Sitting of 11 April 1848

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Bewdley, v. Thomas James Ireland, Esq., void Election.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Exchequer Bills (17,946,500 l.); Qualification of Members.
Reported.—Law of Entail (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. John O'Connell, from an immense number of Places in Ireland (359 Petitions), for the Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Mr. Burroughes, from Norfolk, and Admiral Gordon, from Aberdeen, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. A. Matheson, from Forres (Scotland), for Revision of the Stamp Duties.—By Mr. H. Russell, from Members of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, of several Places, for the Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Colonel K. Tynte, from Bridgwater, against the Crown and Government Security Bill.—By Mr. Burroughes, from Norfolk, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Mr. Devereux, from Wexford, against the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)—By Viscount Drumlanrig, from Dumfries, for the Improvement of Parochial Schools (Scotland).—By Alderman Copeland, from North Staffordshire, and Mr. Divert, from Devonshire, for Alteration of the Public Health Bill.

CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
On the question that the Speaker leave the chair, for the House to go into Committee on the Crown and Government Security Bill,
MR. F. O'CONNOR said, he had already stated his intention, upon the introduction of this Bill, to give it all the opposition which the forms of the House would permit, and, in pursuance of that notice, he now rose to meet it in its presant stage.

153
He had already presented a petition, signed by thousands of the people of this metropolis, against the Bill, and he knew very well that if time were afforded to the country at large to express an opinion upon it, the table of the House would be covered with similar petitions. And although it bad been stated by some hon. Members that it was their intention to look for some modifications, and to propose some alterations of this Bill, he looked upon it as so unconstitutional in its principle, that he should give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it in every stage. It was notorious that for many years the principles of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had been acted upon by the present Government, namely, that of centralising all power within the House of Commons; and the effect of the centralisation of that power within the House of Commons was to destroy the influence of public meetings, public writings, and public speaking outside of the House of Commons. They were perfectly aware that in Spain, for instance, where the elective franchise was limited to about 96,000 of the population —which was very large—the country was continually in a state of convulsion; and the émeutes which had taken place in France were the result of a similar cause. Those émeutes were concocted in secret clubs and societies, and revolution burst upon the kingdom before there was any public intimation of it. And such must be the state of things in this country, if the free expression of public opinion were put down. Since the days of the Reform Bill, the system of centralisation of power within that House, and the virtual suppression of the public voice there, had progressed at a rapid rate. And if he needed any illustration of the deplorable effects of such attempts to drown the popular voice, he would ask them to look to America, which they had forfeited by their oppression. The people of America presented petitions to that House; their remonstrances were not listened to; and they had recourse at last to the principle contained in the apothegm of the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, namely, that moral power was but a shadow, and that physical force was a substance. America, then, was lost; and from the news which he had recently received from Canada, that country also would be lost unless they consented to yield to the
154
Canadians their just political rights. Canada rebelled, and Canada obtained its Parliament. Well, then, when they saw these things—when they saw that, contrary to the promise made at the time of the Reform Bill, that this country should be governed by local institutions, all power was being centralised in that House—he called upon the really patriotic men on both sides of the House to resist this measure, which would consign to the care of the Attorney General the judges and juries of the land, and to heavy penalties every man of capacity and mind who should hereafter, by writing or speaking, agitate for popular rights. Was it not notorious that we were progressing in manufacturing and mechanical improvements beyond any other country in the world? By means of the electric telegraph, railroad travelling, penny postage, and other improvements, we were enabled to take a stand pre-eminently above all other nations; and was it right that the new and active genius which those improvements had created in this country should be opposed by retrogressive legislation such as this? Was it right that the progress out of that House should be met by an unconstitutional "base, brutal, and bloody" Bill within? He could call it by no other name. What was this but a Coercion Bill against the free interchange of mind amongst the people of England? If it passed, then would that freedom of expression of opinion which was the boast of England be changed into slavery, and the free voice of England be changed into muteness. We should then be placed under the ban and control of the Attorney General—who ought to be Prime Minister. He meant no insult to the hon. and learned Gentleman who now filled the office of Attorney General, whose talent, sagacity, and clemency, he might say, entitled him to the highest admiration. His remarks applied to the office itself; for, under the new law, the Attorney General would have the power of a Prime Minister. But he was not willing to surrender his rights, nor the rights of any class in this country, to the system to be created under such a Bill as this. Again, he repeated that if such a Bill as this had been introduced into the House when the noble Lord now at the head of the Government was on the Opposition side of the House, the blood of a Russell would have been roused into madness to think that the law under which his ancestors suffered was about to be re-

155
enacted in the present age. They had had ample proof from the history of yesterday's proceedings, as stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) himself, that there was no necessity for this Bill. They had ample proof that the loyal Orangemen of Ireland did not ask for such a Bill as this. Above all, he protested against the unconstitutional attempt of the Government to tack itself to the Crown by bringing in a Bill for the better security of the Crown and Government. If this Bill were passed, then the Government would be able to perpetuate itself in office. He would tell them candidly that he did not attach that importance to Ministers speaking from that side of the House, which he did to independent Members speaking from the Opposition and Ministerial benches. He did not place much confidence in the fervid eloquence of Ministers, the effect of which they sought to increase by boldly slapping the red box on the table of the House. He cared very little for the big swelling words in which they solemly proclaimed their "intention and determination to uphold, by all means, the dignity and the power of the Crown and their own Government." The echo to that was "Quarter-day." That was the only construction which he could put upon it. Provided there was free discussion in this country, he had no objection to a monarchy elective or hereditary. If they passed this Bill a man would come under its operation not only for advisedly speaking, but for advisedly thinking or dreaming, as had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford. He warned those who now supported this Bill, that they would be the first to smart under its operations. Hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill had carried on the reform and free-trade agitation; which system of advocacy it would crush. They had not even refused their sanction to demonstrations whose motto was "Bread or blood." Cordially as he now approved of the monarchical system, yet if this Bill passed he should declare himself a republican, at all events. He confessed he was astonished by what he had read respecting a nobleman who spoke in another place on the previous evening. The noble Lord to whom he referred had stated that one policeman had dispersed the whole of the meeting at Kennington Common. There could be no greater fallacy, ignorance, or folly, than for a Minister, in the performance of his duties, to make such a statement. The fact was,
156
that a policeman came to him at the meeting, and told him that Messrs. Rowan and Mayne wished to see him, as they had a message from the Home Office. Fearing that the people would molest the policeman, he said that he would knock down the first man that touched him, and he made them give the policeman plenty of room. The people obeyed him; and were they, on that account, to be met by a jeer? He cautioned that House not to laugh at the people when their conduct was so perfectly peaceable: it would afford them a bad precedent. He (Mr. O'Connor) was not exactly in a state of health to justify his occupying the House any longer in this stage of the Bill, and particularly as he had already expressed his views upon it. He protested against a Government which mocked Ireland by making it equal with England in its participation of punishment, but refused to put her upon the same footing with regard to political rights. He called on all the liberal Members to oppose every stage of the Bill.
MR. HORSMAN, as it appeared they were likely to get into a somewhat angry discussion on the Bill, thought it was desirable that the temperate Members of that Assembly should disembarrass their proceedings of any misconstruction to which they might be liable. There were certain Members in the House who objected to the measure in toto; whilst there was another party extremely anxious to facilitate its passing into a law, and to strengthen the hands of Government in furtherance of the object they had in view. The latter was a very numerous party; they objected only to particular words in one of the clauses, and felt that as those words were part of a permanent measure arising out of temporary circumstances, one of two courses ought to be taken; either those words should be left out altogether, or that the Act itself should be merely temporary in its duration. That was his opinion; and when they came to the clause in Committee, he should move as an amendment that the words be omitted. But, after taking the opinion of the House upon that point, he should offer no factious opposition to the measure.
MR. HUME wished to know if the words referred to were intended to apply to Members of this House speaking in their places, and whether for words spoken in that House they would be liable to be transported to Botany Bay? He also wished to be informed by the Home Secre-

157
tary if it were true, as had been stated in another place by a Member of the Cabinet, that the meeting on Kennington Common yesterday was dispersed by the police without the aid of the military? In order to show how trifling the whole matter had been, he might state to the House that a military man attended the meeting at his request, and was there from eleven o'clock until one, when the chairman announced that as the Government had prohibited the passing of the procession across the bridges, he advised the meeting to dissolve itself; it did separate accordingly, and the military man alluded to told him (Mr. Hume) that there was no interference whatever on the part of the police. It was right that the truth should be published; for the House might not be aware of the effects which yesterday's proceedings were calculated to produce on the Continent. Ay, what would foreign Governments think if the Government of this country was obliged to put Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington at the head of the military, to call out the police, and to convert Somerset House into a garrison, filled with horse, foot, and artillery, provisioned for two days and nights? He judged from what had taken place that it was in the power of the Government to have prevented the meeting by the existing law; and he thought that the extraordinary preparations which were made had only had the effect of creating an alarm which was altogether unnecessary. It appeared to him that we were getting into a system that was most erroneous, and likely to be productive of serious consequences both in this House and elsewhere.
COLONEL SIBTHORP tendered his best thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the course which they had adopted; especially he thanked the Home Secretary for the firmness he had displayed during the whole of yesterday's proceedings; and not less sincerely did he thank that right hon. Gentleman for the firmness with which he had introduced the present Bill. Complaints had been made of the stringent nature of this measure; but for his part he regretted that it was not ten times stronger. The hon. Member for Montrose had asked whether the Bill was intended to apply to Members of this House speaking in their places. All he could say was, that if the hon. Member for Montrose himself were to be guilty of any offence against the provisions of the Bill, he should be ready to rise
158
in his place and recommend that the hon. Member be immediately committed to the Tower for the remainder of his life. With regard to the proceedings on Kennington Common, he should have been glad if he had seen some of the leaders who then attempted to disturb the public peace, and to alarm the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of the metropolis, dragged into and ducked—he would not say drowned—in the river Thames, and then sent home in their wet clothes as a punishment for their daring.
MR. AGLIONBY deprecated the use of intemperate language in the discussion upon this Bill by all parties. He had already supported the first and second reading, because he considered the Bill necessary for the safety of Her Majesty's Government, and he should vote in favour of the present Motion; but when the Bill was in Committee he should propose various modifications in the clauses.
MR. GRATTAN considered that the measures adopted by the Government yesterday, for the preservation of the peace, had had a most salutary effect. Indeed, he never felt more delighted than when he saw this great city protected from violence and outrage by its own citizens. This Bill, however, had no claim to the same merit. If the people of Ireland were in such a state of commotion as, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, to render the Bill necessary, was that any reason for inflicting it upon the people of England, who had proved themselves peaceable and loyal? How long was it intended to punish a man for what was called "open and advised speaking?" Why should not the Government be satisfied with simple imprisonment, according to the circumstances, rather than the penalty of transportation? The fact was, the existing law had not been sufficiently tried. He charged the Government with carrying on war in disguise on Irish ground. They were daily pouring troops into that country, under the idea that there was an insurrection, yet there was none; but in the face of this fact they asked the House to pass a law placing Ireland under the same law as England. But the Bill, if it became law, would be worth nothing; for it was laid down by most eminent Judges, Hale, Foster, Blackstone, and others, that nothing was so dangerous to proceed against as spoken words, The Government were really adopting a wrong course towards Ireland. They ought to relieve the people from the causes which

159
led to disturbance before they attempted to punish them.
MR. REYNOLDS said, that on referring to the division lists of the preceding night, he had little hope of success on the part of the minority in opposing the Bill. When he reflected that 453 Members had voted for the second reading, and only thirty-six against it, and that the majority was composed of the leaders of the two great parties in this country, a public amalgamation of Whigs and Tories, he had also very little hope of obtaining any modification of the severe provisions of the measure. This belief had been strengthened by the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General; a speech which, without meaning any disrespect, he regarded as having begged the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had reminded the House that the accused under this Bill would have the bulwark of trial by jury. The theory of trial by jury was excellent in the abstract; but its practice in Ireland was anything but pure or satisfactory. Need he remind the House of the celebrated trial of O'Connell and his associates? The jury which tried those conspirators, as they were called, was packed. Their decision was appealed against in the House of Lords, and the decision of the court which tried was reversed upon the special ground that the jury had been packed; and Lord Denman, in pronouncing judgment, said, "If such practices are to be continued in Ireland, the trial by jury may be called a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." The same machinery which existed at that time in Dublin for the selection of juries existed still in all its integrity; and, practically, parties convicted under this Bill would be shut out of their appeal to the House of Lords, because, before it could be made, they would be on their voyage to a penal settlement. He regarded the measure also as an attack upon that principle which conferred the right of expressing opinion either by speaking or writing. If he were told this would be matter for the consideration of the jury, he replied that under the present constitution of juries in Ireland, he should be extremely sorry to trust his liberty to such a tribunal. The measure, instead of being a modification of the existing law, was an aggravation of it, in proof of which he referred to the third clause, by which offences in Ireland, now punishable by fine or imprisonment, were rendered punishable by transportation for life or for seven years,
160
in the discretion of the court. So stringent was the Bill that it absolutely included the ladies. He trusted its framers would have sufficient gallantry to exclude the ladies of Ireland at all events, and leave the gentlemen to suffer for them. It was professed to be called for on the ground—first, that Ireland was disturbed, and next, that England was disturbed; but he denied both allegations. Indeed he challenged any hon. Member to prove, with the exception of the two newspapers, the Nation and the United Irishman, in Dublin, any real appearance of disturbance or disaffection in Ireland. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the inhabitants of Dublin condemned as much as the right hon. Baronet the wild and extravagant doctrines put forth by those journals; and they condemned them in the most unmeasured terms. Was there any further proof than could be found in those papers that Dublin was in a state of rebellion against England? None? He might be told that troops were required in Dublin. He rejoiced at that circumstance, and he had no objection to the whole British Army being quartered in the city, knowing, as he did, that it must increase the circulating medium. Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny, Clonmel, all the great cities, were perfectly quiet; yet hon. Gentlemen, who knew no more of Ireland than they did of New Zealand, got up in that House and said, "I will vote for this Bill because the country is disturbed." That allegation he distinctly denied. But he must not be misunderstood. Though Ireland was not disturbed, there was dissatisfaction and discontent throughout the whole country. One million human beings had, within the last eighteen months, sunk into their graves for want of food; and at the assizes at Galway a man was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for stealing food. In this case the stipendiary magistrate, addressing the court, said, there were extenuating circumstances, and that he had heard a report of one child having died of starvation, and its mother eating its flesh. The stipendiary magistrate felt it his duty to disinter the child, and he found that its bones had been picked. At this very time there were bullocks at the man's door, yet he allowed his own wife to feed on her own child before he would kill one of the animals. The court ordered the man to be discharged. This case was only an illustration of the general distress under which many of his fellow-country-

161
men were sinking to their graves. Under such circumstances, he felt it perfectly consistent with the maintenance of his allegiance to urge the dissolution of a Union which had been destructive to Ireland, and attended with no benefit to England. When the 3rd Clause was brought up, he should feel it to be his duty to move an Amendment to the effect that, for all the greater offences enumerated in it, the punishment of transportation should be inflicted; but for all minor offences, such as open and advised speaking, the penalty should be three years' imprisonment. He would remind the House that there were three persons already under arrest, namely, the hon. Member for Limerick, Mr. Meagher, and Mr. Mitchell, and that if these persons were found guilty, they might, under the provisions of the existing law, be imprisoned for three years, and fined without limit. He thought that was a tolerable punishment for talking, and, after all, it was only talk. There was a good deal of talking on the other side of the Channel, and a considerable quantity on this. In Dublin, however, all language of that kind received a particular name; people there usually said of it, "That's all Tallagh-hill talk;" and when any one indulged in it, he was spoken of as "drawing the long bow." Now, he asked the Government to postpone proceeding with the Bill until after Easter. The exhibition of the previous day had ended as peaceably as a Quaker's meeting. He had no wish to offend the special constables around him, who thought that, but for themselves, there would have been a second edition of Paris; but he certainly was not of that opinion. He was a general supporter of the Government, and he had endeavoured to vindicate them in cases in which no one else would. He was, however, in this difficulty. He had repeatedly said in Ireland, that they had proved themselves the consistent friends of civil and religious liberty. What was he to do when he went back? The best thing which he could do was, perhaps, to absent himself altogether from public meetings. The hon. Member concluded by again appealing to the Government to postpone the Bill until after Easter.
MR. SADLIER wished to state the reasons which had induced him to vote for the introduction of the Bill. He felt, indeed, that from the time of Cromwell all legislation had tended to keep up practical disunion. It was a great error to imagine
162
that the laws of the two countries were identical. It was most extraordinary that this measure should have been peculiarly intended for the Irish people; it should rather be carried into practical operation in this country than in that (Ireland). He valued this measure, first, because under its operation men would no longer be convicted on the single and uncorroborated testimony of an approver, but only on the evidence of two witnesses. It was the object of the Bill to reduce to felony that which had hitherto been dealt with as treason, and thus to meet the case of those juvenile persons in Ireland who were constantly uttering open and scandalous sedition. Such legislation, however, he freely admitted, was not calculated to remove that deeply-rooted feeling of dissatisfaction which was at this moment universal in Ireland. He would tell the First Minister of the Crown that every communication which he received from his own country, led to the belief that amongst the few gentry who still clung to their homes amongst the merchants and traders, and amongst the insolvent tenantry, that the feeling prevailed, not only that the Government had signally failed to perform its duty, but had been actually indifferent to the rapid and extensive progress of that mortality of which so many of his countrymen had, during the last twelve months, been the unprotected and unpitied victims; the bodies, in many instances, remaining uncovered, unshrouded, and uncoffined, to gratify the repulsive voraciousness of some animal or bird of prey. This was no highly-coloured representation, but a plain statement of what had been witnessed all over Ireland. He hoped that one of the first practical results of this measure would be to save from perdition and dishonourable exile some of those unhappily deluded men who were at present the erring victims of a great political disease. He would tell the Government that the great evil of Ireland was physical misery, for which the existence of the poor-law, with its imperfect machinery, provided no adequate remedy. That law was nothing less than a delusion to the destitute, and confiscation to the industrious; and though he did not ask the noble Lord to interfere in the dealings between man and man, he thought the statement that the Government had nothing to do with the matter was not justifiable. There was another grievance to which he would refer. Was the noble Lord really aware of the present state of

