The Sun. — London, England, 1839-04-16 00:00:00

E 1 . % I\ INC EDITION . -L T the exercise of h that pre sogs .tiva. is to be guided. I believe t t at it is utterly irnin;ssilee to (31itaii, in a Select Commit ee su 'I, a Isho a lc:iffe of the eircurnstancea o each case as noulslenahla that Committee to determine whether the pre riieseatis e h a d b een exercised in a proper or improper manner. I , volt pave of mercy was one of those prerogatives concerning n 'deb those who had to exercise it had always decid e d un the subject, without question or disc u ssion, on their own responsibility. When the Right Hon. Gentle m to an opposi te i n t h e year 18‘)7 was questioned with respect the manner in which the prerogative of mercy had been exercised by his Government, he very properly refused to give any explanation, contenting himself with stating that it bad been exercised on his own responsibility. I know myself that very shortly after I was appointed to the office which I have at preser.t the honour of holding, when the Hon. 1 _Gentle man the Member for Finsbury moved in this House for an address to the Crown, praying for a remission of the sentence on the Dorchester labourers, I declared in this House that although I did not deny the competency of the House to interfere, yet if the House chose so to in. terfere I could no longer consent to hold the seals o f G office, and I was supported b y the R i g h t H onoura bl e r entlernan opposit e i n hi s oppos i t i on to an y inter ererfce with the prerogative. 1 therefore do say, Sir, that for the sake of this prerogative, which is one of the m e eto imp ortant and sacred belonging to the Crown, and in exercise of which the greatest delicacy and circum spection is requisite, I see, with considerable alarm, the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of invest,gat lIY the manner in which that prerogative has been exer cised, and which is entitled to interfere in all these cases ; and as long as th a t C omm i ttee l asts, i t must eventua ll y d etermine the circumstances relative to a particular exer cise of this prerogative by the Government.—( Loud cheers, which d rowned the concluchig words of the sentence.) This i s one great argument which makes it necessary that this House should come to some o pi n i on on th e subject, because if__ no opinion is expressed by this House, and the other Ho use determin es on these cases, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will not be able to come to a decision with regard to any cases which may come before him, for the exer cise of the prerogative of mercy. I shall be told t o n may decide according to the peculiar circumstances which may be laid before you, but we care not for your decision, we have another tribunal. We have a Com mittee which has been moved for by Lord Roden, in which we have a majority of 2 for one—we have a Jury to try this c: - se again—( Loud cheers)—in which we have a majority in a pisiportion of somewhere about 13 to 5. Something of this sort would be said to the Lord Lieute nant, and the prerogative of the Crown would be con sequently transferred to the House of Lords —( Hear. ) State what you wilt with regard to Lord Normanby—say he has exercised this prerogative improperly—pass a vote of censure on the Government which trusted him ; but do not, if prrerog you value th e p rerogat i ves o f t h e C rown , suffer this --one of th e most sacre d an d i mportant o f t h ose atives—to be sub m itt e d t o th e part y d ec i s i on (Hma Com m i ttee o f one House of Parl i ament.— ear, hear, and loud cheers.) Another ground on which the Government has been censured is their conduct With respect to Societies and Associations. One of those Societies—l mean the Orange Society —was, on a former occasion, the subject of discussion in this House, which bad decided that it would be for the general interest that that Society should b e di sso l ve d ; an d shortly after I had the honour of bei ng appo i nte d to t h e o ffi ce I now hold, I wrote a letter which was honoured by the approval of his late Majesty, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, directing him not to appoint any person to any place, office, or authority under the Crown, who had belonged to this Society, un less he declared that he had resigned all connexion with it, and had determined no longer to consider himself a mem ber of such Society. In consequence of the decision of this House the Orange Society determined to dissolve itself, and 1 rejoice in this decision, because I believe that the state and condition of Ireland has been greatly improved by it, for in 1834, shortly before Lo d Normanby assumed the Government of Ireland O.ango ribbons and Insignia had been assumed, and openly worn by several magistrates in that country, thus giving a great degr. e of countenance to that Society, and this had been permitted by the Go vernment of Lord Haddington. After the inquiry with regard to Orange Societies, an Hon. Gentleman in this House stated his intention of bringing forward a motion with regard to Ribbon Societies. If he had made that motion he should have had my support, because if any rea son exists for imagining that those Societies prevail to any considerable ext en t, a l t h ough the members composing them maybe of a different class to the members of Orange Societies, I consider that it would form a proper subject for in quiry, and sincerely desire that an end should be put to every secret Society. There are other Societies not of a secret nature I mean political associations, in the con duct and formation of which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin has always been particularly active. I have often expressed my reasons why I disapprove of Societies of this nature, But after concessions have been made, which concessions have been previously refused, is it not to be feared that an opinion will gain ground that no change in the laws, however proper, will be en tertained until by their assembled numbers the people have extorted such concession? I also do consider that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has received great provocation for his conduct. I consider a speech, to which I will not more particularly allude, which was made in the other House of Parliament, was a provo cation that was difficult to withstand. Under such circumstance', Sir, I really do feel that I would have acted much in the same way as an Hon. and Learned Friend near me did—insulted, as I would have felt myself to have been, I would have been most likely to have joined the Association. —( Cheers.) But Sir, the Government at home, as well as the Government of Ireland, have always discountenanced such Associa tions._( Hear, hear.) Even during the last year the Hon. and Learned Member fur Dublin gave up an Association because it was the opinion of the Government th at it should not exist. Even during the last year, when he was about to form another Aasocirtion which even now exists, he was informed of the unfavourable opinion which both the Government and Lord Lieutenant held of such As sociations. Such Associations must always weaken aGovern- Ment--they must necessar ily' take something from the force of the law, and therefore I do hope most certainly that we shall their existence was one of the evils with which the Go see gradually a discontinuance of such bodies ; but vernment of Lord Normanby had to contend, owing to the i mpolicy o f f ormer Governments.—( Cheers.) They were t! necessary result of what was told to the people—you in ohmted them that to Associations you would yield, but ther petitions you wo u ld never co ncede. It is no reproach, efore, to the Government of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland owing to say that Associations existed in his time. It leg to his Government that the Associations had not taken that dangerous character which they had in for mer times.—( Cheers.) Sir there is another matter with re gard tolthe distribution of patronage by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. There certainly has Caen a great difference be tween wsisiitrchonduct i n th at respect arid of former Governments. think . upon that subject lam ready to say that I my Noble Friend near me ( Lord Morpeth), who stated last year that the favours and patronage of Government should be given rather to the friends and sup. porters of the Governn.ent than to its decided and invete rate enemies.— ( Loud cheers.) I know no wisdom in any other course —a great change has certainly taken place. Now we have the support of a great majority of the people of Ireland. ' I am not ashamed of that fact—l am proud to proclaim it. You have seen to-night the feeling which exists in favour of our Policy, by the number of petitions which have been laid upon your table. For the first time you have seen peti tions, numerous petitions, laid on the table, praying the House that they would not assist in the removal of that Go vernment which they looked upon with favor and confidence. Sir, I have been a party connected with that Government, which has so conducted affaira, and I have no hesitation in saying openly, t h at if t h at G overnment is continued, it will be continued upon the same principles which formerly guided it. I know not if you conduct the Government of England according to the opinions of the majority of the people—if the government of Scotland is to be conducted according to the opinion of the majority of Scotland-_I know not Sir,why Ireland should be governed according to the opinions of a small minority. On the contrary, my opinion is that you can have nothing firm, nothing stable, you can have no permanent improvement, unless you carry with you the good will and confidence of the peopl e cf Ireland. I appeal therefore to the testimony of those who know Ireland best—l appeal to those who represent her in terests in this House, whether the state of Ireland has not improved in consequence of the Government having the good will and favour of the people.—( Hear. ) Sir, we have passed laws affecting the condition of the p'oor of that country. We have passed a law by which in futcre I trust such evils will be prevented as have of late Year s tended to distract that country; but this must be ne w op cessaril a slo era.tion—an operation which can y me. I stat h Only take place with scarce ly w o rth while have te a read.ement Its sera a that it is the Duke of W e lli ngton as to st atement made by o t he state of the amounts to this : that in man y co unties of Ireland there I believe the stateme%rtty-shi were hundreds and thousand s o f freehold ers w h o wer e called out and driven up like cattle, in this respect—you abolished according to the opinions of their landlords. In 1829 t You made a great change , \ t he forty_shilling freeholders I am not now speaking of the arrangement, but one of the natural wisdom of that and fixed... the franchise at 101. political consequences, that the landlords who had, eg rights of their t enants, and: o f t h e Constitution, drivenca_ b en efit was taken them up to the Poll, w h en they found that the political o epo tl i'e • I f rom them, regardless of their miseries and of their wants, had them driven from their huts— they exercised the That is one of the ri ghts of la n dl or d s as mer e landlords. 1129. We ad ditional difficulties which Ilea existed since . r ive seen t h e r i g h ts o f property exercised with t h e c h an ce the utmost ri gour ; b u t no w the poor manfig s Of ha:'ing his c a v e i nvest i ga t e d by the BoardofsGuardiau', s a priviloge to which formerly he bad no an h n ave it on the Those thiving s too k p l ace i n f ormer t i mes , Y ou evidence of a l an d surveyor o f muc h etuinenCe, u that hun dreds, naydriven from of these poor people perished from starvation within a few m o uths after they had been . their hom es . You h ave l ate ly s een a scene of he same kind, not in 1775 but iu 1839. 