The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-19 00:00:00

*mpirtat parliament. HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY. On the motion of the Earl OlitonEl7,ti;eZail of Glengal was substituted on the select committee on the state of Ire land, in the room of the Marquis of Londonderry, who had stated his inability to attend. The mutiny bill and the marine mutiny bill were read the second time, after which their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-MONDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair to-day at four o'clock, long before which time every avenue leading to the house was densely crowded, and when the doors were opened the rush was tremendous. In an instant the strangers' gallery was crowded in every part, and several hundreds who had ob tained members' orders were obliged to go away disap pointed. The street in front of the members' entrance was also greatly crowded. Anumber of petitions on various subjects were presented. The following bills were severally read a second time and ordered to be committed :—The Hartishead or Dewsbury (York) Inclosure Bill ' • the Bishop Auckl an d an d W ear d a l e Railway Bill; and the Aberdeen Harbour bill. The Aberbrothwick Harbour Bill, and the Parrett Naviga tion Bill, were read a third time and passed. GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. The SPEAKER said, as in all probability there was a great number of petitions relating to the question which stood for that night's discussion, perhaps it would be as well to take them before other petitions. Petitions in favour of the present policy adopted towards Ireland, and expressing confidence in her Majesty's govern ment, were presented by Mr. Somers, from Sligo; Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Kerry ; Mr. Curry, from Armagh ; Mr. Archbold, from Tipperary •, Sir C. Style, from Donegal and Londonderry ; a n d severa l other members but the places from which th e p e titi ons came were not so distinctly heard in the gallery, as to warrant reporting them with any pro bability of accuracy. Colonel VERNER and Mr. DUNBAR presented petitions condemning the policy adopted towards Ireland of late years. Sir R. BATESON said, he had a similar petition to present from Londonderry, in the prayer of which lie fully con curred. He considered the conduct of the present govern ment towards Ireland the greatest curse that ever afflicted the country. (Cries of " Hear, and Order.") The SPEAKER said the hon. member must confine himself to the prayer of the petition. Sir R. BATESON.—The petitioners condemn the measures and policy of the present government, and they pray the house to address the Queen to dismiss from her councils men who had proved themselves unfit to carry on the business of this great empire, either with credit to themselves, or safety to the country. (Hear.) Mr. LITTON presented a similar petition, very numerously signed, from Dublin ; the petitioners stated their disgust at the policy of the present government towards that country. Several petitions of a similar nature were presented from places in Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL entered the house shortly before five o'clock ; the hon. member was loaded with petitions, which he carried in a box on one arm, and a large carpet bag in the other. He walked to his seat amidst great laughter, and cheers from the ministerial benches. _ _ Mr. J. GRATTAN presented a number of petitions in favour of the policy adopted towards Ireland by the present government. - Colonel MACNAMARA presented similar petitions. The petitioners expressed a hope that Ireland would not again be subjected to the government of a sanguinary Orange faction. (Great laughter and cheers from the ministerial benches.) Lord .T. Russell entered the house at five o'clock, at which time there was a very full attendance of members. Sir R. Peel and most of the leading conservatives were early in their places. At five o'clock the SPEAKER called on Lord J. Russell. Mr. O'CONNELL said he had a great number of petitions on the subject which stood for discussion that evening to present, and hoped for an opportunity of doing so before the debate began. PRIVILEGE Mr. CRAWFORD Wish4toialce — the earliest possible op portunity of calling attention to a question of privilege. On Friday night three members of the house were ordered by the Serjeant at Arms to retire just previous to a division taking place. (Hear.) After a few words from Sir R. INGLIs, which, from the noise which prevailed, were not heard in the gallery, The SPEAKER said he was perfectly willing to take upon himself the responsibility of the Serjeant ordering three mem bers to leave the house. (Hear.) The door had been closed for a division, and it was therefore contrary to the rules to force it. (Hear, hear.) He desired the Serjeant to order the members in question to retire. (Hear, hear.) After a few observations from Mr. HUMPHERY, Mr. CRAWFORD, and Mr. GODSON, the subject dropped. Mr. O'CONNELL then rose to present a number of peti tions in favour of the policy adopted by the present govern ment in Ireland. He trusted that the country would not again become the prey of an Orange faction. (Loud cries of order, order, order, and cheers from the ministerial benches.) Mr. Lucas rose to order. It was a rule of the house that members should not enter into an argument on the presenta tion of a petition. He (Mr. Lucas) and other members were not allowed to do so, and as he did not see the honourable and learned member for Dublin enjoyed any exclusive right or immunity, he would not allow that learned gentleman to depart from the general rule. (Loud cries of hear, hear, and order, order.) He rose to order, and would insist upon the honourable member for Dublin being kept within the gene ral rule. (Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL.—There was a laugh when I alluded to the Orange faction. (Order, order.) Mr. Lucas denied that there was any laugh on the 'op position side. Mr. GRATTAN rose to order ; but the confusion in the house was so great that not a word the hon. member uttered could be heard in the gallery. After order had been some what obtained, Mr. O'CONNELL proceeded with the presentation of his petition, and read the name of every place, and the county in which it was situated, very slowly and deliberately. After occupying a length of time, the hon. member said, I shall reserve the other petitions I have for presentation until to morrow," (Laughter.) Mr. SHIEL and other members presented a number of similar petitions, the presentation of which occupied the time of the house until six o'clock. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Rochdale, pray ing the house not to pronounce any opinion on the inquiry , quiry before the highest tribunal in the country. (Hear, , hear, from the opposition benches.) GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. _ _ _ Lord JOUN RUSSELL rose to address the house. On the 21st of March, the House of Lords appointed a committee to inquire into the policy of the executive government of Ire land during the last five years. On the following day he gave notice of the resolution he was about to bring under the consideration of the house It would not be necessary for him to dwell at any length on the importance of the subject, or at the present time to go into a minute detail of the policy adopted in Ireland. In the first place, therefore, he would remark on the necessity of the House of Commons adopting the resolution he proposed, and remarking on the amendment which was to be made by the right hon. baronet opposite. In the course of the debate, he trusted he should be able full to justify the conduct of her Majesty's government. (Hear.) He should not introduce various-points and subjects adopted by the executive government, but should wait until they were alluded to by others, and then he thought of being able to answer them. (Hear.) The proceeding in the House of Lords called for an expression of opinion from the represen tatives of the people. (Hear.) Without disputing the right of the House of Lords to appoint a committee and institute an inquiry, it would be idle to attempt a denial that the ap pointment of that committee was neither more nor less than a vote of censure on the executive government. (Hear.) The name of the mover of the resolution in the House of Lords, proved what was the intention of those who voted for it ; and therefore he considered that it was the bounden duty of the Hones of Commons to declare to the country whether they approvgd of the proceedings of the Lords or not. (Hear.) At the commencement of the reign of George 111. he found that accounts were reported from Ireland of attacks upon houses, of persons going about armed, of persons forcing other to give up land, of witnesses threatened, of force, and parti cularly of combined force, to effect certain objects of their conspiracy. In this lawless and lamentable catalogue there was nothing which very much differed from what they might find happening in other countries at one period or other of their history ; there was nothing which differed much from what the state of England was represented to have been under Elizabeth, nothing which differed much from what was the case in Scotland (according to the representation of her ablest writers) as matters stood there about the year 1688, and sub sequently; nothing but what had baffled the wisdom of the ministers of Elizabeth and William 111. But was there any thing in Ireland which forbade the eradication of these evils? He thought that with respect to the upper ranks of the Irish, no man could point out a people of greater pregnancy of wit, or of greater aptitude for arts or arms, than was to be seen in the natives of Ireland. If they looked to the lower classes, no man could say that any people need disdain comparison with them as soldiers ; and in other walks of life, whether as labourers or machanics, more industry or more of those qualifications by which a country rises to emine nce , cou ld not be found in any nation. H e would read to the house what was said of the causes of that state of thing in Ireland, by one who spoke not very long after the passing of the White boy act ; and he could not but think that the remarks of the learned person he was about to quote were not inap plicable at the present period, when they knew that the se cretary to the lord lieutenant had met with abundance of obloquy, because he had written a letter, stating in plain language that property had its duties as well as its privileges. Mr. Fitzgibbon, afterwards Lord Clare, the great leader of the government of Ireland, said, " He knew it was impossi ble for human wretchedness to exceed that of the miserable peasanty of Ireland. He knew that the unhappy peasantry were ground to powder by rapacious landlords. He knew that, far from being able to give the clergy their just due, they had not food or raiment for themselves ; and some land lords were so rapacious as to instigate the peasantry to rob the clergy of their tithes." Would to God that the state of things was confined to past times. But he must quote another description of the state in which that country was, and of the causes why the evils were not evident to the government of those days, from the " Tours of Arthur Young." After stating that the people had been treated better-and better, he said, " The old measures bore very hard on the people. The landlord of an Irish estate, inhabited by Roman Catholics was a sort of a despot. To discover what the liberty of the people is, we must live, amongst them, and not look for it amongst the statutes of the realm. The law of the poor is only that of slavery. The landlords assert a very lofty superiority, and their vassels are ground down into submission. Nothing will satisfy them but unli mited submission. A poor man, if he appeared to lift his head in his own defence, would