The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-28 00:00:00

all to destruction ;and, availing himself of your courtesy, he
comes to your Lordships' bar--he listens to your proceedings
—and he marks and measures you as his victims. " Immo
vero etiam in senatum venit ; fit publici consilii particeps
notlt et designat oculis ad casdem unumquemque nostrum."
The person to whom these expressions were applied had at
least one redeeming quality. Witness the last scene of his
life, so ably and so eloquently described by the Roman his-
torian. Where he (Lord Lyndhurst) would ask, was this ac-
cusation made, and under what circumstances ? It was made
at a meeting of the inhabitants of Middlesex, where this
lawyer, so fond of freedom in institutions, and of his eternal
declamations of justice, for the edification of his audience had
made the subject of his scurrilous jests the memory of a Mo-
narch, and almost at the same time with his contemptible
fawning, insulted his successor, his present most gracious
Majesty.—( Hear, hear.) Such was the man who had assailed
him, and under such 'circumstance was the assault made.
There was another, and a third, assailant to whom it was ne-
cessary to refer—one of gentle lineage, of bland aspect, of
most amiable manners, but a little too strongly addicted to
ultra Whiggism. This, his supposed antagonist, his supposed
accuser—for he must allow him (Lord Lyndhurst) to be in
doubt upon that subject, and he was sure that ambiguity would
be shared by their Lordships—his third accuser had long been
a Member of the other House of Parliament. As a Whig, he
must have studied the Constitution and the forms of the House
of Commons; and as the leader of that House it was his duty
particularly to make himself acquainted with those forms and
regulations, and with its ordinary and proper course of pro-
ceeding. Such being then the case, he must have known the
importance of supporting the independence of the two
branches of the Legislature ; and was it possible that, so cir-
cumstanced, he could avail himself of the courtesy of their
Lordships, come to the bar of their House, listen attentively
to words uttered in the heat of debate by Members of that
House, could go back to the other House of Parliament, then
report, in a manner, what he had heard, and upon that state-
ment attack and denounce the speaker ?—( Loud cheers.) Was
not he, then, dealing justly with the Noble Lord ( Russell) in
saying that he was his supposed accuser ? Was he not justi-
fied in entertaining a doubt upon the subject ?—( Hear, hear.)
There was another ground upon which his incredulity rested.
He ( Lord Lyndhurst) had long had the honour of a seat
in the other House of Parliament, and he remembered
the conduct of the Right Honourable Gentleman who
sat in the Chair at that time ; and he well knew
that if any Member of the House had then come from the
House of • Lords, and reported what he had heard with his
own ears, or proceeded to offer any comments upon such
statements, he would have been immediately stopped, and
called to order.—( Cheers.) But he (Lord Lyndhurst) was
speaking of past times.—( Hear, hear.) lie knew also the
Right Hon. Gentleman who now occupied that position, and
he was proud to say that he enjoyed his friendship. A lawyer
by profession, he had for many years occupied the Whig side
of the House, and was therefore by necessity well acquainted
also with the Constitution, and with the laws of Parliament.
Under such circumstances he (Lord Lyndhurst) could not but
suppose that that Right Hon. Gentleman would have inter-
posed, for the
.purpose of checking and putting an end to such
a violation of Parliamentary law. That, then, was his second
reason for his disinclination to believe that the Noble Lord
was one of his accusers. But there was another, a third reason.
