Sitting of 3 August 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Criminal Law Administration Amendment; Registers of Sasines, &c., (Scotland).
2° Churches; Militia Ballots Suspension.
Reported.—London (City) Small Debts; Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland); Paymaster's Offices Consolidation: Highway Rates; Distilling from Sugar.
3° and passed:—Loan Societies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, from Inhabitants of Burton Bradstock, Dorsetshire, in favour of an Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By Sir R. Peel, from the Rector of Waterstock, Oxford, for the Prevention of Simoniacal Practices in the Church of England.—By Lord Ashley, from the Congregation of Wesleyan Methodists of Fawcett Street Chapel, in the Borough of Sunderland, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir James Graham, from the Parochial Board of the United Parishes of Liff and Benvie, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill—By Lord Ashley, from the Inhabitants of Leamington, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Osborne, from Walter Gilchrist Whicker, of Portesham, Dorset, respecting the Waste Lands in New South Wales.—By Lord Ashley, from Edward Samuel Byam, for an Investigation of his Services.—By Mr. Bankes, from the Protestant Inhabitants of Bridport, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from Reading, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland.—By Mr. G. J. Turner, from John Webb, of Coventry, Enameller, for Inquiry respecting the Management of Guy's Hospital.—By Mr. packe, from the Grand Jury of the County of Liecester, for the Establishment of Industrial and Reformatory institutions for Juvenile Offenders.—By Mr. Clay, from the Bonded Creditors of the St. Marylebone and Finchley Turnpike Trust, for Continuing the Marylebone and Finchley Road Acts.—By Lord George Bentinek, from the Inhabitants of the City of St. John, New Brunswick, against a Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Jackson, from the Guardians and Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Tranmere, Chester, in favour of the Poor Law Union Charges Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from a Number of Working People of Stepney, in favour of the Public Health Bill.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Parochial Board of Dundee, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from the Rural Deanery of North Meols, in the County of Lancaster, for a Repeal of the Sale of Beer Acts.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Directors of the Aberdeen Mechanics' Institution, against the Scientific Societies Bill.—By Mr. Clay, from Ratepayers of the Town of Kings-ton-upon-Hull, for an Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
The House went into Committee on the question that the duty on white clayed, or sugar equal to white clayed not being refined, he for every cwt. 15 s. 2d.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid, that the duty of 15 s. 2d. as now proposed by the hon. Baronet, was not in due proportion to the duty on refined sugar, as regulated by the old scale of duties. The duty in the second amended scale was proposed to be 18 s. on double refined sugar, and 16 s. on single refined, that being a reduction of 1s. 6d. for the higher class sugars, and 1s. 4d. for the lower class. By that rule, white clayed sugar was charged half as between muscovado and single refined
1114
sugar, which made the duty 15 s. 2d. So long as the duty on single refined sugar was 17 s. 4d., that might have been a fair distinction; but when they had reduced it to 16 s., the proper rate would be 14 s. 6d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that the 16 s. duty was an amalgamation of the duties of 18 s. and of 17 s. 4d.; but that was no answer, for it was perfectly clear that the duty should have been reduced from 15 s. 2d. to 14 s. 6d. for the years 1848 and 1849; that then it should be reduced to 13 s. 4d., and in 1859 to 12 s. 5d. To show the absurdity of the present rate as it stood, it was only necessary to compare the difference between the muscovado British, and the foreign brown clayed, which was 7s. Then let them compare the duty on white clayed British, which was reduced to 6s. 5d. So in proportion as they had a superior classed article, the less was it charged. It was 9s. 4d. on double refined sugar, it was 7s. on muscovado. He should therefore move the substitution of 14 s. 6d. for 15 s. 2d.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad imposed a higher rate of duty on the white clayed sugar, as the article imported from the East Indies was of a finer description that that which was imported from the West Indies, He did propose to maintain the same relative differences between white clayed sugar and muscovado, he was not prepared to take from the West Indies the advantages thus obtained from them.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 29; Noes 99: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Barkly, H.

Hornby, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Christy, S.

Manners, Lord G.

Dick, Q.

Newdegate, C. N.

East, Sir J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Edwards, H.

Robinson, G. R.

Floyer, J.

Sandars, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Somerset, Capt.

Gwyn, H.

Spooner, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Stuart, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Urquhart, D.

Henley, J. W.

Verner, Sir W.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, W. N.

Hudson, G.

Hood, Sir A.

Anstey, T. C.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Anderson, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Baillie, H., J.

Bowles, Adm.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.

Bowring, Dr.

1115

Brotherton, J.

Lewis, G. C.

Brown, W.

Locke, J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Lushington, C.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Cardwell, E.

M'Gregor, J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Marshall, J. G.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Matheson, Col.

Clay, Sir W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Meux, Sir H.

Denison, J. E.

Morpeth, Visct.

Divett, E.

Morris, D.

Dodd, G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Duncan, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dundas, Adm.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Palmer, R.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Pechell, Capt.

Fagan, W.

Pinney, W.

Ferguson, Col.

Power, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rendlesham, Lord

Forster, M.

Rich, H.

Fortescue, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Rutherfurd, A.

Freestun, Col.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gordon, Adm.

Smith, J. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, J. B.

Grenfell, C. W.

Stanton, W. H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Grey, R. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Grosvenor, Earl

Thompson, Col.

Halliburton, Lord J. F.

Thornely, T.

Hastie, A.

Townshend, Capt.

Hastie, A.

Turner, G. J.

Hay, Lord J.

Vyvian, Sir R. R.

Hayter, W. G.

Willcox, B. M.

Headlam, T. E.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Henry, A.

Wilson, J.

Heywood, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wood, W. P.

Hodges, T. L.

Wrightson, W. B.

Howard, P. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tufnell, H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Hill, Lord M.