have his bones broken." He would take another description, written with more philosophy, with more eloquence, with more reflection. Burke, in his letter to Sir H. Langrishe said, " Y ou th a t h ave looked deeply into the spirit of the popery laws must be sensible that a great part of the present mischief, which we abhor in common, if it at all exists, has arisen from them. Their declared objects was to reduce the catholics of Ireland to a miserable populace, with out property, without estimation, without education. The professed object was to deprive the few men who, in spite of those laws, might hold or obtain any property amongst them, of all sort of influence or authority over the rest. They di vided the nation into two distinct bodies, without common interest, sympathy, or connexion. One of these bodies was to possess all the franchises, all the property, and all the edu cation ; the other was to be composed of drawers of water and cutters of turf for them. Are we to be astonished when, by the efforts of so much violence in conquest, and so much policy in regulation, continued without intermission for near an hundred years, we had reduced them to a mob ; that, whenever they came into act at all, many of them would act exactly like a mob, without temper, measure, or foresight ?" If at that time measures had been passed putting the Roman catholics on an equality with the protestants; a spirit of jus tice pervading the laws of the realm, and at the same time providing as they had lately attempted to provide, in the spirit of the laws of Elizabeth, for the substance of the poor, he thought they sh ou ld not now have to regret the state of 'lre land. What was done? A law was passed—the first law, he thought, with respect to whiteboys, in 1756, was law of punishment. The next law passed with respect to whiteboys was in 1775. After recounting the disorders which then existed —after recounting that farmers were obliged to leave their l an d, and householders their houses, that arms were obtained, and illegal oaths enforced, it proceeded to enact severe clauses, in one the punishment of death. If any person was found out of doors in a garb not his usual garb, and any dress not his usual dress, and in which lie pursued his usual occupa tions, for that he was subject to fine and imprisonment. That as the whole spirit of the law, and the laws passed after wards of the suspension of the habeas corpus act, all the acts that were passed intended to punish—all using severity ; all taking care, and very properly taking care, to pursue crime to the utmost punishment ; but none of them providing for the permanent welfare of the people ; none of them admitting the Irish catholic to be treated as the free subject of the free country ; none of them passed in the spirit of mercy. He would show them the consequence of this. He would not go through the evidence of crimes, of murders, of insurrections, on the one hand, that prevailed in 1786, in 1798, and 1806, at various periods; he would not go either through the cata logue of those laws of a violent character by which we had tried from time to time to repress, and only could repress for a time, those disorders, but he wished to take them on to the consider ation of a period which bore on the question. The date of the whiteboy act was 1775. He wished them to consider the period from then to 1824 and 1825. These 50 years were perhaps 50 of the most remarkable years in the history of the country. In France, there was an ancient monarchy overthrown—a bloody and restless republic established. A military despotism suc ceeded, and the government again submitted to an ancient monarchy. During this period almost every country in Europe had seen its thrones abandoned, or the possessors changed—had seen its institutions altered—had seen foreign potentates in its capital, and also sometimes, and without occasion, a violent revolution. In our own country, though we had no foreign invasions, owing to the mercy of Provi dence, yet we had had great changes in the country—a foreign war, an immense increase of debt, a debased currency—and on the other hand, prodigious victories in arms, and very great and almost miraculous prosperity. Such were the changes which for 90 years took place on the continent of Europe and in this country ; and now he would show them what was the account which at the end of 50 years was given by a person well competent to speak to facts—to speak to the state of Ireland. They had not either corrected their laws, nor admitted the catholics to a free participation of citizen ship. He described the country in this way. He said, "he found the whiteboy system for the last 60 years continued. The outrages had been of the same kind for the last 60 years. Illegal associations had existed. The preamble of the 15th and 16th of Geo. 111. almost stated the state of the country —attacking houses, taking arms, taking horses at night, murder of proctors, and other o u t rages similar to these." Thus filly saw that these 50 years—that that half century which had produced so great a change—which had produced revolutions in almost every country in Europe—that, accord ing to the evidence of Mr. Barrington, Ireland was to be described in the same words as it was by the authors of the whiteboy act in 1775. He might read to them many cor roborations of this testimony of Mr. Barrington. He might show by the evidence of Mr. Becher, that country gentlemen had their houses shut up, that they did not venture to go out but in the day-time ; that they saw fires at night on the hills, and heard horses in the night trampling by. According to the evidence of Mr. Blacker they did not allow their windows to be open, so as almost t o be excluded from the light of day, for fear; and he could show them that the country abounded at that time in murders. (Hear.) And he would ask, was that state of things, which had rendered life and pro perty insecure in that part of the empire, owing to the over much liberality of the government ? Was it owing to the excessive clemency exercised ? Was it owing to the too great favour shown to the Roman Catholics ? Had not persons professing the opinions of Lord Roden during nearly the whole of that period of the government of Ireland, except when Lord Fitzwilliam was lord-lieutenant ? The whole of that period Ireland had been under the dominion and guid ance of men who came now to complain to them, and who told them these tales, and related these horrors, as if they were the exclusive production of those years of Lord Nor manby's government, either blinding themselves, or wilfully concealing the fact that these crimes were the offspring of a former oppression—were the offspring of that social misery— were the offspring of that intolerable conduct of the landlords of pdst times—of the conduct exercised by persons in office at that time, but to which no effectual remedy was placed. The Orange faction trampled over the liberties and over the interests of a great proportion of the inhabitants. He had thought it necessary to state these things, that the house might not suppose, if it agreed to the resolution recounting the vote of the House of Lords, that these crimes, as this resolution would seem to imply, had been the production of the present government, which had rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire. It was certainly at tempted to state these outrages as if they were something new, and had never occurred before. If it were necessary to go into that, it would be easy to show the nature of the crimes which formerly prevailed, and to show what was the social state of the country at that period ; and therefore he should protest, if it were moved in that house, as his noble friend the prime minister had protested in the other house, against any inquiry which it was proposed to limit to periods since 1835, as an inquiry totally inadequate to the cause to be looked to—(hear, hear)—or an inquiry totally incomplete with respect to the cases to be investigated, which, if investi gation took place at all, ought to be investigated. But what really took place in 1824 and 1825 ? Committees of both houses of parliament were appointed. These committees of both houses went into the inquiry with respect to all those cases of social outrages and misery which prevailed in Ire land. So far as that inquiry was concerned, therefore, up to 1825, the proceedings of the inquiry were before the house. With respect to the accusation that had been laid against the government on the subject of the misgovernment of Ireland, it extended only to the period of Lord Normanby's govern ment. It was, therefore, only to that portion of the govern ment of Ireland that he need direct his attention ; but he would, nevertheless, be always most ready to assume all the responsibility for which he was justly liable. By stating the condition of Ireland when Lord Normanby undertook the government, in April, 1834, it would appear that the charge now brought was, that the evils which were described as then existing in that country still continued. But from statements that had lately been made, and more especially from a speech that was reported to have been spoken by Lord Oxmantown, it would seem that the character of the peasantry was en tirely changed during Lord Normanby's administration— that they now possessed a desire for violence and outrage, where formerly they were most harmless and forbearing. What, now, was the description which Lord Wellesley gave of the state of Ireland in 1834 ? Why, he complained of the system of the legislature being such as must tempt a severe exercise of power in the executive in almost every district of the country, and said that on this subject he could not ex press his opinions more fairly than would be found in the letter which had been addressed by Lord Oxmantown, the Lord-Lieutenant of King's County, to Mr. Littleton, in which his lordship had truly said that the people themselves surpassed the law in vigorous and prompt punishment, and thatthat they considered it safer do violate it than to obey it. they a-. I._l____ -e lr. try night e right, but that there were combinations amongst the people directly opposed to the laws, and that those who violated the mandates of those biadiei were more severely punished than if they suffered only the ordinary punishment of the law." In another place, too, the same noble lord, speaking of the misery of the peasantry, said, it was impossible to form an adequate opinion of their state without seeing it, and that many had emigrated to America. He (Lord J. Russell) had no doubt that Lord Oxmantown had given a correct descrip tion of the condition of the people of Ireland at the time when he wrote—viz., in 1832 ' • but it was monstrous, it was most unjust, to say that the l aw was not in the same calami tous state, that there was not as much power in these com binations, when Lord Normanby's government began in 1834. One of the greatest evils existing in Ireland, and which had been mentioned in all the evidence that had been given -before the committees of both houses of parliament at various periods, was the distrust of the people in the law. That opinion had been given by Mr. Barrington, Mr. Leslie Foster, and Mr. Justice Daly, and various instances were mentioned as proofs of its correctness. There was one of a person who committed a murder; and although every one well knew who was the guilty person, yet even those to whom he was obnoxious would not deliver him up, but took him and punished him themielves, treating him so severely that his life was despaired of, although he afterwards recovered. Other instances might also be given, and one he remembered, which, although it was trivial in itself, nevertheless showed the disposition which existed amongst the people. The pre sent Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, on visiting one of his estates a few years ago, had met the •son of a farmer, one of his