The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-24 00:00:00

the Noble Lord on the occasion to which I alluded, that you i ntended to p - opose some measure of conciliation—and, first, I understand that you intend to propose an enlargement of the grant—Now, I do not know whether you mean an enlarge ment of the grant to Mavno ith, or of the grant for the pur- Poses t•f general education. An Hoe. MEMBER.—For general education. 111 r• O'CONNELL—You then propose to increase the grant for general education. I am glad to find that it is so— you cannot educate the people too much.—(Cheers) You f u°7 educate them too much for your own purposes. You 1 , 14 0 r ay educate them so as to make them turn against you' selves, your great security is in the ignorance of the people. (Cheer s and laught er .) Y ou i nten d to i ncrease t h e educe 'en grant—l am glad to hear that such is your intention. -- (Hear, and cheers.) 1 will frankly tell you what lon ought to do to gain the people of Ireland. Well, at) next told that you intend to introduce for us the_ Catholic Charity Act—that you mean to extend to Ireland Mr. La mbs Bill f or regulating English Catholic charities. you cannot d o a greater m i sc h ie f to the Catholics of Ire land tha n to i ntroduce such a measure for them. I do not object to the Bill. I ought not to do so, for I introduced the Measure myself. I endeavoured, for two separate sessions, to p r y it, but the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, !•ten every evening that it was upon the paper—he attended most determinedly, and at last he actually tired me ':nt• Having no day that 1 could appoint for it I was obliged 4 8iee it op. I complained to the then Administration, they appointed Mr. Lamb to bring in the measure, ti `uu, it was carried. Now that Act was a very rut' Act for England, but it is totally inap- P leable to Ireland. The statute of superstitious uses was never enacted in Ireland. The statute of Edward the Sixth '' Passed only for this country, and it was merely a retrospec- Z Act ; but Lord Eldon determined that although the Act A r etrospective Act, he would construe it as a declaratory ill e 's and hence the Catholic charities in England were declared - tit e r but in Ireland that Act never passed. All cha b trues for Catholic, purposes have always been recognised matcourts of law in Irelarl. Twent-five years ago I held ust a sum of 20/. annually for ever } for the celebration of 1 ,,1es for the dead. I show you then that there is not the 14ast eenasion for this Act in Ireland. The old statute of ...:rtinain never applied to the Catholic clergy of Ireland. We , therefore, under the common law, and according to the fe ele r' law trusts fo r charitable and religious purposes are not j a e gal• The Act was necessary for the Catholic clergy of Eng it is t o t a ll y i napp l ica bl e t o I re l an d. B u t I w ill t e ll you You should do. You should make each Catholic Bishop 1112.(usi corporation, so as to enable him to take land—you may tak lt the quantity, it if you please, but you should enable him to t i n e land which might go to his successor without the interven th'u ei heirs-at-law or executors ; by so doing you pass an Act t t would be really useful for charitable purposes in Ireland n. i!t . the Bill which you propose will not do so. The next thing tl e _lch I understand you intend to propose is an extension of yue f ranchise, and, as I read it in the newspapers, t a ° , 4 RePose the abolition of the necessity for payment of all N ;e w l, except poor-rates, borough-rates, and grand jury cess. t o 'why is the necessity for the payment of grand jury cess 1 ;' l l retained ? It is the most. vexatious tax of any, and is iected by officers who are now not appointed by, nor under are control of the Government.—(Cheeers. ) These officers g r : a PPlainted by the grand jury, and are favourites of certain Junejury -men. They are responsible only to the grand jury uctuating body ; one set are appointed in April, another in th e They are changed four times a year. If you insist upon wh i PaYinent of the grand jury cess, you will be creating that andeh may be made a great theevxation to a political opponent, tor you will not compel payment of the grand jury cess, Yeu prevent its payment by not making its payment IDs}.• taarr to the acquisition of the franchise. You must also they l 'egulations for i n sisting on the residence of freemen— aft should reside, for three months before and three months t h `'t the registry, in the borough. If you insist on t h e residence of freemen, you will have made a i t 4. ! useful change. The county franchise, too, I am told, Zile altered. Now I speak in no disparagement of the this Lord when I say that I have no confidence in him on „ f l a sUbject. His measure would bring about the extinctio b„ h t he county franchise in Ireland. You should give us the ,Wleficial interest franchise. The solvent test franchise would trPihilate the county constituency of Ireland. If you gi,, h in g in a Bill for regulating the county franchise, you should • ea eVery facility for acquiring it.—( Hear. ) There is not co on in Ireland who could obtain the franchise under the sol thi, te nant test. Ireland is a poor country, and if you do any ys„ll You should do it generously, and do it at once.—( Cheers. ) " should give us a franchise equally potential with the , 0 7Zehise in Engl nd so as to have a constituency of the Irish P...e;i t i le h a equal in proportion to the population of that of the counties. Recollect, too, that a man having 51. a year P e land is as i n d epen d en t as a man w ith JO/. or 151. a year st,...` 4l Bland. If you l eg i s l a t e f or us j ust l y , I shall hail your tC u rea with s at i s f ac ti on ; b u t we mus t h ave no restriction of ° fr anchise.— (Cheers.) We will meet you cordially oth„ 3 : e u Will meet us cordially.—(Loud cheers.) An tie; Part of your plan relates to fixity of tenure. Viti od Jullr Commission is doing great mischief by unfixing the ▪ th a the actual occupants. An idea has gone abroad that be r eau who have been ejected during the last six years are to tot sebstror...ed. It is a great misfortune that this idea should have oce a , h l"o ;'but such is the case, and the minds of the actual ei t Afets are unsettled in consequence. Now you must act 4 0. T tis t"V—you must act rapidly, in whatever you intend to at a l ',hould propose that you should take the law of landlord ehr`unant as it was at the time of the union, by repealing lied' *r elate o n th e su bj ect w hi c h has been passed since. The as sherds cannot complain, because you will give them the law h made it f or th emse l ves , b u t y ea r after year since t h ittu c ti, al e been maki ng th e l a w more stringent in favour of en the tat o ' 4l l m as to enabl e him to seize even the last growing po lite o „, 41. Yon restore the law to the state in which it was before Th e rcul, the landlords cannot have any right to complain. la.od l a ws in favour of landlords were generally enacted in Ire t.ng before they were enacted in this country. The sta knietfgae?wrY, for instance, which was not passed by the Parliament until the reign of George 11., was th e ` e " by the Irish Parliament in the reign of *ids to Acne. But you have much more to do if you toast ? manifest a disposition to act fairly by Ireland. You alai ea inquire into the financial arrangements made at the It's 4 -- (Cheers. ) You perhaps will not take the trouble to soti4the documents which have been issued by the Repeal As adeol,lull on this subject ; but if you will get those who are Yo o. -- t lou to read those documents, and to report en them to Pe hey will tell you that there never was a greater injustice 114; 1 :rated than by the financial arrassgements at the time of the rai l , We have suffered great injustice by all financial ar 4eueula being made here ; and you will nut satisfy the of Ireland until you do them financial justice. I will g l ance at c or p or ation reform. Your corporat i o n re -14 oas insult, and not redress. You dissatisfied one party oral :along power from it, while you dissa'isfied the other by por n ' giving it the shadow of power. Give us corporation re equal t o t h at which you gave to England ; we demand no mor e. Are you afraid of the effects of the transfer of power from the dominant minority ? That is past and gone—and even in thos e b oroughs in w hi ch the majority of the population is Catholic, the proportion of Protestants in the Town Council is greater than they are entitled to inproportion to the popula tion., All offices are equally open p to p all, and are bestowed equally upon all. Then with regard to absenteeism. Ab senteeism i s th e curse of Ireland. It ought to be punished et, "crime. You ought to impose an absentee tax. You have already to some extent done it by your income-tax. Ea a heavy tax upon the absentee landlord in ef b t l and, so as to drive him back to attend to the interests o , ja is wretched serfs.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Stafford Tie n.) I am cheered by an Irish landlord, and one of the b!ferilt of Irish landlords. I will give ,you full and explicit in yol4,e_alion for all useful purposes. But you must not peddle u the wrongs of Ireland. You must not quack .with them. 17 5 ulust give us a radical cure. Recollect that Harwich with 175 o l t es has two Members, and the county of Cork with tau ii 7 has only two. The profligate corruption of the b0e,,0,,„ e,, o ,,„ a .vras admitted at the beginning of the session, and the heir'llnittee of the Hon. Member for Bath proved it.—( Hear, Itt entr ) , I now come to the Church. You have i n I re l an d a eor k _ e uY , a perfe c t hi erarc h y, unconnecte d w i t h t h e S tate , b u t 4,„..,eeted intimately with the people. I do not ask you to 147., e .any mart of his vested interests. No man in Ireland b ent u interfere with the interests of any Church incum tese ti e l ir ; but you must, as statesmen, look to the esitalit Ireland, and see that without giving religious told t bf You cannot do us political justice. I have been elseand at Elopose to give a salary to the Catholic bishops 'oa rahatngy They dare not accept it. They would lose caste. y - ( v )t e i not money enough in your treasury . to pay them. ‘ath oh c ould give would excite but not satisfy them, and the stet c bish o p s would rather have seats anywhere t h at was that disc bis hops than in Parliament. Do you mean to say teat th at f e t were no t f or the Protestant Establish- Ilt a y ou t Protestant religion would not stand ? vaoss, e ", me that your religion would fail if there were not tot os jald for instructing others? Oh ! if that be your s hon e rot religion, what a triumph to me as a Roman Ca *Nth 'The Homan Catholic Church possessed all the gre ase wh ich your Ch urc h now has—or, at least, the lion iti Portion of it. There have, I believe, been certain ' l, 4 r s ince the Reformation • but the great mass Beefat bulk of them-9991. out of every 1,000/. were y Roman Catholics. You took them from s acs tb, t - 4 , e u hunted them into the wilds and fastnesses. It is a igen th.J,!ll set the same price upon the head of a wolf, and fet era 4 - I: : :t ead i. of a priest. You did all you . could against a nas the Roman Catholic reltgion failed in Ireland s' 4 f r zwney ? No. It never was more triumphant. jaty o_,lstle archbishops, twenty-three bishops, fifty deans, t wi lot te, e ' u o ra d t e_ayons, and some i 2,000 parish priests, with two or Mkt " to each—an entire, unbroken hierarchy, in as li enr y 1 - regular order, and as perfect as on the day before kid h lit h t 4,,, e • ascended the throne. You have despoiled them, 4 / I is rin not the same faith in your Protestantism ?flan 1 t) b let yoh Y k _Catholicism ? Are you sincere in your faith d fo;lcb et that the scriptural truth, and the support v te, to location, talents, and literature give, are sufficient illetro, Church ? Has :t not the blessing of God if it be 1 4 Wi," flr eh, and what greater bulwark can it have than then is the couutry to be divided.