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

THE SUN, LONDON, TtII4I,SDAY, APRIL 16, 1839.

long estranged, and aff.,ctions which have been greatly
alienated, will be again turned towards the 'Government.
They may expert that misery and poverty, the accompani-
ment of too great a proportion of the population, will yield
to the remedies applied, such as those remedies which the
Ministers of Elizabeth applied dining her reign—such
remedies as the Ministers of King William applied to
Scotland when they established a religious supremacy in
that country—a religion which was the religion of the
people__( Hear)—a religion closely bound with our own,
and therefore which could be united with the Crown of
this country in a way certainly that the Roman Catholic
religion never could be united with it, and which being
united with the Crown in the reign of King William, was
one of the most glorious circumstances of the liberty of
that reign. I think the time came long ago—l think at
the commencement of the reign of George 111 , the time had
come—when complete religious liberty might have been
given to the Roman Catholics, and when measures might
have been taken to promote the welfare of the people of
that country without jealousy or distinction of classes. I
think likewise in 1839, when a settlement was made of the
Roman Catholic religion, that other measures might have
accompanied it, that would have made the future task of
Government more easy for those who might have had to
administer it ; but this I feel still, and am persuaded of it,
that by pursuing the principles which we have pursued—
by adopting the course we have adopted—by giving the
peop'e that confidence vvhich never can be given to them by
an Administration consisting of persons whci have long
been hostile to their liberties—( Much cheering)—and
even now, in this year of 1839, in granting Municipal
franchise for Ireland, such as is granted to England and
Scotland, deny them the miserable boon of having a fran-
chise of 81. instead of a franchise of 10/.--( Hear, hear)--
to insist upon it, that if you do give them Municipal fran-
chise you will make it higher, and so high as to consign
your trust with the same statute by which you give your
privileges.—(lmmense cheering.) I say, under the ad-
ministration of persons of those feelings, I do not believe
that the tranquillity of Ireland will be permanently estab-
lished. Ido not believe that the heart of Ireland will be
reconciled to this empire.—( Much cheering.) I will read
to you some words which were written by Mr. Burke to-
wards the end of his career—a time when he was separated
from political friends and void of political influence, in
which he said—
Burke.—Letter on Affairs of Ireland, 1797.
" As to a participation on the part of the Catholics in the
privileges and capacities which are withheld, without mean-
ing wholly to depreciate their importance, if I had the honour
of being an Irish Catholic, I should be content to expect
satisfaction upon that subject with patience, until the minds of
my adversaries, few but powerful, were come to a proper
temper ; because if the Catholics did enjoy without fraud,
chicane, or partiality, some fair portion of those advantages
which the law, even as now the law is, leaves open to them ;
and if the rod were not shaken over them at every turn their
condition would be tolerable ; as compared with their former
condition it would be happy. But the most favourable laws
can do very little towards the happiness of a people when the
disposition of the ruling power is adverse to them. Men de
not live upon blotted paper. The favourable or the hostile
mind of the ruling power is of far more importance to mankind,
for good or evil, than the black letter of any statute."
" I have been long, but it i= almost a necessary consequence
of dictating, and that by snatches, as a relief from pain gives
me the means of expressing my sentiments. They can have
little weight as coming from me, and I have not power enough
of mind or la,Kly to . bring them out with their natural force.
But I do not wish to have it concealed that I am of the same
opinion to my last breath, which I entertained when soy facul-
ties were at the best : and I have not held back from men in

power in this kingdom, to whom I have very good wishes, any
part of my sentiments on this melancholy subject, so long as I
had access to persons of their consideration."
It is that disposition which I invoke, and not any favour
to, or confidence in the present Administration. It is
that favour which I invoke—a disposition of mind favour-
able to the Irish people, and which I ask you to assert to-
night. Sure I am, that if you ag roe with the opinion
that dictated the appointment of a Committee of the
House of Lords, dictated as it was with the previous
statements that were made, you will not infuse into the
people of reland a belief that the Go vernment which you
will probably establish really means well and favourably to
the Irish people.—(Cheers.) Depend upon it, you will
never infuse into their minds a notion that you really wish
to see them on an equality of privilege with us.—(Hear,
hear.) They will have a constant and rankling suspicion
that justice will not be impartially administered—that fa-
vour will not be impartially shown. In saying this, and
in asking this House for its opinion. I kno.v very well that
I am speaking the sentiments of the present Government
with regard to Ireland, and that while I have the opposi-
tion of the numerous party opposite with regard to this
question, that the present Government likewise is not r -
garded with favour upon other subjects—subjects totally re-
moved from the present, by another portion of this House.
—( Hear, hear.) An Honourable Gentleman has given
notice of a motion which he intends to make, should I be
successful in carrying the resolution I mean to propose.
I need not at present enter into the discussion of that re-
solution, which is a resolution totally dill. rent from the
subject in hand, and which will be preceeded by a state-
ment by him of the reforms which he intends to propose,
and the subject matter of them, and which the House will
in
t they are not reforms of
future decideupon.That
minortheyarei
m tanpoot
rminneoer—ne must
ref.orms—
tiia
gather
from his having given notice of it upon this subject.