tenants, and had formed a favourable opinion of him ; but on returning to Ireland in the following year and not seeing him, he inquired of his father what had become of him, and was informed that he had been waylaid, and was struck so violently with a stone that he died in consequence; " but," added the father, " I know the persons who did it." His noble friend, Lord Ebrington, 'then naturally said, as any person would have done in similar circum stances, " Why then do you not bring him to justice ?" to which the farmer replied, "We know perfectly well who did it, and we will do as much for them another time." It appeared to him that one of the causes of this distrust in the law had arisen from the law having never been adminis tered in a way that the people might confidently expect equal justice to be given to all men. Among other things, too, there was a general belief, when persons were about to un dergo a criminal trial, that where any one who was called to serve as a juror was known to entertain opinions hostile to the crown, or was of Roman catholic religion, he was set aside more frequently than justice required. Great pains were taken, however, by his honourable and learned friend, Mr. O'Loughlan, not to give up the r i g ht o f th e crown, or the right of the prisoner, and a very necessary right it was, to challenge any one of the jurors, by taking care that no man should be objected to on account of his politics or religion. Nothing could be more likely than that to give confidence in the administration of the law to a people who, according to ancient as well as modern testimony, could well appreciate the value of justice ; and if they could once see that it depended on themselves whether outrages should be favoured or not, a great and beneficial change would be produced in the way in which the laws were enforced. It was to be expected that complaints should be occasionally made, and there might have been some instances of improper persons serving on a jury. It was impossible to counteract all the disadvantages; but he thought the returns which had been made would show satisfactorily, that far from there being this great distrust in jurors, there was now no want of confidence in the adminis tration of justice. He held in his hand a return of the num ber of persons who had been committed for homicide from the year 1832 to the year 1838, both inclusive, by which it ap peared, that in 1832.there.had been G2O committals, and 168 convictions ' • in 1833, '687 committals, and 274 convictio n s ; in 1837, 519 committals, and 175 convictions ; in 1838, 424 committals, and 199 convictions; so that, comparing the proportion of convictions to committals in 1833 with the pro portion in 1838, it would give a result greatly in favour of the latter ; fo r i n th e f ormer y e a r the proportion was 40 per cent., whilst in the year 1838 it was as much as 46 per cent. This was from the return of the-inspector -general of prisons. There was a question into which he would not now enter, as to the various returns of the clerks, of the peace and the crown, and the ingenious method which had been resorted to to show the disparity in point of number between their returns arid those of the inspector-genesal. Now, not only did these returns contain a great number of offences as to crimes which were not mentioned in the latter, but often contained the same offences three times over. There were assault, robbery, and rescue, all taken as three offences. (Cries of " no, no," from the opposition benches.) He believed that such was truly the case. If the right hon. member for the University of Dublin questioned these re turns, and compared them with others of different years, he hoped he would at least compare them with returns of the same character. Although it might be said that the one was incorrect, and the other contained a true view of the facts, yet a most ingenious method had been resorted to, so that one class of returns should be brought forward for one lord-lieutenant, and another class for another lord-lieutenant. Now he might as well make a comparison between the num ber of crimes in 1830 and 1838, and in the account of 1830 take only the offences that were tried at the assizes ; whilst in those of 1838, he took all the offences that were tried at the quarter sessions and at the assizes. That, he believed, was the method by which they had endeavoured to m a k e ou t the vast increase of crime in Ireland. In one return showing that the offences in one year in the county Tipperary were 300 and upwards, the number had in four years increased to upwards of 3000. This remarkable increase had naturally called attention to the fact, and it was fair, therefore, in mak ing any statement against Lord Normanby's government, not to go into such gross exaggeration. He would now take all offences, including those tried at petty sessions, for the two years 1833 and 1834, and the two years 1837 and 1838 taken together. In 1833 and 1834 the number of commit tals for offences was 39,700, and convictions 25,697, whilst in 1837 and 1838 the number of committals were 49,896, and convictions 38,514 ; so that comparing one period with the other, it appeared that therdwas no want of committals, and the number of convictions was not diminished in proportion owing to any rules that were adopted in the respective years. Now, he would say, that if they could make the laws efficient in the number of convictions as compared with the committals —if they could establish a proper administration of justice, and bring the people themselves to take a part in that ad ministration, they would be not merely doing a temporary good to Ireland, but would be laying the foundation for the permanent prosperity of that country ; whilst Lord Roden and those who held the same opinions, would utterly fail in proving the contrary from the conduct of the government. But in the year 1830, at the end of which the Duke of Wel lington went out of office, he found the number of com mittals for offences was 15,794, and convictions 9902 ; whilst in 1838, the committals , were 25,440, and the convictions 19,329 ; showing that in the former year there was only two thirds of the number committed who were convicted ; but in the latter year the convictions were three-fourths of the whole number. This, he thought, would furnish a proof of 'the efficiency of the law as administered by Lord Normanby. It might be said, that although persons had been brought to trial, and the law had been fairly administered, yet that there had been no activity, no energy, in pursuing crime. He would say, however, that the energy and activity which had been exercised during Lord Normanby's government, was greater than had ever been shown by any other lord-lieutenant. One of the first acts of the hon. and learned Mr. O'Loghlen was that the Attorney-general should practice at the quarter-ses sions, and take cognizance of various offences which had not been hitherto noticed at all ; for previously many of those bloody feuds which were attended with great violence, and were afterwards treated as murder, were, in consequence of no person taking any interest in them, and also from the in disposition of the Irish to resort to criminal trial, as he had before mentioned, left unpunished. It had been said in for mer times, but strongly he did hope that those times had en tirely passed away, that magistrates, not only took care to prosecute in particular cases, but often leaned to one side or the other, and that, consequently, many persons committed offences with impunity, owing to the protection of the magis trates. He would not impute that conduct to the magistrates during the time of the administration that went out of office in 1830, but he would say that the law officers of Lord Nor manby had given orders more vigorous than had hitherto been acted on for the punishment of all offences. It was in a great measure to their conduct that we owed the increase of committals during late years ; and he was sure that thehouse "would agree with him in thinking, that although there was, apparently a great increase in offences, y e t it h a d ar i sen f rom the increased number of committals from the course which had been adopted, and that that course would lead to perma nent good. Lord Normanby had been very much attacked for showing too great leniency towards certain offenders. He did not mean to go into that part of the case before the year 1837, as that had been already fully discussed. The high pre rogative of mercy had been exercised, and he believed very properly, in Ireland, in the last two years; but it had been exercised the same as in this country, not solely from the opinions ofthe judges, or circumstances that had appeared upon the trial, but from other circumstances that were known in various ways. He would say, too, that the exercise of that prerogative had often had reference to the tranquil or disturbed state of the country. An instance of this was given in the evidence before the House of Commons with regard to some person who had been tried for murder during the administration of Lord Anglesea. Sentence of death had been passed upon him, but it was then understood that if the county became tranquillized in the mean time, the sentence should be commuted to transportation. It happened that the state of the county. did become improved in the stated period, and the man was accordingly reprieved from death, and trans ported. That would show that it ought not to be argued, that because Lord Normanby had exercised the high prerogative of mercy at all, that it had necessarily been improperly exercised. [The noble lord then proceeded to charge the Orange Insti tution as the source of most of the evils with which Ireland was afflicted. He then proceeded—] Whether right or wrong, it so happened that the great majority of the people of Ireland were the supporters of the government. That was a fact which he was proud to proclaim, and of which they had sufficient evidence that night in the number of petitions presented, praying the house not to oppose a gohrnment which the Irish people looked on with favour and regard, and which they hoped to see conducted on the same princi ples as of late years. And why, he asked, if it was right to conduct the government of England in accordance with the wishes of the English people, why should not the wishes of the people of Ireland be consulted in a similar manner with respect to the government of Ireland? Was it to be said, that there the opinions and wishes of a small minority were alone to he attended to, and that all consideration for the desires of the large majority of the people was to be omitted ? If such a course were pursued, no permanent improvement could take place in the country ; for to effect improvement they must rely on the good-will and confidence of the Irish people. He asserted then, and in proof of his assertion, he appealed to the general testimony which had been given to the house, that in consequence of the good-will and favour with which the Irish people regarded the government, the condition of Ireland had greatly improved. Laws affecting the state of the poor had recently been passed, and measures had been adopted providing against those evils which had been the source of much suffering and injury to Ireland. These laws, however, must necessarily be slow in their opera tions. Let the house bear in mind the declaration made by the Duke of Wellington in 1829. On the occasion of the passing of the bill depriving the 40s. freeholders of their franchise, that noble duke observed, that in many counties in Ireland they were driven up to the poll in thousands like cattle. These voters had been deprived of their franchise, and it was obvious that the landlords who had so treated their tenants would, when the franchise was taken from them, exert their right as landlords, chiefly with a view to improve their property, without much regard to the misery