163
the elective franchise in Ireland? ["Question!"] He was perfectly in order in considering whether this measure was calculated to remove discontent. He would put the case of the populous and extensive county of Tipperary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Sheil) was formerly returned for that county by a majority of 1,800; a few days ago the number of persons qualified to vote was only 431. Such was the constituency in the case of an area little short of 1,000,000 acres, and a population of about 1,000,000 also. He would remind the House of the remarkable words with which the right hon. and gifted Member for Dungarvan, to whom he had just referred, had concluded one of his memorable appeals to a former House of Commons:—
"Let a few years go by, and the national mind of Ireland will be one mass of hot commotion. If a great outbreak of popular commotion should occur here—if the predictions of Conservatives should be fulfilled—if your alliance with France, which is as unstable as its dynasty, should cease, you may have cause to lament, when lamentation will be unavailing, that to 7,000,000 of Irishmen justice was refused."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I really think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down must have mistaken the Motion now before the House for the Motion which is to be brought forward at a later period of this day; and as he expects the Government to bring forward a number of measures affecting Ireland, I beg leave to submit to him whether he can complain of our not bringing forward any measures of a remedial nature, if the time of the House is so taken up as to make it impossible that any day can be devoted to them. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a statement of mine last night, and he appears so much to have misapprehended it, that I must say a few words to correct his misapprehension. The hon. Gentleman says that the present Government is considered in Ireland to be totally indifferent to the sufferings of the people, and the loss of life occasioned by the want of food; and he appears to suppose that I said it was no part of the business of the Government to interfere in matters of that nature. What I stated was, that, generally speaking, it was not the business of the Government to interfere in the various relations which affected the supply of food; and I said, that any measures which might be introduced having such a tendency were to be regarded as measures of exception. I certainly never stated that the present Government had
164
not considered some measures necessary on account of the want of food in Ireland. I could not, indeed, have said so, because last year the Government recommended to the House measures by which they afforded food to upwards of 3,000,000 of persons daily; so far was the Government from being indifferent, as the hon. Gentleman says they are considered to have been, to the sufferings endured in Ireland. With regard to the present year, there is, indeed, the poor-law, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred; but I have always considered that the introduction of that law at first, with a division of districts which, in certain cases, might make it extremely difficult to supply food, required the constant attention of the Government. Some time ago I sent out directions from the Treasury, that in cases in which relief could not be obtained, strict inquiry should first be made, whether that was owing to any neglect in the collection of rates; and, that in cases where parties were fully able to pay, payment should be enforced. I went on to say, that I wished further inquiries to be made as to cases in which the want of relief was not owing to the negligence of collectors, or to the refusal of persons to pay, but to a total inability to supply the distressed poor of the district; and I wished a report to be made in all such eases, in order that either by means of the British Association, or of some measures to be proposed by the Government to the House, the poor so situated might be saved from starvation, and relief be given. I think what I have stated shows, that neither with regard to the last year, nor to the present year, are we liable to the charge of treating the sufferings of the Irish poor as a matter of indifference. I must say, that if such statements be made in Ireland, they are libellous and calumnious, and I am sorry that they should have been repeated in this House.
SIR DE L. EVANS felt called upon to offer his sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Government for the admirable arrangements which they had made on the previous day for the preservation of the public peace. Most happy did he feel that that day was not a day of mourning; but that it was not so was owing, he believed, mainly to the fact that the Government had not been wanting in their duty. Ho knew no more grand, more honourable, or more sublime spectacle than that which had been presented on the previous day

165
by the Government and the inhabitants o the metropolis. It had been said, that the meeting was a contemptible one. It was contemptible meeting, thanks to the Government which had rendered it so. Every friend of order, every person in favour of the maintenance of property, and of all that contributed to the well-being of civilised society, had reason to thank the Government for the result.
MR. MASTERMAN felt great pleasure in tendering to the Government his humble acknowledgments; and he felt sure that in so doing he was expressing the feeling of the whole city of London, for the arrangements which they had made on the previous day for the life and property of the subject.
SIR G. GREY: The hon. Member for Montrose asked me a distinct question, namely, whether the meeting at Kennington Common yesterday was forcibly dispersed by the police, or separated of its own accord. In answer to that question, I beg to say that the meeting was not forcibly dispersed by the police. The police commissioners, acting under the directions of the Government, made an intimation to the leaders of the meeting, that if they persevered in their intention of going in procession through the streets of London, they would be forcibly prevented from carrying that intention into effect. Upon that intimation being made to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), I understand a resolution was adopted by the meeting to disperse. But I cannot admit the inference which the hon. Member has drawn from the fact, that the preparations were useless. It is a fact that preparations were made: the knowledge of those preparations gave confidence to all loyal and well-disposed persons in this metropolis, and struck with terror those who might have been disposed to create confusion. I must also say, that, judging from all the accounts which I have received, nothing could have been more praiseworthy or meritorious than the conduct of the great body of the population of the metropolis. The spirit which animated them, and their cordial co-operation in the maintenance of order and peace, will, I have no doubt, have a good effect throughout the country. Indeed, this has been the result already. From accounts which I have received this morning, it appears that the information received in the country by telegraph yesterday, by persons anxiously awaiting in-
166
telligence from London, produced the best possible effects in the large towns of the kingdom; and what has occurred will, I have no doubt, have an effect also throughout Europe. The Government had a responsible duty to perform; and they have been enabled, under Providence, to discharge that duty, through the cordial cooperation of the great body of the people.
MR. HUME denied that he had said that the Government were wrong in making preparations. What he had said was, that they were perfectly right in making the necessary preparations, but wrong in creating such disproportionate alarm.
MR. O'CONNOR wished to put the right hon. Baronet in possession of a fact. It was, that before the authorities had communicated their intention of interrupting the procession, it was upon his recommendation resolved that the procession should not pass over the bridges.
House divided:—Ayes 321; Noes 19: Majority 302.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N

Brockman, E. D.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Brown, H.

Adair, H. E.

Buck, L. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Alcock, T.

Bunbury, W. M.

Alexander, N.

Bunbury, E. H.

Anderson, A.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Anson, Visct.

Cardwell, E.

Anstey, T. C.

Carew, W. H. P.

Arkwright, G.

Carter, J. B.

Armstrong, R. B.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Arundel and Surrey,

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Earl of

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Bailey, J., jun.

Cavendish, W. G.

Baines, M. T.

Cayley, E. S.

Baldock, E. H.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Childers, J. W.

Barrington, Visct.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Bateson, T.

Christopher, R. A.

Beckett, W.

Christy, S.

Bell, M.

Clay, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Clay, Sir W.

Benbow, J.

Clifford, H. M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Cobbold, J. C.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B.

Bernal, R.

Codrington, Sir W.

Bernard, Visct.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Coles, H. B.

Blackall, S. W.

Compton, H. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Copeland, Ald.

Blake, M. J.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Blakemore, R.

Cowan, C.

Blandford, Marq. of

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Boldero, H. G.

Damer, hon. Col.

Bourke, R. S.

Davies, D. A. S.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bowles, Adm.

Denison, J. E.

Bowring, Dr.

Divett, E.

Brackley, Visct.

Dod, J. W.

Bremridge, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Broadley, H.

Douro, Marq. of

167

Drummond, H.

Hobhouse, rt. hon.Sir J.

Drummond, H. H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Duncan, Visct.

Hodges, T. T.

Duncan, G.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Hood, Sir A.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Hope, H. T.

Duncuft, J.

Hope, A.

Dundas, Adm.

Hornby, J.

Dundas, Sir D.

Horsman, E.

Dundas, G.

Hotham, Lord

Dunne, F. P.

Houldsworth, T.

Du Pre, C. G.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Ebrington, Visct.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Howard, P. H.

Ellice, E.

Hudson, G.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Hume, J.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Hutt, W.

Euston, Earl of

Ingestre, Visct.

Evans, Sir De L.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Evans, J.

Jackson, W.

Evans, W.

Jervis, Sir J.

Fellowes, E.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Fergus, J.

Jones, Sir W.

Ferguson, Col.

Jones, Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Kershaw, J.

Fitzpatrick,rt.hn. J.W.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Knox, Col.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Floyer, J.

Langston, J. H.

Foley, J. H. H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Forbes, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Forster, M.

Lewis, G. C.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Fox, W. J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Fuller, A. E.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Loch, J.

Glyn, G. C.

Lockhart, A. E.

Gore, W. R. O.

Lockhart, W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Lushington, C.

Granby, Marq. of

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Greenall, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Greene, T.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Grenfell, C. P.

Macnamara, Maj.

Grenfell, C. W.

M'Neill, D.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Grey, R. W.

Magan, W. H.

Grogan, E.

Mahon, Visct.

Gwyn, H.

Manners, Lord G.

Halford, Sir H.

Martin, C. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Martin, S.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Masterman, J.

Halsey, T. P.

Matheson, A.

Hamilton, G. A.

Matheson, J.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Matheson, Col.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Hastie, A.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Hastie, A.

Melgund, Visct.

Hawes, B.

Miles, P. W. S.

Hay, Lord J.

Miles, W.

Hayter, W. G.

Milnes, R. M.

Headlam, T. E.

Monsell, W.

Heald, J.

Moore, G. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Morgan, O.

Heathcote, G. J.

Morison, Gen.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Morris, D.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Henley, J. W.

Mowatt, F.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Hervey, Lord A.

Muntz, G. F.

Heywood, J.

Napier, J.

Hindley, C.

Neeld, J.

168

Neeld, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Stanton, W. H.

Norreys, Lord

Strickland, Sir G.

Nugent, Lord

Stuart, Lord D.

Nugent, Sir P.

Stuart, Lord J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Talfourd, Serj.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Ord, W.

Tenison, E. K.

Oswald, A.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Owen, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Packe, C. W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Palmer, R.

Tollemache, J.

Patten, J. W.

Townley, R. G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Townshend, Capt.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Trelawny, J. S.

Pigott, F.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pilkington, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Turner, E.

Pusey, P.

Turner, G. J.

Rendlesham, Lord

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Repton, G. W. J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Ricardo, O.

Vane, Lord H.

Rice, E. R.

Verney, Sir H.

Rich, H.

Villiers, Visct.

Romilly, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Rufford, F.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Vivian, J. H.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Waddington, D.

Sandars, G.

Waddington, H. S.

Scott, hon. F.

Wall, C. B.

Scrope, G. P.

Walpole, S. H.

Seymer, H. K.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Seymour, Lord

Watkins, Col.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Shelburne, Earl of

West, F. R.

Sheridan, R. B.

Whitmore, T. C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Williams, J.

Simeon, J.

Williamson, Sir H

Slaney, R. A.

Wilson, J.

Smith, J. A.

Wilson, M.

Smith, J. B.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Smyth, J. G.

Wood, W. P.

Somerset, Capt.

Wyvill, M.

Somerville,rt.hn.Sir W.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Spooner, R.

TELLERS.

Stafford, A.

Craig, W. G.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Blewitt, R. J.

Osborne, R.

Callaghan, D.

Reynolds, J.

Devereux, J. T.

Scholefield, W.

Fagan, W.

Scully, F.

Fox, R. M.

Sullivan, M.

Gardner, R.

Thompson, Col.

Grattan, H.

Thompson, G.

Greene, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Meagher, T.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, W. S.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, J.

O'Connor F.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2, making the measure applicable to Ireland.
MR. J. O'CONNELL moved the omission of all reference to Ireland. He objected to the clause, because he conceived that it would be exceeedingly ill-advised and unfair to apply the Bill at that moment

169
to his country. It would be ill-advised for reasons which, as they would not posses any novelty, he would refrain from stating. There was an impression prevailing, how. ever, in Ireland that that House was eve] ready to extend the law of England to that country when it savoured of harshness and severity, but not when the extension would confer any advantage; and at a time when such extraordinary events were occurring in Europe, the Bill must tend to add to the existing discontent. Before the passing of the Coercion Bill, Irish Members had warned the House that they were breaking their pledges as to measures of relief; and in the fifth month of the Session not a step had been taken towards redeeming that pledge. The measure proposed by the Secretary for Ireland was but an aggravation of the ill treatment which Ireland had received. As to the second point which he had mentioned, the unfairness of this measure, he appealed to the House whether it could possibly be otherwise than unfair to punish men under this Bill for offences committed against the existing law? He thought that the cause of justice, as well as the interest of both countries, required that the clause should be omitted.
SIR G. GREY thought the real question was whether there was any reason why the law of treason in England and Ireland should not be the same. He saw no reason why parties who committed the offence in question in Ireland should not be subject to the same penalty as those who committed it in England.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3, authorising the punishment of transportation,
SIR G. GREY wished to make a few remarks on this clause before the House proceeded to consider any amendment. From the discussion which had already taken place, the House was probably aware what it was intended to enact. There were three offences contemplated by the clause, and, with the exception of open and advised speaking, they were offences under the 36th and the 57th George III., and subjected those who were guilty of them to the penalties of treason. The offences were, compassing, within or without the United Kingdom, the deposition of the Sovereign; levying war in order by force or constraint to compel the Sovereign to change Her counsels, or in order to put any restraint on Parliament; and seeking aid from any foreign country. Coupled with such compassing and imagining, there
170
must be the expression of it by publishing any printing or writing; and the clause added, "by open and advised speaking." Now, in order to carry into effect the purposes for which the Bill was proposed, the Government thought it necessary to insert the words "open and advised speaking;" they proposed to alter the law with respect to speeches which now only amounted to sedition. He had stated the other evening, that the law had been found practically inefficacious, or at all events inadequate to the effectual repression of the offence of instigating, by public speeches addressed to large assemblies, the levying of war on the Sovereign, and the commission of those offences which brought persons within the charge of high treason; that although there were persons then in Ireland who were indicted for sedition, yet sedition being a bailable offence, they were enabled to continue prosecuting their designs precisely in the mode which had already subjected them to prosecution, and that even after the verdict had been obtained against them, the punishment would be inadequate to repress the offence. The Government had thought that if the Bill were confined to printing or writing, persons against whom the powers of the law ought to be directed would altogether evade its provisions. Without mentioning any name, he would take the case of a person editing a newspaper of an inflammatory character. That person avowed himself to be the editor of the paper, and the articles contained in the publication, coming within the provisions of the Act, would doubtless subject him to the penalties which, if this Bill became law, would be incurred by publishing or writing treason. But if this party chose to insert any other name than his own, as the editor or proprietor of the paper, he might go on inserting in the paper speeches made by himself from day to day, and defy the law. Under these circumstances it had been thought necessary to ask for increased powers with regard to persons who, by open and advised speaking, instigated to the commission of crimes which would subject the parties committing them to a severer punishment than the more guilty instigators. He was aware, how- ever, that that was an important alteration to make in the law; and he fully admitted the force of the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General on the previous evening with regard to the comparative difficulty of proof as to words

171
spoken and words written. It was justly said that words written were usually employed with more deliberation than words spoken; but although this was the case in some instances, he must say that when, day after day, they saw persons repeating the same advice, making use of the same exhortations, and holding out the same guilty objects, he could not but consider the speeches as made deliberately, and as designed to instigate to the commission of crime. At the same time he was quite willing to guard against any possible abuse, and to take precautions against parties being treated with greater severity than was requisite for the attainment of the object. The Government did think that this offence, committed under the circumstances and with the evident object which he had stated, should be treated as something more than a misdemeanor—in fact, it ought to be felony. If it were so treated, the party could not prosecute his designs as before, because he would be immediately subject to arrest, and the offence would not be bailable. Hon. Gentlemen said that this was the first time that public speaking, or rather speaking—for he would omit the word "public"—had been made the subject of an enactment with a view to the infliction of pains and penalties. He must take leave to correct that statement. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had stated on the previous night that Mr. Pitt, having proposed to insert these words, had subsequently been compelled to withdraw them, so that the Government, said that hon. Member, was attempting to do what Mr. Pitt, in the plenitude of his power, was unable to accomplish. Now, what Mr. Pitt really proposed was to make open and advised speaking treason. The Government now proposed only to make it felony; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the second clause of Mr. Pitt's Act, he would find a clause which was actually adopted, and was far more stringest than that now proposed. By the second clause of the 36th Geo. III., it was enacted that if any person should maliciously and advisedly, by writing, printing, preaching, or speaking, express, publish, utter, or declare, any words or sentences tending to excite and stir up the people to hatred or contempt of the person of His Majesty, he should be considered as guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, and for the second offence should be subjected to transportation, The Government did not in-
172
tend to propose such a clause. Again, by the 6th of Anne, chap. 7, clause 2, it was enacted, that if any person should maliciously, by preaching, teaching, or advised speaking, declare that the Sovereign Lady the Queen was not the rightful Sovereign of these realms, the party guilty of such offence should incur the penalties of præmunire. Those penalties, although they had become practically obsolete, were severe at the time, and the case was treated very differently from that of a mere misdemeanor. There was a proviso to which his attention had been called, which qualified the enactment of the 6th of Anne. It was that no person should be prosecuted by virtue of that Act for any words spoken, unless the information were given on oath before one or more justices of the peace, within three days after the commission of the offence. The prosecution also was to take place within three months after the offence; and no person could be convicted but upon the oath of three credible witnesses, it being most material that the evidence, whatever might be its nature, should be fresh in the mind. He would at once admit that the precautions provided in this clause of the Statute of Anne were reasonable and necessary, and he was quite willing to insert them in the clause then under consideration. By an Act passed not long ago, the Judges, in cases in which the penalty was transportation, were authorised to substitute imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; and he was willing to extend that provision to the present case. He had stated to the House the amendments which the Government were willing, on consideration, to adopt; but they would not depart from the proposition they had made to constitute the offence felony—an alteration which they believed would render the law efficacious for its object.
MR. F. O'CONNOR had given ample proof, in his own person, of the abundant stringency and severity of the existing law, without any further increase in its harshness. In 1839 he had extracted into his newspaper, from another journal, a paragraph of only five lines, to the effect that a poor little fellow had broken out of a workhouse on a certain clay, but was afterwards recaptured and brought back; and that he had been so cruelly treated as to be driven to eat part of his own arm. For the publication of nothing more than this, and which, being in Scotland at the time, he never saw until an ex officio information

173
was filed against him, he was tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and a special jury, and declared guilty. Afterwards he was condemned to sixteen months' solitary confinement in York Castle, for publishing two speeches in only 3,000 copies out of an impression of 34,000 of his paper (for as soon as his attention was drawn to the speeches during his absence at York he immediately ordered their further publication to be suppressed); but he was liberated two months before his term expired, because of the injustice he had suffered. He mentioned these things to show that there was no necessity for adding to the severity of the existing law; and he must repeat, that if they took away the liberty of speech from the people, they would give rise to a host of secret clubs and associations throughout the kingdom. He wished to know if a speech or written article were subsequently followed by an overt act of treason on the part of other individuals than the speaker or writer, the speaker or writer would be held a particeps criminis, as having induced the parties to commit treason?
SIR GEORGE GREY replied, that if an overt act of treason were committed in pursuance of certain advice contained in a speech or written article, the person giving that advice certainly might fairly be considered to be a guilty party.
MR. AGLIONBY wished to know the meaning of the clause now under consideration, for it seemed to him to be neither good English nor common sense. Indeed, it was not even "law sense," for he had asked the opinion of several legal gentlemen upon the construction of the sentence, and they could not understand it. It was construed by some to mean that any person who should discuss or advocate the separation, without force or levying of war, of any of the colonies (the Canadas, for instance), from the mother country, would be liable to be transported for life. He could not consent to a clause of this character, and could not believe the Government intended it to have any such effect. He would propose that the words "deprive of" be omitted from the clause.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the terms of the clause were quoted verbatim from 36th George III., and there could be no difficulty in understanding them in connexion with the context. The case of a party at a public meeting advocating the separation of the Canadas by legal means would not come under the
174
proposed Bill at all; but if the same individual counselled a recourse to arms to effect that object, that would be treason under the existing law, and felony under the measure now before the House.
MR. MOWATT said, they were now legislating under the influence of fear, otherwise an assembly like the present would not in the present day maintain that such a proposition as that before the House was at all reasonable. After all that the Attorney General and Solicitor General had said on the subject, he was bound to say that the obvious doubts upon and objections to the clause which must present themselves to any man on first reading it, had only been multiplied and confirmed by what had fallen from these high legal authorities. They had been told that this Bill, which proposed to constitute that felony which was never held to be so before, and to establish it by means of evidence which had never yet been admitted in either capital or felonious offences, would not operate so as to infringe the liberty of speech, and that the intelligence and integrity of judges and juries would secure us against such a result. This he held to be illogical, and only to be tolerated for a moment by a panic-stricken assembly. The Act, although full of grammatical blunders, and very ambiguous when it ought to be plain and unmistakeable, was, forsooth, to be defended, because some old law could be raked up as a precedent for it; and he had good legal authority for saying that a person standing up and saying that the time had at length arrived for separating some one or other of our colonies from the mother country, might under the clause be subjected to the penalties of felony for attempting to "alter the style, title, &c.," of the reigning Sovereign. He was ashamed to take part in a discussion of this sort; it was an insult to common sense, and a disgrace to the age and the assembly.
MR. G. THOMPSON said, that in the case of a penalty so severe, and an offence so novel, and when the evidence must, of necessity and inevitably, in ninety-nine case of a hundred, be furnished by hired spies and informers, quoting words spoken by the accused, and not producing language written by his hand; and, moreover, where the pages of Hansard could not be allowed to come into court to show what the various constructions of the law-makers upon the several clauses were, it was above

