Sitting of 26 July 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Naval Discipline * [Bill 233],
Report—Naval Discipline * [Bill 233].
Considered as amended—Poor Relief (Metropolis) [Bill 224].
Third Reading—Poor Relief (Metropolis) [Bill 224]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* [Bill 210].
Withdrawn—Masters and Servants * [Bill 232]
The House met at One of the clock,

POOR RELIEF (METROPOLIS) BILL. [Bill 224.]

  CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. T. J. MILLERsaid, he had no intention of opposing the Bill, but he felt hound to protest against the principle involved in it, and he begged to express a hope that the measure would not be cited as a precedent for future legislation.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that he only proposed to accomplish by the Bill the special object set forth in its clauses. He certainly had no intention of sanctioning by the measure the principle of the equalization of the rating for the relief of the poor throughout the metropolis.
  Amendments made; to be now read 3o; rend 3o, and passed.

BRADFORD RESERVOIRS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Messrs. Rawlinson and Beardmore, the Government Engineers, did not report to him that the bursting of the Sheffield Reservoir was caused by the fracture of the outlet pipes under the embankment; whether these outlet pipes have not been examined since their Report and found uninjured and undisturbed; and, if so, whether it is not necessary for the safety of the public that a Commission should be immediately appointed to inquire into the making of Reservoir Embankments?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, as the Report of Messrs. Rawlinson and Beard-more has been presented to the House, and has been printed and circulated, any hon. Member can refer to it for himself. But I do not find in it the statement ascribed to them in the question of the hon. Gentleman. They did not pretend to state precisely what was the cause of the accident. But they did say that, in their opinion, what they considered the objectionable mode of laying the outlet pipes most probably fractured not the pipes, but the puddle wall at the point of crossing. I do not know whether the pipes have been since examined, but if they have, and have been found uninjured, that would not be inconsistent with Messrs. Rawlinson and Beardmore's Report. I have already said that the possibility of laying down some general rule in future Waterworks Acts will be considered.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to know whether the Government intend appointing a Commission?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I do not think that there will be any necessity for a formal Commission. Two or three engineers of experience might be consulted on the matter; but the Question is still under consideration.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the lives of thousands of people are now endangered by the state of these Reservoirs, and that great anxiety naturally prevails to know whether anything will be done before Parliament separates?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Such a Commission as is suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, and to which I suppose

  2103
  the hon. Gentleman refers, would not affect any works now existing, but only those to be constructed in future. If there really is the danger which is alleged, the hon. Gentleman, or those whom he represents, had better adopt the remedy which I pointed out the other night, and which will be found quite effectual.

SIERRA LEONE.
  CASE OF MR. FITZJAMES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies which required a few words of explanation to make it intelligible, and in order that he might be regular he intended to conclude with a Motion. There was at Sierra Leone some time ago a gentleman of colour, named Fitzjames, a very respectable man, who had been called to the bar by the Middle Temple, had been first Law Officer of the Crown at Sierra Leone, and had acted for a time as Governor. The Governor of Sierra Leone, entertaining some hostility towards this gentleman, had used means to get rid of him, and the Colonial Office had lent themselves to that unworthy proceeding. In a Return, which he had moved for, and which had been presented to that House relating to the matter, statements were made by a Dr. Bradshaw aspersing the character of two respectable inhabitants of Sierra Leone. In order to try the merits of the case these two gentlemen had instituted proceedings against Dr. Bradshaw, and to prove the libel they wanted the original documents containing the libellous statements. The originals were in the hands of the Government of Sierra Leone, and the copies in the hands of the Colonial Office here. He wished, therefore, to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would order that these papers, the contents of which had been circulated by the House, should be really at the command of the persons who wished to try by a jury whether they had been libelled or not? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might say that if the Court at Sierra Leone demanded these papers they would be given, but that without such a demand they would not. But he would impress on the right hon. Gentleman that a Judge at Sierra Leone was not in the independent position of a Judge at Westminster Hall, and would fear to do anything contrary to the wish of the Governor. He wished, therefore, to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman will
    2104
    not send out peremptory orders that these documents shall be placed at the command of the party who brought the action? He would move that the House do now adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, that this question was one not of politics but of law. A reference was made by the Governor of Sierra Leone to the person named by the hon. and learned Member; and that reference having been answered, the answer was laid last year, with other papers, on the table of the House. In the course of the year the solicitor of another party applied to him, as Colonial Secretary, for an order for the production of the paper in question. He had fortified himself with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which was to the effect that the communication was privileged, and would not be called for by any court of law. He intended, therefore, to leave the question to the decision of the court of law, with whose province it was not for him to interfere. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the court of law at Sierra Leone was not fit to decide the matter, but he did not believe that. If it was not fit to decide that question, it was not fit to be a Court of Justice for the decision of any question.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DISTURBANCES IN NEW ZEALAND—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received a document entitled "Terms of Peace," bearing the signature of Mr. Fox, a Member of the Executive Council in New Zealand, and threatening extreme penalties on all Natives who shall not accede to the said terms; and whether he is aware that this Proclamation was issued and circulated in New Zealand without the cognizance of the Queen's Representative in that Colony?
MR. CARDWELL,in reply, said, he had received no such Proclamation, nor had he received from the Governor of New Zealand any complaint that such a Proclamation had been published without his authority.

FLOGGING GAROTTERS,—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a paragraph which has appeared in some of the morning papers in reference to the flogging of two garotters in a prison in the county of Durham. The circumstances of the case he said were extremely brutalizing, and he wished to know if the Government will make some inquiry in reference to the subject?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not know what inquiry the hon. Gentleman wished him to make, for the infliction of this punishment was strictly in accordance with the Act passed last Session. By that Act the Judge specified the number of lashes to be inflicted, and the instrument which was to be used on the occasion, and doubtless there had been no departure from the law in this case. The punishment, of course, could not be otherwise than disagreeable.

PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND) COMMISSION.— QUESTION.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Commission relating to the Public Records of Ireland has been issued, and if so how soon it is likely to report?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that it was proposed to have an inquiry into the charges made against Mr. Moran; and the Master of the Rolls in this country, at the request of the Government, had selected Mr. Duffus Hardy and Mr. Brewer to conduct the inquiry. These gentlemen were very competent persons for the task, and they were likely to commence their inquiry during the present week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, he wished to put a Question with regard to an alteration which had taken place in the arrangement of the business on the Order paper for this evening. Yesterday certain Resolutions relating to the revision of the Standing Orders on Private Business were fixed for further consideration at six o'clock to-night, and many hon. Members had come down to the House to take part in the discussion. It appeared, however, that at the morning sitting to-day, without notice to the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire, who had brought forward the
  2106
  subject, and without notice to the House, these Resolutions were postponed, at the instance of some hon. Member, till tomorrow at twelve o'clock, when many who took great interest in their discussion would be unable to attend. He wished to have some explanation of these facts, and to ask, Whether they could not now revert to the notice paper as delivered this morning, in order to proceed with the Resolutions?
  MR. MALINSalso complained of the course which had been adopted, and stated that he had come down to the House to consider this business, and then found that it had been postponed until the morrow, when he would not be able to attend.
  SIR GEORGE GREYstated, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) would be able to answer the Question. He understood that when the adjournment of this private business was fixed for six o'clock that day, it was suggested that it would be better to fix it for twelve o'clock, because it could not otherwise come on till after the Motions were disposed of. He was under the impression that his hon. and gallant Friend had stated that he could not bring it on until twelve o'clock on Wednesday.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the right hon. Baronet was in error in saying what he intended to do. He had suggested that it might be irregular to fix six o'clock for taking the adjourned debate, and stated that if that were so he should have no objection that it should go over till Wednesday. But he that morning found the Order set down for that day, and he had, in consequence, made arrangements to proceed with it that day. He, therefore, suffered as much inconvenience as other hon. Members on finding it postponed to Wednesday.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Order was set down for the six o'clock sitting, but it should be remembered that there was no power to vary the Standing Orders of the House. As an Order of the Day, it could only come on after all the Notices had been disposed of, which, he thought, would have created more inconvenience to hon. Members than the course which had been subsequently adopted. He understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he had foreseen the inconvenience himself, and to declare that it would be more suitable for his purpose that the matter should stand over as the first thing on Wednesday. Consequently at that morning's sitting a

  2107
  Motion was made which seemed in accordance with the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the adjourned debate should stand over till Wednesday, at twelve o'clock.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENexpressed his regret that this business had been placed on the paper for six o'clock, and that hon. Members had been put to some inconvenience by its postponement.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, with regard to what had occurred, and believing that there would not be a sufficient attendance on Wednesday, whether it would not be better to postpone the Order until Thursday, or until next Session? [Cries of "No, no!"]
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had been pressed very urgently not to lose the chance of bringing on this business in the present Session, and therefore it would be taken on Wednesday as fixed.