they might inflict on this unfortunate class of persons. This had been the spring of one additional difficulty, with which every go vernment since 1829 had had to deal: In Lord Normanby's time, and previously, the rights of property had been exer cised with the utmost rigour. This had taken place not only in former days, as Mr. Drummond said, but in the prosent. The evil resulting from such a state of things was to a certain extent remedied, when a law passed giving to, every person turned out of possession, a right to demand relief from a board of guardians. What, however, had been the case in former days ? They had the evidence of various persons likely to be well-informed of the fact—they had the testi mony of landlords and overseers, that in many instances hundreds of these poor people who had been turned out of possession, had perished from starvation. These things, too were going on, not merely in former days—not only in 1775, but in April, 1839. The ejectments continued ; large num bers of individuals were driven from their honneS ; and then the Irish government had to deal - with outrages which were often committed by persons in this unhappy condition, left to starve. Tell him not, then, that within the space of the last four years could be found the origin of evils which were so deeply rooted. In 1829, the right him. gentleman oppo site said that the attacks on houses in Ireland, and the out rages on persons, were symptoms of a diseased state __ef. so - " Minister to a mind diseas'd, Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow ? Raze out the written troubles of the brain ; And, with some sweet oblivious antidote, Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff Which weighs upon the heart ?" This it was not in the power of any government by any measures of legislation to accomplish. They might, however, do this ; they might show a determination to administer im partial justice to all classes; they might show a determination to promote -laws tending to diminish poverty and misery ; they might show confidence in the people, and reliance on their affections ; and they might then expect that confidence would return where it had been long unknown ; that in time, the affections, which had been long alienated, would again be given to the government ; they might then expect that the misery and suffering to which the people had been subjected would yield to tfie remedies which the government might ap- Ely—to such remedies as the ministers of Eli za b et h appl i ed in ngland —to such remedies as the ministers of William ap plied in regard to Scotland when they established a religion closely bound up with that of England, and which therefore, tended most effectually to unite the two countries, and which being thus united in the reign of William was to be regarded as one ofthe most glorious circumstances of a time so favor able to English liberty, but he was sorry to add, of degradation to Ireland. He thought the time had long ago come when they ought to have given complete religious liberty to the Ro man catholic population of Ireland, and when measures ought to have been adopted to promote the peace, the happi ness, and the prosperity of Ireland, without jealosusy, and without regarding distinctions of class or sect. He thought that in 1829, when they settled the catholic relief bill, other measures ought to have accompanied the settlement of that great question, tending to secure the affections of the Irish people, and thus the more firmly to unite Ireland with Eng land. This too he still felt, of this he was fully persuaded, that the present administration by pUrsuing the principles which they had pursued, adopting the measures which they had adopted, by giving that confidence to the people which they had given t hey had in return secured a degree of confi dence from the people—a confidence which could never be given to an administration composed of those persons who had long been hostile to theta, to those who in 1839, in fram ing municipal corporations for Ireland, such as had been given to England and to Scotland, had insisted on giving an £8 franchise instead of a £lO franchise, and who had made other distinctions in the statute directed against the Ro man catho lic portion of the people. (Hear,' hear, hear.) They might depend upon it that, in such circumstances, they could not obtain from the Irish people that reliance on their measures which was necessary for their success—that they could not persuade them that they really wished to place Ireland on a footing of equality with England ; but on the contrary, there would be a constant and rankling conviction in the minds of the Irish people that justice was not impartially administered, and that favour was not impartially shown. He was aware that the extreme reformers were unfavorably disposed to the government. Their arguments he would deal with when the hon. member for Finsbury should move his amendment ; and then, too, he would restate his own declarations, not as they bad been carelessly, or perhaps carefully, misrepresented by others, but as he himself had uttered them. They might be made a ground for expelling the government, but he was not prepared to unsay them, either as to Ireland, or as to the rest of the empire. The government might think the consequence of rejecting the motion he proposed dangerous as regarded Ireland, and doubtful as respected the rest of the. empire ; but as far as they themselves were concerned they could have no reason to regret the result. They could not regret the measures they had proposed for the welfare of Ireland, and, they had no inclination now to give way to measurea which, when proposed by others, they had hitherto felt it their duty to resist. It had been their constant aim, with respect to the affairs of Ireland, to do justice to all parties, and to in troduce a kindly relation between the people of that country and the people of Great Britain. They had endeavonred to found the government of Ireland as the government of Eng land was founded—namely, on public opinion, on affection, and on good will ; and if they were doomed to fall, as the re sult of the motion before the house, they would have the consolation of knowing that they fell in an attempt to knit together in the bonds of love the hearts of her maesty's sub jects throughout the United Kingdom. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) _ _ _ The noble lord's motion having been put from the chair, Sir R. PEEL could not regret he had given the noble lord, by declaring antecedent to the present debate what the amend ment was which he intended to submit to the house,. the ad vantage of which the noble lord had largely, but not unfairly, availed himself, of commenting on the terms and purport of that amendment. He considered that he had made no con cessioa, and be would deprive himself of no advantage, by not reserving to the present moment the terms of the propo sition which he had now to submit, for he felt that that pro position was so consistent with common sense, and that it was so strongly founded upon truth, that he had willingly courted every opportunity. for comment. In framing that proposition he had sought not to include the support of any one who might think the amendment justified by the occa sion, but he had not attempted to conciliate the support of those who on other questions were opposed to, the measures of policy which he himself advocated. He had been advised not to introduce the name of the House of Lords into his amendment, because he was told that if he did so it was cer tain that those hon. gentlemen who were hostile to the peers would necessarily oppose it. He was asked to move for a committee on the state of the nation, as that was a course likely to be more captivating than any other which he could adopt. He had refused to admit either proposition in this great crisis, for surely it was a great crisis, when the house was called upon to give a partial vote of confidence in the ex isting government, and to seek unjustly a collision with the other branch of the legislature ; he had determined, in framing • the resolution which he had to propose, to keep in view no thing but considerations of .equity and union, and he felt in so doing that, although ministers might triumph, yet if it was confirmed by the voice of reason, they could not extin guish the principles of truth and justice which gave vitality to his motion. Now, he would appeal to the house whether it was right to ask for a partial declaration of confidence on one particular portion of the policy of the government ? Were they, as one of the branches of the legislature, justified in carelessly seeking a collision with the other and co-ordinate branch? It might be that the introduction of abstract pro positions in regard to Ireland in the month of April migh awaken remembrances of those of 1835, yet he could assure the house that he had no difficulty in eradicating from his mind every root of animosity which in the discussion of those resolutions might have been engendered, and although he might perhaps refer to those in order to show the impolicy of the House of Commons consenting to the adoption of abstract propositions, he would attempt to prove that he was not then labouring under any of those irritating feelings which the most generous mind might irxibibe in the heat of political conflict. He had two propositions to submit to the house. In the first place he called upon them to declare that it was neither fitting nor suited to the character of that house to make abstract resolutions with respect to the conduct of the government, unless under peculiar circumstance's; and in the greatest emergency. Secondly, he objected to abstract declarations of opinioh as unfair when they were sought to be obtained as a cause for unjust conflict with the other branch of the legislature. (Hear, hear.) He would say, in the first place, that declarations of confidence on the part of the House of Commons in favour of the government ought not to be asked for or given except in extreme cases. The confidence of the house in the government ought to be in ferred from the kind of support which was given to the ad ministration, from the manner in which the house dealt with the legislative measures proposed by the government, rather than from abstract declarations of opinion. It was difficult to conceive any government which could not meet with occa sional opposition. It was impossible to conceive that any government could be formed which might not fall into occa sional error, and in some particulars follow a line of policy which the house might not be able to approve ; and if they acceded to the proposition of the noble lord, they would make it impossible that any government should be formed hereafter, because if they selected particular parts of the policy of the government for approbation, and called on the house for a par tial declaration of confidence, they must, if such a proceeding became general, paralyse the hands of any administration, and lead the public into erroneous impressions, that because they partially approved of one part of their policy they gave their , full approbation to the general policy of that government. He would say; therefore, and he thought every one would admit it, that there ought to be some strong reason upon which a government would have a right to call upon the House of Commons for a vote of partial approbation. Still, it was possible that a partial declaration of confidence might be justifiable. It might have this advantage, that by limiting the approbation of the House Of Commons to a particular line of policy, there was obtained, most unquestionably,' a clear and explicit definition of that particular system of policy of which they meant to approve. But if the govern ment took this double course—if they took a single branch of administration, and had neither the courage nor the man liness to avow what were the principles of