The Noble Lord was Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, which rendered him in some sort connected with the admi-
nistration of justice ; ofcoursc therefore he was acquainted with
all the principles of that justice, with the administration of which
by his office he was connected, and he must most undoubtedly
know that the first and fundamental principle of justice was not
to put a man on his trial in his absence.—(Cheers.) There-
fore it was that he could not believe the Noble Lord capable
of accusing him in the manner which had been stated in the
other House of Parliament.—( Ironical cheers from the Minis-
terial side.) He was defending the Noble Lord—he was
showing to the House pregnant reasons which should induce
them to believe that the whole was a fabrication—( Hear, hear)
—he would not believe that the Noble Lord would make
charges against any individual in his absence, having no
means of replying to or explaining those accusations. But
he was the more struck with this conduct, because the Noble
Lord was the author of a celebrated dramatic work, in which
he remembered a passage, wherein one of the characters—
(a Doge, as we understood)—boasted of the proceedings of
his Court, because they did not suffer even an accusation to
go out against any one until they had been heard in their de-
fence.—( A laugh.) The poetical words. of the Noble Lord
were these—

" He does not hold his prisoners accused until themselves are
heard."
(A laugh.) If the Noble Lord wished to make any charges
against him, in common courtesy, and according to the rules
of Parliament, certainly of their Lordships' House, and, for-
merly at least, of the other House—( Hear, hear)—he should
not have made such charges without communicating his in-
tention to him, in order that he might have had the opportunity
of speaking to some other Member of the House.—(Hear,
hear.) Those were the reasons for his incredulity in respect
to the Noble Lord, and generally his remarks upon the kind
of persons who were his accusers. Now as to the charge it-
self, what was it ? It was this—that he, as a reason—as the
reason for not granting municipal institutions to Ireland, such
as bad already been granted to England and Scotland—had
stated that the people of Ireland were aliens by descent or
aliens in blood—that they were different in language, in
habits, and in religion—that they considered the Protestants
as invaders of the soil, and that they only desired their ex-
termination. He ( Lord Lyndhurst) had uttered no such pro-
position—he had uttered nothing in any way resembling it—
nothing which any mon not rosmc,sing- a weak 1111,0k:et Could
so have understood and so mis-stated. That he had not used
such language was obvious from the conduct of the Noble
Lords opposite. The Noble Viscount at the time that those
words were said to have fallen from him had made no state-
ment in :ondemnation of them ; he had remained quiet in his
place, and offered no commentary upon what was now called
most extraordinary and most unjustifiable.—( Hear.) ThelNoble
Marquis also ( Lansdowne) who had taken a very active part
in the course of these proceedings, had remained equally silent
in his place. It was true some fortnight afterwards, after the
scene had taken place in Ireland, and there had been some agi-
tation amongst the electors for Middlesex, the Noble Marquis
had said something about never-to .be-forgotten words.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Two days afterwards.
Lord L YNDH UR ST knew that it was some considerable
time afterwards that he bad presented the petition during the
discussion upon which the Noble Marquis had alluded to these
words ; and the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) only a few days
ago had, half in the way of compliment and half of reprobation,
regretted that such expressions ever should have been used.
He (Lord Lyndhurst) had then told their Lordships that he
never would explain those words, but that he would satisfy
them that he had never uttered such a proposition as that
with which he had been so frequently accused, and which had
been renewed in the discussion that evening. Now, what had
he said? and every word that he said he should be able to
justify. It had in the course of these debates been frequently
said, and had been also said that evening, that they denied to
Ireland that which they had already granted to England.
What was the answer ? You yourselves in your own Bill acted
upon that principle, because you refused in certain instances
to grant the same powers to the people of Ireland that you
had done to the people of England. We argued how absurd
it was to say that because Municipal institutions were proper
for England, that therefore by necessity they were good for
Ireland, and that position he (Lord Lyndhurst) had illus-
trated by a kind of school-boy reference to the bed of Pro-
crustes. We said, also, " There arc two parties prevailing in
Ireland, most violently embittered against each other ; you
abolish the existing Corporations ; we agree with you—for
what reason ? Because they are in the hands of a party ; but
you arc at the same time substituting other party Corporations
in lieu of those you abolish." That led him, legitimately and
properly, to describe and designate the two parties. What
then was the distinction between the two ? He should not
flinch from his own description. On one side there was a
fourth of the population, English in manners, English by de-
scent, Protestants, adhering warmly to the Legislative union.