—( Hear.) Oh, ,4 lo o k u t tres th e 1 , 04 ss . longer on this subject. But I implore you th e (eoe stro l , with the eyes of statesmen. Don't let us see id...wealth , ,anomaly, that the Church of the buts all lu lssi bg of wntle the Church, of the poor has nothing the 1; 44 to d ) I go back. What do you sea b e. letZffaoert Ireland ? I am afraid, whatever it be, it will to h n riee th. "Y• I wish it were. Years enough have clap ahe eve connection commenced between the two countries te .m. all the sources of malice and ill-will, and Vta i all the me religious rancour. It is time there ti l , 4 ll ation e e nd , of it. The time is come when th as b ret Tignt to emb rac e each, other as men n,bthoo t m u ere, and when charity should be spread Ili4men land —when the odious distinction between th t . eat En glishmen —the odious distinction between lela t i e rue and Prote s t an t—di s ti nc ti on s odious in all all • ono is. except in the r i v alry of purity and mutual gehe t_ all be abolished, an d ju s tice shall be done to ont ..tr ) Utille Blake and Sir R. Peel rose at the same time, tioilltiaterialiaideurable uproar, and cries of " Order," from the • g ! sat d ow be n Sir V. Blake, after some little hesita th " PEE . neld _ L proceeded to address the House. He said—Sir, I qtd not aPPalled by the duty which have to discharge, if 1 4 ,9 1 ear, heart confidence in the indulgence of this House. — a:" rising at L e The House, I am sure, will consider that in "` Plat a close of the ninth night of this debate, I am lay , g for thedifl ay` Purpose of gratifying any personal wish of at I am not rising for the purpose of any idle Publi e ‘l-I ,, ea . C s hear.) I am rising in the performance of 1, 1 1a . t, *4l:Limy towards the House, and towards the heelGovern ,tu upon me, considering the situation in d i n ', th at isnutuh,. obligati 44/ abilit le debate, conducted on oiaddressing the House. I know, l oere h Y, eve ry er on each side with extraor gurnent has thin exhausted, and that 4.4tuultber"iti°teePrPonarttiunity of adding anyg novel. Yet I have 414 . t o to tit ve, ill am to discharge the duty which apper -114%, e, Jo' pa t 'Ve rn), o tn . Present in . a connected, clear, and ma t ur n eefor e t h e / pinions and views on the several matters t hq °ler th La use. I cannot do that effectually without ea ' er e f at field which has . been already exhausted. I 44,44;) siriol.er hat to me ik sre j a PPeal to the patience andrm olduclugtenee(othe setitte r h ave another yet y g p r e eater duty to py;rf—orm. Hear, ass - that privilege which belongs to the 14 4 our p it the that part of the Government, I stand here defe bespe a k . e e• Influenced by those feelings ; %gi n consciousness of having been ."` 414 sulimerited imputation, I may be per mitted, in the exercise of that privilege of defence, to give vent to those feelings. Yet I must not permit those feelings to be I mixed up in the consideration of the important matters of policy affecting the interests of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Upon all that part which relaters to public policy—to the question of future legislation—l trust I shall address myself with that temper, and moderation, and forbearance, which are becoming : a subject of such immense magnitude. I hope, also, that in defending myself from the charges brought against myself and my colleagues, I will not forget that reserve with which all matters of a personal nature, affecting the position of the gen tlemen who have been made the subject of criminal proceedings, require. If I transgress the rule I have laid down for myself, it will be totally contrary to my intention. I wish to conduct the defence of the Government, with a per fect recollection of the position of the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Sir, I cannot be diverted from the question raised by the Noble Lord by the speech of the lion. Gentle man. I wish the Hon. Gentleman, instead of agitating the passions of his countrymen on the subject of repeal, would give us an opportunity of meeting him in argument, for I should not have :any doubts as to what might be the result. I beg you to bear in mind what are the arguments on which be has this night rested his appeal for a repeal of the union. What per version of history is necessary in order to vindicate the demand for repeal? Says the lion. Gentleman, " For eighteen years up to the period of the union, helmet had the happiness of an independent Parliament." An independent 'Parliament!— what ! the Parliament that sat £r out 1782 to 1'0(5 an lik.. pendent Parliament, providing for the social ',happiness of those on whose interests it was to legislate '.happiness hear.) Why, one of the complaints of the lion. Gentleman himself to the legislative union was, that it was through cor ruption the Act of Union had been effected—(Hear, hear) — that the rights and liberties of the people had been sacrificed to the corruption of the Parliament. —s Hear, hear. ) And was the condition of the people really happy under that Parlia ment? What said Mr. Grattan of it ? Long before 1782, if I remember right, he asked, What has your independent Legislature effected for you ? Has a Place Bill been passed ? Has a Pension Bill been passed ? No, said Mr. Grattan, we have got a Bill against Peers. We have got a Riot Act, we have got pensions without end, and we have got a profligate traffic in the sale of the peerage. That was Mr. Grattan's account of the virtue of that independent Par liament, and he said, what has been the affect of that? It has reduced Ireland to the condition •f a province. Is it true, then, that the condition of the people of Ireland was then really happy, or are all the statements at present of the physical con dition of the city of Dublin, and of other cities, from the year 1795 to 1800 mere fallacies or delusion. Look at the account of the trade of Ireland. Look at the actual diminution of the trade of the shipping interest of Ireland for the ten years that preceded the union. I will challenge the Hon. Gentleman to prove the fact that Ireland was advancing in prosperity. The policy pursued in Ireland during the period intervening between the years 179.3 and 1800, was- the cause of the Rebel lion of 1798, and all its terrible consequences.—( Cheers. ) But I do say, that it the statement of the [lon. Gentleman be true, he proved that the happiness of the people was quite independent of the social institutions of the country ; but he cannot deny this, that if the Parliament promoted the prospe rity of Ireland, that Parliament was returned by a small ma jority of Protestants. That Parliament was composed of, elected entirely by Protestants, and during its existence, there was an Established Church in existence in Ireland. If the Hon. Gentleman said that the social state of Ireland during this period was almost perfect, he should recollect that the Roman Catholic was subject to great disabilities, that the Parliament was exelteively Protestant, and the Church in its full power.—( Cheers.) I leave to the Hon. Gentleman to choose either of those points—namely, that it was consistent with the interests of Ireland to uphold in its most exclusive, and as he would call most intolerant form, the Established Church, and that still the disabilities of the Ca tholics should be in full force; or that the Government had been carried on with that Parliament existing between 1782 and 1800, through the instrumentality of corruption— ( Cheers)—that the social condition of Ireland was not a happy one, and that that Parliament did not promote, nor was calculated to promote, the peace and welfare of the people. I say, Ido think that the Hon. Gentleman would better have consulted the interests of his country, and adopt that course which would be most conducive to his own fame, if he would give us an opportunity of hearing and ex amining those statements, and counteracting these arguments, instead of inflaming the passions of the ignorant by those mis statements which he ventures to make in the face of a British public.—( Cheers.) I shall now address myself to another portion of the debate. I shall address myself to the motion of the Noble Lord the Member for London, and I do say that I think lie will admit that it is a motion exclusively and strictly deserving the name of a party motion—(Tremendous cheers from the Ministerial benches) —it is perfectly a motion in con formity with ancient precedent, and is a constitu tional mode of testing the confidence in the Ministry. But that it is a party motion, I am sure the Noble Lord will himself admit. It is not a motion to in quire into the state of Ireland. The Noble Lord may have in tended to pursue this course, but I must say, that he should not have mixed up any party consideration with the consideration of the social state of Ireland. I should say, I will challenge your conduct—l will put you on your trial--I will separate you from the social state of Ireland. The Noble Lord did not take that course, but he moved for a Committee of the whole House on the state of Ireland, as if afraid of the possibility of the suc cess of his motion, and as if he shrank from being compelled in that Committee to explain in detail his own views as to the course which should be pursued in Ireland. At the moment he gave his notice he said I mean to move a resolution condemnatory of the course pursued by her Majesty's Minis ters. I will make it impossible on account of its character to adhere to that motion.—(Cheers from the Tory benches. ) With respect to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, i feel bound to state my conviction that I think it is wholly free from party bias, and that he expressed his opinions —much as I may differ from those opinions—in such a manner that I never was more convinced of their sincerity and manli ness.—( Cheers.) But, certainly, I must say, that the Noble Lord the Member for London, in his. speech, seemed to me to be engaged in the solution of some great problem in political fluxions.—(Cheers and laughter. ) He seemed to me to be trying to obtain the maximum of cri mination with the minimum of inconvenience to himself.— ( Loud cheers.) I think I could extract from the spirit of the Noble Lord's motion the idea, "only remove the present Go vernment and place me in their stead' —(Loud laughter)—and if that were his meaning—because the Noble Lord certainly brought an impeachment and accusation against us—why'would not he explain his views and policy with regard to Ireland, for at present he must say that he has said nothing which would compel him, if in office, to adopt any course different from that pursued by the present Government ?—( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) Did not the Noble Lord say if he could realise his plait he would: divide the revenues of the Church, and give a portion to the Catholics and Presbyterians? But as the object was most remote, and as no chance of its realisation existed, in case of his re-instalment to power, he was bound himself by no tangible engagement in respect to the Church, or indeed of anything else.—( Hear, and cheers. ) I rejoice to see that the Noble Lord has not committed him self to any measure which will tend, in the slightest degree, to injure the Established Church.—( Cheers arid laughter.) With respect to the accusation thrown out against her Majesty's Government, I think the Noble Lord might have shown less acrimony, for considering the exposed condition in which his own house stood and the brittle materials of which it was composed —remembering the Coercion Bill,and:the Appropriation Clause, I do think the Noble Lord ought to have abstained from throw ing stones at his political opponents.—( Loud laughter.) But the subject is too important to justify trifling. The Noble Lord had made me, as the head of the Government, re sponsible for everything. Amongst the many charges he made against me, was that I selected the present Lord Chan cellor merely on account of his hostility to Ireland.—( Hear. ) The Noble 'Lord denied his talents—(Cheers) —he denied his claim to the appointment on account of the efficiency with which he performed his public duties ; and undertaking to answer, not for the conduct of the act, but for the motives of other men, the Noble Lord declared it to be his opinion that I had selected Lord Lyndhurst for office on account of his hostility to the people of Ireland.—(Cheers from the Oppo sition, met by counter cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) Nay, it was worse, that I had so disgraced myself as tol select for the highest office in the law a man whose chief qualification was that he had used expressions offensive to the people of Ireland.—( Hear. ) brought without the strongest and most confirmatory evi dence to establish it. As I had been already in three admi nistrations with that Noble and Learned Lord, in the ear 1829, and in the short government of -1834.—( Hear, hear . ) In the year 1841, I was called on to form an Administration ; and does the Noble Lord think that it would be just that I should have said to Lord Lyndharst—" It is true that I have been twice connected with you in office—it is true that at the time when Catholic disabilities were removed, I asked for your assistance in mitigating the prejudices of the House of Lords, and that I received your powerful support—but as you have used a hasty expression, at which offence has been taken, I must ex clude you from office, in order to court popularity in Ireland." —(Cheers.) But Lord Lyndhurst would say to me,—" I deny that I used any such expressions.—(Cheers.) In a fortnight after I used the words which were so misrepresented or misun derstood, I was taunted by those who said they beard me, with stating as a reason for not granting municipal corporations to Ireland, that the people were aliens by descent—that they dif fered from us in language—that they considered us aliens from their soil, and desired to remove us from their country. My answer was, I did not say so, nor anything re sembling it.—(Cheers.) No expression fell from me which any person, not of weak intellect or disposed to misrepresent my words, could have so distorted.