The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 2O, 1848.

nimous effort of the people, and a declaration, We have -
not justice, we are determined to obtain justice, and it is
now proved to us it is not to be had of the Parliament
of England.' I say, let the House beware of supplying
such an argument as that. If you wish to maintain the
union—if you wish to improve the union, to make the
union a source of happiness, a source of increased
rights, a source of blessing to Ireland as well as
Eagland, a source of increased strength to the United
Empire, beware lest you in any way weaken the link
which connects the two countries. Do not set so far
apart the governor and the governed. Do not let the
people of Ireland believe that you have no sympathy
with their afflictions—no care for their wrongs; that
you aro intent only upon other measures in which they
have no interest." He did not desire to give offence to
the Noble Lord by repeating these words. Ho thought
they contained noble sentiments, and he could not bring
himself to consider that the Noble Lord would not act
upon them. He trusted that ho would efficiently act
upon them, and that he would not deprive his poor
countrymen of their last hope.—(Hear, hear.) He was
often asked what were the measures which he would
propose for Ireland, and he would not be under the re-
proach of refusing to enumerate them. One of the first
would be a Bill to give Ireland her due proportion of
Members.—(Hear.) Another would be to put her cor-
porations more upon a footing of equality with those of
England. He.would propose a new registration Bill in order
to confer a proper and more extended franchise. Also a
Bill to alter the appropriation of Church revenues. A
grand jury Bill. A Bil! to enable the tenant in entail
to make improvements, end to charge the inheritance
with them. A Bill for the improvement of waste lands.
—(hear, hear.) A Bill for the taxation of absentees.—
(Hear, hear.) A Bill for promoting emigration within
reasonable limits, and a Bill for public works. These
were the measures which he desired for Ireland. The
consequences of their neglect of Ireland were fatal, they
constituted the landlords masters over the people. They
made the latter a slave class, and this broke down their
minds and bent their spirits. Industry was discouraged,
and a hatred of the English people was engendered in
the minds of the people of Ireland. You cannot treat
the people of Ireland thus, and centralize them. Hence
the cry for repeal, and that demand had taken another
turn, and had added the one for separation. He was
most anxious to maintain the connexion between
the two countries, and he was of opinion that could
be best obtained by a local Legislature, properly
constituted, legislating upon local affairs.—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that there were only
two courses to be pursued. They must either remedy
the social grievances of Ireland by the adoption of re-
medial measures, or they must be content to hold it by
military force. If they adopted the latter alternative,
it would require the presence of one-third part of the
whole army. They might hold the towns. But was
there not danger that instead of a civil commotion, it
would turn into a serv;le war?—(Hear, hear.) Before
the union Ireland maintained her own civil and military
establishment; but since it she had been a drain upon
England, instead of being to her a support. England
would be kept down by her connexion with Ireland to
the level of Ireland. She would be sinking in her
means and her respectability. He was then discharging
his duty as an English Member to his constituents when
he advocated the cause of his countrymen. The Into Act
which they bad passed was an absolute declaration of
war, and if Ireland was reconquered, she should be held
by the sword. He wished to abstain from saying anything
offensive, but he would ask this question Why
had not remedial measures been pressed forward? If he
was told that they had not time, he would answer in
reply, why had they time for measures of coercion ? If
the Noble Lord was not able to carry out his principles,
those principles which he had so often declared, why
then he should surrender his power into the bands of
those who were prepared to undertake to govern Ireland
by coercion. He ought not to take the responsibility
and the consequences o: governing Ireland in a manner
which was repugnant and adverse to his principles. If
the Noble Lord said that he was obstructed by a large
English majority, would not that be a decided argument
in favour or the repeal of the union ? The Noble Lord
advised the return of Irish gentlemen to Ireland. He
wanted to have a message of peace.—(Hear, hear.) He
waisted, before he left that House, to hear something
which would enable him to say to the people of Ireland
you have some hopes.—(Hear, hear.) If he could go
home to Ireland and carry that intelligence, he would
go home with a light heart. But if he could not give
them this assurance, he would go home with sorrow.
No man repudiated more than he did the principles of
those who were now agitating iu Ireland. Had the
moral power in Ireland been rightly exercised, he be-
lieved a very different state of things would have been
the result. If the Irish Members of Parliament had
worked more together, they would have obtained some
more beneficial measures. He must say that the position
in which England placed the Trials landlord* over the
people formed a very great excuse for their conduct.