'ln April, 1 839 . have seen an ejectment go on. backed by the yon Military I-4- oust' , force, by infantry, by cavalry, and In armed police, atilt a t not the slightest resistance was off, red, —( Hear, C an any Government existing in Ireland fail t o seal with outrages which . no . doubt . were the produce have o f to hear. ) such scenes ? 'Tie future existence of the poor people is left wholly unprovisted for—they have no borne and no food. Tell me not, then, that now in 1839, and looking h s s . tek to 1835, that in the interval we have had time to re tee dy an e v il so d eeply roote d . Y ou could not expect that outs.. gee would not be committed, arising from causes which have long prevailed, and which are still in exis t fenc e . I say then, Sir, that with all those evils so deeply rooted, y,_ll cannot but expect that the cure must be the f eet cure, exm work of ti n ' —you cannot expect it to work a per '` pt in the course of a long period. A Government i ' say show they are determined to g i ve artes. They may show that they are deter justice t o all i which will tend to diminish pov e rty mined to Prom P ot e laws and sn i, i y show that they will confide in the . ry ; toe may . } will plat. their reliance in the affections peopl e, that they ' Of the p eople, and they may expect that in time confidence • i 11• 14;44: THE SUN, LONDON, TtII4 I ,SDAY, APRIL 16, 1839. long estranged, and aff. , ctions which have been greatly alienated, will be again turned towards the 'Government. They may expert that misery and poverty, the accompani ment of too great a proportion of the population, will yield to the remedies applied, such as those remedies which the Ministers of Elizabeth applied dining her reign—such remedies as the Ministers of King William applied to Scotland when they established a religious supremacy in that country—a religion which was the religion of the p eo ple__( Hear) —a religion closely bound with our own, and therefore which could be united with the Crown of this country in a way certainly that the Roman Catholic religion never could be united with it, and which being united with the Crown in the reign of King William, was one of the most glorious circumstances of the liberty of that reign. I think the time came long ago—l think at the commencement of the reign of George 111 , the time had come—when complete religious liberty might have been given to the Roman Catholics, and when measures might have been taken to promote the welfare of the people of that country without jealousy or distinction of classes. I think likewise in 1839, when a settlement was made of the Roman Catholic religion, that other measures might have accompanied it, that would have made the future task of Government more easy for those who might have had to administer it ; but this I feel still, and am persuaded of it, that by pursuing the principles which we have pursued— by adopting the course we have adopted—by giving the peop'e that confidence vvhich never can be given to them by an Administration consisting of persons whci have long been hostile to their liberties—( Much cheering)—and even now, in this year of 1839, in granting Municipal franchise for Ireland, such as is granted to England and Scotland, deny them the miserable boon of having a fran chise of 81. instead of a franchise of 10/.--( Hear, hear)-- to insist upon it, that if you do give them Municipal fran chise you will make it higher, and so high as to consign your trust with the same statute by which you give your privileges.—(lmmense cheering.) I say, under the ad ministration of persons of those feelings, I do not believe that the tranquillity of Ireland will be permanently estab lished. Ido not believe that the heart of Ireland will be reconciled to this empire.—( Much cheering.) I will read to you some words which were written by Mr. Burke to wards the end of his career—a time when he was separated from political friends and void of political influence, in which he said— Burke.—Letter on Affairs of Ireland, 1797. " As to a participation on the part of the Catholics in the privileges and capacities which are withheld, without mean ing wholly to depreciate their importance, if I had the honour of being an Irish Catholic, I should be content to expect satisfaction upon that subject with patience, until the minds of my adversaries, few but powerful, were come to a proper temper ; because if the Catholics did enjoy without fraud, chicane, or partiality, some fair portion of those advantages which the law, even as now the law is, leaves open to them ; and if the rod were not shaken over them at every turn their condition would be tolerable ; as compared with their former condition it would be happy. But the most favourable laws can do very little towards the happiness of a people when the disposition of the ruling power is adverse to them. Men de not live upon blotted paper. The favourable or the hostile mind of the ruling power is of far more importance to mankind, for good or evil, than the black letter of any statute." " I have been long, but it i= almost a necessary consequence of dictating, and that by snatches, as a relief from pain gives me the means of expressing my sentiments. They can have little weight as coming from me, and I have not power enough of mind or la,Kly to . bring them out with their natural force. But I do not wish to have it concealed that I am of the same opinion to my last breath, which I entertained when soy facul ties were at the best : and I have not held back from men in power in this kingdom, to whom I have very good wishes, any part of my sentiments on this melancholy subject, so long as I had access to persons of their consideration." It is that disposition which I invoke, and not any favour to, or confidence in the present Administration. It is that favour which I invoke—a disposition of mind favour able to the Irish people, and which I ask you to assert to night. Sure I am, that if you ag roe with the opinion that dictated the appointment of a Committee of the House of Lords, dictated as it was with the previous statements that were made, you will not infuse into the people of reland a belief that the Go vernment which you will probably establish really means well and favourably to the Irish people.—(Cheers.) Depend upon it, you will never infuse into their minds a notion that you really wish to see them on an equality of privilege with us.—(Hear, hear.) They will have a constant and rankling suspicion that justice will not be impartially administered—that fa vour will not be impartially shown. In saying this, and in asking this House for its opinion. I kno.v very well that I am speaking the sentiments of the present Government with regard to Ireland, and that while I have the opposi tion of the numerous party opposite with regard to this question, that the present Government likewise is not r - garded with favour upon other subjects—subjects totally re moved from the present, by another portion of this House. —( Hear, hear.) An Honourable Gentleman has given notice of a motion which he intends to make, should I be successful in carrying the resolution I mean to propose. I need not at present enter into the discussion of that re solution, which is a resolution totally dill. rent from the subject in hand, and which will be preceeded by a state ment by him of the reforms which he intends to propose, and the subject matter of them, and which the House will in t they are not reforms of future decideupon.That minortheyare i m ta n p o o t rminneoer—ne must ref.orms— tiia gather from hi s h av i ng g i ven notice of it upon this subject. When he states hi s op i nions on that suject—when he states the extent to which he means to go—l shall be ready to state my opinions on the subject, adhering to opinions which I have declared in this House, not as those opinions have been by some carelessly, and by others care fully, misrepresented—( Hear, hear)—but opinions rest ing upon great opinions, and having in view, as I think necessary, the future welfare of this country. Sir, the difference of opinion which the H on . G ent l eman enter .._ tains, may be adifference of opinion which may lead him to say that however he may agree with us with regard to this resolution, that however he may agree with us with regard to the support of the Government of Ireland, yet the difference upon other subjects is such that it is far better that he should do all in his power, in union with all those who may agree with him, to make way for another Government in this country. I shall, however, rest satisfied with the de cision of this House upon the subject. I cannot say that I think the course which the Government has pursued with respect to Ireland, or with respect to the general questions which have affected this country, is a course from which we ought to depart. lam not prepared to say that the acts of reform which have succeed the reform in the repro aentation in 1832 have been trifling or unimportant. But I should show that we have made considerable changes —that we have gone far to reform abuses, and that the spirit by which these reforms have been carried on will lead quietly and gradually to other reforms and other safe and salutary changes, whereas an abrupt interruption of them might stop their progress.—( Hear, hear.) That is the argument which I may be prepared to hold if that question shall be brought before the House by the lion. Gentleman. At present I have only to consider that al though a majority of this House may approve of our Irish policy, yet that the present Government may have run its course, and that another Government may succeed it. Sir, I may think the consequences to Ireland will be dangerous—( Hear, hear)—l may think the consequences to the empire very doubtful ; but, personally, as regards ourselves, I think we shall have no reason to re gret that result.—( Loud cheers cn the Ministerial, and laughter on the Opposition Benches.) We repent not of the measures that we have proposed—we have no inclina tion to give way to the measures which we have thought it our duty to resist.—( Hear, hear.) It will be a conso lation to us, on the dissolution of the Ministry, that with' regard to the affairs which I have this night brought under your consideration, that with regard to these affairs of Ireland, we have endeavoured to introduce a final rela tion between this country and that part of the United Kingdom, and that in so doing we have been ready to encounter any opposition—( Hear, hear)—to incur the loss of much strength, and of some poplarity, in this part of the United Kingdom—that we have been ready to endeavour to unite by affection, to unite by feel ings of good will and love, the people of this country and the people of Ireland—to make the whole United Kingdom stronger against all its enemies—to found the Government of Ireland, as the Government of England has long been founded, upon opinion, upon affection, upon good-will; and that if the Ministry has fallen, it has fallen in an at tempt to knit together the hearts of her Majesty's subjects. The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud and long continued cheering. Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I do not regret that I have given to the Noble Lord, by declaring the amend ment I meant to move, that advantage of which he has largely, but not unfairly, availed himself of commenting on the terms and purport of that amendment. I consider that I made no concession, that I deprived myself of no advantage, by not reserving that amendment until this moment. I felt the propositions in the amendment to be consistent w ith good sense, to be so founded on truth, that I willingly courted the opportunity of comment which that declaration might give. I sought to conciliate no sup port.—( Loud cheers.) I sought not to exclude the sup port of any man who, differing from me in opinion, might think the amendment which I move justified by truth and by reason, but I did not attempt so to frame that amendment that I should conciliate the support of those from whom I differ.