the parties, so that in Dublin, up to the last year, the sitting for the purpose was little more than a form; but then, from the great excitement prevailing in reference to the approaching State Trials, notices had been extensively served, and numerous applicants, attended by counsel and attornies, came up on both sides; so that the court was occupied from the 14th to the 24th of November, sitting nine hours a day, in hearing and adjudicating upon the applications made. The act directs that the original parish lists shall be corrected, allowed, and signed in court; that then the Court shall cause a general list to be made therefrom, arranged according to rank and property; and that the clerk of the peace shall copy that list, and deliver such copy to the sheriff as the jurors' book for the year. Now, in Dublin there were twenty parishes, and the original lists were therefore returned by twenty different collectors in their various handwritings, and though under one general form, not pursuing one system. They were, in some instances, not easy to decipher, even in their original form, but of course much more difficult when about 4,000 names having been returned by the parish collectors, 600 additional names were interlined and added by the re-

963
gistrar in court—the act requiring that to be done on the original papers. The great struggle was to have the names so entered as that ultimately they should be on the Special Jury list, and they were, as he had stated, to be arranged according to rank and property. With that view, he (Mr. Shaw) had classified the ranks under nine heads, which were principally suggested by the 24th section of the act relating to the special jury panel. Such as magistrates, grand jurors, ex-sheriffs, esquires, bankers, traders worth 5,000 l., and so forth, and these he had fully explained to the counsel and parties attending in court. The course of proceeding in court was, each applicant when allowed was entered by the registrar on the collector's list; and, if entitled to it, his qualification for the special panel was written under the column headed "Rank," and a cross placed opposite his name; otherwise he was entered for the common panel. When all that was done by the registrar, in pursuance of his orders, openly pronounced on each case in court, he (Mr. Shaw) signed each of the twenty collector's lists as directed by the act, and then he considered his judicial functions in the matter discharged, and in that view he found himself confirmed by the judgment of Judge Perrin pronounced on the demurrer. He had, however, the further duty, of a ministerial nature, to perform, of causing one general list to be made out from the collectors' several lists, arranged according to rank and property; for that purpose he directed the registrar who had made the entries to form the general list by placing at the head of it all persons adjudged to belong to the nine classes of rank, in their proper order, that to constitute the special list, and the remainder of the names then to follow in perfect alphabetical order, which latter would constitute the common list. The parish lists, when corrected, contained altogether between 4,000 and 5,000 names, and out of that number, those ordered to be placed on the special list, amounted to 741, from which, as he had commenced by stating, 24 names had been erroneously omitted. He now came to explain how that error had occurred; he necessarily did so from the statement made to him by the registrar; but he was bound to add, that, after the most rigid investigation, conducted by himself and the clerks of the peace, he was fully persuaded of the truth of that statement.
964
His registrar stated, that he took the twenty parish lists separately, in order first to form the nine classes in each; that for that purpose he called out the marked names from each parish list, and had them taken down by his assistants on separate sheets of paper, ruled and in columns with printed headings in the form of the schedule to the act, and one of which he had then in his hand: twenty parishes and nine classes in each would give 180 sheets; these being transcribed and checked, the registrar thenceforward considered as the original special list; but upon his next step in process of classification, namely, throwing together the corresponding classes in each parish, so as to form nine general classes, one of the separate sheets containing the class of 5,000 l. traders in the parish of Audoens became mixed with a parcel of ruled papers of exactly the same kind and appearance, which were blank, and lying for use, if required, on the Table, and it was put aside with them without being missed. Upon it were fifteen names. There were overlooked in copying from the 4,500 on the original list four names; and there were erroneously transferred to the common list, from the crosses having been omitted, and which ought to have been transferred to the special list five names, thus making the twenty-four he had stated. He had the sixty names mentioned in the challenge carefully compared with the original lists, and in the thirty-six of them remaining there was no error. He had the particulars of each in a paper then in his hand, but would not trouble the House with them, unless any Member opposite would mention any particular name, and then he (Mr. Shaw) would explain the reason why that name did not appear. Thirteen of the sixty were actually upon the special list, and, as an instance, he would mention one of the sixty names complained of as being omitted; it was that of William Saurin, Stephen's Green, the eminent man who had for so many years been the Attorney-general in Ireland, but who died several years ago; his name had by mistake been returned on the original list, and he (Mr. Shaw) knowing the fact, desired it, of course, to be struck off. His right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had last night expressed his regret that there should have been any omission or error in these lists. He (Mr. Shaw) would not intrude upon the House the vexation and mortification

965
it had caused him. He had bestowed the utmost attention and anxiety to have them correct. He was aware that the business was new to the registrar and ordinary clerks in the Clerks of the Peace-office, and he had desired that neither labour nor expense should be spared in getting them the best assistance in the classification of the lists, and none had been spared; time pressed, considering the period the Sessions were held under the Act, and that fixed for the State Trials, and he knew that the clerks had sat up whole nights to expedite the work. The great object had been a perfect classification; and the possibility of some names being omitted had not been sufficiently borne in mind. However, the errors to the extent he had mentioned had occurred. The House would perhaps allow him to read a memorandum he had written for the guidance of the Clerks of the Peace, with a view to correct the error, the first moment he had heard from one of the sheriff's officers attending in his court that there were some names omitted, and wrong placed on the list.
"Court-house, January 1, 1844.
"It appears that in the hurry of making up the jurors' list, some names have been omitted from what has been termed the special panel, and left on the common panel, and that by some error in copying or unintentional omission, the names of Mr. Roe, late Lord Mayor, D.L., Mr. Hoyte, late Alderman, Justice of the Peace, Mr. Grant, late Sheriff, Mr. Reynolds, wholesale merchant, have been pointed out to me as being the wrong part of the list. I think, under the 24th section of the Act, the sheriff might of his own authority have corrected them; but I understand he has been advised not to do so. I wish, therefore, to take upon myself the responsibility of transferring these names from the common to the special list in my original copy, and desiring you then to take them to the High Sheriff, and offer them as an amendment of the book you furnished to him, and at the same time inform the High Sheriff that if there are any other names similarly circumstanced, I am willing to do the same with them." F. S.
To the Clerks of the Peace.
Further, when the names were published in the newspapers, and the Registrar observed so many missing in St. Audoens parish, he suspected some list must have been mislaid. He made a search through the papers in his office, and found the mislaid paper. Upon that being communicated to him (Mr. Shaw), he at once said, as there had been an error, the only reparation that could be made, was If, acknow-
966
ledge it candidly, and quickly; and under his direction, the Clerk of the Peace lost no time in informing the Solicitors for the Crown and for traversers, that it had occurred. With regard to the proportion of Roman Catholics omitted, he had no certain means of knowing the fact; but his belief was, that in the mislaid list of fifteen names of traders in Audoens parish, judging from the class and locality, that the majority were Roman Catholics, and that of the remaining nine names omitted, the majority were Protestants. Certainly, the chances of the ballot for forty-eight names out of 717, could have been but very slightly affected by the error; and there he might observe, in reference to the postponement, of the trials in connection with the jury lists referred to by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), that about 400 names out of 700, had been added in the whole to the special jury panel of 1843, that having consisted of not more than about 300 names. He might mention, too, as a circumstance in reference to the imputation on that head, that the gentleman who committed the mistake—his registrar—was himself a Roman Catholic. Had he believed that there was the slightest corruption or fraud, in the omission of the names, he trusted he need not say he would have exposed and punished the individual guilty of such conduct to the utmost of his power. He said—perhaps with a pride for the expression of which he ought to excuse himself to the House; that in the City of Dublin he did not believe there was a man of any class, creed, or politics, that would suspect him of being capable of permitting or countenancing the smallest act of fraud or partiality in the humblest subordinate connected with his court; but as he entirely acquitted his officer of any such motive, and he was satisfied that the error or negligence, be it which it might, had been perfectly unintentional on his part, then he (Mr. Shaw) would not shrink from himself incurring any responsibility or blame that might attach to it. Unconscious, as he was, of any personal neglect in the matter, he had had already to bear the vulgar abuse of Counsel in Dublin on the subject, and having now candidly stated all the facts, and circumstances of the case, must be content to submit to any party attacks on the subject by which that might be followed in that House. He was very sensible of the kindness of the House in having lis-

967
tened to him so long and patiently in a matter somewhat personal to himself; but, before he sat down, he must entreat their forbearance while he said a few words on the important motion under their consideration. He had heard with considerable satisfaction, both what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and from his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), with respect to the Irish branch of the Established Church. The noble Lord, a skilful antagonist, appeared willing to wound, but not plainly to see where he could venture to strike the Irish Church; while his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) rested his defence of that Establishment upon the broad ground of religious truth. [Cheers and counter Cheers from Mr. Roebuck and other Members on the Opposition Benches.] Yes; (said Mr. Shaw) I repeat of religious truth as held by this nation and Parliament from the Reformation to the present time—also upon the faith of the Imperial Parliament, and the great principle that the Protestant religion must be by law established in connexion with the State in every portion of the United Kingdom. He was certainly surprised at the noble Lord's morality of politics when he alluded to the fifth article of the Union, and intimated that there would be but little difficulty in annulling that, if the majority in number of the Irish people desired it. Surely the noble Lord did not forget, that all the Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament, were of the Protestant religion; that they never would have consented to the Union, had it not been provided that the continuance and preservation for ever of the United Church of England and Ireland should be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental article and condition of the Union. The noble Lord had quoted what certainly was not new—what he (Mr. Shaw) had read in an article ascribed to a distinguished friend of the Archbishop of Dublin, but had never heard, as the acknowledged opinion of his Grace—that a congregational was better suited than a territorial provision for the Irish Church. In his opinion, a congregational division was the obvious characterestic of a sect, while a territorial was of the very essence of the Established Church. He would not then refer to the present revenue, or to the improved and improving condition of the Irish Establishment further than to express his readiness on all
968
proper occasions to meet her opponents, boldly on those grounds; but now that every improvement that law could make, had been effected; that sinecures, pluralities, unions, and non-residence, had almost disappeared, and were daily disappearing; and that the Roman Catholic occupier had been relieved from Church Rates and Tithes, and every practical inconvenience,—he considered it unreasonable and ungenerous to make these continual attacks upon the Irish Church, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) must allow him to add, calculated to inflame that hatred between races and animosity between religions which had been lamentably excited by recent circumstances, to which, for obvious reasons, he would at the present time abstain from more particular reference, but would rather say, which the good sense and good feeling of the more moderate of both parties were striving to allay. He entirely concurred in the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse), that what they wanted in Ireland was domestic peace. God knows it is what they wanted, and most devoutly did he desire that upon the altar of domestic peace they would sacrifice many of their prejudices; and above all, that Irishmen would lay down their to each other; it injured their national character in that House, and did them no individual credit. He really believed they did not think so badly of each other, after all, as many Englishmen in that House were led to suppose. For his own part, he thought that the prejudices of many Englishmen were much stronger against the Irish Roman Catholic than he (Mr. Shaw) had ever entertained, and sure he was, that no Irish Member had so strangely perverted notions of Irish Churchmen, and Irish landlords, as he had heard expressed by English Members of that House, who, in their outbursts of extreme liberality, seemed to think no words could be too harsh, no treatment too bad, no new code of penal laws too severe for the man who had the misfortune to be an Irishman by birth, a Protestant in religion, and a Conservative in politics. But, to be serious—if Irishmen were to have peace amongst themselves, they must not for ever be attempting to raise up and unsettle great questions that ought fairly to be considered as at rest. He spoke from his own experience when he said,

969
that he had always desired the civil equality of his Roman Catholic countrymen, and he lived with many of them on terms of friendship and intimacy; but then these relations could not fail to be disturbed if these questions were constantly debated as to the injury or destruction of the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland, which he had been induced to believe was to have been strengthened by the concession of what was termed Catholic Emancipation. He had heard that night with sincere regret, the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. More O'Ferrall) upon the subject of the Established Church. He (Mr. O'Ferrail) had declared that,—not on account of any real practical grievance,—but from some abstract notion of honour, some "Vanity," as he (Mr. O'Ferrall) termed it—there never could be peace in Ireland so long as the Established Church continued to exist. If so, then indeed peace must be a stranger to that unhappy land; for while be (Mr. Shaw) had every desire for peace, and to live on terms of good will—aye! and practical equality too with all classes of Her Majesty's subjects—yet this he must say, and he was persuaded that he described the feelings of the great majority of the Protestants of Ireland when he expressed his own—that he would lay down his life before he would consent to the subversion or injury of the Established Church in that country. He would not delay the House by quoting the language of Grattan, of Canning, of Plunkett, and other distinguished advocates of that measure,who had one and all regarded the permanent security of the Established Church in Ireland as an indispensable condition to the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; for it had frequently been referred to in that House; but, he had taken a short but remarkable extract from the evidence of Mr. Blake, an eminent Roman Catholic, the late Chief Remembrancer of Ireland, which he had never heard read in the House, and which he would ask their permission then to read,—
"I consider," said Mr. Blake, in his evidence before the committee on the state of Ireland in 1835, "the Protestant establishment in Ireland a main link to the connection between Great Britain and Ireland. The Protestant Church of Ireland is rooted in the constitution; it is established by the fundamental laws of the realm, it is rendered, as far as the most solemn acts of the Legisla-
970
ture can render any institution, fundamental and perpetual; it is so declared by the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. I think it could not now be disturbed without danger to the general securities we possess for liberty, property, and order, and without danger to all the blessings we derive from living under a lawful Government, and a free constitution."
Such was the strong, emphatic language of Mr. Blake. Let them further lay aside the trite and ungenerous attacks so common in that House upon honourable men, because, though differing from them in polities and religion, they had received the just rewards of professional eminence and high personal character, and abstain from wholesale and indiscriminate attacks upon Irish landlords and other bodies and classes of men for evils which, however much to be deplored, were not justly chargeable on them. Then all sides would they be in a better mind to obey the gracious injunctions recently laid upon them by their Sovereign, and apply their undivided attention and united energies to improve the social condition of their kind hearted and generous, but too long-neglected and easily-deluded countrymen, and to develop the great natural resources of their fertile and interesting, but still unhappy country. As to the motion of the noble Lord it was the mere party attack of one of the great divisions of that House upon the other, and as a matter of course, each would be found voting under their own leaders.
Viscount Howick: As this debate proceeds, it seems to me to become more and more clear that Gentlemen on both sides of the House are agreed, not only as to the danger of the present crisis in Ireland, but also in this, that no prospect has yet been held out to us by Her Majesty's Government of measures which it can even be pretended, afford us a rational hope of restoring that country to a state of security. Such, undoubtedly, is the conclusion we must come to from the debate, so far as it has yet gone. The dangerous condition of Ireland, has not been more forcibly described by Gentlemen on this side than by those on the other; the House will remember, that immediately before it was addressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, rose for the purpose of explaining certain expressions attributed to him by my hon. Friend, the Member for Kildare,

971
It appeared to me, I confess that the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was longer and less clear than the words he was said to have used, but I do not perceive that in substance it materially differed from them. If I am not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) who had said, "Ministers have military occupation of Ireland, but do not govern it;" was this, "Yes, we have military occupation of the country, but it was necessary to take it, when it became obvious that an attempt was about to be made to wrest Ireland from the Empire by physical force." Now, what is the real meaning of these words? You say you have military occupation of the country, because there were positive indications of an intention to use its physical force in resisting your Government, and you have acted on the assumption of such a state of things. What does this mean, but that you are concious, that throughout the great body of the Irish people is spread a universal spirit of disaffection, and that they are retained in their allegiance not by a sense of duty, but of prudence, created by the force which you are able to maintain—that their hearts are alienated from you, and that your power rests, not upon affection, but upon military force? Sir, this is the real meaning of what the right hon. Gentleman stated—this is the real meaning of the measures which Her Majesty's Government have taken. The right hon. Gentleman seems to admit that this state of things cannot be permanently continued. He has told you, that you cannot always govern by force; it may do for a short interval that such a state of things should be endured, but as a permanent instrument for the Government of Ireland, force is utterly indefensible. This I understand to be admitted; but, having this admission, when my right hon. Friend, the Member for Devonport, quoted so remarkable a declaration, and proceeded to ask, what means then do you propose to use for recovering the affections of the Irish people, what rational prospect can you hold out of getting rid of the spirit of disaffection?—when he asked this question, what answer did he receive from my noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland? I can assure my noble Friend, that I felt for him, but really it is lamentable that when asked a question of such momentous importance, holding, as he does a situation of the first rank connected with the Government of Ireland, he should
972
only be able to go into miserable details in defence of the distribution of his patronage, and attempts to prove how kind and good have been his intentions towards the People, when this is all, he has to say on the part of the Government, and when, at the same time, I know his intentions to be as kind as he states, I must think the case a most serious one indeed. Have Her Majesty's Government, themselves, seriously reflected on the import of the words they use? Have they reflected how much they risk from the existence of such general disaffection, do they think this is a case in which they can afford to wait for a more convenient season to bring forward remedial measures, and in which every hour's delay is not fraught with the utmost danger? It is perfectly true, that while peace lasts, there is no probability open resistance will be tried, and if it were, it is as certain, that it would be instantly suppressed. While peace lasts it is true, that the only consequence of this state of things will be, that all improvements will be arrested, every relation of life will be poisoned, that the whole country will be filled with strife and ill blood, and men's passions roused against each other, and, in short, a state of society produced intolerable to all who are forced to live in it. This, while peace continues, may be the utmost extent of the evil, and God knows, it is bad enough. But, let me ask you, have you considered what the result would be if a foreign war should break out? What would your situation be, if again called upon to take part in a mortal struggle for your existence against a Foreign Power, while nearly a third of the whole population of the Empire, is ready to take part, not with you, but against you—while this large proportion of the people of the United Kingdom is ready not to assist, but to oppose you with the deadly hate which springs from civil dissensions? Have you really considered how fearful is such a danger? Peace now happily prevails but who can tell how long it may continue? Do you not see that to other countries the knowledge that you have the sources of internal weakness within you is a constant temptation to brave your power? Is it not justly to be feared that the state of Ireland in every petty misunderstanding with other countries, may encourage demands which would not otherwise be hazarded, and induce them to ask for that which it is inconsistent with our honour and interest to

973
grant? By allowing this state of things to continue, you at once risk the maintenance of peace, and, deprive yourself of the power of carrying on war with advantage. I may be told that these are things which ought not to be publicly mentioned, and that the secret of the country's danger ought hardly to be whispered, much less spoken of, in this house. Sir, if I could believe that by abstaining from speaking of it we could get rid of the danger, if I were not fully satisfied that however we may some of us delude ourselves as to the true state of things it is perfectly well understood by those whom alone it would be of advantage to keep in ignorance; if I did not believe that to open the eyes of the country to the critical situation in which it stands, is the first step towards carrying those measures which the state of Ireland requires. If this had not been my firm conviction, I certainly should not have spoken of these things;—but as it is, I conceive, I should have failed in my duty had I shrunk from pointing out to Parliament and to the country the dangers which threaten us. And here I cannot avoid repeating an observation which has been made over and over again in this House, that it is not merely the existence of agitation in Ireland, which is the source of danger; it is not the fact that very violent language has been used at public meetings, that large numbers have attended those meetings, that the people have been organised in Repeal Associations, mid that a large amount of Repeal rent had been collected—none of these things are in themselves the danger—they are only the signs and symptoms of that disaffection in which it really consists. It is the state of mind which prevails amongst the people, and of which all this agitation is but the outward sign, that constitutes the real danger. But if so, does it not follow, as a necessary inference, that by repressing the outward signs of this discontent, we should do no good unless we also remove the causes from which it springs? Nay more, it might happen, that we might thus really increase the danger both by blinding ourselves to the fact of its continuance, and by exasperating the bitterness of the people's feelings by the means taken to prevent their manifestation. In judging therefore of the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers, I must consider whether it has been calculated to regain the affections of the people of Ireland, or merely to put down open resistance to your authority in that country. I am far
974
from denying that it is necessary to maintain obedience to the law, and to prevent the authority of the Imperial Parliament from being slighted; but I contend that the measures to be adopted for that purpose should be considered with the greatest care, and should be of the most prudent, calm, and dignified character; and that to produce any permanent benefit they must be joined with others of a different kind. But far from this being the case, when I examine the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers, I find, that whatever degree of vigour they have displayed, has been confined entirely to measures for suppressing the signs and symptoms of discontent—that even in the measures that they have adopted for this purpose, there has been a singular lack of wisdom, prudence, or firmness; while of measures having the higher aim of regaining the affections of the Irish people, the promise held out to us falls infinitely short of what we had a right to expect, and of what the exigency of the case demands. In the last Session, on the occasion of the motion of the hon. Member for Limerick, those who sit on this side of the House, stated very fully their views as to the measures which the state of Ireland required. Amongst others, I expressed my own opinion on this most important subject, and I fear that I troubled the House in doing so more at length than I ought; perhaps I went beyond the line of my duty as an independent Member of this House, holding no official situation, and able to boast of no personal knowledge of Ireland. But such was then, the dangerous state of things, that I thought it was the duty of all Members who had so strong an opinion as I entertained of the necessity of particular measures, to state the ground of their convictions, for the consideration of the House, and of Her Majesty's Government. In reply, however, to what was urged, and to the various suggestions which were made, by myself and others, Her Majesty's Government confined themselves merely to making objections to what was proposed. They suggested nothing whatever of their own; and so striking was this omission on their part, that at the time my noble Friend the Member for the City of London said, that Her Majesty's Ministers seemed to have changed places on the subject with the Gentlemen opposed to them—that a stranger coming into the House and listening to the speeches which were made, would have been led to suppose that those who sit on this side had been entrusted by