They made them slave-masters, without making them
interested in the welfare of the slave. He had brought
this great question before the House, and he trusted that
he had not used Language calculated to aggravate or
annoy. He did not wish to do so.—(Hear, hear.) He
was grateful for the attention with which he was heard,
and he would conclude by moving—" That the present
distracted state of Ireland demands the instant attention
of Parliament, with a view to the speedy enactment of
such measures as may he necessary to improve the con-
dition, redress the grievances, and establish the just
rights of the Irish people, and thereby promote the good
order and prosperity of that portion of the United
Kingdom, and give increased security to her Majesty's
Crown and Government."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL Mr. Speaker: Sir, the
Honourable Gentleman who has brought forward this
motion has done so in language so little tinged with
party feeling, so conciliatory, and so straightforward,
that I prefer following him immediately, instead of
waiting until the course of the debate may provoko
warmer language, which no doubt the interest of the
subject is likely to excite.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot say
that I agree with the Hon. Member in all the opinions
which he has just put forward ; in some of those
opinions I do agree, and I am ready to state to the
House the views which I take of a great portion of the
subject which he has placed under our attention.—
(Hear, hear.) In considering the conduct of this Im-
perial Parliament—(Hear, hear)—which he has brought
before the House, it is not entirely just to say that
certain measures have been long delayed, that they
have been brought before the House many years
ago, and that the House has not finally legis-
lated upon them, and to impute that the House, there-
fore, showed an unwillingness to debate Irish subjects,
or to remedy Irish grievances—(Hear, hear)—whether
it be owing to the complicated form of our government—
whether it be owing to the length of debate which pre-
vails in Parliament and throughout the country—and
there is scarcely any measure of great public importance
whether it relates to the United Kingdom or any por-
tion of the Usited:Kingdom, which is not subject to very
considerable delay, which has not been rejected at one
time and triumphant at another, protracted at one period
and not carried until after long debate. There are
questions which entirely relate to this country, such as
Parliamentary reform, which took thirty years for the
discuseien of. There is, again, the abolition of the slave-
trade, which took nearly thirty years in the discussion;
and there are various other instances in which it is ob-
vious that from some of the causes which I have men-
tioued that which was a just and fair case for legislation
did not produce the effect of obtaining the measures
which were asked until after a long period of time.—
(Hear, hear.) Now it ought not to be said
when we are speaking of Irish matters, that the
delay in certain measures is owing to unwillingness
to discuss Irish grievances, or to any desire
to withhold that remedy which a portion, but only a
portion, of the Irish Members think a fit one to be ap-
plied.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, the Hon. Gentleman, like
others, has described the state in which Ireland at pre-
sent finds itself'; but I must ask the attention of the
Hon. Member, and the House to a description of the
state of Ireland as it formerly existed—a description of
it, written in 1796 or 1797, by an adversary of the Go-
vernment of that day.—(The Noble Lord proceeded to
read an extract, to the effect that at the time in ques-
tion the Irish were worse fed, clothed, and lodged, than
were the subjects of the greatest despot in Europe, and
that they laboured under the worst practical govern-
ment in the world.) Now, Sir (continued the Noble
Lord), that at least shows that in the opinion of the
writer the misery of Ireland is not a creation of the
Imperial Parliament or of the British Government, and
that it is not merely since the union that the people of
Ireland are ill fed, ill clad, and ill lodged. Sir, the
heritage which the Imperial Parliament derived from
the Prirlianient before the union, was a people in the
unfortunate and miserable condition which I have de-
scribed.—(Hear, hear.) But it may be said that there
is one grievance at least which is caused entirely by
the existence of the Imperial Government. Why,
Sir, that is the grievance to which the writer whom I
have already quoted alludes, in the following sentence.
—(The Noble Lord proceeded to read another ex-
tract, to the following effect:—" Did the produce of the
land of Ireland go to support the people of Ireland?