175
all things absolutely necessary that the offence should be so clearly defined as to require no acumen or legal ingenuity to construe, so as to save the prisoner from being left to the mercy of any construction which a Crown prosecutor might choose to attach to the words.
MR. AGLIONBY withdrew his Amendment.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

BEWDLEY ELECTION.
CAPTAIN RUSHOUT moved—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bewdley, in the room of Thomas James Ireland, esq., whose election has been determined to be void."
SIR J. HANMER, in rising to oppose this Motion, would not occupy the time of the House by dilating on the evils which resulted from the irregular practices that had been proved to exist at elections for the borough of Bewdley. It was, however, a most difficult thing for a private and individual Member of that House to propose any remedy for those evils; because if lie proposed a general measure, numerous obstacles were thrown in his way; and if he took up any particular case, and proposed the disfranchisement of a particular borough, experience had shown that the adoption of such a measure was attended with no beneficial result. It had been said the other night that that House ought not to establish any general rule with regard to these cases, but ought to exercise a discretion; it never did exercise and never had exercised a discretion in an ameliorating direction. It was true that proposals had been made at various times to disfranchise the boroughs of Carrickfergus and Stafford, and the freemen of Liverpool and Yarmouth; but what had been the result of those proposals? His wish was that the House should be compelled to act in such cases according to the circumstances of each case, and with the exercise of a certain discretion. The law on this subject was at present in a very unsatisfactory state. In the last Parliament some Members who had taken every precaution to avoid corruption were deprived of their seats, or had their seats endangered, by the indiscretion of their agents, and were placed in the same category with those who had resorted to direct bribery. He called upon the House so
176
far to divest themselves of the discretion they at present possessed, that, when a seat was declared void on account of corruption, some steps should be taken, before the issue of a new writ, to ascertain whether the exercise of the franchise in the place for which a Member was unseated might not be placed upon a better footing. He could point to places which were notoriously corrupt, and which had more representatives in that House than the Welsh counties, or many important and wealthy districts. He thought, after the report which had been presented to the House with reference to the last election for Bewdley, that they ought not to issue a writ without further inquiry. The Committee had reported, that the Gentleman who was returned for the borough of Bewdley was not duly elected, and that he had bribed a certain voter by a payment of 15 l.; and they also reported, that that Gentleman had, by his agents, committed acts of treating for the purpose of unduly influencing the electors of the borough. Now, he thought the law on the subject of treating required some alteration; it was rather too prudish. It was very proper that candidates who kept houses open during elections should be liable to punishment; but he thought it rather hard, when poor electors came thirty or forty miles to vote for a candidate, that such candidate should not be able to exercise the ordinary rites of hospitality without jeopardizing his seat. The Committee on the Bewdley election reported that the unsuccessful candidate had, by his agents, been guilty of treating, by giving meat and drink to the electors after the issuing of the writ; and that it had been proved before them that during the last election, as well as at the election of 1841, almost every public-house and beer-house in the borough was kept open, and that meat and drink were supplied to the electors to a very great extent. He did not, in the Motion he was about to submit to the House, propose any definite course with a view to meet the evils to which he had drawn attention. All he proposed was, that the House should suspend the writ until it had an opportunity of considering the condition of the elective franchise in the borough of Bewdley. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that he would bring in a Bill with regard to Horsham; and if he had known the noble Lord's intentions with reference to that borough, he would have wished, if it were possible,

177
that the Bill should also apply to Bewdley. If the House assented to his Amendment, he hoped the Government would feel it their duty to take the initiative, and to say in what manner, in their opinion, the borough of Bewdley might be reformed. He would recommend the principle of the hus-bandman—
"Inutilesque falce ramos amputans, Feliciores inserit."
He begged to move as an Amendment—
"That the Return for Bewdley having been declared void for bribery and corrupt treating, and other corrupt practices, stated to have prevailed there, it is necessary to consider the condition of the Elective Franchise in that place, with a view to its reform, and in the meantime to suspend the Writ."
MR HUME, in seconding the Motion, said, it was evident from the report of the Committee, that great corruption had taken place at the last election for the borough of Bewdley, and he thought the House ought to suspend the writ until they had considered that report. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would bring forward some measure with a view to prevent such demoralising practices.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH did not wish to occupy the attention of the House; but as he believed he was the only Member present who had undergone the penalty of fourteen days' sitting on the Bewdley Committee, he might say he thought the House ought not to pursue a different course with regard to Bewdley to that which they had pursued in the case of Harwich. They had had a great deal of evidence before them of treating, some evidence of intimidation, and some of getting voters away—in short, a system appeared to prevail in Bewdley which could not be justified either in or out of the House. There was strong reason for that House to look to the representation of Bewdley, with a view to its reform; but he would ask them to give to the borough the same measure of justice which they had given to Harwich. If they looked to the question of representation—which he thought would very soon be pressed upon them—if they looked to a new Reform Bill, and a measure for enlarging the representation of this country, and would take advantage of the lesson which was taught them when they refused to the large towns a representation at the time of the Reform Bill, they would find that the case of these boroughs would be the first that would call for their interference; and, wherever they found the same
178
practices prevail, it would be their duty to endeavour to corret them.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 80; Noes 38: Majority 42.
Writ issued.

REPEAL OF THE UNION (IRELAND).
MR. JOHN O'CONNELL: Sir, I rise to address the House, deeply, and, I trust, most fully impressed with the importance of the question I have to lay before them, as well as of the tremendous difficulties I have to contend with in so doing. Its importance, combined with the feebleness of its advocate, constitutes, of course, my main difficulty. But I have a host of others in the adverse prepossessions with which I have to contend—prepossessions personal and political, or, perhaps, I might better say, national. With regard to the first class of these adverse prepossessions, Sir, I am conscious that if the magnitude of the subject on which I am about to enter, does not of itself influence those who are to be my opponents, not to embarrass its consideration with other matters, any deprecatory remarks of mine could have but little effect, even were I disposed to make them. All that I shall say on this point is, that I shall endeavour to avoid anything either now, or, if permitted to reply, at the close of the debate, which, even in self-defence, might serve to keep up irritation, and prevent the decision of the House being come to in a calm, a reasoning, and a considerate spirit. With regard to the political, or, as I have called them, national prepossessions, against which I have to contend, I respect them while I deprecate them. It is most natural—nay, it is most creditable, that the natives of a country which has attained such foremost rank amongst the nations of the earth, should oppose themselves to any measure which may appear to them to injure that pre-eminence. I will not dwell upon what may be attributed, in the opposition I am about to receive, to that love of power, which is among the strongest instincts of the human heart. I prefer to give entire credit for that love of country and honest national pride, against which I would be the last to say a word—inasmuch as they are the sentiments which I most heartily desire to see universally prevalent in Ireland. It will be my endeavour to prove that which is the most deep conviction of my mind, or otherwise I should not

179
be making this Motion here to-night—that while the measure I have to propose must be of enormous benefit to Ireland, it can in no degree injure, but, on the contrary, must serve materially and permanently the interests of Great Britain herself, and add to and confirm the strength, the prosperity, and the glory of the united empire. I am here to-night to give expression to the desire entertained by millions of the people of Ireland for the restoration to them of the right of making in their own native Parliament at home the laws by which they are to be governed. I will not delay the House with any lengthened reference to known facts, to prove that which I think cannot be disputed—that the large majority of the Irish nation are openly and avowedly devoted to the object I have just now enunciated. During the agitation for Catholic Emancipation, the late Mr. O'Connell had much experience of the strength of the popular desire for Repeal; and it was with considerable difficulty he was able to confine the agitation to the former object, the attainment of which he believed to be a useful preliminary to the latter. There has been at different times much reproach thrown upon him in England for not ceasing his agitation with the success of 1829. I will not stop now to discuss whether the measure of that year has or has not been carried out in the spirit with which it was professedly brought forward—namely, the spirit of entire social and political equality, to be practically carried out, and not to be confined to a little beyond the mere letter of the law. I will not canvass what I believe to have been the constant and disastrous policy of reaction, which, I fear, has been acted on covertly, but more or less actively, by the successive Governments we have seen since the passing of the Catholic Relief Act; nor the consequent necessity of agitation to check that reaction. But I will say, that had Mr. O'Connell, after that measure, stopped short, and refused to agitate for Repeal, the people would have gone on without him, and have given themselves up to the guidance of men who had nothing of his love of order, his anxiety for the assertion and maintenance of the rights of all classes, and his determination to uphold the laws and the constitution. The confession of the Ministers in the House of Commons in 1833, attests the strength which the Repeal agitation had already attained in that year: a decisive proof that notwithstanding the falling away of the
180
richer classes, who had now open to them the prices of their particular ambition, the great body of the Irish people were devoted to the ulterior object—the restoration of the Irish Parliament. In 1834, Mr. O'Connell was compelled to bring the question of Repeal, as he thought, prematurely, before the House, which then decided it by a large majority—at the same time adopting a pledge, concurred in immediately by the Lords, and ratified by the assent of the Crown, that though Repeal would not be granted, justice should be done to Ireland in all other particulars. Mr. O'Connell resolved that it should not afterwards be laid at his door, that by perseverance in Repeal agitation he had prevented that substantial justice in minor matters being done to Ireland, to which the three estates of the realm were then so solemnly pledged; and accordingly he made six years' experiment of abating the cry for Repeal. So strong was the sentiment of Repeal in the people's hearts, that, rightful and necessary as was the step he thus took, it yet caused to him an abatement of popular confidence, which he never fully recovered to the day of his death, and which for a time after he renewed the agitation for Repeal in 1840, prevented his efforts from being as generally responded to as had, until then, always been the case. At length in 1843 he induced the people of Ireland to make that great peaceful demonstration of their will which has never been equalled in true grandeur and sublimity by any movement of a people before recorded in history. The mad and criminal conduct of a few persons, whose real designs were unknown to him until too late, interfered with and marred the due effect of that demonstration; but it had at any rate established the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of Repeal. Internal divisions resulting at last in secession and open hostility among sections of Repealers, and then the distracting effects of the calamity with which Ireland has been visited, and under which she is still suffering, have operated during the last three years to prevent demonstrations of the same magnitude; but the very fact that the agitation has lasted through all these discouraging effects—that the popular Association, which was the centre of that agitation, has subsisted, and yet subsists, notwithstanding all divisions, secessions, distress, distractions, and notwithstanding the loss of him who founded it, and in whom

181
the people reposed a confidence such as never yet was given and never again will be given to any other man; proves even stronger than would the revival of the monster meetings themselves, how deep, strong, and enduring is the desire for Repeal. The Bill, Sir, which I this night ask leave to lay upon the table, as the first step towards meeting this desire of the people of a kingdom forming one-third of this empire, was drawn up by the late Mr. O'Connell, and consists of between twenty and thirty clauses, repealing the Act of Union, and enacting the restoration in their full powers of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament. I should have had to ask for a Committee of the whole House in case the Bill had gone into any of the details of international arrangements that may be considered necessary in the event of Repeal. If for these purposes the form of an international treaty be required to be gone through, as in the case of the Union, the Bill I hold in my hand in no way impedes, but rather facilitates, such a step. It proposes to reconstitute the Irish Parliament, in order that the Irish nation should be upon an equality with you in treating. We should have our own separate Parliament to treat on our parts, as the Repeal of the Union by this Bill would give you yours for the same purpose. On the other hand, if by reason of your superior power you shall insist on arranging the basis of Repeal in the United Parliament, this Bill in no way interferes with you, but can lie on the table until the arrangements are finally settled; and must then be passed either separately or combined with the Bill that shall embody those arrangements. I state this in order that no mere technical objection shall be interposed to prevent the House from giving at once a proof to the people of Ireland that there is a disposition really and earnestly to consider their demands. In support of those demands, Sir, I am here to arraign the existing state of things with regard to legislation—that is to say, the system of legislation by an United Parliament, as unjust, injurious, and therefore most unwise. It is unjust to Ireland. It commenced in injustice—it has been maintained in injustice—it exists in injustice to Ireland. The Irish nation was no party to the Union. That this was the ease needs no words of Mine to prove, when I have the testimony to read to the House of two noblemen whose declarations upon the subject cannot but be considered of weight. I quote my Lord Plunkett, in the first instance. Speak-
182
ing in one of the debates on the Union, he thus expressed himself with regard to the manner in which it was sought to be enacted:—
"At a moment when our country is filled with British troops—whilst the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended—whilst trials by courts-martial are carrying on in many parts of the kingdom—while the people are made to believe that they have no right to meet and to deliberate—and whilst the people are palsied by their fears—at the moment when we are distracted by internal dissensions—dissensions kept alive as the pretext of our subjugation, and the instrument of our future thraldom—such is the time in which the Union is proposed.
"I, in the most express terms, deny the competency of Parliament to do this act. I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands upon the constitution. I tell you, if, circumstanced as you arc, you pass this Act, it will be a NULLITY, and that no man in Ireland will be bound to obey it. I MAKE THIS ASSERTION DELIBERATELY, I repeat it, and call on any man who hears me, to take down my words. You have not been elected for this purpose—you have been appointed to make laws, not legislatures. You are appointed to act under the constitution, not to destroy it. You are appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, and not to transfer them; and if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the Government; you resolve society into original elements. and no man in the land is bound to obey you."
The late Earl Grey thus spoke in the debate on the same measure in the English Parliament:—
"If the Parliament of Ireland was left to itself untempted, unawed, unintimidated, it would, without hesitation, have rejected the resolutions. There are 300 Members in all, and 120 of these strenuously opposed the measure, amongst whom were two-thirds of the county Members, the representatives of the city of Dublin, and almost all the towns which it is proposed shall send Members to the Imperial Parliament; 162 voted in favour of the Union; of these 116 were placemen, some of whom were English generals on the staff, without a foot of ground in Ireland, and completely dependent upon Government. Let us reflect upon the Acts which have been used since last Sessions of the Irish Parliament to pack a majority in the House of Commons. All persons holding offices under Government, even the most intimate friends of the Minister, if they hesitated to vote as directed, were stripped of all their employments. Even this step was found ineffectual, and other arts were had recourse to, which, though I cannot name in this place, all will easily conjecture. A Bill framed for preserving the purity of Parliament was likewise abused, and no less than sixty-three seats were vacated by their holders having received nominal offices. Twenty-seven counties have petitioned against the measure (the Union). The petition from the county Down is signed by upwards of 17,000 respectable independent men, and all the others are in a similar proportion. Dublin petitioned under the great seal of the city, and each of the corporations in it followed the example. Drogheda petitioned against the Union, and almost every other town in the kingdom in like manner testified its

183
disapprobation. Those in favour of the measure, possessing great influence in the country, obtained a few counter petitions; yet, though the petition from the county Down was signed by 17,000, the counter petition was signed only by 415. Though there were 707,000 who had signed petitions against the measure, the total number of those who declared themselves in favour of it did not exceed 3,000; and many even of these only prayed that the measure might be discussed. If the facts I state are true—and I challenge any one to falsify them—could a nation in more direct terms express its disapprobation of a political measure, than Ireland has of a Legislative Union with Great Britain? In fact, the nation is nearly unanimous; and this great majority is composed not of fanatics, bigots, or Jacobins, but of the most respectable of every class in the community."
I have quoted, I think, enough to prove the Union commenced in injustice to Ireland, inasmuch as the voice of the nation was suppressed, or where heard was raised against it: the Parliament was bribed and packed. I will not delay with the details of the foul and filthy corruption that was practised—the making of nearly forty peers, of twelve bishops, of nine judges, besides a cloud of admirals and generals, as well as of numerous civil appointments; and where none of these availed, the direct money bribes (8,000 l.) to procure votes for the Union. Neither will I go into the details of the horrors of the rebellion, fomented for the purpose of carrying the Union. It is sufficient for my case at present that the Parliament that sold the country was not elected with any knowledge, on the part of the constituents, that it was to meddle with the constitution of their country, and therefore with no assent or instructions from them—that it was also a bribed and packed Parliament—and that in so far as constitutional expression of the popular will was allowed to the people, they protested against the Union. The next injustice of the Legislative Union was the inadequacy of representation that it gave in the Imperial Parliament. Upon this point I am not disposed to insist much at this moment, lest it should be imagined that I am in any way suggesting an alternative which would content the people of Ireland, and make them abandon Repeal. I shall therefore say no more, at least at present, than that Lord Castlereagh himself, even by his own calculations—unfair towards us as they were—was obliged to allow that we ought to have 109 representatives, and he gave us but 100. I come, Sir, to the point as to the existing and subsisting injustice to Ireland of the Union. It mainly consists in this—that we are deprived of the means of influencing the legislation and administration of our
184
affairs, which the constitution recognises as the people's right. The seat of Government is too far away from us for our voices to be heard, of our opinion to have weight. I need not refer for proof of this to anything beyond the admissions so frequently made in this House itself. I can appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Both have at various times noted and lamented the fact, that concession to Ireland was always delayed too long, and given too grudgingly. Both have declared that Ireland ought to be placed upon an equality with England in all rights and privileges short of the Repeal of the Union; and yet neither, notwithstanding their repeated terms of office, have been able to carry out their own declarations, owing to the dread of opposition here. Ireland is still much inferior in Parliamentary franchises, and in municipal powers and privileges, to say nothing of the monstrous anomaly of having a most burthensome Establishment, for the support of the religion of a small minority among her people. Sir, we have petitioned a hundred times on these subjects, until at last our people are beginning to despair of petitioning, and we have met no relief—and why not? Because this House is surrounded and acted upon by English opinion alone, and is preoccupied with English interests. Demonstrations of opinion in England, that had not one half the importance and concentration of such demonstrations in Ireland, have at once been attended to, while we have been neglected. I need instance only what took place within the last month. The noble Lord declared he required, for the necessities of Government an addition to the income-tax. A few articles appeared in some of the newspapers against his demand. Some three or four meetings were held, not particularly numerously attended, and at once the noble Lord, or his Colleague, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared for him, that they would bow to the opinion of the country, and withdraw the project, and I think they did right; but I do not think they ought to confine to England alone their promptness of concession to opinion. The opinion of Ireland also should be conceded to; but owing to the remoteness of the seat of Government it is not allowed equal weight. If you are still opposed to Repeal of the Union, but at last disposed, in some measure, to perform your promises and do us justice in minor matters, why not introduce

