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

an alteration of the Bill which had been sent by the House
of Commons to us. The Noble and Learned Lord asserted
that the Bill, as sent up by the other House of Parliament,
involved three principles ;—the first, the abolition of the ex-
isting Corporations of Ireland—the second, the substitution
of other Corporations—the last, the administration of
justice. To two of these principles the Noble and
Learned Lord asserted that your Lordships agreed,
and that you rejected only the second. Now I put it
to your Lordships whether, in rejecting that second principle,
you did not reject the whole essential principle of the measure?
The state of the fact is this: Abuses are universally ac-
knowledged to exist in the Corporations of Ireland, which you
Ind it necessary to correct, and in order to correct them
your Lordships propose to take from the people of Ireland atl
corporate institutions whatever, instead of reforming those
institutions, so as to leave the people in the enjoyment of the
same local rights and privileges as are enjoyed by their fellow-
subjects in England and Scotland. Is not this an essential
difference from the principle of the Bill as sent up to your
Lordships by the other House of Parliament?—( Hear, hear.)
It may be exceedingly proper to abolish, not entirely but
in part, certain of those Corporations • but to destroy all cor-
porate rights and institutions throughout the country would
surely be contrary to every principle of policy and of
justice. The principle of the measure sent to us by the
House of Commons was, that the people of Ireland were
entitled to have the same privileges conferred upon them as
had been conferred on the people of England and Scotland
by the Municipal Corporation Bill. It is most extraordinary
that when a proposition is made to correct abuses in ancient
institutions, that proposition should be met by Noble Lords
on the other side of the House with a proposition to extirpate
them.—( Hear, hear.) Consistently with the political doctrines
which had been usually maintained by those Noble Lords,
they are the very last persons from whom I should have ex-
pected such a suggestion.—( Hear, hear.) I am far, however,
from wishing to cast any injurious imputation upon anybody.
It is undoubtedly true that principles cannot change; but it
is also true, as has been said this evening by a Noble Lord,
that the application of principles may vary according to cir-
cumstances, and that' under some circumstances it may be
considered fit and expedient to pursue a certain line of con-
duct, which, under other circumstances, would be neither fit
nor expedient. That is the ground on which I am desirous
of understanding the Noble Lords opposite as resting
their hostility to the original measure. Into the details of
that measure, which have already been so ably explained by
my Noble Friend, it is not my intention to enter. I have
neither the power nor the inclination to do so. But this is
the first time that I have heard it asserted that Corporations in
Ireland must in any shape be an evil. This is the first time I
have heard it asserted that because they have few functions to
discharge, they must therefore be dangerous. Hitherto your
Lordships have been accustomed to consider Corporate
dignity as valuable ; and I could not have imagined that you
would have been induced to deprive the people of Ireland of
them by one sweeping act of legislation. It is somewhat
extraordinary, also, that the proposition of the Noble Lord is
neither more nor less than this, " Reject this Bill in order that
those Corporations which have nothing to do, and which I there-
fore maintain arc a nuisance, and an evil may be continued for
at least another year. "—( Hear, hear.) See, my Lords, the situa-
tion in which Ireland at present stands. That there were
rights and privileges due to the people of Ireland—rights and
privileges established by Catholic Emancipation, I have not
heard any one deny. That those rights and privileges would
be conferred by a great majority of your Lordships but for the
existence of particular circumstances, is equally evident. The
question is, however, whether or not, notwithstanding those
circumstances, it is sound policy to deny to the people of Ire-
land that equality of rights which all acknowledge to be their
due ? The people of Ireland feel it to be their due—they
claim it as their due—they assert it, and justly, to be the na-
tural consequence of the state of freedom in which they were
placed by Catholic Emancipation. Your Lordships acknow-