On the second division of the Schedule,
LORD G. BENTINCKobserved, that in this division of the schedule there were six fresh blunders; but as they were blunders in favour of the West India planters, he had nothing to say against them. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) shook his head. So he had to the other quarter of a hundred blunders in the scheme; and it was only when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer became convinced of the mistakes, that the hon. Gentleman became suddenly convinced of them also. The duty, as it was proposed for 1848–1849, was 17 s.; it ought to be 16 s. 6d. The duty for 1849–50 was 15 s. 8d., it ought to be 15 s. 3d. The duty for 1850–51 was 14 s. 4d., it ought to be 14 s. The duty for 1851–52 was 13 s., it ought to be 13 s. 3d The duty for 1852–53 was
1116
12 s. 5d., it ought to be 12 s. 3d. The duty for 1853–54 was 11 s. 10 d., it ought to be 11 s. 6d. It was not until 1854–55 that the proposed duty became correct. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a wrong datum line for his calculations. There was another trifling blunder of little importance, except as a blunder. The drawback on refined sugar was intended to be 1s. 4d. more than on bastard sugars. The duty ought in that case to have been 16 s. 3d., not as it was proposed to be, 16 s. 4d.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that the noble Lord was not correct in the grounds of calculation which he had advanced. The schedule was of very little importance; but with the view of obtaining for the West India body a greater degree of protection than they now enjoyed, the duty on British brown clayed sugar was fixed in the same proportion above that on muscovado sugar, as was the duty on foreign brown clayed above that on foreign muscovado.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK LORD GEORGE BENTINCK moved the restoration of Clause 6 of the Act 9 and 10 Vic., c. 63, namely, "sugar not to be entered, bonâ fide the growth and produce of the foreign country from which it is imported." The effect of this clause would be to protect the refiner of this country from the refined sugar of the Continent; and the warehouseman of this country from the sugar warehoused in Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Hamburg.
Clause brought up and read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 78: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Hudson, G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Brisco, M.

Meux, Sir H.

Christy, S.

Mullings, J. R.

Dodd, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

East, Sir J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Floyer, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Robinson, G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Seymer, H. K.

Grogan, E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gwyn, H.

Spooner, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Stuart, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Urquhart, D.

Henley, J. W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Barkly, H.

Hornby, J.

Baillie, H.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Anderson, A.

Adair, R. A. S.

Anson, hon. Col.

1117

Armstrong, R. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Morpeth, Visct.

Morison, Sir W.

Barnard, E. G.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Mowatt, F.

Blackall, S. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Buller, C.

Paget, Lord C.

Bunbury, E. H.

Parker, J.

Callaghan, D.

Peehell, Capt.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Pinney, W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Power, Dr.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Ricardo, O.

Denison, J. E.

Rich, H.

Divett, E.

Romilly, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Dundas, Adm.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Shelburne, Earl of

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, J. A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Smith, J. B.

Forster, M.

Stanton, W. H.

Fox, R. M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Freestun, Col.

Tancred, H. W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Thompson, G.

Grenfell, C. W.

Thornely, T.

Grey, R. W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Townshend, Capt.

Hastie, A.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hay, Lord J.

Ward, H. G.

Hayter, W. G.

Westhead, J. P.

Hoy wood, J.

Willcox, B. M.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir. J.

Williams, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Wilson, J.

Howard, P. H.

Wilson, M.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wood, rt. hn. Sir C.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

TELLERS.

Lewis, G. C.

Tufnell, H.

M'Gregor, J.

Craig, G.

LORD GEORGE BENTINCK LORD GEORGE BENTINCK moved a, clause to permit the British refiner to enter his sugar refined in bond for homo consumption on the same terms as foreign refined sugars. All the British refiner asked was, that he should he placed on an equality with the Dutch refiner, leaving to the Dutch refiner all the advantages he obtained from the bounty in Holland.
Clause brought up.
On the question that it be read a second time,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed it. The noble Lord was first the friend and then the opponent of the West Indian interest. Such a clause as this would not be palatable to the West Indian interest. Under this clause it would be impossible to prevent fraud. He was, however, willing to consider this question before next Session; but if any measure were introduced it must be far more general than that proposed by the noble Lord. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had lately been waited upon by several refiners, and they expressed themselves as opposed to the proposition of the noble Lord.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 73: Majority 32.

List of the AYES

Anstey, T. C.

Hudson, G.

Barkly, H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Brisco, M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brown, W.

Mullings, J. R.

Christy, S.

Muntz, G. F.

Disraeli, B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Divett, E.

Osborne, R.

Dodd, G.

Packe, G. W.

Duneuft, J.

Sandars, G.

Floyer, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, W. J.

Sidney, Ald.

Fuller, A. E.

Somerset, Capt.

Greene, J.

Spooner, R.

Grogan, E.

Stafford, A.

Gwyn, H.

Stuart, J.

Halford, Sir H.

Thompson, Col.

Hamilton, G. A.

Urquhart, D.

Hastie, A.

Williams, J.

Heuley, J. W.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir. A.

Thompson, G.

Hornby, J.

Smith, J. B.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Howard, P. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Jervis, Sir J.

Anderson, A.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Anson, hon. Col.

Lacy, H. C.

Armstrong, R. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Lewis, G. C.

M'Gregor, J.

Baillie, H. J.

Morpeth, Visct.

Barnard, E. G.

Morison, Sir W.

Bellew, R. M.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blackall, S. W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Paget, Lord C.

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Buller, C.

Pinney, W.

Bunbury, E. H.

Power, Dr.

Callaghan, D.

Ricardo, O.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Rich, H.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Romilly, Sir J.

Cnlcbrooke, Sir T. E.

Russell, Lord. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Craig, W. G.

Shelburne, Earl of

Duncan, G.

Smith, J. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stanton, W. H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Fox, R. M.

Villiers, hon. C.

Freestun, Col.

Ward, H. G.

Grenfell, C. W.

Westhead, J. P.

Grey, R. W.

Willcox, B. M.

Hay, Lord, J.

Wilson, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Wilson, M.

Henry, A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Heywood, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir. J.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Tufnell, H.

Hodges, T. L.

Hill, Lord. M.

House resumed.
Report to be received.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
House in Committee.
On the 2nd Clause,
MR. ANSTEYreiterated his objections to the Bill. It was an ex post facto measure, violating the great principle of jurisprudence, which declared that no man should be tried twice for the same offence. He moved the omission of the words "made on the spot by the Commissioners."
The Committee divided on the question that the words stand:—Ayes 79; Noes 16: Maiority 63.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bennet, P.

Mullings, J. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dick, Q.

Rushout, Capt.

Gwyn, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Spooner, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Anstey, T. C.

Hornby, J.

Urquhart, D.