—(Cheers.) When the Marquis of Lansdowne, either through kindness or in compliment, asked me for an explanation, I stated to the House of Lords that I had nothing to explain, fur I had said nothing like what was imputed to me."—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, no one could regret more than myself—(unless it be Lord Lyndhurst)—that my Noble and Learned Friend had used the hasty expressions which he did use.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, was 1, six years afterwards to say to him, " I cannot advise the Crown to ad vance you to office, on account of those hasty expressions ?" ( Hear, hear.) Sir, when I consider that Lord Lyndhurst raised himself frem the position in which he was born, and the manner in which the office of Lord Chancellor has beers filled for the last eiglit or ten years—an office which has been occu pied by such men as Lord Eldon, Lord Brougham, Lord Cot tenham, Lord Plunket, and Sir Edward Sugden—when I con sider the origin of those distinguished persons, and the compa rative obscurity from which they raised themselves to the highest civil situation next the Throne, I think this is the proudest homage to the democratic principle of the British Constitution.—( Cheers.) It is the strongest practical contra diction of the phrase quoted by an eminent member of the Roman Catholic party— " Ilaud facile emergunt quorum virtutibus obstat Res auguda (Cheers.) In this country there is no obstacle to the ele vation of men of talent and wisdom, by the buoyancy of their own character.—(Cheers.) It is true that I have had diffi culties to contend with, which the Noble Lord had not, in looking to the claims of candidates for that high office. The Noble Lord had exhibited an example of great boldness and courage unparalleled since the " atrox animus Catonis." —( Tory cheers, and laughter.) It was an example of virtue, not of meanness.—( Tory cheers.) The Noble Lord had the good fortune to be connected with a man who had ever been the faithful friend of the Whig party—the ornament of the Irish bar—the friend of Grattan—Lord Plunket—a man whose name would go down to posterity as one of the greatest stars that ever shone in the sphere of Irish eminence. —But, Sir, Lord Plunket was the sen of an Irish Presbyterian minister, and he rose to the office of Lord Chancellor.— (Hear, hear.) He was advanced to that eminence by the Noble Lord. But the Noble Lord challenges us with over looking the claims of eminent Irishmen to office. Why, Sir, the Noble Lord had in office the most eminent man that ever adorned. the Irish bar ; and yet six weeks before the Noble Lord retired from the Government--(Cheers and counter cheers.) The Noble Lord is sensitive of Irish feelings.— ( Tory cheers and laughter.) He is jealous of offences offered to Ireland.—( A laugh ) He is jealous of promoting English men instead of Irish to office in Ireland. But be had in office the man who was the pride and boast of the Whig party in Ireland; and to that Irishman—to Lord Plunket, the Noble Lord signified that it was expedient fur him to retire ; and for wkat purpose ?—in order to gratify the vanity of a Scotehman.—(Cheers and laughter.) I do not deny that he was an eminent man. I do not deny that he was a distin guished lawyer, of whom I wish to speak with all respect. Still I must say that the Noble Lord, in the instance to which I refer, superseded Lord Plunket to gratify the vanity of a Scotchman—(Laughter and cheers) , -for six weeks—for only six weeks' tenure of office.—(Cheers.) Sir, if I were so placed that I had only the alternative to make oucb a choice, I would not retain office one hour.—(Renewed cheers.) Then the Noble Lord quitted Lord Lynlhurst. What was his next topic ? Why, the Noble Lord who stood forward as the re presentative of a area' party, and came to the rescue of the country, occupied his time in raking into the kennels for the refuse of election dinners—(Cheers) ---and quoted the speeches merle at an election dinner in Canterbury—(Cheers)—in order to charge me with participating in and adopting the sentiments ' there expressed.—( Hear.) This would be a hard rule for public men.—( Hear, hear.) It is hard to make me respon sible for the expressions, either used by Mr. Bradshaw at Canterbury, or attributed to him.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord is followed by a powerful party, confederated with him in promoting political objects—who will vote to night, naturally and justifiably, for the purpose of die placing us, and replacing us with him. But I would think it unjust to make him responsible for everything uttered by every one of those who support him.—( Hear.) It would be very unjust to charge the Noble Lord with the responsibility of everything that may be said at Anti-Corn-law meetings. It would be unjust to charge him .with participating in the senti ments of those who denounced the landlords as being cold blooded and selfish, and insensible to the sufferings of the people. ---( Hear, hear.) Why, then, should he make me responsible for the after-dinner speeches at Canterbury ? But, Sir, suppose I have always disclaimed the statements attributed to my lion. Friend, why should I be held responsible for the very language which I have disclaimed? —( Yeer, hear.) Is nut this the fact, that when Mr. Wyse was appointed to an important office under the Government, I declared that I saw no objection to the appointment, as the Ilonourable Gentleman was in every respect quali fied by character and ability, and his being a Roman Catholic should not be an obstacle to his promotion. I consider this a most important matter, said the Noble Lord, speaking of the manner in Which the Government behaved to . Roman Catholics. Can you expect them to consent to receive favours from a Government whose supporters calumniated their priesthood? • What the Noble Lord really wished to effect is to make it impossible for Roman Catholics to accept favours front the present Government, and then to turn round and say, See what a gross injustice you have done to Roman Catholics, you have made twenty appointments, and yet not one of them has been filled by a Roman Catholic. You first strive to create an impedi ment by reviving unjust prejudices, and then you found an unjust accusation against the Government for not making those appointments which you have deterred the Roman Catholics from accepting. I stated publicly what my opinions were on the subject of the position of the Roman Catholics, but I had been taunted by Hon. Gentlemen who say, 0, these arc fine declarations that you make in debate, but you do not practice them. Allow me to say, Sir, that that is a matter of great difficulty.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) I recognise those principles which place the Roman Catholics on an equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects. I say there should be no practical disability. I speak in respect of every office ; and I care not what prejudice these declarations may create against me. I say now, whilst in the possession of power, as I did when I was not, that in every office to which Catholics are eligible there should be no impediment whatever to their appointment on the ground of religion. Since Parliament last met, there was only one office of a judicial nature vacant in Ireland ; it was an office in the Ecclesiastical Court; and I apprehend that no one but a member of the Church of England ought to be appointed to that situation. The appointment was placed at my disposal by the Lord Primate. I stated to the Primate that I would accept the patronage, but that I should place in that situation the most eminent man at the bar, with out regard to anything except his professional qualifications. I believe, Sir, I acted according to my promise, in appointing one of the most eminent men at the Irish bar—Mr Keating. He vacated the office of sergea nt, and another vacanc y took place. How was that office filled? I wanted to destroy the prejudices which it has been attempted to create against the Government. I wanted to show to the Mph people that I did not participate in the opinions enunciated at election dinners, and that it was not in the heat of debate that I gave utterance to those sentiments regarding the Irish Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) I will take the liberty of reading to the House a letter which 1 wrote to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on the subject of this ap pointment. It was not written in anticipation of this debate, but in the course of the last year. It was dated the 22d August, 1843. (The Right Hon. Baronet then read extracts from his letter to Lord De Grey, in which he strongly recommended the appointment of such Roman Catholics as had not joined in the agitation, or made themselves obnoxious to the dispensers of patronage. The letter proceeded to say that Roman Catholics ought to be appointed to those situations which they were qualified to fill, and, although preferable claims might be urged by Protestants, on the ground of their attachment to the Protestant Church, still that the rights of Roman Catholics should not be merely nominal, but that they should be placed on an equality of civil rights. The letter further observed, that although for every office which would be va cant for the next ten years Protestants might be found highly eligible, still if Roman Catholics were not appointed, they were practically disqualified, and what motive was held out to them to refrain from joining in the present agitation if every office was closed against them. It might probably occur that fifty appointments would be made of Protestants who had preferable claims. But why had they preferable claims ? Because they had for a long series of years been excluded from the privileges of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and were constantly cherished by the Go vernment. The policy and the laws were changed, and they ought' not to allow the effect of those former causes of preference to influence present appointments. The inferiority of Roman Catholics should not be shown by the ex clusive appointment of Protestants. Having read the extracts of which the above is the substance, the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded to say that Mr. Howley had been appointed to fill the vacant situation.) There is not the slightest doubt:that if we had not been anxious to appoint Roman Catholics, several professional men could be found in the four Courts professing the Protestant religion, and of equal legal ability.—( Hear, hear.) But did this appointment satisfy Hon. Gentlemen opposite? No, it did not ; far from it. Although Mr. Howley was a Roman Catholic, the Government was attacked in the severest manner for ap pointing him. That paper, which is the organ of Hon. Mem bers opposi'e, makes the following observations on the an nouncement of the appointment of Mr. Howley. An How. MEMBER—What paper? Sir R. PEEL—The Morning Chronicle. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an extract from an article in the Morning Chronicle, which stated that though the Government had made many absurd appointments, they had not made one so grossly improper as that of Mr. Howley. The explanation of the reason of this appointment was not difficult—it was only necessary to suppose a little shallow cunning and a little blockheadism on the part of the Cabinet, and the appointment was explained.— (A laugh.) This, to be sure, said the Right Hon. Baronet, was very encouraging to the Government to make Roman Ca tholic appointments. The Morning Chronicle proceeded to say that the appointment of Mr. Howley was an insult to the li beral bar of Ireland, and that it was quite clear that Sir Robert Peel's Government could not continue to govern that country. —(Renewed laughter.) However, Mr. Howley had the moral courage to retain his appointment to the sergeantey, notwith standing the denunciations of the Noble Lord and the organ which represented his party. How had the appointment of that gentleman been received by the gentlemen of the county of Tipperary, in which Mr. Howley was assistant-barrister ? An address was presented to him, signed by 105 magistrates of that county, congratulating him on his appointment, and expressive of a deep sense of gratitude for the admirable mariner in which he had discharged the duties of assistant-barrister, all corning forward to bear testimony to the integrity and ability with which that Roman Catholic gentleman had dis charged the duties of his office. There was also an address to him from the grand jury, and another which I believe was unanimously signed by every practising solicitor in the county of Tipperary. Now, I say, then is this fair warfare against the Government—is it fair towards the individual whom we selected ? Is it fair towards the character of an honourable man, as soon as we gave him the fair reward of his professional merit to turn round upon him and injure his character and depreciate his merit, in order that through him you might strike a blow at the Conservative party 7—(Cheers.) Sir, I think, this is an answer to the attempt of the Noble Lord to involve me in the responsibility of expressions which might have been used by gentlemen with whom I. am connected. Now, as to the disposition to encourage offensive or hostile expressions used towards the Roman Catholic body. