Sitting of 18 February 1850

MINUTES.
PUDLIC BILLS.—1o Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland); Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Commons Inclosure.
2o Glasgow Markets and Slaughterhouses; Australian Colonies Government.
Reported.—Party Processions (Ireland).

MARRIAGES BILL.
SIR R. H. INGLISwished to ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the county of Bute, when the Bill for legalising the marriage of a widower with his late wife's sister, which Bill he had unhappily obtained the leave of the House to introduce, would be delivered to Members? That leave was given on the 7th instant, and the Bill was read the same night; and short as the Bill was—one sheet only—it had not yet been printed.
MR. S. WORTLBYsaid, he was responsible for the delay, being desirous of introducing a clause of great importance, similar to the one proposed last Session by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth.
SIR R. H. INGLISmust now appeal to the Speaker. His right hon. Friend said, in substance, that the printing of the Bill had been delayed because he wished to frame a clause in concurrence with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Devonport. He had very great respect for that hon. and learned Gentleman, and he knew by experience the value of his support; but he contended that, though any Member, having obtained leave of the House to prepare and bring in a Bill on any subject, might take days, weeks, or months for the purpose, he could not, when once he had brought up such Bill, and when the House had received and read it, make any alteration whatever in it. It was no longer his property, any more than that of any other individual Member, and could not be altered by any one. The House alone could then deal with it.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not competent for an hon. Member to make any other than a clerical alteration in a Bill which had once been introduced and read La first time.
MR. S. WORTLEYsaid, that the Bill was substantially the same as that of last Session, and that the alteration he had made did not affect the principle. He should very shortly have an opportunity of laying it before the House.
SIR R. H. INGLIShoped that his right hon. Friend would now let the Bill be printed and distributed as it had been read and ordered by the House to be printed.

MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR.
MR. F. O'CONNORwished to know, as a grievous attack had been made on his character in another place, by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, whether any course was open to him by which he
970
could bring the accusations before the House, that he might have an opportunity of defending himself from the charges brought against him?
MR. SPEAKER: There is no course I know of to enable the hon. Member to bring the question before the House.

DENMARK AND PRUSSIA.
MR. G. SANDARSbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if it were true that the Danish Government had refused to renew the armistice of the 10th July last; and if so, whether the noble Lord considered, as a natural consequence, that there would be a renewal of the blockade of the Prussian ports of the Baltic and the Elbe? He had seen a statement in the public papers, since he had placed his notice on the Paper, to the effect that the Danish Government had consented to a renewal of the armistice on certain terms. He wished to know whether that statement was correct; and if it were, whether the noble Lord would state the nature of the conditions upon which Denmark had consented?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONpresumed the House would remember that the convention of armistice between Denmark and Prussia was to last for six months, and terminated in January last. Her Majesty's Government proposed to the two parties to continue that armistice for six mouths longer. There was objection made to it in the first place on both sides; but on the 16th of this month, he received a communication from the Danish Minister here, transmitting a despatch from the Danish Government, intimating their willingness to consent to the proposal, upon condition that all the parties concerned should concur in acknowledging that armistice, and that the conditions of the armistice should be faithfully carried into execution. There had been differences between the two parties as to the detailed execution of some of the conditions of the preceding armistice, which differences had never been adjusted up to the moment when it expired. The parties the Danish Government required to be consenting to the prolongation, he apprehended, would be the Prussian Government and the Central Power at Frankfort. There might be some difficulty, he was apprehensive, with respect to the latter; but he had instructed Her Majesty's Ministers at Berlin and Frankfort to recommend the prolongation of the armistice. Sufficient time

971
had not yet elapsed to enable him to state the determination of the parties; but the armistice virtually continued, though the specific period for which it was contracted had expired. Hostilities could not he resumed without six weeks' notice; and he certainly had no reason to suppose that there was on either side an intention, at present at least, so to announce the commencement of hostilities. The proposal to which the Danish Government had consented, was for a renewal for six months; it might perhaps he desirable to extend the armistice Still further; and he believed the Danish Government would be willing to Continue it to the end of the year.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
LORD J. RUSSELLmoved that upon every alternate Thursday Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion on the Paper. There had been a gradual decrease from eleven in 1846, to eight in 1849, of Government Motions on Thursdays. His opinion was, that the arrangement now proposed would be the one most convenient for the House. The Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Sutherland would most probably answer the object of the Government, but he did not think it would be so convenient to the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That upon Thursday, the eleventh day of April next, and every alternate Thursday following, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions."
MR. HUME,in the absence of the hon. Member for Sutherland, would move the Amendment of which notice had been given. He complained that the time allotted to individual Members was gradually curtailed, and urged that the Amendment of the hon. Member whom he represented on that occasion was a compromise which the Government ought not to decline.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'every' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'Thursday following, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions; but that the right shall not be reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of placing Government Orders at the head of the list.' "
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that his only object was to get the Bills through that House in time for their careful consideration in the other House of Parliament. Thinking his Motion the best calculated to effect that object, he must oppose the Amendment.
MR. SPOONERreminded Ministers that many measures, in the hands of private Members last Session, were obliged to be postponed altogether, in consequence of there not being a sufficient number of days on which such measures had precedence. He considered this was an attempt to stifle the voice of private Members which ought to he resisted.
MR. M. GIBSONconsidered that a Thursday at the beginning of the Session was much better worth having to a private Member than one at the end, while the latter was as valuable to the Government as the former, inasmuch as they could always secure a House. As one who had some interest in the matter—for it was his duty occasionally to trouble the House—he was desirous that the Thursdays should be continued to private Members as long as possible in the early part of the Session, and that they should be given up to the Government at a more advanced period. On a recent occasion he had experienced the inconvenience which the limited number of days now allotted to private Members occasioned, having been obliged to postpone a measure of some considerable importance for a month. He was inclined to support the Amendment, seeing, as he thought, a growing attempt to limit the power of independent Members in that House.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the present proposition was to give every alternate Thursday, from the 11th of April, for Government business; this would give the Thursdays for the first three months of the Session nearly to private Members. The Government were desirous of having the extra day at an earlier period than heretofore, in order that they might he able to send up measures of importance to the Lords before the end of the Session, when they were frequently thrown over, for want of time to consider them. It should be remembered that, besides the two notice days, private Members had the Wednesdays for bringing forward any Bills which they had in charge; and, when they talked of Government days, he believed there was now a general desire, which Ministers were anxious, as far as possible, to meet, that Government should take charge of all measures of public importance, instead of leaving them in the hands of independent Members; therefore, the country in general were interested in affording them facilities to bring forward their business at as early a period in the Session as possible.
MR. HUMEwas anxious to preserve those popular rights, in regard to the manner of conducting the business of the House, which at present existed, and thinking that the feeling of the House was in his favour he would divide.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 38: Majority 102.
MR. DISRAELIlooked upon Motions of this sort as systematic attacks on the privileges of the minority, which had always been regarded as the only hope of a suffering community. He could not understand why hon. Gentlemen should new so willingly and shamefully surrender privileges which had ever been their greatest boast. For his own part, he did not consider either the Motion or the Amendment entitled to their approbation; he protested altogether against surrendering the notice days, which alone afforded to independent Members the opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the House matters often involving the most important public interests, and should take the sense of the House against the proposed order.
LORD J. RUSSELLwould remind the hon. Gentleman that the practice he condemned so strongly had existed since 1840. During the last ten years the Thursdays, from a certain period of the Session, had been given up to the Government; but by the arrangement now proposed, by beginning earlier, and taking only each alternate Thursday, probably fewer days would be taken than in former years.
MR. HUMEcould only say, that since 1840 there had been a greater arrear of business at the end of each Session than had ever been known before. It appeared to him that they were progressing year by year in making inroads on those rules and regulations which those who used to be looked upon as authorities had often declared to have been framed for the protection of the people.
COLONEL SIBTHORPthought they were going backward every day, and all he could hope for was, that they would soon arrive at that state when they could not get worse, for then there would be some hope of amendment.
SIR R. H. INGLIS,not being one of those who were disposed to die on the floor of the House, concurred entirely in the proposition of the noble Lord.
SIR R. PEELadmitted that in the ab-
974
stract two days a week were not too much to give to private Members, in order that they might have the opportunity of questioning the acts of Government, or inviting consideration to great questions of public interest; but he had great difficulty in resisting the appeal of the noble Lord, seeing that for five years in succession he himself had been compelled by a sense of public duty to ask the House to give a similar privilege to the then Government, not for their convenience merely, but to facilitate the progress of legislation. On the whole, he thought the present arrangement an improvement upon that of late years, and that it would tend to the general convenience for Ministers to begin earlier and take every alternate Thursday rather than take every Thursday at a later period of the Session. He was the more inclined to vote for the noble Lord's Motion from the intimation thrown out by the right hon. Baronet the Homo Secretary, that Government were disposed to take into their own hands all measures of public importance, with the view to legislation. That intimation was at variance with the doctrine the noble Lord had held on previous occasions, but he was disposed to think the principle an excellent one, so far as independent Members were concerned, that the duty of preparing measures of legislation should in all cases of general public interest be undertaken by Ministers.
Main Question put:—Ayes 143; Noes 47—Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Alcock, T.

Denison, J. E.

Anson, hon. Col.

Divett, E.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Raines, rt. hon. M. T.

Drummond, H.

Baring, H. B.

Drummond, H. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Duncan, G.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Duncuft, J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Dundas, Adm.

Bernal, R.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Blair, S.

Dunne, Col.

Bowles, Adm.

Du Pre, C. G.

Brotherton, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Brown, W.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Busfeild, W.

Enfield, Visct.

Cardwell, E.

Farrer, J.

Carter, J. B.

Fergus, J.

Castlereagh, Visct.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Foley, J. H. H.

Charteris, hon. F.

Fordyce, A. D.

Clay, J.

Forster, M.

Clay, Sir W.

French, F.

Corbally, M. E.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Glyn, G. C.

Cubitt, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Granger, T. C.

975

Greene, T.

Palmer, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Guest, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Patten, J. W.

Harris, R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hastie, A.

Peel, F.

Hawes, B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Perfect, R.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Hervey, Lord A.

Portal, M.

Heyworth, L.

Power, Dr.

Hodges, T. L.

Power, N.

Howard, Lord E.

Pugh, D.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Rich, H.

Humphery, Ald.

Roebuck, J. A.

Hutt, W.

Romilly, Sir J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Jermyn, Earl

Sandars, G.

Jervis, Sir J.

Scrope, G. P.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Shelburne, Earl of

Lacy, H. C.

Simeon, J.

Langston, J. H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Lemon, Sir C.

Smythe, hon. G.

Lewis, G. C.

Somers, J. P.

Loch, J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Stanton, W. H.

Meagher, T.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Mahon, Visct.

Stuart, H.

Mangles, R. D.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Martin, J.

Thornely, T.

Masterman, J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Matheson, Col.

Villiers, Visct.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wall, C. B.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Walpole, S. H.

Morgan, O.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Morison, Sir W.

Williamson, Sir H.

Morris, D.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Wood, W. P.

Norreys, Lord

Wrightson, W. B.

O'Brien, T.

Wyvill, M.

Ogle, S. C. H.

TELLERS.

Ord, W.

Tufnell, H.

Pakington, Sir J.

Grey, R. W.

List of the NOES.

Adair, H. E.

Manners, Lord J.

Arkwright, G.

Milnes, R. M.

Boldero, H. G.

Moffatt, G.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Mowatt, F.

Bremridge, R.

Newdegate, C. N.

Bright, J.

O'Connor, F.

Chatterton, Col.

Packe, C. W.

Dick, Q.

Ricardo, J. L.

Disraeli, B.

Scholefield, W.

Evans, Sir De L.

Scott, hon. F.

Forbes, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, W. J.

Sidney, Ald.

Fuller, A. E.

Smith, J. B.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Spooner, R.

Gooch, E. S.

Stafford, A.

Gore, W. O.

Stuart, Lord D.

Gwyn, H.

Sturt, H. G.

Halford, Sir H.

Thompson, Col.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Waddington, H. S.

Hastie, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Willcox, B. M.

Hudson, G.

Wyld, J.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Hume, J.

M'Gregor, J.

Beresford, W.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL.
MR. HAWESmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. SCOTTsaid, he did not propose to offer such an opposition to the Motion as would, if carried out, defeat the purpose of the measure—his object was rather to obtain more certain information as to the wishes of the colonists on the subject. He was anxious to improve the government, and to extend liberty to the inhabitants of our Australian colonies; and he admitted that no measure had ever before emanated from the Colonial Office, conferring so large an amount of civil liberty as the present. But there were constitutional questions in the Bill so important that they must be considered before the principle was affirmed. It certainly was the interest, and he believed it to be the duty, of every State to give to its dependencies institutions similar to those which it enjoyed itself. That was the best mode of extending our empire, and cementing the affections of our colonies to us. Our connexion could not long continue with colonies to which we gave institutions essentially differing from our own. They were now about to give to the colonies of Australia a new constitution; but what he complained of was, that there was not in that constitution a single feature in common with our own. The constitution they were about to confer on the Australian colonies assimilated rather to the Republican Government of France, or the federal form of government prevailing in the United States, than the constitution of England. This was the point to which he wished, chiefly to draw attention. There were various questions involved, as the prerogative of the Crown, the veto, and others which were too intricate to venture upon at that stage of the measure, and into which he would not enter. The Bill before them contemplated the existence of one chamber in New South Wales instead of two; and the argument on which this change from our own constitution was based, was the wish of the colonists themselves. The Government stated their own opinion that two chambers were preferable to one; but they surrendered their own opinion in deference to the wishes of the colonists. But he maintained that no sufficient evidence has been given that such was really the desire of the people of the colonies. Now, let the House look at the constitution which Her Majesty's Government were conferring on the colonies of Australia. One-

977
third of the members of the chamber would consist of nominees of the Government. In New South Wales, the chamber itself would consist of 36 members; 24 of those would be elected, and the remaining 12 would be either officials or nominees of the Crown; and the Bill provided that, in the event of the chamber being extended, these proportions were to be retained. Now, in point of fact, this arrangement would be found, upon most questions, to afford an actual majority to the Government, because they would have one-third official persons always present, and these could, on most occasions, command a certain number of votes, so as to overwhelm popular sentiment. Suppose the British House of Commons to contain 230 Members, actual nominees of the Government, holding their seats in the House according as they voted in favour of the Government—that would afford a pretty accurate idea of the form of representative government proposed for our Australian colonies. It was said, however, that this was the original form of government given to the colonies in question; but it ought to be recollected that the Act giving that form, which was the 5th & 6th of Victoria, was introduced by Lord Stanley, and passed through the House of Commons without discussion, and passed through the House of Lords after a remark or two from Lord Monteagle. But that Bill had been given as a step towards more extended liberty, and the continuance of such a measure in opposition to the wishes of the colony, was much more likely to hamper the Government than to assist them. There was no precedent for having a single chamber. The custom throughout had been to give two chambers in preference to one; and if two had been given to the Cape, and two to Nova Scotia, how could the House expect that the continuance of one in New South Wales would give satisfaction to Australia? Moreover, it had been admitted that rash legislation was more likely to be prevented by two chambers than by one; and he could give more than one instance in which very disastrous consequences had been likely to follow from the impetuous conduct of a single Chamber. He knew Her Majesty's Government would reply, that power was given the colonists to alter the constitution if they wished; but then the single chamber was recommended, whilst the colonies were told that they might adopt any other form of government they pleased. The
978
hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said the other night that jealousy and divisions were likely to be excited by such legislation; and he (Mr. Scott) certainly feared that, if one set of colonists were thus excited against another set, the divide et impera policy, by which the Colonial Office was enabled to manage parties in the colonies, would create anything but harmony. The question was, why had Her Majesty's Government abandoned the form of government they themselves considered fit, and recommended the single chamber? He knew it would be said that they had done so in compliance with the wish of the colonists, and that the papers heretofore presented to the House would be brought forward in proof of the inclination of those colonists in favour of one chamber. But, in looking at the papers, he asked whether any such preference was to be found for one chamber over two, either in the petitions contained in the papers, or in the decisions of the legislative council, or in the representations made to the Government? Sir William Denison was in favour of two chambers instead of one. Sir Charles Fitzroy had given his opinion that the assimilation of the constitution of the colony to that of the older British colonies, where distinct legislative councils existed, was extremely desirable. The Legislative Council itself had given the preference to two chambers over one, even though one of the two chambers should be entirely composed of Government nominees; and the petitions from the colony which were cited the other night, set forth the admiration of the petitioners of two separate chambers. When the Bill of last year, which was very similar to the one now proposed, had reached Australia, the Legislative Council of New South Wales was sitting. It continued its sittings for three weeks afterwards; and he was very desirous of knowing what papers Her Majesty's Government had since then received in reference to the measure. If they had received any in favour of the single chamber, why were they not presented? He thought this Bill had been introduced without due deliberation, and he was unwilling to go to the second reading of a measure which, in its principle, perpetuated, or sought to perpetuate, a form of government that prevailed in the United States, and that only had a parallel in the constitution of France, and in the constitution originally given to Corsica. He

979
was for giving a distinct co-ordinate chamber to the colonies of Australia, and thus investing the colonists with the full benefit of popular representation. The proceedings of the Legislative Council of New South Wales fully proved that its members possessed talent and ability, and a capacity for business, and that many of its most prominent speakers were men of high character; and, as evidence of this fact, he need only refer in particular to Mr. Went-worth and others, who had taken part in moral and religious questions, and shown their aptitude for taking the place of independent members. He believed the double chamber would elevate the tone of society, exalt the morals, and conduce more than anything else to cement and attach Australia to the parent State; and with the express wishes of the colonists before the House in favour of the double chamber, he thought hon. Members wanted more evidence to be laid on the table before they advanced the Bill now proposed another stage. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment that that stage of the Bill be postponed until further papers on the subject be laid on the table of the House.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would forbear from going into the details of the Bill, because at that stage it was not desirable to go at any great length into a discussion of the measure itself, but to confine that discussion to the principle. He apprehended the general principle was to enlarge the powers of the present legislature, so as to enable the colonists to frame a constitution for themselves which they might send to this country for confirmation, if confirmation to it here should be considered advisable and proper. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken stated his belief that it would be more satisfactory to the colony that we should frame a constitution for it resembling that which Her Majesty the Queen had been advised to grant to the Cape of Good Hope, that of having two chambers. He (Mr. Labouchere) presumed to doubt whether that hon. Gentleman, in the present state of the colony, did actually represent the wishes and feelings of those of whom he was the agent in this country, for, from all the means Her Majesty's Government had had of judging of their wishes, they were quite contrary to what the hon. Gentleman had just stated to the House. The hon. Gentleman had said that there was no support of the single chamber in the papers already laid upon the table. He (Mr. Labouchere)
980
admitted that there was not evidence in those papers to show that it was the deliberate opinion of the inhabitants that finally and permanently the single chamber would be better than two chambers; but it was the almost universal opinion of the inhabitants that they should be left to their present institutions, with only such alterations as should enable them to propose a scheme of government for themselves, rather than that any constitution should be sent out, cut and dry for them, from that House. This was the substance of the evidence the papers contained. He would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a very remarkable despatch, written by Sir Charles Fitzroy, when transmitting a petition from a large public meeting held at Sydney upon this subject. Sir Charles said that the petition had been signed by upwards of 3,000 persons, who prayed Her Majesty not to assent to any change in the constitution of the colony, which should not receive the assent of the colonists at large—that this petition had been signed by men of all shades of opinions—that public meetings for a similar purpose had been called throughout the colony—and that other similar petitions were in progress of signature. [Mr. SCOTT: What is the date of that despatch?] The 2nd of February, 1848. [Mr. SCOTT: TWO years ago.] The prayer of the petition adopted at the Sydney meeting, was to the effect that Her Majesty would not assent to any change in the constitution, which should not have received the previous sanction of the colonists. Sir Charles Fitzroy had sent over at the same time a report of the speeches made at the public meeting, many of which were very able. One of them had been delivered by Mr. Wentworth, the gentleman already referred to in the course of this debate, who declared that although some difference of opinion might exist as to the formation of another House, yet that the only objection he bad to the present council was, that it did not possess power enough—that it was powerless for good, and potent for evil. This did not express any distrust in the Legislature as at present constituted, or any unwillingness or inability to frame right and proper measures to enlarge its powers. Now, by the Bill at present proposed, the colonists would be left to suggest those measures and that form of government which, in their opinion, most suited their position; and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought Her Majesty's Ministers

981
had acted wisely in forming the measure on such a principle. He agreed with some of the views laid down by the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark touching the management of our colonies; and he thought that, in matters of such, great concern as those now involved, it was not asking too much that the Crown of England should consider the plans suggested by the colonists of Australia; and he could assure the House that Her Majesty's present Government would approach the task of considering them with a sincere desire to conciliate the wishes of the parties immediately concerned, and to satisfy the people of the empire at large. The hon. Member for Berwickshire had repeated an observation made the other night by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, for he said the remedy now proposed would be imperfect, inasmuch as the body to whom the new powers were to be entrusted, would consist, one-third of them of nominees of the Crown, and that these nominees would outvote the representatives of the people. But there was no just foundation for the doubt thus expressed. The colonists themselves had expressed no apprehension that from the mixed council, composed partly of the nominees of the Crown, there would not issue recommendations and measures which would be suited to the community among whom they lived; and, indeed, it was the most idle of all apprehensions to suppose that, because there existed these nominees of the Crown, the representatives of the people were to be outvoted. He thought it a very groundless and unfounded apprehension to imagine that the assembly would not work well and efficiently. There had been a choice of difficulties in the question. If two chambers were not to be established, then no one would expect that the single chamber should be left without any nomination from the Crown. He would not wish to live under, or to see introduced, such a form of government as should exclude that nomination; and though, as a general question, he quite preferred two chambers to a single chamber, yet, if they had a single chamber, there must be a counterpoise in it. He thought it most desirable that the House should confine itself at present to the principle of the Bill, reserving details for future consideration when the measure should have gone into Committee. He had no apprehension that it would not secure the approbation of those whose interest it was designed to promote.
982
So far as could be judged from the newspapers published in every part of Australia, there was every reason to suppose the colonists had received it with gratitude and satisfaction. He hoped nothing would occur in the House to bar or interfere with that harmony and goodwill which was now subsisting between England and Australia. The Bill had been prepared with a sincere desire to promote the welfare and prosperity of the Australian colonies; and therefore he hoped the House would assent to its second reading.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, that in the present stage of the measure the House ought to confine itself to a discussion of the principle, and not enter upon the details. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had said, that in his opinion the principle of the Bill was simply to give an enlarged power to the existing legislature in the colony of Australia. He had stated, in so many words, that there being in the colony a certain form of legislature, the powers were now restricted by which the parties might act, and that the whole object and intent of the Bill was to take this legislature and give them a sort of unlimited power in making constitutions for themselves, which constitutions were to come home and receive the assent of the Crown. That was the principle of the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) at once objected to that principle. Remark how the right hon. Gentleman wished to proceed. He wished the House to proceed—first, by making legislative councils in a great measure nominated by the Crown, with hardly any power from the people in the colony, and afterwards, when that was done, to give to these nominees of the Crown, or at least a large portion of the nominees, the great powers of legislation which that House (the House of Commons) ought itself to exercise. He complained of the Government, and would complain of the House, if it were so contented to divest itself of its great powers of legislation, so far as the dependencies of the Crown were concerned; for, if it were so contented, hon. Members would be confessing their own ignorance and weakness, and saying they were not fit for the government of the colonies. [Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!] He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Montrose cheering this statement, as if he (Mr. Roebuck) had been saying something which was opposed to the liberties of the

983
colonies. What was he objecting to? He was objecting to giving powers to people who did not derive their will from the people of the colonies. He wanted the House to frame a legislature, to send that legislature out to the colony, and when it got there to plant at once liberal institutions, and not to go through all the contest and agony which would be created by the passing of this Bill. He had supposed when the noble Lord at the head of the Government came down the other night, and said, he was going to explain the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers respecting the colonies, he thought the noble Lord was going to lay before the House some large and liberal policy, some well-defined measure, some well-digested plan; whereas of all the abortions ever put forward by an incompetent Administration, this Bill was that which bore away the palm. He defied any one to understand it without the greatest care, attention, and even knowledge. If he took into his hand the Act of Parliament creating the constitution of the Canadas as brought in by Mr. Pitt, nobody would find any difficulty in understanding that. It was clear, defined, logical. It began by defining the limits of the colony. It created the actual form of the constitution. It told us of whom the various parts of that constitution should consist. It told us more than that—what should be the constitution of the representative assembly. It told us what should be the franchise that should elect the assembly, and in fact it was what it purported to be, the constitution for the colonies. Now, what was the present Bill? He was not going to discuss the details of the measure as details, but he was discussing it as the constitution for a colony; and he would invite the attention of the House and the country to the way in which it had been framed. It began by enumerating, he did not know how many Acts of Parliament, but there were between seven and eight Acts of Parliament. It did not repeal, it recited them. He wanted to know the meaning of that? If there was no portion of them repealed, why recite them? If they said to the people of Australia—" Here is your constitution," how were they to understand it? At the end of the first clause, they divided a certain colony and made a new clause, and then they proceeded to deal with each separate colony with reference to all these Acts, so that to understand any one portion of the Act, you must have all the other Acts in your hand—you must compare and
984
understand them with the eye of a lawyer; and none but a lawyer could understand them. That was not the way to draw up a constitution for a people of any sort. It was not like the Reform Bill brought in by the noble Lord. That was an exceedingly elaborate performance. It told us what was the constitution the various towns and boroughs were to have in order to make the House of Commons. Parliament was now about to divest itself of the power of approval. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Crown should reserve certain powers to itself. He would not deprive the Crown of that. He could well understand that the Crown should preserve it through the governor; but he could not agree that they should on every occasion send their legislation, not for the approval of this House, but of the Colonial Office. That was not what he thought this House ought to do. But he asked what the House ought to do? Was it not clear that it was the duty of the House to consider the whole of our colonies that were of the description of the Australian colonies, New Zealand and South Africa, as one set of colonies, and at once to prepare a legislature for them. Now, he was given to understand that there had gone out of the Colonial Office a ready-made constitution for South Africa. If the Colonial Office could send out a ready-made constitution for South Africa, he wanted to know why the Parliament of Great Britain might not send out a ready-made constitution for the Australian colonies. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire objected to one cut and dried by Parliament, and yet he did not object to the cut-and-dried constitution that was concocted in the Colonial Office. He was told that that was a really beneficial constitution, and he did not object that it was cut and dried. There were five colonies in Australia, but the letters the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had quoted, and the petitions, all came from Sydney; and he told them it was the opinion of their legislature there that their constitution should not be altered without their approval. The right hon. Gentleman had foisted in the word "colonist." He wanted to know what was the meaning of the word "colonist." The right hon. Gentleman had quoted declarations made at a public meeting. He knew what public meetings were. They were generally got up to serve the purposes of those who called them. He

985
could not understand why the Government should divest itself of the power of legislation. He hoped the House would not so divest itself, and when the time came he should test the opinion of the House on the subject. He did not object to a single council if it was to be wholly elective. He did not ask for it, and he did not know a single colony that did ask for it. But that was what their experience in Canada convinced them must take place. He wanted to know, when they had had that long experience in Canada, and when the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord were both convinced that the legislative council chosen by the Crown was a source of mischief, why they should introduce into South Australia this newfangled doctrine. He did not use the word to bring it into contempt, or to imply that he objected to a newfangled doctrine; but this was altogether contrary to our experience. We had had nothing at all like it, to have a body of people elected by the colonists, and a set of men chosen by the Colonial Office, or by a clique in the colony. Calling it the act of the Sovereign did not lend it dignity; it was no more than a means of giving power to a small body of the colonists, a power opposed to the opinions of a large body of the people. They might hide it as they pleased under fantastic names; they might call it a single chamber; they might talk about the attributes of this country, and about connecting it with this country. It was no such thing; it was a mere device to retain the power in the hands of a few. He warned the Government and all those connected with the colonies, that so sure as they created this body, so sure did they create a constant source of discontent and quarrel. Now he should ask the noble Lord to justify to himself, and to the country, this strange anomaly. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who said it was the opinion of the colonists. It was the opinion no doubt of those that he quoted; for they did not dislike the supposition then in their minds, that there was to be no alteration without their approval. But he would ask the noble Lord if this legislature was like that which they were going to send out to South Africa? Let them send out to New South Wales such a legislature as they were about to send out to South Africa, and he should be very much mistaken if the people of those colonies did not receive it with great thankfulness. But recollect we were not taking
986
a step from which we could go back. This the noble Lord introduced as the commencement of a new system. He said the colonies were about to be deprived of the benefit of the connexion with England through monopoly, and, therefore, said the noble Lord, "We are about to begin a new system; we are laying the foundation of a great empire." Therefore, he would ask this House to see how they laid that foundation which they could not unmake. It was like a building which when once the foundation was laid, it took as much trouble to alter as to lay it. This Bill, when it had passed and gone out to Australia, would be a species of charter. He hoped that in time it would work beneficially—that they would in time have a good constitution, but they would have it in spite of this legislation, not in consequence of it; whereas they would find that in South Africa they would not have the difficulty they would have in these colonies. These were their model colonies, and they were going to place in that large district of the globe a set of institutions which were totally unfit. Two plans were brought forward. The noble Lord at the head of the colonies, of his own unbiassed judgment, sent out one to South Africa, and from some strange caprice this other one was brought to the House and called a constitution. Why, they had left all the power in the present assembly; they were divesting themselves of every means of legislation, and the only check they had was the check of the Colonial Office. It was a Bill for perpetuating the power of the Colonial Office. If the House of Commons was prepared to throw from its shoulders all care about the colonies, let it do so boldly at once; but do not let us create a dominion in Downing-street, which all the long years of our colonial experience had taught to be most mischievous. Ask anybody what had been the effect of the Colonial Office on the destinies of America, beginning with New England and Virginia down to Canada. When the people of New England were left to themselves they thrived and became a great people; and when the Colonial Office interfered, quarrels took place, something like rebellion was constantly breaking out, and from one end of New England to the other they had constant discontent, and at last the consummation of it was the declaration of independence in 1776. Cross the St. Lawrence, and they found the same influences