When he states his opinions on that suject—when he
states the extent to which he means to go—l shall be
ready to state my opinions on the subject, adhering to
opinions which I have declared in this House, not as those
opinions have been by some carelessly, and by others care-
fully, misrepresented—( Hear, hear)—but opinions rest-
ing upon great opinions, and having in view, as I think
necessary, the future welfare of this country. Sir, the
difference of opinion which the Hon. Gentleman enter-
.._

tains, may be adifference of opinion which may lead him
to say that however he may agree with us with regard to this
resolution, that however he may agree with us with regard to
the support of the Government of Ireland, yet the difference
upon other subjects is such that it is far better that he
should do all in his power, in union with all those who may
agree with him, to make way for another Government in
this country. I shall, however, rest satisfied with the de-
cision of this House upon the subject. I cannot say that
I think the course which the Government has pursued with
respect to Ireland, or with respect to the general questions
which have affected this country, is a course from which we
ought to depart. lam not prepared to say that the acts of
reform which have succeed the reform in the repro-
aentation in 1832 have been trifling or unimportant.
But I should show that we have made considerable changes
—that we have gone far to reform abuses, and that the
spirit by which these reforms have been carried on will
lead quietly and gradually to other reforms and other safe
and salutary changes, whereas an abrupt interruption of
them might stop their progress.—( Hear, hear.) That is
the argument which I may be prepared to hold if that
question shall be brought before the House by the lion.
Gentleman. At present I have only to consider that al-
though a majority of this House may approve of our Irish
policy, yet that the present Government may have run its
course, and that another Government may succeed
it. Sir, I may think the consequences to Ireland
will be dangerous—( Hear, hear)—l may think the
consequences to the empire very doubtful ; but, personally,
as regards ourselves, I think we shall have no reason to re-
gret that result.—( Loud cheers cn the Ministerial, and
laughter on the Opposition Benches.) We repent not of
the measures that we have proposed—we have no inclina-
tion to give way to the measures which we have thought
it our duty to resist.—( Hear, hear.) It will be a conso-
lation to us, on the dissolution of the Ministry, that with'
regard to the affairs which I have this night brought under
your consideration, that with regard to these affairs of
Ireland, we have endeavoured to introduce a final rela-
tion between this country and that part of the United
Kingdom, and that in so doing we have been ready to
encounter any opposition—( Hear, hear)—to incur
the loss of much strength, and of some poplarity,
in this part of the United Kingdom—that we have been
ready to endeavour to unite by affection, to unite by feel-
ings of good will and love, the people of this country and
the people of Ireland—to make the whole United Kingdom
stronger against all its enemies—to found the Government
of Ireland, as the Government of England has long been
founded, upon opinion, upon affection, upon good-will;
and that if the Ministry has fallen, it has fallen in an at-
tempt to knit together the hearts of her Majesty's subjects.
The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud and long
continued cheering.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I do not regret that I
have given to the Noble Lord, by declaring the amend-
ment I meant to move, that advantage of which he has
largely, but not unfairly, availed himself of commenting
on the terms and purport of that amendment. I consider
that I made no concession, that I deprived myself of no
advantage, by not reserving that amendment until this
moment. I felt the propositions in the amendment to be
consistent with good sense, to be so founded on truth, that
I willingly courted the opportunity of comment which that
declaration might give. I sought to conciliate no sup-
port.—( Loud cheers.) I sought not to exclude the sup-
port of any man who, differing from me in opinion, might
think the amendment which I move justified by truth and by
reason, but I did not attempt so to frame that amendment
that I should conciliate the support of those from whom I
differ.—( Cheers.) Sir, I was advised not to introduce
the name of the House of Lords, because it was said that
those Gentlemen of extreme popular opinions, from- a
prejudice against the House of Lords, would necessarily
"pose it. I was asked to move for a Committee on the
state of the nation, because that would be now captivat-
ing to many.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I refuse to make
either proposal in this great crisis, for a great one
undoubtedly it is when the House of Commons is called
upon to make partial declarations of confidence, and to seek
unjustly, as I think, a collision with the House of Lords.
__( Loud cheers.) I, in framing my amendment, was in.
fluenced by no considerations but those of equity and rea-
son ; and I felt that although se majority may trample on
the amendment, yet that if it be conformable with truth it
cannot extinguish the vitality and leading principles of the
amendment.—(Cheers.) Is it right, at this moment, to
ask from the House of Commons a partial declaration of
confidence in one branch of your public policy ?—( Hear,
hoar.) Are you as one branch of the Legislature, amid
the difficultiee which surround you, justified in seeking
collision with the other branch of the Legislature?—
(Cheers. ) Those are the questions which you have to de-
termine ; and I now say, beforehand, that if in arguing
them, if on account of the strength of any conviction I should
be betrayed by the hastiness of debate, which it is difficult,
when convictions are sttong, entirely to control, whatever
may be your inclination to do so, If Ido introduce any
laneuage better suited for the mere ascerbities of party
convention than for the gravity of ibis occasion, I at once
express a preliminary regret for the introduction of lan-
guage or feelings so unsuited for this debate. Sir, it may
be that the subject of an abstract proposal on the subject
ror4odf
Irish affairs—that the introduction of it by the N
in the month of April, may awaken recollections with re-
spect to former years and the results of former times.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I may not be ablet so
successfully to administer that oblivious antidote, but
may he able to forget the abstract resolution of 1835
moved in the month of April by the Noble Lord—
( Laughter)—but this I can undertake to do—l can under-
take to erase from my memory any rooted animosity on
account of that resolution ; and I can undertake to say
that though I may refer to that former abstract resolution,

as an example of the impolicy of the House of Commons 1
coming to abstract resolutions, I w take care in referring
to the former exareple—at least I attempt to prove—
that I am not influenced by any of the feelings which an
ungenerous mind might feel on account of former defeat
from those resolutions. Sir, I have two propositions to
establish in support of my resolutions, and for the destruc-
tion of that of the Noble Lord ; and I will attempt to
maintain my argument closely with reference to those reso-
lutions. My propositions a, e these—that it is not fitting,
not suitable to the character or functions of House of
Commons to make abstract declarations of opinions with
respect to the public policy of the Government, unless under
peculiar and special circumstances. That is my first pro-
position. My second is that the objections to abstract decla-
rations of opinion are infinitely aggravated when they are
sought to be the cause of unjust conflict with the House of
Lords.—( Hear, hear.) If I establish either of those, I
give, as it appears to me, a conclusive argument against
the proposal of the Noble Lord, and all I ask from the
House is, an inculgent hearing, while I attempt, by argu-
ment to support my propositions. Sir, I say in the firsa
place, that declarations of confidence on the part of the
House of Commons ought to be resorted to with extreme
caution. The confidence of the House of Commons
ought rather to be inferred from the general support which
it may think fit to give to the Executive Government—
from the manner in which it deals with Legislative mea-
sures proposed for consideration by the Government, than
by abstract declarations. But there are occasions which
may justify a Government in calling from the House
of Commons an expression of confidence. But the
occasions are rare indeed, when the House of
Commons should select one particular branch of the
public policy of a Government, aid passing over all
other branches of their public policy, mark with their
approbation a detached and single branch. It is diffi.