Hear, hear, hear.) Was that the correct description of
the one side ?—( Hear, and cheers.) On the other side
what had he said ? That there was a people very dif-
ferent, and, in reference to what had been before re-
ferred to, aliens by descent, differing in manners, differing in
habits, in language, and in religion, looking upon us as in-
vaders, and anxious for a separation. Was that, or was it
not, the correct representation ?—( Cheers.) He had, at
least, acted fairly, because he so thought, he so considered :
and who were his instructors—from whom did he learn that
such was the accurate description ? Why, from those very
persons who were now accusing him.—( Hear, hear.) Who
was it, when it suited his purposes to work upon that preju
dice, that he called the people of England foreigners, Saxons,
Sassenachs? Who was it that had repeated that over and over
again, when it answered his purpose, to excite and inflame
the minds of that people, in order to accomplish some end of
his own?--(Hear, hear.) Again—
" As long as Papists' sliade and scythe
Shall dig and cut the Sassenach's tithe,"
were the words of a popular poet. Who was it that, for the
same purpose of exciting the hostility and enmity of the Ro-
man Catholics, had applied the term " Sassenach" to the
Noble Lord who was formerly Secretary for Ireland, whose
infliction upon that country called to his recollection an
ancient fable:—

66 clamanti eutis est sumraos direpta per artus
Nec quicquam nisi vulnus Brat.',
Who was it that had frequently described, both in words and
writing, the people as foreigners ?
Nay, who was it that had,
even in the House of Commons, described the people of Eng-
land as foreigners ? This—his accuser.—(Cheers.) If there
were any magic in words, how had he made use of the word
" aliens?" Who was it that, to excite the antipathies and
jealousies of that people, had ridiculed the pronunciation and
the accent of the Saxon ? And who was it, though he did
not now allude to the same individual, who had said that Ire-
land and England were divided against each other with an
opposition as bitter as that which had been exhibited by the
Welch towards their Saxon invaders ; that that enmity arose
not in consequence of any difference tf religion ; that it was
hereditary, and existed when there was no difference of reli-
gion ? So much, then, fot the two parties into which Ire..
land was divided. Then, as to the objects of one of those
parties, who was it that had over and over again called
England the destruction of Ireland ; who had stated that Ire-
land dated her degradation from the first day on which the
English banners were planted on her soil; who had called the
Union an atrocious and abominable measure ; who had
pledged themselves over and over again to the repeal of that
Union, although every one must know that the repeal of the
Union was a total separation of the two countries--who had
told you that Ireland should no longer be a petty dependant
province, but that she should be a free and independent na-
tion, and should teach you that lesson ? That cry for Repeal
had, however, now to a great extent abated ; but upon what
terms? Mark—justice to Ireland; and those parties had al-

ready described justice for Ireland to be the complete and
and entire government of that country by Catholics, the abso-
lute extinction of tithes in every name and form whatever, the
introduction of the voluntary sytem, and the utter destruction
of the Protestant Establishment in that country. (Hear,
hear.) Those were the terms on which they were content
to lay aside their clamour for a Repeal of the Union. In con-
clusion, upon that part of the subject he wished to repeat to
their Lordships some verses which had been quoted by a
Noble Lord, a Member of the other House, with reference to
the subject. It was part of a ballad, sung in the streets of
Kilkenny at the moment that a man was being tried for mur-
der—a murder arising out of these violent distinctions of
party :
" The day of ransom, thank God, is dated ;
These cursed demons must quit the land ;
It's now these foreign and prowl. invaders
Shall feel the weight of each Irish hand."