ledge this equality of rights to be the due of the people of
Ireland—but you withheld it on the ground of particular cir-
cumstances. It was admitted by a Noble Friend of mine,
who addressed your Lordships for the first time this evening,
and in a manner which must induce every one to wish that he
may do so frequently, that the people of Ireland, if they were
in another condition, might justly claim the same rights and
privileges as the people of the other parts of the empire, and
that the time might arrive when those rights and privileges
might properly be conferred upon them. My Lords, I freely
admit, and I deeply lament the fact, that the people of Ireland
are at the present moment divided and distracted. Nobody
feels and laments that fact more than I do. But I ask
your Lordships whether the course which you are pursuing
is likely to remedy a state of things the existence of which
we all deplore ? I am sure I deeply deplore it. Now, my
Lords, I will go further. I will admit that under the pre-
sent circumstances of Ireland, the apprehensions urged by
the Noble Lords opposite, as their reasons for not agreeing
to the measure proposed by the other House of Parliament, are
not wholly undeserving of attention. I do not pretend to
deny it, that after long excitement, long agitation, long con-
tention, if these rights arc suddenly given to the people of
Ireland, they might not in the first instance be exercised in-
discreetly. But, my Lords, while I allow that there may be
some ground for this apprehension, I contend that it has been
greatly exaggerated by the Noble Lords opposite. And
what we has e to consider is, what must be done for the pur-
pose of rescuing the people of Ireland from the state of dis-
content in which they now are—what must be done for the
purpose of re-establishing law and order in Ireland, and of
making the people of that country fit for the enjoyment of
the rights which are their due 1 Now, my Lords, I again
ask you, is that an object which is likely to be obtained by
the course which you are pursuing ?—( Hear, hear.) You find
the people of Ireland discontented and agitated ; you arc
called upon by them to reform their corporations; but you
will not do so, for fear of consequences ; and by your re-
fusal you continue the discontent and agitation which
you wish to see terminated. You admit, that but
for that temporary obstacle you would adopt the course re-
commended to you by the other House. Nay, if it were not
for those circumstances, it would be a mockery and ins* to
withhold from the people of Ireland that which Catholic
Emancipation taught them to expect. But, my Lords, what
will be the result of allowing the continuance of the existing
agitation and discontent? We have been told also that the
aversion to the measure proposed by the House of Commons is
nearly general throughout this country. I deny it. I believe
that the reverse is the case. I know that there are many per-
sons not only among those who in general concur in political
opinion with his Majesty's present Government, but among
those who differ from them, who feel very sensibly the depri-
vation of right to which the people of Ireland are at present
subjected. I have had the names mentioned to me of persons
of influence connected with what is called the " Conservative in-
terest," who have put themselves forward in requisitions for
public meetings to petition Parliament to pass this Bill. The
people of Ireland arc a generous, a brave, and a highly excit-
able people. My Lords, I will not speak of individuals. It has
been too much the practice of late to do so in this House.—
( Hear.)—But this I will say, that if there are any persons
whose objects are hostile to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland,
I do not know how your Lordships could better consult the views
of such persons than by giving them the means of appealing
to the sensibility of the people of Ireland, and of persuading
them that they are not treated with equal justice. And here,
my Lords, I beg leave to guard myself against being sup-
posed to join in the common-place declamation on this subject
—that until the present moment justice was never done to
Ireland. In answer to that declaration, I refer those who will
exercise their reason to the course which for the last ten years
Parliament has pursued—l will not say of concession, for I dis-
like the word, but of originating discussions, and passing laws,
the object of which has been to give to the people of Ireland
the rights of which they had hitherto been deprived, and which