No. Its beeves, its sheep, its dairy productions, its ma-
nufactures, indeed all its superfluities, or rather the
commodities which in any better social condition would
not be superfluities, all these were exported to pay the
rents of Irish landlords, who did not think the country
worthy of their residence, and was thus as much lost to
the people of Ireland as though they had been thrown
into the sea.") The Noble Lord continued—So far,
then, it appears that these grievances are not grievances
of
our generation; that they are of long endurance—that
they are rooted deeply in Irish society, and all that the
Honourable Gentleman or any one else can say of the
present generation is, that they ought to do as much as
they can patiently and resolutely to apply a remedy.—
(Hear, hear.) And let me say, that whatever blame may
be imputed to the Governments or to the Parliaments
of former times, or of this day--that after the
condition of the people had het;
has been representedthetowi,,bhees,
lunion—
nac ianiations
that theta the habits,
of the people themselves tend to maintali
foster that wretched stale of society which I have'd de-
scribed.—(Fleur, baeardert eh
et h.sou such as it
scribed.—(Hear, hear.) For instance, 1 consider that itis .
one of the great misfortunes of Ireland that the popu-
lation has gone en iuereasing without a proportionate-in-
crease in the means of subsistence and employment.
Then, Sir, there is a habit much to be deplored—Use
early marriages of the peasants of Ireland. Satisfied as
they are with miserable hovels and plots of potato
ground, furnishing a scanty and precarious subsistence
for each current year—without looking for any increase
of comfort, without thinking of' the postponement of
marriage until there be a sufficiency accumulated for the
sure avid comfortable subsistence of a married couple.
Sir, I think that such a state of society is of itself a mis-
fortune with which it is difficult, if not impossible, for
any Government to deal. I am not saying whence the

original degradation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland •
has arisen—whether from cruel and unjust penal laws,
or from those enactments which prevented the people
from turning their attention to trade and manufac-
tures; whether the state of things we finding existing has
been caused by the religious bigotry of the 17th, or by
the commercial jealousy of the 18th century. Neither,
Sir, am I vindicating the proeeedings of those days, any
more than I would stand up for some of the acts of the
Norman conquerors, who were as tyrannical and unjust
in this country as in that. All I do say is, that such
being the case, such being the difficulty which we in-
herit, such being the state which we tare called on to
govern—it is not the work of a day or a month, or of
one, or two, or three years, to change such a condition
of society, to put all classes in Irelond into that state
of harmony with each other which is necessary for en-
suring that the progress of a kingdom towards civiliza-
tion and prosperity shall be rapid and undeviating.—
(Cheers.) With these conditions and complications, I
enter on the subject which the Hon. Gentleman has
introduced. I have said that in some respects I agree
with the Hon. Gentleman. He complained that ad-
mission to political and social privileges had been
refused to the Roman Catholics of Ireland from the
time of the union down to 1829. Sir, I consider
that refusal to have been unjust. I can see no-
thing in the creed of the Roman Catholics to debar
them from all the political and civil privileges of the
other inhabitants of these islands. From the time when
I first had a seat in this House, I have voted for the
repeal of the Roman Catholic disabilities, and I think it
was a great misfortune that that repeal was not made a
portion of the treaty of union, or at all events combined
with it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I remember hearing in this
House Mr. Canning repeat a conversation he had had with
Mr. Pitt upon the subject, and in which Mr. Pitt told
him that Lord Cornwallis had written a dispatch stating
that he thought he could carry the measure of union with
England, but that the measure of Roman Catholic
emancipation he should not be able to carry, and I re-
member, Sir, Mr. Canning telling us that he observed to
Mr. Pitt, that were he in his (Mr. Pitt's) place, he would
have refused both—that he would not take one measure
without the other.—(Hear.) Sir, Mr. Canning added,
that Mr. Pitt with great reason rebuked the indiscretion
and intemperance of the young man to whom he was
speaking. But, Sir, on reflecting on what passed, I for
one very much doubt whether, on this point, the youth
ful judgment of Mr. Canning was not more sound than
the more matured opinions of Mr. Pitt.— (Cheers.)