He now quitted the subject, he hoped, for ever. The Noble
Viscount, as he had already said, had not unfolded to their
Lordships the reasons stated by the House of Commons for
disagreeing with their amendments; but he had touched upon
a point to which it was most material that he (Lord Lynd-
hurst) should advert, because, with all deference to the
Noble Viscount, and with all deference to the House of Com-
mons, for whose opinion he begged to assure their Lord-
ships he entertained the highest respect, he thought they had
misunderstood their own Bill, and had misunderstood also
their Lordships' amendments. The object of the measure,
as he apprehended, was to establish sonic system of Govern-
ment which might secure peace and tranquillity to the
towns of Ireland. Such was the object of the Bill, as ori-
ginally stated in the preamble. But how was that object to
be effected? By the abolition of existing Corporations, not
in terms, but in effect and reality, as the framers of the
measure must themselves know, by substituting other Corpo-
rations in their place, and by separating from them every-
thing connected in any way with the administration of jus-
tice, which was to be vested in the Crown. The object, then,
was to secure peace and tranquillity to the Irish towns ; and
the means adopted to effect that might be separated into three
divisions. First, by abolishing the existing Corporations;
secondly, by investing the administration ofjustice hi the hands
of the Crown ; and thirdly, by substituting new Corporations in
lieu of those abolished. Now, it was said there was a broad
and entire difference between thei two conflicting propositions.
What had their Lordships done? They had assented to the
first and second of those heads, and they had substituted a
fresh provision for the third. How, then, the Bill, as amended
by them, could be called an original Bill he must leave it to
the other Noble Lords to determine. But it was said they
had rejected so many clauses, and introduced so many new
propositions, that the Bill was entirely changed. Why, the
moment that their Lordships decided that new Corporations
should not be created it necessarily followed thet all those
clauses detailing the management of the new Corporations
must be struck out. But it was not the number of clauses
which made an original Bill : it was the object of those clauses
which could alone alter the nature of the measure.—( Hear,
hear.) Then, again, something was said about the title of
the Bill. Why, their Lordships would infer from the reasons
sent to them by the House of Commons, that they were not
justified in altering the title of the Bill. Why not ? Let them
refer to the index of the journals of the House and they might
find a hundred instances of such a course of proceeding. A
Bill came to their Lordships from the other House of Parlia-
ment for disfranchising the borough of Grampound, and giving
to Leeds two Members of Parliament. That Bill, then, had
two separate objects—the disfranchisement of Grampound,
and the giving to Leeds two Members of Parliament. Now,
their Lordships in that instance had adopted only the first
proposition, and they had substituted instead of the second a
provision to give to Yorkshire two knights of the shire to
represent it in Parliament. Of course, then, they were
obliged to alter the title, and it was somewhat remarkable
that a Noble Lord in the other House had objected to that
alteration ; but another Noble Lord got up and said, " That
the Bill originally had two objects : their Lordships' House
had assented to one, and for his part he was content to receive
the measure as that House had amended it." And who
did their Lordships imagine the Noble Lord was ? Why, it
was that very individual who now held the office of Secretary
of State for the Home Department.—(Hear.) Whilst they
were talking about the title of the Bill lie would refer to what
had been said respecting the Earl of Darnley's case. The
Noble Lord who, on a former occasion, had alluded to that
case had doubtless misapprehended the facts. The House of
Commons had sent up to their Lordships a Bill of Attainder;
their Lordships thought proper to alter to a Bill of Banish-
ment. The Commons objected to that alteration, and the rea-
sons, the commencement of which he supposed the Noble
Lord had only read, were these :—" This appears by the title
to be a new Bill, your Lordships have converted a Bill of At-
tainder into a Bill of Banishment, which the Commons ob-
ject to." If the Noble Lord had stopped there, then he might
naturally have supposed that was a case which he might pro-
duce in favour of his argument; but that the Commons ob-
jected to—why ? Not because the title of the Bill was
changed, not even because the nature and character of the
measure was wholly altered, but "because banishment is not a
proper punishment for high treason; because such a propo-
sition would induce an inference that the Commons were dis-
satisfied with the evidence ; and because, if persons abscond-
ing from justice were better off than those who awaited their