987
exist. In Upper and Lower Canada they traced the power of the Colonial Office for mischief. There they had the nominated legislative council. They had themselves acknowledged that that nominated legislative council could not be maintained. And why? Because the growing intelligence of the colonists was such that they would not put up any longer with it. The fault lay with the Colonial Office rather than with the Colonial Minister. The Colonial Minister did not govern the colonies; it was the persons constantly in the office—the men who maintained power through all changes of the Administration. The Ministry were but lost in their hands; they wielded power according to their own will, and not according to that of the Ministry; and this it was that rendered this Office the bane of the colonies. It was not the really responsible Minister who governed; he was a mere instrument in their hands. He had seen ten or twelve changes in the hands of the Colonial Office: in one Administration there were four or five. No sooner did a man go in and learn something, than he was changed for the exigencies of the Administration, and thus the power fell into the hands of the clerks. They were going to do the same with this Bill. The consequence would be, they would hold up this Bill as they did now the great mistake made by Mr. Pitt in the constitution of Canada—namely, the nominated council, the mischief of which was pointed out by Mr. Burke at the time, who said they could not make an aristocracy in the Canadas. There were not the elements. Now, were there the elements in Australia? Then why did they retain this anomaly? They retained it under the influence of persons behind them who wished to maintain power, and they designed to retain it by specious contrivances. The noble Lord had, on his own judgment, sent out a constitution to South Africa, and before twelve months were over they would have a legislative council in both the Canadas, in Nova Scotia, and in Newfoundland; in a short time they would have the same demand from Australia, and they would have to retrace their steps. He asked them to take at once that step which they knew in their hearts to be right. He saw the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies present, but he did not wish to prefer a charge against him, for he, like his noble superior, was a tool in this matter. He was no more answerable for it than he (Mr. Roebuck) was. His
988
mind had had nothing to do with it; and if his hon. Friend could make it out that it was his noble superior's, then he should think so much the worse of him. The people in Australia were exactly the same class of people as in South Africa, with this exception, that in South Africa they had two races—the Dutch and the English. Some of our own colonies had been penal colonies; but he believed that the nature and character of the convicts rapidly changed, and that they would find the people in New South Wales as moral and as well conducted as in any country that had not been a convict colony. And that being so, why had they two measures for the same set of people? Would his hon. Friend get up and tell him that the colonies desired it? Would he tell him that New Zealand desired it? or that Port Phillip desired it? No, he would only tell him that certain persons in Sydney desired it; and upon that ground alone had the hon. Gentleman justified this strange anomaly. In one colony he created two chambers, both elected by the people; and in the other he had one chamber, and put into it one-third who were nominees, not of the Crown—he would not so dignify them—but nominees of a clique. At the present moment the great receptacles for our emigrant population were South Africa, New Zealand, and South Australia. The people liked to go under British law. There was a feeling that Canada would not remain under it long; he was sorry for it; he wished to preserve it. There was a feeling growing up, that in going to Canada they would soon be under the United States, and would cease to be Englishmen. People might call it a prejudice if they liked—he was glad there was such a prejudice; but Englishmen would rather be under the protection of England, and, therefore, they preferred going to Australia and New Zealand. They were now making a constitution for Englishmen, and he wanted to know how his hon. Friend and his superior could justify themselves to the English people for making such a constitution as this? Because this was for ages yet to come, and over a tract of land as large as Europe. At this present moment he believed that South Australia, taking one colony only, was very near as large as France and Spain put together. He anticipated the time when these would be great nations; and why should they not, as wise and prudent legislators for the future, why should they

989
not lay the broad foundations of justice and right, and not to do, as they had always done, except in the case of the noble Lord sending out a constitution to South Africa, endeavour to preserve a power which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade called the power of Crown, but which he (Mr. Roebuck) called the power of a clique? They had desired to do that, and for the purpose of doing that, they had done all they possibly could to prevent the improvement of the great body of the people. Compare the emigrants who went out from England to America, and their success, with those who went out from the United States further west, with their success. It was no answer to say that Englishmen had the Atlantic to cross. It was just as difficult for the Americans to take the land journey and cross the Mississippi, to Missouri and Arkansas, as it was for Englishmen to cross the Atlantic. If they compared the colonies of the United States with ours, they saw the real reason of the rapid success of the one, and of the deterioration, or rather slow success, of the other. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government read the other night certain figures as to the increase of the Canadas and of the United States. Let the noble Lord compare the separate States; let him compare Ohio with any portion of our colonies; let him compare any one of the free States, he did not say the slave States, with our colonies, and he would see why it was that our colonies did not show that prosperity that the colonies of the United States did. There was nothing so miserable for a traveller a crossing the St. Lawrence. On the one side he found a people not under a Colonial Office, but governing themselves. There was every improvement, rapidity of transit, exertion, law, peace, energy, success, activity, happiness. Let him cross the water, and every man was looking across the Atlantic to know what Downing-street should say. There was nothing of the activity on the other side of the water. The traveller asked himself, how is this strange contrast? Here we have as fertile a soil, as genial a climate, as sagacious a people, as on the other. So striking a difference could not, he observed, be believed on the wide globe, the difference being the more apparent from the identity of the sources of prosperity on each side of the river. Go from one canton in Switzerland, from a Protestant to a Catholic canton, and they might find some difference, but nothing like
990
that of which he was now speaking. The grandeur, the magnificence, the spirit of commercial enterprise on the south border of the St. Lawrence, compared with the crushing, cruel misery of the other, was one of the most painful spectacles for an Englishman to witness. Now he wanted to ask the House not to cast this mildew into the other colonies. He entreated the House to curb and control that power which it was about to continue, and not to spread this terrible mischief over our colonial empire.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, I think I never heard a speech marked by so many errors and mistakes, with regard to constitutional theories, with regard to history, and with regard to practice, as the speech just delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has called to our attention the Act which was passed for the separation of the two provinces of Canada; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have chosen a more unfortunate model than that Act to ask us to follow. Sir, the consequence of that Act was, that the Government of Canada, being divided into a legislative council named by the Governor, and into a popular assembly named by the people of Lower Canada, who were pent up in Lower Canada, and divided from Upper Canada, there was, for a long series of years, the most bitter dissension between the council and the assembly; and at length that constitution came to an entire stop, owing to the impossibility of making the two parties act together; and the result was, that even a sufficient number to form a House could not be collected in the popular assembly. And that is the model which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes us to follow. [Mr. ROEBUCK: It was only for the logical precision with which the constitution was drawn that he had commended it.] With regard to the logical form, if we can provide a measure calculated practically to benefit the people, I think I would give up something in point of logical precision as regards language, for the sake of the substantial benefits of good government. The hon. and learned Member says, that at the commencement of this Bill various Act a are recited and referred to. I think that this is only a characteristic of this Bill, which is common to many other Bills. Nay, more, the hon. and learned Gentleman says it requires care, attention, and legal knowledge, in order to understand this Bill. Why, I don't mean to say that persons careless and inattentive will alto-

991
gether be able to follow this Bill. Some care and attention on a Bill which is to govern a great colony, is surely not too much to ask. With respect to legal knowledge, I do not think it requires any more than that knowledge of the general principles of law with which most Members of this House ought to be familiar on matters of legislation. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman says, "After all, why is it that, in the substance of your Bill, you prefer a legislature which is formed of a single body, instead of having a legislature of two bodies, both of which shall be elected?" And the hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Surely Parliament ought to frame a constitution for the Australian colonies." He says, in substance, "Never mind what the opinion of Australia is—never mind what is said by New South Wales—never mind what their wishes are—but form a constitution according to your own notions of what theoretically must be right." Now, I think that is rather new language from those who have always asked us to give such a mode of government to the colonies as they wish to provide themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Take a mode of government which shall be approved by the opinions of this House, and do not take any fanciful measure of our own." Why, this "fanciful measure of our own "is, in fact, the kind of constitution by which, since 1842, New South Wales has been governed. The hon. and learned Gentleman totally omits the fact with which we have to deal. He seems to assert that we come forward with a proposition for a legislature formed of a single body, entirely of our own invention, when we might refer to far better models and other institutions. And on this subject the hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the Colonial Office in the way that he and others like him talk of the Crown in this country. It is, in fact, the power of the Crown exercised through the Secretary of State, which is the only formal means by which the Crown can exercise power. The Crown now has the power, and always has had, in the colonies of this country which are not governed by Act of Parliament, and where there are no other stipulations otherwise to bind the Crown—the Crown has the power to introduce a council and an assembly as a mode of governing such colonies. Such has been the power of the Crown without at all referring to Parliament; and if I do not misunderstand the hon. and learned
992
Gentleman, he proposes to dispute this power—to say that the Colonial Office (substituting the Colonial Office for the Crown) should no longer have this power, but that every constitution of a colony must in the first instance be settled by Parliament. But now as to the facts. They are—that in 1842, after a council nominated by the Crown, with the Governor, had been legislating for New South Wales, an Act of Parliament was introduced, which had been a good deal considered under the former Government, having, I believe, been introduced by Lord Stanley; and a Legislative Council was introduced, one-third of its members to be named by the Crown, and two-thirds by the people of the province. Well, if the people of New South Wales said, "We do not approve of this constitution; we wish to have two chambers instead of one, and desire that that change shall be made by Parliament;" those representations would be laid before the House, and the Committee of Privy Council, to whom this question was referred, would have seriously considered the mode in which such a constitution should be granted. Because, again, when the hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the Colonial Office, he altogether indulges his fancy on this topic. The clerks of the Colonial Office, to whom he alludes, although they do their duty with great ability, have not to decide questions of this kind, nor have they to be decided by the Secretary of State. He refers a question of this magnitude to the Committee of Privy Council. They make their report to the Government on the subject. It is considered by the Government, and then a measure is introduced. The colonists could not say we have maturely considered the question between a legislature composed of a single body and a legislature composed of two bodies, but they say that we have a legislature in which there is a large popular element, in which two-thirds of the members are elected by the people, and we should not like any change in the principle of that legislature until we have had ourselves an opportunity of considering such a proposal. Now that is all that we propose to adopt. We propose to give weight to the opinions of the colonists. We say we will listen to your opinions, and we will introduce among you a legislature similar to that which you have at present, giving more power to the legislature, but maintaining the principles of its constitution, and that will remain until you

993
have maturely considered a different form of representation; and if you think of framing a better legislature, then that shall he considered in this country, and a favourable view will he taken of your opinions upon that subject. The Crown may give its assent; but that is the nature of the constitution of this country. In the case of South Australia, the Crown has proposed, by an Order in Council, to give that constitution; that is a power inherent in the Crown of this country, and unless the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to take away that power from the Crown, it will remain the constitution of this country. But there are greater matters to consider. What we propose is, in the first place—a point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not dwell—to give to South Australia and to the new province of Victoria, legislative councils, which they had not before, Victoria being united with New South Wales, and South Australia having had a representative constitution before. But if we had to frame a second Legislative Council—to frame another house as it were—for Australia, it is very doubtful whether the Members of this House would frame at once such a provision with regard to the constitution of that second chamber as would meet with the approbation of the colonists of Australia. In the Cape, we have proposed that the election shall be vested in certain bodies, and among others certain persons holding offices under the governor of the Cape. I do not believe that similar offices exist in Australia; but if they did exist, it is not clear to me that the people of New South Wales and Australia generally would prefer such a body of electors to the single chamber which is now proposed; therefore we should have the risk of framing a constitution which did not suit their opinions, which did not meet their wishes, or else we should be obliged to resort to a measure which should be sent to Australia, and only upon the return of the reports from that colony a year hence should we be able to frame a Bill. Is it not a more rational and practical course—the Committee of Privy Council having framed a report in March last—that we, having introduced a Bill towards the end of the Session, and that report and Bill having gone out to Australia, and having met with the assent and approbation of the great majority of the colonists, now propose to carry out a measure founded on those principles, leaving it to be settled
994
hereafter whether there shall be any changes in that constitution? The colonists might think that the democratic power would be more likely to prevail in a single chamber, two-thirds of whose members were elected, than if they had a separate chamber, composed of persons of greater property, or in any way likely to counteract the popular wishes of the colonists. For, supposing the single chamber to consist of 36 members, if the 24 elected by the people, or even less, voted one way, the nominees of the Crown would have no power to counteract their will; but, supposing there to be two chambers, and the popular assembly to be unanimous in favour of a particular measure, the other chamber would have a positive veto when the measure came before them. Now I am not saying it is not a better thing to have a constitution of two chambers, than it is to have a constitution with one. I think it is a better form of constitution to have two. I submit that we are certainly pursuing a course which is more in accordance with the different opinions of the colonists than that which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to pursue. There are other questions connected with this subject which are of no inconsiderable difficulty. It is a general principle of our constitution to adhere to a House of Lords and Commons, and it is said we should have in the colonies a governor, a council, and an assembly. But when the council is to be formed, it is desirable that that council should have a certain weight and authority—that it should be composed of persons whose experience or whose name will carry with it a certain degree of influence when its decision should come to be known. It is desirable also that it should act in some manner as a check, and that it should not be merely the echo of the popular representation which is to form the basis of their power. Now, between those two difficulties the task is by no means easy. In several of our colonies the Legislative Council has had little weight, because it did, in fact, consist of persons nominated by the Crown, and who had no authority, except as being nominated by the Crown, when they went into that assembly. On the other hand, the persons forming the Legislative Council should not be nominated merely because they are likely to agree with the representative body, and should be elected to keep up the harmony with the representative portion of the council. That is a considerable

995
evil. In an ancient society like this, with all the advantages of great achievements, of great properties and of historical events, you would get over the difficulties which I have stated. In a country like the United States of America, consisting of a very large population, where you have the means in the different States of finding men of great capacity and experience from their youth in the modes of legislation, you have the means of forming a Senate. A Senate formed of such materials in the United States is uniformly respected in those States, and throughout the world. There the problem may he solved; but it is not easy at once, pointing to a given colony, to show at the same time how two chambers may be formed to have authority and influence with the Government. If it can be formed, they should point out to us how it can be formed, and how those conditions can be fulfilled which shall have all the authority and independence that may be required. We propose, therefore—and that is the general principle of the Bill—to continue in New South Wales, and to introduce into other parts of Australia, that form of Constitution which was introduced by the Act of 1846. We do not imagine that we are forming a constitution for all time, but we do say, we are continuing a constitution against which we do not hear any loud remonstrance. The hon. and learned Gentleman, at the end of his speech, pointed out what was the difference between Canada and the United States, and attributed to that bugbear, the Colonial Office, all that was defective in Canada, and all that contrasted with the freedom of the United States. I do not know in what respect the United Provinces of Canada are not as free as the States. It is true that they do not elect their own governor. On the other hand, with regard to their tariffs, and several other subjects—with regard to the duties on customs which are imposed—they have far greater liberty than the United States have, and are more at liberty to pursue their own course. I believe the dissensions which have prevailed in Canada for many years have been a great obstacle to their progress. I believe that the unfortunate difference made on the suggestion of Lord Granville between Lower and Upper Canada, was the cause of the slow progress made by one province as compared with that of the other; the navigation of the St. Lawrence had been prohibited by the jealousies and dissensions
996
prevailing between the two provinces; and the shutting up the French people in one province, and allowing the British race to flow into the other, had been an extremely injurious course. Whatever the cause, they have now freedom of constitution, a great increase of wealth, as shown by the imports and exports, an increase of population, and a prodigious increase in the amount of property assessed in those colonies. What was there, then, to prevent those provinces making as great progress—not as the newly-formed States belonging to the United States, for that would be altogether an unfair comparison—but as any of the American States which had been settled an equal time with that province? If so, the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to the interference of the Crown was altogether misplaced; for there was no need of waiting for communications from Downing-street with respect to any measure which the Canadians thought necessary for their own internal benefit; to no such measure would the Secretary of State for a moment hesitate to give his approbation when it was required. But the greater part of the questions arising in the Canadian legislature were, in fact, settled by the people of Canada themselves; and the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman has so much horror, said nothing at all, and in no way interfered, to prevent the execution of whatever the colonists thought best for themselves. I look with confidence to the support of the House to the second reading of this Bill. It has been formed with considerable care, after knowing the general opinions entertained in New South Wales, and having gone out to New South Wales, it has been approved of there. The House would do unwisely to throw away a Bill of this kind for the purpose of framing a constitution on their own notions, which might be found unpalatable to the people of the colony. And, lastly, on the principle of allowing the people to govern themselves, this Bill is more consonant with that principle than the scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, in stating the history of the colony, and misrepresenting the constitution of this country, sought to induce the House to set aside the opinion of the colony, and to legislate on some unsatisfactory notion of his own.
MR. FREDERICK PEELhoped he would find an apology for addressing the House in the importance of the measure

997
then under discussion. That importance was drawn from the circumstance that the Bill proposed not only to establish political institutions for five separate and distinct colonies, sharing between them nearly all the existing settlements in that great tract of country, Australia, but also to found a federal union between them for the management of their inter-colonial concerns. To the greater part of the measure he had no objection to offer. He approved of the separation of Port Phillip from the colony of New South Wales. He thought it was wise, in the existing state of feeling in the Colonies, and jealousy of all interference, to allow the legislative council in these Colonies to alter by Act the charges on the civil list, with the single exception of the governor's salary, without rendering it necessary that that Act should be reserved for the signification of the Queen's pleasure before it came into operation. He thought it was wise, too, to introduce provisions for cancelling those corporate institutions under the management of district councils, which had been created by letters patent, issued under the Constitutional Act of New South Wales, and which had excited discontent, and appeared to be un-suited to the wants and wishes of the colonists. But it was what he conceived to be the main principle of the Bill which had his hearty approval—he meant the recognition of popular representation as an indispensable element in the form of colonial government. His opposition was pointed against the organisation of the legislative assembly. He owned to a predilection in favour of a double chamber. He should like to see the legislative power shared by two distinct and independent branches, each exercising a control over the other, and each having a negative upon the other's proceedings. His ideas and sentiments on that subject were grounded not only on general political reasoning, but also upon the uniform sanction which experience had given to the conclusions of abstract theory. The policy of a division in the legislative body was something more than true only in the region of thought. History and the experience of this country had made it a great practical truth; but it was a truth which it was unnecessary for him to demonstrate, because it was admitted and conceded by the noble Lord himself, and, he (Mr. Peel) believed, in the report which was framed by the Committee of Council. The noble Lord said he should have proposed to Parliament the adoption of a
998
double chamber, but for one consideration, and that was, that the colonists had clearly expressed and recorded their wishes in favour of a single chamber.
LORD J. RUSSELLbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon, he did not say so.
MR. F. PEELthought it at all events to be so stated in the report of the Committee of Council, upon which this Bill was acknowledged to be based. If that was so, he (Mr. F. Peel) approved of the wisdom of the course which had been taken. He did not think they should be justified in legislating on any abstract notions, or upon general reasoning, or even upon the conclusions of historical experience, against the expressed wishes or the peculiar circumstances of the colonists. But he could not so readily admit that the colonists had expressed their wishes on this matter in that clear and unmistakeable way which would alone justify in his mind a deviation from the usual type of colonial governments. The opinions of the colonists of New South Wales might be collected from four distinct sources: from themselves, in their public meetings; from their organ, the legislative council; from the executive council; and from the Governor of the colony. With respect to the sentiments of the people of New South Wales, so far as they could be collected from the resolutions arrived at in their public meetings, he thought it was in the middle of the year 1847 that Lord Grey first communicated in a despatch to the Governor of New South Wales his proposition for remodelling the constitution of the colony. That scheme met with great opposition, and excited much discontent. It undoubtedly contained a proposition for dividing the legislative body into two branches; but it was not against that part of the scheme that the indignation of the colonists was directed. It was against that portion of it which proposed to place the legislative council and the district councils in the mutual relation of representative and constituent. It was to that portion of it which proposed to deprive the colonists of the franchise they then enjoyed, and reduce them to the condition of mere primary electors—to give them only a right of electing the district councillors, by whom again the representatives in the legislative council were to be nominated. He ventured to say that in no petition, contained in the papers which had been laid on the table of the House, was there any opinion expressed adverse to the legislative authority being shared by two

999
chambers. The burden of complaint in every petition was the attempt to deprive them of their legislative franchise; with one single exception, he thought, that was so. If that was the case with the people, so far as their sentiments could be collected from their public meetings, how did the matter stand with their organ—the legislative council? The legislative council was not in session when Lord Grey's despatch arrived in that colony; but no sooner did the legislative council meet than they resolved themselves into a committee of the whole house, for the purpose of arriving at a certain resolution upon the subject-matter of that despatch. The resolution was put to the vote, after considerable discussion, and was carried by, he believed, a small majority, in a committee of the whole house. It was not, it was true, reported, and did not, therefore, appear on the records of the proceedings of that house; but he was justified in saying that the legislative council came to that resolution by a majority in its favour. It was resolved—
"That this council is disposed to view favourably the proposition of separating the deliberations of the nominees of the Crown from those of the representatives of the people."
With respect to the opinion of the executive council, he believed they were unanimously in favour of a division of the legislative body—at least, they all voted in favour of that resolution which he had read to the House. And with respect to the opinions of the governors of the colonies, justly entitled to great weight, because expressed in a very unqualified manner, he would read to the House the opinions of the Governor of New South Wales, and of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land. The Governor of New South Wales said—
"My own opinion, confirmed by that of the most experienced and unprejudiced persons who have watched the working of the present constitution of the colony is, that the assimilation of the constitution of this colony to that of the older British colonies, where distinct legislative bodies exist, would be generally considered to be extremely advantageous to its interests."
With respect to the Governor of Van Die-men's Land, he said—
"Without, therefore, wishing or presuming to give an opinion on the general question of the best form of legislative body, I may say that, under the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, I should most strenuously recommend the adoption of a second or upper chamber."
So that to whatever source of public opinion he looked, he could not say he found any
1000
opinion adverse to the dividing the legislative authority between two bodies; and, believing that that policy was approved on general reasoning, and that the truth of that general reasoning had been demonstrated by experience, and not finding either in the circumstances, or character, or in the wishes of the colonists, anything which would make him believe that any form of government other than that which had been usually applied to the colonies of this country, would be better fitted to the people of Australia, he could not but think it would be advantageous to them that the legislative authority should be shared between two bodies. These considerations were, he thought, equally applicable to the structure of the General Federal Assembly. But there was one other consideration connected with this part of the case to which he would briefly advert. The federal union should represent the interests of the States as collective bodies, and the interests of the inhabitants of those States as individuals. So far as the first class of interests were in question, each State being as independent and sovereign as another, should have an equal representation in the Assembly; but, so far as the second class of interests was concerned, that State which was most populous should have a preponderance in the number of its representatives. He could not but think that if the link of connexion which it was proposed to establish was to be permanent, it would be necessary to place a constitutional barrier against the encroachments of the one State against the other; and that that would be best secured by requiring the representatives of the States to sit in one chamber, and the representatives, of the inhabitants of the States in another. He was obliged to the House for the attention with which it had listened to him. He took, indeed, some interest in this question. He believed it was the destiny of the people of Australia to increase and spread themselves over that great continent. He believed that they had sown there the germ of future nations, and that what was now an unproductive waste, would be, at no distant day, the site of thriving communities. And being firmly persuaded that the form of colonial government would exercise a very powerful influence upon the maturity of that country, which was now in its infancy, he did hope the House would stamp on that form of government the impress of the British constitution, and would enable the colonists to enter upon that career which lay open before

1001
them with all the advantages in the way of political institutions which it was in the power of the mother country to confer on them.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid, it appeared to him that it would be wise policy on the part of this House unanimously to assent to the principle of this Bill, and to show to the Australian colonies that they were anxious as speedily as possible to give them the benefit of representative government. Therefore, in his opinion, it would be better to offer no opposition to the first stages of this Bill, but that all questions concerning the form of government, and the powers to be delegated to the colonial authorities, should be carefully considered in Committee. He thought, however, if this course be adopted, it was not too much to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the noble Lord should consent to give, full opportunity to discuss the details of this measure, and to propose amendments to it. Did the noble Lord assent to this? If so, it appeared to him (Sir W. Molesworth) that before the Bill is discussed in Committee, the noble Lord should alter its shape and form. For in its present form many of the most important questions with regard to the government of the Australian colonies could not be directly raised upon the clauses of this Bill, but only indirectly by reference to the clauses of a former statute upon which this Bill was founded. The noble Lord's Bill was founded upon the constitutional act of New South Wales, 5 & 6 Vict, c. 76. The Bill first repealed one portion of the Act, then continued another portion of it, then altered and amended a third portion of it, then added several new clauses, and then applied this statute, so altered and amended, so curtailed and augmented, to the separated colonies of New South Wales and Victoria, and to all the other Australian colonies. Certainly, in its present shape and form, it was a confused Bill. It was not possible for an hon. Gentleman to understand it, unless he had previously almost learnt by heart the Constitutional Act of New South Wales. On the other hand, if he began by reading the Constitutional Act, he could not tell what portion of it was to continue to be law till he had carefully studied the Bill of the noble Lord. Therefore, if an hon. Member wished to make himself acquainted with the details of the noble Lord's measure, he must go backwards and forwards from the Bill to the Constitutional Act, and from the Constitu-
1002
tional Act to the Bill. For instance, suppose an hon. Member wished to ascertain what were to be the powers of district councils, he would not find them in this Bill, but he would find sundry clauses which would refer him to the Constitutional Act; in that Act he would discover numerous clauses about district councils, one of which would appear to him to be utter nonsense, and then he would have to return to the noble Lord's Bill to ascertain whether that incomprehensible clause was or was not to be repealed. Again, suppose an hon. Member wished to ascertain what is to be the elective franchise in the colony, say of Van Diemen's Land. He would not find it in this Bill. He would find in Clause 6, that the present legislature of Van Die-men's Land "may reduce the minimum value of land required to confer the right of voting." He would then naturally ask where was the amount of this minimum value to be found? and the clause would answer, in provisions not specifically contained in this Bill, but "hereinafter by reference contained" in it. He would then proceed to search for these "hereinafter by reference contained provisions," and would find in Clause 11 that this expression meant certain provisions of an Act of the sixth year of Her Majesty, as altered and amended by an Act of the eighth year of Her Majesty, and after having carefully read through both of these statutes, he would arrive at this result, which might be stated in a few words—namely, that the legislature of Van Diemen's Land may fix the minimum value of land required to confer the right of voting at any sum not eceeding 200 l. It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind. But his chief objection to this Bill was, that it would not offer fair opportunity to discuss some of the most important questions of colonial government. Neither the question of the amount of the franchise, nor of the amount of the property qualification of members, nor of the duration of colonial parliaments, nor of the power of the governor to reserve bills, nor of the power of the Colonial Office to instruct the governor, nor of the power of the Colonial Office to disallow Bills—not one of these important questions would be directly raised by this Bill, but only indirectly, in the 11th clause, by reference to the Constitutional Act of New South Wales. Consequently it would be very difficult to take the sense of the Committee on these questions. Therefore, if the noble Lord be willing that hon. Members should have

1003
a fair opportunity to discuss the details of his measure, and to offer amendments to it, he should consent to alter the shape of his Bill; he should consent to consolidate it with the Constitutional Act of New South Wales, and the two short Acts which amend and explain the Constitutional Act—that is, the noble Lord should propose to repeal those three Acts, and should introduce into his Bill clauses re-enacting in full such portions of those Acts as the noble Lord wishes to have re-enacted. Then, all questions with regard to the form of government, with regard to the powers to be reserved to the Colonial Office, or to be delegated to the colonies, would be brought under the consideration of the Committee in a clear and distinct manner, and each question, as it would arise, would be discussed and easily settled. The convenience of such a mode of proceeding was self-evident. It might, however, be said, that such an alteration in the form of the Bill would cause delay in going into Committee: but he thought it need not do so; for he believed, in one day, with the aid of a learned gentleman skilled in drawing bills, the alteration proposed by him in the shape of this Bill might be easily made. Then they should have a Bill which could easily be understood and discussed, and, if it were passed, would not, on account of its form, be an opprobrium to their legislation; for if it became law in its present shape, the constitution of the Australian colonies would not be contained in this Bill, but might be described as being contained in an Act of the 10th year of Her Majesty, for the Government of the obsolete colony of New South Wales, as cleared of doubts by an Act of the 8th year of Her Majesty, as amended and explained by another Act of the same year, as partly repealed and partly amended, augmented, and applied to all the Australian colonies by an Act of the 14th year of Her Majesty. He asked the noble Lord to consider this subject. He did not ask him to make any alterations in the details of this measure, but merely in its form, in order that they might have fair opportunity to discuss the details in Committee, and to propose amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the principle of the Bill was, that the Australian colonies should have power to frame their own constitution in the manner they thought best. He (Sir W. Molesworth) completely agreed in that principle. The
1004
real question for the House to decide was, not what was theoretically the best form of government, but what was the form of government with which the colonies would be best satisfied. It appeared to him that they did not possess that intimate acquantance with the affairs of the colonies which would enable them to judge what was the form of government best suited to their wants and interest; and if they let the colonists frame their constitution in the manner they thought best, they would have themselves to blame, and no one else, if it proved unsatisfactory. Though he agreed in the proposition which had been so clearly laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and agreed also in the observations of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he was very far from agreeing with them as to the mode in which it was proposed to carry out the principle of his measure. Let him, by this Bill, enact that the governor of each colony should, in a certain period of time, convene a constituent assembly elected by the people of the colony, and delegate to that constituent assembly the power to frame their own constitution, limiting that power afterwards to whatever extent he thought proper. That was the mode and manner to carry out the principle of this measure. The more he considered the clauses of this Bill, the more certain he felt that it would fail to give permanent satisfaction to the inhabitants of the Australian colonies. In support of this opinion, he would call the attention of the House to certain new resolutions which Mr. Lowe, a distinguished member of the legislative council of New South Wales, gave notice that he would move on the 14th of August last. [An Hon. MEMBER: They were withdrawn.] They were withdrawn; but Mr. Lowe said they were so withdrawn, not because he or his friends had changed their opinion, but for other reasons. The fact was, that intelligence having been received from Canada of the disorders there, the spirit of loyalty, which he was proud to say at present exists in New South Wales, induced the friends of Mr. Lowe to advise him not then to bring forward the matter, lest it should embarrass the Government. These resolutions were to the effect that no form of constitution for the colony of Now South Wales would be acceptable, permanent, or beneficial, which did not embody the following requisites:—
"1. An explicit recognition of the right of the