975
Her Majesty with the high duty of recommending to Parliament, a scheme of policy devised for the purpose of tranquillizing the discontent and improving the condition of Ireland; while upon the right hon. Gentleman devolved the humbler and easier task of criticising, or rather, carping at, what was so proposed. Her Majesty's Government had nothing at the time to recommend; they have since taken the whole period of the recess to consider what measures they should propose in the present Session to meet the manifest evils of Ireland, and what I ask is the result. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department has stated the nature of the propositions that are likely to emanate from the Government; and they seem to me to be a "most beggarly account of empty boxes." The right hon. Gentleman told us that, before Easter, we should have a Registration Bill presented to us, by which the number of county voters will be increased, and by which also some of the vexatious formalities which now impede the registration of voters for the boroughs would be removed. He also informed us that a Commission had been issued to inquire into the law and practice with respect to the occupation of land in Ireland; and this was all, of the slightest importance, which the right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to propose, while such an important portion of the country is in a situation of so much danger, and while the physical force of Ireland is, as he himself tells us, arrayed against the Imperial Government. Must it not be a matter of surprise to every one, that, in such a state of things, this should be all that the Secretary of State for the Home Department can suggest to a British House of Commons, that a Minister should come forward with so poor and meagre a plan in such an emergency. Now, with respect to the Bill for Registration, such a bill is greatly needed. If you bring forward a measure for the extension of the County Franchise in Ireland, framed as I trust it will be in a large and liberal spirit,—if as I hope it should turn out not to be a new insult concealed under the disguise of a boon, but a really large and liberal measure, it will remove a crying wrong, and will be felt I have no doubt as an act of justice; but still if it be not coupled with other measures, it will only put new arms into the hands of the Irish, to enforce the redress of still greater grievances. With respect to the Commission to inquire into the
976
relations of landlord and tenant, I trust that it will prove of advantage; but I must confess that I entertain no little doubt on the subject. It is perfectly true that the social condition of Ireland is in this respect greatly defective; the relations of landlord and tenant in that country are far from being on a satisfactory footing. Improvement on these points is most urgently called for, and probably the aid of legislalation is required. But the question is, whether Her Majesty's Ministers have adopted the means most likely to prove successful to bring about the end so much desired, of improving the state of Ireland, with reference to the occupation of land; and I, for one, cannot help feeling some apprehension that—by the mode they have adopted—by proceeding to inquire through the means of this Commission, they are exciting vague expectations, which they will find it most difficult to fulfil, and dangerous to disappoint. A smaller measure of improvement at the present moment might have done more to give contentment to the Irish people on this exciting subject, than larger measures after their expectations have been highly raised. I do not think that this is an unreasonable apprehension, nor do I quite understand why the Government might not have proceeded at once to legislate on this subject. It appears to me that if immediately on the close of the last Session of Parliament, without the parade of issuing a formal Commission of Inquiry, Her Majesty's Ministers had availed themselves of the means within their reach, it would not have been impossible for them to have been now prepared to do whatever can be accomplished by legislation on this subject. They had it in their power to command the assistance of the persons most eminent for their legal talents both in England and Ireland; and of those best acquainted with the rural affairs of both countries; and with such aid, surely it would not have been impracticable in four or five months to have ascertained of what improvement the law was susceptible, so as to have been prepared to bring forward measures immediately on the meeting of Parliament, for effecting all that can be done by legislation. I cannot help believing that this would have been a better mode of proceeding. At the same time, I am far from venturing absolutely to condemn the appointment of this Commission; the difficulties of the subject may have been far greater than I am aware of, it may have been, unfortunately, necessary

977
to resort to the means of proceeding which have been adopted in a question of so much difficulty; but if so, the conclusion which I draw from this is, that if all we can do towards remedying the physical distress which presses so heavily on the Irish people, is to hold out to them so distant a prospect of improvement as is afforded by this Commission, it is the more necessary to soothe their minds by measures of another character, which might have been immediately brought forward. The more I consider the actual condition of Ireland, the more reason I find for coming to the conclusion, that the discontent which prevails there, cannot be traced merely to the pressure of distress. No doubt the grinding poverty under which the Irish people are suffering—no doubt the constant struggle which so many of them are forced to maintain, in order to procure even a scanty and miserable subsistence, must enter much into the causes of the discontent that prevails; but I am persuaded that this feeling has been greatly increased, and owes its actual bitterness to the sense of injustice and wrong which rankles in their minds. Hence, even, if Her Majesty's Ministers had been prepared to deal with the physical wretchedness of Ireland in a more comprehensive manner—if they had been prepared at once to submit to us a well-considered law with respect to landlords and tenants—if they had been prepared to adopt a system of public works in Ireland on an extensive scale and to bring forward a large measure of colonisation—if they had been prepared to do all these things—still I should have contended that all these measures could not have been expected to produce the effect desired; and to have the healing influence they ought unless accompanied by other measures calculated to remove from the minds of the Irish that galling sense of injury and injustice which now prevails in part from other circumstances, but chiefly on account of the wrong they feel to be done to the religion they profess. If you do not bring forward some plan to remove this sense of wrong, all other measures which you may adopt will I am persuaded, prove fruitless. Is it possible that they should fail to feel most bitterly the manner in which the Government of this country has dealt with the religion in which the great body of the people believe? Is it not natural that they should be keenly alive to the insult which you have offered to them, in your treatment of that ancient faith, to which
978
they are so much attached? Can you believe that you will ever remove from their minds the feeling of being treated with injustice while so much disfavour is shown to the Catholic religion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin has indeed said, to-night, that since the Catholic Emancipation Bill has been carried, religious equality has been completely established in Ireland. Such, no doubt, is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is one in which I can by no means concur; and I only ask the House to consider what are the facts of the case? Let it be recollected, that the Roman Catholic Church was the national Church of Ireland, and that some three centuries ago the large endowment which it held was by acts of the Legislature taken from it and given to the Protestant Church, the Protestants forming but a small portion of the population, while the great mass of the population adhered to their ancient faith. Further, the great body of the people from whom this endowment has been wrested, are probably the poorest population in Europe, whilst the small minority to whose exclusive benefit the Church revenues thus violently taken from the majority have been applied, consist chiefly of the wealthier classes. Nor is this all; yet further to add insult to injury, you give to the Presbyterians, who, according to law, are, in Ireland, as much Dissenters as the Catholics, a share of the bounty of the State, and the only part of the population, which so far as the Government is concerned, is left utterly unprovided with any means of spiritual instruction, is that which constitutes at once the great mass of the population, and the class which stands most in need of pecuniary assistance. Can you deny that this is a plain unvarnished statement of facts, and then I ask you, is this justice? Do you think, that to such a state of things, the people of Ireland can be reconciled by such arguments as we have heard addressed to the House to-night by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite? For, Sir, you should remember that it is in vain that your reasoning may be perfectly conclusive in your own opinion, unless you can convince the Irish people of the justice of your law. You may set forth your reasons as clearly as any logician from the first university in the world, your arguments may be framed with the greatest care, your syllogisms faultless, and in your opinion the whole of your deductions may be irrefragable, but if you do

979
not convince the Irish people of their truth your reasoning is worth nothing, and you are as far from your object as ever. The question is not whether your argument be good or not, but whether it is likely to have so much weight with the people of Ireland as to render them contented with the state of things to which they are required to submit. Keeping this in view without now going into the question at length, I will just glance at one or two of the arguments which have been urged in support of the State Church in Ireland, and ask the House what favour they are calculated to obtain with the Irish people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the maintenance of the Church Establishment in Ireland in its present shape and form, was one of the stipulations of the Act of Union, which we had no right to break, and he found great fault with my noble Friend for having said, that the fifth article of the Act of Union might be expunged. The right hon. Gentleman observed, that the Parliament of Ireland which agreed to the Union, was exclusively Protestant, and never could have been induced to agree to that measure otherwise than by the adoption of this article. Why this argument is the very strongest that could have been urged in refutation of the position which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. Was this purely Protestant Parliament—and most assuredly it was pure in no other sense, for it is notorious that it was the most corrupt legislative assembly that ever existed; can it be said that this corrupt Parliament which cannot even be pretended, to have represented the Irish people, for I believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself would say, that to regard that assembly as a true representation of the Irish people, would be a farce—was it to be borne that such a Parliament should be considered as having authority to tie up the powers of legislation in the Imperial Parliament to all posterity, and that out of respect to this authority we were bound to the maintenance of an Establishment which shocks every principle of natural justice? Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman would supply a powerful argument to the hon. and learned Member for Cork in favour of the Repeal of the Union if he could prove that by no other means the abatement of so great a grievance could be obtained; but if he thinks he can reconcile the Irish people to the maintenance of the Church in its present form, on such grounds as
980
these, the right hon. Gentleman must have the simplicity of a child. What then are the claims of the Irish people upon the great principles of justice? Why, Sir, it has been the opinion of some of the brightest ornaments of the Church of England, that the only ground on which the existence of a national establishment can securely rest, is that of the benefit it confers upon the great body of the people, as the means of imparting to them religious instruction. The most able divines this country has produced, have repeatedly rested their defence of the Church Establisment on this ground, and have admitted, that to be useful, it must be in conformity with the religion of the great body of the people. This principle is not disputed even by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but when he is asked to apply it to Ireland, his argument is this—"Very true," says the right hon. Gentleman, "the Established Church in Ireland, taking it by itself, may not be the Church of the majority, but then you must recollect the union between the two countries, it is the United Church of England and of Ireland, with which you have to deal, and its religion is the religion of the majority of the inhabitants of the two countries." This certainly may be very satisfactory reasoning to the right hon. Baronet, but will it weigh with the Irish people? Do you think that they do not see through such shallow sophistry? How, let me ask you, was this argument listened to when it was a question of imposing Episcopacy upon the people of Scotland? If I am not mistaken, some years ago, the right hon. Gentleman himself in one of those highly polished elaborately ornamented passages, and which he is in the habit of introducing into his speeches, while passing on the people of Scotland, a warmer and well merited encomium put forward, as one of their claims to the admiration of the world, the manner in which they resisted the establishment of the Episcopacy in Scotland. If my memory does not greatly deceive me the right hon. Baronet said something of the people of Scotland, in their laudable attempts to resist an infringement of their rights of conscience, having resorted to their mountains, and trusting to their good claymores. I think I remember to have heard something of this kind from the right hon. Baronet; and does he suppose that the ears of the Irish people are less acute or their memories less retentive of such language,

981
and that they cannot see how well it applies to their own case? Does the right hon. Baronet think he is likely to convince them that the right he so strongly asserted for the people of Scotland, is not equally a right for the people of Ireland? Therefore, I say, that as an argument for the maintenance of the Establishment, it is utterly ridiculous, to tell the Irish in the expectation that it will gratify them that the Church ought to be supported, because its adherents though a small minority in Ireland alone, are a majority of Ireland and England together. This argument like that of the right hon. Recorder, might well be quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, as an argument for Repeal; but, being contrary to natural justice, can have no weight with the Irish. For it is contrary to the commonest notions of natural justice and to the first principles of Government, that you should thus sacrifice the interests of the great majority to those of a small fraction of the people.—But still you would greatly underrate the strength of the feeling of the Irish against this injustice, if you were to suppose that it was only the simple and naked injustice of having taken away an endowment which once belonged to the Church of the people in order to give it to the Church of a small and favoured class, which dwelt upon their minds. No; it is something far more than this. They might perhaps have been induced to acquiesce in the continuance of the Established Church, if you had not made its preservation and its safety a reason or a pretence for inflicting on them the most cruel injuries. Was it not for the sake of the Established Church, that you enacted and maintained those cruel and revolting penal laws, which are a disgrace to a civilized nation, and the blackest page of English history? Do you think that it is forgotten that you resisted to the very last moment the admission of Roman Catholics to civil rights and to seats in Parliament, because, as you alleged, your wanting it would shake the foundations of the Established Church? Oh! how miserably shortsighted was the right hon. Baronet, when year after year he used to rest his objections to Catholic Emancipation on the difficulty of granting it with safety to the Established Church in Ireland! Was it not certain (as experience has since proved) that the time must arrive when it would be impossible to maintain any longer this system of political exclusion, that at length the Irish people must recover their political
982
rights, and would enter upon the exercise of their new power with the strongest feelings of hostility against that Establishment, which had been the alleged reason for their long exclusion? But the injustice complained of did not cease even in 1829; after the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill you still continued, because you feared for the safety of the Church Establishment, to mark in the most offensive manner your distrust of the whole Catholic body, and distrust proverbially begets the disaffection of which it assumes the existence.—To the latest times you have acted in the same manner, and when you unwillingly reformed the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, you refused to grant to that country the same franchise you had created in England, and avowedly made the safety of the Established Church the reason for this insulting difference. It is all these things, not the mere injustice of maintaining a sinecure Church, which have created so strong a feeling of hostility to the Establishment. Do you believe that for three centuries wrong after wrong, can have been heaped on the people of Ireland, that battle after battle can have been fought in resisting their acquisition of civil rights, and that the maintenance of the Established Church can have been always put forward as the reason for your injustice;—do you believe that three centuries of such wrongs and such struggles can have passed by, and not produced their necessary effects on the minds of the Irish people? Let us judge of the Irish people by ourselves—just ask the people of England how they would feel if they were placed in the situation of the people of Ireland, with reference to the Church Establishment. Just suppose for a moment that Ireland were the larger country, and had conquered England, that a united Parliament now sat in Dublin, and that we went before that Parliament and applied for the restoration of a large endowment which had been taken from a Protestant Establishment and transferred to the Catholic Church—suppose that such an appeal were made, and resisted by such arguments as those brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, should we, by any such mode of reasoning as we have heard, be induced to consent to the continuance of a Catholic established Church amongst us? Would the right hon. Baronet himself consent to it? Can he lay his hand on his heart and say, that he would? I much doubt whether, under such a state of

983
things, he would be even as patient as the Irish Repealers, and whether he would not follow the example of the people of Scotland, whose conduct he so much admires, and take to his mountains and trust to his broad claymore. I can only say for myself that I would not submit to so galling and degrading yoke. I would endeavour to obtain redress by every peaceful means, but no effort I could make, no sacrifice that could be required from me, would seem too great to get rid of a yoke so very galling and degrading. If such would be our feelings, is it not reasonable to suppose that such must also be the feelings of the great body of the Irish people; and can you expect to regain their affections if you do not do justice to them in this most important matter? But, says the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), we take our stand for the defence of the Church Establishment of Ireland "on the broad ground of religious truth." Now, if there is any one thing calculated to make the existence of the Established Church more offensive than another—if any one reason that you could put forth could be more galling and insulting than another—it is this assumption that you alone are in possession of religious truth. This is as much as to say that the Catholics are altogether wrong, and that you alone are right. This is an opinion and a principle which no Legislator who wishes to promote tranquillity should ever put forward. You have admitted the Catholics to Parliament, and you tell them that they have equal rights and privileges with their Protestant fellow-subjects, you admit that they should stand on a par with yourselves, and yet, in legislating for Ireland, you tell them that they must submit to the continuance of the Established Church on the ground of its being the sole possessor of religious truth. That is, for it comes to this, you ask them to act on the assumption that the religion which they profess, and to which they are so strongly attached, is false and idolatrous. I am strongly attached to the Protestant Church, in the main points of difference between the Church of Rome and the Protestant Church, I am thoroughly convinced that the Church of Rome is in error, and nothing I think could induce me to abandon that opinion. But while I firmly maintain my own opinion, may I not with perfect consistency acknowledge that the Roman Catholic has precisely the same right to his, and admit that he is as conscientious in the faith which he maintains as I am in my own.
984
Neither party has a right to assume that the other is in error; and therefore, I say, if you insist on legislating upon the assumption that religious truth is on our side, you adopt a principle which cannot be maintained by the Government against the Catholics of Ireland, if you wish to promote and maintain the peace of the Empire. On this same principle, if the Catholics were the majority, they might claim to legislate for us, on the assumption that we are in error; and if they did, I need hardly say that they would not be entitled to expect peace. The majority I contend, is guilty of injustice, if it legislates for the minority on the ground of the truth of their own faith; and the Catholic has the same right to maintain his opinion as I have to adhere to mine. Who gave me the right to judge in points of religion, or as to which party is really in possession of the truth, between my Catholic fellow-countrymen and myself? What right have I to assume that the Catholic faith is false, when I recollect that it is still held by more than half the Christian world? Has not the Catholic, as well as the Protestant Religion, produced its enlightened and learned Divines, its missionaries, and its martyrs, who, by the exemplary piety of their lives, by the privations and sufferings which they have voluntarily suffered in order to promote the welfare of man and the glory of God, who, by the constancy and the courage with which they have met tortures, and even death itself, have given undeniable proofs of the sincerity of their belief? And can a British House of Commons listen without disgust to a proposal to legislate on the assumption that a faith so held and so honoured is false and idolatrous? No, Sir; I say you must do full justice to the people of Ireland. The time was, perhaps, when what is now demanded might have been withheld. If you had earlier granted Catholic Emancipation—if, after you had granted Emancipation, you had shown a large and liberal confidence in the great body of the Irish people—if you had not kept up to this very hour a system of manifesting distrust and dislike to that body—if, some years ago, you had consented to the Appropriation Clause, it is possible that you might have escaped the necessity which now presses upon you of making an entire change in your policy as to the maintenance of the Church Establishment in Ireland. Yes, I say now, as when we withdrew the Appropriation

985
Clause—for Gentlemen will do me the justice to acknowledge, that I never concealed my opinion, or denied that that measure was far short of what, on principle, I should have been prepared to grant; and that it was only because it was a compromise, which I believed would then be accepted that I ventured to recommend it—but when I found, from the time which you suffered to elapse, that the proposition ceased to have the value which originally belonged to it, I consented to withdraw it. I warned you, at the time that you left open this larger question, which could not fail very soon to be brought before you for your decision. This is no new opinion of mine as to the right of the Catholics to insist on a different application of the property of the Irish Church. It is one which I have held since I first thought upon politics, and which I have never ceased to entertain and openly to profess. If you had earlier consented to a compromise; no doubt the Catholic people of Ireland would have agreed to it; but you would not do this, you stood upon your Acts of Parliament, you maintained your extreme rights, and, backed by the prejudices of the English people, you were enabled to do so with success. As you would yield nothing then, so I am persuaded the Irish people will yield nothing now. The time for compromise, is in my opinion, gone by. You must deal full and equal justice to the people of Ireland. I am prepared to find little sympathy with me in the House, and still less in the country, in the sentiments which I am about to express, but believing it to be necessary that the truth should be told, I mean to tell the whole truth, and to tell it unreservedly. I say then you must do full justice to the people of Ireland, in this matter of the property of the Church, and I ask how is that to be accomplished? Various modes may be proposed. In the first place, you may say—and certainly, if he were prepared to act consistently on the principles he has laid down, it is what the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to propose—you may say that you will proceed towards Ireland on the same principle as that which you adopt towards England and Scotland; and that, as the Protestant Episcopal faith is held by a majority of the English people, and is therefore established by the law in this country, and as the Presbyterian religion is held by a majority of Scotchmen, and is therefore established by law in Scotland,
986
so Catholicism being the faith of a very great majority of the people of Ireland, it shall be the religion there established, and the endowment which three centuries ago was torn from that Church, shall be restored it. This is one of the modes which might be proposed, while, of course, you would provide for the interests of the existing incumbents. Another mode of dealing with the subject, would be to say that the difficulties surrounding it are so great, that you will have no Establishment whatever, but will take the whole of the Church property and apply it in furtherance of general Education. That is the second mode. The third is to make provision for the spiritual wants of all classes of the people, in proportion to their respective wants. Any one of these modes would carry out the principle for which I contend. I am perfectly aware that every one of them is open to great objections, and would be met with great difficulties, and I am not now going to consider—I could not do so without unwarrantably trespassing upon the time of the House—whether one or any of them is the plan that ought to be adopted. This, I think, is not the proper time for such an inquiry; but I say, if you desire to produce peace in Ireland, and to regain the affections of a numerous, brave, and generous people—if that be your object, you must manfully resolve to look at the question in its real bearings, and deal with them as the great principles of justice require, remembering that out of a population falling short of 8,000,000, nearly 6,500,000 are Catholics. You must deal with them on the principle of extending to the Catholics every advantage in a similar degree to that in which it is enjoyed by the professors of other religions. They are to be dealt with on the same principles which in their situation you would expect to have applied to yourselves. I believe, greatly as Catholics and Protestants differ on many points, we all agree that it is one of the fundamental laws of the Divine Founder of our common faith that we should do to others as we would have others do to us; and all I ask of you is, to apply that great and eternal principle of Christian justice. No doubt you will have great difficulties to encounter. You will have a host of long-cherished prejudices on the part of the people of this country to contend with; but I tell you, it is your duty to face them. You must do so, unless you are prepared to allow the danger which now prevails in Ireland to continue. The right hon. Baronet