trial, in a short time every one would abscond." Thus, then,
in that case, the alteration was objected to, not because it was
an alteration of the nature and character of the Bill, but be-
cause the punishment proposed by the amended Bill was not
in accordance with the law, because it would have a tendency
to lowcr the dignity of the Home, and beeeugo it would affect
the administration of justice. So much for the title of the
Bill. Now, as to the measure itself. With respect to those
twenty small towns to which the Act 9th George IV. was to
be forcibly applied, he wished to know whether they were still
chartered—were their charters taken away ? Did they
still continue to be corporations? He certainly knew of
no clause in the Bill which abolished those charters.—
( Hear.) Again, there were some of the reasons which he
confessed he could not understand. The Noble Lord
would find that there was a reason attached to the clause for
striking out that which referred to charitable trustees, a reason
which could have no application to that clause to which it was
annexed. In respect to that clause their Lordships had made
no material alteration ; but he supposed that the reason had
been so annexed because their Lordships had changed the si-
tuation of the clause.—( A laugh.) But he would not trouble
their Lordships with those details, because they were compara-
tively unimportant, and might be the subject of future consi-
deration. Ile now came to the two main and material points
of the question-Ist, The forcible application of the 9th Geo.
IV. to the twenty smaller towns in Ireland; and, 2dly, The
giving charters to twelve of the largest towns. Those were
the main points upon which their Lordships had that night to
decide, and to which he called their most anxious attention.
Now, he objected—most strongly objected—to the forcible
application of the Act 9th Geo. IV. When the Bill went
down from that House to the House of Commons it left those
twenty towns at liberty to take all the benefit 'to be derived
from that measure, if they thought fit so to do—those towns
were fully entitled to all the advantages and beneficial conse-
quences of that Bill ; but since then it had received the further
amendments of the House of Commons, and now that Act was
to be forced upon twenty of those towns.—(Hear.) Again,
there was a clause of taxation, severe and oppressive taxation, in
some instances, which by this step the Legislature would be
forcing upon those towns. This Bill was much in the nature
of a local Act ; it corresponded in a great measure with many
local Acts. Why, they never thought of forcing local Acts
upon the people. They were always enacted upon application
from a large body of inhabitants, and only after all the parties
interested had been fairly heard, and the whole subject had
been fully investigated. The town of Kingstown, anciently
called Dunleary, had chosen to adopt this Act, and went
through all the proceedings necessary for that purpose ; but it
was in a short time found to be highly inconvenient and detri-
mental to the interests of the town, and they accordingly ap-
plied to Parliament for an Act to repeal its operation there;
and in the preamble of the measure the whole facts were
stated, and the necessity of allowing to the inhabitants full
liberty in such matters admitted. But their Lordships were
now asked to force that very measure which thus had proved
thus injurious in the instance which he had cited upon twenty
towns, and that they called justice to Ireland.—( Cheers.) To
do:it to in the dark, without any notice, without any intimation
upon the subject to those upon whom it was to be forced. He
was anxious to say a word or two upon the only remaining.
part of the subject. It was proposed that Corporations should
be given to twelve of the largest towns in Ireland. Now he
was satisfied that if their Lordships consented to adopt that
proposition the most inconvenient and disastrous consequences
must result. He would repeat the argument upon which the
whole case was founded. The object of the Bill was to
destroy virtually the existing corporations, because
they were corrupt, and improper to be maintained. To that
their Lords assented ; what then were they doing ? Why,
they were establishing political institution; of a nature much
more objectionable than the present. That was the great
ground of objection, alike to the original measure and to that
part of the Commons' amendments which they were now con-
sidering. But what did the people of Ireland say ? Why,
every measure that could not be carried otherwise must be
te
carried by agitation ; if there were any difficulties in he way
thmsaid—agitate, agitate.—( Hear.) Why, would their Lord-
ships expect if those persons were invested with the powers of
those corporate bodies? Would they not readily employ
to effect their own purposes? Again, he might ask their
Lordships what was the use of these corporate bodies ? The
Noble Viscount opposite had told them, on a former
occasion, " I create them," said he with an air of triumph,
" for the sake of creating them," that was his answer.