1005
colonists of New South Wales to have their government administered by persona responsible to their representatives. 2. A government removable by the vote of the colonial legislature, and invested with all colonial patronage. 3. An elective assembly, in which no person nominated by the Crown shall have a seat. 4. The placing the sum of 81,000 l., contained in the schedules A, B, and C, appended to the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 76, together with expenses of the customs department, at the disposal of such assembly, 5. The repeal of the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 76, and the transfer to the local government and legislature of the management of the waste lands of the colony and the revenue derived from them. "
And if these concessions were made, Mr. Lowe proposed also to move, that—
"In consideration of them the colony of New South Wales would be willing to pay for such military force as, in the judgment of the Colonial Assembly, might be necessary for its protection in time of peace."
Now the Bill of the noble Lord did not contain any one of those conditions without which Mr. Lowe said that no form of constitution would give permanent satisfaction to the colonists of New South Wales. He was persuaded that Mr. Lowe's assertion would prove true with regard to all the Australian colonies, and that no assembly would be acceptable to those colonies which should contain members nominated by the Crown. Of still greater importance was the question of the powers to be exercised by the Colonial Office. He was convinced that if we wish to frame a measure which should remove the great and fundamental causes of colonial discontent, we must deprive the Colonial Office of its present power of interfering in the internal affairs of the colonies. A good illustration of the present vexatious power of the Colonial Office had been lately brought under his notice, which he would mention to the House, For some time the inhabitants of Sydney, a city of some fifty thousand souls, have been complaining of the practice of slaughtering beasts within the precincts of that city—a practice which, in that warm climate, they consider to be an abominable nuisance, and injurious to their health. They were, therefore, anxious that the slaughter-houses should be removed; and on the 31st of May, 1848, a select committee of the legislative council recommended that the slaughter-houses should be removed to a place called Globe Island, and that to pay for their removal certain lands upon which a cattle market stood should be sold. Now it appears from the Sydney Herald, of the 22nd of September, 1849, that up to that date the nuisance of the alaughter-houses
1006
had not been abated, and would not be abated for at least a year more; because, according to the statement of the colonial secretary of New South Wales, the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies must be obtained before the recommendation of the committee could be attended to; and with the utmost despatch that sanction could scarcely be obtained in less than a year. Thus, for more than two years, a city of 50,000 inhabitants, in a semi-tropical climate, will be exposed to the fevers and other disorders arising from the putrefaction of animal matter, because it could not sell or buy a plot of land without the consent of functionaries at their antipodes. They might be assured that every noxious odour that arose from the slaughter-houses of Sydney was a germ of hatred to the Colonial Government. Now, was it necessary for the interest of the whole empire that the Colonial Office should retain powers of this description? He maintained it was not; and that as long as the Colonial Office had an arbitrary power of interfering in the local affairs of the colonies, there would be perpetual discord between the colonies and the Colonial Office. The only mode of removing this cause of discord was by strictly limiting the power of the Colonial Office to questions affecting imperial interests. He knew some hon. Members would exclaim, "If we deprive the Colonial Office of its power, what will remain? what will become of the connexion between the colonies and this country—the colonies will be separated from the empire?" Now, it appeared to him that in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen there were grave errors and a great confusion of ideas on the subject of what constitutes, and ought to constitute, the connexion between the colonies and this country. From old associations and ancient prejudices, some of them were apt to look upon the colonies as subject communities—that is, as communities subject to the British communities; therefore to look upon themselves as kings, and the colonists as subjects, and to consider that the connexion between the colonies and this country consisted in dominion on our part, and subjection on theirs. Therefore they thought, to preserve that connexion, it was necessary to rest that dominion in some department of the State; in short, that the power of the Colonial Office hound the colonies to this country, and that the Colonial Office was the connecting link, which would be broken asunder if the Co-

1007
lonial Office were to be deprived of its present power. He maintained a diametrically opposite doctrine—that the Colonial Office was the institution which tended to alienate the colonies from this country; that in proportion as the power of the Colonial Office was curtailed, the union between the colonies and this country would be strengthened, for with the destruction of the arbitrary power of the Colonial Office the colonists would cease to be subjects of that office, and would become true citizens of the empire. They ought to look upon their colonies, properly so called, as integral portions of the British empire, inhabited by men who ought to enjoy in their own localities all the rights and privileges that Englishmen do in England. Now, the colonists had no right to interfere in the management of local affairs in Great Britain, and they ought not to interfere in the management of the local affairs of the colonies. They were entitled to reserve to themselves the management of the common concerns of the empire, because imperial power must be located somewhere for the maintenance of the unity of the empire. And here he must say that it would tend much to consolidate the empire if they could admit into the Imperial Parliament representatives from the colonies. That was a subject well worthy the consideration of statesmen.
MR. ANSTEYconsidered that, in discussing this question, they should not refer to the opinions of governors, but should refer to the opinion expressed in public meetings of the inhabitants of New South Wales, the only Australian colony in which this experiment had been tried. That opinion was unequivocally spoken against a single chamber composed in part of elected representatives, and in part of nominees of the Crown. The last papers from that colony brought an account of public complaints of the attempt to reintroduce into that colony British convicts; and Mr. Lowe, at a meeting on the subject, declared, amidst the applause of the thousands that surrounded him, that no confidence could be placed in the Legislative Council so long as one single Crown nominee was allowed to sit in it; and he said the nominees of the Crown were so despised by their brother members, that it was difficult to get for them a fair share of the courtesy of the house. The experiment had been tried, and he must say it had resulted in a sense unfavourable to renewal of that experiment; yet the noble Lord at the head
1008
of the Government now proposed to extend the same plan to all the colonies in Australasia. He would suggest to the noble Lord that he should leave to the provisional councils, which were more likely to be biased in favour of the Crown than of the democratic element, the power he proposed to give them, but without control. He might be sure they would not use it in a sense too favourable to the people, and that they would make the franchise high enough. For his own part, he should have much greater confidence in the decision of an aristocratic assembly so constituted, than in the decision of an assembly composed of popular representatives and nominees of the Crown.
MR. MANGLESgave his very cordial support to the measure brought forward by the Government, because he was persuaded they had a sincere intention to give free institutions to those colonies that are in a proper state to receive them; but at the same time he could not conceal from himself the fact that they had made a great and serious mistake in the measure they proposed, so far as it regarded the constitutional chambers, and he believed the reasons they gave in support of that proposition were founded on a serious fallacy. It was said that the people of New South Wales had given their sanction to one chamber; but his opinion was, that they never had the opportunity of making the selection, or thought that two elected chambers were attainable. Would they be satisfied when they heard that two chambers were given to South Africa? He was sure they would most willingly accept a similar constitution. He thought there was a great fallacy running through all the analogies that had been drawn in reference to this measure. It was assumed that the House of Lords were the nominees of the Crown. They might have been at some remote period nominees of the Crown, but they were now no more nominees of the Crown than any other Gentlemen around him. And in what a different situation they stood from the gentlemen nominated by the Governor of Australia to the Legislative Council, who held their offices for five years only, and were removable at the end of those five years entirely at the pleasure of the Crown. He did not wish that the House should throw out this measure, because he considered it to be a large step in advance.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the question now before the House was, whether they would

1009
read the Bill a second time, or postpone it till they received further papers. He was against any postponement, because he was anxious that the Bill should pass as speedily as possible, though he should endeavour to amend the blots it contained. He considered the measure to be a healing one, and as one tending to preserve the colonies. He valued this Bill, not for what it gave, so much as for what it gave the means of obtaining. The Bill was clumsily framed—but still he thought it a good measure, and hoped it would be speedily passed. To make the colonies useful and effective, it was absolutely necessary to give them elective government. Much as was the benefit derived by Canada from responsible government, the want of an elective council was felt to be a great drawback. He had received a letter from a gentleman in Van Diemen's Land, dated 1849, who said that their case there was desperate—that they were depending entirely on the House of Commons—that they only wanted the power of managing their own affairs, of appointing their own officers, and expending their own money, and that if that power were given them they would readily consent to contribute to the expense incurred for protection. He (Mr. Hume) did not fear any evil result from a spirit of democracy. He believed, on the contrary, that if our colonies were fairly treated, that we need have no apprehension whatever of their separation from British government, for they were fully impressed with a conviction of the advantages they must derive from the connexion. On this point, although he regarded the present measure as an immense advance, he relied more upon the words of the noble Lord and the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and felt satisfied, from what they had said, that the Government did intend to give responsible government to our North American colonies, which were still without it; and that if those colonies did call for a second chamber they should obtain it. There, was, however, an exception made in this Bill, which he objected to, as calculated to create much discord—he meant the money for the Church. Now, these colonies had ample means from land to meet their wants in that respect; and as certain as he stood there, it would form a bone of contention. Another reason why he wished the Bill should pass was, as a friend to voluntary emigration, which had been obstructed to an extent scarcely credible by the want of proper government in our colonies. Out
1010
of 34,000 persons who had emigrated to New Zealand, only 20,000 remained, the rest being so disgusted that they left and proceeded elsewhere. On the whole, he rejoiced in the measure as a means for rendering our dependencies so many great advantages, instead of being sources of embarrassment and difficulty to the country; still there were some imperfections in it which he hoped the Government would allow to be remedied in Committee.
MR. HAWESsaid, that he would venture to anticipate that the present debate was one which would give great satisfaction to the colonies. The desire which had been manifested from all parts of the House to frame—whatever the differences of opinion among hon. Members on other subjects—constitutions satisfactory to the colonies, could not fail of giving satisfaction to the parties concerned. One of the objections which had been urged against the Bill was, that it proposed to establish a form of constitution in the colonies, not exactly similar to those generally existing, and not in exact accordance with what had been called the British constitution. Now, upon the subject of the double chamber, with respect to which this objection had mainly arisen, hon. Members would find that, if they took the report of the Committee of Privy Council, the opinion of Ministers of the Crown, the governors of the colonies, and even many of the colonists themselves, there would be found to be a general concurrence of opinion in favour of the double chamber. He was perfectly ready to make that admission, and those who differed from him in opinion might take the full benefit of that admission. Well, then, it might be asked, why had the Government departed in the present Bill from the usual form, especially when there was such a unanimity of opinion in favour of the double chamber? The answer was to be found in the fact that, in order to make any alteration in the existing constitution of the colonies, it was necessary that the representatives of each colony should be first consulted on the subject. The people of New South Wales were content with their present form of government, and the legislature of that colony had formally and authoritatively requested that if any alterations were made in their constitution, they should be first consulted upon the subject; and it was absolutely essential, before making any change in that constitution, that they should be consulted. In the case of the

1011
Cape of Good Hope, there was no legislative system in that colony, and nothing, consequently, to prevent the Government from adopting at once, and completely, the recommendations of the Committee of Privy Council. The Committee of Council had laid down the outlines of the constitution, leaving them to he filled up by the colonists themselves. There was nothing, therefore, to prevent the Government from carrying out that recommendation. With respect to New South Wales, the case was entirely different. Were they prepared to force upon that colony a double chamber, without their consent having been previously obtained? No consent had been given, and no complaints had been made, of the existing form of government there. Parliament, therefore, were justified in saying to that colony, "your constitution having given you satisfaction, and you having made known to the Crown that you did not wish any alteration to be made without your being previously consulted, and no opportunity having been afforded for consulting you upon the subject, we do not propose to make any alteration in your existing constitution, but the power will be conferred upon you by the Bill of making the alterations yourselves, if you should wish to do so." There was, therefore, no necessity whatever for forcing this double chamber upon them. If they wished for such a form of constitution, they would only have to exercise the constitutional powers given under the Bill, in order to obtain the required change. If the House intended to give to these colonies the double chamber, they would of necessity greatly retard the progress of the Bill, as it would be necessary first to obtain the opinion of the colonial legislatures upon the subject. A great deal of time, too, would necessarily be lost in obtaining the requisite information from the colony. For instance, it was not at present known whether there existed in the colony of New South Wales the materials for a second chamber. He believed that there did exist these materials, but he had nothing like tangible grounds for the formation of that opinion. There was no reason which he could assign for his having come to that conclusion, except that it was a thriving, prosperous, and highly-intelligent colony. It was, in his opinion, highly desirable that no unnecessary delay should take place in passing this Bill; and, seeing that it provided the means for obtaining the double chamber, in cases
1012
where it might be required, he trusted that no unnecessary delay would take place. It had been urged that there was no security for the colonies obtaining this double chamber, even if they desired it, as the influence of the Crown nominees would stand opposed to such an alteration. There was, however, no ground for coming to such a conclusion, because the Crown nominees, knowing the opinions expressed by the Ministers of the Crown to be in favour of the plan, they could not be supposed to place themselves in the position of preventing its being carried into effect. As to the provision for the Church, the New South Wales Church Act which now existed gave pretty general satisfaction; and this Bill created nothing new in this respect; it simply respected existing rights, and left the arrangements as they now stood. Notwithstanding all the criticisms which had been made upon the Bill, he believed that it would be found most acceptable to the colonies, and would also be found to work well. From all the colonies, from the newspaper press of the colonies, and from communications which he had received, and the deliberate opinion of one of the colonies itself—South Australia—there had been a general opinion expressed in favour of the Bill as it then stood, and he believed it would be the height of imprudence to attempt to alter the principle upon which the Bill was framed.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, that he thought by this time the subject had been pretty well threshed out. But, after the speech which they had just heard of the hon. Member the Under Secretary of the Colonies, he was really at a loss to know what it was they were discussing. The whole of this debate had originated upon a single clause of the Bill, and he certainly had never before heard of a debate upon a single clause of a Bill upon which everybody was agreed, or rather upon which everybody agreed. The hon. Member the Under Secretary of the Colonies had stated, that the governors of the colonies, Her Majesty's Ministers, and, indeed, everybody, was in favour of a double chamber. Then, why not let them have a double chamber? They were about, in spite of all these unanimous opinions in favour of a double chamber, to vote them a single one. But what was the defence put forward by the Government for this conduct? It was, that the present constitution had given satisfaction to the colonies. How had that satisfaction been expressed?

1013
From three of them there had been no such satisfaction expressed, because such expression must come from the representatives, and they had no representatives. From New South Wales had the only expression of satisfaction been heard. And that satisfaction was founded upon the experience of seven years, being exactly the duration of one Parliament in this country. It was upon that experience that they were about to legislate for the whole of the colonies. Some allusion had been made to the popular feeling expressed on the subject in the Sydney Morning Herald; but that expression of feeling was made with respect to a totally different measure. They preferred, no doubt, the constitution which they then possessed to the one that was offered; but if they had been offered something better, no doubt they would have gladly accepted it. He did not attach any weight to the argument made use of, that any alteration in the Bill would involve delay. A year's delay was not to be thought of when they were deciding upon the constitution of a number of important colonies. He regretted that the Bill had not been brought forward in a more simple form, and with more of the appearance of a model Bill. If that debate did not go out to the colonists along with the Bill, to explain the intentions of Parliament, they would think, from a perusal of the Bill itself, that it contained the only constitution that was intended to be given to them. But how would such a chamber as the proposed one operate? In times of popular tumults and excitement, those officials would be unable to stand out against the pressure of the popularly elected representatives; whilst in times of tranquillity, and when the popular mind would not be much worked upon, so as to compel the representatives to act together, the officials would have everything their own way. There was one other important question involved in the Bill, that of federation. He should say that he had not heard from his noble Friend at the head of the Government, or from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, or from his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, a single valid argument in favour of the proposed federation. For such a principle there was no parallel—no satisfaction expressed by the colonists—no experience to which they could appeal. Why, then, did they adopt it? It appeared to him to be exactly what they did not want
1014
in Australia. The principle of federation in the United States of America had been adopted for the purpose of dealing diplomatically with foreign States, which it certainly was not intended to give to the Australian colonies the power of doing. It appeared to him to be establishing a new principle that was totally uncalled for. The federal system was a republican institution; and he was not one of those who wished to see England establishing republican institutions all over the world. As to the question of one or two chambers, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark would introduce in Committee the principle of the double chamber; and their object should be to give the best possible constitution to the colony. And such being their object, he had hoped that the debate would have been allowed to go on without an attack upon the Colonial Office. Some allusions, however, had been made to it and its influence, and he regretted to hear the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield again introduce his allusions to an invisible agent. He wondered who the invisible agent was. Formerly Sir James Stephens was always understood to be the invisible agent. But he regretted the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was not then in his place to explain to the House who the new invisible agent was. There were two important points still left untouched—the military expenditure of the colonies, and the question of transportation of convicts. He regretted there had been no further debate upon them. When the estimates came on they would be told that that was not the time to discuss so large a question as the military expenditure of the colonies; and the question of transportation had been but partly discussed by the hon. Member for Stafford when he took the House away from its consideration to other topics. The colonies cost this country about 3,500,000 l. a year. [Lord J. RUSSELL: How much does Great Britain cost?] Their cost to this country was enormous; and if it could be shown that they could be governed and kept for less, it was the duty of the House, as conservators of the public purse, to set about reducing the expenditure. Now, with proper representative institutions, many of the colonists thought that they could bear their own burdens entirely; and many persons in England thought so too, and that with self-government they could manage also self-defence. As to the question of transportation, the people of this country were looking with great anxiety

1015
to know what Parliament was going to do with the convicts. He had been greatly struck by a letter signed "H. Denison," which he had seen in the public papers. That gentleman pointed out that the convicts had no chance of redeeming their characters in this country. The only chance of reclaiming them was the sending them to a colony. The colonies were calling out for labour. And although he (Mr. V. Smith) did not think that they should be overwhelmed by an influx of convicts, which might disgust them, he yet thought that a considerable number might be sent out who would both be serviceable to the colonies by giving them labour, and stand a better chance of being reclaimed from their evil courses than if they were suffered to remain at home.
MR. ADDERLEYwould offer but a very few observations to the House, as the arguments seemed to have gone so much one way. Almost every one seemed to be agreed that the grounds for giving only one chamber to the colony were insufficient. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies stated that there were two reasons for giving this new form of constitution of a single assembly, which had induced the Government not to give way either to their own wishes or to the arguments of others: and those two reasons were, that it was the wish of the colonists to preserve their existing form of constitution; and that it was necessary to have a representative basis. Now, the question of the express wishes of the colonists had been disposed of. It had been set aside. And, if he were allowed to quote two passages from a book that was before the House, he would show that there had been an entire misconception, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, of some of the information which they had received. In the report of the Privy Council, dated 1st May, 1849, it was said that—
"Custom appears to have attached the colonists to a single chamber; public opinion in New South Wales seems to be opposed to any alteration."
He would beg leave to contrast that passage with a paragraph in a petition which appeared in the sixth page of the same volume, where it was set forth by the petitioners that they were—
"anxious to have a constitution as nearly as possible like that of the United Kingdom."
Was the proposed constitution like that of
1016
the united kingdom? Again, he would beg to call attention to the reply of Earl Grey to Sir W. Denison, in order to show the way in which the wishes of colonists had been misunderstood by the noble Lord. There was one passage in Sir W. Denison's letter in which he made use of the expression—" that however much he might approve of the working of the existing constitution, he would most strenuously recommend the adoption of an alteration from one to two chambers." To which Earl Grey replied, that from the reasons he had given—in favour of the single chamber—it was not thought necessary to adopt his recommendation to introduce a second chamber; showing that the noble Lord had entirely misconceived Sir W. Denison's meaning. The other point to which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies alluded in arguing for the single chamber was, that it was necessary to have a representative body as the basis of the constitution. Now, in seeking to establish such a basis, there were two courses open. The one was to give the colonists full constituent powers to make their own constitution. The other to lay down at once a good constitution adapted to their wishes. But neither of these courses had been adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers. They had contrived a constitution, of which the best use the colonists would make would be to alter it. One reason for adopting the single chamber form was said to be, because there was a constitution ready to hand. Now, if it were an ancient constitution, one which had lasted for years, that might be a fair reason for the Government adopting it. But how long had it been in existence? How had they begun in New South Wales? By depriving the colonists of all British rights—of even trial by jury. The first time they were recognised at all as having any rights was in 1823, when Sir T. Brisbane having introduced a number of free emigrants, gave them a measure something like a constitution—a simple legislative council; and at the same time trial by jury. And it was not until 1842 that the constitution was given them which was now laid down as a sort of irrevocable basis from which they could not depart. Earl Grey had been doing his best to introduce a new form of constitution into New Zealand, which had been hanging over the heads of the colonists, who would rather have anything else than accept it. But the reason why they had had this constitution given

1017
them was, that Earl Grey had an extraordinary inclination for making constitutions. He copied as a model the old American constitution. It was clear that the subject was exhausted, but he hoped that the Bill would, in the next stage, be more completely debated. There was only one thing more to which he wished to allude, namely, the cause which had prevented the Government from carrying out its views. When the noble Lord stated that they were about to give the points of the British constitution to these colonies, the House naturally expected to see something like them proposed. But really one was quite disappointed at finding the proposition fall so far short of the promise. The fact was, the Government had not made up their minds. They were afraid of breaking up the present system at home, and it was so difficult to draw the line of demarcation between what was home and what colonial business, that, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had said, it was almost impossible to do it. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read an extract from De Tocqueville's Democracy in America, to show the nature of the constitution of the United States, and said that no reason had been shown why the same system could not be introduced into the colonies. But the noble Lord had introduced the anomalous institution of municipal corporations into the colonies, and he now attempted to resuscitate it. There was another matter to which he should allude before sitting down. Before the bodies to whom the sale of the waste lands in the colonies was to be confided could be formed, a good deal of time must elapse, during which the sale would be altogether suspended; and the consequence of that suspension would be, most probably, that the Government would take up again the convict transportation system to supply the want of emigration. He objected to the formation of a congress of the Australian colonies, and for one reason especially—it was, that one colony alone would supply fifty per cent of the members of that body. One colony would have an overwhelming influence in it. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would bear in mind that it was utterly impossible for them to carry the Bill in its present state, and that they would make the alterations suggested to them. If they did so, they would get the entire and cordial support of that House, and of the people in the colonies.
MR. M. MILNESsaid, that he thought Her Majesty's Government deserved praise for giving so large and liberal a permissive power to the colonies. He did not believe that any of the old American States had ever received a charter equal in liberty to that now offered to the Australian colonies: nor that in the history of the world a measure had ever passed which placed so completely in the power of colonists the conduct and choice of their future government as the Bill before the House. As to the objections raised to the Government for not having given two chambers to the colony, were they to do so, would they not, seeing that the colonists were satisfied with the present system, be rather allowing their own prejudices to interfere with the future destiny of the colony? Was it not much better to allow the colonists to modify their own forms as they found convenient? Besides, whilst talking about two chambers, hon. Gentlemen did not all mean the same thing. If the formation of a constitution resembling that of this country meant anything really like, it presupposed the existence of elements for an aristocratic chamber, like the House of Lords. It meant—if it meant anything—two chambers like the two Houses of Parliament, a lower Representative Chamber and an Upper Chamber, aristocratic in its composition, and either hereditary or nominated by the Crown. But there was nothing analogous existing in any colony. The elements were totally wanting, and the attempt to manufacture such a system amounted just to that "constitution-mongering" of which some hon. Gentlemen had spoken. They saw in America that most wise and eminent body, the Senate; but to attempt to form such a body at once in Australia would be doing just that of which hon. Gentlemen opposite were so fond of charging Her Majesty's Government. They saw in France the system of a single chamber lately adopted by the choice of the entire people; and in leaving to the Australian colonies the choice of one chamber or two, they were doing just that which was essential, considering the democratic nature of the insritutions which those colonies must adopt. He was anxious to express his gratification, that in the course of the debate not a word had fallen which might induce the colonists to believe that there remained in the mind of Her Majesty's Ministers the least reservation of those principles of interference with internal colonial affairs which had so long

1019
been a subject of annoyance to the colonists. Upon the principle of self-government all were agreed. And as to the question of the Federation, he did not see how it was possible for many great questions of vital importance to all the Australian colonies to be settled otherwise than by an assembly analogous to the Congress of the United States. Surely, the hon. Gentleman opposite would not wish to see the colonies outbidding one another in the matter, for instance, of the sale of waste lands. He highly approved of the plan of Her Majesty's Government; and trusted that the United States of the southern world might one day represent and advance the British name, British language, and British institutions, as well as the great federation of the world.
MR. WYLDsaid, he did not see why Canada and Van Diemen's Land should not have representatives in the British House of Commons, or why they might not be treated in all respects as distant counties of one great kingdom. In his opinion, Parliament would not be doing justice to the colonies or to the empire if they did not admit those settlements of Englishmen to equal privileges with the other portions of the great empire over which Her Majesty ruled. He by no means thought that that House would suffer either in dignity or efficiency by admitting representatives from the colonies.
MR. STANFORDsaid, that the noble Lord in introducing the measure before the House took a review of the history of our colonies; but he should have been much better satisfied if the Prime Minister of this country had thought proper to pay Some tribute of approbation to the enterprise and the energy of the men by whom our colonies had been founded and acquired. The noble Lord ought to have said something of the hundreds of millions of money expended in the acquisition of those colonies; he might have told the House that a great portion of the national debt had been contracted on account of them; neither had he done justice to the period of Elizabeth's reign, in which so many important colonial acquisitions had been made. He told them nothing of the treasure that had been expended, or of the lives that had been lost, in the acquisition of those colonies. The noble Lord, however, in the course of his speech soon quitted history for commerce and statistics; but it unfortunately happened for the credit of his information on these subjects,
1020
that the official despatches from the colonies on these subjects contradicted almost every one of his statements. The condition of British Guiana, of New Brunswick, and St. Vincent's, showed the evil of abandoning what the noble Lord called monopoly, but what he (Mr. Stanford) called protection. Those despatches showed the decline of all our colonial possessions under the free-trade system. Had the noble Lord by any part of his speech, or by the measure which he introduced, laid down any principles which could have the effect of cementing the union of the colonies with the mother country? The noble Lord told the House that his measures would put an end to commercial monopoly of every kind. Now, it might be doubted whether he succeeded even in that; but at all events he succeeded in doing what had an obvious tendency to alienate the colonies from the mother country, and if it could be said that there was any portion of his Bill more unsatisfactory than another to the colonies, it was that which snapped the tie which bound them to the United Kingdom. [" Divide, divide!"] He did not wonder when he made these observations that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were impatient for a division; but he could not conclude without expressing his regret that the noble Lord had thought proper to touch upon the subject of transportation to the colonies without disposing of it, nor even did he seem to have arrived at any practical conclusion. In the same way he took up the subject of emigration, and abandoned it without reaching any final or satisfactory result. His opposition to the Bill might perhaps be of little importance in the eyes of the noble Lord; but he felt bound to say that he must resist such a measure, prepared, as he thought it had been, without the care which ought to be bestowed on a Bill that was to form the basis of all future legislation. In justice, however, to the noble Lord, he must thank him for the conservative character of some parts of the measure, though he protested altogether against the commercial portion.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

DISTRESSED UNIONS, &c. (IRELAND).
Resolutions reported.
COLONEL SIBTHORP,having already stated his objections to the resolutions now before the House, would not repeat them on the present occasion. But when the

1021
Bill came before the House, he should move that it be read a second time on that day six months.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, there was no evidence before the House that due efforts had been made to collect the rates due in these unions. On the contrary, it appeared that there had been great remissness, and he thought the vote ought to be postponed until the House had received further information on the state of these unions. All they knew at present was that the debt of these unions amounted to 300,000 l.
LORD J. RUSSELLdid not think it advisable to defer the report, and thought the hon. Member would be better able to make his objections when the Bill was before the House. Although there were thirty unions in which distress existed, it would be wrong to say that the distress was confined to those unions, and that other unions might not require the assistance which this vote of a sum not exceeding 300,000 l. would give.
Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernal, Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, and Sir William Somerville.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, he had to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide compensation to tenants for improvements effected by them in certain cases, and to amend the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Important as the subject was, and although it had been on three separate occasions introduced into Parliament, it was, nevertheless, true that no Government Bill had ever undergone a complete discussion in that House. Bills had been introduced in 1845 and 1846 into that and the other House of Parliament; but the Bill brought into the Upper House had never come down to the House of Commons, and the Bill introduced into the House of Commons was never read a second time. In 1848 he had the honour to introduce a third Bill, which was read a second time, but only with a view of referring it to a Select Committee, in which it received many improvements. That Bill So amended by the Select Committee was returned to the House; but the Session was then so far advanced that it was impossible to proceed with it, and the Bill was thereupon dropped, without having undergone a fill and complete discussion in the House.
1022
That Bill, he was bound to admit, did not meet with any great favour, on account of the complicated machinery by which it was proposed to carry its provisions into effect. Under the Bill each party would appoint an arbitrator, and they were to appoint an umpire. The Select Committee, instead of an umpire, thought it would be better to nominate an inspector of improvements who should act as umpire when the arbitrators could not agree. Now, he had thought that if it were advisable to do away with the umpire, and substitute an inspector of improvements, it would be better to leave the entire decision with the latter functionary, and to do away altogether with the arbitrators. The whole machinery then became more simplified. This was the principal alteration made in the Bill of 1848, the other details being not sufficiently different or important to warrant him in taking up the time of the House in describing them. He thought that the Bill, as now laid on the table, was of all the measures yet proposed the most simple, the most easy of comprehension, and of being carried out. He had not altered the terms or the amount of compensation, of the Bill of 1848; but having received many letters, both from landlords and tenants, he was afraid that the present measure would not be satisfactory to all parties. It was certain that if both those who advocated the cause of the landlords, and those who took the side of the tenants, held out on each side for their extreme opinions, his belief was that nothing would be done. But he trusted that a wiser and more moderate course would be taken. Every suggestion made by the House should have his best consideration, and he trusted that, with the aid of the improvements which the Bill might receive in its passage through Parliament, it might receive the assent of the Legislature during the present Session.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHwas anxious to know whether the operation of the Bill with respect to compensation for improvement was to be retrospective? [Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that it was not.] For any measure which should take away the tenant-right of Ulster would be regarded by the people of that province with feelings of hostility. He should not be disposed to give his assent to any measure which withheld compensation either for past or existing improvements. This question of tenant-right had taken a deep root in the county of Down, although agitation was

1023
not observed in the neighbouring counties of Antrim and Louth. It was painful to find that the Presbyterian clergy had taken the lead in this agitation. At a meeting held in the county of Down on the 28th of January last, there were present sixteen clergymen belonging to the General Assembly or Synod of Ulster, and only one Roman Catholic clergyman. One of this number, the Rev. Mr. Rutherford, addressing the meeting in the character of a minister of the gospel, thought it not unbecoming in him to indulge in such laaguage as the following:—The rev. gentleman said that the whole difference between the value of the land in its present state of cultivation and in its primeval state 250 years ago was, beyond all contradiction, the inalienable property of the tenant-farmers of Ulster. The rev. gentleman also cautioned the tenants not to receive any money for drainage, because the landlords, knowing the tenants had a bonâ fide property in the soil, desired to neutralise their claim by investing a sum of their own in improvements. Now, although he was not a landlord himself, he was perfectly certain the altered circumstances of the country demanded a revision of rents. At the same time, he entirely discountenanced a reduction of rents on all property belonging to a landlord, not discriminating between the good tenant and the bad tenant. He must also advert to another meeting, held at Comber, where another Presbyterian clergyman declared, that "God not only made his own people farmers, but gave them their farms in perpetuity: he gave them fixity of tenure, on which the success and prosperity of the farmers depended. God had permitted the present depression, in order to show the hollowness of the relation between landlord and tenant." The same rev. gentleman also gave a history of an estate belonging to a noble relative of his Lordship, the substance of which was, that the Comber estate was purchased by its present owners during the latter half of the last century for 30,000 l.; that the rent-roll at the time of the purchase was between 3,000 l. and 4,000 l.; that it now amounted to 24,000 l. The rev. gentleman then asked who had caused this increase? to which the meeting responded by cries of "the tenants;" and then he informed his auditory that the legal interest of 30,000 l., the amount of the purchase money, at 5 per cent, was 1,500 l. He also, apparently by way of moral to his narrative, concluded by professing that he
1024
did not want spoliation or robbery, but said the farmer's requital for toiling and sweating to enrich the rent-roll of the landlord was the impoverishment and ruin of himself and family. He (Viscount Castlereagh) expressed a hope that the rev. gentlemen would be taught, from the unanimous verdict of public opinion, that it was better for them to attend to the spiritual interests of their flocks, than to become political agitators of the character he had described, and made some quotations from the language of several dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, to show that their Presbyterian brethren might advantageously take a lesson from them in inculcating universal peace and charity, and in standing aloof from political strife.
MR. M. O'CONNELLwas glad the right hon. Baronet had brought forward this measure, as nothing was more wanted in Ireland than an Act clearly defining the duties of both landlord and tenant.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that many Irish Members would shortly be obliged to go home to attend the assizes, and it was, therefore, most desirable that the discussion on this important measure should be fixed for a period when as many Irish Members as possible could be present.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Somerville, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILIS—1o Convict Prisons.
2o Acts of Parliament Abbreviation.