CASE OF MR. O'MALLEY IRWIN.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  MR. HENNESSYrose to call the attention of the House to one of the most extraordinary cases ever brought before Parliament, and he should conclude by moving that a certain petition of right might receive the fiat of the Queen, The case of Mr. O'Malley Irwin was one of gross and grievous injustice; and the statement which he (Mr. Hennessy) was about to make would, he believed, convince the House that this injustice had been suffered for the last thirty years through the culpable neglect of the Officers of the Crown. Mr. O'Malley Irwin, who in the year 1834 had been receiving seven guineas a day for performing judicial functions as deputy assistant barrister in Ireland, in the year 1835 was tried on a charge of forgery, was convicted, was imprisoned for nine months, and fined £50 —all this being attributable to the fact that a certain important letter had been kept back at his trial by the Officers of the Crown. In 1840 the late Mr. O'Connell gave a professional opinion on the case, and stated, after carefully investigating all the documents, that Mr. Irwin was entitled to have his petition of right fiated owing to the loss of a letter of the 12th of October, 1834. That letter was written by Mr. Robert Johnston, who was the Assistant Barrister, Mr. O'Malley Irwin being his deputy. The letter which Mr. Irwin was charged with forging was dated Mr. Speaker
  2108
  the 3rd of October, 1834, and was signed by Johnston, and addressed to the right hon. G. Littleton, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, and was to the effect that he (Johnston) wished, in consequence of ill health, to resign his position as Assistant Barrister for the County of Mayo, and expressed a hope that he would receive a retiring pension. He would read to the House what was the opinion of the present Lord Chancellor of England upon the case, which had been referred to him by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), then Home Secretary. Sir Richard Bethell wrote in 1858 that, assuming the documents produced to him to be genuine, and the account of the manner in which they have been obtained to be true, he felt bound to say there was primâ facie secondary evidence of the fact of Johnston having written the letter thanking the Government for having accepted his resignation, which Mr. Irwin is charged with having forged, and if that were so, he appeared to have suffered grievous injustice. Now, as to the lost link which the Lord Chancellor said was necessary to prove that Mr. Irwin had suffered grievous injustice. [Mr. ROEBUCK: He was not Lord Chancellor then.] It was true that he was then only Sir Richard Bethell. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield seemed to think that made all the difference, but he could not adopt that view, as he believed that, whether as Sir Richard Bethell or as Lord Westbury, the sense of justice was equally keen in that eminent personage. The letter of the 12th of October, 1834, had, after thirty years' concealment, been laid before Parliament. He had in his hand a Return (hat was moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), for a copy of that document and also of a letter of October 7, 1834, from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, acknowledging the receipt of the letter of the 3rd of October, from Mr. Johnston, and he would first read to the House this letter from the Chief Secretary to Mr. Johnston—
  "Sir—Your letter of the 3rd inst was delivered to Mr. Craig by Mr. Irwin only yesterday evening. I am commanded by the Lord Lieutenant to express his regret that the state of your health is such as to render it necessary for you to resign the situation of assistant barrister for the county of Mayo. That part of your letter in which yon express your hope that the number of years you have discharged the duties of that office will be considered by his Excellency as constituting a claim to the retiring pension of an as-

  2109
  sistant barrister will be made the subject of consideration by parties to whom the Lord Lieutenant has directed me to refer it, but his Excellency is desirous that you would have the goodness to detail more especially, either in a letter or in a memorial, the grounds of your claim, stating especially the date of your appointment."
  Then came the missing letter, dated Clare, October 12, 1834, from Mr. Johnston to the Chief Secretary—
  Sir,—I have had the honour of your favour of the 7th inst., having been addressed to Castlebar, only reached me the 12th. Your letter of the 8th, addressed to Thomas Gildea, Esq., the Clerk of the Peace, from his illness, not being able as yet to attend here, had received from him on the evening of the 10th. I had, consequently, sat two days in Crown business before any communication on the subject of my retirement. Your letter of the 8th, which I received, expressed Mr. King's appointment only to be temporary. Mr. Morris King arrived here on Friday, the 10th inst., and notified his appointment to me, which having forwarded, I have signified my retirement to him, and requested he would take up the civil business to-morrow. Your letter of the 7th, in a great measure insuring my retiring pension, is of the greatest satisfaction to me. I beg leave to express my most grateful thanks to his Excellency for the kind expressions concerning me on my retiring. I shall forward by to-morrow's post, not having time this day, the date of my appointment and my claim to the pension."
  Now, if that letter was genuine, Mr. O'Malley Irwin had been, beyond all doubt, improperly convicted; and upon that point he was authorized by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield)—who regretted that he was not able to remain in the House—to state that he was present at the trial of Mr. O'Malley Irwin thirty years ago, and the impression left upon his mind was that that gentleman was innocent and had been improperly convicted, and that Johnston was the guilty man. Appended to the Return was the following note, which explained how it was that the letter of the 12th of October, 1834, had not been produced until now:—
  "The foregoing copies of the letters of the 3rd and 12th of October, 1834, have been made from copies in the Chief Secretary's office, the originals not being in the office. The letter of the 12th of October was abstracted from the Crown Solicitor's papers during the trial of Mr. O'Malley Irwin, in 1835, for forgery of the letter of tin1 3rd of October, and has never been recovered."
  Let the House understand that Mr. O'Malley Irwin was on his trial, the Crown Solicitor with his bundle of papers before him sat at the table, and yet the letter was abstracted. Who abstracted it? Not the man in the dock whose innocence it would have proved. He might surmise that in the vicinity of the Crown Solicitor was Mr.
  2110
  Johnston, whose character was such that the hon. Member for Mallow declared the Bar of Ireland thought he was the guilty man. Fortunately, an official copy of the letter had been kept, which Colonel Larcom had at last succeeded in discovering. He (Mr. Hennessy) saw the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford in his place— who would, perhaps, be astonished to learn that, notwithstanding his conviction, Mr. O'Malley Irwin had never been disbarred. And how was that? Because it appeared to the Benchers of King's Inn that if that mysterious letter had been produced, Mr. Irwin would not have been convicted, and therefore they refused to disbar him. He had an old Dublin newspaper of 1841 in which was published a letter from Chief Justice Pennefather to Mr. O'Malley Irwin, in which he said that great injustice was done to Mr. O'Malley Irwin by the non production of the document in question, which, if produced, would have entitled him to an acquittal. That letter was published and commented on ten years before the death of the Chief Justice. He had also a letter from Mr. Baron Greene, which proved that the leading Benchers of King's Inn were aware of the fact that evidence had been kept back at the trial. What then did Mr. O'Malley Irwin do? He had been unremitting in his efforts to obtain justice. When Mr. Irwin came out of prison he brought an action against the late Lord Norman by, then Lord Lieutenant, for keeping back the letters in question; and as it was understood that the papers had been sent to Lord John Russell, then Home Secretary, the noble Lord was subpœnaed to attend and produce them at the trial against the Lord Lieutenant. It was important to know what happened in relation to that summons. The person who served the summons in his affidavit said he had great difficulty in serving it, and at last left the copy in his Lordship's bosom at the House of Commons. That was in June, 1839. Lord John Russell, however, was guilty of contempt, and did not obey the summons. An attachment for that contempt was issued by Judge Coleridge, in reply to which Lord John Russell made an affidavit. He might mention that Lord John Russell communicated with Sir J. Campbell, at that time Attorney General, respecting that affidavit; and there was a letter from the latter, in which he said, "You can't prepare your affidavit until we see what the lunatic says," meaning this unfortunate gentleman. No doubt Sir J.

  2111
  Campbell might have considered Mr. Irwin a lunatic, for he was constantly endeavouring to obtain the discovery of the letter which would have vindicated his innocence, a copy of which had at length been brought to light. Lord John Russell then made an affidavit. The writ recited three documents by date, and twice recited the letter of October 12, 1834, giving a precise description of the document. Lord John Russell in his affidavit swore that he attended in pursuance of the said writ at the court at Westminster; that he was detained on his way to the court by several persons who spoke to him about public business; that he did not reach the court until the case of the plaintiff was closed, and the Attorney General was addressing the Court on behalf of the defendant; that he was asked whether he had brought with him the documents required by the sub pœnâ duces tecum, to which he replied that he had not brought them, though he admitted that the said papers were in his custody as Secretary of State, So much for Lord John Russell as a witness. But Lord John Russell as a correspondent was equally interesting in this case. He (Mr. Hennessy) had seen some twenty letters written by Mr. O'Malley Irwin to Lord John Russell, begging and imploring his Lordship to search for the letter of October, 1834, and asking that such letter, or a copy of it, should be sent to him. These letters, which had recently been tumbled out of the Home Office, were all marked nil— Lord John Russell would never condescend to give any reply to them. Mr. Irwin, having failed in his action against Lord Normanby, had from that day to this brought actions against almost every Minister of the Crown. He had been most unremitting, because he was conscious of his own innocence, and felt that the day would come when this important document would be raked up. So he persisted in bringing actions and in calling the attention of Parliament to the case. In 1838, Mr. O'Connell asked for a Select Committee to recover the letter, and the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel French) presented a petition with a similar prayer. Among other documents which had turned up at the Home Office there was a note marked "R. B.," in which the present Lord Chancellor, remarking on Mr. Irwin's case, said in effect—" It depends on the proof of Johnston's letter. That letter cannot be found, but if it can be produced, Mr. Irwin has suffered grievous injustice." He (Mr.
  2112
  Hennessy) believed that no doubt would be expressed to-night as to the authenticity of this letter. He had felt some surprise the other night at the ambiguous reference made by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the document. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: At that time I knew nothing about it.] He understood that information since then had reached the Government as to this letter, and that its authenticity would not be denied. His statement would thus be rendered much shorter than it must otherwise have been. The Motion he was about to submit was for an Address praying Her Majesty to grant her fiat to the petition of right of Mr. Irwin. This petition had been drawn up by an hon. and learned Member of this House, and it was approved by an hon. and learned Gentleman who had held the office of Attorney General in this country, and by one of the most eminent common law pleaders at the English Ban He understood that the Motion was to be opposed by the Government, but in doing so they would be taking a very serious step. The Home Secretary and the Attorney General were said to be of opinion that they had the power to refuse the fiat. But who were they who refused the fiat? They were the real defendants in this case. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and above all the Attorney General, would be practically on their trial if the fiat were given, and this case were allowed to go before a jury. They were the defendants, and yet they constituted themselves judges, and assumed the power to refuse the petition of right. Now upon the constitutional question he would read a few lines from a speech delivered in this House by the hon. and learned Member (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) in July, 1863 —
  "After the passing of the Act of Parliament, for which the country was indebted to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), Mr. O'Malley Irwin caused to be prepared for presentation to Her Majesty a Petition of Right; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt it to be his duty to advise the Crown to withhold its fiat to that Petition of Right, and Mr. O'Malley Irwin was again baffled in his endeavours to procure justice. Now he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) was prepared to maintain, as a proposition founded upon the constitution and the law of this country, that it was not competent or consistent with the duty of any officer of the Crown to advise the Queen to withhold her fiat to any Petition of Right upon any ground, whether right or wrong, whether well or ill founded. Such an interference was only to be justified in a case where a petition appeared to be founded on fraud, or upon gross and manifest error." [3 Hansard, clxxii. 1174.]