—( Cheers.) Sir, I was advised not to introduce the name of the House of Lords, because it was said that those Gentlemen of extreme popular opinions, from - a prejudice against the House of Lords, would necessarily " pose i t. I wa s asked to move f or a C omm i ttee on the state of the nation, because that would be now captivat ing to many.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I refuse to make either proposal in this great crisis, for a great one undoubtedly it is when the House of Com mons i s ca ll e d upon to make partial declarations of confidence, and to seek unjustly, as I think, a collision with the House of Lords. __( Loud cheers.) I, in framing my amendment, was in. fluenced by no considerations but those of equity and rea son ; and I felt that although se majority may trample on the amendment, yet that if it be conformable with truth it cannot extinguish the vitality and leading principles of the a mendment.—(Cheers.) Is it right, at this moment, to ask from the House of Commons a partial declaration of confidence in one branch of your public policy ?—( Hear, hoar.) Are you as one branch of the Legislature, amid the difficultiee which surround you, justified in seeking collision with the other branch of the Legislature?— (Cheers. ) Those are the questions which you have to de termine ; and I now say, beforehand, that if in arguing them, if on account of the strength of any conviction I should be betrayed by the hastiness of debate, which it is difficult, when convictions are sttong, entirely to control, whatever may be your inclination to do so, If Ido introduce any laneuage better suited for the mere ascerbities of party convention than for the gravity of ibis occasion, I at once express a preliminary regret for the introduction of lan guage or feelings so unsuited for this debate. Sir, it may be that the subject of an abstract proposal on the subject ror4 o d f Irish affairs—that the intro duction of it by the N in the month of April, may a waken recollections with re spect to former years and the resu lts of former times.— (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I ma y not be able t so successfully to administer that obli v i ous antidote, but may he able to forget the abstract resolution of 1835 moved in the month of April by the Noble Lord— ( Laughter) —but this I can undertake to do—l can under take to erase from my memory any rooted animosity on account of that resolution ; and I can undertake to say that though I may refer to that former abstract resolution, as an example of the impolicy of the House of Commons 1 coming to abstract resolutions, I w take care in referring to the former exareple—at least I attempt to prove— that I am not influenced by any of the feelings which an ungenerous mind might feel on account of former defeat from those resolutions. Sir, I have two propositions to establish in support of my resolutions, and for the destruc tion of that of the Noble Lord ; and I will attempt to maintain my argument closely with reference to those reso lutions. My propositions a, e these—that it is not fitting, not suitable to the character or functions of House of Commons to make abstract declarations of opinions with respect to the public policy of the Government, unless under peculiar and special circumstances. That is my first pro position. My second is that the objections to abstract decla rations of opinion are infinitely aggravated when they are sought to be the cause of unjust conflict with the House of Lords.—( Hear, hear.) If I establish either of those, I give, as it appears to me, a conclusive argument against the proposal of the Noble Lord, and all I ask from the House is, an inculgent hearing, while I attempt, by argu ment to support my propositions. Sir, I say in the firsa place, that declarations of confidence on the part of the House of Commons ought to be resorted to with extreme caution. The confidence of the House of Commons ought rather to be inferred from the general support which it may think fit to give to the Executive Government— from the manner in which it deals with Legislative mea sures proposed for consideration by the Government, than by abstract declarations. But there are occasions which may justify a Government in calling from the House of Commons an expression of confidence. But the occasions are rare indeed, when the House of Commons should select one particular branch of the public policy of a Government, aid passing over all other branches of their public policy, mark with their approbation a detached and single branch. It is diffi. cult to conceive any executive Government which does not adopt some branch of policy not entitled to the con fidence of the House of Commons. It is difficult to con ceive any Government, however perfect, that has not made some error, or adopted some policy that may not have jus tified the House of Commons to approve of their conduct; but there is this evil accompanying partial approbation, or partial condemnation, that you leave the public at a loss to know whether the Government has the confi dence of the House of Commons or not.—( Hear.) You may make it impossible for any Government to be formed if you pursue that course ; because, if you select particular branches of policy, why, you condemn the policy of Government ( Hear) if you select a particular branch of policy, why, you approve and ex press your approbation of it, as may be, leading to an er roneous impression in the public mind, that by that decla ration of confidence in the individual case, you mean to imply a general approbation, and general preference for the Executive. I say therefore that there ought to be some strong, clear vindication for the partial declaration of confidence in a Government, and the partial approba tion of their principles. Still it may be possible that the I partial declaration of confidence may be justified. They may possibly have this advantage, that by limiting your selves to a single branch of policy, you may be clear and explicit as to the principles of which you mean to approve —but if you commit this double error, that you take a single branch of policy for approval, and have not the courage or the manliness to avow the principles as connected with that isolated branch of policy, of which you mean to approve—if you don't tell us the period to which your resolution of confidence Applies—if you don't tell us the public men of whom you mean to approve—if you don't tell us the principles which you mean to sane• tion, and make that explicit beyond all possibility of con trsdiction—then you are involving the House of Commons in a course to which it has never yet resorted, and which constitu:es one of the most embarrassing precedents which can possibly be made.—(Cheers ) Now let me ask you, is not your resolution open to that objection ? It is not only a partial declaration of approval ; but while it is par tial, it is perfectly inexplicit and indefinite. You ask me to approve of the principles which have guided the Exe cutive Government of Ireland. But the existing Govern ment of Ireland means the Cabinet generally. You cannot separate the existing Government of Ireland from the Cabinet which presides over the general affairs of the country. You cannot pay a partial compliment to Lord Normanby, and the Noble Lord who sits opposite, without paying it indiscriminately to those who administer the public func tions of the country.—( Cheers.) Do you recollect the case of Lord Glenelg last year ? Do you recollect that when a proposal was made to condemn one branch of the public policy, as executed by one public officer— ( Cheers)—do you recollect the declarations then made, that you could not separate an individual from the rest of his colleagues?—( Cheers.) If you do for get it, I'll remind you. Why, Sir, it rarely happens that we can relieve the stern perfor mance of cur duties by the exhibition of romantic and chivalrous affection—( Laughter)—but I must say there was something gratifying when an attack was made by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Corn wall—there was something gratifying in that feeling of pub lic devotion and of private affection—( Laughter and cheers) —in rallying round Lord Glenelg for his support: justly, as I think, so far as this, that a man more amiable in pri vate life, a man more desirous of performing his public du ties, a man having shown greater ability in debate and in the exhibition of that ab lity, having conciliated more of pri vate good will, never exercised the functions of the office ; but I am quoting this for the purpose of showing to you that the compliment is not to the Execut:ve Go. vernment, the compliment is to the public Government of the country; because if you cannot attach censure to a department—if you cannot attach censure to an individual, it is impossible you can attach compliment.—(Cheers.) Never since the days of Nysus and Eurylaus has there been more chivalrous attachment.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Lord said, did the House suppose that the Government would or could continue to adminster the affairs of the country if one of its Members was declared un fit to bold that high place?—( Hear.) Why, if they could be so base and dishonourable—(Cheers)—this House would not permit them to take that course ; no House of Com mons, no Parliament would allow a Government to stand, if it could consent to one of their number becoming a scape. goat to carry the sins of the rest.—( Laughter) a nese were the words used by the Noble Lord. Why, the Noble Lord was determined that the words of the sarcastic moralist, described by that great writer who held up the mirror to nature, should not be verified—who spoke of the sequestered stag that from the hunter's aim withdraws, and who dealt in invectives against the city and the Court. I say the course taken upon that occasion did present an instance of generous devotion on the part of colleagues in behalf of ona of their number attacked, which I have rarely seen. But if that feeling be a just one, so when a compliment is sought to be paid to one department of the Government, you cannot exclusively appropriate that compliment—it must be shared in by the general Government. This, then, is a compliment to the Executive Government generally, for its conduct with respect to Ireland. Do you approve its conduct as to its legislative policy ? Do you meats to say we will approve of the policy of Government with respect to Ireland, but we will say nothing with respect to the legislative measures which it has proposed ? Will you propose this resolution? Will you propose to this House that viewing not only the practical administration of affairs in Ireland, but the course which has been pursued, witk respect to legislation, this House cordially approves of the conduct of her Majesty's Government 2—( Hear, hear.) Will you move that as an amendment? What, when forty-six Members followed the Hon. Member for Sheffield, last year, in denouncing the conduct of Government in respect to Ireland, so far as legis lation was concerned! I ask you this. I concede you shall have a partial vote of approbation. I concede you shall refer to Ireland. I concede you shall extend it to the whole Government, but won't - you include their legislative as wellas executive functions ? Now that is reserved. Your vote refers exclusively a() the administration of affairs in Ireland, excluding the legislative policy. Is that the only objection. Finding, according to your assertion, the pre sent Government censured by a vote of the House of Lords, as you please to consider it, and as I utterly deny—but finding the present Government censured with re spect to its conduct in the administration of affairs in Ireland, do you come courageously and manfully for ward, and ask the House of Commons, in opposition to the implied censure of the House of Lords, to approve the conduct of her Majesty's present advisers ? Are you explicit enough to declare that this House ap proves of the conduct of her Majesty's Government since 1835 ? Have we not a right to ask what is the period to which your vote of approbation goes ? You ask the liouse of Commons to approve the principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years— ( Laughter)—of late years. I won't trouble you with quo tations from writers, for the purpose of showing that the phrase of late years has been applied indiscrim , nately to every number of years between 2 and 100—that it is a mere relative term. But will the House of Commons, when asked to give its sanction and approbation—will the House of Com mons not require any further specification than that the con duct of which it approves has been the conduct pursued of late years ? Now I ask this distinct question, and I hope the Noble Lord will interrupt me by answering it —do you mean to include Lord Grey in this vote of approbation— do you mean to include Lord Wellesley and Lord Plunket, and Lord Anglesca ?