THE AFFRAY AT DOLLY'S BRAE.
LORD STANLEY: I assure you, my Lords, that often as I have trespassed before upon your attention, and often as I have been received by you with much kindness and indulgence, I never had greater need of your kindness and indulgence than now, when I am about to bring before you matters of great importance in themselves, as affecting not only the character, but also the private conduct, of two individuals

887
of high and responsible station, both Members of your Lordships' House, and both, I rejoice to say it, present in their places, but of greater importance still as affecting the due administration of justice, the position and independence of the magistracy, and the relations in which they ought to stand, and have been placed, by the Executive Government of Ireland. In the observations which I shall have to address to your Lordships, it will be my duty to impugn the public conduct of my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I do not wish to cast any imputation upon his motives. I am fully satisfied that on this occasion, as on every other in the period during which he has been in his high office, his main desire has been to act in a manner consistent with his duty to himself, and conducive to the welfare and tranquillity of Ireland. I believe, my Lords, that he has taken the steps which I am about to condemn with great reluctance and much personal pain to himself; and therefore, whilst I do not impugn his motives, I must be permitted to impugn the discretion he has exercised, and to denounce his proceedings both as erroneous and unconstitutional. I must also impugn the conduct of Gentlemen who were appointed to act in a capacity—judicial shall I say, or magisterial?—for their functions partook of both characters, and yet belonged strictly to neither. I must also impugn the conduct of the learned Commissioner who was sent by my noble Friend the Earl of Clarendon to examine into the proceedings which will form the subject-matter of this discussion; and I must likewise impugn the conduct of a high officer of State, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who permitted his responsible yet independent office to be degraded into a merely ministerial one. having thereby abrogated the duty imposed on him by the constitution—I mean the duty of directing and controlling, if not of protecting and defending, the magistracy of which he is the acknowledged head. My Lords, in bringing this case before you, I shall have to struggle against those feelings of impatience by which you cannot fail to be animated whilst listening to details and citations of evidence which I must necessarily lay before you in order to bring it fully and fairly under your notice. I feel that I shall also have to labour against prepossessions, natural to many minds, whilst I complain of the periodical and mischievous demonstrations or processions of one or other of the parties who have so
888
long distracted Ireland—demonstrations or proceedings which are indulged in once or twice a year, and which have a tendency to unsettle the minds of all classes of men in that country, to renew religious and political animosities, and to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the country, and which sometimes terminate even in the loss of life itself. In the aversion which I entertain to these processions, I know that my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Roden) participates almost as strongly as I do, for during a long period he has wished them to be abandoned, and has even used his influence to stop them. Of my own sincerity in this respect I can give you no stronger proof than this—that having been charged with the management of the affairs of Ireland, under the Lord Lieutenancy of my noble Friend the Master of the Ordnance (the Marquess of Anglesey), I was the individual Minister to bring in the Processions Act, which from the year 1832 to the year 1844, when it expired, removed all doubts as to their illegality, and which, as I believe, not only prevented the occurrence of any disturbances, but also contributed mainly to mitigate that rancorous feeling of political and religious animosity which the constant excitement of these processions generated and increased. Under such circumstances, my Lords, I hope that I shall not be considered as entertaining an undue bias in favour of the Orange processions or of the Orange party. I give due credit to the good qualities which I believe that population to possess. I believe the members of it to form a loyal, industrious, brave, energetic, and religious population. I do not mean to say that there are not among them, as among all bodies, some men with whom religion and loyalty are not really implanted in their heart and in their conduct, but who use loyalty and religion as mere party passwords, under which they shroud party animosity and political virulence; yet, though some such may find a place in their ranks, I do not believe that such a character belongs to them generally; on the contrary, I believe that as a body they possess the good qualities for which I have given them credit; and of this I am sure, that if any enemy, foreign or domestic, threatens the dignity of the Crown of England, on them, individually or collectively, the Crown may repose with the fullest trust and confidence. But I am far from denying that the benefits to be derived from their good qualities,

889
from their loyalty, from their industry, from their bravery, from their energy, and from their religion, are not sometimes neutralised by that organisation which prevails among them, and by their demonstrations and processions, which tend, as I have before said, to perpetuate religious differences which it would be well to extinguish, and to keep alive feelings of party animosity which it is very desirable to put down. It is with these general views that I shall now proceed to the consideration of the particular details of the case now before the House. These must now be familiar to all your Lordships; yet, so necessary are they to my argument, that I will crave your attention whilst I rapidly run over the particular facts to which I am desirous of calling the attention of your Lordships. Previously to the 12th of July last, it was well known that on that day a great demonstration of the Orange body in the province of Ulster would take place. That there was to be a large procession—that many members had declared their intention of coming, according to their custom, armed—that they were to march with the banners of their respective lodges, with bands of music, and with all the usual pomp and circumstance of such processions. Due notice of this intention was given to Her Majesty's Government; and the Government thus had an opportunity to take, and did actually take measures, to meet the exigency of which it was apprised, and to secure the maintenance of the public peace, in case it were threatened. In pursuance of its plans, the Government sent down two stipendiary magistrates and two troops of cavalry, with some infantry, to the neighbourhood of Ballyward, from which place the Orange procession was to move first by what was known as the Pass of Dolly's Brae, and then to Castlewellan, and thence to Tollymore-park, the seat of my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Roden), where preparations had been made for their reception. If you will look my Lords, at page 44 of the printed papers now on your table, you will find a map of the country between Magheramayo-hill and Dolly's Brae. Shortly before reaching the hill of Magheramayo, the road separates into two branches. One, the old road, goes along the high ground to Castlewellan, and, leaving the hill of Magheramayo on the right, reaches to the top of the ridge called Dolly's Brae, where it narrows into a kind of defile, in which,
890
according to the evidence now before you, an inconsiderable force might stop a force of 700 or 800 men. The new road keeps the level ground, runs round the base of Magheramayo and the other hills, and after a detour of about half a mile, finally joins the old road, which traverses the ridge of Dolly's Brae. Threats had been held out by the other party that no Orange procession would be allowed to pass over Dolly's Brae, and, with a view of preventing any collision on that point, a small body of troops occupied the position of Dolly's Brae early on the morning of the 12th of July. And that body of troops was not there a minute too soon, for soon after there appeared marching towards it an irregular array of men armed with scythes, muskets, and pikes, with a view of occupying that position. They found themselves, however, disappointed; and, after a short consultation among themselves, marched off and encamped on a little ridge in the vicinity, to the left of the road, from which they commanded the road from Ballyward. The Orange procession, which came from Ballyward, was escorted by the police and the military, who marched in their front. It was accompanied by a large number of their women and children, who came out to make holiday, and thus gave to the whole proceeding the air of a great festival. The procession passed by its antagonists in good order. Directions had been given to those who composed it not to fire a shot, even in sport; and those directions, as well as others requiring them to keep the line of procession, had been strictly adhered to. Although some insults were offered to the procession, by some individuals in the crowd, on its line of march, owing to the exertions of the magistracy, of the police and military, and, I must also in justice add, to those of two Roman Catholic priests (Messrs. Morgan and Mooney), it passed Dolly's Brae without any injury, or blow, or shot, from either side. The question then arose, whether, as the procession had passed Dolly's Brae without interruption, it should return back from Tollymore-park by the same road. That question was left in doubt when they first passed Dolly's Brae, and it was not known by which road they would return until they arrived, after leaving Tollymore-park, at the point where the two roads again diverge at Dolly's Brae. Some curious scenes had taken place in the interim. The cavalry, not

891
having brought forage for their horses With them, were obliged to remove from the ground to procure it, and did not return in time to head the procession, as they had done during its advance. The police and the infantry, however, were on the ground. The other body—I scarcely know what name I ought to give them—maintained its first position during a great part of the day. They were visited in the course of it by two Roman Catholic clergymen; and one of those gentlemen, Mr. Morgan, unwisely as I think, but as he himself declares for the purpose of preventing them from straggling away and getting into the public-houses, bought them a quantity of bread. He also gave his blessing to the crowd, on condition that they would clear away out of the valley and keep the peace. But about an hour afterwards, when it was still uncertain which road the procession would take on its return, a very curious manœuvre was practised by those whom I may be permitted to style the Ribandmen. I have already observed that the hill of Magheramayo lies a little obliquely from the highroad, and commands both the roads which lead to and from Dolly's Brae. The body of Ribandmen had first encamped near Dolly's Brae, but on the other side of the old road from that which they subsequently occupied, and to which they marched in something like military order and precision—indeed, so much like it, that one of the military officers present declared at the time that they must be under the command of an old pensioner, and it subsequently turned out that they were led by a person who had been discharged from the police force. They thus left the position where they had been under the control of the military, and took up a new position on Magheremayo-hill, which commands, as I before said, both roads, the new road being about a mile longer than the old. The procession, after it had received some refreshments from my noble Friend near me in Tollymore-park, and after it had been addressed by my noble Friend in a speech with which I think my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) can find no fault, returned by the same road which it had taken in the morning. They had nearly all got through the pass of Dolly's Brae. Mr. Morgan, the Roman Catholic clergyman, had promised to march with the procession on its return, in order to afford it his protection. Mr. Morgan did not attend according to his promise, but
892
his curate, Mr. Mooney, did; and never left the procession until nearly the whole of it had passed the lines of Ribandmen. These lines were twofold, ranging one a little above the other, a little obliquely to the road, and commanding it from a considerable height. The immediate front of each line was protected by a strong wall, and these were flanked by two or three small houses, and their enclosures were occupied by detachments from the main body. After the Orange party had nearly passed these lines, and just after Mr. Mooney had met the police and military, whom he told "that all was right—that there would be peace, and that not a shot would be fired," a squib was exploded at a little distance from the road, then, from the Riband houses or the enclosures before them, two shots were fired, and then immediately followed a full volley from the whole Riband army on the Orangemen, the police, and the military. The main part of the volley was poured upon the police. The police, at first a little startled by the suddenness of the discharge, recovered themselves with a degree of firmness and forbearance for which they deserve every credit; and immediately afterwards, owing to the gallantry of Mr. Hill, sub-inspector of police, they charged up the hill, and, though their numbers did not exceed 40 men, drove from it the Ribandmen, who were 600 or 700 strong. I feel, my Lords, that I cannot do sufficient justice to the spirit and gallantry which the police displayed on this occasion; it was of great importance, for one of the military officers present declared that, if the police had not fired and charged at once up the hill, Her Majesty's troops would have been slaughtered most unmercifully. He also stated, that the police would have been foiled by the strength of the position and by the number of their oppouents, had not the Orangemen, who had not yet passed the hill, taken the Ribandmen in the flank, whilst the police attacked them in the front, and aided them in dispersing the rebel band. I call them the rebel band, and I can now call them nothing else, since I think with Lieutenant Terry, of the 9th Regiment, that they deserve to be called rebels who fire on Her Majesty's troops. Then occurred scenes which I regret to say I must concur with the Commissioner appointed by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) in denouncing as scenes of atrocity on the part of the Orangemen, although

893
I think that he has painted them in somewhat exaggerated colours, and in some cases misrepresented the real facts. I am sure, however, that if the perpetrators of them can he discovered, my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Roden) will be as ready as any man can be to bring them to justice and punishment. Houses were fired, one inoffensive person was put to death, and the work of retaliation and retribution was carried further than I can either palliate or justify. Such is the history of these-painful transactions. Shortly afterwards my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appointed a commission to investigate their nature and extent. It sat for four or five days in the months of July and August, and then, on the 18th of September, Mr. Berwick was desired to interfere. The sessions were then held at Castlewellan, and applications were made to the magistrates on the bench for informations against several Orangemen. Those applications were refused by the bench, of which my noble Friend near me was then the chairman. Whereupon my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland recommended the Lord Chancellor of that country to dismiss from the commission of the peace my noble Friend near me, the chairman of the bench of magistrates, and two other magistrates of the name of Beers. I think, that upon the evidence there may be a primâ facie case for the dismissal of Mr. William Beers; but, so far as I can make out, the charge which my noble Friend has brought against Mr. Francis Beers is not tenable even for a moment. I must decline to enter upon this occasion into the individual case of Mr. W. Beers; but, as far as I can make out the charge against his brother, Mr. F. Beers, it is this, and this only—that the procession was mustered in his demesne, and that he marched along with it on the public road, in his character as a magistrate, without badges or distinctive marks upon him, and in company with the stipendiary magistrate sent down by Her Majesty's Government as the head of the police. Now, it is admitted on all hands that, both in going to and in returning from Tollymore-park, Mr. Francis Beers was most active in preventing a collision between the parties, and that after the collision had taken place, he was most active in saving life, and restoring peace. You have one of the witnesses actually declaring that he should have been deprived of life had he not been saved by the interference
894
of Mr. Francis Beers. No other charge can be brought against that gentleman but this—that on arriving at Tollymore-park, where none but Orangemen were met together, he did put on and wear during his presence there an Orange riband, though he had not attended an Orange lodge for twenty-four years previously. Before he left Tollymore-park he took it off again, and never appeared with it at all in public. This is the only offence charged against Mr. Francis Beers. The offence charged against my noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) is, that he received an Orange procession in his park; that he made an address to them; that he did not recommend them to return by the new road; and that, as chairman of the bench of magistrates at Castlewellan, he refused, upon application, to receive informations tendered by the sessional Crown solicitor against certain persons, not for perpetrating acts of violence, but for attending a procession, said to be per se and ab initio altogether illegal. My answer is this—I admit the facts to be as I have stated them; but I contend that they form no justification for the conduct of Government towards him. Neither the magistrates of the county nor the stipendiary magistrates sent down to their assistance, believed, or professed to believe, that the procession was illegal, or that it was considered so by Her Majesty's Government. I am prepared to contend, that up to the moment when my noble Friend received the procession in his park, he believed that it was acting under the sanction and protection of Government, especially as it was attended by an escort of military and police. There is another point which is still more doubtful than the legality of the procession, and that is the legality of the warrant which my noble Friend opposite was advised to issue, and of the whole proceedings carried on by the Commissioner under its authority. Now, I am prepared to contend that the evidence laid before my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by his commissioner, Mr. Berwick, was not the evidence really given before him. I contend, and shall endeavour to prove, that that evidence was garbled. I have the confession of the Commissioner himself, that he did not furnish my noble Friend with the whole of the evidence, but only with notes of the evidence taken by himself, and which he believed to contain all that was material in it. Now, I say that those notes do not contain all the material evidence; and further, I say that

895
they are garbled and distorted, and I am not saying too much when I say, that in one case they are actually falsified. And I further say, that the evidence laid before the magistrates did not justify the allegations of the information, and that in the discharge of their duty the magistrates could not but refuse to grant informations upon them. I say deliberately that the evidence did not warrant, and would not have justified, the informations which this bench of magistrates was called on to grant. I further contend, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has egregiously failed in the discharge of his functions as head of the magistracy in that country, inasmuch as on the same day on which he received the suggestion of the Lord Lieutenant to dismiss these magistrates from the commission of the peace, without evidence, without any consideration, without any remonstrance, he did—what? Call on the magistrates to answer the charges preferred against them? No; but without a question on his part, without an answer on theirs, without any examination, on evidence taken behind their backs, without any exercise of his own judgment, he dismissed my noble Friend from the commission of the peace, and with him two other magistrates, one of whom had held it for more than forty years. I say, that those magistrates had no reason to believe that this procession was in itself illegal. If the noble Earl near me had known that it was illegal, he would have been the last man in the country to lend his sanction to it. I have evidence by which I can show to your Lordships the course actually taken by my noble Friend near me, when there was no doubt that these processions were illegal. On the 21st of June, 1843, my noble Friend wrote the following letter to the Members of an Orange lodge:—
"My dear Friends and Brother Protestants—The anniversaries of the 1st and 12th of July are at hand; any processions on either of those days are illegal. It is most important for our cause that there be no public display of any kind on either of those occasions; nothing would be more gratifying to your enemies than your transgression of the law, nothing would be more deeply mortifying to your friends. I have received many favours from you: I am, therefore, emboldened to speak freely to you. Some of you are my immediate neighbours and my valued acquaintances. I beseech you, then, for reasons the soundness of which you would acknowledge could I communicate them to you, let no taunt, no provocation, no circumstance whatever, induce any of our Protestant brethren to break the law by assembling in procession on the 1st or 12th of July next."
896
Again, my Lords, in the year 1845, when the Party Processions Act had expired, my noble Friend repeated to the Orange lodges his warning to abstain from these processions:—
"July 3, 1845. "Brother Protestants—The 1st of July is over; the monster meeting which the Repealers threatened to hold on that memorable anniversary on the banks of the Boyne has not taken place. Happily for the peace of Ulster, we have been saved from that insult. I hear that the Repealers are now endeavouring to induce our brethren to celebrate the 12th by processions with banners and flags. It cannot be for our advantage that such advice should be followed. Much as you value the events commemorated on that day—much as they should be honoured and regarded by every loyal subject in the land—I would not gratify these wishes expressed by the Repealers of Down, Tyrone, and Armagh. I should rather that you quietly met in your respective neighbourhoods, determined to maintain true Protestant principles amongst yourselves and your children, rejecting alike the insidious snares of false Protestantism within the Church, and the errors of Romanism, from which we have been happily delivered, under God, through the means of that Prince of glorious memory, King William the Third. I could not let this opportunity pass without tendering to you my opinion as to your proceedings on the approaching 12th. You already know I can have but one object in doing so, which is your welfare, and consequently the prosperity and happiness of all denominations of our fellow-subjects in Ulster."
Therefore, my Lords, you now see that not only when these processions were notoriously illegal did my noble Friend near me give the Orange lodges warning of the illegality of these processions, and use every intreaty to dissuade them from joining in them, but even afterwards when the old law was restored, he impressed upon them the necessity of dispensing with and abstaining from them. But not only had my noble Friend near me no reason to think that these processions were not legal, but you will find that they had every reason to believe that they were not deemed illegal, by the Government themselves. I will now beg leave, my Lords, to bring under your notice one of the papers which I shall this night move for—I mean the correspondence which took place between the authorities in Dublin Castle and the magistrates of Armagh, on the subject of Orange processions, in the months of June and July, 1846; and this correspondence is the more remarkable, because you have in it the opinions of the representativos of two successive Governments upon the point now in question. On the 29th of June, 1846, Mr. W. Paton writes thus to the Earl of Lincoln, then Secretary for Ireland:—

897
"Armagh, June 29, 1840.
"My Lord—I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of resolutions this day entered into at a meeting of magistrates resident in Armagh, and to request the earnest attention of your Lordship and of the Government to the subject of them, as, unless a sufficient force be placed at the disposal of the magistrates on the occasion referred to, they feel that they could not be responsible under the circumstances for the preservation of the peace of the city. I have been further directed by the magistrates present to re quest the opinion of the law officers of the Crown with reference to the following statement:—The Government must be aware that the affray and homicide which occurred on the last 12th of July arose out of a collision between a party walking in procession, and some of the inhabitants of a part of the town principally occupied by Roman Catholics, and the magistrates having learned that it is the intention of the Orange party on the ensuing occasion to walk through the same district of the city, and feeling that such an attempt would in evitably lead to resistance and serious outrage, are desirous of ascertaining whether they would be justified in preventing the Orange procession from entering that portion of the town, either with or without sworn informations being previously laid before them that such an attempt would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace. I have the honour to be, &c.—" W. PAION."
Now it is quite clear, my Lords, that if the magistrates receive sworn informations that a procession is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, they may exercise their discretion, and prevent it as illegal. In July, 1846, Mr. Pennefather addressed this letter to the Armagh magistrates, in reply to inquiries from them as to the course they should take with regard to party processions:—
"Dublin Castle, July 4, 1846.
" Sir—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th ult., which, with the copy of the resolutions enclosed therein, I have submitted to the Lord Lieutenant; and in reply I am commanded by his Excellency to inform you that the Act 2 and 3 William IV., c. 118, having expired, party processions, merely as such, are no longer illegal; and the magistrates should therefore be very circumspect in interfering with them, if no breach of the peace be actually committed. If the persons composing the procession be conducting themselves peaceably, the magistrates should not interfere with them further than to endeavour to persuade them not to go into any particular part of the town where their appearance in procession may exasperate others to commit a breach of the peace. As a strong reinforcement has been made to the military force in Armagh, the magistrates can have a sufficient force placed in those parts of the town where any disturbance is apprehended, and take such measures as may appear to them advisable, from the informations they receive, to preserve the peace, and prevent any such collision as is apprehended. It is necessary that the military should be accompanied by a magistrate; and his Excellency has directed the attendance of a stipendiary magistrate at Armagh on the 11th inst. to assist the local magistracy in
898
preserving the peace of that city on the occasion referred to.—I have the honour to be, &c.
"RICHARD PENNEFATHER."
The magistrates were not quite satisfied with these instructions, which they did not consider sufficiently definite; and on the 9th of July they addressed the following letter to the Government:—
"Armagh, July 9, 1846.
" Sir—I have this day submitted your letter of the 4th inst. to a meeting of magistrates, and am directed to state that it is not so satisfactory as they could have wished, inasmuch as it does not answer distinctly the question put in my letter of the 29th ult., namely, whether, under the circumstances therein stated, the magistrates would, either with or without sworn informations, he justified in preventing the Orange procession from entering that part of the town where disturbances might be apprehended. I have, therefore, now to request you will inform me whether under any and what circumstances, in reference to the case stated, the magistrates would be justified in stopping the procession from entering those parts of the town where any disturbance is apprehended?—I have the honour to be, Sir, "fee.
"W. PATON."
The answer, expressing the opinions of the Government, was exceedingly useful to those for whose guidance it was intended; for, this being an inquiry as to what course of proceeding was to be taken on the morning of the 12th of July, the letter giving the magistrates advice was written on the evening of the 12th, and was received in Armagh on the morning of the 13th. The letter was in these terms:—
"Dublin Castle, July 12, 1846.
"Sir—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., and to acquaint you that it must be left to the discretion of the magistrates how far the sworn informations received will justify their interfering to preserve the public peace by arresting the progress of the procession. It is obvious that the most effectual mode of preserving order will be by placing a strong force in the locality where a collision between hostile parties is principally feared.—I have the honour to be, &c.
"T. N. REDINGTON.
"W. Paton, Esq., J. P., Armagh."
I must now, even at the risk of wearying your Lordships, refer to a few points of the evidence, some of which—as being, I suppose, considered immaterial—were altogether omitted by Mr. Commissioner Berwick from his report. Evidence was given to show the opinions not only of the local magistrates, but of the stipendiary magistrates, with regard to this particular meeting on the 12th of July, and also upon the general question whether party processions, per se, were illegal or not. Some of your Lordships may, perhaps, not be

899
disposed to lay much stress upon the opinion of Mr. William Beers; but he states that he believed the procession was not an illegal one. [The noble Lord read an extract from a shorthand writer's report of the evidence of Mr. Beers, in which that gentleman stated that he was of opinion the meeting was legal, and that opinion prevailed among the magistrates. His reason for entertaining the opinion was, that he had been informed that on the 17th of March, the high sheriff at the assizes informed Chief Baron Pigot that an armed body of men was coming into the town, and asked what course he should take; and the Chief Baron said, that if danger of a riot was apprehended, the military might be called out; but in the meantime the procession passed quietly through the town.] But what was the evidence given by my noble Friend Lord Roden? I am quoting now, not from the "material" portions of the evidence furnished by Mr. Commissioner Berwick, but from the notes of a shorthand writer who attended the whole proceedings, who took the evidence much more folly than it appears to have been taken by Mr. Berwick, and the accuracy of whose report has been verified by affidavit in the Court of Queen's Bench by himself, and testified to by the different parties who gave evidence. One of the papers for which I move is the report annexed to the affidavit of John Porter, which was taken by the reporter for the same newspaper whose report was relied upon in these proceedings by Mr. Berwick, as testifying to the accuracy of the terms used in a speech delivered by Mr. W. Beers, and upon which report Mr. Beers was condemned and removed from the commission. I hope, therefore, that my noble Friend will not impugn the accuracy of this report of the proceedings before the Commissioner. I must bog your Lordships to observe that the report of Mr. Berwick—a report of evidence supposed to contain all that was material, and furnished as the ground, and the sole ground, for the summary dismissal of two magistrates—does not distinguish between the evidence taken on the examination in chief and that taken on cross-examination; it does not state, in answer, to whom the evidence was given; but it gives a summary of the evidence, sometimes confounding the evidence which was given in July and August with that subsequently given by the same witness in the month of September. Any person at all acquainted with the nature of criminal
900
proceedings, must be satisfied that it is of the greatest consequence to know whether evidence was given on examination in chief or on cross-examination, and to know by whom the questions were put, in order to judge of the probable object of such questions; but there is no separation of this kind in the evidence presented by Mr. Berwick. I was about to ask your Lordships' attention to the evidence of my noble Friend Lord Roden. He says—
"On the 17th of March last, between seven and eight o'clock in the morning of that day, I rode to this town, to see the procession for myself; saw scattered groups of people as I rode along, all armed. They seemed very much surprised to see me there alone at that hour of the morning; some of them were very civil to me, and touched their hats; others fired off their guns. After breakfast I rode out again, with my son, and did my utmost to prevent the Protestants, who were very much alarmed, from offering the Ribandmen any annoyance. Was engaged riding through the country, with my son, the whole day for that purpose. I prevailed on the Protestants to keep quiet, and the procession got no annoyance. After dinner, in the evening, a party of the Riband procession marched through my village (Bryansford), which is a Protestant village, and as they passed my gate they fired a volley over it; it did no harm—it was done more for bravado than anything else, I think. They did not get any annoyance in consequence of that. If I had thought the Orange procession was illegal, it should not have entered my gates."
In his subsequent evidence he says—
"My impression was, that both processions, on the respective days of the 17th of March and 12th of July, were not illegal; if not, I should have felt it my duty, as a magistrate, to stop them. Both parties seemed to agree that each had a right to walk on the respective days. My opinion was, that after the expiration of the Processions Act both parties had a right to march."
Mr. Shaw, another of the magistrates, says—
"Orange processions have been permitted from time immemorial by Government; have always seen arms with them, which were fired off foolishly; did not consider this an illegal procession because the men had arms with them. I say, that seeing the procession with arms in their hands did not create terror in me, nor did any one else declare to me that he felt terror. Cannot say if the Roman Catholics had reason to feel terror."
Mr. M'Mullan, a Roman Catholic magistrate, said he never knew there was any law to prevent processions. Captain Fitzmaurice, the stipendiary magistrate, who was sent down to act with the other magistrates, says—
"I did not consider the body of men I saw assembled on Mr. Beers' lawn an illegal body."
Yet that evidence of Captain Fitzmaurice is considered immaterial by Mr. Commissioner Berwick, and is omitted from his

901
report. I must trouble your Lordships with a somewhat lengthened extract from the evidence of Mr. Hill, another stipendiary magistrate, which is given very briefly in Mr. Berwick's abridgment. Mr. Hill says—
"On the 12th of July, 1848, the Orangemen marched by the new road to Castlewellan; I escorted them, on that occasion, as on this 12th, with police; they were not molested in any way in 1848; I have also escorted bodies of Ribandmen, on various occasions, and protected them. Mr. Francis Charles Beers walked with me at the head of the police, from Bally ward to Castlewellan, as a magistrate, and not as a leader of the Orangemen; he could not have acted as a leader of the Orangemen without my knowledge; did not think the meeting was an illegal or unlawful assembly, especially as I had repeatedly reported the fact of armed processions to Government, and sent forward the names of parties for prosecution, without Government taking any notice of the matter; the Orangemen have always been in the habit of assembling to celebrate a ceremony on the 12th of July with arms in their hands; on the 17th of March, Mr. F. Beers, with a party of police, went at the head of a Riband procession that passed by Kate's Bridge; he kept the peace on that occasion; Mr. F. C. Beers was with me when the firing took place; he did not join the Orangemen, but remained with me, and acted as a magistrate, being exposed to the fire as well as myself; never before saw so peaceable a procession of Orangemen as this one, up to the time of the skirmish."
That is the evidence of Mr. Hill; but will your Lordships believe that the only line of that evidence recorded by Mr. Berwick is this?—" I have repeatedly reported the fact of armed processions to the Government." Mr. Berwick omits the evidence as to the conduct of Mr. Beers on that occasion; he omits the opinion of that gentleman, that he did not consider the meeting illegal, and the reason for that opinion; because, after his repeated representations to the Government, they had taken no steps to prevent such meetings. All this is judged immaterial by the impartial Mr. Berwick, and is omitted in the evidence laid before my noble Friend opposite. I would beg your Lordships to compare the evidence of Mr. F. Beers, as given in Mr. Berwick's report, and in the report to which I have referred. Mr. F. Beers, in alluding to the Riband procession which took place on the 17th of March, is represented, in Mr. Berwick's report, as say
"I did believe that the procession of the 17th of March was an illegal procession; and I have little doubt that the procession of the 12th of July [there is a blank here in my notes of one line]—I believe they thought there would have
902
been an attack, and, therefore, that they left their houses."
This is most improbable evidence for a gentleman to give who says he thought it his duty to escort that very procession and protect it. But in page 114 of the report of the evidence I have before quoted from, Mr. Beers makes this statement:—
"I escorted them through what I conceived the dangerous part of the road, and, after I left them, they fired shots into my demesne; the Processions Act having expired, I really did not think this an illegal body, but I thought there was danger of a breach of the public peace should the Orangemen and they come in contact."
And yet, in the face of this evidence, Mr. Berwick would lead you to believe, by his significant blank, that Mr. Beers had given an opinion that the meeting was illegal, while, on the contrary, he declares that he believed it to have been legal. That, I think, my Lords, is a direct perversion of the evidence; and upon this perverted evidence it was that my noble Friend was called upon to judge of the merits of the case. Mr. Berwick, however, lays down the law after a fashion of his own, and in a very singular manner. I am aware that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for attempting to deal with a question of this kind; but I must say that the doctrines laid down by Mr. Berwick appear to me so extraordinary, that it is impossible they can have any foundation in law. In page 9 of his report, Mr. Berwick lays down the principle, that—
"All bodies or processions of men, whether armed or unarmed, but more particularly if armed, who are assembled under such circumstances as are calculated to endanger the public peace, and to excite terror and alarm amongst Her Majesty's subjects, are thenceforth to be considered and treated by those assigned to keep the public peace as illegal bodies, dangerous to the well-being of society, and therefore to be repressed, if necessary, by the strong arm of the law. And it is also an equally plain proposition in law, that any body of private persons combined even for the most innocent and lawful object, who proceed in numbers to effect that object, with a determination to resist by force all who shall oppose them in their design, is dangerous to the public peace; their acts become thenceforth illegal; and all who lend their assistance or countenance to their proceedings are abettors in, and answerable for, all the resulting consequences."
The inference which Mr. Berwick manifestly seeks to draw from the law thus laid down as applicable to this case is, that if I and some of my neighbours in pursuit of a lawful and innocent object, are met with threats, and violence, and outrage—if we are told that parties have collected to