  2113
  Mr. Chitty, in his work on the Prerogative, said that a petition of right was the birthright of the subject, and it was maintainable at common law. Mr. Manning, a high authority, said in his Exchequer Practice, "As the prayer of the petition is grantable ex debito justitiœ, it is called a petition of right." These authorities fortified him in the opinion that the Government had no right to refuse the fiat of the Queen to this petition. Let the case come before a jury. For thirty years Mr. Irwin had been trying to obtain justice, but had been baffled for the want of a certain document, of which at last he had got an authentic copy, and that copy, with the note appended that it was abstracted from the Grown official papers, afforded, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, a sufficient ground for the petition of right. It would probably be urged in answer to his Motion, that the Act of Parliament said that the Queen must be "graciously pleased" to issue the fiat, but those very words were used in connection with writs issued by other Courts. Lord Cottenham had said in 1846, in reference to a case on this point, which had not the same claims as the one now before the House, but which was evidently frivolous and vexatious, "What a bar it would be to justice, if parties having a claim against the Crown could not proceed without the permission of the Law Officers of the Crown!" And Lord Brougham had expressed a similar opinion. In dealing with this matter he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would remember the position he occupied. If the Government, after the merits of the case had been fully set forth, adopted the unprecedented course of refusing a fiat, he did not know what other course would remain to Members of the House who, like himself, were firmly convinced of the innocence of Mr. Irwin and the guilt of the Crown Officers, than to bring forward a more serious Motion. Of one thing, however, the Government might be sure—that they could not succeed in keeping from the public a case which, according to the Lord Chancellor, exhibited such grievous injustice, by withholding it from a jury. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving
  "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to grant Her Fiat to the Petition of Right of George O'Malley Irwin, esquire, or to satisfy his claims without suit."
  MR. O'HAGAN(THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND) said, that his hon. and
  2114
  learned Friend the Member for the Queen's County had very properly addressed his observations to his right hon. Friend the Attorney General, whose special duty it was to deal with this Question; but he conceived that it would be a convenient course, and perhaps more fair to the House, if he stated some facts which he had ascertained within the last two hours in reference to this case. His attention had only lately been drawn to the case, and he at once felt it to be his duty to take means to ascertain as far as he could the real facts by reference to Ireland. He had received, in consequence, a multitude of genuine and contemporaneous documents, which he had endeavoured to master as well as he could during the last two hours, and he believed that he would be able to give an explanation of the case to the House which it did not receive when it was last presented to their notice. What had struck him most particularly when his attention was first drawn to the matter was the fact that, if there were anything in Mr. O'Malley, Irwin's case at all, it necessarily involved imputations of the grossest and most terrible kind against distinguished persons both living and dead. The case was this. In 1835 Mr. O'Malley Irwin was tried for an offence which he believed at that time rendered a person on conviction liable to transportation—at all events, to very serious consequences. The Attorney General of that day, now Lord Justice of Appeals—Mr. Blackburne—acted as prosecutor, and he was assisted by the Solicitor General, Sir Michael O'Loghlen, afterwards Master of the Rolls, and by Mr. Serjeant Greene, afterwards Baron Greene, than whom three men more distinguished for ability and integrity it would be difficult to find. On the second trial he was prosecuted for the same offence by Sir Michael O'Loghlen, then Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, Mr. Woulfe. The imputation to which he had alluded was that a document known by the Crown Officers to be in existence had been deliberately kept back from the jury under the direction of those distinguished persons, and that they, together with the Crown Solicitor for Ireland, Mr. Kemmis, were concerned in a conspiracy against Mr. O'Malley Irwin, the object of which was to get him unjustly convicted, and that they obtained that result by the suppression of this document. At the time when he first heard that statement, it struck him that the charge was of a nature not only grave, but most incre-

  2115
  dible, although for the moment he was unable to explain the facts. He now asked the attention of the House for a short time while he gave the real explanation of the affair. It was now thirty years old, and a great many of the personages concerned had died, but living evidence could still be produced to verify his statements. Among the documents sent to him, he held letters under the hand of Mr. O'Malley Irwin himself. The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Queen's County was, that a letter was suppressed and concealed for thirty years; that though the existence of the letter was not unknown to Mr. O'Malley Irwin, he was not acquainted with its terms; and that successive Governments in England and Ireland had refused to do him justice. Mr. Kemmis who, he was sorry to say, had died within the last ten days, had stated that for nine years he was not aware that Mr. Irwin had any imputation against him, and that on coming to London to attend in the great O'Connell case before the House of Lords he was astonished to find himself arrested in the street at the instance of Mr. Irwin, on the charge of stealing this document from the Castle of Dublin. As would be expected, the case was at once dismissed; and on returning to Ireland Mr. Kemmis made a statement to the Government of the facts of the case, which he should now very briefly communicate to the House. When the case first came on for trial in February, 1835, the charge against Mr. Irwin was that he had, for the purpose of obtaining the chairmanship of a county in Ireland, presented, without the authority of Mr. Johnston, the chairman of the county, a document purporting to be the resignation of that gentleman. There appeared to have been some attempt at a corrupt arrangement between Mr. Irwin and some of the friends of Mr. Johnston, the object being to induce the latter gentleman to resign his office, and the bargain contemplated seemed to be that Mr. Johnston, in addition to the Government pension, should receive £2,000 from Mr. Irwin. On the case coming on for trial, Mr. Blackburne, the Attorney General, in stating the facts to the jury, read the very letter which was now before the House, and which formed the subject of the hon. Gentleman's charge. [Mr. HENNESSY: Was this at the first trial?"] Yes, it was; and Mr. Blackburne also read to the jury the letter of the then Chief Secretary to Mr. Johnston, Mr. Johnston's reply, and some
  2116
  other correspondence. In the course of the case, however, the document of the 12th of October was abstracted from the court, and although read by counsel was not put in evidence by the Crown. The trial went on, and Mr. O'Malley Irwin was convicted. The case must have been removed by certiorari, and thereby acquired the incidents of a civil suit. Application was then made for a new trial, and one of the grounds put forward was that the original of the document of the 12th of October had not been given in evidence. Some months after the new trial came on, when Sir Michael O'Loghlen, the Attorney General, stated in terms the letter to the second jury, everything having been done to establish it as secondary evidence. Notice was given to Mr. Irwin himself to produce the letter, if the original came into his hands, and a copy of it was sent to him, with a notice that it would be used at this the second trial. Accordingly, the copy was admitted as secondary evidence of the original; it was commented on by Mr. Irwin himself, and further by the Judge, who gave full effect to it in its bearing on the crime with which Mr. Irwin was charged. That having been done, the second jury, like the first, convicted Mr. Irwin; and were they now to be told that this letter, which had been read on two trials, by two Attorney Generals, a copy of which had been furnished to Mr. Irwin, and on which he had commented at the second trial, had been concealed for thirty years, and had never been seen by Mr. Irwin till it was placed on the table of the House? [Mr. HENNESSY said, he did not state that.] The House must remember that this was not at all a new case, and that it had been thoroughly investigated when all those were alive who could give evidence on it, and who had conducted the case. Mr. Irwin was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and a fine of £50. A month or two after the term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced had expired, Mr. Irwin applied to the Law Officers of the Crown to obtain the remission of the fine, on the ground that he was unable to pay it. That letter was dated the 20th September, 1836, and contained some important admissions. The writer said—
  "Without impugning in the remotest degree the verdict of a jury or the decision of the Court of King's Bench, which sanctioned that verdict, I beg leave most respectfully to submit, in order to justify your compliance, that the prosecution

  2117
  against me was not founded upon a statutable indictment, but at common law; and I venture to impress on you there is no guilt if the mind be not disposed: Non est reus si mens non est rea; and that it is not by isolated passages, but by the context of what goes before, and follows after, a correct judgment can be formed. In refutation of an intention of fraud or to deceive, what stronger evidence can be adduced than that my letter of the 15th of September, 1833, addressed to the Private Secretary of the then Lord Lieutenant, was sent by me before the resignation, expressly referring to the then Solicitor General (Mr. Justice Crompton), and stating 'that the resignation of an assistant-barrister (alluding to Mr. Johnston) had been placed in my hands;' and that after the resignation, Mr. Johnston, the assistant-barrister, by letter, expressed 'his greatest satisfaction' and returned 'his' most grateful thanks to his then Excellency for his kind expressions concerning him on 'his' retiring; in reply to the Chief Secretary's letter, officially acknowledging the receipt of his resignation, and expressing his Excellency's regret on the occasion of his retiring, and that 'I' personally delivered it (the resignation). Conscious of the rectitude of my motives and of the soundness of the immortal spirit of Alfred's policy (if to him we owe the common law), I await your judgment with confidence; and, completely borne down by the grievous consequences of the adverse verdict and the great weight opposed to me, I trust you will consider the punishment already inflicted, and not sanction le droit du plus fort.
  "I am, gentlemen, your most obedient and humble servant,
  "GEO. O'MALLEY IRWIN.
  "To the Law Advisers of the Crown, Chief Secretary's Department, Dublin Castle."
  That letter clearly proved two things—that the case of Mr. Irwin as to the missing letter was a mere afterthought, and that on the 20th of September, 1836, at all events, he had a copy of the letter in his possession, for he quoted expressions from it between inverted commas. Mr. Irwin did not venture to say to the Law Officers who prosecuted him that they had suppressed evidence. Sir Michael O'Loghlen, in his indorsement of this letter from Newgate, said that it was usual in such a case when a prisoner was unable to pay the fine to remit it, and added—
  "In the present case the prisoner has been detained nearly two months in default of payment of the fine, and though I would not have considered a more lengthened imprisonment than that to which he was sentenced too severe punishment for his offence, I would recommend that he be discharged if he is not able to pay the fine."
  That was dated October 14, 1836; and the recommendation was acted upon. In an I affidavit on June 5, 1835, Mr. Johnston declared that he wrote the letter of the 12th of October "under very great embarrassment and enervation of mind," in
  2118
  consequence of his being under the impression that he was to be superseded by the issue of a new appointment; and Sir M. O'Loghlen indorsed that affidavit to the effect that in his opinion there was no ground for interfering in the case, and that the sentence should not be mitigated. In 1841 an application for a petition of right was made by Mr. Irwin; but Chief Baron Pigot expressed his opinion that such a proceeding was wholly inapplicable to such a case, and that Her Majesty could not with propriety be advised to fiat the petition. The Chief Baron, than whom there was no more astute or conscientious man, in the investigation of evidence, said, that the copy of the letter of the 12th of October, 1834, was read in evidence at both trials; that that copy, with respect to the authenticity of which there was no dispute, was placed in the hands of Mr. Johnston, who was examined in reference to it by Mr. Irwin; that the letter was commented on by Mr. Irwin in his address to the jury, before whom the testimony was fully laid, with Mr. Johnston's explanation; and that one of the questions left to the jury was whether they believed Johnston had given Irwin authority to convey to the Government his resignation of the office of assistant barrister. Now, it should be remembered that all that happened only six years after the trial of Mr. Irwin had taken place; but there was also a statement of the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, who was not a person likely to allow anything which came before him to escape unnoticed, to the effect that in his opinion Mr. Irwin's charge against Mr. Kemmis was devoid of foundation. Such was the view taken by the Master of the Rolls when he was Attorney General in 1844, and it was idle after so great a lapse of time for his hon. and learned Friend to contend that a petition of right was to be fiated by the Crown because what he seemed to regard as all-important documents had been suppressed. So far as he was concerned in the matter, he would not trouble the House further, save so far as to make a few remarks with reference to what had been said about very distinguished persons having given a sort of approval to Mr. Irwin's case. Now Mr. O'Connell, than whom there was no more eminent man in his profession, got Mr. Irwin's statement of the case from himself, and, as his retaining counsel, no doubt gave an opinion in his favour. Mr. O'Connell, however, was unaware of the facts which had just been

