The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 2O , 1848. nimous effort of the people, and a declaration, We have - not justice, we are determined to obtain justice, and it is now proved to us it is not to be had of the Parliament of England.' I say, let the House beware of supplying such an argument as that. If you wish to maintain the union—if you wish to improve the union, to make the union a source of happiness, a source of increased rights, a source of blessing to Ireland as well as Eagland, a source of increased strength to the United Empire, beware lest you in any way weaken the link which connects the two countries. Do not set so far apart the governor and the governed. Do not let the people of Ireland believe that you have no sympathy with their afflictions—no care for their wrongs; that you aro intent only upon other measures in which they have no interest." He did not desire to give offence to the Noble Lord by repeating these words. Ho thought they contained noble sentiments, and he could not bring himself to consider that the Noble Lord would not act upon them. He trusted that ho would efficiently act upon them, and that he would not deprive his poor countrymen of their last hope.—(Hear, hear.) He was often asked what were the measures which he would propose for Ireland, and he would not be under the re proach of refusing to enumerate them. One of the first would be a Bill to give Ireland her due proportion of Members.—(Hear.) Another would be to put her cor porations more upon a footing of equality with those of England. He . would propose a new registration Bill in order to confer a proper and more extended franchise. Also a Bill to alter the appropriation of Church revenues. A grand jury Bill. A Bil! to enable the tenant in entail to make improvements, end to charge the inheritance with them. A Bill for the improvement of waste lands. —(hear, hear.) A Bill for the taxation of absentees.— (Hear, hear.) A Bill for promoting emigration within reasonable limits, and a Bill for public works. These were the measures which he desired for Ireland. The consequences of their neglect of Ireland were fatal, they constituted the landlords masters over the people. They made the latter a slave class, and this broke down their minds and bent their spirits. Industry was discouraged, and a hatred of the English people was engendered in the minds of the people of Ireland. You cannot treat the people of Ireland thus, and centralize them. Hence the cry for repeal, and that demand had taken another turn, and had added the one for separation. He was most anxious to maintain the connexion between the two countries, and he was of opinion that could be best obtained by a local Legislature, properly constituted, legislating upon local affairs.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that there were only two courses to be pursued. They must either remedy the social grievances of Ireland by the adoption of re medial measures, or they must be content to hold it by military force. If they adopted the latter alternative, it would require the presence of one-third part of the whole army. They might hold the towns. But was there not danger that instead of a civil commotion, it would turn into a serv;le war?—(Hear, hear.) Before the union Ireland maintained her own civil and military establishment; but since it she had been a drain upon England, instead of being to her a support. England would be kept down by her connexion with Ireland to the level of Ireland. She would be sinking in her means and her respectability. He was then discharging his duty as an English Member to his constituents when he advocated the cause of his countrymen. The Into Act which they bad passed was an absolute declaration of war, and if Ireland was reconquered, she should be held by the sword. He wished to abstain from saying anything offensive, but he would ask this question Why had not remedial measures been pressed forward? If he was told that they had not time, he would answer in reply, why had they time for measures of coercion ? If the Noble Lord was not able to carry out his principles, those principles which he had so often declared, why then he should surrender his power into the bands of those who were prepared to undertake to govern Ireland by coercion. He ought not to take the responsibility and the consequences o: governing Ireland in a manner which was repugnant and adverse to his principles. If the Noble Lord said that he was obstructed by a large English majority, would not that be a decided argument in favour or the repeal of the union ? The Noble Lord advised the return of Irish gentlemen to Ireland. He wanted to have a message of peace.—(Hear, hear.) He waisted, before he left that House, to hear something which would enable him to say to the people of Ireland you have some hopes.—(Hear, hear.) If he could go home to Ireland and carry that intelligence, he would go home with a light heart. But if he could not give them this assurance, he would go home with sorrow. No man repudiated more than he did the principles of those who were now agitating iu Ireland. Had the moral power in Ireland been rightly exercised, he be lieved a very different state of things would have been the result. If the Irish Members of Parliament had worked more together, they would have obtained some more beneficial measures. He must say that the position in which England placed the Trials landlord* over the people formed a very great excuse for their conduct. They made them slave-masters, without making them interested in the welfare of the slave. He had brought this great question before the House, and he trusted that he had not used Language calculated to aggravate or annoy. He did not wish to do so.—(Hear, hear.) He was grateful for the attention with which he was heard, and he would conclude by moving—" That the present distracted state of Ireland demands the instant attention of Parliament, with a view to the speedy enactment of such measures as may he necessary to improve the con dition, redress the grievances, and establish the just rights of the Irish people, and thereby promote the good order and prosperity of that portion of the United Kingdom, and give increased security to her Majesty's Crown and Government." Lord JOHN RUSSELL Mr. Speaker: Sir, the Honourable Gentleman who has brought forward this motion has done so in language so little tinged with party feeling, so conciliatory, and so straightforward, that I prefer following him immediately, instead of waiting until the course of the debate may provoko warmer language, which no doubt the interest of the subject is likely to excite.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot say that I agree with the Hon. Member in all the opinions which he has just put forward ; in some of those opinions I do agree, and I am ready to state to the House the views which I take of a great portion of the subject which he has placed under our attention.— (Hear, hear.) In considering the conduct of this Im perial Parliament—(Hear, hear)—which he has brought before the House, it is not entirely just to say that certain measures have been long delayed, that they have been brought before the House many years ago, and that the House has not finally legis lated upon them, and to impute that the House, there fore, showed an unwillingness to debate Irish subjects, or to remedy Irish grievances —(Hear, hear)—whether it be owing to the complicated form of our government — whether it be owing to the length of debate which pre vails in Parliament and throughout the country—and there is scarcely any measure of great public importance whether it relates to the United Kingdom or any por tion of the Usited:Kingdom, which is not subject to very considerable delay, which has not been rejected at one time and triumphant at another, protracted at one period and not carried until after long debate. There are questions which entirely relate to this country, such as Parliamentary reform, which took thirty years for the discuseien of. There is, again, the abolition of the slave trade, which took nearly thirty years in the discussion; and there are various other instances in which it is ob vious that from some of the causes which I have men tioued that which was a just and fair case for legislation did not produce the effect of obtaining the measures which were asked until after a long period of time.— (Hear, hear.) Now it ought not to be said when we are speaking of Irish matters, that the delay in certain measures is owing to unwillingness to discuss Irish grievances, or to any desire to withhold that remedy which a portion, but only a portion, of the Irish Members think a fit one to be ap plied.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, the Hon. Gentleman, like others, has described the state in which Ireland at pre sent finds itself'; but I must ask the attention of the Hon. Member, and the House to a description of the state of Ireland as it formerly existed—a description of it, written in 1796 or 1797, by an adversary of the Go vernment of that day.—(The Noble Lord proceeded to read an extract, to the effect that at the time in ques tion the Irish were worse fed, clothed, and lodged, than were the subjects of the greatest despot in Europe, and that they laboured under the worst practical govern ment in the world.) Now, Sir (continued the Noble Lord), that at least shows that in the opinion of the writer the misery of Ireland is not a creation of the Imperial Parliament or of the British Government, and that it is not merely since the union that the people of Ireland are ill fed, ill clad, and ill lodged. Sir, the heritage which the Imperial Parliament derived from the Prirlianient before the union, was a people in the unfortunate and miserable condition which I have de scribed.—(Hear, hear.) But it may be said that there is one grievance at least which is caused entirely by the existence of the Imperial Government. Why, Sir, that is the grievance to which the writer whom I have already quoted alludes, in the following sentence. —(The Noble Lord proceeded to read another ex tract, to the following effect:—" Did the produce of the land of Ireland go to support the people of Ireland? No. Its beeves, its sheep, its dairy productions, its ma nufactures, indeed all its superfluities, or rather the commodities which in any better social condition would not be superfluities, all these were exported to pay the rents of Irish landlords, who did not think the country worthy of their residence, and was thus as much lost to the people of Ireland as though they had been thrown into the sea.") The Noble Lord continued—So far, then, it appe a r s th at these gr i evances are not gr i evances of our generation ; that they are of long endurance—that they are rooted deeply i n I r i s h society, and all that the Honourable Gentleman or any one else can say of the present generation is, that they ought to do as much as they can patiently and resolutely to apply a remedy.