Sitting of 17 June 1853

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.— For Durham, v. Lord Adolphus Vane, void Election; for Peterborough, v. George Hammond Whalley, Esq., void Election.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Seamen's Savings Banks.
2o Soap Duties.
3o Excise Duties on Spirits.

THE BURMESE DESPATCHES—MORTALITY AMONG THE TROOPS.
MR. COBDENsaid, he rose to move that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday next, that he might have an opportunity of making some remarks in reference to the documents which had been presented to the House relating to the Burmese war. It could not but have been observed by those who bad read with attention the despatches and correspondence in question, that nearly all the more important documents were not given in full, but that only extracts of them were furnished. When they had papers referring to communications with civilised countries with which they were engaged in war laid on the table, it might be impolitic to give information to the enemy, and there might also be risk of giving additional offence by the publication of the whole of the documents which might contain irritating matter; but he could not understand how these reasons could apply to Burmah, any more than they could apply to the papers in reference to the war with the Kafir tribes. It was not likely the Burmese Government could get access to our blue books, and he did not know of any great evil that could arise even if they did. He therefore asked, how could the House judge of the character and conduct of those by whom we had been involved in this war, unless they had all the
378
information that could be afforded, and how could the public men engaged in it be justified unless the whole case was seen by the world? He observed that Lord Dalhousie had sent Commodore Lambert to Rangoon with specific instructions, and, among the rest, with some very emphatic directions to avoid hostilities until he had communicated with India; but he found those instructions had been set aside and departed from, and, yet, in reading the correspondence of the Governor General after these events had occurred, he had not found one word of censure or of disapprobation in reference to the evident disobedience to his orders. The Earl of Derby, the Premier of the day, had indeed expressed in the House of Lords his disapprobation of the precipitate conduct of Commodore Lambert; but the Governor General had not. The despatches from the Governor General were nearly all garbled and mutilated, and that circumstance had led him to the supposition that portions of those despatches had been suppressed which might be necessary for the vindication of the Governor General himself, for, as they stood, he did not seem to him to! have vindicated his own authority, or that he had a will and purpose which would be obeyed by those under his command. He thought the House should have the fullest information before it respecting such grave questions, unless in the cases to which he had already alluded, of war with civilised countries. He was the more particular in calling the attention of the House to the present case, because he remembered well what had been done with the despatches relating to the Affghan war, the circumstances connected with which were not known for two years after. In that case some of the secretaries employed in the preparation of the documents hardly knew their own productions. He would read an extract from the admirable historical work of Mr. Kaye in reference to this subject, as follows:—
"I cannot, indeed, suppress the utterance of my abhorrence of this system of garbling the official correspondence of public men; sending the letters of a stateman or diplomatist into the world mutilated, emasculated, the very pith and substance of them cut out by the unsparing hand of the State anatomist. The dishonesty by which lie by lie is palmed upon the world, has not one redeeming feature. If public men are, without reprehension, to be permitted to lie in the face of nations—wilfully, elaborately, and maliciously to bear false witness against their neighbours—what hope is there for private veracity? I care not whose knife, whose hand did the work of mutilation; and, indeed, I do not know. I deal with

379
principles, not with persons, and have no party ends to serve. The cause of truth must he upheld. Official documents are the sheet-anchors of historians, the last courts of appeal to which the public resort. If these documents are tampered with—if they are made to misrepresent the words and actions of public men, the grave of truth is dug, and there is seldom a resurrection.…In most cases the lie goes down unassailed, and often unsuspected, to posterity; and in place of sober history we have a florid romance."
He did not wish to apply these severe remarks to the East India Company; but the very process of mutilating the Affghan documents had, as they knew, taken place under the direction, with the approbation, and under the very hands of men still living among them, and holding a distinguished position in political affairs. Without charging anything of the kind against any one in this case, he held that the House were bound to be watchful and suspicious on such a subject, and to see they were fully informed as to what was done; for, let them mystify it as they might, it was ultimately to that House that the responsibility of providing for the consequence of those wars would come. He, therefore, begged to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Control where and by whom the papers respecting the Burmese war were prepared to be laid before Parliament, and who was responsible for the selections of the extracts?
MR. BAILLIEsaid, it was not his intention to enter into any discussion with the hon. Member in respect to the policy which all Governments adopted, rightly or wrongly, of withholding such portions of papers asked for as they might deem it expedient to produce. He thought the practice of cutting out extracts of despatches was very often abused. He remembered that when he brought before the House the subject of the Affghan war, he pointed out that the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes had been mutilated to such an extent that in many cases the letters he wrote were made to express an opinion precisely the contrary of that which he really entertained. He must complain, however, of the course taken on the present occasion by the hon. Member, who had put on the notice paper a simple question—who was responsible for the selection of the extracts laid before Parliament? Of course, the simple answer was, that the then President of the Board of Control was responsible; but he complained that the hon. Member should have taken an opportunity of making statements with respect to those de-
380
spatches without giving notice to the late President of the Board of Control, who was the responsible Minister at the time, but who was not now present to vindicate the course he had taken. He had no hesitation in saying, whatever the consequences might be, that the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Herries) was responsible for the despatches in question.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must also express his disapproval of the practice of mutilating official documents, which were, in fact, the "raw materials" of history. He had been authoritatively informed that two despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes, which entirely exculpated Dost Mahomed from the charge of having provoked the Affghan war, bad been mutilated in a most disgraceful manner. He had no language to express his disgust and indignation at conduct so unworthy and dishonourable. In the Navy estimates he found that provision was made for a pension of 150 l. a year for Capt. R. Lambert, in consideration of his services in the Burmese war; but he was credibly informed that if all the documents relating to that deplorable event were before the House, there would appear strong reason to suspect that the officer in question deserved no such remuneration, having been the person who, by his disobedience of orders, had himself been the cause of hostilities in the first instance.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: It is my duty as President of the Board of Control, I believe, to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for the West Riding; and in reply I have to state that the despatches on the subject of the Burmese war were prepared at the Board of Control, and that the President of the Board of Control at the time the extracts were prepared is responsible for them. I have no reason to complain of the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), as my conduct is not impugned; but I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baillie) that it is inconvenient that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Herries) should have been impugned as it has been to-night, more or less, without his having the slightest notice that it would be questioned.
MR. COBDENsaid, that he had no intention of impugning the conduct either of the late or the present President of the Board of Control; for he never yet met with any one who could tell him who was responsible for the garbling of despatches.

381
He had asked several persons who were likely to know, and had been invariably told that the papers were prepared at the India House.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that he had seen a private letter from an officer in the India Company's service, which gave a most appalling account of the mortality amongst the troops engaged in Burmah. It stated that one regiment had lost—not in action, but from the effect of the climate and the inconveniences to which the troops were exposed—no fewer than 400 men; and there were three, or at any rate two other regiments, which had been reduced to mere skeletons by the operation of the same causes. Now, although he was not particularly fond of soldiering, he thought that the lives of soldiers were just as valuable as the lives of Members of that House, or of any other persons who remained at home; and when he read these statements he could not help asking what this war was all about, and what we, or the Burmese, or any one else, had to gain from it? He thought the House had a right to complain of the manner in which information on this subject had been laid before them. The despatches were so mutilated that, generally, they were without the head and the tail, and in some cases they did not contain the middle completely. It seemed to him evident that a deception had been intended to be practised on the House; and that, whoever might be responsible for it, the course which had been taken with respect to these despatches was such as, if it had been practised in common life, or with respect to commercial transactions, would have excluded those who had been guilty of it from respectable life over afterwards. He hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had to prepare any papers he would do so on a better plan than that which had been pursued by his predecessors. If a person were to judge from these papers, he would certainly believe the Marquess of Dalhousie to be a much less able man than he was generally supposed to be; and if he (Mr. Bright) were a personal friend of that nobleman, he should demand that the papers should be given in extenso, for the vindication of his reputation. He could not express his opinion too strongly with respect to a practice which approached the secrecy and irresponsibility of despotic Governments, and could have no relation whatever to the constitutional principles under which the Government of this coun-
382
try was said to be carried on. He would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the statement to which he had referred, with reference to the health of the troops engaged in the Burmese war, was correct?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that he could not answer the particular question which had been put to him by the hon. Gentleman; but he was sorry to say that it was certainly true that there had been considerable mortality amongst the troops in Burmah; those stationed at Rangoon had continued in good health, but amongst those at Prome there had been very great mortality.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA.
MR. EWARTput the question of which he had given notice, to inquire of the President of the Board of Control whether the Legislative Council which it is intended to appoint in India will be a council open to the public, or having its proceedings made known by being reported to the public?
SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to reply that it was not his intention to provide for that point by legislation in this country.

THE SOAP DUTIES.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether, on any future occasion, side by side with the foreigners, who could under the new duties introduce soap at the rate of 8d. per cwt., British manufacturers, who exported soap and received the present drawback of 14 guineas a ton, would be allowed to bring it back to this market on the same scale of duties as foreigners paid?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that inasmuch as if this point were not clearly understood it might lead to extensive losses, the House would, perhaps, excuse him if he gave a detailed answer to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark. The hon. Gentleman would be aware that, according to the Resolution of this House, the Excise duty upon soap would expire on the 5th of July next. He would be also aware that, according to the Resolution of this House, the import duty upon soap had been reduced from a corresponding rate to that of the Excise duty—namely, to 8d. per cwt.; but that reduction had not yet passed into a law. However, a Treasury order had been issued with regard to the other duties and that also; and that order would be sus-

383
pended, so that at present no import of soap would take place at the low duty—at least until after the Excise duty should have been abolished. With regard to the preparations which many persons were making to export soap under the heavy drawback, with the expectation that they would be able to reimport it from the Continent at the low duty of 8d. per cwt., or from Ireland and the Channel Islands free from duty altogether, he must inform his hon. Friend that although it appeared that under existing circumstances such an operation was possible, yet upon communications with the authorities of the Excise and Customs, he must give his hon. Friend and the public at large warning that every means would be taken to prevent such an operation from being successful. He had made this statement thus particularly in order that those who were making preparations to obtain indirectly a drawback on their present stock should not have any right to complain if they found that the authorities of the Excise and Customs should prevent any such operation from being successful.

OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he had a question to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London with regard to the administration of justice in this country. The House would remember that at an early part of the Session a witness was committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms for refusing to take an oath before one of the Committees of that House; and upon that occasion he took the opportunity of calling attention to the anomalous state of the law upon the subject, reminding the House that by the present state of the law Quakers, Moravians, Separatists, or persons who had been members of those creeds, were exempted from taking the oaths, and allowed to give evidence upon affirmation; but that other persons, although they might entertain conscientious objections on the subject, were not allowed to substitute an affirmation for an oath. He had then suggested that power should be given to the tribunals of this country to allow an affirmation to be substituted for an oath where it appeared to them that the refusal to take the oath proceeded from conscientious motives. Since that time the Common Law Commissioners had in their second Report recommended that very measure, together with several other important changes in procedure. There had been also last night, as he saw by the public papers,
384
an interesting conversation upon the subject in another place, when two of the highest legal authorities in the country gave their sanction to this proceeding, and he feared that this would give rise to more frequent refusals to take the oath than had been hitherto met with. He understood it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out all the propositions of the Common Law Commissioners; but among those propositions were some which would doubtless lead to considerable discussion, whereas this simple change of the law with regard to oaths would not, he believed, meet with opposition from any quarter. He begged, therefore, to ask whether the Government would take into consideration the propriety of introducing a Bill immediately for the purpose of making this change separately, without waiting for the adoption of the other recommendations of the Common Law Commissioners?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he could not, on the instant, state what course the Government would pursue on this question; but the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) should receive their consideration.
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN BURIAL GROUNDS.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsaid, that on the 16th June orders were given by the Home Secretary to close 106 graveyards in the metropolis. He wished to know how many new burial grounds or cemeteries were being provided under the Act of last year to replace those ordered to be closed?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that his hon. Friend was quite correct in stating the number of graveyards which had been closed by Order in Council. Other graveyards in the metropolis were under examination, and the rest would probably be closed at no distant period. The Act of last year gave the Home Secretary power to close graveyards, the continuance of which was injurious to the public health, but it did not vest in him any power to provide new graveyards. That arrangement was left to the parishes concerned, and he was not therefore able to state to his hon. Friend exactly what arrangement had been made by the parishes to provide new means of interment. He did, however, happen to know that several parishes were engaged in providing new places of interment, and he

385
also knew that, besides the great cemetery at Woking, established by Act of Parliament two or three years ago, there was a Bill which had passed through that House, and was now under discussion in the House of Lords, for providing another cemetery at a certain distance from the metropolis. It was within the circumference of what was called the metropolitan district, and could not have been undertaken without the sanction of the Secretary of State. He had, however, felt it his duty to give that sanction from a desire to afford every facility for supplying the place of those graveyards which he had felt it his duty to close.

SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 7 (Dispositions to take effect at periods depending on death, or made for evading duty, to confer successions).
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to know whether it was intended by this clause to impose a tax where there was a present gift of the property, but accompanied by a secret trust or reservation. He would suppose that a father, with the purpose of evading the legacy duty, made a present of a certain amount of property to his son in his lifetime, or when he believed himself to be near his death. The money or the estate was received and became the property of the son, with a secret understanding and reservation that the son should for the rest of the lifetime of the father give him the interest of that property. On the death of the father the money or the estate became absolutely the property of the son; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government that a Court of Law should decide in these cases, when it was admitted that the intention of both father and son was to evade the legacy duty? If this clause passed in its present shape, it would be years and years before the Courts of Law or the court of last resort would finally put a judicial construction upon the exact meaning of this clause. One Judge would say that there had been no fraud, and another would decide the reverse.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon., and learned Gentleman had put to him two questions which he bad illustrated with cases, and he must say that he thought that the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be much clearer without the illustrations. The
386
second illustration he put was placed on a foundation that made it quite distinct from his first illustration, and then a gloss was put upon it which brought it back exactly into the same category as the first. As to the first illustration, he understood it to be this: suppose a father confers upon a son a gift of 100,000 l., with a secret reservation or engagement— a secret trust or arrangement—under which there is to be paid to the father during his life an annuity of 3,000 l. a year, that secret trust or arrangement not being capable of being enforced in a Court of law, would it, according to the intentions of the Government, come within the purview of the Bill? The answer as to the intentions of the Government was this: So far as they could clothe their intentions in words, they did not suppose that the words they used in the former part of the clause would bring such a case as that within its operations. But with respect to the second part of the clause, he was not prepared to give the same answer. The object of that second part was to cover, as far as they could, cases where parties meant to evade the Act. They were not, prima facie, exempt by the operation of the second portion of the clause; but it must depend, he apprehended, on the specialties of each case. The intention to evade might exist, and yet not be such as would satisfy a Court of competent jurisdiction. If there were circumstances to satisfy a Court of competent jurisdiction that the arrangement had been made for the purpose of evading the operation of the Act, then, whatever the nature of the arrangement was, it would, according to the intentions of the Government, come within the meaning of the clause. If the evidence fell short of that, he need not tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that it could not come within its operation.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would suggest the introduction of words to give full effect to the intentions of the Government, thus at once putting an end to all doubt as to the meaning of the clause, but leaving, of course, the question open as to the policy of the enactment. Was it really the intention of the Government to enact a law that no parent should give to his children any amount of property when he knew his death was approaching, without such act being considered as an intention to commit a fraud? If such were the meaning of the Government, they should state it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No; that is not our meaning.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that was the case that was put; and he wanted to know, before the clause was agreed to, what was the description of case which the Government meant and intended should amount to a fraud under this Bill, if it were passed into a law?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the words of the clause were sufficiently explicit, and, except from the desire of multiplying words, there could be no objection to the adoption of the clause as it stood. If his hon. and learned Friend had observed the words of the clause, he thought he could not entertain any difficulty about the matter. Wherever property wa3 given absolutely, though given with an honourable and moral engagement, as distinct from a legal and equitable contract, that honourable and moral engagement would not come within the meaning of this Bill. When his hon. and learned Friend had accomplished the task of defining every variety and mode that were used to accomplish frauds, then he might hope to express in a definite enactment the means of preventing them; but at present legislators were obliged to have recourse to general provisions to meet such cases. If the father should give his son a property out-and-out, and therefore became bond fide dependent upon the bounty of his child, that in itself would not be an infraction of the law; but if the father gave the estate out-and-out, and by another and independent instrument the son gave, out of the property, or out of some other means, some corresponding advantage, then the union of the two things would manifestly show a purpose of accomplishing by the two acts a fraudulent evasion of the statute. However, if his hon. and learned Friend thought it absolutely necessary, he would not object to the introduction of additional words hereafter.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would now move the omission of the words of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 11, to leave out from "predecessor" to the and of the clause.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was a general enactment in general terms, not meant or calculated to give any court a right to make the law, but a right of saying whether the facts of a case came within the law already made.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was of opinion
388
the words were much too general, especially the term "other" annexed to "disposition of property," as distinguishing it from the express mode of disposition previously noticed. That was far too wide.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he was of opinion that it was very essential to define what was or was not a fraudulent evasion. As far as he understood, if a man gave his son an estate, and the son by any instrument settled that estate upon his father, it was a fraudulent evasion.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he considered that the clause as it stood would give rise to a great deal of difficulty, and would be very liable to misconstruction. The latter part of the clause appeared to him not to convey the same meaning as the former part, and he was of opinion that the omission of the words proposed to be omitted would be desirable.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he considered that it would not be advisable to omit the words. It seemed to him very necessary to make provision that a court of competent jurisdiction should have power to decide whether any disposition had been fraudulently made to evade the duty. It might be necessary to have to encounter fraud of the most ingenious character, and it was, therefore, their duty to adopt every possible precaution against it; but if the latter part of the clause were struck out, there would be no security against anything but an engagement, secret trust, or arrangement capable of being proved in a court of law. If they wished to stultify their own proceedings by passing an Act that every man would be able to drive a coach and four through, they would adopt the Amendment.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered that various meanings might be attached to this clause; but, without expressing his opinion as to whether the words ought to be expunged, he would wish to ask, what was meant by the words "court of competent jurisdiction?"
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought it would be found that the words which the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Vansittart) proposed to omit, were altogether unnecessary. He thought they were called upon to pass a penal enactment, when human ingenuity could not state a case to which it would apply.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he would suggest that an answer should be given to the question of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), with respect to

389
what was to be considered a court of competent jurisdiction. They would find by the 38th and 39th clauses that the Commissioners themselves were to form the court in many important cases, and that the public were left solely to their ipse dixit.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it would be observed that the portion of the clause contemplated an instrument that was to be set aside, and for that purpose an appeal must of necessity be made to a court of equity. That court of equity might be the Court of Exchequer, which in matters of this kind still exercised an equitable jurisdiction, or the Court of Chancery. If any person was alarmed at the words "court of competent jurisdiction," there could be no difficulty in altering the words into "court of law or equity." An infinite variety of cases might be pointed out in which attempts would be made to evade this duty. This provision, however, was one which had existed for years in connexion with the legacy duty—it would only be administered in the Superior Courts at Westminster Hall, by the Judges of the land— it was a branch of jurisprudence already well known to our laws; and, therefore, he thought it ought not to excite alarm among hon. Members.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he differed most entirely from the hon. and learned Solicitor General in regard to the application of the law. He would challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out to him a single case in which a life interest having been given, with a power of revocation, the legacy duty could be made to apply.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he did not know what power the Law Courts might have in this country, but it would be found very difficult to carry the law into effect in the Courts of Scotland. The writers to the signet of Edinburgh had sent to London a case in which they stated that it was impossible to understand the Bill, and that the law terms were to them quite unintelligible.
The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that in consequence of having seen the statement of the writers to the signet, he had gone carefully through the Bill, and he certainly could not understand why the Bill should he considered so unintelligible, because he found that the addition of a dozen words would make the law perfectly applicable to Scotland. The right hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was of the
390
same opinion as himself; and he (the Lord Advocate) could not but think that those who had issued the statement had not given sufficient attention to the subject.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the present was a most important point, not only for the House hut for the public to consider. The essential point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) remained unexplained — namely, why, and with what meaning, was the word "fraudulently" used in the latter part of this clause. The meaning of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exehequer no one could misunderstand. The more odious a tax was likely to be, the more necessary it became to fence and guard the collection of that tax by the most stringent powers. But no feeling of that kind could justify the Government in calling that fraudulent which the law of England had not declared to be fraudulent; and this was the point he wished to have explained. Was the clause intended to be declaratory of the existing law, or was it intended to be the creation of a new offence? If it were intended to be declaratory, then he would ask whether the Government was justified in saying that it was now fraudulent to make an arrangement by which to seek to evade the tax. No doubt every species of ingenuity would be resorted to to protect the public from the imposition of this most grievous burden; but he disputed the right of the Government to interpose words in this Bill which declared that to be fraudulent which the law had not declared to be so; still more did he dispute their right to declare that, hereafter, that should be considered fraudulent which the law had hitherto not deemed so. He would warn the Committee whether it was wise, for the sake of the convenience of the Government, to run counter to the moral feelings of the country, by attempting to declare that to be an offence at law which was not an offence.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the moral feelings of the country were not in the smallest danger of being shocked or annoyed at all by this clause. In fact, the question had nothing to do with moral feelings—considered on either side of the alternative he had put. The right hon. Gentleman said, either this was a declaratory enactment, or it was the creation of a new offence. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to answer that it was neither one nor the other. It was no declaratory enactment, and it was no

