The Sun. — London, England, 1840-02-01 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. 1833 the number was 24,000 ; in 1834, 23,000 ; in 1835, I 19,000; in 133 6 , 17,000 ; in 1837, 18,000; in 1838, 1 17,000; in 1839, 16,000; and in 1840, 14,000.—( Loud 1 cheers.) Of the troops withdrawn from Ireland since last I March there were of the Ist Dragoon Guards 290 men, and of other regiments, of cavalry and infantry, draughts amounting in the whole to 3 494 men.—(Hear, hear.) In the course of the debate, the Noble Lord the Member for Tyrone bas spoken with that spirit of great good hu mour which never deserts him, but without that Orange spirit which lam glad to see he has left off. That Noble Lord has stated that the reduction in the amount of troops in Ireland has been made up for by additions to the con stabulary force. New, the constabulary force had not at tained any thing like i:s present state of organization until o h oat rh" year 1829, 3t which time the number of the f ,a ce : • unted to 5, 0 84. In the year 1831 the amount of t ,„.- ~c was 3,264 ;in 1833, 6,867 ;in 1834, 7,110 ; in 1835, it amounted to 7,046 ; in 1836, to 7,200 ; in 1837, to 7,944 ; in 1836, to 8,044: and 1839, to 8,370 ; so that during the period the present Government had been in office the army in Ireland has been reduced from 19,000 —if I were to take the amount from the year before the Government took office, I should say from 21,000—t0 14 000. that is to say, the army has been reduced by 3,000 'lieu, while the increase to the constabulary force during the same period amounts only to 1,200 men—( Cheers) — and I will put it to the sense of the House whether if an increased force is considered necessary, it is not much more desirable that such increase should t_ke place in a force like the constabularly force, rather than in the regular army 1 He would further take upon himself, on behalf of the Irish Government, to say, that if any neces sity bad arisen in England for an increase in the amount of the military force, the Lord Lieutenant would have felt himself fully warranted under the circumstances, had such emergency arisen, in sparing, in addition to those already sent over, at least one-half of the reduced force now re- . eestning in Ireland.—(lmmense che erin g from the Miniss" terial side of the House.) lam not contending that Ire land could permanently spare from her reduced force such an amount as that which I have just mentioned. That mast be a matter to be decided by future experience; -we have not yet seen sufficient to come to a decision nn the !subject. We are not s ufficiently acquainted with what will be the permanent effects produced in Ireland, whether a body of police will be s ufficient to preserve the tranquillity of that country ; and until tat happens I should be the last to advise stripping our rsel h ves of the means of defence —of the means of prevention and cure, without being in a condition to have them speedily re called, if necessary. I am only conveying the im , prearioa which may be drawn from the present state of things. We have during the past year spared a large i amount of the usual military force from Ireland, and we should have been prepared, if the occasion had arisen, to s p a re more .—(Cheers.) During the past year very few and slight occasions have arisen for the military being called out in Ireland; indeed, I think their main occupa tion has been to keep order, and secure iugress and egress for the crowds who flock to give the pledge of unqualified temperance.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) And, let me observe in passing. let not the House think lightly of this subject—this is no trivial, no unimportant feature in the present moral aspect of Ireland.—( Hear, and cheers.) I am not saying of this, any more than the reduction of the military force, that we can calculate on it for more, or for longer, than it has already gone.—( Hear, hear.) But I boldly say, that so far as it has gone, it is an im mense good.—(Cheers)—and gives prospects of more good—leaves room for good habits to grow and become permanent—affords opportunity for happy results to mani fest and develope themselves.—( Cheers.) Aral as I have touched upon this subject, which, though rather beside the present debate, yet has a close connection with the pre "ant condition of Ireland, I must permit myself to observe that I think what has occurred may be taken is a reason able rebuke to those who, for so long a period, and cape.. pecially during the late recess, have been heaping the most unmitigated and wholesale, and I must say uncha ritable stigmas and revilings on the whole body of the Roman Catholic priesthood, I th nk it may be taken as a rebuke to all such indiscriminate censures upon that body that the greatest movement towards the re formation of Ireland, the greatest earnest of its na tional improvement has been effected, though I rejoice ' to think at the same time tha many Protestants have hailed thialuosement, and cordially co-operated in it ; yet still this great movement was originated mainly—almost singly —by the unprompted—the gratuitous efforts of a humble and exemplary Roman Catholic priest.—(Cheers.) And I must say, that during the recess there has been a sort of Helotism on the part of the press connected with Gentle men opposite en everything bearing upon the Roman Catholic priesthood, which supplies a lesson—to use the east offensive term—most instructive. —( Cheers.) It is v, ell to s'ay we do not object to the appointments as Catho lics, but this is not the language of the recess.—(Cheers.) This is not the language of the party out of doors, lashed into excitement, by which it seemed to be hoped you would be floated into place.—(Cheering.) I do not wish to cult anything from the leading articles of newspapers, or from excited speeches on the public platform, but what do I find in a formal manner in regular resolu tions adopted with the full concurrence of crowded meet ings? What says the petition of the inhabitants of Brighton ? And what 'aye the Brighton Gazette ?—" We had much sparring last night on the sentiments of a single clergyman of Brighton," of the highest character, the most exemplary morals, as well as of distinguished talents, I admit the Hon. Member for Droitwich most distinctly laid it down, and challenged us to contradict him, that no objection had proceeded from any part of the country to fife appointment of the Secretary to the Admiralty, but what is said in the petition of the inhabitants of Brighton? It was with great ooncetn they " had heard that her Majesty's Ministers had selected to 11l im portant offices at the Admiralty, the 1 Treaaury, and the Board of Trade , three gentlemen"—not whose political conduct was objectionable, but " who were ' members of the Church of Rome."—( Cheers.) And that one of those persons had been admitted to the rank and privilege of her Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council, and that it was " with great alarm they saw a disposition Of the part of her Majesty's advisers to abuse the power reposed fp them, for the injury of the Protestant religion." (Hear, boar.) I will not detain the House long. What was the language of those called by the high-sounding designation of the Protestant Association ?—" We have observed with deep concern that your Majesty has been advised to depart so far from Protestant principles, as by law established as the condition of the succession to the Throne, as to confer"—on whom? on Ultra-Reformers or R e pealer'? No, but "on Members of the Church of Rome—(Loud cheers) —high and responsible situa tions in several departments of state," for example— for fear we should not know whom they meant— "in the Admiralty, the Treasury, and the Board of • Trade ; and this concern is further increased by the fact ' that one of those individuals has been admitted to the rank and privileges of one of your Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council, the first instance that has been of 1 such a departuros"—.so much for their acquaintance with matters of fact--( Cheers)—"from the principles of the constitution, since the deliverance of the country from Papal tyranny." Again, a petition was presented, the day before yesterday, from the clergy, merchants, bankers, and inhabitants of Bristol, and I wish to call attention to what ground they wished the House to withdraw its con fidence from her Majesty's Government, and repose it in gentlemen of the Opposition. They say—" The first and highest interests of a great nation are based in Protest antism, and ought not to repose in an Administration which made the great interests of national faith subservient to party purposes." This is fair ; this is an opinion. Now for the illustration—" The admission of Roman Ca tholics to office excites our moat serious alarm for the ex istence of our Protestant institutions." I must say, that if anytiiieg seem preposterous beyond all comprehension, it is the use and adoption of such language as this. I think soar ebody called my Hon. Friend the Member for Waterford a Repealer. Why, he lost his seat in conse quence of his opposition to the Repeal of the Union ! Sir J. GRAHAM—He did not lose it.—( Several Members of the Opposition benches—" Yes, he did.") Lord MORPETH—My impression is that he did— ' ( Hear, hear)—but I have quite enough without referring I to that.—( Cheers.) However, I will tell you what they I say of him—they say he is put into the present office for the purpose of administering the funds and conducting th e education of the peeple, of this country. Last year, when I we purposed to .transfer it to the Lords of the Treasury, ' what an outcry was raised ! and now we have transferred . it, the cry is against the Lords of the Treasury having the control and management of the fund.—( Hear, hear.) Because my lion. Friend, who has on many occasions shown a cultivated and accomplished mind, and my Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty, who, if he has put himself forward less prominently than others, possesses as sterling qualities bath of the head and theart as any r uson with whom it has been my good for : tune to come across—because those three Members have beau, appointed to the three offices of Vice-President of 1 the Beard of Trade, Secretary of the Admiralty, and Lord of the Treasury—l say this without con s id er in g who ha v e filled those o ffi ces before, whether under T or y or W hig • Administrations—because this is the case, ought we to say, in the words of one of the petitioners, that those appoin t : •n meats are ominous and fraught with danger to the Church,'t the Country, and the Throne ?