—( Hear). Do yod mean to deliver up Lord Anglesea and Lord Wellesley to the obloquy which has been directed against them on account of their mit an invidious contrast to be drawl admi nistration in Ireland ?—( Cheers.) b o et y: e u ei m i e L a u n rd to G p r e e r y . utmost m l o f s t y and Lord Melbourne ? Do you mean to permit Lord o c u ensu re include aa o in rd st Wel lesley Normanby to be complimented at the expense of Lord t A h n o g se le w se h a o an h d a, L e o d r i d re : te e d lle th sl e e and Lord Anglesea, I ask how is it possible for h Lord Wellesley and Lord Anglesea, and declared them to be unworthy of public confidence—declared their whole course to be marked with hostility and acrimony _ . acri towards reland, how is it possible for those to second you ?:—( Hear. If you exclude Lord Wellesley, why do jou not say so Why do you not say, " Our vote of approbation applies exclusively to Lord Normanby—is limited to the period s i nce 1835." No, you evade that —you are seeking to make an invidious contrast between Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, Lord Anglesea and Lord Normanby, but you shelter it under the vague generality of the phrase " late years."--(Loud cheers.) But, perhaps, you take a more generous course—and include Lord Anglesea and Lord Wellesley. I infer that from the speech of the Noble Lor.Y, who said, obscurely, that Lord Wellesley had had great difficulties to contend with, and which per. haps had prevented him from being so successful as Lord Normanby in conciliating popular favour, But it you in clude Lord Wellesley, you include me.—(Cheers and laughter.) You ask me to vote for a resolution, that this !louse approves of the principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland, during late years, and leave me in doubt whether, after the connection I have had with Ireland, you do hot mean to sanction my conduct.—(Laughter.) I suppose, of course, you mean to exclude me —( A voice from the Ministerial benches cried " Hear, hear l" which excited considerable laughter.) But if you include Lord Wellesley—l have had the satis faction of serving with Lord Wellesley in the Government \Gt . Iceland for five }ears, from 1822 to 1827, and I can say that the difference which led to our estrangement was not on account of the administration of Irish affairs. I acted with Lord Wellesley as Lord Lieutenant—l acted with Lord Plunket as Attorney- General for Ireland— ( Hear, Lear)—and if either Lord Wellesley or Lord Plun ket disapproved of my conduct of Irish affeirs, I ask you to cell upon them to account why they did not separate from m€' ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I acted with Lord Mel bourne, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland, when I was Secretary of State. I presume of course that Lord Melbourne has been acting " of late years" upon the principles by which he was actuated formerly with regard to Ireland.— ( Cheers.) Yet there was never less of misunderstanding, or more of cordi 41 union, than between Lord Melbourne and myself. Lord Melbourne must then have acted on those general principles which have since actuated him— of not regarding the religious opinions of deserving candi dates for office in Ireland ; and I can truly say that my separation from Lord Melbourne did not am ise from diff. rences on Irish affairs.—( Hear, hear.) What, then, is the period from which you date your vote of approba ti to ? Is it from 1830? or is it from 1834 ? From the retirement of Lord Grey ?—from the separation of my Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley) and my Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham)? Still you include mel—( Laughter)— you make no exception—" o f late.years."—( Laughter. )The Noble Ford says it is impossible that Ireland should be go verned by at once Lord Haddington and Lord Normanby. But you evade the difficulty of deciding which you wilt take.—( Loud cheers.) I ask, is it decent to call upon the House of Commons to pass an abstract declaration in fa vour of certain pinciples of government without having the manliness to deuce at what period those principles were acted upon, or by wh om they were carried out ?—( Cheers.) Sir, I hove thus stated my first ground of objection to this resolution, because of its vagueness and indefinite ness. I now come to the second point—that we are not justified in seeking a collision with the House of Lords, and that it is a collision that is sought there can be no doubt. Your resolution was received by the whole country as a collision. In Ireland the language used, as to the Noble Lord's motion, was, that this' . is a manly course —it is seeking a collisi on w i t h t h e Lords.—( Hear, hear.) Now an outrance, or a collision, with one cf the consti tiated authorities in the State, is no light matter.—( Hear, hear.) It will be well for the House of Commons to con sider what are the instruments by which it intends to carry forward that warfare—what may be the results—and, above all, what just occasion there is for it.—( Hear.) Now the professed justification is this—that the House of Lords have appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year tele, in respect of crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property inse cure in that part of the empire. How do we stand as to the legislative measures affecting Ireland ?—( Hear.) We have passed a Poor-law Bill, in concurrence with the House of Lords. We have passed a Tithe Bill, in con currence with that House. Upon Municipal Corporations, a difference hitherto has taken place. But surely you are not seeking for the elements of quarrel in the acts of last session? You profess your proceedings to be founded solely on the appointment of a Committee by the House of Lords. Yet you consider it necessary for the success of your resolution, that it should be construed into a censure upon the House of Lords' legislative proceedings. In the present Session, there has been but one occasion in which the House of Lords have expressed their opinions on Irish measures.—( Hear, hear.) At the opening of the Session, you called upon them to echo a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, in these words— " We concur with your Majesty that a reform and amend ment of the Municipal Corporation of Ireland is essential to the well-being of Ireland." Many of you felt differently from this feeling, and I participate in that difference. But the House of Lords, recollecting the conflicts that had taken place, yielded to your suggestion, and the sentence was moulded to the effect that " they concurred with her Majesty that the reform and amendment of the Municipal Corporations was essential to the welfare of that part of the united kingdom. So far, then, is a collision between this House and the House of Lords not justified, on the ground of the difference of legislative measures, that there is not even the pretext for entering into a quarrel. The sole cause of quarrel assigned is that the Lords appointed a Committee; and the Noble Lord, confining himself to this general assumption, made it the burden of his argu ment that the House of Lords, in appointing that Com mittee to inquire into the state of crimes and outrages endangering life and property in Ireland, was, in point of fact, a censureem the general conduct of the Government. Sir, I deny that---(Cheers)—and I ask of you to listen to my arguments, while 1 endeavour to disprove that that aepoitirnaent was intended to be such a censure, The to admit that it is not a Noble Lord, indeed , is willin g cen sure, but he says that it is a prima facie expression of a cen sure. Why, I can understand what a prima facie case of improvement is, but what a prima facie expressi o n of cen sure is I cannot understand.—( Laughter.) I can un derstand what a prima facie ground for inquiry is, but the words of the Noble Lord, namely, that the appointment of a Committee is a primafacie expression of censure are beyond my comprehension. Is the assumption that the appoint ment of a Committee by the House of Lords is tantamount to a censure on the Government to justify us in appealing to the House on the question, or rather adopting an equi vocal course to effect that appeal, when we know that it is not so ? Have we never appointed a Commttee of Inquiry ? (Cheers.) Have we never appointed a Co w mittec to in quire into the state of Ireland? Did .we, hen appoint ing a Committee for the consideration of the general con dition of Ireland, hold the principle, that we were thereby paralysing the functions of Government ?—( Cheers.) In 1834 Lord Altborp appointed a Committee to inquire into Ithe state of Ireland, and the duties of that Committee were, by an amendment proposed by my Learned Friend, specified to be, "to inquire into the state of Ireland, par ticularly with reference to those circumstances that have related to that pact of the Unite=d Kingdom." True, the range of space might have been limited to the insurrection ary counties, but is it not notorious that every act of the Government was open to be questioned?—(Cheers.) When Lord Althorp appointed a Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland, thereby implying a perfect right to question the use made of the prerogative of mercy, did that Noble Lord contend that the functions of Govern ment were incompatible with the inquiry of that Committee ?—(Cheers.) That Committee sat for two y ear s —it excluded the Catholic question from its Report, but it inquired into . every subject of practical Government, and we, the HOLUM of Commons, appointed it; and are we now to resent the appointment of a Com mittee by the House of Lords with precisely the same object ?—( Cheers.) You, the House of Commons, ap pointed a Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland, making every function of the Executive Government prac tically open to it—the administration of justice and the prerogatives of the Crown were also examined into, but the Government did not consider it as tantamount to a sus pension of its functions, nor do the House of Commons so consider it. Is the Ilouse of Commons now to consider the appointment of a similar Committee by by the House of Lords as a censure upon the Govern ment, and incompatible with it ?—( Cheers.) In 1827 the Noble Lord himself moved a Select Committee to in quire into the causes of the increased number of ;criminal convictions and committals in England and Wales. Were not the functions of Government here in connection with the criminal administration of justice open to inquiry ? And yet, was it considered that this appointment was a censure on the Government ? No—the Hous s of Commons appointed the Committee—the House of Com • mons expressed no surprise that the Government remained after that ? Yet the Noble Lord now invites this House to resolve that the House of Lords had no power to appoint a similar Committce.