The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-28 00:00:00

all to destruction ;and, availing himself of your courtesy, he comes to your Lordships' bar--he listens to your proceedings —and he marks and measures you as his victims. " Immo vero etiam in senatum venit ; fit publici consilii particeps notlt et designat oculis ad casdem unumquemque nostrum." The person to whom these expressions were applied had at least one redeeming quality. Witness the last scene of his life, so ably and so eloquently described by the Roman his torian. Where he (Lord Lyndhurst) would ask, was this ac cusation made, and under what circumstances ? It was made at a meeting of the inhabitants of Middlesex, where this lawyer, so fond of freedom in institutions, and of his eternal declamations of justice, for the edification of his audience had made the subject of his scurrilous jests the memory of a Mo narch, and almost at the same time with his contemptible fawning, insulted his successor, his present most gracious Majesty.—( Hear, hear.) Such was the man who had assailed him, and under such 'circumstance was the assault made. There was another, and a third, assailant to whom it was ne cessary to refer—one of gentle lineage, of bland aspect, of most amiable manners, but a little too strongly addicted to ultra Whiggism. This, his supposed antagonist, his supposed accuser—for he must allow him (Lord Lyndhurst) to be in doubt upon that subject, and he was sure that ambiguity would be shared by their Lordships—his third accuser had long been a Member of the other House of Parliament. As a Whig, he must have studied the Constitution and the forms of the House of Commons; and as the leader of that House it was his duty particularly to make himself acquainted with those forms and regulations, and with its ordinary and proper course of pro ceeding. Such being then the case, he must have known the importance of supporting the independence of the two branches of the Legislature ; and was it possible that, so cir cumstanced, he could avail himself of the courtesy of their Lordships, come to the bar of their House, listen attentively to words uttered in the heat of debate by Members of that House, could go back to the other House of Parliament, then report, in a manner, what he had heard, and upon that state ment attack and denounce the speaker ?—( Loud cheers.) Was not he, then, dealing justly with the Noble Lord ( Russell) in saying that he was his supposed accuser ? Was he not justi fied in entertaining a doubt upon the subject ?—( Hear, hear.) There was another ground upon which his incredulity rested. He ( Lord Lyndhurst) had long had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament, and he remembered the conduct of the Right Honourable Gentleman who sat in the Chair at that time ; and he well knew that if any Member of the House had then come from the House of • Lords, and reported what he had heard with his own ears, or proceeded to offer any comments upon such statements, he would have been immediately stopped, and called to order.—( Cheers.) But he (Lord Lyndhurst) was speaking of past times.—( Hear, hear.) lie knew also the Right Hon. Gentleman who now occupied that position, and he was proud to say that he enjoyed his friendship. A lawyer by profession, he had for many years occupied the Whig side of the House, and was therefore by necessity well acquainted also with the Constitution, and with the laws of Parliament. Under such circumstances he (Lord Lyndhurst) could not but suppose that that Right Hon. Gentleman would have inter posed, for the .purpose of checking and putting an end to such a violation of Parliamentary law. That, then, was his second reason for his disinclination to believe that the Noble Lord was one of his accusers. But there was another, a third reason. The Noble Lord was Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment, which rendered him in some sort connected with the admi nistration of justice ; ofcoursc therefore he was acquainted with all the principles of that justice, with the administration of which by his office he was connected, and he must most undoubtedly know that the first and fundamental principle of justice was not to put a man on his trial in his absence.—(Cheers.) There fore it was that he could not believe the Noble Lord capable of accusing him in the manner which had been stated in the other House of Parliament.—( Ironical cheers from the Minis terial side.) He was defending the Noble Lord—he was showing to the House pregnant reasons which should induce them to believe that the whole was a fabrication—( Hear, hear) —he would not believe that the Noble Lord would make charges against any individual in his absence, having no means of replying to or explaining those accusations. But he was the more struck with this conduct, because the Noble Lord was the author of a celebrated dramatic work, in which he remembered a passage, wherein one of the characters— (a Doge, as we understood)—boasted of the proceedings of his Court, because they did not suffer even an accusation to go out against any one until they had been heard in their de fence.—( A laugh.) The poetical words. of the Noble Lord were these— " He does not hold his prisoners accused until themselves are heard." (A laugh.) If the Noble Lord wished to make any charges against him, in common courtesy, and according to the rules of Parliament, certainly of their Lordships' House, and, for merly at least, of the other House—( Hear, hear)—he should not have made such charges without communicating his in tention to him, in order that he might have had the opportunity of speaking to some other Member of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Those were the reasons for his incredulity in respect to the Noble Lord, and generally his remarks upon the kind of persons who were his accusers. Now as to the charge it self, what was it ? It was this—that he, as a reason—as the reason for not granting municipal institutions to Ireland, such as bad already been granted to England and Scotland—had stated that the people of Ireland were aliens by descent or aliens in blood—that they were different in language, in habits, and in religion—that they considered the Protestants as invaders of the soil, and that they only desired their ex termination. He ( Lord Lyndhurst) had uttered no such pro position—he had uttered nothing in any way resembling it— nothing which any mon not rosmc,sing- a weak 1111,0k:et Could so have understood and so mis-stated. That he had not used such language was obvious from the conduct of the Noble Lords opposite. The Noble Viscount at the time that those words were said to have fallen from him had made no state ment in :ondemnation of them ; he had remained quiet in his place, and offered no commentary upon what was now called most extraordinary and most unjustifiable.—( Hear.) ThelNoble Marquis also ( Lansdowne) who had taken a very active part in the course of these proceedings, had remained equally silent in his place. It was true some fortnight afterwards, after the scene had taken place in Ireland, and there had been some agi tation amongst the electors for Middlesex, the Noble Marquis had said something about never-to .be-forgotten words. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Two days afterwards. Lord L YNDH UR ST knew that it was some considerable time afterwards that he bad presented the petition during the discussion upon which the Noble Marquis had alluded to these words ; and the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) only a few days ago had, half in the way of compliment and half of reprobation, regretted that such expressions ever should have been used. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had then told their Lordships that he never would explain those words, but that he would satisfy them that he had never uttered such a proposition as that with which he had been so frequently accused, and which had been renewed in the discussion that evening. Now, what had he said? and every word that he said he should be able to justify. It had in the course of these debates been frequently said, and had been also said that evening, that they denied to Ireland that which they had already granted to England. What was the answer ? You yourselves in your own Bill acted upon that principle, because you refused in certain instances to grant the same powers to the people of Ireland that you had done to the people of England. We argued how absurd it was to say that because Municipal institutions were proper for England, that therefore by necessity they were good for Ireland, and that position he (Lord Lyndhurst) had illus trated by a kind of school-boy reference to the bed of Pro crustes. We said, also, " There arc two parties prevailing in Ireland, most violently embittered against each other ; you abolish the existing Corporations ; we agree with you—for what reason ? Because they are in the hands of a party ; but you arc at the same time substituting other party Corporations in lieu of those you abolish." That led him, legitimately and properly, to describe and designate the two parties. What then was the distinction between the two ? He should not flinch from his own description. On one side there was a fourth of the population, English in manners, English by de scent, Protestants, adhering warmly to the Legislative union. Hear, hear, hear.) Was that the correct description of the one side ?