— (Hear, hear.) And let me say, that whatever blame may be imputed to the Governments or to the Parliaments o f former times, or of this day--that after the co ndition of the people had het; has b e en represented the to wi,, b h e es, lunion— nac i a n i ations that theta the habits, of the people themselves tend to mainta l i foster that wretched stale of society which I have 'd de scribed.—(Fleur, baeardert e h et h.sou such as it scribed.—(Hear, hear.) For instance, 1 consider that itis . one of the great misfortunes of Ireland that the popu lation has gone en iuereasing without a proportionate-in crease in the means of subsistence and employment. Then, Sir, there is a habit much to be deplored—Use ear ly marriages of the peasants of Ir el a n d. Satisfied as they are with miserable hovels and plots of potato ground, furnishing a scanty and precarious subsistence for each current year—without looking for any increase of comfort, without thinking of' the postponement of marriage until there be a sufficiency accumulated for the sure avid comfortable subsistence of a married couple. Sir, I think that such a state of society is of itself a mis fortune with which it is difficult, if not impossible, for any Government to deal. I am not saying whence the original degradation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland • has arisen—whether from cruel and unjust penal laws, or from those enactments which prevented the people from turning their attention to trade and manufac tures; whether the state of things we finding existing has been caused by the religious bigotry of the 17th, or by the commercial jealousy of the 18th century. Neither, Sir, am I vindicating the proeeedings of those days, any more than I would stand up for some of the acts of the Norman conquerors, who were as tyrannical and unjust in this country as in that. All I do say is, that such being the case, such being the difficulty which we in herit, such being the state which we tare called on to govern—it is not the work of a day or a month, or of one, or two, or three years, to change such a condition of society, to put all classes in Irelond into that state of harmony with each other which is necessary for en suring that the progress of a kingdom towards civiliza tion and prosperity shall be rapid and undeviating.— (Cheers.) With these conditions and complications, I enter on the subject which the Hon. Gentleman has introduced. I have said that in some respects I agree with the Hon. Gentleman. He complained that ad mission to political and social privileges had been refused to the Roman Catholics of Ireland from the time of the union down to 1829. Sir, I consider that refusal to have been unjust. I can see no thing in the creed of the Roman Catholics to debar them from all the political and civil privileges of the other inhabitants of these islands. From the time when I first had a seat in this House, I have voted for the repeal of the Roman Catholic disabilities, and I think it was a great misfortune that that repeal was not made a portion of the treaty of union, or at all events combined with it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I remember hearing in this House Mr. Canning repeat a conversation he had had with Mr. Pitt upon the subject, and in which Mr. Pitt told him that Lord Cornwallis had written a dispatch stating that he thought he could carry the measure of union with England, but that the measure of Roman Catholic emancipation he should not be able to carry, and I re member, Sir, Mr. Canning telling us that he observed to Mr. Pitt, that were he in his (Mr. Pitt's) place, he would have refused both—that he would not take one measure without the other.—(Hear.) Sir, Mr. Canning added, that Mr. Pitt with great reason rebuked the indiscretion and intemperance of the young man to whom he was speaking. But, Sir, on reflecting on what passed, I for one very much doubt whether, on this point, the youth ful judgment of Mr. Canning was not more sound than the more matured opinions of Mr. Pitt.— (Cheers.) But, Sir, that grievance of difference of political rights was abolished by the Act of 1829, and whatever may have passed for some years afterwards, it cannct be de nied that in Ireland a Roman Catholic who has talents and ambition is as likely to attain to political distinc tion as a Protestant. There was another subject to which the Hon. Gentleman referred, and respecting which I hardly think he did justice to what the Imperial Parliament has effected. One of the greatest grievances which the people suffered before the union was the state of the tithe question. At one time every cottager was obliged to pay tithes not only upon his cottage but even upon his garden. The questions which thus arose—the references to ecclesiastical courts which thus took place, and the fines which by these tribunals were imposed— constituted a grievance of the most acute nature. The Parliament of the United Kingdom, in the first place, on the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for the University of Cambridge, passed a Commu tation Act in 1834, and afterwards Lord Wellesley recommended a permanent and compulsory commutation of tithes into a fixed rent charge. that plan was carried into effect in 1338, with a deduction of 25 per cent. on the whole amount of tithes, levying only 75 per cent. of the original charge, and providing after the expiration of a lease that the sum should be paid by the landlord, leaving him to recover from the tenant the amount in the shape of rent, and thus alto gether putting an end to that angry feeling which was perpetually a source of complaint, and not only that, but which threatened to lead to a servile war in some parts of the country.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the grievance, so far as it relates to the nature of pay ment, that is another and a different question from the character of the grievance as to the nature of the tithes themselves, and the vexation attending their collection. But the Hon. Gentleman says that the Reform Act of 1833 is imperfect. Now that Reform Act in Ireland gave the people a great share of political power which they had not until then possessed. There used to be many close nomination boroughs—such as Tralee, which was actually handed down by will from one party to another—boroughs to the representation of which individuals had the sole right of nominating, but which were then thrown open, and of which the people became the real electors. As to the number of Members for Ireland, that was not a question to be set tled by the Reform Act, because it had been settled at the time of the union ; but there was, at the time of the Reform Bill, au addition granted of five Members. The Hon. Gentleman referred to petty juries. Now, I be lieve that the system in Ireland is very much the same as that which holds in England. If there be any differ ence in the system, I think it ought to be put an end to. Again, Sir, the Hon. Gentleman refers to the franchise and to the question of registratiou. Now, as to the franchise, the lion. Gentleman will not fail to recollect that a Noble Friend of mine, in the year 1840 or 1841, introduced a measure for the purpose of enlarging that franchise. When I came into office, in 1846, it was one of the first questions to which I directed the attention of my late lamented friend Lord Besborough. In the autumn of 1846 he prepared the outline of a measure, and the Bill was ready to be brought in at the commencement of the very next session. Now, Hon. Gentlemen may ask why it was not introduced ? I have given an answer to that question already. A dreadful calamity which fell on Ireland—the failure of the chief article of subsistence of the people—made it so necessary to attend to some means of mitigating that great and overwhelming Gala may, that no time was left for attending to questions of franchise. But in the present session we introduced a measure founded on the principles of the Bill recom mended by Lerd Besborough. The Hon. Gentleman complains that it is laid asides Well, but even if it be postponed to another session, the only evil which can follow is. that the one or two elections which may take place will happen under the old law; but, unless in the case of a general election taking place, there can be no particular evil likely to accrue from the introduction of the measure in 1849 instead of 1848. The Hon. Gentleman did not find fault with that measure. I be lieve it is generally thought that it will extend to a great extent tho franchise in Ireland, and that it will so far be a remedy for the grievance of which the Hon. Member complains—l mean of the smallness of the number of electors.—(Hear, hear.) But let me ob serve on this subject, that although the number of electors may be very trifling in Ireland, and although that may be a grievance of which the people have a right to com plain, that with regard to that and to many other griev ances, they are not such as to prevent the progress of a people, provided they exert themselves manfully to ob tain that station and condition in society by industry and attention to their own immediate pursuits which the general freedom of the constitution allows.—(Hear, hear.) What is the case in Scotland. Until the Reform Bill in 1833, the people of Scotland had no more than 3,000 electors, and yet by their spirit of industry, and not only that, but by availing themselves of the agency of a free constitution—by using those liberties which are the constitutional property of all—by the English men, Irishmen, or Scotchmen—l say, Sir, that by those means Scotland, during the period between the rebellion of 1745 and the Reform Bill of 1833, during those eighty years, I say that Scotland made as great and remarkable progress as any kingdom on the face of the globe ever accomplished.— (Hear, hear.) Therefore, while I admit that with regard to the franchise and other matters the people of Ireland may have just grounds for complaint, I deny that grievances of this kind are any sufficient reason why they should not make very great progress by their own intelligence—an intelligence which they possess in a very high degree, and by fixing their minds on the advantages which they may obtain, rather than on the grievances which they suffer.—(Hear.) Sir, I repeat, in these grievances I see nothing to prevent the people of Ireland making great progress towards wealth and prosperity.