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shell) made an appear to me on that subject last night. The Right Hon. Gentleman referred to some addresses from the Protestant Operative Association in Dublin, and asked me whether I approved of the sentiments contained in those addresses, and whether I approved of the sentiments which were offensive to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I will read the answer to those addresses. —(Mr. Sheil here made some observation across the table which we were unable to hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman dropped his voice when he spoke. The Right Hon. Gentle man said " warm encouragement was given," and then a burst of loud cheering prevented the rest of the passage being beard. Now it often happens that' owing to the business which public men have to discharge that they will pass over long ad dresses presented to them, and not read those addresses very accurately, and then they return a common official answer, very civil and courteous, but they never expect that those answers will be brought forward in the House of Commons, I am sure the House will allow me to do the Government just tice on this point. I have had memorials addressed to me to the same effect as that from the Protestant Operative Associa tion. I had one before the agitation began. I had one ad dressed to me in the year 1842. It was from the Protes tent Operative Association of the City of Cork. In th o memorial was this passage :—" We, the members of the Pro testant Operative Association of Cork, feel ourselves called upon, by a sense of duty to ourselves, our country, and our God, to address you on a subject of the first importance with respect to the best interests and welfare of the community." 'fire subject was that of national education. "If the homilies be true, and those who sealed them with their heart's blood have raised up a testimony against error which can never he overthrown, then the priests of the Romish Church are Antichrist—then are they the special instruments of the devil."—( Loud laughter.) The climax improves as its pro ceeds, but I have read enough to show the nature of this address. Now I will read to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) my answer to that address. This was in De cember, 1842. The answer I returned was to the following effect—" Sir, I received your letter accompanying the address to me from the Members of the Protestant Operative Association of Cork. lam sorry that they felt themselves called upon by their duty to God to express uncharitable sentiments in offen sive language."—(Cheers.) Now, I have shown the Right Hon. Gentleman what my feelings were' on the subject of . offensive expressions with respect to the faith of the Roman Catholics. Mr. S HEIL—I did not think you held such sentiments. Sir ROBERT PEEL—And I wish to confirm you in that impression.—(Load laughter.) I must in justice to the members of the Association, say that my letter was cer tainly received in a very becoming manner. It is but justice to them to read how they received my rebuke : " We fee great pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your letter,"— ( Great laughter.) Really it is a most becoming answer to my letter. " We feel great pleasure in acknowledging your reply to the address of the Association on the subject of nationa education. We beg to offer our warmest thanks for the promp and gentlemanly manner—( Roars of laughter)—in which you answer our communication. It was what we expected—( Shouts of laughter.) The reply itself has not disappointed our ex pectations."—( Continued laughter.) There was another ad dress to her Majesty on the same subject. Mr SHEIL—That is from Dublin? Sir R. PEEL—This is from Dublin, but mine was fre Cork. My Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department was requested to lay the address before her Majesty, and I hold in my hand the answer he returned. But I had better not read it to the House.—(Cries of " Yes, yes.") Well, than, my Right Hon. Friend said " I cannot commend a passage in the address which I find tends to insult a large class of her Majesty's subjects, or which, at any rate, is open to misconstruction ; and I cannot think that such an address is fit to be laid before her Majesty." Now observe, this was in the year 1842, a n d 1 do think that nothing is more indicative than this of the spirit in which we were desirous of administer ing the Government of Ireland, and that we were content to relinquish support rather than gain it by fomenting prejudices. —(Cheers.) I come now to the conduct of her Majesty's Go vernment with respect to the recent trials. We took office in Sep tember, 1841, and up to March, 1843, there appeared no great dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Government was conducted. I have shown you that we were desirous of abat ing religious animosities ; and we did what we could to stop any attempt to insult the faith of Roman Catholics. We have been charged with a desire to govern Ireland by military forcee You have admitted that the necessity existed for that force being in Ireland. Yes, and I want to know with whom the responsibility rests for 'that military force being in Ireland ? I (Cheers.) I want; :2n know to whom it is owing that our ex- ! pectations and hopes of presenting reduced estimates were de feated ? I want to put that fairly before the country—before the intelligent and reast ming classes of the community, and to make an appeal in the I louse to all impartial men.—(Cheers. ) We took ofice in Sept ember, 1841, and in March, 1843, so far from having evincet 1 any disposition to govern by military force, I will state what the real force in Ireland was at the two periods athat I have mentioned. When we took office on the Ist, .of August, 1841, wo found the force in Ireland to be 14,822. On the Ist of September, the force was 16,257 rank and file. In March 1843, there were only 13,5()0 Thus between the tv ro periods that I have mentioned the force was reduced from 16,200 men to 13,500.—(Cheers.) That shows that there was. no disposition on our parts to rule with a military force. In. March 1843, be... , an that systematic agitation which • vas not the consequence of any act of the Govemu nent—for which we were charged with no injustice o r any undue partiality. No; my : belief is, that rhero existed a strong and settled deter urination in certain got rters that we should not be successful. —( Cheers.) That ie termination was taken, and it was acted upon.—(Continued sheers.) About this time the poor-rate began to be levied. '_'throughout many parts of Ireland there was great dissatisfacti 011 with the poor-law—an Act brought in and passed by the No hl,e Lord, the Member for London, and supported, I admit, bey me. But that Act was most unfortu nate in some of its pr ov isions, for it subjected every occupier, almost without excel sti.on, to the payment of the poor-rate. There were thousands. of instances in the west of Ireland wherein rates from three farth lugs to three-halfpence in the pound were demanded. There vas almost universal consternation and alarm. It became our eluty to apply a remedy to the blunders which the Act contan red. I don't say anything about neg ligence. Hosuisre R. Lords.-- ,— ( I H I t e ,c a g r, f i r ,a o r n d i o t o be ti O ie p o p . osi s ti t o i n li . ? Lord J. RUSSELI e —Th ese c l auses were i ntro d uce d i n t h e the alterations were adopted by the t .. ' oveinment, and that unfortunate this • take I have alluded kt did cause a multitude of annoyances, which created great t liseontent and vexation in many districts of Ireland. But I will say no more on these subjects. I con fess I was anxious te pay the Noble L or d b ac k i n hi s own co i n . —(Laughter.) I have' tried to do so--( Hear, hear)--he offered it to me in the - .first instanee, and having returned him with great pleasure that which I sincerely believe him entitled t o—( Laughter )—I will proceed to other matters.. Well, as I have said that Act was a most unfortunate one, Concurrent with the sle.mand for the rates under it, agricul tural distress visited Ireland, and its effects were most severely felt. Concurrently to o with these things, the new tariff I had the honour to propose began to be felt. I do believe that the reduction of price caused by the tariff, following closely on the demand for the- poor -rate, alienated the minds of the people from the. Government—l do believe that these two countries,. the poor-rate being for the first time levied at a period of considerable agricul tural depression—did give great facilities to the agitation. --(Cheers.) The co entry at that time was in a very p ecu li ar state. In the West of :Ireland you had great excitement, and, consequently, great congregations of people, whose embittered minds were all dexterously directed against the present Go vernment.--(Hear, hear..) They were all demanding the abo lition of poor-rates—l ru n sorry to say not a few also looked to a serious inroad upon rents.---(Hear, hear.) Then unhappily came the determination to agitate for the repeal of the union. —( Hear, hear-) We watched the progress of that agitation with the deepest regret, and, after proper deliberation, we determined in what mode to deal with it.—( Hear, hear. ) We are now charged with supineness, and with permitting these meetings to continue in order to entrap men of eminence into a violation of the law. I declare here in public that that accusation is utterly false and' without any shadow of a femndation.—( Great cheering.) We determined at once riot to apply to Parliament for new powers.—(Lond cheers.) I confess, after the long experience I have now had of public life, that I am not at all favourable to any application to Parliament for any increase of the ordinary powers of the Government.—(Loud cheers.) I don't think there is anything which has a greater tendency to impair the ordinary power of the law than to listen to applications founded, as they generally are, on local alarms, to get some extraordinary powers from the Legislature in aid of the Executive.—(Hear s hear.) So far from adding to the authority of the Govern;ment, in my opinion it tends to weaken it.—(General cheers.) The evil effect of these extraordinary powers is particularly marked in this—that no man relies on the ordinary law—nay, the people get out of the habit of look ing to protection for, or exerting the ordinary powers which, the law affords.—(Hear, hear.) Now the Government, our predecessors, did not take the same course.—(Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite, amongst them several members and many more supporters of the late Government, charge us with supineness in the first instance, and then with precipitate vigour in the second.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I tell you to re collect that you were not content to take our course—you were not content in your time to rely on the ordinary forms of the law—(Loud cheers)—you applied to Parliament— Lord J. RUSSELL—And you supported us.—(Cheers.) Sir ROBERT PEEL—I did support you.—(lronical cheers.) I did not try to aggravate the difficulties of your po sition.—(Cheers.) 1 entered into no confederacy with those who were destitute of any honourable or sincere sympathy with me.—( Great cheering.) But you applied to Parliament, and got from it a new Act, and a tolerably strong one it is. Do you forget it? Here it is; and it is intituled an Act for the more effectual suppressing of disturbances, and also of dangerous Societies in Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) It is, I as sure you, a very stout Act of Parliament. It recites, that the laws are inadequate, and what do you think ir enacts ? That the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by proclamation, may supersede the ordinary tribunals of the country, and order the trial of delinquents to take place—not before a judge—not by a jury—but by a court to be formed of from seven to fifteen officers. That is your Act ! We relied on the efficacy of the existing law ; the Noble Lord did not. He took these precautions against those signal fires; lie passed a Bill, by which it was enacted that " no person should make any fire, bonfire, light, flash, or blaze—( Laughter) —or any signal by smoke—(Laughter)—or be present at the snaking of such signal." This was the Noble Lord's Act ; the Government thought it necessary, and therefore they passed it. I am only showing that the Government felt the extent of the evil to be so great that it asked extraordinary powers to put it down. Thus, lighting a fire, or making signals by fire, blaze, or smoke, was made an offence, punish able by martial law, and the persons committing it were to be tried by a court-martial, consisting of not more than nine officers, nor less than five.