  2119
  laid before the House; he had not the truth disclosed to him, and, that being so, his opinion could not be regarded as worth a farthing, while the opinion of the present Lord Chancellor was wholly based on the assumption that Mr. Irwin's statement was to be relied on, and that there was no opposing testimony. He himself, proceeding on that assumption, was equally ready to admit that Mr. Irwin had suffered a great wrong; but it was not fair to construe an opinion accompanied by such qualifications as an absolute expression of opinion. He could only say that he entirely concurred with Chief Baron Pigot in thinking the case was not one for a petition of right, and he maintained that the Government would disregard their duty to society if they were to grant one after a full consideration of the facts which had been disclosed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that after the exhaustive statement of his right hon. and learned Friend he should not have risen but that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had raised an important legal and constitutional question. It so happened that the last of these so-called petitions of right was presented by Mr. O'Malley Irwin in the time of his immediate predecessor, who added another to the numerous Attorney Generals who had all felt it to be absolutely inconsistent with their duty to endorse the fiat on a petition of right of that description. He could assure the House that the position taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite went to subvert the most fundamental principles of our law. Let him take the dates and facts from Mr. Irwin's own statement. Mr. Irwin himself said that in July, 1844, he transmitted through Sir William Follett, then Attorney General, his petition of right to the Secretary of State. He was informed there had been an earlier petition of right which Sir Frederick Pollock did not think fit to direct to be fiated. But Sir William Follett was of opinion that it was no petition of right at all, and accordingly nothing was done upon it. In 1852, when Mr. Walpole was Secretary of State, and Sir Frederick Thesiger and Sir Fitzroy Kelly were the Attorney and the Solicitor Generals, Mr. Irwin again renewed his attempt. It was a mere matter of course that when that which called itself a petition of right came to the Home Office it should be laid before the Attorney General to ascertain whether he would advise the usual endorsements to be
  2120
  put upon it, and the fact that that was not done showed that Sir Frederick Thesiger like all other Attorney Generals, was of opinion that this was no petition of right at all, and not a document which could properly be endorsed. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman then the Home Secretary, whose kindness of heart they all knew, was desirous to have the matter inquired into in some way, in order that it might be seen whether there was any case upon which anything could be done for this unfortunate gentleman. Mr. Walpole accordingly referred the document to Sir Richard Bethell, then a private barrister—the last thing which the Home Secretary would have done if he had thought it a petition of right. Nothing came from that reference, nor was anything done in regard to the matter when Sir Richard Bethell himself for the first time succeeded to office. In 1858, when Lord Derby again came into power, the hypothetical and most guarded opinion was given by Sir Richard Bethell, that if all Mr. Irwin's allegations were right, and there was no case to the contrary, then he had suffered grievous injustice. But then occurred another change of Government, and another petition of right was presented by Mr. Irwin on the 24th of April, 1861, when Sir Richard Bethell was Attorney General, and he of course was the Law Officer to whom that petition must have been submitted to determine whether it could be endorsed as a petition of right. He advised, like all his predecessors, that it could not be so treated; and Mr. Irwin in a letter spoke of that Law Officer in no complimentary terms in consequence. A fundamental fallacy had pervaded the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Misled by the words "petition of right," he seemed to think that any document to which any man chose to give that name was a petition of right within the meaning of the law, than which there could be no greater mistake. Both before the recent Act, and since the passing of that Act, the petition of right was the remedy which applied where the property of a subject was alleged to be in the hands of the Crown, or where money was claimed under contract by a subject from the Crown, and where there was an absence of an appropriate compulsory remedy against the Crown. Where there was a want of such a compulsory remedy against the Crown, then, and then only, a petition of right would lie to recover property or money due under contract. In the present case they had merely the alle-

  2121
  gation that Mr. O'Malley Irwin had been twice convicted by a jury of an offence against the laws of the country; that that conviction remained unreversed, and that he was entitled to compensation. It was ridiculous to argue, therefore, that he was in the position of a person who could not use the ordinary compulsory process of law against the Sovereign. It was a fundamental maxim of our law that the Grown could do no wrong; and that principle, rightly understood, was almost the corner stone of our liberties. It meant that they could not impute to the Crown any wrong that was done; and for that reason not even the personal command of the Sovereign could exonerate any person by whom a wrong was done from personal liability for the wrong; and if it were true that in the course of all these proceedings there had been any dereliction of duty on the part of the vast number of public officers who had been more or less connected with them—if the Crown prosecutor had, for example, withheld evidence when he ought to have produced it—they were personally liable under the law and constitution for such acts. To say, then, that the Crown was to be responsible for all the wrong done by its servants was to contradict principles of law so fundamental that he was really astonished that a Gentleman with the hon. and learned Member's knowlege should rise in that House and gravely attempt such a thing. What were the rules laid down by the highest authorities on these matters. Here were the words of Blackstone—
  "Petition of right is of use where the King is in full possession of any hereditaments or chattels, and the petitioner suggests such a right as controverts the title of the Crown, grounded on facts disclosed in the petition itself."
  As to the impossibility of the King doing no wrong, Blackstone said—
  "The King can do no wrong, which ancient and fundamental maxim is not to be understood as if every transaction by the Government was of course just and lawful, but means only two things —first, whatever is exceptionable in the conduct of public affairs is not to be imputed to the King, nor is he answerable for it personally to his people; for this doctrine would destroy the constitutional independence of the Crown; and, secondly, that the prerogative of the Crown extends not to do any injury."
  To this, Lord Chief Justice Erie, in a case in the Common Pleas, had added the following remark: —
  "This maxim has been constantly recognized, and the notion of making the King responsible in damages for a supposed wrong tends to conse-
  2122
  quences that are clearly inconsistent with the duty of the Sovereign."
  Lord Lyndhurst had investigated the subject in 1843, when Lord Canterbury brought a petition of right to recover the value of certain property destroyed at the fire in the Houses of Parliament. That was a very flimsy case; but there was an element of property as well as a supposed contract by the Crown to do all that was necessary to preserve the property from fire. Lord Lyndhurst, in that case, said—
  "Is it supposed that the Crown is responsible for the conduct of all persons holding public offices and appointments, and bound to make good any loss or injury which may be occasioned by their negligence or delinquency? At least some authority should be cited in support of such a I doctrine.… Stamford says:—Petition is all the remedy the subject hath when the King seizeth his land or taketh away his goods from him, having no title by order of his laws to do so, in which case the subject, for his remedy, is I driven to sue unto his Sovereign lord by way of petition only, for other remedy hath he not. He speaks of this proceeding as applicable to the illegal seizure by the King of the lands or goods of a subject; and, although, this is not conclusive against its application to other cases, yet no instance has been cited, &c. … The Year Books, with the abridgments of Fitzherbert and Brooke, and other authorities, have been carefully searched, and no case has been found to warrant this proceeding. The decisions go back several hundred years, and in the absence of all precedent during so long a period, I think I should not be justified in deciding, for the first time, that such a proceeding can be maintained. Indeed, if the Crown cannot be guilty of negligence or personal misconduct, and is not responsible for the negligence or personal misconduct of its servants, it; follows, of course, that in those cases there can be no such remedy; and, on the other hand, the absence of all trace of the remedy would itself afford a strong argument against the liability."
  Still more recently in the Court of Common Pleas it had become necessary to investigate the same principles in a case in which the Law Officers thought it their duty to grant a petition of right, as a question of property was involved. A vessel had been seized by our African squadron on suspicion of being engaged in the slave trade, and there was a sort of question whether the Crown might not be supposed to be wrongly in possession of the property thus seized. In that case Lord Chief Justice Erle said—
  "To these reasons and authorities we would add an opinion, that there is good ground for maintaining that which we find to be the law on this subject. We think that if each of the Queen's subjects who believed he had been at any time in any reign wronged in the administration of civil or military affairs could sue the Sovereign for the time being for the amount at which he might