they claimed on the ground of justice. To me, therefore, it
appears to be most unjust to say that now, for the first time,
justice is done to Ireland. I am quite sure that my Noble
Friends in his Majesty's Government disclaim any participa-
tion in such a sentiment.—( Hear, hear.) I am quite sure
they will not deny that while I had the honour to be at the
head of that Government, a constant anxiety existed to adopt
such measures as might do that very justice to Ireland which
it is now said was never contemplated till this moment—
( Cheers.) I say, my Lords, that if it be the agitated state
of *eland which deters you from doing what you would other-
wise do, if you wish that agitation to cease—if you wish
the people of Ireland to become fit for the full
enjoyment of their rights—pass this Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
To refuse to do so will be to lead to fresh agi-
tation—to fresh excitement—to render the people of
Ireland ten times more unfit for the enjoyment of their rights,
and to render the evil which is now comparatively slight and
temporary incurable and interminable : until at last you will
find that that which you are now called upon to do as an act
of justice you must do as an act of necessity, when it will
entirely fail in producing that salutary effect which at the
present moment may reasonably be expected from it.—
(Cheers.) I am well aware, my Lords, that in all I have said
upon this subject I have been anticipated by others, and that
much more might easily be added ; but I will not trespass on
your Lordships' time, especially as I am anxious to proceed
to that other and most important consideration—namely,
what course it is advisable for your Lordships to pursue with
respect to this Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord and the
Noble Earl opposite have expressed their hopes that your
Lordships will firmly adhere to your former determination
on the subject. Another Noble Lord had said that this
House should yield nothing to threats or intimidation. In
that sentiment I completely concur. If I thought any attempt
were making by threats to induce your Lordships to consent
to any improper concession, I should be the first man to op-
pose it. I am anxious to maintain the honour of this House,
I am anxious to maintain the just influence of this House ;
but I know that that honour and that influence can be main-
tained only by the general respect of the people, and by their
conviction that we are exercising our high privileges for their
benefit, not for our own.—( Loud cheers.) But any attack on
your Lordships' House, any denial of your Lordships' legal
authority, I should be one of the first to meet. On that point
I adhere to the sentiment which I formerly expressed, and
which has been frequently quoted, sometimes for the purpose
of censure and sometimes for that of approbation—l feel bound
to support the Order to which I belong against any unjust at-
tack which may be made upon it.—( Cheers.) I feel bound
to resist any attempt, by undue means, to make us do that
of which we disapprove. If, for instance, under the name of
a Reform of this House, a proposition were to be made which
would be in its consequences not reform but destruction to
this House and to the Monarchy, and, if all experience be not
false, to the freedom of the people, I should be found in the
ranks of its most determined opponents.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
But is there any such danger in the present case ? I am sure
that if your Lordships will reflect a moment you will acknow-
ledge that there is not. The Bill which was sent up to
you from the House of Commons your Lordships entirely
changed. You altered its preamble, you altered its prin-
ciple; and, notwithstanding the gloss of the Noble and

Learned Lord, you altered nine-tenths of its enactments.
My Lords, such a proceeding as this I can never under-
stand but as a total rejection of the measure, and a sub-
stitution of another measure entirely different in principle
and character. This is not exactly the way to conciliate.
Nor did you alone send the Bill back to the House of Com-
mons entirely changed. You changed it by the introduction
of a principle which, after several discussions and divisions,
the House of Commons had rejected. Now, my Lords, when
you say that the feelings of this House ought to be respected,
you should at the same time respect the feelings of the other
House.—(Cheers.) How did the House of Commons act ?
They received this altered Bill in a manner and a spirit—l do
not speak of the violent conduct of individuals, which I con.