—(Cheers.) We asked no such powers; we all concurred in trusting to the ordinary energies of the law, and in not adopting the system of the Whig Government. We had the support of the Protestants of Ire land, and that of the Roman Catholics, who were opposed to the agitation. We were determined not to avail ourselves of the offers made by them ; we determined not to avail ourselves of the yeomanry force that was ready to come forward in aid of the Government. They made a voluntary tender of their assistance ; but we knew the consequence of accepting that assistance.—( Hear, hear.) We knew that the consequence of accepting that assistance must be the raising of a spirit of re ligious animosity in the people; we knew that we could not have embodied the yeomanry force that was offered us ; that we could not call the Protestants of the north to the aid of the Government without running the risk of engendering re ligious animosities it would have required the lapse of years to allay.—( Hear, hear.) We were determined, except only in the last extremity, to waive any such assistance. But we not ofrnilindlostl tea r i(ol— nly we rella is n e c o e was,uraged and dispirited e the ordinaryiospiritdman vigouryofthose of the law. The charge against us is, that we were supine at first ; to that I give a p eremptory d en i a l . —( Ch eers .) I say we gave public proclamati on o f t h e v i ew we too k o f the repeal agitation. As Ministers of the Crown we gave it ; at the end of the last session of Parliament we advised her Majesty to declare from the Throne her disapprobation.—(Hear, hear. ) You say we issued no proc l amat i on i n the name of the Crown. What p roc l amat i on cou ld s peak in more emphatic language, in m ore emphatic terms, than the proclama tion made by her Majesty f rom t h e Th rone ?—(Cheers.) Her Majesty said, '° I have o b served with the deepes t c oncern the efforts made to stir up dis con t ent an d di sa ff ec tion among my subjects in Ireland, and t o exc i te them to d eman d a Repeal of the Legislative Union." H er M a j esty f urt h er sa id, " I am de termined to maintain in v i o l ate the bond of conne ction between the two countries, and I hope my subjects will discou'rage this pernicious agitation, which di s t ur b s the industry, retards the animosity." That was the proclamation made by the Govern ment with respect to this agitation. We dismissed t he magis trates who took part in the repeal agitation. Was that no sig nificant indication of the intentions of the Government ? —(Cheers.) You complain that we dismissed them without a previous proclamation. I believe the Noble Lord opposite considered himself entitled to dismiss Mr. Frost from the magistracy for being a member of the National Convention I—( Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord had written to Mr. Frost, whom be had appointed a magistrate—(Cheers) —asking him whether or not ho was a member of that Convention. The Noble Lord, I believe, at first thought the answer satisfactory, and made no comments on it. He subsequently dismissed him, not for any express act, but for taking part in meetings at which seditious and inflammatory language was used. I think lie did not prosecute him, but he thought himself entitled to dismiss him without a proclamation.—(Cheers.) We did dismiss magistrates for taking part in an agitation for the separation of the two countries, and we think we were justified in it. " But we also gave these instructions to the Lord-Lieutenant: — The moment you are entitled by law to interfere with meetings that may endanger the public peace, that moment we authorise you, and desire that 'you will put them down." I want to show that the charge against us, that we remained dormant and with folded arms, looking on at these meetings, is utterly without foun dation. It was our intention to interfere whenever the law should enable us to do so._(Hear, hear.) But if these meetings were not legal, and as they still con tinued to be held then it is said that we should have called in the military power to disperse them ; but in what a condition we would have been in if wo had used force. But there were periods when it is said we might have interfered according to law. There was to have been a great meeting at Cashel, and the Lord-Lieutenant sent down a gentleman well qualified to confer with the magistrates. His instructions to them were, that if they apprehended any danger—such as a firm-minded and sensible man might apprehend— then, and not till then, were they to order the meeting to be dispersed; but the meeting was not to be interfered with, unless men of firm and strong minds testi fied that they apprehended danger from th e mee ti ngs o f t h e people. At a Cabinet Council,held on the 15th Ap r il, 1843, we issued instructions to the Irish Government that we thought they should consult the Lord Lieutenants of the different counties where those mee t i n g s were ab out or likely to be held, and if those meetings gave a pp rehension t o the people, thereby creating reasonable groun ds for alarm in the minds of firm upon all lawful subj ec t s o f h er Ma j esty og ; but if persons persevere d afteran and sensible toola gaioa persons, titooo th that then might the Iri s h G overnment i ssue acalling m this notice in coming to that meeting, then they must use coercion. Then there was another meeting respecting which we had every reason to think there would have been a collision, and when we heard that there was to be this great meeting at Skibereen to consider the question of repeal, we again advised the Irish Government that if those proceedings gave apprehension to reasonable and firm-minded men, then, and not till then, must the authorities interfere. Then there were other meetings held at Dungarvon, and another at Clones. Why did we not interfere with these meetings? Simply because those apprehensions wer e n ot expressed, and would we have been mad enough to p rovok e a collision ?—(Cheers.) Where was the necessity for calling out the military but when we , meetings being h e ld w h ere t h e pu bli c 100 was perilled? Then we gave or d ers t h at a peace had apprehension s likely tohe of proclamation should be issued. The magistrates of Dungarvon addressed the Government, and expressed their apprehensions of danger to the public peace. The Government directed that if affidavits were properly . and regularly sworn to that effect, then the magistates might interfere, and order the meeting not to be held; but no interference was called for, and, therefore, was not necessary. We had an objection to issue those pro• clamations where there was no necessity. We had no covert design to entrap men into the commission of conspiracy or sedition. We did hope that this state of things would cease. We wished to see matters return of themselves to repose and quiet. We wished this pernicious agitation to cease of itself, without the application of force. We thought it our duty to take every precaution that prudence with forbearance might dictate, although you now cha r g e me with a desire to govern Ire land with military force , w hile w e were doing all in our power to obviate and prevent such a grievous and lamentable necessity. The meeting was held on the anniversary of a certain day— the anniversary of the Irish rebellion.—( Hear, hear.) I wished to conduct ray defence with as little acrimony as pos sible, and I will only state what is absolutely necessary in that defence. This meeting was held on the anniveisary of the Irish rebellion and in the county of Tipperary.—( Hear, hear.) The inhabitants of that county were called together, and in a short time after it was the scene of one of the most horrible tragedies in the records of crime.—( Hear, hear.) It was a eounty also in which agrarian disturbances prevailed. Why were those scenes selected for the meetings which took place on the Hill of Tara, at Mullaghmast, and Clontarf ? Every appeal was made by some o f th e spea k ers to rev i ve t h e bitter animosities of barbar ous ti mes , an d to evo k e t h at f e ll spirit which exasperated the different races against each other. —( Hear, hear.) Now, look to the day chosen and the scene of the meetings, and I ask you, was there not evidence of the existence of a conspiracy to effect a legal object by illegal means 7—( Cheers.) Not by the present use of those means, but by the display of phy s i ca l f orce. B ut i t may be asked, why did you interfere at Clontarf and not More ? Why, this is always the charge brought against those who act with forbearance. You are charged with having forborne so long, and acting at length, if you show the least forbearance. But we interfered with the Clontarf meeting on this account : It was the second meeting which was held in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. The Clontarf meeting followed the meetings of Tara and Mullaghmast, but it had this distinguishing cha racter, that there was a military array attending the meeting at Clontarf—repeal cavalry were invited to attend the meeting. Were cavalry necessary for the purpose of petitioning Parlia ment ?—(Cheers.) They were invited by proclamstion to at tend as a military body, and military terms were used through out the proclamation which was issued from the Corn Exchange. Mr. ROCHE—It slid not issue from the Corn Exchange. Sir R. PEEL—I think the documents will bear me out, and lam pretty sure that the first proclamation bears the same proof of having issued from the Corn Exchange as the second proclamation.—(Hear, hear.) Am I right in what I state ? ( Loud cheers.) (The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the ted whic the h Corn h as be pro c e d lam so ati o o r i t i en re r sp ef e e e r t r i e n d g to th , e and re w pt h sa i l ch c w av as alr d y a , Exchange on the 3d September.) Why did co order this meeting to be suppressed;?; When this proclamation was issued we consulted the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney and Solicitor li - Generals, on the subject, and we put this question to them— Whether independently of other circumstances, this summoning of a meeting in military array, with military organization, con stituted an illegal meeting? because if it did we were deter mined on interfering by proclamation. The answer we re ceived was, that that particular meeting differed in character from the meetings which were held in Cashel and Mullagh mast, not on account of the numbers who assembled, hut on account of its military character; and that it was therefore illegal, and that the Government would be warranted in issu ing a proclamation to suppress it. W e resolved on i ssu i ng that proclamation, and the reason why it was issued so: late has been so fully explained, that I will not go over the same ground again. The shortness of the time was unavoidable. It has been said that we did not issue the proclamation till late on the day—till five or six in the evening. I can refute that state ment by a reference to the counter proclamation referred to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell). His counter proclamation was issued on Saturday the 7th at three o'clock.—(Cheers.) Now observe that this proclamation must have been printed and arranged, and that it is dated at three o'clock.—( Hear, hear.) I lament the shortness of the time, but do not, for the purpose of aggravating the charge against the Government, depart from the real facts.—(Cheers.) We determined on occupy ing the ground, and making such a demonstration as would prevent the possibility of a collision, and we determined also, after the notice we gave at the close of the session in the speech from tho Throne of our determination on the subject of the repeal of the union, and after the dismissal of the magistrates, to prosecute the parties who were instrumental in getting up those meetings, and we determined on prosecuting them for that conspiracy, of which wo have convicted them.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had asked why we did not prosecute the printers, and my Right Hon. Friend never had answered that questiBn. The Government would then have been covered with ridicule for not striking at the authors of the danger, but contenting themselves with the punishment of those who were the mere instruments.