  2123
  estimate his damage, the extent of pernicious result would be great."
  The House probably was aware that Mr. Irwin had passed his life since the time of this trial in bringing actions against everybody—Lord Normanby, Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey; and only last Saturday his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was charged by him before a magistrate in London with no less a crime than high treason. The magistrate, however, was so sensible as not to entertain the charge, for which failure of justice, no doubt, in duo course of time, Mr. Irwin would apply for another petition of right. Lord Chief Justice Erle went on in this very judgment to refer to the action against Sir George Grey as an instance of the absurdity of sanctioning a petition of right in every case where it was applied for. He said —
  "And we refer to the petition of right adduced in evidence in 'Irwin v. Sir George Grey' (3 Fost. & Fin. 635) as an example of the mischief which might arise if such was the law."
  Since he had the honour of holding his present office he had been asked to endorse a petition of right for a man who had an action pending at the time, when it pleased Parliament to pass a general Act which might be pleaded in bar to his action. According to the doctrines which had been stated on this subject, if an Election Committee unseated a Member he might have a petition of right for wrongful deprivation of his seat. Nothing could better illustrate the extravagant notions which seemed to be held as to these petitions than a document which had lately been forwarded to him. It was a petition to Her Majesty from a Mr. Clare, who had had an action against the Admiralty by a petition of right on some patents and had lost the verdict, at which, of course, he was very much discontented. Mr. Clare had made Borne most extraordinary statements and accusations in this document. For instance, he said—
  "If ever a trial at law were won by the plaintiff, and proved by the defendant for the plaintiff, the case of 'Clare v. the Queen' is the one, from the fact that all the Admiralty witnesses were broken down on cross-examination. If ever a trial were garbled by the press for the defendant, to the prejudice of the plaintiff, the case of 'Clare v. the Queen' is the one. If ever a Judge sat on the bench biassed, the Lord Chief Justice's speech for the Admiralty in the case of 'Clare v. the Queen' is a ratification in toto. If ever a verdict was given against the weight of evidence, it was in the trial of 'Clare v. the Queen.' If ever subornation of perjury were divulged, it was on the trial of 'Clare v. the Queen.' If every conspiracy were made use of to swindle a
  2124
  plaintiff of his property, it was on the trial of Clare v. the Queen.' "
  And he concluded by these extravagant prayers—
  "1. To see that I am settled with in full, with interest, for my patents and inventions, both for the past and for the future, and that all my claims for losses that have accrued to me by the Admiralty withholding from me the payment of my just rights, along with all the expenses I have been put to in developing and promoting this great modern question of metal shipbuilding, and the legal charges contingent on this case to be paid me. 2. That my knowledge shall be set free throughout the Royal Dockyards, and that I am remunerated in accordance with my capabilities upon a percentage on outlay. 3. That the appointment of Naval Mechanical Constructor to the British nation, with hereditary title, in unison with the paramount importance of my patents and inventions to Great Britain, be granted to me, per patent, 4. That hereditary titles be presented to those gentlemen who have so nobly stood by me on public grounds during my oppression from the Admiralty, to their eternal fame—namely, Mr. W. Titherington, of Dee Hills, Chester, and Mr. Edwin Haigh, of Cote Brook, Tarporley. 5. That your Majesty disqualify Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice of England. 6. Ex-office Mr. Collier as Solicitor General, and withdraw his patent as Q. C. 7. Withdraw the patent of Q.C. from Sir William Atherton. 8. Cause the Lord Chancellor to disbar Sir W. Atherton, Mr. Collier, Mr. West, and Mr. Macrory,"
  It was absurd to say that the Attorney General was not to exercise his common sense as to endorsing these petitions of right. He (the Attorney General) had acted as his predecessors had done, and refused to advise the Crown to act on the document in question. The Court of Chancery protected itself against frivolous proceedings by requiring the signature of counsel to petitions, and the House of Lords required the certificate of counsel that appeals were proper and reasonable. It was also the duty of the Law Officers to exercise a judgment as to whether what was called a petition of right was not an abuse of the name; and if the present Law Officers had put their fiat on this gentleman's petition, they would have adopted a different course from that which had been pursued by their predecessors dining a period of thirty years, and would have given advice the tendency of which must have been most pernicious.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the case of Mr. O'Malley Irwin, as brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the King's County, if not contradicted, would have required some consideration; but when it appeared from the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, that

  2125
  the letter of the 12th October, 1834, was used both at the first and second trial, the case of Mr. O'Malley Irwin became perfectly ridiculous. Mr. O'Malley Irwin had pursued him for several years. Wherever he went, up started Mr. O'Malley Irwin (invariably armed with the opinion of Sir Richard Bethell and other authorities) in a manner that was magical, and poured forth his grievances. He had taken some pains to investigate the case, and had come to the conclusion that it was unfounded; and, as Mr. O'Malley Irwin had vexed every lawyer and every tribunal for twenty-eight years, he became afraid that that gentleman might bring an action against him for not having paid sufficient attention to his papers and statements. He held that the privilege which the Law Advisers of the Crown had of refusing their fiat to a petition of right ought to be exercised with great caution, but he believed that they were right in refusing it in the present instance. Mr. O'Malley Irwin had been tried by the laws of his country, and, in addition, had had the unusual advantage of a second trial; and although he was convicted on each occasion, he had been pestering all the Courts of the country for redress ever since, while a person who had been convicted at the Old Bailey thirty years ago would have as good a right to claim it as Mr. O'Malley Irwin had. The case had been thoroughly investigated, and he hoped Parliament would hear no more of it.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that to demands at law there was a statutable limitation of six years. He thought there ought to be some such limitation in respect to demands on Parliament. If they heard claims of thirty years' standing, why not hear those of 300? He was surprised that, after the lapse of thirty years, so satisfactory an answer could have been given to the present case.
  MR. HENNESSY,in reply, said he wished to say a few words, both on the question of fact and the question of law. He again quoted to the House the opinion of the late Mr. O'Connell, who had been employed by Mr. Irwin as counsel in the case, to the effect that he was entitled to proceed by petition of right. Mr. Kemmis's statement of the case was totally false. That document was prepared for Lord John Russell, and was minuted by him, but it contained a grave misstatement of fact. [The hon. and learned Gentleman here quoted some documents which bore
  2126
  the endorsement of Lord John Russell when at the Home Office.] Mr. Kemmis, in his account of the transaction, did not give the letter of the 12th of October, 1834, but only his own version of the case; and that statement had deceived Lord John Russell. Mr. Irwin had obtained copies of the letters from Mr. Vignolles, and Mr. Armstrong, a Protestant clergyman; but the Crown had not acknowledged their authenticity. Supported by the opinion of Mr. O'Connell, who gave it after much deliberation, and by the opinion of Chief Justice Pennefather, he was inclined to think that his right hon. and learned Friend had been misled by the documents which had so recently been placed in his hands. He hoped the Government would lay those documents on the table, for they should not refer to official documents unless they were laid on the table. He adhered to the opinion of Mr. O'Connell that Mr. O'Malley Irwin had suffered a grievous injustice, and that this petition of right should be fiated by the Crown.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to say one or two words with reference to the use which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman of the documents from which he had just quoted. From what had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman they appeared to be official documents, some of them confidential communications between the Private Secretary of Lord John Russell and the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. One of these documents bore the endorsement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and they must have been abstracted from the office of the Secretary of State. He did not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how he obtained possession of them, for no doubt they came to him through Mr. O'Malley Irwin. How Mr. O'Malley Irwin could come by them he did not understand; but he hoped the example set by the hon. and learned Gentleman of quoting from such private and confidential documents in that House would not be drawn into a precedent.
  MR. HENNESSYread a letter signed "S. H. Walpole," which enclosed the documents when that right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Home Department, addressed to Mr. O'Malley Irwin.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he was quite sure his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge could not have placed documents of that kind at

  2127
  the disposal of any individual, except by mistake or accident.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Cranbourne Street* (No. 252); Poor Relief (Metropolis)* (No. 253).
Second Reading—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* (No. 247); Limited Penalties*(No. 97).
Committee—Weights and Measures (Metric System)* (No. 164); Harwich Harbour Act Amendment* (No. 210); Portsmouth Dockyard (Acquisition of Lands)* (No. 215); Judgments, &, Law Amendment* (Nos. 250 & 251); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (No. 190); Criminal Justice Act (1855) Extension* (No. 231); Armagh Archiepiscopal Revenues* (No. 232) Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; New Zealand (Guarantee of Loan)* (No. 233); Public Works (Manufacturing Districts)* (No. 237); Poor Removal* (No. 239); Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland) * (No. 216); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (No. 221); West Indian Incumbered Estates Acts Amendment * (No. 225).
Report—Harwich Harbour Act Amendment* (No. 210); Portsmouth Dockyard (Acquisition of Lands)* (No. 215); Judgments, &c, Law Amendment* (Nos. 250 & 251); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (No. 190); Criminal Justice Act (1855) Extension* (No. 231); Armagh Archiepiscopal Revenues * (No. 232); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; New Zealand (Guarantee of Loan)* (No. 233); Public Works (Manufacturing Districts)* (No. 237); Poor Removal* (No. 239); Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland)* (No. 216); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental * (No. 221); West Indian Incumbered Estates Acts Amendment* (No. 225); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (No. 151).
Third Reading—Metropolitan District Railways*; Judgments, &c, Law Amendment (Nos. 250 & 251); Expiring Laws Continuance* (No. 228); Highways Act Amendment* (Nos. 227 & 228); Railway Companies Powers* (Nos. 229 & 230); Contagious Diseases* (No. 234); Bank Post Bills (Ireland)* (No. 236); Corn Accounts and Returns * (No. 238); Westminster Bridge Traffic * (No. 240); Stamp Duties Act (1864) Amendment* (No. 241); Thames Conservancy * (No. 226); Railways Construction Facilities * (No. 222).

JUDGMENTS, &c, LAW AMENDMENT BILL—(Nos. 250 and 251.)