—( Cheers.) In 1832 the Noble Lord says the Committees of 1824 and 1825 have ex hausted this subject. Now that is quite a different argu- ment. You may contend that there has been inquiry enough already, and therefore object to further investiga tion, but that is nc ground to enter into a collision with the House of Lords. You may say that further inquiry is superfluous ; but you should not, therefore, quarrel with another branch of the Legislature.—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord says that because the Committee of 1824 and 1825 exhausted the subject, you have no right to enter into a further inquiry now. I differ from the Noble Lord. I will show bins that in 1832 the llouse of Commons was not satis fied with the inquiries of the Committee of 1824 and 1825, and that it appointed another Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland, and that, too, at the instance of the Hon. Gentleman who was connected with the G ti c: e - vernment of that day. In 1832. Sir Henry Yarnell, e Forc ei es, no Member for Dundee, the Pay satisfied that the Committees o In f " li24 and 1825 had ex t o intment of another P hausted the subject , moved the a p e or s, which C o mmittee. I ask the House toH comp ouse oaf nell's motonre L the d terms . of t h a t resolution with that of th i s now so obno xious. Sir Henry Par was for a Committee " to inquire a ireir y ttioewtherotate immediatetheis turbed counties of Irelan d, wi c auses which had produced those disturbances, and to examine the efficiency of the laws for the suppression of outrages against property." Suppose the House of Lords had abandoned their own words, and had adopted those of Sir H. Parnell, would not the same objection apply to them ? Placing the two m otions in juxta-position I ask what is the difference? The Lords have moved for a Committee to inquii e into those outrages and crimes which ' have rendered life and propertyinsecis n insecure in o t d h i e tr t e p re a n rt ee of ! the r esmirpirHe: psince Parnell l m B o 3 ,,td, —wllthere with respect to the immediate causes of outrage, and with respect to the laws, and yet the House of Lords' proceeding upon the same principle is here attempted to be resented. I venture to say, that if the House of Lords had moved in the same words, the same objections would now have been re-echoed to the House—(Cheers) —at all events, we have it on record that the House of Commons formerly did that which the House of Lords is now about to do, and yet that of the pro ceeding was not conwsidheyrelrt,ainftatmheoumntetmo b s f u h re er Ma the Governmen t. ;he Hous jesty's Government in in Lord Johne Russell's m o ti on wa s af Lords co ns id er th a t the phraseology Duke of Wellington had practical censure —though the did quiry, and we therefore denied that it was a censure —( Hear, hear ) — why se, and say we object to ma n ed to the year year 1832 ?—( Cheers. ) they not then take for the limited period F een better to do so propose that it sba b l Would it:not have . s . , than, after the dis claimer of the Duke of eveeington, to let the resolution pass without an amendment, and then propose to make it here the pretext of dispute with the House of Lords?— (Cheers.) Have you:no example before you ? When last year the Committee to inquire into the appointment of Sheriffs in Ireland was appointed, it was ten times more objectionable than the terms now proposed ? You ob jected to time principle of the motion as being too confined as regarded length of time, and to prevent the possibility of censure 'Jou propose that this limit at i on should be ex tended to other persons. There now i s your own autho rity, and why not act in the same manner r e specting crimes and outrages as you do r es p ect i ng Sherif f s ? If you object to the principles, why / not propose that the inquiry should be also extended to the administration of former Governments ?—( Cheers. ) I wish you would appoint a Committee to inquire into the acts of other Governments. I wish you would do so when I hear myself charged with abetting Orangeism. Ap point a Committee which shall be free from the objections you urge. Appo int a Committee, not to commence in 1805, but 183 4 , or any other year y ou may name, wh i c h I shall subject my ac ts to investigation, and tell yet} at once I will not shrink from it.—(Glreat cheering.) This is the question—when you seek collision with the House of Lords, amid the difficulties that surround you, why did you not take the course with resp-ct to a Committee on criminal offences, which you did take with respect to a Committee for the appointment of Sheriffs Hear, hear.) To be sure if the House of Lords did appoint a Committee, supposing there had been something more, not of censure, but something more of the allege' ions of a prima facie case for inquiry, could we reasonably have turned round and blamed the House of Lords, for entering upon this investigation ? Is it from the Irish Government we should expect this indignant refusal ? I am acting, Sir, in the course I take in the same manner as I always have done. I want not recrimination. I have not said to the Irish Government you have been encou raging crime, and I cannot approve of your conduct ; I won't meet you with a vote of censure, because I think there is ground for inquiry, and I shall suspend my judg ment till that inquiry has been made? The Noble Lord says, why not meet this with a vote of censure ? To that I say, that is not the course I shall adopt, because I have not got the information for that purpose. If the Howie of Lords did think themselves called upon to institute a Com mittee of Inquiry, after the taunts thrown out by Members of the Irish Government on the Government of this country, after the language that has been used, and after one branch of the Legislature has said, let us inquire, could any man have been prepared for the storm of indig nation that has been lavished forth ?—(Cheers.) Some gentlemen met in Dublin in 1837, and passed resolutions commenting strongly upon the conduct of the Government. The speeches that were made on that occasion were com mented on by the Noble Lord opposite, in his speech on the Municipal Bill. The words of the Noble 1.0.-d on that occasion were memorable, and I will just read a few of them to the House. He said—" it was this same mi s!rable monopolizing minority"—it was not formidable therefore, on account of its numbers—"who have not dared to bring forward any charge, but have passed resolutions, making charges against Lord Normanby, and although Par liament has assembled more than a week, no Member has ventured to.give' a notice of his intention to bring before Parliament these high crimes and misdemeanours.". So that when we were forbearing, such was the language that was used. The Noble Lord no doubt meant to refer to the House of Commons—he meant to say that-in the House of Commons .arose impeachment s and therefore that there should be inquiry. But the Noble Lord would not let inquiry take place. He cut off our defence upon that, for he said—" It may be said, though it is a weak and miserable argument, no one would venture to bring such a subject forward, because of the strength of Ministers in that House." So that we are a miserable minority, and our argu ments are also miserable !—( Laughter.) The Noble Lord then went on to:say—" This, I say, is a miserable ar gument ; but is there not another House—the Commons ?" —( Loud cheers)—is there not another House of Parlia ment, where this could be brought forward ? What is the power of the opponents of her Majesty's Government in that House ? Why shrink from going there, and bringing forward charges in that place ? You have brought for ward charges against the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and yet you dare not bring his conduct before Parliament."__ (Cheers.) When so challenged by the Noble Lord to bring forward charges, suppose the House of Lords had taken this course—suppose they had brought forward the accusations, and proceeded to judgment, without inquiry-- what would have been said to that ?—( Cheers.) You taunted them to come forward—they have not visited you with censure—they have asked for inquiry__ you now say that inquiry is tantamount to cen sure, and you want to eseapt's inquiry, by -pro posing a vote of confidence. Do you believe you stand justified by the deliberate sense of the people of England in doing that ?—( Great cheering.) The Noble Lord may tell us that the state of Ireland is improved, but is there nothing in the state of Ireland to account for the desire of the House of Lords to have inquiry into crime and outrage endangering life and property ?—( Cheers.) The state of Ireland may be improved—that remains to be shown. The House of Lords have this admission by the Solicitor-General of Ireland, who said, in opening the Special Commission at Clonniel, " I am personally a stranger in your county, but the perusal of the Calendar of prisoners, and the information which has been commu nicated to me demonstrate that there can be no doubt of this lamentable fact." Now, of what fact were the House of Lords conversant ? Why of this, as stated by the Soli citor-General, " That in no place where the law of England exists is human life less regarded than in the county of Tipperary." Ireland may be improved, but we have this important admission, that in no part of the country is human life less regarded than in the county of Tipperary. Are you surprised that the House of Lords should investigate a course of policy which has led to so utter a disregard of human life? Are you surprised that the House of Lords, seeing on the borders of the county of Tipperary that one of their own members had been cruelly murdered in the open day, and no pro gress made towards the discovery of the offender—are you surprised that the House of Lords, influenced by such feel ings, should claim the privilege of instituting an inquiry into ‘• crime and outrage in Ireland, which had rendered life and property insecure ?" I object to that inquiry, says the Noble Lord, because it his been brought forward by a Noble Lord professing certain political opinions. What has the House of Commons to do with the name or senti ments of the Noble Lord by whom it is brought forward ? Loud cheers.) The proceedings of the House of Lords may be alluded to under the name and cover of what has been said or done in another place, but the wiser course, which has been adopted in this House, precludes any such allusions, and to call on the House of Commons to insti tute such a proceeding as the present, because Lord Roden was the Member who brought forward the motion in the other House—( Vehement cheering)—to call on us to recognize the speech of the mover of a resolution in the House of Lords is as contrary to all Parliamentary prece dent, as it is alien to the forms and practices of this House. —( Loud cheers.) Let me suppose a case of an Hon. Member of the House of Commons, professing Liberal opi nions, professing Liberal principles, who had been murdered in open day, in the immediate neighbonrhood of his resi dence--suppose at the same he was planning - improvements which would give life and employment to the tenantry of his district—suppose the House of Commons, with feelings outraged by such a calamity, had proposed to institute an inquiry into crime and outrage endangering life and pro perty in that county—and suppose the House of Lords had instituted I.OIIIC proceedings for the purpose of ques tioning our right, and had founded their proceeding on the ground that the motion had been made in this House by a Liberal Member, and that that would be used as an argument against it—suppose the House of Lords had recognised in its discussions the principles of the mover. I wonder what the House of Commons would say to such a proceeding. —( Loud cheers.) We don't deal out equal justice—we know well that if that ca lamity had befallen one of our own Members—if he had been murdered and that we had thought fit to move a Committee of Inquiry, and if the House of Lords had, what I must call the indecency, to act in such a way there would be no limit to our just indignation.