987
(Sir J. Graham) told us the other night, and told us truly that this Church question is at the bottom of all our differences of opinion with respect to Ireland. It is at the bottom of all our differences of opinion, and of all your difficulties in carrying on the Government of Ireland. Are you not aware that while this Church question continues unsettled, you never can rely upon or trust the Catholics, that they will be always looking to overturn the settlement you contend for—that at all events you will always suspect them of entertaining such a design, and that this suspicion on your part founded or unfounded, will destroy all cordiality between you and them? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us to-night, that we are never to look for peace while those questions were kept open which the Irish Protestants have a right to consider settled. I tell you that the Irish Protestants have no right to consider these questions settled, and practically they never can be settled but in the one manner; for no persuasion, and no power, while human nature is unaltered, will induce the Catholics to remain content with such a state of things. But the fact that you know, and that the Catholics understand that you cannot trust them, nor they you, this fact is at the bottom of all your difficulties; it meets you at every turn; it meets you for instance in this question of the jury at the late trials which has been so much discusssed. The right hon. Baronet and my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland have made out—in this I am bound to say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport—a fair case for the exclusion of Catholics from the jury; but what is the inference from that fact? It proves that the indictment was not, as my right hon. Friend said last night, against Mr. O'Connell, but against the Irish people. We all remember that celebrated passage of Mr. Burke's, in his speech upon America, in which he said, he thought it "narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary rules of criminal jurisprudence to a great public contest;" and he added, "I know not the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people." Her Majesty's Government are cleverer than Mr. Burke. They have solved the problem of drawing an indictment against a whole people, and I wish them joy of the results. I was reminded by an hon. and learned Friend of mine the other day, that it is a fundamental principle of the institution of the jury, that you are to have an impartial
988
jury, and that so much stress is laid upon this principle by the law, that a foreigner, if put upon his trial, has a right to claim that one-half of the jury shall be foreigners. I want to know, then, whether you had the power to apply this principle in Ireland to the late trials? Was there less reason to impute prejudice to the men to whom you left it to find a verdict against Mr. O'Connell and his friends, than there would be in a cause of common theft in London to impute partiality to a London jury against a foreigner, and yet that foreigner, would have a right to claim that one-half of the jury should be his countrymen. And yet Mr. O'Connell and his friends, knowing that there was a stronger prejudice on the part of those who were to try them, than could be supposed in the other case, had no such privilege. I do not blame you for not leaving Repeaters on the jury; but if you could neither leave Repealers on it without a certainty of an acquittal, nor leave those whom you did leave upon it without at least creating an opinion in Ireland of the certainty of a conviction, that fact shows, that this is one of those great public contests to which Mr. Burke says, it is narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary rules of criminal jurisprudence. It is a fact which you cannot deny, that the whole body of the Irish Catholics, and that large proportion of the Protestants who wish for justice to their Catholic countrymen—that this immense preponderance of the nation is united in opposition to you in consequence of your keeping this Church question open. Do you not perceive that if this question were settled, and that in the only way in which it can be settled—let the right hon. and learned Gentleman dismiss the hope that it can ever be settled otherwise—(at the time of the debates on Catholic Emancipation) in the same way I remember we were told, "Hold your tongue for ten years, and we will then come back to it, and we can settle it with wonderful comfort and wonderful ease;" (and the right hon. Recorder's present notion is quite as visionary)—but if this question were once settled, in the only manner it can be, the Catholics would differ in opinion upon questions of public policy, as the various parties in this country are divided. At this very moment, if it were not for the difference respecting Ireland, the remaining points of difference between the Gentlemen opposite and the majority of those around me would be nearly confined to questions of trade

989
and finance; and I cannot help thinking that if this Church question were settled, it is quite possible that the right hon. Baronet opposite might have as many recruits in Ireland in favour of the sliding-scale and agricultural protection, as we should in favour of free-trade; but as long as this question is kept open, every minor difference will be merged in all the absorbing difference, and all who are anxious for justice will be banded against a Government by which their views are resisted. The consequence is, that when by the action of public opinion, power is placed in the hands of those who side with the minority in Ireland, and they have the Executive Government in their hands, you are called upon to deal with this contradiction, you must administer the forms of a free Government against the consent of nine-tenths of the people. The whole machinery of free institutions is to give force and effect to the deliberate opinions of the whole people. The jury—the franchise—the whole machinery is constructed on no other principle; and when you have to administer the Government against the will of the people, you undertake a task beyond the power of man successfully to accomplish. Thus the institution of the jury fails, and the Elective Franchise is a source of evil in Ireland. In every social relation, even in the landlord and tenant question, the Church division is a source of grievance, bitterness, and disputes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) complained of the unjust manner in which the landlords of Ireland are treated. I do not deny upon this subject there has been much exaggeration, but still I think he must admit, that in Ireland there is much of what we in England should consider unjust and oppressive on the part of landlords to tenants, and also of resistance to what is just on the part of tenants; but from what does this arise? It is from all parties being engaged in a practical struggle about the Church question, because it is this question which really divides the whole nation into opposing parties, in which the landlords as a class take one side and their tenants the other. These acts of oppression cannot be prevented by a change of the law. They are generally accomplished by abuse of those powers which it is necessary the landlords should possess, and which they do possess in England without such results being produced; and therefore, whatever improvement you may make in the law as
990
to the occupation of land, if you leave this Church question open, you do not get rid of the irritation. Then, Sir, I come back to the principle that you must do justice to the people of Ireland in the matter of the Church establishment, or you must be prepared to see no termination of the existing danger in that country. Its present state will continue as a chronic disease, eating into the very vitals of the country. There is no middle course. Your efforts to establish your power on the consent and affections of the people, cannot be effectual, unless you are ready to do what they hold to be justice, and there remains only the alternative of governing by force. If you could put an end to the forms of freedom—if you could abolish juries, and annihilate the Franchise—if you could govern Ireland as a great Crown colony, by Order in Council, I could conceive the possibility of going on. But, no—I am mistaken—you must go still further; you must abolish your free press, and prevent all discussion. If you could do this and could govern as Austria does in her Italian provinces, it might be possible to reduce Ireland to a state of quiet—there being nothing to excite the mental energies of the people they might fall into a state of apathy, and the phisical evils of the country might be conquered. This is conceivable, but thank God! you have not the power of trying so hateful an experiment. You cannot abolish the forms of freedom in Ireland, and the only choice left to you is, that having the forms of freedom, you should govern in a spirit of freedom, or let things remain as they are, or rather be prepared for their becoming worse and worse every day, because the poison is so subtle that it corrupts even what is in itself good. Extended education will but make the people of Ireland more sensible of the injustice done to them, and make them understand how to resist it. Even the improvement of the material condition of the country, the increase of her wealth and resources, will have no other effect but to increase, by rendering the strength of the parties more nearly equal, the bitterness of the struggle which, if not put an end to by doing justice, will be a permanent one, and will not terminate if even that catastrophe, which I fear some men are guilty enough and mad enough to desire, were to occur; if, unhappily, the country were to break out into open rebellion, and the flames of resistance were to be quenched in blood, your difficulties

991
would not be got rid of, for the moment that resistance was over, the condition of the country would be practically the same, nay worse, than at present, for then all hopes of reconciliation with the Irish people would be at an end, and there would be no possible termination of the struggle, except when it should become so intolerable to both parties that we should be compelled to consent, not merely to a Repeal of the Union, but to a severance of all connexion between the two countries. Such must be the fatal result of a prolongation of this disastrous struggle. God grant, that in our party divisions, and party distractions, we may not continue that struggle until it be too late to apply a remedy. Sir, having thus stated my views upon these momentous questions, I shall now say a few words, and they shall be very few—upon the form of the Motion before the House. My noble Friend opposite, the Secretary for Ireland, stated last night, that the Motion for a Committee of the whole House, was not with a view to an inquiry, but was meant as a censure upon the Government, and that, if successful, it must be immediately followed by their resignation. It is perfectly true, I admit, that I mean to imply—and I believe my noble Friend so understands his Motion—that I think it absolutely necessary that Parliament should, without delay, adopt some measures of a far more comprehensive kind, and of a far different character from any that have been promised to us by the Government. This I mean to imply by my vote, and I believe it is the Parliamentary and Constitutional mode of asking the House of Commons for the expression of such an opinion. I admit, that the House cannot pronounce such an opinion without, in a certain degree, casting a censure upon the Government; and I admit, that in the ordinary course of affairs, the adoption of such a Resolution would naturally be followed by the resignation of the Government. All this I freely admit, but at the same time I solemnly assure the House, that I do not support this Motion because I wish to achieve a party triumph, or am actuated by a desire that the present Government should be dismissed from power. This is not my object, but believing that the measures to which I have referred are absolutely necessary, whether the present Government remain in power or not, I must ask the House to support my views, and I look upon this question as one which, like Catholic Emancipation,
992
can never be carried by a mere party triumph. I believe the settlement of this question can only be accomplished as the Catholic question was settled, by the union of the two great parties which divide this House and the country, and by their making every sacrifice of preconceived opinions and party hostility, and concurring in doing that which is necessary for the welfare of Ireland, and the safety of the empire. I ma persuaded that this is the only mode in which such a measure can be carried, and in fact, I regard this as the Catholic question over again, in another shape. Precisely the same danger and difficulties with which you had then to struggle have come upon you again, and I hope the Gentlemen opposite will consider the great responsibility which now rests upon them. They know that we on this side cannot carry the question against their will. If my object had been to overturn the Government, they know, and the House will understand, that I should not have declared in the unreserved manner I have done, the opinions I have expressed. I am not ignorant of the great mass of prejudice, (what at least I regard as honest prejudice amongst the people of this country, but which they think sound opinions), which I array against me in doing so. I wish that I were able to arrive at any other conclusion, but I am persuaded that what I have said is the truth, and if Gentlemen opposite will calmly reflect upon it, they will feel it to be so. In this awful conjuncture of the British empire, it is their solemn duty to their God and their country to consider how they hope the present state of Ireland is to be terminated, otherwise than by the means which I have pointed out, and if there are no other means which afford a rational prospect of success, not to reject those which are offered. This, Sir, is what I have respectfully to urge upon the consideration of the House, and, in so doing, I have to apologise most sincerely for the time I have taken up, and to express my deep regret at my utter inability to give utterance to one-half what I feel on the subject.
Captain Bernalmoved, that the debate be adjourned.
After some conversation, during a part of which, the gallery was closed for a division, and in which the Ministers were taunted for not replying to Viscount Howick's speech, to which Sir R. Peel replied, that it was too had to expect them to reply on the instant, to a speech which

993
went to the entire subversion of the establishment.
The debate was again adjourned.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Offences at Sea.
2a. Metropolis Improvements.
Private.—Petitions for Private Bills not to be received after Tuesday, the 2nd of April, nor any Report after Tuesday, the 4th of June.
3a. and passed:—Sang's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Mayor, etc. of Portsmouth, for Removal of Civil Disabilities of Jews.—By Bishop of Llandaff, from Dean and Chapter of Chichester, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and in favour of Bishopric at Manchester.—By Duke of Richmond, from a Society in Westminster, for Alteration in Currency System.

LORD DUNDONALD'S PATENT.
Lord Broughampostponed the motion of which he had given notice two nights since, with respect to the petition presented to the House by Lord Dundonald.
The Earl of Mintotook that occasion to bear testimony to the great importance of the inventions of the noble Lord, which formed the basis of his petition. With respect to his improvement in the application of steam machinery to war vessels, experiments had been made as to their efficiency, and these had been highly satisfactory. The very mention of the name of Lord Cochrane—a name associated with such eminent services rendered to the country—would of itself induce their Lordships to look with favour upon the petition.

STATE OF IRELAND—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate,
Earl Fortescuerose and said, that before he proceeded to consider the general question then before their Lordships, he wished to advert to one particular point which had personal reference to himself. He understood that representations had been made elsewhere by very high authority, that during the last three months of the late Administration in Ireland seven stipendiary Magistrates had been appointed in excess of the number on the existing list. The terms in which this statement was made and the place where it was promulgated left no doubt of the imputation which it was intended to convey. Now, he would tell their Lordships, that for that act of the Government of Ireland he, as the head of that Government at the time, was solely responsible. Not having access to any official documents, and the unfortunate absence of (Lord Morpeth), who at that time filled the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, preventing him from deriving assistance from his noble Friend, with whom he had been in the habit of consulting as to these appointments, he could not enter fully into all the circumstances, or afford to their Lordships all the information respecting them which he otherwise would have done. On reference, however, to the only document which he had on the subject—a return of all the appointments made by him during his Government of Ireland—he found that the statement was correct, as to the number of appointments. He found that he had appointed between
860
the 15th of June and the 28th of August, 1841, seven stipendiary Magistrates; but it was not true that those appointments were in addition to the pre-existing number. Amongst the Magistrates three vacancies had occurred by retirements or dismissals, which vacancies of course were filled up. This left four out of the seven. Of these four, one was appointed for a district in the county of Armagh, upon an earnest requisition from Lord Gosford the Lord Lieutenant and the Magistrates of that county, agreed to at a meeting of those Magistrates, in consequence of an atrocious murder committed in that district. A second Magistrate was sent to Tralee, in consequence of constant disturbances amongt the fishermen in that quarter, which the local Magistrates having personal interests in the fisheries were unable to settle satisfactorily. A third Magistrate was despatched to the wild coast of Donegal, in consequence of affrays between the Revenue police and the people, in one of which a man had been killed. One remained to be accounted for; but, having no memorandum on the subject, he could not exactly state why that appointment was made; he was certain, however, that if he had the correspondence, it would appear to have taken place under circumstances equally urgent. He trusted that this would be a sufficient answer to the statement made in another place. Entertaining the views which he did of the great usefulness of these Magistrates, and of the immense benefit to the administration of justice which had been uniformly derived from their exertions—he should have considered himself very culpable indeed in his own estimation, if he had abstained, on account of any feeling of responsibility at the eve of his retirement from office, from making any appointments of this nature that he might have deemed advantageous to the public cause, more especially as those who succeeded him might find difficulties which he did not in making them from the objections of some of the Local Magistracy. Whatever might have been his faults (and he was well aware of many) in the discharge of his official duties, no one ever undertook them with more single-hearted anxiety for the welfare of Ireland, and he could most truly declare that no appointment ever was made by him for the mere exercise of patronage, in consequence of any

861
personal or political feeling. He should now proceed to consider the question immediately before their Lordships. He would not weaken by attempting to repeat any of the arguments so ably brought forward by his noble Friend, in support of his motion, but he certainly could not agree with the noble Baron (Howden) who censured the Motion as ill-timed, because it might embarrass the Ministers; and he thought that it was most unjust and unfair to his noble Friend to impute to him motives for its introduction, differing from those which he had assigned for it. He did think that it would have been ill-timed had it been brought forward during the time when the legal proceedings which have just terminated, were still going on. But, he must contend, that they were fully, at liberty, in such a crisis as the present, to call upon Government for a justification of their conduct, and to express their opinion upon that conduct. Indeed, it would be a new doctrine in British politics—a doctrine most foreign to the spirit of the Constitution—were the Legislature, in times of great public emergency, to be debarred from raising its voice upon the plea of the embarrassment it would occasion to the Government. He must do his noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council, the justice to say, that he did not concur in that doctrine. He (Lord Wharncliffe) had, on the contrary, thanked the noble Marquess who introduced the Motion, for the opportunity thereby afforded him of vindicating the proceedings of the Government of which he was Member, and any one would admit that he had shewn great ability in the performance of that difficult duty. The charge against Her Majesty's Government was, that after the late Government had delivered Ireland into their hands in a state which was admitted by their Lord-lieutenant, by their Chief Secretary, and by the Prime Minister himself, to be in a state of tranquillity and contentment, that country had, during the few years for which they had held office, been brought to a state, the existence of which every one must deplore. But it was said, that the agitation did not commence under the present Administration, and it was quite true that some large Repeal Meetings were held, and some violent language was used at them in 1840; he believed, however, they never would have taken place had it not been for the introduction of a Bill into Parlia-
862
ment in that year, which went to deprive a large proportion of the county constituency of Ireland of the privileges of the franchise. In consequence of those meetings, he had, on the part of the Government, made that public declaration which had been before alluded to in their Lordship's House, and the great mover of the agitation had acknowledged more than once, in no very measured language, the check which had been given to it by that declaration. But, perhaps, a still more conclusive proof of this might be afforded by comparing the amount of the Repeal Rent, as it had recently been, with what it was during his own administration. During the latter it had never exceeded per week the sum of 200 l. and did not average 100 l. But it had recently exceeded 2,000 l. in one week, and the average weekly receipts amounted to about 500 l. His noble Friends and himself had been taunted in this debate with the abuse which they had received from Mr. O'Connell, and they had at other times been severely reflected upon, for the influence which that hon. Gentleman was supposed to exercise over them. Now, he had long been acquainted with Mr. O'Connell, and in any personal communications which he had ever had with him, he (the hon. Gentleman) had always treated him with the utmost courtesy and respect. It was also quite true, that Mr. O'Connell had supported the late Irish Government, and had uniformly continued his support down to the year 1840, and it was due to Mr. O'Connell to state that he had never, except in one instance, asked for any patronage, either for himself or any of his friends, and in that instance the Government refused it. The hon. Gentleman had however in the year 1839, greatly served the Government by the exertion of his influence for the suppression of Chartism, which was at that time rapidly spreading over a great portion of Great Britain; and so effectual had been the efforts of the hon. Gentleman in excluding it from Ireland and in preserving the peace of that country, that he (Earl Fortescue) had felt himself justified, without any solicitation whatever, in offering an appointment to his son, and in doing so he had stated by letter to Mr. O'Connell, that it was given as an acknowledgment from the Government of the service which he had rendered to them and to the country by his conduct on that occasion, and

863
he must say, that in the more recent case of the Clontarf Proclamation, he thought the preservation of the public peace and the prevention of any collision between the people and the military, was much more owing to the influence of Mr. O'Connell than to the forethought or precautions of any of the constituted authorities. Of the proceedings which had been instituted against Mr. O'Connell it was not necessary for him (the noble Earl) to take any lengthened notice; but he could not help saying that more extraordinary proceedings or more unlike those of a British Court of Justice never had occurred. He hardly knew which would seem most strange in any English trial,—that the Attorney-general should send a challenge to one of the counsel on the other side, or that the Chief Justice should think it necessary to call in the aid of the counsel sitting under him for instruction how to deal with the outrage which had thus been committed against the court. With respect to the measures which the present Government proposed to introduce, though he thought them wholly inadequate to producing any amount of good at all commensurate with the evils which existed in Ireland, he was bound in candour to admit that they were steps in the right direction. He was glad to find that an increased amount of money would be applied to the purpose of Education; but if the Government intended to make such a grant effectual for the joint instruction of the people of Ireland, they ought not to choose the highest dignitaries of the Church from amongst the number of those who were the most warmly opposed to the Board of National Education. He was glad, too, to learn that the Government, enlightened by the responsibility of office intended by a new Registration Bill to extend instead of curtailing the Elective Franchise in Ireland: with respect to the Commission now sitting to inquire into the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant, if it did nothing more than encumber the shelves of the library with another Blue-book, their appointment would be considered by the country a mockery, but from the character of those composing the Commission he had much better hopes of the result of their labours, and after the legislative changes which had already been made in the relations of landlord and tenant indirectly by the abolition of the 40 s. freeholds, and directly
864
by the Subletting Act, and indeed by various other measures, he never could admit that the just rights of property would be invaded by an attempt further to amend the laws by which their relations were regulated, and to correct the grievances so loudly complained of on that score. On the subject of the Church and the payment of the Roman Catholic priesthood, he would not, considering the difficulties now attending that question, go over again the opinions which he had already expressed, but which he feared were shared by few of any if their Lordships. He would only add, in justice to himself, that he was convinced no permanent or satisfactory settlement could be had till the Protestant Establishment was reduced into some proportion with the numbers of its adherents, and the Roman Catholic clergy as well as the laity put in all respects on an equality with their Protestant brethren.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the noble Earl who had just addressed their Lordships commenced his speech by complaining of a statement made elsewhere with respect to his appointment of certain stipendiary Magistrates towards the close of his administration in Ireland; and he was anxious, as far as he was informed, to put the question upon its right footing. The present Ministry had been accused of the removal of Stipendiary Magistrates. It was said they had removed ten of the number in consequence of their dislike to that most useful and valuable body of men; and it was in order to defend himself and the Irish Government from that charge, and not with the view of inculpating the noble Earl, that the statement he (Lord Fortescue) referred to was made by the Home Secretary. The facts of the case, however, were these:—When the present Government came into office they found sixty-six Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. On looking at the late nominations, they found that the estimates for 1841, which were printed by order of the House of Commons on the 7th June, 1841, provided for fifty-nine Stipendiary Magistrates. They thus found that seven Stipendiary Magistrates had been added, between the 7th June and 28th August, 1841—the day on which the noble Viscount opposite resigned his office and the late Government ceased to exist. One of these Magistrates was appointed on the 15th of June; two were appointed on the 28th of July; two