—( Hear, hear.) I must sa y, if the accusation had come from the other side—if that had been alleged as a matter of complaint, that after the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, ten years after it had been declared that every appointment in the State t a should be open to. every Catholic as well as ev er y Pro ustant, w ith, I think, two defined and stated ex captions in each country—that with a Roman 1 • Catholic population in this kingdom amounting at least to eight millions, it was alleged that not i one Catholic had found his way into the Cabinet, that only two Roman Catholics had found their way into the Privy Council, consisting of three hundred persons— that in Ireland, with such a preponderance of Roman Catholics, only eight Roman Catholics had been admitted into a Privy Council of eighty-two—if that had been alleged, I might have dared to account for it by the short ness of the period during which they had been eligible—l I might have congratulated myself on being a member of 1 that Government, which, I trust, is the harbinger of a Ibetter and more equal state of things ; but I ownl should have thought the prima facie difficulty of the argument lay on the opposite side of the question from that on ; which it has been brought forward ; and so far am I from ' agreeing in the proposition, that the appointment of a Roman Catholic to be a member of the Privy Council, or the appointment of three Roman Ca tholics to three subordinate offices, is contrary i either to the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, ! that if eny Roman Catholic, P eer , or Commo ner , bad • shown himself to be qua'ified by his post, 1, 3 hi s pos ition, or his abilities, or his actions, I, for one, should look upon it as a virtual breach of the spirit of the Const e itution, as an infraction of its recorded enactme nt , if L e d at e i n o i n e , d th to e such a person, on the score of his reli g iou s past of Prime Minister to this countr y itself. e w as the view taken by the Right Hon. Baron Why, this ( 5;,.. R. Priel,) and 1 have no doubt he will cone fi tror it os t ite night, and it is good for the illumination of his party out o of doors, that he should so confirm it. This was the view taken by' toe Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam . worth, long before he acceded to the prop r i e ty of concedin g . ti.. • ,Z4at'olit•l•lairne. The Right Hon. Baronet said in a 1, 1,1: -,n the Ath March, 1837, " I would here suggest a question to my Right Hon. Friend ; I would say, when you hive placed the Roman Catholics and Protestants on anu equality in point of law, do you mean to admit them to an equality in the enjoyment of office ? and if you do, you will see the Roman Catholics and Protestants ad:ninister ing, equally, the affairs of a Protestant State. you do not mean to look forward to this state of things, and merely intend to give the Roman Catholics nominal equality, I say that that practical exclusion from office will be far more galling to them than any disability under which they now labour, because it will be an exclusion on per. sonal grounds." These, Sir, wore the Right Hon. Baronet's words ; and I bare often indeed blushed of late to see what outrage has been made with the name and principles of Protestantism. Far be it from me, like some in very high places of rabid orthodoxy, far be it from me to stigmatize the name of Protestant as odious--( Hear, and cheers)—cr to decry its vital and essential principles, but I have ever conceived that Protestantism in its original aim, and in its vital principle, has not intended to draw out any line of demarcation, or to parcel out any spot of separation on this earth, but to faci litate the access of all under the seencric name of Chris tians; and I, for one, think we arc all sometimes to attend to various principles, doctrines, and habits—the epithet of " Protestant," which, it is to be rem-irked, is in itself oc casional and temporary, and to overlook that of Christian, which is for all times and for all ages, to fill and survive the world.—( Loud cheers.) The only tangible fact which I think I have heard alleged against the actual proceedings of the Irish Government—l am sure it was the only tan gible fact alleged against them by the Hon. Mover of this vote—on which is to be founded our ezelu: ion from office, and the substitution of the Gentlemen opposite in our places, was the circumstance of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland having entertained the lion. and Learned Member fur the city of Dublin at his table. ( Laughter.) Now I must say that these dinners seem to produce a great impression on Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—( Laughter.) However, since I have been connected with the Govern ment of Ireland, in one Session of Parliament or another, there has been a good deal said about the circumstance of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland having entertained to din ner my Hon. and Learned Friend—a pleasure which I have shared in common with the two distinguished Noblemen under whom I had the honour to serve. Now, of one thing I am quite confident, that if the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland should be asked whether he disapproved of any speech, or of any expression, or of any proceeding by whomsoever adopted, he would not have hesiested frankly to express his opinion, and I will go farther and state that there very many things which have been said by the lion. and Learned Member, and something moreover done by him, of which we not only do not approve, but of which we very strongly disapprove.—( Hear, hear.) Allu sion particularly has been made to recent speeches made by the Hon. and Learned Member for the city of Dublin, and to some talk of arming 500,000 men.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) Now the difference is, that when in 1829 the Hon. and Learned Member talked of arming 500,000 men, the Government of that day receded from their opinions and gave way to it, highly to their credit; whereas we, in no one particular that I can charge my me mory with, have abandoned no one opinion in deference to my Honourable and Learned Friend. re'sut others have made allusions, which I think are always to be deplored, to physical force. Allow me to turn to the speeches of the memorable mover of the Committee in the House of Lords—l mean, the Earl of Roden—and nothing shall fall from me relative to the patriotism or the misdirected exertions of what he conceives is for the public good, which distinguished that Nobleman. He said on one oc casion, " Notwithstanding the apparently awful odds in this country, we have, thank God, the moral energy, as , well as the necessary accompaniments of sinew and bone, on our side." On another occasion, and before a very large multitude of people, he said, "It is not people of hig station we seek after. If they come, we shall be most happy to receive them, and are ready to unite with them, but it is to the bone and sinew and the strength and unanimity of the people of Ireland, emphatically so called, that we look for support."—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—What is the date of that ? Lord MORPETH-1832, during the constitutional agitation which was got up in the North of Ireland against the passing of the Reform Bill.—( Cheers.) I can assure the Hon. and Learned Member opposite that I can supply him with several very choice passages to the same effect : I do not say all from Lord Roden, but from those who as sisted at such meetings.—( Cheers.) Ido not think Lord Roden meant to take the field in opposition to his Roman Catholic countrymen. I suppose he thought they would act upon the offensive, and that he would be prepared to meet them. I hope the same meaning was intended to be conveyed by the Hon. and Learned Member—( Opposition cries of " Oh," and Ministerial cheers)—and that if un constitutional, illegal, and violent practices were resorted to under the domination of the Tories, he should be pre pared to wage open war against them, and to resist them even to the death.—( Cheers, and cries of " Oh.") How ever, I do regret that he did not more explicitly convey his meaning, and that he left himself liable to misconcep tion.—( Laughter on the Opposition Benches.) The Government of Ireland has frequently disapproved of many things which have been said by my Hon. and Learned Friend ; but then you say we invited him to dinner—l beg pardon of the House for condescending to such a topic—and that we bestow a lucrative appointment, in a public department, on one of his sons. Now I have no hesitation in saying for himself that not denying the many objectionable things which may from time to time have been said by the Hon. and Learned Member,—not concealing the many objectionable things also which have been pro posed by him, some of which those on this side of the House have shown themselves the foremost to oppose ; and if I know those with ;wham I am associated,—if the occasion should arise, they would again show them selves the foremost to oppose,—not denying or conceal. ing from myself those things, yet, taking into considera tion all that has occurred since the accession of the pre sent Government to office,—all that has occurred in England,—all that has occurred in Ireland,—all that has occurred with respect to the combination of trades in Dublin—(Hear, hear)—all that has occurred with respect to the Chartist insurrection in England—( Hear, hear) — I do believe that the energies and abilities of the Learned Member for Dublin—sure to hare great weight, and to exercise prodigious influence on whateverside they are exercised—have, on the whole, been exerted for the maintenance of order.—(Loud cries of " Oh, eh 1" from the Opposition.) I am not asking your agreement or sympathy in that opinion. lam stating my own honest impression of the actual state of things, and I say that, on the whole, the H ou . an d L earne d Member's influ ence has promoted the maintenance of order, and the peace of the country.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh I") I shall advert for one moment to a charge, which I under stood to have been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke, that my Noble Friend, the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, had encouraged, by a speech which he made in the House of Lords, assemblages of large bodies of people. Now, I contend that the words used by my Noble Friend, in his place in Parliament, do not bear that interpretation. His words were these : " In answer to the Noble Lord's question, as to the course Government intend to take, I beg to state the Govern ment intend to watch the proceedings of those meet ings, but I know of no power to prevent those meet ings, provided their object is legal. We are all aware that large public meetings not legally con vened sometimes take place in England. There have been very great Anti-Poor-law meetings, and though some inconvenience has been occasioned at those meetings, yet so long as we live under the British Con stitution, there is no power to prevent the holding of meetings for legal purposes. I regret there should be meetings on the question of tithes. I believe they have not been so frequent since I have been in office as before, and all that have been assembled have passed off peaceably. This I can assure the Noble Earl, on the part of the Go vernment, that if it should be found those meetings arc not held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, but for intimidation, every possible means of precaution and intervention will be employ ed." Perhaps I ought to leave it to lawyers to decide as to the strict law, but with respect to the practice of the two parties, all I have to state is, that when Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in power, it is found necessary to dispel large public meetings at the point of the sword : and on the occasion specially referred to in the quotation I have read to the House, so far from any such painful necessity being imposed on us, the course of the Irish Government was, by remonstrance and persuasion, to prevent any meetings taking place at all.