—( Hear, and cheers.) On the other side what had he said ? That there was a people very dif ferent, and, in reference to what had been before re ferred to, aliens by descent, differing in manners, differing in habits, in language, and in religion, looking upon us as in vaders, and anxious for a separation. Was that, or was it not, the correct representation ?—( Cheers.) He had, at least, acted fairly, because he so thought, he so considered : and who were his instructors—from whom did he learn that such was the accurate description ? Why, from those very persons who were now accusing him.—( Hear, hear.) Who was it, when it suited his purposes to work upon that preju dice, that he called the people of England foreigners, Saxons, Sassenachs? Who was it that had repeated that over and over again, when it answered his purpose, to excite and inflame the minds of that people, in order to accomplish some end of his own?--(Hear, hear.) Again— " As long as Papists' sliade and scythe Shall dig and cut the Sassenach's tithe," were the words of a popular poet. Who was it that, for the same purpose of excitin g the hostility and enmity of the Ro man Catholics, had applied the term " Sassenach" to the Noble Lord who was formerly Secretary for Ireland, whose infliction upon that country called to his recollection an ancient fable:— 66 clamanti eutis est sumraos direpta per artus Nec quicquam nisi vulnus Brat.', Who was it that had frequently described, both in words and writing, the people as foreigners ? Nay, who was it that had, even in the House of Commons, described the people of Eng land as foreigners ? This—his accuser. —(Cheers.) If there were any magic in words, how had he made use of the word " aliens?" Who was it that, to excite the antipathies and jealousies of that people, had ridiculed the pronunciation and the accent of the Saxon ? And who was it, though he did not now allude to the same individual, who had said that Ire land and England were divided against each other with an opposition as bitter as that which had been exhibited by the Welch towards their Saxon invaders ; that that enmity arose not in consequence of any difference tf religion ; that it was hereditary, and existed when there was no difference of reli gion ? So much, then, fot the two parties into which Ire.. land was divided. Then, as to the objects of one of those parties, who was it that had over and over again called England the destruction of Ireland ; who had stated that Ire land dated her degradation from the first day on which the English banners were planted on her soil; who had called the Union an atrocious and abominable measure ; who had pledged themselves over and over again to the repeal of that Union, although every one must know that the repeal of the Union was a total separation of the two countries--who had told you that Ireland should no longer be a petty dependant province, but that she should be a free and independent na tion, and should teach you that lesson ? That cry for Repeal had, however, now to a great extent abated ; but upon what terms? Mark—justice to Ireland; and those parties had al ready described justice for Ireland to be the complete and and entire government of that country by Catholics, the abso lute extinction of tithes in every name and form whatever, the introduction of the voluntary sytem, and the utter destruction of the Protestant Establishment in that country. (Hear, hear.) Those were the terms on which they were content to lay aside their clamour for a Repeal of the Union. In con clusion, upon that part of the subject he wished to repeat to their Lordships some verses which had been quoted by a Noble Lord, a Member of the other House, with reference to the subject. It was part of a ballad, sung in the streets of Kilkenny at the moment that a man was being tried for mur der—a murder arising out of these violent distinctions of party : " The day of ransom, thank God, is dated ; These cursed demons must quit the land ; It's now these foreign and prowl. invaders Shall feel the weight of each Irish hand." He now quitted the subject, he hoped, for ever. The Noble Viscount, as he had already said, had not unfolded to their Lordships the reasons stated by the House of Commons for disagreeing with their amendments; but he had touched upon a point to which it was most material that he (Lord Lynd hurst) should advert, because, with all deference t o th e Noble Viscount, and with all deference to the House of Com mons, for whose opinion he begged to assure their Lord ships he entertained the highest respect, he thought they had misunderstood their own Bill, and had misunderstood also their Lordships' amendments. The object of the measure, as he apprehended, was to establish sonic system of Govern ment which might secure peace and tranquillity to the towns of Ireland. Such was the object of the Bill, as ori ginally stated in the preamble. But how was that object to be effected? By the abolition of existing Corporations, not in terms, but in effect and reality, as the framers of the measure must themselves know, by substituting other Corpo rations in their place, and by separating from them every thing connected in any way with the administration of jus tice, which was to be vested in the Crown. The object, then, was to secure peace and tranquillity to the Irish towns ; and the means adopted to effect that might be separated into three divisions. First, by abolishing the existing Corporations; secondly, by investing the administration ofjustice hi the hands of the Crown ; and thirdly, by substituting new Corporations in lieu of those abolished. Now, it was said there was a broad and entire difference between thei two conflicting propositions. What had their Lordships done? They had assented to the first and second of those heads, and they had substituted a fresh provision for the third. How, then, the Bill, as amended by them, could be called an original Bill he must leave it to the other Noble Lords to determine. But it was said they had rejected so many clauses, and introduced so many new propositions, that the Bill was entirely changed. Why, the moment that their Lordships decided that new Corporations should not be created it necessarily followed thet all those clauses detailing the management of the new Corporations must be struck out. But it was not the number of clauses which made an original Bill : it was the object of those clauses which could alone alter the nature of the measure.—( Hear, hear.) Then, again, something was said about the title of the Bill. Why, their Lordships would infer from the reasons sent to them by the House of Commons, that they were not justified in altering the title of the Bill. Why not ? Let them refer to the index of the journals of the House and they might find a hundred instances of such a course of proceeding. A Bill came to their Lordships from the other House of Parlia ment for disfranchising the borough of Grampound, and giving to Leeds two Members of Parliament. That Bill, then, had two separate objects—the disfranchisement of Grampound, and the giving to Leeds two Members of Parliament. Now, their Lordships in that instance had adopted only the first proposition, and they had substituted instead of the second a provision to give to Yorkshire two knights of the shire to represent it in Parliament. Of course, then, they were obliged to alter the title, and it was somewhat remarkable that a Noble Lord in the other House had objected to that alteration ; but another Noble Lord got up and said, " That the Bill originally had two objects : their Lordships' House had assented to one, and for his part he was content to receive the measure as that House had amended it." And who did their Lordships imagine the Noble Lord was ? Why, it was that very individual who now held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department.—(Hear.) Whilst they were talking about the title of the Bill lie would refer to what had been said respecting the Earl of Darnley's case. The Noble Lord who, on a former occasion, had alluded to that case had doubtless misapp re h en d e d th e facts. The House of Commons had sent up to their Lordships a Bill of Attainder; their Lordships thought proper to alter to a Bill of Banish ment. The Commons objected to that alteration, and the rea sons, the commencement of which he supposed the Noble Lord had only read, were these :—" This appears by the title to be a new Bill, your Lordships have converted a Bill of At tainder into a Bill of Banishment, which the Commons ob ject to." If the Noble Lord had stopped there, then he might naturally have supposed that was a case which he might pro duce in favour of his argument; but that the Commons ob jected to—why ? Not because the title of the Bill was changed, not even because the nature and character of the measure was wholly altered, but "because banishment is not a proper punishment for high treason; because such a propo sition would induce an inference that the Commons were dis satisfied with the evidence ; and because, if persons abscond ing from justice were better off than those who awaited their trial, in a short time every one would abscond." Thus, then, in that case, the alteration was objected to, not because it was an alteration of the nature and character of the Bill, but be cause the punishment proposed by the amended Bill was not in accordance with the law, because it would have a tendency to lowcr the dignity of the Home, and beeeugo it would affect the administration of justice. So much for the title of the Bill. Now, as to the measure itself. With respect to those twenty small towns to which the Act 9th George IV. was to be forcibly applied, he wished to know whether they were still chartered—were their charters taken away ? Did they still continue to be corporations? He certainly knew of no clause in the Bill which abolished those charters.