185
at once a prompt and liberal measure of increased franchises for us, and an addition to the number of Irish Members—such addition to be on the combined or separate bases of comparative population and taxation liabilities? If you combine these bases you get as follows: The separate taxation of Great Britain is 12,000,000 l. only out of the 53,000,000 l. of imperial revenue—that is to say, less than one-fourth of the same. The Irish taxation liabilities, therefore, are to the British at least as three to four; population is as one to three. Required proportion, four to seven; which would give Great Britain 419 Members, and Ireland 239 Members. Comparative population, if taken alone, would show Ireland entitled to at least 220 Members; and if the respective taxation liabilities were alone considered, she should have 282 Members out of the 658. I throw out this short calculation to show you how unjust is our present restriction to 105 Members; but by no means as advocating the remedy of this injustice as a substitute for Repeal, as to which I, for one, cannot, and, if I could, never would, make any compromise. The injustice of the Union is again felt by us in money matters. I shall have to speak again on this point of my case, and shall therefore confine myself to some very brief remarks at present. The Union Act established fiscal arrangements which, in 1816, were revised, confessedly and declared, because of their injustice and hardship to Ireland. A new arrangement was then made, which has not, in the thirty-one years gone by since then, abated the amount of exaction from Ireland; but the direct effect of which is, that every penny of our revenue which remains over after paying the reduced charges of the State in Ireland, is drained away from us and poured into the English Exchequer. Thus we have up to last year, sent away an aggregate of upwards of twenty-seven millions, while we have not received—even including the grants in the times of our greatest distresses—more than seven and a half millions, leaving a balance of drain, as I must call it, from us, of twenty millions. The Parliamentary paper that proves these facts has been laid on the table within the last few days, and is in fact but a repetition of previous documents. Of these twenty millions, far the greater part should have been left in Ireland, to be there expended upon imperial purposes, such as the maintenance in our harbours of
186
a large division of the fleet, and various other ways which I need not now stop to indicate. To a country suffering so much from the drains of absenteeism, this most legitimate expenditure would have been of singular value. I come now, Sir, to the injurious effects of the Union. I shall trouble the House with as few details as possible on this point. I do not expect that we shall have any one bold enough to boast on this occasion of the prosperity of a country which is reduced down to such a depth of misery and pauperism as is the case with unfortunate Ireland at the present moment. I will read to the House some authentic testimony as to her condition under her free Parliament up to 1800, and her condition at various periods since. The Earl of Clare, a Minister of 1800, and one of the Irish artificers and advocates of the Legislative Union, confessed that—
"No nation on the face of the habitable globe had advanced in cultivation, in agriculture, in manufactures, with the same rapidity as had Ireland since 1782."
Lord Plunkett, late Lord Chancellor for Ireland, declared at the same that—
"The revenues of Ireland, her trade and commerce, were thriving beyond the hope or example of any other country to her extent—within a few years advancing with a rapidity astonishing even to herself."
The bankers of Dublin, in 1798, and the merchants of Dublin, in 1799, bore equal testimony to the rapidly growing prosperity of Ireland subsequent to 1782; and a Committee of the Imperial Parliament that sat in 1804 embodied similar acknowledgments in their report. A Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into the state of the Irish poor in 1823, reported that—

"A large portion of the people of Ireland lived in a state of misery of which no conception could be formed. In some parts of the country one-half were without employment; in others the proportion was still greater."
A similar Committee, in 1830, reported that from one-fifth to one-fourth of the entire population were in destitution. A Royal Commission for the same object reported, in 1834, that 2,384,000—more than one-fourth of the Irish people—were then in destitution. The census report of 1841 announced the same sad tale as to more than 40 per cent of the combined rural and town population. Four years later Her Majesty's Commission, under the Earl of Devon, reported that the people of Ireland were
—"badly fed, badly housed, badly clothed, and

187
badly paid for their labour—that it would be impossible to describe adequately the sufferings and privations which they endured; that a bed or a blanket was a rare luxury; that nearly everywhere a pig and a manure heap were the only property; and that the Irish population endured greater sufferings than the people of any other country in Europe.">
When Lord Devon made his report, the worst was thought to have been reached; but, alas! there was a lower depth still into which poor Ireland was doomed to fall. Since then a million of our poor people have perished of starvation; another quarter of a million have been driven to emigrate in such misery that more than 20 per cent of them have died on the passage or immediately after arrival; and nearly four millions of these yet living at home had, last summer, to be supported by gratuitous relief. Who shall say how many of those poor wretches have perished since the cessation of that relief, and how many are daily wasting away from the face of the earth? Oh, Sir, whatever argument shall be brought against me, I do trust, at any rate, that we shall not have the always fallacious, but now the most insulting and mocking argument, that Ireland has prospered since the Union. Prospered—with a needy and absentee aristocracy—a beggared gentry, ruined manufactures, struggling and embarrassed commerce, small dealers bankrupt in the towns, farmers broken in the country, and a starving and perishing population! I directly and immediately trace to the Union, not to the potato rot of course, the disasters which it has here caused. The peasant was reduced to the potato, because the excessive rents and the scanty and insufficient wages of his labour left him not the means of providing better food. The potato he raised himself; and its capability of nourishment is known to exceed all other crops as three to one. What caused these heavy rents, and this deficiency of adequate employment and wages? The excessive competition for land, by which the tenant was at the mercy of the landlord—as, if he did not offer a ruinous price, another would. The same competition overstocked the labour market; and what produced this excessive competition? Simply the absence in Ireland of nearly all other means of living, save by holding of land. Manufactures had declined and decayed, and could no longer bear their part in furnishing employment, and giving thereby means of maintenance to any considerable portion of the population. And what was the cause of their decline and decay? Simply the
188
drain of capital from Ireland by absentees, by remittances of revenue and other outgoings. Where a sum exceeding in amount the annual revenue that Ireland is able to pay by taxes is drained away in absentee remittances and other outgoings, it is as impossible that the remaining capital of the country can circulate healthfully, as that there can be health and strength in the human body when there is a drain of blood from it. Finally, what caused absenteeism? Simply, the want of a Parliament at home, which would give a reason and an inducement to residence. As I have spoken of the outgoings of Ireland, it may be well that I should draw attention to them here, in order that their extent may be, in some measure, known. I will state also the other side of the account; and we shall see which way the balance lies:—

OUTGOINGS OF IRELAND.

Absentee rents

£5,000,000

Payments on loans and mortgages,&c., at least

2,500,000

For manufactured goods, which we no longer make ourselves

9,500,000

Crown and quit rents, unacknowledged revenue and revenue remitances

750,000

———

Total outgoings

£17,750,000

INCOMINGS OF IRELAND.

Value of linen and remnants of other manufactures

£3,500,000

Other exports

9,000,000

———

Total incomings

£12,500,000

Which leaves an excess of outgoings amounting to at least 5,250,000 l. With regard to imports and exports, it should be remarked that the former consisted of articles which if made at home, as they were in a great measure before the Union, would give abundant employment; whereas, the exports being chiefly of cattle and corn, employed comparatively little labour in their production, and were, besides, exported from a starving people. Surely that could not be a healthy state of things, in which food was exported, and the people left in want of the necessaries of life. Upon this branch of my subject, I need, I believe, say little more, as the facts speak for themselves. There is, however, one significant index of the poverty of Ireland, which should not be omitted: I mean the small increase of her revenue since the Union, notwithstanding the large increase of taxation:—

Great Britain.

Ireland.

1802

£36,925,000

£3,545,000

1846

54,700,000

4,900,000

189
Now, how stand matters as to relief, and imposition of taxation?

RELIEF OF TAXATION.

IMPOSITION OF TAXATION.

Great Britain.

Ireland.

Great Britain.

Ireland.

£.

£.

£.

£.

From 1800 up to 1815 (inclusive)

30,000,000

4,450,000

From 1815 up to 1845 (inclusive)

47,114,574

2,664,090

10,620,000

1,060,000

———

———

———

———

Totals up to 1846……

51,500,000

2,900,000

40,620,000

5,510,000

It will thus be seen that if the increase of Irish revenue were small, it was not by reason of Ireland having been much favoured in taxation matters as compared with Great Britain. But striking as was the return I have read, it does not reveal fully the extent of the effort the Imperial Parliament has made to screw up the Irish revenue. The following testimonies bear on this point:—
"For several years Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain itself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, including the extraordinary and war taxes—the permanent revenue of Great Britain having increased from the year 1801 in the proportion of sixteen one-half to ten—the whole revenue of Great Britain, including war taxes, as twenty-one one-fourth to ten—and the revenues of Ireland in the proportion of twenty-three to ten. But in the twenty-four years referred to your Committee, the increase of Irish revenue has been in the proportion of forty-six three-fourths to ten."
Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, the Irish Chancelcellor of the Exchequer, 1816—
190
"You contracted with Ireland," said he, "for an expenditure she could not meet—your own share you could not meet, but by sacrifices unexampled by exertions, the tension of which only England could have borne. Ireland had been led to hope he expenditure would have been less than before she was united to you. In the fifteen years preceding the Union it amounted to 41,000,000 l.; but in the fifteen years of Union it swelled to the enormous amount of 148,000,000 l. The increase of her revenue would have more than discharged without the aid of loans and expenditure greater than that of the fifteen years which preceded 1801."
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in a speech on the state of Ireland in 1822, complained that the increase of the Irish taxation since the Union was so excessive as to destroy revenue. He said, that in 1807 the revenue amounted to 4,378,241 l.; but that between that year and 1815 new taxes were imposed, from which an additional income of 3,376,000 l. was anticipated, but that the result was an absolute diminution of income, the revenue, in 1821, having been 533,000 l. under its amount in 1807. Mr. Poulet Thompson, on the 20th of March, 1830, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of making a revision of the taxes, quoted the foregoing, and said that the case thus "established, in the instance of Ireland, was written in characters too legible not to serve as a guide to future financiers, and was one which ought to bring shame on the memory of its authors." I think I have shown, Sir, that the small increase of onr revenue since 1800 has not been attributable to want of effort on your part to screw it up, and that I am therefore fully entitled to claim it as a proof of the poverty of the country after forty-eight years of your boasted imperial legislation. Recollect that out of the thirty-four or thirty-five millions of annual revenue, your separate taxation is only thirteen and a half millions, which leaves about forty-two millions as the product of taxes equally heavy in both countries. Now of this we pay by the equal taxes, say five millions, while you pay thirty-seven millions. The difference is not caused by heavier rates, for the rates are entirely equal as regards items of taxation, which produce these sums. What, then, is the real reason of the disparity? Simply this, that being so poor we are not able to consume taxed articles in the same proportion, as respects our comparative population, as you are as respects yours. Our population is one-third of yours. If we were equally rich with you, our consumption of articles equally taxed in both countries would be

191
in about the same proportion, and the case then would stand thus, namely —Great Britain 37,000,000 l.; Ireland 12,660,000 l. But our present poverty prevents us paying more than five millions; therefore, by reason of your refusing to restore to us the means of upraising the condition of our country, you deprive the empire of nearly eight millions of annual revenue, which could be had without one additional tax. I know, with regard to any point that may be attempted to be made as to your paying separate taxation, even to the extent of twelve millions, let me remind you that in arranging the articles of Union it was declared that no union could be formed, with any degree of common justice and common honesty, that did not keep Ireland free from the annual charge of your debt, previously contracted. The amount of annual charge on this score as compared with Ireland, I shall now give, as also the amount of the principals of both debts; and further, the respective amounts sixteen years later, when the financial arrangements of the Union were altered, for the declared reason that they had been proved unjust and grievous to Ireland:—

GREAT BRITAIN.

IRELAND.

Debt.

Annual Charge.

Debt.

Annual Charge.

5th January 1801

£450,504,984

£17,718,851

£28,545,134

£1,244,463

5th January 1817

734,522,104

28,238,416

112,704,773

4,104,514*

Now, I first remark upon the foregoing, that the excess of the charge of your ante-
* Parliamentary Paper, 35 of 1819, 2nd Session.
192
Union debt over that of ours was, in 1800, fifteen millions annually: and the separate taxation you pay is little more than twelve millions. The grievousness of the financial arrangement of the Union is shown by the table I have given; they having caused the Irish debt to increase nearly three hundred per cent in the fifteen years, while the British debt increased only sixty per cent. I shall not delay the House with the numerous quotations I could give from the admissions made in the House of Commons in 1816, and the report of the Finance Committee, which recommended the change then made in the unjust financial arrangements I have spoken of. The nature and effect of the change then made is, however, of importance. It professed to relieve Ireland of the heavy and growing charge of her particular debt thus unjustly aggravated; but at the same time it did
away with all safeguards given her by the Union Act against being held responsible to the last penny for every charge that was on Great Britain; so that this change, commonly known as the consolidation of the Exchequers of the two countries, pledged Ireland thenceforth, and for ever, to the utmost of her ability—to the last penny that could be screwed out of her—to contribute to the debt of Great Britain, put her in the impossibility, until that debt should be paid off, of devoting any surplus of her revenue, if it were to increase a hundred-fold, to any but British purposes. Now, Sir, this common and unlimited liability of Ireland was in direct violation of the Act of Union, which provided in Article 7 that she should not—as in common honesty and fairness she ought not—to be subjected to such common liability until her circumstances should be so much improved as to admit of her contributing indiscriminately with Great Britain by equal taxes—a circumstance the very absence of which was deplored by the Minister who passed the Consolidation Act. Instead of passing the latter, he should have revised and made lighter to Ireland the unjust and grievous financial arrangements of the Union, and postponed, until better times at least, the wholesale mortgage of Ireland which was effected by the Consolidation Act. Its consequences in detail would too much lengthen out the review I am taking of all the injustices inflicted on us by and since the Union. I shall, therefore, confine myself to saying, that on reference to the successive volumes of the annual finance accounts since 1816, and going through the necessary calculations, hon. Members will

193
find that the great pretence of the Consolidation Act—namely, that it would lighten the exactions from Ireland, which were declared to have been found unjust and excessive, has not been realised, as the Union proportions of contribution have in practice been maintained, instead of being reduced; and, in fact and truth, every penny, as I said before, that could be got out of Ireland has been taken from her. If she has been able to pay the Union proportion of contribution, which, previous to 1816, ran her so heavily into debt, it is because the expenditure of the United Kingdom has diminished one half since then; but whether it be large or small, the Consolidation Act has so mortgaged Ireland for all England's liabilities, that whatever surplus of Irish revenue over the reduced Government expenditure in Ireland there may be at any time—if it be ten pounds, or ten hundred thousand pounds—if it were ten millions—every penny should go to England. I have before cited testimonies to show that every possible effort has been made to tax us, and abandoned only because found unproductive. The assessed taxes of Ireland are a clear proof of this, as they were finally abandoned in 1822, avowedly because failing of production. Taking the whole amount realised by them, it will be found that the entire relief given in this way to Ireland, by reductions in 1818, and total repeal in 1823, was 536,000 l.; whereas the reductions and repeals of assessed taxes in Great Britain were to the amount of 5,170,000 l., as may be seen on reference to a Parliamentary return of 1842. The right hon. Member for Tamworth confessed Ireland's inability to give any profitable return by an income-tax when he was bringing in that measure; and one of the taxes which he then imposed upon her by way of substitution he had the following year to repeal, because of its unproductiveness. Long as I have had to dwell upon those subjects, Sir, I feel I have by no means said all that there could be said, and that my inevitable omissions will he readily seized upon, and attributed, not to my anxiety for the convenience of the House, but to other reasons. I think, however, that a fair and candid review of what I have advanced on these two points, the injustice and injuriousness of the Union to Ireland, will be found amply sufficient to prove my case. I shall have presently to show you briefly. but, I trust, plainly, that the Union is injurious
194
to you. I now come, Sir, to my third point, namely — that the Union is unwise. I think it so, first and chiefly, because it keeps the people of Ireland in perpetual discontent and poverty, thus morally and physically incapacitating them to be that support in the difficulties and dangers of the empire, and that bulwark against the chances of foreign invasion, which they would be if their affections were conciliated by kind and equitable treatment, and the strength and energies of their country reinvigorated by the stoppage of her wasting drains, and the healthful and active circulation at home of her restored capital. If her people should be mad enough (which, indeed, whatever may be the case in a few localities, I do not believe), to allow themselves to be incited to insurrection, you will, doubtless, put them down; but with what waste of blood, and treasure, and with what storing up of future and ever-recurring insecurity and peril! Blood never well consolidates the edifice of freedom; but neither is it a lasting cement for oppression. And I must tell you, so bitter, burning, and so deep is the inveteracy of feeling which your ill treatment, your slights, your oppressions, have created for you in Ireland, that you must resolve upon a worse than Elizabethan or Cromwellian policy for Ireland, or upon one of generous and entire concession. No middle course remains; and if you do resolve upon the Cromwellian policy, sit you down first and count the cost; and make up your mind to that cost beforehand. Why, at this moment what heavy expenses have you not added to the ordinary outgoings of the State by reason of your neglect and ill treatment of Ireland? You have had to collect rents for landlords by the use of soldiery and police; and you will have to do so again and again. You have had, and still have, to collect rates by the same means; and even those means will fail of profitable result. Cases have been mentioned to me in the West of Ireland, where the potato pot—the only remaining article of furniture in the cabins of the wretched ratepayers, and even the damp straw on which they lay at night, have been carried off by the collector, with his escort of thirty soldiers and police. Do you think of the cost of all this? Have you no recollections of a sum of arrears of tithe amounting, I believe, to 12,000 l., costing you 27,000 l. in military and police expenses? And if this is to go on, as go on it must,

195
aye, and become every month more and more aggravated in grievousness; how will you ever be able to effect reductions in that general expenditure of the State, of which you so heavily complain? These, I do submit, are considerations deeply worthy of your most serious attention. Weigh them well before you finally decide. On the one hand, with the Union discontent, ruinous and ever-increasing expense, and danger to both countries; on the other, conciliated affections, increased and increasing revenues, and peace, strength, and prosperity to the empire. I showed you before how the revenues of the State would be most certainly increased, even without one additional tax, if by repealing the Union you checked the drain of capital from Ireland, and left it to fructify at home. I showed you how our present poverty leaves us able to consume so small a proportion of excisable and customable articles on which the duties are the same in both countries—that the respective payments of both countries on those equally taxed articles are as nine to one, instead of as three to one—and I drew the fair conclusion that as we improved in prosperity, our additional consumption of those articles would raise our payments to the latter proportion, and thus give you seven or eight millions more of money annually toward a the purposes of the State, without a single additional tax; and of course our restored prosperity would then enable us to bear the burden of an income-tax if the necessities of the empire required it. But the Repeal of the Union would not only increase the general resources by the renovated prosperity of Ireland, but would actually diminish the expenditure. For instance, the army expenses of Ireland average more than a million in the year. The police expenses of all kinds, occasioned and aggravated by the discontents of the country, must, if we take into consideration the multitude of informations, prosecutions, and the pay and support of informers and detectives, come to something like half a million. Upon these items alone, a certain reduction could be made if you did justice to Ireland. I do not hesitate to say that nearly a million might be economised on these, to say nothing of other reductions. In fact, I do believe you would find Ireland a mine of wealth, instead of a drain and drag upon you, if you would but at last try the experiment of treating her with kindness and with justice, instead of with suspicion, con-
196
tempt, coercion, and severity. It would be wise, then, for you to repeal this Union, which exists but on parchment, and which is, in truth, the only obstacle to a real and lasting union between the two countries. It would be just also as it is wise, for Ireland has as much right to an independent local Parliament as you have yourselves. The great authority of Sir Edward Coke can be cited to the fact that Henry II. made a free and unfettered grant of Parliaments to Ireland. Henry III. granted Magna Charta in precisely the same terms as the English grant. I need not go into this point at any length; but I will say that throughout her history you will find Ireland's claim to a separate and independent Parliament constantly asserted and contended for through every difficulty, until in 1782 you had finally to acknowledge it, and in 1783 you confirmed the acknowledgment by the following Act, of which I shall read you the title and one clause:—
"23 GEO. III. c. 28.
"An Act for preventing and removing all Doubts which have arisen or might arise, concerning the exclusive Rights of the Parliament and Courts of Ireland in matters of Legislation and Judicature, and to prevent Appeals being heard in Great Britain:
"'Be it enacted, That the right claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by His Majesty and the Parliament of that kingdom in all cases whatever, and to have all actions and suits at law or in equity which may be instituted in that kingdom, decided in His Majesty's courts therein, finally and without appeal from thence, shall be and is hereby declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be questioned or questionable.'
"The words 'for ever' in the foregoing clause, were on special motion adopted instead of 'for the future,' being considered more comprehensive and decided."
But I shall be answered that there are two—and the most important—points which I have not yet touched upon, namely, first, whether it would not be manifestly and indisputably an injury to ourselves to get back a Parliament which was avowedly so corrupt as was the Irish Parliament that passed the Union; and a long recital of previous profligate acts will be thrown in our teeth. On this first point I answer at once, Sir, and most unhesitatingly, that if it it were possible at this time of day, at this period of the advance of liberal ideas and the power of opinion, to reconstitute the boroughmongering and sectarian Parliament of Ireland, we, although naturally enough demanding to know why Ireland should be deprived of the benefit of the progress of reform, would prefer even that