(A laugh.) Those corporators, however, would have nothing
to do with the administration of justice ; all the matters re-
garding the paving and lighting would form no part
of their duty, because that was placed under trustees.
What, then, remained ? Nothing which could tend
to the peace or good government of the towns.
If he (Lord Lyndhurst) were one of those who were disposed
to say that the whole power in Ireland should be handed over
to the Catholics—that tithes should no longer exist in any
form whatever—that the voluntary system should forthwith be
introduced—and that the Protestant Establishmennt should be
annihilated—and lastly, as the climax of all this, that the repeal
of the Union between the two countries was necessary and ex-
pedient,—he would most readily assent to the propositions of
the Noble Lord ; but he would do more—he would say, " Let
us not go on thus slowly, and by degrees, step by step ; but
proceed at once to the fulfilment of our object." And he
would now ask those Noble Lords, if they accomplished their
present object, would they be able to stop there ? Those
were the reasons for which he was disposed to adhere to
the amendments of their Lordships, after having fully
considered the subject, with as much calmness, caution,
and as dispassionately as possible.—(Loud cheers.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had never heard a
speech of less argument than that which had fallen from the

Noble Lord opposite. The Noble Lord had said that this
was the broad principle upon which they must that night de-
cide—whether the people of Ireland were to be treated as
British subjects or as aliens ?—( Hear, hear.) He warned their
Lordships from deciding precipitately on a matter of such
great importance. The whole argument of the Noble Lord
had proceeded on the assumption that they would con-
for ascendancy upon a party ; but were they legislating for a
party?—(Cheers.) Were they not dealing for the people--
the whole people of Ireland ?—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord
also had talked about agitation and the excitement of annual
elections. Why, were there no election riots in England?
Was there no agitation in England ? Perhaps that might not
be a justification of conduct pursued at Irish elections, but at
least they wore bound by justice, if they carried the principle
of the Noble Lord out in one case, to do the same in the other;
yet they would rob the Irish people of their rights, because
they thought they were weak, and were not supported by the
English people. The great object of the Bill was to give to a free
people the benefit of free institutions. Look at the effect of such
institutions upon the people of England; and if they were
an advantage to England why should they not be extended
to Ireland ? Had equal laws been granted to Ireland long
since, that country would not be in the condition she was in at
present. It had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord
that the Catholics of Ireland cherished a hostile feeling against
the Protestants which was not to be reconciled ; but he (the
Marquis of Clanricarde) utterly denied that there was any
proof shown that any such feeling existed. With respect to
what had fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord in repre-
hension of what was said by his Noble Friend at the head of
the Government, in warning their Lordships as to the conse-
quences of the rejection of this measure, he (the Marquis of
Clanricarde) entirely agreed with his Noble Friend, that it
became their Lordships to consider well before they did any-
thing that was calculated to weaken the effect which their
Lordships' proceedings ought to have upon the public mind.
It had been suggested by a Noble Earl (the Earl of Wick-
low) that the question ought to be suffered to stand over
for another year. Was this done with a view to allow the
officers of the Irish Corporations to linger on in their situa-4
tions for twelve months longer? He believed it was. Their
Lordships were, he greatly feared, pursuing a dangerous
course. Their conduct was watched out of doors ; and they
would be judged of, not by the vote they individually gave,
but by the arguments which did or ought to influence that
vote. If the House was prepared to legislate for England and
Ireland as an united empire, it was ridiculous not to consult the
feelings of the whole people, The people of England, their
Lordships might be assured, would now stand by the people
of Ireland in demanding their rights, and if those rights were
not granted, the Irish nation would be unworthy of possessing
them if they did not instantly call for a repeal of the Union.