865
on the 6th of August; one on the 16th of August, and one on the very day of the termination of the existence of the Government, namely, on the 28th of August. Under these circumstances, notice was given for the removal of ten, which had probably given rise to the belief that ten had been dismissed; only seven however, were dismissed, reducing the number to the fifty-nine for which the House of Commons had given a vote; there were at present sixty; therefore, Her Majesty's present Government had now one more than there were during the years 1839, 1840, and 1841, up to the 15th of June. He thought, therefore, Her Majesty's Government were not liable to the imputation of having wished to set aside what no one who had seen even the little of Ireland which he had, but must know to be a most valuable body of men. Since Government came into office, from what cause he did not know, four vacancies had taken place, which had been filled up by four of the gentlemen who had been originally appointed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Fortescue), and removed by the present Government for the reason he had stated. One of the seven, he understood, had since died, and there remained therefore, only two others. With a view to making this clear, and of defending Ministers and the Irish Government from the charges which had been made against them, the statement was made in the other House. There certainly was a discrepancy in the accounts of this transaction, as the noble Earl had stated. The noble Earl said, that Gentlemen high in office ought to be very sure of their facts before they made their statements. He was not aware that there was any difference of facts between the right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend, excepting that his noble Friend said, he did not appoint seven in addition, but that he appointed seven, there having been three vacancies. He had no doubt he believed what he said, he said that there were only three vacancies to be filled up; but if that was the case, how came the number to be sixty-six? because, according to Cocker, if you added seven to fifty-nine, that would make sixty-six, which was the number which the present Government found when they came into office. He was speaking from information only, for the matter was not in his department; but certainly he must say that the facts stated by his right hon.
866
Friend in another place remained uncontradicted, and they were brought forward to show that the Government were not indisposed to entertain the highest opinion of the worth of this body of men, nor acted by any illiberal desire to set aside the persons appointed by their predecessors. Having disposed as far as was in his power, of this comparatively minor point, he would address a few observations to their Lordships on the question before the House. When he looked at the terms in which the notice had been framed, he agreed with his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, that there was little in the terms themselves to call for any difference of opinion. They certainly had been led to imagine that the motion in terms would have imputed blame, more or less, to Her Majesty's Government, for their conduct in the late proceedings in Ireland. The Government fully expected it; but if any one ever had that intention, it must have been changed owing to the proceedings that had lately taken place. But although the terms of the motion did not impute blame to Her Majesty's Ministers, that implication was amply made out in the speeches in that House, particularly in the speech of his noble Friend who had introduced the motion. Any one, judging of the motion, would have thought that the late proceedings and events would have been passed over as to their propriety or otherwise; that the main objects of the speech introducing the motion would have been to show how Her Majesty's gracious intentions with respect to Ireland were to be carried into effect; how the improvement of that country was to be advanced; how the security of the subjects in that country was to be obtained. One would have anticipated from a statesman that some great, comprehensive speech would have been made, instead of which the speech of the noble Marquess was utterly barren of measures, and fruitful only in crimination. Her Majesty's Ministers had propounded their measures of improvement, namely, the Land Commission—the increased grant for Education—the new Registration Bills—and the means of providing, by a new Act of Parliament, for religious purposes, and for glebe houses and glebes to the Roman Catholic Clergy. Those things had been stated; they had been well received by their Lordships; and they had been admitted to be important matters, seeing that they embraced,

867
as he believed, a majority of the grievances that had been dwelt upon with the greatest force in Parliament, and with the greatest virulence at these monster meetings and other public assemblages that had taken place. In addition to these he wanted to know what it was that had been propounded—what were the other things that had been called for? The payment of the Catholic Clergy was a very old subject of desire by one party, of deprecation by another. His noble Friend, however, in the course of his speech, so far from proposing that, admitted most justly, that whatever opinion he might have on that subject, this was not a time when it could with any advantage be proposed; and certainly, if it were a valuable and good measure, nothing could be worse than to propose such a measure at a time when it was not likely to be successful. This measure of the payment of the Catholic Clergy formed one of the wings, as they were called, of the Catholic Relief Bill. When the Catholic Emancipation Bill was introduced by his noble Friend behind him, it was admitted on all sides of the House, that he acted most wisely in limiting his measure to Catholic Emancipation alone. [The Marquess of Lansdowne: One of the wings was carried.] He hoped the noble Marquess would allow him to deal with his wings in his own way. Most undoubtedly the Catholic Emancipation Bill was accompanied by one of its wings—the measure for the abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders. The noble Duke, however, was, in his opinion, quite right in not accompanying the Bill with a provision for paying the Roman Catholic Clergy, for any attempt to append to it such a provision, would have defeated that great measure. With regard to the Church funds, various propositions, it seemed, had been made. There were certain parties who called upon them for something like equalization in religious matters. That appeared to him a preposterous proposition. If they were prepared to say that the voluntary system should alone prevail in Ireland—if they were prepared to argue that the Church Establishment in Ireland must be abolished, and put down without endangering other Establishments, that might be equalization; but he defied the noble Marquess to show how, maintaining a shadow of the Protestant Establishment of Ireland, they could effect this equalization. With respect
868
to seats in their Lordships' House—who would dare to name to the people of this country or the Protestant people of Ireland, that Peers of Parliament named by his Holiness the Pope, should take their seats in Parliament? Yet there would be no equality without. If the Church of Ireland was to retain a shadow of what it was guaranteed to be by the Act of Union nothing of this kind could take place. The agitators of Ireland had never treated the question in that way; they were for sweeping the Church away altogether: the voluntary system was their panacea. In fact, all these concessions would be in vain and perfectly useless, and would consequently be thrown back in their Lordships' faces. No such thing as equalization of Churches could be accomplished if it were tried. The Act of Union forbade anything of the kind—that act which, confirming former acts, gave a solemn recognition and guarantee of the Irish Establishment. The Act of Union it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to support, it was their determination to uphold the Established Church, and they would oppose any measure that could destroy, or injure, or impair it. There was ample room for timely legislation towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and he was quite sure Ministers had every disposition to consider anything that could be done for that numerous class of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. There were several minor matters alluded to by a noble Marquess opposite, which he would not detain their Lordships by noticing at any length. He alluded to emigration, railways, and other public works, and so forth. With respect to the question of emigration, he had not a doubt that it was a good; but to indulge in the habit of considering it as a means of national relief appeared to him to be chimerical; for how were they to convey any sufficient portion of the 2,000,000 of the people who were described as being paupers across the Atlantic, and if they did, would not the increase of population go on as rapidly as ever, so as to fill up the vacancies thus created? He looked with somewhat more expectation to public works, for he knew that the more the roads and railways were improved in Ireland, the more employment there would be for the industry of the people, and, if agitation were to cease, peace and quietness would enable the people to apply themselves to industry—and

869
an industrious people he could say that they were—and by such means the growth of Ireland would become conspicuous. He should wish to say a word or two upon some topics alluded to by the noble Marquess, certainly in that light and good-humoured manner which belonged to him, yet he had uttered, with a smile on his face, a great many hard things on account of the hostility to Ireland, which he imputed to the Government—but he did not think that he had made out his case. The noble Marquess said Her Majesty's Government had denied Ireland equal rights; that was something solid and substantial, he conceived; yet the noble Marquess did not explain what he meant in any part of his speech, which, indeed, had more of declamation than argument in it. What was the meaning of the charge?—Were not the laws of the two countries the same, and he trusted that they were fairly administered? He did not think that the noble Marquess was one of those who considered it a denial of equal rights that the Irish had not 200 representatives instead of 105. The noble Marquess did not say, that he thought so. If the registration had dwindled away, that had been through causes over which the present Government had no control—it had dwindled away in the time of their predecessors. So far from there having been any indisposition on the part of the present Government to deal with this subject, they had declared their intention to introduce a bill to remedy the evils which had arisen from the interpretation put upon the law, which had so greatly diminished the number of voters in Ireland. But rights, it was said, had been denied to the people of Ireland. He wished he could learn what rights belonging to the people of Ireland had been evaded or denied to them by Her Majesty's Government. Had the Government interfered with the course of justice or the administration of the laws? There was a great deal said about challenging the juries, but he believed that system was done away when his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) was Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and the juries were chosen now just as they were during his government of that country. They had been told that they had made improper appointments to the judicial Bench. He apprehended the learned Gentlemen who had been so elevated were well qualified for their important func-
870
tions, and he wanted to know whether a gentleman was not to be put on the judicial Bench because he might have made in Parliament or elsewhere a speech or speeches which might have been distasteful to the Catholic hierarchy? That came with bad taste to them from a noble Marquess, who, unless he was greatly belied, had offered the office of Master of the Rolls to Mr. O'Connell. He had no doubt the noble Marquess was quite ready to justify that step. ["Hear, hear."] Then, the noble lords had no right to assail the present Government for their one or two appointments. He (Lord Haddington) held such a charge as cheap as possible. Let the noble Lords explain how and in what respect any rights had been denied to the Irish people. In regard to the enjoyment of equal rights by the different classes of the Irish people, that depended not upon the Government; it depended upon the state of society in Ireland. Those were matters over which the Government had no sort of control. They had next been accused of inconsistency in dealing with the monster meetings and more particularly with the final meeting or intended meeting at Clontarf. It had been said, that two courses were open, and that the manly course would have been to have prosecuted the first meeting at which improper language had been used, which would have put a stop to these meetings: that they had not taken that manly course, but had supposed the meetings would work themselves out. But the Government had not been absurd enough to imagine when they saw those meetings one becoming more violent than another, that they would work themselves out; but they had thought it best to give the parties fair warning of the impropriety of their conduct; and that had been done in various ways. In the first place, most of the parties read the newspapers, and must thence have known the opinions of all parties in England on the subject of meetings of that kind,—that they were improper and illegal. Then came the much-abused discretion exercised by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in dismissing the Magistrates, and he maintained, that the Government were perfectly justified in the course which the Lord Chancellor had adopted. He meant to say, that Magistrates who would go to meetings of that sort, having such objects, attended by such numbers of persons, and carrying

871
with them so much possible risk to the public peace, and endangering the fundamental principles on which society was held together—he meant to say, that Magistrates who attended such meetings could not be trusted for contributing in their official capacity to put down excesses which might be created by the excitement caused by such assemblages of the people. He repeated, that he had no doubt at all of the propriety of the measure. He thought the noble Marquess would find it much more difficult to justify many of his dismissals. If, as the noble Marquess said, they had looked to this agitation with the idea that it would wear itself out, surely it was time, when the Clontarf meeting was announced, that they should be cured of that delusion. Mr. O'Connell, at Mullaghmast, had declared his intention of holding six or seven meetings: the Clontarf meeting was ushered in by a proclamation and species of military array that rendered it high time to interfere. He thought it had been clearly shown to their Lordships, that not a moment's time had been lost, The Lord Chancellor was sent over immediately to Ireland. As soon as he arrived the Proclamation was issued. It was published at two o'clock on Saturday, and by four o'clock of that day there was no reason why it might not have been known all around the neighbourhood where the meeting was to be held, and that was as good as if a month's notice had been given. The Government couriers or messengers, who carried the Proclamation into the localities adjacent to Dublin, were on foot and at work an hour before Mr. O'Connell's messengers went on the same errand. He did not deny the attempts of Mr. O'Connell to keep the peace, and was disposed to give him full credit for them. He thought a breach of the peace would have been the worst thing that ever could have happened to him; but they were alarmed by the influence obtained by that individual. When he said there should be peace, there was peace—and at all those meetings there was only an old woman's fruit-stall kicked over. But what if he had proclaimed there should be war—that the time had come when they should abjure peace—what, if he called on them to remember 1798, to remember former instances in Irish history, some fabulous and some true? Supposing all this could be done, a man
872
who had this power might use it dangerously. But at Clontarf he admitted that he had the power, and that he had exercised that power well it were vain to deny. One of the noble Marquesses (the Marquess of Clanricarde) who had spoken the other evening, had complained of the manner in which these parties had been brought to justice; he had complained of the principle on which they had been arraigned: he complained that they had been arraigned for conspiracy; he did not contradict the law as it was laid down by the learned Lord Chief Justice; but at the same time he had said that it would not be understood by the people of this country; and that it would have been better to have arraigned them for the meetings at Mullaghmast, at Tara, and at Clifden, to have prevented these meetings, than to have waited for the meeting at Clontarf. Was the noble Marquess sure that the Government would have run no risk in arraigning the meeting at Mullaghmast? At Dublin they had the garrison on which to rely; but at Tara, at Mullaghmast, and at Clifden, they had a very small force to put down any outbreak, and supposing the people had taken it into their heads to resist, what would have been done? Were they to proclaim, and do nothing? They must have proceeded, and have been prepared to be assailed by that magnificent infantry which Mr. O'Connell had eulogised, superior, it was boasted, to the troops which his noble Friend behind him (the Duke of Wellington) had commanded at the battle of Waterloo. It would have been unwise to have moved with a small force; if they had, they would probably have led to bloodshed, and then he would like to have heard the language of noble Lords opposite. Would not the cry of Peterloo have been revived?—would they not have been told of the cruelty of destroying the people at a peaceable and loyal meeting convened for a lawful object? As it was, it did not appear that the jury were satisfied upon the illegality of the meetings; they declared the traversers guilty of conspiracy, but not for attending unlawful meetings; and had the Government relied only on the illegality of the meetings, in the result, instead of vindicating the law, they would have been defeated, and in all probability they would have been obliged to come to Parliament and say, "The law is not sufficient; we cannot vindicate the law, and

873
we come to you for further powers to enable us so to do." However, the indictment was for conspiracy, or, if they preferred it, a combination—not a secret combination, because things were not now done in that way, but a combination to carry certain objects which were lawful by unlawful means. He said, then, that the Government stood vindicated before their Lordships, as he would take upon him to say, they were in the opinion of the people of England, in the course they had taken; and it would always be a source of satisfaction to the Government that they had done all that they could for maintaining the public peace, by the ordinary aid of the law. They might have prosecuted for seditious speeches; it was very difficult, however, to fix precise words, and of what value would that be, to avert an evil of such extent and magnitude. Suppose they had indicted the persons for violence of language; God knew this violence was disgusting enough, to see the manner in which all men and all things were spoken of. Some who ought to have known better, ought to have been ashamed of the manner in which they had spoken of the noble Duke behind him. It was enough to create disgust in every human creature. But it appeared from something that had been stated elsewhere, that the Government had acted in a very cruel manner towards the traversers, in having prosecuted and convicted them for violence, and for exciting the people to hatred of this country; and then with having acted with great inconsistency in being associated in their Ministry with one remarkable for his hostility towards Ireland, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had been accused of putting his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, on account of his abuse of the Irish and his hostility to Ireland. He had never in his life read an accusasation with more indignation. In the first place, the attack on his noble and learned Friend was a foul calumny; no one who knew his noble Friend—no one who was in that House—could accuse him of being the enemy or hostile to any human creature; there never was a person less liable to the charge, or of a more generous or temperate disposition. ["Hear."] He begged pardon of his noble Friend for having thus spoken of him in his presence, but every Member of the Government had a right to feel that this was an imputation
874
upon the right hon. Baronet who formed the Government, and on his Colleagues, for a connivance at it; and he thought, that the imputation, that the right hon. Baronet had made his noble Friend Lord Chancellor of England because he was hostile to a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects, used language which went beyond all his experience of party attack. It was language which he did not like to hear, it was an imputation which he had heard with regret, and those who had used it ought to regret that it had been made. Language of this kind was little likely to heal the wounds of Ireland. The noble Lord who had spoken the other evening from the cross-benches (Lord Howden) had pointed out the mischievous effect of a motion of this sort, by its placing difficulties in the way of the Government and on the tranquillity of Ireland. It contributed to keep up that angry spirit which all desired should have an end. It would, however, be the business of the Government to continue, as they had hitherto done, maintaining and upholding the supremacy of the law, and leaving no legitimate means untried—which appeared to them likely to tranquillise and conciliate the people of Ireland.
The Marquess of Clanricardewished to say a few words in explanation. He had been misunderstood as having mentioned an equalisation of the Protestant and Catholic Churches. He did not say a single word on that subject, which was one of so much importance that he would not express an opinion till after mature consideration, and certainly would not introduce it incidentally. He had also been misunderstood on the subject of emigration; he had not recommended emigration, but he had said that it was no use appointing a Commission unless they intended to consider the subject as part of a combined and detailed system for the relief of the pauper population of Ireland. Neither had he said, that the Government could have prosecuted those who had attended at Tara and Mullaghmast as well as at Clontarf; they had not prosecuted those who attended at Clontarf or any other meeting, and he had not said that even these meetings were illegal. He had certainly said, that the charge of conspiracy was one of such a constructive nature, that it would be generally odious to the people of Ireland, and opposed to the feelings of the people of this country, and he had said

875
distinctly that the other meetings might have been stopped just as the Clontarf had been—by proclamation. But when he had referred to a prosecution for seditious language, he had not taken upon himself to say, that such a prosecution could have been carried on, or that seditious language had been uttered. In the Government proclamation, however, for putting down the Clontarf meeting, it was said that seditious language had been held at previous meetings; if this were true, and the Government ought not to have proclaimed it unless it were true, then he said that for this seditious language, the person who had uttered it ought to have been prosecuted.
Earl Fortescuerose to explain the statement relative to the stipendiary magistrates appointed immediately preceding his retirement. He would name three persons who had caused vacancies. Captain Hay had resigned, and had left Ireland; Mr. Roche, at his own request, had been permitted to retire; and the third, an old man, had been displaced; his name it was not necessary to mention. Those three had been withdrawn from the bench between the 15th of June and the 28th of August, and four additional magistrates had been appointed at the pressing request of particular districts. He might thus have increased the number beyond those of the preceding year, but it had been the practice of himself and his predecessor, when well-established cases were made out, to appoint Stipendiary magistrates.
The Earl of Haddington: That would have made the numbers 63, and not 66.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that he could not help thinking that the appointment of stipendiary Magistrates formed but a very small portion of the subject now under consideration; at the same time, he considered that his noble Friend who had lately filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not only justified in giving, but was compelled to give, the explanation which had just fallen from him; because it was not in the suggestion of the appointment of a greater or fewer number of stipendiary Magistrates that the sting of the charge consisted, but in the imputation that at the period of the breaking up of the late Government his noble Friend, for the purposes of a low and corrupt patronage, had taken the opportunity of adding to the number of that force, a force
876
which he was rejoiced to hear not only vindicated but praised by all sides of the House. On that subject he thought that the vindication of his noble Friend afforded an answer complete and triumphant to those who did not know his character—for to those who did, any justification was wholly unnecessary—because he had shown that those additions had been made either on vacancies previously existing, or on the demands of the local Magistracy. With one observation more he would dismiss this point. Whilst the noble Lord claimed credit to the Government for their disregard of patronage, more especially in selecting for appointments those officers who had been previously appointed by his noble Friend, he fully justified those previous appointments—for however reckless of patronage the Government might be, he could not believe that they would carry this principle to so romantic and extravagant an extent as to make appointments of improper persons, merely because they had been previously selected by their predecessors. With respect to the terms of the motion he would say a few words. The noble Lord, who had just sat down, as well as the noble President of the Council, who opened this debate on the part of the Government in a manner which, politically opposed to him as he was, and differing from his views of Irish policy, he must yet admit to have been entitled to the praise of being in a conciliatory spirit, and to which he was, therefore, most ready and willing, and anxious to render every justice—both those noble Lords stated, that to the terms of this motion they would have no objection, were it not for the speech which introduced, and the inferences which had been drawn from it. If this were so—if his noble Friend, (Lord Normanby) who understood Ireland as well as any Ex-Lord Lieutenant, had embodied in this resolution his views of the spirit in which we ought to carry on the Government of Ireland, and the noble Lords opposite admitted, that such was the spirit in which they also desired to carry on that Government,—was it not singular that the results of the government of the noble Lords opposite, and of his noble Friend, should be so very different? Must there not be something required beside parliamentary declarations—something beside the spirit in which the Government was professed to be carried out,