cult to conceive any executive Government which does
not adopt some branch of policy not entitled to the con-
fidence of the House of Commons. It is difficult to con-
ceive any Government, however perfect, that has not made
some error, or adopted some policy that may not have jus-
tified the House of Commons to approve of their conduct;
but there is this evil accompanying partial approbation,
or partial condemnation, that you leave the public at a loss
to know whether the Government has the confi-
dence of the House of Commons or not.—( Hear.)
You may make it impossible for any Government to be
formed if you pursue that course ; because, if you select
particular branches of policy, why, you condemn
the policy of Government ( Hear) if you select
a particular branch of policy, why, you approve and ex-
press your approbation of it, as may be, leading to an er-
roneous impression in the public mind, that by that decla-
ration of confidence in the individual case, you mean to
imply a general approbation, and general preference for
the Executive. I say therefore that there ought to be
some strong, clear vindication for the partial declaration
of confidence in a Government, and the partial approba-
tion of their principles. Still it may be possible that the I
partial declaration of confidence may be justified. They
may possibly have this advantage, that by limiting your-
selves to a single branch of policy, you may be clear and
explicit as to the principles of which you mean to approve
—but if you commit this double error, that you take a
single branch of policy for approval, and have not the
courage or the manliness to avow the principles as
connected with that isolated branch of policy, of which
you mean to approve—if you don't tell us the period to
which your resolution of confidence Applies—if you don't
tell us the public men of whom you mean to approve—if
you don't tell us the principles which you mean to sane•
tion, and make that explicit beyond all possibility of con-
trsdiction—then you are involving the House of Commons
in a course to which it has never yet resorted, and which
constitu:es one of the most embarrassing precedents which
can possibly be made.—(Cheers ) Now let me ask you,
is not your resolution open to that objection ? It is not
only a partial declaration of approval ; but while it is par-
tial, it is perfectly inexplicit and indefinite. You ask me
to approve of the principles which have guided the Exe-
cutive Government of Ireland. But the existing Govern-
ment of Ireland means the Cabinet generally. You cannot
separate the existing Government of Ireland from the Cabinet
which presides over the general affairs of the country.
You cannot pay a partial compliment to Lord Normanby,
and the Noble Lord who sits opposite, without paying it
indiscriminately to those who administer the public func-
tions of the country.—( Cheers.) Do you recollect the
case of Lord Glenelg last year ? Do you recollect that
when a proposal was made to condemn one branch of the
public policy, as executed by one public officer—
( Cheers)—do you recollect the declarations then made,
that you could not separate an individual from the
rest of his colleagues?—( Cheers.) If you do for-
get it, I'll remind you. Why, Sir, it rarely
happens that we can relieve the stern perfor-
mance of cur duties by the exhibition of romantic
and chivalrous affection—( Laughter)—but I must say
there was something gratifying when an attack was made
by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Corn-
wall—there was something gratifying in that feeling of pub-
lic devotion and of private affection—( Laughter and cheers)
—in rallying round Lord Glenelg for his support: justly,
as I think, so far as this, that a man more amiable in pri-
vate life, a man more desirous of performing his public du-
ties, a man having shown greater ability in debate and in
the exhibition of that ab lity, having conciliated more of pri-
vate good will, never exercised the functions of the office ;
but I am quoting this for the purpose of showing
to you that the compliment is not to the Execut:ve Go.
vernment, the compliment is to the public Government of
the country; because if you cannot attach censure to a
department—if you cannot attach censure to an individual,
it is impossible you can attach compliment.—(Cheers.)
Never since the days of Nysus and Eurylaus has there
been more chivalrous attachment.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The Noble Lord said, did the House suppose that the
Government would or could continue to adminster the
affairs of the country if one of its Members was declared un-
fit to bold that high place?—( Hear.) Why, if they could be
so base and dishonourable—(Cheers)—this House would
not permit them to take that course ; no House of Com-
mons, no Parliament would allow a Government to stand,
if it could consent to one of their number becoming a scape.
goat to carry the sins of the rest.—( Laughter) a nese were
the words used by the Noble Lord. Why, the Noble Lord
was determined that the words of the sarcastic moralist,
described by that great writer who held up the mirror to
nature, should not be verified—who spoke of the sequestered
stag that from the hunter's aim withdraws, and
who dealt in invectives against the city and
the Court. I say the course taken upon that occasion
did present an instance of generous devotion on the part
of colleagues in behalf of ona of their number attacked,
which I have rarely seen. But if that feeling be a just
one, so when a compliment is sought to be paid to one
department of the Government, you cannot exclusively
appropriate that compliment—it must be shared in by the
general Government. This, then, is a compliment to the
Executive Government generally, for its conduct with
respect to Ireland. Do you approve its conduct as to its
legislative policy ? Do you meats to say we will approve of
the policy of Government with respect to Ireland, but we
will say nothing with respect to the legislative measures
which it has proposed ? Will you propose this resolution?