demn—but the House at large received this altered Bill in a
manner and a spirit which I must characterise as that of mo-
deration.—(Cheers.) They did not immediately reject your
alterations. They proceeded calmly to consider them, for the
purpose of ascertaining how far, consistently with their own
views of right and justice, they could modify the Bill, so as to
meet your wishes. My Lords, the alterations then made by
the House of Commons have not been fairly, have not been
generously, represented by the Noble and Learned Lord.—_
( Hear, hear.) It must be evident to every impartial man,
that those alterations indicate the desire of the other House of
Parliament to go as far as they could to meet your Lord-
ships' objections; and you, my Lords, arc called upon to
meet them in the same spirit.—( Loud cheers.) For what did
the House of Commons do? Oat of the fifty Corporations
comprehended in the original Bill, they retained only twelve,
and those of the most populous, wealthy, and commercially
important places in Ireland. To twenty others they applied
the compulsory enactments of the 9th George IV. To this the
Noble and Learned Lord objected, on the ground that they
were free before : but that was not the case. The objection
was to the placing of the whole of the property of the Corpo-
rations in the hands of Commissioners of the Crown, in-
stead of allowing that property to be administered by Com-
missioners of their own choosing. This, however, the Noble
and Learned Lord said was a hardship, for that they had an
option in the original Bill. That I deny. They had no op-
tion. For although they might apply for Commissioners to
manage their property under the Act of the 9th George
IV., still that property was not to be taken from the manage-
ment of the Commissioners of the Crown, if the Crown with-
held its approbation. It was a great amendment, therefore,
in the Bill to correct the violence and injustice of taking from
all the corporate towns the management of their property, and
placing it in the hands of Crown Commissioners. The ques-
' tion for your determination is, whether you will consent, with
reference to 12 of the most important places in Ireland, to act
upon the principle on which you have acted universally with
reference to England and Scotland; or whether you will make
an invidious distinction, by which the people of Ireland will
find themselves excluded from a participation in the benefits to
which they were justly entitled ?—( lieer, hear.) My Lords,
I am not at all surprised at the strong feeling which the
course you have taken has excited. I do most seriously hope
that you will re-consider your determination, and that
eau will look carefully at the measure in a sincere spirit of
conciliation, and with a desire to see if it be not possible to
come to some agreement with the other House upon the sub-
ject—( Hear, hear.) The details of the measure may admit
of alteration ; but what I especially entreat you to examine
is, the practicability of leaving the enjoyment of Corporate
rights open to the people of Ireland, instead of increasing
discontent by refusing them. Whatever concessions your
Lordships may think fit to make, I hope the House of Com-
mons will be prepared to receive in the same spirit of mo-
deration which they have already manifested, in order that
this unhappy question may at length be brought to a happy
termination. Recollect, my Lords, that if you have thought
it offensive to you that a proposition should be made to you
which you bad already rejected, the House of Commons
must have felt it offensive to them to have a proposition made
to them which they had already rejected.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) When a difference arises between two co-ordinate
branches of the Legislature, how is it possible that
Such a difference can ever be reconciled, if each
sternly and solemnly declares its determination not to '
yield any thing to the other ? Under such circumstances,
what course can be adopted but a middle course, each party
giving something and receiving something ? The House of
Commons have set your Lordships an example.—(Cheers.)
They have given up much. They have endeavoured to re-
move your Lordships' objections. They now call upon your
Lordships to consider the Bill in its modified form. I hope
you will do so, and that you will try whether it may not be
made acceptable to both Houses. You fear agitation in Ire-
land as the consequence of granting these rights to the Catho-
lics. You fear the creation of what may have been called, how
wisely I will not say, "normal schools of agitation." I repeat
that I consider your apprehensions to be exaggerated. What
is the real state of the case ? What means or what opportunity
will there be of mischief? The attention of the individuals on
whom rights will be conferred by the measure will be chiefly,
if not entirely, confined to local matters. In my opinion the
effect will be rather to direct active minds from evil to bene-
ficial pursuits.—( Hear, hear.) That 1 believe will be its
effect, and at least I am convinced that there is no reason-
able ground for expecting such an increase to agitation
in Ireland as should induce your Lordships to reject the
measure. But if you do reject it, does the Noble and
Learned Lord, or does the Noble Earl, or does any other of
your Lordships imagine, that the interval between the pre-
sent and the next session of Parliament will not be filled with
disaffected meetings, with inflammatory speeches, and with
all the other apparatus of agitation, to a degree tenfold
greater than we have hitherto witnessed ?—( hear, bear.) My
Lords, I have already said that I wish this question to be
taken up in a spirit of peace and conciliation ; in that spirit
I am myself desirous of taking it up. I have not been unwil-
ling to consider how far the Bill might be advantageously mo-
dified. There is one suggestion which I will venture to offer
to your Lordships, for which suggestion I alone am responsi-
ble, not having communicated to my Noble Friend my inten.