— (Hear, hear.) Sir, the Honourable Gentleman has al luded to another subject in which he takes a very great interest, and on which, while I always listen with atten tion to his opinions, I cannot agree in many of his con clusions—l mean the question with respect to landlord and tenant. Now, the Honourable Gentleman has read some extracts from resolutions passed at a meeting which took place in the north of Ireland on this subject. It seems to use that in these resolutions, as well as in speeches made at various other times, two matters were confounded which are essentially and totally distinct. It is the custom of the north of Ireland to have what is., called tenant-right—a usage differing in different part s ' of the country—depending upon the payment of rent for some three or four years, in some cases; on the payment of rent for some ten or twelve years, in others. Well, be this custom good or bad, it is obvious that, being established, the tenant who has paid this aura, or some equivalent to the out-going tenant, and done this with the knowledge of the landlord, is to be considered as having a claim on that landlord not to be foreed to leave the land without some compensation.—(Hear.) It would, indeed, be a fraud upon the tenant if the landlord, having consented to the bargain—having, by a tacit consent, allowed the custom to be put in force—were then to infringe it. And I should be sorry were any Bill sanctioned by Parliament supposed to authorise any breach of faith between the landlord and the tenant in places where the custom I speak of has prevailed. But the Hon. Gentleman has always urged the question as if the usage could be trans ferred from districts where it exists to districts where it does not. Why, the Hon. Gentleman's argu ment goes to this extent, that the occupier of land, pro vided he pays his rent, has a perpetual right to the occu pationan3:thpirnogpebrteyne?o—re(Lcoomud- pletely of subversivetholando. of Wthehyri can anything of lets a !I 1 red u i d . cheers.) Here is a man to whom a certain property has descended, whose lan d it is, who at Ifs. t, c an dering the value of the laud , sa y , acres of it, of improveable lan d at a small rent, consi acre, and who expects, that owing to the liberal terms given, that the land will be greatly im p roved. Here is all this taking place, and alter all the landlord finds t h at the tenant has been neglecting his lan d ; that so far from being improved, it is getting into such a miserably foul condition as hardly to be worth anything. Then, Sir, under such circumstances, I ask whether you are pre pared to transfer the property of that landlord to that tenant—to that tenant %sho has no claim on the laud — who was admitted to it solely by the will and pleasure of the landlord, and who has repaid his admission by neglect —are you, I repeat, to say that because he pays his rent the land in question belongs no longer to the proprietor, but to the tenant?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I cannot think that Parliament, with any degree of r jus tice, can sanc ti on suc h a l aw, or t h at suc h a l aw, i f passed throughoutfo Ireland, the w ou would whole not of strike United t e the rout K in g d o o f m pro perty.— (Hear, hear.) Tier Majesty's Government has, however, introduced a measure with a view to the improvement of land, and to the regulation of the relations of landlord ' and tenant. It has been stated from so many counties, it seems so generally agreed upon that some such mea sure is necessary, interfering in a compulsory manner be tween landlord and tenant, that I have yielded what would be otherwise my conviction to that universal representation, though, according to all general principles, I should have been 'wrong, not in not having gone further than we have, but in proceeding to the length which we have actually gone. We are about to interfere so far as to make it necessary for the landlord to submit to certain conditions as to the treatment of land to which ho has not originally agreed, for the purpose of the improvement of the land; and in introducing this measure we have gone as far as we thought we could with safety. It does not, however, appear that we shall have time, during the present ses sion, to consider further of this Bill. But it will be de liberated upon during the recess ; and if any alterations or improvements can be suggested in the measure, Go vernment will be ready to adopt them, in the sincere de sire to go as far as possible in smoothing the way for the improvement of the land in Ireland, always, however, with a due regard to the main principle on which the rights of all property are founded. But after all, what we should look to in the relation of landlord and tenant, is the establishment of a better mutual understanding between them.—(Hear, hear.) A voluntary agreement made between the landlord and tenant, and carried out for the benefit of both, would after all be a better means of improving the soil iu Ireland than any legislative measure.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman refers to the poor-law, and to the delay which has taken place in enacting that measure. I believe that the Hon. Gentleman was a supporter of the poor-law as it was introduced last year. Now I do not think that any ijust reproach can be cast upon us for having long paused before we introduced that measure. I believe that it was necessary O'er the preservation of life in Ireland, and for the relief of the poor who were absolutely destitute. At the same time we know by ex perience in this country, that any:poor-law is so liable to abuse, that its tendency is not so inevitably, but so na turally, to deaden industry and to give relief to pau perism, where without such a law industry would have been forced to exertion. I say that there are such abuses generally connected with all poor-laws that we cannot be justly blamed for the delay. Having given our best attention to the subject—having brought in the Bill as absolutely necessary, I think that it will in the present year, by the experienee of its working, give us some further light, which may convince us, not of its absolute perfection, but which may in duce us to consider what modifications and im provements had better be introduced. But I be lieve that we were right in introducing that Bill. I believe that the poor-law is tending greatly to the civiliza tion of the country; that it prevents those habits of inendicity which are akin to robbery, and which prevail in countries where no provision for the pour is made. — (Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman has touched, Sir, upon another subject akin to this. lie spoke of the small farms in the county of Down, and talked of how far better it would bo there if the country should be divided into those farms, rather than that recourse should be had to emigration. Now I agree with the opinion of the Honourable Gentleman respecting small farms, in the cases in which you have a population which will apply their capital and industry in a perse vering and continuous manner to their cultivation. After the opinion, however, which I gave upon this subject last year, an opinion which has been much criticised, I went over the number of acres of land held as small farms in many of the most populous and flourishing countries of Europe, and I found that very small farms prevailed in many of them.— (Hear, hear.) Honourable Gentlemen may say, " What do I mean by small farms?" and I at once admit that what may be a small farm in England would be a large farm in Ireland—but I allude to such divisions of land as we find in Tuscany—divisions averaging five or six acres each.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, in order to establish such a division in Ireland, very great changes must take place—changes which cannot be effected ly legislation, and which must depend very much upon the landlords—(Hear, hear)—as well as on the means of purchase of persons of small capital, and on various circumstances of that nature. For instance, it is inconsistent certainly with my theory of small farms, that there should be persons with plots of ground too large for a garden and too small for a farm. Such a system would be very injurious; and in the west of Ire land, the occupation of such small spaces of round for growing potatoes has led to much of the misery of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, in this view, I think that the measure to which the Hon. Gentleman has alluded, and which, I am sorry to say, is almost the only measure of the sort which in the course of the present session we can hope to carry through—the Incumbered Estates Bill—l think, Sir, that the Bill will in time lead to a division of the land into small properties, and to men of small capital being able to hold small farms, and while the large farms of Northumberland, or any other county of England, are conducted upon systems varying accord ing to the habits of the people in those counties, so you must leave those things in Ireland to take their own course, and to be settled according to the habits of the people in different parts of that country. The Hon. Gentleman alluded to a Bill brought in on a similar sub ject, namely, the question of evicted tenants. Now, while I could not allow that any person by mere occupa tion of the land at the will and pleasure of the landlord, or, perhaps, against the will and pleasure of the land lord, had thereby gained a right to occupy the land in all succeeding times, yet I do think that the driving out of great numbers of those small cottiers at once—that driving them out by some summary process, perhaps in a winter's evening, and leaving them without the means of shelter or subsistence, although there may be some thing to be said as to the legal conduct of the landlord, and although there may be something to be said on his moral conduct, so far as the conduct of the. tenants to wards him is concerned—although that might be said, yet there is cruelty and want of good feeling in that practice, with which it is incumbent and necessary for the law to deal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I was a party to bringing in a Bill that was introduced by my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, which provided that while the landlord was left in full possession of his right by law of evicting his tenants when the law gave him that power, yet that care should be taken that, by due notice to the guardians of the poor, shelter and food should be provided for those miserable outcasts, the women and children, some of whom might be afflicted with fever and other diseases; and