391
creation of a new offence. The clause said nothing about fraud, nor what constituted fraud. It used language which was perfectly well known to the law. If three Judges out of four in Westminster Hall had the power to declare that such and such a disposition of property was not fraudulently made for the purpose of evading the duty, then those same three Judges were just as free to declare that a certain act was a fraudulent disposition to evade the succession duty. What the Bill was intended to say was this, that where a competent jurisdiction should declare that a disposition of property had been fraudulently made for evading the duty, then, acting upon the principle of the law and the reasons given by the Court for its judgment, it should be lawful for them to declare a succession to have been conferred.
MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, the Committee had been told what the law on legacies was as established by the decisions of the courts for a long series of years; but it should be remembered that they were now dealing with the whole property of the country at the present moment, and, although he voted for the principle of the Bill, yet he held himself bound to see that that principle was fairly and justly carried out. He very much feared that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was about to introduce a fresh principle and a fresh law, not only as regarded real property, but as affected personal property also. It might take a long series of years to establish the law by a course of uniform judgments on the subjects; and during the interval every person disposing of property would be subject to have his family arrangements disputed and disturbed. In many instances the successor would be liable to be brought before a Court of Law to determine whether disposition was fraudulent or not. In all these cases heavy costs would be incurred, because in no case where the Crown prosecuted were costs allowed. They all knew that the officers of the Crown who would have to carry out this measure would not be affected by any decision that might be come to. They saw what had been done in the recent cases of custom-house prosecutions; and he feared the same consequences would follow from these succession-duty prosecutions. Under these circumstances he hoped his right hon. Friend would consider the proposition which had been made to him, and that he would, at
392
all events, strike out the word "fraudulently" from the clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if he struck out the word "fraudulently" it would be a most fatal gain to his hon. Friend. The fear of his hon. Friend was this, that an honourable arrangement made for family purposes might come within the operation of this portion of the clause. He did not think there was much foundation for that fear as the clause now stood; for he did not believe that any court of competent jurisdiction would declare any arrangement for purposes of an honourable character was fraudulently intended to evade the duty. He thought the word "fraudulently" would operate as a protection to such transactions. Certainly, if the word "fraudulently" were left out, it would subject family arrangements to be questioned, especially whenever mixed motives might be reasonably assigned. It would, therefore, be dangerous to omit the word "fraudulently," as it had a definite meaning in law, and which, if retained, would confine the court strictly to the question of intention to evade the duty.
MR. MALINSsaid, that no case had been suggested to which these words would apply; and the Committee had a right to assume that there was no such case, and that the words were unnecessary. The only case which could occur was the same as had arisen under the legacy duty, that of a man making himself merely tenant for life of his own property, in order to evade the duty payable on his death; and this was sufficiently provided for.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that many trusts were created for the purpose of avoiding the legacy duty. As to omitting the word "fraudulently" from the clause, if that were done the power conferred would be most fearful. It was not intended to render the word "fraudulently" more elastic or comprehensive than it was at present understood by the law.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, he had often been asked what the law was upon a given subject, and he had answered that he did not pretend to understand the law, but he hoped he was able to understand what the intention of the Legislature was, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not so stultify this matter as that the country should not be able to understand it.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the ob-

393
ject of the clause was clear enough. The principle was that the revenue should he fairly collected. It was admitted that there might be bonâ fide arrangements made by which the tax might be evaded. The Government had not the slightest wish to impose a duty on bond fide transactions, but, as great ingenuity would be fairly set to work to evade the duty, the object of this clause was to meet those cases.
MR. WALTERsaid, he would not preface the question he was about to ask with any observations, but he begged to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether or not a family arrangement which should have the effect of evading the legacy duty, though not designedly made for that purpose, would, under this Act, be considered as fraudulent; and, if not, under what circumstances it would be held to hear a fraudulent character?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, according to his view of the Bill the intention of its framers was, that although a disposition of property should de facto evade the duty, yet it would not thereby become fraudulent; and that even a disposition made with the express intent of evading the duty would not by the mere intention alone become fraudulent. But a disposition made to evade the duty must be attended by some other circumstances by virtue of which it might be said to be made fraudulent; and accordingly, the words of the clause were not that the Court should set aside such disposition, but that the Court should declare a succession to have been conferred on such person, at such time, and to such extent as the Court should think just.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, if the Committee consented to pass the latter part of the clause, they opened the door to oppression and tyranny such as never had been sanctioned by Parliament for a hundred years back. It evidently aimed at this—that oral evidence should be considered sufficient proof of fraud. Let the Committee just look at the inducement to heirs-at-law to get up evidence of this kind in cases where those to whom they were heirs had made gifts shortly before their decease—to illegitimate children, for example—and to prove fraud.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must confess that from what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he thought that great doubt would be thrown upon the subject by the adoption of this clause. He understood (he hon, and learned
394
Gentleman to say that a person in articulo mortis might dispose of property for the purpose of evading the duty, and yet that such a dispposition would not be considered a fraud. He would therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to state what those circumstances to which he referred were, which, in the eye of the law, would be considered a fraud?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he should be exceedingly happy to give an answer if his mind was sufficiently comprehensive to have every variety of circumstance that could occur before it. How could he determine what these circumstances might be? Wherever doubt was introduced into the disposition of property, wherever a malus animus was apparent, wherever one thing was done and another thing was intended to be done, wherever there was a secret understanding to evade the Act—that was fraud; but where there was a bond fide transaction, though in contravention of the Act, it would not be a violation of it so as to be regarded as fraudulent.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he felt alarmed at the explanation of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It was not, it appeared, a fraud to part with property, in evasion of the Act, when in articulo mortis. What, then, constituted fraud under the Act? As the law stood, the Attorney General could file an information, or bring an action for the amount of legacy duty whenever it was duo, and the only question of law was, whether the duty was payable by him or not; and the only question of fact to be determined was, whether it had been paid or not; but, if this Bill passed, the Attorney General could file his information, or bring his action for the amount of duty on the ground of fraud, which he never could certainly ascertain till he had elicited a discovery from the person who was alleged to be liable to pay that duty by means of a suit in the Court of Chancery; and the consequence of that suit, let the Committee be well aware, was this—that whether the party against whom the suit was brought was adjudged liable or not, he must pay his own costs, because the Crown paid no costs. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware of that fact, which was not a technical but was an invariable rule.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was glad of this opportunity of being enabled to state that he had received the authority of Her Majesty's Government for'

395
the purpose of rectifying the very serious evil to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and that he hoped soon to bring in a Bill to relieve parties from costs where defendants against the Crown gained their cause.
Question put, "That the words 'and where any Court of competent jurisdiction' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 103; Noes 63: Majority 40.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 8.
Clause 9 (Where the successor shall he a brother or sister, or a descendant of a brother or sister of the predecessor, the duty upon succession shall be at the rate of 3l. per centum upon such value).
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he begged to move as an Amendment that the duty should be at the rate of 2l., instead of 3l. per centum. In doing so, he founded his reasons for urging this proposal upon the justice and policy of the case. He did not believe the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of those persons who would impose taxation without having good grounds for it; but, according to the varying rates of the duty contained in this clause, the right hon. Gentleman would seem to have regarded the tax in the light of a tax upon good fortune—a tax upon good luck—measured by the amount of expectancy on the part of the successor. The number of times the duty would be inflicted in the case of brothers and sisters must be much greater than in the case of any other relatives. In the largest families the number of years that must elapse between the death of the eldest and the youngest could not be very great; and the recollection of hon. Members would no doubt present them with many instances of the sort. He himself was at that moment in the possession of property which passed through the hands of four sisters before it reched him, and that in no longer a period than five years. And he thought that for property to come under the constant inspection and control of the fiscal authorities so often as that, and which it would do under this Bill, would be decidedly inconsistent with justice. As to the policy of the tax, he would take the liberty of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman whether the measure as it stood would not hold out a great temptation to a father so to entail his property that his chsidren should take it as from him, and not in succession one to another, and thus
396
pay the duty of 1 instead of 3 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted the proposal he (Mr. Philipps) now made, he did not believe the symmetry of his plan would be in the least degree marred. Death was "the king of terrors" to most men, but the cause of joy and rejoicing to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. And whenever he read the obituary of a person who was described as being universally lamented, he would add, "except by the Chancellor of the Exchequer." He should regret, however, to see the revenue of the country maintained from such a source as that. And he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would remember that the cup he was administering to them was not a very palatable one, and allow the infusion of the small drop of sweetness which he (Mr. Philipps) now proposed to add to the dose.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must admit the fairness with which this question had been raised —a question which, though as it stood upon the paper appeared unimportant, was in reality of extreme importance. As regarded what the hon. Gentleman said about the symmetry of the measure, he would be willing to make a concession to him on that score. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a succession of four sisters or brothers in four or five years—
MR. PHILIPPS: I said four sisters in five years.
The CHANCELLOR or the EXCHEQUER: Is it real or personal property the hon. Member speaks of?
MR. PHILIPPS: Both.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What we are here dealing with is real property. The Committee should recollect, however, that by this Bill they were dealing with real property and settled personalty, upon which, so far from its operation being severe, in all probability it would not be felt at all. There must be an interval in life interests before the duty would accrue; and if the party succeeding died before twelve months had elapsed, the claim for duty would fall to the ground. The extreme rapidity of succession, therefore, qualified itself in a great degree. Every time a new succession accrued to a life interest or realty, in five years the unpaid portion of the duty dropped altogether. But in his opinion the Committee could not consent to lighten the percentage of duty on the succession of brothers and sisters under this Bill, and leave the legacy duties unmitigated. Would the hon.

397
Gentleman effect his proposed alterations in the succession duty, and confine them to real property, whilst the legacy duty would remain as it stood?
MR. PHILIPPS: I have no objection whatever to extend it to personalty.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This opens a very wide question indeed. They must now confine themselves entirely to the question before the Committee, which regarded the duty upon successions. The scale of duties upon successions was the vital part of the measure. The 3 per cent rate legacy duty had been a most productive one. In 1852, whilst the duty upon direct successions paid in legacy duty, at 1 per cent 238,000 l., that upon indirect successions of brother and sister produced 471,000 l. He was not indisposed to hearken to any reasonable suggestion, but what he felt bound to maintain was the policy of the Bill. Upon the whole, and after the most careful consideration, the scale seemed to him to be not unjust. If an alteration were to be made at all in the scale, they must not stop where the hon. Gentleman would stop. Undoubtedly, the duty of 10 per cent was a heavy one, but then it was to be paid by those who, for the most part, had not had expectancy. The general principle of the Bill was expectancy. The Committee would bear in mind that this was a tax in the nature of a property tax, and was not altogether free from clanger—the danger was, the arbitrary multiplication of the rates. He had heard a great deal in that House, recently, of the policy of extending direct taxation. [Mr. PHILIPPS: Not from me.] No, not from the hon. Gentleman, nor from me either. The difficulties in the way of direct taxation were immense, and they must have a very stringent machinery in order to carry it out; and the only reason which could induce that House to grant such powers, would he, first, the necessity for direct taxation; and, secondly, that those stringent enactments would be tempered by the spirit of society, by the freedom of our institutions, and by the responsibility of public officers to that House. But he saw great danger in the doubling and trebling which it was perfectly conceivable must arise upon this tax; and the existence of these high rates in the scale was a very effective barrier and obstacle to that doubling and trebling of the low rates in the scale which otherwise, in any temporary financial difficulties, must be proposed. He opposed, then, the
398
proposition of the hon. Gentleman, because the maintenance of the present consanguinity scale was necessary to the efficiency of this tax, because, under any system of wise and humane legislation, direct successions ought to be treated tenderly and gently in an Act of this kind, and because he thought the preservation of the present high rate as to indirect successions was the greatest security against any future tampering with this tax.
MR. BARROWsaid, he considered the proposition of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Philipps) was a most reasonable one. He thought the succession of brother and sister had not much to do with the 10 per cent succession of perfect strangers, seeing that the children of the same parent were almost as nearly connected as parent and child. He was anxious to correct the impression that the succession duties would be levied so rarely as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. In the instance mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Philipps) the duty would have been paid four times over within a very short period indeed, for the subsequent clause in the Bill only limited the case to life interests, and left the duty payable on successions in absolute right repayable, whether the party lived two years or seven. He (Mr. Barrow) believed this measure would materially affect the interests of the middle classes of society to which he belonged, and which he represented in that House. It was rot a question whether the eldest son should be taxed or not, but whether the tax would not fall with extreme hardship upon the middle class of society, amongst whom direct successions were not perpetuated. Numerous families eked out a moderate income by three or four sisters living together, and upon the death of each of these this tax would come into operation with very great severity. If he wished to see this Bill hereafter repealed, he should not urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the alteration of the percentage, because he was certain it would help materially to create a feeling out of doors which, sooner or later, would produce a repeal of this and of all other succession taxes.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 10.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of step-children, who were to be taxed, according to this Bill, in the same way as strangers, though he

399
thought they stood in the same relation as sons-in-law; and he put it to the Committee whether they ought not to be taxed in the same lenient manner?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was impossible to accede to the suggestion. No doubt particular cases would arise where the application of the scale laid down might seem to involve hardship, and he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the strongest of these cases. There was no reason which would admit step-children, and exclude adopted children. But there was a case which was stronger than either —that of natural children, and there was the case of a sister or brother-in-law, who were treated by this Bill as strangers. He would recommend the Committee not to take up isolated cases which might come under the notice of an individual Member, and strike him with a force disproportioned to its importance; but if they proposed to alter the scale at all, then to consider and revise it in all its bearings.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought there was one case of peculiar hardship—that of natural children whose parents had subsequently married. He thought their case deserved the serious attention of the Committee, for they were often brought up along with the legitimate children, and treated as members of the same family, and he saw no reason why they should be punished for the faults of others. In Scotland, as they were aware, such children were legitimised, and they would be treated by this Bill as relations by blood; he could not see why they should be treated differently in England.
MR. R. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought that a very strong case existed for an alteration in the duty to be paid by natural children. The law relative to natural children was peculiar to England, the law of other countries recognising adopted children as well as natural children.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should move as an Amendment that children born without marriage whose parents married subsequently, should pay a duty of only one per cent.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his suggestion, which opened a large question. He was well aware that it was hard to punish innocent parties; but if privation of benefit was punishment, he feared that society teemed with such instances. If the hon.
400
Gentleman wished to, legitimise such children as he had referred to, and place them in the same position as they were placed in Scotland, it was a fair question for him to introduce, though he did not say he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could agree to it; but it was surely beginning at the wrong end to raise such a question as that on' a Bill for levying duties on successions.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to understand what the operation of this clause would be in the following case. Suppose a father and son were to grant a joint lease of a farm to a tenant for a period of that tenant's life. In course of time the father died, and the son would, of course, pay the duty on succeeding to this farm as well as on the other portions of the estate. But the tenant died a few years afterwards, and the farm reverted into the hands of the son: would the son then have to pay upon any increased value which the farm might have derived during the occupancy of the tenant? He believed that was not the intention of the Government; but he feared that as the clause now stood that would be its effect. He was afraid the terms of the clause would inflict the hardship of the tax upon those who let their land for lives; whereas those who let it for a term of years would be exempt. He hoped the case would be provided for by the Government.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the subject was under consideration on the part of the Government, including the whole question of leases.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know how the clause would operate in another case. Suppose a man left 2,500 l to each of four children; one of them married and settled his fortune upon his wife and children; he wished to know whether that person would not have to pay the succession duty twice over—once when he succeeded his father, and again, in the case of his wife dying without children, when the disposition of his property would revert to him?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that that was not the intention and would not be the effect of the clause.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought, as this was a Bill which could not be altered by the House of Lords, it was of paramount importance that its provisions should be clearly settled in that House. Besides

401
the affirmative and negative provisions embodied in the clause, there was another point which he wished explained. There might be property which in fact was the owner's in expectancy, which he would have to pay a duty for, deriving it from some disposition or settlement, other than that made by him. The clause imperatively required the parties enforcing it to demand the duty from the person who might have made the disposition of the property within the terms and purview of this particular clause.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he had also looked at this clause, and felt considerable hesitation as to what would be its probable effect. He thought some alteration ought to be made so as to do away with all obscurity and ambiguity.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he should not propose the verbal Amendment of which he had given notice, relative to leases determinable on lives or ninety-nine years; but if an alteration were not made, he should, at another stage of the Bill, bring up a clause to meet the unfairness of which he complained. It was unfair to put the tax on one class of men, and take it off others. He could only regard such a proceeding as another sop to county Members who gave their support to the Government.
The SOLICITOR GENERALagreed to insert such words as would clear up the difficulty.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive.
Clause 16 (Enacts that a policy on the assured's own life shall not be a succession from the insurers).
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that as this clause originally stood, the only policies of assurance exempted from the operation of the tax were those effected by persons on their own lives. In consequence, however, of the arguments which had been urged by various hon. and learned Gentlemen in that House, the Government had determined to amend the clause so as to extend the exemption to all policies of assurance, whether for the lives of the assurers or not. Policies of assurance effected by purchasers in reversion would be exempt; but of course any policy that was treated as property would, like any other property, be charged with this tax,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as although there was no doubt as to the object proposed, there might be some as to the precise words by
402
which it was to be effected, he would suggest that the consideration of this Clause should be postponed.
Clause postponed.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 (Provides that leasehold estates shall not be charged with legacy duty as personal estate).
MR. MICHELLsaid, be must complain that small leasehold estates were taxed double what large landed estates had to pay, because they were subjected to probate and succession duty, and to stamp duty as well. This was an injustice from which leasehold property ought to be relieved.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman complained that they were doing a great injustice by making leasehold property pay probate as well as succession duty by this Bill. Why, he might as well object that it did leasehold property an injustice, by making it pay income tax. The Bill did not touch the probate duty, and they were not able to reform everything at once. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not oppose this clause, which was a clause entirely of relief to the class of property which he befriended.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 19 (Provides that the duties shall be paid in the successor becoming entitled in possession, but on the case of outstanding interests, on the determination thereof).
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to call attention to what he conceived to be one of the points in the Bill which would operate so oppressively that, when it came to be practically worked, it would be found that such a tax could not be and ought not to be permanent. He was not now going to raise the question of the whole principle of the Bill. He agreed to a tax on legacies of personal estate, and thought there was nothing unreasonable in the taxation of successions to landed estate. He agreed also that if they wished to extend the tax to settled realty and to settled personalty, in principle he could see no absolute objection to it. But what he wished to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a point which he (Mr. Walpole) felt most strongly. He believed that in the end they would destroy to a great extent that system of trusts in this country which to his mind was one of the most advantageous systems ever established in any country. The present clause provided that when a duty was payable upon a succession, such duty should be paid when the