Clause agreed to.
On the 3rd Clause being submitted for consideration.
After two more divisions on Amendments proposed by Mr. ANSTEY,
The House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

THE URQUHART CORRESPONDENCE.
LORD J. RUSSELL LORD J. RUSSELL moved to discharge the order for an address respecting Mr. Urquhart's correspondence, and to substitute an amended order. An order for an ad-dross was made on the 3rd April, and, after a few words from his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the House consented to the order being made. Afterwards an address was moved which his noble Friend thought was in accordance with what had been agreed to between him and the hon. Gentleman, and the Motion accordingly passed without opposition, being at once agreed to; but on looking afterwards at the address, it appeared that the address was for the correspondence of a particular year—that of 1837, which was not the year for which his noble Friend had wished to give the correspondence. The correspondence which his noble Friend proposed to give was the correspondence between Mr. Backhouse and Mr. Urquhart, of the years 1838 and 1839, relating to the Portfolio. The address which was moved was for papers of the year 1837,
1120
relating to the recall of Mr. Urquhart from Constantinople. His noble Friend said that if his attention had been called to the date, he should not have consented to its production; therefore it was by mistake, and through misunderstanding, that that address was ever carried as an unopposed address. If it had been assented to by his noble Friend, and agreed to by the House, there would have been no reason for rescinding the order; but as it had been carried as au unopposed address, he moved that the order be rescinded, for the purpose of substituting a Motion for an address for copies of correspondence between Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Backhouse of the years 1838 and 1839, instead of the year-1837.
MR. URQUHART: The case lies in a nutshell. It is a question merely of veracity. I must first beg the House to observe the extraordinary character of the Motion before it. You are required to rescind an order to adapt it to a false return which has been made, and papers are to be given to me which I never asked for and will not take. The noble Lord now says that he never concurred in the Address. His words are on record, as I shall presently show. I now assert, upon my honour, that the understanding on his part and mine was complete. There was no kind of doubt. He knew the papers I meant, assented to the demand I made, and now he comes down to call upon you to rescind that order upon the plea that it was in ignorance he acceded to it. Then comes the second plea, in reference to the amended order of April the 19th. He says he had allowed it to pass in inadvertence, and that I had not submitted the order in the form to which he had assented to it. I again declare, upon my honour, that the noble Lord assented to the amended order, and that if not in his handwriting, as I believe it was, it passed through his hands. You are called upon to rescind your order upon grounds that are not true. If the facts were as they are now sought to be represented, would not the noble Lord have corrected the error when he perceived it? Would he have waited for two or three months, and then, and at my repeated solicitations only, make a return to the order of papers which the order did not specify? Is not this subterfuge incompatible with the pretext? Surely the case is self-evident. There is deception in its very face. I acquit the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) of any in-

1121
tentional part in it. He is now put for-Ward as he has been on many other occasions. He is the tame elephant on which the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) is to ride over this as he has ridden over so I many other fords. What that noble Lord: has said to-night has been merely put in his mouth. He has repeated what on the 30th June was stated by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) himself, to which I gave the most direct and emphatic contradiction, and to which the noble Lord had then not a word to reply. It might suffice for me now to say, as I then said, that there is not a word of it true; but I will recall the circumstances.
It will be in the recollection of the House that on the 6th March I called upon the noble Lord, in consequence of his having imputed to me corrupt motives—that is, that in consequence of being recalled I had made charges against him—to retract his imputations or to bring forward the proofs. I said that the correspondence with reference to that recall would prove that there was no personal quarrel between the noble Lord and myself, and that the noble Lord falsely pretended a personal quarrel, thereby to meet the charges which I brought against him. My reason for bringing forward this case was not private—it was public. Despite the contempt with which this House may receive the assertion, I say that the whole range of these important interests which are connected with or belong to our foreign affairs, have been followed and understood only by the noble Lord and myself; that, therefore, by casting upon mc the imputation of personal motives, he shuts out my testimony and throws contempt upon my conclusions. Therefore, on the 6th of March I demanded the production of that correspondence, and I will read the words I then used, from Hansard:—
"He (Mr. Urquhart) called upon the noble Lord to Lay that correspondence on the table of the House. The noble Lord could not pretend any injury to the public service, since it had been already printed. The noble Lord could not complain of being taken unawares, for every line of it on his side bad been written for publication.
He now called upon the noble Lord either to retract the insinuations to which he had given utterance on Wednesday last, or to lay upon the table of the House the correspondence to which he had referred."
To which the noble Lord replied—I quote again from Hansard:—
"I shall have no objection to lay on the table the letters to which the hon. Gentleman alludes;
1122
almost all of them, I believe, were published in the newspapers."
Now, I bog the House to observe that this occurred on the 6th March, and I referred to imputations the noble Lord had cast upon me, not upon that day, but upon the 1st March; and that the correspondence I asked for was not that referring to the Portfolio, but that referring to my recall. The correspondence which the noble Lord has produced to the House is not that referring to my recall, but to the Portfolio. The excuse which the noble Lord has given for substituting the one set of papers for the other is, that he gave the whole of the correspondence which he held in his hands on the 1st March when he himself referred to the Portfolio, whereas the promise he made to me was on the 6tb March, in reference to the papers which I then demanded, and which had reference to my recall.
The House being thus in possession of the material facts, I will now read the statement made by the noble Lord on the 31st. Tune, when I last brought this matter before the House:—
"When he found that the Motion had been made, he sent a message by his right hen. Friend the Under Secretary for the Foreign Department, that he should by no means have consented to the return, and that if the hen. Member had given him an opportunity for doing so he should have felt it his duty to object to it, and for this reason, that he did not consider it conformable to the spirit of the constitution, and that he thought, &c. The return for which the hen. Member moved was the correspondence between himself and Mr. Backhouse, in the years 1837 and 1838, whilst the correspondence he (Lord palmerston) had pledged himself to produce began in 1839; but the engagement he had made was to produce the papers he hold in his hand when he was replying to the hon. Member for Youghal, and from which he read an extract, and which, in fact, was the correspondence with Mr. Backhouse as to the publication of the Portfolio. He never did agree to the presentation of the correspondence relating to the recall of the hon. Member, and it was not his intention to produce it, unless the House should require him to do so; and if the hon. Member thought it necessary to move that he (Lord Palmerston) should produce it, he should call upon the House to consider the expediency of not complying with the Motion."
The order was amended expressly to exclude a private letter of the noble Lord to myself of the 10th March, 1837. The terms of the agreement were distinctly announced across the House by me to the noble Lord, and assented to by him. The terms of that agreement I subsequently addressed in writing to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, without