— ( Hear.) Again, there were some of the reasons which he confessed he could not understand. The Noble Lord would find that there was a reason attached to the clause for striking out that which referred to charitable trustees, a reason which could have no application to that clause to which it was annexed. In respect to that clause their Lordships had made no material alteration ; but he supposed that the reason had been so annexed because their Lordships had changed the si tuation of the clause.—( A laugh.) But he would not trouble their Lordships with those details, because they were compara tively unimportant, and might be the subject of future consi deration. Ile now came to the two main and material points of the question-Ist, The forcible application of the 9th Geo. IV. to the twenty smaller towns in Ireland; and, 2dly, The giving charters to twelve of the largest towns. Those were the main points upon which their Lordships had that night to decide, and to which he called their most anxious attention. Now, he objected —most strongly objected—to the forcible application of the Act 9th Geo. IV. When the Bill went down from that House to the House of Commons it left those twenty towns at liberty to take all the benefit 'to be derived from that measure, if they thought fit so to do—those towns were fully entitled to all the advantages and beneficial conse quences of that Bill ; but since then it had received the further amendments of the House of Commons, and now that Act was to be forced upon twenty of those towns.—(Hear.) Again, there was a clause of taxation, severe and oppressive taxation, in some instances, which by this step the Legislature would be forcing upon those towns. This Bill was much in the nature of a local Act ; it corresponded in a great measure with many local Acts. Why, they never thought of forcing local Acts upon the people. They were always enacted upon application from a large body of inhabitants, and only after all the parties interested had been fairly heard, and the whole subject had been fully investigated. The town of Kingstown, anciently called Dunleary, had chosen to adopt this Act, and went through all the proceedings necessary for that purpose ; but it was in a short time found to be highly inconvenient and detri mental to the interests of the town, and they accordingly ap plied to Parliament for an Act to repeal its operation there; and in the preamble of the measure the whole facts were stated, and the necessity of allowing to the inhabitants full liberty in such matters admitted. But their Lordships were now asked to force that very measure which thus had proved thus injurious in the instance which he had cited upon twenty towns, and that they called justice to Ireland.—( Cheers.) To do:it to in the dark, without any notice, without any intimation upon the subject to those upon whom it was to be forced. He was anxious to say a word or two upon the only remaining. part of the subject. It was proposed that Corporations should be given to twelve of the largest towns in Ireland. Now he was satisfied that if their Lordships consented to adopt that proposition the most inconvenient and disastrous consequences must result. He would repeat the argument upon which the whole case was founded. The object of the Bill was to destroy virtually the existing corporations, because they were corrupt, and improper to be maintained. To that their Lords assented ; what then were they doing ? Why, they were establishing political institution; of a nature much more objectionable than the present. That was the great ground of objection, alike to the original measure and to that part of the Commons' amendments which they were now con sidering. But what did the people of Ireland say ? Why, every measure that could not be carried otherwise must be t e carried by agitation ; if there were any difficulties in he way thm said—agitate, agitate.—( Hear.) Why, would th e i r Lord ships expect if those persons were invested with the p owers o f those corporate bodies? Would they not readily employ to effect their own purposes? Again, he might ask their Lordships what was the use of these corporate bodies ? The Noble Viscount opposite had told them, on a former occasion, " I create them," said he with an air of triumph, " for the sake of creating them," that was his answer. (A laugh.) Those corporators, however, would have nothing to do with the administration of justice ; all the matters re garding the paving and lighting would form no part of their duty, because that was placed under trustees. What, then, remained ? Nothing which could tend to the peace or good government of the towns. If he (Lord Lyndhurst) were one of those who were disposed to say that the whole power in Ireland should be handed over to the Catholics—that tithes should no longer exist in any form whatever—that the voluntary system should forthwith be introduced—and that the Protestant Establishmennt should be annihilated—and lastly, as the climax of all this, that the repeal of the Union between the two countries was necessary and ex pedient,—he would most readily assent to the propositions of the Noble Lord ; but he would do more—he would say, " Let us not go on thus slowly, and by degrees, step by step ; but proceed at once to the fulfilment of our object." And he would now ask those Noble Lords, if they accomplished their present object, would they be able to stop there ? Those were the reasons for which he was disposed to adhere to the amendments of their Lordships, after having fully considered the subject, with as much calmness, caution, and as dispassionately as possible.—(Loud cheers.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had never heard a speech of less argument than that which had fallen from the Noble Lord opposite. The Noble Lord had said that this was the broad principle upon which they must that night de cide—whether the people of Ireland were to be treated as British subjects or as aliens ?—( Hear, hear.) He warned their Lordships from deciding precipitately on a matter of such great importance. The whole argument of the Noble Lord had proceeded on the assumption that they would con for ascendancy upon a party ; but were they legislating for a party?—(Cheers.) Were they not dealing for the people-- the whole people of Ireland ?—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord also had talked about agitation and the excitement of annual elections. Why, were there no election riots in England? Was there no agitation in England ? Perhaps that might not be a justification of conduct pursued at Irish elections, but at least they wore bound by justice, if they carried the principle of the Noble Lord out in one case, to do the same in the other; yet they would rob the Irish people of their rights, because they thought they were weak, and were not supported by the English people. The great object of the Bill was to give to a free people the benefit of free institutions. Look at the effect of such institutions upon the people of England; and if they were an advantage to England why should they not be extended to Ireland ? Had equal laws been granted to Ireland long since, that country would not be in the condition she was in at present. It had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord that the Catholics of Ireland cherished a hostile feeling against the Protestants which was not to be reconciled ; but he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) utterly denied that there was any proof shown that any such feeling existed. With respect to what had fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord in repre hension of what was said by his Noble Friend at the head of the Government, in warning their Lordships as to the conse quences of the rejection of this measure, he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) entirely agreed with his Noble Friend, that it became their Lordships to consider well before they did any thing that was calculated to weaken the effect which their Lordships' proceedings ought to have upon the public mind. It had been suggested by a Noble Earl (the Earl of Wick low) that the question ought to be suffered to stand over for another year. Was this done with a view to allow the officers of the Irish Corporations to linger on in their situa- 4 tions for twelve months longer? He believed it was. Their Lordships were, he greatly feared, pursuing a dangerous course. Their conduct was watched out of doors ; and they would be judged of, not by the vote they individually gave, but by the arguments which did or ought to influence that vote. If the House was prepared to legislate for England and Ireland as an united empire, it was ridiculous not to consult the feelings of the whole people, The people of England, their Lordships might be assured, would now stand by the people of Ireland in demanding their rights, and if those rights were not granted, the Irish nation would be unworthy of possessing them if they did not instantly call for a repeal of the Union. Ireland would now have with her the sympathy of every free man in every country. Viscount FALKLAND should certainly have wished that their Lordships had given a favourable consideration to the Bill as