for women who might be turned out just after childbirth, and who, under such circumstances, and in the inclemency of the weather, would absolutely need such food and shelter iu order to the preservation of their lives. I do not think we are liable to the charge of the Hon. Gentleman, of having been tardy in carrying that Bill through this House. The Bill was introduced and read a first time on the 22d of April, that was immediately before the Easter holi days. It was read a second time after the recess— namely, on the 2d of May; and it was read a third time and passed on the Bth of May. That does not show much want of dispatch. I very much regret to say that the views which this House took of that Bill, and the views which were sanctioned by this House, were not adopted by the House of Lords. When this Bill came back to this House it appeared to me to be a Bill not only not making the law at all better than it now is, but in some respects making it worse—(Hear, hear)—and we could not therefore agree to the amendments. Thu Bill has gone back to the House of Lords, and I trust they will take the view which this House has taken on the subject, and that there may be a remedy such as the law very afflicting cases. The Hon. Gentleman his remedies for the present proceeded these with er state of Ireland. Now , Sir , I will not at the present c an afford moment say—though I may afterwards make some obser vations on that subject—l will not say whether or not it might be possible at this moment to go into the consi deration of all these various remedies ; but I will stato what it is that the Hon. Gentleman thinks necessary for the people of Ireland in order to better their social and political condition. Tho Hon. Gentleman thinks it is necessary to have additional Members for Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) Well, now, Sir, I do not deny that there may come a time when it may be desirable that additional Members may be allowed to Ireland, in place of some of those boroughs which this House may think it right to disfranchise. But I do say that I do not think this is the time to talk of that sub ject. I do not find that attention of the Irish Members (A laugh) as would induce me to think that we should increase the legislative talent and industry of the country by adding to the Members for Ireland.— (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Honorable Gentleman next says that there ought to be a measure for registra tion. I have already stated that I intend to introduce a Bill on this subject, and that I think there would be no loss of time if this Bill should be proceeded with in the next session. The Honourable Gentleman wishes to have some additional measure with regard to corporations. For several years I contended in this House that it was right to have the corporations in Ireland on the same footing that we have the corporations in England. I think there was a great deal to be said on the other side of the question. It was predicted that those reformed corporations, instead of attending to the local affairs of their own city or borough, would become violent political bodies, and that in some cases they would add to and aid any disaffection that might prevail in the country, rather than curb and control it by their municipal and magis terial powers. Sir, there was great weight in that objec tion; but at the same time I was of opinion, and am still of opinion, that municipal institutions, and corporations elected by the people, are a great benefit to the people— that they are of great benefit in England and Scotland, and that it would produce just and well-founded discontent if we were to refuse to Ireland that which we consider necessary for England and Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) I therefore should have no objection, generally speaking, to the extension of the franchise in those cor porations, in the same manner that it is extended in England. There are some of the powers which the cor porations in England possess which were very doubtful in themselves ; and I have determined to hesitate in granting in any new Bill those powers to Irish corpora tions. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to grand juries. Well, with respect to the grand jury law, that again was a subject that occupied the attention of Lord Cla rendon; but such has been the business of this House, that we have not yet been enabled, seeing that there was no chance of carrying it, to introduce a Bill on that subject. I quite agree with the Honourable Gentleman that the subject is of the greatest importance, for I can conceive nothing that would be more useful to It eland than to have good local bodies iu her counties, who would promote the making of roads and improve inents, and who would be careful in the expenditure of the rates that might be levied for the support of the counties. I think that large powers ought to be granted to counties iu that respect. The Hon. Gentleman alluded to his Landlord a nd Tenant Bill, of which I have spoken. He alluded likewise to a Waste Lands Bill. Now, Sir, I introduced a Waste Lands Bill into this House, which gave great compulsory powers. We after wards abandoned that 13i11, but, at the same time, we added half a million to the sum given for the improve ' ment of land by the landlords, which improvement in eluded the reclamation of wastes. I think that such a measure, at all events, was rightly introduced before we brought forward any compulsory measure. There were fears that a compulsory measure would create difficulty, and that there would be objections of an economical na ture with regard to the expenditure by Government for the purpose of reclaiming; and beginning the cultivation of wastes. The Hon. Gentleman has alluded to as sistance being given to railways. We had a very considerable measure introduced by my Noble Friend the Member for the West Riding (Lord Morpeth) when. he was Secretary for Ireland, but which certainly did not meet with any great encouragement in this House. We last year proposed a vote of a consider able amount for a loan to one of the railway companies in Ireland, which was approved of by this House, but which met with considerable opposition. But, in order to introduce any measure of that kind, we ought certainly to have a more flourishing state of the finances than we can boast of at the present moment. Ido not think we ought to incur so large an expenditure as would be necessary, without such a surplus balance at the Exchequer as would justify us in taking that course. Now, Sir, with regard to measures for Ireland, I might say that they might be divided into three classes—social, political, and religious. With regard to measures bear ing upon the social condition of the people, we have in troduced and carried into effect the poor-law, by which a vast number of people have been fed during the pre sent year. We have likewise introduced a measure for the sale of incurnbered estates, which, although it will not have an immediate operation, as the Hon. Gentle man says, will, I believe, in time, be the foundation of great social changes. I can conceive nothing more mis chievous than an estate being ineumbered in such a manner that no person can properly perform the duties of landlord, and when the nominal landlord receives so small a sum of rental that it is impossible that he can give anything for the improvement of the land, and where his interest in the land is so nominal and so doubtful that he does not feel himself bound by an obligation of a real and permanent character. I trust that these great evils will meet with some correcion from the Bill which we have introduced. With respect to political measures, thete is the question of the fran chise, upon which we introduced a measure which some think will meet the wishes of many who seek to extend the suffrage. Then there is the question, which I admit is a most difficult one, which relates to the religious and ecclesiatical position of Ireland, and upon which, as the Hon. Gentleman says, I have myself taken a prominent part. I allude to the position of the Established Church in Ireland, as being the church to which only a minority of the people belong, hut which has all the revenues that are recognised and acknowledged by the State as belong ing to the Church. That state of things is far from sa tisfactory.—(Cheers.) No one can deny that the ap propriation of the whole revenue which the State al lows and recognises as the revenue of an Estab lished Church to a sma ll p ro p or ti on of the people .is itself an anomaly and a grievance.—(Cheers.) But,Sir, if I look to the subject to consider the remedy that c an b e a d opte d , 1 find the difficulties in the way almo s t i nsurmounta b le. T e measure that I proposed was, that a portion of the revenues of the Established Church should be devoted to the education of the people of every class and creed. With respect to that measure, if it had been a d o pt e d a t th a t ti me , I think it would have given great satisfaction; but when it was refused, and refused more than once, the position was entirely altered. The Protestants felt that it would be a great grievance to have any portion of the revenues of their church separated from the purposes of that church, and they considered that the separation of that portion would lead to the abolition of the whole esta blishment. Those who, on the other hand, considered that the Church Establishment was a grievance —not see ing this measure carried into effect at once, would not be satisfied with less than the abolition of the entire Pro testant Establishment. On such consideration, it was useless to attempt to advance that measure. It would have been almost impossible to have curried it, and if it had been carried, it would not have produced the effect originally intended. Well, then, Sir, should we adopt a measure such as that which was proposed by the Hon. Member for Manchester fur the abolition of the Protes tant Church Establishment? For my own part, I be. lieve that the Protestants of Ireland, living in a country where a church establishment is encouraged, have a fair claim to have a church establishment of their own, and have a fair claim that their establishment should be ac knowledged by the State. Diminished as the tithes have been—diminished as the property of the Church has been by the abolition of church-rates, taking the Protestants of Ireland at somewhere about a million— Air. B. OSBORNE—Seven hundred and fifty thou sand. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Taking the Protestants as near a million, I do not believe that there is any great excess allotted to that portion of the people. Are there not other reasons why we should not proceed to the abolition of that establishment? I can well understand men who are of what is called the voluntary principle, who think the whole Established Church of Ecgland an abuse—who think the church establishment au abuse, and that the American principle is the true principle to be adopted. I can well understand that they should de mand the instant abolition of the Church in Ireland. But for myself, I;do not, because I have repeatedly expressed in this House that I consider a church establishment a wise institution for the country. I believe that where it is properly devoted to the purposes intended, the church establishment is a blessing to the people among whom it exists. Nor, Sir, can I see that there would be any ad vantage in doing with the rest of the tithes that which we have already done with 2a per cent. of them. Well, then, Sir, there arises this other ques tion, whether having the Church established for the Protestants, whether, existing as it does at the present moment, you have any other estab lishment to which the great majority of the people of Ireland belong. Every one is aware of the difficulty that besets this que st i on . E ver y one i s aware not merely of the difficulty which exists in the strong feelings of a great portion of th e peop l e o f E ng l an d an d Scotland, which, in my opiniok would be no bar, and ought to be no bar to the establishment, to the endow ment of the Roman Catholic Church, if it were thought desirable fur Ireland; but eve r y one must ac k now l e d g e that there are pract ical difficulties which show clearly that the people of Ireland generally are against such endowment. We have seen the Roman Catholic clergy denounce any attempt to endow the Roman Catholic Church, as an attempt to bribe the clergy from the cause of the people. I feel quite sure that it we declared in favour of any such proposal, i t wou ld b e sa id th a t w e should be giving an establishment to the majority as well as the minority, for the purpose of seducing the clergy of Ireland from their flocks, and bribe them into service of the state. These are the difficulties of this question—partly . ecclesiasti ca l an d p art ly re li g i ous . It forms a difficulty in the state of Ireland which, unhappily, Mr. Pitt did not attempt to cope with when he framed the Act of Union. It is, however, a difficulty with which some Government and some Parliament or other of this country must cope; but I must deprecate any attempt to encounter that difficulty unless circum stances be favourable to the success of the measure that may be proposed. I think it would be exciting great religious animosity, and giving an occasion to attack the religion of a great portion of the population of these islands—giving occasion to excite; one man against an other on the ground of difference of religious opinion; and I think the giving of such an occasion would be a very serious fault—if it were not a crime—on the part of any Government, unless they could see that, although that temporary evil might be caused, yet some great ul timate benefit would be secured. I, therefore, Sir, leave this subject—not denying it s i m p ortance — no t d e nying that it is a question involving a grievance, but pointing out its immense difficulties, and declaring that the ques tion ought not again to be encountered unless there is a prospect of a solution of this difficult problem. The Honourable Gentleman who has made this motion asks us to go now into the consideration of these various questions. He asks you for the speedy enact ssthmeaybe necessary to improve grievances, and to establish people. Sir, the Hon. Gentleman with great candour, is much mis ttinwhhheeenoCrtiosgopnhfodktsistueico,ohtln.lmhtoeusrltersdisarhye, measures as mis taken if he thinks that it is from any wish of ours that measures which he thinks calculated to redress grie vances have been withheld. Nothing would tend more to their ease, nothing would more gratify the Govern ment, than being able to bring their measures, die after another, under the consideration of Parliament. It is surely not the Government, therefore, who can be ac cused of delaying the various measures which the Hon. Gentleman thinks necessary, or which we think neces sary for the good of Ireland. But I think no one ca n have attended to the debates of this session, or any late session of Parliament, without observing the difficulties there arc in the way of carrying any series of measures into effect. There was a subject of great importance, as connected with the navigation and manufactures of this countr y , and the commerce of the whole United Kin g dom, which we proposed this year, relating to the navigation laws. We were unable to go on with that measure in conse quence of the lengthy debates which have taken place. I cannot promise that I shall have any influence in changing the rules of this House, by which long and protracted debates and discussions would be avoided. 1 cannot promise any great influence in making any great change in that respect. As long as that habit of pro tracting discussions lasts, Ireland must take her share with the rest of the United Kingdom in the delay which may happen in the postponement of measures which are of very great importance. It is not, I feel confident, any indisposition on the part of the Government, or any indisposition on the part of a majority in this House, to consider such measures as may tend to the welfare of Ireland. If the representatives of Ireland in a body were once to demand the enactment of certain measures—if those measures would tend to the benefit of Ireland—l believe those measures would be as readily considered and as soon adopted as any measure that could be proposed for the consideration of Parliament. But whatever those measures may be, let me conclude as I began by stating, that the grievances of Ireland were not grievances of recent date — no t caused b y enact m ents of the last few years, or the neg lect of enactments in the last few years. Their principal characteristic is social, but there are also political and religious grievances which are of long standing, and ca nnot easily. or rapidly be removed. I trust that that want of rapid and easy redress will not be imputed as a fault to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, any more than it was when there was a special Parliament in Ireland. I believe that we have som e a d va ntage over a Parliament sitting in Ireland for redress of grievances, especially affecting Ireland, be cause wo must always recollect that in Ireland there is not that clear and undisputed path which, in the opinion of the majority of the representatives of Ireland wou ld lead to prosperity and happiness. On the contrary, such is the division of opinion, that I do think it is useful very often that violent asperities should be soothed by_those persons who have not mingled with party politics and religious differences in that part of the 'lrked Kingdom, All, however, that I can ask the House is, not to assent to the impossible task laid before us by the Bon. Gentleman, but to proceed calmly and gradually to the amendment of any grievances that affect the people of Ireland, and, abcve all, to be per suaded that it is by the peaceable method of discussion and Parliamentary redress that those grievances are to be treated, and that the resort to arms and to rebellion can but lead to aegravated misfortunes for that country; that the resources of Ireland, great as they are, would speedily be squandered and dissipated in civil warfare, and that we should look to the maintenance of the au thority of the law to enable the industrious and peace able in Ireland, under this free constitution, to advance in happiness and prosperity.—(Cheers.) Mr. H. HERBERT said that it was not so much the want of remedial measures that Ireland had to complain of, as that measures had not been introduced concomi tantly so as to help each other. For instance, he locked upon the poor-law as a most admirable measure, but then with it should have been introduced measures for the cultivation of waste lands, in order to give employnanit to the poor. He regretted that the Incumbered Es- ' tates Bill, a valuable measure, had not been introduced together with the poor-law. But he at once admitted that too much might be expected from legislation. Would ,legislation make the tyrant landlord just um' humane, the idle tenant industrious and honest? Would legislation make every man in the country feel that he ought to do his duty in the station iu which God had placed him? He thought a more arrant delusion was never entertained. Ile asked those who wished to throw the responsibility of delay on the Legislature to con sider whether there might not be a divided responsibi lity—a responsibility on those who obstructed the laws, as well as on those who made the laws. He believed that any legislation in a couatry so torn by agitation as Ireland, must partially fail. The great object in his opinion was, that the leaders of the people of Ireland should have the moral courage to speak the truth. He could not conclude without expressing his satisfaction that the priesthood of Ireland should have generally set a good example to their flocks, and stood forward as the defenders of public order. Considering their condition, Isis wonder was, not that many of them were disaffected, and the enemies of this country, but that there should be amongst them one loyal subject. • Mr. FAGAN attributed the evils of Ireland to defec tive and vicious legislation. It was in consequence of legislation of that kind that the maxim of the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, aide-toi a is ciel t'aideru, would not apply in that country. He re gretted that the Hon. Member for Kerry had introduced ' the name of the late Mr. O'Connell as he had done. Were it nut for his agitation and his exertions there would be no Roman Catholics in that House now.