  COMMITTEE, THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, this Bill effected some improvement in the law relating to judgments which he had himself in vain endeavoured to accomplish, and, therefore, he could not find fault with the measure. But he had never attempted more than to protect bonâ fide purchasers or mortgagees against judgments. But one clause of the Bill took away the right of every judgment creditor as against the property of the debtor, unless and until he actually sued out execution upon his judgment. That, in his opinion, was not expedient, and very unwise. There was another provision of the Bill which was of
  2084
  the utmost importance. By the law as it at present stood execution could not issue upon any judgment so as to affect the land until twelve months after judgment had been obtained; but under the provisions of this Bill the son of a tenant for life of an estate, who was entitled to the remainder, and who might, as eldest sons had done before, and most probably would do again, be desirous of anticipating his inheritance; he might go to a Jew money lender, who would advance him money, the borrower giving him a judgment on his interest in the estate; and by this Bill the creditor, the moment he obtained that judgment, might sell the reversion, and thus the property of the youth might pass from him for a very inadequate consideration. It might be said, that with the quickness with which business was now transacted in Chancery this might be effected under a mortgage. But the answer was, that a mortgage was a contract. He considered this a very important measure, and would have divided the House upon it if he had been in a position to do so.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill and every clause of it had been carefully considered by a Select Committee, and every noble and learned Lord who was a member of that Committee, except his noble and learned Friend, had approved it.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  An Amendment made; Standing Orders, Nos. 37 and 38 considered, and dispensed with; Amendment reported.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHrose, pursuant to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the Changes which have taken place in the State of Foreign Affairs since Parliament met, and said, my Lords, I avail myself of this opportunity, which is almost the last which will be afforded before the prorogation of Parliament, to draw your Lordships' attention to the great change which has taken place in Foreign Affairs since we met in February—a change affecting not merely the integrity of the Danish dominions, which almost every State in Europe a few years ago thought of great importance to the balance of power and the interests of peace, but affecting also the sacredness of

  2085
  the obligations of treaties by which all the States of Europe are bound together—affecting the security of all the smaller and weaker States which may dread the aggression of neighbouring Powers, and, above all, affecting that steady progress of constitutional government on the Continent of Europe, which for several years we have witnessed with so much sympathy and satisfaction, I confess I rise to address your Lordships now with very different feelings from those by which I was animated when I addressed you on more than one previous occasion this Session on the subject of Foreign Affairs. I then had some hope of doing good. I have now no such hope, and I speak only because I think it right to endeavour to lay the actual state of affairs before this House and the country. I then appealed to the higher and nobler feelings of Parliament and the nation, believing as I did that a course which was dictated by generosity was also recommended by policy. Others, with more success, appealed to more common feelings—to love of case, to love of repose, to love of quiet, but, above all, to that love of money, which is now become the engrossing passion of the people of this country. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government declared that they would afford no assistance whatever to Denmark in her difficulties, after the Conference was at an end. At the commencement of the Session, Her Majesty's Opposition stated that it was not their business to find a Foreign policy, although they did not appear to disregard the obligations of finding a civil policy. Having declined, however, to find a Foreign policy, they saw fit to adopt the policy of the Government, and declared that they too were not prepared to give assistance to Denmark, while they condemned at the same time in the strongest terms the conduct of the Government throughout the course of the negotiations. I regret, my Lords, this decision of the two great parties which divide this House and the State, but I am convinced it would be idle to seek to force any opinion of mine on a reluctant House and a determined Ministry. I must, however, say that in looking back to the past, I do not think the policy now so generally adopted would have been adopted by any one of the great Ministers of former times whom history delights to honour; nor can I find in all our history more than one reign in which this policy would have been congenial to a Government, and that was the reign of King James I., when the noble Earl opposite might have
  2086
  carried out his policy of abstinence from war with the cordial favour of his Sovereign. There was, however, in those days a great man who thought differently. I recollect a passage in a work of one of the greatest of mankind—Bacon—who in his Moral and Political Essays, which contain perhaps more wisdom than any uninspired book, says, "Let no State expect to be great that is not awake upon any just occasion of arming." That he, great moralist as he was, believed to be the true principle of public conduct. But see in what a state Denmark is now. She lies prostrate at the feet of her unscrupulous enemies. She is without fortresses; she is weak and has no one to defend her, unless it be the Emperor of France, who perhaps at this moment may come forward on her behalf. At the commencement of the Session, Denmark stood in the position in which she was placed after the Congress of Vienna. She was shorn of the prestige and honour of her ancient glory—greatly through our means—by the destruction of one of her fleets, and the carrying away of another, and by the loss of Norway, which had been given to conciliate Sweden during the great war. But she was still in possession of the ancient provinces which she had held for 400 years, and which she would have continued to possess but for the intrigues of the Germans. Consider, my Lords, by what steps the enemies of Denmark proceeded. The German Confederation first decided on the Execution in Holstein, and based it mainly, if not entirely, latterly, upon certain Royal Letters Patent issued by the late King on the 30th of March last year. But before that Execution commenced, those Letters Patent had been withdrawn, so that the ground of their proceeding was entirely cut from under the feet of the Diet. Within less than three weeks after the Federal Execution commenced, Austria and Prussia appeared on the scene as substantive parties, not as members of the German Confederation, and proceeded to occupy Schleswig as a material guarantee for the execution of certain diplomatic arrangements made in 1852. Among those arrangements was this, that Denmark should do nothing that could even tend to the union of Schleswig with Denmark. The act of the 18th of November, which was especially complained of, made little or no change in the relations which had existed between Schleswig and Denmark from the year 1858. In that year, Holstein, which had before been re-

  2087
  presented in the Parliament of Denmark, was withdrawn from it in consequence of objections taken by the German Confederation. Schleswig, however, remained, without any objection on the part of Germany until this period of 1863, when it was first stated that this measure, which added little to the connection between Schleswig and Denmark, was contrary to the arrangements of 1852. During the whole time that that Act of November was discussed in the Parliament of Denmark, no objection was made by the German Powers until the last two or three days; indeed, it was supposed that the measure was in entire conformity with their desire. That measure of November IS contained one provision, however, which was undoubtedly a contravention of the arrangements of 1852. It contained a provision for extending the electoral law of Denmark to the province of Schleswig. The Germans, no doubt, had reason to expect that that would not be done; but they never openly objected to it. They did not wish to put forward their desire to prevent the progress of liberal and popular government as their reason for declaring war; but their reason it was. It was admitted by M. Bismark; and Austria and Prussia desired the King, on pain of instant war, of his own authority, after the dissolution of his Parliament, to annul that Act, which he could not constitutionally do; which he could not do without violating his oath. M. Bismark coolly suggested that if the King could not constitutionally repeal that Act he might declare a state of siege, and then he could do anything— anything, no doubt, in crime, but nothing in rectitude. If the King had acted on that suggestion he would undoubtedly have deserved dethronement, and he would have lost the character not only of an honest monarch, but of an honest man. War was declared, and the Germans entered Schleswig. That was the second passage of this war. They had not been there long before they took steps, under a mere pretext, to invade Jutland. Austria at first evidently had strong objections to the occupation of Jutland, but she was induced to accede to the desire of Prussia, and Jutland was soon occupied as well as Schleswig. Now, my Lords, what do these various successive steps prove? What I infer from them is, that this war between Denmark and Germany did not begin uno intuitu; that there was no original plan to do what they have done and what they are doing; but that, seeing
  2088
  the impunity which was granted to them, seeing that no opposition was made to their first, second, and third steps, they went on further in wrong and stand thus where they are now. The other day there was some conversation about a Holy Alliance, and it was said that there was no Holy Alliance, nor any probability of one. There may not be, I dare say, any Treaty of Holy Alliance, nor should I attach much importance to it if there were; for I consider that when the Powers of Europe tore to pieces the Treaty of 1852, they tore to pieces all treaties and destroyed all their authority. If the Powers had agreed to a Treaty of Holy Alliance, they would stand by it just as long as was convenient to them, and no longer. But, although I believe there is not a Treaty of Holy Alliance, there is an understanding—not a holy understanding—an understanding which seems to me to be worse than a Holy Alliance. The Holy Alliance was a combination of Princes who bearing in mind the French Revolution, then recently terminated, and all its disastrous consequences, saw danger in every movement of the people to force new Constitutions on their Sovereigns, and who, widely differing from us, who revere Magna Charta, and look back with pride on the events which led to King William coming to this country, determined to avert the dangers they apprehended by suppressing all the institutions which were thus forced on Sovereigns. But while they committed these acts of hostility to public liberty they had at least honour among themselves. They adhered to their words—they declared that they would not carry their intervention further than the necessity of the case, and that they would only occupy a country until things were put into their former position. They declared that they had no views of self-aggrandizement, no desire for the acquisition of territory, and that they would leave the dominions of the assisted King as soon as the necessity was passed; and so they did—nor did they exercise any undue rigour in enforcing the payment of their expenses. I believe the debt owing by France to Spain for the expenses of the Spanish expedition to be not yet paid, so that it does not appear that there has been any heavy financial pressure on Spain, nor was there on Naples. But these German princes, who have arrived at an understanding hostile to liberty, carry their principles much further. They prohibit the action of the King of Den-