Will you propose to this House that viewing not only the
practical administration of affairs in Ireland, but the course
which has been pursued, witk respect to legislation, this
House cordially approves of the conduct of her Majesty's
Government 2—( Hear, hear.) Will you move that as an
amendment? What, when forty-six Members followed the
Hon. Member for Sheffield, last year, in denouncing the
conduct of Government in respect to Ireland, so far as legis-
lation was concerned! I ask you this. I concede you shall
have a partial vote of approbation. I concede you shall refer
to Ireland. I concede you shall extend it to the whole
Government, but won't- you include their legislative as
wellas executive functions ? Now that is reserved. Your
vote refers exclusively a() the administration of affairs in
Ireland, excluding the legislative policy. Is that the only
objection. Finding, according to your assertion, the pre-
sent Government censured by a vote of the House of Lords,
as you please to consider it, and as I utterly deny—but
finding the present Government censured with re-
spect to its conduct in the administration of affairs in
Ireland, do you come courageously and manfully for-
ward,
and ask the House of Commons, in opposition
to the implied censure of the House of Lords, to
approve the conduct of her Majesty's present advisers ?
Are you explicit enough to declare that this House ap-
proves of the conduct of her Majesty's Government since
1835 ? Have we not a right to ask what is the period to
which your vote of approbation goes ? You ask the liouse
of Commons to approve the principles which have guided
the Executive Government of Ireland of late years—
( Laughter)—of late years. I won't trouble you with quo-
tations from writers, for the purpose of showing that the
phrase of late years has been applied indiscrim,nately to
every number of years between 2 and 100—that it is a mere
relative term. But will the House of Commons, when asked
to give its sanction and approbation—will the House of Com-
mons not require any further specification than that the con-
duct of which it approves has been the conduct pursued of late
years ? Now I ask this distinct question, and I hope the
Noble Lord will interrupt me by answering it —do you
mean to include Lord Grey in this vote of approbation—
do you mean to include Lord Wellesley and Lord Plunket,
and Lord Anglesca ?—( Hear). Do yod mean to deliver up
Lord Anglesea and Lord Wellesley to the obloquy which
has been directed against them on account of their
mit an invidious contrast to be drawl
admi-
nistration in Ireland ?—( Cheers.)
boety:eueimieLaunrdtoGpreery.
utmost m lofs ty
and Lord Melbourne ? Do you mean to permit Lord
ocuensu re includeaaoinrdst Wel-
lesley Normanby to be complimented at the expense of Lord
tAhnogselewsehaoanhda,Leodridre:teedllethslee
and Lord Anglesea, I ask how is it possible for
h
Lord Wellesley and Lord Anglesea, and declared them to
be unworthy of public confidence—declared their whole
course to be marked with hostility and acrimony _ . acri towards

reland, how is it possible for those to second you ?:—( Hear.

If you exclude Lord Wellesley, why do jou not say so
Why do you not say, " Our vote of approbation applies
exclusively to Lord Normanby—is limited to the period
since 1835." No, you evade that—you are seeking to
make an invidious contrast between Lord Grey and Lord
Melbourne, Lord Anglesea and Lord Normanby, but
you shelter it under the vague generality of the phrase
" late years."--(Loud cheers.) But, perhaps, you
take a more generous course—and include Lord Anglesea
and Lord Wellesley. I infer that from the speech of the
Noble Lor.Y, who said, obscurely, that Lord Wellesley
had had great difficulties to contend with, and which per.
haps had prevented him from being so successful as Lord
Normanby in conciliating popular favour, But it you in-
clude Lord Wellesley, you include me.—(Cheers and
laughter.) You ask me to vote for a resolution, that
this !louse approves of the principles which have guided
the Executive Government of Ireland, during late years,
and leave me in doubt whether, after the connection I
have had with Ireland, you do hot mean to sanction my
conduct.—(Laughter.) I suppose, of course, you mean
to exclude me —( A voice from the Ministerial benches
cried " Hear, hear l" which excited considerable laughter.)
But if you include Lord Wellesley—l have had the satis-
faction of serving with Lord Wellesley in the Government
\Gt. Iceland for five }ears, from 1822 to 1827, and I can say
that the difference which led to our estrangement was
not on account of the administration of Irish affairs. I
acted with Lord Wellesley as Lord Lieutenant—l acted

with Lord Plunket as Attorney- General for Ireland—
( Hear, Lear)—and if either Lord Wellesley or Lord Plun-
ket disapproved of my conduct of Irish affeirs, I ask you
to cell upon them to account why they did not separate
from m€' ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I acted with Lord Mel-
bourne, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland, when I was
Secretary of State. I presume of course that Lord Melbourne
has been acting " of late years" upon the principles by
which he was actuated formerly with regard to Ireland.—
( Cheers.) Yet there was never less of misunderstanding,
or more of cordi 41 union, than between Lord Melbourne
and myself. Lord Melbourne must then have acted on
those general principles which have since actuated him—
of not regarding the religious opinions of deserving candi-
dates for office in Ireland ; and I can truly say that
my separation from Lord Melbourne did not am ise from
diff. rences on Irish affairs.—( Hear, hear.) What, then,
is the period from which you date your vote of approba-
ti to ? Is it from 1830? or is it from 1834 ? From the
retirement of Lord Grey ?—from the separation of my
Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley) and my Right Hon. Friend
(Sir J. Graham)? Still you include mel—( Laughter)—
you make no exception—"of late.years."—( Laughter. )The
Noble Ford says it is impossible that Ireland should be go-
verned by at once Lord Haddington and Lord Normanby.