it was originally sent up from the House of Commons ; but even if their Lordships would pass it in its present form he felt that it would be a highly beneficial measure. He hoped the House would not stand in the way of establishing peace and tranquillity in Ireland. The Earl of RIPON must confess that the arguments of the Noble Lord had not convinced him of the propriety of adopting the Bill now before the House. The people were too just to forget what their Lordships' House had done since they had formed a branch of the Constitution of this coun try. The House of Lords had ever been the friends of free dom, and although they might have sometimes differed from the House of Commons, it should be remembered that the House of Commons had often differed from itself. All the Bills which their Lordships bad passed for the good of the people were surely not to be forgotten. The grievance com plained of now as to Ireland was nothing more than the old story of last year as respected the English Corporation Bill. The same admonitions and the same warnings were given then as now ; but their Lordships did, notwithstanding, amend that Bill. Although that amendment was called at the time an emasculating mutilation, would any one say now that any one amendment then introduced did really mutilate the Bill ? With that example before him he had no apprehensions from pursu ing the same course on the present occasion. The English Corporations were established for the good government and regulation of the towns in which they were formed, but in Ire land they were formed for the twofold purpose of upholding British domination and extending the Protestant religion. These Corporations have been long looked upon in Ireland as a grievance. With this grievance their Lordships were about to do away; but it was quite a different question what they were to do after they had abolished the grievance. It had been said that Corporations had improved in England, and that Ireland had a right to equal justice and equal laws. But this Bill did not give the same corporate rights to Ireland which England enjoyed, and in this he conceived was the real insult to the people of Ireland. The English Corporations had the power of lighting, paving, and improving the towns, but the Irish Corporations were to have no such power under their Bill. Then again, had the twelve towns to which it was proposed to give Corporations any property to manage as com pared with the English Corporations? Take for instance the town of Belfast, which was a very prosperous and thriving town. At present its affairs were managed under local Acts of Parliament. The Corporation have no property at all ex cept some tolls, which go exclusively to the sovereign of the town, and the Corporation have nothing whatever to do with the harbour, with the lighting, the paving, or the police of the place , and they have no property—was it an insult not to give a orporation to a town like this ?—(Loud cheers, and Hear.) If they were to have a Corporation, the people must be taxed to pay tho Mayor and other corporate officers. He had often heard that it was sometimes considered an in sult to be asked to pay a debt, but he never heard that it was looked upon as an insult not to be taxed.—( A laugh.) There had been a comparison instituted between the cities of Dublin and London with respect to their rights to exercise Corporate privileges. The Commissioners appointed to report on the Corporation of the latter had not yet favoured them with the result of their labours—(and when they did he could not ima gine they would be able to demonstrate any necessity for a change)—but, let them alter its powers and privileges as they pleased, it would still have in its own hands the exclusive power of paving, lighting, and cleansing within its own limits, of regulating the river navigation, and the approach to the city ; of keeping up its own police, and providing for the ad ministration of justice, the maintenance of its property, and many other important points.—( Hear, hear.) In Dublin, on the contrary, the Corporate rights and privileges are al ready abolished with respect to most of these particulars. They no longer exercise the powers of paving, lighting, or cleansing the city. They have no police under their care, for by the Bill lately passed they arc deprived of that jurisdic tion. There was, in fact, no resemblance in the two cases. The Corporation of the City of Dublin was already a caput mortuum—their bones were marrowless—there was no specula tion in their eyes.—(Loud laughter.) In conclusion, he as sured their Lordships he should refrain from saying a word that might lead to irritation, or that would tend to aggravate the evils that already existed in the unhappy country for which they were legislating ; but he must say that, acting on the grounds which he had then stated to their Lordships (and of which he hoped he had succeeded in fairly proving the sound ness and propriety), he felt it would be highly inexpedient and unnecessary, not to say unjust and dangerous, to establish the Corporations in Ireland as proposed by the Bill introduced by his Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear. ) The Earl of WINC HIL SE A would ask their Lordships, whether it was politic to extend that agitation which had already inflicted such injuries in Ireland, and had afforded to one individual such facilities of exercising his talents, for the disturbance of the sooial relations of the two countries? That individual had said that as the Bill for the Reform of the Cor porations of England was intended to extend the effects of agitation begun by the Catholic Relief Bill, and was intro duced as the precursor of similar changes in Ireland, if they now refused to follow it up by the Bill before them they ought to follow it up by an abolition of the measure of 1829. He (Lord Winchilsea) heartily hoped that the effect of their Lordships' deliberations that evening would be to correct, as far as lay in their power, the baneful legislative influence that had been thus admitted to interfere in the direction of the National Councils, and he hoped they would not forget the argumentative necessity which that individual had impressed on them. He would only ask them to look to the public ex pression of opinion in their favour, and to proceed in their course of prudent legislation, undaunted by the clamours of in dividuals.—( Hear, hear.) . • Earl GR EY then addressed their Lordships to the follow ing effect :—I can assure your Lordships that it is with great reluctance I rise to address you. In doing so, let me first disclaim being actuated by any personal or party motives. In political contention it has been too much my lot to be en gaged throughout life ; but I trust I have done with it for ever. The only feeling which actuates me on the present oc casion is, that standing aloof as I do from all party passion and bias, I am desirous for a short time to trespass on your Lordships' attention, in the hope that I may suggest some thing that may allay the heats and animosities which on this and on other occasions have been but too prevalent. I re peat, my Lords, that it is in the true and sincere spirit of peace and conciliation that I now rise to address you. I ask your Lordships if you think that the course you are pursuing is likely to lead to that end at which / am persuaded you all of you aim—the pacification of Ireland, and the general esta blishment of peace and tranquillity in the empire ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Into the details of the Bill which was ori ginally sent to us by the House of Commons, and which was returned to us by that House, I will not say amended, but totally changed—(hear, bear)—or into the alterations which have since been made in that changed Bill by the other House, it is not my intention now to enter. These are mat ters which may with more propriety be considered at a future period, if the measure shall proceed. I agree with the Noble and Learned Lord that there are at present two points for our consideration, although I shall describe those points in terms somewhat different from those used by the Noble and Learned Lord. The first point is to consider the object and tendency of the measure before us. The next and the more immediate and urgent point is, to consider the measure with reference to the feeling which unhappily has been ex cited on the subject in the other House of Parliament. As to the object and tendency of the measure which ought to be adopted, I feel that I cannot be contradicted when I state, that the existence of abuses in the Corporations of Ireland being acknowledged by all parties, it is proper that we should consider which are the best means of applying a remedy to those abuses. All agree in that. The difference between us is this—whether we shall proceed by altering the consti tution of those Corporations ; or whether, that being deemed hopeless, we should entirely abolish them ? And here I must dissent from the Noble and Learned Lord's descrip tion of the difference between the two measures—of the mea sures proposed by this side of the House, and of the measure carried by the other side of the House. I dissent from the statement of the Noble and Learned Lord, that the Bill sent by this House to the House of Commons was merely THE Sills!, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1836. an alteration of the Bill which had been sent by the House of Commons to us. The Noble and Learned Lord asserted that the Bill, as sent up by the other House of Parliament, involved three principles ;—the first, the abolition of the ex isting Corporations of Ireland—the second, the substitution of other Corporations—the last, the administration of justice. To two of these principles the Noble and Learned Lord asserted that your Lordships agreed, and that you rejected only the second. Now I put it to your Lordships whether, in rejecting that second principle, you did not reject the whole essential principle of the measure? The state of the fact is this: Abuses are universally ac knowledged to exist in the Corporations of Ireland, which you Ind it necessary to correct, and in order to correct them your Lordships propose to take from the people of Ireland atl corporate institutions whatever, instead of reforming those institutions, so as to leave the people in the enjoyment of the same local rights and privileges as are enjoyed by their fellow subjects in England and Scotland. Is not this an essential difference from the principle of the Bill as sent up to your Lordships by the other House of Parliament?