1123
having been controverted, and these terms were—
"All the letters which had appeared in the newspapers, and also two or three subsequently addressed by me to Lord Palmerston in 1837, which had not so appeared."
The noble Lord continued—
"It did not enter into his imagination that when the hen. Member had consented to rescind the Address for the papers to which he objected, he should substitute a second Address calling for the same thing. He imagined that the hon. Member had altered the terms of his Address, and that he was content to take the other correspondence which he said he was ready to give. It was, perhaps, his fault that he had not looked more narrowly into the matter."
I have already said that when the noble Lord made these statements I contradicted them, and my contradiction remained unquestioned. I now again contradict them. I again declare, upon my honour, that those allegations are not true. It is a case in which both cannot be true, and in which misrepresentation must be wilful. Besides the recollection of hon. Members, there are the newspapers. Correspondence with reference to the Portfolio! What did I want with correspondence relating to the Portfolio? The question was whether or not my charges against the noble Lord arose, as he stated, out of a quarrel: what I said was this, there was no quarrel with reference to my recall—I dare you to produce the correspondence, which will show it if there was any. The alternative was, "Retract your imputation, or prove it by publishing the correspondence;" and you say, "No, I will not retract, I will publish;" and then this correspondence appears, and what is it? Correspondence about the Portfolio, and not about my recall.
I have now only to remark that on the 30th June the noble Lord alleged a reason for not giving the papers, namely, the impropriety of giving papers connected with the recall of diplomatic servants. Why did he not allege this reason on the 6th March? The reason had to be alleged then if it was a reason at all; and when he subsequently, on the 30th June, alleges that as a reason, it is not wanted. Surely nothing could be clearer than the mere statement that he had not agreed to the papers, if that was the fact. It required nothing more. But the absurdity of the subterfuge appears in this, that these papers had been already published. The noble Lord raised the laughter of the House against me on the 6th March, saying,
1124
"You will take little by your Motion, for the letters have been nearly all in the newspapers." But this is not the first time these papers have been asked for. In 1838 they were asked for by Sir Stratford Canning. What was the noble Lord's answer then? Not that it was improper to publish letters connected with the recall of a diplomatic servant—not, in fact, that they were public documents at all. He refused them upon grounds that they were private. More than that, he then alleged that they contained falsehoods—that they were filled with falsities. Surely the noble Lord would not hesitate to publish them if they were of such a character. One day they are refused because they are public—another day they are refused because they are private—and both reasons are equally good for this House.
Having thus, for the third time, exposed these subterfuges, I shall trouble myself no further in this matter. I have gained now all I wished for. I have made it clear that it is the noble Lord who shrinks from the investigation. I will not take the papers you will foist upon me. I will be no party to the playing of such a farce, and I shall mark best the sense which I entertain of such proceedings by now quitting the House.
The hon. Member bowed to the Speaker and retired.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONobserved that the case was a very simple one. In replying, on the 6th of March, to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, who had impugned his foreign policy, he quoted one or two extracts from a correspondence which had taken place in the years 1838–39 between Mr. Backhouse and the hon. Member for Stafford, with respect to the Portfolio. The hon. Member for Stafford subsequently made what he believed at the time to be an application that the whole of the correspondence thus partially cited from should be laid upon the table; and in that application, regarding it as a fair one, he at once acquiesced. He was all along under the impression that what the hon. Member moved for was nothing more or less than that the entire of the correspondence relating to the Portfolio, from which a few passages only had been read in the course of the debate, should he laid upon the table. That impression was not disturbed until, on looking at the Votes a few days since, he found, to his surprise, that the address that had been moved for and agreed to, was,

1125
in point of fact, an address for the whole of the correspondence which had passed between himself, Mr. Backhouse, and the hon. Member for Stafford, respecting the recall of the latter. The hon. Member might have acted under a misconception; but it was certain that his (Viscount Palmerston's) nitention, from first to last, had been merely to agree to the production of the entire of that particular correspondence relating to the Portfolio, from which he had quoted extracts. To the production of any correspondence connected with the recall of the hon. Gentleman he had the strongest objections on constitutional grounds, for he did not think that such a subject was a fit matter for discussion in that House.
MR. ANSTEYthought the noble Lord's explanation far from satisfactory. He (Mr. Anstey) called attention to the report which appeared in Hansard of the noble Lord's observations on the occasion referred to, and submitted that that report plainly showed that the question before the House related not to the Portfolio, but to the removal of his hon. Friend; and when the noble Lord said he had no objection to lay the letters on the table, he must have meant the letters relating to the recall. However, after several applications were made at the Foreign Office, it was said the papers to be given did not relate to the recall at all, but to a different question, namely, the Portfolio. Although his hon. Friend (Mr. Urquhart) had left the House, he (Mr. Anstey) should, for the interest of the country, resist what he thought would be a bad and mischievous precedent, and oppose the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes to Two o'clock.

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Bankrupts' Release; Re-gents' Quadrant Colonnade.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Grand July and Magistrate of the County of Leicester, for the Establishment of Reformatory Institutions for Juvenile Offenders.—By Lord Stanley, From North Meols, and Parish of Rufford, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays.—From the Presbytery of Strathbogie, praying for Inquiry into the Necessity of Endowments of schools for the purposes of Education (Scotland).

STATE OF IRELAND.
LORD BROUGHAMSaid, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given, although it was not in the Notice-paper, he rose to move—
"That humble to Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of any proclamation issued by The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, for the Apprehension of Persons charged with treasonable Offences."
There was no opposition to this Motion; but, in moving it, he wished to take the opportunity, before the Session closed, of offering a few observations on a subject of the highest importance, namely, the present disturbed state of the sister country. He thought that this most preposterous movement—this most unjustifiable breach of the law—this outrage upon the public peace—dictated, to all appearance, by misguided enthusiasm on the part of some misled people, but by personal vanity on the part of others—that this rebellion, for the first time become not merely detestable, but oven more contemptible than detestable, because it seemed to have arisen, not from ambition, but from more personal vanity—that this most monstrous violation of social order had reached its end for the present, and that the vigorous exertions of the law by the lawful authorities of that country would prevent it from breaking out again, at least for a season.