But you evade the difficulty of deciding which you wilt
take.—( Loud cheers.) I ask, is it decent to call upon the
House of Commons to pass an abstract declaration in fa-
vour of certain pinciples of government without having the
manliness to deuce at what period those principles were
acted upon, or by whom they were carried out ?—( Cheers.)
Sir, I hove thus stated my first ground of objection to
this resolution, because of its vagueness and indefinite-
ness. I now come to the second point—that we
are not justified in seeking a collision with the House of
Lords, and that it is a collision that is sought there can be
no doubt. Your resolution was received by the whole
country as a collision. In Ireland the language used, as
to the Noble Lord's motion, was, that this'.is a manly course
—it is seeking a collision with the Lords.—( Hear, hear.)
Now an outrance, or a collision, with one cf the consti-
tiated authorities in the State, is no light matter.—( Hear,
hear.) It will be well for the House of Commons to con-
sider what are the instruments by which it intends to carry
forward that warfare—what may be the results—and,
above all, what just occasion there is for it.—( Hear.) Now
the professed justification is this—that the House of
Lords have appointed a Select Committee to inquire into
the state of Ireland since the year tele, in respect of crime
and outrage, which have rendered life and property inse-
cure in that part of the empire. How do we stand as to
the legislative measures affecting Ireland ?—( Hear.)
We have passed a Poor-law Bill, in concurrence with the
House of Lords. We have passed a Tithe Bill, in con-
currence with that House. Upon Municipal Corporations,
a difference hitherto has taken place. But surely you are
not seeking for the elements of quarrel in the acts of last
session? You profess your proceedings to be founded
solely on the appointment of a Committee by the House of
Lords. Yet you consider it necessary for the success of
your resolution, that it should be construed into a censure
upon the House of Lords' legislative proceedings. In the
present Session, there has been but one occasion in which
the House of Lords have expressed their opinions on
Irish measures.—( Hear, hear.) At the opening of the
Session, you called upon them to echo a paragraph
in the Speech from the Throne, in these words—
" We concur with your Majesty that a reform and amend-
ment of the Municipal Corporation of Ireland is essential
to the well-being of Ireland." Many of you felt differently
from this feeling, and I participate in that difference. But
the House of Lords, recollecting the conflicts that had
taken place, yielded to your suggestion, and the sentence
was moulded to the effect that " they concurred with her
Majesty that the reform and amendment of the Municipal
Corporations was essential to the welfare of that part of
the united kingdom. So far, then, is a collision between
this House and the House of Lords not justified, on the
ground of the difference of legislative measures, that there
is not even the pretext for entering into a quarrel. The
sole cause of quarrel assigned is that the Lords appointed
a Committee; and the Noble Lord, confining himself to
this general assumption, made it the burden of his argu-
ment that the House of Lords, in appointing that Com-
mittee to inquire into the state of crimes and outrages
endangering life and property in Ireland, was, in point of
fact, a censureem the general conduct of the Government.
Sir, I deny that---(Cheers)—and I ask of you to listen to
my arguments, while 1 endeavour to disprove that that
aepoitirnaent was intended to be such a censure, The
to admit that it is not a Noble Lord, indeed, is willing
cen-
sure, but he says that it is a prima facie expression of a cen-
sure. Why, I can understand what a prima facie case of
improvement is, but what a prima facie expression of cen-
sure is I cannot understand.—( Laughter.) I can un-
derstand what a prima facie ground for inquiry is, but the
words of the Noble Lord, namely, that the appointment of
a Committee is a primafacie expression of censure are beyond
my comprehension. Is the assumption that the appoint-
ment of a Committee by the House of Lords is tantamount
to a censure on the Government to justify us in appealing
to the House on the question, or rather adopting an equi-
vocal course to effect that appeal, when we know that it is
not so ? Have we never appointed a Commttee of Inquiry ?
(Cheers.) Have we never appointed a Cowmittec to in-
quire into the state of Ireland? Did .we, hen appoint-
ing a Committee for the consideration of the general con-
dition of Ireland, hold the principle, that we were thereby
paralysing the functions of Government ?—( Cheers.) In
1834 Lord Altborp appointed a Committee to inquire into
Ithe state of Ireland, and the duties of that Committee
were, by an amendment proposed by my Learned Friend,
specified to be, "to inquire into the state of Ireland, par-
ticularly with reference to those circumstances that have
related to that pact of the Unite=d Kingdom." True, the
range of space might have been limited to the insurrection-
ary counties, but is it not notorious that every act of the
Government was open to be questioned?—(Cheers.)