Ireland would now have with her the sympathy of every free
man in every country.
Viscount FALKLAND should certainly have wished that
their Lordships had given a favourable consideration to the
Bill as it was originally sent up from the House of Commons ;
but even if their Lordships would pass it in its present form
he felt that it would be a highly beneficial measure. He hoped
the House would not stand in the way of establishing peace
and tranquillity in Ireland.
The Earl of RIPON must confess that the arguments of
the Noble Lord had not convinced him of the propriety of
adopting the Bill now before the House. The people were too
just to forget what their Lordships' House had done since
they had formed a branch of the Constitution of this coun-
try. The House of Lords had ever been the friends of free-
dom, and although they might have sometimes differed from
the House of Commons, it should be remembered that the
House of Commons had often differed from itself. All the
Bills which their Lordships bad passed for the good of the
people were surely not to be forgotten. The grievance com-
plained of now as to Ireland was nothing more than the old
story of last year as respected the English Corporation Bill.
The same admonitions and the same warnings were given then
as now ; but their Lordships did, notwithstanding, amend that
Bill. Although that amendment was called at the time an
emasculating mutilation, would any one say now that any one
amendment then introduced did really mutilate the Bill ? With
that example before him he had no apprehensions from pursu-
ing the same course on the present occasion. The English
Corporations were established for the good government and
regulation of the towns in which they were formed, but in Ire-
land they were formed for the twofold purpose of upholding
British domination and extending the Protestant religion.
These Corporations have been long looked upon in Ireland as
a grievance. With this grievance their Lordships were about
to do away; but it was quite a different question what they
were to do after they had abolished the grievance. It had
been said that Corporations had improved in England, and
that Ireland had a right to equal justice and equal laws. But
this Bill did not give the same corporate rights to Ireland
which England enjoyed, and in this he conceived was the real
insult to the people of Ireland. The English Corporations
had the power of lighting, paving, and improving the towns,
but the Irish Corporations were to have no such power under
their Bill. Then again, had the twelve towns to which it was
proposed to give Corporations any property to manage as com-
pared with the English Corporations? Take for instance the
town of Belfast, which was a very prosperous and thriving
town. At present its affairs were managed under local Acts
of Parliament. The Corporation have no property at all ex-
cept some tolls, which go exclusively to the sovereign of the
town, and the Corporation have nothing whatever to do with
the harbour, with the lighting, the paving, or the police of
the place, and they have no property—was it an insult not to
give a orporation to a town like this ?—(Loud cheers, and
Hear.) If they were to have a Corporation, the people
must be taxed to pay tho Mayor and other corporate officers.
He had often heard that it was sometimes considered an in-
sult to be asked to pay a debt, but he never heard that it was
looked upon as an insult not to be taxed.—( A laugh.) There
had been a comparison instituted between the cities of Dublin
and London with respect to their rights to exercise Corporate
privileges. The Commissioners appointed to report on the
Corporation of the latter had not yet favoured them with the
result of their labours—(and when they did he could not ima-
gine they would be able to demonstrate any necessity for a
change)—but, let them alter its powers and privileges as they
pleased, it would still have in its own hands the exclusive
power of paving, lighting, and cleansing within its own limits,
of regulating the river navigation, and the approach to the
city ; of keeping up its own police, and providing for the ad-
ministration of justice, the maintenance of its property, and
many other important points.—( Hear, hear.) In Dublin, on
the contrary, the Corporate rights and privileges are al-
ready abolished with respect to most of these particulars.
They no longer exercise the powers of paving, lighting, or
cleansing the city. They have no police under their care,
for by the Bill lately passed they arc deprived of that jurisdic-
tion. There was, in fact, no resemblance in the two cases.