—( Hear.) Sir, I feel how much I have trespassed on the attention of the House, and I therefore come at once to touch very bristly on the main point, which is to be put in issue by the vote of this night. You tell us that we are a weak Government, and that we ought to give p!acc to make room for a stronger. Now that the circumstances of the country do call for a strong Government, and that the interests of the public service would be benefited thereby, no one is more fully persuaded than myself; but when you tell us to make way for yourselves, I want to know, where do you point out the elements, and how do you guarantee to us the formation of a strong Government? —( Cheers and laughter.) Is it among those who formed the Ministry in the latter part of 1834, and in the early part of 1833, who began their period of official existence in this House in a minority, and afterwards, as the Right llon. Baronet on the opposite Bide very good humouredly remarked the other night, counted their nights by their minorities?—( Cheers and laughter.) Since that period the party in question have received the formal adherence of a section, of the utmost possible weight in point of talents, and of the least possible weight in point of num bers.—(Loud cheering and laughter.) And since that, their united effects have never been able, on one single question of importance, on one single question of Con stitutional importance, to reserve a majority from her Ma jesty's present Alistister=.—( Cheerg.) Is it that the accord in sour language and sentiments well make up for the comparative scantiness of your numbers—do you take upon yourselves to say teat there is anything no ,v among you which separates itself from the speeches of Canterbury, of Ashton, and of Derby ((„Curlipeearrsty)in_Adoroerys,otaigarnededyooun; party out of doors, it rie ? t — , i s a that vote t ah t t eohmeerr props_ciu the policy of carrying out the Catholic Relief - Bill ? ( Cheers.) Are you agreed on the subject of Irish Educa tion ?—(Cheers.) Or do you think that the vote of people who are g en at d e ow id m ol e a r t admis sion of a Catholic Chaplain into our gaols is l provision for the good of the opposed in carcerated, or that it is the admission of the "abomina tion tion of desolation ?''—( Cheers.) Why, upon Your --- great stalking-horse, the present Corn laws, and its matchless and immutable perfections, one of your sup porters told us last night that he was decidedl to the principle and working of the present Corn-laws. —( Hear, hear.) I have perceived that you are very sen. sitive on the subject of privilege ; and I have no doubt the Right Hon. Baronet, who took so distinguished and honourable a part in those debates, is prepared to launch, before this debate closes, a very vigorous and effective speech against her Majesty's Ministers, with all the skill and means which his great dexterity and resources enable him ; bat as to any abiding cordiality between you, the discussions of last night have offered a very striking, but by no means the first and only proof. When in this debate it was so important for you to exhibit a show of unison, the Hon. Member for Durham stated that the conduct of his leader was marked by tyranny and in- TELE SUN, LONDON, TURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, n‘4o. justice.— (Cheers.) Those who have perceived what took place here will soon have sufficient indications of a great difference of opinion between what is termed a fraction of the Conservative body—a small fraction of the Conservative body, but no less than its future Cab:. net and its other component parts ; but we whe sit oppo site could perceive even more distinguished signs—we could read the silence that speaks, and the eloquence of eyes. Well then, we arc to have again repeated that argument so often urged, that in the month of May last, we declared that we did not possess an adequate degree of the confi dence of this House. That is true. And did we not hear, a few nights afterwards, the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth declare, that if he undertook the Government of the country, Ireland would be the chief source of his difficulties.—( Hear, hear, hear.) And do you think that in the intervening period, Ireland has been so soothed by the dulcet strains—(Laughter)—of sym pathy in her fate, which have been poured forth from all your organs, and by all your orators—(Cheers) —do you think that Ireland has been so enlivened, so irradiated by the glimpses you have let fall upon her, of the senti ments you entertain towards her, and of the purposes you cherish on her behalf---( Hear, hear, and cheers)—that the difficuities to which the Right Honourable Barenet alluded in so emphatic and so remarkable a manner, are removed—that the dark cloud will pass away which before hovered round his accession to office, and open a horizon of serenity and confidence, where all was mistrust and alienation ?—( Loud cheers.) Have there been no indica• tions of late from England and Scotland, as well as from Ireland ?—( Hcar, hear.) Why, since you gave the no• tice of this motion, so big with menace and hostility— what has been the confirmation given by all the constitu encies which had, in the nick of time to be consulted?— (Hear, bear.) We could appeal to no others. We were satisfied with the vacancies which did exist. And the self same verdict, so far as the vote of this night is concerned, has been returned from the most different bodies of men, and from the most distant parts of the empire—( Cheers)--- from a great suburban district of the Metropolis—from a first-rate seaport town—from the crowded manufactories of Birmingham—from the ducal borough of Newark— ( Loud cheering)—and in two consecutive instances from the enlightenee capital of Scotland.—(Cheers.) Thus have we sent in, with right good will, from the different constituencies which have been consulted, a verdict against the motion of to-night.—(Cheers.) And if it pleases you so to continue—if, heedless of'. the better part" which is still open to you—if you decline to co-operate in the work of assisting to smooth the difficulties and to lessen the ob stacles which, we do not dream of denying, beset and im pede many complicated relations of our internal, our fo reign, and our colonial policy—to soothe the irritations which peer ail in the public mind—to disarm jealousies—to allay dissensions—in one word, to consult together for the public good, why, we, as a party, and in a selfish point of view, have only to bid you to go on—( Loud cheers) — stir up, or, rather (for that seems more consistent with the course hitherto pursued) suffer to be stirred up-- (Immense cheering) the fierce embers of past in tolerance—( Cheers)—re-illume the fires of expiring bigotry—(Cheers)—scatter the elements of distrust amid the inhabitants of the same soil—the children of the same Creator.—( Continued cheering.) We shall put our trust in the increasing spread of intelligence—in the confirmed sway of toleration—and in the returning sense of a disabused people.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst tremendous and long-continued cheering.) Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, why could not the Go vernment let the House know what their principles were ? The Noble Lord and the other Members of the Cabinet pro fessed opinions of every shade and colour. The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, did not complain of the difference of opinions of those who had given the Govern ment their support, but what he complained of was the great diversity of opinions which prevailed among the Ministers themselves. If he contrasted Lord Grey's Government with the present one, it was with a view of showing his opinion of the superiority of the former over the latter. The Government of Lord Grey was carried on with a manly and independent spirit, and they were not afraid to bring the laws of the land to bear upon the back of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, for a violation of those laws, which that Gentle man admitted he had been guilty of. The guilt, however, was not followed by any senteuce of the Court, for the Parliament having ceased to exist, the crime was no longer within the jurisdiction of the Court, so that the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland could not pronounce sentence against that Honourable Gentleman, although he was obliged to admit his guilt.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland qiihted at some length the speech of his Noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire; he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) believed the Noble Secretary must not have correctly heard what that speech was, or . if he heard it, he must h ave egregi ously misconstrued its meaning. He alluded to the charge made by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, against his Noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, and other Hon. Gentlemen at that side of the House, with a factious opposition to all the measure; of Government. The Members of that side of the House were never influ enced by party factions, but they were determined to suggest such measures as were calculated to produce good ends, and they were determined to obstruct all such measures as would be opposed to justice and the best interests of the ceuntry. He would not wish to charge the Noble Secre tary with a want of candour. He well knew that he had a most onerous and laborious duty when he took upon him self to reply to the speech of his Noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire ; but the propositions which his Noble Friend had laid down were incapable of being an swered by any Gentleman in that House. The charge of factious opposition to the measures of the Government could not be supported ; the Noble Secretary himself stated, that the Government were assisted in the passing of the English Corporation Bill and the Irish Poor Bill, by the Gentlemen on his side of the House.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition Benches.) But who were the real parties who opposed the most valuable measures of the Government ? Who, he asked, opposed the Irish Poor-law Bill? Did not the great supporter of the present Government give the most determined op position to the passing of that Bill ? He alluded to the Hon. Member for Dublin. They (the Opposition) cer tainly gave the most formidable opposition to many of the measures which had been brought forward. They con fessed that they obstructed the Noble Lord, and the Go vernment, in any attempt of a pernicious nature ; they successfully opposed the Appropriation Clause—(Cheers from the Opposition)—and did not the Noble Lord con fess that they were right? Did he not confess that the Government gave it up, with a view of preventing the flowing of blood in Ireland? What a commentary was that upon her Majesty's Government? When they assem bled in conclave at Lichfield House, and when they en tered into that solemn compact, did they then foresee that the appropriation clause, if followed up, would occa sion the flowing of blood in Ireland,—( Hear, hear.) If so why did they propose it? Why did the Government say that it was absolutely necessary that that clause should be adopted, and afterwards admit a tithe measure to be passed, without that obnoxious clause ? Why did they afterwards adopt that very Bill, which was recommended by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1835 ? With reference to the Jamaica Bill, were they to be charged with factious opposition to that measure, which was to annihilate the representative constitution of Jamaica, which had been enjoyed for centuries? They resisted that and resisted it successfully, and the Government were afterwards compelled to adopt the measure of the Right Hon. Bart, the Member for Tamworth.