877
to account for the lamentable discrepancy between the state of Ireland, under the Administration of his noble Friend, and, he would not say its present state now, but the state in which it had been for a considerable time after the accession of the noble Lords to the Government? It was stated by the right hon. Baronet, who was now at the head of the Government, when he came into office in 1839, that he felt his greatest difficulty would be Ireland—he did not allude to that memorable declaration in a reproachful or a hostile spirit; it was made in a previous Parliament, and it was now a matter of history. Soon after Sir Robert Peel's acceptance of office, and found Ireland in a state of tranquillity, and when Ireland continued in a state of tranquillity for some considerable time he (Lord Monteagle) heard it a frequent boast on the part of the Members and Friends of the Government, that that which had been anticipated to be the greatest difficulty in his way was in fact no difficulty at all, and that Ireland continued in a state of as perfect tranquillity under the present Government as it had been under their predecessors. During the first year of the present Administration, troops had been withdrawn from Ireland for the purpose of aiding in the preservation of the peace here, and at that period it was the boast of the Friends of Government that Ireland was in a state of perfect repose. How was this to be accounted for? Why, because in human and political affairs effects survive the causes which produce them. The effects of mis-government and of evil councils, too often survive the causes which have produced them; and, on the contrary, habits of peace, order, and respect for the law are so obviously beneficial in themselves, and communicate such great blessings to the people, that it requires strong impulses and irritation to put an end to the good which a Government, wise and popular, has once produced. Therefore, with respect to the tranquillity of Ireland in the early part of the present Administration, it was but an additional tribute offered to the mode in which Ireland had been governed by their Whig predecessors. But it was soon otherwise. Before he approached this part of the subject he wished to say, that he was far from raising any argument against the military precautions of the Government, that he did
878
not complain of the extent of the force employed in Ireland; though he might raise an argument from this fact, as to the exciting cause which rendered so large an amount of force necessary, yet in the present threatening state of the country, which he was not prepared to deny, he was satisfied that the Government had done no more than their duty in providing to the uttermost for military defence. He was persuaded that in saying this, he was not only speaking the opinion of the class to which he belonged, and of the friends around him, but he believed he was asserting that which would be generally acquiesced in by the Irish. He knew that the military force employed in Ireland, was so far from being unpalatable and displeasing even to those who were considered the most discontented classes, that there was no measure on the contrary more popular in Ireland than an increase of its military strength. On that point, therefore, he had no complaint to make; and he had further to observe, in relation to the legal proceedings which had lately taken place, he was far from denying that the Government had taken a right step, and had fulfilled its duty in resorting to the ordinary law of the country, rather than to the cheap, vulgar, but in ancient times the accustomed mode of coming to Parliament for increased powers. On this ground therefore, also, he had no complaint to make against the Government, on the contrary, he felt bound to pay them a tribute of acknowledgment for the course which they had taken. But, if the noble Lords opposite, were disposed to govern Ireland on terms of perfect conciliation—if they differed with this side only in degree, how came it to pass, that they did not succeed In keeping Ireland in a state of tranquillity? The cause struck him to be simply this—They had not the confidence of the mass of the people of that country. He would admit, that in one sense, with respect to confidence, it was the same in one respect with the Government of which he had been a Member. There were, unfortunately, in Ireland two classes of persons. Did they (the Ministers) think that anything that we (the Opposition) could have done, when in Government would have secured the confidence of the noble Earl (Lord Roden) who spoke last night, or of that class who claimed for themselves, he thought unjustly, the exclusive title of the Protes-

879
tants of Ireland. If we made them all Archdeacons of Armagh—if we perpetrated in behalf of every one of them, such a job as was perpetrated last year for one favoured and highly-beneficed clergyman, they would not be contented, because they were resolved not to have confidence in us. The present Government was in the same position, though more justly with regard to the great bulk of the Irish people. They might wish to administer the affairs of that country in an upright and impartial spirit, and he gave them every credit for the sincerity of their intentions, but they could not possess the confidence of the great mass of the people. The two great parties in the State were thus in some degree in the same position. But there was this difference between them—the party which now governed did not possess the confidence of that division of the Irish people which was incalculably the most numerous, the most excitable, and the most suffering. Was there not a cause for this? If there were not, we should be left without hope. If we traced effects to their causes, we might discover some reason not to despair of the future state of Ireland. The noble Lords would excuse him, and would not, he hoped, think he was treating them with disrespect, because in the language of frankness and simplicity, he told them, they had not the confidence of the Irish people, because they had done nothing to deserve it. Their political conduct during the last ten years, had been such as to deprive them of that confidence. He would go into the proofs. The last ten years had been eventful years in Parliamentary history. During those years measures of great importance had been discussed in both Houses of Parliament; and in what spirit were those measures proposed on the one side, and discussed on the other? Look to them—one and all—look at them as proposed and dealt with year after year, you who complain that you do not possess the confidence of the majority of the Irish people—you philosophers, who may wish to trace events to their real causes! Look to the discussion on Parliamentary Reform, to the discussions, on the Irish Franchise! Look to the generosity with which these measures was proposed on the one side, and the suspicion reluctance which they was assented to on the other Look to the Municipal Reform Bill! The noble Earl
880
said, that he was in favour of equal rights between the two countries. If he did not know the excellent understanding and the retentive memory of his noble Friend, he should have thought that the history of the last few years had been to him a perfect blank; he could not imagine that he, as a lover of equal rights, could have been acting for years with that party which allowed equal rights between England and Scotland, but when the same rights were asked for Ireland, turned round, and said, "Other parts of the empire may be deserving of municipalities; from our confidence in the soundness of their principles they may be entrusted with the performance of those functions—but you, the Irish, are unworthy of such franchises, and we will not give them to you." And what was said by some others of the party? "We do not object to give Corporate Reform to England and Scotland; but those Corporations are in Ireland the bulwarks of the Constitution, and of the Union, and we will not substitute Catholic for Protestant Corporations,"—thus making religion a bar to those civil rights to which his noble Friend thought the people of Ireland entitled. Surely, the noble Earl must for the time have lost his memory when he thinks that the Irish people have been treated on terms of equality. But, my Lords, it must be admitted that you afterwards changed your tone, altered your course, and abandoned your position! And what did you then do? When you saw that the position in which you endeavoured to remain, was no longer tenable, did you frankly, generously, and wisely concede to the Municipalities of Ireland the same rights and privileges as you did to those of this country? No, you pared down their franchises; you restricted their duties, and if you complain now that the power of those municipalities has been applied to other purposes than those for which they were by law constituted. ["Hear," from the Duke of Wellington.] (He objected as much as the noble Duke to that application of them) you have only yourselves to blame for this result. You employed so much astuteness in depriviing the Irish Corporations of any power of doing good, that you have only left them to choose between, what was worse—an activity for mischief. Had he not thus proved both his positions? Did not all the propositions made by the Conservative party in both Houses, imply distrust of the

881
Irish people, and, therefore, you are now so justly repaid by the loss of their confidence; and do you now expect to be believed and forgiven, when you say, that they are entitled to the same civil rights with the other portions of the empire? Was that all? No such thing. When the subject of Education was alluded to, in this debate, the Government came forward and claimed, (as he admitted they were fully entitled to claim), great credit not only for what they were now doing, but what they had done last year; but when he was dealing with the question of confidence, he must ask, Did they remember how this subject of Education was dealt with when it was originally introduced? In the observations of the noble Earl last night, whom he was sorry not to see in his place now, they had pretty strong evidence of the mode in which the question was still dealt with by their eager partisans; but more conclusive evidence had been given when the Irish system of Education was first proposed. Then it was treated as if the Protestants of Ireland were insulted and ruined, and religious men in Ireland were taught to believe that the object of the Government and the consequence of their measures was to deprive the Protestants of their Scriptures; and multitudinous meetings—he would not call them monster meetings, though they were equal to any of those lately held—were called, at which certain persons of station and influence, asked whether the people would tamely submit to be robbed of their Scriptures? whereupon a given number of Bibles were taken out of a given number of pockets, and the people declared they never would allow themselves to be robbed of the Sacred Volume. But it was not only among the warm people of the north of Ireland, it was not at Pettifriland alone, that such language was used. Even within the walls of this very House—in this Temple of Justice—in this the first Tribunal of the land, a sentence too eloquent to be forgotten, and too remarkable to escape the memory of any noble Lord who had heard it, was pronounced in reprobation of the Irish system of Education by one of the learned Members of the reverend Bench, who uttered the pious, and he had no doubt sincere prayer, that it might never come to pass, that by reason of the irreligion and iniquity of that system he should hear that denunciation
882
pronounced against the Sovereign of this country, which had been pronounced against a Jewish Sovereign—"Because thou hast renounced the Lord thy God, so have I renounced thee from being King over Israel." He gave this as a specimen of the mode and manner in which Irish affairs were discussed even in this House, he was now demonstrating the injustice of the charges against the Irish system of Education, for he was now defending it as proposed by the late Government, and as adopted honestly and generously by the present. The noble Earl (Earl of Haddington) had said, in reference to the payment of the Roman Catholic Clergy by the State, that although the question was one which might be right in itself, yet it was one of those which might be marred by a premature discussion. In that, he (Lord Monteagle) quite agreed with the noble Earl; but on looking back through the history of the world, would not the noble Earl find, that if some questions had been marred by premature discussions, others had been ruined by a too late concession? Now, that was to some extent the case with the Education system, which, if carried at the right time, might have been a blessing to Protestants and Catholics alike. But it had been found, the question of Education was a most advantageous one on which to fight a party battle. It was therefore made a party question, and the party of the present Government had undoubtedly agitated it most successfully against the late Government, but their crime was now revisited upon themselves in tenfold punishment. Even if when the present Government had seized the reins of power, Ministers had at once conceded the question of Irish Education, good might still have been done, but they hesitated, they deliberated, and, if their Lordships would permit the application of a familiar passage, he would say that in such a case the Statesman, "who deliberates is lost." They hesitated, and the majority of the Irish Bishops, with the Archbishop of Armagh at their head, and nearly the whole of the clergy—many of the best—some of the most sincere—many of the most earnest clergymen in the country, were left in the dark; they were allowed to continue in ignorance of the intentions of Government for upwards of a year, they withheld their co-operations

883
from the national system, and some even used all their exertions, hoping by perseverance they might overthrow the system altogether, or at all events, obtain the countenance of the Government to a rival one. Their Lordships would remember, that petitions flowed in in thousands, and all prepared and presented by the friends of the Government. Still the Government maintained their timid or their obstinate silence. He admitted, that the ultimate determination they arrived at was a proper one; it was just, but it came too late to repair many of the mischiefs which had been occasioned by their long delay. Again, in considering the causes of the distrust felt towards the Government, let him ask, was it just, nay, was it prudent, to designate and mark by opprobrious names, as if they were tabooing the whole of one section of the Members connected with Ireland. The law recognised not a jot of difference between any of the Members of either House—they were all Members of the Imperial Parliament, and all equal; yet an attempt was made to undervalue and discredit the majority of the late Government, because it was, as it was called, a mere Irish majority. That was a most unfortunate argument, for if there was one point on which the Irish people felt more sore than another, it was the thought of being looked down upon—undervalued, as though not worthy of being classed with, and belonging to the great community of the nation. The cry against the Irish majority was a most unfortunate one and was one of the most fatal causes for producing dissatisfaction and discontent. Ireland not only had her poets, but the whole people might be said to be poetical, and they were as soon and as easily irritated, as was proverbial with that irritable genus, and they could not but feel acutely the sarcasms and the sneers constantly raised against and thrown upon Irish majorities. The noble President of the Council (Lord Wharncliffe) had been driven into a lamentable admission, when he acknowledged that the Ministry were governing Ireland through the minority of her people. He said true, it is so, but we have the majority in the other two countries. Was not that a very awkward argument to send forth to Ireland? It said, "No doubt the great majority of the Irish people are against us, but we have, as it were, a writ in aid, from the people of gland and the people of Scotland, to
884
govern you." But was it only the Irish Members who were attacked? No, the Irish people were attacked. But above all, their religion—the religion of the great bulk of the Irish people, together with their priesthood, were attacked virulently, and year after year accusations of the most gross nature were brought against the College of Maynooth,—accusations, of which, if one-tenth were true, it would have been a deep and foul disgrace to those Protestants who were made visitors of that College by the law. He had a perfect right to allude to that which had passed in debate in that House, now that it had become matter of history; but he was unwilling to say anything that would be likely to introduce any personal acrimony on that occasion; it was enough for him to say, that there had been attributed to the highest authority in that House terms which were considered painful, offensive, and insulting to the whole mass of the people of Ireland. He was quite aware, that explanations had been given on the subject, he could only say, that whether from dullness, or from whatever other cause, he did not think that the explanation palliated or excused the original offence. But whether the words were meant in the original sense or not, they were so understood, they were repeated throughout the length and breadth of the land, and, without doubt, they had not lightly contributed to exasperate a most sensitive people. The name of Mr. O'Connell had frequently been mentioned in the debates of this House during the last ten years. Great efforts were made to represent Mr. O'Connell in the most odious light throughout England; and, having partly succeeded in that object, the next great and paramount object of the then Opposition party was to connect him with the late Government. That was part of the tactics of the party. He (Lord Monteagle) would not then stop to enquire whether Mr. O'Connell was right or whether he was wrong, but he would not disguise his opinion, if a proper time arrived for stating it; but they found a man who possessed more of the confidence of his fellow-countrymen, who filled a greater space in the minds of the people, than any other man either in ancient or modern days—he would say a larger and more irresponsible power than any man ever wielded since our Parliamentary history began—and he would assure their Lordships, that

885
it was a larger and more irresponsible power than any man ought to be possessed of—still, they found the man in that position, the master and the idol of the multitude, and he was made the subject of incessant vituperation, of constant and unceasing attack—nay, even their Lordships added immense weight to his already overgrown power, for so cordially had they brought their minds to hate him, that let a measure come before that House, be it what it might, the fact, or even the suspicion, that it had received the support of Mr. O'Connell was quite enough to insure its rejection. Noble Lords opposite even where they condemned Mr. O'Connell's power, made themselves his slaves, for he had only to express his approbation of any measure before Parliament, and it was rendered imperative on them to record their dissent. Now, was it wise, he would ask, to continue the abuse of such a man for the mere purposes of raising a party cry or swelling a party vote—was it wise to irritate an individual so situated, and through him to irritate the great mass of the people of Ireland, who revered him? The noble Lords certainly had, by these and similar means, secured their accession to office; they had obtained their whistle, but they paid, and were paying too dear for it. He could not go from that part of the subject without alluding to the observations which had fallen from the noble Earl with respect to the offer made to Mr. O'Connell of the Mastership of the Rolls. With respect to the offer of that appointment, he might say, look at your own, justify them if you can. But this would only be a tu quoque argument. He highly approved of the offer of the Rolls to Mr. O'Connell at the time, and he was perfectly ready to admit his entire approval of it now. But were there none of the party of the Government now in power of their friends, who approved of that offer when made, and who deeply regretted its rejection? He could assure their Lordships that there were many Conservatives of both Houses, who would have thought it the greatest of all blessings for the country if the learned Gentleman had thought fit to accept the situation, and fill a position for which his talents so eminently fitted him. Remember, he was not proposed to be made a Criminal Judge, he was not to be placed upon a bench where politics
886
came into discussion, but in an Equity Court, where equity was administered to all—to Protestant and Catholic alike. He (Lord Monteagle) deeply regretted that the offer was not accepted. He did not regret that it had been made; he was glad that it was avowed, and he was perfectly ready to bear his share of the responsibility. He must guard himself from any inference which any of their Lordships might draw from what fell from him, that he approved of Mr. O'Connell's recent proceedings—nothing was further from his feelings. No one was more opposed than he was to the bold and violent system of agitation which had lately disturbed Ireland; and he was still more hostile to the cry which had been got up for the Repeal of the Union. But this should not betray him into any invective or personal attack. It was his fate, under Lord Grey's Government, in April, 1834, to have to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the same question; he considered it an honour to have been so trusted by the Ministers, under whom he then served, and he did not shrink from the task; but he would never make use of his privilege as a Peer to vilify and attack a man, who was absent, and who with all his faults, was the object of deep veneration to his countrymen. In saying these words in relation to Mr. O'Connell, their Lordships would readily believe, that it proceeded neither from gratitude for past, nor from hope of future favours. He owed no gratitude to Mr. O'Connell, for it was only last year that he went home and found that the learned Gentleman had denounced him as the long and ever-to-be enemy of his country. Some noble Lords might consider such denunciations as matters of trivial importance, but certainly they could not infer from them, that in what he had said in reprobation of the course of personal attacks made in that House on Mr. O'Connell, he could be influenced by any private bias. Another mode in which the people of Ireland were deeply insulted, was the mode in which the Irish appointments made by the late Government were received. Three gentlemen of high attainments, of great accomplishments and learning, and of unimpeachable character, were appointed to office, Mr. Sheil, Mr. M. O'Ferrall, and Mr. Wyse. The manner in which those appointments were received, created a greater movement than any measure short

887
of what the repeal of the Emancipation Bill could have done. What was done by the West Riding Reformation Society? If the Cabinet wished to inquire into that matter, let them ask the President of the Society, who was also President of the Council. The Conservative party had their agitators too, and they called for their fasts and prayers to ensure the safety of the land, because a Roman Catholic had been sworn in at the Privy Council Table. It might be alleged that Ministers had nothing to do with these proceedings, but if a great political party adopted the follies of their friends, above all if they profited by them, those faults and follies became their own, and they became responsible for them. His noble Friend (Lord Haddington) talked of equality of rights, and were pleased to say how desirable it would be to communicate them. He was glad to hear him, for there was joy over the repentance of a political sinner; he would willingly accept the repentance of any of the noble Lords opposite, and he trusted it would be for their temporal and spiritual benefit. But when he remembered the bill which was introduced for the purpose of restricting and limiting the Franchise in Ireland—when he recollected the manner in which that Bill was seized upon by party for the purposes of party—he could not but say that the people of Ireland had been made the victims to party warfare. The introduction of that most unwise bill caused an immense ferment amongst the masses of the people; but party purposes having been now served, he was glad that justice was about to be done, and the franchise extended. He need scarcely refer to the Irish Arms Bill; no doubt, the opposition it met with, was somewhat exaggerated; but that opposition it met with led to many important modifications of the measure. However, he did not think it tended to strengthen the confidence of the people in the Government. [The Earl of Haddington was understood to say that it was never intended to do so.] He was obliged to the noble Earl: but certainly he was rather surprised to hear the admission.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that he had been misunderstood: what he had said was, that the prolonged discussions were not occasioned by Ministers [No, no.] He assured noble Lords, upon his honour, that he had not meant to say, nor had he
888
said, that the Arms Bill was never intended to secure the confidence of the people of Ireland.
Lord Monteagle.—If he had not understood his noble Friend in another sense he would not have made the observations he did; he was incapable of misrepresenting any noble Lord, far less so old an acquaintance for the purposes of debate. The first question he had endeavoured to discuss, was that of confidence or no confidence between the present Government and the Irish people; and the next was, what were the causes of the admitted want of confidence? He had endeavoured to show that the whole course of policy of the present Government was adverse to the feelings and interests of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Ireland, and hence the want of confidence in their intentions as well as in their measures. With regard to the monster meetings, he was bound to admit, that he highly and entirely approved of the course Ministers had taken regarding them in the last Session; and he had frequently said so, although he had been twitted by his political friends as well as his political enemies (he would not call them enemies, but opponents) upon the subject. It had been stated, among other things, that if the present Government had possessed the resolution of their predecessors in 1831, they would have framed a Coercion Bill; but his answer had been that he doubted much whether a Coercion Bill would produce the benefit that some eager politicians expected from it. Neither a great nor even the little Coercion Bill (merely to change the venue on the recommendation of a noble and learned Lord) would do any permanent good in Ireland. To revert to the meetings, he would remark that he did not think that Ministers, by their long forbearance, barred themselves from proceeding at the proper opportunity. Nay, more, he thought the case was perfectly ripe for prosecution at the time proceedings were taken. He was of opinion that they had fixed upon the proper time, because the instant there was an open avowal by men—whether the object were legal or not he would not stop to inquire—but the instant there was an open avowal of a resolution to obtain an object by illegitimate means—the moment any party avowed and showed an intention to assume military organisation, all parties