403
party became entitled in possession to his succession, but that where there was any other charge which prevented the successor from being entitled to the full enjoyment of the succession—
"the duty in respect of the increased Value accruing upon the determination of such charge, estate, or interest, should, if not previously paid, compounded for, or commuted, be paid at the time of such determination."
As he (Mr. Walpole) read this clause, he believed the result would be to create a mortgage to the Government of all the real and personal estates in the United Kingdom, perpetually to be paid off, and perpetually to be renewed. Let them see the effect that it would have on the system of trust. A person was trustee of a large landed property with estates for life to A, B, C, & c, and innumerable charges for younger children, besides charges for old servants; there might be at the same time a large amount of settled personal property in the funds with innumerable interests connected with it, which he had likewise got to dispose of to the persons that were beneficially entitled to it; if this Bill should pass he would be an accounting party to the Government from the time he accepted his trusteeship. Every time a charge fell in he must go to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and pay the duty, or employ a solicitor to do it for him. When the property was small, it would be so galling to him that he would give up his trust, and if he employed a solicitor see what an expense they would be putting on that property. He (Mr. Walpole) believed that he was trustee for as many persons as most Gentlemen in that House; but if the Bill should pass into law, nothing would induce him to accept a trust again, except for the purpose of conferring upon those he regarded as much benefit as he could confer upon them even at some personal risk.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: How is the trustee damnified any more than an executor under the present Legacy Duties Act?
MR. WALPOLE: Under the Legacy Duties Act there was always a person who on the death of another was known to be the representative of the whole of the personal estate, and he was the sole accounting party. He was known by the Government, and nothing more was required than for that person to give a full account of all the property he had. But how was it when they came to deal with a question of succession? When a person died, how
404
was the Government to know the property chargeable with the duty? The person was tenant for life in one estate, and there was a succession duty payable upon the property; he was tenant in tail upon another, the same thing happened; he was tenant for years in a third, the same thing happened; he had a life interest in a settled estate, the same thing happened; the trustees of the property were bound to account, and the Government could only ascertain the person to pay the duty in one of two ways; they must either call upon every relation of the person who died to give an account of everything he knew respecting the person's property that was just deceased, or they must have such stringent penalties imposed upon the trustees as would compel them to come in, whether they were willing or not, to account for the property. They might be obliged to have recourse to the penalties. Parties would try to evade them; and suits would be instituted by the Attorney General to compel payment of the duty. The result would be that they would be forced to repeal the tax, or to make real property liable to a duty on succession in the same way that personal property was liable to it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, though his right hon. Friend had spoken with great candour and plainness on this subject, he had really left him very much in the dark as to the course which he thought ought to be pursued. He was glad, however, to find that he was not prepared to state that the extension to real property of the duty now paid by unsettled personalty constituted an act of robbery, and in certain cases an act of plunder—a declaration which was made on the other side of the House, amidst vociferous cheering on the last night of the debate. He did not mean to say that the opinion was entertained by all those who sat on the opposite side, but it was entertained not by an inconsiderable section; it was energetically entertained by them, and boisterously supported. His right hon. Friend did not say he was prepared to abandon the 2,500,000 l. of money derived from these successions— he did not glance at such a course—he admitted the principle of the extension was fair; and towards the close of his remarks, he alluded to a different form of proceeding, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not see in what particular the exact difference existed. He had left him unable to devise in what essential

405
respect the position of trustees and executors, under the Bill the House was now invited to pass, would be different from the position they now held under the present Legacy Duty Act. Were there no annuities charged upon personal estates; were there no liabilities when those annuities were paid up; were there not Crown debts to be incurred; and did a person, from the fact of his becoming a Crown debtor, refuse to undertake those charges? The trustee would be enabled to give an account with such particularity to the officers of Inland Revenue as would enable them to call at the proper time for the additional succession duty that might be charged on every man's succession. It would be possible to adopt another alternative—to take all the successions at once, and take the whole tax upon them, and be done with them; and so far as giving facilities to parties who desired to take that course, the subject was worth consideration; but it would be a great burden to make it compulsory on the trustees to have all the persons' estates valued at the time for the succession duty, and to charge him for the whole. The reason why that course was not pursued by the Government was through consideration for the taxpayer. It was better for him to pay the duty at the period when the charges or incumbrances fell in, than to have them all valued in the first instance. With regard to the mode of discovering them, he begged to point out to his right hon. Friend that the means of discovery would be placed in the hands of the Government at the period of the first succession.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into a great inaccuracy with regard to the language which had been used on that (the Opposition) side of the House, which he felt bound, as a matter of justice, to correct. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a contrast between the language which had just been used by his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and that which had previously been used by other Members on the same side of the House, who had described the extension of the legacy duty to real property as an act of robbery or plunder. Now, he (Sir J. Pakington) begged distinctly to state that the right hon. Gentleman was completely mistaken. Neither the word "robbery," nor the word "plunder," had been applied by any one to the extension of the legacy
406
duty to real property. The word "plunder" was used by himself (Sir J. Pakington), and applied to that particular part of the Bill which referred to the manner in which the succession duty was taken from timber; and the word "robbery" was first used by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michel!), and repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and applied to that particular part of the Bill which took the succession tax from leases for lives, and not from leases for years. He (Sir J. Pakington) was sorry to add, that so far as he was concerned, he was not disposed to recede from the word he had used. There was another hard word which he had used, and that was the word "confiscation;" but the word was not his own; he had quoted it from one of the highest authorities in the kingdom on this subject, and applied it to that part of the Bill which taxed settled personalty by ex post facto legislation. He was at all times unwilling to use exaggerated language; but there were cases where only strong words would fitly and appropriately tell the truth; and he, for one, whether in that House or out of it, was determined to say distinctly what he thought; and when he believed that strong words would best suit the case, he should not be deterred by any lectures from the other side of the House from using them. He begged to add that he agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole). He thought that the same principle of taxation ought to be applied to personal and real property; and it was because he thought that they ought to be dealt with alike, and that there ought to be no invidious distinctions between different classes of property, that he objected to the extension of this tax to real property, until they had redressed its inequalities as regarded personal property.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had challenged the accuracy of his statement in a matter on which, if he had been inaccurate, he should have been highly culpable. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had used the word "plunder" himself, hut only in a particular acceptation, and with reference to a particular clause. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never said that the right hon. Gentleman had used it with reference to the Bill at large. It was also true that the word "robbery" was used by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) with re-

407
ference to a particular provision of the Bill; but he did not refer to either the hon. Member for Bodmin or the right hon. Gentleman. He would read a few words to the House, and leave the right hon. Gentleman to judge where they came from: —"Lord Galway moved that the Chairman, unless some explanation were given of the meaning of the clause, report progress. He thought the whole scheme an iniquitous one. Indeed he considered it nothing better than a downright robbery." Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not been inaccurate. He had shown where the inaccuracy lay. The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard these words, or he was quite sure he would not have administered the rebuke which he had done.
SIR JOHN PAKIGTONsaid, it appeared from what the right hon. Gentleman had stated that hard words were used in three instances, and the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that he (Sir J. Pakington) was right in two of them. The third, he confessed, he had not recollected.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, he was afraid the Committee would lose sight of the important clause then under discussion in their attempt to fix the precise meaning of words which had been used in a former debate. He was sorry to say that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not succeeded in removing the impression which had been produced upon his mind by the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and therefore he would suggest whether it would not be advisable to take more time for the consideration of the clause. He had been disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had concluded without moving an Amendment, or suggesting any alternative by which the difficulty might be got rid of.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid no obligation would be thrown on any trustee by virtue of this Bill, unless he happened to be the trustee actually in the possession of the property; and, therefore, in ninety-nine of the cases which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) seemed to apprehend, there would be no new duty, in point of effect, cast upon trustees. Where the trustee was actually the recipient of the rents and profits, he would, no doubt, be liable to pay the duty; but that was an obligation which was small indeed as compared with the onerous obligations which
408
were now discharged by the trustees and executors of personal property, such as leasehold estates, which were now subject to legacy duty. The apprehension of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), he was certain, would be removed to a great degree before the Committee arrived at the end of the Bill.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he must admit that he had, on the previous evening, attempted to stop the progress of this most iniquitous Bill, by moving that the Chairman report progress. He had no hesitation in using the word "plunder" in reference to this Bill; for he did not by any means consider that to be too strong an expression. It was a decided attempt to plunder the aristocracy and the landed proprietors of this country. It was an attempt (which would probably succeed) made by Her Majesty's Government to please a multitude, who cared nothing at all about them, who would laugh at them out of that House, and who would attempt to undermine that which was the best safeguard and security of the Crown and constitution, about which, in his opinion, the Government cared very little. This Bill had been brought forward to please the Manchester school, without which the Government could not hold their places, and by which they were held in the greatest contempt. The Manchester school was composed of people who, of all others, most delighted in undermining; they wore two faces under a hood; they were true moles underground. The Government ought to be independent, and not to be at the beck of a set of people that did not hesitate to plunder their best friends, in order that they might gain the support of the Manchester school. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, by the operation of this Bill, become the recipient of stolen goods; and there was very little difference between the thieves who stole and those who received the stolen goods.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that in referring to a discussion on the previous night on the subject of leases, it had struck him that this section of the Bill really met the whole case of leases in every instance in which the succession took place after the Act came into operation, and that it would be wholly unnecessary to introduce into it any provision to meet the falling in of leases for lives, unless in the single instance in which that event had occurred before the Act came into operation He wished to make one suggestion which ra-

409
ther touched the principle of the Bill. He thought that it proceeded upon too technical a distinction between successions taking place upon death and other successions; and he would suggest, that in order to give due effect to the whole principle of the measure on the ground of perfect and equal justice, it should apply to every species of succession, and not be confined simply to successions that arose upon death, as was at present the case.
MR. HENLEYsaid, if he understood rightly the interpretation which had been given of the clause, a new succession duty would have to be paid upon every falling in of a lease if the property should be let again at an increased rent. With regard to the liability of trustees, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had argued that a trustee would be in no worse position under this Bill than under a will at present. But he would put this case, which was a very common one:—Persons having a life interest in estates had settled them in trustees. Upon that life interest, before the trusts were settled, there had been various charges, many under old family settlements, still not discharged from the estates, and payable out of the life interest. Would the trustees, under such circumstances, be liable to look after the succession of the persons who took those charges? He (Mr. Henley) could not see his way under this Bill, and had taken serious advice as to whether it would not be expedient for him to resign the trusts which he held.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought, as the Bill progressed, the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman would be greatly relieved. The duty would be imposed on the successor, the individual who took the beneficial interest. Whenever a successor was in possession, that successor would be liable to the duty. The duty was thrown upon trustees only by the 43rd clause. When the successor was of full age, and in the enjoyment of the property, he was the person liable to pay the duty. The trustee was liable only where he was actually in the receipt and in enjoyment, holding upon trust for some person, described in the Bill as infant, ward, person under age, curator, &c.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to read the first part of the clause, which stated that—
"The following persons shall be held accountable to Her Majesty for duty payable in respect
410
of any succession, but in respect only to property or funds received or disposed by them respectively and with their concurrence—that is to say, every trustee, guardian, committee, tutor or curator, or husband, in whom respectively any property, or the management of any property, subject to such duty, shall be vested," & c.
It appeared that the executors would have to account for property which belonged to the deceased person on whose death the duty arises. The trustee in this case would have to account for property not belonging to the deceased person, but which belonged to other persons, in respect to which the deceased person only had a life interest. In the one case the clause would call the executor to account for all-personal estate he was likely to be possessed of; in the other case it would call on every trustee of J any property which the deceased person had for his life, or a limited interest in, to account. They would have to ascertain what those particular trusts were, which fact could only he ascertained by the powers given under one of the clauses, or by exacting penalties which they imposed in another clause. He thought that he furnished a strong reason why they should be cautious in passing this Bill into a law. The only remedy he could suggest, in order to make it a good Bill, would he to strike out several of the clauses, and make it a Bill to charge a duty upon a real estate in the same way as it was now charged upon a settled estate.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he wished to know, in respect to funds in reversion received and disposed of, the estate not having fallen in, whether or not it was to be continually liable at all times for the amount of duty arising on these successions?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would suggest that the discussion of those points should be deferred until they came to the consideration of the 43rd clause, which referred to the liabilities of trustees.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he hoped when they came to the 43rd clause, that the Bill would be put in some shape, so as to afford protection to trustees. As regarded the objection of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), he must say that he did not think the clause to which he referred applied to leases; but he must say that he was of opinion that the principle of the Bill ought to be extended to what the hon. and learned Gentleman termed the shifting clauses.
MR. MALINSsaid, though entirely

411
opposed to the principle of the Bill, he begged to express his satisfaction at the temper and moderation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was strongly of opinion that the responsibility of trustees ought not to be increased, and he hoped that before they came to the 43rd clause, this portion of the measure would be reconsidered.
MR. HEADLAMwished to know, under this clause, whether a landlord would be liable for succession duty in respect to the increased value of an estate by the falling in of leases after he had come into possession?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no doubt as regarded the intention of the Government. It was not to include the case of leases in this clause. The purpose of the clause was to point out the time when the duty was payable; but, after what had been said, it would deserve further consideration, whether, for the purpose of obviating such an effect as that referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, some alteration should not be made in the clause.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought the clause, as it stood, clearly applied to building leases.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the clause was intended merely to define the time when the duty should be payable, and not to impose the duty or describe the persons liable to the payment of it.
MR. BARROWsaid, he wished to know whether a son succeeding to his father's property in a few years was or was not, upon the expiration of building leases, to pay duty on the increased value of the property?
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, that if the construction of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) was correct, great complication would follow in the working of the measure; and then two questions would arise. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the succession duty would become payable upon all leaseholds, whenever they terminated, whether they were for terms of years or for lives. That was wholly at variance with the discussion on the previous night. The other question was at what period the increased value was to take place.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that of course leases for years would not be subject to the tax, no succession occurring in those terms.
MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he would suggest the case of a person succeeding to property held under leases, which at the termination of those leases would become much improved in value;— would the successor be charged on the present value or on the prospective value?
The SOLICITOR GENERALreplied, that he would be charged on the present value.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would beg to advise that the clause should be reconsidered, in order to put an end to all doubts on the subject.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he concurred in the suggestion, and moved that the Chairman report progress.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read,
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
MR. CONOLLYsaid he hoped the third reading would not be gone into at that late hour (25 minutes past 12), as it involved questions of great importance, and he had given notice of an Amendment, to read it a third time in six months.
MR. GROGANsaid, he should support the appeal of the hon. Member (Mr. Conolly). The Bill was of the greatest importance to the Irish distillers, and they complained of the injustice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measure. The effect of the Bill would be to render the exportation of Irish whisky impossible. He held in his hand tables showing that the decrease by leakage was double that which the Government proposed to allow for.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not accede to there-quest to appoint a night for the third reading of the Bill. A night had already been appointed for discussion, and on that occasion the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Conolly) did not think fit to make his appearance. The great mass of financial and other business now remaining to be disposed of, made it impossible for the Government to appoint another night for the discussion of this question.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, he thought that the question was one of too great importance to be disposed of at that late hour, for it was not, he considered, a mere fiscal

413
question, but one concerning the demoralisation of a large class of the community. He had mixed with the population of the north-western parts of Ireland, and they required very little stimulus to be driven to the illicit distillation of spirits. Such had been the immediate effects of the measure of the late Sir Robert Peel; and the evil did not rest there, for when a body of men was found banded together for illegal purposes, there would be a focus for everything else that was bad. There would be, also, considerable difficulty in carrying out the law, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman not to lose sight of that difficulty. When Sir Robert Peel proposed his measure, the immediate result was that the gaols were filled with persons convicted under the excise laws. In Donegal, the county which he had the honour to represent, that was certainly the case, and certainly such a state of things ought not to be encouraged. Considering, then, that the proposed measure would be injurious to the social character and morality of Ireland, he felt it his duty to move the adjournment of the debate.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Donegal had given the best possible answer to his own opinion, that it was not practicable at that hour to discuss the merits of the Bill, by himself commencing a discussion on the subject. Although he was unable to concur in the view of the hon. Gentleman as regarded this measure, he was willing to allow its great importance; but, without wishing to disparage the motives of the hon. Gentleman in entering into this discussion, he must say that he thought that his remarks would apply more to the county which he represented than to the whole of Ireland; but, in considering a measure of finance, it was not expedient to consider only the condition of one county but of the whole country. It had been said that the Government had now reproduced the measure submitted to Parliament by Sir Robert Peel in 1841. But they did not propose the same measure, and the measure which they did propose was brought forward under different circumstances. Sir Robert Peel proposed to increase the duty on spirits 1s. per gallon. The present measure, deducting the allowance for wastage, increased the duty little more than 6d. per gallon. Then with respect to the difference of circumstances. The failure of the duty proposed by Sir Robert Peel was not owing to its
414
being simply an increase of 1s. per gallon, but it was demonstrable from the figures on the table, that the failure was in a great measure owing to the powerful and remarkable temperance movement of Father Mathew, under which the consumption of spirits was rapidly diminishing. But there were other circumstances which ought also to be taken into view. Things were very different now from what they were in 1842, and it was much easier to make a change in the administration of affairs in Ireland now than it was at that time. As an instance, he might refer to the recent extension of the income tax to that country. The Government placed great reliance on the improved administrative means at their command, and did not foresee any very great difficulty in collecting this increased duty. The Government had come to the conclusion, that the services of the constabulary force might render most powerful assistance in the collection of the spirit duty in Ireland. Their intimate know-lodge of the population, of their habits, of their dwellings, and of what was going on upon every spot in the country, would enable them to lend the greatest help to the revenue department, irrespective of their more direct duties as a constabulary police. The question had not been dealt with by the Treasury alone. It would have been absurd, on the part of the Government, if they had adopted a measure of the kind irrespective of the opinions of those who were acquainted with the country. They had therefore consulted the opinions of Gentlemen, not only of that House, but of those who were the responsible servants of the Crown, and engaged in the administration of the government of Ireland. Those were the general grounds upon which the proposal was made, and those grounds had already been amply discussed. Those were the grounds upon which the House had decided, by a majority of nearly three to one, to confirm the principle of increasing these duties, and he hoped the House would continue to support that principle.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that, while adhering to the opinion he had formerly expressed, that illicit distillation would be greatly increased by this measure, yet, considering that on the second reading of the Bill, and when in Committee, the objections to it might have been made, he did not think hon. Members would be justified in taking a division on the third reading of the Bill. Still, there was the question of wastage in bond; that was one

415
which was greatly agitated in Ireland, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would even now give it his serious consideration.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman, that, in his great Budget speech it was intimated that the Government meant to make some new arrangement on the subject of wastage. With regard to the employment of the constabulary force, his objection to that scheme was not in a fiscal but in a social and moral point of view. The House was certainly entitled to some explanation with regard to the arrangements for the combination of the existing revenue police and the constabulary, for the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged the propriety of not involving the constabulary in the unpopularity attached to the revenue police. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not introduce a new source of moral disorganisation in Ireland; He did not wish for delay merely to defeat this measure, but he desired the third reading to be postponed, in order that time might be afforded to consider whether the proposed scheme was calculated to benefit the country in a moral and social point of view.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, though not at all wishing to retard the progress of the Bill, still, he thought, some little forbearance should be shown to those who wished to have further time for consideration, as the employment of the constabulary force in the collection of the revenue was a matter of serious importance. In the county he had the honour to represent, and which was one of the counties in Ireland which had never been disgraced by outrage, an extra police force was sent down in 1845, in consequence of the state of things caused by the famine. Two years ago the grand jury memorialised the Lord Lieutenant to remove that additional force, which cost the county 1,200 l. a year. The Lord Lieutenant sent word that the requisition must be made by a meeting of magistrates. Accordingly a second memorial was adopted, but to this day the county was subjected to that additional tax. The employment of a police supported by local taxation for the collection of the Imperial revenue, was a point of considerable importance, and called for the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, there seemed to be much misapprehension as to the intentions of the Government with regard to
416
the employment of the police. It had been the subject of very anxious consideration. The officers of the revenue and of the constabulary force had been consulted upon it; not only the heads of the police, but those who were actively engaged in its duties, and most conversant with the nature of those duties; and the opinion arrived at was, that the constabulary force could take upon themselves the duty of assisting the revenue police without at all interfering with or affecting their regular or ordinary duties. Still, however, the Government had not come to any conclusion upon the subject. They had not determined to amalgamate the two forces, nor had they come to a decision that the constabulary force should be employed in levying this spirit tax. All that was now proposed to be done was of an initiatory character. It was proposed that the revenue police should be left on an effective footing, and that the constabulary force should be used in support of the revenue police, so far as was consistent with their other duties, and with especial reference to the local information they could render. It was in fact intended, in the first instance, as an experiment. As to the imposition of any new and onerous duties on the constabulary body, he could assure the House that no new or onerous duties whatever would be thrown upon them.
LORD NAASsaid, there were two points for consideration before the House. The first point was, as to the policy of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the second point was, as to the amount of allowance for collection. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had laid before them nothing more than a vague plan for enlisting the services of the constabulary in the collection of information. Now, he maintained that the addition of even a penny a gallon to the existing duty upon spirits, without a very considerable addition to the powers at present enjoyed by the Excise for collection, would be, not only dangerous, but impossible. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not prepared to show that he could employ the constabulary in the collection of the revenue, in the same manner in which the revenue police were now employed, he (Lord Naas) was of opinion that it would be perfectly absurd to think that they would secure by any other means a sufficient guarantee that the additional duty proposed could be collected. He thought that they ought not to proceed any further