—( Hear ) Sir, I advise the House to consider this—what is the next step they will take when they pass this resolution ? When they do enter into a collision, surely they will take care that that collision will be effectual. After you have passed the resolu tion will you call on the House of Lords to rescind its motion for a committee of inquiry ? if you do not what do you gain ? ( Hear, hear.) What do you gain by the demonstration of your indignation. The Noble Lord says that there are precedents for it, and he has pointed out one, and only one applicable to this case. Differences upon legislative proceedings have no application to the present case, but where differences exist, you invite the House of Lords to a conference—you regret that your intentions are thwarted upon matte) s import int to the public interests, in consequence of the Lords either rejecting it, or proposing amendments to which you cannot agree. You ask for a conference, and there you state your objections. —( Hear.) This however constitutes no precedent, but, as the Noble Lord says there is a precedent, and the only one which can be found, I ask the House of Comm ms to refer to that single proceeding, not as a rule, but as a beacon, to warn them.--( Loud cheers.) I as k them: to consider the precedent of the Noble Lord, which is connected with what was called the Scottish plot. That is his single pre cedent. I ask them to consider the character of that pre cedent. It appears that in 1703, the re was a susp i c i on t h a t Simon Lord Lovat was in communication with the Court of France and the Court of James the Second, at St. Germains certain ta a hnedemw a sp Ia y p a mp a party employment apprehended nf the dt hede ' to organise an invasion lo aonfd waseSd c fm o oi t nr l a n se d ur , lsys a e n ixn d , bya Dukeme the oo Crown.ffl3 Devonshire,u rci r h House of Lords having a jealousy of the e Ministersr, and oftt the ehe Commons Crown, insistedresisted on it the bu t there i examination g no of analogyur eh between the two cases. Here th e Lo ' rds appoint a - Committee to inquire into crime and outrage ; but the complaint of the Commons was, that when a prisoner suspected of treason able practices was taken by her Majesty's Ministers, the House of Lords, in violation of the known law of the land wrested them out of their hands. Now, that is the pre cedent of the Noble Lord. The House of Lords take a party under its examination, and the House of Commons protest against it, on the ground that they also had a right to take part in this examination—( Cheers)—but even then the House of Lords were in the right. I said, on fit st referring to the prece dent, that it was a beacon to warn, andnot a guide to follow, and I think, in the space of five minutes, I will prove to you that I am justified in that statement. Observe this is the only prece dent the Noble Lord can find at all analogous to the present case, and it shows to what shifts the Noble Lord is driven when the only precedent he can quote is one adopted by the high Tories of that time ; for this is the account given of that memorable struggle between the two Houses by the Whig authorities. I thought the Noble Lord would rely upon it, but I thought also that he touched it very cautiously, being fearful that others might be cognisant of it, and might expose its real merits.—(Laughter. ) Here I leave it, and here I shall have to illustrate the collision on the Scottish plot of 1703. This is the account Bishop Burnet gives of it :—" The Commons being in ill humour with the Lords, were glad to find occasion to vent it.—(Much laughter.) They thought the Lords should not have entered on that examination, and they complained of it as a new and unheard-of thing , in an address to the Queen. They said it was an invasion of their privileges." and the Noble Lord, borrowing a part of h's speech from this authority, says the very same thing.—(A laugh.) Bishop Burnet says" that was a proceeding without precedent," and Tindal says " that the House of Commons objecting to the House of Lords taking criminals into custody for the purpose of examination was without precedent, but it was entirely owing to party feeling—(Much laughter) The high Tories being strongest in the Commons, seizing every opportunity to ingra tiate themselves with the Queen, and to attack the Whigs, who had a majority . in the House of Lords; substitute Whig for Tory and the picture is complete." " The Commons continued to protest, but the Lords Committee went on with their exam i n ation—(Much cheering and laughter)—and concluded by voting that a dangerous plot was concocted by some in. Scotland and the Court of France, and this being concluded, the Lords made a long and vigorous address in answer to that of the Commons, and the Lot ds in their address observed how uneasy the Commons were at the whole progress of the in quiry, and had taken methods to obstruct it all they could.— (Renewed laughter.) The Lords observed that they had not taken the examination to themselves, as excluding others, for the Commons might have done it as well as they. The Lords observe, in their concluding address, ' and the House of Com mons till now has never countenanced the od?ingeroes qpiniqn which does so directly te n d to rendering ill tMinitters safe from the examination of Parliament and we are persuaded the House of Commons will hereafter assent to such an i n ti ma ti on , b ecaus e they are not usually won t t o part with the power they have assumed, and it is certain that they have several times t a ken on themselves to exerciseauthority like that which they haye so severely reflected qn whe n exercised py the Hotpla of Lords, , ' 1 do not knQvi whq was the ailthor of the Cc:pumps' address, m th e Noble Lord who was the author of the Lords' buclininfo address. r Bishop Burnet says , " t h e a ddre ss was drawn tI up by Lord Somers, and was read over and submitted to the critical consideration of a number of the Lords, of whom I had the honor to be one. The address with the other papers was published by the Lord , , and made a great impression upon the body of the nation, and very unfavourable contoasts were drawn between the conduct of the House of Lords and House of Commons."—(Cheers and laughter.) Now this was the Scottish case of 1703, and these were the reasons urged on the part of the House of Commons for questioning the undoubted privileges of the house of Lords, and seeking a collision which was perfectly unjustifiable.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord might perhaps say, whatever may be the terms of the motion, the manner in which that motion was brought for sard in the House of Lord 3 indieitcs an intention on the part of our political pppo flouts of gaining a covert and unfair advantage over us. Now, Sir, as fal: as I am concerned, I utterly deny that such an in tention was ever for one moment entertained by me, and I do not believe that any one in the appointment of that had any other object in view than instituting a fair and im partial inquiry into the state of crime in Ireland.—(Cheers.) Nothing could equal the surprise I felt when I was informed of the importance that had been attached to it. That her Ma jesty's Ministers had abandoned their situations because the House of Lords had determined to institute an inquiry into the state of crime in Ireland I must confess that I was ex- tremely astonished when I was informed, on the following morning, that hPr Majesty's Ministers had resigned, berause, in consequence of a vote of the House of Lords which they had chosen to construe into a vote of censure. The first thing I did was to call on the Duke of Wellington to inquire if he had heard any thing of these reports, and I was informed that the Duke of Wellington had left town that morning for Hampshire. I then called on my Noble Friend, and the answer I received to my inquiries was, that my Noble Friend had set out for Lancashire. Now, I put it to the House if it is probable, had we expected such a result, that the Duke of Wellington and my Noble Friend would have left town? I think I need say no more; but let this fact show that, at any rate, there was no deliberate intention on the part of those with whom I act, to gain any covert and secret advan tage over our political opponents by thevote elsewhere. I firmly believe that all that was intended by the proposers of that Committee was the institution of a fair and impartial inquiry, and thlt there never existed any intention of creating by that enquiry any prejudice whatever. But no doubt the Noble Lord calculated upon produeiug a prodigious effectas to the unfairness of that Committee, by observing that Lord Roden, when he proposed that Committee had constituted it in unfair proportions, by pr?- posing 13 Members of his own political opiniOns, and tie only who entertained those of his opponents. This declaration has doubtless created a great sensation on the part of all those who sit behind the Noble Lord, as _to the unfair intention of a V Committee thus appointed. I do not know exactly how the Noble Lord makes out his five Members, because 13 and 5 do not constitute the members of the Comi mittee actually appointed ; but I will read to the (louse ten of the naraes proposed to be on the Committee as originally ap pointed, and I cannot compliment the Noble Lord on his far seeir, powers, because on this occasion, instead of seeing double, his vision possessed the power of diminishing by one half the number of Membe,s so proposed. I will read the names, and the House will perceive that these Noble Lords in general are favourable to the political opinions of her Ma jesty's Ministers. The ten Members originally proposed were Lord Plunkett, Lord Cloncurry, Lord Glenelg, Lord Ilather ton, Lord Carew, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Duncannon, Lord _ Normanby, LwdGosford, and the Duke of Leinster. It may be disputed that this Committee is not fair, because there are twelve names on the other side, but do not leave the House to imag;ne that the disproportion was so great as thirteen to five. I set out by attempting to establish two propositions, first, that a partial declaration of confidence in any Government can only be warranted oa some extraordinary occasion; and, secondly, that no such extraordinary occasion exists in the present instance, and that any collision with the House of Lords on these grounds would be an unjust interference in their undoubted privileges. I know that if I left the case here, I might be charged with concealing my opinions respecting the Government of Ireland. It might be said you rest your objection on constitutional grounds, but you shrink from letting your opinions on the Go vernment of Ireland be known . 