tion of meking it, and not having any reason, except the con-
viction of its expediency, to believe that it will be acceptable
to !either side of your Lordships' House. In the Bill, as it
last left your Lordships' House, and as it now stands, there is
a clause regulating the voting for auditors and assessors.
Now, in another Bill, ordered to be brought into the House
of Commons by Lord J. Russell, the Attorney-General, and
Mr. Vernon Smith, a Bill for regulating charitable trusts,
there is a clause providing that every person entitled to vote
shall vote for only half the number of trustees. I wish your
Lordships would consider if it might not b‘practicable to add
clauses to this Bill of a similar character, but bearing on the
election of town councillors, which would in a great degree
remove the objections to the measure which some of your
Lordships entertain. Suppose, for instance, that every voter
was restricted to voting for only one half the number of town-
councillors. The consequence would be that there could be
no exclusive party established, but that a minority in any cor-
poration, of whatever persuasion they :night be, could retain
their due share of influence. My Lords, I believe it is an over-
statement to say that even if the Bill were carried in its present
shape its effects would be exclusive, because it would be only
a transfer of authority from one party to another. Many of
the Corporations in Ireland are divided into wards, and in
many of those wards the Protestants would have the prepon-
derance. I am told that even in Waterford, where the
Catholics are most numerous, the elections would not be of
that exclusive character apprehended. But even if that were
not the case, the proposition which I have ventured to throw
out would remedy this evil. It is obvious that if a voter were
restricted to vote for only half the Town Councillors, unless
the majority of one opinion could be swelled to two to one, no
principle of exclusion could be established. What I propose,
however, is, that the voter should be restricted to vote for five-
tighths of the Town Councillors. My Lords, I throw out
this proposition in the crude and ill-digested form it suggests
itself to me ; and, if it meets with your concurrence, I shall
suggest that the further consideration of the subject shall be
adjourned to a convenient but early day, when clauses can be
introduced into the Bill to carry it into effect. I shall, how-
ever, certainly (until I know how far it may be thought proper
to come to an agreement of this sort, in the way of con-
cession), pause before I take upon myself any motion of this
sort. And here I should certainly refrain from longer
troubling your Lordships, but that there is one other point
to which I would beg your particular attention. It was
stated by a Noble Lord opposite, in presenting a petition in
the earlier part of the evening—from whom, by the way, I
gather that he has not voted on the previous questions in
connection with this measure—that Noble Lord ventured an
opinion, that it was not a satisfactory proceeding, and that it
was a measure to which he was adverse, to take from the
people of Ireland all Corporations, and then he expressed a
hope that in another session some measure which should have
the effect of conciliating all parties might be passed. Now,
my Lords, let me bag of you to consider, whether if you see
before you the possibility, and, still more, if you see the neces-
sity of being obliged, at some future period, to pass some mea-
sure as this, it is wise or expedient to defer doing so even for
another session ? Wait for another session, my Lords, and
what shall we gain in the interval.—(Loud cheers ?) Have
we, my Lords, no experience as to what may be the result of
putting off our decision where we see an eventual necesssity
for concession.—( Hear, hear?) How was it with respect to
the Catholic question? Was not that measure resisted by
your Lordships—(hear, hear)—for years, and were you not in '
the end compelled—most unwillingly compelled—in conse-
quence of a pressure that you could not oppose, to grant a
much larger measure of relief than was at first called for—
(Cheers?)—But, my Lords, there is a still more recent case,
from which we ought, if we are wise, to gather experience—need
I say I allude to the Irish Church question ? Consider what has
been the consequence of your rejection of the measure pro-
posed to you on this subject in the year 1834..—( Hear.) Acting
upon the advice of those who now call upon you to resist the
proposals of the House of Commons, you refused to adopt
the Tithe Bill proposed to you in that year ; in the next year
you found those very persons who so advised you, com-
pelled—most reluctantly but irresistibly compelled—to pro-
pose to Parliament a measure far more extensive, in regard
to the adoption of the principle contended for, than
that of the previous session. But that was not all. No, my
Lords • by a large majority of the other House, even to that
extended measure a condition was annexed—l may say a new
principle was introduced, from which your Lordships felt
bound to withhold your assent, and to which you still object. 1
To that principle, upon the policy or expediency of which I
shall at present offer no comment—my feelings and opinions
respecting it are well known—to that principle the other
House of Parliament continues to pertinaciously adhere, and
while you continue to object to it, it is evident no settlement
of the question can take place. And now, my Lords, what
is the state of Ireland in consequence of this disagreement ?