— (Hear, hear.) Sir, I will not go into the history of these transactions ; but I ask the House to remember the references to the United States, the publication of the speeches which the son of the President thought it decent for him to deliver ; the declaration of the son of the chief executive officer of the United States says—" but the libation of freedom must some times be quaffed in blood." The reason why we read the ex tracts from the newspapers was, that the writer belonged to an Association which undertook their circulation. Those news papers contained appeals to the army—strong, continued ap peals to every prejudice which could be raised in the mind of tho Celt against the Saxon. lie asked the House to bear in mind the scenes which were chosen for their meetings, scenes selected for the express purpose of reminding the Irish population of events in past history which they could not reflect upon with out feeling irritated. He called upon them to bear in mind the selection of the 23d of May—he called Olson them to re member the songs which were introduced by some one— he knew not by whom—into the barracks of the troops, who was responsible for the introduction of such songs as the fol • _ lowing— Who fears to speak of Ninety-Bight? Who blushes at the name? When cowards mock the patriot's fate, Who hangs his head for shame? He's all a knave, or half a slave, Who slights his country thus ; But a true man, like you, man, Will fill your glass with us. Can you mistake the object of the studious circulation among an inflmunable people, of songs like that? Who was the re sponsible party ? Was it not the man, whosoever it might be, who belonged to an association having subordinate officers, whose duty it was to circulate the newspapers containing these songs, and these appeals, as a return for the subscriptions which they received ?—( Hear, hear.) ;Should we have been justified, in the state in which the country then was, in declining to ap peal to our only instrument—the ordinary law of the country for the repression of such evils ? I will not go into the trials, the subject is completely exhausted. We determined, how ever, to appeal to the law, and we did appeal to it. I declare that nothing was further from our wish than that the jury should be constituted upon any other principles than such as were consistent with perfect justice ; or that Roman Ca tholics should be excluded from the jury, simply be cause they were Roman Catholics. We appealed to the law and we succeeded ; the offence charged was within the law. We had only one instrument—we had no Coercion Act ; we determined not to avail ourselves of Protestant feel ing. You make it a charge against us that we resorted to the only instrument in our power. Let me put the House in possession of the state in which the country was placed by this continued agitation.—Wear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet then read a description of Tipperary on the 20th of October, 1843, when fires vrer3 lighted on the hills every night, and the inhabitants were in constant ex pectation of an insurrectionary movement.) Was this (con tinued the Right lion. Baronet) for the purpose of petition? —(lronical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Was not this the result of that fearful system of agitation which left us at last no alternative, if we really wished to prevent an insurrectionary movement ? The only recourse loft to us was to summon the chief authors of this agitation to answer for it to their country.—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) We preferred the charge under the same law by which you had prosecuted Vincent—under the same law under which you had read newspapers and made parties responsible for their publication. We brought the charge, not against subordinate parties, but against those who said " we will prove to you that thi, do-nothing policy will not succeed ; we declare , that the Queen has power to repeal the Act of Union; we will drive a coach and six through all your laws; we will prove to you that we can evade and defeat the law." Well, then we stepped forward, not in consequence - of these taunts, but in consequence of the state into which the country had been brought by this pernicious agitation. We saki , " We will go before the country and ask whether theie things are tolerable where civil go vernment is maintained." I repeat, we succeeded. The Bench unanimously declared that the law had not been per verted, but that it applied to the offence charged. The jury brought in a discriminating and considerate verdict, and the par ties charged were convicted of the offence laid in the indictment. We have done all this without coercion, without applying to Parliament for extended powers.—( Cheers. ) Having done all this without the effusion of blood—(Cheers)—without conflict or collision—(Reiterated cheers)—we find a powerful party arrayed against us who find fault with us for our forbearance at one time, and for our vigour at another.—( Cheers.) They are wise after the results are known—(Cheers)—and every effort taken during that anxious time to carry the law into effect by the law has been tracked with' all the sagacity of party, in order to find out some little error.—(Cheers.) They charge us with being reckless—(Cheers)—with having endeavoured to trample liberty under foot, with being desirous of governing Ireland not according to law.—( Cheers. ) If we had taken such a course, if we had acted too precipitately, if we had dispersed meetings which we were not legally entitled to disperse, if we had charged any single individual with attending an illegal meeting, and had failed, if we had selected some poor printer for prosecution, and sent him to. gaol—(Cheers)—the walls of this House would have rung to sounds very different to those with which they are now ringing.—( Cheers.) You would have told us that we interfered without necessity, that we had evinced a desire to interfere with the rights of petition— (Cheers)—that Ise had not the Mirage to select the favourites of the people--(Cheers)—but that we had pursued the unmanly and paltry course of inflicting voneance upon a printer, but that we had not dared to attack .the powerful leaders.—(donti naed cheering.) I will, however, say, in the face of the coun try, that in repressing this agitation, we have had no assistance from those on the other side.—(Loud Ministerial cheers. ) This I. may say - with- -perfect truth. (Continued cheers.) . You know what it is to be exposed to the same -dangers.—(Cheers. ) You have had organised meetings against the Constitution to contend with.—(Cheers.) It has been your painful fate to have to deal with the fires at Bristol— ( Cheers)—with the attack upon Newport—( Cheers )—with an insurrection in Canada—(Cheers)—and if at that time you found a powerful party ranged against you—(Load cheers)—if we had taken up M. Papineau—(A laugh)—l do not mean taken up the man, but if we had espoused his cause—( Cheers) —if, while your proceedings in Canada were pending, we had brought forward a motion inculpating you for sending up ex officio informations when the grand jury had ignored your bills —if we had tracked every step taken by you, and contented ourselves with expressing a faint condemnation of the acts of a man who was advocating the cause of liberty, yen would have found it a much more difficult task than you did to vindicate the law.—( Cheers.) I have thus offered a vindication of the Government for the forbearance which we manifested at first, and for our determination to make use of no other instrument than the law, and for our application to the law when the con tinuance of the agitation left us no other alternative.— ( Cheers.) I have now to state to the House the course of policy which we hereafter propose to pursue. I do not hesitate to declare, that, as the Hon. Gentleman says, we must consider in the present state of Ireland what measures its pub lic interests may require, and I will not be driven, by the fear of any taunts or of quotations from Hansard, from fully and freely expressing my opinion as to the course which we ought to pursue.—( Cheers.) I should be ashamed of myself if I were prevented by the fear of being charged with incon sistency, from adopting any measures which I believed would be conducive to the restoration of peace in that country.— ( Cheers.) My apprehensions on this important subject are enhanced by the position of Ireland with respect to its physical and to its moral wants—by its position with respect to its civil and political, and more especially with respect to its religious state. The Hon. and Learned Member for Cork attached great, but not undue, importance to the influence of the physi cal condition of Ireland.—( Cheers.) He stated very truly that the sense of political grievances would be much less if the physical condition of the country were better.—(Cheers.) But when he was demanding an exact identity of the franchise, I wonder it did not occur to him that, if wealth and intelligence are to be taken into consideration in the bestowal of the fran chise in a country where seventy per cent. of the population were in a state of absolute destitution, it must be more dangerous to grant an extension of the franchise than in a country where such a state of things is not in existence. There is one subject, however, in the consideration of which, without reference to political questions, we can all unite. I mean the improvement of the social condition of Ireland—that wss a matter of the deepest consideration with us last session. The , Hon. and benevolent Member for Rochdale brought in a Bill towards the end of the session, for improving the relations ' between landlord and tenant. He promised the Hon. Gentle man to introduce some measure on the subject ; but we found it was a matter involving such vast interests, that we could not legislate on it safely, without full previous inquiry. We, therefore, advised the appointment of a Commission, composed of landlords of Ireland, distinguished equally by their rank and by their kind consideration for their tenants, and to that Commission we intrusted that inquiry. In order to show that no religious feelings were m i xe d up the appoint ment of the members of the Commission, it was certainly our wish that it should have consisted, in addition to the Earl of Devon, of tsvo Protestants and two Roman Catholics. The gentlemen applied to were prevented by considerations of health, and other imperative duties, from rendering their as sistance, and we proceeded therefore to constitute a Commission suited to the public interest. The relation of landlord and tenant is of a peculiar nature in Iceland. I do not hesitate to say that there is an unfair and unjust prejudice against the great body of landlords in Ireland. There is a presumption that they are guided by different principles from those which guide the landlords in this country. No account is taken of the peculiar position in which they are placed. We could not think of legislating on the subject without inquiring into the practice of different parts of the country—the practice of the north—taking the example of the estates where the tenants are prosperous, and bringing to light and exposure those landlords who pervert the law—and discriminating between the good landlords, the vast !majority, and the harsh and overbearing landlord. Such, we thought, would afford the best foundation for useful legislation. The Noble Lord referred the other night to a pamphlet called " A Cry for Ireland." I have read it, and I am shocked at how legal powers are, as it states, employed for the purposes of oppression. 'I he Noble Lord says, why not bring in a short Act of Parliament? Will the Noble Lord per mit me to ask what has he been doing the last ten yers on this subject if he thinks legislation necessary ? The Noble Lord says that a Commission is thingeroes. Why that is an argu ment ageinat every inquiry. We could not inquire into the al leged grievances it! Wales wi:hout a Commission. With respect to the recommendation of a short Act, the course pnrsued for the last ten years was that some individual Member, not connected with the Go vernment, brought in a 13ill, which, having been read a first and second time, was allowed to go into Committee, when the unfortunate Member was met with so many objections, that no further progress was made, and the session passed without anything being done. We could permit that to be done. We could permit the useful Member for Rochdale (Mr. B'. Crawford) to adopt that course, but we thought it better to act as we have done. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) recommends the repeal of all the statutes passed on the subject since the union. The Honourable and Learned Member for Dangarvon (Mr. Sheil) said that they contemplated interfering with the law of landlord and tenant, brought in by Mr. Lynch, which gave much greater power to the landlord. I cannot pass by the speech of the Hon. Member for Roscommon—and in that speech I could not see one particle of party feeling.—( Cheers. ) The Hon. Member had acknowledged that the Government had a conviction that, under all the difficulties with which the case was beset, they had pursued the best course. The Go vernment was influenced by no oilier motive than a just desire to protect the rights of property, and, instead, of encouraging vague expectation, to probe the evils of Ireland to the bottom. With respect to the franchise, I will say that I should wish to carry out the principles of the Bill for the removal of the Catholic disabilities. I know not what may be the wish of the Noble Lord, the Member for London, with respect to the disturbance of the Reform Bill.