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) They will continue to obstruct every measure of the same character, and with such pernicious clauses, as the arbitrary Jamaica Bill. He asked, would the Government ever have been able to carry the question of privilege without the assistance of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth ? When the Government abandoned the idea of carrying the ap propriation clause, they on the Oppcsition side of the Househad not the bad taste to taunt them with inconsistency, as they hailed such abandonment as a very great blessing. They (the Ministerialists) attempted to taunt the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, for not carrying his favorite measure, "the Arms Bill for Ireland," through hat House. He was at the time Chief Secretary for Ire land, and the Government, with which he was acting, not thinkin proper to go with the Bill, the Noble Lord thought proper to abandon it.—( Cheers from the Ministers.) Was a measure of such a descri k itionto be comparedto others of much greater importance ? But what sort of a Government was this, which disapproved of many of the measures which they permitted to be done ? This state of things was no novelty to the present Ministers, for it was an every day occur rence.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) It would be very easy to find out a great variety of opinions among them.—(Hear and laughter.) The difficulty would be to find out that point, that they all agreed together on.— ( Laughter.) The Noble Lord then made a charge, which arose from an anonymous letter he had read to that Home. He ( Sergt. Jackson) doubted whether her Majesty's Government bad acted with reference to that letter as a Government ought to act. The Noble Lord had stated that letter was extolling her Majesty's Government for their for bearance. Did the Noble Lord know the gentleman in York shire who had thus commended her Majesty's Government? What were the means of judging possessed by ht gentle man? Was he a person holding office under the Govern. ment, or was he a candidate for any appointment?—(blear, hear.) Ho ( Sergeant Jackson) thought it beneath any Cabinet Minister to refer to an anonymous correspondent for a tcetimony of character, and he really thought, when he found the Noble Lord resorting to such a source, that his Government must be put to great stress.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord had then proceeded to make another ob servation, in which he taunted the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire for the part he had token in putting an end to the Slave Trade. Had that measure proved abortive ? Did it not succeed, and had not that Noble Lord brought forward that measure when he had been only three months ira office, and it was not unlikely that the credit in this case belonged to the Noble Lord of bringing forward that measure without the sanction of the other Members of the Government?—( Hear.) This reminded him (Sergeant Jackson) of another matter upon which he lied to ask a question, a matter which he had before pledged himself to bring before the notice of that House, with respect to the m illion% paid for the abolition of slavery—and to the t ii-y d t at C of a private letter, addressed by Lord Howard De Walden to the ?ortuguuse Munster for Foreign Affairs, Viscount Sada Bandeira, bearing date the 19th May, 1838. lie (Sergeant Jackson) had before put a question on that subject to the Noble Lord, and instead of 1-cceivine the very simple answer o f which his question admitted, the Noble Lord had made a spe ech, having an a lmost , exclusive reference to him ( Sergea nt Jackson). T he Noble Lord stated that he( Sergeant Jackson)had in another place made some very strong strictures upon the Government, hut when m thisbewr ) th t e he N n ie forhe t h i la: Tower risen t ofireemplleytsh.e w i l e s ( s celled e g e a t n o t o j r a d e e k r s b e y n himself on the indulgence of the House, for he trusted he should never be guilty of violating the rules of that House, but would eve r b e found regulating his con duct b y . its strictest rules of impartiality. No man was more sensible of the respect due to the dignity and character of that House than he (Sergeant Jackson) was. He at that time stated that ho would avail himself of the first opportunity to ask an explanation on the question which be had then put to the N o bl e L ord. Th a t explanation involved a matter seriously touchin the character of h e r Majesty's Government, unless i t were clearly and satisfactorily acs g counted for. The matter to which he alluded was a letter which occurred in the course of the negocia tions between this country and Portugal on the sub ject of the Slave Trade, which this country had been so long anxious to put an end to, and in his efforts to put down which Mr. Wilberforce. had distinguished himself in a manner which would immortalise his memory. He would now call the attention of the House to a re markable letter to which he had before referred. This country had paid twenty millions of money to put an end to the slave trade—and, in fact, no effort had been left untried to put an end to the slave trade in 1817. The Congress of Vienna resolved that all nations should be in vited to put an end to that atrocious traffic. Portugal then bound itself to comply with a resolution passed by that Congress, and it was thought that nothing less than that declaration could put an end to it. Lord Howard do Walden was employed by her Majesty's Government to negociate with Portugal on that subject. But while this country were pressing the question with all possible zeal, the letter of which he had spoken was published in Por tugal. And why was it published? Because part of the proceedings connected with that negociation had been laid on the table—no other country but Portugal was named in those documents. This House passed the Bill declaring the Slave-trade to be piracy, because Portugal, which had agreed to the resolutions for the suppression of the Slave-trade, had afterwards violated the treaty to which it was a party to effect that purpose. When Portu guese Ministers saw the proceedings of that House, what did Portugal do ? They published the whole of the letter written by Lord Howard de Walden in this country. He hoped that her Majesty's Government would not object to give a proper explanation of this matter, because they must all feel anxious about the honour or the country, and for himself he hoped that explanation would be such as to retrieve this nation from the indelible disgrace which must otherwise attach to it—was he not justified, then, in the absence of all explanation, in making the ob • servations which he had made, and in thinking that letter was a forgery, when it had been published in the Papers throughout the country, with a striking observation at serration attached to it, " most confidential?" The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the document, in the course of which it was stated that England was the only country which had declared the slave trade to be piracy. He (Sergeant Jackson) did then believe that he was justified in concluding that that letter was a forgery, for the day after that very curious note appeared, the 20th of May, 1838, Lord Howard de Walden addressed a note to the Portuguese Minister, in which he stated " the undersigned cannot too strongly impress upon you that the condition of making the Slave Trade piracy, must be a sine qua non." Thus on the 20th of May, the day after the note referred te, does Lord How ard de Walden address another note making the declara tion of the Slave Trade piracy. Ho would ask was there ever anything like such a proceeding? He would chal lenge the Noble Lord to produce a case having even the semblance of that to whick helreferred. The Noble Lord knew how anxious were the people of this country for the abolition of the Slave Trade, yet at such a moment as this an English Minister writes to the Portuguese Ministry to pursue an equivocal course, and to cover the duplicity by some declaration which would have the effect of satisfying, by deluding, the people of England. The Noble Lord knew well that had the Dissenters and the Quakers, and all who had struggled for the abolition of sla very, properly understood the deception, it would have given them marked offence—(Hear).—yet in the face of this deceptio n , th e G overnmen t h a d t a k en cre dit to itself for accomplishing in this respect what the ex ertions of others had achieved. In fact, he looked upon the conduct of the Government in this instance, when fairly in terpreted, to mean, " give me a handful of dust to throw in the eyes of John Bull." He believed there was not a parallel case to be found. There was a long expla nation in the other House on the subject, and there he found the Prime Minister of England giving an explana tion somewhat different to that given by the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in that House ; there were two explanations, they both differed, and neither was satisfactory. What was now the excuse given? Why, that it was usual for friendly Powers thus to communi cate. Perhaps it was usual, where two friendly Powers were negociating with the same views, to furnish each other with draft copies; but would the Noble Lord tell him that England and Portugal had an indentity of interest? No such thing ; England had abolished the slave trade—Portugal was still carrying it on. The only other excuse was that in submitting a mea sure for the suppression of the slave trade to the Portu guese Legislature, the language in which it was embodied should be as moderate as possible. Now, he would ask what was it to us if Portugal put itself in the wrong? Perhaps if it had done so it would have been all the better for us—but it struck him that those excuses were utterly false. If that document was before the House when the question of the slave trade was under their consideration he did not know what would have been the effect. He would not detain the House further upon this subjecnbut would pro ceed to an observation which had been made relative to this Chief Secretary for Ireland, and would address himself to other topics, which he thought would have more weight. The Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, had never denied that thousands in Ireland had confidence in the Government; he could not !ao surprised if that were the case, because everything w hich could be h a d b een done to satisfy them. It was but within a very recent period since the loyal people of Ireland ha d been disappointed, who, till then. had acted in such way as to please even the Conservatives, but the Noble Lord had afterwards turned over a new leaf, he did not know at whose suggestion, or how much the Hon. Member for Dublin had to do in producing the change. The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, may not possess the confidence of the Government ; does he not possess the confidence of the people of Ireland? With respect to the confidence of the Protestants of Ireland, the Government had received a heavy blow, and whatever might be its popularity among the lower classes, they had not the confidence of the middle ranks, who, be was happy to say, had ;continued steadfast in their adhesion to the laws and faithful to Protestant con:- stitutional principles. Had others done so ? He wished he could say they had.