The Corporation of the City of Dublin was already a caput
mortuum—their bones were marrowless—there was no specula-
tion in their eyes.—(Loud laughter.) In conclusion, he as-
sured their Lordships he should refrain from saying a word
that might lead to irritation, or that would tend to aggravate
the evils that already existed in the unhappy country for which
they were legislating ; but he must say that, acting on the
grounds which he had then stated to their Lordships (and of
which he hoped he had succeeded in fairly proving the sound-
ness and propriety), he felt it would be highly inexpedient and
unnecessary, not to say unjust and dangerous, to establish the
Corporations in Ireland as proposed by the Bill introduced by
his Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear. )
The Earl of WINC HIL SE A would ask their Lordships,
whether it was politic to extend that agitation which had
already inflicted such injuries in Ireland, and had afforded to
one individual such facilities of exercising his talents, for the
disturbance of the sooial relations of the two countries? That
individual had said that as the Bill for the Reform of the Cor-
porations of England was intended to extend the effects of
agitation begun by the Catholic Relief Bill, and was intro-
duced as the precursor of similar changes in Ireland, if they
now refused to follow it up by the Bill before them they ought
to follow it up by an abolition of the measure of 1829. He
(Lord Winchilsea) heartily hoped that the effect of their
Lordships' deliberations that evening would be to correct, as
far as lay in their power, the baneful legislative influence that
had been thus admitted to interfere in the direction of the
National Councils, and he hoped they would not forget the
argumentative necessity which that individual had impressed
on them. He would only ask them to look to the public ex-
pression of opinion in their favour, and to proceed in their
course of prudent legislation, undaunted by the clamours of in-
dividuals.—( Hear, hear.)

. •
Earl GREY then addressed their Lordships to the follow-
ing effect :—I can assure your Lordships that it is with great
reluctance I rise to address you. In doing so, let me first
disclaim being actuated by any personal or party motives. In
political contention it has been too much my lot to be en-
gaged throughout life ; but I trust I have done with it for
ever. The only feeling which actuates me on the present oc-
casion is, that standing aloof as I do from all party passion
and bias, I am desirous for a short time to trespass on your
Lordships' attention, in the hope that I may suggest some-
thing that may allay the heats and animosities which on this
and on other occasions have been but too prevalent. I re-
peat, my Lords, that it is in the true and sincere spirit of
peace and conciliation that I now rise to address you. I ask
your Lordships if you think that the course you are pursuing
is likely to lead to that end at which / am persuaded you all
of you aim—the pacification of Ireland, and the general esta-
blishment of peace and tranquillity in the empire ?—( Hear,
hear, hear.) Into the details of the Bill which was ori-
ginally sent to us by the House of Commons, and which was
returned to us by that House, I will not say amended, but
totally changed—(hear, bear)—or into the alterations which
have since been made in that changed Bill by the other
House, it is not my intention now to enter. These are mat-
ters which may with more propriety be considered at a future
period, if the measure shall proceed. I agree with the
Noble and Learned Lord that there are at present two points
for our consideration, although I shall describe those points
in terms somewhat different from those used by the Noble
and Learned Lord. The first point is to consider the object
and tendency of the measure before us. The next and the
more immediate and urgent point is, to consider the measure
with reference to the feeling which unhappily has been ex-
cited on the subject in the other House of Parliament. As
to the object and tendency of the measure which ought to be
adopted, I feel that I cannot be contradicted when I state,
that the existence of abuses in the Corporations of Ireland
being acknowledged by all parties, it is proper that we should
consider which are the best means of applying a remedy to
those abuses. All agree in that. The difference between
us is this—whether we shall proceed by altering the consti-
tution of those Corporations ; or whether, that being deemed
hopeless, we should entirely abolish them ? And here I
must dissent from the Noble and Learned Lord's descrip-
tion of the difference between the two measures—of the mea-
sures proposed by this side of the House, and of the measure
carried by the other side of the House. I dissent from the
statement of the Noble and Learned Lord, that the Bill
sent by this House to the House of Commons was merely