But, Sir, that grievance of difference of political rights
was abolished by the Act of 1829, and whatever may
have passed for some years afterwards, it cannct be de-
nied that in Ireland a Roman Catholic who has talents
and ambition is as likely to attain to political distinc-
tion as a Protestant. There was another subject to
which the Hon. Gentleman referred, and respecting
which I hardly think he did justice to what the Imperial
Parliament has effected. One of the greatest grievances
which the people suffered before the union was the state
of the tithe question. At one time every cottager was
obliged to pay tithes not only upon his cottage but even
upon his garden. The questions which thus arose—the
references to ecclesiastical courts which thus took place,
and the fines which by these tribunals were imposed—
constituted a grievance of the most acute nature. The
Parliament of the United Kingdom, in the first place, on
the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for the University of Cambridge, passed a Commu-
tation Act in 1834, and afterwards Lord Wellesley
recommended a permanent and compulsory commutation
of tithes into a fixed rent charge. that plan was
carried into effect in 1338, with a deduction
of 25 per cent. on the whole amount of tithes, levying
only 75 per cent. of the original charge, and providing
after the expiration of a lease that the sum should be
paid by the landlord, leaving him to recover from the
tenant the amount in the shape of rent, and thus alto-
gether putting an end to that angry feeling which was
perpetually a source of complaint, and not only that,
but which threatened to lead to a servile war in some
parts of the country.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to
the grievance, so far as it relates to the nature of pay-
ment, that is another and a different question from the
character of the grievance as to the nature of the tithes
themselves, and the vexation attending their collection.
But the Hon. Gentleman says that the Reform Act of
1833 is imperfect. Now that Reform Act in Ireland
gave the people a great share of political power which
they had not until then possessed. There used to be
many close nomination boroughs—such as Tralee,
which was actually handed down by will from one
party to another—boroughs to the representation
of which individuals had the sole right of nominating,
but which were then thrown open, and of which the
people became the real electors. As to the number of
Members for Ireland, that was not a question to be set-
tled by the Reform Act, because it had been settled at
the time of the union ; but there was, at the time of the
Reform Bill, au addition granted of five Members. The
Hon. Gentleman referred to petty juries. Now, I be-
lieve that the system in Ireland is very much the same
as that which holds in England. If there be any differ-
ence in the system, I think it ought to be put an end to.
Again, Sir, the Hon. Gentleman refers to the franchise
and to the question of registratiou. Now, as to the
franchise, the lion. Gentleman will not fail to recollect
that a Noble Friend of mine, in the year 1840 or 1841,
introduced a measure for the purpose of enlarging that
franchise. When I came into office, in 1846, it was one of
the first questions to which I directed the attention of my
late lamented friend Lord Besborough. In the autumn of
1846 he prepared the outline of a measure, and the Bill
was ready to be brought in at the commencement of the
very next session. Now, Hon. Gentlemen may ask why
it was not introduced ? I have given an answer to that
question already. A dreadful calamity which fell on
Ireland—the failure of the chief article of subsistence
of the people—made it so necessary to attend to some
means of mitigating that great and overwhelming Gala-
may, that no time was left for attending to questions of
franchise. But in the present session we introduced a
measure founded on the principles of the Bill recom-
mended by Lerd Besborough. The Hon. Gentleman
complains that it is laid asides Well, but even if it be
postponed to another session, the only evil which can
follow is. that the one or two elections which may take
place will happen under the old law; but, unless in the
case of a general election taking place, there can be no
particular evil likely to accrue from the introduction
of the measure in 1849 instead of 1848. The Hon.
Gentleman did not find fault with that measure. I be-
lieve it is generally thought that it will extend to a
great extent tho franchise in Ireland, and that it will
so far be a remedy for the grievance of which the
Hon. Member complains—l mean of the smallness of
the number of electors.—(Hear, hear.) But let me ob-
serve on this subject, that although the number of electors
may be very trifling in Ireland, and although that may
be a grievance of which the people have a right to com-
plain, that with regard to that and to many other griev-
ances, they are not such as to prevent the progress of a
people, provided they exert themselves manfully to ob-
tain that station and condition in society by industry
and attention to their own immediate pursuits which the
general freedom of the constitution allows.—(Hear,
hear.) What is the case in Scotland. Until the Reform
Bill in 1833, the people of Scotland had no more than
3,000 electors, and yet by their spirit of industry, and
not only that, but by availing themselves of the agency
of a free constitution—by using those liberties which
are the constitutional property of all—by the English-
men, Irishmen, or Scotchmen—l say, Sir, that by
those means Scotland, during the period between
the rebellion of 1745 and the Reform Bill
of 1833, during those eighty years, I say that
Scotland made as great and remarkable progress as any
kingdom on the face of the globe ever accomplished.—
(Hear, hear.) Therefore, while I admit that with regard
to the franchise and other matters the people of Ireland
may have just grounds for complaint, I deny that
grievances of this kind are any sufficient reason why
they should not make very great progress by their own
intelligence—an intelligence which they possess in a very
high degree, and by fixing their minds on the advantages
which they may obtain, rather than on the grievances
which they suffer.—(Hear.) Sir, I repeat, in these
grievances I see nothing to prevent the people of Ireland
making great progress towards wealth and prosperity.—
(Hear, hear.) Sir, the Honourable Gentleman has al-
luded
to another subject in which he takes a very great
interest, and on which, while I always listen with atten-
tion to his opinions, I cannot agree in many of his con-
clusions—l mean the question with respect to landlord
and tenant. Now, the Honourable Gentleman has read
some extracts from resolutions passed at a meeting
which took place in the north of Ireland on this subject.