—( Hear, hear.) It may be exceedingly proper to abolish, not entirely but in part, certain of those Corporations • but to destroy all cor porate rights and institutions throughout the country would surely be contrary to every principle of policy and of justice. The principle of the measure sent to us by the House of Commons was, that the people of Ireland were entitled to have the same privileges conferred upon them as had been conferred on the people of England and Scotland by the Municipal Corporation Bill. It is most extraordinary that when a proposition is made to correct abuses in ancient institutions, that proposition should be met by Noble Lords on the other side of the House with a proposition to extirpate them.—( Hear, hear.) Consistently with the political doctrines which had been usually maintained by those Noble Lords, they are the very last persons from whom I should have ex pected such a suggestion.—( Hear, hear.) I am far, however, from wishing to cast any injurious imputation upon anybody. It is undoubtedly true that principles cannot change; but it is also true, as has been said this evening by a Noble Lord, that the application of principles may vary according to cir cumstances, and that' under some circumstances it may be considered fit and expedient to pursue a certain line of con duct, which, under other circumstances, would be neither fit nor expedient. That is the ground on which I am desirous of understanding the Noble Lords opposite as resting their hostility to the original measure. Into the details of that measure, which have already been so ably explained by my Noble Friend, it is not my intention to enter. I have neither the power nor the inclination to do so. But this is the first time that I have heard it asserted that Corporations in Ireland must in any shape be an evil. This is the first time I have heard it asserted that because they have few functions to discharge, they must therefore be dangerous. Hitherto your Lordships have been accustomed to consider Corporate dignity as valuable ; and I could not have imagined that you would have been induced to deprive the people of Ireland of them by one sweeping act of legislation. It is somewhat extraordinary, also, that the proposition of the Noble Lord is neither more nor less than this, " Reject this Bill in order that those Corporations which have nothing to do, and which I there fore maintain arc a nuisance, and an evil may be continued for at least another year. "—( Hear, hear.) See, my Lords, the situa tion in which Ireland at present stands. That there were rights and privileges due to the people of Ireland—rights and privileges established by Catholic Emancipation, I have not heard any one deny. That those rights and privileges would be conferred by a great majority of your Lordships but for the existence of particular circumstances, is equally evident. The question is, however, whether or not, notwithstanding those circumstances, it is sound policy to deny to the people of Ire land that equality of rights which all acknowledge to be their due ? The people of Ireland feel it to be their due—they claim it as their due—they assert it, and justly, to be the na tural consequence of the state of freedom in which they were placed by Catholic Emancipation. Your Lordships acknow ledge this equality of rights to be the due of the people of Ireland—but you withheld it on the ground of particular cir cumstances. It was admitted by a Noble Friend of mine, who addressed your Lordships for the first time this evening, and in a manner which must induce every one to wish that he may do so frequently, that the people of Ireland, if they were in another condition, might justly claim the same rights and privileges as the people of the other parts of the empire, and that the time might arrive when those rights and privileges might properly be conferred upon them. My Lords, I freely admit, and I deeply lament the fact, that the people of Ireland are at the present moment divided and distracted. Nobody feels and laments that fact more than I do. But I ask your Lordships whether the course which you are pursuing is likely to remedy a state of things the existence of which we all deplore ? I am sure I deeply deplore it. Now, my Lords, I will go further. I will admit that under the pre sent circumstances of Ireland, the apprehensions urged by the Noble Lords opposite, as their reasons for not agreeing to the measure proposed by the other House of Parliament, are not wholly undeserving of attention. I do not pretend to deny it, that after long excitement, long agitation, long con tention, if these rights arc suddenly given to the people of Ireland, they might not in the first instance be exercised in discreetly. But, my Lords, while I allow that there may be some ground for this apprehension, I contend that it has been greatly exaggerated by the Noble Lords opposite. And what we has e to consider is, what must be done for the pur pose of rescuing the people of Ireland from the state of dis content in which they now are—what must be done for the purpose of re-establishing law and order in Ireland, and of making the people of that country fit for the enjoyment of the rights which are their due 1 Now, my Lords, I again ask you, is that an object which is likely to be obtained by the course which you are pursuing ?—( Hear, hear.) You find the people of Ireland discontented and agitated ; you arc called upon by them to reform their corporations; but you will not do so, for fear of consequences ; and by your re fusal you continue the discontent and agitation which you wish to see terminated. You admit, that but for that temporary obstacle you would adopt the course re commended to you by the other House. Nay, if it were not for those circumstances, it would be a mockery and ins* to withhold from the people of Ireland that which Catholic Emancipation taught them to expect. But, my Lords, what will be the result of allowing the continuance of the existing agitation and discontent? We have been told also that the aversion to the measure proposed by the House of Commons is nearly general throughout this country. I deny it. I believe that the reverse is the case. I know that there are many per sons not only among those who in general concur in political opinion with his Majesty's present Government, but among those who differ from them, who feel very sensibly the depri vation of right to which the people of Ireland are at present subjected. I have had the names mentioned to me of persons of influence connected with what is called the " Conservative in terest," who have put themselves forward in requisitions for public meetings to petition Parliament to pass this Bill. The people of Ireland arc a generous, a brave, and a highly excit able people. My Lords, I will not speak of individuals. It has been too much the practice of late to do so in this House.— ( Hear.)—But this I will say, that if there are any persons whose objects are hostile to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, I do not know how your Lordships could better consult the views of such persons than by giving them the means of appealing to the sensibility of the people of Ireland, and of persuading them that they are not treated with equal justice. And here, my Lords, I beg leave to guard myself against being sup posed to join in the common-place declamation on this subject —that until the present moment justice was never done to Ireland. In answer to that declaration, I refer those who will exercise their reason to the course which for the last ten years Parliament has pursued—l will not say of concession, for I dis like the word, but of originating discussions, and passing laws, the object of which has been to give to the people of Ireland the rights of which they had hitherto been deprived, and which they claimed on the ground of justice. To me, therefore, it appears to be most unjust to say that now, for the first time, justice is done to Ireland. I am quite sure that my Noble Friends in his Majesty's Government disclaim any participa tion in such a sentiment.—( Hear, hear.) I am quite sure they will not deny that while I had the honour to be at the head of that Government, a constant anxiety existed to adopt such measures as might do that very justice to Ireland which it is now said was never contemplated till this moment— ( Cheers.) I say, my Lords, that if it be the agitated state of *eland which deters you from doing what you would other wise do, if you wish that agitation to cease—if you wish the people of Ireland to become fit for the full enjoyment of their rights—pass this Bill.