889
were interested in putting it down, but none more so than that party which advocated the popular cause, because the abuse of popular opinions and popular rights was the thing which at all times and in all countries was fatal to popular liberty. Therefore he thought that the very instant the Proclamation calling for military organization was issued from the Corn Exchange, the Government was bound to proceed. He went further. He thought it would have been puerile to have allowed the substitution of one notice for another, of "groups" for "troops," "wardens" for "officers,' "meetings" for "muster," to have altered the intentions of Government. It would have been perfectly absurd and ludicrous. But, although he agreed so far with the Government in the course which they took; although he thought they were perfectly justified in prosecuting for the act—in prosecuting for the meeting so proposed to be held, he did not think that the Government, any more than an individual, were justified in standing by, seeing a long course of measures followed up day by day, week by week, month, by month, and then, at any particular time, prosecuting not only for that one act, which was the only act, but making an accumulative case by bringing together all the acts which they had allowed to pass unnoticed. He thought that would be unjust in private life; he thought it impolitic and unjust on the part of the Government. But then we had heard a charge made against the Government for their delay in issuing their Clontarf proclamation; or had also heard their justification; and he would now call their attention to that charge and to that justification. He should be the last man in the world to attribute to the present Government, or to any Government that ever could exist in a country like ours, that which nothing but falsehood and calumny could have conceived—an accusation that they delayed their proclamation with a view to allow the meeting to take place, and to put it down by force. It was an absurdity; he would not waste words upon it. But though free from one imputation, were they not subject to another, let us see how they issued this proclamation. It was clear that the proclamation only came out about three o'clock on Saturday, the meeting being intended to take place on the Sunday. It was clear, also, that part
890
of the charge—the gravamen of the charge against the monster meeting was, that the people were brought in great multitudes from great distances, from different quarters to attend this meeting. Well, it was asked, why not issue the proclamation sooner? The answer was given by the noble Lord the President of the Council. It was most inconclusive and most unsatisfactory. He said that the notice of the meeting appeared on Thursday, the 28th; that the military proclamation was issued on the 30th; that it reached London the 1st October, when Lord De Grey was sent for; that on Tuesday the decision of the Government was taken—to do what?—to refer the case to the law officers of the Crown; that it was not till Thursday, the 10th, that Lord De Grey set out for Ireland.—[The Duke of Wellington. That is not correct, but go on.] That on Friday he arrived there; that on that day the Privy Council met; and on Saturday the proclamation was issued. Now the question was, was there due dispatch—that dispatch which men of sense, such as the Members of the present Cabinet, men of decision—(he presumed there was no lack of decision or vigour among them) might have been expected to have used? Was that the mode in which the business ought to have been conducted? It has been said, that this proclamation was matter of very great nicety, that they had to adjust their words, as if it were a nice matter of special pleading, as if it required the greatest possible carefulness in drawing it up. Why, an intimation on the part of the Government that they objected to the meeting, and a simple prohibition was all that was wanting to carry their intentions into effect. Why was the delay from the 1st of October to the time of the meeting? Why was not a public intimation given on Friday, given, even if the proclamation did not appear till the following day? If the Government really wished to communicate to the public what their intentions upon the subject were, the slightest intimation, the insertion of a statement in any of the papers on Friday, that a proclamation would be issued on the Saturday, would have been sufficient to forewarn and to put every one on his guard. He confessed that when he heard the defence of the noble Lord it reminded him, by way of contrast, of great Parliamentary days—of a great and triumphant exhibition of Par-

891
liamentary talent, in which the unrivalled orator passing on in his rotation from day to day, had marked on every day the event which had occurred—it reminded him—but in the way of contrast—of a most splendid passage, in the speech of the great Statesman Mr. Canning, when he described proceedings taken under an exigency certainly somewhat more formidable than the meeting at Clontarf. Mr. Canning said, on the subject of the expedition to Portugal:—
"It was only last Friday (he spoke on the Tuesday) that the precise information arrived; on Saturday His Majesty's confidential servants came to their decision: on Sunday that decision received the sanction of His Majesty; on Monday it was communicated to Parliament; on this day Tuesday, and at the hour I am now addressing you, the troops are on their march."
Mr. Canning took no longer time for the purpose of taking a step which might have compromised the whole fate of Europe, putting his troops in actual motion, than the Government had taken in the issuing of their miserable proclamation. The noble Lord had only done justice to Mr. O'Connell in saying that he performed his duty in undertaking, as far as possible, to prevent the meeting. That conduct was wise and just. Then we came to the proceedings of the trial. He was no lawyer; and if he were, he should not presume to discuss this part of the question; but he must say that the Government had been the most unfortunate Government that ever were in the world. Such a number of things had happened which could not be defended, but of which we are required in charity to believe they knew nothing, and for which they implore us not to hold them responsible. They first had pitched upon an Attorney-general who had unfortunately made a speech before his appointment, in which he declared that Roman Catholics were not to be trusted on their oaths. Government knew nothing at all about it—a most unfortunate Government, that events alluded to in the public prints, and much dwelt on at the time, should have altogether escaped their notice. They then came to the question of the panel. Undoubtedly they were not responsible for the conduct of the Recorder if he did wrong; still less were they responsible for the Recorder's clerk if he did wrong; but still their evil fate attended
892
them, most unfortunately one sheet of the jury list was lost—a most unfortunate Government thus again to be held up to suspicion. Another most unfortunate contingency arose; the single sheet so lost by the unfortunate clerk acting under the Recorder is shown to be the sheet, and the only sheet in the whole jury list, which contained a larger number of Catholics and Protestants of adverse opinion than of Conservatives. But here their misfortunes were not over. They came next to the challenge of the jury. What I have hitherto alluded to were the acts of others, but I come now to their own acts, that is the acts of their officers, the challenge of the Roman Catholic jurors. [Lord Brougham: There was not one challenge.] My noble Friend undoubtedly has been kind enough to set me right. The jury were only set aside, it was the counsel that was challenged. The counsel was challenged, and that through the medium of a polite note conveyed by a policeman from the hands of the Attorney-general. He (Lord Monteagle), had not intended to mention this, but the correction of his noble Friend (Lord Brougham) had made it necessary to show how it was, that the word "challenge" was present to his mind. Then the officer set aside a man, a good, holy, Roman Catholic apostolic juror, mistaking him for a Protestant. He happened to be a Roman Catholic, and the Government incurred suspicion from their mistake. Then there came another mistake. They having been in possession of this list, they had found upon it the name of a certain Michael Dunn—a name which they were very familiar with in Ireland, and which was not a very popular name in any country. Mr. Dunn, a reasonable politician, was mistaken for another Michael Dunn, a Repealer; he suffered for the mistake—Dromio of Syracuse was mistaken for Dromio of Ephesus, and thus ended this memorable Comedy of Errors, represented in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, by Her Majesty's Servants. This was unfortunate; but he was bound to take the admission of the noble Lord the President of the Council, that notwithstanding this source of misfortune, nothing could be further from the intentions of Government than to have set aside any individual on the mere account of his religion. He thought that was right in collecting such to have been the opinions of all the Mem-

893
bers of the Cabinet. But was this the opinion of their friends and their supporters? Of this some evidence had been given on a former night. Was that the argument of the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden)? Noble Lords would remember that this debate went to Ireland, and let them take as evidence speeches which had been pronounced on their own side of the question. The act of excluding all Roman Catholics from the jury was justified, not by them, but on their behalf by their supporters, on the ground that it was very fitting that Roman Catholics in such a case should be set aside. The logic of the noble Earl was this:—Every Roman Catholic was a Repealer; this was a question which involved Repeal; therefore a Roman Catholic would not stand indifferent as sworn, and consequently he was rightly set aside. If such were the doctrine of the Government, or if it were avowed or defended by them, he could tell them that simple declaration would do more to destroy the peace of Ireland, than all the acts which Government had promised would effect to restore it. If there was one principle more necessary to enforce than another, it was the indiscriminate union of all classes in Ireland in the administration of the law. Without this, there would be no success nor confidence in the administration of the law. He would mention a case which happened during the Government of Lord Melbourne, as illustrative of this. It was a time of most violent tithe agitation and Repeal agitation. In some of the offences of that time a priest of the Roman Catholic Religion was implicated. The Crown prosecutor was resolved to prosecute. He was told "Beware; he is a priest; you will not obtain a conviction." He said, "I have a case for prosecution and conviction, and prosecute I will." He was then told, "Take care of your jury." He did take care of his jury. He took care, that so far from there being an exclusive jury, there was a jury upon which six Roman Catholics were to be found. He did not stop there. He gave his first brief for the prosecution to a Roman Catholic counsel, as leading counsel for the Crown. The prosecution of the Roman Catholic priest by a Roman Catholic advocate, before a jury composed half of Roman Catholics and half of Protestants, took place, the priest was convicted, and justice was done. He took the liberty of urging this, not to
894
convince those who he hoped required no argument on the subject, but to meet an observation which was made in a very different spirit. He wished to say a few words before he sat down, on the subject of the measures which Government announced. He thought they had been rightly described as good measures and in the right direction, although far from being large enough; and if he might venture to express anything in anticipation of opinions in Ireland, he doubted whether they would be considered quite large enough by those for whose benefit they were intended. But although he thought, that Opposition had its responsibilities as well as Government, he thought that the more urgent responsibility of Government might justify them in not proposing measures which exceeded their power of carrying into effect. But still, the principle involved in these measures was very important. The Commission of Landlord and Tenant undoubtedly involved matter of the greatest possible difficulty—of the greatest possible delicacy, and too much ought not, and must not, be expected of the Commission. In the relation of Landlord and Tenant there was a great deal arising not so much out of the law as unfortunately, out of the social condition of the country. A great deal, also, arose out of the actual physical state of the population. He was surprised at the omission of well considered and voluntary emigration. Though considering it delusive that emigration could be applied to the whole face of Ireland, he was convinced, that as a local or topical remedy, as the physicians called it, was, of all others, one which in some places must be resorted to. The estate which belonged to his noble Friend at the head of this Commission, exhibited a most beautiful example, that much might be done without an alteration of the law at all. He might speak on the subject, in the absence of the noble Lord, but he could speak of nothing which was not in the language of just and sincere eulogy. The mismanagement of that single estate before it had fallen into the hands of his noble Friend, had produced all the disturbances of 1822. There were forty square miles of ground occupied by the military, and all this was formerly caused by the disorganisation of one estate, which was now a model of tranquillity under the system of his noble Friend.

895
This showed, that a great deal might be done by an alteration of the system and by a good example. We were also promised a measure on the subject of the Franchise. When introduced he would discuss that measure in all sincerity and in all frankness, and without any unfair bias, but would take the liberty of throwing out for the consideration of Government that no measure could be effectual on the subject of the Franchise in Ireland which would leave the Franchise wholly dependent on the mere grant of a lease of the land. He considered the creation of a franchise formally of a higher amount, but an amount which was tested only by the occupation of land of a given value, to be essential to the freedom of election in Ireland, because so long as you left the franchise entirely dependent upon the lease granted by the landlords, you would at once give to the landlord the power of defeating the franchise, by withholding the lease, you would also do what was worse, you would interfere most materially with the proper mode of managing the estate—you would dispose the landlord, who might fear what he considered to be abuse of the franchise, but which he (Lord Monteagle) only considered its free exercise to refuse the lease which it might be otherwise his interest to give, rather than create a political interest against him. We were promised large measures on the subject of Education. Rejoicing at the promise he should take the liberty of calling the attention of Government to the recommendations of the commissioners with respect to agricultural education. Ireland had the finest soil in the world; she had an industrious people but a people who did not know how to apply their own resources to make their own land profitable. We had an admirable system in Dublin for the purpose of the instruction of teachers; it had been suggested most earnestly by the Commissioners to connect with the instruction of teachers in other matters, instruction in agriculture. He should most earnestly intreat the Government to give their attention to that. He rejoiced to think that they proposed to make some advance towards improving the condition of the Roman Catholic clergy. He hoped this might be received in a kindly spirit; he thought it ought to be so received. There was no possible objection that had ever been urged however unavailingly with respect to a state provision which
896
by possibility, could apply to this. There could be no clamour raised against the noble Lord in this country. He was in fact only doing in Ireland, that which had already been done in England. But it was in Ireland the change was most requisite. Therefore it was right in principle; but he hoped it would be carried much further. He believed that we should see, not only in Ireland, but in other parts of Europe, efforts made to acquire glebes in Ireland for the Roman Catholic clergy. There was another subject to which he would pray their attention. He had listened most anxiously to all that had fallen from the noble Lord, and had anticipated with the deepest solicitude an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to improve the present condition of the College of Maynooth. Against that, most necessary step, no plausible argument could be raised. You were not endowing the Roman Catholic Church, you were not adopting any new principle, you were only extending that which the wisdom of a Pitt, the advice of Burke, and the spirit of every Government since 1795 had sanctioned. But he would say even to those who had objected most strongly to the present condition of Maynooth, that if their arguments were correct and true, it behoved Government on other grounds—it was one of the most urgent and one of the most pressing duties of the Government—to give to Maynooth its proper character. You ought to make the establishment both useful and attractive in itself; you ought to make it intellectually attractive as well as attractive from the scale and system of the establishment, and you would have individuals of a higher class entering the Roman Catholic priesthood. You say that you are precluded, from the peculiar circumstances of the present grant, from taking any step in the direction of ameliorating their condition as clergymen, but you were only more bound on that very account, to take immediate steps in an enlarged and liberal spirit, for the improvement of Maynooth as a place of instruction. You would thus extirpate the weeds, and place in their stead the more wholesome seed. That was a matter which required the gravest and most attentive consideration, and was not to be abandoned because there might be a little opposition. It was a pressing matter, and on the same grounds on which noble Lords had taken

897
up this question, he humbly and earnestly entreated them, as an Irishman not wholly unfamiliar with the interests of the country, not to overlook this subject. He thanked their Lordships sincerely for the attention they had paid him, he was aware that he had occupied more of their time than he was entitled to do, but he had only endeavoured to discharge a duty which he felt he owed to his country and to himself.
The Earl of Ripon, then said, that he concurred in the expression of the noble Lord near him (Lord Wharncliffe), that he was glad the noble Marquess had brought before their Lordships this motion on Ireland, because it had given the Government a natural, a reasonable, and a fair opportunity of explaining to the House and the country the grounds on which their conduct proceeded in the administration of the affairs of Ireland, and because it had led to expressions of opinion from many noble Lords whose general views of policy were different from those adopted by the Government, that in many respects they had satisfactorily explained their conduct; and, that with respect to their prospective measures, they had proposed nothing but that which was in itself right. It was true, many of their Lordships would say they did not proceed far enough, according to their views; but they admitted that Her Majesty's Ministers were treading on sure ground—that, by the course they were taking, the interests of Ireland would be consulted, and that, in their view, many great benefits might be anticipated. He said, then, it was a great pleasure to those who were responsible for what had been done, and for what was proposed to be done, that in respect to the former, complete explanation had been given, and that against what it was proposed to effect no objection could be raised. He should have been content to rest the case of the Government on the speech of his noble Friend the President of the Council, but he thought he could not, with propriety, from some motives influencing himself, abstain from making a few observations on some of the topics that had been introduced into the debate. Not merely as a Minister of the Crown, but as being connected with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whose conduct had been impugned, he thought he might be excused for saying a few words with respect to his noble relative, and the course that had been pursued in imput-
898
ing blame individually to him. His noble Friend who introduced the question, amongst other comments which he made in a facetious tone, remarked, that it was not surprising that the people of Ireland placed no confidence in the present Administration, and argued that its composition was such, that Ireland could not be governed in a satisfactory manner, and he professed to maintain that position by saying that in the Government there were three Scotchmen and a half, and a number of Englishmen; but he could not discover a single Irishman except the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington). His noble Friend, no doubt, meant it as a joke, but it was a curious joke; because when his noble Friend supported Lord Grey's Government, he must have thought that Government was unable to manage Ireland, because no Irishman was a Member of that Government. He therefore supposed that that remark was rather a specimen of his noble Friend's good humour, than of his usual powers of reasoning. What had the right hon. Baronet done in the selection of the two persons on whom the Irish Government mainly rested—his noble relative as Lord Lieutenant, and another noble Lord, a Friend of his, as Chief Secretary? Now his noble Relative, he admitted, had strong feelings of party attachment. It happened that the question on which, of all others, his noble Relative's feelings were most keen from the moment he first took his seat in that House, and on which he differed from his friends and family, and from the majority of the party with which he acted, but on which he acted from conviction, was that of Catholic Emancipation. So that there was primâ facie evidence that the Lord Lieutenant's feelings were in favour of that portion of Her Majesty's subjects. He knew that his noble Relative acted on principles of justice, that he thought the measure was just and right, and that he gave it his constant and hearty support; and, therefore, he (Lord Ripon) said that the right hon. Baronet was right in supposing, as he did suppose, that he was a person who would administer the affairs of that country in an honest and just spirit. So with respect to his noble Friend the Chief Secretary. Their Lordships knew what his feelings and opinions were, what his conduct had been; they knew that he had all along been an eager, ardent, and devoted friend and supporter of that question. There was, therefore, no division in the Government of Ireland;

899
the Lord Lieutenant was not of one opinion and the Chief Secretary of another. And this he (Lord Ripon) undertook to say, that his noble Relative, in his administration of Irish Affairs, had determined neither to be bullied nor cajoled by any party, and he believed every one who knew his noble friend's character knew that he was quite capable of acting up to that principle. He believed it could be clearly shown that the assertion that Lord de Grey had departed from the principle he originally proposed to himself on going over to Ireland was totally without foundation. He did not mean to say that his noble Friend, any more than other men who possessed his powers, and had the means of dispensing high patronage, would command universal approbation. That was a hopeless attempt. He (the Earl of Ripon) knew something of the possession of patronage himself, and he did not like it; it was no desirable thing to have, because you were quite certain to offend more than you could oblige. But he would undertake to say, that, in the appointments his noble Relative had made, he was not justly liable to any of those imputations cast upon him. Those imputations—somewhat frivolous as they certainly were—if they meant anything, meant this, that Lord de Grey did deliberately abandon the principle upon which he undertook to conduct the government of Ireland, by appointing gentlemen who were unpopular in that country to offices of high honour, and who were known to have uniformly resisted the principle which his noble Friend avowed. Now, what were these appointments? Great stress had been laid upon the appointments of Baron Lefroy and Mr. Jackson, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) had said—how was it possible that the appointment of persons who were committed, as those gentlemen were, to particular opinions, could give satisfaction. No doubt Mr. Baron Lefroy was a man of strong opinions, and that he had expressed them openly in Parliament, and undoubtedly they were there as openly met. He (the Earl of Ripon) did not mean to say whether those opinions were right or wrong; he did not certainly agree with many of the opinions of that Gentleman; but he was a very good lawyer, as everybody said; he was an honest man; perfectly uncorrupt and incorruptible. Good God! was it to be said that such a man, because he entertained strong political opinions, was therefore an unfit man to
900
be appointed to a judicial seat? So with respect to Mr. Serjeant Jackson. What objection could there be to the appointment of that gentleman? His noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) said himself that he could produce no objection except that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a great opponent of the National Education scheme. Were they really come to such a pass as this, that it should be an objection to the advancement in his profession of any man, however eminent and great his talents, because he had opposed a system of National Education? Why, what was this but prescription? It was exclusion. Upon what pretence could his noble Friend set up such a ground to deprive a man of his fair prospects of attaining honour and emolument in his profession? Even his very opponents admitted that he was an excellent judge. And was it to be made matter of condemnation against the Lord Lieutenant, was it a ground of imputation against the Irish Government, almost sufficient, as it seemed to be considered, to justify their impeachment, that they had appointed an eminent lawyer, and a man of high moral character, to be a judge, who happened to have been an opponent to the scheme of National Education? He (the Earl of Ripon) had supported that scheme; he thought it a good one; and regretted that it should be opposed. But he believed that those who did oppose it were actuated by conscientious motives; and he certainly should regard it as persecution to set up such conduct as a perpetual bar to professional advancement. To exclude a man on account of any previous opinions he might have expressed from being advanced to any post of honour and emolument in his profession, and to make the appointment of such a man a matter of grave charge against the Government, was certainly somewhat inconsistent on the part of his noble Friend, who had been a Member of a Government which had proposed to raise to the seat of judgment an individual who had just been found guilty of conspiracy. Now, he (Lord Ripon) did not mean to say that those who offered a judgeship to that individual were to blame, because he did not wish to defend any person whom he respected by mere recrimination; but he did think that his noble Friend's zeal for finding fault had outrun the accuracy of his recollection. With respect to the case of Mr. Holt Waring, that gentleman, he (the Earl of Ripon) understood, had been a