1099
And if any one thing could give more confidence than another of this happy result being attained, it would be the appointment, the wise and judicious appointment, of Sir Henry Hardinge. [A Noble LORD: Lord Hardinge.] He begged pardon—Lord Hardinge; but it was very natural to refer to the name which had been illustrated by deeds of such transcendent excellence as that which had marked the career of that eminent person, rather than to the title by which he had been in some small degree compensated for those illustrious achievements. And when he (Lord Brougham) said that great commendation was due to his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) for having made so judicious a selection, and to the Government for having adopted it, he ought to add that great commendation was also due to that great captain for having undertaken the service; for, coming as it were from under the shade of those laurels under which he was seeking the blessing of that repose he had so well earned, and putting himself in a position which must be anything rather than gratifying to a British soldier to fill. Lord Hardinge had shown another instance of that self-denial which had marked his whole course, and had afforded a marvellous contrast and a memorable example to those wretched persons against whom he had to act; for, not consulting his personal glory, his ambition, or his love of fame, he had taken a secondary command under an excellent officer, Sir Edward Blakeney, now in chief command of the forces in Ireland; he had shown that he belonged to the school of his noble and illustrious Friend; and, in imitation of his noble Friend's example, he looked not who was leader on his right or on his left when he had a public duty to discharge, but at once and instantly sacrificed all personal considerations for the good of his country. Of him it might be justly said, as had been said of another great man in ancient times—Plurimum audaciœ ad capessenda pericula, plurimum in ipsis periculis constantiœ et concilii. He (Lord Brougham) had a right to consider it of the greatest consequence that Lord Hardinge would give the advantage of his assistance in council to the head of the Irish Government; so that the noble Lord would not have gone over to that country in vain, although matters might have been decided before his arrival there. But, though the disturbance was over for the present, he (Lord Brougham) was by no means prepared
1100
to be lulled into a state of absolute security in respect to the future. He did not see reason to believe that all this mass of wickedness and folly and discontent which had for so long a time been suffered to collect and ultimately ferment till it had broken out into something like a flame, could all of a sudden be extinguished and reduced to order; or that the parties to it could be speedily reckoned among the peaceful population of the country. Circumstances might still require the continuance of a firm administration of those new powers which had been conferred upon the Irish Government; and he confidently believed that neither their Lordships nor the country would have reason to complain of the manner in which those powers would be used. Though he did not wish to reflect upon the past, yet, with a view to the future, and to gather from the past a guide for their future conduct, he could not avoid casting his eye back a little to what was said to be the cause of this incipient rebellion. No doubt one could not erase from one's memory all the events of latter years, as one might, as it were, the figures from a slate, after the balance had been cast up and the account finally settled. He feared that the accounts were as yet not finally settled; and it was that fear which placed him under the necessity, for a minute or two of referring to the figures which had led to the present unhappy result. Now, he would say nothing of the long series of misgovernment under which Ireland, by all Administrations, had been suffered to linger, and by which its march towards prosperity had been retarded. He would say nothing of its religious dissensions, or of the peculiar circumstances of the landowners, or of the peasantry of Ireland, though he owned he had heard with the greatest satisfaction the result of the Committee which had been presided over by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle)—he meant the Colonisation Committee. He believed that their Lordships could not better employ themselves during the ensuing vacation than in studying the evidence and the reports of that Committee. They would find in those reports suggestions of a practical nature. The subject of colonisation was not new to him (Lord Brougham), for he believed that forty-eight years had elapsed since he had first given his attention to it. Although he had been a Member of the Committee, and felt a very deep interest in the subject, he had been unable

1101
to attend more than once or twice, as he had other business of importance to attend to; but, if he had been able to have been present, he should have found presented to his mind very important suggestions on the subject of emigration. This subject of colonisation, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle) well knew had occupied his attention, not merely of late years, but long since he had carefully considered the matter. They proposed to deal with one of the most important parts of colonisation. The question was not as to mere emigration, but as to the proper' course to be taken by the mother country to people the colonies. He thought that the labours of the Committee would throw great light on the path they ought to pursue, and would enable them to proceed to a safe and practical end. He would refer to one difficulty with which they would have to contend. This country had colonies with immense resources, and fertile regions in Australia, and all but boundless regions of the finest land in North America, with a most scanty and inefficient population; and, as was said by his lamented friend the former Governor of our possessions in that part of the world, he meant the late Earl of Durham, who said in his report that the unoccupied lands in Canada were far more fertile than the fertile lands adjacent to them in the United States. To cultivate and to turn to account all these boundless regions, and to take advantage of rich domains which were hardly limited in extent, and by numerous rivers and harbours most admirably adapted for the purposes of commerce—to take advantage of all these resources, the bad a most scanty and insufficient population. He would merely refer to one fact which had come; out before the Committee, and with which I his noble Friend opposite must be well acquainted. What would the House think when he stated that it had been found on undoubted evidence that in Australia 900,000 sheep, or somewhere near a million of sheep, had been obliged to be sacrificed and put to death, in consequence of the impossibility of the inhabitants to find; a sufficient number of shepherds to tend their flocks. If he had wished for an illustration to show the wants of the colonies in this respect, and if he spoke for hours on the subject, he could not give a more striking proof of the necessity of his proposition, namely, that every safe and proper means should be taken for increasing the population of the colonies. It was
1102
clear to demonstration that the influx of labour into the colonies would not only make them flourish, but it would also be attended with the influx of capital into them; for where there was a want of labour it was impossible that capital to any considerable extent could flow thereto. But do not let it for a moment be imagined that there were not difficulties in connexion with the question of emigration; on the contrary there were very great difficulties to be contended with. He would mention one or two of them. They wanted to remove from the mother country a portion of the excess of population to the colonies, in order to do good both to the mother country and the colonies; but, unhappily, it did so chance that the very sort of people whom the colonies most wanted, were the very sort of people whom the mother country wished the least to spare. It was not the desire of the mother country to send out to the colonies a number of dissolute, lazy, and idle persons, who nevertheless really formed the excess of her population; she did not wish to send out criminals, that they might repeat their offences in the colonies. No such thing. On the other hand, the mother country did not want to send away the industrious and the honest; for it was the bad she wanted to get rid of, and not the good. Here, then, was the difficulty; but he could not help expressing his fervent hope that a real remedy for the evils under which Ireland had long laboured, would be found in a judicious application, as far as was possible, of those principles of colonisation which had been, at length recommended by a Committee of their Lordships' House, He would not dwell further upon this point; but he could not dismiss the subject on which he had been addressing their Lordships without saying that there were evils in the present unnatural state of ire-land—a state now becoming, he feared, habitual to the people—which he apprehended they had treated too mildly in the beginning. They had allowed things to go on under the notion—and a very laudable notion—of not interfering with the right of the people to meet in public and discuss their grievances. They were afraid to trespass upon the right of discussion, or what was now called, by a new technology, agitation, which he (Lord Brougham) understood in a mocker and milder sense to mean only discussion, but which in the stronger and major sense meant something like resistance. Constant meetings were