When Lord Althorp appointed a Committee to inquire into
the state of Ireland, thereby implying a perfect right to
question the use made of the prerogative of mercy, did
that Noble Lord contend that the functions of Govern-
ment were incompatible with the inquiry of that
Committee ?—(Cheers.) That Committee sat for two
years—it excluded the Catholic question from its
Report, but it inquired into
.every subject of practical
Government, and we, the HOLUM of Commons, appointed
it; and are we now to resent the appointment of a Com-
mittee by the House of Lords with precisely the same
object ?—( Cheers.) You, the House of Commons, ap-
pointed a Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland,
making every function of the Executive Government prac-
tically open to it—the administration of justice and the
prerogatives of the Crown were also examined into, but the
Government did not consider it as tantamount to a sus-
pension of its functions, nor do the House of Commons
so consider it. Is the Ilouse of Commons now
to consider the appointment of a similar Committee by
by the House of Lords as a censure upon the Govern-
ment, and incompatible with it ?—( Cheers.) In 1827
the Noble Lord himself moved a Select Committee to in-
quire into the causes of the increased number of ;criminal
convictions and committals in England and Wales. Were
not the functions of Government here in connection with
the criminal administration of justice open to inquiry ?
And yet, was it considered that this appointment was a
censure on the Government ? No—the Hous s of
Commons appointed the Committee—the House of Com •
mons expressed no surprise that the Government remained
after that ? Yet the Noble Lord now invites this House
to resolve that the House of Lords had no power to appoint
a similar Committce.—( Cheers.) In 1832 the Noble
Lord says the Committees of 1824 and 1825 have ex-
hausted this subject. Now that is quite a different argu-
ment. You may contend that there has been inquiry
enough already, and therefore object to further investiga-
tion, but that is nc ground to enter into a collision with
the House of Lords. You may say that further inquiry
is superfluous ; but you should not, therefore, quarrel with
another branch of the Legislature.—( Cheers.) The
Noble Lord says that because the Committee of 1824 and
1825 exhausted the subject, you have no right to enter into a
further inquiry now. I differ from the Noble Lord. I will
show bins that in 1832 the llouse of Commons was not satis-
fied with the inquiries of the Committee of 1824 and 1825,
and that it appointed another Committee to inquire into
the state of Ireland, and that, too, at the instance
of the Hon. Gentleman who was connected with the Gtic:e-
vernment of that day. In 1832. Sir Henry
Yarnell, e
Forceies, no
Member for Dundee, the Pay
satisfied that the Committees o Inf"li24 and 1825 had ex-
t ointment of another
P
hausted the subject, moved the a
pe
or s, which Committee. I ask the House toH compouse oaf
nell's motonre
Lthedterms. of
that resolution with that of th
is now so obnoxious. Sir Henry Par
was for a Committee " to inquire
a
ireiryttioewtherotate
immediatetheis-
turbed counties of Ireland, wi
causes which had produced those disturbances, and to
examine the efficiency of the laws for the suppression of
outrages against property." Suppose the House of Lords
had abandoned their own words, and had adopted those of
Sir H. Parnell, would not the same objection apply to
them ? Placing the two motions in juxta-position I ask
what is the difference? The Lords have moved for a
Committee to inquii e into those outrages and crimes which '
have rendered life and propertyinsecis n
insecure ino tdhietrtepreanrteeof! the
r
esmirpirHe: psince
ParnelllmBo3,,td, —wllthere
with respect to the immediate
causes of outrage, and with respect to the laws, and yet
the House of Lords' proceeding upon the same principle is
here attempted to be resented. I venture to say, that if
the House of Lords had moved in the same words, the
same objections would now have been re-echoed to the
House—(Cheers)—at all events, we have it on record that
the House of Commons formerly did that which the House
of Lords is now about to do, and yet that
of
the pro-
ceeding was not conwsidheyrelrt,ainftatmheoumntetmo
b sfuhreer Ma-
the Government.
;he Hous
jesty's Government in inLord Johne Russell's motion was af Lords consider that
the phraseology
Duke of Wellington had
practical censure—though the
did
quiry, and we therefore
denied that it was a censure—( Hear, hear)—why
se, and say we object to
maned
to the year year 1832 ?—( Cheers. )
they not then take
for
the limited period Feen better to do so
propose that it sbabl
Would it:not have .s. , than, after the dis-
claimer of the Duke of eveeington, to let the resolution
pass without an amendment, and then propose to make it
here the pretext of dispute with the House of Lords?—
(Cheers.) Have you:no example before you ? When last
year the Committee to inquire into the appointment of
Sheriffs in Ireland was appointed, it was ten times more
objectionable than the terms now proposed ? You ob-
jected to time principle of the motion as being too confined
as regarded length of time, and to prevent the possibility
of censure 'Jou propose that this limitation should be ex-
tended to other persons. There now is your own autho-
rity, and why not act in the same manner respecting
crimes and outrages as you do respecting Sheriffs ?
If you object to the principles, why / not propose
that the inquiry should be also extended to the
administration of former Governments ?—( Cheers. )
I wish you would appoint a Committee to inquire into the
acts of other Governments. I wish you would do so when
I hear myself charged with abetting Orangeism. Ap-
point a Committee which shall be free from the objections
you urge. Appoint a Committee, not to commence in
1805, but 1834, or any other year you may name, which
I
shall subject my acts to investigation, and tell yet} at
once I will not shrink from it.—(Glreat cheering.)
This is the question—when you seek collision

with the House of Lords, amid the difficulties
that surround you, why did you not take the course with
resp-ct to a Committee on criminal offences, which you
did take with respect to a Committee for the appointment
of Sheriffs Hear, hear.) To be sure if the House of
Lords did appoint a Committee, supposing there had been
something more, not of censure, but something more of the
allege' ions of a prima facie case for inquiry, could we
reasonably have turned round and blamed the House of
Lords, for entering upon this investigation ? Is it from the
Irish Government we should expect this indignant refusal ?