Look to the situation in which it has been placed by the deci-
sion of your Lordships. The state of Ireland, my Lords, is
this : the law is either openly and successfully resisted, or it is
enforced in a manner which puts to rout all that good feel-
ing and love of order in which the best Government con-
sists, and in which, as was well observed by Mr. Burke,

" the cheapest defence of nations" is centered.—( Cheers.) My
Lords, let us take warning by these resulis--let us apply our-
selves to concession while concession not opposed to principle
is open to us—let us apply ourselves to the effecting of an
agreement, while the means of forming it with honour and
credit is offered to our acceptance.—( Cheers.) It is with this
view, my Lords, I have suggested a measure to your consi-
deratim. I think as it is that you might adopt the Bill as
it now stands, but with the alterations I suggest I am of opi-
nion that you can have no reasonable ground of objection to
it. But " wait," it is said, " till another session." Are you
sure, my Lords, that in another session the proposals now
made to you will satisfy ?—( Hear, hear.) Are you sure that you
will not then be required to go much farther, and that the
concessions you can now make with honour arid credit to
your legislative characters, will not be forced fret: you with-
out regard to either the one attribute or the other ? I propose
a compromise in every way consistent with your honour, and
it is in your power now to avail yourselves of it; but if you
wait for another session, with all the agitation, trith all the
clamour that will take place in the interval, I will not
answer that, any measure of the moderate kind I now sug-
gest will be accepted by the people of Ireland.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear, bear.") As one nervously anxious
for the maintenance of peace, good order, and prosperity in
these realms--as one zealous for the honour, dignity and station
of the Assembly to which I belong—l do most earnestly call
upon you, my Lords, to consider whether that peace, good
order, and prosperity, and whether that honour, dignity, and
station may not be fearfully endangered by your rejecting in-
stead of receiving the Bill as sent back to you from the Com-
mons. Yes, my Lords, these are my concluding words to you.
Consider whether softie means may not be found by which an
agreement might be brought about without the sacrifice of
principle, or the concession of privileges. If so, for the sake
of all you hold dear—for the sake of honour—for the sake of
justice—for the sake of that country in whose tranquillity and
prosperity you have from your station a deep and absorbing
interest, at once come forward, and by meeting the other
House of Parliament in a spirit of honourable concession, at
once put an end to a dispute which cannot be continued with-
out danger to that Constitution under which these realms have
so long prospered ; and, my Lords, to comp nearer home,

without danger to the station is which that Constitution has
placed you.—(The Noble Earl resumed his scat amid loud
cheers from all parts of the House.)
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thanked the Noble Earl for
the tone and temper which he had recommended so strongly
by his authority and example, and responded entirely to the
cheers which greeted the concluding sentiment of his address.