  2089
  mark, in conjunction with his Parliament, to extend the electoral franchise to the people of Schleswig. They even propose to take altogether from the King of Denmark the province to which, in conceit with his Parliament, he desired to give a more popular constitution. That is going much further than was ever attempted by the Powers connected with the Holy Alliance. I am not surprised that these Sovereigns, proceeding in this manner, were disposed to think that they might go on with impunity. The noble Earl did not conceal that it was his opinion, and that of the Government, that no assistance should be afforded to Denmark. There were other things besides the declarations of Ministers upon the subject which instructed the German Powers yet more clearly and significantly as to the course we intended to pursue. Within a few days of the commencement of the Session the Naval and Military Estimates were laid on the table. They contained a reduction, not a large one, both in our naval and military strength. Economy was to be the order of the day; it was thought necessary to show a balance and to get that small balance our naval and military strength was reduced. But not merely was there this reduction, but the Estimates were ostentatiously declared to be Peace Estimates. There could be no mistake about it; it was quite clear from their conduct, ns well as their declarations, that Ministers intended to stand by without giving any assistance to Denmark. It would be most unreasonable if we were to demand that a British Minister should succeed in all he undertakes, or that he should always get what he asks for. But I think we are entitled to demand from a British Minister that he shall not adopt a course which renders success in his negotiations impossible. That, I think, is a just demand. But when the noble Earl, or any other negotiator, enters into negotiations by making it distinctly understood that, however much he may be defeated in his propositions, he will not lift his arm to enforce them, and that in no case will he resort to war, he at once loses all his strength. Diplomacy is armed reason. It is not pure reason; if it were, the Ministers of Portugal, of Greece, and of the Pope would have as much influence in a Conference as the Ministers of the great Powers of Europe. But the strength of Powers in a Conference is the strength they have behind them, and if they declare that they will never use that strength they
  2090
  might as well have none. They would be in the disagreeable position which would have been occupied by a gentleman in Dublin about the time of the Union, if he had made it publicly known that he intended never to fight, and had then gone about interfering in the business of everybody, and saying the most unpleasant things in the most disagreeable way. I leave to the judgment of the House what would have been the influence of that gentleman in society. No doubt he would have been continually insulted until he would have been compelled to violate his own resolution and fight at a time when, perhaps, he was least prepared. My Lords, I consider it of the deepest importance and the most dangerous import, that in the Conference the neutral Powers of Europe should have decided on not regarding the Treaty of 1852 as the basis of their proceedings. I can see nothing whatever—I can see no change of circumstances— which could have justified a departure from the obligations of that treaty; and the only excuse I can find for it is this—that it is now said to be established, that nations are to decide who shall be their governors. But, my Lords, the application of that rule to the present case of Schleswig-Holstein is a complete fallacy. When a great homogeneous people declare by a vast majority in favour of any particular form of government, no doubt it is just that their will should prevail. The Duke of Wellington, in recognizing that principle, rendered to this country and to Europe as great an act of civil service as he ever performed. When the French people put aside Charles X., the Duke of Wellington at once recognized the new Government; but no injury was done to Europe by acknowledging the change of rulers decided on by the French people. Depend upon it, whether a Bourbon, a Member of the House of Orleans, or a Bonaparte sits on the Throne of France, there will be little or no difference in the conduct of the French Government as regards Foreign policy. The French people will impress their character on the Government, and it matters little to the world at large who may be at the head of that nation; but it is a different thing when the people of Holstein say, "We desire to separate ourselves from the country with which we have been so long united." They may desire that; but they cannot give effect to their wish without

  2091
  disturbing the balance of power in every part of Europe, and, as they owe a duty to Europe, the substitution of one Sovereign for another in Schleswig-Holstein becomes a question for the European Powers. Again, ought we not to consider this matter with reference to the binding power of treaties generally? Because, if this new principle of dealing with treaties is sanctioned, the more ancient a treaty is, the longer it has been established among the laws of Europe, the less, in point of fact, maybe the justification for its continuance. I see in this very great danger; for what is a precedent to-day will be a rule tomorrow, and there will be no security left except in strength for the preservation of anything. But, my Lords, observe how dangerous it is to permit a small and weak State to be overcome, spoliated, and dismembered by the coalition of great and powerful States, no one assisting her or endeavouring to arrest the blow. There is not one of the weak States of Europe which may not feel her security greatly impaired by what has occurred in Denmark. If the two great German Powers, without being interfered with by the neutral Powers, may take possession of Schleswig and Holstein, and plunder Denmark as they will, what security is there that when they have obtained possession of Kiel for a naval station Prussia may not get up a quarrel with Holland about Limbourg and Luxembourg, for the purpose of obtaining the port of the Texel? The same consideration applies to a weaker State, Belgium. What is to prevent France from moving on Belgium and obtaining possession of the ports on the Scheldt? My Lords, this question of Denmark is the question of Sweden, of Holland, of Belgium. It is the question of all the smaller and weaker States of Europe; and the ruin which is now, without any attempt to prevent it, brought upon Denmark will terrify all the smaller States, and destroy altogether their feeling of independence. More than all, my Lords, I look on this movement of Prussia and Austria as more particularly a demonstration of the despotic Powers against the growing freedom of Germany and the spread of constitutional principles. We know the position of the King of Prussia and his Parliament before the commencement of hostilities in Don-mark. We know also how things went on in Austria, though there they were better and there was much more hope; but no one who reads the papers on the Danish
  2092
  Question — no one who has watched the progress of Affairs in Europe—can doubt that this was, I will not say a well laid, but a wickedly laid plan to destroy the liberties of the people of Denmark, and likewise to destroy the liberties of the people of Prussia and Austria. I dread this, not because it is a thing which will last—not because its authors will continue to enjoy an immunity from punishment—but because some few months ago I saw the steady and tranquil flow of a fertilizing stream which would have passed through the whole of those territories bringing peace and happiness to the people. Their rulers have thrown up a dam against it; for a time that dam will prevent its flow; but before very long it will burst over its bounds, and, sweeping onwards with the violence of an avalanche, it will destroy those who attempt to restrain it. It is because the things that are being done cannot be done without bringing after them a retribution—a terrible retribution —I now speak with so much alarm of the course which Prussia and Austria have been permitted to take. I think we cannot disguise from ourselves that there is in those transactions something behind more dangerous than that which we see. There is a mystery we cannot fathom. We cannot give any reasonable explanation of the conduct of Russia and France. What, then, must be our course? We must look to ourselves—we must consolidate our own strength—improving in every way our national defences not only in fortifications, but in our land forces, regular and irregular, and also in our navy. We must also endeavour to be, as we ought always to be, on the best understanding with France; but, at all events, I hope we shall yet revive the ancient spirit of this country, which did not consider lucre to be the only great good, but ever had regard to honour and the justice of the cause it espoused. Vice and crime seem now to stalk unchallenged from one end of Europe to the other. Does history record so cruel an edict as that which has driven the Circassians from their homes without any assistance on the part of the Government that has consigned them to banishment? Does history record an instance of a people so trodden under foot as the Poles have been in recent times? Women, children, and old men and young men, the hope and glory of their families, mercilessly exiled — apparently on the principle that the best man is the best exile —forced to travel on foot from Warsaw to Siberia, many dying on the road, and those

  2093
  who survive destined on their arrival to a life of slavery. When we see, besides, this act of wrong to Denmark—Prussia and Austria proceeding after their own requisitions have been complied with—marching from one excess to another, till they have appropriated to themselves a large portion of an ancient country—my Lords, when I see such flagrant offences against right and justice, such reckless provocations of Providence, I feel that they cannot go on without a decided chastisement and retribution; and I only pray that we who have not taken a part in this dreadful wrong—that those who have not participated in it—may, by the Divine mercy and permission, be exempted from the punishment and that, if it is to come, it may only be inflicted upon those who have designed, and those who have been employed in perpetrating the crime.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken with his usual ability and eloquence on a very important subject; but he has admitted in the beginning of his speech that he does not agree with the Government nor with the Opposition; and he might have added that he does not agree with the country. I shall not pretend to enter at any length upon the subject, seeing that it has already been fully debated in both Houses of Parliament, and they have expressed their decisions with regard to it; but there are some of the statements of the noble Earl which appear to me to require so much correction in order to reduce them to the actual state of facts, that I cannot altogether avoid noticing them. The noble Earl throughout spoke of Denmark as if it was a country of a homogeneous population, which had been invaded by two great Powers for the purpose of wresting away from it some portion of its territory. Now, the difficulty of this question throughout has been that, while Denmark is a small country, it is inhabited by two different races, and the one possessing the capital and seat of power, and controlling the government of the whole country, is at issue with the other race which occupied certain of its provinces. But there was another difficulty still, and a complication beyond this—namely, that while the majority could exercise, unjustly and oppressively if they chose, their power over the minority, that minority had the opportunity of appealing to a nation on their frontier, containing more than 40,000,000 of inhabitants, whose feelings, passions, and sympathies were with the minority.
  2094
  In that situation of affairs the great Powers of Europe made a treaty, which I took the liberty on a former occasion of styling an artificial treaty. It was the best thing that could at that time be done; but it depended for its favourable operation on the temper, moderation, and good sense of those who had the rule in Denmark, as well as of the other parties. It must be remembered that at the beginning of the contest in 1848, when Prussia invaded the Danish provinces, and when Austria likewise appealed to arms, those Powers only retired from the territory of the King of Denmark after obtaining engagements by which they were justified in interfering in the internal government of Holstein and Schleswig. They were justified in interfering in regard to Holstein by the general law of the Germanic Confederation, and in Schleswig by those special engagements made in 1851. When, therefore, during eleven years there were disputes and discussions between Denmark and the Germanic Confederation, the other Powers, parties to the Treaty of 1852, who were bystanders in this disturbance, were obliged to ask themselves whether Denmark was entirely blameless in the matter, and whether she had fulfilled all the promises she had made. For my part, having thought it my duty to look into this subject, I could neither say that the Government of Denmark were blameless, nor that they had fulfilled all the promises by which they had bound themselves to the Germanic Confederation and to Austria and Prussia. Therefore the question came to this—that the other Powers would not have been justified in purely and simply defending Denmark; for while they held up the right hand to defend Denmark, it would have been necessary for them with the left to compel her to fulfil her promises, to govern according to her engagements, and treat her German subjects with the same fairness and justice as her Danish subjects were treated. Therefore, the question was in itself extremely complicated, and no one could say that in going to war for Denmark purely and simply and without demanding anything from Denmark, an entirely right course would be taken. This appears to me to be the difficulty of the question. It was not a question whether you should go to war or not. You could not draw the sword without being convinced that you were in the right. If you are to go to war and to ask the people of England to contribute large subsidies for carrying on the