—( Great laughter.) but this much I will say, that with respect to the Irish franchise, I think it ought to be substantially equal with that of Great Britain. I do not say that there should be an identity of fran chise between the two countries, because that is impossible; but there aught to be a substantial equality of civil privileges for Ireland, and compared with all the other parts of the em pire. That there ought to be an identity—that there ought to be a nominal equality between the two countries, is what I feel confident that many Hon. Gentlemen en the other side of the House would be the last to desire, because gentlemen who had been most anxious to deprecate the extension of what was called the Chandos clause, would encourage the landlords to refuse granting leases to the smaller class of tents. But I shall give no opinion upon the subject, and only refer to that argument in the course of the debate to show that there can be no chance of identity of franchise between the two countries ; but OM, I think, it will be sufficient for the purposes of this debate if I say that the franchise of the two countries should be substantially equal.—( Hear.) Sir, I now approach by far the most important subject of all— ! the course which I think we should take with respect to the Established Church. And I will, without reserve, and with the same explicitness, follow the course my Noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, and my Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department. I find the Protestant Reformed religion, anti the Episcopal Church, esta blished by law in that country for 280 years; and I find the Establishment ratified and confirmed by Acts of Parliament partaking of the character of a solemn covenant, as much as such Acts could partake of that character.—( Hear, hear.) It was the intention of the Legislature, at the time of the union, to assure the Protestants of England arid Ireland that the union should not endanger the Established Church ix, Ire land.—( Cheers.) I hope that gentlemen will not interrupt me in what I have to say.—(Cheers.) At a subsequent period —in 1829—1 have found that those who passed the Bill of Emancipation, and used all their influence to combat the ob jections of the Protestant portion of the people—always kept in view that it was necessary to give an assurance to the Protes tants, that if they acquiesced in removing the disabilities of the Roman Catholics, there should be s ecur ity f or th e Es tablishment.—(Hear, hear.); I say, that so far as a compact can have force, that compact has force. At the time of the union with Scotland it was settled that Presbyterianism should he the established religion of that. country—and so it was with Ireland.—( Hear.) I was astonished, Sir, to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, in his very eloquent speech, refer to the subject of slavery, and state (as a proof that men sometimes changed their opinions) that Mr. Wilberforce pulled down the present Duke of Northumberland, then a Member of this House, and told him not to moot the abolition of slavery. In that allusion the Right lion. Gentleman drew something upon his ima gination.—( A laugh.) I have referred to the report of the debate, and I find that what Mr. Wilberforce said in explanation was " I never said that slavery should not be abolished. I only said that the abolition should be post - coned until the minds of the negroes should be prepared by education, to enjoy freedom." However that, may have been, I cannot see how it could affect the paragraph in the Act of Union.—( Hear, hear.) I say also, that so far as authority can go, the highest authority is in favour of that view of the Act of Union. 1 do not speak of the Church, but of men who were of the highest authority, as expressing the opinions and feelings of the Catholic party. Could I name any higher authority than that of Mr. Burke, Mr. Grattan, Lord Plunket, and Sir John Newport ?—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Burke was the earliest, the ablest, and the most powerful advocate of the Catholic claims. He wrote much on the subject of the Penal Code, and those who had afterwards written and spoken on the same subject, had only followed the argu ments which suggested themselves to his no tice.—( Hear ' bear, and cheers.) Mr. Burke did not conceal from himself any part of the truth, He said you base an ecclesiastical establishment which, although it is the reli gion of the Prince and the landed proprietors, is not the reli gion of the majority of the people. Mr. Burke was of opinion that the connexion of religion with the State should be held fast. Ile wished well to the religion of the great num ber of the primary landed proprietors of the kingdom—that religion which was one of the pillars of the Christian religion in this country.—( Hear.) Such were the opinions of Burke. Lord Plunket said he would fling to the winds the question of the removal of the disabilities of Roman Catholics rather than compromise the existence of the Established Church. The dying request of 31r. Grattan was, that the removal of the dis abilities of Roman Catholics might be combined with the maintenance of the Protestant Church in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) The opinion of Sir John Newport, who, though he did' not rank to high in intellectual endowments, loved his country, as well as either, he was in favour of Catholic emancipation, but was of opinion that the Protestant Church ought to be maintained as an establishment in that country. The compact was of a sacred and solemn nature, which guaranteed the preservation of the Protestant Church ; but if he were convinced that the social welfare of Ireland required a departure from the strict terms of that contract, and if it were sought to bind up our legislative functions, so as that we must not alter it, ho must say he was not prepared for that.— ( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) But he must at the same time say, that nothing had so great a tendency to lower the character of that House, as to break pledges solemnly made by it—to make a compact. ten years ago, and violate it now.— ( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Nothing could tat) so destructive to the prospects of future legislation, and unless there be some strong and over-ruling necessity— ( Hear, from the 1 linisterial benches)—l will maintain the Established Church in Ireland, not only on the existence of the compact, and the opinions of the most eminent statesmen, but on my own pure convictions.—( Hear, hear, from the Oppo sition benches.) I bring reason and conviction in aid of that compact, and I do not defend it upon a narrow ground. I do not believe it would be for the interests of Ireland, or any part of it, that I should accede to the motion fur impairing the Established Church in Ireland, and I will assign my . reasons. I am not now about to determine what would be the best measures for a new state of society, in which there were seven millions of Roman Catholics, and two millions whose faith was identified with the Established Church. But I talk of a country in which an Established Church has existed for more than '2OO years, and which has been guaranteed by compacts, and by prescription. I consider that under all the circumstances of the case the present is the best regulation that could be effected. First of all I contend for the necessity of an establishment, and I apprehend my right to contend for that will nut bo disputed. You have an example of an Establishment in Euglani and Scotland, and my conviction is that it is necessary for the pur poses of religion that an establishment of some kind or other should exist.—( A laugh.) Do not take an advantage of an 1 expression. I am now addressing myself to the first step in the argument of whether we should have establishments or not. One of my reasons for maintaining an establishment in Ire land, and it is a cogent one I trust, is that if you had no establishment in that country you would have more bitter religious animosities than exist at present. 1 look, therefore, to its effect upon Ireland ; but of this I am perfectly certain, that if you establish a precedent of having no establishment in Ireland little time will elapse before that precedent will be sought to be ap plied to England. The other night my Right lion Friend, the Member for Pontefract, gave notice of a motion to make provision for the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, to which notice of amendment was given by the Hon. Member for Shef field, to the effect that no provision for the maintenance of the secular Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland was just or expe dient, unless based on such a revision of the whole of the ec clesiastical system as to place the clergy of all deno minations upon a footing of perfect equality. Th e Honourable Member for Montrose would not wait for the passing of the Bill. He would not wait for the motion, but on the day the original notice was given he was good enough to signify his intention of applying the same principle in Grcat Britain the moment that principle was affirmed. He also gave notice of a motion for an address to her Majesty, that she would be pleased to institute an inquiry as to what numbsr of her Majesty's subjects dissented from the discipline of the Established Church, in England and Scotland, as well as in Ireland, with a view to the appropria tion of the surplus revenues of the Church to the purposes of education, or some other national charitable purposes. Now, I say, if you apply this principle to Ireland, it will soon be sought to apply the same principle to England. I say, therefore, that nay opinion is decidedly in favour of an establishment; and it is decidedly in favour of maintaining the Protestant. Church as that establishment.—(Cheers ) I can not conceive a more important question than that which will arise as to the nature of the relation between an Established Church ant the State. The Roman Catholics say, that they will submit to no regulation by law. The Protestant Church is controlled by law. You subject it to great restriction—. you have prevented the meeting of the convocation, you regu late its acts—you aro jealous of its authority —you subject it to the restraint of the law, but you subject it also to the milder influence of favour, and of patronage. You claim for the Crown that species of influence which is derived from the nomination of a great part of the preferments in the Church. And it is difficult to estimate the effect of that influence on the Church. What do the Roman Catholics say ? They say we do not want an endowment. We refuse to submit to any such thing. You shall not bind us by any law. We will not sub mit to the nomination of spiritual persons being controlled by i the Crown. We refuse to enter into any connection with you; and if you give us any endowment, we will not give you any control in our affairs. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Kildare, speaking with great deliberation and point, said, " If you try to solve the difficulty by entering into any arrangement with the Pope, and if you obtain a concordat from { the supreme authority of the Church, even then, I tell yen, - , that your regulations will TiOt be observed in I 1 Ireland, and your authority will-not ' lS. B .4bet .._ el , -1 tell you that I the ecclesiastical outhorities in Ireland 'ysi , rebereitainst your arra: gement." That was the declarati . oirlff Right Hon. Gentleman. Wit the Hon. Gentleman's ; • 411 me what equality th ere wou ld b o i n g i v i ng an en down.'ent to that Chu n * while it refuses to submit to those regulations which are sits-- blished in thi s country w i t h respect to t h e Protes tant Church ? On the part of all Churches there is a disposition to remonstrate against the exercise of civil power. You think it necessary in this country to control the affairs of the Church by very strict enactments , . In Scotland you have lately found two par, ies in the Established Church claiming exemption from civil control and asking for independence. In. that ease you looked with the utmost jealousy at those claims.. You positively refused to accede to their demand of exemption from civil authority, and you permitted a great part of that Church to sever their connexion, rather than enter into any arrangement. What would your own Church do? If file Protestant Episcopalian Church asked for its present property 1 awl rights—you being the Established Church—would your permit that Church to have them ? Or will you ;allow the authority of the civil power, the rights of the Crown and others to presentation, and the title to endowments? But the 1 Roman Catholic a ys, we claim independence for ourselves; an.l yet you would give revenues to a Church, and authority to a Church, that will not hold herself in allegiance. And this you call equality !