policy for which they sought for the sanction of the House of Commons—if they did not tell the house what was the period over which the administration of government extended while those principles were acted upon—if they did not tell the house who were the public men of whom they were called upon to approve—if they did not 'enunciate the principles which they invited them to sanction in a way beyond the reach of contradiction, they would be involving the House of Com mons in what would prove a most embarrassing precedent. He would ask hon. members opposite, if the resolution of the noble lord was not open to this objection ? Was it not, in point of fact, a resolution calling for a partial approval of the acts of the administration, and being so, was it not vague and indefinite ? " You ask me," continued the right hon. baronet, " to approve of the principles which have guided the executive government of Ireland. But the executive government of Ireland means her majesty's government generally. You cannot separate the executive government of Ireland from the whole cabinet. You cannot pay a par tial compliment to the Marquis of Normanby, and the noble lord (Morpeth) who sits opposite to me, without at the same time paying a compliment to every member of the adminis tration. Do you recollect Lord Glenelg ? Do you recollect that when it was proposed last year to pronounce a censure upon that branch of your administration over which that noble lord presided, you declared that it was impossible to separate an individual member of the government from the rest of his colleagues ? If you have forgotten, I will remind you of it. To show that if censure cast upon an individual member of the administration is to be construed as a censure upon the goverment, a compliment to the executive govern ment of Ireland is a compliment to the cabinet generally. The noble lord (Palmerston) loudly protested against the attack made upon his noble friend. The noble lord said, " Did the hon. baronet suppose that the present cabinet either would or could remain in office if one of its members were to be driven from it by a direct vote of censure of that house ? Why, if they could be so base and dishonourable, that house would never permit a set of men to retain their places who had allowed one of their number to become a scapegoat to save themselves." Upon that occasion the government did present an instance of generous devotion which is rarely seen. But if that feeling he just, so, when a compliment is paid to a particular branch of the administra tion, you cannot exclusively appropriate that compliment to oneidepartment, but the whole administration must participate in it. This, then, is a compliment sought to be paid to the executive government of Ireland. Do you mean to extend that approbation to the course of legislative policy which you pursued with reference to that country ? Do you mean to say that, in paying a compliment to the princi ples which have pervaded the executive government of Ire land, you cordially approve, in respect of legislation, of the language of this resolution ? What, then, becomes of the 46 gentlemen who followed the hon. member for Sheffield last year in denouncing the government for the course which they had pursued in reference to legislative mea sures for Ireland? I conceive, then, that this vote of partial approbation is not to be construed as extending to your legislative policy, and that it relates only to the admi nistration of the affairs of Ireland. But is that my only objection to this resolution? Far from it. My second ob jection is, that finding, according to your assumption, which I utterly deny, that the House of Lords have taken pro ceedings which are tantamount to a vote of censure upon the government, you do not come courageously and manfully forward in opposition to those procedings, and say what are principles of executive government which you call upon the House of Commons to sanction and approve. Do you take the auspicious state of 1835, and -ask fora vote of approba tion from that period of the administration of her Majesty's government in Ireland ? No, but you ask the House of Commons to approve of the •principles which have guided the executive government of Ireland of late years. I will not trouble you with quotations from the various writers who would show that the words " of late years" apply indiscri minately to ever period, except that between two years and one. But will the House of COmmons not require any fur ther specification of the period to which the resolution ap plies than is to be found in_ the expression " of late_svg,r' will interrupt me to answer it—Do you, by your resolution, mean to include the government of Lord Grey ? Do you mean to include Lord Wellesley ? Do you mean to include Lord Plunkett and Lord Anglesey? 'Do you mean to deliver up Lord Wellesley and Lord Anglegey to the obloquy with which they have been assailed in particular quarters, and to permit an invidious contrast between the government of Lord Grey and the government of Lord Melbourne ? Do you mean the Marquis of Normanby to be complimented at the expense of Lord Anglesey and Lord Wellesley in your resci lution ? I ask how it is possible for those who have directed their utmost censure against the administration of those noblemen, and who have declared that they were unworthy of public confidence, and that their whole course of adminis tration was marked with the greatest acrimony towards Ire land, to vote this resolution? But if you do not include them, why have you not the manliness to say so? (Hear. hear.) It would be for you to say " Our approbation is limited to some period." But do you evade that difficulty? You are unwilling to make an invidious contrast between Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne on the one hand, and Lord Normanby and Lord Wellesley on the other hand, and you call on the House of Commons to sanction your policy under cover of the convenient generality conveyed by the " policy pursued of late years." But probably you take the more generous course, and you include in your resolution the policy pursued by Lord Grey. I infer from this speech of the noble lord, because he obscurely ins'nuated in the course of it, that Lord Wellesley was not indeed quite so successful in the administration of Ireland as the Marquis of Nor manby, but that there were difficulties in the state of affairs at that time with which Lord Normanby had not to contend. Do you mean to include Lord Wellesley? You include him of course. But if you include Lord Wellesley, you include me. You really place me in great difficulty in asking me to vote for a resolution which conveys a direct approbation of my own policy. But perhaps you mean to exclude me. Well, I will take that for granted ; but let me say that I had the satisfaction of acting with Lord Wellesley in the govern ment of Ireland for five years, from 1822 to 1827, and that the differendes which led to our separation had no relation to the policy pursued in the administration of affairs in that country. I acted with Lord Wellesley as lord lieutenant, and with Lord Plunket as attorney -general, and the disunion which afterwards ensued between us did not affect in any degree the system of policy pursued in Ireland. I acted also with Lord Melbourne, who was chief secretary for Ireland, when I was secretary of state ; and all I say is, that my differences with, and separation from, Lord Melbourne, did not arise from any difference upon Irish affairs. What, there fore, is the date from which you call for approbation ? Per haps you will take 1830, the date of Lord Grey's administra tion. We were then excluded from power, and'you brought forward the reform act. But perhaps you will not go so far back, and will take 1834, the period of the retirement of Lord Grey from power and of the separatio n o f th e no bl e l or d t h e member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. baronet the member for Cumberland, from those with whom they for merly acted. Take it then from 1834 ; still you include me. You make no exception. Your resolution is laudatory of the principles which have guided the executive government of Ireland of late years, and if you take your date from 1834, the government over which I presided must come in for its share of public approbation. " No," says the noble lord, " we must have something definiteand precise. We do not mean to ap prove of two governments in Ireland ; we do not intend to praise both Lord. Haddington and Lord IVlulgrave." You evade the difficulty, however, by not saying whom you pre fer. The right hon. baronet went on to say, that , it was neither fit nor decent to call upon the House of Commons to approve of principles, and yet not have the manliness to state the period within which those principles had been - called into action, and who were the persons of whose conduct they meant to approve..-The gramad e then e on which he objected to this resolution was the vagueness of its terms. Ile came now'to the second:point. He would ask whether the govern ment was justified in bringing.about a collision with the House of Lords? It was a collision, for their proceedings meant nothing else. It had been universally received throughout the country -as a collision. That was the construction put upon their policy in all parts of the kingdom. After the House of Lords had appointed a committee to inquire into the state of crime in Ireland, the noble lord the secretary of state for the home department came down to the house and gave notice of his intention to move this resolution. The comments made upon.this proceeding on the part of the go vernment were these—" This is a manly course ; thi s is seek ing collision with th e H ouse o f Lords." These, he believed, were the words used by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Dublin. Now, the entrance into collision with one of the constituted 'authorities of the state was no light matter. It would he for the government to consider what were the instruments with which they would carry on the col lision ; but, above all, it would be for the House of Com mons to ask itself whether there was any justification to be found for such a proceeding. The justification alleged was this, that the House of Lords had appointed a select com mittee to inquire into the state of Ireland since 1835, with re spect to the crime and outrage which had rendered life and property insecure in that part of the united kingdom. How did the two houses stand in respect of legislative measures re lating to that country ? On the poor-law bill they had come to a concurrence with the House of Lords ; on the tithe-bill the two houses had agreed; on the municipal corporations bill a difference had hitherto prevailed. But surely they were not seeking to fasten a quarrel upon the, House of Lords for the acts of last session. The government professed, indeed, that this act of theirs was founded upon the appointment of a committee by the House of Lords ; and they construed it, as it was necessary for their argument that they should construe it, as a vote of censure upon the government. So far, then, as legislative measures were concerned, they had not even a pretence for a quarrel with the House of Lords. In the course of the present session there was but one single act from which they had a right to infer anything as to the intention of the House of Lords with respect to Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The government asked the House of Lords, at the commence-• ment of the present session, to reply to that paragraph in her majesty's speech in which municipal reform was recommended for Ireland, and the House of Lords said, " We concur with your majesty in thinking that the reform and amendment of municipal corporations in Ireland is essential to the inter ests of that part of the United Kingdom." At the instance of her majesty's government the House of Lords, reviewing