I am acting, Sir, in the course I take in the same manner
as I always have done. I want not recrimination. I have
not said to the Irish Government you have been encou-
raging crime, and I cannot approve of your conduct ; I
won't meet you with a vote of censure, because I think
there is ground for inquiry, and I shall suspend my judg-
ment till that inquiry has been made? The Noble Lord
says, why not meet this with a vote of censure ? To that
I say, that is not the course I shall adopt, because I have
not got the information for that purpose. If the Howie of
Lords did think themselves called upon to institute a Com-
mittee of Inquiry, after the taunts thrown out by Members
of the Irish Government on the Government of this
country, after the language that has been used, and after
one branch of the Legislature has said, let us inquire,
could any man have been prepared for the storm of indig-
nation that has been lavished forth ?—(Cheers.) Some
gentlemen met in Dublin in 1837, and passed resolutions
commenting strongly upon the conduct of the Government.
The speeches that were made on that occasion were com-
mented on by the Noble Lord opposite, in his speech on
the Municipal Bill. The words of the Noble 1.0.-d on
that occasion were memorable, and I will just read a few
of them to the House. He said—" it was this same mi
s!rable monopolizing minority"—it was not formidable
therefore, on account of its numbers—"who have not dared
to bring forward any charge, but have passed resolutions,
making charges against Lord Normanby, and although Par-
liament has assembled more than a week, no Member has
ventured to.give' a notice of his intention to bring before
Parliament these high crimes and misdemeanours.". So that
when we were forbearing, such was the language that was
used. The Noble Lord no doubt meant to refer to the
House of Commons—he meant to say that-in the House of
Commons .arose impeachments and therefore that there
should be inquiry. But the Noble Lord would not let
inquiry take place. He cut off our defence upon
that, for he said—" It may be said, though
it is a weak and miserable argument, no one
would venture to bring such a subject forward,
because of the strength of Ministers in that House."
So that we are a miserable minority, and our argu-
ments are also miserable !—( Laughter.) The Noble
Lord then went on to:say—" This, I say, is a miserable ar-
gument ; but is there not another House—the Commons ?"
—( Loud cheers)—is there not another House of Parlia-
ment, where this could be brought forward ? What is the
power of the opponents of her Majesty's Government in
that House ? Why shrink from going there, and bringing
forward charges in that place ? You have brought for-
ward charges against the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and
yet you dare not bring his conduct before Parliament."__
(Cheers.) When so challenged by the Noble Lord to
bring forward charges, suppose the House of Lords had
taken this course—suppose they had brought forward the
accusations, and proceeded to judgment, without inquiry--
what would have been said to that ?—( Cheers.) You
taunted them to come forward—they have not visited
you with censure—they have asked for inquiry__
you now say that inquiry is tantamount to cen-
sure, and you want to eseapt's inquiry, by -pro-
posing a vote of confidence. Do you believe you
stand justified by the deliberate sense of the people of
England in doing that ?—( Great cheering.) The Noble
Lord may tell us that the state of Ireland is improved, but
is there nothing in the state of Ireland to account for the
desire of the House of Lords to have inquiry into crime
and outrage endangering life and property ?—( Cheers.)
The state of Ireland may be improved—that remains to
be shown. The House of Lords have this admission by
the Solicitor-General of Ireland, who said, in opening the
Special Commission at Clonniel, " I am personally a
stranger in your county, but the perusal of the Calendar
of prisoners, and the information which has been commu-
nicated to me demonstrate that there can be no doubt of
this lamentable fact." Now, of what fact were the House
of Lords conversant ? Why of this, as stated by the Soli-
citor-General, " That in no place where the law of
England exists is human life less regarded than in
the county of Tipperary." Ireland may be improved,
but we have this important admission, that in no part
of the country is human life less regarded than in
the county of Tipperary. Are you surprised that the
House of Lords should investigate a course of policy which
has led to so utter a disregard of human life? Are you
surprised that the House of Lords, seeing on the borders of
the county of Tipperary that one of their own members
had been cruelly murdered in the open day, and no pro-
gress made towards the discovery of the offender—are you
surprised that the House of Lords, influenced by such feel-
ings, should claim the privilege of instituting an inquiry into
‘• crime and outrage in Ireland, which had rendered life and
property insecure ?" I object to that inquiry, says the
Noble Lord, because it his been brought forward by a
Noble Lord professing certain political opinions. What
has the House of Commons to do with the name or senti-
ments of the Noble Lord by whom it is brought forward ?
Loud cheers.) The proceedings of the House of
Lords may be alluded to under the name and cover of
what has been said or done in another place, but the wiser
course, which has been adopted in this House, precludes any
such allusions, and to call on the House of Commons to insti-
tute such a proceeding as the present, because Lord Roden
was the Member who brought forward the motion in the
other House—( Vehement cheering)—to call on us to
recognize the speech of the mover of a resolution in the
House of Lords is as contrary to all Parliamentary prece-
dent, as it is alien to the forms and practices of this House.
—( Loud cheers.) Let me suppose a case of an Hon.