197
corrupt, narrow-based, and boroughmongering Parliament of Irishmen, to remaining in the condition in which we are. I am perfectly confident that the sentiment which the late Mr. O'Connell uttered in his first public speech, in the year 1800, that sooner than consent to the Union the Catholics of Ireland would readily resume their chains, and throw themselves on the mercy of their Protestant fellow-countrymen, is still felt. And they might well trust to that mercy; for in twenty years up to 1795 the Irish Protestant Parliament had passed no less than four distinct Emancipation Acts; whereas, although the concluding Act of Catholic Emancipation was held out as a bribe at the time of the Union, twenty-nine years passed before the promise given of its enactment was realised; and then most ungraciously and grudgingly. And again, Sir, the good deeds of the Irish Parliament should not be forgotten when its sins are remembered. They steadily resisted attempts made at six different periods from 1690 to 1754, on the part of the British Minister, to interfere with and destroy their constitutional control over the supplies and disposable revenue of Ireland. I can quote testimony given in this House in the year 1785, by Lord North, as to their conduct on one of those occasions, and the reasons then actuating them:—
"The grants of the Irish Parliament, in Charles the Second's time, were so liberal (in return for his confirming the Cromwellian settlers in their acquisitions) that the King had no necessity for calling another Parliament in Ireland during his whole reign. The Irish felt the error they had committed in thus rendering the Crown independent; and the hereditary revenue soon became an object of jealousy, not to say of detestation, to the people. The debt contracted at the Revolution afforded them an opportunity of proving this: in providing for the payment of that debt, they laid on additional duties of customs and excise, but they would not impose them for more than two years, in order that the Crown should be under the necessity of calling the Parliament together again, before the expiration of the two years. This policy had the desired effect, and the Commons have persevered in it from that day to this, with a difference of late, that the Session being annual, the grants of money are only from one year to another. The hereditary revenue had, since the Revolution, been a subject of jealousy and terror to the Parliament, insomuch that so far from endeavouring to improve it, they never missed an opportunity to throw charges upon it, to bear it down: however, in 1751, there was in the Exchequer of Ireland a surplus of 400,000 l. This, instead of being matter of joy, was the cause of general consternation throughout the kingdom: it was Shared the Crown was become so rich, that it could pay off the debt that was then on the nation, and having no farther occasion for the annual grants, would call no more Parliaments.
198
There was a question in that year of disposing of this surplus of 400,000 l.; and a Bill was brought into Parliament for that purpose. The preamble was to this effect: 'Whereas His Majesty has signified his consent, that the susplus now in the exchequer, &c. be disposed of,' &c. The zealous patriots took fire at the word 'consent,' though it had been inserted in two other acts before that on similar occasions: they said the King had a right to give Ms assent to that Bill as well as to any other; but that he had no right to give his consent; which latter term implied, that the subject could not be so much as discussed, or made the substance of a Bill, without the previous consent of the Crown, as in the case of private grants. This was the ground of a great struggle in the Commons, where the most formidable opposition ever known in Ireland, was made against this word 'consent:' the opposition triumphed."
By this bold conduct of the Irish Parliament the surplus revenue was saved, and applied to the liquidation of debt. The debt was thus paid off in 1754; and another surplus accruing, they hastened to dispose of that, lest it should be swept away from them, and thus Parliaments rendered unnecessary. From the severe commercial restrictions and most injurious trade and navigation laws which Great Britain maintained against Ireland at that time, the internal commerce and enterprise of Ireland was languishing. Actuated by, no doubt, false ideas of political economy, the Irish Parliament sought to stimulate both by grants and bounties. It was a very mistaken policy, and naturally greatly abused in its development; but the original idea of it was honest and even patriotic. If they had not so spent the money, it would have been used by the British Minister against themselves, by enabling him to dispense with calling them together annually. I have said so much, Sir, to put in a right view the conduct of the Irish Parliament at a period about which there are so many calumnies; and I only remark, in addition, that I have never heard that any Englishman advocated the abrogation of the English Parliament because of its gross corruption under Sir Robert Walpole and some of his predecessors and successors. It is a bad argument in logic to reason from the abuse against the use; and it is reasoning ad absurdum to say that because we once had a corrupt Parliament, we always should have one of that description. I leave, therefore, the defence of the Irish Parliament but with these two remarks more—that in 1768 it voluntarily limited its own existence to eight years; giving up the privilege of sitting during the lifetime of the reigning monarch; and secondly, that very Irish Parliament,

199
which it is the fashion so much to revile, repelled foreign invasion from the Irish shores, and crushed domestic rebellion, while at the same time assisting England in her foreign wars by large subsidies, which ran the Irish debt from 2,250,000 l. in 1792, up to 28,500,000 l. in 1800, or rather more than 1,200 l. per cent. The second point of objection yet remaining to be answered by me, with regard to the restoration of an Irish Parliament, I take to be this, viz., the chances of disagreement between the respective Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. On this I shall first quote the opinion of one, who, in Ireland at least, is yet held to be an authority on constitutional points. Mr. Foster, Speaker of the Irish Parliament, thus dealt with this objection when it was urged as a reason for the Union:—
"Theory, and theory alone, says, that the separate Parliaments may disagree. But there is no one argument you can apply as showing a consequent necessity of consolidating them, that will not apply much stronger for the consolidation of the two Houses in each; and the same arguments will all further apply, with equal strength, to consolidate the two Houses with the King, for fear of the national concerns being impeded by disagreement. Thus your arguments will end in the absurdity, that you must consolidate the three estates of each kingdom into one, for fear of a difference of opinion between them, arising from the exercise of their free judgments; that you must abandon the glorious constitution of a mixed Government which you now enjoy, and adopt that of a single monarch, or single power, wherever it may rest, either in a monarch, an oligarchy, or a republic. But practice, which is a more steady guide than theory, tells you the reverse. In points of peace and war, the Irish Parliament has never, even during centuries, differed in opinion with the British; though its power to do so has ever been as unlimited, and equally free, before as since the constitution of 1782. No! interest is a sure guide to nations; and it never was, nor ever can be, the interest of the smaller number to differ from the larger—of the weaker to differ from the more powerful, on such a matter; and it is no rash prediction to say, that good sense, and even necessity, must soon reconcile the differing body, if unfortunately such an instance should occur. But if we look into the principles of the British constitution, we shall find there abundant reason not only to reject arguments of such a theory as would consolidate the Legislatures, but even not to adopt such measures were it practicable. That constitution was not the work of one man, or of one age: it has gradually softened down in the course of centuries into that perfection we now have—more by the collision of circumstances, than by the efforts of human wisdom or foresight. That collision has imperceptibly formed a balance in its constituent parts, which, by the power of mutual checks, keeps each within its bounds, and preserves the whole in its true perfection. That balancing check is the true principle to which it owes its preservation—destroy it, and the whole
200
is gone! Is it wrong, then, to look for similar good effects from the same balancing principle in the connexion between the Legislatures of the two islands, as in the connexion between the component parts of each Legislature?"
As to the Regency difference, although I maintain that the Irish Parliament took a more constitutional view of that question than the English, inasmuch as the natural heir to the Throne, in ease of physical death, was the fittest person to occupy it in the case of the moral death of George the Third's insanity; yet this Bill, which I ask leave to introduce to-night, contains a distinct clause for leaving the appointment of Regent with the English Parliament. However, that is a matter that could be best discussed and arranged in Committee. The most important questions may be shortly stated, as those of peace and war, which involve the question of the financial contributions of Ireland in either case; also arrangements as to matters of trade, foreign and domestic. The spread of the principles of free trade will, I believe, greatly help to solve all difficulties on the latter score. We are not desirous, no more than you are yourselves, to retrograde in civilisation; and I say confidently that I do believe that matters of trade would therefore be found the very easiest of arrangement. With regard to war, the prerogative of the Sovereign should remain untouched, and to the Sovereign alone would remain the power and the right of declaring or concluding war. The Irish Parliament should not, indeed, be deprived of its constitutional and inalienable right to limit the annual supplies or cause a rising; but even if it pushed its rights so far as to refuse the Minister a contribution towards the active expenses of a war, it should be held bound to the entire defence of Ireland, and the absolute and entire cessation of all relations with the enemy of England so long as the war lasted. These are matters which should be adjusted by international treaty, just as was done—in form at least—at the period of the Union. As to the proportion in which Ireland should contribute towards imperial expenses, whether in war or peace, the international treaty that I contemplate, would, as in the case of the Treaty of Union, arrange that matter, providing periods of revision of the arrangement, in the same way as was also done in the case of the Treaty of Union. Ireland, rejoiced at the restoration of her own Parliament, would be found no niggard in her money engagements and deal-

201
ings with you; and thus you would speedily share with her the full benefit of her restored prosperity. There is no such solecism in the counsels of Divine Providence, as that the legitimate prosperity of one country can be of injury to another. The wealth and prosperity of Ireland would eminently benefit you. It would do so directly by the economy that could be practised in the government of that country, once you had by kindness and justice won over the people of Ireland to the support of your Government there. And there would also be the immediate benefit of an increase of Irish revenue—an increase steadily and certainly progressive, according as by the increase of their means, more and more of her population became consumers of taxed articles. I don't think I exaggerate when I say, that the first year of Repeal would not pass over our heads before you would experience these benefits to the amount of at least a million of money; and that before seven years were gone by, that amount would be tenfold increased. As to manufactures, Ireland should, for a considerable period, supply herself from England, and, in some branches of manufacture she should do so permanently. And her restored prosperity at home would check at once, and before long entirely put an end, to that increasing deluge of pauper immigration from Ireland, which is so grievously injuring the prosperity of your manufacturing towns, and so enormously aggravating your poor-rates. This is a point particularly worth your attention; for, depend upon it, that, grievous as you find the influx of Irish paupers at present, you will find it ten times worse ere long, if Ireland continue to decline as she is doing under the Union. Not all the police regulations, the quarantines, the deportation systems you can devise, will check it. You may as well hope to keep the tide from rushing up your river. Nothing can check it but that better state of things in Ireland, which must immediately result from the stoppage of the wasting money drains from Ireland. I tell you, then, that the choice before you this night is, the continuance of the Union, with the continuance and constant aggravation of most bitter discontents — hostility that bides its time; poverty, expense, and loss to the empire, and an ever increasing deluge of Irish pauperism into your cities and towns—or else the Repeal of that Union, with an immediate reconcilement between the two nations—a feeling of mutual friend-
202
ship and mutual necessity, entire security against domestic treason, and foreign invasion, increasing and abounding resources newly opened for the empire, relief to your poor-rates, comfort to your artisans, and prosperity to your manufactures. Do not deceive yourselves. Bad as is the present condition of affairs in Ireland, it will be far worse ere long. You have made one tolerably successful collection of poor-rates. Your next may not be so good. You will find ratepayers broken down into ratereceivers—bankrupt traders, and a ruined gentry. And in the coming shock of nations, you, persevering in the unjust, injurious, and therefore most unwise, denial of her Parliament to Ireland, will have your foreign efforts crippled and restrained by the large army that you must keep at home to restrain the madness and despair of the destitute and starving Irish people. Be just, be wise, be generous in time. Let it not be said that when every other aggrieved people in Europe are feeling the benefits of the great movement for freedom that is now being made all over Europe, Ireland alone is doomed to remain in misery and degradation. Misery you cannot deny that she is in, and degradation it most certainly is to have her affairs managed for her, or rather neglected and mismanaged by the Parliament of another country. We never will be—we never can be—content that this should endure. We know and we acknowledge no inferiority to you, of any species or description, save the inferiority of wealth and strength, occasioned by your injustice. We are not born with any brand of Cain upon our brows to mark that we shall be the serfs of any other nation on the face of the globe. Our Ireland is as dear to us as your England is to you; and as you would rather die than give up or abandon the least one of your country's natural and inalienable rights, so are we determined to the last to struggle for the restoration to our country of the greatest and highest right of all, that of legislating for herself. On this we can make no abatement—on this we can come to no compromise. You but protract the struggle, if concession be not complete. You declare against the best interests of the empire if you refuse the concession. You establish that empire for ever on the immoveable basis of conciliated affections and united hearts of the people of the two countries, then really united, if you concede while concession can have grace. You rejoice over the recovered liberty of foreign nations—you deliberately contem-

203
plate the time when your own colonies will have outgrown dependency, and when it will be for the interest of the mother country to give them more extensive powers of self-government than have hitherto been entrusted to them. Act in the same spirit with Ireland. The liberty you have yet given to her is the liberty to complain, to remonstrate, and to starve. Give her now the liberty to redress the dangerous evils of her social and political condition, to take on herself the charge and support of her own people, and to be a powerful member of the empire, instead of a difficulty, a weakness, and a danger. For the seven centuries that you have governed her, she has been to you a burden and a reproach, because of your injustices and your tyrannies. At this period of the advance of civilisation it is due to your own character that there ahould be a change; and that a firm and lasting peace, founded upon justice and equality, and an enduring and most beneficent mutual alliance should be established between us. This you can effect by giving us our own Parliament, our great, our inalienable, our indestructible right. Do this, then, generously; do it at once, and so shall you secure that, whatever the changes in Europe—whatever may happen to other countries, these two friendly sister nations, united under one Crown, and one firm, fast, and enduring allegiance to the Throne, shall go on steadily and uninterruptedly in peace, in order, and in certainty, to our common prosperity, and we shall at last give truth and meaning to the quotation with which, at the Union, our degradation was mocked:—
"——Paribus se legibus ambæ Invictæ gentes æterna in fœdera mittant."
SIR W. SOMERVILLE rose with considerable regret to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend, for it was always a matter of regret to him when he found himself compelled to oppose any Motion which he felt convinced had engaged largely the sympathies of the Irish people. This was not a time to conceal the truth, and he admitted that he himself was a living instance of the feeling to which he had referred; and when he made that avowal, it was also a matter of personal pride to himself to say that, had it not been for the personal regard and affection which an Irish constituency entertained towards him, he should not now have been a Member of that House. He made this avowal candidly, because he believed that neither at
204
present nor at any time was anything to be gained by concealing the honest truth. However, in opposing the introduction of the Bill of his hon. Friend, he had the consolation to think that he was only pursuing a course which be had ever pursued. He had always opposed any Motion for the repeal of the legislative Union between the two countries, because ho had always considered that the repeal of that Union would be detrimental to Irish interests and Irish interests principally. It was not his intention to discuss the long array of figures which his hon. Friend had produced before the House, nor should he advert to the method by which the legislative Union was carried. He really thought that the time had gone for discussing that point. The people of Ireland, if they were happy and contented —if their condition were such as he should wish it to be—would never throw away a moment's thought on the way in which the Union was carried; but it was a fallacy to hold that the legislative Union had deprived the Irish people of that prosperity which, it was asserted, they enjoyed before the Union. His hon. Friend had described the condition of Ireland before the Union as one of contentment, and prosperity as regarded commerce and trade, and had said that the artisans were in employment, and, in short, that Ireland was a picture of prosperity. He thought that a greater fallacy than that had never been given utterance to in that House. Great as at the present time was the state of poverty and destitution in Ireland, he believed that before the Union it was as great, if not greater, than it was, he would not say at the existing moment, because the country was now suffering under a great calamity, the result of the visitation of Providence; but at any other time since the legislative Union. The right hon. Gentleman here referred to a publication entitled Facts for the Repealers, with the view of showing the condition of the artisans and labourers of Ireland between 1780 and 1800, when the Union was enacted; by which it appeared that during that period various petitions were presented to the Irish Parliament from Cork, Wexford, Wicklow, Dublin, and different other parts of Ireland, setting forth the distress of the manufacturers and artisans, and of the persons engaged in the woollen, silk, and linen trades. In those petitions he found a statement of distress such as was not to be found to have existed in an increased degree at any time since the period of the

205
Union. With reference to the condition of the poor, too, he thought that if there was any matter in which the independent Parliament of Ireland was to blame, it was in that of the utter and total neglect of the Irish poor, from which the country was now suffering, and was likely, he feared, to suffer many years. He held that the prosperity of a country ought to be based on the comfort of the poor; but it was only within the last few years that this truth began to be sufficiently impressed upon the minds of Members of that House; and it was not until the last year that any efficient legislative measures were adopted. He opposed the repeal of the legislative Union because he believed that repeal would be politically and socially detrimental to the interests of Ireland. His notion of a repeal of the Union was directly opposite to that entertained by his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman had said that the union of the two countries had reduced Ireland to the state of a province. His (Sir W. Somerville's) notion was, that if the Union were repealed, he would at once, as an Irishman, become a provincialist. His hon. Friend had said that every Irishman who came into that House was a slave—a serf. The hon. Gentleman put himself forward as the representative of the Irish people; he talked of "we, the Irish," as if no other hon. Members of that House had the feelings, the affections, or the pride of Irishmen. He (Sir W. Somerville) could only say that he felt himself no serf in that House; he felt himself no slave. He was an humble individual, but he felt himself as independent a Member of that House as any English Gentleman; and his notion was that a repeal of the legislative Union would transfer him, from being a Member of that Imperial Legislature, into a Member of the Irish Provincial Parliament. The hon. Gentleman had said that an Irish Parliament would not be an independent Parliament and in that sentiment he (Sir W. Somerville) entirely concurred. It would not be an independent Parliament. Was the Irish Parliament before the Union an independent Parliament? No; the mode in which the machine was then set to work, was by the most gross and boundless corruption. If this was to continue to be the case, the result would be that their provincialism would become intolerable. The hon. Gentleman opposite, and those by whom he was supported, if they obtained an independent legislature, would be compelled either to take steps to
206
reunite themselves to the English Parliament again, or they would be forced, in justice to themselves, and in order to fulfil their own prophecies, to agitate for complete independence. They would then be obliged to bring forward the same arguments they were now using for the repeal of the Union in favour of a complete separation between the two countries; a fresh career of agitation would have to be commenced, the minds of the people would be excited afresh, disappointment would but envenom their feelings, and by the consequent turmoil and agitation the prosperity of Ireland would be indefinitely postponed. These were some of his (Sir W. Somerville's) principal objections to the repeal of the Union; and it was unnecessary to enlarge upon these matters, because they were the salient points upon which the whole question turned. He believed, as he had said before, that by the repeal of the Union they would degrade Ireland from imperialism to provincialism; that the supporters of repeal would be disappointed in the effect of their own measure; and that they would be obliged to commence their agitation de novo. But he entertained still stronger objections to repeal on social grounds. Even supposing such a measure to be desirable, was this, he asked, a moment when it would be possible to carry it into effect? Was this the time, when Ireland was reeling under the effects of two years of famine, that she could come forward and declare that she was able to stand alone? when she could take upon herself all the functions of Government; when she could pay an Army, a Navy, a police force; when she could maintain her poor, and when she could meet those other burdens, in bearing which she was now assisted by this country? Great fault had been found with the Government, both for what they had done and what they had left undone, during the last year; but, he would ask, could the Irish Parliament have done half as much as the English Parliament had done, under similar circumstances? Had the Irish Parliament ever done half as much in times of famine and distress? Why, what did the Irish Parliament do during the famine of 1748, when an enormous number of people perished? They did nothing more than this —they passed an Act for the more speedy recovery of . He asked again, then, was it at such a moment of distress as the present that hon. Gentlemen opposite would propose to bring about so important