—( Hear.) The points of difference between the House of
Commons and their Lordships were easily enumerated. Ho
should endeavour to meet and reconcile them where possible ;
and he should concede every thing that he could for the sake
of conciliation. The House of Commons and their Lordship?
House were of perfect agreement in some respects in regard
of the measure under consideration. The House of Com-
mons, for instance, voted the abolition of all Corporations in
Ireland. The House of Lords did the same. The House
of Commons had thought proper to separate the judicial func-
tions in cities and towns in Ireland from the administrative
functions of each locality ; so did the House of Lords. Thus
far there was a complete agreement between both Houses on
two most impo: tent points. But the House of Lords and the
House of Commons could not agree on one principle—on one
principle alone they essentially differed. The natural and
usual course for the House of Lords to have taken in regard
to a difference of the kind was to reject any measure in which
it was on the second reading. But they did not choose to take
that very obvious course in regard to the present measure.
They did not do what the Noble Earl opposite, or those Noble
Lords who supported the Bill, might perhaps have termed a
discourtesy or want of due deference to the House of Com-
mons. On the contrary, they paid every respect to its opi-
nion of the great importance of the Bill, and took as concilia-
tory a course as could be followed. They suffered the Bill to
be read a second time—they allowed it to go into Committee
—and then they proceeded to make those amendments in its
constitution which they deemed necessary to insuring its effi-
ercy for the object for which it was intended. They thought
that course would be much more respectful to the House
of Commons, and they adopted it accordingly. In all
this nothing could be farther from their thoughts than
any appearance or intention of disrespect to the House
of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Ellenborough)
would be very glad to have it in his power to accede to
the suggestions of the Noble Earl opposite, but their prac-
ticability should first be considered. He should ask their
Lordships to look at the nature of the propositions before they
adopted them, and also to the character of the amendments
submitted to their consideration by the other branch of the
Legislature. The House of Commons and the House of
Lords agreed in one thing—that corporations in Ireland should
be abolished. There was no difference of opinion between
them as regarded the principle. Did the amendments
on the measure under discussion adhere to that agreement ?
On the contrary, it reserved corporations in twenty cities
and towns. The Bill sent down from their Lordships was
more in unison with the principle than that returned by the
Commons ; and therefore no charge of departure from it for
the sake of disagreement could fairly be brought against them.
The Noble Lord opposite had said that the difference bettacen
the Ilouse of Lords and the House of Commons was not whe-
ther there should be a local government in the cities and towns
of Ireland, but whether it should be of the form pointed out
by the latter ; and the Noble Earl in stating it, bad stated
rightly and clearly that there was no objection on the part of
their Lordships to a local government in the cities and towns
of that country. The difference then was as he had stated, and
the only question was on the form. There was another objection
by the House of Commons with respect to the amendments
and the clause concerning composition. Their Lordships had
thought it right to introduce these amendments, and he be-
lieved that they bettered the Bill ; but as the House of Com-
mons thought differently, and as it was opposed to them
strongly, he was of opinion that there would be no hesitation
on the part of their Lordships to forego them, and to re in-
troduce the clause in the form and in the very words in which
it originally came before them. So far for that cause of dis-
agreement. Another clause, that respecting the retention of
certain officers in the employment or under the controul of the
present Corporations, weighmasters, &c., was the next which
the House of Commons objected to as amended by their Lord-
ships. Their Lordships, in amending that clause, had con-
sidered that some of these officers, though acting under the
Corporations, were appointed and empowed under certain
statutes; and doubting, therefore, whether they could strictly
be termed corporate offices, or these officers corporate officers,
they had given thcm the benefit of the doubt, as it
was but justice to do, and retained them in their situa- .
tions. It was thought right by their Lordships to do so,
and he perfectly agreed with them in the principle ; but
as it was not a point of paramount importance, he did not
choose to differ from the House of Commons on it. On that,
also, he was disposed to yield his own opinion for the sake of
peace, and make that sacrifice for the purpose of conciliation.