Member of the House of Commons, professing Liberal opi-
nions, professing Liberal principles, who had been murdered
in open day, in the immediate neighbonrhood of his resi-
dence--suppose at the same he was planning-improvements
which would give life and employment to the tenantry of
his district—suppose the House of Commons, with feelings
outraged by such a calamity, had proposed to institute an
inquiry into crime and outrage endangering life and pro-
perty in that county—and suppose the House of Lords
had instituted I.OIIIC proceedings for the purpose of ques-
tioning our right, and had founded their proceeding on the
ground that the motion had been made in this House by a
Liberal Member, and that that would be used as an
argument against it—suppose the House of Lords
had recognised in its discussions the principles of the
mover. I wonder what the House of Commons would
say to such a proceeding. —( Loud cheers.) We don't
deal out equal justice—we know well that if that ca-
lamity had befallen one of our own Members—if he had
been murdered and that we had thought fit to move a
Committee of Inquiry, and if the House of Lords had,
what I must call the indecency, to act in such a way
there would be no limit to our just indignation.—( Hear )
Sir, I advise the House to consider this—what is the next
step they will take when they pass this resolution ? When they
do enter into a collision, surely they will take care that that
collision will be effectual. After you have passed the resolu-
tion will you call on the House of Lords to rescind its motion
for a committee of inquiry ? if you do not what do you gain ?
( Hear, hear.) What do you gain by the demonstration of your
indignation. The Noble Lord says that there are precedents
for it, and he has pointed out one, and only one applicable to
this case. Differences upon legislative proceedings have no
application to the present case, but where differences exist, you
invite the House of Lords to a conference—you regret that
your intentions are thwarted upon matte) s import int to the
public interests, in consequence of the Lords either rejecting
it, or proposing amendments to which you cannot agree.
You ask for a conference, and there you state
your objections. —( Hear.) This however constitutes no
precedent, but, as the Noble Lord says there is a precedent,
and the only one which can be found, I ask the House of
Comm ms to refer to that single proceeding, not as a rule, but
as a beacon, to warn them.--( Loud cheers.) I ask them: to
consider the precedent of the Noble Lord, which is connected
with what was called the Scottish plot. That is his single pre-
cedent. I ask them to consider the character of that pre-
cedent. It appears that in 1703, there was a suspicion that
Simon Lord Lovat was in communication with the Court of
France and the Court of James the Second, at St. Germains
certaintaahnedemw a
sp Ia
ypa
mpa party
employment
apprehended
nf thedt
hede' to organise an invasion
lo aonfd
waseSd cfmooitnrl a nsedur,lsysaenixnd,
bya Dukeme
the oo
Crown.ffl3 Devonshire,u rci
r h House of Lords having a jealousy of the
e Ministersr, and oftt
the
ehe
Commons Crown, insistedresisted onit thebu
t there i
examinationg no of
analogyur
eh
between the two cases. Here the Lo'rds appoint a- Committee
to inquire into crime and outrage ; but the complaint of the
Commons was, that when a prisoner suspected of treason-
able practices was taken by her Majesty's Ministers,
the House of Lords, in violation of the known law of
the land wrested them out of their hands. Now, that is the pre-
cedent of the Noble Lord. The House of Lords take a party
under its examination, and the House of Commons protest
against it, on the ground that they also had a right to take part
in this examination—( Cheers)—but even then the House of
Lords were in the right. I said, on fit st referring to the prece-
dent, that it was a beacon to warn, andnot a guide to follow, and
I think, in the space of five minutes, I will prove to you that I
am justified in that statement. Observe this is the only prece-
dent the Noble Lord can find at all analogous to the present
case, and it shows to what shifts the Noble Lord is driven
when the only precedent he can quote is one adopted
by the high Tories of that time ; for this is the account
given of that memorable struggle between the two Houses by
the Whig authorities. I thought the Noble Lord would rely
upon it, but I thought also that he touched it very cautiously,
being fearful that others might be cognisant of it, and might
expose its real merits.—(Laughter. ) Here I leave it, and here
I shall have to illustrate the collision on the Scottish plot of
1703. This is the account Bishop Burnet gives of it :—" The
Commons being in ill humour with the Lords, were glad to find
occasion to vent it.—(Much laughter.) They thought the
Lords should not have entered on that examination, and they
complained of it as a new and unheard-of thing, in an address
to the Queen. They said it was an invasion of their privileges."
and the Noble Lord, borrowing a part of h's speech from this
authority, says the very same thing.—(A laugh.) Bishop
Burnet says" that was a proceeding without precedent," and
Tindal says " that the House of Commons objecting to the
House of Lords taking criminals into custody for the purpose of
examination was without precedent, but it was entirely owing
to party feeling—(Much laughter) The high Tories being
strongest in the Commons, seizing every opportunity to ingra-
tiate themselves with the Queen, and to attack the Whigs, who
had a majority
.in the House of Lords; substitute Whig for
Tory and the picture is complete." " The Commons continued
to protest, but the Lords Committee went on with their
examination—(Much cheering and laughter)—and concluded
by voting that a dangerous plot was concocted by some in.
Scotland and the Court of France, and this being concluded,
the Lords made a long and vigorous address in answer to that of
the Commons, and the Lot ds in their address observed how
uneasy the Commons were at the whole progress of the in-
quiry, and had taken methods to obstruct it all they could.—
(Renewed laughter.) The Lords observed that they had not
taken the examination to themselves, as excluding others, for
the Commons might have done it as well as they. The Lords
observe, in their concluding address, ' and the House of Com-
mons till now has never countenanced the od?ingeroes qpiniqn
which does so directly tend to rendering ill tMinitters safe from
the examination of Parliament and we are persuaded the
House of Commons will hereafter assent to such an intimation,
because they are not usually wont to part with the power they
have assumed, and it is certain that they have several times
taken on themselves to exerciseauthority like that which they haye
so severely reflected qn when exercised py the Hotpla of Lords,,'
1 do not knQvi whq was the ailthor of the Cc:pumps' address,
m the Noble Lord who was the author of the
Lords'buclininfo
address.r Bishop Burnet says, " the address was drawn
tI