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") then the Noble Lord proceeded to dilate a good deal on the tranquillity of Ireland. Ho (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) was firmly persuaded that no one cause would more conduce to tranquillity than that very question, namely, the settlement of the Tithe Agitation. But was that question settled ? Would the Hon. Member for Dublin permit the question to be settled ? Was it not intended as a final measure ? Had they not thought that the best measure for tranquillity in 1837 was the amendment of the Corpo rations ; and had not a Noble Duke, in the other House, declared in 1837 that he was anxious for tranquillity, and that a good Tithe Bill was necessary to set that matter at rest, and also that a good Poor Bill was requisite, and that then they, the Conservatives, would take the measure into their consideration ? They, at that time, put faith in that measure as one put forward as a final measure. But what had been the course pursued by the Hon. Member for Dublin ? Why, he had been proceeding with the re-con struction of various societies in Ireland. He had given names—he knew not what. He had changed the name of the Precursor Society into that of the Loyal Regis• tration Society, composed of Roman Catholic Priests and others, patronised by the Honourable Member for Dublin. What was the fourth rule of that new-created Society ? It was to transfer the tithe rent-charge to the Poor-law Commissioners in substitution of the Poor-law fund. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) asked, whether that was fair dealing with Ireland? He asked, whether that was not a subversion of the established law? He asked whether, on Christmas-eve, be had not harangued multi tudes, and directed them to use force ? And he asked, whether the Lord-Lieutenant—a Minister of the Crown— the representative of her Majesty—should show favour in such an unequivocal manner to the Hon. Member for Dublin, by inviting him to the Castle, and entertaining him as a guest at the Royal table? He said that man was gull . ) , of an offence amounting to sedition—in short, amounting to high treason ; for he (Mr. Sergeant Jack son) said it was high treason to attempt by force to alter the law of the land ; and he said such a man was guilty of an attack on the Crown, and would forfeit his life on the scaffold. And he said, when a man bad de livered a speech of the most outrageous and seditious character, and was then patronised by the representative of her Majesty—he asked what was the inference that the people of Ireland would draw? Could they blame the peo ple of that unhappy country, if a man making. such a sedi tious speech, was received piping hot by the highest au thority ?—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He ( Mr. Ser geant Jseltson) confessed that they were an excitable people —a generous people—easily led by feelings—and easily led the right way, if they had but proper directions; but on the other hand, capable of being corrupted by vicious examples. And he must say that in this respect her Ma jesty's Government contrasted in a striking manner with that of Lord Grey—for that Government would not coun tenance the Hon. Member for Dublin—they would neither countenance him nor his legion. They dragged him in even before his own Court by a bill of indictment, and he would have been convicted by a jury of his country if he the Government calleddidp upon o rto odid vote not upon p the s s t b e e question confidence had not withdra wn his issue. He ( Mr. Sergeant Jackson) whe o whether was w that Ho said use. On what ground co uld the y be to bare that confidenc e . H e h a d s t a ted, arid he would state , aga n, the s s various qualiti es necessar y for a Government. Terre were two or three sp ec i a ll y ess ential ingredient. necessary for the character o f an a d m inistration , by wh , ch alone they could comma n d t h e con fidence of the House of Common; They ought to h ave fi xe d principles; n e xt they shsuld act upon those principles ; and, thirdly, a Government pos. seating capacit y s h ou ld be capable of understanding what was for the goo d o f t h e country, an I should have the power of c arry i ng i t i n to effect.—( Hear, hear.) He denied that the present Government possessed one of those attributes, and the Government could n ot pos;ess the con- Vence of that H ouse . There were a few mere topics to which the Noble Lord opposite had thought proper to advert. The Noble Lord admitted many things had been done by the H on . M em b er f or Dublin, of which he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) hoped he disapproved, and among other things chiefly of that oration , in which the 1-lon. Member for D u bli n ta lk e d o f tu rning out, and dying in the field, if her Majesiy presumed to exercise her prerogative of calling anoth er G overnment t o her assistance; and at that speech also in w hi c h h e use d language calumniating the Conservative p ar t y , h ea d e d by Peel and Wellington. lie had there basely insinuated that they would drug the cup of her M ijesty, i n f act , h e sa id that they would poison her. Ho was called on to retrac t, and he then solemnly de clared his con v i ct i on t h a t if there should be a change of Administrati on h er M a j es ty would not survive at six months. Was it possible that such language could be ut tered by any gentleman ? and he was sure that every in dividual, be he whom he might, would condemn such monstrous and outraeeous language. Could anybody be lieve it? Why, the assertion was destroyed by its utter absurdity. No rational human being, he was sure, was in existence, who would not scorn such a suggestion. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, as an instance of disgraceful con d uct , t h oug ht proper to quote his Hon. and Noble Friend, Lord Roden, a nobleman who was , treated with the highest respect and approbation by all classes. What was the substance of the speech quoted by l the Noble Lord opposite ? Why it was a su gge s t io n that 1 the loyal resist the insurr ec tio n a nd hostility of tlist party in leselavd, people e t Ireland would , in case of necessity, who set themselves against the law of the land anti the peace of the country. Was thit declaration similar to what had been said by the Hon. Member for Dublin? What had he stated in 1833 ? Why, that Hon. Gentle man bad thought proper to denounce the Whigs as "base, bloody, and brutal." The Honourable Gentleman was at that time agitating the Repeal of the Union. He had driven Lcrd Grey to the necessity of using strong measures to preserve the peace of the land ; and under those circumstances it was that his Noble Friend, whom every Government could command, whether Whig or Tory, and even the present motley Government — on that occasion it was that his Noble Friend had said that the loyal and Protestant people of Ireland would re sist to the utmost of their efforts if any insurrectionary movement were made. And he could say that even the Roman Catholic body, who were a strong, loyal, and Con stitutional body of men, would oppose the Repeal of the Union by the laws of the land, and preserve that country, as settled by their ancestors ; and he could tell the lion. Gentleman, that, if even that awful day should come— which might God avert—if such a course were persevered in, they would find the Protestants to a man ready to rise —they would find the Roman Catholic community, of which, he was going to say, the Hon. Gentleman was an unworthy Member—they would find that body arrayed on the side of the Constitution, and they would find a miserable defalca tion in the much-vaunted seven million.. He now, in conclusion, would only ask whether the cases were at all parallel ? He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) utterly denied that there was any parallel. Before he sat down he begged to say, that if in the course of the debate he had used any expressions personally discourteous to any individual member of the Government, he could only ex press his sincere regret. He thanked the House for their attention, and should certainly give his vote in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for Devonshire. Mr. C. WOOD rose, and said he was unwilling to trespass on the time of the House ; but he was anxious to throw himself on their indulgence for a moment, and relieve himself from the possibility of having any unfair imputation cast upon him as regarded the motives by which he had been actuated in leaving the Ministry. When he was in the Government, it was with great reluctance that he quitted his office to accept the situation that had been pointed out for him by other members of the Government. Sorry as he was to quit the office with which he had been connected, and with the duties of which he had become familiar, stilt he expressed his readiness to undertake the office of Secretary to the Treasury. His Hon. Friend near him had stated the ground upon which he thought it necessary to leave the Government, and that he was dissatisfied with the course that had been pursued with regard to the reconstruction of the Government previous to the Session. The Hon. Member for Pembroke had stated that the cause was the exclusion of those who wished to go further on; but it was their objection to the general arrangement. He agreed with his Noble Friend in that view; and although it was not for him, holding a subordinate situation in the Government, to have attempted to dictate to the Minis ters, yet he felt he could not remain, consistently with his honour and integrity. He was aware that the conduct of his Noble Friend and himself had been blamed by those whose censure was painful ; but deeply as he regretted it, he was borne up by the belief that he was actuated solely by a proper feeling. He confessed that ho regretted the loss of office—he re gretted the influence, power, and occupation which office gave. He confessed that, in the present instance, that loss was rendered more painful to him by his separation from those with whom he had acted, and from many friends to whom he was bound by the warmest ties. Whatever opinion might be formed of his conduct to his Noble Friend (Lord Howick), he should still say that they had been actuated by a painful conviction that they were fol lowing a course in which they had no alternative.— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He now wished to allude, to some assertions of the Right Hon. Bart. opposite, the Member for Pembroke. Much as he admired—much as he admitted himself to be his inferior—he should say that on ono point his conduct to his former friends had been such as he should be sorry to imitate.—(Ministerial cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman opposite had promised. them progressive reform, but he should say that those promises had been sadly denied by them in practice. To the principles of progressive reform which might maintain the great objects of the Reform Bill, be had, since the passing of that Bill, given his support. There were still, he believed, the principles of Government, and on those grounds he would give them his support.—(Hear, hear, hear.) These principles, on the contrary, had constantly been opposed by Gentlemen on the other side. But though he had little confidence in that assur ance of progreSsive Reform held out by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he was sorry to hear the definition of progressive Reform given by the Hon. Member for Shef field. In that definition he could see nothing but a con stant series of innovations on the Reform Bill, innovations which those who had framed that measure thought they had put an end to for ever. He respected the opinions of the Hon. Member for Sheffield ; but he should express his conviction, that it was to the manner in .which those ex treme opinions bad been advocated that the little confidence felt in the present Government, and the weakness of the Liberal party were mainly to be attributbd. He 'Mould state tha ere was' no inconsiderable alarm felt on the subjectet ese perpetual changes' by a large portion of the community. He did not merely allude .to persons who held opinions entirely contrary to his own. He alluded to opinions advocated a pamphlet recently published by a Gentleman he believed in that House, and who styled him self. a Radical, Member of Parliament. Those who are described by that Gentleman the most influential members of the middle elasses,sound Reformers, but attached to the institutions of the country, men who in ordinary circumstances took little interest in political affairs; these men are decidedly opposed to a system of perpetual change. It was because those men took a part in the agitation of the Reform Bill that that measure had been passed. But when that Bill had been passed they were opposed to new struggles, and to agitation for further measures: It was because_their support was now withdrawn' from the Liberal party, that its members were diminished, and that the majority of Reformers in the House of Commons had dwindled away. To what else were they to at tribute the difference which they saw in those benches between the last Parliament of Lord Grey and the present—between the Parliament of 1832 and 1837? In the elections of 1837 there had not been, as in the elections of 1834, any disunion among Reformers. The united strength of the Liberal party had then been put together, and the elections had taken place at a favourable time, and under favourable circumstances. It could therefore, be believed, be owing to no other came except the falling away of the classes to whom he alluded, that he could attribute the decrease which he saw on the benches near him.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) He should again return to the definition of Reform given by the Hon. Member for Sheffield. If that were the true principle of progressive Reform, and if no other interpretation could be given to it—to such progressive Reform he was as much opposed as to that which would be held out to them by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He wished at present to allude to some statements of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Pembroke, whoin e .he was glad to see then in his place. That Right Hon. Gen tleman had gone on with a tissue of facts from 1834 to jus tify his vote in favour of the motion then before the House. The Right Hon. Baronet had complained, among other things, that a Gallant Captain who had stood for the bo rough of Falmouth had been appointed to the command of the Astrea. He (Mr. Wood) alluded to Captain Plume ridge. It arpeared, however, that the Gallant Captain had been appointed to his command in the month of April, and that the election did not take place till August. The appointment, therefore, did not take place, as stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, before the election, but three cr four months after. He (Mr. Wood) would now offer some observations with regard to Captain Plomeridge's stand ing for the representation of Falmouth, and he should say that he thought his doing so had been imprudent. That was the opinion of the Secretary for the Admiralty at the time, who wrote to him to say, that retaining his plaoe was incompitible with a seat in Parliament. (Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Not only that, but on a subsequent occasion, when some information had reached his Noble Friend that the Gallant Captain had attempted to create some interest in the borough of Fat month, his Noble Friend had written to that Gallant Officer to state that any interference on his part in the political interests of Falmouth was totally at variance with his situation. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated in addition that Sir James Gordon had been removed from Chatham, in order to place Captain Plomeridge in Fal mouth.—( Hear. ) He believed, however, that the Right Hon. Baronet himself must have been in possess'on of information which would hare been negatived. Sir J. Gor don was removed on the principle usually acted upon, and he could not have retained his situation, unless a special rule had h.en made for the purpose cf maintaining him in it. The situation, besides, had been offered to two other gentlemen, before it had been accepted by Captain Plomeridge. The impress:on, therefore, which the state ment of the Right Hon. Baronet conveyed, was directly opposed to the truth. It had also been said, that Lord Clarence Paget had received an appointment through unfair influence. That appointment, however, had been made in conformity with the usual customs It had been made by Admiral Sir Robert Otway. The Right Hon. Baronet then went on to say, that Admiral Sir John Ommanney had received an appointment because he had been a defeated candidate at an election. It was true that he was a defeated candidate, but it was not fair, on that sing'c instance, to judge of the mode in which the patronage of the Admiralty was administered. He would now simply state the names of officers appointed to more fortunate commands. He would first ask whether Sir Robert Stopford had been appointed because he was a po litical supporter of the Government.—( Ministerial cheers.) Was Sir Frederick Maitland appointed for the same reason, or Admiral Elliot, who for six or seven years was a Mem ber of the Board of Admiralty? Was Admiral Ross ap pointed because he had been a political supporter of the present Government? He should state to the House, the three out of the five officers appointed were decidedly opposed in politics to the Govern ment.—( Ministerial cheers.) Was it, then, to be said that because Sir John Oromanney had been a candidate in Renfrewshire, that the patronage of the Admiralty had been unfairly distributed ? Was it to be said that he owed his appointment to political per. tialities, and not to the services he had rendered his coun try, and the honour with which he had ever conducted himself? Again, could they say that Captain Napier bad received his appointment for his attachment to the Government? Was Captain Napier, then, so little known —(Cheers)—or were his services not only at home, but to a foreign state, so obscure?—(Cheers. ) Was he, the hero of the last naval victory, such a man that the Right Hon. Baronet could ob ject to his appointint at?—( Renewed cheers.) These were the facts on which the Right Hon. Gentleman had grounded his charge against the Ministry, of an abuse of patronage I He (Mr. Wood) begged of the Right Hon. Baronet, on occasions of the kind, to raise his mind above such petty insinuations.—(Loud Ministerial cheering.) Could he believe that men whom he once called his friends would be capable, in tire administration of their duties, of being actuated by no higher motives than party zeal 7 H e had troubled the House perhaps at greater length on these points than t e ought w have done ors a discussion, E, EN:NG EDI I' ft :Dublin, who had always been accustomed to use the moat violent Isnguage.—( Hear, hear ) NOL7 the Government boasted dten that they had' -" preserved tke national peace." Yes, but he maintained it had been almost at the expense of the national honour. On two separate occasions the British _ flag had .breit - iniurted,' with no adequLte satisfaction • As to the Frerub,in4ult, the apology was 'Very insufficient—it was merely that it was not known that the vessel was a ship of war. Lord PALMERSTON—No, an English vessel. . Mr. MACL EAN said he was not aware of that, and he went on to accuse the Government of apathy in regard to tht French occupation of Algiers. He then alluded to the rupture with Persia, which he said had been produced by Russian intrigue. Ruasia, he said, had steadily pur sued the aggressive system against England. The system began by Peter the Great had been followed by Alexander and Nicholas_-the aim was alike, to exclude British com merce and lower the national honour whenever they could. The Honourable Member then proceeded to condemn the policy of the present Government with regard to the recent operations in Persia and India, and contended that they had been made the dupes of the intrigur , s of the the Russian Government in both these cases.—(The noise in the body of the House, mingled with occasional cl,4es of " Divide," prevented our catching more than a few de tached words occasionally, but we understood the above to be the line of argument pursued by the Hon. Gentleman.) The Hon. and Learned Member in conclusion observed that he felt convinced that the motion would be carried by an overwhelming majority. . . Mr. O'C 0 NNE E L th" en rose and addressed the House. He said, Sir, it is not my intention to trouble the House with any reply to the able speech made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has jest down. I have not had the good fortune—but that was not his fault—to hear him throughout, and, therefore, I must leave in unbroken force whatever arguments he has adduced in favour of the other side of the House, and must also leave the Ministry to pro tect themselves from the arguments he has adduced against them.