1 consider that I might call for the support of those on this question who approve of the general Ministerial policy respecting Ireland, and who would not object to a collision with the House of Lords and this House, taut who think that this is not the occasion for provoking such a collision—they might agree with me on this point, although they do not agree with me on other subjects, and it is because they do not agree with me on other subjects, that I am deter mined to conceal nothing, but will show when the time comes the reason why I cannot say aye to the motion of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord may say that I had the power to leave the House without voting, when the motion is brou4ht forward but I will not leave the House without voting, and when the Noble Lord's motion is put I shall not only say no to that mo tion, but state the reasons on which I dissent from it. The Noble Lord asks me to give my assent to the principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years, and I will state the grounds on which I must say no. I am asked to approve of this policy, and also to affirm that it has tended to strengthen the administration of the law, and to the general improvement of the empire. But have the House of Commons considered what the effects of that particular policy may be upon the United Kingdom? In the firs: place I must consider the policy of my Lord Normanby. With respect to Lord Normanby and the Noble Lord opposite, I can truly state that nothing is more painful to my feelings than to say anything which can be construed as disrespectful to those Noble Lords. I have known Lord Normanby almost all my political life, and 1 can assure that Noble Lord, though perhaps I may not be privileged to call him my friend, that no o.te rejoices more in the mature deve lopment of those great powers he possesses than I do, and that Noble Lord, as well as Lord Glenelg, has not only shown great eloquence in debate, but has conciliated as much as, in the pre sent conflicting state of parties, is possible, the esteem of his political opponents. But I will state the grounds why I cannot approve of his policy. I wish the Noble Lord had defined his principles. He asks for an approval of the principles noon which the Government of Ireland has been conducted, but he does not state what those principles are. I consider that, in the first place, and it is almost an insult to be called upon to make such a statement, a perfect and impartial admi nistration of justice should take place throughout Ireland ; the withholding of which is the withholding of that to which every subject is entitled, justice impartially administered, without re spect to persons. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy ought to be governed by the same principles as the administra tion of justice. It ought to be exerc sed as a strictly judicial act, and all considerations of personal favour—all considerations of party po.itics—all considerations of public display ought utterly to be disregarded in dealing with the prerogative of mercy Sir, I say this also, that, as the law has declared the civil equality of all classes in Ireland, without reference to religious opinion, I think the Crown ought not by the exercise of its prerogative to create practically that which the law has put aside. Of course, I agree entirely with the principle laid down by the Noble Lord, that those who share with you in your political opinions are, and ought to be, entitled to a pre ference in the distribution of your patronage. That is what I omplain of, because when I was in office and have acted u,,on that principle it was charged against me that, by so doing, I was giving encouragement to Orange domination. You won't give me the benefit of the rule which you contend f-r yourselves. I have never taunted the Noble Lerd with the selection of Roman Catholics for office or of advancing his friends. I have taunted him, because of the encouragement I considered he gave to dangerous associations, by theadvance ment to office of members of associations which certainly are dangerous to the peace of the country. (Loud cheers.) Therefore, I say that religious opinion ought to be no disquali fication ; but I accompany that, by saying that the persons selected for office should be of the same general politics as the Government, and not members of a dangerous association.— ( Cheers.) I say, Sir, that I cordially agree with the resolu tion of 1836, to which I subscribed, for the putting down of Orange societies. I care not for names, but I adhere to that resolution which declared that it was advisable to put down all societies having secret oaths, and of a dangerous tendency. I go further, and I say that my opinion is that the Crown ought to discourage, not merely by the interposition of the law— but by the expression of its opinion it ought to discourage—all processions, and all manifestations of party feeling, which can be wounding to the feelings of any portion of the people.-- (Cheers.) I contend, however, that the Government ought to act with perfect impartiality.--(lmmense cheering.) While I agree to the resolution of 1536, I beg leave also to say that I agree also most cordially in the address which at the instance of the Noble Lord and his friends, I had the honour of presenting to his late Majesty. I am for discouraging Orange Societies, but lam also concurring in the address of 1834. I take both the propositions, and I think that those who discourage Orange Societies are bound also to discourage other associations, which, though they have no secret symbols , s till excite snitch apprehen sion which tends to keep alive the opinion, that physical force must eventually be resorted to. I speak not of coercion laws, or of insurrection Acts ; I speak of the interposition of the au thority of the Government, by the manifestation of its opinion in the distribution of its patronag e, and b y t he impa rtial exercise, of its authority.—(Loud cheers,) If it was right that his Honourable and Gallant Friend behind him (Colonel Verner) should have been dissmissed from the commission of the peace in consequence of giving a par ticular toast, upon the same principle many appointments that had been made ought not to be made ; and if the Government had acted with impartiality, many similar visitations would have been had.—(Loud cheers.) Entertaining this opinion, I cannot conceal from the House that the maintenance of the Established Church, as the Church of Ireland, is most essen tial. I apprehend that the Noble Lord comes to the same con clusion as myself, that consistently with all the guarantees given by the Act of Union, and by the Catholic Emancipation Bill, I apprehend that the Noble Lord will not withhold his assent to the proposition, that the Church must be maintained. Now, Sir, I have not shrunk from declaring what I think ought to be the principle upon which Ireland ought to bo governed. If the hope of power was to actua'e me, and I was to find that the Church must be trenched upon--because that I wished to maintain the Church—if I were compelled to sacri fice one iota of it—l am content to abandon every hope of power. But I will tell the Noble Lord why I must withhold my ass ent from his resolution. Sir, I propose no vote of censure, I merely propose an inquiry. lam wiling that the whole of my official acts shall be open to the same rigid inquiry. I can not withhold my assent from all the acts of Lord Normanby. I think that great praise is due to the Noble Lord and his Go vernment for the administration of their ecclesiastical pa tronage. I think that that administration of their patronage redounds much to the honour of the Government. This is the ground upon which I withhold my assent from the resolu tion. I don't think you have acted with impartiality.— ( Loud and continued cheering.) I don't think you have effectually discouraged illegal and dangerous Associations by withholding your patronage from the Members of such as sociations. In the first place, I cannot say that the conduct of Lord Normanby in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, was such as entitles him to the confidence of this House. don't accuse him of corruption, but he remitted judicial sentences, without consulting the judges who had tried the prisoners. I, for one, cannot vote that this tended to the effectual administration of the law. The number is not, in my opinion, of importance. One single remission under improper circumstances, might paralyse the whole justice of the country. The Noble Lord boasted that though 120 prisoners had been discharged, the amount of pu nishment remitted amounts to only 145 months' imprisonment. Now, Sir, that reminds me very much of the story of the two men , w ho, having nine mil es t o wa lk, conso l e d t h emse l ves w i t h the idea that it was only four and a half miles a piece. It is the public impression that is created—the travelling through the country and making it appear that the remission of crime is a sort of ornament to a Lord Lieutenant's progress. There may be no had intention in it, but I cannot help think ing it is most injudicious, I will read from a paper favourable to the Government, an account of the entry of the Lord Lieu tenant into Sligo. The number of persons turned out of gaol may have been small, the offences light, and the term of imprisonment long ; but in such a country as Ireland, with such impressions as you have created with respect to law and justice, I ask you, when you desire me to Tote approbation of your conduct, whether it is possible. far the to approve of the indiscriminate exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The Right Baronet then read an extract front an Irish paper, stating that Lord Mulgrave was followed by at least 40,000 persons ; that on his Excellency's arrival at the Court-house, he found the door shut. — (Laughter.) " The people, however, soon burst open the gate s , an d peasessed themselves of the Court house. Much to their gredit, they behaved themselves as th(4111 1 1 Ole tilldges were there. Lord Mulgrave then pro eed.ed tq the gaol, when he Lbeeated some of the prisoners fqy minor offences,"—( Hear, hear, hear, and a I'3loo Now, however good the intention may have been, yet I cannot say that is the mode m which the administration of the law is to be promoted by the exercise of EVENING EDITION. the prerogative of mercy. On that ground, therefore, and the manner in which justice and mercy ought to be exercised, I f cannot vote in approbation of those principles that guided the Irish Government.—(Hear, hear.) Now with respe c t to as sociations, I took down the Noble Lord's own words. I a r e not speaking of Orange associations, but of those as sociations which have met for the purpose of preparing the way fur changes. The Noble Lord says, " Associations are an evil—the Govermment at horns and in Ireland have always discountenanced those associations." He says, " the effect of such associations is, that they give countenance to other combinations of an illegal and dangerous character." , I cannot have a stronger declaration of opinion with respect to the evil of such associations, but I cannot assent * the Noble Lord's statement, that the Government here and in Ire land have done every thing in their power to discounte nance them.—(Cheers.) I see by the side of the Noble Lord, e opposite (Lord Morpeth), an Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Pigott). Ido not in the least quarrel with his conduct, I do not quarrel with his advancement, but I do say that the • • Hon. Gentleman's original appointment under the circum stances under which it took place, does appear to be a deci sive contradiction of the assertion of the Noble Lord, that he has discouraged those associations. —(Cheers.) And when the Noble Lord challenges me upon that, I must meet it with that denial. The Honourable and Learned Gentle. man, I believe, was a member of what was called the General Association—the one that preceded the Precursor As sociation ; and when the Hon. Gentleman was appointed to the situation of confidential adviser at the Castle, I have.po doubt it is truly stated he had ceased to belong to it.—(Hear, hear.) But he had been a member of it, and not an inactive member. He had taken the part which his activity and talents would in.. duce him to take in any association; and I appeal to any man whether, under such circums.ances, it is pos sible to join the Noble Lord in his conclusion, that the Government has done all in its power to discourage those associations.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord assents to my proposal. I believe that the Church in Ireland ought to be maintained as part of the establishment.—(Hear, hear, from Lord John Russell.) It is needless for me to remind the No ble Lord of all that has taken place with regard to the Irish Church—first, the reduction of ten bishoprics, and next, after constant discussion, we came to the settlement of that question, as we hoped, last year, on which great sacrifices of incomes were - made, in the hope that agitation would cease. If the Noble Lord agrees with ine that agitation ought not to be encouraged, that the Church ought to be protected in its rights and privileges—if the Noble Lord agrees with me in those seatiments ; then I c Innot re concile it that the Noble Lord should have allowed a Member of her Majesty's Government and a Lieutenant of a county in Ireland, to propose at a public meeting that which was tanta mount to the destruction of the Church.