1103
held, and addresses made to large popular assemblies in different places, varying only in character as to their days of meeting, but forming in reality only one body, and all agreeing in one bad spirit. These things were allowed to go on, week after week, and year after year, as if there were so many Parliaments sitting in Dublin, Cork, and Limerick, at the same time. The meetings were held under various pretences; sometimes electioneering, and at other times for discussion, but at all times for agitation. Their Lordships had allowed all this to go on until it had come to pass that there was now one Parliament sitting hero by law in London, and another Parliament sitting in Dublin, if not contrary to law, certainly in such a way as to lead to, and tending, peradventure, to a breach of the law. That was what had been going on year after year, for purposes of agitation and organisation. Then, again, a revenue had been raised by these popular bodies. He would remind them of what occurred with respect to some of the Whig leaders in the years 1794, 1795, and 1796, at the time Mr. Pitt was Minister. A loyal subscription was raised for the purpose of aiding the Government in carrying on the war, when his much-lamented friend, the late Lord Grey, and Mr. Fox, moved resolutions in the other House, that it was con tray to law and the constitution to raise money for such purposes without the consent of Parliament. What would Mr. Fox have said, when he declared that it was illegal to raise funds for the purpose of aiding the Government, if he had found that money, under the name of rent, was raised, not to aid the Government, but to put it down; not to preserve the peace of the country, but to break it; not to suppress the French Revolution, but to produce a revolution nearer home? Those arguments against raising money by such means would have derived very considerable weight from the nature of the purposes for which it was raised. This illegal Parliament in Ireland, then, had gone on borrowing money, not for the purpose of giving alms or relieving distress, but for purposes the most dangerous to the peace of society. These proceedings had been allowed to be carried on against the constituted authority of Parliament, and the authors of this agitation had been permitted to carry on these proceedings to the extent of open rebellion. When they suffered men to sow such dangerous seeds, such must they
1104
expect they would reap. The result had been that the whole country—at least, if not universally yet topically all over the country, had talked of open rebellion. They had proceeded to make the peasantry soldiers to war against the Government, and they had openly discussed the right to resist the Government with arms. These proceedings had been allowed to go on to a most dangerous extent. On this point he felt bound to observe that he had never, in the whole course of his life, read with more unfeigned and unmixed astonishment any document which had emanated from any public servant, than he read the letter of Mr. Labouchere, telling the Irish people that it was their right to carry arras under the circumstances which he mentioned. Their right to carry arms! Who doubted it? Not only was it the right of every subject to carry arms, but even resistance was their right, and might in some cases become their duty. But who would preach that doctrine in a country full of agitation? Who would give advice that resistance was a right, to a people who were all but arrayed in rebellion against the Government? Who but a driveller or a madman? Led away by his own feelings in admiration of that maxim, the right hon. Gentleman had suffered himself to use language most ill-timed and most ill-placed. Well, having come to this state of things, what was to be done? He did not suppose the spirit of insurrection was yet put down. It was hot enough that the leaders had for a time been subdued. The rebel chief might be prosecuted for horse-stealing, and might suffer for it as others had done, for aught he (Lord Brougham) knew. He might be held up to that ridicule which he had brought upon himself and upon his cause. But that ridicule he (Lord Brougham) must look over—
"—Hi joci seria ducunt
In mala."
He must look to what might come from abler chiefs. Their Lordships might hear of no more outrage; but the agitators would not be quiet. They would have recourse to secret meeting, and to a system of clubs. Such was his entire belief; and he, therefore, tendered that suggestion respectfully and in a friendly spirit to the Government; and earnestly advised them to consider the propriety of speedily taking stops by legislation, if the law was not at present sufficient, but, if sufficient, then by executing the law to prevent those secret meetings