  2095
  war, let the people at least be sure you are fighting in the right cause. When I say that Denmark did not stand perfectly upright in this matter, I by no means intend to take the part of the German Powers against any of the accusations made against them by the noble Earl. I think, and I have always said, that if they had been willing to submit this matter to the decision of those Powers of Europe not so immediately concerned as themselves—if the parties on both sides had listened to fair terms—this question might have been settled by negotiation. But, unfortunately, while Denmark had for eleven years continually and persistently put herself in the wrong, Germany at length determined to listen to no reason, to accept no promises of redress, and hastened on to war, resolved to settle the question by the arbitrament of arms. I thought that that conduct was not the result of the real judgment of Austria and Prussia, but that it was a means, perhaps, by which they sought, together or separately, to obtain the popular feeling in Germany in their favour; and it was rather to content that feeling, than because they thought their cause was right or their actions in accordance with their professions, that the war was precipitated on. Now, I do not mean to discuss the question which the noble Earl has raised, that though France and Russia refused to be our partners, we should ourselves have interposed, and by our own means have defended Denmark. That question has been discussed already in both Houses of Parliament, and I hold in my hand the Resolution arrived at in the House of Commons on the subject, and the Address which that House presented to Her Majesty, after a discussion, I think, of four nights. The other House, which is the only constitutional body to which, in case of war, an appeal could be made for the means of carrying on the war, after thanking Her Majesty for laying before them the papers on the question, and expressing regret that the Conference was brought to a close without accomplishing the important purposes for which it assembled, went on to express the satisfaction with which they learnt that at this conjuncture Her Majesty had been advised to abstain from interfering in the war between Denmark and Germany. It is, therefore, clear, that if the Government had called on the Commons for the means of carrying on war, in which, as I have said, France and Russia refused to take part, the House
  2096
  of Commons would not have supported the Government. The noble Earl supposes that in the course pursued the honour of England has been neglected. I ask in what respect has the honour of England been in any way involved in this contest? Is it the case that you had a treaty by which you were bound to assist Denmark? No such treaty exists, neither is there any obligation of honour which compels to involve ourselves in war for the sake of Denmark. I am fully convinced that if ever a case should arise in which the honour of this country requires war, you would have the House of Commons deciding, not by a small majority, but by overwhelming numbers, to support any obligations involving the honour of the country. My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken of the effect which the war in Schleswig and Holstein may have upon the liberties of Germany, and the constitutional question in Prussia. Well, it is quite true that there has been for a considerable time a contest going on between the Crown and the House of Commons in Prussia with regard to points which vitally concern the constitutional liberties of that country. It would almost seem that we might repeat now what Mr. Burke said in that most eloquent speech of his delivered ninety years ago on the pacification of America. Speaking at that time of the contest in America, he said, "Slavery is a weed that grows anywhere. They may have it in Spain, they may have it in Prussia." Now one would be loth to think that the people of Prussia in the course of those ninety years have not learned both to love and to value or to understand liberty. My belief is that neither on the part of the Crown, on the part of the House of Lords, or on the part of the House of Commons of Prussia, have they yet arrived at a complete understanding of that complex machine called a Constitutional Monarchy. I do believe, however, that the spirit of liberty exists in Prussia, that it exists throughout Germany, and that it requires no aid and no assistance from us. But after this question of Denmark has been decided, as it will be decided, without any interference on our part, I believe the best prospect of seeing liberty and constitutional monarchy established in Germany will be to leave that brave and intelligent people to settle for themselves the differences which may exist between them and their Sovereign, and there is no need that England should in any way interfere in the settlement of that dispute.

  2097
  I am far from thinking, if we compare the state of things now with what it was fifty years ago, at the time of the Treaty of 1815, or with what it was forty years ago in 1821 and 1823, at the time of the Holy Alliance, that the people of Europe have not made great progress in the study of political questions. I believe that that which was possible for the Sovereigns of Europe in 1823, that which was possible for the Sovereign of France at that time, when he put down the Cortes of Spain, and established absolute monarchy there, would not be possible now. I believe that no Sovereign who reads the signs of the times would attempt any such thing. On the contrary, I believe that the Sovereigns will find it to be their interest to make such an ageement with their subjects that constitutional monarchy will in time prevail in all the countries of Europe. That is my belief; and I am far from thinking that if we had rushed into war, and the States of Europe had been pitted against each other in a bloody contest, we should have promoted the cause of liberty any more than we should have promoted the cause of peace. I believe, on the contrary, that by leaving it to the people and the Sovereigns of Germany to settle their differences among themselves, we have done not only that which is good for the honour and interests of England, but that which is best for the interests of Europe at large.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: My Lords, I cannot allow the speech of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to pass without making a few observations. My noble Friend appears to me to have taken up a position somewhat unfortunate, for while he opened his speech by saying that he found no reasons which would have justified us in taking up arms on behalf of Denmark, he proceeded to condemn in the strongest terms the conduct of the Powers who were the other parties to that conflict. My noble Friend (Earl Russell) then asked where we can find anything to justify the observation that the honour of England has been sacrificed in these negotiations. I humbly conceive, my Lords, that the question is not a question of the honour of England, but of the management of affairs; and, I must say, with all deference to my noble Friend, and with all due consideration for the difficulties with which he has had to contend, and for the questions which he has justly described as of so delicate and complicated a nature, comparing the
  2098
  result with the objects to be obtained, the disappointment of the public has been fully justified. The great object which I understood the Government to have in view was to maintain peace in the North of Europe. Well, we had not peace, but war. We are told that the treaty which provided for the integrity and independence of Denmark was to be maintained. That treaty has been given up by the English Government itself. And so through every phase of the negotiations we find the same unfortunate contradictions between the objects sought and the results brought about. Hopes have been raised, and have been disappointed. We went into a Conference without a basis, and consequently without a chance of success. And what was the end? Total failure. Putting all these things together, it seems impossible not to perceive that there is too much justification for the impression that we have incurred a certain amount of discredit. And such, unfortunately, has been the case on several occasions within the last two years. It is not only with regard to Denmark that we have incurred discredit, but also in the negotiations with Russia last year on the affairs of Poland. I will not unnecessarily go over ground which has been so often trodden before—it will be sufficient if I ask your Lordships to call to mind the circumstances under which we entered into negotiations with respect to Poland, and to compare them with the circumstances under which we abandoned her. The Poles in the end were left in a situation far worse than they would have been in had they been left to their own independent efforts. We had then the advantage of the co-operation of Austria in conjunction with France, Austria has since taken a different course, and we have reason to apprehend that it is in consequence of the policy which we then adopted. Then with respect to that much-vexed question, the proposal of a Congress by France—what we have to regret is not that we declined the proposition, but the manner in which we declined it. I cannot conceal from myself that the tone which pervaded our answer went far to justify the very strong feeling of disappointment which prevailed in France. I, for one, never could perceive in the proposal for a Congress any just grounds for suspecting the motives of him who made it. He was placed in a very painful position by the result of the

  2099
  negotiations with Russia; it was natural for him to seek for some resource at a critical moment, and I should have thought that that was the very time when we should have taken the utmost pains to make a favourable impression upon the mind of our ally. All these circumstances when put together are quite sufficient to account for the general feeling of the country that we have incurred a certain amount of discredit. But when we hear from the echoes of another theatre of discussion that those mistakes are to carry with them the necessity of adopting a new code of foreign diplomacy, notwithstanding the very high authority by whom this proposition has been laid down, I must say I see no reason whatever for any such change. What I have always understood, and what I believe to be the constitutional view, is this—that questions of peace and war and foreign politics belong to the Crown of this country. The Ministers are the responsible advisers of the Sovereign. Parliament sits in judgment upon them when the conduct of any negotiations come before them. My noble Friend turns and appeals to the judgment of the other House; it is very natural that he should do so in his own vindication. But to say that the whole course of policy of our foreign affairs is to be altered is a proposition which I, for one, cannot accept. There is no question before us, and the subject has been so fully discussed already between my two noble Friends on opposite sides of the House, that I am unwilling to trespass further on the attention of your Lordships. At the same time, I cannot sit down without lamenting the course recently pursued by those great Powers who must exercise so vast an influence on the affairs of Europe. When we see Russia, notwithstanding the appeals made to her to reconsider her policy, adding cruelty to cruelty, not only in her treatment of her own subjects, but those over whom she had no right to tyrannise, and reducing her cruelty to a system that is calling down upon her the reprobation of all who are possessed with any feelings of humanity—when we consider how the hopes of those who thought that Austria was entering upon a course of constitutional Government have been disappointed—we can but feel the deepest regret that these great Powers should have entered upon a course so dangerous and so threatening to the peace of Europe. With regard to Prussia, no language can adequately express the degree of censure
  2100
  which is due to the Government of that country. The manner in which it has acted would justify the suspicion that there were political designs in the first instance in the course it pursued towards a weaker Power which has so many claims upon our interest. I am sorry to observe the manner in which blame has been thrown on the Danish Government, and the extreme severity with which some part of their conduct has been criticized. It is hardly fair to omit to mention the very difficult circumstances in which Denmark has been placed, and it is impossible not to admire the spirit and bravery shown by her people. Her resistance may seem to some to have been pushed to extremes; but we can hardly wonder that a country placed in a situation in which its dearest interests were attacked and its very existence called in question, should in defence of its liberties expose itself to a contest with Powers of overwhelming strength. Your Lordships must feel the deepest regret at the sad condition of an empire whose gallant struggles have everywhere called forth feelings of the strongest admiration; and we must, at the same time, regret that the circumstances of the country do not allow us to express our feelings of sympathy in another and more tangible manner.

POLICE (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMrose, pursuant to Notice—
"To call Attention to a Return pursuant to an Address of the House of Lords, dated the 31st of May, 1861, relative to the Proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Provisions of the 11th Victoria, Chapter Two, for the Preservation of the Peace in the County of Donegal and Barony of Kilmacrenan, And a Copy of any Warrant issued by The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the Search of Arms, within the Parish of Clondavadock in the Barony of Kilmacrenan, within Twenty-one Days previous to the 21st Day of April, 1864: And to ask The Lord President if there is any Law to authorize the Police in Ireland to enter the Dwelling House of any of Her Majesty's Subjects without a Warrant, and to search it, or carry off any Property of any Kind whatsoever from such House without any such written Authority."
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the police had received information that a certain person—a bailiff of the noble Earl—was in possession of arms without a licence. That information was not acted upon because the police had no regular warrant; but on a later occasion, when the police were on revenue duty, they found the gun and took it away in a legal manner.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he looked with some doubt and anxiety upon the working of a system under which the police were required to exercise the duties of revenue officers as well as their own proper duties. In this case the officer having entered under a warrant authorizing him to search for illicit spirits, found in the house a gun and seized it, upon the ground that the man had no licence to keep a gun.

RPIVATE BILLS.
Order of the Day for the Lords to be Summoned, read: Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills be dispensed with for the Remainder of the Session:—agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow Two o'clock.