903
oppose us by force, and to prevent us from performing the most innocent, and even most praiseworthy acts, the fact of their being an illegal combination against us makes our arming for our own protection, with a determination not to be put down, an illegal act in itself; and that in consequence of the illegal conduct of our opponents, our innocent act is converted into an illegal proceeding. My Lords, a more monstrous proposition was never attempted to be brought forward by any person professing even the slightest knowledge of law. Every person possessing the least acquaintance with the fundamental principles of the British constitution is aware of the right which every Englishman has to protect himself, his wife, his family, and his servants, by violence, if need be, against unlawful oppression and unlawful force from any quarter. This proposition docs not need enforcing; but in the fifth report of the Commissioners on the Reform of the Criminal Law, I find this passage:—
"If it be proper that the law should allow a man to defend his dwelling-house, or his person in his dwelling-house, by numbers and arms, it must be equally so to give him the same means of retaining possession of his lands when threatened with an unlawful entry; and of his goods, when they are about to be taken from him; and also of protecting his person when he has reason to apprehend an unlawful assault wheresoever it may occur."
That doctrine is consistent with reason and with our constitutional principles and practice; but if the doctrine of Mr. Berwick were carried to the extent to which he is disposed to press it, English law would be—what it never was intended to be, and what I hope it never will be allowed to be—absolutely destructive of English liberty. I may refer your Lordships, in further explanation, to a distinction taken by two very distinguished Members of this House in the proceedings in error; in the case of the late Mr. O'Connell, in 1844. In that case there was a count charging intimidation, which was declared by all the noble and learned Lords who were present to be bad, as ambiguous and uncertain, inasmuch as, according to a noble and learned Lord opposite, it did not appear from the count whether the intimidation charged was intimidation in defence of the law, or intimidation against the law; or, as my noble and learned Friend near me said, it did not appear that it was not an intimidation of the intimidators. If it had been an intimidation of the intimidators—an in-
904
timidation in defence of law against those who were violating the law—there could be no doubt in the mind of any human being, except Mr. Commissioner Berwick, that that intimidation would have been perfectly lawful, and that no person could have been punished for it if these processions were not pronounced illegal in 1846. I may ask how it is that so sudden a change has come over the spirit of the dream of noble Lords opposite with regard to the body of Orangemen since 1848? For the answer to that question I think I may appeal to my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I ask him what were the circumstances of the year 1848? I ask him in what condition he and the Government stood in March, April, and May, 1848? I ask him whether he did not find it politic, wise, and necessary, threatened as he then was by a most insane rebellion, hardly more ludicrous in its results than it was formidable in its preparations, I ask whether he did not then rejoice in the demonstration of Orange numbers, of Orange force, of Orange loyalty? I ask where were then the Orangemen of Ulster? There was no talk then of "what is called grand master of a lodge;" but grateful acknowledgments and thanks were given to the loyal Orangemen of one district, and the loyal Protestants of another. [A PEER here made a suggestion to the noble Lord.] Ay, to the loyal Orangemen. Answers were given to the addresses of the loyal Orangemen; the loyal Orangemen were intrusted with arms—not perhaps with the knowledge of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Clarendon), but certainly by persons very nearly and intimately connected with him. They were intrusted with arms for the formation of a body which professed its determination to exclude Catholics—an exclusively Protestant body, such arms being furnished by the command of Sir Edward Blakeney, in 1848. [A PEER here made a remark to the noble Lord, who immediately said]—I believe that to have been the case; but if there is the smallest doubt on the subject I withdraw the statement. There is, however, no doubt that in 1848 the Orangemen, as Orangemen, were not only flattered, petted, caressed, but much more than that—they were trusted; and it was in consequence of the organisation, the numbers, the power, and the determination of the Orangemen, that my noble Friend opposite was enabled to strip Ulster comparatively

905
of the Queen's troops, and to leave the preservation of the peace of that province in the hands of the loyal Orangemen. To show the spirit which existed in 1848, I may read an extract from a letter addressed by my noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) to Mr. W. Beers. He says—
"I trust the excellent advice you have given the Orangemen of the county of Down will be duly appreciated and strictly adhered to; so that our valuable institution will gain the approbation of many who have hitherto disapproved of it. The peaceable demeanour of our brethren, and the calm, but determined, deportment of the thousands of brave Orangemen who will unite in celebrating their anniversary on the 12th of July, cannot fail to insure this result. Had it been consistent with your arrangements, I should have been happy that the ground chosen for your meeting was within the gates of Tollymore Park, where an opportunity would have been afforded me of witnessing the numbers, as well as the loyalty, of those lodges over which you preside. It is of little consequence to us now what political party is in power; perhaps the least danger is to be apprehended from those who are the present Ministers of the Crown; but I am sure it is our duty as loyal Orangemen to give every support in our power to the Earl of Clarendon's Government, so long as the law is put in force against its transgressors, and that justice and impartiality are fairly meted out to all denominations of our countrymen."
Did the noble Earl then disclaim such allies—did he refuse to accept their assistance, on the ground that they violated the law by illegal demonstrations of force, and by illegal party processions? No such thing. It was known that my noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) was at that time in constant, familiar, and confidential communication with the noble Earl opposite; yet no notice of dissent from the course pursued by the Orangemen of Ireland emanated from the noble Earl, and they had a right to believe, and did believe, that their processions and meetings were sanctioned by the Government. If these meetings were in themselves illegal, why were they allowed to be carried to a greater extent in 1848 than at any previous time? and I ask if, according to the doctrine of Mr. Berwick, they were all grossly illegal ab initio, why informations were not tendered in a single case of such illegal meetings and processions?
But I will inquire, in the next place, had the Government no notice of these proceedings in 1849? Why, Mr. Scott, a resident magistrate of the county of Down, states in evidence, that he had apprehensions before the 1st of July that serious work would take place on the 12th of that month; and he says—
906
"I spoke to Mr. M'Mullin, a Roman Catholic magistrate; I told him I was going to Dublin, and asked whether I might state at the Castle, on his authority, our apprehension that there would be a riot. I called at the Castle and saw Mr. Redington, and told him I called on the subject, fearing there would be a riot."
Mr. Scott subsequently stated, in cross-examination, that he put Mr. Redington in possession of all the information he had, and told him that both parties were armed very extensively. The sub-inspector of police, Mr. Hill, also gave similar information to the Government, and told them even that the meeting was to he held in Tollymore Park, the seat of the Earl of Roden, who was then in constant confidential communication with my noble Friend opposite. I ask the noble Earl whether, at that time, he gave to the Earl of Roden the slightest intimation that, by receiving a procession such as had been described in Tollymore Park, he would render himself liable to be implicated in the proceedings of an illegal assembly? If that were not done, if no such warning proceeded from the Lord Lieutenant, who was perfectly acquainted with all the facts of the case, then I say that my noble Friend had cause to be surprised when he was told that by receiving the procession in Tollymore Park he had implicated himself in the proceedings of an illegal assembly. But these were not the only gentlemen who gave information on this subject to the Government; they were the only two mentioned in Mr. Berwick's report. Similar information was given by Mr. F. Beers, though the fact is omitted as immaterial in the report of Mr. Berwick. Mr. F. Beers was in Dublin at the time, and, as far as it appears, had no intention of taking part in the procession. He wrote to the Sub-Inspector of police on the spot to know what was going to take place. The Sub-Inspector wrote to Mr. Beers, entreating him to go down for the purpose of preserving the peace. Before Mr. Beers left Dublin he called upon the Inspector-General of police, and gave him information on the subject. The Inspector replied, that he had sent down a sufficient force to preserve the peace, and requested Mr. Beers to go down to the spot; and for so being upon the spot, in consequence of information he received from the Inspector and Sub-Inspector, this matter being omitted in Mr. Berwick's very faithful report, and, for taking the part I shall describe to your Lordships, Mr. F. Beers was summarily dismissed from the commission of the peace.

907
Mr. Berwick says, he thinks the stipendiary magistrates were wrong in not having taken steps to prevent the procession, and in not distinctly requiring the assistance of their brother magistrates to prevent the march of the Orange party through the district. It is very easy to blame the stipendiary magistrates for not taking that course; but when the magistrates of Armagh asked if they would be justified in such interference, they were told they would not—that they must act on their own discretion. Why were not the magistrates furnished with distinct instructions? If they had such instructions, I want to know where they are. I want to know what instructions were given to the stipendiary magistrates who were sent down specially from other districts to advise the local magistrates, and whether they had directions to prevent this procession from taking place. I want to know why no informations were sworn? I will tell your Lordships why—because no danger was apprehended from the procession. No danger of a collision was apprehended, except by those who were determined unlawfully to obstruct the procession, and they did not swear informations because they trusted in their intrenchments and their walls, from the shelter of which they committed their dastardly and cowardly attack. There was no apprehension that the public peace would be violated by the Orangemen; nor, till the attack upon them, was there a single instance of irregularity or misconduct on the part of any of that body.
I now come, my Lords, to another part of the case—the character of the commission. I say that the commission is a matter of much more doubtful legality than the procession. I should like to know where my noble Friends opposite found any warrant for the issue of a commission of inquiry into crime—a commission to be conducted according to no known principles of law, but in violation of the best known principles of law—and which, according to Lord Coke, is itself illegal. That learned writer said—
"A commission is a delegation by warrant of an Act of Parliament, or of the common law, whereby jurisdiction, power, or authority, is conferred to others. All commissions of now invention are against law, until they have allowance by Act of Parliament."
Mr. Whiteside, a very able Irish lawyer, had said with regard to commissions of inquiry (referring to the case entitled "Commissions of Inquiry," 12 Reports, 31):—
908
"There a commission was granted to certain commissioners to inquire into depopulation of houses, converting of arable lands into pasture, &c. This commission was held to be against law. For this, 'that it was only to inquire, which is against law; for by this a man may be unjustly accused by perjury, and he shall not have any remedy.' And again, 'No such commission ever was seen to inquire only of crimes.' "
Mr. Whiteside further said—
"I think it clear no witness sworn and examined before Mr. Berwick could be prosecuted for perjury. And upon the highest authority in the law it is submitted this commission of inquiry granted to Mr. Berwick was illegal and unconstitutional—a positive obstruction to justice; permitting the defamation of individuals, the taking of false oaths, for which there could be no punishment, and provoking resistance to its mandates where, if death ensued, there could be no prosecution for murder."
In 1835 an Act was passed for the purpose of abolishing certain oaths and affirmations, and section 13 provided that after the passing of the Act it should be unlawful for any justice of the peace or other person to administer, or allow to be administered, or to receive, or cause or allow to be received, any oath or solemn affirmation touching any matter or thing whereof such justice or other person had not jurisdiction or cognisance by some statute in force at the time. Now, I beg the noble Lords opposite to point out by what statute Mr. Commissioner Berwick was authorised to summon witnesses, or to administer oaths, in defiance of this distinct Act of Parliament. Mr. Berwick's court appears to me to have been a mock tribunal, where men's characters were taken away by witnesses who could not be indicted for perjury. I ask, what sort of court was this? Was this inquiry a judicial or a magisterial proceeding? Clearly, it was not a judicial proceeding in conformity with any known principle of English law. There was no person to try; the prosecutor, Mr. Berwick, was also the judge; and, if there were any culprits, they were the witnesses who were brought forward to give evidence. This was no magisterial inquiry, for the nature of magisterial inquiries was defined by the 12th and 13th Victoria, c. 16, which stated that magistrates might grant summonses and warrants against parties accused or suspected. But here there was no party accused or suspected. Magistrates may issue summonses for witnesses, and in this case, no doubt, witnesses were summoned, who were required to answer such questions as Mr. Commissioner Berwick chose to put to them de omnibus rebus.

909
There were, besides, three attorneys and two counsel on each side, who might, in the cross-fire of their examination, put to these unfortunate witnesses questions touching their own conduct with regard to matters which might afterwards become the subjects of judicial inquiry. It is provided by the English law, that in proceedings before magistrates the accused persons shall be cautioned that any statements they make will be taken down and may be used against them; but no such caution was given by Mr. Commissioner Berwick to the persons who came before him in the mixed character of culprits and witnesses. If the investigation had been directed with a view to guide the Executive, as to whether criminal prosecutions should not be directed against offenders, and its proceedings had been conducted privately, he should have felt less objection to it; but it was directed against the discretion of the magistrates. Mr. Berwick declared his court to be an open court, to which all persons had right of access, open to all the world. His next proceeding was to summon witnesses, and to threaten with committal those who did not attend his illegal summons; nay, to threaten with committal persons who omitted to produce papers and documents which he chose to call for. I say that, whatever may have been the case as to the commission itself in initio, these proceedings of Mr. Berwick, in his commission, were without any warrant of law; and I say that the publication of this illegal evidence, collected before an illegal tribunal, was prejudicial to the administration of justice, inasmuch as the publication of that evidence prejudiced persons who were liable to be put on their trial; persons, some of whom, as I am reminded by my noble Friend behind me, have since been actually indicted, and are about to undergo a trial, with all the prejudice arising from that publication arrayed against them.
I will proceed to show that not only were the proceedings before the commission illegal and unwarrantable in themselves, but that the evidence taken has not been fairly stated in Mr. Berwick's report. I have got here some few illustrations of this fact, among a great many samples that I might readily adduce. First, I will request your Lordships to turn to Mr. Berwick's statement, page 5, about the shots fired at Mr. Morgan:—
"Unfortunately, however, after the procession had ended, some stragglers from the Orange party
910
committed some acts of violence, and fired shots in the evening on their way home in the neighbourhood of Mr. Morgan's house, the balls from two of which came so close to that gentleman, that he was of opinion that they were fired at him, and his parishioners were, in consequence, much exasperated."
What was the evidence actually given before Mr. Berwick? That, on the evening of the 12th, as the procession was returning, some Catholics were firing off a few shots, and the Orangemen thought these were fired at them, upon which some of them turned back to repel the insult. So that whereas, according to Mr. Berwick's account, this was an unprovoked attack by the Orangemen on the Roman Catholics; the facts, as stated in the evidence, show that the attack originated "in a few shots "fired by the Roman Catholics at the Orangemen, a portion of whom turned back to repel the insult; and there is in support of this statement the evidence of Mr. W. Beers that he remonstrated on the particular occasion. There is manifestly, then, a decided bias not only in Mr. Berwick's report, but in his selection of the evidence. In the next page to that I have quoted, after mentioning that Mr. W. Beers had given repeated announcements on the subject, and setting forth that Mr. Beers organised the procession, Mr. Berwick proceeds to say—
"About the time this was taking place, Mr. Fitzmauriee had arrived, with Mr. Hill, from Rathfriland at Ballyward, the residence of Mr. Francis Beers. There they found the Orange party assembled in arms in his demesne in great numbers, their place of rendezvous having been fixed at Ballyward church, whence they were to proceed, through Mr. Beers' demesne, on their road to Castlewellan."
But when we turn to Mr. Beers' evidence, we find him stating—
"I did not organise the procession. I organised the constabulary and military, who were to protect the procession, and not the procession."
Yet, with this evidence before him, Mr. Berwick tells us that it was in Mr. Beers' demesne the Orange party was mustered. Now, as to the reasons for not taking the new road home, Mr. Berwick states in his report—
"The magistrates were then assembled on the hill, and all agreed that it would be most dangerous to allow the Orange party to come back by the same road, and it was arranged that Mr. Fitzmaurice should proceed to Lord Roden's, and request his Lordship's interference to induce them to return by some other way. The Rev. Mr. Morgan, though still expressing his fears of a collision, appears to have doubted the utility of such an arrangement,

911
as he said, 'since they had gone that road, they might as well come back the same way.' "
Now, Mr. Morgan gave He such evidence, nor anything like it. He stated that, in point of fact, he did at first express the opinion that as they had come by the old road they might as well return by it; but he afterwards altered this opinion, a fact which does not at all appear on the face of the proceedings. The evidence which he did actually give is contained in page 105, and, where not altogether omitted, is altogether misrepresented in Mr. Berwick's report. It is not the fact that all the magistrates were of the opinion stated by Mr. Berwick. The magistrates deputed Mr. Fitzmaurice, who proceeded to Tollymore-park, and represented to Lord Roden that there might be some danger in returning the same way, giving this, not as Mr. Morgan's opinion, but as his own; and Lord Roden having spoken with Mr. W. Beers, said that he had received reasons which he thought sufficient to induce him to the opinion that if he advised the Orangemen to return by the new road instead of by the old, a portion of them might take his advice, but the other portion might not take it, and thus there might be split among them, the consequence of which would be an infinitely greater danger of collision than there would be if they went altogether in a body. The reason thus assigned was amply sufficient to have guided the judgment of Lord Roden, if that had been the only question, or if Lord Roden had been the person to determine the question. And mark, that if the procession had adopted the advice, and gone by the new road, the result would have been, after the movement of the Riband body, by which they took possession of the hill which commands both roads, that the Orangemen would have been exposed to the attack of the Ribandmen on the other side of the hill of Magheramayo. The reason, such as it was, which thus influenced the route of the procession, and which is represented in Mr. Berwick's report as quite insignificant, is not even referred to in the letter of the Under Secretary, written, I presume, under the direction of my noble Friend. Mr. Tabuteau gives it as his opinion that, if the Orangemen had gone the other road in the morning, no collision would have taken place. The priest also lays infinite stress on this point, on the importance of keeping the body together, and he even vindicates on this ground his administering
912
to a large armed assembly his blessing, on the condition that they would not attack the Orangemen; a condition which, when they were asked the question, it appears they did not give any assent to; but nevertheless he administered the blessing. His view was, that so long as you kept the whole body together, mischief might be prevented, but if stragglers got running over the country with arms in their hands, collision was inevitable. I go on to another misrepresentation of Mr. Berwick on a very important point. He says—"Two Roman Catholic clergymen appear to have exerted themselves without effect to induce this body to return to their homes." Now, the two Roman Catholics did no such thing. The evidence on this point is—
"I did advise them to go away out of that in the middle of the day, but did not tell them to go home. If I stated formerly that I did tell them to go home, I did not do it knowingly. The reason I did not tell them to go home was, that I was afraid lest some evil-disposed persons might not do so, but waylay the Orangemen, as they were returning home, and attack them."
There are only two other points in this evidence on which it is necessary to say a few words. Mr. Berwick says when the procession was formed, a blank shot was fired, but from what party he was not able to say. Now, I will not call your attention to the details of the evidence, but the circumstances were somewhat remarkable. One witness states that when the procession was formed he followed it some way, and then states that a squib or signal was fired. Seven or eight other witnesses state that they did not see the squib, but heard it, and further state most of them, their impression that it came from the road. On the other hand, a number of soldiery not connected with the procession, swear most positively, and on their oath, that they saw the smoke, and that they heard the squib, and that, most distinctly, it was fired on the hill; that immediately afterwards two persons came forward from among the Ribandmen and fired two shots, which shots were immediately followed by a volley; yet after this sworn evidence Mr. Berwick ventures to state that he considers it doubtful which party it was that fired, or rather, indeed, that he considers the balance of evidence to be in favour of the opinion that the shots were fired from the hill. Balance of evidence! Why, the whole evidence is on one side, and none on the other whatever! Or give the "impressions" on which Mr. Berwick thinks fit to rely, the title of evidence, and still,

913
what evidence is it? The evidence of persons whom Mr. Berwick himself elsewhere admits he does not believe—evidence of a piece with that of the witness who says—" The four of them, that is, soldiers, presented their guns at me; they were as close to me as you are (that is, about two yards off), and they all fired at me; but, thank the Lord, they all missed me." Evidence such as this is, I submit, not to he listened to for a moment, against the solemn and distinct testimony of magistrates, military officers, police, against the positive oaths, in the particular case, of six persons who did see the smoke of the squib, and did see it fired, and did hear and identify the report—while all that is brought forward on the other side is the impression of persons who saw no smoke, who saw no flash, nor heard a report. My Lords, Mr. Berwick may be a very able counsel, a very clever advocate in putting forward one side of a case, but God defend me from being placed before him as my judge, where my fate depended upon an impartial summing of the evidence. There is another statement I must make a remark upon. The report says—" The skull of an idiot was beaten in with the butts of their (that is, the Orangemen's) muskets." This is very circumstantial, and one would suppose, of course, that the fact as stated had been seen; that Mr. Berwick, or some competent witness, had actually witnessed the knocking in of the skull by the butt-end of the Orange musket, so absolutely identified as not a Riband butt-end: not a bit of it: the idiot boy, as the Riband evidence called him, but in reality a man of 40, was not seen to be killed at all, and the only evidence about him is that of a lad of 16, who states that he saw him lying on the road with his skull beaten in, and that of Mr. Fitzmaurice, who also states that he saw him lying in the road, and that his impression was he had been shot from the hill. Yet, upon such evidence as this, we find Mr. Berwick deliberately stating that no doubt the poor man's skull had been beaten in by the butt-end of an Orange musket. That the poor man was killed, no doubt, indeed; but that he was killed by the butt-end of a musket, much doubt:—for, in the first place, a bullet, a sufficient cause of death, was actually found in his head; and, in the second place, while he lay dead on the road, two troops of dragoons passed over his body—a circumstance of itself amply sufficient to account fur the appearance of the head.
914
Mr. Berwick, however, thought fit to be of a different opinion. As to the evidence of the Ribandmen, imputing to Mr. Beers cruelty and outrage, were the evidence true, Mr. Beers would not be adequately punished by the deprivation of the commission of the peace; far heavier punishment would be his due; but Mr. Berwick himself does not believe one word of their evidence on the subject, and we have the distinct evidence of every human being credible on the point that Messrs. Beers were both earnestly engaged throughout the conflict in seeking to protect all parties from outrage. The commission endured from the beginning of August to the end of November, and in the next session informations were tendered by the Crown Solicitor, on the part of Mr. Berwick, against various parsons. In the first place, I would ask why were these informations laid before the magistrates at Castlewellan, many of whom were known to have been present at the procession? Every single witness, every single person proceeded against resided at Rathfriland, 12 or 14 miles off, and all entreated to have the case tried in their own district; but, for some reason or other, Mr. Berwick thought fit to have it proceeded with at Castlewellan. Moreover, Mr. Berwick thought fit to be present, and to expound the law, and to assist the magistrates with his counsels. And here let me say that, as I do not wish to go beyond the clear merits of the ease, I am prepared to admit in the presence of my noble Friend the Chairman of the Castlewellan bench, that having been, however indirectly or remotely connected with the procession, it might perhaps, have exhibited somewhat more discretion had he abstained, on that particular occasion, from presiding. But admitting, however, an act of indiscretion on his part, the indiscretion was not of a character which afforded the shadow of a case for the removal of my noble Friend. Suppose the case, that before a petty sessions there come on the question of some pathway that has been stopped up; will it be suggested that because any given magistrates, who take an interest in the opening or closing of the path, attend in their places on the bench, they are to be subjected to severe imputation, or, far more, removed? Many instances have occurred where magistrates, and in high stations too, have heard, and blamelessly have heard, cases in which they have themselves been notoriously int-

915
ested. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, for example—and he will do me the justice to believe that I do not refer to him in the slightest degree offensively—not above two or three months since heard, as Lord High Chancellor of England, a case of property between an individual and a company, the Grand Junction Canal Company, and decided in favour of that company, he himself being a large shareholder in it. Did any man take exception to this proceeding, and put it as a case for Parliamentary censure and impeachment? Yet the impeachment of the noble and learned Lord would have been only an analogous case with, and not a whit more serious case, than the degradation to which my noble Friend has been subjected at the hands of the Government. Another circumstance to be observed upon is that the bench at Castlewellan on this occasion was not the ordinary bench; by some accident or other it so happened that upon that particular occasion three or four gentlemen were present, who came from distant parts of the county, and who further happened to have strong political opinions coinciding with the views of Mr. Berwick, and who made up the minority that voted in favour of the informations. Why was Mr. Berwick there at all? Why, he was there to intimidate, to overawe, to bribe the magistrates. Not in a pecuniary way of course; but the term "bribery," strong as it may appear, is not an atom too strong for the fact, when I can show that Mr. Berwick, when he found the magistrates indisposed to receive his definition of the law, endeavoured to persuade them privately to take a course which they did not deem consistent with the constitution, by the promise which he, in his quality of High Commissioner, thought fit to give, that if the parties were convicted the sentence should be only a nominal sentence. At least, he put forward this statement as an inducement for the magistrates to find the informations—that, if he were the judge who had to try the case, he should decidedly be of opinion that the punishment should be only nominal. I want to know what business Mr. Berwick had to attend this petty sessions at all? This was a matter in which the magistrates had to act on their own responsibility, and according to their own discretion; and yet Mr. Berwick set about to induce them wholly to surrender that discretion, and to forget that responsibility. Let me cite the words of a learned Lord (Lord Plun-
916
kett), in 1823, exactly appropriate to the present occurrence:—
"It (a committee) is a judicial act on the part of the magistrate; he must exercise his own discretion, and rest upon his own responsibility. I conceive it would be a great violation of duty in him to relinquish his own judgment to that of any other person, and I conceive it would be a very improper thing on the part of any other person to give him a direction."
In reply to the further question—"Would you think a magistrate acted properly in committing on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, on evidence taken before them, without himself examining that evidence, and having it regularly sworn and reduced into the form of informations before him? "The noble and learned Lord replied—"I should think that he acted very irregularly and improperly in so doing." What was the case at Castlewellan petty sessions? I hold the information in my hand—that information was not drawn up according to the definition of the law laid down by Mr. Berwick, for his subordinates did not think it prudent to follow his authority in the matter. The information runs thus:—
"For that you, on the 12th day of July last, in the parish of Drumgooland, in said county (with several other evil-disposed persons unknown, to the number of 500 and upwards), unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled and gathered yourselves together, to the great terror and alarm of several of Her Majesty's subjects thereabouts residing; and, further, that you, being so assembled, did commit, and aid and abet in the commission of, divers overt acts of violence, in furtherance of the objects for which you and said other persons unlawfully assembled together, &c."
That was the form. What was the evidence on which the information was supported? Mr. Inspector Hill states that Mr. Jardine, the first person charged with being engaged in any illegal violence, was not engaged in any act of violence; that the assembly did not create alarm in Mr. Hill, and was not calculated to excite terror and alarm in the minds of Her Majesty's subjects; that it was quiet and orderly, accompanied by the stipendiary and other magistrates, with a large body of police and military, and also with many respectable women and children belonging to the families of those who composed the procession. Such was the evidence which was to affirm the informations; and upon such evidence most assuredly the magistrates were fully justified in refusing to receive the information, notwithstanding Mr. Berwick's insisting upon the vital importance

917
of having what he called the law established. If the law was as clear and undoubted as Mr. Berwick seemed to think it was, and if his object was to have that law established by a decision, I must say he took a course not at all calculated to obtain that end, but one which seems to me more likely to prevent a decision from being obtained. If Mr. Berwick was right that this was a mere point of law and not of discretion, why did not he apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the magistrates to receive the information? for if the magistrates had violated the law by refusing that information, the Court of Queen's Bench would undoubtedly have granted a mandamus in the case. If, on the other hand, it was a case of discretion, the court would not have granted the mandamus except upon evidence of a corrupt intention. It seems to me that this was clearly a case for the judgment and discretion of the magistrates, and that it is evident the magistrates exercised a sound discretion. There is another course which Mr. Berwick might have taken. Why did he not indict the parties before the quarter-sessions? I have said that the Court of Queen's Bench would not have granted a mandamus, except upon evidence of corruption. On the 2nd of August they could not have done so; but they could on the 9th of October, when the second meeting of the magistrates was held, before which informations of a similar character were tendered, and rejected by thirteen out of fourteen of the magistrates, notwithstanding the opportune dismissal of Lord Roden two days previously. In the meantime an Act had come into force (namely, the 12th and 13th Victoria), entitled, "An Act for the Protection of Her Majesty's Subjects in Ireland," by which it is enacted that where magistrates shall refuse to do any act required I of them, it shall be lawful for parties to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a rule calling upon the justices to show cause why they have not done it, and if, after due service of such rule, they do not show cause, the Court shall have power to compel them to do the act so required. This statute came into force on the 2nd of October, and would have supplied Mr. Berwick with a simple and inexpensive mode of establishing the law, had he chosen to avail himself of it; but he did not. I have now very nearly concluded my statement. But there is one point to which it is impossible I can refrain from adverting, although I
918
shall compress my observations into the narrowest compass. I presume that Mr. Berwick's report and the minutes of evidence, such as they were, reached the Lord Lieutenant soon after the 22nd of September (the date of the conclusion of the inquiry). No doubt the Lord Lieutenant must have carefully perused the evidence. As a proof of the time and attention which he paid to the case, I find that his Lordship's letter, or rather the letter of the Under Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, is dated the 6th of October, and that in that letter it is stated that—
"on a full consideration of the entire case, the Lord Lieutenant has come to the conclusion that a due regard for the future preservation of the peace in the district in question, and for the administration of justice therein in a manner which will be entitled to public confidence and respect, imperatively requires that the magistrates whose conduct he has thus noticed should no longer discharge the important functions and duties of that office, and I am therefore desired to convey to your Lordship his Excellency's recommendation that the Earl of Roden, William Beers, and Francis Beers, Esquires, be superseded in the commissions of the peace which they now hold."
Now, I have always understood (I shall be corrected by high authority if I am wrong) that the magistrates of Ireland, like the magistrates of England, are not under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, but of the Lord High Chancellor. I have always believed that it was vested in the Lord High Chancellor to direct and control the magistrates, and I well recollect the virtuous indignation of the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government on the occasion of the dismissal of certain magistrates for attending the monster Repeal meetings some years ago—I say I well recollect the virtuous indignation with which the noble Lord expressed a hope that it was not true that the Lord Chancellor had acted, not upon his own judgment, but upon the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant. The noble Lord on that occasion expressed a hope that anything so unconstitutional, so irregular, so arbitrary, could not have taken place as that of the Lord Lieutenant venturing to interfere with the functions and authority of the Lord High Chancellor in recommending the dismissal of magistrates. It turned out that that decision was taken by the Lord Chancellor on his own responsibility, without having received any recommendation from the Lord Lieutenant to discharge a duty which strictly belonged to himself. I wonder what the noble Lord at the head