1105
and that system of clubs. When he saw that fifteen proclamations had been issued—that eight counties and parts of seven other counties, comprising the most important portion of Ireland, had been proclaimed, he could not help considering how much the existence of clubs had contributed to bringing about this state of disturbance. The measure which had received their Lordships' sanction, and which was commonly called the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, was, in his opinion a most important preventive measure; but, as Burke had observed long ago, it was a necessary evil of all preventive measures that, although of all others the best, ah though of all others the most beneficial, they always lacked somewhat of evidence in their justification; that, just in proportion to their being effectual for their object, the mischief they were intended to prevent never rose to our sight—we never saw the cause which justified them. On this side of the water he felt convinced that no objection would be urged against this enactment, and he was sure that it would be found most beneficial in aiding in the restoration of tranquillity. Even if no such measure had passed, he did not expect that anything like a convulsion hading to a dismemberment of the empire would have taken place; but still there could be no doubt but that a great deal of bloodshed and a great deal of misery would have resulted, above all to innocent persons, not merely to the dupes of the traitorous parties, but to others who would have no share whatever in the disturbances that would take place. He had thrown out a suggestion the other day to his noble Friend, which he hoped would be taken into consideration by the Government, with respect to the inconvenience of a long prorogation of Parliament at such a period as the present. He bad made the suggestion, because he knew what the effect would be of Parliament sitting, and of those evil-minded persons knowing that a few hours Could only pass over before the Legislature interposed, with whatever powers might be necessary to put down any attempt at disturbances that they might perpetrate, Before sitting down, he wished to say one word as to what had taken place with respect to the passing of the last measure of coercion. Their Lordships had a Standing Order which prevented any measure from going though more than one stage in a single day. That Standing Order might he dispensed with; but that they had unfortunately
1106
the Standing Order, No. 104, which required that no Standing Order of their Lordships' House could be dispensed with without one day's notice. The resolution which their Lordships had come to on Monday week was, therefore, in effect, that whereas one Standing Order provided that no Bill be passed through more than one stage in any day, and another Standing Order provided that no Standing Order of the House be rescinded without twenty-four hours' notice; be it therefore ordered that the Lord Chancellor shall put the question three or four times over in one sitting. He thought that a rather absurd non sequitur to arrive at; and as there could be no doubt but that it might he necessary to pass to measure through all its stages at a single sitting, he was of opinion that the Standing Order No. 104 ought not to be continued. In 1794 Mr. Pitt passed his measure through all its stages in a single day; and again, when the mutiny broke out in 1798, a similar course was adopted. Again, in 1803, when the news arrived of the massacre of Lord Kilwarden in Dublin, a Bill similar to that lately adopted by their Lordships was passed through all its stages, in both Houses of Parliament, in a single night. If the Government had asked their Lordships to adjourn for one hour on Saturday, until the Bill had passed through the other House of Parliament, and if they had adopted the Precaution of having the Court in town, the measure might have been sent over to Dublin on Saturday night, and thus certain disaffected persons might have been arrested before they could have had time to leave the city. Having thus directed the attention of their Lordships and of the Government to those topics, and more especially to the necessity of suppressing the club organisation, and with a cordial hope that they would hear no move for the present of rebellion in Ireland, he would beg to move for the production of the papers to which he had already alluded.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, that as his noble and learned Friend had alluded to the fact of seven or eight counties in Ireland having been recently proclaimed, be wished to offer a few words of explanation with respect to one of these counties (Wicklow), with which he was more immediately connected. It was quite true that there were several counties in Ireland guilty of rebellion and disaffection; but he could answer for that county, that it was not from any danger of disturbances there

1107
that the Government had found it necessary to proclaim it. The accounts which he had received from various quarters convinced him that the county of Wicklow was perfectly free from all disturbance; but from the circumstance of its being adjacent to the county of Dublin, the Government found it necessary to place the whole or a portion of it under proclamation, in order to prevent arms from being removed there from Dublin. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that the insurrection had been suppressed in Ireland. In common with every person who resided in that country, he rejoiced at that circumstance; but what gave him the greatest gratification was, to find that the disturbances had been put down by the people of that country themselves. If the insurrection had been put down by the military force, if one of Her Majesty's regiments had come into contact with the rebels, and put them to flight, the inference would prevail here that the people of Ireland were not able to compote with the Saxon; but now they had the gratification of knowing that the insurgents had been put down by the people of Ireland themselves—by people of the same country and of the same religion as those who were arrayed against them. He had always regarded the police force of Ireland as one of the most useful and best organised bodies in existence; and he had again to congratulate their Lordships on this additional and striking instance of their fidelity and efficiency.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: It is not my intention to offer any objection to the Motion of my noble and learned Friend, or to follow him into any of the details or incidental remarks with which he has introduced it to the House; but still I feel it to be necessary to make some few observations, after what has fallen from him on this occasion. In the first place, although I am enabled, from all the information that has reached mc on the subject, decidedly to concur in the opinion of my noble and learned Friend, that this insurrection—if it deserves that name—is practically at an end; and that, whether owing to the incapacity or the cowardice of the leaders, the attempt to excite the people to violence has signally failed—although I concur fully in that opinion, still I feel bound to say that I do not on that account think that there ought to be an entire cessation of that apprehension or that alarm which the atrocious attempts of these parties were calculated to create, or
1108
a return to that confident assurance on the part of the Government which would warrant a suspension of the precautionary measures that have been recently adopted. These measures, which every circumstance connected with the safety and welfare of this country has for some time called for, are in my opinion necessary now as much as ever. Let it not be supposed that because the means—the atrocious means—adopted to foment this insurrection have shown themselves to be powerless for any effectual result, or for any good which these promoters of rebellion might have proposed to themselves, by establishing a republic in that country—let it not therefore be supposed that they may not have had, and may not still have, a power to effect an amount of mischief calculated to create alarm—that these means, although insufficient to accomplish the ends which the promoters had in view, may not still be sufficient to disturb and unsettle the country. I therefore, think that my noble and learned Friend has taken a correct view of the state of public affairs in Ireland when he has admonished Her Majesty's Government, and admonished Parlialiament, not to relax in their attention to the condition of that country. I take this opportunity of stating that while, as my noble and learned Friend well knows, Her Majesty's Government have at this moment been enabled, by an Act of extraordinary character—but not more extraordinary than the nature of the occasion fully called for—to exorcise a great power in controlling dangerous individuals in that country, that still—and more on this subject I will not, however, now say—it may become necessary, oven before the close of this Session of Parliament, to renew an Act which my noble and learned Friend is perhaps aware expires about this time, and which it has been customary to renew from time to time for a certain number of years, for the purpose of putting down unlawful associations and secret oaths in Ireland. I will venture to assert that not one of your Lordships will doubt the expediency of renewing that Act at its expiration towards the close of this Session; and I am likewise inclined to the opinion that when it is submitted for your approval it may be a question deserving the consideration of this and of the other House of Parliament whether some addition and amendment may not be made to it. I do not know that it is necessary for me, on the present occasion, to say more as to what has passed in Ireland.