--( Hear.) I solemnly assure the House that I feel. it to be an imperative duty to address them ; - and I am sorry to say that there is matter upon this subject which would alm-st compel me to trespass at greater length than I should be willing or at all disposed to do. Ido not think this debate is likely to raise this House in the opinion of the public, or in the estnnation of Europe, for the subject has not bees treated as a great rational question, but as being reduced to what I may call a paltry controversy between one party in this Muse and another. Sir, I look upon this as a most momentous question, for we have to decide how this great empire is to be governed. —( Hear, hear.) We have to decide how twenty-four millions of purple are to be governed, and how perhaps a hundred thousand millions of subjects are to be governed who are dependent upon our control. How has this sub ject been discussed ? Why Hon. Members have dealt most liberally in abuse of me, because I happened to have the honour of dining with the Lord Lieutenant. Is it right or is it fair, that a question of this importance should be discussed in this manner? I leave Hon. Members to reconcile such conduct, and wish them joy of it. I have been the subject matter of many attacks. I have been called a Repealer. I was so; and I would ask has anything happened in this debate to strengthen me in that opinion.? Did you hear the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham ?—( Hear, hear.) He spoke of Parliament—not of the Parliament of a united people. No, be spoke of English majorities and Irish majorities. If this kingdom be a united kingdom, why, I would ask, is there to ba any distinction between England and Ireland? The Government have been taunted with having offered me, a Repealer, the situation of Chief Baron of the Ex chequer in Ireland. If that be a fault in the Ministry, they have at least this redeeming quality that, at the time they made the offer I had laid aside the repeal agitation, in the hopes that the House of Commons would have done justice to Ireland. I refused that offer—l don't think it is an example that is likely to be followed on the other side —I refused—l am sorry to speak of myself, but I refused it upon two grounds,—first, because I could not trust m - self to accept an office in which I was afraid I should fall into a partiality either towards one or the other, either I should do injustice by favouring those who agree with me, or that I might commit the much more common injustice of doing injustice to them by favouring my opponents, lest I should be accused of injustice by favouring them.—( Hear ) I felt that if I entertained such opinions, that I should not be fit to deal out justice, and on that ground I refused the appointment. I have seen some men talk long and loud—l have seen others violent in their politics, and truculent in their language—for no other purpose than to force themselves into notice, and by that means obtain a judgeship. That, however, is not my case.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Ba ronet opposite did me the honour to notice me particularly, and with that candour for which he is so eminent. (Laughter.) He charged me with comparing myself with Papineau, and then he said that Papineau was a fugitive traitor, who bad fled from his country, not daring to stand his trial, when he was charged with . one of the highest • crimes known to the law, high treason. Did not the Right. Honourable Baronet, by that insinuate that when I compared myself to Papineau, that I' was like him? but he forgot to read the remainder of the passage, in which I did compare myself to Papineau.-- ( Cheers.) I said that we, each of us, had considerable popular influence, but that he had the advantage of me, be cause ho had a majority in his favour of the House of Representatives; but I said he was a. traitor to the people as well as to the Crown, because, instead of using the moral means in his power, ho resorted to physical force.—(Great cheering.) I succeeded, and he failed, for the very reason I have - given yora, that I looked to nothing but moral means, while he attempted physical force. But I have said more than enough of myself, and I now ask the House—this debate having lasted so long— W hat are the principles of Government hid down by the gentleman opposite? Their case is this—turn the present Ministry out, and let us in.—(Laughter.) But there is more in the machinery of this motion than want of coal denee. If you declare a want of confidence in the present Ministry, who are the men that ought to replace them ? Why, the Right Baronet, and those who sit along with him Ot the Other side of the House. Upon what, I would ask, have they laid their foundation for governing the country ?—( Hear.) I have heard of attacks upon the Ministry, but I have not heard any distinct enuncia tion upon what principle they mean to govern the country: should they obtain the reins of government.—( Hear.) have not heard what they mean to do in England, or, last of all, what they mean to do for. Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) What are your principles ? You say there is dissatisfac tion in the manufacturing classes—you say that dissatis faction is spreading in every town in the kingdom. You heard horrible accounts from the Hon. Member for Not tingham; he talked of armed Chartists—he talked 0 ' weapons of destructive character—he talked of an English conspiracy for assassination, and he told you that nine or ten victims , were marked out for it. We have heard of the riot at Bradford—wo have heard of the outbreak in Sheffield, and the rebellion in Wales. If such be the situation of England, if it be what you have de scribed, nave you at the present moment no-panacea for those evils ?—( Hear, hear.) Do you think that the people have no grievances ? If such be the case, will Y o ° redress them ? You have talked for three or four nights , but not a single Member has spoken of redressing the grievances of the people. When the outbreak shows itself , should you be the Ministers of the country, bow do yo'; purpose to act for its benefit ? Will you turn Thorogoo a out of gaol, and take away those obnoxious taxes, the Church -rates? Will you prevent the gaols of the country being filled by persons who may commit the enormou s ' crime that he has done ?—(Cheers ) Will you do that No, you dare not do it ; for the very moment 1 do so your party would be br o ken up.-4 Hear, be 'o How do you stand upon this. subject? Why, when t f Government proposerfea plan for altering the revenues ° the Church, and doing away' with Church-rates, by • ploying the surplus revenue in their stead, you successfali resisted them, and you left the grievance of Chureb-ra tes festering in the country—that country which you say is bc; a state of disaffection. Nay, more, the Hon. Baronet, ".. doubt, chuckles at the number of petitions that have be en presented in favour of Church extension. What does thi!l mean ? --Why, nothing mor e than a req uisition for pa° e , money. You cannot b ave Ch urc h ex t ens i on withou t money.—(Loud cries o f " H ear , h ear , hear.") '; that one of your cures for th e g ri evances o f t h e p e ople' ( Hear, hear)—if you give money for ChUrch extension ht, England, you must .do so fereScotland, and th en would ask in what situation would you be with regard to Ire land?—( Hear, hear.) I am doing you good with you r , own party in taunting you on this s ubj ec t. —( H ear , helve; Well, if 3 ou are not settled upon that, you are determine d upon the Corn-laws. In the present state of the country, the working classes disaffected, you tell them there is p probability of an alteration in the Corn-laws. you take your stand, and tell the suffering manufacturer that 3a will never relax the present scale of duties. You r aft ; round the landowner ; you are not wise, in my o pinion, doing so; and I would recommend Members o f the House who are disposed to place confidence in you, to pause till they are fully convinced that you ar e the persons who can cure the evils under which th e people are .labouring.—( Hear, hear.) We have th e great First, doings dbh i ya n a dud e ntw l hn a aee n rnr e d h osa e f ostdfthei the middle moc o ori n od od t mfl l et i thisCorn-lawclasses, da at yitvoewu q s h, u hi c cwe s ha t b i r o irceo o :. : solutions, deprecating the Corn-laws, were unanimou sly e c w a a r s ried attended W u d sdd the m t e h ie ade e c nnl heardl propriety o r(aai p declamation y rd?wd, _e o hysh l o(ceo t uhati h f r h e et)the i a_h r aere,yr d a e ongha m fdpu: a e ept r a shi .ato n ei )uh o o :uner?hdT?o readinesswaa D O rkg I h du , em: wyith drlh k utt a n h, n o t hagh - know adtr hear whichyh to a oo t f t resists Throne and C onst i tution from these men ! the &act ; 5 exists from the eternal barriers which you place aga' n d the repeal of the Corn laws. —(Hear, hear, "", Cheers.) There was a third meeting, at Manchester 00 Tuesday last, which was attended ey upwards of MI, persons, and the sp eec he s that were made by th e o pereV ot i that attended would not disgrace the benches this House. I will read one that 'w as made , b fi an operative of the name of Gicideon, and vy ll s, I must say reflects the greatest credit on him. do said in his speech at that meeting, " I, too, say that not consider a repeal of the Corn-laws as a final rnes s° ,4 of Reform. It is desirable that there should be al a '; i 9 other reforms, and I advocate a repeal of the Corr-leci' d a step to obtaining them. I do not ask the aristocrat., for a law making bread cheap, but I do ask for t he rll moval of a law making bread dear. The aristocracy teed us, that to repeal this law would infringe on their vet,. interests; but I ask them to repeal the law whieh t " a t fringes on my vested interests. The aristocracy sae , " t ee if you repeal the Corn-law you will interfere with eO. vested interests that they snoL b ;dl a anw v asda e t.err: i ,myd n ,na t oni h a eir patrimonial est at : /e . infringes y e rd a e re eas pw ella rt, estate—the hgoonauftat mgh peeyr ievo:etii.: l oe it's ! tdri f obi , ugresdhtfsrttr lords' woenf:d w e tr a ethei s oilesenessßeco b ogr o but r ibeli n ieanarnttyidyi t man, who has not yet joined the Chartists, on the qu o ' d d the Corn.law—that i s the language in which 11. ' " o en dresses himself to the sympathies of his fellow- wot on the question of the Corn.law. He calls it the lords' Law, Law, the Robbery Law ; and 3ou say to thes°,era ple, stand off, we will not di scuss the question o f the 'thou - tares with you —we w ill- not alter the Coi'n-larrs"' not on the Naval force, but en the great interests of the Empire. It was not, however, his fault, and it re quired some longer time to make explanations than mere assertions. He would now come to the real question in deleate. He would not stop to inquire whs ther his mo tion had been brought forward for the purpose of placing labourers on the other side, or whether it was introduced in order to offer gentle violence to that Chief whom Right lion. Gentlemen opposite called their leader, but whom they disdained to foilow.