919
of the Government thinks of this case. I wonder whether he will condemn this proceeding with the same emphatic and indignant eloquence as he condemned the supposed proceedings on the part of Sir Edward Sugden? But there is another point with regard to the repeal magistrates to which I beg to call the attention of your Lordships. Those magistrates were forewarned that it was inconsistent with their duty to attend the monster meetings; and that if they persisted in attending them, it would be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to dismiss them. Was any such notice given in this case? Had my noble Friend and the other magistrates the slightest reason to suppose that anything would be said or done to them for acting, as they imagined, in the strict performance of their duty? that in the laudable exercise of their functions, I would say, they would be visited with the severe sentence of an arbitrary dismissal? I would ask, too, whether, upon receiving the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor read the evidence, considered what had been stated, transmitted copies of the evidence to the magistrates, and asked them what they had to say in their own vindication? No such thing. In the course of the 6th of October the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant seems to have been conveyed to them, accompanied, as far as appears from the papers, by the report of Mr. Berwick, but not accompanied, as far as I can see, by the minutes of the evidence which had been taken by Mr. Berwick; and before the post went out, as if in order to save a day, the Lord Chancellor, as he states, "in accordance with his Excellency's recommendation," proceeded summarily and absolutely, without asking an explanation or waiting for an answer, without even informing himself as to the nature of the evidence upon which the act professed to be founded, to dismiss three magistrates, who had hitherto acted irreproachably—one of them for forty years—in the commission of the peace—a course of proceeding which I maintain is altogether unwarranted and unjustified by precedent, is in abnegation of the functions of the Lord Chancellor, and a degradation of that high officer to the position of a mere tool of the Executive. And, in adopting that degrading position, he did not even think it necessary to go through the forms of justice by asking what the parties had got to say. One would have expected too, that the letter of the Lord Chancellor to
920
my noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) would have been printed verbatim et literatim in the papers presented to this House "by command of Her Majesty," but it is not so. In the printed copy it is stated, "I have to express my regret that I am under the necessity of directing, in accordance with his Excellency's recommendation, that the necessary warrants be prepared," &c; whereas the original document runs thus—" I regret to be under the necessity of informing your Lordship, that in accordance with this Excellency's recommendation, I have directed," &c. I do not mean to say that the alteration is very material; but I do not see why there should have been any variation at all. I can only account for it by supposing that the Lord Chancellor, in his intense eagerness and hurry to act upon the orders of his master the Lord Lieutenant, said to his son, or whatever other relative acts as his secretary—" Let this be done at once. You write to the two commoners, and I'll write to the peer myself." That, being within half-an-hour of losing the post, he had not had time to take a copy of the letter which he transmitted to my noble Friend, and that the copy now printed had, doubtless, been made up from a copy of the letter which his more leisurely secretary wrote to the commoners.
I would now ask the Government what they have gained by these proceedings? Have they established one point of law? Is the law more clear now than it was before these proceedings commenced? An application to the Court of Queen's Bench, as I have shown, might have settled the case; but the dismissal of my noble Friend does not pretend to settle it. Did the dismissal of the three magistrates, on the 6th of October, induce their brother magistrates, on the 9th, to receive the proffered "information?" Did you carry the feeling of the country with you in favour of the judicial, impartial, and deliberate application of the law? Do you not believe, on the contrary, that by the dismissal of these justices by the authority of the Executive, and not by the Lord Chancellor, you have excited a feeling among the remaining magistrates that they are expected henceforth to be subject to and dependent upon the political chief of the day? And do you not feel that you must have alienated them from the administration of the law, and even irritated them against the law which they are called upon to administer? Have you lowered the

921
character and position of my noble Friend who has been so long known for his estimable qualities? So far from having succeeded in that—if that was your object, which I cannot suppose—your arbitrary and unjust dismissal of him, as it has been felt to be, has called forth in my noble Friend's favour an expression of sympathy, kindness, and respect such as may well console any man who has incurred the displeasure of Her Majesty's Government; and I am sure it must be gratifying to him at the close of forty years' faithful service to receive the testimony that the public know and appreciate his conduct. This testimony does not proceed from Orangemen or Protestants alone. A remarkable paper has been placed in my hand, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships, but I may mention that it is a paper signed by the whole board of guardians over whom my noble Friend presides, composed of Catholics and Protestants, in which they not only express their deep regret at the course which had been pursued towards him by the Government, and bear testimony to the able discharge of his duty to the poor, but state that "it is no less their duty than their pleasure to bear witness to his Lordship's strict impartiality as chairman of the board, his conduct having ever been guided by equal justice to all. "And the conclusion of the document is a remarkable one, for, although they have lost the services of my noble Friend as ex officio guardian, they passed a resolution requesting him to retain the chair till the annual election, when Catholic and Protestant would unite to place him in the position of an elected guardian, and restore him to the chairmanship of the board. I am now about to conclude my observations, and I regret that I have been obliged to detain the House at such great length. I only wish, in conclusion, to say one word with respect to the motives which have actuated me in bringing this question forward. I do not know that I should have been inclined to take up the case if the Government had not put forth, in vindication of their proceedings, an explanation, which appeared to me to present such a distorted statement of facts, that the public mind was likely to be misled by it. I do not bring forward this question for the purpose of exciting the animosity of Protestants against Catholics, and Catholics against Protestants; neither do I bring it forward for the purpose of reviving forgotten discussions. I have been actuated
922
solely by a desire to let the truth and the whole truth be known in the matter, and to show the country that however esteemed in their private character, however irreproachable may be the motives of public men in official situations, they are not above the set checks and controls as administered through your Lordships and the other House of Parliament acting through public opinion, if, in the discharge of what they believe to be their duties, they overstep the limits provided by the law and constitution. I may be asked why, if these are my sentiments, I do not move a direct vote of censure against the Government? I abstain from doing so, not because I think that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government is not open to serious imputation, but because I desire, as far as possible, on a great constitutional question like this, to keep apart, as far as possible, from party feelings and party conflicts. I bring this question before your Lordships in a quasi-judicial capacity. I ask your attention simply to the merits of the case. If I have misstated or overstated anything, I shall be glad to be corrected by those who follow me. I ask no Parliamentary triumph in the case. I do not think it would be fair either to the House or to my noble Friend, if I were to place the question before you so as to involve in its decision the acquittal of the Government, or the condemnation of my noble Friend, or the condemnation of the Government and the acquittal of my noble Friend, feeling, as I do, that, with every desire to do justice, you could not help being influenced by party feelings, in deciding a question which comes in the shape of censure upon Government, and that the question would be decided not upon its own merits, or with reference to the hardship of the case of my noble Friend, but simply with regard to the point as to whether the Government should submit to a political defeat. These are the grounds for confining myself to my present Motion. I ask for further information in the case—because I think further information necessary—and because, after this discussion and the production of the papers, the public will have an opportunity of judging whether the dismissal of which I complain was politic, judicious, or just; or whether it was an impolitic, unjust, and arbitrary act on the part of the Government. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before this House copies of Correspondence between the chief magistrate of Armagh and the Executive Government in the

923
months of June and July, 1848; also, Copies of any instructions to the constabulary in reference to any processions expected to take place on the 12th of July last; and of instructions to the stipendiary magistrates who were specially sent down to Castlewellan before that day; also, Copy of official communications from the stipendiary magistrates and constabulary officers as to the proceedings on the 12th July, 1849, in any part of Ulster; also, Copy of instructions to W. Berwick, Esq., accompanying the commission of the 27th of July, 1849; also Copy of affidavits of John Jardine and John Porter, filed in the Court of Queen's Bench in the Hilary Term last, and of the report annexed to the affidavit of John Porter, and verified thereby; and, also, Copy of any official report to the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of the procedings at the petty sessions held at Castlewellan on the 11th of September and the 9th of October, 1849."
The EARL of CLARENDON: My Lords, before I proceed to offer a few remarks upon the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat clown, your Lordships will perhaps permit me to express a hope that my presence here this evening may not be considered as constituting a precedent. I am here this evening at a serious inconvenience to the public business of Ireland, in order to defend an act of the Executive Government; and I have done so because I understood my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), in giving notice of his Motion, and the noble Earl who spoke after him (the Earl of Roden), threw out a sort of challenge to me to appear in my place on this occasion, and I thought it might be unbecoming in me to decline it, or that, at all events, my declining it might render my conduct liable to misconstruction. But I did not determine to come without much doubt and reflection, because I thought it would be injurious to the public service, and to the position, always more or less an anomalous one, of Her Majesty's representative in Ireland, if the Lord Lieutenant were expected to appear here in his place upon every occasion when any noble Lord might think fit to require his attendance to explain the acts of the Executive Government in Ireland. If such should become the practice, the result would he, that when party spirit ran high (degenerating, as it too often does, into personal questions), it would be impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to maintain the position and prestige which are essential to his authority in the performance of the multifarious duties which he is called upon to discharge. I had, however, determined to come, before I had the honour to receive a letter from the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) stating that there
924
was certain matter in the papers laid before the House reflecting upon his character, and that he would not like to make his statement in reply in my absence. But I beg to assure your Lordships that even if I had determined not to come, the assurance that my presence was in any way necessary for the vindication of the noble Earl's honour or character, would have been quite sufficient to make me alter that decision. Upon public grounds, however, I again express a hope that my presence may not be considered as constituting a precedent, although, so far as I am individually concerned, I cannot regret the opportunity of meeting any of those charges or misrepresentations with which, for the last three or four months, I have been perseveringly assailed. I entirely agree with my noble Friend, that no man, whatever his rank or authority in the State, is above the public opinion of this country, and I am, therefore, not sorry that the question has been brought before your Lordships, as by narrating certain facts and supplying certain deficiencies in the narrative of my noble Friend, I trust I shall be able to place your Lordships in a position of judging whether the Irish Government has committed, as my noble Friend says, an act unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, or whether the dismissal of the magistrates was an act rendered imperative by the circumstances of the case, and was unavoidable in the interests of society, for upholding the authority of the law, and maintaining confidence in the impartial administration of justice. In order to enable your Lordships better to understand the case, and the circumstances connected with it, I will in the first place briefly refer to what has taken place since the expiration of the Act of 1832 for restraining Party Processions in Ireland. That Act was introduced, was first introduced, by my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), then Secretary for Ireland, who stated at the time that every one of these processions, as they had all a tendency to break the peace, was a misdemeanour by common law. The Act was renewed by the 1st and 2nd Victoria, and, unfortunately in my opinion, this Act was permitted to expire towards the close of 1845 without renewal. Since that period party processions have no longer been ipso facto illegal; but they have always been looked upon, like other assemblages, as being liable to become so according to the character they assumed. If they led to a breach of the peace, or

925
even if they were calculated to inspire reasonable terror in the minds of Her Majesty's peaceful subjects, they at once became unlawful, and were liable to be dispersed, and the parties forming them punishable for a misdemeanour. I believe that is the opinion of every sound and constitutional lawyer, as well as that of Judge Jebb, which was quoted by my noble Friend, in introducing his Bill in 1832. But not being ipso facto illegal since 1845, party demonstrations have not been treated as such by the authorities; as they were, however, from their character, considered more likely than other assemblages to endanger the public peace, so more than ordinary precautions were taken by the authorities for the maintenance of order on such occasions, the responsibility of dealing with the processions being left to the magistrates, as it was impossible to provide by specific instructions for the various circumstances and contingencies under which the magistracy might be called upon to interfere. In 1845, the year that the Party Processions Act was allowed to expire, very few processions took place. They were discouraged very generally by the gentlemen who had influence with the Orange body Lord Farnham, in an admirable letter, said—
"I have on former occasions given them my advice to abstain from their annual processions, in obedience to the law of the land. Now that the 'Party Processions Act' has expired, I would "till impress upon them the fact—and repeat my firm impression of its truth—that it is impossible for them to hold their processions without endangering the peace of the country, and putting themselves into a false position, at variance with their character as loyal Protestants—anxious, while they retain their principles unabated, to maintain the public peace, and to live on terms of good will and friendship with their neighbours."
The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden) also exerted himself to the same effect, I believe in 1845. About that time the case of Mr. Watson occurred, who was dismissed from the deputy lieutenancy of the county of Antrim, as well as from the commission of the peace, for having taken the chair at a meeting where a resolution was passed for reorganising Orange lodges and Orange processions. On that occasion Mr. Lucas, who was then Under Secretary, wrote an excellent letter on the subject, and stated the principle on which the Lord Lieutenant acted—namely, that he could not reconcile the course taken by Mr. Watson at the meeting in Antrim with his duty as a deputy lieutenant and magistrate,
926
as the proceedings at it had led to a serious affray, which led to the loss of life, and which in several respects tended to excite a breach of the peace: under such circumstances, his Excellency felt bound to deprive him as far as he could of any authority in the administration of justice; he had, therefore, given directions to remove him from the deputy lieutenancy: the Lord Chancellor also had under his consideration the propriety of removing him from the magistracy. I quote this case in order to show that the course which was pursued within the last few months by the Irish Government, and which my noble Friend has characterised in very strong terms as unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional, was the same course as that pursued by the Government of 1845, of which my noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley) was a Member. In 1846, before the 17th of March, a memorial was sent to Lord Heytesbury by four magistrates of the county of Down, stating that a party of Ribandmen was about to march in procession, and that such march would be resisted, and that very great danger was apprehended both to the peace of the neighbourhood and the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. The Lord Lieutenant, in consequence of that memorial, adopted the necessary precautions, and no procession took place; but it appears that three out of the four magistrates who signed that memorial to Lord Heytesbury were on the bench at Castlewellan, in September last, and refused to take the information which was tendered to them against the Orangemen for marching exactly under similar circumstances of danger to the public peace as those described in the memorial, and after the serious affray had taken place. In 1847 there were a very few processions. In 1848, in consequence of the political excitement then prevailing, more than usual demonstrations of party feeling were to be expected. I can assure my noble Friend that there is nothing which he could say that I would not say with respect to the conduct of the whole Protestant party in assisting the Government to keep the peace in 1848, particularly in the province of Ulster, and in offering their services in any possible way that the Government desired. This, however, had nothing to do with the party processions. I knew that these demonstrations would take place I knew that such processions, leading to a breach of the peace might occasion very great alarm; and I did take

927
very unusual precautions with regard to them. I sent large reinforcements of military and upwards of 500 constabulary into the north; and I think that is a proof that I did not wish to encourage these processions. I knew that they were not ipso facto illegal, and I did not therefore forbid them altogether, but I took more than ordinary precautions that they should not lead to a breach of the peace; and as to the knowledge which existed of the circumstances which rendered such demonstrations illegal, I may mention that a magistrate of the county Donegal wrote to say, that the Orange procession having come armed, the magistrates, of whom there were six present, compelled them to leave their arms in a house by the wayside, before they marched further, it being their opinion that an armed procession was decidedly illegal. In 1848 an Orange procession assembled for the purpose of going over this disputed pass of Dolly's Brae; but, having heard that their passage would be disputed, Mr. Francis Beers interfered, and by his persuasion they took another route. Unfortunately, in 1849, Messrs. F. and W. Beers neglected that warning, and the good effects that had resulted from attention to it in the preceding year, and deliberately prearranged and sanctioned a passage over that old road, although they had 12 months' notice that it would probably lead to a breach of the peace; and they did so it appears because the Riband party had considered the not going over Dolly's Brae a triumph, and had celebrated it by a song. A great deal of party excitement having taken place in the winter of 1848, I sent down considerable reinforcements to the county of Down, and more particularly to those parts of the county where I understood that danger was to be apprehended. The peace was maintained; but at Crossgar a collision took place attended with the loss of two lives; and in consequence of previous outrages in the county not having been followed by the arrest of any of the parties, the resident magistrate was informed that those persons belonging to either party who offended against the law must be actively pursued, and, if possible, brought to trial. Some of these persons were in consequence arrested and committed, and a Queen's Counsel was sent down to conduct the prosecution. At the quarter-sessions of Newtonard, where they were tried, it was most clearly and" distinctly laid down by the assistant barrister, that
928
the procession of the 17th of March was illegal, as it tended to a breach of the peace; but nevertheless the jury acquitted the prisoners. Later, at the Hillsborough quarter-sessions, the law was again laid down in the same clear and explicit manner as to what constituted an illegal procession, and there the prisoners were convicted. Again, on the 10th of July the law was once more explained in the same clear manner, and the jury again found the prisoners guilty. I mention this because, those men having been arrested, three very distinct occasions had occurred of making known exactly what was the law with regard to these processions; and, as all these proceedings were published in the local newspapers, it was impossible that the legal opinion upon the subject should not be known. Matters stood thus at the commencement of July, and as I had reason to believe that numerous party demonstrations would take place, I sent down military and police to various parts of the country, and to the county of Down I sent seven sub-inspectors, seven head-constables, and 250 police. Several of the most experienced stipendiary magistrates were directed to repair to certain spots, and place themselves in communication with the local magistrates; and to prevent confusion the military were placed under their orders; and several of the best detective officers were sent into the neighbourhood to obtain private information as to the nature of the demonstration. In fact, my Lords, as I superintended all these arrangements myself, I can conscientiously say that no precaution which the Government could have taken beforehand for the preservation of the peace was neglected. But it is said, that the Government had abundant information of what was going to take place, and that these processions ought to have been stopped altogether. The fact, however, is, that the Government had no such special information. Towards the end of June, Sir D. M'Gregor, the inspector general of constabulary, wrote to all the inspectors, and other chief officers, of police in the north, desiring them to report what processions were expected, whether they were likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and what reinforcements would be required. The replies received were from the county inspectors, who said generally that there would be large processions, and that reinforcements would be required—for Sub-inspector Hill, who spoke of a breach of the

929
peace being apprehended, as the procession was to go through a Roman Catholic district, to Tollymore-park; and accordingly an extra number of troops and police, together with a stipendiary magistrate, were sent to Castlewellan, but no mention was made of Dolly's Brae, the name even of which pass was unknown to any official person in Dublin; nor was it in the district of Mr. Hill, and the sub-inspector, in whose district it was, made no mention of the contemplated movement. My noble Friend alluded to Mr. Scott, a justice of the peace of the county of Down. On the 29th of June, he waited upon Mr. Redington, the Under Secretary, and expressed a fear that there would be a riot, but without any allusion to the pass of Dolly's Brae. Mr. Scott, however, was informed of the precautions that were about to be taken, and he went away perfectly satisfied. I think your Lordships will therefore see that every possible precaution was taken, and, as no special danger was apprehended, and all the information received was of a general character, there was no reason for departing from the usual course, or to give special instructions to the stipendiary magistrates, which would have hampered their discretion in dealing with circumstances as they arose. Those stipendiary magistrates were among the very best and most experienced of the body. Military—both cavalry and infantry—and police were at their disposal, which might easily be reinforced from Downpatrick, and elsewhere, if they thought it necessary; and it would have been impossible to issue a proclamation, or by other means, to prevent this particular procession, of the nature, extent, and objects, of which nothing was known. The same must have been done for all parts of the country where danger was apprehended, and reinforcements had been sent; it would have been an unusual practice, at the last moment, when the arrangements for processions had been made; it would have been certain to produce irritation and resistance, and probably have incurred the collisions it was intended to avert. In further proof that no special danger was apprehended, I may also mention that when Mr. Tabuteau the stipendiary magistrate reached Castlewellan on the 11th of July and placed himself in communication with Mr. Shaw, the local justice residing there, that gentleman expressed his surprise at the military police and stipendiary magistrate having come, and wondered who had applied for the
930
force, although he must have then known that the procession was to go over Dolly's Brae; and that notwithstanding it had avoided the disputed pass the year before, he had thought it necessary to call out the military for the preservation of the peace. In consequence, however, of what he had learned in the neighbourhood, Mr. Tabuteau, on the 11th of July, waited on the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Roden), and stated to him that he had received information that, if the procession went over Dolly's Brae, there would be a breach of the peace, and that it was his intention to take possession of the pass; but I believe the noble Earl did not think that any particular precautions were required. On the morning of the 12th, W. Fitzmaurice, the other stipendiary magistrate, together with Mr. Scott, went to Baleyward, the residence of Mr. F. Beers, and having learnt from the inspectors of police that a collision was to be apprehended at Dolly's Brae, represented to that magistrate the propriety of dissuading the Orangemen from going through the disputed pass; but in vain, as Mr. Beers disclaimed having any influence over them, and said, that no human power could prevent their proceeding by the old road. Under these circumstances, Captain Fitzmaurice did not think it prudent to interfere to prevent the procession. In this particular, I think he committed an error; still I think it a venial error, because, if he had proceeded in forcibly interfering with the procession in defiance of their leader, who was himself a magistrate, if any collision had taken place, the whole blame of that collision, the bloodshed, and all the evil consequences, would have been laid upon the officers of the Government; for it would have been said that the procession had passed off peaceably in other parts of the country, but it was in consequence of the unnecessary interference of the Government that the bloodshed had taken place. A large body of the Ribandmen were posted on the hill, but by the judicious arrangements of the police, no collision took place. The magistrates, however, were so convinced that it would be unsafe to return that way, that they despatched Captain Fitzmaurice to represent that to the noble Earl, and request his interference to induce the procession to return some other way. The object and result of his mission is stated in Mr. Berwick's report as follows:—
"Mr. Fitzmaurice proceeded at once to Tollymore-park,

931
where he saw the Orange body arrive and pass in procession, with their arms and banners, in front of Lord Roden's mansion, where they were received by his Lordship, decorated with an Orange scarf, and accompanied by the members of his family and some friends, several of whom were Orange ribands and badges; after which they proceeded to a field belonging to his Lordship, where a tent had been pitched, and a platform erected, and some provision made for their entertainment. Mr. Fitzmaurice was introduced to Lord Roden, and communicated to him the fact that an armed body was posted in the neighbourhood of the old road, and his dread of a collision on the return of the Orangemen, and begged that his Lordship would use his influence with the Orange party to return another way. He made the same communication to several of the apparent leaders of the Orange party. Lord Roden, in reply, informed him that he feared he had not himself sufficient influence to effect the object, but that he would speak to the party, and also to Mr. William Beers, on the subject. He did accordingly speak to Mr. William Beers; but, having been informed by that gentleman that, if any change were made in the route, a split might take place in the body, which would cause greater risk to the public peace, he was contented with this reason; and, although he saw that the Orange lodges which came from Castlewellan and Ballyward were armed, while those which came from some other quarters were not so, he did not, in the address which he delivered to the Orange body, make any reference to this subject. It appears, also, that Mr. William Beers never did himself make the slightest attempt to influence the Orange body to go home by the new road, but, on the contrary, advised them to return by the same way by which they had come; although he admitted, in his evidence before me, that it was possible the Orange body might have been induced to take his advice, if given, and go homo by a different way."
Mr. Berwick goes on to say—
"No step was taken during the day to disperse this illegal body, nor was any attempt made to arrest their leaders. In explanation of this, the magistrates informed me that they thought it more prudent not then to attempt to disperse them, fearing that, if they resisted, lives might be lost; and even if they did not, that they would divide into straggling bodies, and thus more easily provoke a collision with the Orangemen, where the police or troops would be unable to interpose. The two Roman Catholic clergymen appear to have exerted themselves without effect to induce this body to return to their homes; and in the course of the day some bread was supplied to them by the Rev. Mr. Morgan, to hinder them, as he alleged, from going into the public-houses and becoming intoxicated. This body appears to have considerably increased during the day by the addition of a number of the inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood, some of whom appear to have joined them from curiosity, and some who shut up their houses and came there, as they alleged, for protection. In the evening, the Orange party, having remained about two hours at Lord Roden's, did return, and took the old road through Dolly's Brae, and passed it in safety, and cheered after they passed. Nothing, however, occurred to excite alarm, except the taunts of a number of
932
women collected on the roadside, who told thorn they were prisoners, and would catch it before they passed Magheramayo-hill. The Orange procession, some of whose members appear not to have been so peaceably conducted as in the morning, was preceded, as before, by a body of police, and the rear was also protected by another body of police, and by the Dragoons. On arriving at the point of the road immediately under the brow of Magheramayo-hill, where the opposing force was strongly intrenched, the police who were in front drew up along the side of the road, and stopped to allow the Orange procession to march past, which they did without interruption. Unfortunately, after the whole body had passed forward, and while the police were in the act of forming again to follow them, a squib or blank shot was fired, but from which party I am unable to say; several trustworthy witnesses having stated their belief that it came from the rear of the Orange party, and others equally credible having stated that it came from a place on the hill, about half-way between the Riband party there posted on the road. Almost immediately after this occurrence, two shots were fired; and, as contradictory evidence was offered to show from which party they came, I shall only say that the weight of the evidence appeared to me to favour the opinion that they were fired by two of the Riband party, posted on the hill, at the Orange body."
It will be found that—
"Immediately afterwards, a volley was discharged from the main body on the hill, which appeared to have been indiscriminately directed at police, military, and Orangemen, and the firing from both sides then became general. It was then deemed necessary, and I think wisely, to dislodge the body posted on the heights; and accordingly the police, under Mr. Hill, charged up to and gained the first entrenchment, firing as they ascended at the men who were placed behind it. Immediately after it was carried, the body there posted fled, and the police, who had fired in all only eighteen shots, ceased firing, and took a number of prisoners, among whom were five wounded. Several of the prisoners were found crouching, with arms beside them, behind the walls.
"In the meantime a body of 100 or 200 of the Orange party had dashed up the hill transversely towards the same quarter, firing shots at the retreating body on the hill, and the police were for some time in considerable danger, being placed between two fires; they, however, threw themselves between the two parties as soon as they could, and stopped the advance of the Orange party, and, in my opinion, prevented a very great loss of life, which must have occurred if the two parties had come to closer quarters. While this was going on above, I lament to say that the work of retaliation both on life and property by the Orange party was proceeding lower down the hill, and along the side of the road, in a most brutal and wanton manner, reflecting the deepest disgrace on all by whom it was perpetrated or encouraged. One little boy, ten years old, was deliberately fired at, and shot, while running across a field. Mr. Fitzmaurice stopped a man in the act of firing at a girl who was rushing from her father's house. An old woman of seventy was murdered, and the scull of an idiot was beaten in with the butts of their muskets."

933
[An expression of dissent from Lord STANLEY.] My noble Friend seems to doubt this; but Mr. Janns, sub-inspector of police, stales, in his evidence, that the scull of the unfortunate Sweeny was beaten in with the butts of their muskets, and that corresponds with the account given before the coroner, Mr. Berwick goes on to say—
"Another old woman was severely beaten in her house; while another, who was subsequently saved by the police, was much injured, and left in her house, which had been set on fire. An inoffensive man was taken out of his house, dragged to his garden, and stabbed to death, by three men with bayonets, in the sight of some of his family. The Roman Catholic chapel, the house of the Roman Catholic curate, and the National School-house, were fired into, and the windows broken, and a number of the surrounding houses of the Roman Catholic inhabitants were set on fire and burnt, every article of furniture having been first wantonly destroyed therein; and had it not been for the active interference of magistrates and the troops, much more lose of life and property would undoubtedly have taken place."
Mr. Berwick further adds—
"Before I close this report I think it my duty to make some observations relative to the conduct of those to whose care the protection of the public peace on that day was entrusted, which appear to me necessary for your Excellency's information, and useful to prevent the future recurrence of such calamitous and disgraceful procerdings. And with respect to the police engaged on that day, I have only to say, that, considering the circumstances in which they were placed, they appear to have acted, in the discharge of their duty, with courage, coolness, and forbearance; and I conceive they were successful in preventing a great sacrifice of human life. But after the most anxious consideration which I can give to this case, believing, as I do, that the magistrates who took part in the transactions of that day could have adopted a line of conduct which would have prevented the outrages then perpetrated, and which the information they possessed ought to have suggested to their minds, I cannot avoid noticing the grievous error thus committed, where the consequences have been so formidable to the public peace. I entirely acquit them of any intentional disregard to the loss of life or property; and I feel persuaded that from the time the conflict commenced all present were engaged and instrumental in preventing outrage, and protecting, to the best of their power, both parties from injury. But in all their previous proceedings they appear to have acted under a great misunderstanding of the nature of their duties—some of them to such an extent as actually to give countenance and protection to persons engaged in proceedings at variance with the law."
And, my Lords, I can only repeat that party processions not being ipso facto illegal, but liable to become so, it must be left to the discretion of the magistrates to determine in what way and at what time it is necessary for them, as conservators of
934
the public peace, to interfere for its maintenance; and, if a magistrate allows the peace to be endangered or disturbed, and, through want of firmness or error of judgment, fails to preserve it, that conduct should be dealt with as it appears to deserve, if he deliberately abstains from taking any part to prevent its being disturbed. But if he prearranges and sanctions a meeting which he knows must lead to danger, and afterwards, when that danger is pointed out, again does nothing to prevent it, I think no one can deny that such a magistrate is unworthy to remain in the commission of the peace. Your Lordships must well remember the painful sensation that was created in the country by the news of the fatal events at Dolly's Brae, and the various discussions they gave rise to in the House of Commons, which induced the noble Earl opposite to come from Ireland and to make a statement in this House. Public opinion was only pacified by the assurance which the Government gave, that a full inquiry should take place into all the circumstances of the case. I selected Mr. Berwick to conduct that inquiry, because he was a Queen's Counsel and assistant barrister of great experience, who had, during the space of fourteen years, conducted his business as assistant barrister to the entire satisfaction of the Government, the magistracy of the district, and the public at large. I knew, moreover, that he was by no means a party man, but a man of a thoroughly impartial mind, as well as of a most mild and conciliatory disposition; and, though my noble Friend has dealt most severely, and I must say most unjustly, by him, I am perfectly convinced that amongst the many eminent men now at the Irish bar, there is none who is better qualified to conduct such an inquiry as this that was intrusted to him in a more able and impartial manner. I believe I may say that he was considered, by persons on the spot at the time, to have conducted the inquiry in the fairest and ablest manner. One of the charges made by my noble Friend was, that Mr. Berwick had presumed to go to Castlewellan, and to offer his advice to the magistrates, and he expressed a desire to know why he had so gone. I will tell my noble Friend why, because he had learned that the magistrates of Castlewellan had complained, and loudly complained, that they had not had the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown as to the real legal view of the case. Upon that account Mr. Berwick interfered.