417
that evening with the discussion of the Bill.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he was opposed to the employment of the constabulary in the collection of spirit duties, as that would tend to lower the moral position of the force. But, bad as that plan would be, what was now proposed was worse, for it was contemplated to make the constabulary common spies and informers for the revenue department in every village throughout Ireland. No respect, no safety even, could be expected for the constabulary under such circumstances; and, for the sake of the peace of Ireland, he asked the House not to make them spies and informers.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he quite agreed with every word of the hon. Member who had last spoken. He could not conceive that anything more injurious to the character and efficiency of the constabulary could be invented than the proposed plan of making them collect information for the revenue police.
CAPTAIN JONESsaid, he fully concurred in all the objections which had been urged against the employment of the police in collecting the revenue. As to the spirit duties, he must tell the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the Act of Sir Robert Peel in 1841 which had reduced the revenue in 1841, and had increased illicit distillation. In 1841 the number of detections was 1,801; of persons in gaol, 171. In 1842, when the Act had had time to work, the number of detections was 1,895; of persons in gaol, 441. Next year the first head had increased to 3,456, the second to 911; and the spirits brought to duty fell off 5,546,000 gallons. Last year the number of detections was 2,904; of persons in gaol, 557. Every attempt to increase the duty was attended with increase of crime and of illicit distillation, and with a reduction of the revenue. He believed that at the present time about 3,000,000 gallons of spirits consumed in Ireland was supplied by illicit distillation. The state of the mountain districts was just the same now as when Sir Robert Peel brought in his measure, and the low selling price of oats, compared with the high duty, gave a premium on illicit distillation.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that as one who had not an acre of land in Ireland, he perhaps might be listened to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he suggested to him to adjourn the debate, seeing the
418
feeling which existed among the Irish Members. ["No, no!"] Well, he had seen enough of the Irish Members to believe they would beat him if he did not yield.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 113: Majority 79.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
LORD NAASsaid, he must complain that the House had heard no statement of the duties which the Irish constabulary were to discharge with reference to the collection of the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give them a minute and detailed explanation of the nature of the service on which that noble force was to be employed—not a statement made now, and on the spur of the moment, but a clear, definite, and satisfactory statement on some future and fitting opportunity. Till that was done, he would oppose the third reading of the Bill, and he now moved the adjournment of the House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the very reasonable request of the noble Lord was, that a minute and detailed account should be given of every little point in connexion with the service of the constabulary with regard to the collection of the revenue. Now, he could assure the noble Lord,, that neither that night nor on the spur of the moment, nor any other night, would he receive from him, or the Government, a statement of the kind he had asked for. And the reason why he would not give such a statement was, that they must be guided solely by experience in the matter, as this was a case in which the judgments of the most experienced and responsible persons could only lead them up to a certain point. They must proceed very cautiously in adopting the services of the constabulary for this purpose, and therefore it was impossible to give such a minute explanation as the noble Lord required. The request of the noble Lord was most unreasonable: it was equivalent to saying, you shall not go into the water till you have learned to swim. He was afraid that if this Bill was not to be read a third time till that request was complied with, the Session would be prolonged to a period far beyond the ordinary limits.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought it a reasonable request made by the noble Lord, especially as he understood, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the

419
Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former evening, that the Government had a plan prepared. Instead of bandying words from one side of the House to the other, which only created acrimonious feelings, it would he far better for the Government to make a statement of the manner in which it was intended the system should work. He, for one, would be content to be bound by the opinion of Sir Duncan M'Gregor as to the employment of the force in the collection of the revenue.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he had had something to do with consulting Sir Duncan M'Gregor and others of the police officers under him in Ireland upon this subject. Sir Duncan M'Gregor stated that some years ago his opinion had been very adverse to any consolidation of these two forces, but that in consequence of the opinions to the contrary given by some of the best-informed officers, and by men most conversant with the districts in which illicit distillation was carried on, he had yielded up his own opinions, and was now not adverse to the consolidation of the two forces. Upon full consideration of the subject, however, it did not appear to the Government desirable that that consolidation should take place at once. There were various reasons why that consolidation should not take place; but this, it was stated, might fairly be done without in any way damaging the morale of the constabulary. The members of that force knew the haunts and habits of the people, knew where illicit distillation went on, and the Government proposed to bring the two forces a little nearer together—to make available for the one the information which the other possessed—not to turn them into spies, but to make available for the public service the information possessed by a public department paid out of the public funds. If, in a future year, changes were found necessary, they would be adopted, but, at present, it was only thought advisable to proceed step by step, and this was the first step. The London police gave this information and performed these duties; so did the Dublin police, and if the House gave weight to Sir Duncan M'Gregor's opinion, and to that of all his best-informed officers, that advice would be to take this very step. The Government had adopted this plan after full consideration; they had acted most cautiously in the matter; and there was no room for any of the objurgations thrown out by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, it might be very right to transfer the duties of the revenue force to the ordinary police, but to make the one the detectors to the other was the very worst system that could be devised. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) had explained the plan, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to do; and all he could say of it was the right hon. Baronet had better have imitated the conduct of his Colleague, and kept it concealed. He did not think, however, that Sir Duncan M'Gregor was a better judge of the matter than the Irish country gentlemen who were in communication with the people, and who administered the laws; though he doubted much whether that gentleman would give an opinion which would have the effect of making the force he commanded a set of spies.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that though this was a great question about spirits, and though he was an Irish Gentleman, he confessed he was not very full of the subject. He thought, however, they ought all to concur in the view that as it was now half-past two o'clock in the morning, it was high time they should be permitted to retire to repose. When the Gentlemen opposite were in office, it had been their constant habit to introduce important Irish questions at very late hours; and when he had often protested against that practice, they had invariably imputed to him that he was offering a factious opposition to necessary measures of their Government. They had since changed their position, and were themselves now engaged in a course similar to that which they had formerly condemned. For his own part, he had then stated that no matter what Government might be in office, he would equally object to proceeding with important Irish business at an unreasonably late hour, and he would therefore now concur in requesting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to a postponement of the debate upon the Bill before the House. He believed that time would be gained by adopting that course, for already there had been nearly two hours consumed in discussing the mere question of adjourning the debate. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien), who was well acquainted with the subject of the present Bill, had stated that there was an important matter upon which he and other Irish Members were anxious to express their views, in regard to the question of wastage of spirits in bond; and he

421
believed there was another matter of equal importance, as to the unfair advantage given to the Scotch distiller by the drawback allowed to him of one-half of the duty on malt used in making Scotch spirits. In reference to the contemplated employment of the Irish constabulary to aid in collecting the public revenue, he would take this opportunity of urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of at once relieving the several counties in Ireland from those charges they were at present subject to, for maintaining a body of extra police no longer required for any local purposes. In the county which he represented, the charge for extra police amounted to no less a sum than 6,000 l. a year. It would be quite unfair to continue this liability, now that the constabulary of Ireland were to be employed in aid of the revenue police. He trusted that, when the proper tithe arrived, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would not fail to attend to this matter. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite had now expressed themselves very strongly against employing Irish policemen as spies. He perfectly concurred in every objection to their being used for any such purpose. But he would remind those hon. Gentlemen that when they were in office, they had not exhibited any such sensitiveness; and whenever a legitimate opportunity might arise he would undertake to demonstrate that, whilst the late Government was in office, Irish policemen had been employed as spies in the most odious sense of the term. They had been so used during the last general elections; and, as one instance, he might refer to a hook called A Fortnight in Ireland, lately published by Sir F. Head, who had obtained every information to enable him to libel the Catholic clergy, through Members of the late Irish Government, aided by Sir Duncan M'Gregor and a spy system introduced during the last general election into the Irish police force. He defied any impartial person to read portions of that hook, and entertain any doubt respecting the accuracy of his present statement. But he would reserve any further observations on that subject until a more opportune occasion. He would again press the right hon. Gentleman to consent to a postponement of the debate, as he believed no time would he saved by continuing it at this very late hour—or, rather, this early hour of the morning.
MR. CONOLLY,amid loud cries of "Divide, divide!" said, he wished to say
422
that, in his county, they were paying a large sum for the maintenance of the police in order to preserve the peace; and now they were to be charged with this additional duty of collecting the revenue.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) would coincide in the opinion that the views of Sir Duncan M'Gregor were valueless, for if such were the case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would scarcely have looked for them. He thought the best course to he adopted was to read the Bill now a third time, and take the further discussion on the final stage.
CAPTAIN MAGANsaid, he thought the suggestion of the noble Lord a very fair one. He wished, however, to refer for one moment to what had occurred that evening in another place. He had very great respect for the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but he could not help saying that he had felt the greatest pity for that noble Lord on that afternoon as he heard him reading the affidavit of a certain James Bourke, one of the greatest malefactors that ever lived. He would undertake to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would but place at his disposal a sum of 5s. out of the Consolidated Fund — he (Captain Magan) himself would not spend it for such a purpose—that he would bring the said James Bourke to the table of that House, and he would get him to swear that the paper on which the affidavit was written was black, and that the ink was white; and with regard to his colleague, he (Capt. Magan) bad ascertained on the most respectable evidence, that he had sworn that he knew a certain public-house from the sign-board which was displayed upon a particular day, and it afterwards turned out that on that very day the sign-board was in a carpenter's shop painting in Athlone. With regard to the attestation in the case of Sir Richard Levinge, he was perfectly satisfied that there was not one man capable of giving disinterested evidence in that neighbourhood. All of them were violent partisans; and he would say that if Sir Richard Levinge had been returned, that every one of the Brown family would have been provided for in the police. The whole story about the practices at the last election for the county of Westmeath were utterly untrue. So far from it that it was perfectly notorious that the unfortu-

423
nate farmers were quivering in their shoes, through dread of the landlords, while they were giving their votes according to their consciences. He could assure the House that Sir Richard Levinge was more of an old woman than a man; and he (Capt. Magan) did not want to take refuge he-hind the forms of that House. When Sir Richard Levinge read his (Capt. Magan's) words in the morning, he was quite at liberty to consider them as having been used outside it.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he must protest against the introduction of such topics at such an hour, and the language in which they were clothed. He demanded as a right that the right hon. Gentleman should consent to the adjournment of the House, or, at all events, if he would not consent to that course, let the Government have the decency to listen to the objections of the Irish Members to their measure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not feel justified in supplying the House with the detailed information required, for it would be very impolitic to do so.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any legislation on the subject of the amalgamation of the constabulary and revenue police during the present Session, for he assumed that an Act of Parliament would be necessary on the subject before they could employ the constabulary in the collection of the revenue?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that it was not the intention of the Government to propose any such measure during the present Session.
VISCOUNT GALWAYhoped, for the sake of Mr. Speaker, if from no other motive, the Government would accede to the proposal for adjourning the House.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: —Ayes 28; Noes 109: Majority 81.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) should give the House his lucid views upon the subject.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he could only characterise the conduct of those who
424
were bringing forward these repeated Motions for adjournment as factious.
LORD NAASsaid, he must deny the imputation of factiousness, for his question was relative to the incorporation of the two branches of the police force in Ireland, and was a natural corollary to the measure of the Government. He was sufficiently acquainted with the state of the law to be able to say that it was absolutely necessary for the Government to introduce a new Bill before they could call on the constabulary force of Ireland to act under the regulations of this Bill.
MR. PHINNsaid, that the best practical reproof which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) and hon. Gentlemen on the other side had received was conveyed to them by the conduct of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), who, having put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, and having received a reply which must be satisfactory to every candid man in that House, had withdrawn himself from their company, and had desisted from an opposition which he seemed to think not warranted either by the forms or the spirit of the House.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he considered that the Opposition had been most unjustly treated in this matter, and he should support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he would not allow the Irish Members, for whom he had great respect, to be bullied by the Government.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, any one who has had experience in this House knows that when a minority—however small, and however unreasonable may be their views — choose to go on dividing through the night, there is probably no advantage to be gained by persisting in opposing them. Therefore, seeing that we should only have a recurrence of angry speeches and divisions, I certainly should think it would now be the wiser course for this House not to proceed to the consideration of the third reading of this Bill. What the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phinn) who has just spoken has said, is perfectly true. There was one person (Mr. Napier) on the opposite side of the House who took a fair and reasonable course. I can say for him what I cannot say for others—that he was not factious. He stated his objections, and an answer having been given to them, he withdrew from the House, to show that he would not give any further coun-

425
tenance to this opposition. A minority may certainly persist in dividing the House, but their conduct both by this House and the country at large will be deemed very factious. That character must remain with them, but I shall not oppose the Motion for adjourning the debate.
Question put.
The House divided: —Ayes 21; Noes 103; Majority 82.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."
COLONEL DUNNEmoved, "That the House do now adjourn."
MR. ROSS MOOREsaid, he objected to proceeding with the measure without deliberation.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he would suggest that the Bill should be now read a third time, reserving the question as to the machinery and as to the employment or non-employment of the police force. He and his friends were strongly opposed to this measure, but they had seen that they could not defeat the Bill, and they might depend upon it if it were not read a third time now that it would be upon some future occasion.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, he thought that individually he had been ill-treated by the Government, who had acted in a tyrannical and unjust manner.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had at an early period stated his strong objections to this Bill; and to those objections he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) bad given his best attention. Upon the last occasion on which this question was discussed, the hon. Gentleman, who professed great interest in the matter, had not thought it worth his while to attend to give his vote; and he put it to the hon. Gentleman now, whether if the Succession Tax Bill had been concluded by ten o'clock, the hon. Gentleman would have been in his place to vote upon this subject, which he said so deeply interested his constituents. The hon. Gentleman had not spent the whole day in anxious discussion of public matters. He had not made his appearance until midnight, and then he came in that garb which showed that he had been engaged in convivial occupations. In fact, the hon. Member had come fresh into the field to oppose those who had been engaged for eight hours in the pastime of discussion. The hon, Gentleman had been playing the stale game of converting a minority into a
426
majority; but, so long as any resolution or spirit remained in the majority, he trusted that that course never would be sanctioned.
CAPTAIN KNOXsaid, that the whole of these proceedings had been occasioned by the taunting and sneering manner of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEsaid, he begged to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the reasonable proposition of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr, Bowver).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that, as regarded the separation of the machinery from the Bill, that was effected already. The House was not called upon to give any sanction to the employment of the constabulary. The whole arrangement would take place under the authority of the Executive, upon their own responsibility, subject to the obligation of coming to that House for the purpose of sanctioning whatever they did.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had read them a lecture about minorities ruling majorities: would the right hon. Gentleman consent to take the opinion of the majority of Irish Members?
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: —Ayes 18; Noes 94; Majority 76.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3o.
Further Proceeding on Third Reading adjourned till Monday next.
The House adjourned at half after Three o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Juvenile Mendicancy (No. 2); Taxing Officers Common Law Business (Ireland).

EDUCATION.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYrose to put certain questions to the Lord President of the Council on the subject of the Minutes

329
of the Committee of Council of Education, dated April 2, 1853. The right rev. Prelate was understood to say that he could assure their Lordships that, in the questions he was about to ask, and in the few remarks with which he proposed to preface them, it was not his intention to make any attack on the Committee of the Privy Council, over which the noble Earl presided with so much ability and judgment, still less to attempt in any way to disturb those relations between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of the State, in respect to the education of the people which had now subsisted for some years, and had been attended with great advantages; and although he would not say that they were incapable of improvement, or were in all respects such as might be desired, still he would venture to say that since the period when the differences by which those relations were interrupted some years ago had been removed, it had been his constant endeavour to maintain them unimpaired, and to promote the objects which they were designed to effect. He would add that he had not joined in any of the attacks made, he thought without sufficient reason, on the general principles upon which the Committee of Council had administered the national grants for education. When mistakes had occurred, as he thought sometimes had been the case, it had been his object to put the most favourable construction upon them, and by all the means in his power to remove misapprehensions. He said this for the purpose of showing that he was not an opponent of the existing relations between the Church and the State with respect to education; but was, on the contrary, so far as humble abilities went, their supporter and advocate. It was, nevertheless, the fact, that those relations, although in the main satisfactory, and perhaps altogether the best that the existing circumstances of the country would allow to be established, entailed this disadvantage—that they had had the effect of removing this important branch of the public administration from the cognisance of their Lordships' House. It was only in the other House of Parliament that any effectual alteration or supervision could be exercised. Their Lordships only knew what plan was proposed for the administration of the grants when the Minutes of Council were laid upon the table, and after the measures had been finally resolved upon; and when the Minutes had been laid upon the table, they almost carried with
330
them the force and effect of an Act of Parliament. He was therefore anxious to call the attention of the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government to this matter, in order that such modifications and Amendments might be effected in the Minute to which his questions would relate, as should be calculated to extend its usefulness, and which would make it deserving the cordial and unanimous support of their Lordships. Great progress bad been made by the aid of the State grants in diffusing education in the large and populous towns and districts of the country. But these advantages had been accompanied by this drawback, that the places in the rural districts possessing small populations, and whose case did not present itself before the public in so striking and conspicuous a manner as that of the large towns, had not received all the attention which their wants and necessities demanded; and it was with the view of remedying these defects in the small country districts that the present Minute was framed, and to the principle of it he was anxious to give his cordial support. But it appeared in some points to require amendment, and in others explanation, in order that it might be clearly understood and satisfactorily put in execution. He had recently presided at a large meeting of secretaries and other persons connected with diocesan and district societies for the promotion of education, and he had taken the opportunity of calling their attention to this Minute. He found the same points of doubt which had occurred to his own mind had presented themselves to many of the gentlemen who attended that meeting, and who unanimously agreed in requesting him to obtain some explanation on the subject from the noble Earl. The questions he wished to ask of the noble Earl the President of the Committee of Council were these—1. Whether the Minute is applicable to mixed schools of boys and girls, as well as to schools in which boys and girls are educated separately? And, if so, in what manner the estimate for a grant is to be made? His second question related to the conditions imposed requiring the schools entitled to share in the grant to possess a certain amount of income in the shape of voluntary subscriptions; and as there existed great uncertainty in the Minute, which it was desirable to have removed, with regard to the mode in which it was intended to determine the income of a school derived from other than Government sources; he