the conflicts which had taken place on the subject of munici pal corporations in Ireland, yielded to their suggestions, and all that the government at present knew of the intentions of the House of Lords in respect to legislative measures, still un- I settled and relating to Ireland, was that the House of Lords had acceded to the address of the government, in which they stated their concurrence with her Majesty, that the reform and amendment of the municipal corporations of Ireland were essential to the interests of that part of the United Kingdom. So far, then, as a collision could be justified by differences on legislative measures, there was not a pretext at present for entering upon it. The sole ground for that collision which was now assumed was, that the House of Lords had appointed a committee of inquiry. The whole as sumption made by the noble lord, in the course of his argu ment, was the very convenient assumption that the House of Lords, by the appointme n t of a committee to inquire i n t o th e state f Ireland since the year 1835, in respect of crime and outrage, which had rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire, -was, in point of fact, a virtual cen sure oh the government : that he (Sir R. Peel) denied—he denied it could be considered as tantamount to a censure, and he would prove his position. The noble lord, in the course of his speech, had said it was not exactly a censure; but it was a prima facie censure. He avowed that of that expres sion he did not exactly understand the import. But was the appointment of a committee by the House of Commons tan tamount to a censure on the government? Even though that appointment appeared to question the conduct of the govern ment, would it justify this house in seeking a collision? Had the House of Commons never appointed committees to in quire into the state of Ireland, and had it ever been heard when such committees were appointed, even with powers to consider the whole condition of that country, that such a course was paralyzing the functions of the government? In 1824 Lord Althorp proposed a committee to inquire into the state of Ireland : that committee, as amended on the propo sal of his hon. friend, was granted on these terms—" That a committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland, particularly into the circumstances which led to the disturbances in that part of the country," Now, was it not perfectly notorious that every question connected with the government of Ireland was open to the inquiry before that committee ? It was wrong to suppose that the committee had been limited in its inquiries to the counties where the insurrection act had been in force ; for was it not, he re peated, notorious that the acts of the government had been questioned by that committee ? When Lord Althorp moved that committee, which was to be a general committee, open to examine into the acts of the government connected with the administration of justice and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, he had not contended that the func tions of the government were inculpated. That committee had lasted two years ; every subject had been inquired into. It was true the Catholic question had been excluded from that report, but every subject of practical government had been made matter of investigation before that committee —a committee which they (the House of Commons) had appointed. Would they (the House of Commons) then say that the recent appointment by the House of Lords of a com mittee which had precisely the same object—should they (the House of Commons), which had appointed a committee not merely to inquire into the state of Ireland, but into every function exercised by the executive government, before which every particular case connected with the administration of justice, and, amongst the rest, with the exercise of the pre rogative of the crown, had been examined into—should they (the. House of Commons) be justified in saying that the ap pointment of a similar committee by the House of Lords was a censure on the government, and that therefore there should be a collision between the two branches of the legis lature? Again, in 1827, the noble lord himself had appointed a committee. It was a select committee to inquire into the causes of the increase in the criminal committals and con victions in England and Wales, and to report thereon to the house. That was a committee which went distinctly to in quire into the exercise of the functions of the government connected with the criminal justice of the country. Was the appointment of that committee -on the motion of the noble lord considered as a censure on the government? Certainly not. It was the House of Commons who appointed that committee, yet the noble lord had invited the House of Com mons in effect to determine that the House of Lords had the right to institute such an inquiry. In 1832 the noble lord had said that the committees of 1824 and 1825 had nearly ex hausted the subject of inquiry into the state of Ireland. He (Sir R. Peel) must tell the noble lord that that was quite a different argument. The noble lord might say, if he thought fit, that there had been inquiry enough, but still that was no argument or ground for a collision with the House of Lords. The noble lord might say that inquiry was superfluous, but that argument did not not justify a conflict with the other branch of the legislature, who did not entertain the same opinion. But he (Sir R. Peel) would take away from the noble lord the whole of that argument, becausehe would show him that in 1832' the House of Commons was not satisfied with the inquiries of 1824 and 1825. They appointed another committee, and that too at the instance of a gentleman now holding office with her Majesty's government. In 1832 the hen. member for Dundee, the Paymaster of the Forces, not satisfied with the inquiries of 1824 and 1825, not thinking that the inquiry had been then exhausted, moved a resolution, which he (Sir R. Peel) would ask the house to compare with the resolution of the House of Lords. Sir H. Parnell had moved that there should be a committee " to inquire into the state of the disturbed counties in Ireland, into the causes which produced the same, and into the efficiency of the laws for the suppression of outrages against the public peace." Supposing the House of Lords had taken the words of Sir Henry Parnell, would not the objection now raised by the . noble lord to the resolution of the House of Lords equally, nay with more force, apply ? Perhaps the noble lord may say that, whatever the terms of the motion might be, there was a lurking intention on the part of the leaders of the opposition to gain an advantage over him. I utterly disclaim such intention, and Ido not believe that any other object has existed than to obtain an entire and complete inquiry. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) At all events, I can utterly disavow that I was cognisant of any such intention, even if it existed. Nothing could equal my surprise at hearing of the importance that had been attached to the course, adopted by the lords by the ministers. As soon as heard of it, and that they considered the appointment of the lords' committee to be a vote of censure on them, I went from home, and called on the Duke of Wellington and on my noble friend, in order to inquire what they had heard on the subject. What I heard at the Duke of Wellington's was that he had left town for Hampshire ; and I learnt at the house of my noble friend that he had gone that day to Lan cashire. Now, is it probable that if they had expected that such ..results would follow, they would have left town that very day ? There was a desire to have full inquiry, and, as far as I know, there was no intention entertained that the proceeding should constitute a vote of censure on the minis ters. But thenoble lord certainly produced a great effect as • bs elw constitution of the committee, by observing that Lord were Of 'ins' own opinion, while Wye only were of the Opposite party. Why, that occasioned great sensation on the part of those members who sit behind the noble lord, who were con vinced by that statement that the object in the appointment of the committee was unfair. How the noble lord obtained his number of fiste, I do not know; but I can name ten names as originally on the committee, and convince the house that the 'noble lord does not possess the peculiar fa culty of seeing' double, but, on the contrary, of diminishing the number by one-half. I will read the names, and I think, whcnl do re td them, there will be no question that they are persons who are favourably disposed towards the govern ment. They were—Lord Plunket, Lord Cloncurry, Lord Glenelg, Lord Hatherton, Lord Carew, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Duncannon, Lord Normanby, Lord Gosford, and the Duke -of Leinster. (Loud cheers.) Having read these ten names, I shall not leave the house under the impression that the committee contained a majority of 13 to five. I think that, first, as regards the present question, the go vernment have no right to call on this house for a vote of confidence except on very extraordinary occasions ; and, secondly, I do not think there is any such occasion now. I deny that censure is intended by this vote. lam ready for inquiry, and am ready to submit my official acts to that in inquiry, but I cannot give you a vote of approbation. Ido not disapprove of your conduct in all respects. Thus in the case of ecclesiastical patronage, I think Lord Normanby's conduct was worthy of praise, and redounds to his honour. But I cannot say you have taken all the steps you might have adopted to discourage associations that are dangerous to the country. (Hear, bear.) Not can I approve of the Marquis of Normanby's conduct with respect to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I do not think there was corruption in it, but I think that the manner in which the noble lord remitted sentences, without consulting the judges, in 1836, had not the tendency " to the effectual administration of the law, and general improvement of that part of the united kingdom ;" and I cannot affirm that I am of opinion that the Marquis of Normanby acted properly when he remitted those sentences. The number is not of so much importance as the circumstances under which any single remission took place. There were 70 cases, and only 145 months of punishment ; which rather reminds me of the illustration of the two men who had to travel together a distance of nine miles, and therefore, thought they had only four miles and a half each. Is the travelling through the country any test by which you can determine the effect of the remission of a judicial sentence ? I have, in the paper which I hold in my hand, an account of one of these remissions of sentences, which are made a sort of ornament to the lord lieutenant's progress. It is an account of the entry of the lord lieute nant into Sligo. The number of persons who were turned out of gaol, may have been small—the offences may have been light—and the term of imprisonment long ; but in such a country as Ireland, with such impressions as have been described, I ask you, when you call for approbation, is it possible to approve of such acts ? The account is this : " We have often said there was a rich mine of sterling pa triotism in the county of Sligo; and-the enthusiastic recep tion which Lord Mulgrave met with on his arrival here, has fully verified our words. There was never before such a display in Sligo. Lord Mulgrave was followed into the town by at least 40,000 persons—the whole road was one living mass. We never before saw such a concourse. On his excellency's arrival at the court house he found the doors closed, and he had actually to go the back way into his own house ; for, as the representative of the King, it is his own. Nothing - could excuse the sheriff for not having the doors open ; the populace, however, soon