207
a change? He believed that, if they were successful, they would only aggravate the miseries of Ireland; they would find themselves unable to support their own poor; and they would be unable to meet those expenses which were necessary for carrying on the legitimate functions of Government. He (Sir W. Somerville) was far from denying the present wretched social condition of Ireland; but he considered that that condition was mainly attributable to the two successive years of famine she had just encountered. He was ready to maintain that, until that dreadful famine occurred, Ireland had been making rapid and progressive strides in prosperity. He defied any man who had not visited Ireland for the last ten years to make a tour of that country now without being struck by the marked change for the better which had taken place. Agriculture had improved; the farmers were more comfortable; and if any class was to be excepted from the general prosperity it was the unfortunate labouring class, who appeared at all times, and under all circumstances, to have been neglected. The condition of that unfortunate class had always created the difficulty of the Government of Ireland, and formed the difficulty of the Government now. Great blame had been cast upon the Government for their supineness in bringing forward remedial measures for Ireland. Now, though he did not undervalue the importance of any political reforms that might be just and necessary, yet he thought, considering the destitution which had prevailed in Ireland during the past year, that the consideration of such subjects might be safely laid aside for the present. The Bill which had been introduced by the Government for amending the law of landlord and tenant had given rise to much animadversion; and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) had said that that measure had excited great discontent in the north of Ireland, and especially among the tenant-farmers of Ulster. He (Sir W. Somerville) was the last man in that House to propose an interference with the tenant-right of the people of Ulster; he admired their independence, and he would he sorry to do anything that might be prejudicial to their interests; but he thought it would not be difficult in any measure which might receive the sanction of the House to devise some plan for securing the privileges of that invaluable body of men. He believed, however, that any one who attempted to legalise the
208
tenant-right of Ulster would not be conferring a benefit on the tenant-farmers of that district; and he hoped it would not be thought that in anything he had done, he had had the slightest intention to undermine that right, or to interfere with the benefits it had conferred on that portion of the country. He was anxious to make this explanation, because he had seen with deep pain that a misapprehension of his views on this subject prevailed in Ulster; and he hoped it would be distinctly understood that it was not his wish or intention to interfere with the invaluable right which existed in that district of Ireland. It had been said that the supposed attempt to interfere with the right of the Ulster tenant-farmers had indisposed them to the connexion between this country and Ireland. He (Sir W. Somerville) did not believe a word of that statement. Such a statement might have been made as a bait to the people of Ulster to oppose the Union; but he (Sir W. Somerville) believed it would be found impossible to attempt to disturb the Union on any such fallacious pretext. Among the grievances of which the Irish people justly complained was that of absenteeism. He did not deny the evils of that system; but it was not unnatural that men should go where they were happy, comfortable, and safe. He did not wish to say anything of an irritating character; but he might state that he had had an opportunity of testing practically the sincerity of his hon. Friend (Mr. M. O'Connell) on this absentee question. He (Sir W. Somerville) had lately been engaged in a very severe contest for the borough he had the honour to represent (Drogheda); and on that occasion the interest of the hon. Gentleman, and of the association which he represented, was brought into the field against him. The hon. Member for Tralee personally went down to Drogheda to assist in opposing him. Now, what did the House think was a chief recommendation of the Gentleman who was his (Sir W. Somerville's) opponent on that occasion? Why, simply that he was an absentee. In his address to the people of Drogheda that Gentleman used these words:—
"My residence in London would enable me to be of constant use to my constituents."
When so much was said of absenteesim, he thought it rather hard that the Gentleman who opposed him in the interest of those who denounced absentees should take his stand on such ground. He thought that

209
was not a very practical proof of the way in which absenteeism was discouraged by the body of which his hon. Friend was a member. The situation of the country was calculated to excite much uneasiness in reference to the subject of Repeal. There was no people, he believed, for whom republican institutions would be so ill suited. But he had every hope the present storm would blow over. His belief was, that there was in Ireland more loyalty, more sound policy, more determination to uphold the law, the constitution, and the connexion between the two countries, than was generally supposed by many Gentlemen in that House. He had every hope that the peace of the country would be preserved. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Brien) had threatened that they would confiscate his property. The hon. Gentleman said that the property of every person who did not join him (Mr. O'Brien) in his present career would be confiscated. Was he (Sir W. Somerville) not at liberty to hold opinions of his own as well as his hon. Friend? If he thought the separation of the two countries would reduce Ireland to a province, had he not a right to express that opinion? Was his property to be confiscated because he held that opinion? Was his hon. Friend serious in holding such language? Did he consider the mischief which might ensue, and the alarm such threats were raising in the public mind? The hon. Gentleman might confiscate his property in Ireland; but he (Sir W. Somerville) had this gratifying reflection, that he did not think the poor people who were dependent on him there would thank the hon. Gentleman in the least. He (Sir W. Somerville) had always been an advocate for the Irish people. He had always joined his fellow-countrymen in every effort to obtain freedom, to extend their franchises, and to place them on an equal footing with the people of this country. There was a time when to follow such a course involved considerable sacrifices. That day was gone. Public opinion had taken another course. He could not join in that agitation which had been set on foot; for as he had hitherto been so should he be now. He was prepared, as he had ever been, to assist in securing for his fellow-countrymen every further privilege which the people of this country enjoyed, and that to the fullest extent. Entertaining these views—no matter what
he had to go through; no matter with what he might be threatened—he should act an
210
honest and conscientious part, even if what was threatened should happen; and he hoped his hon. Friend would not be able to carry his threat into execution. He hoped—for such was his intention—that he had not used a single word to give pain. His feelings towards his countrymen should always be those of amity, and his endeavours to secure their interests should always be marked by the same devotion. He had not said one word of Imperial interests. He was anxious to take his stand purely on the interests of Ireland. He thought the repeal of the Union would be prejudicial to Ireland. Why should they forego all the advantages which they might enjoy under it? Having aided this country in the extension of the empire, in the acquisition of colonies, in raising the British empire to the prosperity which it now enjoyed, why should they now voluntarily come forward and close the door against
all those advantages in which they could claim a share? To such a measure as a repeal of the Union he could not give his consent; and if it were a question of life and death to the two countries, he felt himself on that very account compelled to say "No!" to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
MAJOR BLACKALL could not support the Motion, which was indeed proposed at a most inauspicious moment. The proposition he had himself made secured all the advantages of a separate legislation, without incurring the dangers of separation from this country. That proposition was, that Parliament should meet a certain number of months in Dublin to dispose of Irish business. Hon. Gentlemen were
obliged to conic here and expend their incomes; why should there not be some reciprocity? The expense of bringing over witnesses from Ireland for examination before Railway and Election Committees would be diminished were his suggestion adopted. As an instance of the want of attention in that House to Irish questions, he might state that on a late occasion, when a Motion was made for an inquiry of a very important kind connected with the well-being of the Irish people, not more than twenty English Members were present during the debate; while on the division, however, they did not fail to be present, and the Motion was defeated by a large majority. He did not expect to have a large amount of support on the present occasion; but be hoped that the seed he had sown would grow, and ultimately be pro-

211
ductive of a beneficial result. He would move as an Amendment—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to convene the Imperial Parliament in future, for a certain number of months in each year, in Dublin, for the dispatch of Irish business."
MR. MAURICE O'CONNELL did not rise to address himself to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as every thing he had said could be urged with greater force in favour of the original Motion, than for the miserable succedaneum he had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, while speaking of absenteeism, had referred to an address put forward by the Gentleman who opposed him at the last election in Drogheda; and if the right hon. Gentleman had read the whole of the address, instead of a part only, he would not have complained of it. He (Mr. M. O'Connell) introduced Mr. L. Murray, the gentleman who opposed the right hon. Secretary, to Drogheda, having been requested by the electors of that borough to assist them in getting a Repealer. They wished to have, if possible, a gentleman resident in Ireland, but a Repealer; and certainly in his address the candidate stated that he thought his residence in London would be beneficial to their commercial interests; but if the address had been read in its entierty by the right hon. Gentleman, it would have been seen that he came forward as a Repealer. It was on that ground he received the support of so many electors. The right hon. Baronet had only a majority of 3; and he believed that had a scrutiny been gone into he would not now be sitting for the borough of Drogheda. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say that it was only within these few years that attention had been paid in that House to the interests of Ireland. The same argument had been put forward in 1834, by a Gentleman who now had a seat in the other House of Parliament. The Irish Members were then not only promised that the House would pay more attention to the wants of Ireland, but they received a promise which was absolutely most equal to a legislative act, that every possible benefit should be conferred on that country. They had waited for fourteen years for the fulfilment of that promise; and he would ask whether there was an Irish or English representative in the House who would say that the promise had been kept? The right hon. Baronet said that
212
one of his objections was that, if Repeal were granted, Ireland might turn Imperialism into provincialism. But what benefit had Ireland derived from living under Imperialism? What did lie or his countrymen care for a name? Our colonies were happy and prosperous with their own domestic legislatures; and why should not Ireland be so also? Then the right hon. Baronet objected to the time at which this Motion was brought forward; but surely the time to make concessions was when the people were suffering and had some grievances to be remedied. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of what was done last year for the relief of famine and distress in Ireland, for which he was grateful; but still he would say that it was nothing more than a partial restitution of what was taken from Ireland and spent in England; and if there had been an Irish Legislature in Ireland they would have so managed their resources that the famine would not have affected the country as it had done. If, instead of sending chymists to inquire into the causes of the potato disease, the peasantry of Ireland had been supplied with some potato seed, he was sure that the crop of last year would have been more than sufficient for the exigencies of the country. He begged the House to pause and consider deliberately before they rejected this Motion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) had deprecated violence and outrage in Ireland. There was no man who deprecated any such proceedings more than he (Mr. M. O'Connell) did. He could say, without fear of contradiction, that no man in his humble sphere had exerted himself more than he had to prevent legitimate agitation breaking out into violent language or anything like anarchy. He prayed the House to consider what was the present condition of Ireland. From his own knowledge it was such as as to fill any one who valued the peace of that country with the utmost anxiety. The sentiment now pervading the minds of the people amounted to this—that they would make this their last appeal to the British Legislature; and if it should prove to be made in vain, they would then make a final appeal to Her Majesty; and should that also be equally without any beneficial result, then he begged to inform the House, not by way of threat, but as a solemn warning, that it was their intention to wait for the most favourable opportunity, when, by one united effort, they might successfully achieve the object of their most ar-

213
dent wishes—a total separation from this country. He was not the advocate for any such course; on the contrary, he deprecated it; but he felt it to be his bounden duty to apprise the Government that such was the disposition of the people of Ireland on this important subject. The course which the Lord Lieutenant was now pursuing in that country, however much he might be lauded here, tended more and more every day to alienate the minds of all classes in Ireland from him; and his (Mr. M. O'Connell's) conviction was, that if Her Majesty's Government and the Legislature did not concede to and conciliate the Irish people, the consequences ultimately would be perilous to themselves, dangerous to Ireland, and probably perpetually detrimental to the interests of the empire at large. He conjured them, therefore, not lightly to reject this appeal, but at all events to entertain it and give to those who were anxious to preserve peace, law, and order in that country, some ground for hope that they would comply with the wishes and demands of the Irish people. The circumstances relating to the manufacturing of pikes, and the facts that had transpired which connected the chief commissioner of police with the parties implicated in that manufacture, had created a very great sensation in Ireland, and had excited strong feelings against the Government. Many persons who were formerly bitter opponents of Repeal had been converted to that cause by the apprehensions they entertained in consequence of what appeared to them to be a revival of the odious spy system on the part of the Government. He would advert to another point. There was at present a large military force concentrated in Dublin; and what, he asked, was the daily experience of the people of Dublin as to that force? Regiment after regiment marched into that city, and regiment after regiment marched out of it again to some distant part of the country, after staying there for the space of only a few days. The Government, no doubt, imagined that the people were not aware of the reason of these movements; but, whether rightly or not, he could not say, yet it certainly was rumoured, and indeed confidently reported, that the reason of these frequent changes was that the Government had found that the cause of Repeal was spreading amongst the ranks of the Army itself. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, he expected those cries; but would the House permit him to relate to them a
214
fact? He (Mr. M. O'Connell)left Dublin last night: in the course of yesterday a gentleman—a man in business in the city of Dublin—stated to him (Mr. M. O'Connell) the following occurrence, of which he (the narrator) was an eyewitness:—It should be known that the Linen-hall of Dublin —formerly the emporium of the chief trade of that city—was now occupied as a military barracks. The gentleman lived in the neighbourhood, and the windows of his house commanded a view of the barrack-yard. At the present moment two battalions were stationed there. On Sunday evening last (and the truth of this his informant, who witnessed the scene, was ready to support upon oath) the greater portion of those two battalions were engaged in battle amongst themselves in the barrack-yard. The conflicting parties were Repealers and Non-Repealers—and they made those words their battle-cry. The contest lasted until the commander of the troops himself came down and put an end to the fight. Upon the same night, in the open street, opposite what was Holmes's Hotel, upon the quay in Dublin, a battle of the same description was fought between soldiers, and some of the combatants were flung into the river. He (Mr. M. O'Connell) mentioned these things to warn the Government not to be too obstinate, or to run the risk of scenes which all must deprecate. He was no follower of Mr. Mitchell; nor did he ever advise the people to make pikes or to procure arms; his own agitation had always been temperate and within the bounds of the constitution; but he felt it right to warn the House of the consequences of persevering blindly, madly, in refusing to make concessions.
VISCOUNT MORPETH: Though I feel that anything which I have to offer upon this question can hardly call for any extended or elaborate speech, especially at this period of the night, yet the long period during which I filled the office in which I am so worthily succeeded by my right hon. Friend in connexion with the Government of Ireland—the strong interest which I have ever felt in all that concerns the destiny and the welfare of that country—and the claims upon my gratitude which all that there befell me must indisputably rivet—give me reason to hope that the House will bear with me for offering a few observations upon the present occasion. There is one consideration which, as it seems to me, ought to guide very much of our views and our course upon the present

215
subject. I should deeply deplore the repeal of the legislative Union, on account of the consequences which I think it would entail upon Great Britain and upon the empire at large; and indeed, I would ask, who could view, as substituted for our present daily, hourly intercourse of persons and interchange of commodities between every port of the one country and every port of the other—an intercourse and interchange which every new discovery of the age—steamboats, railways, the electric telegraph—tends incalculably to multiply and reproduce—who could view without regret or apprehension, substituted for such an intercourse and interchange, the establishment of jealous regulations, perhaps of hostile tariffs, possibly of total prohibitions, possibly of defensive preparations, possibly of hostile aggressions, or, as was not obscurely hinted to us in the speech made last night by an hon. Member, an adverse republic upon either side of the channels which separate us from our two neighbours—an adverse republic both in France and in Ireland—or a republic in Ireland attracting by turns the sympathising counsels if not the armed assistance of the republics of France and of the United States? But, Sir, I proceed to say, that disastrous as such a separation of these sister countries might be to the unity, to the tranquillity, even to the safety of the glorious country to which we belong, yet (I speak in my heart's inmost conviction), whatever the consequences might be, if I could really believe that the repeal of the Union would be attended with benefit to Ireland itself—if I thought that it could abate in any material degree the amount of suffering and misery which does with fearful variety prevail within the borders of that country—if I thought it could give her any permanent security for rest, for tranquillity, and for contentment—whether I could be a party to snapping the bonds, and to decreeing the final separation, I will not take upon myself to say; but I feel that I could hardly stand up here and express my opinions, and give my vote for the forced maintenance of the Union. I do all this with a willing and a ready conscience, because I believe that the repeal of the legislative Union, while it would be disastrous to the united empire, would especially be grievous and burdensome and fatal to the best interests and permanent repose of Ireland. Sir, there are two dark pervading features of gloom, which the whole past history of Ireland, and I fear I
216
may say with equal truth its present aspect, offer to our consideration—the sufferings of her poor, anti the dissensions of her inhabitants. With respect to the sufferings of the poor, I need not refer to authentic documents, to official reports, to statistical calculations, to prove that melancholy fact. Any one who has known Ireland, who has lived in it, who has seen it, even in its best neighbourhoods, and in its happiest periods, must be himself sufficiently aware of the fact. It has been dwelt upon by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connell) to-night, and he has made it one of the chief foundations of his argument for urging the necessity of the repeal of the Union. That distress, always great in degree, always wide in extent, has been tremendously increased by the dearth and famine which have prevailed for the last two years. I do not propose to enter into any discussion as to the manner in which that dearth and famine have been met. I do not attempt to raise the question whether the Exchequer of England and the charity of England could have done more. There are no bounds to charity, and no limits to self-denial; and possibly our national and individual virtues may not have sounded the depths of either. Least of all would I encourage the language of querulous complaint about our not meeting with an adequate expression of gratitude from the Irish people. We cannot expect people who are still miserable to be very forward in the expression of gratitude; and that is the very last result about which a person or a nation, conscious that they were only attempting to exert themselves for the benefit of their fellows or their species, would desire to be solicitous. Still the fact does remain, that from the Exchequer of England within the last two years some 10,000,000 l. have been contributed directly to meet the suffering condition of the Irish people; and I ask, to what other quarter, to what other country, in similar circumstances, if they should ever again unhappily arise, would Ireland, when her own resources failed her, when her own reservoirs of supply were exhausted—where else would she look for the pitying ear or the helping hand? If she discard us, if she voluntarily choose and have power to enforce this separation, then if she establish herself as an alien to this country, as a spy at our side, as a sore in our very vitals, it could not, by the nature of things, be expected that she should find among us either the