331
wished therefore to ask—2. Whether it is required that the income of the school from the specified sources should amount to the rate named in respect of the whole number of children on the register of the school, or only in respect of the children in behalf of whom a grant is claimed? His third question related to the condition imposed on the schools eligible to the grant with respect to the attendance of the children. The attendance required by the Minute from each child was 192 days per annum, which was calculated at the rate of four days in the week for forty-eight weeks in the year. Now, the universal testimony in the rural parishes of his own diocese was, that parents could not possibly spare their children for so large a portion of the year as forty-eight weeks, on account of their services being required at harvest time, and other reasons. He, therefore, begged to ask—3. Whether the Minute may be so modified as not to require so long a period of attendance on the part of the scholars, or, if not, so as to allow the calculation to be made on the aggregate attendance of the whole school, and not on the separate attendance of each child? His remaining questions were—4. Whether in schools in which, under the provisions of any trust deed a portion of the children are necessarily admitted without payment, the attendance of such children may nevertheless be calculated in the claim for a grant? 5. Whether the condition as to the holding of a certificate by the master or mistress may be dispensed with (at least for the present), the condition as to the efficiency of the school, according to the subordinate regulation, Sec. 8, being equally enforced? In conclusion, the right rev. Prelate said, that if the Minute were altered in those respects he had mentioned, it would seem to him so well suited for its purpose that the only regret he should then have would be that its application was not universal, but that it was proposed to call into operation any other measures. He deemed it to be of prime importance, in reference to the success of our educational efforts, that the present basis of voluntary efforts, combined with State assistance, should not be disturbed. He was the more confirmed in this opinion from having had the opportunity of seeing the view taken of the state of education in this country by a very intelligent and enlightened foreigner, M. Eugène Rendu, sent on a special mission for this purpose by the Minister of Public Instruction in France. That gen-
332
tleman, after a very accurate and intelligent survey of the existing state of education in this country, which showed that he fully appreciated our deficiencies as well as our progress, and the evils as well as the advantages of our social state, summed up his observations with this remarkable expression—that if he were called upon to express in a word the law of educational development in the United Kingdom, he would define it thus—"Respect on the part of the State for voluntary efforts, confidence on the part of voluntary efforts in the State." And he then went on to urge upon the Minister of Public Instruction in France that the lesson France was to learn from the institutions of England was that of a more determined effort for the development of voluntary efforts; and, as necessary in order to this, the impressing upon all schools, at any price (coúte qui coúte) an essentially and practically religious direction. He (the Bishop of Salisbury) confessed that such sentiments appeared to him to deserve their gravest attention, and this especially at a moment when the efforts of so many of those who claimed for themselves the title of advocates of the education of the people pointed in an altogether contrary direction—in a direction tending at once to the disparagement and discouragement of voluntary efforts, and to the tampering with those religious principles from which alone we could hope that such voluntary efforts would proceed. If we had learnt anything—and he believed we had—in the efforts and struggles of these thirteen years, it was the importance of not offending the religious convictions of those, be they members of the Church or of any other denomination, whom we desired to enlist in the cause of education; and, again, that religion was not to be taught in vague generalities, which all might receive but no man would profit by; that it was not to be separated into general and particular, but that in a religious system definite religious teaching must pervade the whole; and those who held a definite system of religious truth must be allowed to impart it to those under their care in such manner as they should themselves think best. He was able to give his support to this Minute, because he saw in it a means of great practical encouragement to the education of the people, based oh the principle of stimulating voluntary efforts, in harmony with the steps which had already been taken with such

333
good success in the same direction, and not interfering with that religious liberty or religious truth which they were determined by every means in their power to uphold. But he could not say the same should they come to the question of local rates, compulsory assessments, or town-council committees. Here they would be entering upon ground new, untried, perilous, divergent from the course in which they had hitherto advanced, if not opposed to it, and which he feared would lead to disappointment and disaster as its results. He could not approve of such a course, because be believed, in the first place, that it would be found nearly, if not altogether, inoperative: because, secondly, so far as it operated at all, it would do so only in laying the foundation of a new subject of strife and local agitation in every city and town throughout the length and breadth of the land; and, thirdly, because he saw, as its necessary consequence, a perilous interference with religious liberty, and, in the not remote future, a growing danger to religious truth. He knew that this was not now the time or opportunity for entering further upon these points; but he hoped it was not unsuitable to make this reference to a subject of so great importance, and so immediately connected with that upon which he had been addressing their Lordships. He would not, however, further trespass upon them, but would leave the noble Earl to answer the questions he had put to him.
EARL GRANVILLE,who was almost entirely inaudible, was understood to express his satisfaction at the attention which the right rev. Prelate had bestowed on this important subject; and also at the favourable conclusion to which the right rev. Prelate had arrived with respect to the Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. If any difference of opinion existed between himself and the right rev. Prelate, as to the necessity of stringency in the rules and conditions imposed by the Committee of Council on Education, it might be owing to the fact that they possibly looked at the question from different points of view; for while the right rev. Prelate naturally thought, in the first place, of the difficulties which had to be encountered in carrying on the schools, he (Earl Granville) had to remember that the Committee of Council had a very important trust delegated to them, and were bound to enforce due economy in the management of the schools; and at the same time that nothing should be done to diminish
334
the efficiency of the system, or to detract from its advantages. The great demand for labour which at present existed had tended, to some extent, to induce parents to take away their children from school at an earlier period than they would, under other circumstances, have been inclined to do; but it was to be hoped that the increased prosperity which arose from this demand would enhance the value of education, and would also enable them the more readily to avail themselves of the advantages which they were offered in this respect. With regard to the right rev. Prelate's suggestion, that the Government grant to day schools should be made conditional on the master holding the certificate of merit, the Committee were fully aware that this was a very important matter; but it had been found that the condition could only be applied to the cases of young masters; for old masters could not be expected, from their age, and the occupation of their time, to prepare themselves for such examinations. Her Majesty's Government had, however, the subject under their consideration, and intended to introduce a provision which would, he trusted, be received with satisfaction. The object of Her Majesty's Government was to stimulate, as much as possible, education by voluntary contributions; and they considered it undesirable to confine the education of the working classes to mere intellectual improvement, without affording them also as much sound moral and religious culture as possible.

APPOINTMENT OF MR. KEOGH—CHARGE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: My Lords, the subject of the Motion which I shall have to make to your Lordships was brought incidentally before you on Friday last. It is necessary for me to say that on Monday there appeared in a public print—which I believe I am not wrong in stating to be under the influence and guidance of a noble person high in the Government — an article of very great abuse on me, for having undertaken to bring this matter under your Lordships' notice. I can afford to treat all that with the most supreme contempt; but, my Lords, there was accompanying it an inuendo, an insinuation, that I had been put forward by the noble Earl late at the head of Her Majesty's Government, to bring the matter before your Lordships. Now, I have no reason to suppose, that if that noble Earl

335
had any sentiments on the matter, he would have put me forward particularly to state them; but the fact is, that no human being was acquainted with my intention until I had written to my noble Friend who is sitting beside me (the Earl of Glengall), sending him a copy of my Motion, which could not be entered on the Minutes, because I had not yet taken the oaths. Neither the noble Earl, nor any person connected with his Government, was acquainted with my intention on this subject, until I had come over to this country, and was prepared to go on with it. The issue involved in the Motion now on your Lordships' table is a very serious one. On Friday last, when the subject was mentioned here, the noble Duke, whom I see opposite, the Minister for the Colonies, thought fit to go to the bar, shortly after which he returned to his place, and, as a Minister of the Crown, he gave me, across the table, a distinct denial of the charges which I had brought against the Solicitor General for Ireland. My Lords, I will not make any apology for having done so. I do not think I need; because I am not so stupid, nor so dishonest, as that if a man come into the county where I reside and hold Her Majesty's Commission, and if he use such language to the lower orders of the people as I am prepared to state to your Lordships, on proof wholly irresistible, he did—as having done that, it was not to be expected that, as an honest man, I should be aware of it, and not take notice of it. The noble Duke also introduced into that discussion a collateral issue, quite beside and having nothing whatsoever to do with the main question. It struck me at the time, and since then I am perfectly certain, that the noble Duke did that to call away the attention of your Lordships from that which is the specific matter of my Motion, and to give rise to events which have "passed, but with which I have nothing whatsoever to do. I entreat of your Lordships not on the present occasion to allow yourselves to be led away from this subject by anything extraneous, which may be introduced by the noble Duke to the House. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it, whether Lord Derby, or any noble Lord connected with his Administration, offered to the present Solicitor General the office of Master of the Horse, or beater of the silver drum, or any other appointment; because the words and language charged to Mr. Keogh took place at a period long subsequent to the formation
336
of the late Government. Now, my Lords, the noble Duke was also pleased to meet me, as well with this denial as with an attempt at mirth, in speaking of an "Irish fact." I do not myself think it is very good taste to indulge in national taunts and sarcasms. The Scotch, I know, do not approve of them; they say they are pointed weapons, and had better not be used. I do not know in what sense the Irishmen among us may have understood the pleasantry of the noble Duke; for myself, I can only say, that had I not been withheld by considerations which I think always ought to restrain the Members of your Lordships' House, I should certainly have made at the time such a response to the jeers of the noble Duke as would not have been agreeable either to himself or to his friends opposite. My Lords, the noble Duke will be treated to-night, not only to an Irish fact, but to an Imperial fact. With these preliminary observations I shall now proceed, my Lords, to state the evidence upon which I made the charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman— a charge which I am ready to sustain—if your Lordships will grant me the Committee for which I ask, and which I am prepared to prove at the risk of being content to lay my head upon the block. My Lords, I think it will be as well to submit the evidence to you in the same shape in which it was brought before myself. I hold in my hand the depositions of magistrates who heard the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman at Moate, and who are willing to come forward and prove those words upon oath. My Lords, one series of them were uttered in the town at Moate, which is a Quarter Sessions town, at which the polling for the county of Westmeath took place, about six miles from the borough of Athlone. The hon. and learned Gentleman's presence in Moate was promised by the candidate for the county of Westmeath some days before he arrived; and the day on which he did arrive was the day of the nomination for the town of Athlone, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman was himself a candidate. He came to Moate avowedly as the friend of Captain Magan, one of the candidates for the county of Westmeath, and his arrival naturally collected a great many people of all classes together. Some of the magistrates of the neighbourhood, many gentlemen who were not magistrates, and a great crowd of other persons, assembled in the streets to hear the speech of the hon. and

337
learned Gentleman. It was an open-air meeting, and the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the assemblage from a window. The first document I will read to your Lordships is an extract from a letter which I have received from a magistrate who was present, and who says he is ready and willing—nay, anxious—to come forward and depose upon oath to the words used by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon that occasion. Indeed, I may here state to your Lordships that the universal feeling in the county is one of anxiety to disclose the whole truth, and to place the words of Mr. Keogh beyond dispute or cavil. It is unnecessary to inform your Lordships that language of the kind I am now about to quote, when used at the time of an election, in such a country as Ireland, when the greatest excitement prevails, and by such a master of his art as the hon. and learned Gentleman, cannot fail to create alarm and uneasiness in the minds of all peaceable and well-disposed persons. In point of fact, the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman did excite much alarm, and the natural consequence is, that I now find a general wish prevailing to come forward and give testimony in this case. The unfortunate state of Ireland is such, that when a transaction of this nature occurs, it is usual for those who are qualified to give evidence to say, "I would rather not come forward and give my testimony in public, and I would prefer if you could induce somebody else, who knows as much as I do of the facts, to give you the information you require." My Lords, in this case it has been different. No sooner did it become known in the county of Westmeath that the matter was about to be brought before your Lordships' House, than many respectable persons—I think with great good sense—satisfied that words such as those uttered by Mr. Keogh at Moate, ought to be taken notice of in the proper place—voluntarily expressed their willingness to declare all they knew respecting the matter upon which your Lordships are now to exercise your judgments. The first version of the words uttered by Mr. Keogh is as follows:—
"' Boys, summer is fine weather, the days are long and the nights short, after comes autumn, the days getting shorter and the nights longe and colder; then comes dreary winter, with its short cold days, and nights long and dark; and recollect, hoys, whoever votes for Levinge will surely feel the effects of them.' This is a correct report. I heard it myself."
338
These words, I entreat your Lordships to remember, were reported to me by a magistrate of the county of Westmeath, who himself heard them delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Another magistrate, who was also present, and heard the speech, writes me to this effect:—
"In reply to your queries about Mr. Keogh's speech at a meeting in the street of Moate, delivered to a large assemblage of people, previous to the day of election, I was one, and not ten yards from the learned Gentleman, when he made use of the following words:—' Boys, we are now in the midst of a delightful summer, when the days are long and the nights short. Next comes autumn, when the days and nights are nearly of an equal length; but next comes dreary winter, when the days are short and the nights long; and woe be to those during those long nights who vote for Sir Richard Levinge at the present election.' The Rev. John Hopkins, George Daly, and one of the Mr. Fetherstons—I think it was James, of Tubber—were all standing with me at the time, and are quite ready to swear to these words having been delivered by Mr. Keogh."
Let your Lordships recollect that the documents I have now read were written by two magistrates.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: Will the noble Marquess mention the names of those two magistrates?
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: If the noble Duke asks me, and wishes it, I will; their names are Richard Randall and Godfrey Levinge. The next communication with which I will trouble your Lordships, is from the minister of the parish in which the hon. and learned Gentleman delivered his speech. It runs in the following terms:—
"I am not a little surprised how Mr. Keogh could deny what he said here the day he addressed the mob in favour of Mr. Magan. I was present, and heard what he said, as also George Daly, Theobald Fetherston, and James Burke, who all remember as well as I do what his words were. He said, 'This, boys, is summer, when the nights are short; the autumn will come soon, when the nights will be longer; but the winter will then come, when the nights will be long, and then let those take care of themselves who will dare to vote for Levinge.' He appeared to say this with much significance, and we all understood him as recommending the mob to take vengeance in the long winter nights."
Now, in addition to all this, I hold in my hand the statement of other persons not magistrates, who were present when the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the crowd at Moate. They are respectable—most respectable—people of the town of Moate, two of them being members of the Society of Friends. They say—

339
"We, the undersigned, residing in or near the town of Moate, in the county of Westmeath, certify that William Keogh, Esq., the present Solicitor General of Ireland, made use of the following words when addressing a large crowd in the streets of said town, from the window of Mr. Magan's committee room:—' Boys, this is summer, and the nights are the shortest; the autumn is coming, when they will be longer. After that comes the winter, when they will be at the longest; and then will be the time to mark the man that votes for Sir Richard Levinge.'
(Signed)"GEORGE DALY.
W. O'CLIBBORN.
WILLIAM RUSSELL.
"Moate, June 14." JOHN HOPKINS."
Such, my Lords, are the statements made to me by two magistrates, of the county of Westmeath, the minister of the parish in which the words in question were spoken, and a number of the respectable inhabitants of Moate, including two members of the Society of Friends. Now, my Lords, if the Government had been at all at a loss for accurate information, and if they had really wished to ascertain whether the representations I have made were true or counterfeit, they had nothing more to do than apply to their own officer, Sir Duncan Macgregor, the head of the police force in Ireland, who regularly receives from all parts of the country reports of the most minute description with regard to such scenes as that which took place at Moate during the last general election. With respect to this case, it is remarkable that the constable at Moate was seen taking down the language uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and I have no more doubt, my Lords, that the report of that constable may be found on the table of the Lord Lieutenant, if he likes to look for it, than that I have now the use of my right hand. The reports received from all parts of the country by Sir Duncan Macgregor are regularly sent up to the Castle, and that being so, I want to know how his Excellency, who I am sure would not venture to say upon oath—I do not think he would say without an oath—that he was ignorant, until I repeated them, of the words uttered by Mr. Keogh, can justify his having selected that hon. and learned Gentleman to be the second Law Minister of the Crown in Ireland, who would be entrusted with the management of prosecutions against those poor, deluded, miserable creatures who may happen to be entrapped into a detestable and bloody conspiracy against the peace, property, and lives of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland? Now, my Lords, I
340
think if the noble Duke is not satisfied with the evidence I have adduced in support of my charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must be very hard of faith. But I will now give the noble Duke, as I promised at the outset, an English fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman—against whom I am sorry to be obliged to appear, because no one likes the office of public accuser, and in this House noble Lords are so well aware of the decorum that ought to be observed, and the example that ought to be set, that one must always be cautious not to say anything of which every tittle cannot be proved—the hon. and learned Gentleman was a candidate for the borough of Athlone at the last election, and I am informed that he uttered the same words and expressed the same sentiments to his constituents at that place which he uttered and expressed to the mob in the town of Moate. Two English gentlemen resident in London, most respectable men in every way, happened to be staying in Athlone at the time of the election, and here are the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman at that place in their presence:—"Summer is nearly over, and autumn at hand, and after will come the long dark nights of winter, when woe be to the man who votes against his Church." And now, my Lords, let me direct your attention for a moment to a little of the fruit of this kind of language. At the Athlone election, a Roman Catholic clergyman on the hustings said to one of the English gentlemen to whom I have alluded, who were both friendly to the defeated candidate, and who are ready to confirm all they had said upon oath, if your Lordships will give me an opportunity of bringing them forward—"If it were not for the bayonets, you should never leave this town alive."
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: Who said that?
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: A Roman Catholic priest on the hustings. Mind, this is not mere assertion. The words are capable of substantive proof, and I pledge my word as an humble Member of your Lordships' House, if you give me an opportunity, I will prove them. It is now for your Lordships to judge whether or not Her Majesty's Government has acted wisely in appointing the hon. and learned Gentleman Solicitor General for Ireland, and whether, considering that the Ribbon papers which were seized in Liverpool in

341
the month of January last are the same, or almost the same, in substance, language, and spirit, as the words and sentiments uttered by Mr. Keogh at Moate and Athlone, any dispassionate person can hesitate for a moment in believing that the hon. and learned Gentleman betrayed a suspicious familiarity with the cant and passwords of an illegal and seditious conspiracy. The following paper was discovered among other Ribbon documents at Liverpool, last January, and has become the subject-matter of judicial investigation:—
"Summer is approaching. Short days are gone. Friendship will flourish. Yes, when the days will get long. Be quiet, my friend. Yes, I mean to be so. May freedom rule by land and sea, and death call him who would betray!"
My Lords, this is the substance of the matter which I was anxious to bring before your Lordships. I do not see what excuse the hon. and learned Gentleman can offer for his conduct at Moate. He cannot offer the excuse that he was at Moate in the prosecution of his own affairs. He is not connected by property with the county of Westmeath, and at Moate he was only known as the friend of Mr. Magan. He was under no necessity to go there, and, therefore, my Lords, I am at a loss to know upon what ground the noble Duke can possibly stand up to defend the hon. and learned Gentleman, and oppose the Motion which it is now my duty to propose. My Lords, the question comes to this issue —are we in Ireland to have Her Majesty Queen Victoria as our Sovereign, or Captain Rock? Is the Union to be repealed, or are we to have the Act of Settlement as the rule by which the country is to exist? What I have stated to your Lordships is not a matter to which statesmen in these days can shut their eyes, in the belief that it will not come to a dangerous issue, but it is one, on the contrary, which demands earnest and prompt attention. If Her Majesty's Government are not able to defend the conduct of their Irish Solicitor General, I hope they will at least explain to your Lordships why it is that the Lord Lieutenant, with a full knowledge of the facts I have mentioned, has neglected to deal with the subject, and has thrown upon me— who, thank God, am not connected with the Government—the task of bringing it before your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject of Seditious Language
342
alleged to have been used by Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland, at Moate, in the county of Westmeath, and at Athlone, in the month of July last."
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: I can assure your Lordships that I do not require the warning of the noble Marquess to abstain from any extraneous matter in making a reply to the accusation which he has now, for the second time, brought before your Lordships' House. My answer to the noble Marquess shall be distinct, explicit, and confined to the Motion which he has made; and I do this the more readily because I consider it is needless for me to refer to that part of the debate the other night which took place towards its close, and to which the noble Marquess has alluded, apparently not quite liking the subject after the discussion which occurred in another place. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat that I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to that debate, and, challenged as I am by those exclamations, I will give the reasons why. If it were necessary to defend the character—the public and private character—of an hon. and learned Gentleman, who holds an office in the Government to which I belong, I would not, despite the taunts of the noble Earl and the noble Marquess, fail to perform my duty to him, and to stand up and declare what I believe to be the truth with regard to him. But I am saved that trouble, because the noble Lord (Lord Naas) whose name was referred to in debate the other night, has already stood up in his place in Parliament, and declared what he thinks of the public and private character of my hon. and learned Friend; and because the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary at War (Mr. Beresford) has expressed similar opinions, and has stated that at any rate the late Government had a most friendly feeling towards the hon. and learned Gentleman. More than that, I am saved this trouble, because another right hon. Gentleman, a Colleague of the noble Earl, the leader of his party in the House of Commons, and one of the most distinguished ornaments of his Government— [The Earl of MAIMES-BURY: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl seems surprised that I should say one of the most distinguished ornaments of the late Government. It is true that I differ from that right hon. Gentleman upon many questions of importance; I disapprove of a great deal of what he has both done and said; but, nevertheless, I am not so foolish, or so