—( Hear, hear.) To refuse to do so will be to lead to fresh agi tation—to fresh excitement—to render the people of Ireland ten times more unfit for the enjoyment of their rights, and to render the evil which is now comparatively slight and temporary incurable and interminable : until at last you will find that that which you are now called upon to do as an act of justice you must do as an act of necessity, when it will entirely fail in producing that salutary effect which at the present moment may reasonably be expected from it.— (Cheers.) I am well aware, my Lords, that in all I have said upon this subject I have been anticipated by others, and that much more might easily be added ; but I will not trespass on your Lordships' time, especially as I am anxious to proceed to that other and most important consideration—namely, what course it is advisable for your Lordships to pursue with respect to this Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord and the Noble Earl opposite have expressed their hopes that your Lordships will firmly adhere to your former determination on the subject. Another Noble Lord had said that this House should yield nothing to threats or intimidation. In that sentiment I completely concur. If I thought any attempt were making by threats to induce your Lordships to consent to any improper concession, I should be the first man to op pose it. I am anxious to maintain the honour of this House, I am anxious to maintain the just influence of this House ; but I know that that honour and that influence can be main tained only by the general respect of the people, and by their conviction that we are exercising our high privileges for their benefit, not for our own.—( Loud cheers.) But any attack on your Lordships' House, any denial of your Lordships' legal authority, I should be one of the first to meet. On that point I adhere to the sentiment which I formerly expressed, and which has been frequently quoted, sometimes for the purpose of censure and sometimes for that of approbation—l feel bound to support the Order to which I belong against any unjust at tack which may be made upon it.—( Cheers.) I feel bound to resist any attempt, by undue means, to make us do that of which we disapprove. If, for instance, under the name of a Reform of this House, a proposition were to be made which would be in its consequences not reform but destruction to this House and to the Monarchy, and, if all experience be not false, to the freedom of the people, I should be found in the ranks of its most determined opponents.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) But is there any such danger in the present case ? I am sure that if your Lordships will reflect a moment you will acknow ledge that there is not. The Bill which was sent up to you from the House of Commons your Lordships entirely changed. You altered its preamble, you altered its prin ciple; and, notwithstanding the gloss of the Noble and Learned Lord, you altered nine-tenths of its enactments. My Lords, such a proceeding as this I can never under stand but as a total rejection of the measure, and a sub stitution of another measure entirely different in principle and character. This is not exactly the way to conciliate. Nor did you alone send the Bill back to the House of Com mons entirely changed. You changed it by the introduction of a principle which, a ft er sev e r al discussions and divisions, the House of Commons had rejected. Now, my Lords, when you say that the feelings of this House ought to be respected, you should at the same time respect the feelings of the other House.—(Cheers.) How did the House of Commons act ? They received this altered Bill in a manner and a spirit—l do not speak of the violent conduct of individuals, which I con. demn—but the House at large received this altered Bill in a manner and a spirit which I must characterise as that of mo deration.—(Cheers.) They did not immediately reject your alterations. They proceeded calmly to consider them, for the purpose of ascertaining how far, consistently with their own views of right and justice, they could modify the Bill, so as to meet your wishes. My Lords, the alterations then made by the House of Commons have not been fairly, have not been generously, represented by the Noble and Learned Lord.—_ ( Hear, hear.) It must be evident to every impartial man, that those alterations indicate the desire of the other House of Parliament to go as far as they could to meet your Lord ships' objections; and you, my Lords, arc called upon to meet them in the same spirit.—( Loud cheers.) For what did the House of Commons do? Oat of the fifty Corporations comprehended in the original Bill, they retained only twelve, and those of the most populous, wealthy, and commercially important places in Ireland. To twenty others they applied the compulsory enactments of the 9th George IV. To this the Noble and Learned Lord objected, on the ground that they were free before : but that was not the case. The objection was to the placing of the whole of the property of the Corpo rations in the hands of Commissioners of the Crown, in stead of allowing that property to be administered by Com missioners of their own choosing. This, however, the Noble and Learned Lord said was a hardship, for that they had an option in the original Bill. That I deny. They had no op tion. For although they might apply for Commissioners to manage their property under the Act of the 9th George IV., still that property was not to be taken from the manage ment of the Commissioners of the Crown, if the Crown with held its approbation. It was a great amendment, therefore, in the Bill to correct the violence and injustice of taking from all the corporate towns the management of their property, and placing it in the hands of Crown Commissioners. The ques ' tion for your determination is, whether you will consent, with reference to 12 of the most important places in Ireland, to act upon the principle on which you have acted universally with reference to England and Scotland; or whether you will make an invidious distinction, by which the people of Ireland will find themselves excluded from a participation in the benefits to which they were justly entitled ?—( lieer, hear.) My Lords, I am not at all surprised at the strong feeling which the course you have taken has excited. I do most seriously hope that you will re-consider your determination, and that eau will look carefully at the measure in a sincere spirit of conciliation, and with a desire to see if it be not possible to come to some agreement with the other House upon the sub ject—( Hear, hear.) The details of the measure may admit of alteration ; but what I especially entreat you to examine is, the practicability of leaving the enjoyment of Corporate rights open to the people of Ireland, instead of increasing discontent by refusing them. Whatever concessions your Lordships may think fit to make, I hope the House of Com mons will be prepared to receive in the same spirit of mo deration which they have already manifested, in order that this unhappy question may at length be brought to a happy termination. Recollect, my Lords, that if you have thought it offensive to you that a proposition should be made to you which you bad already rejected, the House of Commons must have felt it offensive to them to have a proposition made to them which they had already rejected.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When a difference arises between two co-ordinate branches of the Legislature, how is it possible that Such a difference can ever be reconciled, if each sternly and solemnly declares its determination not to ' yield any thing to the other ? Under such circumstances, what course can be adopted but a middle course, each party giving something and receiving something ? The House of Commons have set your Lordships an example.—(Cheers.) They have given up much. They have endeavoured to re move your Lordships' objections. They now call upon your Lordships to consider the Bill in its modified form. I hope you will do so, and that you will try whether it may not be made acceptable to both Houses. You fear agitation in Ire land as the consequence of granting these rights to the Catho lics. You fear the creation of what may have been called, how wisely I will not say, "normal schools of agitation." I repeat that I consider your apprehensions to be exaggerated. What is the real state of the case ? What means or what opportunity will there be of mischief? The attention of the individuals on whom rights will be conferred by the measure will be chiefly, if not entirely, confined to local matters. In my opinion the effect will be rather to direct active minds from evil to bene ficial pursuits.—( Hear, hear.) That 1 believe will be its effect, and at least I am convinced that there is no reason able ground for expecting such an increase to agitation in Ireland as should induce your Lordships to reject the measure. But if you do reject it, does the Noble and Learned Lord, or does the Noble Earl, or does any other of your Lordships imagine, that the interval between the pre sent and the next session of Parliament will not be filled with disaffected meetings, with inflammatory speeches, and with all the other apparatus of agitation, to a degree tenfold greater than we have hitherto witnessed ?