—( Hear.) Sir, I speak of a Noble Lord (the Marquis of Heactfort) holding not merely the situation of a Lord-Lieutenant, but holding a public situa tion in immediate connection with her Majesty's Government. After all that has taken place on the subject of Tithes in Ire land, and seeing that the Noble Lord agrees with me that agi tation on that question ought to be deprecated, and that the Church ought to be maintained in its rights and pri vileges, I say it is most unfortunate that a member of the (o. vernment, at a public meeting, should move a resolution to this effect—the Paper from which I read it states, " His Lordship read the resolution, which was to the effect that it was impos sible to expect peace in the country while the present Church Establishment was suffered to exist."--( Hear.) I ask any man whether when that resolution at a public meeting is moved by a Noble*Lord holding a situation immediately con nected with her Majesty's Court—whether the Noble Lord can , be sincere in saying he is desirous of discouraging and prevent ing agitation.—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, I have assigned the ground on which I cannot concur in the Resolution. It would be inconsistent with my course to move a vote of censure now—it is more consistent with my course to ask the House to suspend judgment until there shall be an inquiry If you reject that, however, and ask me to take your Amendment, and express my assent or dissent to it, then 1 tell you at once, for the reasons I have assigned, and with the ' qualification I have given, as to my opinion of the principles A on which Ireland should be governed, I will•not hesitate to say "No " to your resolution.—(Cheers.) Sir, I have now done, and I thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me. I have attempted.° show that the partial decla ration of opinion is not justified, and that the collision • with the House of Lords cannot be maintained ; but I hare not shrunk, from declaring why, on Irish grounds, I dissent from your resolution. if you, the House of Commons, think you should pronounce judgment without inquiry, do so. If you agree with Mr. Burke that the peculiar functions of the House ofCoin. mons are to exercise a strict control over allexecutory andjudicial Magistracy, you will pause before you pronounce that opinion. If you look at the increase of crime—if you look, above all, at those most discreditable topics, the reports of the inspectors of prisoners, anfl of the clerks of the peace—if with these before you, you think it fitting to vote that the administration of th e law has been effectually provided for, or that the due execution of it has been advanced, do so ; but with documents whicle relate to the same offences and the same periods, which show absolutely a difference as to the amount of crime, Ida not see hew you can. In the account of crime in Ireland, the same description of crime, given by the inspectors of the prisons, and the Clerks of the Peace, excluding the Petty Sessions, not taking different years, the in spectors declare that in 1837 there were 14,804 , persons committed for trial for criminal offences, and the clerks, of the peace say 27,340, being a difference of 12,000 upon th e same returns. Will the House of Commons undertake to pro nounce an opinion on the administration of the law with the discrepancy before it.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord may talk fi of the character of the House and the dignity of the House ; but it is inconsistent with either the character of the House or the dignity of the House to make a declaration with respect t o crime upon such a data as this.—( Cheers.) With respect t o the collision with the House of Lords, I ask, lookin g to the state of this House—looking at the position of our afiesi ea abroad-1 ask you whether there ever was a period whe n it was of more importance to maintain, so long as it can be maintained, har mony between the two Houses.—(Cheers,) Do you think with the proceedings in the North of England you are promoting the cause of tranquillity, and the public interests, by holding up the House of Commons and the House of Lords as at unnecessary variance ? Above all, if these considerations do not move you, I implore you earnestly, but respectfully, to consider what i s due to your own honour and character.--(Cheers.) I itceoare you not to enter into a contest, not to make a deelesialion of opinion, an abstract declaration of opinion, upon the partial branches of a policy, unless you ho (=tided of snecess. ___ (Cheers.) Above all, I ask you nut to enter into collision with the House of Lords, unless you feel justified that there is a case for collision, and unless you have well considered the probable issue. That great poet, to whom I bofore alluded, whose I writings are fuel of more lessons of viettetieal wisdom than the i writings elf any uninspired write r , h as g i ven advice with respect to the entry into a quarrel, which, although given to an indi vidual, may be equally profited by public bodies, " Beware of entrance to a quarrel, But being in, so bear it that your opposer You are Maus beware of alhoutcom commit ' a ' double violation of that pre and hastily cept—you arc about to enter into a and unwarily—and you prove th t 4 h t a u t il ro eu are about to conduct the thresholdnre neither terror nor of that quarrel, and yourselves in it in a n . a 7 e nnz entreat you, as you respect. While you can still recede, I entreat you to do so— i i i i eving in my , and that value the Pharacter of the House of Commoenns eonseience that you have no superfluous authority, desiring that you may maintain every privilege ever the people may be intact—with th ese f eelings l uthority you to reserve the manifestation of your di s pl easure for sonieonjUree occasion, when, cheered by the sympathies of th e people, and when confident in the righteousness of your cause, you may enabled to assume a course and to speak in accents better suited than that resolution I; to the offended dignity of the House of Commons, The Right Hon. Baronet concluded amidst load aheeeing,bymoving as an amendment the following resolution • Resolved—That on the 13th day of March last, a motion ;as made in this House for the production of various documents con nected with the state of Ireland in respect to crime and out rage, including communications made to the Irish Government *elating to offences connected with Ribhonism, and all memo riols, resolutions, and addresses forwarded to the Irish Govern ment by Magistrates, or other official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in Ireland, and the anso ers thereto. That the period included within the returns so called for extends from the commence merit of the year 183.5 to the present time ; and that the motion made for the production of them was assented to by this House, no opposition to it having been off ere d on t h e part of her Majesty's overnment. That, on the 21st day of March last, the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee ic to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire." That, in eon so quence of the appointment of such Committee by the House of Lords, it has been proposed that this House should resolve, " That it is the opinion of this House that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years, and whic h h ave tended to the effectual administration of the law, and the general im provemement of that part of the U n it e d Ki ngdom. " Re solved—That it appears to this House, th at t h e appointment o a Committee of inquiry by the House of Lords, under the einsf cumstances and for the purpose above mentioned, does not jus tify her Majesty's Ministers in calling upon this House, without previous inquiry, or even the production of the information which this House has required, to make a declaration of opinion with respect to cue branch of the public policy of the Executive Government, still less a declaration of opinion which is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve, nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is not fitting that this House idiould adopt a proceeding which has the appearance of palling in question the undoubted right of the House of Lords to inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and out rage, more especially when the exercise of that right by the House of Lords does not interfere with any previous; proce e d_ ing or Resolution of the House of Commons, nor with the ' progress of any legislative measure assented to by the House of Commons, or a; present under its consideration. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose, but was at first very imperfectly heard, in consequence of the noise occasioned by Members leaving the House. He said he wished to reply to some of the observations of the Right Hon. Baronet, who, if he had not specifically excluded, had so lightly touched on that which was the essence of the whole question, and had dwelt so lightly on another part of the_c:se,zhic& a w i i: , only of secondary importance , that when he chellor of the Exchequer) brought the b two branches the under the consideration of House, he could not fail to remove the impression which had been made. On e t f h It . ht . o t e ig Hon. would think, from the amendment n e ouse of Lords was a Baronet that the motion passed i * into crime, analogous to that mere ordinary motion for inquiry in of the Right Hon. • passed by this House on the suggestion r 1 Shaw) —and the argu- Member for Dublin University . nient of the Right Hon. Bart. was, th a t because the Governm en t had acquiesced in the proposition made to the House of Com- mons, and subsequently to that had op p osed osed a similar motio n i n the Government was the House of Lords,—that therefore Butthe two seek ing a collision • • between the two Houses.proposi tionsf/ear.) The motion proposed by were very different.—( the Right Hon. and Learned m em ber (Mr. Shaw) ',v as for the ordinary accounts, 11,011 he (the Chancellor o; the Exchequer) had never cc n : l o wn refused, wh en t h en to which the Right MU Gentleman had consented. were accompanied by the What limit?Alnso was pr the nature of the If ever there was a case' in ceeding in the House of Lords? deliberative a bl prejudiced by a ssem y, it which a question was use of Lords. The House was in the case of the Ho inquiry, that •b• of Lords had resolved, without inq v, has ! been awitlnthe last four years—from 1835—there by stat e . of insecure, and things rendering life and ;„I—.l pr operty tto be inferred that giving that date clearly w ished G such a to the present overnment.—( H su state of things was owing Baronet in d e e d • hear.) Th e Right honourablemad that what had t h us b y the House b een done of Lords h ad f me r years, and had been submitted to b been done in or v other offence being taken Wh a Governments without a n y c was p tte first case . 9 In 1824 a Comm ittee w as appointed by the Ho use of Lords on the state of crime • but th a t P; as not l eve ll e d against the Governmen t ; on the contrary, it was in conjune tion with the Government. The other case was that of AU; but that also was with the perfect assent of the Government% Was there any analogy between these cases and the present, which was substantially a vote of censure on the Government? Now, undoubtedly, it was irregular to refer to the delsates in the other House of Parliament, and especially to attempt to draw inferences from them as to the character or motives of particular individual. But he (the Chancellor ofi the Ex chequer) was surpriied to hear that charge from the other side, when I.e t•e,cleeted, that often:the' whole characwr of a measurz was altered in the opinion of the opposite Pars,. :11 the were cent; Is ' 3ierks h yids 0. 69 ,6 1 19, 1- 00 19,3":