343
blinded by party feeling as not to be ready to acknowledge his talent and ability, and to say that he was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the late Government. But, my Lords, what I was about to say was, that the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (Mr. Disraeli) has stood up in his place, and, in the most handsome and explicit manner, stated that whatever indiscretions might have been committed by any one, he saw no reason why the offer of office should not have been made to my hon. and learned Friend, and expressed his high opinion, not merely of the ability, but of the public and private character of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I repeat, therefore, that I consider it is unnecessary for me to advert to what was said the other night; and I sincerely hope, after the testimony which has been borne by the Colleagues of the noble Earl to the character as well as ability of my hon. and learned Friend, we are not going to hear again of the "disreputable" character of the appointment of one to whose position and reputation the Colleagues of the noble Earl in another place have borne such ready and hearty testimony. My Lords, before referring to the accusations brought forward by the noble Marquess, I must again complain of the unfair manner in which a man, whose status in this country must depend entirely upon his character, has been assailed, and of the improper way in which the noble Marquess has brought forward his charges. The other night the noble Marquess introduced those charges upon a Motion on a totally different subject, without any previous warning to any noble Lord in this House, and without any intimation to the hon. and learned Gentleman of his intention to arraign his conduct before your Lordships—
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: The noble Duke is in error. I did give notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I intended to bring this subject before your Lordships.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: I am quite content to accept the correction of the noble Marquess; and perhaps the noble Marquess, having put me right on this point, will have the kindness to resume his seat. [The Earl of DERBY: Order, order!] I assure the noble Earl that I did not mean to offend him, but it is the noble Marquess who is out of order by remaining standing whilst I am speaking. Perhaps the noble
344
Earl is chagrined at the badness of his case. Well, I am not in the slightest degree astonished at the vehemence exhibited by noble Lords opposite. For my own part, I am perfectly ready to discuss the subject with calmness; but, nevertheless, I am not prepared to acquit the noble Marquess of unfairness; for although I am bound to admit, because he says it, that he gave notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman of his intention to make a statement respecting him, I was under the impression that he heard of it from a friend and not from the noble Marquess. With this, moreover, I charged the noble Marquess before, and I repeat it now, that that friend conveyed to the noble Marquess a distinct denial of the charge he was about to make:—nevertheless he did bring forward his charges in his place in Parliament without intimation to any friend of the hon. and learned Gentleman in this House, and that, too, upon a Motion which had reference to an entirely different subject. Was that fair—was that English—conduct worthy of the position of the noble Marquess in this House? But what has the noble Marquess done since? He has hastened, as soon after the debate which took place the other night as possible, to write over to Ireland, and to instruct his friends and agents there to ransack the whole country for these proofs, as he calls them, of what occurred at Moate and Athlone at the time of the last general election; but he never intimated to any noble Lord in this House, or to the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that he was about to adopt that course—
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: I gave notice of the Motion which I have proposed this evening.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: The noble Marquess did not give notice of his Motion until Tuesday last, and this is Friday, so that it has been utterly impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman, or for any of his friends, to send over to Athlone and Moate to obtain such evidence as they might be able to procure, to refute the accusations which the noble Marquess has brought forward. Is that fair? But, more than this, when my hon. and learned Friend heard that the noble Marquess intended to make a statement regarding him to your Lordships, he sent one of his friends to the noble Marquess to ascertain what was the nature of the charges he proposed to bring against him; in order that he might be enabled to supply some

345
Member of this House with such facts as might be necessary for the vindication of his character. That was represented to the noble Marquess to be a very reasonable request, and what was his reply? "Why," said the noble Marquess in effect, "it is a very fair request, indeed, and I will take it into consideration, but in the meantime I cannot comply with it."
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: No, no!
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: The noble Marquess believed it to be a very fair demand, but he would not accede to it.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: I deny it.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: Why, the noble Marquess has all along refused to give the names of his witnesses either to the hon. and learned Gentleman or to any of his friends; and it was only when I put the question across the table a few minutes ago that I was able to ascertain the names of the two magistrates who profess to have heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend at Moate last summer. Was that fair dealing? The noble Marquess, no doubt, expects to obtain some party advantage, to inflict some disgrace upon the Government, to lessen the triumph which the hon. and learned Gentleman achieved in the House of Commons last night, and perhaps to do him some harm in the estimation of his countrymen—all because he has probably inflicted serious damage on the political influence and interests of the noble Marquess in the county of Westmeath. How has the noble Marquess endeavoured to substantiate his accusations? He has produced, indeed, a number of irrefragable proofs, as he calls them, and has once more read to us the speech which my hon. and learned Friend is alleged to have delivered in the town of Moate. He has stated that the promise of the arrival of the hon. and learned Gentleman in Moate had the effect of causing a large crowd of people to assemble, and immense excitement and commotion in the town, which was one reason why so much attention was paid to his words. Now it happens that the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he did not anticipate the statement which the noble Marquess has made, can prove by the testimony of at least two honourable gentlemen, that the account given by the noble Marquess of the circumstances under which the meeting at Moate was held, is
346
not accurate. So far from his arrival in Moate having been promised, and a great assembly of people collected in consequence to hear his speech in the open air, it appears that, on the summer afternoon in question, a friend of Mr. Keogh happened to be in Athlone, with "a drag" and four horses, driven by himself, and he insisted upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was then engaged in his election, taking a drive with him into the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman consented to do so, and accordingly his friend drove him off in the direction of Moate; but so little thought had he of staying away from Athlone, that he caused an empty car to follow the drag, with the view of bringing him back when he considered he had proceeded far enough from the town. The two friends rode together as far as Moate, about six miles from Athlone, and drove up to a small house—I do not know whether it was a public-house or not, but I suppose it was —the head quarters of the committee of Captain Magan, who was then standing as a candidate for the county of Westmeath. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, of course, warmly welcomed by his friends, and he was no sooner observed arriving in the town than a number of people assembled in the principal, indeed I believe the only, street, which, I am told, is about three times as wide as Regent Street, and is, in fact, a wide open road, and requested him to address a few observations to them. Under these circumstances, without premeditation or preparation of any kind—without reporters, and without any of those adjuncts which the noble Marquess conjured up the other night— the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the crowd in a speech of not more than five minutes' duration, simply in order to gratify the people who wished to hear him speak. Now, I think this plain statement of the fact at once manifests the animus of the perversion of the case which the noble Marquess has thought proper to lay before your Lordships. The noble Marquess has brought forward what he calls irrefragable proofs of his case. One statement, at all events, until both have been examined, is as good as another; and I am able to meet that made by the noble Marquess with a letter which a gentleman, having heard the allegations advanced by the noble Marquess against the hon. and learned Gentleman, addressed to him, being fully acquainted with the real facts of the matter. But

347
before I proceed further, I had better read a letter which I have received from the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It runs as follows:—
"My dear Duke of Newcastle—You will per ceive by Mr. Macnevin's letter, which I have taken the liberty of forwarding to your Grace, that his recollection agrees with mine as to the transactions at Moate. Mr. Macnevin was beside me, and had the opportunity of hearing all I said. At the same time I wish to state, that at the time referred to I took a most active part in opposing, not only in Westmeath (in which the principal part of the borough I represent is situated), but in several other counties, the candidates in favour of Lord Derby's Government. I did my utmost to defeat those candidates, and frequently delivered speeches at different places with that object. That made at Moate was without any preparation or premeditation. It was delivered after stepping from the top of a coach, to a multitude who collected round the house in which I was, and who loudly called for me. It did not occupy five minutes, and was not reported so as to enable mo to refer to it. I have no recollection whatever of using any language even similar to that attributed to me; but my memory may fail me as to the precise words used in the heat and excitement of election occurrences, and I trust, therefore, rather to the evidence of friends who were present, and the inherent improbability of my expressing sentiments which I never entertained, rather than to my own recollection. As to my intending to suggest, either by word or gesture, the use of violence to any one, I can most firmly assert that nothing was further from my mind, and such a purpose was as averse to all my feelings as at variance with the policy and measures I adopted.—Believe me, my dear Duke of Newcastle, your most faithful and obedient, "WILLIAM KEOGH."
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: Who is this Mr. Macnevin? I never heard of him in my life before.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: The noble Marquess says he never heard of Mr. Macnevin in his life. That may be; but although the noble Marquess is acquainted with a great many distinguished Irishmen, it is not at all improbable that Mr. Macnevin may be a very respectable man, and yet not be known to the noble Marquess. Mr. Macnevin, I understand, is a highly respectable solicitor in the city of Dublin, and belongs to a county family which I have no doubt is known and esteemed by a noble Marquess whom I see below. [The Marquess of CLANRICARDE: Hear, hear!] The noble Marquess assents, so I need say no more about the respectability of Mr. Macnevin, though I may mention that he is not the election agent, but the private friend, and, I believe, private solicitor of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Here is the letter which he addressed to him after reading the speech
348
delivered by the noble Marquess on Friday last:—
"Dublin, 8, Middle Gardner Street, June 14.
"My dear Sir—Having heard the speech you delivered at Moate during the election of 18S2, to which Lord Westmeath has recently alluded in the House of Lords, I have not the slightest doubt but you never made use of the improper language attributed to you, or anything that could bear that or any similar interpretation. I certainly heard every sentence you uttered, clearly and distinctly, and if my testimony upon oath be of any value, you may command it. I have spoken to several persons who were present, and they all concur with me that it is impossible that any such language could have been used by you without attracting their pointed attention.—Yours very faithfully, "R. C. MACNEVIN.
"The Solicitor General for Ireland, M.P."
Now, my Lords, I say that a letter written in that spirit and in that manner by a gentleman whose character is unimpeachable, may fairly be set against the statements which the noble Marquess has brought forward, without giving us an opportunity of testing their validity in any way whatever. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess has said that the speech delivered by Mr. Keogh at Moate was repeated at Athlone. He has dealt cautiously with that part of the case; and no wonder, for the hon. and learned Gentleman has assured me that, although in consequence of his having addressed the electors, and occasionally the non-electors, of Athlone, three, four, or five times during the day, it is utterly impossible for him to attempt to remember all the words he uttered at the election, or even the language he held on any particular occasion, yet he is prepared to state that he never used any words which could fairly be construed as an incentive to riot or disturbance, much less to murder. But, my Lords, why has this accusation been brought forward now? Why have we not heard of it till this moment? On Friday night I stated that the noble Marquess, who is the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Westmeath should have brought this charge before the late Government. I was not aware at that time that the noble Marquess, although the Lord Lieutenant of Westmeath, was absent on the Continent during the last general election; and that he was then represented by the Vice-Lieutenant of the county. That Vice-Lieutenant was Colonel Greville, one of the Members for the county; and it is curious enough that Colonel Greville, although Vice Lieutenant under the noble Marquess, and representing him in the

349
county, never heard a syllable of the proceedings at Moate. No statements were made to him by magistrates, whose bounden and solemn duty it was to have reported to Colonel Greville at the time the words imputed to Mr. Keogh, if they really were used. Now, I say that fact alone does throw the greatest possible discredit upon the testimony of these magistrates. They were guilty of a gros3 neglect of duty in not making a representation to the Vice-Lieutenant at the time, and in keeping secret what they knew until it became a matter of political convenience and advantage to the noble Marquess. To my mind that fact tends rather to weaken than to strengthen the credibility of the magistrates in this case, and entitles us to view their statements with suspicion, except in so far as they may be fully borne out by the facts. But there is an inherent improbability in all the statements which the noble Marquess has produced before your Lordships. The hon. and learned Gentleman is disliked for his ability and the way he has evinced it, by those who concur in the political views of the noble Marquess, and has consequently been, for a considerable time past, what I may call a marked man. Joined with those friends of the noble Marquess are a body of men in Ireland of diametrically opposite opinions, whose faith, both in religion and in politics, utterly disagrees with that of the noble Marquess; but, nevertheless, they have combined together to throw every kind of obloquy upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to exclude him and others from their seats in Parliament. Well, my Lords, the hon. and learned Gentleman having been returned for Athlone, was petitioned against; and I believe that the petition of Mr. Lawes, the opposing candidate to Mr. Keogh, referred to by the noble Marquess, was prosecuted with a zeal—I will use no other word—worthy of the best of causes. Your Lordships may be aware that Mr. Lawes went even the length of having the hon. and learned Gentleman arrested under a false judgment. I mention this to show the animus of Mr. Lawes, and to let your Lordships see that he is not one of those tenderhearted gentlemen who would do anything rather than injure the reputation or wound the feelings of other people; but that, on the contrary, he is a man who would be likely to embrace every opportunity, with a view to serve his own purpose, of dam-
350
aging the character of his successful rival. Mr. Lawes, moreover, was present during the whole of the election at Athlone, and having such means of knowing everything which occurred, is it probable that he would fail to bring forward an accusation of this kind to the Committee, if there was any foundation for it, as a proof of the intimidation with which Mr. Keogh conducted his election? Yet Mr. Lawes did not even hint at such a charge. But there was a second petition presented against the return of the hon. and learned: Gentleman by the Messrs. Norton, and that petition was framed with singular ingenuity, so as to hit every possible case that might be brought against the return. Now, did Messrs. Norton bring forward this charge, now made by the noble Marquess,! with the view of getting this election declared null and void? Nothing of the kind; and that there was nothing of the kind alleged by Mr. Norton, I confidently submit as another strong evidence against the noble Marquess's case. I know what the noble Marquess is going to say—that petition was not prosecuted. It was withdrawn; but was it withdrawn by a compromise on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman? No, my Lords; my hon. and learned Friend was not afraid of meeting any charge; and he gave notice to the agents that if they chose to withdraw the petition, the charges of which he was anxious to meet, he would not allow it to be J withdrawn by any species of compromise, but would take care to make them pay the costs; and he has received 100 l. costs from the gentlemen who refused to prosecute that petition. Now, I think such facts are the strongest corroborations of the improbability of these newly-found charges. The noble Earl opposite (the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), in answering the observations I made the other night, said that my taunt fell harmless to the ground, when I said that he, as Lord Lieutenant, ought to have taken the case up, if it was brought before him, because Mr. Keogh was a private individual at that time, whereas now he was Solicitor General, and that he was not called upon to investigate words uttered by private individuals, for if he had done so he would have had a great deal of business of that description to attend to. I readily admit that assertion. But I must be allowed to say that Mr. Keogh was not, in the sense in which the noble Earl used the words, a

351
private individual. I say that when Mr. Keogh is stated to have made that speech, he held a position which made him differ materially from a private individual, and that the Lord Lieutenant was bound to take notice of any accusation that might be brought against him. Mr. Keogh was then, as he is now, a Queen's Counsel; and that position, honourable as it is in this country, is still higher in Ireland; and for this reason — that the manner of promoting to the rank of Queen's Counsel differs somewhat from the mode of promotion in this country. How did Mr. Keogh obtain the silk gown? Why, in deference to the position he occupied at the bar, and not by any solicitation on his own part:— because he, whilst sitting in a stuff gown, was busily engaged in the causes of his circuit, whilst many other learned Gentlemen in silk were sitting briefless by his side. And who recommended him to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for that important and honourable distinction? An hon. and learned Gentleman occupying a distinguished position on the bench in Ireland—a man with whom, years ago, I had the honour of sitting in the other House of Parliament— a man whom, whatever I may think of his political opinions, I must consider a man not only of great learning, of great amiability, but of great experience in every station of life. It was Chief Justice Lefroy who recommended Mr. Keogh to that honourable distinction, as a mark of his own esteem, and of the estimation in which Mr. Keogh was held in the profession, not merely as a lawyer and a gentleman, but also as one of the most straightforward and honourable public prosecutors whom he had ever met with, in the performance of those onerous and, in Ireland, responsible and most painful duties. I say, upon authority, that no accusation of this kind was brought before the Vice Lieutenant of the county of Westmeath, who occupied that position until two months ago, when the noble Marquess opposite returned to this country. I do not know whether any statement was made to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or not. But I place the noble Earl on the horns of this dilemma: Either that statement was made to him, and although Mr. Keogh was not a private individual, but holding the important position of Queen's Counsel, he thought fit to pass it over, as one of those foolish and childish accusations which are often brought by opponents at contested elections—either he
352
treated it in that way—and if he did so treat it, I think he treated it rightly—or, believing it, he neglected to take the step which in that case he ought to have done, namely, to have the accusation investigated, with the view of punishing Mr. Keogh for the offence with which he was charged. Now mark what the accusation is. The charge brought by the noble Marquess, involves nothing less than one of sedition; and assuredly if the noble Earl did believe it, it was his duty to have taken the matter energetically in hand; and if only half that has been reported to have been said could have been substantiated, I will add the expression of my belief, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on his part, had Mr. Keogh been brought under his notice as guilty of such misconduct, would at once have felt it to be his duty to strip the silk gown from Mr. Keogh's back. I need not remind your Lordships that this is by no means the first occasion on which accusations of this kind have been brought against persons mixed up with contested elections in Ireland. I need not go further for a proof of this than to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Cardigan), whose name is next on the list of Motions. I do not know whether he intends to bring forward his Motion with reference to the Six-mile Bridge affair or not; but I merely refer to his notice of Motion for the purpose of asking—what is the accusation there? Have you not an accusation against a magistrate concurring in opinions with the noble Lord opposite —- a magistrate who accompanied the soldiers in that unfortunate affair? What is the charge made against that magistrate? Why, it is stated by numbers, who say they are ready to prove it upon oath, that he went there armed with a brace of pistols, and upon some one making a row, he took out one of the pistols and held it up to the man's head, and said, "Take care; if you make a disturbance I'll blow your brains out. You had your election, the other day, at Limerick—we'll have ours now; and if not we'll have blood for it." Why have not noble Lords already condemned Mr. Delmege for these words? For what reason have they hesitated to do so? Simply because they did not believe them to have been uttered; but suppose that the statement arose out of the heated imaginations of men engaged in a fiercely-contested election. I do not believe the words attributed to him. I have no doubt that

353
Mr. Delmege did not utter any such threat; but it rests on the same foundation as the charge brought forward by the noble Marquess against the hon. and learned Gentleman. If I were to take the trouble to ransack the Irish newspapers, I dare say there is not a single paper during the time of an election in which I should not find that one side or the other was charged with having uttered words similar to those which are now charged against Mr. Keogh, and those which are charged against Mr. Delmege. I am not seeking to shelter Mr. Keogh by opposing this Motion. But, after all, what are the words which the noble Marquess has quoted—those extraordinary allusions to the seasons, uttered in language as childish as if it had come from the lips of an infant? I am not talking of the meaning which the noble Marquess puts upon them. That I have already discussed. But the words themselves are sufficient to betoken it as almost impossible that Mr. Keogh should ever have uttered them; and the extreme similarity of the words as given by different witnesses throws additional discredit on such probability, considering, as we all know, that there is no newspaper report of what occurred. Why is this allusion to the seasons—assuming it were even made— this notice of particular months of the year, to be tortured into sedition? Has the noble Marquess never beard of any other allusion to the seasons in the county of Westmeath? I have been assured that a friend of his, in canvassing, made a significant allusion to the coming season. I have heard of an individual, related to a Member in the other House of Parliament, who, during that election, said that the tenants upon certain estates over which he had the control must take care how they voted, for, not winter, but October was coming, and then they would have to look out for themselves. Now it would be quite possible, of course, to torture this reference to October into something of the nature of the charge devised by the noble Marquess; but in point of fact, all that Mr. Dunne meant was that if the tenants did not vote for Sir R. Levinge, October was coming, and then they should be—not murdered absolutely, but—ejected. I consider that the present charge has been brought forward by the noble Marquess for the purpose of obtaining a temporary triumph against Mr. Keogh. The noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said, when the subject was last before the House, that
354
he had held or did then hold in his hand an affidavit on this subject. The noble Earl shows it me now, and as I see he is evidently about to answer me, I would beg him to explain to the House thoroughly and explicitly what that affidavit really is. I may ask him also to inform the House when it was signed, and when he received it, and how long it has been in his possession. I think that information most important, and I should be sorry if your Lordships were to proceed to a division without a knowledge of these facts. I should like to know, also, under what circumstances that affidavit was sworn. I am no lawyer myself—but I should appeal to my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and to the other noble and learned Lords who are present, as to the character of the affidavit now in the possession of the noble Earl. If it was placed in his hands for the purpose of a judicial inquiry, and for the purpose of proving an information against Mr. Keogh, let me observe that Mr. Keogh would be, under such circumstances, placed in a position in which the meanest criminal cannot he placed, for this affidavit must have been sworn against him without any summons being issued against him, and without his being able to take any step to meet it. Is it an affidavit sworn for the purpose of grounding an information against Mr. Keogh, and being made the basis of a legal accusation? I ask if that is so? If that was the case, it was a most unfair proceeding as regards Mr. Keogh. And, further, I ask the noble Earl to explain why, having such an affidavit in his possession, those legal proceedings, for the institution of which it was sworn, have not been taken? If, on the other hand, this was a voluntary affidavit, then I turn to my noble and learned Friends, and I appeal to them whether such an affidavit is not an illegal document; and I ask how, under such circumstances, that affidavit came into possession of the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? I am afraid I have troubled your Lordships at too great length. I can only say, whatever the noble Marquess may believe, that on the part of the Government I honestly wish I could second the Motion for this inquiry; for I can tell him that no man is more anxious that the matter should be fully investigated than Mr. Keogh. But I do not think it would be becoming in your Lordships' House, upon such information as has been brought forward by the noble Marquess, and in such