217
same disposition, or probably the same means, to come forward for her relief. Would she resort to France? We were told that an offer was made to supply her with 50,000 men. I believe the ambassadors who went over there would have found it very difficult to raise a levy of 50,000 l. instead. Then the hon. Member for the county of Limerick boasted of the million of dollars promised from America; but the dollars only exist in promise as yet, and though these promises are very likely to be made during the halcyon hours of fortune, I doubt whether, if England and Ireland were permanently separated, Irishmen would find their new allies so ready to come forward with that tangible practicable assistance which the sister country has always liberally afforded them. At this moment—I believe it has not been mentioned in any of the organs of daily intelligence in Ireland—this country, against which it is endeavoured to raise up such unfounded jealousies, and such constant feelings of irritation—these churlish Saxons are actually feeding about 200,000 of the destitute children of Ireland. Does it not seem a little preposterous that at this very time such constant and persevering efforts are being made to induce the parents of these children to join in a chorus of hate against the very land which was supporting their offspring? I know that the distress to which I am referring as a strong reason why Ireland should not cast off the connexion of a rich and I will add a generous country, is always attempted to be traced, by the hon. Member for Limerick and others, to the operation of the legislative Union; but I think that those persons have entirely failed to show how the separation of a poor country from a richer can add to the substantial wealth of the former. Allusion has been made to the entire decay of Irish manufactures as having produced a ruinous competition for land; but I doubt how far the repeal of the Union —how far the separation of the two countries would encourage the introduction of capital into Ireland, which I take to be the necessary preliminary to the establishment of manufactures. Another of the gloomy features in the condition of Ireland to which I have alluded, is exhibited in the dissensions of different races, creeds, and parties. It is undoubtedly true that the Imperial Government—the representatives of the English Crown—may at some periods have seemed to side with one or other of the
218
contending parties—may occasionally have exhibited an orange or a green bias—and even have momentarily appeared to aggravate opposing tendencies; but I am firmly convinced that, on the whole, and in the long run, the Imperial Administration has had the effect of neutralising and softening animosities, and of acting as a barrier against which opposing currents have spent their forces and tried in vain to overleap the bounds and overflow the land; and I believe that if we were to take away that which letteth—to use a biblical word—the adverse tides would but gather—would soon increase in violence, and become more turbulent and unrestrained than they have ever been before. The hon. Member for Limerick talked to us last night of the present circumstances of Sicily; but the state of society to which he alluded in Ireland does not exist in Sicily. The state of society in that country is very homogeneous; there is scarcely any difference in races, and certainly no diversity of creeds, and, therefore, I doubt whether the attempted analogy between Great Britain and Naples can be fairly sustained. But it is not only among opposing creeds and diverging parties that I think the ameliorating influence of the British Government has been found, in times past, eminently beneficial. That which distinguishes the present movement—the cotemporary convulsion of the whole political world —from similar occurrences at former periods, is that it relates more to social than political questions—that it is more connected with internal laws than external relations of communities and States. If I may make the observation without presumption, I think that it is much more a question of the organisation of labour, and the connexion of capital and wages, which at present embarrasses the position and complicates the prospects of Prussia and France, than any armed movement of Austria and Russia. I will not take upon myself to be the judge of the character or conduct of Irish landlords. I know that they have inherited great difficulties, and have to cope with many disadvantages; and for that reason, probably, are to be found amongst them some of the brightest and some of the worst specimens of their class. Still, if we look at the present condition of Ireland —if we consider the doctrines disseminated and the spirit aroused there—if we bear in mind the announcement made last night by the hon. Member for Limerick, that in the coming struggle property will be en-

219
tirely powerless—I think that Irish landlords have reason to be convinced that in the event of the moderating and restraining influence of the Imperial Administration and English Government being swept away, an impulse would be given to the wildest schemes and most subversive doctrines, and that property itself would run the risk of being left a hopeless wreck amongst the heaving billows which surround it. I am far from wishing it to be construed that I assume the present state of Ireland with respect to its laws—with respect to its social regulations—with respect to its economical condition, to be anything like what it should be, or what I wish it to be. During the whole period which I have been allowed to pass in public life, from the first words I uttered in this House on seconding a Motion for the repeal of Roman Catholic disabilities—through the whole period of my tenure of office in Ireland, I have never shown myself reluctant to innovate on what I found in existence, or to reform established institutions. I was a party to alterations in the laws respecting the Church, and respecting municipal corporations — in the laws respecting the poor—in the laws respecting grand juries; and, in common with my noble relative, the Member for Lynn, I was the originator of a proposition for putting the large lines of railway in Ireland under Government superintendence. But, far from being satisfied with my own handywork—far from being content with what Government has been able to do, with respect to almost every one of these subjects—I have left an express declaration on record that the alterations which have been already effected must be looked upon as imperfect and incomplete; and consequently I, for one—and I can speak in the name of my Colleagues—shall always be ready to approach all or any one of these questions with an honest desire to do whatever is possible, consistently with justice and the best interests of Ireland. There are other questions which perhaps more immediately affect the social condition and economy of the country, amongst which may be numbered the relations of landlords and tenants, the sale of encumbered estates, and a practical alteration of the poor-law. When the hon. Member complains of the military and police being employed in the collection of rates, he should bear in mind, that unless the collection of rates be enforced, there will exist no means of saving the people from starvation. I hope that in
220
time we shall succeed in arriving at a satisfactory solution of the questions relating to Ireland which at present occupy the attention of Parliament and the Government. I shall leave my noble Friend at the head of the Government—who no doubt will address the House before this debate finally concludes—to state the views and intentions which he entertains respecting the future course of legislation for Ireland. I only know that all my noble Friend can do he is prepared and ready to do. Of all the subjects which at present press on the attention, and indeed, I may say, entirely engross the time of the Government and
Parliament, I know that there are none the consideration of which my noble Friend would less willingly postpone than those which relate to the welfare of Ireland. I was much struck the other day by an observation in a foreign newspaper, which was elicted by the visit of the hon. Member for Limerick and his co-ambassadors in Paris. The paper I allude to is the Journal des Debats, which stated with good reason that what Ireland wanted was not repeal nor revolution, but regeneration. Echoing and adopting that sentiment, it is far from my intention to pass a wholesale denunciation on the character or conduct of the Irish people. They have many attractive and many brilliant qualities; and I remember incurring a great deal of personal unpopularity during one of my canvasses in Yorkshire, because I had ventured to say what I am willing to repeat, because I believe it to be true, that I found among the Irish people less of habits of theft among the men, and a greater prevalence of chastity in the women, especially of the
labouring classes, than is to be met with in England. If my countrymen and countrywomen dispute that allegation, I can only say let them prove me to be in the wrong. But when so many harsh things have been so constantly said, and I fear very often justly said against the Irish, I will not refrain from openly saying what I think, with equal justice, may be said in their favour. I also think that they show some superiority in their kindness towards each other, and towards the suffering and destitute, as well as signal patience and resignation under intense privations. I have been very much struck with the accounts which I have received from America of the really munificent contributions which the Irish emigrants only recently arrived there are constantly sending over to the poor relatives that they have left in their old

221
homes. But, while I pay what I think is but a just tribute to the real merits and virtues of the Irish people, I do not shut my eyes to their failings; and, without expatiating on many of these, which may not occur naturally at the time of our present discussion, I certainly think that to attain that regeneration which the French journalist thinks is so necessary for them, they must try to acquire more of the Saxon qualities of activity and industry. But there is nothing in their character and habits to make us despond as to the results, no more than when we see the wide tracts of mountain and bog which cover such large portions of the surface of the country, need we doubt that if a proper amount of capital and skill and industry were applied to their cultivation, these very unproductive and desolate wastes might become the sites of bounteous harvests and of thriving homesteads. So no more need we doubt that if kindly influences and healthy sympathies and sound education are applied to the cultivation of the moral waste, and of the passion-blighted spots which disfigure a portion of the fair moral creation, there would be also corresponding crops of promise, and fruits of abundance, to bless this most benignant husbandry. I remember having been told in America that the person who made the most successful settler was the Irishman planted between a Scotchman and a Yankee, for he found his native ardour and impetuosity on the one hand sobered into caution by the prudence of the Scotchman, while, on the other hand, he was incited into activity by the go-a-headedness of the American. Sir, l will not now seek longer to occupy your time farther than to observe that I feel sure that what the Members of the Government, what the Members of the Parliament, what all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom most desire, is to see their Irish brethren, one and all, partakers of the same rights and associates in the same glories as themselves. And let me ask you to what field of our national credit, and fame, and glory can we look, without seeing that those same Irish brethren have been at all times successful and honoured, and even more than proportionate contributors? I need not mention the masters of eloquence within the memories of many among us in this House who have been furnished by Ireland. The names of Burke, and Sheridan, and Canning, and Grattan, and Plunkett, and O'Connell, will occur to all. And we still
222
retain what we derived from thence, the laurel of Wellington, and the lyre of Moore? Does not every field of discovery—does not every exploit of science and every achievement of art—show us the identity of our pursuits, and forbid the scheme of our separation? I will only further say, in allusion to—I will not call it the threat—which fell from the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien) last night, that if we did embark in a contest with Ireland, and if we did deny them their demands, the result would be a successful revolution on their side—that they would be triumphant in the struggle. Now, among all the convulsions of States, among all the shocks of dynasties that are going on around us, far be it from me to calculate on what side success might incline. The arbitration of success must belong to Him who sits in the circle of the heavens, and who regulates all on earth as He chooses; but what I say is, that though the line of success may not be clear, the line of duty is clear. And when I know that there are in Ireland men sincerely attached to the connexion with this country —sincerely loyal to the Crown, and sincerely desirous to share the destinies and the greatness of England, and to mix their lot, for weal and for woe, with us—when I know that these men are looking up for countenance, and guidance, and protection to this House—and when I feel persuaded that their cause is the cause of truth and of right, and that it is the cause which I believe to be essential, not only to the permanent greatness of England, but to the real happiness of Ireland—these men, these firm adherents of the British Government and Crown, I feel we cannot and we will not abandon.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Archibald Acheson, Esq.(commonly called Viscount Acheson), having been created Baron Acheson.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Removal of Aliens; Bankruptcy Court Regulation.
2a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Cheltenham, against the Election Recognisances Bill.—From the Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for the Extension of the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.

ALIENS REMOVAL BILL.
The DUKE of BEAUFORT said, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the circumstance of the great number of foreigners that were to be seen at present filling the streets of London, and among whom it had been ascertained were several who were known to be the worst characters of France. He was the last person who would object to this country affording a refuge to foreigners driven from their own country by misfortune; but he thought it was a very different matter when persons came to this country, as many now did, with the object of trying to raise sedition and disturbance. He wished, therefore, to know from Her Majesty's Government whether, since the repeal of the Alien Act, there were any provisions in force in this
136
country which would enable the Government to interfere with this class of persons; and if not, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament for new powers to effect that object? There was another point also on which he wished for information. It was in reference to the body which called itself the National Convention. That assembly, he was aware, had not been recognised by the Government, but still it was well known to be in existence; and now that there was this fraternisation with foreigners going on, it appeared to him that the existence of that society ought to be taken into consideration, and he would wish to know, therefore, if Her Majesty's Government had any intention of taking measures to put it down?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with regard to the subject last mooted by the noble Duke, I do not propose to state what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in reference to that society; but with respect to the point to which he first alluded, I am anxious to give an answer which I trust will be considered satisfactory, not only by the noble Duke, but by your Lordships' House generally—I mean the circumstances connected with the presence of large numbers of aliens in this country. In reply to the first question of the noble Duke, I may state that there are no provisions now on the Statute-book by means of which the conduct of aliens can be controlled in this country, otherwise than in accordance with the general laws which exist regarding the personal liberty of Her Majesty's subjects. But in answer to the very natural question put by the noble Duke, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to propose any measure providing a remedy for such a state of things, I have to state that I now hold in my hand a Bill on this very subject, which I intend to lay on the table of your Lordships' House to-night, and by which ample powers are given to the Government to proceed at once to eject foreigners whose objects in this country do not warrant their remaining here. Although it is not necessary for me, according to the forms of your Lordships' House, to preface any application I may make for laying such a Bill on the table with any observations whatever, yet, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and with a view to the expediency of passing the Bill into law with as little delay as possible, I trust that your Lordships will

137
allow me on this occasion, in moving the first reading of the Bill, to make a few observations on the object of it. I am myself the last person who would wish that there should remain in force any permanent law in this country prohibiting either the arrival or the residence of aliens among us, other than the usual laws of the country with respect to all her Majesty's subjects; and under this feeling I have myself, in conjunction with other noble Lords, taken a part in procuring in one instance a modification, and in the other a repeal of the laws which had existed on this subject. But I must say that I am of opinion, that desirable as it is that this country should on all occasions afford hospitality and a refuge to all those aliens, whether they be monarchical, constitutional, or republican, who are ready to obey the laws of the country. that they are about to enter, and to adopt the part of obedient subjects during the residence that they obtain there under the favour of the law; yet I cannot conceal from myself, when I see the causes that are now in operation, and when I am aware of the increased number of foreigners that, under the most peculiar circumstances, have recently visited this country, and, in short, when I know that these foreigners come under various influences, and those not the accustomed influences of pleasure or business, but influences of a totally different description that I shall not at present more particularly allude to—I say, my Lords, that seeing these things, I cannot but think, and I trust your Lordships will think with me, that the Government of the country ought to have vested in them a power, to be used on their responsibility and for a limited time, in certain cases, to compel the departure of these persons. I am authorised to state that this is the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers generally, but also that it is above all the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and, my Lords, when I hear it proclaimed loudly, and generally, and avowedly, that there are numbers of those foreigners who are prepared to take a part in the internal dissensions of this country—if there be such dissensions —and, above all, when I hear it clearly proclaimed by a person who is deeply guilty of misleading his fellow-subjects in that respect—when that person has publicly stated, that there are 40,000 or 50,000 persons, not only prepared, but desirous, to seize an opportunity of taking part in overturning the Government of this
138
country, and in dismembering the parts of which the empire consists—when I hear this, and when I know that there are crowds of persons resorting to this country, whose motives cannot at this moment be ascertained, I say that it is the duty of the Government, and of Parliament, to stand armed in this respect, as in every other, against such contingencies as may arise. I will not go farther at present than to state the circumstances under which I lay the Bill on the table; and if your Lordships consent to read it a first time to-day, I shall propose to read it a second time on Thursday; and, if it be your Lordships' pleasure to do so, I would wish to have it pass through this House with as little delay as possible.
LORD BROUGHAM said, that he only rose for the purpose of making a single observation. He wished merely to remark, with regard to the assertion that there were 50,000 Frenchman ready to assist in an outbreak in this country, that he believed it to be without the shadow of a foundation.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, that he had given no opinion as to the truth of the assertion, but he had merely mentioned it as an announcement that had been made.
The EARL of MALMESBURY said, that he was sure that there was not a person in that House who did not agree with him in feeling most grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the prompt and judicious step that they had taken on this subject. As an instance that such a measure was not uncalled for, he would beg to read a passage from a speech made by a person named Harney within the last few days. [The noble Lord read the passage, which alluded to the willingness expressed by foreigners to assist in any struggle that might be considered necessary in this country.] At the same time it was right to state that there was a large number of foreigners of the most respectable class, among whom he might mention such names as Prince Louis Buonaparte and M. Gaudin, who had offered their services to the authorities to be swown in as special constables.
Bill read 1a.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.
LORD BROUGHAM*: I rise to move for copies of any correspondence between
*From a pamphlet published by Ridgway.

139
Her Majesty's Government and the Court of Turin relative to the late process in Lombardy; and I confess that I look with a deep concern to all that has lately passed, not only in the north of Italy—but when I cast my eye over the south of Europe at large, and yet more when I survey the north of Europe, and regard the late changes in its ancient polity, the prospect strikes me with alarm, almost with dismay. I had hoped, vainly I doubt hoped, that Heaven might vouchsafe to let me close in the midst of general repose a life begun under far other auspices—begun amidst changes—disastrous changes, "perplexing monarchs"—the overthrow of time-honoured institutions—the dispersion of whole communities—the emigration of privileged classes—the confiscation of provinces—the crash of thrones—the desecration of altars—the rude and sudden disruption of the ties that cement nations—the violent alteration of all the landmarks by which national dominion is defined. To these tempestuous days there succeeded a happy calm; and I had fondly imagined our earthly course might have been run ere yet the storm should again rise. But now I fear me this lot is not reserved for us. I everywhere observe all the elements of mischief, and turn which way we will the repose of the world seems in peril. The point in which danger seems most imminent, though perhaps not most alarming, is that quarter to which my Motion refers, and with that I will therefore begin.
By the Congress of 1814, and the Treaty of Vienna concluded next year, Austria's possession of Lombardy was acknowledged and confirmed—a possession of three centuries' duration. The Pope was confirmed in his temporal sovereignty of the Ecclesiastical States; and the succession to the kingdom of Sardinia was confirmed to the Carignan branch of the house of Savoy, the reigning monarch having no sons, and his half brother, Charles Felix, only daughters. By virtue of the same arrangement, by force of the self-same treaty, Genoa ceased to be a commonwealth, and was delivered over to the Sardinian crown. Against that measure I raised my voice in Parliament, with others, abler and better men, the Whitbreads, the Romillys, the Plunketts, the Horners of those days. Genoa, we complained, had been stripped of her independence; of a republic, she had been made the province, the outlying and dependent, and vassal province of an ab-
140
solute monarchy. Thus the title of the Sardinian king to Genoa, his most valuable possession, rests upon the self-same ground on which Austria's title to the Milanese reposes—or rather on a far inferior basis; because Austria had held Lombardy for three hundred years, ever since Charles V.'s death—Sardinia has held Genoa only for thirty. Lombardy had never been a commonwealth, but always a grand duchy since the thirteenth century—Genoa had ever been a republic until the nineteenth. So that while Lombardy only passed from one prince to another three hundred years ago, and that other's title was acknowledged in 1815—Genoa passed from a free and independent State to that of vassal under an absolute monarch, and she made this change for the first time only in 1815. Such is the Sardinian king's title to his dominions; and now let us see what is his conduct towards those neighbours who have under the same arrangement received ample confirmation of a title, which that arrangement has not continued and confirmed, but begun and created in Charles Albert. Nothing, I will affirm, can exceed the violent injustice of that conduct, except, perhaps, it be the fraudulent pretexts with which it has been covered or coloured, and the perfidy of the declarations preceding or accompanying it. First, he makes war upon his neighbour the Austrian Emperor, on the ground of having what the French, in the jargon of their Propaganda, term a Mission, a vocation to liberate enslaved nations, holding out the right hand of protection to all people who revolt against their lawful sovereign, as the Convention did by their famous decree of 19th Nov. 1792, which lit up the flames of war all over the world. In this, his capacity of Missionary, he preached, needlessly to the Milanese he preached, the sacred duty of insurrection, issued a manifesto to promise his aid, and fulfilled that promise, one of the few he ever kept, by marching an army into Lombardy. On the 22nd March, in answer to a remonstrance of the Austrian ambassador, touching the threats of the Turin journals, Charles Albert solemnly declared his fixed resolution to maintain all the relations of amity with his imperial neighbour. At that hour when that declaration was made, he had signed the manifesto promising his aid to the Milanese insurgents—and on the next day, the 23rd of March, it was promulgated! When complaint was made, and, I presume, astonishment expressed by the Austrian ambas-