---(Loud cheers ) Now, I do not believe that the preference is given to the Protestant Episcopalian Church from any wish to show disrespect—least of all to throw insult—upon the faith of others. Ido believe that iii this country a preference is given to the Protestant Episcne list) Church from a preference to its doctrines—(Cheers) — from a decided preference to its doctrines—(Cheers) — and r contend also that that preference imp l ie s no insult u p on those who dissent from its ductimee, arid that it is extravagant to say that because I have a pre ference for its doctrines, that it involves rue in the neces sity of persecuting any other Church whatever:—(.Loud cheers from all parts of the House. ) Whatever reasons lor you may have for ]:referring the Establishment—and there is ris2 necessit y for going into them at this moment—that does not imnilv that we have any right whatever to question the right of other.' to the full es t f ree d om i n t h e exerc i se o f t h e i r faith. A turn to the propositions of the lion. Member for Sheffield (Min' Ward). I consider those propositions exactly tantamount Lo a total suppression of the Protestant Church in Ireland.— ( Hear, hear.) That Hon. Gentleman says—Let us divide the revenue of this Chnrch—let us give 70,0001. to the Protes tant, 70,000/. to the Presbyterians, and 450,0001. to the Roman Catholics. Why there is no equality in this.—( Cheers.) Se verity thousand pounds to the Protestants who submit to our civil authority, and know no foreign one, and four hundred and fifty thousand to a Church which prides itself on dividing that authority, and being independent of all national control whatever !—(Loud cheers.) Why this is the reverse of equality—and it is more than that, it is gross injustice.— ( Cheers. ) But a Noble Lord (Howick) talked by analogy. Is that Noble Lord prepared to permit those who acknowledge allegiance in Church matters, not to the Crown of England but to a foreign spiritual authority—is he, I ask, prepared to allow the Catholic bishops to take their seats in the House of Lords 1 If he is not, then your principle of analogy is good for nothing.—( Cheers.) Here is the religion guaranteed by several Acts of Parliament, by long prescription, by thousands and thousands of ties of the strongest and most endearing character, by an alliance with the State of two hundred and fifty years, and we are told not to maintain it, because its existence is inconvenient.—( Cheers. ) I ask, what, then, will promote religious peace in Ireland? Do you suppose that it will promote mutual cencord and peace to say to the Protestants—" Equality of franchises is es tablished. You now must give up your Church ?"—(Loud cheers.) You little know the spirit you would evoke.—(Loud cheers.) But your equality. your division of revenues, your analogy, you never attempt to work out so that we may look upon practical results. Supposing you to get your proposed 450,0004 of revenue, what will you do with the churches ?—( Hear, hear.) Do you mean to call on the Protestants to sacrifice the endowments and give up the churches too ?—(Cheers.) You must do that, or where is your analogy. If you give the endowments in the proportions proposed, you must, by your own rule, give the churches in the same proportion.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) I believe that a proposition more calculated to ensure discord was never propounded.—( Hear, hear.) I am, therefore, pre pared to offer just as decided an objection to that proposal of the Hon. Gentleman, as I am to oppose the transfer of the revenues of the Establisument to the Roman Catholic Church. There is another proposal. It was, not to venture at once to destroy; the Church, but to undermine and sap its foundations. I think that course just as fatal as any other. I think that, not to destroy life at once, .but to infuse some slow poison into the veins, which will ultimately cause its destruction, is a course as little likely to promote either social or religious peace, as either of the others.— (Cheers.) I therefore come to the conclusion, founding my. self upon compacts, on authority, and on the convictions of my own mind, that the best course—and the course which I, for one, as far as my humble powers can effect it, the Government will pursue—is to maintain in its integrity the Protestant Church Establishment.—( Loud and continued cheering.) When I say in its integrity, I do not mean to exclude all such reforms as may increase the efficiency of the Establish ment for the purposes of religion; but I do mean that I will neither consent to overthrow the Church, or to establish three forms of religion in Ireland, or to make a division of the revenues of the Church between the Protestants, the Presbyterians, and the Roman Catholics ; nor can I consent to any of those smaller proposals, which mean nothing if they do not mean the ultimate destruction of the Church. I have therefore stated the grounds on which Ipr opose to act with respect to the religious esta blishments of Ireland ; does that compel me to exclude alto gether the consideration of the position of the Roman Catholic Church in that country ? Am I to consider that Church as altogether outcast, and to be excluded from any consideration of regulations that may improve its condition ? Endowments from the State you absolutely reject. We were assured that by the voluntary endowments of individuals it might be provided for without the violation of conscience, and yet with the concession of a great boon. The Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, threw out this suggestion last session in a friendly spirit, and we professed our readiness to consider in As usual, we are met with a state ment that it will not be of the slightest value ; it is rejected on the authority of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman We . were assured that many Protestants would be disposed, for the sake of promoting peace, and for the purpose of improving the condition cif the Church and charitable establishments, to make voluntary endowments to' the Catholic clergy. The absence of such endowments is alluded to by Mr. Scurry, in his work on Ireland, as a great evil. (The Right Ho nourable Barocet read the passage, which stated that the doubts whether such funds would not be appropriated to Protestant establishments, amounted to an absolute prohi bition to their being made.) That absolute prohibition (con tinued the Right lion. Gentleman) we are willing to remove, accompanied with such securities as would prevent any abuses, that might arise from the removal. I was certainly surprised to-night at hearing, for the first time, the offer met in the manner it has been. We are, however, still prepared to con sider our promise. There only remains the subject of edu cation.—( Hear, hear.) I might refer you to the course we have taken on national education as sufficiently indicative of our determination to adopt those measiiree we believe conducive to the welfare of Ireland, even at the risk of offending many of our supporters. We pro pose in the present year to make a considerable increase in the grant for the purposes of national education. I should be very sorry to refuse 'to consider the means of still .urther increasing that education. It has been suggested that instruction in the science of agriculture might be usefully given in Ireland, and advantageously engrafted on the present system of education. ( Freer, hear.) I should be sorry , to exclude all considerations of matters of this kind; I should be sorry to exclude a consideration of the means of providing an academical education of a higher class than that given in the national schools.—( Hear, hear.) But at present we do propose to make a considerably increased grant for the purposes of national education. I have now done. I thank the House for the attention with which it has heard me.— ( Cheers). I trust it feels that I 'have only" trespassed at such a length on its attention from A sense of the -, necessity of discharging a public duty.—(CineerS4 A have stated our general views of the policy and measures we. intend to adopt. In themselves they may not be immediate and effectual remedies for the evils under which Ireland labours ; but I trust. I have said enoneh n‘ show the spirit in which the Government o is prepared to consider the questions connected .with:: the- legislation of Ireland. I was reminded by the Hon. 'Gentleman, the Member for Shrewsbury, in a very able speech, not the less to be admired because it departed froth the general rule of Parliamentary usage-1 was restinded by the Hon. Member—that I said that the question of the state of Ireland was one of far too much im portance to he sacrificed and treated as a question of party ex pediency, I said, that however Hon. Gentlemen might be attached to the party of the Government, that if, on the question of the state of Ireland, they might consider larger and more extensive measures necessary than we were inclined to promote, I said, and I said with perfect truth, that I thought this questien one of such paramount importance, that till questions of party consideration must give way to it, and I thought that any gentleman giving his vote; was bound to give a free vote—an unfettered vote on this important question. I would on no question make any sacrifice of principle, but for the good of Ireland, and for any question or measure tending to promote her welfare, I would make any personal sacrifice, and have made sacrifices before now, for the purpose of extending peace to Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) I have for this end made sacrifices of which the loss of office was the least. I have suffered the loss of private friends—and the alienation of personal attachment and private esteem.— ( Cheers.) Why am I not this moment the representative, in stead of the rejected candidate of the University of Oxford ? When we proposed emancipation in 1828, the loss of official power was certain, and I yielded in the hope of promoting peace in Ireland, but with deep emotion; and for the same purpose I sacrificed also that which was the proudest distinction of my life, the representation of the University of Oxford. I regret that I must consider the present condition of Ireland as not being what it ought to be ; but I hope the civil power in Ireland will continue to maintain itself, eithout the aid of the military power. While see remain in office we will assert the power and dignity of the law.—( Loud cheers.) We will assert the power of the law firmly, powerfully, and calmly, although we deprecate the use of extreme measures, which should only be resorted to in 'lases of the most urgent necessity ; but having resorted to them, and vindicated the insulted dignity of the laws, we are satis fied. Our object was to restore peace and tranquillity, and with them to bring prosperity and happiness to the country. We have succeeded in restoring friendly relations with France and all other foreign powers. We have succeeded in improving the commerce of the country. We have succeeded in securing a surplus in the revenue over the expenditure. We have seen the revival of commercial and manufactur ing prosperity; but in the midst of these cheering prospects, we have bad to contend with that baneful " intestinum et domesticum bellum ;" and we cannot, I regret again to say, express our satisfaction with the state of Ireland, but I trust, however, that that alternative which party suggests, which says that we cannot govern Ireland without military force—l hope and trust that this suggestion is not well-founded. It is said that by party influence, peace may be restored ; but I think that without party influences or party motives, we may be able to govern Ireland as she ought to be governed. I see much cause for congratulation and hope, when we view the treble applications of science and its wonderful progress. I shall not be surprised if in my day I see the interval between Dublin and London shortened to within a twelve hours' journey. The reports of engineers show that the interval between both cities could be shortened to a journey of fourteen hours.— ( Hear, hear.) My belief is, that with the progress of im provement it will be still further shortened. ( Hear, hear.) I cannot help thinking that in the upper classes of society there is a growing disposition to obliterate past animo sities.—(Hear, hear.) Ido not now hear debates on the state of Ireland as compared with what I have heard in debates to former times, without seeing prevailing through the creed, an d a strong disposition to forget differences of _ other side When anything is said by lion. Gentlsmmenet by, obliterate distinctions of race.—( Hear, heoanrst:,:d cheers.) on. Gentle. of the House in kindly disposition, it 6 is r made.—( Hear, hear.) I do therefore earnes tl y suasion ins. spirit cor- mreespnoonpdpinogsitteo othe the p ill,. it that the influence of public control agitation, and may 11as of the law , ma y minantwr?rsitctholitic pe opinion, as we of Ireland—that it impedes improvement, the best interests application of capital—prevents the redress of which I am persuaded can . application of individual interposition and re dressedtph, : s v c e prevents s b t y h et grievancese THE SUN, LONDON, SATUIrDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1844. " • r- .-. ~ ~; ~--,-,,: t4>. ~_ . _ y