355
a manner, without the possibility of an investigation on the spot, to say you cannot yourselves bring sufficient evidence, and, therefore, we must appoint a Committee. If such a course is to be adopted, there is no innocent man against whom an accusation may not he brought for the purpose of instituting an investigation, and your time might he wholly occupied in inquiries into such charges as those which have been brought against Mr. Keogh and Mr. Delmege, to the neglect of matters connected with imperial interests—to the neglect of such subjects as that of India for example —the discussion of which all-important subject will scarcely bring together so large an assembly of your Lordships as are collected for this most miserable and paltry Motion. I cannot take that course. In justice to this noble House, I feel bound to say "No" to the Motion of the noble Marquess; and I am confident that all just and impartial men will say that I am right in the course I have taken, and that the effect of refusing investigation will not reflect one tittle on the character of my hon. and learned Friend, or detract from the high position which his honourable and straightforward conduct in reference to another matter has justly attached to him. I appeal with confidence to your Lordships' House. Let the noble Marquess or any other noble Lord bring forward any charge which in public estimation may be considered an attack on the character of the Government, calling for inquiry, and we will not shrink from any investigation which he or his friends may desire. But we will not he dragged into inquiries of such an absurd description as this. I say that we have a right to stand upon our character. I say that the character of the Government, whether with reference to their public conduct, or with reference to their political appointments— view it as you will—may fairly challenge such attacks as those which have been brought forward by the noble Marquess. But I say more. I believe that the private character and individual conduct, not merely of the Cabinet which sits on this bench, but of all those who occupy official positions under that Government, may fairly challenge the utmost efforts of enmity of the noble Marquess; and I believe we may upon the present occasion fairly shield ourselves under that character, not shrinking from investigation when investigation is fairly called for. I am confident the public will be of opinion that that shield is a safe one, whether against the
356
polished and pointed darts of the noble Earl opposite, or against the miserable and rusty bolts from the battered quiver of the noble Marquess.
The EARL of EGLINTON: My Lords, I shall come to answer the latter part of the noble Duke's question with respect to the affidavit in a few minutes; but perhaps the noble Luke will allow me to commence the few remarks which I have to make, by asking your Lordships whether I can be fairly accused of having taken any unfair advantage of the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom this Motion refers, or whether I have displayed any degree of acrimony beyond what was necessary, in stating that I had the affidavit in question in my possession. I beg to assure the noble Duke that I have not been employed—nor do I believe that the noble Marquess has been employed—since Friday last, in collecting materials for the purpose of substantiating the present accusation against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. I have not only not taken that course in this case, but I have never done so on any other occasion. I was attacked by the noble Duke upon a former occasion, and have been subjected to attack in another place for having used the expression, that the nomination of Mr. Keogh to office was, in my opinion, one of the least reputable acts of the present Government. I have no desire whatsoever to shrink from the responsibility of having made that assertion, and in the same sense in which I made it upon a former occasion, I again repeat it. In making that assertion, I beg to assure your Lordships that I do not intend to cast any reflection whatsoever upon Mr. Keogh's private character, or to make any reference to anything connected with that Gentleman, except the words which have been attributed to him, and which form the subject of discussion in this House. If—as I have reason to think it possible, if not probable—Mr. Keogh is guilty of having used the words which are attributed to him, then I say, that the appointment of an individual capable of having used those words to an office of high responsibility such as that of the Solicitor General for Ireland, would be not only the least reputable act of the present Government, but of any Government that ever administered the affairs of this country, It was upon those grounds only that I made use of the expression in question; and I beg again to assure your Lordships that in doing so I had no intention whatsoever of making any

357
reference to Mr. Keogh's private character. The noble Duke has asked, why it was, that in my position, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I did not take notice of the affidavit which had been sent to me upon the subject now under your Lordships' notice? I will tell the noble Duke at once why it was that I took no notice of that affidavit. I intimated upon a former occasion the reasons which induced me to take that course, when I stated that if all the parties who made violent speeches during the late elections in Ireland were to be prosecuted, the Crown lawyers would have had a heavy time of it indeed. Mr. Keogh's speech was but one of a great number of a similar character which came under my notice. I certainly little expected at the time when it was brought under my notice, that the Gentleman who had given utterance to the sentiments which it contained was to be the future Solicitor General for Ireland. More than 100 reports of speeches tending to excite the mob to riot and sedition came before me while I was in Ireland; but during the whole period of my stay in that country I had no report of a speech brought to mo which, in my opinion, so distinctly recommended assassination as that of the speech said to have been delivered by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland in the town of Moate. When such reports as those to which I have referred did come before me—my noble Friend who was my predecessor in office in Ireland will bear me out as to what is the usual practice in such cases — I sent them to the law advisers of the Crown to ascertain whether they furnished proper matter for further investigation, or for the institution of criminal prosecution. That was the course which I almost invariably pursued in reference to those reports. I will not swear that I adopted that course in the particular case of Mr. Keogh; but so far as I can recollect, the mode of proceeding in that case was precisely similar to that which it was my practice to adopt in instances of a similar nature. In many instances I felt greatly disappointed when I found that the legal advisers of the Crown did not deem it advisable to recommend that legal proceedings should be instituted against parties to whom the use of very violent language had been attributed. My ardour in this respect was perhaps too great. I believe, however, that I did apply-to the law advisers of the Crown for their opinion with reference to the case of Mr. Keogh; and that that opinion was not in
358
favour of the institution of a criminal prosecution against that Gentleman. It was a short time after the general election—I cannot tell the exact date—that I received among many other representations respecting the language attributed to Mr. Keogh, the affidavit which I now hold in my hand. At the time that I received this affidavit, I was informed that the case was one in which it was likely that if the names of the parties who signed the document were to become known, they would be placed in a very dangerous position. I confess that this information contributed in some degree—if not entirely—to induce me to take no further notice of the matter. I feel, however, that I am now bound, at any risk to the parties in question, to read the whole of the affidavit, together with the names of the individuals by whom it is signed. It is as follows: —
"I, James Burke, of the town of Moate, and the county of Westmeath, yeoman, do solemnly declare that I was in the town of Moate upon the 14th day of July last, when a large number of persons assembled together in that town to hear an address from Mr. Keogh. Upon that occasion I heard that Gentleman utter the following words from the window of the inn:—' It is now summer, and the nights are short; but the time will come round when the nights will be long; but the winter will at last set in, and the nights then will be very long, and let those who vote for Sir R. Levinge be upon their guard. Further I tell you, both men and women, to be at Athlone upon the election day, at twelve o'clock, with shillelaghs, and to use them.' I make this solemn declaration, solemnly believing it to be true.
"J. BURKE.
"Made and subscribed before me this 14th day of September, "ARTHUR BROWNE,
"Justice of Peace of said county."
That paper remained in my box until Friday last, when the noble Marquess made; his statement in this House. I distinctly declare that I had no intention whatever of addressing your Lordships upon the subject before you upon that occasion; nor should I have done so if the debate had not been carried beyond its original scope. Yesterday morning, however, without any communication having been made upon my part, I received a letter from Mr. Browne, the magistrate before whom the affidavit in question was sworn to. He writes: —
"10, Newcomon-terrace, Dublin, June 14, 1853.
"My Lord—I am to apologise for this intrusion. The necessity will, I trust, justify the liberty I now assume in presuming to address you. My attention has been drawn to the late debate in the House of Lords, in which your Lordship took a conspicuous part; and, as Mr. Keogh has had

359
the temerity to assert that he did not use the words imputed to him, and as a controversy may arise thereon, I wish (as the magistrate who took the declaration of James Burton) to satisfy you that every word in that declaration is true, and that at least twenty gentlemen of independence and station (among whom the rector of Moate— the Rev. Mr. Hopkins) are ready and willing to support the truth of that deposition by their evidence on oath. The gentlemen in question were present on the occasion, heard the words so delivered, and there can be no more doubt of their utterance than of any other truth which cannot be disputed. The fact was, the whole neighbourhood was excited by the atrocity of the language used on that occasion by the Solicitor General. I am further to observe, that, being the local magistrate living in Moate, I felt it my duty to inquire most minutely into the whole matter, with a view of submitting it to the Executive, as I did hope the party using such expressions would not be allowed to do so with impunity. I am further to add, that your Lordship is at perfect liberty to use this letter in any mode you may deem fitting; if, indeed, the letter of so humble an individual may be considered of any consequence or weight. —I have the honour to be, your Lordship's obedient servant, "ARTHUR BROWNE.
"The Right Hon. the Earl of Eglinton."
I beg to assure your Lordships that in all that I have stated upon this and upon every other occasion in connexion with this question, I have been influenced by no feeling whatsoever of ill-will against Mr. Keogh. It will give me great pleasure to find that the accusations which have been made against that Gentleman are unfounded; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that more than one witness of the highest respectability has borne testimony to the truth of that accusation, and that the circumstances of the case are, therefore, of such a nature as to demand inquiry. I ask you to consider what the real question is. The accusation made against the Solicitor General for Ireland charges him with having made use of certain expressions which—and I appeal to my predecessors in office to bear me out in what I state—in Ireland would be understood distinctly to recommend assassination. I will appeal to any man who knows Ireland, whether the ribbon watchword, couched in doggrel verse, is not of a character similar to the words attributed to Mr. Keogh? The accusation is, that the Gentleman who did use those words at the last general election has been made Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland—one of the most responsible positions in which any man can be placed. The Solicitor General for Ireland, if not a Member of Parliament, is liable to be called upon to discharge the duties of a Judge upon circuit, and, in the absence of the Attorney General, must prose-
360
cute in criminal cases—one to whom the people of Ireland ought to look up, for the just, firm, and impartial administration of the law. Under these circumstances I beg most earnestly that your Lordships will grant a Committee of Inquiry in this case. This is no mere anonymous slander—no vague rumour or report, but consists of an affidavit, of letters signed by gentlemen whose names have been given to your Lordships—three magistrates—two Quakers, and the clergyman, the rector of the parish at Moate—gentlemen who certainly, if there is truth in man, ought to have credence given to them. The noble Duke's speech was one of the most convincing I ever heard to carry out the wishes of his opponents, for I never heard any better arguments in favour of a Motion he wished to oppose. It would give me no pleasure to find Mr. Keogh guilty. I am no bitter opponent of the present Government, or I trust of any man whatever. I do not believe it is considered my character. I merely wish that this question should be fairly and honestly sifted. I do not say it in prejudice to Mr. Keogh, because he has not had time to bring as much information as he might get upon the subject; but upon our side, as far as it yet goes, the evidence is certainly preponderant. I will not take any credit to ourselves for that. Noble Lords opposite have not had time to get up their evidence, but I wish to give them time and go into the whole question, not only for the sake of those gentlemen who, to a certain degree, have placed their veracity in the hands of the noble Marquess and myself, but for the credit of the Government, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself; and I can only say, if these accusations are disproved before a Committee of your Lordships' House, I shall be the first man to shake the hon. and learned Gentleman by the hand, and tell him I am glad of it.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I will only say a few words. Being, perhaps, the person chiefly concerned in this "disreputable" appointment, I feel called upon to assert that I do feel that no such character is involved in the act. On the contrary, if this be one of the most "disreputable" appointments I have made, I think.[ought to be very well satisfied with the composition of the Government. The noble Earl opposite has made a most extraordinary statement of his course of conduct in this matter. He tells us he received an affidavit or declaration affirming the

361
accusation brought forward by the noble Marquess, and that he referred it to the proper quarter—his law advisers—who told him there was no cause for proceeding further in the matter.
The EARL of EGLINTON: I said I believed I had referred it to the law adviser of the Crown.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Of course I am bound to believe what the noble Earl believes. The noble Earl draws a great distinction between the position of Mr. Keogh as Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland, and the condition in which he stood when the noble Earl received the declaration. But I do not think the distinction is such as to exonerate the noble Earl from fulfilling his duty on that occasion; for Mr. Keogh as a Queen's Counsel, would deserve the reprehension and reprobation of the noble Earl as much as if he were Solicitor General. Even if I believed— which I do not believe-—the accusation brought against Mr. Keogh—for, after the statement of my noble Friend near me, corroborated as to the words delivered by Mr. Keogh by a witness above all exception, standing by his side, and ready to attest it upon oath—I do not believe this accusation; but even if I did believe it, I should say that this House was not the fit place for coming to a proper decision on the matter. We are asked to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into a charge of sedition. Why, my Lords, we are judges as well as accusers in this case, and it may be brought before us in the last resort for judgment. Now, I think the proposition most preposterous. To say the truth, when the noble Marquess gave notice of the Motion, I really thought he was not in earnest, and that he only brought the matter forward as the vehicle of a speech which should constitute an attack upon Mr. Keogh or upon the Government. Having, on a former occasion, brought forward a Motion which had reference to a matter of deep importance, he introduced this attack upon Mr. Keogh without the slightest notice, without the slightest reference to the subject which he professed to bring before the House; and I thought that this was only a mode of putting himself in order for making a Motion; but I never could believe that he would expect your Lordships seriously to entertain such a proposition. At all events, I protest against such a course, as utterly unbecoming and unsuitable to the functions and the dignity of this House. The accusation is one which I consider, under the
362
circumstances, of a trumpery character; but at all events, if it were serious, this is not the place in which it ought to be brought forward.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, it is just as well we should consider what is the real objection to this Motion, which was very distinctly shadowed out by the noble Earl who has just spoken, but which, I think, is still stronger than he has made it appear. I put entirely out of view the question whether Mr. Keogh did use the words attributed to him or not. If we are to view what were probably the intentions and feelings of Mr. Keogh in using them, there may be evidence on one side— there may be evidence on the other. I will take it there is a conflict of evidence: whether that conflict is equal on either side, or whether there is a preponderance on one side or the other, in my view of the case, is wholly immaterial; because, though there is a conflict of evidence, I entirely agree with my noble Friend who spoke last that this is a Motion we ought not to entertain. Suppose it to be an inquiry which we ought properly to raise in this House, and to prosecute here, there being a conflict of evidence, I agree with the noble Earl who spoke last but one that that is a reason for going into the inquiry rather than against it. Let us consider what we are. We are a court of law—a court of criminal law—of criminal law in the last resort—a court to which all other criminal law courts are subordinate, and from every one of those courts an appeal lies to this House as the supreme court in the last resort. Then, are we the proper parties, and is this the proper place, to enter into an inquiry whether a certain individual has broken the law of the country and committed an offence, be it in his public or in his private capacity, or in both? It cannot, however, be said that, because this gentleman was not Solicitor General, but only Queen's Counsel, that therefore the offence, if any, was not committed in a public capacity The office of Queen's Counsel is a public office, though of a different kind from that of the Solicitor General, and having many duties of a Crown lawyer vested in it, and great responsibility attached to it in reference to the constitution and the law of the country. But what is the matter with which he is charged? With sedition. It is either that or nothing at all. I am rather disposed, with the noble Duke, to treat the words stated to have been used

363
as having been careless expressions, probably exaggerated by those who heard them; but, if they were seriously spoken, and if they constituted the offence — a grave offence, I am far from denying— with which the Gentleman in question is charged, what are we now called on to do? Why, to act as a grand jury. Though nobody regularly prefers a bill before us, yet we, the court in the last resort, and who might probably have ourselves to decide on the case, are to convert ourselves into a grand jury, and put the accused party on his trial. The consequence might be this, that the report of the Committee might he in accordance with the statement of the noble Marquess, that the words were used. That, I repeat, would amount to neither more nor less than that Mr. Keogh about a year ago was guilty of sedition. Are we, then, to send that report before a grand jury, and to put Mr. Keogh on his trial? Are we to instruct the Attorney General for Ireland, or possibly the Solicitor General, Mr. Keogh himself, to file a criminal information against him, and, being the court to try him in the last resort, are we thus by anticipation to convict him? And supposing the jury were to convict the hon. Gentleman, and that the case is brought judicially before your Lordships, are we, then, calmly to consider whether our Committee was right or wrong, and to discharge the highest of all our functions, after having discharged a function of a totally different character—namely, that of the grand jury of the county of Westmeath? Do not let it be supposed that, in making these observations, I consider that no case can arise in which your Lordships, though a court of criminal justice may not properly enter upon an inquiry to which may be incidental some charge of a criminal description. I can well imagine that your Lordships, exercising your other functions as a branch of the Legislature and as advisers of the Crown, may be called on, and would in such case undoubtedly have jurisdiction, and, if I may so speak, authority to enter upon an inquiry whether an appointment made by the Executive Government was justifiable under the circumstances of the case. I say you have an undeniable right to enter on such inquiry; but I consider that the argument I have urged respecting the judicial functions of your Lordships, as well as common discrimination and constitutional principles, ought, if the ground of objection to the appointment be a charge
364
of a criminal nature, to warn you against entering upon the inquiry. Without disputing the constitutional functions of this House as advisers of the Crown in respect to all appointments and every exercise of the prerogative, there are obvious and irrefragable reasons against this House ever, or almost ever, entering upon the investigation of a matter of such a nature as comes in conflict or collision with its judicial functions. As to the document, with respect to which an appeal has been made to me for my opinion, it was not an affidavit, but a voluntary declaration, allowed under the Duke of Richmond's Act.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to my noble and learned Friend for having interposed between the House and the few observations I am about to offer, by the statement he has just made as to the grounds upon which he objects to comply with the Motion of my noble Friend; but I think that the observations he has just made show that the grounds of his objection to the Motion are rather technical than otherwise. I must say that, in the course of my Parliamentary experience, I recollect very few cases in which there were so many collateral issues successively joined to mystify and withdraw from consideration that which was the original charge made by my noble Friend. That charge was not, in the first place, a charge against Mr. Keogh personally, nor against him in any capacity, but against Her Majesty's Government for the selection of Mr. Keogh, under the circumstances, to fill the office of Solicitor General for Ireland. In point of fact, the mention of Mr. Keogh's name at all by the noble Marquess was incidental to the main point of his inquiry, which was, whether, with regard to the administration of justice in Ireland, Her Majesty's Government had pursued a course calculated to promote the impartial administration of jastice, and to inspire confidence in that country; and, in support of the view which the noble Marquess takes, that the Government were not entitled to claim this character, he put forward this appointment at a particular moment of a Gentleman, as Solicitor General, who was stated to have made use of expressions which I think the House generally agree—and, notwithstanding what the noble Duke has said, the House, I believe, will still be of opinion, if they were used by Mr. Keogh—would be a very serious objection and obstacle to the duo performance of the duties of Solicitor General of Ireland.