1109
My Lords, there is now a pause in the opposition to Her Majesty's Government in that country; but as the insurrection has come to a sort of head within the last fort-night, I confess that I feel some satisfaction in feeling that it has manifested itself with sufficient distinctness to prove in the minds, not only of the people of this country, but of all mankind—the utter, the abominable falsehood of the reports circulated in that country, and which made a part of the stock of policy made use of by these rebels, in endeavouring to bring their guilty desires to pass—that nut only Her Majesty's soldiery were affected with a disloyal spirit, and were not to be depended upon in the event of a conflict, but also that the police in that country were similarly disaffected. The unfounded nature of that charge has been very properly referred to by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Wicklow). I perfectly concur in what he has stated; and I know that from those best acquainted practically with the character of that body, the assertion that the police force was in the slightest degree affected by a spirit of disloyalty met from the first with the most decisive refutation. No man who considers every act done by that body, individually or collectively—for there have been instances of individual loyalty, and judgment, and devotion, as remarkable as those which have distinguished the force when acting together—but must admit, that on every occasion when they have been brought into action, the most unequivocal proof has been afforded that on that body—composed as it is of Protestants and Catholics, and persons of all denominations and parties—the fullest reliance can be placed—that they are conscious of the duty which they have to perform, and are determined to adhere to it. With regard to the observations which my noble and learned Friend has made as to the expediency of not proroguing Parliament, or at all events of keeping parliament within reach, in the event of these unfortunate affairs taking a different turn from what we hope and have justly reason to expect will be the result, I may say, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prorogue Parliament for more than a short time in the first instance; for although it is probable that no state of things may arise which would require that Parliament should be assembled in any short time, I think it necessary that we should have an opportunity of calling Parliament together if occasion requires,
1110
My noble and learned Friend has alluded to causes affecting the state of the population of Ireland, and to the necessity of promoting emigration. I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend as to the importance of this subject. It is one that is surrounded by difficulties; but these difficulties ought to be considered with a view of their being partially, if not entirely got rid of; and the subject, I can assure my noble and learned Friend, is one that will engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
The EARL of DESARTsaid, that if it had not been for the treason-mongers connected with the Irish press, and the dissemination of treasonable speeches and writings, the present dangerous state of things would never have arisen; and he could not but help thinking that the Government ought to have adopted some steps to prevent these practices at an earlier period. He had seen, in March last, that one of these treasonable meetings had been held in Kilkenny, at which three of the principal speakers were magistrates, and one of these persons, Dr. Cane, declared that he was ready to head the rebels; and if he fell in battle, he demanded that the city of Kilkenny should feed and clothe his family. These persons all still held Her Majesty's commission of the peace; and Dr. Cane presented the anomaly of having that commission while he was at the same time lying as a felon in a prison, He thought that if proper steps had been taken in time, the rebellion would not have assumed the importance which would seem to have attached to it from the fact of the late Governor General of India having been sent over to take the command of the troops engaged in putting it down.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: Al-though it appears to me to be agreed upon on all sides on this occasion, from what has fallen from your Lordships, that the danger which has occurred in Ireland is not likely to occur again, and that there is no probability of an immediate outbreak, or indeed of any outbreak at all, in consequence of the measures that have been taken by the authorities, and in consequence of the good conduct of those bodies that have been referred to by my noble Friend who spoke from the second bench (the Earl of Wick-low), and which is certainly beyond all praise; although, I say, it appears that there is no probability of any other outrage taking place at any period, still I think it appears to be agreed by all your Lordships

1111
who have spoken on this occasion—and I entreat of all your Lordships to reflect on this state of things—that a conspiracy still exists throughout Ireland—that bodies secretly formed, bodies among whom there is a secret combination, bodies trained in some degree in arms, bodies bound together by a description of organisation that can be turned to military purposes—that these bodies do exist in the country, that they require the anxious observation and attention of the Government, and that Government must still continue in a state of preparation to resist all the consequences that may result from the existence of such bodies in that country, under the management and direction of those who have already occasioned this outbreak, which we all rejoice has been so easily put down. My Lords, I am happy to learn that Her Majesty's Government will continue to attend to the existence of these bodies, and that they intend to consider the propriety of introducing further measures to prevent the recurrence of such evils as have taken place in future; and if possible to guard against a repetition of such conspiracies and combinations throughout that country as have obliged this country to make such efforts in order to put down these evil consequences. My Lords, in this contest I am convinced your Lordships will trust to Her Majesty's Government to do everything that is called for, and that you will agree in the adoption of such measures as they may think necessary until the evils of which we complain disappear altogether.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he would offer a very few words on this question; but he wished to observe, in reference to what had been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Desart), that if any complaint was to be made of the conduct of the Government, for having confined themselves within legitimate bounds, they were only entitled now to greater confidence in the measures that they thought necessary to recommend to Parliament. But the measure of proclaiming the county Wicklow and other peaceable places, in order to prevent their being made receptacles for the arms removed from disturbed districts, proved the inefficiency of the law. Every one at all acquainted with Ireland knew that the arming of the peasantry had been going on during the last two years as regularly as the arming of the dockyard battalions. And the consequence of the mode of operation of the Act had
1112
been, that the respectable classes had been deprived of their arms by the turbulent; whilst those who ought not to have been allowed to be possessed of arms, could not be interfered with by the authorities, except in the proclaimed districts. In his (Lord Monteagle's) own district, he did not know one person of respectable position in life, who was entitled to have arms, who had not been despoiled of them by the turbulent peasantry. But surely, if they allowed the house of every well-disposed person to be broken into by the turbulent, whilst they deprived the magistrates of the power of examining the houses of the disaffected, it was a great anomaly in their legislation. Now, whilst they had military possession of Ireland, the work most required to be done was to get possession of all the arms in Ireland. They should not bring in an Arms Act of a temporary nature. They should not have discussions upon the subject every second or third year. They should at once make the deprivation of arms, or at least the restricted possession of arms, in Ireland, a permanent Act. Before he sat down, he should say that be entirely concurred in the observations made by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) upon the subject of colonisation; and he should also say, that, although they had beard from the highest authority that the rebellion was at an end, and that it had been put down by the noble conduct of the constabulary, he yet thought they should not treat the outbreak too lightly. They might feel assured that it had been prevented from exhibiting any great force by the means that had been adopted to put it down; for surely no one would venture to say that it could have been suppressed by the constabulary alone, without the strong military force that had been prepared to assist them. His noble and learned Friend had alleged on a former occasion to the alleged sympathy exhibited in the United States for the Irish insurgents; and had stated, the addition of some of those rebel orators might add much to the excitement in their favour. But he (Lord Monteagle) had reason to know, that at the time of the prevention of the apprehended outbreak in London, in April last, there was no nation on the face of the earth that felt greater delight at the manner in which it had been put down than the soundest portion of the citizens of the United States.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.