—(llear, hear, from the ' Ministerial benches.) As the object of the motion wes to place the party opposite in office, and as that would, in his opinion, be injurious to the best interests of the country, ha would unhesitatingly oppose it. He would, however, confine himself now to one subject, which was, in his opinion, of paramount importance. That subject was what the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth, stated last year was the most difficult question be should have to contend with—he meant the state of Ireland. It had been no small satis faction to him, that, in the course of the debate, they had not heard more accounts of the misery of that country, which had occupied so prominent a station in former debates. The Hon. Member for Bandon himself abstained from citing any cases of the kind ; and the Noble Lord the Member for Tyrone, though he saw danger in the condition of Ireland, had admitted the fact. He took it as admitted by them that this state of things was not produced by the fear of military power, but by the presence of fewer troops than was ever retained in Ire land. The Noble Lord ( Lord Stanley) last night re proached the Government for not keeping a sufficient force in Ireland to ensure peace, in case of a change of Go vernment. He wondered the Noble Lord did not perceive, if that statement were true, it would be the bitterest reproach to his own party. In his opinion it seemed such would be the 'effect of the accession of the Right Hon. Gentleman to power, that it would require a large military force to retain Ireland in its present state of tranquillity, while the pre sent Government Lad the proud boast that it could pre serve that country in tranquillity without external force, and simply by the hold which they had on the confidence and affection of the people.—( Cheers.) He wondered what the prospects were that tranquillity would continue if the Right Hon. Gentleman came into power.—( Cheers. ) He must say that the representations which had been made on his side the House, though somewhat anxiously denied on the other, of the violence that had prevailed during the recess, excited on this subject feelings of alarm. He thought that the fierce attempts which had been made to rouse bigotry and hatred, not only against the Catholic religion, but also those who professed it, and who were the great majority of the people of Ireland augured ill for the peace of that country, if that party should accede to power. He was aware these principles were denied by the Righ Hon. Ba ronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham), and he doubted not, by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth ( Sir R. Peel). Sorry should he be, if he whir must, from his talent and his station, ever exercise great iufiuence in the country, could hold or sanction opinions so subversive of the best interests of his country, but the Right Hon. Baronet could not escape the consequences of being the leader of a party. Of how much of the vin. 'once of their supporters, was the present Government held responsible? And just as the Noble Lord (J. Rus sell) was held responsible for violence which he disclaimed, so, however such doctrines were disclaimed by the Conser vative leader, he could not escape this necessary conse quence. And then, he asked, what prospect was there of tranquillity on his accession to office, if such were the opi nions which the excited feelings of the country would attri bute to him. He (Mr. Wood) had no apprehension that 500,000 men would arise in arms at the accession of a Tory Government; but he believed such a Government would be carried on contrary to the wishes of seven-eighths of the population of the country ; and he confessed he thought such a state of things would be dangerous to its tranquillity and peace, and that a sacrifice of privatelfeeling —ho had almost said much evil—should be incurred be fore a risk of such magnitude was incurred —( Hear, hear.) Before he sat down be wished to guard himself against, misinterpretation of what fell from a gentleman who bad addressed the House on the subject of further Reform.:l He believed his Noble Friend was opposed to the doctrine' of the Ballot, not because it was not one of the principles of the Reform Bill, but he was opposed to it in itself. He was also opposed to the extension of the franchise, because he thought that it would be most inexpedient, especially in the present temper of the company to agitate the ques tion again ; and when he remembered how the Reform Bill went beyond the hopes of all and even the wishes of no inconsiderable section of the Reformers of the day, he thought. that it ought not to be lightly disturbed. He thought, however, that the spread of education through out the country might render a revision necessary, but it ought not to be disturbed for the mere love of change, since this effect must, at least, arise from the agitation of the question, that all useful legislation would be suspended in the struggle. He would ask Gentlemen who held more e:itreme opinions, were there not questions enough Olt which Reformers were agreed without ureing those on which they differed ? Were there not questions, such as those proposed by the Hon. Member for Lambeth, on prison discipline, and laws of various kinds, to which their attention should be directed ?—the improvement of the com mercial interests of the country, and the relaxation of the pressure of the Corn-laws, and whether it was not better to pursite a real and practical good than that which was vi siouary"? Were there not even within the limits of the Reform Bill reforms constantly needed on which all were agreed—a measure for the improvement of registration, which the Government had taken up in a large and ex tended sense, and to which the Right Hon. Baronet had promised his assistance, which, however, he feared weuld be more limited than he could well wish? Were not these objects by which the end would be obtained for which those gentlemen were striving ? It was his convic tion that the amended system of registration would indi rectly extend the franchise more than the measures which those Gentlemen proposed. That course he would urge upon them would not be inconsistent with the advocacy of those inewrcs upon which Reformers differed, and would contribute to the improvement of legislation more than any other, • and leave' untouched the great principles of the Reform Bill. He wished they would devote their attention to subjects such as these, and thus acquire confidence from those parties in the State without whose support they could not effect their object.—( Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM explained that what he had said, and ha repeated it, was that at no period in the history of the country had naval patronage been so prostituted to political purposes as within the last five years, and that be knew no officer who stood a contest at the last election above the rank of a lieutenant, who was not either on full pay, appointed to some command, or filling some situation.-- ( Loud cries of " Spoke, spoke," " Order, order.") Admiral ADAM was surprised at the explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet, which was totally different from what it ought to be, and inconsistent with facts (Cheers ) He bad stated what was true to the letter, viz., that Sir James Gordon was removed from Chatham Dock-yards, but had mis-stated the reason why. Sir. James Gorden was app o i n ted in 1832 by the Right Hon. Baronet himself, and if it were possible to eulogise him in stronger terms than those used the other night, he would employ them now. Therefore, besides the personal M tachment to Sir James Gordon, they had every motive for keeping him in that situation, if it bad been consistent with the rules of the service, but it was not so.—( Cheers.) When the Right Hon Baronet made the appointment, Sir James Gordon was a Captain, and Chatham was aninfe rior dock-yard to Portsmouth and Plymouth. When change was made by the Right Hon. Baronet i n the Civil Department in the Navy, he appointed Capt. Mait land—having first offered it to him (Admiral Adam)— to Portsmouth Dock-yard, and did not remove Captain Ross from Plymouth because he had been appointed to the Pacific ; the rule then was that Flag Officers should auperintend the Dock-yards at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and a Captain that at Chatham. At the time of the change, Sheerness, as well as Chatham, were held by Sir James Gordon, which made it inconvenient. An alteration was, therefore, made, and another appointed to Sheerness, and, therefore, Chatham was not suitable to Sir James Gor don ; and why ? Because he was made a Flag Officer in the general promotion which took place in January. Sir- J. Gordon came to him almost with tears in his eyea to state that he was removed from his appointment, and he com miserated with him much, for he had a large family, and his means were not great, though his services had been ; but it would have been incompatible with the rules of the service to retain him. An RON. MEMBER asked when the rule was made. Admiral ADAM—It was first made then—( Ironical cheers)—because it was considered not to be a proper place for a flag officer to be in But the Right Hon. Bart's insinuation that he was removed that Captain Cla veil might be put there—(lronical cheers)—eras a misre presentation, for the situation was previously offered to Sir John Pechell, and if he had accepted it how could Sir James Gordon have been removed to make way for Capt. Clavell?—(Clicers.) Then as far as related to Capt. Plum ridge taking part in the Falmouth election, he said in the first place, that his appointment took place in January 1837, and the election not till six months after ; and at that time there was no expectation of such an event. In the month of July, Capt. Plomeridge Was invited to be come a candidate for Falmouth. A communication to the elf ct that he was about to do so was made to Lord Minty, who, on the 17th of that month, wrote to him re specting. it; but, before the letter reached Falmouth, Capt. Plumridge pledged himself that he was obliged to go to the poll. The contents of that letter were, that if ho became Member for Falmouth, he must give up the command of the Astrea. Afterwards there was a report that Sir R. Rolf was to be made a Baron of the Exchequer; and then, again, came an invitation to Captain Plomeridge to stand. And what was the course the Admiralty pursued? A letter was written to him .cautioning him that the Admiralty considered such an office would be incompatible with his present appointment, which, if he were returned, he must resign.—(Cheers. ) This completely disproved the inference attempted to be drawn, that the appointment was made for political pur poses.—(Cheers.) Mr. MA CLEAN began by saying that he considered the confession of the Government, that they had ceased to possess the confidence of the House in last May, was abundant justification for the present motion, corroborated as it was by the declaration of the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) t his constituents ; that the Government would be found not, as they once were, triumphant, on the support of the people, but wholly de pendent on the support of the Crown. He then charged the Government with the guilt of the late Chartist dis turbances, either from their weakness in not suppressing, or their wickedness in encouraging them. The answer to that charge, he was aware, would be, that Chartism originated in the agitation against the Poor-laws ; and that this agitation had begun on the Conservative side. On the contrary, he contended that even long before the Noble Lord (J. Russell's) Liverpool speech, he had been, or ought to have been, cognizant of inflammatory speeches and sedi tious publications—( Hear, hear)—and two supporters of the Government, th e late Member for Birmingham (Mr. T. Attwood), and the present Member (Mr. Muntz), had used violent language to the people without any notice being taken of it. Then as to the Poor-laws particularly, the agitation against it had been commenced by Mr. D. W. H irvey, who had since been presented with a place— (Hear, hear)—not to mention the Learned Memberforl