901
most respectable man; he was possessed of a large fortune; he certainly entertained strong opinions, and moreover was an Orangeman. On one occasion, when it was necessary to renew the Commission of the Peace, that gentleman's name was omitted, on the ground of his having been an Orangeman; but that step was very distasteful to the gentlemen of the county; they represented to the Government that it was a harsh proceeding, and the result was, that he was restored by Lord Plunket to the Commission. A few years ago, both Houses of Parliament came to very strong resolutions upon the subject of Orange societies. He concurred most cordially in those resolutions. However those societies might have originated, he considered that they were calculated to do very little good, but might produce the greatest mischief. When Mr. Holt Waring knew of the resolutions of the two Houses of Parliament, he exercised the great influence which he possessed over his own tenants and over others, to induce an immediate compliance with the wishes of Parliament, for it was not a law, but merely a resolution; and the exertions of that gentleman were crowned with success. He did not know whether their Lordships recollected a letter which appeared at that time directed to the Orangemen of Ireland. He was not then aware who the author was, but he recollected having thought at the time that it was one of the most beautiful compositions that he had ever seen. It contained the best principles put forth in admirable language, and it inculcated the most dutiful attachment to the Crown, the utmost respect for the Parliament, and the most rigid obedience to the laws. It was in furtherance of the wishes expressed in that letter that the Rev. Holt Waring exerted himself so effectually on the occasion; and he would say that that instance of such ready, such willing, and such immediate compliance with the express wishes of Parliament, in a matter in which the peace of the country was concerned, should be, in his humble judgment, sufficient to wipe away from their recollection any blame which could possibly have been attached to him for the part which he had previously taken in carrying those institutions into active operation. He therefore considered it idle to say that to promote that rev. gentleman to an office of dignity, which though exalted in its nature produced him no emolument whatever, should be regarded as an insult to the Roman Catholics of Ire-
902
land. The rev. gentleman might have previously made use of strong language, but in exact proportion to the extent of his prejudices, to the strength of his feelings, and the warmth of his language on the subject, was his subsequent merit in subduing those feelings and prejudices, and in yielding immediate obedience to the wishes of the Legislature. He therefore considered that, under all the circumstances, the objections rested on the most futile ground on which it was ever attempted to prove that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had mal-administered the patronage of the Crown, or had directed it in a quarter offensive to the feelings of the great majority of the inhabitants of the country. He trusted he had said enough on that subject to set his noble Relative right in the opinion of their Lordships and of the country, and it must be a satisfaction to him (the Lord Lieutenant) to know, that no man had attempted to impute to him any want of honour, of good faith, or of uprightness of conduct. He had only to add, that his noble Relative had been most reluctantly induced to yield to the earnest solicitations of his friends in accepting the Viceroyalty, as they believed him to be a nobleman likely from his character and disposition to discharge the duties of the office beneficially to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. Having said so much upon that subject, he wished in the next place to offer a few remarks relative to the recent State Trials in Ireland. The speech of the noble Lord who last addressed the House was in his opinion a most complete acquittal of the Covernment from any charges that had been brought against them respecting the lateness of the period at which the final proceedings against the Repeal agitation had been commenced. The noble Lord said the Government had acted right in not commencing those proceedings at an earlier period—that they were right in proceeding at the time they did go on, and on those points he believed noble Lords opposite would admit there could not be a better judge or a higher authority than his noble Friend. The only part of the question which admitted of any doubt, was that arising from the lateness of the period at which the Proclamation had been issued; but noble Lords should recollect the number of days that had elapsed between the time at which the Government became aware of the issuing of the Proclamation from the Corn Exchange, referring to the marshalling of the

903
"Repeal Cavalry," and the suppression of the intended meeting. The period was, after all, only a few days, and if noble Lords took the trouble of examining into the matter, they would find it not longer than was absolutely necessary for the purpose. The noble Lord had drawn a contrast between the time which the late Government had taken to make preparations on a similar emergency, when Mr. Canning had fitted out the expedition to Portugal with such promptitude, and that which had been found necessary on the present occasion, and had spoken of the promptitude evinced by the predecessors of Her Majesty's present Ministers as a proof of their admirable general arrangements for the government of the country, and of their greater capacity to cope with urgent difficulties. It was certainly true, that on the occasion alluded to by the noble Lord, the intelligence did not reach this country until Friday, and that on the Tuesday following the troops were ready to embark; but his noble Friend appeared to have forgotten that all the arrangements in that instance were decided upon in London, whereas on the late occasion the communication had to be transmitted in the first instance from Dublin to London, and afterwards from London back again to Dublin. If the object to be attained were the prevention of a meeting at Hounslow-heath, or Blackheath, then the brief period which the noble Lord appeared to think only necessary in the case of the Clontarf meeting would have been quite sufficient for the execution of the intentions of the Government; but it should be recollected that in Ireland an alteration had been made in the wording of the advertisement from the Repeal Association arranging the order of the procession, which threw some doubt as to the course that ought to have been pursued on the part of the Executive, and which rendered a further communication with London necessary. The omission of the words "troops" and "cavalry" was of course mere nonsense, and did not alter the clear intelligible intention of those who had issued that proclamation; but still it might have made some difference with respect to the legal mode of dealing with the question, and some time, about a quarter of a day additional, was accordingly required for consultation before the Lord Lieutenant could leave London. Instead, therefore, of arriving in Dublin on Thursday, his Excellency was not able to reach that city until Friday, which was the day
904
that his noble Friend considered the Proclamation ought to have been issued. If, however, the two days necessarily interposed by the circumstance of the thing to be done be in Dublin, and not in London, be taken into consideration, it will appear, that the case of rapid decision and execution, in the case of the expedition to Lisbon in 1826, which his noble Friend has cited as a contrast, is in fact neither more nor less than a parallel. He understood his noble Friend to have stated that the Lord Lieutenant was not in London at all at the time; but that was a mistake, as his noble Relative had been in London since the preceding Sunday, though certainly in a state of ill-health, which almost incapacitated him from any bodily exertion whatever. Those, however, who were acquainted with the noble Earl, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and especially those who acted with him as his colleagues in office, had reason to know that notwithstanding his bodily suffering—and few persons had undergone more suffering than he had within the last few years—the vigour and energy of his mental powers had never deserted him, and, it was his (Lord Ripon's) opinion, never would desert him. With respect to the proceedings at the trial, it could not be supposed that he should offer any opinion, as he should plead his ignorance of any acquaintance with legal quibbles, but he could not avoid remarking that he thought, in all the points which had been raised during the legal proceedings, the decision had been, in every instance, in favour of the Attorney-general. It was not, therefore, likely that the Attorney-general had the character as a lawyer, which a noble Marquess on the opposite side of the House would attribute to him. [The Marquess of Normanby said, their complaint was, that Mr. Smith was not known to the Cabinet before his appointment.] The noble Marquess certainly said that Mr. Smith had never been heard of. [The Marquess of Normanby: I beg pardon, but it was your own colleague, the noble President of the Council, who used those words.] No, no. That would not do; what the noble Lord (the President of the Council) said was, that he never read a certain speech said to have been made by the Attorney-general. But he would ask, was it contended for on the other side that the Cabinet in England were bound to know the qualifications and characters of all the leading men at the Irish bar, before they received information on the subject from

905
the Lord Lieutenant? The Secretary of State for the Home Department, or, if they pleased, the First Lord of the Treasury, might be supposed to have perhaps some knowledge of the qualifications of such men; but to suppose that a Cabinet generally should be acquainted with the professional merits of a barrister of the Irish bar was really absurd, and was, he would venture to say, a knowledge of which no Cabinet that ever existed professed to have itself. But this he would say of the Attorney-general for Ireland, that he was a gentleman whose legal acquirements were universally acknowledged to be of a very high order, and he also found that Mr. Whiteside—one of the most powerful defenders of the traversers, and a man who, though his politics might not agree with those of the noble Marquess opposite, must have been possessed of the purest, the most honourable, and the most unsullied integrity, or else the traversers would not, it was to be supposed, have selected him,—he found that that Gentleman in his speech used these words:—
"The Attorney-general, in his statement of the case, performed his duty with great moderation, and, indeed, I must say, the counsel for the Crown have conducted this prosecution with great fairness and talent throughout."
He admitted that lawyers were sometimes in the habit of complimenting one another to an amusing extent, and he would confess he should look very suspiciously on such compliments; but still, he never knew any man of honour compliment another for great fairness and talent, if it could be justly said that he was devoid of either. He thought, therefore, that Mr. Whiteside's acknowledgement was a complete answer to what had fallen from the noble Marquess on the opposite side of the House. He would not then enter into the question of the formation of the jury or the omission of a certain sheet from the Recorder's list, but he would briefly observe, that it was now an undoubted fact, that that sheet had been lost by the carelessness of an officer of the Recorder's Court, who happened himself to be a Roman Catholic. Though it was somewhat suspicious, that a sheet should have been lost from a list for a parish in which there were a great number of Roman Catholics, still he thought they completely disposed of that suspicion, when they showed that the officer by whom the slip had been lost, was himself a Roman Catholic. And yet the Government,
906
who could not possibly have had anything to do with the matter, was accused of having offered an insult to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, on account of its having occurred. His noble Friend, who last addressed the House had, however, given their Lordships a specimen of the want of popularity that was likely to attach to a Government who opposed the Repeal agitation in Ireland, as he had told them that he was himself described as an enemy to his country, for the part which he had taken when a Member of a former Cabinet, in opposition to that question. Noble Lords, however, knew such a representation to be untrue, as they were aware of the sincere attachment which his noble Friend had always exhibited for the welfare of the country. They were aware of his being a most useful friend to that country, but the treatment which he had received showed that, when it suited a purpose to run a man down, whose opinions were the reverse of those from whom the calumny proceeded, how easy it was to load him with calumny, and to spatter him with their venom, because he had the manliness, the truth, and the justice to oppose what he believed to be the dangerous question of a Repeal of the Union. The noble Marquess had thrown out an imputation, that the jury lists so cut up might have been conveyed to the Castle of Dublin. ["No, No!"] There had been certainly something like that expression used; but, as the noble Marquess did not mean to say anything of the kind, he (Lord Ripon) would of course take no further notice of it. He would only say, that he could declare that he would not have raised his voice in defence of his noble Relative, as he had done that night, if he did not know it to be utterly impossible such an act could have taken place with his knowledge or connivance. He would ask noble Lords if they were satisfied of the principles on which the Government brought forward the beneficial measures which they intended to lay before Parliament, and if they thought those measures to be in the right direction, to be calculated to prove of service to Ireland, and to soothe angry feelings in that country, not to press them to disclose at once a full detail of all they had in contemplation. He did not pretend to know what might be the result of those measures, or what they might have in tranquillising Ireland, or satisfying the minds of the inhabitants. He for one would not permit himself to be too sanguine on those

907
points, as he knew no greater mistake that a Government could commit, than that of creating high expectations in the public mind of the consequences of measures which they wished to pass, and of the instantaneous good which those measures were likely to effect. They had seen many instances of such mistakes of late years, but, for his part, he would prefer waiting to witness the effects which were likely to follow from the measures now about being introduced before he expressed his conviction of their success. If those measures failed they could not help it. The Government would introduce them because they believed them right, and while that conviction remained upon their minds, they would continue to propose to Parliament every measure which they thought calculated to promote the best interests of the country.
The Lord Chancellor here retired, and the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Deputy-Speaker, took his seat on the Woolsack.
The noble Earl was proceeding to put the Motion, when
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to reply. He said he had delayed addressing their Lordships under the impression that the noble Lord who occupied the Woolsack, and who had just retired from the House, would speak on the question, and he had to express his surprise at what he supposed he should now term the determination of the Lord Chancellor not to give them the benefit of his opinion on the question before the House, an opinion which was of the more importance in consequence of the course which the noble Lord had adopted with respect to Ireland, when one of the leaders of the Opposition. It was then the habit of the noble Lord to speak frequently and strongly, he might say vehemently, on the subject of Ireland. Allusion had been made at the very commencement of this discussion to certain expressions of the noble Lord, the effect of which was still rankling in Ireland. It would have been curious to have heard how far he adhered to or qualified the opinions he then entertained; his present opinion had also been asked as to certain judicial proceedings in Dublin. But if his silence had been settled and was the result of predetermination, he would at once proceed to make some remarks upon the observations offered to their Lordships on the subject of the motion. It had been objected, that it was too doubtful in its terms, and the noble President of the Board of Control had reiterated that objection, whilst his noble Friend the
908
First Lord of the Admiralty repeated, that there was something so indefinite in the wording of the motion, that in his opinion, he (the Marquess of Normanby) must have had a previous intention to frame it as vaguely as possible. That expression had, also been used by another noble Friend of his (Lord Howden), and had since been retracted by that noble Lord, in consequence of his (the Marquess of Normanby's) assurance, that it was the only one he had ever intended to make, and that it had been previously shown to other noble Friends of his on that side of the House. He had framed his motion so that in his opinion it might be adopted by noble Lords even on the other side of the House, and he had been induced to put it in this form because of its importance, and further, for the reason that a committee of the whole House, was almost without precedent in this House. A motion like the present, which in general terms pledged to future enquiry was the only alternative, and upon it being carried, he should be prepared to propose to refer various portions of the subject to select committees. [Here the Lord Chancellor re-entered the House, and took his seat on the Woolsack amidst a little confusion, which rendered the noble Marquess inaudible. After a short pause the noble Marquess continued with much emphasis],—I certainly should not have risen but for an intimation which had been conveyed to me by a noble Baron, that the Lord Chancellor did not intend to address the House. That intimation was conveyed by a noble Baron who had been to the noble Lord's room to inform him that the House was awaiting his return in these terms, "he says he will not speak," and this was heard by all the noble Lords about me, and I am sure that so far from showing any intention to intrude upon the House, it will be admitted that it was not until I understood that no one else had anything to say that I rose to address your Lordships. I am not, it is true, much informed upon the regulations of the House, nor am I much versed in the forms of your Lordships' proceedings; but this I must observe,—that it is not competent to the noble Lord to address you after me, and that he must know that he has no means of speaking to the House upon this question hereafter. [Cries of "No, no!" "Yes, yes!" from both sides of the House.] I waited patiently until I found that no one else rose to speak, and the noble Duke opposite will bear me witness

909
that I have evinced no desire to intrude upon your Lordships. Yet now, when I rise under these circumstances to reply, I hear, "How can I get in a word now?" Why, I tell the noble Lord that he cannot—I say he cannot speak after me. [Cries of "Yes, yes!" and some confusion. If the noble Lord does so, I say it is contrary to all order and all precedent. ["Hear, hear," and "No, no."] I must say that if the noble Lord does persist in doing so, he will be taking a most unfair advantage of me, for I would not have exercised the privilege of reply but I understood that all the noble Lords opposite had concluded their remarks, and if, under such circumstances, the majority of the House think fit to allow the noble Lord to proceed, it will be in my mind a most unheard-of and unprecedented thing in this House. [Cries of "No! No! Order, order."]
Lord Kenyonrose to correct a mistake into which the noble Marquess had fallen with respect to the practice of the House. It was not by any means a fixed rule of the House to prevent noble Lords following after the Mover had spoken in reply. If the noble Marquess did not rightly understand the message delivered to him about the Lord Chancellor's intention, he has no right to feel disappointed at the consequences of his misunderstanding.
Marquess of Normanby: There was no misunderstanding; I appeal to the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale).
Lord Broughamrose to order. It did not he thought much signify how the matter went, for his noble Friend had not heard anything which could influence the remarks he might have to make. [Cries of "Order."] Well, he was speaking to order. [Lord Radnor: "No, no, Order!"] He did contend that he was speaking to order, and he entirely agreed with the noble Baron on the cross-bench (Lord Kenyon), that there was no rule of that House which gave an indefeasible right to the Mover of any Motion to close the debate finally. It was as well for their Lordships to meet such a new doctrine now whilst it might be met and confuted. There was no rule on the subject at all but the courtesy of the House, which certainly had given, and did give, the right of reply to the Mover of any Motion. That was, however, by no means a final right, and if he had heard it once he had heard it 100 times when noble Lords had spoken after the Movers had spoken in reply, and he himself had been rejoined upon under similar
910
circumstances by many of their Lordships in that House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that with the permission of the House he wished to explain something of his position to their Lordships. He had been sitting in his Court from ten o'clock that morning; from five o'clock until nine o'clock he had been waiting in that House during the address of the noble Earl. Under these circumstances, he had quitted their Lordships' House for the space of five minutes during the address of his noble Friend, and on his return he found the noble Marquess speaking. He had for his own part no desire to address their Lordships except for one reason, which was, that he wished to lay before the House some matter explanatory of his conduct in consequence of what had been said relative to it. However, he had been so nobly defended, so warmly vindicated by his noble Friends, that he never could forget the accusations which had been made against him, they had elicited such a flattering defence. He had been in expectation that some of his noble Friends would have spoken, in order to have got at some or any explanation of the opinions of the supporters of that Motion; but, as they had not done so, he would, for his part, rest satisfied with the decisive and triumphant arguments in refutation of the charges which had been made against him and the noble Lords with whom he acted.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that with respect to the facts of the case, he would only observe, that unless it had been brought to his ears by a noble Baron, that the noble Lord did not intend to speak, he would not have risen. He had been told that the noble Lord did not intend to speak, and had left altogether. When, therefore, the noble Lord who sat on the Woolsack was about to put the question, seeing that no other noble Lord rose, he had commenced to reply. But, however, as the noble Lord states the grounds why he now wishes to speak, I at once give way and reserve my reply to the conclusion of the debate. [Loud cries of "Question," "Order, order."]
The Lord Chancellorstating he did not now intend to speak, then proceeded to put the question, when
The Marquess of Normanbyamid considerable noise and disorder, rose and said, that he must appeal to their Lordships if ever there was a more unfair proceeding attempted to be committed. He had been addressing the House when his Lordship

911
entered, and had given way because he understood that the noble Lord wished to defend himself. He had that opportunity—
The Lord Chancellor: I must beg to set the noble Marquess right. He has quite misunderstood me. I said that I would not speak because I considered it unnecessary after the defence which had been made by my noble Friends.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, to return to my reply: He was stating to the House when interrupted, that he had purposely so framed his motion as that those might vote for it who did not participate in all the feelings with which he frankly confessed he had brought it forward. He did not conceal that it was because he did not think that the Government had acted upon those principles which the resolutions state as the only ones upon which Ireland ought to be governed, that he required the House to affirm these principles. It was, however, in substance, a motion for enquiry, and any noble Lord who thought that the state of Ireland was such as to demand Parliamentary enquiry might vote for his motion, protesting against adopting the inculpatory spirit in which he owned he himself pressed it upon the House. His noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had said, that he had offered no suggestion for the future. As to the past, his noble Friend had himself got confused as to the wings of the Emancipation Bill, but he thought his noble Friend's memory must have flown away even upon the one wing left to him, for he stated one by one the substantive propositions adopted at a meeting at Claremont House, at which the Duke of Leinster had presided, and he had stated, that every one of them was worthy of the attentive consideration of Parliament. He stated, that he looked for the future to an equalisation of religions. He stated, that the first step towards this would be to elevate the character of the Roman Catholic priesthood by every means in their power, and to remove from the hierarchy those disqualifications and degrading restrictions which the Catholic Relief Bill had imposed. The noble Lord opposite had stated, that it would be impossible to alter the proportion of the representation between the two countries—that it had been settled at the Union. Now he felt bound to say he did not admit of any such impossibility. He saw all the difficulties of the question, but as to its being settled at the Union, it had been unsettled then by the Reform Bill. An addition
912
meagre and unimportant it is true, had then been made, but still it was an alteration of the Act of Union. Besides in moving the Act, Mr. Pitt had stated that he could not give any satisfactory reason why he had fixed the number at a hundred. He would not now enter further into this question, but he wished to guard himself against acquiescing in the unalterable nature of that which was fixed on no principle, and had since been changed according to circumstances. The noble Lord who has just sat down, had remarked in answer to his observation, that there was not a single Member of this Government that had any connexion by birth with Ireland, except the noble Duke; that he had accepted office under Lord Grey's Government, who had no Irishmen amongst their ranks. In the first place he had no connexion with Lord Grey's general Government, or responsibility for their domestic policy. It is true, he accepted an important colonial appointment under Lord Grey, but he would have been rather surprised if he had gone to him and said, "True, you offer me a prospect I much desire, of ameliorating the condition, if not of entirely changing, the lot of the negro slave—but you have not got an Irishman in your Government." But neither was that the fact. Was there not my noble Friend near me (Lord Lansdowne), the representative of the Fitzmaurices? But compare the present Government with that to which he really did belong, the Government of Lord Melbourne—besides my hon. Friend just mentioned, there were Lord Besborough, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Spring Rice. As to the appointment of Lord Eliot, it was, he must say, most extraordinary; but stranger still were the grounds on which it had been recommended, for it had been stated as one cause of his selection, that he had been opposed to the policy of the Government, and had acted in opposition to the measures introduced by the Administration of which he was appointed a Member. His noble Friend had said, it was rather hard that he should object to the advancement of Messrs. Lefroy and Jackson because of their strong leaning in politics. Now, it was not he who had originated that objection to Mr. Lefroy, for when the noble Duke was at the head of affairs, and Sir R. Peel Home Secretary, the Irish Administration under the Duke of Northumberland had prevented Mr. Serjeant Lefroy from going circuit as judge, because of the strong terms which he used with reference to Catholic Emancipation. If the