935
On the 17th of July, five days after the occurrence at Dolly's Brae, and whilst the investigation was proceeding at Castlewellan, the magistrates directed their chairman, Mr. Shaw, to send up to the Government the following letter:—
"Castlewellan, July 17,1849.
" At a petty session held at Castlewellan this day, ten magistrates being present, to inquire into certain transactions which took place in this neighbourhood on the 12th of July instant, it was determined to ask for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whether an assemblage of Orangemen amounting to 1,500 persons, partly armed with firearms, proceeding along the road decorated with ribands, is an illegal assemblage, and liable to have informations taken against such as can be identified as walking in it, although no particular act of violence can be proved against them. And, if the Crown should be of opinion that such procession is illegal, that they shall direct the police to take the necessary steps to make the persons known to have walked in the procession that passed Dolly's Brae on the last 12th of July, and which subsequently came into collision with an opposing party called Ribandmen, amenable to justice.
"GEORGE SHAW, J. P., Chairman."
The opinion of the Attorney General in answer to that was, "I have no doubt but that such a meeting is illegal." That opinion was sent to Mr. Shaw. On the 12th of September the following letter was received by the Lord Lieutenant from Mr. Quinn, a justice of the peace of the county of Down:—
"Dromore-house, County of Down,
September 12, 1849.
"My Lord—At the investigation which took place before the magistrates at Castlewellan on the 17th of July last, it was resolved to ask from the Crown an opinion as to the legality of Orange processions. In accordance with that resolution, a statement (of which I annex a copy) was drawn up by me in open court, and handed to Mr. Tabuteau, one of the stipendiary magistrates then present, for transmission to the Castle, when signed by the chairman, Mr. Shaw. At the special petty session held yesterday at Castlewellan, on an inquiry being made as to whether an answer had been received from the law adviser of the Crown, the petty sessions clerk of Castlewellan and Mr. Shaw, the former chairman, denied that any answer to that communication had ever been received by the bench. Now, I most respectfully beg leave to inquire whether any answer has been sent, and if sent its contents; and, if not yet forwarded, the reason of the delay, as it would have been of great importance to the inquiry yesterday.—I have,"&c.
"JOHN H. QUINN, J. P., County of Down."
Mr. Quinn was then informed that that letter had been answered upon the 21st of July; and his letter was sent to Mr. Shaw, with a request that he would communicate, for the information of his Excellency, any observations that he might have to make
936
on the subject. To that communication Mr. Shaw replied—
"Castlewellan, Sept. 18, 1849.
" Sir—In reply to your letter I beg to state, for the information of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, that I had not the slightest recollection, at the meeting of the last bench of magistrates here, of the letter alluded to by Mr. Quinn as having been written, or of having received an answer. From some circumstances which have been since brought to my memory, I now recollect the answer having been received. What became of it I cannot state, but I think cither Mr. Tabuteau or Captain Fitzmaurice got it.—I am, &c.
"GEORGE SHAW."
Mr. Redington then wrote to those two gentlemen requesting the information from them. Mr. Tabuteau answered—
"Waterford, September 27, 1849.
" In reply to your communication of the 20th inst., enclosing the copy of a correspondence with Mr. Shaw of Castlewellan, relative to an opinion of the Attorney General, addressed to him on the 21st of July last, I have the honour to say, that I have a distinct recollection of being handed that document to read while standing in the street of Castlewellan, and, after reading it, handing it back to the gentleman who gave it to me to read, and who, to the best of my recollection, was Mr. Shaw. I have not that document in my possession, nor had I it in my possession longer than it took me to read. I never saw it afterwards.
"J. TABUTEAU."
Mr. Fitzmaurice writes—
"Roscrea, September 26, 1849.
"In reply to the annexed communication, I have the honour to state, for his Excellency's information, that I never even saw the document alluded to by Mr. Shaw. I merely heard that Mr. Shaw, as chairman of the meeting of magistrates held at Castlewellan on Saturday, the 14th of July last, had received the law adviser's opinion, that the procession of the 12th of July at Dolly's Brae was illegal." G. FITZMAURICE, R. M."
Now, my Lords, I hope you will consider that that was a satisfactory reason—the magistrates having complained of being left in ignorance of the law, appealing to the Crown, and an answer having been given by the Crown, that answer being suppressed by the chairman—I say I hope you will consider that a reason why Mr. Berwick should state what the law was to the magistrates of Castlewellan. Lord Roden was chairman on that occasion, and although I am sure he must have thought himself properly exercising his functions, yet I cannot forbear saying that I regretted that he should have been present, or rather have taken the part he did on that occasion, for the question to be decided was one in which he was personally concerned—the question whether the assemblage was legal or illegal, was one

937
which made the whole difference in his case, and to decide himself that it was not so, and possibly to lead others by the declaration of his opinions in no very measured language, to come to the same conclusion, in despite of the high legal and judicial opinions recently delivered upon the very case, was a course which, I think upon reflection, he must have regretted; because, if it were of general application, it would unquestionably destroy confidence in the impartial administration of justice by the magistracy. I am far from saying that he was bound to abide by the legal and judicial opinions I have adverted to. I should never cast blame on a magistrate for acting on his own unfettered judgment; he had the fullest right to do so, and I have lately stated this in answer to a memorial signed by 60,000 persons, asking for the dismissal of the magistrates who refused to take the informations at Castle-wellan. But to sit in judgment upon what the public consider his own cause, is what a magistrate cannot do with safety to his own reputation.
My Lords, when Mr. Berwick's report came into my hands, it caused me the utmost regret, for I read it with the eyes and feelings of a friend; and most happy should I have been if I had found in it the materials for exonerating the noble Earl, but I could not. I communicated my opinion to my noble Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government, from whom and his colleagues, including the noble Lord on the woolsack, it received the most anxious and careful consideration. The result was that they agreed with me on the necessity of superseding the noble Earl and the Messrs. Beer in the commission of the peace; and, my Lords, I am not ashamed of saying that it was the most painful act of my life. I had long been honoured with the friendship of the noble Earl. From the moment that I had gone to Ireland, until then, I had received from him the most unvarying and useful kindness. I felt the most sincere respect and personal esteem for him. I know how much his dismissal would be resented by his numerous friends, and the unpopularity I should earn for myself even among those who were not his friends, throughout the north of Ireland. I felt and I foresaw all that; but still there was one feeling superior to every other—a feeling of duty; a feeling from which I did not venture to shrink, and by which I need not assure your Lordships I was alone actuated
938
in the course that I adopted. Ever since the government of Ireland was confided to my care, my great object has been to render the law a reality—to inspire all classes of the community with confidence in the impartial administration of justice—to convince them that before the law all men were equal—and that, whether high or low, rich or poor, the same measure of justice should be meted out to all. I should then indeed have felt ashamed of myself, and unworthy the confidence of my Sovereign, if I had dealt differently with the noble Earl from any any other man; or if I had allowed for one moment my personal inclinations to interfere with what I believed to be just and necessary. I fear, my Lords, that the noble Earl is of opinion that other and improper motives influenced me, because I have perceived, in some of his answers to addresses, that besides characterising his dismissal in terms which to him no doubt appeared just, he has stated that his dismissal was a blow aimed at Protestantism in his person, and that all Protestants were in danger, as there was a conspiracy to overthrow their religion. Now, passing by the total want of proof of this either before or subsequent to the events of the 12th of July, and that I will defy any unprejudiced man to adduce the slightest evidence of any such conspiracy, I must assure the noble Earl that I yield to no man in my attachment to the Protestant religion, and that I am as incapable as himself not only of lending myself to any conspiracy, but to any act directly or indirectly militating against the true interests of the Protestant faith. But nothing can induce me to believe that the true interests of Protestantism, and the mild and pure doctrines of Christianity, are not endangered by assemblages that are meant to irritate, and by proceedings that must engender bitter and hostile and un-Christian feelings among those classes of our fellow-countrymen from whose creed we differ, but whose conscientious feelings we are bound to respect, and have no possible right to outrage. The question of religion or politics no more entered into my mind in deciding upon the case of the noble Earl, than if the occurrences which led to his dismissal had taken place in some sequestered village of England. The question simply was, whether the meeting was legal or illegal—did the magistrates do their duty, or fail in their duty—were sufficient precautions taken to prevent a fatal collision—and, if not, were they properly to be

939
held responsible? That was the whole question; and I hope the noble Lord will dismiss from his mind the idea that I was influenced by any considerations of a different character. My noble Friend has taken great exception to the mode in which the inquiry was conducted by Mr. Berwick; and, first, with regard to the nature of this inquiry, if it were unconstitutional, as the noble Lord says, it has, at all events, had the sanction of practice in Ireland; and it has had the sanction not only of successive Governments but of successive Parliaments, because the evidence and the decisions taken and pronounced under such inquiries have constantly been made the subject of debate. I have got some of the cases in which inquiries have been made of a similar character. The following letter showed one instance:—
"Dublin Castle, Dec. 22, 1830.
"Sir—I am directed by the Lords Justices to inform you, that Louis Perrin, Esq., one of Her Majesty's counsel, has received directions forthwith to proceed to Lurgan, for the purpose of investigating into all the circumstances connected with the outrage which took place at Maghery on the 22nd ult. I am further to acquaint you that it is Mr. Perrin's intention to reach Lurgan on Monday next, on which day their Excellencies trust you will attend at Lurgan and render Mr. Perrin every assistance in your power in the investigation alluded to.—I have, &c.
"W. GREGORY."
W. J. Hancock, Esq., Lurgan."
I find another letter, dated "Dublin Castle, April 4, 1832," signed by Sir W. Gossett, and addressed to Mr. Crampton, the Solicitor General:—
"Sir—I beg to send you, by command of the Lord Lieutenant, the several letters mentioned in the enclosed schedule relative to party riots which have occurred during the last month in the neighbourhood of Portglenone, and as it is deemed expedient that an investigation should take place, I am directed by his Excellency to request that you will proceed, at your earliest convenience, to Portglenone for that purpose, and report the result of your investigation for his Excellency's information."
If such inquiries are neither judicial, nor ministerial, nor constitutional, it was nevertheless true that these things had been done by my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), then the Secretary for Ireland. Again, instructions were given to Mr. Serjeant Howley, to make inquiry into certain matters relating to Lord Northland, and others, as well as the circumstances connected with riotous proceedings at the Dungarvon election. These inquiries have been authorised by 'successive Governments and Parliaments
940
down to the present day; and with such precedents as these before me, on what possible ground could I have refused to act upon them, and so get rid of the promises which had been made to Parliament with reference to the public peace in Ireland? It would have been a mockery had I declined to take the steps necessary to enable me to fulfil the anticipations which Parliament was entitled to entertain. My noble Friend says I had no right to issue a commission of the peace to any person under the circumstances, giving him authority to examine on oath; and he quoted the opinion of a lawyer (which, however—the learned Gentleman speaking on the noble Lord's side—I do not reckon of authority), stating that a person taking an oath before Mr. Berwick could not be indicted for perjury. But knowing how the law stood, I made Mr. Berwick a magistrate for the county of Down; and he had as full power, and as good a right, to examine on oath as any other magistrate. My noble Friend alluded to the Act 5th and 6th William IV., c. 62. I beg your Lordships' attention to the 13th Section, which was cited as proving that Mr. Berwick had no right as a magistrate to tender an oath. The section says—
"And whereas a practice has prevailed of administering and receiving oaths and affidavits voluntarily taken and made in matters not the subject of any judicial inquiry, nor in anywise pending, or at issue before the justice of the peace, or other person by whom such oaths or affidavits have been administered or received; and whereas doubts have arisen whether or not such proceeding is illegal; for the more effectual suppression of such practice and removing such doubts, be it enacted, that from and after the commencement of this Act it shall not be lawful for any justice of the peace, or other person, to administer, or cause or allow to be administered, or to receive, or cause or allow to he received any oath, affidavit, or solemn affirmation touching any matter or thing whereof such justice or other person hath not jurisdiction or cognisance by some statute in force at the time being."
On that passage my noble Friend relies when he argues that Mr. Berwick, having no jurisdiction, had no right to put parties on oath. But there the noble Lord stopped short, and gave your Lordships to understand that the law was as he had quoted it; now the clause goes on to state an important provision:—
"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to any oath affidavit, or solemn affirmation before any justice in any matter or thing touching the preservation of the peace, or the prosecution, trial, or punishment of offences, or touching any proceedings before either of the Houses of Parliament."

941
But this is not all. Mr. Berwick, like any other magistrate, was in possession of the commission of the peace; and your Lordships will judge whether under that commission Mr. Berwick had not authority. Amongst various other things, it authorises parties to inquire—
"of those who presume, by unlawful assemblies, to be disturbers of our peace, and of our people within our said county; and, also, of all those who, in the county aforesaid, have either gone or ridden, or that hereafter shall presume to go or ride, in companies, with armed force against our peace, to the disturbance of our peace; and, also, of all those who, in like manner, have lain in wait, or hereafter shall presume to he in wait, to maim or kill our people."
The terms of his commission, therefore, most certainly conferred on Mr. Berwick the right to hold such an inquiry. My noble Friend dwelt with great severity, with great injustice, I think, on the manner in which Mr. Berwick conducted the inquiry. But I should wish to advert, first, to what my noble Friend states as to the Lord Chancellor not being consulted. I should searcely have thought my noble Friend would have occupied the time of the House so much upon what he must know is a mere form; and, if he were correct in point of fact, I do not admit that he is right in the principle he lays down. First, it is my duty to institute inquiry. Having received a report and the evidence, and finding that the conduct of certain magistrates is inculpated, I send that report, with my opinion, to the Lord Chancellor. And what is it that I do? Do I instruct? Do I order? No, my Lords, I recommend. It remained for him to act on that recommendation; he might have refused. The first thing I did on receiving the report was to have it sent wholly to the Lord Chancellor, without telling him what was the opinion I had formed. I found that he had come to the same conclusion with myself. We then conferred on the matter, even before I communicated with my noble Friend at the head of the Government; and when blame is imputed to the Lord Chancellor for sending off the intimation of his resolution in the matter only a day or two after it was put formally into his hands, the real state of the case, I must observe, was, that no time was necessary for him, his mind having been made up. But I have received a letter from the Lord Chancellor, in which he says—
"I have heard that it is to be alleged or suggested, in the approaching discussion respecting the dismissal of Lord Roden and the Messrs.
942
Beers from the commission of the peace, that from the terms of my letter announcing to them my determination to supersede them, it is to be inferred that I acted under a supposed necessity of conforming to your recommendation without reference to my own opinion on the subject. I could not have imagined that any such mistake was entertained as that I would take so decided a step against my own judgment, or without applying it to the consideration of the case. Having been, from the first, thoroughly acquainted with the grounds and reasons on which you acted; and, entirely concurring in them, I did not require any time to deliberate on the course I should pursue; and I thought, that in the way I acted, I fully indicated that concurrence; but, to prevent any misconstruction on the subject, I have no difficulty in stating that I regard the act of dismissal of Lord Roden and the Messrs. Beers as my own, and on which I consider myself as the person directly responsible; and of the propriety of which, on the grounds stated in Mr. Redington's letter, I had not at the time, nor have I now, the slightest doubt."
I hope, therefore, that I have relieved my noble Friend from the anxiety he has suffered respecting the independence of the Lord Chancellors, and the coercion under which he acted. Reverting to the charges made against Mr. Berwick, I have been informed by Mr. Berwick that he proceeded in the same way as in other cases, except that he had taken more than special pains to note down everything which could be supposed to have a bearing on the matter, more particularly as it related to the conduct of the magistrates, and had carefully re-examined the whole case before making his report. My noble Friend has given your Lordships to understand that Mr. Berwick's notes were not full and complete; but they were quite as full and complete as those of a judge, which are always considered sufficient guides in a matter that may require after-consideration relating to a case that had been decided. They are not so full as the report of a shorthand writer, which contains not only the examination in chief, but the cross-examinations, minutely detailed. The question, however, really is, whether the judge has with sufficient fulness and perfect impartiality taken down all the necessary evidence for coming to an impartial decision; and my firm conviction is, that Mr. Berwick has done so. My noble Friend rather forestalled me when he said that no objection could be taken to a report which appeared in the Newry Telegraph, because Mr. Berwick has relied on that paper in another matter, namely, the report of a speech delivered by Mr. Beers. This Newry Telegraph is one of the most unscrupulous partisan papers in Ireland;

943
and that is saying a great deal. It was to be expected that it would give correctly the speech of the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge. If I wanted to look for a speech of Mr. Beers I should refer to that journal; but it does not follow that I should equally rely on its authority in a matter where his friends were concerned, and their conduct the subject of grave inquiry. Mr. Berwick has examined the report given by that paper, and found in it omissions, and a garbling of evidence, palpably wilful; but my noble Friend says it was verified on oath in the Queen's Bench, and that the reporter affirmed on oath that it was all correctly taken down by himself; but listen to a letter which has been put into my hand three or four days ago. It is from the reporter of another paper, the Banner of Ulster, and is addressed to Mr. Conway, proprietor of the Dublin Evening Post, a gentleman against whom the action was brought in the Queen's Bench:—
"Dear Sir—A friend of mine has just pointed out to me an article in the Dublin Herald of last Thursday, in which strong praise is accorded to a report of evidence taken before Mr. Berwick, at Castlewellan, which report is stated to have been 'before the public for months,' to have 'passed the ordeal of the Queen's Bench unscathed,' and "to be authenticated by the solemn oath of the reporter,' which latter person is again described as having been 'impartially industrious.' The two last phrases attracted my special attention, and I beg leave to draw your notice to the following fact in connexion therewith. On the day on which the Government inquiry was resumed at Castlewellan, no reporter from the Telegraph office took any notes at all. The report of that day's proceedings was furnished, as an abstract, by me in the first place, and afterwards falsified—then published. I received the usual fee from the Telegraph reporter for the matter so furnished, and the other reporters present know as well as I do that throughout the entire day's proceedings the party in question never wrote a line. If anybody has sworn to a report of that day's business, he must have sworn falsely, inasmuch as I am in a position to prove that no person took full notes of it but myself."
Now, my Lords, I will beg to ask what reliance is to be placed on the oath of a man who not only did not take the evidence he swore he did, but who actually falsified the evidence he bought But this is not all. Mr. Berwick having heard there were some doubts thrown on his notes in consequence of a comparison with the report of this "impartial" and "industrious "gentleman, sent this evidence to Mr. Ruthven, Sessional Crown Solicitor, and received an answer yesterday, in which Mr. Ruthven, who had taken a full
944
report in shorthand of all the proceedings, says—
"Your note I have received, but hope, ere this, you have received per last night's mail my parcel, containing the notes of evidence, and with it a copy of the Orange report, noted by me so far as I had time to do so, since I got your first note on the subject. It only requires a careful examination and comparison with my report to fully point out the continuous mistakes and errors of the report relied on by the Orange party—suppression of evidence at times by wholesale. If I had got time I would have gone through the whole, and noted it; I would not have left them a line to rest on. If it ever comes to proof, then will be seen who is right; for my part, I am not afraid. My report I can prove, and I think your note will show it also. The report relied upon by the Orange party, if it comes to that, their own reporter cannot prove, and well they know it. Whenever it comes to that, I'll then state further facts, with which I shall not trouble you at this moment."
This affidavit, was, therefore, in perfect keeping with all the other brought forward on that most discreditable trial; and they were characterised by Chief Justice Blackburne, one of the most distinguished judges who ever adorned the bench, in the following terms:—
"I must say they (the newspaper articles) have been brought forward by the affidavits offered to the court in a most garbled and imperfect manner, and many of them are really not the comments of the editor, but the expression of opinion growing out of this murderous and terrible outrage, having no manner of relation to the charge against Mr. Jardine. These passages have no distinct reference to Mr. Jardine, and could not prejudge his ease; they have reference, in the shape of comment, to the nature, character, and circumstances of one of the most barbarous and outrageous transactions which has ever disgraced our country."
I feel it is unnecessary for me to add another word, or even to ask your Lordships to dismiss from your minds any impression that may have been made upon you with reference to the report from which he has so largely quoted. And yet it is upon evidence such as this that accusations are brought against a gentleman unimpeachable in conduct, a man of high judicial character, who, being invested with the character of a judge, was yet charged on such testimony with garbling and suppression—a charge which, if proved, would not only exclude Mr. Berwick from the bench, but would drive him for ever from the society of honest men. Before I sit down, I hope your Lordships will extend to me your indulgence on a matter which, though personal to myself, is not altogether without public importance; because, I fully admit, as the noble Lord

945
said, that the characters of public men are to be placed under the control of public opinion, and the public are interested in knowing whether men in high positions have rightly exercised their powers, and warranted the confidence placed in them; or whether accusations brought against them are or are not well founded. As I have been brought over here this evening, the opportunity is afforded me of alluding to certain misrepresentations, for the refutation of which, under other circumstances, I should have relied on my own character, and the consciousness that, to the best of my ability, I have performed the arduous duties with which I have been intrusted for the space of now nearly three years. Ever since the dismissal of the noble Earl, I have been exposed to calumnies in every variety of form—some promulgated in Ireland, some in this country. But those professional libellers I treat with the contempt they deserve. There is one document, however, to which I do think I am entitled to direct the attention of your Lordships, because it is signed by a Member of your Lordships' House, whom I now see before me (the Earl of Enniskillen); and the object of that document avowedly was to expose my unfitness for the office I held, and to prove that I had done acts unworthy of a gentleman. The document is made up of scraps of letters and reports of conversations; and the principal charges against me are founded on the sayings and doings of two gentlemen, one of whom is dead, and the other is now in India. It was said, that in the hour of peril I had courted the Orange party of Dublin, and basely deserted them when I no longer required their aid; and that I gave them arms exclusively when I was refusing arms to all other classes in Ireland. Now, instead of my having courted them, I knew nothing of the Orangemen of Dublin, but that a certain party existed under that name, till the 13th of March, 1848, when I received a copy of a very proper and loyal address from persons connected with the Orange party in Dublin, saying—
"We beg leave to approach your Excellency as the representative of our Sovereign with sincere offers of unpurchasable loyalty and devotion to Her Protestant person and house, and we pledge ourselves (in case of our service" being required) at the present crisis to aid and assist the authorities in the lawful execution of their duties, and for the suppression of anarchy and revolution."
946
That was about three weeks after the revolution broke out in Paris—when political clubs and war committees were springing up every day in Dublin, where two or three associations existed, and the most seditious language was used—when every newspaper was daily teaching the people how to massacre the troops, and set fire to towns, and erect barricades—a time when every day brought over intelligence of new casualties and violent changes on the Continent; and there was no reason to expect that the capital of Ireland would have escaped the revolutionary contagion. At such a time, I should have been very much failing in my duty if I had allowed the political or religious tenets of any persons, who voluntarily came forward in defence of public order, to interfere with the measures which the emergency of the times might demand. It was my duty to accept all offers, without reference to religious or political feeling, which were made by all classes who were prepared to rally round the Throne and the institutions of the country. And, as a matter of course, I should have received that address. But my attention was called to certain resolutions passed the same evening the address was adopted:—
"Resolved—That in the opinion of this meeting the present disorganised and deplorable state of Ireland can only be attributed to the base policy of statesmen who have treacherously betrayed the trust confided to them by Protestants, in granting unjustifiable concessions to Popery, and that no attempt to remedy existing evils will be successful until the Romish Emancipation Bill, the Maynooth Endowment Bill, and all such measures, are entirely repealed, and the constitution restored to its original integrity. Resolved—That we are of opinion, and are assisted in that opinion by the speech of a Papist nobleman in Parliament, that Popery is the same as it ever was, and is unchanged and unchangeable; and that all bulls, &c, ever ordered by the Court of Rome for the extirpation and extermination of Protestants are still in force, if the opportunity occurred of using them. Resolved—That when we know a bull to be in force which calls our Queen a heretic, and would reward an assassin for murder, we must consider it most disloyal and unconstitutional of Her Majesty's Ministers to seek to establish diplomatic relations with her deadliest enemies."
As I considered the resolutions inseparably connected with the address, I took means for informing the Orangemen that unless these resolutions, so properly offensive to our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, were withdrawn, the address could not be received. They were not; and the address has been neither received nor answered to

947
this day: so much for my courtship. At the same time a request was made, in order, it should seem, that these men of "unpurchasable loyalty" might test my trustworthiness, for arms or money to purchase arms; and it may he said that these were the only people who at that moment of general peril tried to turn their loyalty to account, because they requested me to receive their address or give them arms. Subsequently the noble Earl (the Earl of Enniskillen) applied to me, both as to receiving the address and furnishing arms; and though he himself stated in his manifesto that he met with no success, yet, because on the next day Captain Kennedy furnished money for the purchase of arms, the noble Earl did not think it beneath him to affix his signature to a document implying that the money must have come from me, and that I was doing, in a mean and underhand way, that which I had myself told him I thought would be wrong, and which I, therefore, did not dare avow openly. I knew nothing about the money, nor did I know, until a few days ago, whether it was Captain Kennedy's own, or the result of a subscription that had been set on foot, or had been furnished from any other quarter. All I knew was that it did not come from the Government; and I hope it is sufficient for me to give my solemn assurance that during the whole time I have held office I never, directly or indirectly, have given a weapon, or a shilling to purchase one, to any person in Ireland. Captain Kennedy, who was stated to have been employed by me, held no employment whatever under the Government, but was agent for the Devon estate, and had volunteered his services as an experienced engineer officer to organise the well-affected inhabitants of Dublin, and to make preparation for defending certain parts of the city, because I had given notice that in the event of an insurrection, that the troops should not be scattered about, and it was for the citizens to take some means for the protection of their own lives and property. The year after, it appears Captain Kennedy had given to the Horse Guards his plan for the defence of Dublin; and among the documents was a letter to Sir E. Blakeney, dated August 6, 1848, which I had never seen before, nor did I know of the existence of such a letter until it was placed in my hands a few days ago:—
"In considering this portion of the subject, it must be admitted that the policy of Government
948
in delaying to arm to some extent the loyal party in Ireland, has originated in the most humane and philanthropic motives, however hazardous this course may have been to the peace and safety of the country, and however trying to the loyalty of both the military and civil forces. The strict adherence to this policy cost me 600 l. for the purchase of arms to keep our unruly adherents in good humour, and to prevent their placing themselves in hostility to the Government at the most critical period of our difficulties."
This is not all. Within the last three or four days I have heard from Dr. Kennedy, the eminent physician of Dublin, that by the last India mail a letter had been received by him from his brother Major Kennedy, dated "Head-quarters, Camp, Lahore, Dec. 22, 1849," written on learning that the matter which occurred in the spring, 1848, had been made a subject of public discussion. He says—
"I have not had time to read your letters through, but amongst other things I see those villanous partisans of all shades, I suppose, are scolding at me in Ireland for the best act in my life—the having sacrificed 600 l. to prevent the Orangemen throwing Dublin, and with it every part of Ireland, into a deluge of blood. Their wretched abuse is sweet music to my ear. I have not read it yet, but I shall not feel anything but compassion when I do."
Now, my Lords, I hope it will be considered that this question of the 600 l. and my arming the Orangemen of Dublin, has been effectually disposed of. It may appear to some incredible that such a private sacrifice should be made by Captain Kennedy for a public purpose, but those who know his disinterested and enthusiastic character will have no doubt of it; and although I am not intimately acquainted with him, I do know of various great sacrifices that he has made: he quitted his profession, in which he had greatly distinguished himself, and, I believe, held some lucrative employment, and lived during fourteen years in the mountains of Donegal, devoting himself to the improvement of the country, hoping for no other reward than that of doing good. What he says is perfectly true: my refusal to give arms did anger and dispirit many of the loyal and well-disposed subjects of Her Majesty in Ireland. I was pressed to it by deputations, by individuals for whom I had the highest respect, and by every kind of threat and entreaty: it was the general desire at that time, and not unnaturally, for alarm was general and well-founded. I believe, also, that the Government was blamed in this House for not consenting to call out the yeomanry; but as my noble Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Go-

949
vernment left these matters to my decision, holding me responsible for the peace of the country, I resolutely refused all applications, though I took care to place upwards of 100,000 stand of arms in different depôts throughout the country, ready for distribution to the well-affected in the event of emergency according to certain regulations; but it was my duty to look beyond the actual moment, and I knew that if one class of Irishmen were armed against another, the seeds of fresh religious animosity would be sown, and that when the revolutionary movement was over, Ireland would be found further off than ever from internal tranquillity. In the result I was not disappointed; for the intended rebellion was suppressed, the law was vindicated, no blood was spilled, no rancorous feelings were left behind; Her Majesty was, for the first time since her accession, able to visit that portion of Her dominions; and had it not been for that one particular procession and its fatal consequences in the county Down, your Lordships would now have the satisfaction of knowing that Ireland was more free from sectarian feuds, as I am happy to say it is from political agitation and agrarian outrage, than at any time during the last twenty years. On public grounds, I regret that my noble Friend has seen fit to bring this question before the House, as it will tend to revive the angry feelings which were gradually subsiding; but as I trust your Lordships will give your assent to a Bill which is now before the other House for putting an end to all processions—a Bill, I beg to say, which is directed against no particular party, and will be a triumph to none; I look forward to the extinction of these foolish and irritating demonstrations, aided as the law will be by the efforts of every well-thinking man in Ireland. After all that unfortunate country has gone through, after years of agitation destructive alike of industrial progress and social improvement, after having endured a calamity unparalleled for its appalling magnitude and duration, the great want of Ireland is repose. A famine of four years sweeping away the resources and means of the country must leave sad traces behind; but I humbly hope that the visitation of Providence has ceased, that the worst is now over, and that an earnest union of all classes for their own common good will lead to that social regeneration with which the interests of this country no less than those of Ireland are inseparably connected.
The EARL of RODENsaid, he had been most anxious to have an opportunity of answering those calumnious aspersions that had been cast upon his character with regard to the occurrence that took place in the north of Ireland in July last. Before proceeding to address their Lordships, he begged to return his most sincere thanks to the noble Lord behind him (Lord Stanley), for having given him that opportunity of addressing the House on the subject; and as that noble Lord had entered so ably and so fully into the many points connected with the occurrence, it had become unnecessary that he should detain their Lordships at any length with the observations he had to make. He could not but think that he had been most harshly used by the noble Lords opposite, and by the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and in particular by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whom he saw opposite. He trusted, at all events, that he would do him the credit to believe in taking the course which he had pursued in reference to many of the acts connected with that occurrence, his only intent in doing so was to defend his character from the aspersions that had been cast upon it, and that he was actuated now by no party feeling, or feeling of irritation, towards him—an individual whom he had always esteemed as a friend, and to whom he had had reason to be thankful for many kind acts. The first thing to which he begged to call the attention of their Lordships was, that on the 23rd of July, eleven days after the occurrence in the north of Ireland, he had written to the noble Lord, stating his sincere regret and grief at the circumstances which had taken place, and also offering to tender his resignation as a magistrate in case his remaining in office should occasion any difficulties to the Government. At the same time he had stated, before making that offer, that he thought his resignation would be construed as a triumph to the opposite party. In answer, he had received from the noble Lord a most courteous and kind reply, stating that his removal from the magistracy had never entered into his head, and that he did not desire him to sacrifice himself to the difficulties of the Government. Until the 7th of October, he did not receive anything from the Lord Lieutenant, or from any other officer whatever; but on that morning he received a letter from the Lord Chancellor, which had been read by the noble Lord, accompanied by a public document,