— (lien, hear.) He did not feel satisfied with the speech of the Noble Lord. It would not be a messenger of peace to Ireland. It held out no hope. It seemed to him as if the Noble Lord was averse from carrying out any of those measures which lie said were necessary for the amelioration of Ireland. The whole public must re collect the way Ireland was treated as regarded the Mu nicipal Reform Act. For five or six years Parliament was agitated by discussions about that Bill, and at length it was given to them in a stunted form, just as a bone would be thrown to a hungry dog. They bad had com mission after commission on the subject oflreland, and yet scarcely one of the measures they advised had been adopted. What he asked now wise, were the people to die? Was there to be no attempt to remedy their condition? It was said that a great share of the evils of Ireland was attributable to the inclinations of her people. What was time meaning of this? If they looked abroad, they fount! Irishmen holding the greatest offices, to which they had risen by their energy, industry, and talent. The evil of Ireland,ugiitt to to b do to ci u promote its mglmprovement.jon. ) ee); in his opinion, lay in the soil. All their energi es ought to give Irish A..e.nbers some control over the House in the administration of Irish affair!. d o Mr. MONSELL would not go into the question whe thersomething the moment selected for bringing forward this motion was the most judicious that could have been selected—(Hear, hear) —but as the motion was before the House, with the feeling he had of the miserable condition of Ireland, he could not do otherwise than sup port it. lie did not believe that there was a Member of the House, English, Irish, or Scotch, otherwise than disposed to promote any sound remedy which might be proposed for those .evils which undeniably weighed down Ireland, and in weighing dov,ai Ireland weighed heavily upon England. It was an admitted maxim, that no national discontent ever manifested itself unless • where there was national physical suffering. It was needless fur him to expatiate upon the wretchedness of the Irish people; that misery was already too notorious, and until some effectual remedy was applied, that misery would continue, in one-fourth of the counties of Ire land the rating to the relief of the poor was not less on the average than lis. a head of the population, whereas in Dorset, one of the most pauperised counties of Eng land, the proportion was not wore than 4s. 8d . He did not mean to say that legislation alone would effect this remedy, but he would say that without legislation the remedy could not be effectual. One of the chief means of removing the social evils of Ireland, would be found to consist in a comprehensive system of emigration; and he considered, further, that the measure for the relief of incumbered estates would be productive of much good. In relation to political evils, he would demand from the Government the speediest possible settlement, in a popular sense, of the elective franchise in Ireland, and, still more, the establishment of religious equality there. Mr. B. OSBORNE looked upon the question before the House as a great national one, and as such he would treat it. The Parliament began in November, with promising good measures for Ireland, and yet all it had achieved was a coercive Bill, and another for the sus pension of the I; abeas Corpus Act. It was a remark able fact, that on tho very day on which they we-re now debating, the House of Comteons was engaged, 45 years ago,in suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. And what had been done during these forty-five years ? Nothing. He very much feared that the people of Ire land were right when they said they expected nothing from the Imperial Parliament. Ile did not mean the Young Ireland party, but those fairly entitled to rank as the Irish people. The milk-and-water proposals of the Noble Lord would never satisfy the nation. How did it happen, after six hundred years of dominion over Ireland, that she was still in a state of smothered war ? It was said that Irish grievances were not remedied, be cause she never care belore the Parliament in a proper manner. Was Ireland, then, always to he an humble suppliant for justice ? Every concession that had been maue to Ireland had been extorted by fear. Nothing had ever been done to arouse the gratitude of Ireland. What had been the game of England towards the Ro man Catholics there ? In 1799 England cajoled them. In 1801 England deceived them. in 1803 they were discarded. What was the language of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1829 ? " Some thing must be done." What was the language of the present Premier in 1844 ? " Ireland is oc cupied and not governed." So it is now under the Noble ( Lord. Was not Ireland as truly occupied and not governed in 1848 as in 1844 ? Ile was sick and tired of such an imbecile Government, the end of which would seem to be either civil war or the repeal of the union. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had, in his speech that evening, seemed to say that there was only one party to whom Ireland presented an insuperable difficulty. Ireland was the bugbear of time Right Hon. Baronet, and nothing was to be done until the Noble Lord was seated on the Treasury bench. The Irish were lcd to look upon the Noble Lord as a second St. Patrick. The poor people of Ireland had hardly expected to find the Noble Lord in the situation of the "Bottle Conjuror." They expected the Noble Lord to fulfil his promises. They were enraged to find [fiat instead of creeping into his bottle ho had only crept into office. The Noble Lord ejected the Right Hon. Baronet on the Coercion Bill, and all present would doubtless remember the promises made by the then Minister in posse, and be able to compare them with the per formances of the Minister in esse. The people of Ireland, however, had long memories, and they looked for the completion of the promi se Lord. On the 15th of June, taunted the Right lion. Baronet with having brought in • n ied by any ameliorative promises h 4 e 6 l , d theou t by the Noble Lord a Coercion Bill, unaccompanied measures. What had been the course of the Noble Lord andae d his a u colleagues?abas Corpus i tdwuoritClgoethrce present eß se il n is t session. And what did he hold out now? The Chan cellor of the Exchequer tal ked of " self-reliance," and the Noble Lord recommen ded them to look forward to tranqu illity and onward progress , as the only ameliora tions to be expected. Bu t were these the proper lehad Suspensionpa" Act ed com pletion of the promises made by the present Govern ment? The members of the Noble Lord's Ministry had volunteered a pledge to place the Irish people on an equality, as between the Catholic and the Protestant Churches. But this was when they were out of offiee. Ile would not say one word against the Protestant clergymen in Ireland. The representatives of Ireland had been told that their apathy was the reason why no thing had been done towards piecing the Roman Ca tholic and Protestant Churches in Ireland on a more equal footing. This question was the cause of all the difficulties and discord that prevailed in Ireland, and until the canker was cut away from the root they would never cease. There never had been witnessed in any country such a system as that which had pre vailed in Ireland with respect to the Protestant Church. There were twelve Protestent bishops kept up in that country endowed with little short of 70,000/. a year, and all the while it was forgotten that there was such a thing existing in Ireland as a population of 8,000,000 Roman Catholics. It was true th at C at h o li c pr i ests were allowed to officiate as chaplai ns i n gaols, b ut they were left to wring the pittance necessary for their support from the poorest cottiers. When the Noble Lord talked of "gradual progress",in Ireland, what did he mean to do with the Church establishment there? If he l(Mr. B. Osborne) did not agree in what the lion. Member for Manchester had said, it was because he did not think the plan was ripe for execution. The defence made by the magnates and bishops of the Irish Church for their large benefices and incomes was, that if the whole sum re ceived by them were spread over the Church there, not a single clergyman would receive more than 200/. a year. That was true, but the country had a right to inquire whether Protestant cler • e were wanted gym n in Ireland. And when the lion. Member for Limerick asserted that the people of England were not prepared to do away with the Irish Church, he would tell him that he (Mr. B. Osborne) was ready to go to the hustings on that question, quite sure that the electors of Middlesex would not turn him out upon it, The Noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forest, when Secretary for Ireland, had defined the Protestant Church there to be a mass of livings without cures of souls, and a large amount of pay without any work, and the Hon. Mem ber for Manchester had only borrowed the Noble Lord's thunder in saying what he did on a former evening on this subject. How had the Roman Catholics been trusted by the Government in respect to grants of public money ? By a return which he held in his han d, he found that from the year 1800 to 1842, the P ro t e s tan t Church in Ireland had received from the p u bl ic p ur se , the fern of 2,075,4604 The Protestant Dissenters in Leland had received 1,019,000/. during that period ; whilst the Roman Catholics had received 365,611/. And this was what they called putting all religious creeds on an equality. It was idle to talk of Pro testant ascendancy having been put down in Ire land. The shadow was removed ; the substance still remained. By the same return he found that there were forty-one Protestant benefices in Ireland in which not a Protestant was to be found ; there were ninety•nine in which there were less than twenty Protestants in each ; and there were 124 benefices in which the number ofPro testants ranged from twenty to fifty, but slid not exceed the latter amount. If such a state of things had been observed by the people of England to prevail in any other nation of Europe there would have been only one opinion as to its injustice and impolicy ; but they were fami liarised to its existence in Ireland and forgot its wicked ness. Ile might be asked what he proposed to substitute for the present state of the Irish Church. He would answer, that if the Government desired to work a cure, and do real good in Ireland, they would alter the present territorial system of the Protestant Church to the con gregational system. The territorial system parcelled out the whole land in districts, and gave clergymen and hiehops to them, whether they contained any Protestants or nour.