broke open the gates, and possessed themselves of the court house. Much to their credit, they behaved themselves as if the judges were there. Lord Mulgrave proceeded to say that he had liberated some of the prisoners for minor offences." However. good Lord Mulgrave's intentions may have been, yet Fcannot say that that is the mode in which the adminis tration of the law is to be promoted. I appeal to any man, whether knowing the impression produced on the people of Ireland by the acts of the executive government, he would not come to the same conclusion. On that ground I cannot give a vote of approbation. As to associations, I have taken down the noble lord's own wor d s . I, am not speaking of associations, but those associations which have met for the purpose of preparing the way for repeal. The noble lord says that associations are illegal, and that government has always discountenanced these associations. He says that the effect of such associations is to give countenance to other associations of an illegal and dangerous character. I cannot have .a stronger declaration of opinion; but I cannot assent to the noble lord's statement that the government, either here or in Ireland, has done every thing in their power to discountenance these association. The noble lord says that my proceeding is not a vote of censure. It would be inconsistent with my course to move a vote of censure. It is more consistent with my course to ask the house to suspend their judgment. If lam to express my assent to, or dissent from, the amendment, then upon the reasons which have been assigned I will not hesitate to say no. I have now done. I have attempted to show that a partial declaration of opinion is not to be justified. I have not shrunk from declaring why, on Irish grounds, I dissent from your resolution. If you, the House of Commons, think fit to pronounce judgment without inquiry, you will do so. If you agree with Mr. Burke, that it is one of the peculiar functions of the House of Commons to exercise a strict con troul over all executive and judicial magistrates, you will pause before you pronounce an opinion. Look at the increase of crime —look, above all, to those most discreditable docu ments, the reports of inspectors of persons and clerks of the peace. With these before you, do you think it fit to d eclare that the administration of the law is effectually provided for. Documents relating to the same offences, and for the same Period, show obviously a difference as to crime. Here is the account given by the inspectors cf prisons, and by the clerks of the peace, of the same description of crime in Ireland in the year 1837. The inspectors declare that, in 1837, 14,804 persons were committed for trial for criminal offences ; the clerks of the peace say 27,304, being a difference of 12,000 on the same return. How will you undertake to pronounce anything with respect to the administration of the law with these discrepancies ? The noble Earl may talk of the character and dignity of the House of Commons ; but it is neither consistent with character nor dignity to make a declaration as to crime on such data. As to collision with the House of Lords, I ask you whether it is not for the pub lic interest, looking at the state of this country—at the posi tion of her affairs abroad, to maintain harmony between the two branches of the legislature ? Do you think that with the proceedings in the north of England you are promoting the FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 19, 1339. As we announced in our second edition of Tuesday last, the packet-ship Roscius, Captain Collins, has brought intelligence from New York to the 26th ult. inclusive. The news brought by the Roscius is not of great importance. Nothing decisive had taken place in reference to the boundary question. Considerable embarrassments were felt in the money market at New York. Recent events in Maine are alleged as the causes which have produced a comparative stagnation in the sale of public securities, and a general want of confi dence in the banking institutions of the country. - The House of Representatives of the State of Maine had adopted, by a majority of 105 to 1, resolutions de claratory of the right of Maine, to the exclusive juris diction of the disputed territory. The House also in sisted upon the alternative of proposing to the British government a joint commission, for the purpose of run ning the boundary line in accordance with the treaty of 1783, and alleged that, if Great Britain refused to accede to this proposition, it would be competent for the Senate of the United States to decide upon taking possession of the whole territory in dispute. The Senate of Maine, however, did not concur in these resolutions, and a conference between the two houses was, in con sequence, appointed. The cDmmittee of the conferees ultimately decided in favour of the previous resolutions of the Senate, and against those of the House of Re presentatives. The prevalent tone of opinion in the State of Maine seemed to be decidedly adverse to any amicable settle ment of the important question in dispute between the United States and Great Britain. We do not, of course, place much reliance upon the pompous boasts of the House of Representatives. The character of Jonathan for exaggeration and braggadocio is too well known to justify any serious apprehensions from t h i e , tone of defiance in which the Mainites have so large : indulged. The empty threats of these folks are ° le " lated to provoke no other than sheer contempt. J. It appears that Governor Fairfield, in pursuance..o: a resolution passed by the. Senate of Maine, had 0,. drawn his troops from the v i c i n ity of the Aro os n A. few individuals only were left to prevent any full!' depredations on the timber. The news from Mexico is of a pacificatory C ter. Two diplomatic agents, General GuadaloUlle Manuel Govostiza, had been in treaty with M in , Baudin for the cessation of hostilities. There svathe strong probability that an amicable adjustment of existing difficulties would take place. An express from Mazatlan to Durango broug ht ill' telligence of the arri va l a t th e f ormer p o rt of the , 11 ,!4 lish ship of war Emol c hi s , th e cap t a i n o f which ce : tr stated that the ad m i ra l o f th e F renc h na val force s ' O5 tioned on that coast h a d ra i se d t h e bl oc k a de of 13tI eli cri o Ayres, for the purpose o f o p era ti ng ag ainst the I San Blas, Acapulco, and Mazatlan. We adverted, on Tuesday l as t, t o. a pamph let Sh cently published, under the attractive title of we overturn the Coach ?" the au th ors hip of wh ieh ssil attributed to Mr. Grote, and the object of whic h to induce the "squeezable" ministers of the da t ) ito , pledge themselves to further c h anges i n the O n ' d i, tion, in order to obtain the support of the ultra,. cals in the House of Comm ons on L or d John Bu t sell's motion. Mr. Grote strongly insists uPnlift,„t, o f necessity of according to the ministry the sliPP ° _ the radicals, and offers as an inducement to this e7 Ant the probability that Lord John R usse ll may alsP— the principle of finality. The pamphlet, however, speculates on the eel gency of Sir Robert Peel's accession to office, nli fi t of dulges in some strange calculations on the aron lin ne reform which may be wrung f rom th e r ight lion' a- bp ticman and his associates. That our readers may t y enabled to judge of the prosp ec t s h e ld out to " movement" party we have e x t rac t e d from thi s t o chure the following observations, to which we la particular attention : n o ir e " It remains to be considered w h a t are the I - Ilea - the ir should possess of extorting from their policy or co . apprehension the measures their judgments wou ld demn. " These could consist only of a parliamente'i b d nority so formidable as t o b e wor th conc iliating lo sacrifice of principle, or of pressure from withoet•, both anticipations I entertain the most comPlete. cool viction that we should b e m i sera bl y di s appoint ed eve o doubt our having a ver y f orm id a bl e m inority , bt without a dissolution. After a dissolution we ° r i e s possibly have a very feeble one. Should the t ° o i, come into office on the resignation of the presen t o nisters, produced by a defection of a portion of o f ordinary supporters, I believe that many men 3he s of our party would at once support Sir Robert peel,hito, that many more would abstain from o pposing They might say, and not unreasonably, to the t t ters they have hitherto supported, we prefer see lps h 0 ,0 the helm men of principles agree i ng ma inly w ith a t, own, but the country cannot be without a g overro a rt y and we will not, therefo re , em b arrass t h e c ourse al only administration which can retain office --ali , t bt ministration supported by men w h o h a ve at lea - ' ll O sense not to play the ga me o f t h e i r opponen ts- Sl ' o t r we fare better after a dissolution ? What was the de suit of the two last dissolutions-? At the fortoel: the spite the just indignation at the manner in wh , ; 1:( liberal government had been expelled from office u i i tt o late King, we greatly l os t i n St rengt h ; a t the ' 3 . 4 , i notwithstanding the spell of our youthful Sover ei ri e d e t favour, we barely retained our majority. 1 3 ' 4 what circumstances would Sir Robert Peel now aPr,ll5 to the country ?—how difficult to resist would o nsi r bs his plea for a ' fair trial ?' Not e l eva t e d to r ice bot any unseemly exertion of the royal prerogat ive i bjS taking office only on the approved incapacity ° opponents, from the dissensions among their o vii no rt, herents, to retain it, he would have claims to soPr o i• which, added to causes to which I shall preseo d Y a t yt vert, would insure him a large majority. - Sho . l3l est et dissolution occur while the disputes among the til i ot sections of the liberal party were yet at the hott7 e o f own quarrels would b e a dd e d t o every ot h e r chan dpf . ..n,- .g oor ministers partaking of the unpopularity wh icl , l the own friends had been so diligent in fomenting or section which eject e d th e a d m i n i strat i on laughed star scorned, as has been invariably the fate of those 11 . plots in politics wh o h ave p l aye d a game too ft: 3 i° der too wise for the comprehension of ordinary n a , standings. As f or pressure from without, it i s 3 dread Ole I do not believe that it would be possible to agi tate : ill masses for any object short of universal suffrag e ; to that agitation n one o f t h e upper classes, and ne , x li elll none of the m iddl e c l asses, would join; wit h o ut ` 55 0 you may get u p a j acquer i e -_ you may have elc e d that will give strength to conservatism—hut Yn a i i r have no pressure from without that would have 311 ,er fant's might in urg i ng f orwar d or di splac i ng a CO - vative administration. " I have alluded to circumstances other than th 0 01 immediately conn ec t e d w i t h t h e present state of Pc affairs, which would in a general election be eo ce to the prospects of the liberal party. I had re ef pc; to the sentiments of the middle classes. I believ e ' 00 0 only that those impo r t an t and influential classe s ' 11 .,0 0 not join the masses in agitating for any large ex tea i ; j er of the suffrage, but thei r attac h ment to l ib er al I° , o l l pies is much less ardent than it was some fe' s , i ' ' t er/ back. Ido not me an t h at t h ey have adoPte', principles. I beli eve t h e i nstances to be extreod rare of men of calm and sober judgment having 1 :00% the conservatives ; but I believe those classes, sP e o of of them gener a ll y , to h ave subsided into a statd to considerable indifference on political matters, as th e feel nothin g lik e t h e i r recent zeal for fartheriv r ditfr progress of reform. Nor is this state of fedi: 4 .oo l cult to be accounted for. There is, first, the K ati and inevitable reaction