The Noble Earl opposite would now, he trusted, perceive
that, consistently with adherence to primary principles, there
was every wish on the part of the House of Lords to meet the
views of the other House of Parliament on the subject—
( Hear)—and he hoped that those who charged it with the
contrary would do it the justice to retract their wrong opi-
nions. The Noble Earl had concluded his speech by a pro-
position which he stated that he had communicated to no one
previous to his propounding it to that House. The Noble
Earl was, of course, quite correct in what he had stated with
regard to it; but still he (Lord Ellenborough) felt bound to
say that the matter of it was not new to him. He had heard
it before; he had heard it some time since, and he had always
considered it as the principle on which the two Houses of
Parliament were most likely to come to a compromise.
The opinions of the Noble Earl agreeing with his on the
subject strengthened him the more in that belief, and be had
now little doubt of it. But he still thought that the propo-
sitions of the Noble Earl should be accompanied by other
provisions to make them acceptable to their Lordships; he
was of opinion that, unless they were modified by suggestions
to be found in other Acts of Parliament, they could not con-
sistently be adopted by that House. To adopt the measure
on the table would not, in his opinion, be doing what all de-
sired to do— equal justice to Ireland. No one believed that
the same measure which would be efficacious as applied to
England, would have the same effect as applied So Irelarul.
From the variety of circumstances in which the latter differed
from the former, there was no parity between them. He did
not see how the House could proceed with the Bill to effect
the object embraced by the suggestions of the Noble Earl ;
but he thought that that object might still be effected in the
following manner :—lf a motion were to be made by the
Noble Viscount opposite for an adjournment of the farther
consideration of the question for several weeks, to give him
and his colleagues time and opportunity to frame a measure
which would be duly considered, and worthy of the adoption
of the House, he thought it would give satisfaction to all par-
ties. It was quite clear that the details could not be consi-
dered at present. That there was every disposition on the
part of the House of Lords to concede to the other branch of
the Legislature, where the sacrifice of a great principle was
not required, he hoped he had no occasion further to insist
on. The object of both was the same—the good government
of the people of Ireland was the end proposed by each, but
the means advocated were different. He (Lord Ellenborough)
was most anxious that the people of Ireland should have all
that their most ardent advocates desired—good local govern-
ment and equal justice ; but he would give them these things,
not in the way proposed by the House of Commons—not in
the way suggested by the Noble Earl—but in the way which
lie thought best adapted to secure them. Unless these modi-
fications which he had suggested were identified with the
Noble Earl's proposition, he could not consent to its adop-
tion ; neither could he consent to accept the measure, as re-
turned to their Lordships by the House of Commons.
Lord HOLLAND, who was mostly inaudible in the con-
clusion of his sentences, and that the Noble Lord had given
a catalogue of the concessions which he was willing to make
to the other House of Parliament ; but they were all of minor
things as it happened. In regard to principle the Noble Lord
would not yield a single jot.—( Cheers from the Opposition.)
The House would, perhaps, permit him (Lord Holland) to
state to it the nature of the transaction at issue. The House of
Commons had sent up a certain Bill to their Lordships,
founded upon certain principles, one of which was to abolish
Corporations altogether in Ireland, and the other to grant to
the people of the cities and great towns in that country cor-
porate Government founded on popular election. In the
former principle the Houses of Lords and Commons agreed ;
the latter was the cause of difference. And yet the Noble
Lord who had just sat down called upon the House of
Commons to give it- up. The House of Coramons, how-
ever, would not do so, and then the Noble Lord had said,
" We will not give up our demand as they will not give up
their principle." So the case stood. Tic Noble Lord had
very properly praised the tone and temper in which the Noble
Lord (Earl Grey) entered into the subject of debate ; but he
(Lord Holland) was sorry to say that the Noble Earl ap_