—( hear, bear.) My Lords, I have already said that I wish this question to be taken up in a spirit of peace and conciliation ; in that spirit I am myself desirous of taking it up. I have not been unwil ling to consider how far the Bill might be advantageously mo dified. There is one suggestion which I will venture to offer to your Lordships, for which suggestion I alone am responsi ble, not having communicated to my Noble Friend my inten. tion of meking it, and not having any reason, except the con viction of its expediency, to believe that it will be acceptable to !either side of your Lordships' House. In the Bill, as it last left your Lordships' House, and as it now stands, there is a clause regulating the voting for auditors and assessors. Now, in another Bill, ordered to be brought into the House of Commons by Lord J. Russell, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Vernon Smith, a Bill for regulating charitable trusts, there is a clause providing that every person entitled to vote shall vote for only half the number of trustees. I wish your Lordships would consider if it might not b‘practicable to add clauses to this Bill of a similar character, but bearing on the election of town councillors, which would in a great degree remove the objections to the measure which some of your Lordships entertain. Suppose, for instance, that every voter was restricted to voting for only one half the number of town councillors. The consequence would be that there could be no exclusive party established, but that a minority in any cor poration, of whatever persuasion they :night be, could retain their due share of influence. My Lords, I believe it is an over statement to say that even if the Bill were carried in its present shape its effects would be exclusive, because it would be only a transfer of authority from one party to another. Many of the Corporations in Ireland are divided into wards, and in many of those wards the Protestants would have the prepon derance. I am told that even in Waterford, where the Catholics are most numerous, the elections would not be of that exclusive character apprehended. But even if that were not the case, the proposition which I have ventured to throw out would remedy this evil. It is obvious that if a voter were restricted to vote for only half the Town Councillors, unless the majority of one opinion could be swelled to two to one, no principle of exclusion could be established. What I propose, however, is, that the voter should be restricted to vote for five tighths of the Town Councillors. My Lords, I throw out this proposition in the crude and ill-digested form it suggests itself to me ; and, if it meets with your concurrence, I shall suggest that the further consideration of the subject shall be adjourned to a convenient but early day, when clauses can be introduced into the Bill to carry it into effect. I shall, how ever, certainly (until I know how far it may be thought proper to come to an agreement of this sort, in the way of con cession), pause before I take upon myself any motion of this sort. And here I should certainly refrain from longer troubling your Lordships, but that there is one other point to which I would beg your particular attention. It was stated by a Noble Lord opposite, in presenting a petition in the earlier part of the evening—from whom, by the way, I gather that he has not voted on the previous questions in connection with this measure—that Noble Lord ventured an opinion, that it was not a satisfactory proceeding, and that it was a measure to which he was adverse, to take from the people of Ireland all Corporations, and then he expressed a hope that in another session some measure which should have the effect of conciliating all parties might be passed. Now, my Lords, let me bag of you to consider, whether if you see before you the possibility, and, still more, if you see the neces sity of being obliged, at some future period, to pass some mea sure as this, it is wise or expedient to defer doing so even for another session ? Wait for another session, my Lords, and what shall we gain in th e i n t erva l . — (Loud che ers ?) Have we, my Lords, no experience as to what may be the result of putting off our decision where we see an eventual necesssity for concession.—( Hear, hear?) How was it with respect to the Catholic question? Was not that measure resisted by your Lordships—(hear, hear)—for years, and were you not in ' the end compelled—most unwillingly compelled—in conse quence of a pressure that you could not oppose, to grant a much larger measure of relief than was at first called for— (Cheers?)—But, my Lords, there is a still more recent case, from which we ought, if we are wise, to gather experience —need I say I allude to the Irish Church question ? Consider what has been the consequence of your rejection of the measure pro posed to you on this subject in the year 1834..—( Hear.) Acting upon the advice of those who now call upon you to resist the proposals of the House of Commons, you refused to adopt the Tithe Bill proposed to you in that year ; in the next year you found those very persons who so advised you, com pelled—most reluctantly but irresistibly compelled—to pro pose to Parliament a measure far more extensive, in regard to the adoption of the principle contended for, than that of the previous session. But that was not all. No, my Lords • by a large majority of the oth er H ouse, even to t h a t extended measure a condition was annexed—l may say a new principle was introduced, from which your Lordships felt bound to withhold your assent, and to which you still object. 1 To that principle, upon the policy or expediency of whic h I shall at present offer no comment—my feelings and opinions respecting it are well known—to that principle the other House of Parliame n t con ti nues to pert i nacious ly adhere, and while you continue to object to it, it is evident no settlement of the question can take place. And now, my Lords, what is the state of Ireland in consequence of this disagreement ? Look to the situation in which it has been placed by the deci sion of your Lordships. The state o f Ireland, my Lords, is this : the law is either openly and successfully resisted, or it is enforced in a manner which puts to rout all that good feel ing and love of order in which the best Government con sists, and in which, as was well observed by Mr. Burke, " the cheapest defence of nations" is centered.—( Cheers.) My Lords, let us take warning by these resulis--let us apply our selves to concession while concession not opposed to principle is open to us—let us apply ourselves to the effecting of an agreement, while the means of forming it with honour and credit is offered to our acceptance.—( Cheers.) It is with this view, my Lords, I have suggested a measure to your consi deratim. I think as it is that you might adopt the Bill as it now stands, but with the alterations I suggest I am of opi nion that you can have no reasonable ground of objection to it. But " wait," it is said, " till another session." Are you sure, my Lords, that in another session the proposals now made to you will satisfy ?—( Hear, hear.) Are you sure that you will not then be required to go much farther, and that the concessions you can now make with honour arid credit to your legislative characters, will not be forced fret: you with out regard to either the one attribute or the other ? I propose a compromise in every way consistent with your honour, and it is in your power now to avail yourselves of it; but if you wait for another session, with all the agitation, trith all the clamour that will take place in the interval, I will not answer that, any measure of the moderate kind I now sug gest will be accepted by the people of Ireland.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, bear.") A s one nervous ly anxious for the maint enance o f peace, good order, and prosperity in these realms--as one zealous for the honour, dignity and station of the Assembly to which I belong—l do most earnestly call upon you, my Lords, to consider whether that peace, good order, and prosperity, and whether that honour, dignity, and station may not be fearfully endangered by your rejecting in stead of receiving the Bill as sent back to you from the Com mons. Yes, my Lords, these are my concluding words to you. Consider whether softie means may not be found by which an agreement might be brought about without the sacrifice of principle, or the concession of privileges. If so, for the sake of all you hold dear—for the sake of honour—for the sake of justice—for the sake of that country in whose tranquillity and prosperity you have from your station a deep and absorbing interest, at once come forward, and by meeting the other House of Parliament in a spirit of honourable concession, at once put an end to a dispute which cannot be continued with out danger to that Constitution under which these realms have so long prospered ; and, my Lords, to comp nearer home, without danger to the station is which that Constitution has placed you.