It seems to use that in these resolutions, as well as in
speeches made at various other times, two matters were
confounded which are essentially and totally distinct. It
is the custom of the north of Ireland to have what is.,
called tenant-right—a usage differing in different parts'
of the country—depending upon the payment of rent for
some three or four years, in some cases; on the payment
of rent for some ten or twelve years, in others. Well,
be this custom good or bad, it is obvious that, being
established, the tenant who has paid this aura, or some
equivalent to the out-going tenant, and done this with
the knowledge of the landlord, is to be considered as
having a claim on that landlord not to be foreed to
leave the land without some compensation.—(Hear.)
It would, indeed, be a fraud upon the tenant if the
landlord, having consented to the bargain—having,
by a tacit consent, allowed the custom to be put
in force—were then to infringe it. And I should be
sorry were any Bill sanctioned by Parliament supposed
to authorise any breach of faith between the landlord
and the tenant in places where the custom I speak of
has prevailed. But the Hon. Gentleman has always
urged the question as if the usage could be trans-
ferred from districts where it exists to districts
where it does not. Why, the Hon. Gentleman's argu-
ment goes to this extent, that the occupier of land, pro-
vided he pays his rent, has a perpetual right to the occu-
pationan3:thpirnogpebrteyne?o—re(Lcoomud-
pletely
of
subversivetholando.
of
Wthehyri can anything
of
lets a !I 1 red
u i d .
cheers.) Here is a man to whom a certain property
has descended, whose land it is, who
at Ifs. t,
c an
dering the value of the laud, say,
acres of it, of improveable land at a small rent, consi-
acre, and who expects, that owing to the liberal terms
given, that the land will be greatly improved. Here is
all this taking place, and alter all the landlord finds that
the tenant has been neglecting his land ; that so far
from being improved, it is getting into such a miserably
foul condition as hardly to be worth anything. Then,
Sir, under such circumstances, I ask whether you are pre-
pared to transfer the property of that landlord to that
tenant—to that tenant %sho has no claim on the laud—
who was admitted to it solely by the will and pleasure
of the landlord, and who has repaid his admission by
neglect—are you, I repeat, to say that because he pays
his rent the land in question belongs no longer to the
proprietor, but to the tenant?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I
cannot think that Parliament, with any degree of
r
jus-
tice, can sanction such a law, or that such a law, if
passed
throughoutfo Ireland,
the w ou would
whole not
of strike
United
t ethe routK in g doof
m pro-
perty.—
(Hear, hear.) Tier Majesty's Government has, however,
introduced a measure with a view to the improvement
of land, and to the regulation of the relations of landlord '

and tenant. It has been stated from so many counties,
it seems so generally agreed upon that some such mea-
sure is necessary, interfering in a compulsory manner be-
tween landlord and tenant, that I have yielded what
would be otherwise my conviction to that universal
representation, though, according to all general
principles, I should have been 'wrong, not in
not having gone further than we have, but
in proceeding to the length which we have actually
gone. We are about to interfere so far as to make it
necessary for the landlord to submit to certain conditions
as to the treatment of land to which ho has not originally
agreed, for the purpose of the improvement of the land;
and in introducing this measure we have gone as far as
we thought we could with safety. It does not, however,
appear that we shall have time, during the present ses-
sion, to consider further of this Bill. But it will be de-
liberated upon during the recess ; and if any alterations
or improvements can be suggested in the measure, Go-
vernment will be ready to adopt them, in the sincere de-
sire to go as far as possible in smoothing the way for
the improvement of the land in Ireland, always, however,
with a due regard to the main principle on which the
rights of all property are founded. But after all, what
we should look to in the relation of landlord and tenant,
is the establishment of a better mutual understanding
between them.—(Hear, hear.) A voluntary agreement
made between the landlord and tenant, and carried out
for the benefit of both, would after all be a better
means of improving the soil iu Ireland than any
legislative measure.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Gentleman refers to the poor-law, and to the
delay which has taken place in enacting that measure. I
believe that the Hon. Gentleman was a supporter of the
poor-law as it was introduced last year. Now I do not
think that any ijust reproach can be cast upon us for
having long paused before we introduced that measure.