913
noble Lord did not know that, he had only given another instance of the general ignorance on Irish matters of which he (the Marquess of Normanby) complained. Of Mr. Serjeant Jackson, he had spoken in more qualified terms, but he did not think it judicious—to say the least of it—to place that person on the judicial bench, who was an inveterate opposer of the Education system and of some of the measures of Government. With respect to patronage his noble Friend opposite said, "How can you expect us to appoint people to places who oppose us?" Be that as it might, what would they say to the Church appointments? Was it to be wondered at that the Irish people should look with distrust upon the present Government when they saw all the Church patronage bestowed upon their constant opponents? As to the Attorney-general, he would say no more of him. His noble Friend said that he never had heard of him before his appointment and thus further exhibited that want of information upon Irish affairs to which he had before alluded; but he was content to pass the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney-general), for he had heard too much of him already. With respect to the defence made for the proceedings which occurred at the suppression of the monster-meetings, and of the time chosen for it, he was not at all satisfied. He could not at all make out how his noble Friends opposite were justified in allowing ten or twenty meetings to take place, and then in saying, "If we had allowed the 21st to take place, we should have deserved impeachment at the Bar of this House." If these meetings were seditious, they should have been proceeded against as such. Mr. O'Connell had, said his noble Friend, announced seven more meetings. That fact could have nothing to do with their legality or illegality. Now as to the first programme of the Clontarf demonstration; he must be allowed to say that, if it really meant a military array and organization, there was no character (and he said it with great respect for those gentlemen) in which the Dublin tradesmen could be less formidable than as "mounted cavalry." In the late trials, there was one of the traversers, now no more, who, if he might judge from his previous character, was of all men the least likely to engage in any course of action calculated to be injurious to his fellow-countrymen, or in any respect likely to disturb the public peace. He was a man of whom he knew something, as a most active
914
promoter of charitable institutions in Dublin; and he had every reason to believe that to the exertions of that individual the safety of Dublin was in a great measure owing on the day which followed that appointed for the Clontarf meeting. His noble Friend opposite said that the tendency of the present motion was to embarrass the Government. This was an assertion very easily made, when the condition of the Government was such as to make it inconvenient that a motion of this kind should be made. But surely it was not his fault that such a motion should be inconvenient—it was not his fault that the Government were in their present condition. Then he was told that the present motion was ill-timed; but that was the old answer given on all similar occasions. The fact was, that whenever a subject happened to be intensely interesting, there prevailed a habit of saying that any motion made respescting it was ill-timed. He unequivocally denied that his motion was ill-timed; and, on the contrary, he contended that nothing could be so well calculated to tranquillize Ireland, as a disposition shown on the part of that House to adopt the principles embodied in his motion. But, though this motion might have the effect of embarrassing the Government, he certainly did not bring it forward with any such intention. Neither was he guilty of that which had been imputed to him by the noble Earl opposite—namely, the offence of taking for granted that every one approved of his (Lord Normanby's) Government in Ireland. He had said nothing of the sort, and if ever a speech were free from a charge of that nature, he should take the liberty of saying, that that with which he had opened the present debate might be considered to have come within such a description. But then the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden) had made the most astounding declaration, but with all respect for the noble Earl, it was met by the House in a way which prevented the necessity of giving it much serious notice. It had by him been said that the country was now reaping the fruits of that wholesale discharge of prisoners of which he had been accused. Let it be remembered that they were now in the year 1844, and that the event in question took place in the year 1836; that after that event he remained three years in Ireland, and that it was found that very few of the prisoners so discharged had ever been recommitted. On that occasion he had tried an experiment. He

915
had not repeated that experiment, and he had no intention of repeating it; but it was idle at a moment like the present to say that the country was reaping the fruits of what he had then done. Whatever might have been the opinion of a majority of the House then as to the policy of his conduct in that respect as establishing a precedent, it was never pretended by any one that it had had a mischievous effect. Why, their Lordships were three years in finding out that it had happened at all; and after five years more, that the noble Earl should now say, that they were suffering from the effects of it, does really shew that however fair the disposition, or clear the intellect of a person, if he has once been a Grand Master of Orangemen he does view some subjects through a mist of prejudice which is quite impenetrable. It was not a singular case, however, for in the year 1823, during Lord Wellesley's administration in Ireland, that noble Lord had not less than 2,600 petitions presented to him by prisoners in confinement for offences, and of those he had, as stated by Mr. Peel in the House of Commons, remitted 400 capital punishments. In his own instance, the number of petitions had been 1,600, and those remitted on his tours were all lighter offences. In respect of dismissals from the magistracy there had been but one during his time, namely, that of Colonel Verner. That gentleman was in the Commission in a part of the country where the population was pretty equally balanced as to religious persuasion, and it had been deemed always a great object to have in the magistracy impartial men, and men uninfluenced by religious distinction. The cause of dismissal was a toast he drank at a dinner of a very decided political character, and, as he thought, dangerous in the recollections it might excite. It was, "The Battle of the Diamond." He had sought an explanation from this gallant colonel—anything, indeed, would have satisfied him; but the reply of Colonel Verner was such that he could not help recommending to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to remove his name from the list. Some observations of a noble Friend (Lord Howden) he felt he ought to reply to, but he would prefer making them in his presence, and therefore he would wait for a few minutes. [Lord Howden here entered the House.] His noble Friend had begun by stating that he spoke in perfect good humour. He was not aware of the necessity of such a declaration, as he could not conceive any possible
916
reason why it should not exist; but it was with a desire to reciprocate the same spirit that he cautioned my noble Friend not to be too much elated by the reception his speech had met with. Whatever might be his merits as a speaker, and he rendered a willing tribute to them—to his graces of delivery, and his pleasant mode of expression, yet he might believe one who had had considerable longer experience of such assemblies, nothing meets at first with such ready applause as very smart and apparently (though of course not in spirit), bitter things, said against those with whom one is supposed usually to have agreed. He had reason to think he knew, his noble Friend would admit, what his opinion had been on Ireland, and Irish Governments. His noble Friend was very anxious to address the House, and he owned with all due respect for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Westmeath), he was on his noble Friend's side—he preferred the anticipation of listening to him. But having heard his noble Friend, he must say he could not conceive why he pressed forward, for any speech more guiltless of any allusion to anything which occurred in debate, he never heard; and therefore it seemed little to signify at what period it was delivered. It was surely hardly worthy of his noble Friend, and of that reputation which he was sure to earn in this House on such an occasion, to revive and rake up the recollection of some alliterative abuse used by Mr. O'Connell towards Lord Grey's Government. His noble Friend stated, that he had had no intention of alluding to the Repeal of the Union, unless he had mentioned it. And then his noble Friend favoured them with a Latin quotation for which they ought to be thankful.
"Magnaque numinibus vota exaudita malignis."
[Lord Howden: I thought it applicable.] It might be so, it was rather trite, but as he just said, such being rare now, it was welcome. Then if his noble Friend accused them of borrowing their grievances from Mr. O'Connell, he thought he must allow him to say, that he borrows his figure of speech from him,—
"First flower of the earth; first gem of the sea."
[Lord Howden: I altered it: that was not so.] He admitted his noble Friend altered it—he said "Not fifty years would roll over their shores before the boasted flower of the earth would be plucked by

917
some unfriendly hand, and the gem of the sea would be set in the crown of a stranger." He was good enough to speculate upon the period of gestation of his resolution. He set him right upon that subject, and therefore would not speculate upon the gestation of his peroration, but he must forgive him if he thought there must have been some little labour of the fingers before that "gem" was so carefully reset "in the crown of a stranger." Another noble Friend had also referred to the fact that the office of Master of the Rolls had been offered to Mr. O'Connell. Now, with respect to that offer, he (Lord Normanby) never saw any thing to occasion the least feeling of regret, except that Mr. O'Connell had declined to take the office. He was sure this House would agree with him, when he said that there was a wide distinction between appointing a political partizan to a judgeship, where he might be called on to administer the criminal law, and the appointment of the same individual to the bench of a Court of Equity. On the occasion to which he was then referring, he had some communication with his much esteemed Friend the late Sir M. O'Loghlen, That right hon. Baronet expressed his perfect readiness to take the office of Chief Baron, in order to place the Mastership of the Rolls at the disposal of the Government. He (Lord Normanby) sent for Mr. O'Connell and made to him the offer of that seat on the Bench which he had just mentioned. Mr. O'Connell expressed his gratitude, and said that he had no wish to accept any office, but that if he were to receive any appointment whatever, none could be more agreeable to his feelings than that of Master of the Rolls. And now he should conclude the remarks which he had to make on this part of the subject by saying, again, that he equally regretted that one so eminently qualified to fill the office of Master of the Rolls had not then accepted it—if he had, the effect upon the feelings of the Irish people, would, he believed, have been excellent, and a great deal that was most painful in the history of Ireland since that period might have been avoided. But, leaving the subject, he had to state to their Lordships, on behalf of his noble Friend the Marquess of Anglesea, that nothing but extreme suffering, which had obliged him to leave the House, and precluded the possibility of his addressing them, prevented his stating, in person, to their Lordships how cordially he approved of the motion—how cordially he concurred on every
918
Irish question with the late Government. With respect to the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant, he (Lord Normanby) had always thought the situation an anomalous one; but though he should wish to see it abolished, as the consequence and the consummation of the establishment of practical equality; yet, until the people there had greater confidence in the stability and sincerity of the Government, he thought it would be too soon to take from them that practical protection which he thought they derived from the presence of the Queen's representative. In conclusion, he had only to say he wished he could entertain a doubt as to the issue of this motion. As to the ultimate result, they had only to look back to the history of their own lives to be sure that unless impeded (which might God forbid) by any outbreak or civil war, that result could not be doubtful. In that alternative, the ultimate result for the interest and character, even of the victor, it was also impossible not to see. But he would banish that idea as impossible, and say that if that House, by removing just cause of complaint, did not stop the course of discontent, who that looked back to the history of the last twenty years could doubt that through the continued influence of peaceful agitation, the result must be large concessions to popular principles in Ireland. The question was one only of time. It might be postponed by the conduct of that House and of the Government. It might afford another of those lamentable instances of tardy, and therefore ungracious concessions; but come it must, as certainly as that he was there addressing their Lordships. Then, said the noble Marquess, that upon you (the Opposition) it devolved to calm the passions of the Irish people, and to induce them to await with hope that which, if they will so await, they must ultimately obtain; and meanwhile (addressing the Government party) upon you be all the responsibility of the present dangers.
Lord Brougham, rising amidst loud cries of "Question," said, he only wished to remind their Lordships of the very extraordinary position in which they were placed. He had opposed the motion for the adjournment on Tuesday night, holding it to be totally unnecessary to adjourn, and that their Lordships might have sat on and finished the debate that night; and so it turned out, because they were now told that a noble Marquess, for whom he (Lord Brougham) would have made any sacrifice, and set all night rather than put to incon-

919
venience, was not able, from ill-health, to come down, as he otherwise would have done. Then his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), who, in the ordinary course of Parliamentary usage, ought to have begun the debate, having moved the adjournment on the last night the House sat, had not made any speech, for which he must say he (Lord Brougham) was not at all sorry. This showed the folly and mischief of adjournments of debates.
Lord Campbell: The speech of my noble and learned Friend is quite irregular. But I am not surprised at that, because all his proceedings in this House are quite irregular. My Lords, my object in moving the adjournment was, that I thought he would have spoken, and then I should have followed him. My Lords, I may be pardoned for thinking that he would have spoken, for this, I believe, my Lords, is the only debate of importance, that I can remember, in which he has not spoken at least seven times. I expected also that we should have heard the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. My Lords, a grave attack has been made on the legality of the principles which were applied to the conduct of the late trial; yet my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has not opened his mouth. He has spoken neither by himself nor by his counsel. [Loud laughter, arising from the circumstance that Lord Brougham was sitting on the Woolsack and conversing with the Lord Chancellor at the time.] My noble and learned Friend has, as the lawyers call it, let judgment go by nil dicit. My other noble and learned Friend says, that he is not sorry that I have not spoken. I believe he is not sorry when I am silent; but I will not be deterred by fear of him from expressing my opinions when I think fit, and whenever he shall put forward the principles to which he has attached himself, and which I condemn; for he has departed from those principles for which I once admired and concurred with him. I say, whenever he does bring forward those principles, I shall think it my duty to bring forward those which he once advocated, and oppose those which he now adopts.
Lord Brougham: My Lords, I have been charged with irregularity. Any thing more grossly unfounded in point of fact than that charge, I have never happened to have heard even from my noble and learned Friend. My Lords, I had a perfect right to address your Lordships in the course of this debate. The rule of
920
Parliament—of both Houses of Parliament, and I have sat longer in both houses of Parliament than my noble and learned Friend—is, that every Member has a right to speak in the course of a debate. My Lords, I had not spoken in this debate, and I had a right to address your Lordships, as I did; and after the noble Marquess had taken his seat after a speech in reply, which the courtesy of the House alone gave him the title to, I had a right to have risen and addressed myself to the subject before your Lordships. That right which I, as a Peer of Parliament, have, no taunt of ignorance—no taunt of ignorant new Members of Parliament, who do not know the A B C of Parliamentary regulations, who show an ignorance so gross that I should not have thought it possible for any person to have shown the like of it on any subject—my Lords, I will not be deterred from the exercise of my undoubted right, as a Peer of Parliament, by the taunts of such ignorance; but, my Lords, I confess that, in a second time addressing your Lordships, I am out of the strict rule of your Lordships' House; but is that an unusual course in Parliament? Is it not, on the contrary, usual in both Houses of Parliament to allow a departure from the strict rule in favour of an individual Member who finds himself unexpectedly charged with an offence? That, my Lords, is my ground for imploring the indulgence of your Lordships; and now glad and happy am I to find, for the first time, that charge produced in this House, when I can meet it face to face—the vile, the false charge—the foul imputation that I have changed my political principles, when I quitted that party of which as a party man for so many years—to my no great advantage—to their no great advantage, perhaps—I was the zealous, the constant, the unflinching, the untiring supporter. My Lords, I have not changed my principles; but I was compelled to change my relations with them when they parted with the principles which we had held in common, as I again and again took occasion to tell them when I was sitting by them on the other side of the House, without ever receiving the shadow of a pretext of any answer. My Lords, I deny the charge. I defy any man to prove it; and I will speedily, now that I am charged by my noble and learned Friend, give him an opportunity of substantiating his charge, since he has been chosen as the most powerful, the best informed, the most judicious, the

921
most discreet, the most experienced antagonist against me whom they could call out from among them and find in all their ranks,—I will give them an opportunity of showing—I think I shall be able to do so—if they can, that I have departed from any one political principle that ever I advocated at any one period of my life. That challenge is a large one, my Lords; but I throw down that challenge with the most absolute and undoubted confidence that I must prevail.
Lord Campbell: My Lords, I will not detain the House any long time. My noble and learned Friend, as I shall still call him, has said that he will give me an opportunity of entering on these topics. It may happen, perhaps, that he may show that those to whom he now attaches himself have all changed their opinions and adopted the opinions he once held and advocated. Whether they or he have changed, it is not now the opportunity for me to discuss, but I shall be ready to do so at a fitting opportunity.
The Lord Chancellorbegged the indulgence of their Lordships while he made some observations on what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell). The noble and learned Lord had said, that a grave charge had been brought against the Government with respect to the conduct of the trial in Dublin. He (the Lord Chancellor) had heard no such charge from any noble Lord who was a lawyer, and with respect to the charges made by persons who were not lawyers, he considered that those charges were satisfactorily answered by his noble Friend the President of the Council (Lord Wharncliffe), and his noble Friend the President of the Board of Control (the Earl of Ripon); for that reason, and having been absent at the moment, he had not been disposed to trouble their Lordships with any remarks on the subject.
The House then divided, Content, Present, 39; Proxies, 39: Total 78.—Not Content, Present, 79: Proxies, 96; Total, 175:—Majority 97.

List of the CONTENTS.

MARQUESSES.

Fortescue

Conyngham

Minto

Lansdowne

Morley

Normanby

Radnor

EARLS.

Scarborough

Auckland

Yarborough

Clarendon

Zetland

Errol

VISCOUNTS.

Fitzwilliam

Melbourne

922

Ponsonby

Hatherton

Torrington

Leigh

BARONS.

Lilford

Beaumont

Monteagle

Camoys

Montford

Campbell

Sudeley

Carrington

Suffield

Colborne

Teynham

Cottenham

Vivian

Dinorben

BISHOPS.

Dormer

Ely

Foley

Hereford

Glenelg

Norwich

Proxies.

DUKES.

Lichfield

Bedford

Roseberry

Devonshire

Spencer

Leinster

Stair

Norfolk

Suffolk

MARQUESS.

BISHOP.

Headfort

Durham

EARLS.

BARONS.

Besborough

Bateman

Bruce

Berners

Burlington

Crewe

Camperdown

Godolphin

Carlisle

Lovat

Charlemont

Methuen

Cowper

Mostyn

Cork

Poltimore

Effingham

Portman

Fingal

Rossmore

Fitzhardinge

Say and Sele

Gainsborough

Stanley of Alderley

Gosford

Stewart de Decies

Ilchester

Vaux

List of the NOT-CONTENTS

Lord Chancellor

Eglintoun

DUKES.

Enniskillen

Buccleuch

Haddington

Buckingham

Hardwicke

Cambridge

Jersey

Marlborough

Longford

Montrose

Lucan

Richmond

Orkney

Wellington

Ripon

MARQUESSES

Roden

Bute

Rosslyn

Camden

Sandwich

Cholmondeley

Shaftesbury

Exeter

Somers

Salisbury

St. Germans

Westmeath

Verulam

Winchester

Wilton

EARLS.

VISCOUNTS.

Aberdeen

Beresford

Aylesford

Canning

Bathurst

Gage

Caledon

Hawarden

Clanwilliam

Hood

Dalhousie

Lake

Digby

Lorton

Delawarr

Lowther

Devon

Massareene

Dunmore

Middleton

923

Strangford

De Roos

Sydney

De Lisle

BISHOPS.

Feversham

Exeter

Howden

Llandaff

Kenyon

Rochester

Prudhoe

BARONS.

Polwarth

Blayney

Rodney

Braybrooke

Redesdale

Brougham

Rivers

Bexley

St. John

Boston

Sinclair

Carteret

Southampton

Colchester

Wharncliffe

Colville

Proxies.

DUKES.

Mayo

Beaufort

Mt. Edgecombe

Northumberland

Onslow

Portland

Orford

MARQUESSES.

Powis

Bristol

Ranfurly

Donegal

Sheffield

Downshire

VISCOUNTS.

Ely

Arbuthnot

Hertford

Canterbury

Ormonde

Combermere

Thomond

De Vesci

Tweeddale

Exmouth

Waterford

Melville

EARLS.

Sidmouth

Abingdon

Strathallan

Airlie

BISHOP.

Balcarres

Gloucester

Buckinghamshire

LORDS.

Ferrers

Alvanley

Galloway

Ashburton

Glasgow

Berwick

Home

Bayning

Leven

Bagot

Macclesfield

Clinton

Morton

Carbery

Pembroke

Clonbrock

Poulett

Crofton

Seafield

Castlemaine

Selkirk

Cowley

Stamford

Dynevor

Warwick

Dunsany

Westmorland

Delamere

Amherst

Downes

Bandon

Ellenborough

Beauchamp

Farnham

Brownlow

Grantley

Cawdor

Glenlyon

Courtoun

Gifford

Charleville

Harris

Clancarty

Heytesbury

Donoughmore

Northwick

De Grey

Rollo

Dunraven

Ravensworth

Eldon

Seaton

Falmouth

Saltoun

Glengall

Sandys

Harewood

Stuart de Rothesay

Harrowby

Skelmersdale

Howe

Wynford

Limerick

Wodehouse

924

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Duke of Somerset

Marquess of Aylesbury

Marquess of Anglesey

Earl of Essex

Marquess of Westminster

Earl O'Neil

Duke of Leeds

Lord Forester

Earl of Belfast

Lord Churchill

Marquess of Clanricarde

Earl of Clare

Earl of Lovelace

Earl of Beverley

Earl of Thanet

Viscount St. Vincent

Lord Wenlock

Earl of Dartmouth

Lord Furnival

Lord Keane

Lord Stourton

Bishop of London

Lord De Mauley

Earl of Malmesbury

Lord Belhaven

Earl of Lauderdale

House adjourned.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals:—
"DISSENTIENT—
"Because the military occupation of one-third of the United Kingdom, avowedly on the ground of the general discontent of the people, is a state of things which calls for the immediate attention of that Parliament to which are entrusted the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
"Because those discontents are not confined to that portion of the Irish people who advocate the Repeal of the Union, nor even to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects alone. The grievances of their country are felt strongly and stated distinctly by some—the highest in rank and most influential in position—of the residents in Ireland of all religious persuasions.
"Because the attempt to govern a country possessing the framework of free institutions through the exclusive influence of a small minority, never did and never can succeed.
"Because no satisfactory explanation has been given of the vacillation and subsequent rashness shown by the Government in dealing with the present agitation in Ireland.
"Because the recent legal proceedings have been conducted in a manner to deprive them of that weight in public opinion which belongs to the due administration of justice.
"Because the measures announced by Her Majesty's Government, even if admitted to be in the right direction, are utterly inadequate to meet the legitimate wants of the Irish people.
"Because under the system pursued during the first four years of Her Majesty's reign, the value of property in Ireland had increased, in consequence of the tranquillity produced by confidence in the impartial administration of the laws. Since then, Ireland has become the chief difficulty of the Executive, and for this reason, that those who, as legislators, had previously impeded the full extension of equal

925
laws, have since, in the conduct of the Government, neglected to secure to that people the practical enjoyment of equal rights.

"NORMANBY,

"CLARENDON,

"CAMPBELL,

"MONTEAGLE (of Brandon), for second, third, and sixth reasons,

"DINORBEN,

"COLBORNE,

"FORTESCUE,

"AUCKLAND,

"LANSDOWNE, for second, third, and sixth reasons,

"LILFORD, for second, third, and sixth reasons,

"FOLEY,

"CAMOYS,

"SUFFIELD,

"BEAUMONT, for sixth reason.

"RADNOR, for sixth reason,

"SCARBOROUGH,

"TEYNHAM, for first and sixth reasons,

"VIVIAN, for second, third, fourth, and sixth reasons,

"YARBOROUGH."