—(Hear, hear.) Such a system might be very applicable to a country where there was only one prevailing religion ; but it could not be fairly enforced amongst a people whose religion was op posed to that so enforced. The congregational system, that paid each clergyman according to the wants of the district, was the only proper mode of maintaining the Protestant religion in Ireland. Strange to say, that system had been proposed by a member of the Right Hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Peel's) former Government. When the Noble Lord below him (Morpeth) proposed in the year 1835 to sequester all the livings in Ireland where there were not fifty Protestants to be found, Mr. Bingham Baring, the present Lord Ashburton, proposed to have recourse to the congregational system, and that proposition was received by the lion. Member for Mon trose with satisfaction, and by the Noble Lord (John Russell) with praise; only, said the Noble Lord, " the time has not yet arrived for it to be carried into prac tice." Well, they were now arrived at the year 1848, and yet, according to the Noble Lord, the time had not arrived. But he (Mr. B. Osborne) would tell the Noble Lord that had Mr. Bingham Baring's plan been put in practice in 1835, there would have been perfect content merit existing throughout Ireland on this subject at the present time. He would propose also, that the eccle siastical tenths, together with all existing rent-charge in Ireland, should be disposed of, reserving life i.e to rests, and the proceeds invested in the fund', to con stitute the sources of endowment of the ministers of the Protestant Church there. The glebes he would convert into money in the same way, and the lands of the bishops and archbishops he would also sell, reserving all existing life interests, and invest the proceeds in the funds, as al ready stated. He saw no difficulty whatever in carrying out this plan, whatever the Noble Lord might say to the contrary. There was one thing more wanted to effect perfect equality between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant—that was the removal of the Irish bishops from the House of Lords. A change in this respect would nut only be useful as conducing to equality, but it would afford an opportunity of reducing tno incomes of the Irish episcopal body.—(Hear.) The surplus revenues of the Irish Church he would appropriate as Lord Mel bourne proposed in 1835, viz., pay them over to the con solidated fund, which would take away all ground for jealousy. Certain it was that until this question of the Irish Church was settled they could not hope fon perma nent tranquillity in Ireland. This was the opinion ex pressed by 29 members of the present Government, in cluding eight Cabinet Ministers, expressed by their votes or speeches on Mr. Ward's motion, in 1843 and 1844. The present state of the University of Dublin was another ground of complaint. There could be no equality in Ireland while Roman Catholics were excluded from fellowships and the other honours of that University. —(Hear, hear.) Although without the settlement of the Irish Church question Ireland could nut be tran quillised, he did not mean to say that that alone would be sufficient. No patchwork system of legislation would be of use for that country. It was of no use coming down with an Incumbered Estates Bill, which as now altered would not work, and expect that the difficulties of governing Ireland would be solved.—(Hear, hear.) Such patchwork legislation was merely furnishing an argument for repeal. Another subject of great import • time was that referred to in the address of 1845—the improvement of the condition of the industrious classes, anti the development of the resources of Ireland. At this time one-third of the population of Ireland were absolutely paupers. He admitted they had passed a poor-law for Ireland, and he lamented such a law was not passed a century ago; but there was one point which should have been thought ot, viz., the capacity of the country, in relation to its property, to bear a poor-law: that was how far the property of the country could bear the burden of its poverty? Looking at the whole rateable value of Ireland, and comparing it with the poverty, it was ob vious that a poor- law and nothing else was mere patch work legislation. What were they to do with 2,500,000 of the working people out of work, out of a population of 8,000,000, and the majority of the young men of the middle and upper classes without professions? The only way of meeting this evil was by some such plan as that advocated by Sir W. Molesworth—a systematic scheme of colonisation. He believed it would be a cheap expen diture if they withdrew the army from Ireland, and laid out the money it cost in this way. Then, as to the Go vernment of Ireland, the union, as they all knew, was a one-sided bargain, and the whole system of Irish go vernment under it had broke down. There was no set tled system. The Government consisted of a mock sove reign, a Brummagem court, and a Pinchbeck executive. There was a Lord-Lieutenannwho as soon as he knew his business and could do his work well, was removed (as in the case of Lord Normanby) and a new Lord-Lieutenant was sent over, who held peculiar views on the subject of national education ; and, using the church patronage, which was the chief patronage of his office, to suit those views, he appointed a set of bishops, whose language would better become dragoons than clergy men, and who declared that the national education sys tem was a devil's system.--(Hear, hear.) Another evil was the Lord-Lieutenant. If they wished to ameliorate the condition of Ireland, they must get rid at once of the Castle of Dublin.—(Hear, hear.) This was the opinion of Lord Monteagle, in 1830, and of Mr. Shaw, the representative of the University, in 1845, who de clared that the highest offices were tilled by strangers, and that that of the Viceroy was nothing better than an empty pageant. The most sensible thing the Govern ment could do in this respect—judging from the appear ance of the iieeretary of State for the Home Depart ment, who seemed to be growing " small by degrees and beautifully less"—would be to appoint a fourth Secre tary of State to manage the affairs of Ireland. Another proposition he had to make—although it might be met with derision by that House —was, that the time had arrived when the English Parliament should hold a session in Dublin—a course which had been recom mended by Lord Clare, who was of opinion that the English Members knew much more of Belgium than they did of Ireland. He had still another suggestion to make, which he probably would be told was uneonstitu ng Lionel. Without meaning to say an character, he must suggest an humble address courseaif such a o to her Majesty to pay an annual visit to I 1 which had been recommended by that great historian and philosopher of his day, Sir J. Davies. No monarch of her race but one—and that one not greatly respected by the English people—had ever visited Rebind, and so e nthusiastic and loyal had be en the rece p tion g iven to him that the people bad his footsteps carved upon a reek. Such visit would, he was sure, go tar to tranquillise the feelings pf the Irish people. lie could not be taunted like her Majesty's Ministers with having proposed no plan. The Noble Lord had rather sarcastically last night, recommended the Irish Members to return to Ireland, at least those of them, ho said, who possessed property and influence. Now ho begged to tell the Noble Lord that it was not those who had property in Ireland who had also influence—(Hear)—and he must tell him, moreover, that the state of things had been brought about by the non-introduction of the measures he had so long promised. If the Noble Lord would pledge himself to those measures, he (Mr. Osborne) would have no objection to go to Ireland; but, until he did, he , would remain in that House and urge upon the Govern ment the absolute necessity of not putting off those measures to " a more convenient season," which, con sidering the present state of affairs in Ireland, might never arrive. —(Hear, hear). Mr. ANSTEY agreed with the Hon. Member for Middlesex in almost everything he said except his de claration that the Established Church was the monster grievance of Ireland. He (Mr. Anstey), as a Roman Catholic, must say that the Romau Catholics of Ireland did not consider the Established Church as the chief grievance of that country, nor indeed any grievance at all. No; the grievances of Ire land were of a social and agrarian nature. He would have contented himself with giving a silent vote on this occasion, but that he might be supposed to agree with the principles laid down by the Honourable Member for Middlesex. He condemned the conduct of the Govern ment in delaying remedial measures for Ireland, while they took but very little time to pass measures to de prive the people of their rights and liberties. The fact was, that at the end of the session the people would have no more evidence of the anxiety of the Govern ment to do justice to Ireland than by their having passed three coercion Bills, which were only rendered necessary by their scandalous legislation with regard to that coun try. He was happy to give his support to the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. On the motion of Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, the de bate was adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow (this day). FARMERS' ESTATE SOCIETY (IREL AND) BILL. On the motion that the House should go into Com mittee on this Bill, Colonel DUNNE made some observations in opposi tion to certain principles contained in the Bill, and ob jected that Hon. Gentlemen had not been furnished with it for a sufficient time to enable them to come to any conclusion on the measure. Sir W. SObIERVILLE hoped that, as the Bill was a most important one, no obstacle would be put in its way. After a few words from Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. GLADSTONE said that this was a Bill which would be most advantageous to Ireland, inasmuch as its tendency was to enable a society to purchase lands and to dispose of them in smaller portions, amounting to 30 acres at the least, admitting no smaller subdivision, and as it contained provisions which rendered it impossible that any mischief should arise from the Bill. There was a precedent for such a society in the existence of the Waste Lands Improvement Society, which had been of great benefit to the people of Ireland, though not to the promoters. LABOUCHERE said, that if the House ap proved of the principle of the Bill, they need not lose time by discussing the details, seeing that they would be amply attended to by the Committee. Be should support it with full confidence that its provisions would most, ctirefully utt.;:lided to by the Committee up stairs. Mr. REYNOLDS supported the Bill as a step in the right direction; but he should have been better pleased if the minimum quantity of land had been placed at a lower figure. 'Thirty acres were too much; in his opinion ten acres should be the minimum quantity of land purchaseable under the Bill. Mr. HENLEY objected to the haste with which the measure was being pressed through the House. He thought it not unreasonable to ask for twenty-four hours' delay, so that Hon. Members might have an opportunity of reading the Bill. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL defended the course taken by the Select Committee in transferring this Bill from the private to the public business of the House. He supported it, as tending to increase the number of small landed proprietors in Ireland, and thus to increase the socurities for the preservation of law and order. Mr. R. PALMER deprecated haste, and approved of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Oxford shire. Mr. MONSELL supported the Bill. Its object was merely to open a retail shop for laud, so as to enablo persons of small capital to obtain freeholds, a thing which it was, at present, almost impossible to do in Ireland. After some further conversation the House went into Committee pro forma, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. BRITISH SPIRITS WAREHOUSING BILL. The House went into Committee pro forma on this Bill. Some amendments were added by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after a short discussion the Bill was ordered to be reprinted. PUBLIC WORKS IRELAND (No. 2) BILL. On the motion fbr the third reading, Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY objected — to the Bill, because it assumed that 954,000/. would be received from Ireland and took from the House all control over that money. After past experience of the way in which money had been spent on public works in Ireland, he was opposed to any more being voted. Dr - . BO WRING also opposed the Bill. Colonel BLACKALL said it was only lending the Irish people their own money back again. Mr. STAFFORD opposed the Bill. The opposition was not pressed to a division, and the Bill was read a third time. CHANCERY FEES. On the motion of tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL, leave was given to bring in a Bill to alter the mode of collecting certain fees payable in the High Court of Chancery in England, and to collect the same by means of stamps. ASSESSIONABLE MANORS. On the motion of Lord MORPETH, leave was given to bring in a Bill to confirm the awards of Asseasionahle Manors Commissioners in the Duchy of Cornwall. STEAM-BOATS ON THE THAMES. On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the purpose of regulating steam-boats on the Thames. The House adjourned at a Quarter to Two. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE OF FRIDAY. CAMBRIDGE -HOUSE, JULY 27, 1848. The Duke of Cambridge has been pleased to appoint the Reverend William Burton Dynham, M.A., to be one of his Royal Highness's Domestic Chaplains. Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of Southampton. Sir Henry Bouverie Paulet Mildmay, Bart., to be Deputy-Lieutenant, July 18. ADMIRALTY, JULY 25. _ _ _ Corps of Royal Marines—Gentleman Cadet William Richard Jeffreys to be Second Lieutenant ; Gentleman Cadet George Dare Dowell to be Second Lieutenant. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. Edward Bailey, upholsterer, Blount -street, Grosvenor square. Thomas Cooper, baker, Tottenham-court-road. BANKRUPTS. Frederick Saldorf, merchant, Plymouth, to surrender Aug. 8 and Sept. 9, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, Aldermanbury; Hindman and Co., Basinghail-street. Thomas Spring, grocer, Bristol, August 10, and Sep tember 21, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol; Ayre, Bristol; Boykett, Chancery - lane. Francis James Ferns, stock-broker, Liverpool, Aug. 15 and Sept. 8, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool; Keightley and Co., Chancery-lane • Holden, Liverpool. Thomas Gilb er t son , dour dealer, Birkenhead, Aug, 15 and Sept. 8, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Cazenove, official assignee, Liverpool • Mallaby and Townsheud, Liverp oo l ; Ch ester and do., Staples-inns London. DIVIDENDS. At the Court, Basinghall-street. F. Ricketts, Moorgate- street, City, merchant, Aug. 19, at eleven—J. Warmington, Tottenham, Middlesex, coal merchant, Aug. 18, at twelve, In the Country. H. W. Dermal, Bisley, Gloucestershire, grocer, Aug -22, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol. PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS. J. Price, Birmingham, jeweller, fifth dividend of lid.. any Thursday, between the hours of eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Christie, Birmingham. R. Cotsworth, Kingston-upon-Hull, joiner, first divi dend of 45., Tuesday, Aug. 1, or any subsequent Tues day, between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hope, Leeds, W. Hardwick, Leeds, auctioneer, second dividend of 3s. 4d., on Tuesday Aug. 1, or any subsequent Tuesday, between the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hope, Leeds. NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES. At the Court, Basinghall-street. V. H. Hallpike, Cromer•street, Gray's Inn , road, pianoforte maker, Aug. 18, at half-past eleven—J. B. Swan, Brentwocd, Essex, innkeeper Aug. 19, at half past twelve. In the Country. C. Radenhurst, Birmingham, eatinghousekeeper, Aug , 22, at eleven, at the Court, Birmingham—J. Adams, Longton, Staffordshire, earthenware manufacturer, Aug -29, at eleven, at the Court, Birmingham—S. Pratt, Co' ventry, licensed victualler, Aug. 29, at eleven, at the Court, Birmingham. At the Court of Review, Aug. 18. J. Strange, Abingdon, Berkshire, wine merchant—J. S. Stopfurd, Austinfriars, City merchant—E. Wells, jun., Myddelton-place, Sadler's-wells licensed victualler —J. Birch, Liverpool, grocer—J. W. Busat, Bilstou, Staffordshire, innkeeper—W. J. Joyner, Aveley-hall Farm,__ Essex, manufacturer of agricultural mac hi nes - - H. W. Hughes, 111arylebone•street, Regent-street, plumber and glazier—W. Gribbon, Leeds, glass and china dealer I). J. Oster, and J. G. Elster, Threadneedle -street, City, merchants—W. H. Pease, Ingram-court, Fenchurch street, and Lime-street, City, wine merchants. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. W. Dicks and W. Rawlins, Yeovil, leath er -d res sers and glove manufacturers—S. Preece and B. Manning, Kidderminster, tailors--R. Bach and J. Frith, Birming ham, engineers and machinists—J Deacon and J. er• Bragg, Exeter, coal dealers-4. Wood and H. Wood , Wednesbury, Staffordshire, coach smiths—W. Troutbeck and J. B. Troutbeck, Liverpool —W. Ainger and K. Ainger, Basing-lane, Manchester warehousemen—G. T• Short and H. Norrington, Southampton, ironmongers-7 - N. Kennett an d E . Cottew, Shoreditch, ;cliemists and druggists—S. Meldola, D. Cahn, and G. Anderson, CI" mouide-street, printers and publishers (so far as reg ards D. Cahn)—F. Coker and W. Coker, Northwold, Nor folk, millers—W. Everest, G. White, C. Hanslip, and W. T. M ann i ng , Hatton-garden and Epsom, attorneys and solicitors (so far as regards C. Hanslip and %V. T. Manning) —S. Hodgson and R. Mootham, Water-lane, City, Custom-house agents—G. H. Saylor and C. r• Hunter, Scarborough, Yorkshire, jewellers—E. P. Jones, R. L. Williams, and W. Williams, Liverpool, lime burners and brick makers—H. Swift and J. Rhodes, Oldham, sewing cotton manufacturers—J. Hall and J. P. Morgan, Hereford, grocers—S. Solomon and J. Solo mon, Bristol, tailors and drapers—F. M. Metcalfe and J. Bingley, Oxford-street, brush - manufacturers- 7 -J. Carter and J. Byrne, Liverpool, shipbrokers--I. G. Da Costa and A. G. Da Costa, Great St. Helen's, City,merchants• INSOLVENT PETITIONERS. R. Bedford, Aberustruth, Monmouthshire, retailer of beer. J. Styles, Pontypool, Monmouthshire, cooper. W. Humphrey, Chipping Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, butcher. J. Q. Potts, Folkstone. J. Smith, Northleach, Gloucestershire, cabinet maker. J. Taylor, Wordsley, Staffordshire, lodging-house keeper. N. D. Jukes, Shaftesbury, Dorsetahire, shopkeeper. S. Hooton, Preston, Lancashire, cabinet maker. S. W. Woodward, Birmingham, dealer in china. W. J. H. Goldring, Coal-yard, Drury-lane, coach maker. B. Burman, Oundel, Northamptonshire, rope maker. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. J. Caldwell, Auchans, Renfrewshire, farmer, to meet within the Saracen's Head, Paisley, Aug. 2 and Aug. 22, at one. P. Garland, Burntisland, grocer, to meet within the Forth Hotel, Burntisland, Aug. 3 and Aug. 24, at one. J. Outram, Glasgow, commission merchant, to meet within th© Globe Inn and Hotel, Glasgow, Aug. 4 any' Aug. 25, at one. PRICE OF SUGAR. The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed from the returns made in the week ending July 25 ' 1848, is 235. B%d. per cwt. ItIRTEIB. On the 24th inst. at Mulgrave Castle, the Countess o f Mulgrave, of a d aug hter, stillborn. At Reading, Berks, on the 23d inst., the lady of Lieutenant . Colonel Lester, Bombay Artillery, of a son. On the 25th inst., at Woburn-square, the wife of a f" Norton, Esq., of a daughter. On the 25th inst., at Dover, the wife of Major Smart, of 5 daughter. MARRIED. On the 25th inst., at St. John's Church, Cardiff, Frederic Bull, Esq., Captain 52d Light Infantry, to Eleanor Lockhart, only child of the late Rev. J. Williams, rector of St. AP . drews', Glamorganshire. A• On the 27th inst., at Trinity Church, Gray's Inn-road , Roots, Esq., of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-law, to VI II ' eldest daughter of W. Stephens, Esq., of Bedford-row. blEh. On the 25th inst.. at Holloway Court, near Rochester, Captain W. H. Roberts, late of the Royal Engineers, aged 32 " On the 25th inst., in London, W. Cunningham, Esq., late of Dromona, county of Antrim, aged 56. On the 25th inst., Mr. R. H. Browne, of Hackney, aged 3 9 ' On the 26th inst., at Bury St. Edmund's, aged 9° Susanna, relict of the late T. Mills, Esq., of Ss-sham-WA Suffolk. At Weeping-cross, on the 26th inst., aged 30, Cordelia Astley, widow of the late J. Ainslie, Esq., of Hunting don, East Lothian. At Kirby Misperton Rectory, Yorkshire, on the 26th inst,R. Sympson, Eeq., :aged l'rinted and PoLliA:,;(1 by 11111111)0' YOUNG, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sus Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the ooiml7 if Kiddlusax, Saturday, July 29, 1840. The Fax. hoat "Th don th an to 1 Chitty flits RUOM Net lc Ulan& 'Of Ow Itiow • imanin monk with latitad 'Dam AtOux henry sober • Ater The '_LOl 411111t1 -Ulan Whin acerui Thr fits. tk hatch z. hi s urtaa ' ILA pl the el Inv Th, • irttral Perlei • Zee. 1 •brity Soi . Clove only . that oy • • ; ther *Pr, - ~~~k; ~;~ -2 1 ,46 ration the X Drew; Than Th 4 the et c T The Perim Ithers and tt Dr. B 1 *haws b4ll: ijatzth Ad 'T by galoor Celest Chthei P 1 E' -r ;; Ais - ar Tbq Pro ..` ;~ Ale 740ral sad . slt In 0 sift this ME; eseL refit thS . tote .11ttit 'Agri Iw, se • 'ink , ell I She • Wig no, ex ,x‘ : I I DI, 4N 1 th