I believe that it was necessary O'er the preservation of
life in Ireland, and for the relief of the poor who were
absolutely destitute. At the same time we know by ex-
perience in this country, that any:poor-law is so liable to
abuse, that its tendency is not so inevitably, but so na-
turally, to deaden industry and to give relief to pau-
perism, where without such a law industry would have
been forced to exertion. I say that there are such
abuses generally connected with all poor-laws that we
cannot be justly blamed for the delay. Having given
our best attention to the subject—having brought in the
Bill as absolutely necessary, I think that it will in the
present year, by the experienee of its working, give us
some further light, which may convince us, not
of its absolute perfection, but which may in-
duce us to consider what modifications and im-
provements had better be introduced. But I be-
lieve that we were right in introducing that Bill. I
believe that the poor-law is tending greatly to the civiliza-
tion of the country; that it prevents those habits of
inendicity which are akin to robbery, and which prevail
in countries where no provision for the pour is made.—
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman has touched,
Sir, upon another subject akin to this. lie spoke of the
small farms in the county of Down, and talked of how
far better it would bo there if the country should be
divided into those farms, rather than that recourse
should be had to emigration. Now I agree with the
opinion of the Honourable Gentleman respecting small
farms, in the cases in which you have a population
which will apply their capital and industry in a perse-
vering and continuous manner to their cultivation. After
the opinion, however, which I gave upon this subject
last year, an opinion which has been much criticised, I
went over the number of acres of land held as small
farms in many of the most populous and flourishing
countries of Europe, and I found that very small
farms prevailed in many of them.— (Hear, hear.)
Honourable Gentlemen may say, " What do I mean by
small farms?" and I at once admit that what may
be a small farm in England would be a large farm
in Ireland—but I allude to such divisions of land
as we find in Tuscany—divisions averaging five
or six acres each.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time,
in order to establish such a division in Ireland, very
great changes must take place—changes which cannot
be effected ly legislation, and which must depend very
much upon the landlords—(Hear, hear)—as well as on
the means of purchase of persons of small capital, and
on various circumstances of that nature. For instance,
it is inconsistent certainly with my theory of small
farms, that there should be persons with plots of ground
too large for a garden and too small for a farm. Such a
system would be very injurious; and in the west of Ire-
land, the occupation of such small spaces of round for
growing potatoes has led to much of the misery of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, in this view, I think
that the measure to which the Hon. Gentleman has
alluded, and which, I am sorry to say, is almost the only
measure of the sort which in the course of the present
session we can hope to carry through—the Incumbered
Estates Bill—l think, Sir, that the Bill will in time lead
to a division of the land into small properties, and to men
of small capital being able to hold small farms, and while
the large farms of Northumberland, or any other county
of England, are conducted upon systems varying accord-
ing to the habits of the people in those counties, so
you must leave those things in Ireland to take their own
course, and to be settled according to the habits of the
people in different parts of that country. The Hon.
Gentleman alluded to a Bill brought in on a similar sub-
ject, namely, the question of evicted tenants. Now,
while I could not allow that any person by mere occupa-
tion of the land at the will and pleasure of the landlord,
or, perhaps, against the will and pleasure of the land-
lord, had thereby gained a right to occupy the land in
all succeeding times, yet I do think that the driving out
of great numbers of those small cottiers at once—that
driving them out by some summary process, perhaps in
a winter's evening, and leaving them without the means
of shelter or subsistence, although there may be some-
thing to be said as to the legal conduct of the landlord,
and although there may be something to be said on his
moral conduct, so far as the conduct of the. tenants to-
wards him is concerned—although that might be said,
yet there is cruelty and want of good feeling in that
practice, with which it is incumbent and necessary for
the law to deal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I was a
party to bringing in a Bill that was introduced by
my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the
Home Department, which provided that while the
landlord was left in full possession of his right
by law of evicting his tenants when the law gave him
that power, yet that care should be taken that, by due
notice to the guardians of the poor, shelter and food
should be provided for those miserable outcasts, the
women and children, some of whom might be afflicted
with fever and other diseases; and for women who might
be turned out just after childbirth, and who, under such
circumstances, and in the inclemency of the weather,
would absolutely need such food and shelter iu order to
the preservation of their lives. I do not think we are
liable to the charge of the Hon. Gentleman, of having
been tardy in carrying that Bill through this House.