365
My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant (the Earl of Eglinton), after the incidental mention of Mr. Keogh's name, stated that he thought this the least reputable appointment of the Government. Upon that a new issue is joined, as to the intention of the Government in the appointment of Mr. Keogh; and then the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it incumbent on him to state that he was able to recriminate and retort, by saying that Her Majesty's late Government had offered office to Mr. Keogh, and that he could state upon the best authority— that of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself—that there had been an offer of office made to him on the part of the late Government. Upon that, not in this but in the other House, a new issue was joined, and a question raised as to whether such an offer had or had not been made. I will say a word or two by-and-by on that subject, to which, however, I shall not advert at more length than the noble Duke. Then comes another collateral issue, whether my noble Friend, the late Lord Lieutenant, having received an affidavit stating what was the character of these words, had pursued a right course with regard to that affidavit, or whether it was his duty to have instituted criminal proceedings against Mr. Keogh? Lastly, comes the issue joined by my noble and learned Friend, that this, which is a criminal accusation, is not a fitting matter for your Lordships' consideration. I will deal first with the question which, in fact, involves some of the other issues, as to whether my noble Friend was right in considering this as one of the least reputable appointments of the Government; and as to the counter assertion, that office had been offered to Mr. Keogh by the late Government, I will take the liberty of saying a very few words. In the first place, I beg to say that I have not the honour of a personal acquaintance with Mr. Keogh, and I am certain I never spoke to him in my life, I have no knowledge whatever of Mr. Keogh's private personal character, and I should be exceedingly sorry to say a word against it. Until the other evening, when he was pointed out to me, I had not seen him, and I do not even now know him Insight. With regard to him, although I did not use the expression of my noble Friend, that this was the least reputable appointment of the present Government, I am ready to say that, upon the supposition that such language was used by Mr. Keogh as that which is attributed to him, and
366
with the knowledge of the notoriety of the general course pursued by Mr. Keogh during the last summer, I concur with my noble Friend In thinking that the appointment of Mr. Keogh was a most unfortunate appointment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Nor is this inconsistent with the fact of there having been, with or without authority, any suggestion or offer made to Mr. Keogh in February, 1852, to take office under the late Administration. The fact was, that I certainly made no offer, I thought of making no offer, I knew there were so many important points of difference between Mr. Keogh and the general spirit of the Government about to be formed, that it never occurred to me to make an offer, which I concluded would have been rejected. But my confidence in that result has since been somewhat shaken; for I should certainly no less have expected that Mr. Keogh would take office under the Administration of which I was the head then, considering what took place in January, 1852, and the great vehemence with which Mr. Keogh urged his personal opposition to my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon), the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, than I should have thought of his accepting office in a Government of which the noble Earl was a prominent Member, or with the strong feeling of Mr. Keogh, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I should have thought he would take office under the noble Lord the leader of the House of Commons. But the difference between the political opinions which we entertained, would, I concluded, have as much precluded him from accepting as they did me from offering office. I am far from disputing the great talent and abilities of Mr. Keogh; but on many points there were great differences of opinion between us, which precluded any offer of that kind. Mr. Keogh's repugnance to join a Government of which Lord John Russell was a Member, may have been overcome by the counteracting influence of the noble Earl at the head of the Government; and recent circumstances would certainly lead us to the belief that his confidence had not been misplaced, as the noble Earl has thought it consistent with his duty to repudiate, explain, and apologise for the language held in the House of Commons by his Colleague, who fills no office whatever with regard to the present Administration, unless that of representing in his language and his speeches in the House of Commons the

367
views, the feelings, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But the noble Duke has referred to the discussion that took place last evening, in another place, and has stated that he conceives the question of Mr. Keogh's character, which, in fact, was never brought into issue at all, had been perfectly set at rest by what had taken place. I will say to the noble Duke that my impression of what has taken place is, that it has been a complete and absolute verification, admitting the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in opposition to the statement of the noble Duke, that no offer of any office was made to him, with or without authority, at the time of the formation of the late Government; and there is not the slightest doubt, whatever inference he may have drawn from unauthorised words used in private conversation—in which, even between two honourable men, there may be a difference between the intention of the one and the understanding of the other —that this at least is clear, that, with my authority or my knowledge, or the authority or knowledge of any one authorised to make the offer, no offer of office had been made to Mr. Keogh by any one on the part of the late Government. But, if any such offer had been made, it would have been perfectly reconcilable, although such an offer might have been made to Mr. Keogh in February, 1852, that his appointment in December, 1852, as Solicitor General was a discreditable appointment to the Government that appointed him —discreditable, not on account of Mr. Keogh's personal and private character, for of that I know nothing, but discreditable on account of the position in which, during the whole course of the summer, and during the contested elections, Mr. Keogh had placed himself with reference to those elections. Mr. Keogh, in the exercise of his political views, thought it incumbent on him to make himself known, from one end of Ireland to the other, as the representative and agent of what is called the Catholic Defence Association! and in that character, from borough to borough, from county to county, Mr. Keogh lent his active services to those bodies of the Roman Catholic priesthood who, in many of the counties, as has been proved by responsible testimony, combined together, and by the exercise of their spiritual authority and influence, did all in their power, absolutely and entirely, to destroy the freedom of election, and lead the Roman
368
Catholic voters, under the ties of religious obligations, bound hand and foot, to vote for their nominees. It has been proved, and it may be proved, that, in more than one county, there was this interference of the Roman Catholic priesthood generally, no doubt with some honourable exceptions, which, however, were exceptions, and were not the rule. They were the active body, canvassing and conducting the elections in a manner absolutely inconsistent with anything like freedom of election, or liberty of political conscience; and of that body Mr. Keogh constituted himself the avowed and accredited agent and instrument, pressing upon the various constituencies the views of these rev. gentlemen. In that character he appeared on the hustings at Westmeath, and also at his own election on the hustings at Athlone; and having travelled through Carlow, and other counties, where similar proceedings were taking place, he comes forward as the agent of what a noble Lord in another place justly characterised as a conspiracy against all civil freedom. Mr. Keogh presents himself as a candidate for Athlone, and upon the hustings makes use of language which, if it can be verified, I say, that, in conjunction with his general course of conduct, it renders him the most unfit selection, as law officer of the Crown, which could have been made by a Government professing to have the slightest respect and regard to the principles of civil and religious liberty and constitutional freedom. If to that course of proceeding these words be added, which I cannot consider, like the noble Duke, immaterial and insignificant, absurd, and not worthy of notice—if, in addition to his general course of conduct, he used words which, to the inflammable minds of the Irish population, could bear no other reasonable meaning than a general incitement and encouragement to visit, in the course of the long dark nights of winter, upon any voters, the course they might take in the conscientious exercise of their political power—whether these words can subject him to a criminal prosecution or not—that course of proceeding and that language rendered him the man the most unfit for any office, but, above all, for any office connected with the due administration of the law and the repression of disorder, That is the only view I take—not whether Mr. Keogh has been guilty of an indictable offence, but whether the Government, in selecting: Mr. Keogh for the office of Solicitor General at that time, and under the circum-

369
stances, selected an individual whose appointment was likely to produce a favourable impression on the minds of the people as to the due administration of the law. After the memorable declaration made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, I presume my noble Friend (the Earl of Cardigan) will not bring forward the subject of which he has given notice to-night. I am not going to argue that point now; hut when the time comes I shall say that the course pursued by the law officers of the Crown upon that occasion gives a signal corroboration to the opinion that offences which have been committed, provided they have been committed by persons who have a certain political influence, will be lightly treated. I will not consent to disconnect that which followed from the prosecution itself. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) may shake his head, and treat this argument with great contempt; but we have, in the first instance, language used which, in my opinion, renders the person who used it unfit for a high legal office in Ireland—and intimidation practised at elections; and then, as probably will be proved on a future day, a course of conduct is pursued by the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland which strongly corroborates in the public mind the impression produced by Mr. Keogh's appointment. Again, I presume it is the opinion of your Lordships that the words imputed to Mr. Keogh—if they can be brought home to him—do bear such a character, and do wear such a complexion, as materially to damage the satisfactory performance of his duty as one of the law officers of the Crown. But the question is raised—Were those words used or not? The noble Duke opposite, who spoke with considerable ardour and vehemence in the earlier part of the evening, falls foul of my noble Friend for having brought forward this question without having given due notice. Why, my Lords, on a former occasion the noble Marquess mentioned that case incidentally; and even before he did so, he communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman his intention of making that statement and that charge which has since been submitted to your Lordships. My noble Friend was then challenged, and was then told that he was bringing forward these accusations without the shadow of proof, and that he was bringing them forward not only in the absence of the person accused, but without being able to present the shadow of a case
370
on which to rest his assertions. My noble Friend thereupon gave notice of a Motion on this subject; and when he brings for- ward his proofs, or those statements on which he desires to go to issue, and when; he courts a fair trial and a fair investigation, then, forsooth, he is told that he has employed the interval in ransacking; Ireland, for the purpose of bringing forward that proof which, on a former occasion, the noble Duke opposite complained had not been brought forward, and the non-production of which he alleged as a ground for objecting to a previous Motion made by the noble Marquess. Now, my Lords, we do not say that Mr. Keogh made use of these expressions —we do not say we hold he has no defence to make; but this we do say, that throughout the whole course of the summer and autumn it was a matter of notoriety and general discussion that such and such language had been held by Her Majesty's present Solicitor General for Ireland previous to his election; and my noble Friend the noble Marquess, and my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Eglinton), have prepared declarations in the most solemn form, of persons who have subscribed their names, and who are ready to swear, if subjected to your Lordships' cross-examination, that such words were used, and used in their hearing, by Mr. Keogh; and then the noble Duke opposite finds it convenient to say the matter is one with respect to which there is not a shadow of a case made out, because Mr. Keogh himself denies that he made use of any such expressions. But the noble Duke brings forward the proof of Mr. M'Nevin, the private solicitor of Mr. Keogh. Now, I know no more of that gentleman than I do of Mr. Keogh himself. Well, what does he state? Why, that be was standing by, and that he did not hear Mr. Keogh use the expressions—
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: He says he must have heard them if they were used.
The EARL of DERBY: Well, he says if he used the words he must have heard them. Then we are to take the declaration of Mr. M'Nevin, the private solicitor of Mr. Keogh, in opposition to affidavits of twenty-four or twenty-five respectable gentlemen, who are wholly unconnected with him. On two occasions they heard the same language used by Mr. Keogh, and though there may be some small discrepancy in the language of these several persons, they are just those discrepancies

371
which are likely to happen when a number of individuals come to speak upon the particular language used in a speech; and though their words are not identically the same, they carry through them the same idea—in many respects the identical expressions—and they convey the same unmistakeable interference, intention, meaning, and course which Mr. Keogh suggested if not recommended. I will not weary your Lordships by going into the question of what course my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was bound to take when the affidavits were placed in his hands. It is said that though the magistrates were conscious of such language being used, they made no representation to the Government at the time, but reserved their representations until the present moment. In the first place, it appears from the statement of my noble Friend, that from some quarter or other representations were made to him in the ordinary course, of the language used by Mr. Keogh; but a law officer of the Crown might very well be of opinion that, on a statement so made, there was no ground for a criminal prosecution of Mr. Keogh, and that a criminal prosecution of him at that moment, considering the position in which he stood, and the political hostility which subsisted between him and the Government, would not be a proceeding which would carry with it the general approval, while it might be interpreted into an act of political hostility. But it is perfectly consistent with the fact that there should be no charge of a criminal nature which could be substantiated against Mr. Keogh, and at the same time that Mr. Keogh's language was such that, if he had been in any degree connected with the Government, it would have been impossible for the Government to pass over such language on the part of one of their servants —still more impossible, I should have thought, that, with a knowledge of that language, whether it would subject him or not 'to a criminal prosecution, any Government could have appointed him to any office, but especially to an office connected with the administration of the law in Ireland. I confess, I regret that, in bringing forward this question, my noble Friend the noble Marquess should have inserted in the notice of his Motion words which give some colour to the arguments used by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). I undoubtedly regret that, in moving for this Committee, he has cha-
372
racterised the language used by the Solicitor General for Ireland as seditious language, because that does give some colour to the arguments of my noble and learned Friend, that where a judicial crime is imputed, this House is not the fit place for inquiring into the matter. But, my Lords, my noble and learned Friend himself admitted that there were cases where, though on examination, there might incidentally appear to be a substantiation of some charge of criminality against an individual; yet, in that case, if the charge bore on the character of the Government and on the public interests, and only secondarily on the individual whom it happened to involve, it would not be a sufficient answer to say the matter was in the nature of a criminal proceeding, and could not be inquired into by this House. I have no hesitation in saying that the ground on which my noble Friend brought forward this question—still less do I hesitate to say that the ground on which I am inclined to support the proposition—has no reference to the personal and political character of Mr. Keogh himself in the slightest degree. We have no desire to subject him to a criminal prosecution—we have no desire to express an opinion personally hostile to him, or hostile to anything except the dangerous tendency in Ireland of those doctrines to which he gave expression. Our object is to see that there is due precaution exercised by this House over the administration of the law and over the conduct of the Government in the selection of those persons to whom is entrusted the administration of the law. The question is not the culpability or criminality of Mr. Keogh—the question is as to the discretion exercised by the Government in appointing Mr. Keogh to that particular office; and the discretion exercised by the Government turns mainly on this fact, which we do not desire to assume, but on which we desire inquiry should be made, namely, whether Mr. Keogh did make use of the language which, by general report, and by the affidavits produced by the noble Marquess, it is said he used. When the noble Duke opposite produced Mr. M'Nevin as a witness, and said he was ready to be examined and swear to the facts detailed in his affidavit, I will tell that noble Duke that the noble Marquess desires no more. That is all that my noble Friend seeks. Those persons who make the charge, and who defend the hon. and learned Gentleman, the noble Duke and my noble Friend therefore alike desire

373
should be brought before your Lordships' tribunal, and that the former should there on oath substantiate all their charges, which, if they are true, cast a reflection, not so much on the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as on the discretion of the Government who appointed him. I have stated the view which I am disposed to take of the merits of the question brought forward by my noble Friend. I cannot agree to the proposition —setting aside the single word sedition— that this is a question which it does not concern your Lordships to inquire into, or which is not worth the consideration of your Lordships; I cannot assent to the proposition that, if these words were used, they do not disqualify Mr. Keogh for the situation of one of Her Majesty's law officers of the Crown, or, still more, for the high judicial station to which those offices generally lead. I cannot pretend to say, and I think none has said, that there is not a prima facie case at all—that, at all events, a grave case of suspicion has not been made out—that these words, notwithstanding the denial, whether made unintentionally or not, were actually made use of and substantially held by Mr. Keogh. The way in which the matter now stands before the country is this: on the one hand, there are a number of affidavits of credible witnesses, who were present and heard the words used, and who are ready to substantiate them—and they are prepared to adduce the evidence of hundreds of others, if necessary, in corroboration of their own testimony, for the words were publicly and openly used; and, on the other hand, the denial of the Solicitor General and his private solicitor, that these words were, to the best of their belief, not employed. But neither the one nor the other can speak positively on the subject; and the Solicitor General himself says he cannot answer for all the various speeches which he made at Athlone and other places; and these statements are to be set against the positive offer to substantiate before your Lordships the charge already mentioned, and which, if it can be substantiated, I am sure you will think is not unworthy your consideration. But, my Lords, if the argument of my noble and learned Friend is to prevail, and if the Government and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself are satisfied to leave the question in its present position, after the statement which has been made, and after the discussion which has taken place here and elsewhere,
374
I will venture to tender my advice to my noble Friend the noble Marquess that he should not press his Motion, as I, for my part, am fully satisfied with his having made an offer to substantiate the charge which lie has put forward; and I am ready to leave to the Government, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends, the responsibility of shrinking from further investigation.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to say that, notwithstanding the ingenious turn which the noble Earl had given to the discussion, it was an indictment against Mr. Keogh, and their Lordships wore asked to initiate that indictment, being the Supreme Court of Appeal in all criminal matters. It was not a Motion of inquiry into the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the appointment of Mr. Keogh; but it was for a Committee to inquire into seditious language alleged to have been used by the Solicitor General for Ireland. Suppose the Committee had been appointed, and had found that the language alleged had been used by Mr. Keogh, what would they have then done? They could not have dismissed him from Her Majesty's service, however much they might censure his proceedings. He, therefore, entirely concurred in the propriety of withdrawing the Motion.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwanted to know how the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland became the depository of official documents. It appeared that he had quitted Ireland, carrying away with him an official document reflecting on the character of a man occupying a high position under the Crown, for so a Queen's Counsel might be fairly designated, as he might, if he chose, be a magistrate in any county in Ireland.
The EARL of EGLINTONsaid, he must really interrupt the noble Marquess. The document was an unofficial document; it was given to him as a private individual; it was not sent to him in the capacity of Lord Lieutenant, or as a Minister of the Crown.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEunderstood the noble Earl to say, that he submitted it to the law officers of the Crown.
The EARL of EGLINTONrose to order. He distinctly stated, he believed he submitted the case of Mr. Keogh to the law advisers of the Crown; but he never stated he submitted that affidavit to the law advisers of the Crown, because he never did so.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwould be obliged, if the noble Earl would state what he did submit to the law advisers of the Crown.
The EARL of EGLINTONhad already stated what he believed he submitted to the law advisers of the Crown—that he submitted to them all cases in which he heard of violent language being used, and amongst them was the case of the language used by Mr. Keogh; but the affidavit which he had read to their Lordships was never out of his possession.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEcould by no exertion of his intellect conceive how the affidavit came into the possession of the noble Earl. If it were sent to him whilst he was in Ireland, it must have reached him in his official capacity; because he could not understand the noble Earl divesting himself of his official position when a man told him he had a grave accusation to bring against a Queen's Counsel. It might be as well said by a Lord Lieutenant, if charged with being cognisant of high treason, sedition, riot, or any other grave offence, that he only knew it in his private capacity. He could not possibly separate the noble Earl in Ireland into his individual capacity, and his capacity as Lord Lieutenant. It appeared that when the noble Earl was Lord Lieutenant, this declaration, affirmation, affidavit, or by whatever name it was best described, being a document of importance, was given to him, and he put it in his pocket, brought it out of the country, and nearly a year afterwards, without notice, it was made the foundation of an accusation against a person in a responsible position in the service of the Crown. He thought such a practice as that ought not to be permitted; and he desired to hear it more clearly explained. According to the noble Earl who spoke last, the speech of Mr. Keogh was very notorious, and was considered so remarkable as to be borne in mind by persons in high positions; but no one had produced a single newspaper containing any notice of it. Not that a newspaper report would be any evidence to him of the truth of the charge—but they knew that newspaper reporters did take down speeches in shorthand with considerable accuracy, even though they were speeches made in a hurry; and the production of a newspaper report would at all events have been more satisfactory than this wonderful document or information. It depended on the authority of Burke,
376
and was supported by Mr. A. Browne, the son of the agent of Mr. Lawes, and Mr. Lawes himself, who had shown the greatest personal animosity against Mr. Keogh. It was said that Mr. Keogh had evoked a great deal of intimidation; but if that had been so, it would have been brought forward, since he was' the subject of such violent political and personal opposition. He would not enter upon the grave subject of how elections in Ireland were to be better conducted; but when the party with whom Mr. Keogh acted were spoken of as the enemies of civil freedom, he would ask, was it or was it not the fact, that the Catholic constituencies of Ireland—West-meath, Athlone, Clare, and other constituencies—did return men of their choice at the last general election? He believed very improper language was used by the priests; indeed, he was very sure of it. He regretted it exceedingly. But was there no other coercion used in Ireland— were no other parties enemies to civil freedom? He believed the answer must be in the affirmative; for he said every landlord who exercised undue coercion on his tenant upon the subject of his vote, was equally an enemy of civil freedom. If this were a great party Motion, designed for the purposes of party warfare, it might be justified; but if it were intended merely as an attack upon an individual of high legal attainments, of great power both in Parliament and the country, and one of the servants of the Queen, he did say it was unfair to keep this document concealed for nearly twelve months, and then to use it without any notice being conveyed to the person it affected. He was, therefore, gratified at hearing the noble Earl recommend the withdrawal of the Motion.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHbesought their Lordships to allow the bearer of the battered quiver, and the hurler of the rusty bolts, to occupy their attention for a few minutes. The other night he was taunted with bringing charges on the authority of newspaper reports, and now he was rated for not having supported the best possible authority by the corroboration of some newspaper. He really did not know how to meet the different opinions expressed. The noble Duke opposite had directed a great portion of his remarks to show that this language was all nonsense, and unworthy of notice. If that were so, he wanted to know why the present Government, in the month of January, prosecuted persons at Liverpool who used ribbon

377
signs and tokens? It had been thrown out against him, that he had not supplied the names of the magistrates; but he would candidly admit that he did not think it safe to disclose them, and that was the only reason for his refusal. Upon the whole, considering what his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had recommended, though he was confident not one single atom he had stated had been shaken in the slightest degree, he should follow his advice and withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Tuesday nest.