—(The Noble Earl resumed his scat amid loud cheers from all parts of the House.) Lord ELLENBOROUGH thanked the Noble Earl for the tone and temper which he had recommended so strongly by his authority and example, and responded entirely to the cheers which greeted the concluding sentiment of his address. —( Hear.) The points of difference between the House of Commons and their Lordships were easily enumerated. Ho should endeavour to meet and reconcile them where possible ; and he should concede every thing that he could for the sake of conciliation. The House of Commons and their Lordship? House were of perfect agreement in some respects in regard of the measure under consideration. The House of Com mons, for instance, voted the abolition of all Corporations in Ireland. The House of Lords did the same. The House of Commons had thought proper to separate the judicial func tions in cities and towns in Ireland from the administrative functions of each locality ; so did the House of Lords. Thus far there was a complete agreement between both Houses on two most impo: tent points. But the House of Lords and the House of Commons could not agree on one principle—on one principle alone they essentially differed. The natural and usual course for the House of Lords to have taken in regard to a difference of the kind was to reject any measure in which it was on the second reading. But they did not choose to take that very obvious course in regard to the present measure. They did not do what the Noble Earl opposite, or those Noble Lords who supported the Bill, might perhaps have termed a discourtesy or want of due deference to the House of Com mons. On the contrary, they paid every respect to its opi nion of the great importance of the Bill, and took as concilia tory a course as could be followed. They suffered the Bill to be read a second time—they allowed it to go into Committee —and then they proceeded to make those amendments in its constitution which they deemed necessary to insuring its effi ercy for the object for which it was intended. They thought that course would be much more respectful to the House of Commons, and they adopted it accordingly. In all this nothing could be farther from their thoughts than any appearance or intention of disrespect to the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Ellenborough) would be very glad to have it in his power to accede to the suggestions of the Noble Earl opposite, but their prac ticability should first be considered. He should ask their Lordships to look at the nature of the propositions before they adopted them, and also to the character of the amendments submitted to their consideration by the other branch of the Legislature. The House of Commons and the House of Lords agreed in one thing—that corporations in Ireland should be abolished. There was no difference of opinion between them as regarded the principle. Did the amendments on the measure under discussion adhere to that agreement ? On the contrary, it reserved corporations in twenty cities and towns. The Bill sent down from their Lordships was more in unison with the principle than that returned by the Commons ; and therefore no charge of departure from it for the sake of disagreement could fairly be brought against them. The Noble Lord opposite had said that the difference bettacen the Ilouse of Lords and the House of Commons was not whe ther there should be a local government in the cities and towns of Ireland, but whether it should be of the form pointed out by the latter ; and the Noble Earl in stating it, bad stated rightly and clearly that there was no objection on the part of their Lordships to a local government in the cities and towns of that country. The difference then was as he had stated, and the only question was on the form. There was another objection by the House of Commons with respect to the amendments and the clause concerning composition. Their Lordships had thought it right to introduce these amendments, and he be lieved that they bettered the Bill ; but as the House of Com mons thought differently, and as it was opposed to them strongly, he was of opinion that there would be no hesitation on the part of their Lordships to forego them, and to re in troduce the clause in the form and in the very words in which it originally came before them. So far for that cause of dis agreement. Another clause, that respecting the retention of certain officers in the employment or under the controul of the present Corporations, weighmasters, &c., was the next which the House of Commons objected to as amended by their Lord ships. Their Lordships, in amending that clause, had con sidered that some of these officers, though acting under the Corporations, were appointed and empowed under certain statutes; and doubting, therefore, whether they could strictly be termed corporate offices, or these officers corporate officers, they had given thcm the benefit of the doubt, as it was but justice to do, and retained them in their situa- . tions. It was thought right by their Lordships to do so, and he perfectly agreed with them in the principle ; but as it was not a point of paramount importance, he did not choose to differ from the House of Commons on it. On that, also, he was disposed to yield his own opinion for the sake of peace, and make that sacrifice for the purpose of conciliation. The Noble Earl opposite would now, he trusted, perceive that, consistently with adherence to primary principles, there was every wish on the part of the House of Lords to meet the views of the other House of Parliament on the subject— ( Hear)—and he hoped that those who charged it with the contrary would do it the justice to retract their wrong opi nions. The Noble Earl had concluded his speech by a pro position which he stated that he had communicated to no one previous to his propounding it to that House. The Noble Earl was, of course, quite correct in what he had stated with regard to it; but still he (Lord Ellenborough) felt bound to say that the matter of it was not new to him. He had heard it before; he had heard it some time since, and he had always considered it as the principle on which the two Houses of Parliament were most likely to come to a compromise. The opinions of the Noble Earl agreeing with his on the subject strengthened him the more in that belief, and be had now little doubt of it. But he still thought that the propo sitions of the Noble Earl should be accompanied by other provisions to make them acceptable to their Lordships; he was of opinion that, unless they were modified by suggestions to be found in other Acts of Parliament, they could not con sistently be adopted by that House. To adopt the measure on the table would not, in his opinion, be doing what all de sired to do— equal justice to Ireland. No one believed that the same measure which would be efficacious as applied to England, would have the same effect as applied So Irelarul. From the variety of circumstances in which the latter differed from the former, there was no parity between them. He did not see how the House could proceed with the Bill to effect the object embraced by the suggestions of the Noble Earl ; but he thought that that object might still be effected in the following manner :—lf a motion were to be made by the Noble Viscount opposite for an adjournment of the farther consideration of the question for several weeks, to give him and his colleagues time and opportunity to frame a measure which would be duly considered, and worthy of the adoption of the House, he thought it would give satisfaction to all par ties. It was quite clear that the details could not be consi dered at present. That there was every disposition on the part of the House of Lords to concede to the other branch of the Legislature, where the sacrifice of a great principle was not required, he hoped he had no occasion further to insist on. The object of both was the same—the good government of the people of Ireland was the end proposed by each, but the means advocated were different. He (Lord Ellenborough) was most anxious that the people of Ireland should have all that their most ardent advocates desired—good local govern ment and equal justice ; but he would give them these things, not in the way proposed by the H ouse of Commons—not in the way suggested by the Noble Earl—but in the way which lie thought best adapted to secure them. Unless these modi fications which he had suggested were identified with the Noble Earl's proposition, he could not consent to its adop tion ; neither could he consent to acce p t the measure, as re turned to their Lordships by the House of Commons. Lord HOLLAND, who was mostly inaudible in the con clusion of his sentences, and that the Noble Lord had given a catalogue of the concessions which he was willing to make to the other House of Parliament ; but they were all of minor things as it happened. In regard to principle the Noble Lord would not yield a single jot.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) The House would, perhaps, permit him (Lord Holland) to state to it the nature of the transaction at issue. The House of Commons had sent up a certain Bill to their Lordships, founded upon certain principles, one of which was to abolish Corporations altogether in Ireland, and the other to grant to the people of the cities and great towns in that country cor porate Government founded on popular election. In the former principle the Houses of Lords and Commons agreed ; the latter was the cause of difference. And yet the Noble Lord who had just sat down called upon the House of Commons to give it- up. The House of Coramons, how ever, would not do so, and then the Noble Lord had said, " We will not give up our demand as they will not give up their principle." So the case stood. Tic Noble Lord had very properly praised the tone and temper in which the Noble Lord (Earl Grey) entered into the subject of debate ; but he (Lord Holland) was sorry to say that the Noble Earl ap_