after great excitement, th e ; eel ety that follows success, and the disappointmen t a tP finding that effect produced on the well-being f tb ° community which they had, in the excitemen t th ette struggle for parliame n t ar y reform, permitted 111 e 0 " selves to expect as th e i mme di ate resu l t o f that ro d sure ; some, too, of th e best measures of the r ef° vo parliament—the new poor-law for instance—ha ve f eis' strangely misundersto o d, an d st ill more strap; eli)1 represented. Next must be reckoned the per li ' " P ° influences of w ea lth, power, an d stat i on, always rre tial in a country so ar i s t ocrat i c to i ts very c o t ,P England. These permanent influences are alr n ."" adverse to the extension or existence of liberal oP li r er It is not only that i n th e hi g h er c l asses t h e gr eat ,' jority of families have, or conceive themselves t% 0 0 I some chance of sharing in the good things wh ic 4 o rd' I church, the army, the navy, or the colonies may and adhere therefore to the party by which th e, :d lieve those sources of advantage will be maint ain ;" enlarged, but that property itself renders its P° s 7 )oo til l timid and abhor ren t o f c h ange. L ast l y, la° Or to say, and some opp or t un it y o f f orm i ng a s on , ' t iv' t ment leads me to speak confidently on this he 3 o ieti, in my opinion th e man if estat i ons o f a b urn ing a be o for further cha nge on th e part o f some ra il air our party, more eminent for their zeal than t i l l aj el i e est e cretion, have not a little t en d e l t o di sgus t anti 13 , the very best and mos t i n fl uent i a l men o f those c Those men are sou n d re f ormers , b ut they ° e 01 , strongly imbued with that l ove o f w h a t is P il e d of indifferenc e t o or con t empt o f theory, and r° °t h or e tachment to old h a bit s an d associations, wh ii , l o e ;, .lisir mixed up with th e s t rong common sense of 'l3-11.114/: men, and form its p ecu li ar c h aracter i st i c . As ayttle. sopher you may l amen t thi s indifference t° heft}' truth ; but as a pra c ti ca l s t a t esman , you must °f to admit that it i s th e ma i n secur i ty for the st ay' all we hold most dear." •It appears from the es ti ma t es f or c i v il contiag e-0 0 0 15 of which we g i ve extracts b e l ow, t h at L or d Pu r Lic " trip to Canad a " h as not b een as c h ea p an '` .. h os ° might have b een i n f erre d f rom t h e oft-repeated to of the reformed ministry, that the go vernmen t % l ei' country is at p resen t con d ucte d on econom i c al P r ar li ples. We should very much like to know what Hume would say of the following " tottle of the '' ,l 3 eli te We wonder whether he will discover in it any of the saving disposition of the Whig ministry, ° l3s , o reg behalf he has avowed himself to be willing - that " black is white:" And, ; ch "ge, abo,e sp In re. lia.v sage gwer n , i , th e expe him beir, To def l'l t lVer b t - .etit en "d in re, " d iLary. account (.) Total fi f ob 0 4 ',,erlor total e; cause of tranquillity and of the public interest, by holding up the Houses of Lords and Commons as being at variance ? Above all, if these considerations do not move you, I implore you earnestly, but respectfully, to consider what is due to your own honour. I implore you not to enter into a contest —not to make an abstract declaration of opinion upon a par tial branch of policy. Above all, I ask you not to enter into a collision with the House of Lords, unless you feel justified that there is cause for that collision, and unless you have well considered the probable result. The great poet to whom I before alluded, whose writings are more full of lessons of practical wisdom than the writings of any uninspired writer, has given advice with respect to entrance upon a quaarrel, which, although given to an individual, may be equally applied to public men. He says, " Beware Of entrance to a quarrel ; but, being in, Bear it that the opposer may beware of thee." You are about to commit a double violation of that precept — you are about to enter into a quarrel hastily and unwarily, and you prove that you are about to conduct yourself in a manner that will ensure neither terror nor respect. While you are on the threshold of the quarrel you can still recede. I entreat you as you value the character of the House of Commons—believing in my conscience that you have no superfluous authority—desiring that you may maintain every privilege, and that your authority over the people may be intact—with these feelings I conjure you to reserve the ma nifestation of your displeasure for some occasion when, cheered by the sympathies of the people, and when confident in the righteousness of your cause, you may be enabled to assume a part, and to speak in accents better suited than the resolution is, to the offended dignity of the House of Com mons. (The right hon. baronet having concluded, resumed his'seat amidst loud cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having replied to Sir R. Peel, Mr. E. TENNENT moved the adjournment of the debate. The remaining business was then disposed of, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OFLORDS.-TUESDAY. This day the House of Lords was cfiletlTOCC;ipied in the presentation of petitions on a variety of subjects. Amongst them were several praying for an alteration in the beer act. The Consolidated Fund (X 8,000,000) and the General Cemetery Bill were read a first time. The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill passed through committees. The Earl of RIPON inquired whether the information pos sessed by ministers, relative to the war in India, would be laid before the house ? Lord MELBOURNE replied that he had no objection to pro duCe all the intelligence possessed by government on the sub ject.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY. A committee was balloted for to try the merits of the peti• tion against the return of Mr. Swart for the borough o Wigan. A: new writ was ordered for the county of Tyrone, in the room of Viscount Ajexander, now Lord Caledon. The Sheriffs of London presented a petition from the Cor poration, for leave to bring in a bill to amend the city police. On the motion of Mr. HAWES, all further proceedings on the Small Debts Bill were ordeied to be suspended until the 28th instant. Messrs. HUME, O'CONNELL, GRATTAN, HOWARD, &e., presented petitions from different parts of Ireland, praying for a continuance of fair and impartial government. The adjourned debate on Lord John Russell's motion was then resumed ; in the course of the discussion, the following members spoke :—Mr. E. Tennent, Mr. S. O'Brien, Colonel Perceval, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. M. Bellew, Viscount Powers court, the O'Conor Don, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. H. Grattan, Colonel Conolly, and Mr. Lucas ; after which the debate was again adjourned on the motion of Mr. Barron. HOUSE OF LORDS.-WEDNESDAY After the presentations of some petitions, the two Mutiny Bills were read each a third time and passed, and the Conso lidated Fund Bill was read a second time. Their lordships then adjourned.. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNICSDAY. A long conversation arose as to the right of members to vote upon railway bill committees who had signed the decla ration required, but had not been present when the chairman was elected. It was finally determined that, in the spe cial cases referred to, the members should he allowed to vote. Sir Robert Inglis Presented a petition fro►n agent for Jamaica, praying to be heard against the bill for suspending the constitution in that colony. A number of petitions were presented from Ireland in favour of Lord Normanby's administration. Mr. Sergeant Jackson presented a petition from the lord lieutenant, sheriffs, and 44 magistrates of the King's county, asserting the existence of a conspiracy for the destruction of life and property, and appealing to the murder of Lord Nor bury in proof of the fact. The third night's debate on the state of Ireland was then resumed. Mr. Baron having opened the discussion. He was followed b j Sir R. Bateson, Mr. Grote, Mr. Gibson, Sir E. L. Bulwer. Mr. Litton, Mr. Pigot, and Mr. Shaw; after which the debate was again adjourned, on the motion of Mr. Morgan J. O'Connell. THEATRE ROYAL, LIVERPOOL. FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. BRAHAM, And the Last Night of his Engagement. PHIS present FRIDAY, Apri119,1839, will be perfoimed Auber's Opera of FRA DIAVOLO. Fra Diavolo Braha tn. Lorenzo (on this occasion).... Mr. Barker, Of Mr. Braham's Theatre, the St. James's, London, his first appearance this Season. Lord Allcash.... Mr. G. Horncastle. Zerlina.. Miss Grant I Lady Allcash.. Mrs. P. Crowe. To conclude with the Musical Farce of The WATERNirg. -- Tom Tug Mr. Braham, In which character he will sing " Oh, did you not hear of a Jolly Young Waterman," " Farewell my trim built Wherry," and the celebrated Song of " The Bay of Biscay 0 !" Robin.... Mr. Baker. , Wilh ehnina Miss Grant. In cqn.rqyges,M.elxt . 9 . - Ty!, „ §taKpr92ara . ti2ns for Mon Mr. VAN AMBURGH, who is engaged for Six Nights, will make his appearance on MONDAY, April 22, and exhibit a series of extraordinary performances with THE WHOLE OF HIS TRAINED ANIMALS, as represented last sea son, One Hundred and Fifteen Nights in succession, at the Theatre-Royal, Drury-lane, and patronised on many occa sions there by her Majesty. Mr. CHARLES KEAN, MADAME VESTRIS, Mr. CHARLES MATHEWS, Mr. POWER, and other eminent Metropolitan Performers, are also e ngage d. Due Notice will be given of their appearance. An arrangement has also been made with Mr. HACKETT, the celebrated American Comedian, who will make his np pearance in the early part of the Season. LIVER TI4ATRE, CHURCH-STREET EXTRAORDINARY MUSICAL AND DRAMATIC ATTRACTIONS. THIS EVENING, April 19, and TO-MORROW, (Sa turday,) the 20tb, positively the Last Night of COUSIN TOM ; and THE TWO BARBERS. - On MONDAY EVENING next, will be presented an ENTIRE CHANGE OF PERFORMANCE, for the BENEFIT OF MR. R. GRCMITH, in which Master B. Grossrnith will appear in Thitik New Characters. *** Mr. Grossmith, sen. has the pleasure of informing the Public, the YOUNG LADY, whose extraordinary per formances on the Piano have been received with such great eclat, has kindly consented to perform a variety of NEW and POPULAR PIECES, for a few more evenings, after which the Liver Theatre WILL POSITIVELY CLOSE, his Sons' engagements in Manchester and London precluding all pos sibility of a longer stay in Liverpool. TO CORRESPONDENTS. The letter of Mr. Brumfitt was received too late for insertion in our present publication. The letter of Mr. Woods is again unavoidably postponed, owing to the press of parliamentary and other intelligence. We are sorry that we have been obliged to defer until Tues day, the remainder of " the correspondence between the Hastings family and Lord Melbourne," on which we had Prepared some extended remarks. It is probable that some further communications on the subject may be pub lished before our next. Our promised observations on " the Colonization of Natal," are likewise inevitably postponed, in order to make room for matter of a more pressing character. We have not yet been able to procure a full and impartial report of the proceedings at the Preston Sessions against Mr. Charles Rowland. The report in the Manchester Guardian, we are assured by a party who was present in court, is extremely unfair and garbled. " An Enquirer" wishes to know whether the sum of £24,800. paid to the Woodside Ferry Company, by the Directors of the Chester and Birkenhead Railway, is paid merely for the unexpired term in the lease of that Company. Perhaps the Solicitor or Secretary to the Company will be the best person to apply to on the subject. The letter and dishonest expedient of " A Precursor" are worthy of a person bearing the name. kibtrpool &tanbarb.