951
purporting to be a report of proceedings taken by the instructions of the Lord Chancellor. At the same time a private note reached him from the Lord Lieutenant, expressing his sorrow at being obliged to authorise the letter of the Lord Chancellor, but assuring him confidentially that his opinion of him was in no way altered from what it always had been. A letter, however, was put in the newspapers, a letter from Mr. Redington, the letter of which he complained, containing most serious charges, affecting his character as man and a magistrate. The three charges which it contained were—first, that he had aided and abetted an illegal meeting; second, that he had not used his exertions as a magistrate to prevent the effusion of blood by his fellow-subjects; and, third, that he had acted as a magistrate in his own case for the purpose of preventing the ends of justice. These were charges under which he could not rest satisfied, and, indeed, his wonder was, that under charges such as these he should be permitted to address their Lordships at that table, instead of being a prisoner and at their Lordships' bar, awaiting the verdict they should see fit to pronounce upon him. Contrary to all the principles of justice known in this country, he had been found guilty without a trial. It was true that in the letter he had referred to, it was asserted that he had been publicly arraigned; but, he now asked, where, and by whom?—for he found nothing for it but an assertion, and he had looked in vain for the evidence. The noble Lord know that he had always received his support whenever it was of consequence to the interests of the country. In 1848 Ireland was in a serious and awful position, Rebellion had spread among the people, and the troops were increased to 40,000. At that period he had thought it his duty, with the loyal men who were prepared to follow him, to give the Government his support, and to rally round the Throne. This was near the 12th of July, the day when these men assembled to celebrate their anniversary; and with a feeling of loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's Government, which he was sure could not but receive the approbation of those in authority, in spite of many and great inducements held out to them, these men withdrew from the Repealers, and the consequence was that the military of Ulster could be removed to the disturbed parts, and that trivial revolution was suppressed.
952
In the month of March, 1849, another procession took place, at which the same happy results did not turn up as in the previous year. At that period he had put himself in communication with the noble Lord, stating to him the circumstances which had occurred, and the endeavours which he had used to prevent collision between the parties, and he received the thanks of the noble Lord for these endeavours. At that time the Government had in contemplation the passing of the Procession Act, and in the month of May he had had communications with the noble Lord respecting it. He regretted extremely that that Act had not been passed soon after March, but the press of business before the House made it quite impossible. In the month of May the noble Lord wrote to him about the Procession Act, and he had written in answer, stating that, in his opinion, it was then too late to introduce the Bill, as it would not pass till immediately before the 12th of July, and that it would then appear to have been passed especially against the Orangemen—a most ungracious course of proceeding after what had occurred the previous year. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) would remember that he had a conversation with him relative to that Act, and that he was only stating to the House the substance of what took place. On the 29th of June, he had an interview with the noble Lord, when he again told him that it was intended the procession should take place, and the noble Lord said that there would be no danger, as the necessary precautions should be taken. He certainly had no idea from any thing which fell from the noble Lord on that occasion that the procession was considered by him to be illegal. In fact, so little did the noble Lord lead him to think that he considered the procession illegal, or that by taking any part in it he (the Earl of Roden) would be in any way abetting an illegal act, that immediately after the procession had left his demesne, it being then nearly post hour, he wrote a letter to the noble Lord, stating how satisfactorily everything had gone on, and, by return of post, he received an answer from the noble Lord, stating how rejoiced he was to hear what he (the Earl of Roden) had mentioned, and how grateful he was to him for the course he had pursued. The 12th of July arrived, and he certainly would say that he felt pride and satisfaction in receiving 3,000 of his countrymen, with their wives and children, besides some 2,000 others

953
who had come as lookers on, and who had come to compliment him by their visit. On that occasion, he had an interview with Mr. Fitzmaurice, the stipendiary magistrate, who expressed a hope that he (the Earl of Roden) would use his influence with the processionists, in order to induce them to go home by another road, as he had seen armed men on the hill as he came along. He at once consulted another magistrate who was present, and he said that such advice would be unwise, as the procession would be split in consequence of it. He knew the meaning that was intended to he conveyed by the expression—that some of the party would go by one road, and some the other, and that either party thus weakened would be exposed to be attacked. Therefore, influenced by a desire for the safety of the people, he gave them the best advice in his power. That advice was before their Lordships, and he need not refer further to it; but this he would say, that the brave and determined men to whom he had spoken would have acted on that advice and have gone peaceably to their homes, had they not been basely, cowardly, and brutally attacked, with their wives and children, by conspirators, hiding behind the houses and walls. It was when they were fired at, and when they were defending their wives and children, that these unhappy occurrences took place, which every one must regret. With regard to the boy to whose death allusion had been made, there could be no doubt that the shot by which he fell had been fired from the hill, as he was at the time in the tail of the procession which he had been accompanying all day.
The EARL of CLARENDONsaid, he had quoted the evidence, where it was distinctly stated that the boy's scull had been battered in by blunt instruments.
The EARL of RODENcontinued to say that it was true the boy's head had been broken in, but then two troops of cavalry had passed over the road where he was lying, and the battering could be accounted for in that way. Believing that the evidence on which he was disposed to rely might he questioned by the noble Lord opposite, he had taken the precaution to write to the witnesses who had been examined. The persons to whom he had made application, had no interest in the matter one way or the other, as they were officers of Her Majesty's Army. Having drawn their attention to both reports, he asked them to state which they thought
954
most correct, and this was Major Wilkinson's reply:—
"Belfast, Feb. 14.
"My Lord—I have the honour to state, in reply to your Lordship's note, that I consider the report of my evidence, as taken in shorthand, as giving a much fuller report of my evidence.—Tours, &c.
"J. WILKINSON, Major 13th Regiment."
"Castlewellan, Fob. 15.
"My Lord—I have carefully read over the reports of my evidence taken at the investigation last year. I think that Mr. Berwick has left out two or three material points which are reported in the shorthand writer's one, and therefore of the two I should recommend it as best.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient humble servant,
"WM. PARKER TERRY, Ensign 9th Foot.
"Viscount Jocelyn."
"Castlewellan.
"My dear Lord—I have carefully read over the notes of Mr. Berwick's minutes of the evidence given by me relative to the affray at Maghermayo, on the 12th July, and comparing it with the report of the same, taken by the shorthand writer, and published by Mr. Henderson, I am clearly of opinion that the latter is the most correct, and the fullest of the two.—I have the honour to be, yours very faithfully,
"GEORGE SHAW, J. P."
"Rathfriland, Feb. 15.
"Dear Sir—I shall feel much obliged by your informing Lord Jocelyn that I consider my evidence, as reported by Mr. Berwick's notes, neither full, clear, nor correct; and I am satisfied it is given as fully and fairly as possible in the pamphlet published in Newry. I was from home, and did not return until after post hour yesterday, or I would have written last night.—I remain, dear sir, yours truly,
"THOMAS SCOTT, J. P., County Down.
"To John Reilly, Esq."
But the next charge made against him was of a very serious nature indeed. It was, that he was careless or indifferent with regard to the preservation of the public peace. The following was the portion of the charge to which he referred. It was from Sir Thomas Redington's letter to the Lord Chancellor:—
"On the arrival of the Orange procession at Tolmore-park they were received by Lord Roden, who, joined by the two Messrs. Beers, proceeded to his house, while the procession marched past to a field, where a tent and platform had been erected, and refreshment provided for the body by his Lordship. Thither Mr. Fitzmaurice, the stipendiary magistrate, had also repaired, to represent to Lord Roden, on the part of the magistrates who were then assembled on the hill (who all agreed that it would be dangerous to allow the Orange party to come back by the same road), that an armed Ribbon party was stationed near Dolly's Brae; and that if the procession returned by that way a collision was seriously to be apprehended. Lord Roden in reply stated, that he feared he had not himself sufficient influence to

955
effect this object, but that he would speak to the party, and also to Mr. William Beers, upon the subject. In the address, however, which he subsequently delivered to the Orange body, he abstained from any attempt to dissuade them from returning by a route, the passage along which, he had been apprised, would be attended with so much risk. The Lord Lieutenant cannot but feel that those who sanctioned this course being taken, or who took no steps to prevent it, showed themselves most indifferent to the preservation of the public peace, which, as magistrates, it was their special duty to maintain."
Now, in answer to that statement, he must say, that he had throughout the whole of these transactions shown himself most anxious for the preservation of the public peace, and that his not asking the party to return by the other road was in itself one of the strongest proofs that he could have given of his anxiety for the public safety. With regard to the objection made against him for attending at sessions after these charges had been brought forward, he had only to say that, had he abstained from attending the sessions, as he had always been in the habit of doing, it would have to some extent implied that he acknowledged the justice of the allegations made against him. At the same time, when the forty-two men were brought up, charged by the Crown solicitor with being engaged in an illegal assembly, he felt that the assembly could not have been illegal, or else that the noble Lord would have told him so. Therefore he could not in conscience consent to receive informations against them on such a charge; but at the same time he had gone to that session, as he had always done, with a determination to do justice to every man—he had no feeling in favour of one more than of another; and if he had been asked to receive informations against any of those who had committed any of the outrages that had taken place, he would willingly have done so. He felt also that the ends of justice could be by no means compromised by the course which he felt it his duty to take, as Mr. Berwick and other magistrates were present who did not concur in his views, and by whom the informations might have been received. It was certainly very extraordinary, that though he and those who concurred with him had been thus pressed to receive informations against their friends, still that two sessions had been since allowed to pass over without the informations having been yet taken. Allusion had been made to a letter that had been written with a view of seeking to prevent a near relative of his from accompanying
956
Her Majesty as lady-in-waiting on Her Majesty's visit to Ireland. It was manifest what the feelings of the writer towards him were; and the object was clearly to seek to degrade him in the eyes of his countrymen, by making it appear that Her Majesty had such a strong feeling with regard to the course which he had pursued, that She could not allow one connected with him to remain near Her person. Personally he had no motive to serve by remaining in the commission of the peace. His sole desire, as a resident proprietor and magistrate in Ireland, had been to seek by all means in his power to benefit the country, and to dispense justice to all classes and all denominations alike. He cared not where his words went forth, or who might listen to the statement which he now made; but he would fearlessly assert that, throughout his whole career as a magistrate, he had never favoured one party more than another; that he had always done justice to the best of his ability, and had never, in the dispensation of it, allowed himself to be influenced by any considerations, religious, political, or personal. In conclusion, he had only to refer, which he did with pride, to the expression of feeling which the treatment he had received from Her Majesty's Government had called forth throughout the country. Not only those who knew him personally, but those who were only acquainted with him by the character which he bore, and by the reports of the treatment which he had received, came forward to subscribe their names to most generous and affectionate addresses that poured in upon him from every portion of the empire. The noble Earl concluded by stating that he had never, at any period, entertained feelings of personal hostility or pique towards the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
The EARL of CLARENDON,in explanation, said, it was true, as his noble Friend had stated, that he had written him a letter saying, that as it was evident that certain parties were determined to drive him from the magistracy, he trusted that he (the Earl of Clarendon) would not allow himself to he embarrassed, but, if he considered it proper, would remove him at once; and it had never crossed his mind to turn his noble Friend out of the magistracy to relieve himself of embarrassment. With respect to the delay in the bringing in of the Processions Act last year, it was delayed in consequence of the

957
pressure of other business, and of Irish business in particular, and had been afterwards postponed on the representation of his noble Friend; but at the time it was so postponed he asked his noble Friend what security he would give that the public peace should not be disturbed on the 12th of July, and his noble Friend answered him, that every loyal man was willing to exert himself to the utmost to preserve peace. He then expressed his very great objection to the Orange procession, not because he considered it illegal, but he regretted that such a procession should go to Tollymore Park, as there rested a peculiar responsibility on his noble Friend.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAsaid, that after the speech of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) there was not one man who was influenced by a proper feeling who would not give an honourable acquittal to his noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) of having violated any of the laws of his country. His noble Friend had been most harshly, unjustly, and unconstitutionally treated. But he had received at the hands of 800 magistrates of all characters and political creeds, a testimonial of which he might well be proud, and which would descend with honour to his posterity. He held that the commission sent down by the noble Earl to institute an inquiry was a perfectly unconstitutional act. If his noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) had been guilty of any violation of the law, his conduct ought to have been investigated in a Court of law, and then, if proved guilty, the Executive Government might have pronounced upon him whatever sentence the law awarded. But, were England's liberties to be placed in this jeopardy—that Government was to send forth a commission to investigate the conduct of any man holding a magisterial character, and that upon the report of such commission Government was to pronounce a verdict of guilty, and exercise an arbitrary power in awarding whatever punishment it chose? Such a proceeding, he contended, was a violation of the first principles of the British constitution. The Processions Act was allowed to expire because it was well known that that Act was confined entirely to Orange lodges; it did not extend to the Roman Catholic parties. [Lord STANLEY corrected the noble Earl and said, the Act applied to all party processions.] If that was the case, how was it that those monster meetings for the repeal of the Union were allowed to be held in
958
Ireland? There were two parties assembled at Dolly's Brae: one to maintain the Roman Catholic principles of James H., the other to maintain the Protestant principles of the house of Hanover. The latter assembled peaceably and unarmed in their own locality, and were accompanied by their wives and children; while the former were brought from a distance, and were led on by two priests, who gave them bread, knowing that they were armed, and that they were going to make an attack on the other party. It would be well for their Lordships to inquire in what manner this Mr. Berwick conducted the investigation he was commissioned to make. That gentleman confined his inquiries entirely to the conduct of the Orange party, without taking any evidence whatever that affected the Ribband party; and the investigation was conducted in so indifferent and slovenly a manner that, instead of eliciting the truth, it only involved the whole matter in one mass of contradictions and inconsistencies. Though his noble Friend had been most unconstitutionally and most cruelly dismissed from the commission, yet he (the Earl of Winchilsea) would tell his noble Friend that he envied him the applause which his high and virtuous character and most constitutional conduct had received from as honourable a body of men as could be found in Her Majesty's dominions.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he came to the consideration of the present question void of all party feeling, party views, or party connexions, at least equally with his noble Friend, who had so ably and eloquently opened what might be regarded as a quasi judicial discussion. But in answer to the appeal of his noble Friend who spoke last, and who said that no person whose mind was not biassed could possibly dream of imputing any base or dishonourable or illegal conduct to the noble Earl, whose proceedings formed the subject of the present discussion, though he entirely acquitted that noble Earl of all illegality or immorality of conduct, it by no means followed that he could assent to the second part of his noble Friend's (Lord Winchilsea's) proposition, and say that he considered all the noble Earl's proceedings such, and all the proceedings of the Government such, as to entitle him (Lord Brougham) to say, and their Lordships to conclude, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) had been unjustly, unconstitutionally, or arbitrarily dismissed from the magistracy. Although he should not go

959
into the facts of the case for the purpose of explaining why he did not accept that part of the proposition, yet he felt it his duty to offer a few observations upon points which had incidentally come under consideration, but which were most material when discussing the conduct of the Irish Government, as well as material to their deliberations on the subject generally. First of all, he should deeply lament if the violence with which his noble Friend opposite had been of late, and only of late, assailed in Ireland should furnish another instance of that which they had too frequently had occasion to observe in the conduct of their fellow-subjects, the Irish, in dealing with great national questions. He was in much pain to observe that it might seem to afford another instance of that volatile nature which appeared to prevail among great multitudes of our fellow-countrymen in that portion of the united kingdom. One year you were the object of their praise—praise!—they reject so feeble an expression; of their eulogy—that won't do; of their profound admiration;—that is nothing like it—of their deep and heartfelt respect—in the heart 's-core felt respect!—even that is not sufficient; but of their veneration, of their all but adoration, and, if their priests would permit it, even of their worship: with them he, who to-day was all but deified, in a very few weeks, before the moon waned, became the object of one deep, loud, and universal burst of vituperation. The idolaters become iconoclasts, broke their images to atoms, which they trampled under foot. All this afforded a strong ground for watching such a people's conduct, and, in connexion with such a people, the conduct of their magistrates. But their Lordships were not to be led away by those feelings; they were to argue like rational men. Her Majesty had in the Speech from the Throne most graciously expressed the reliance She had, not only upon the loyalty, but upon the good sense of the people of Ireland. He had not the least desire to underrate that reliance, but rather, if he could, to regard it as a reliance upon a rock, and not upon a reed; and but for those alternate fits of popular fever, of heat and cold, he should readily participate in that expression of reliance upon their common sense, in spite of all experience of their mercurial nature. Now, this observation was very germane to the matter in hand, and might well account for there being one law for dealing with magistrates in a country composed of people
960
of great deliberation, of great slowness to be moved, of great aversion to strong expressions, either of admiration or of censure, and another law for dealing with magistrates in a country composed of people of so mercurial a temperament that notwithstanding their many excellent qualities, and notwithstanding all their genius, they had taken this notion into their minds, that all matters of the most grave importance, all matters in which any very immediate personal interests to them as individuals or as a people were involved, are of no consequence compared with a few notions of a totally abstract nature, such as the repeal of the Union, or such as those other questions which were at this moment distracting the minds of our excellent neighbours, the French. Their constitutional temperament, like that of the Parisians, was such, that any man by raising his hand for any sort of abstract notion, could get together 20,000 or 30,000 people, march them in procession, and make them meet in one field; and all this without the slightest intention of breaking the peace, or for any illegal purpose; though such people were very apt, before the day was over, to turn their numbers to illegal purposes, because when great numbers are assembled together, their very numbers makes them illegal. The meeting in masses of armed men, however innocent in itself originally, would, from the very fact of their numbers, become illegal. That which was perfectly legal in its inception might become illegal in its endurance, and might lead to most mischievous consequences by astonishing and terrifying the peaceable subjects of the Crown, and, above all, by endangering the public peace of the realm. Look at our greatest authorities in the law, and you find it laid down that even a body of friends assembled to accompany a man to market, and defend him in his walk thither, is an unlawful assembly, and to be dealt with as such, and dispersed, nay, with punishment of the parties so assembled. But as he understood the facts of the present case, even the purpose for which the assemblage took place in Castlewellan was such as to make a collision extremely probable. There was a challenge. That which had happened the year before between these parties rankled in their minds; and when it was said by one party to the other, "Oh, you dare not do so and so," the other said, "But we dare do so and so." "Oh!" says the noble Earl, "there was no collision, be-

961
cause only one party was concerned." Aye, but the challenge was given and it was accepted, and there must always be two parties to a collision. If a man goes out to fight a duel, he breaks the peace, and there is a collision if they meet, and though they don't there is a misdemeanour. He (Lord Brougham) declined entering into the details of this case. But the purpose for which he more especially rose to address their Lordships was one, considering the profession to which he belonged, he could not avoid regarding, nor could he let the present debate close without stating one matter which had struck him while attending to this discussion. With respect to the dismissal of magistrates, he had no manner of doubt that their dismissal was clearly within the competence of the Great Seal, according as the Keeper of the Great Seal should think right. That was clear; but at the same time it was the bounden duty of the persons in that high trust to exercise a sound discretion. He was not capriciously, above all he was not from personal, party, or corrupt motives, to exert that power. He was bound to satisfy his own conscience by inquiry that there was good ground for dismissal. He (Lord Brougham) always greatly doubted the soundness of the doctrine laid down by Lord Eldon, that when once a man was in the commission, there was no possibility of removing him until he had been convicted of some criminal offence; that was not, in his (Lord Brougham's) opinion, the law of the Great Seal of England—at all events since the time of Lord Eldon it never had been the practice; persons had been removed from the commission of the peace in England without any conviction in a court of law. He himself presented a petition against Lancashire magistrates for fining poachers whom they could not convict on the game laws, but asked if they had been at church last Sunday, and finding they had not, fined them. This was an outrage on all justice, for which he had called on the Chancellor of the Duchy to remove them, and yet they never could have been prosecuted for it. But in Ireland the practice had been quite different, even in Lord Eldon's time, from that observed in England; he meant that it had been much more lax. Magistrates there had been constantly removed from the commission for causes which were never thought to be a ground of removal in England; such as for attending a Repeal meeting, or a meet
962
ing connected with the Orange lodges. His noble Friend had said that the course which had been pursued by the Irish Government was an unconstitutional one; and that the magistrates ought to have been brought before a court of law for inquiry. But, in point of fact, there was no necessity for instituting any inquiry at all. The Lord Chancellor must satisfy himself that there were good grounds for dismissal; he must adopt every reasonable mode to inform his own conscience. But it appeared that a commission was issued, and was entrusted by his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) to Mr. Berwick, who possessed his noble Friend's confidence, he not being a violent partisan, but a person who from his habits as well as his rank and station would ably and fairly conduct the inquiry. But then it was said that he was unduly empowered to administer an oath; he (Lord Brougham) admitted that making Mr. Berwick a magistrate for the county would not authorise him to administer an oath, except in matters over which he had jurisdiction as a county magistrate; he could not examine upon oath solely for the purpose of informing the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of the result of his inquiries; but then the Lord Lieutenant, exercising the powers of the Crown, had clearly a right to empower Mr. Berwick to examine upon oath whether he was a magistrate or not. This was often done in England on the most important inquiries. Thus he (Lord Brougham) sealed a Commission of Inquiry into corporations, and the Municipal Corporation Act grew out of their report. That Commission empowered any one or more of the commissioners to examine all persons upon oath. Thus the Lord Lieutenant possessed a power to enable Mr. Berwick to administer an oath, in this inquiry, though he (Lord Brougham) would not say that perjury could be assigned against any party on account of such oath. But then it was asked, why were not Lord Roden and the Messrs. Beers authorised to attend this commission? But the commission was not of a nature to require them to attend. It was an ex parte proceeding to satisfy the Great Seal and the Government, and no other party had any right to complain of not being invited to attend. Such meetings as those which had been mentioned during the debate, as their Lordships were aware, were attended with very great risk of disturbance in Ireland; and no

963
wonder, for they were told by Major Wilkinson, in his evidence, that the people went to him with their bibles and blunderbusses, just as if they were going to a picnic. [Lord STANLEY: That is not in the evidence.] My noble Friend has not read his brief. If without reading it he spoke three hours, had he read it he would have been speaking still. The words, exactly as I have given them, are at full length in Major Wilkinson's evidence, a print of which lies before me. He says, "The people came with their bibles and their blunderbusses exactly as if they were going to a picnic." He (Lord Brougham) considered that a complete answer had been given to the charge against Mr. Berwick, and he was rejoiced that the honour and fairness of that gentleman's proceedings had been vindicated. Lord Brougham went on to say that the charge against the Irish Chancellor was entirely groundless. That high officer, no doubt, had read and well weighed the evidence. In all likelihood the letter addressed to himself was framed with his own concurrence. He (Lord Brougham) had no doubt whatever on this head. He (Lord Brougham) had forgotten to put his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) right on what he most erroneously conceived to be a novelty in Mr. Berwick's mode of recording the evidence of witnesses. Why did he give no questions, said his noble Friend, but only answers? What judge did so? He (Lord Brougham) must inform his noble Friend, by asking the question, what judge ever in the world did take down the questions? Why, no one ever heard of such a thing, unless once in half a year, when some peculiar reason arises for deviating from the ordinary course most uniformly pursued by all judges in all parts of the empire where witnesses are examined before them. Yet these notes, which give no questions, and only record the subsistence of the answers, are reported to the courts whence the records come for trial; and these judges' notes of the answers in substance form the only grounds on which the court appealed to proceed, or can proceed. Nor is one line of any shorthand writer's note ever suffered to be seen by the court appealed to, even if such shorthand writer, unlike the Irish gentleman, had been present at the whole examination. What, therefore, could be more groundless than this charge against Mr. Berwick? He (Lord Brougham) believed that, upon the whole, substantial justice had been
964
done in the case now under discussion, and that a right course had been pursued. He thought that no objection whatever could be made to the conduct of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon), which, in his opinion, had been distinguished by great wisdom and perfect honesty. He hoped the course that had been followed to-night would not be drawn into a precedent, and that when any magistrate was removed from the commission, either here or in Ireland, they would not have a six hours' debate on the circumstances of his dismissal. He must add that a more triumphant answer he never had heard than that given to his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) on the notes of the absent reporter. Had he (Lord Stanley) taken the trouble of comparing Mr. Berwick's own notes with his report, he might have made a better case. He would only say, before he sat down, that he was certain the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden), during his long exercise of judicial functions as a magistrate, had never shown the slightest approach to unfairness, partiality, or prejudice, political, religious, or personal; and after the debate which had taken place, the name of that noble Lord would go forth from this trial to his country and to the word as entirely unimpeached and untarnished by any imputation of unfairness, partiality, or injustice, as it was before the 12th of last July; and more unimpeached or untarnished, no name in Europe could be.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwas anxious to state, that in every step which his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had taken on this subject, he had had the entire co-operation and the fullest approbation of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl had held office in Ireland during a most extraordinary period, and no part of his conduct had more entirely merited the approbation of his Sovereign and of the Government than had the manner in which he had conducted this most delicate, difficult, and unpleasant business. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) greatly regretted the circumstances which had led to this debate. It was vexatious to every man who felt interested in the prosperity of Ireland, and it was mortifying and humiliating to every Irishman, to find that, notwithstanding all that had been done, and all the weight of authority that had been brought to bear—the weight of both Houses of Parliament, of addresses to the Crown, and answers from

965
the Crown, it had been impossible to root out of that country those remains of faction and party which had led to the lamentable result that had formed the subject of the discussion that night. Every one had joined in deprecating those societies, and yet the noble Lord opposite appeared in this Motion as the apologist and advocate of the Orangemen; and he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) appealed to their Lordships whether, in almost every part of his speech, there had not been constant laudation of the men of that party, which maintained and promoted by all the means in their power these mischievous processions? The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden) had complained that Orangemen had been persecuted by all statesmen, whether Whig or Tory; but did it never occur to the noble Lord that the Orangemen by their conduct had deserved the reprobation which he acknowledged they had met with from every eminent and unprejudiced man? Troops and magistrates were sent out as much against the Ribandmen as against Orangemen; there was no special feeling on that side the House against Orangemen, but the general opinion was, that both societies were equally injurious. Now, Orange societies were maintained chiefly by and for these processions. The object of those who permitted and encouraged the demonstrations on the part of Orangemen was clear; for if it were not for the processions of which they had heard, there would be no Orangemen, The evils resulting from the continuance of these societies and processions were fully shown in the present case. They had first the tumult, riot, and bloodshed which invariably accompanied processions of this kind; and they had then the corruption and contamination in the administration of justice which inevitably resulted from the existence of such societies. He did not mean to impute any injustice or partiality to the noble Earl, who was as incapable as any one could be of such conduct; but he asked them to look to the facts of the present case, and imagine what must have been the feelings of the Catholics of his neighbourhood, when they saw the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) appear, as he had done, on the bench at Castlewellan. In these cases of party riots, not only had Catholics their houses wrecked and their persons injured; but when proceedings were taken in courts of law, they found that they had to depend upon the decisions of Orange juries and Orange magis-
966
trates. Catholics were almost always convicted, while an Orangemen never was. [Cries of "No, no!"] Was it not so at Crossgar? Was it not so at Ruthneale? And was it not the fact that several Catholics had been held to bail at Castlewellan for being concerned in an illegal assembly, while at the very same place informations tendered against Orangemen for a similar offence had been rejected? Would people suppose that justice was administered fairly when they saw the noble Earl acting as he did? He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) imputed nothing whatever to the noble Earl beyond a mistake in judgment, and felt sure that he was anxious to act with the utmost impartiality and most conscientiously in administering justice between man and man; but there were cases in which such mistakes must be visited with reprehension. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) hoped, from the bottom of his heart, that this would be the last time there would be a discussion in Parliament upon this most odious subject. It was a painful thing that the Government should be obliged to bring in such a Bill as they had introduced into Parliament, instead of trusting to the common law of the country. He trusted, however, that a Bill would put an end to such proceedings; and he was confident the course his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) had taken was the only course which could have been taken to maintain the dignity of the law, and to show Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland that justice in Ireland would be administered without partiality.
LORD ABINGERdid not consider that there had been shown, during the whole of the debate, any reason why the noble Earl had been dismissed from the commission of the peace. Lord Roden could not be accountable for the attack upon the procession—he was surely not accountable that an Orange procession should take place. When he assented to receive the deputations, he was not aware that a procession would be formed, consequently it was for something subsequent to the procession that he was dismissed. It was impossible for Lord Roden to receive information of what afterwards occurred. Punishment ought not to be inflicted upon magistrates except upon proof of corruption. That was a wholesome maxim of our civil law, but there was not even in this case the allegation of such a charge. The Government were, in his opinion, using the autho-

967
rity of the Crown against the Crown, and he did trust that they would, in a short time, see the justice of restoring the noble Earl to a commission which he had so worthily occupied.
LORD STANLEYsaid, if the noble Lords opposite were satisfied with the issue of the debate, and thought that their proceedings were vindicated, he, for his part, would be quite satisfied with its result. With respect to the shorthand writer's notes, he had heard their correctness questioned for the first time that night. He had a great number of letters in his pocket, all testifying to their accuracy. That report was verified by an affidavit in the Court of Queen's Bench, which remained uncontradicted. He believed it had been stated by the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) that the reporter of the Newry Telegraph had not taken notes of the proceedings.
The EARL of CLARENDON: Not on the second day.
LORD STANLEYhad no opportunity of knowing whether he had taken notes or not, but it was quite clear he was present. He could only say that he would not set the assertion of a rival newspaper against a report verified by an uncontradicted affidavit in the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, but would set that affidavit against an anonymous communication.
The EARL of CLARENDONsaid the communication alluded to was not anonymous.
LORD STANLEYcould state that the observations of Chief Justice Blackburne were not addressed to this affidavit. The proceedings against the Dublin Evening Post were instituted at a late period, and the question arose why they were not taken sooner. In order to meet this ease, a series of articles published in the Dublin Evening Post were put on the file, for the purpose of showing that their continuous publication was injurious to the prosecutor. Chief Justice Blackburne was of opinion these articles were insufficient to account for the delay, and, on this ground, he refused to make the rule absolute; but to show that there was no allegation on the truth of the prosecutor, it would be sufficient to state that the rule was discharged without costs. He felt it would not be necessary for him to enter into the merits of the whole case; but he would remark that he did feel surprised that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had accused him—he thought, he
968
might have been asleep during the early part of his address—had accused him (Lord Stanley) of being the advocate of party processions. He who claimed to be the Minister who first introduced a Bill to put such party processions down—he who had hoped to have passed the measure quickly through the House—he who had done something by bringing forward this substantive Motion, in order to prevent the question being mixed up with the greater question of party processions—he did feel surprised that he should be accused of being the champion and advocate of Orangemen. In 1835 he had been most anxious to dissolve the old body, and he regretted the formation of the new. He was perfectly satisfied with the result of the discussion, as far as his noble Friend (the Earl of Roden was concerned. The noble Marquess (the Marquesss of Clanricarde) had inquired if such a discussion would have taken place if Mr. Beers, or some one occupying a more insignificant position than the noble Earl had been dismissed; and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had said that it would hamper Chancellors if, when a magistrate was dismissed, it were to be a Parliamentary question. Now he said, be he high, or be he low, be well known or obscure, if oppression or tyranny were exercised in the dismissal of any magistrate, he trusted the time would never come when that magistrate would find the doors of Parliament closed against his just complaints. His noble Friend had, during that debate, ample testimony borne to his station and high character. It was true his noble Friend had not the satisfaction of knowing for what cause he was dismissed from the commission of the peace; but he had the satisfaction of hearing that Government which had dismissed him bearing testimony to his justice and impartiality as a magistrate; he had the satisfaction of knowing that all that could be brought against him was that in this single case he had been guilty of an error of judgment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.