141
sador, the excuse given was one which I trust the republicans of Milan will not fail to mark. Republican principles, forsooth, were becoming rife in Lombardy, and his Sardinian Majesty did not know that they might not extend into Piedmont, peradventure into Genoa, and shake his royal authority; therefore he felt justified in marching his troops. So that by this notable discovery in public law, if I am sovereign of a State, and the subjects of a neighbouring prince take any course which I deem perilous for the peace of my dominions, I have a right not to protect those dominions from that peril, but to march and seize the dominions of my unoffending neighbour. Because the Lombards revolted against Austria, Charles Albert has a right, not to put down a revolt whence peril to his own States might arise, but to join the revolt, help the insurgents, attack Austria, and seize on her possessions.
My Lords, I have little fear of this unprincipled man succeeding. The Milanese must know him too well to render that possible. Of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom he cannot possibly become master—for Venice has already ceased to form part of it—she has restored her ancient republic, as she had a right to do: no one can complain of the form of policy she has chosen to establish—she may find advantages in it, advantages which are wisely purchased by submitting to its undeniable vices. A republic has some undeniable virtues: it gives power to call forth the resources of a State, beyond any other form of government—it enables merits of all kinds to become known and to rise—its habitual fermentation moves, peradventure convulses, the whole mass of society, and makes the scum rise to the surface, including with much that is utterly worthless, some particles of value—all these virtues has a republic; but one thing I firmly believe to be, and to be of necessity, wanting in a republic, Liberty it has not—Liberty can never flourish under its shade; for whereas in monarchies, how despotic soever, the subject can be safe in his remoteness from the tyrant, in a republic he is surrounded by tyrants, each of whom domineers in the name of the people. Venice may prefer this notwithstanding, and she has a right to please herself; but whether she continues republican, or having tried the experiment, she prefers liberty to that fancy and becomes monarchical, she will assuredly not take the fancy of preferring the rule of Charles Albert, and so
142
he can only hope to take the Lombard kingdom without the Venetian augmentation. But will he succeed even thus far? I greatly doubt it. I can hardly suppose that he is so much less known on the Lombard side of the Alps than he is in the northern regions of Europe; I can hardly think that his former history is so unfamiliar to his near neighbours as to render his yoke a matter of desire among them. And if there be any one, either here in England or elsewhere, who has been vainly speculating upon the possibility of erecting a Sardo-Lombard kingdom, whose crown this man shall wear—let him lay aside the silly expectation, for he may be assured that the story of 1820 and 1821 is not forgotten in Northern Italy. Yes! This is that Carignan who having enticed many to join in a conspiracy against his kinsman, the Sardinian Monarch, and so far succeeded in his plot as to proclaim the Spanish constitution of 1812, suddenly took fright; whose nerves failing him as peril approached, he fled from Turin, and, to save his worthless life, betrayed his dupes, and they suffered death as his accomplices. Outlawed on his flight, he soon after endeavoured to make his peace and gain a pardon. For this purpose he went to Spain, which was then the theatre of war;—it may be fancied that he went to oppose the French invasion, and to fight in defence of the Spanish constitution, which he had himself proclaimed in Piedmont—no such thing—he joined the forces of the Duke D'Angouleme, sent to put that constitution down—he was engaged at the Trocadero; and having gained his pardon by this new act of treachery and apostacy, he was suffered to revisit Turin; where he afterwards succeeded to the Crown by virtue of the Treaty of Vienna—the same treaty which confirmed Austria in the possession of her Lombard dominions. These things cannot be forgotten in Milan; but so neither are they forgotten in Genoa. If any one supposes the Commonwealthsmen of the republic of Doria and Columbus are enamoured of Sardinian rule, or forgetful of Charles Albert's history, he is miserably mistaken: that king will find it a hard matter to attempt liberating the Milanese from the mild and merciful authority of Austria on the one hand, and prevent the Genoese from attempting to shake off his far more galling yoke on the other. Their movements have already affected his nerves in the accustomed manner. It was his fears, awakened by these sturdy republicans, that

143
drove him to all the concessions he has yet made. With the habitual falsehood which is his second nature, he has taken credit for those things which were wrung from his terrors. Step after step as he quailed before the Genoese, he yielded to their demands, and now, casting his eyes across the Alps, to the revolt of Paris, falsely called the French Revolution, he again takes fright, and pays court to the handful of republicans who sway the capital of our neighbours, by attacking their Austrian adversaries in Lombardy.
My Lords, when I thus speak of France, as truth requires, and duty compels me, I freely admit the right of that people to humble themselves before a handful of men in Paris—I dispute not the right of five and thirty millions to bear the dominion of twenty thousand; and of the other things which the chiefs of these men are now doing every day in the name of the whole people, we have no right to complain—their fruits, their bitter fruits will be gathered by themselves; my prayer is that they may be less bitter than I dread and believe. But having referred to the expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy, I may be allowed to add, that if, by any amicable arrangement, any wise concessions of Vienna to Milan, the Lombards could obtain the inestimable blessing of a constitutional monarchy, and if they were fit for that form of government to which centuries of varied experience have trained us, to which Italians are necessarily alien and unsuited—no one could more heartily rejoice than myself. But my joy would be mingled with another feeling, knowing the Italians as I do, and knowing representative government as I do—the feeling of wonder; and, in the meantime, I am bound to say, much offence as the declaration may give to some in Italy, and a few here more zealous than knowing, that, with all the ills attendant on subjection to a foreign dominion, the Austrian rule in Italy has been one, generally speaking (for exceptions there are), mild, and to the people wholesome—that the inestimable blessing of an admirable police has been secured by it—that a tranquil and regular government has been uninterrupted—that an administration, which improved the condition of the people, protected their industry, augmented their wealth and their comforts, controlled all feudal and aristocratic oppression, has been the unvarying lot of the Lombards under the sway of the Austrian Crown. If its yoke is exchanged
144
for another scheme of polity, I fervently hope they may find the administration of Italians as honest, as moderate, as conducive to internal peace, and to individual freedom—but I far more wish it than expect.
In casting my eyes over the late history of the Italian Peninsula, there is another actor in its scenes, whose feelings I envy less than those of the Sardinian King, though I may respect them more—I allude to the Holy Father, the most ancient prelate of the Christian Church—chief of the Romish Hierarchy—Sovereign of its temporal States. Consulting his love of popular applause far more than the peace of Christendom, he, who assumes to be the head of the Religion of Peace, chose to be the first mover of those convulsions which have all over Europe placed that peace in jeopardy. Better had he discharged his duties as a temporal Prince—better—far better performed his functions as a Christian prelate, had he paused before the insurmountable difficulties which of necessity must obstruct the path of a Sovereign Pontiff, when he is pleased to make himself a patron of political change—a Coryphaeus in revolutionary movements. He is to give the Romans a republican government. Parliamentary reform, general elections in the patrimony of St. Peter, present some difficulty to the mind. A Commons' House of Parliament is hard to figure there; an Upper Chamber of Cardinals is of yet more difficult conception. But a limited Monarch, a constitutional Sovereign, who partakes of the Divine nature, who is of an infallible class of beings; and if infallible in Church matters, how separate them from temporal?—such a phenomenon, I own, does strike one with confusion; but yet more puzzled is one to divine how his Holiness is to communicate his infallibility to his Ministers—to his responsible advisers. The Holy Father had far better have well weighed all these difficulties before he took the plunge by which he has shaken the repose of the world, in order to gain the strange anomalous title, and reap the suspicious praise, of a reforming Pope. But supposing his difficulties overcome—suppose the same supernatural influence to which he is supposed to owe his election, should help him to untie the knot—yet he has gone beyond merely yielding to his mob at home; he should have thought three and thrice times ere he did that. But how much more did it behove him to pause before he took the

145
field, and sent his bad troops and worse captains, to make war against the Emperor? He, the head of the Christian Church, is the first to break the peace of the world. He, who owes his triple crown to the Treaty of Vienna, is the first to draw the sword against it, and to attempt contemning and tearing his own, his only title-deed. He who holds Rome by the same title by which Ferdinand holds Milan, is the first to help with his troops the populace whom his paternal exhortations have stirred up to insurrection, preaching the apostolic doctrine that none should be subject to the powers which be of God—that revolt against rulers is a duty. His Holiness's soldiers have actually joined those insurgents, and captured an Austrian fort, with effusion of blood. This is the venerable Pontiff, this the Holy Father, whom we are desired by our thoughtless lovers of liberty to revere as a friend to mankind. He is a worthy ally of the Sardinian King, and as in their deeds they were conjoined, so it may be that in their fate they shall not be divided. At the Roman Court, by an obsolete but unrepealed law, we can have no representative; but at Turin we of course have the benefit of one to manage our affairs. He is personally unknown to me, though I know his respectable connexions; I trust he was competent from his capacity and Ins experience, to conduct well and firmly our affairs at this critical juncture; and having read Lord Palmerston's solemn warning to Austria to beware how she interfered with foreign States in Italy, and above all with Sardinia, the old ally of England, I conclude we shall find that he gave as strong and specific a warning to Sardinia how she interfered with a yet older and more important ally—namely, Austria. Any interference with her Italian dominions was to be reprobated beyond all other acts, because it imported a direct infraction of the Peace of Vienna—a peace which in its details I, among others, opposed at the time, but which has now fin much above a quarter of a century, beer the corner-stone of all European polity, and has formed as much the statute law of Europe as the treaties of Munster, commonly called the Peace of Westphalia, of old did for a century and a half. To shake its provisions, therefore, is now to shake the whole fabric of European dominion, and the international policy of the civilised world. From any such shock no mar can pretend to foretell the perils that may arise. I must, however, declare,
146
that I feel, as regards our own safety, and the security of our institutions, no apprehension whatever; though none can more devoutly than myself pray for the continuance of peace. The frame of society in the rest of Europe runs infinitely greater hazard than ours from any such calamity. Amidst all the sinister events which have of late days darkened the political horizon, there is to be found one bright gleam, and it rests on this highly-favoured isle. We have here nothing to fear from the fate of empires abroad: we defy the arms and the arts of all the world; we are—the events of the last three days, our three days, prove us to be—an united people. If any such experience were necessary, which I deny altogether that it was, to show how universally and how firmly our people of all ranks are attached to the monarchy—the free monarchy under which they have the happiness to live—that experience we now have.
The kind friends of England across the Channel, who were hugging themselves in the hope of seeing their wild and furious example followed here, and who were proclaiming — even in the Government papers—the certain downfall of that monarchy whose representatives their provisional chiefs were daily labouring to conciliate—have now seen how utterly false were their hopes—as false as their stories circulated six weeks ago, that this city was in the hands of a republican mob, and that the Queen and Her Consort had betaken themselves to flight. Possibly they had been deceived by the traitors who resorted from hence, and chiefly from Ireland, to present the trumpery, the flimsy congratulations of a wretched handful of rebels, that have the courage to threaten revolt, and the magnanimity to talk big without any action. These traitors, mean in their capacity as they admit themselves to be, mean in their attempts to redeem their ample pledges, as their whole craven but prudent conduct proclaims them to be, endeavoured to import from Paris some promise of assistance, some prospect of helping them in levying war against the Crown of these realms; and they have brought back from their journey not the declaration of any responsible Minister—not the word of any Government, or any pretended Government, or anything like a Government, or anything calling itself, perhaps falsely calling itself, a Government—but the threats of clubs without names—the promises of men on behalf of num-

147
bers that never instructed them to promise for them—the bravadoes of persons utterly obscure, who used the authority of others that never gave any powers of the kind—the promises of those who had neither the will nor the power to perform. I disdain all reference to such clubs, or such persons. Enough for me to observe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Provisional Government gave the treasonable emissaries a plain, a downright, and all but a rough rebuke for their impertinence. I approve highly of this answer. It was the next best thing which M. Lamartine could have said, next best to what he certainly ought to have said, and what an experienced Minister, and one free to act as he pleased, would have said—"Are you come from the British Embassy? For if not, go about your business—I only know Lord Normanby as representing England." With this qualification I approve the answer given; but I do not at all join in the extravagant joy—the silly raptures of many—at this answer having rebuked the Irish traitors. On the contrary, had M. Lamartine been so wanting in common sense as to credit their stories—had he heed led away by the wild fables of the republican press and the Irish treasonmongers—had he fancied that the Irish were slaves, helots smarting under the English lash—that England never goes to theta but to get recruits for her feeble Army, and money for her bankrupt Exchequer—that the Irish pay nearly all our taxes—(I would they paid a tenth part of them)—that Irish affairs never engage the attention of Parliament (when hardly anything else is discussed by us, and some are becoming repealers on account of the Irish monopoly of our legislation)—had the French Minister, listening to all these glaring falsehoods, sent back the traitors with a promise of help to their rebellion—it is my firm belief, that the dominion of England, and the Government of Ireland, would have been made doubly strong—and that as all this island are united against the attempts to destroy our united empire—so all, or nearly all, the sister island would have speedily become banded in the same holy league. Not only Protestant, not only Orangemen—who are already to a man, our firm, our brave, our powerful allies—but even the bulk of the Catholics, the disaffected themselves, when thus threatened with the hateful embrace of a foreign Power, would have been stunned into a sense of their duty, and returned to patriotic courses.
I must not be understood to blame M. Lamartine for not at once refusing all intercourse with the traitors—he was not a free agent in the matter—he was, like all his colleagues, acting under the eye and under the control of the Paris multitude. For those who have the hard lot so to suffer such thraldom, have a right to our sympathy, and must not be visited with severe blame when they yield to the pressure that overpowers them. But if they have a right to our pity, they have not the same right to our confidence. If I am asked whether I do not confide in such men as my esteemed friend M. Arago—the most illustrious name among the philosophers of the age—in M. Dupont de L'Eure, one of the most virtuous of the old republicans, and, unlike some of the new school, wholly uncorrupt and incorruptible—whose hands like those of the old race, unlike some of their successors, have ever been clean —in M. Garnier Pages, an estimable man and an able financier (though I wish he had not fallen into the vulgar error of supposing that the credit of England depends on her commercial monopoly)— asked if I do not trust these men, I answer—Certainly. I have as much trust in them as I can have in any men acting in the hands of the multitude that is, exactly none at all. Then do I trust the republican party at large? My answer is another question, "Where is that party to be found?" Danton said, nearly sixty years ago, "You've got a republic, but there are no republicans." The same thing may be with very much more accuracy said now; and when it was said to M. Ledru Rollin (of whom I wish to say nothing, in order that I may speak no evil), he replied, "True; France is not now republican, but France must be made republican"—a speech which 1 heard with unmingled horror; for it was on this very text that the Convention and the Committees in 1792, 3, and 4, made their bloodthirsty discourses—it was for the purpose of compelling France either to become republican, or from terror to be quiet, that the guillotine worked; that the purest blood in the country was shed like water; that proscription, pillage, fire, murder, raged through the land, and wrapped it in misery and devastation. Nevertheless, France has the incontestable right to adopt this system—if she pleases, to renew these scenes. Now, as then, she may, through terror — through the dread of massacre — be compelled to crouch beneath a succes-

149
sion of vulgar tyrants, domineering in the usurped name of the people, and extirpating all liberty in the abused name of freedom. I hope better things from that noble country—from that gallant and generous people. I hope that Paris may not long be content to receive the law from an armed mob, and that, if it does, France will not receive the law from Paris. This I know, that if she does hug her chains—if she does prefer her present condition to the comparative happiness she enjoyed under her constitutional King, her example will never prove dangerous by wearing an inviting aspect in her neighbours' eyes. Casting their eyes towards France they behold the utter ruin of all trade; the end of all ordinary and gainful labour; the substitution in its room of a fantastic scheme utterly impracticable, but if it could be executed, utterly ruinous both to the workman and the capitalist, and the community at large; the money market reduced to despair; all credit cut up by the very roots; public funds reduced from 75 to 35; Bank stock fallen from 3,000 to 990 in price; the Government wholly without power to check the most violent popular excesses, impotent even to protect an ambassador's sacred person, and confessing to him their not having three men at their disposal; that Government, in order that its ephemeral existence may linger on between life and death till the Assembly meets, reduced to subsist on violent stimulants, pandering to the passions of the rabble by a succession of daily claptrap measures; seizing one day on the savings of the poor in order to give Louis Blanc the means of paying labour by his most fantastic plans; another day seizing on railways in order to clutch some ready money, and emptying the till under the false pretence of better administering the affairs of the companies; then threatening to seize all the banks, and monopolise paper circulation in a country where hitherto specie alone was current; about to deluge the country with 100,000,000 sterling of assignats, to the utter destruction of all private property—nay, stooping as low as to strip the traveller of his money, and make him take worthless bank paper in exchange*—all these things have the Government done in its provisional state; and
*Lord Brougham denied positively his having been so stopped and searched; he had been kindly furnished with a permit; but he knew of 51,500 francs being seized from one traveller not so provided.
150
all these things which have plunged France into wretchedness, and which now threaten her utter ruin, are seen by us and by all her neighbours. Hence let no one be alarmed at a republic being established on the other side of our Channel; and that it will be established there you must not suffer yourselves for a moment to doubt. A republic is, for the present at least, the fate of France. The existing Government may be upset by any one who can lead 10,000 of her gallant troops (deeply discontented as they are) against the Paris mob; but in the circumstances of the country and of Europe the experiment of a republic must needs be tried. As Louis XVIII., when the army of my gallant Friend (the Duke of Wellington) restored him in 1815, for the second time, his immortal victories in the south having restored him the year before, instead of being called as before Louis le bien aimé, became now l'inevitable—so the republic, a second time installed, is truly and for a season inevitable.
Through that stage France must needs pass: it is her pleasure and it is her fate. But we need not have any fears of its example spreading—of her arts or of her arms we need have no fear. Neither under the old monarchy, nor under the Convention, when her armies were marshalled to victory by the genius, the skill, the gallantry of my illustrious friend General Carnot; nor when the Empire led them to conquest; nor when she flourished of later times under the illustrious Victim of the late change, now an exile within our dominions; above all, of the republican charms and republican attire of France we assuredly have no reason to entertain any dread. Neither her armies nor her treasures are ever to be feared by a free State like ours. Neither of her emissaries nor of her warriors have I any dread; but that is because my confidence in our security reposes, not on our own arms or our own treasures: it has a far deeper and and more ample basis—the affections of the people—to be won by constant good offices; to be retained by unvarying good faith — Non arma, neque thesauri, regni proæsidia unt, verum amici—such friends as you had helping you against madmen and traitors within the last few days—such friends as England, ay, and Ireland too swarms with—Amici quos neque armis cogere, neque auro parare queas; officio et fide pariuntur.
My Lords, it was my bounden duty thus

151
to address you; but I cannot conclude without setting right an error committed by many, acted upon by some—the notion that strangers—Englishmen especially—are insecure in France. This is wholly groundless: some mob proceedings in the provinces have, to the great displeasure of all classes, the Government included, taken place against English workmen. Generally speaking, I can affirm Paris to be quite as safe for our countrymen as for the natives; and I devoutly hope that to all classes the restoration of authority in the rulers, by rendering the police effectual, may soon make life and property universally secure.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, that he trusted his noble Friend would not regard him as being guilty of any disrespect if he abstained from following him into the details of his speech, and into circumstances which it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to regard with the greatest caution. His noble Friend had alluded to the number of false reports which had been spread abroad as to what had been passing on the Continent. He agreed with what had fallen from his noble Friend on the subject, and could fully confirm his statement; indeed, in a paper of this morning he had seen a statement that his noble and learned Friend had applied to the French Provisional Government to be naturalised as a French citizen, and that many other English Peers intended to follow his example and to emigrate. After the speech they had just heard, their Lordships could not but believe that the report was entirely destitute of truth, and their minds would be relieved from any apprehension on the subject. He fully agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the steps taken by the Sardinian Government against Austria were deeply to be regretted. With respect to the invasion of the Austrian territory, he was willing to wait until he knew what the circumstances really were that attended it before he was prepared to use such strong language as had been uttered by his noble and learned Friend. It was a proceeding most deeply to be lamented, and which had been most strongly protested against by Her Majesty's Minister at Turin, and he pointed out the consequences to which it might lead. He was not then prepared to say anything which would commit Her Majesty's Government to the following out any particular course; at the same time, he did not conceive that Her Majesty's Government
152
were bound to resist by force this intervention of the Sardinian Government. The remonstrances to Austria heretofore alluded to, were not exactly to guard against the same line of conduct as had been pursued by Sardinia, but of a very different nature. The interference of Austria with the independent Italian States was understood to be with the intention of preventing the sovereigns of Italy giving constitutions to their subjects. When such intentions of Austria were made known, Her Majesty's Government did consider it advisable to use strong terms of remonstrance to the Austrian Government. In the same way Her Majesty's Government advised the King of Sardinia, ineffectually it was true, but still to induce him, to delay his invasion of the Austrian provinces. He did not see any objection to the production of the papers, or such parts of them as could be communicated without injury to the public service.
House adjourned.