The Bill was introduced and read a first time on the 22d
of April, that was immediately before the Easter holi-
days. It was read a second time after the recess—
namely, on the 2d of May; and it was read a third time
and passed on the Bth of May. That does not show
much want of dispatch. I very much regret to say that
the views which this House took of that Bill, and the
views which were sanctioned by this House, were not
adopted by the House of Lords. When this Bill came
back to this House it appeared to me to be a Bill not
only not making the law at all better than it now is, but
in some respects making it worse—(Hear, hear)—and
we could not therefore agree to the amendments. Thu
Bill has gone back to the House of Lords, and I trust
they will take the view which this House has taken on
the subject, and that there may be a remedy such as the
law
very
afflicting cases. The Hon.
Gentleman his remedies for the present
proceeded these
with er
state of Ireland. Now, Sir, I will not at the present
c an
afford
moment say—though I may afterwards make some obser-
vations on that subject—l will not say whether or not it
might be possible at this moment to go into the consi-
deration of all these various remedies ; but I will stato
what it is that the Hon. Gentleman thinks necessary for
the people of Ireland in order to better their social and
political condition. Tho Hon. Gentleman thinks it is
necessary to have additional Members for Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) Well, now, Sir, I do not deny that
there may come a time when it may be desirable
that additional Members may be allowed to Ireland,
in place of some of those boroughs which this House
may think it right to disfranchise. But I do say that
I do not think this is the time to talk of that sub-
ject. I do not find that attention of the Irish Members
(A laugh) as would induce me to think that
we should increase the legislative talent and industry of
the country by adding to the Members for Ireland.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Honorable Gentleman
next says that there ought to be a measure for registra-
tion. I have already stated that I intend to introduce a
Bill on this subject, and that I think there would be no
loss of time if this Bill should be proceeded with in the
next session. The Honourable Gentleman wishes to have
some additional measure with regard to corporations.
For several years I contended in this House that it was
right to have the corporations in Ireland on the same
footing that we have the corporations in England. I
think there was a great deal to be said on the other side
of the question. It was predicted that those reformed
corporations, instead of attending to the local affairs of
their own city or borough, would become violent political
bodies, and that in some cases they would add to and aid
any disaffection that might prevail in the country, rather
than curb and control it by their municipal and magis-
terial powers. Sir, there was great weight in that objec-
tion; but at the same time I was of opinion, and am still
of opinion, that municipal institutions, and corporations
elected by the people, are a great benefit to the people—
that they are of great benefit in England and Scotland,
and that it would produce just and well-founded
discontent if we were to refuse to Ireland that which we
consider necessary for England and Scotland.—(Hear,
hear.) I therefore should have no objection, generally
speaking, to the extension of the franchise in those cor-
porations, in the same manner that it is extended in
England. There are some of the powers which the cor-
porations in England possess which were very doubtful
in themselves ; and I have determined to hesitate in
granting in any new Bill those powers to Irish corpora-
tions. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to grand juries.
Well, with respect to the grand jury law, that again
was a subject that occupied the attention of Lord Cla-
rendon; but such has been the business of this House,
that we have not yet been enabled, seeing that there was
no chance of carrying it, to introduce a Bill on that
subject. I quite agree with the Honourable Gentleman
that the subject is of the greatest importance, for I
can conceive nothing that would be more useful to
It eland than to have good local bodies iu her counties,
who would promote the making of roads and improve-
inents, and who would be careful in the expenditure of
the rates that might be levied for the support of the
counties. I think that large powers ought to be granted
to counties iu that respect. The Hon. Gentleman
alluded to his Landlord and Tenant Bill, of which I have
spoken. He alluded likewise to a Waste Lands Bill.
Now, Sir, I introduced a Waste Lands Bill into this
House, which gave great compulsory powers. We after-
wards abandoned that 13i11, but, at the same time, we
added half a million to the sum given for the improve-
' ment of land by the landlords, which improvement in-

eluded the reclamation of wastes. I think that such a
measure, at all events, was rightly introduced before we
brought forward any compulsory measure. There were
fears that a compulsory measure would create difficulty,
and that there would be objections of an economical na-
ture with regard to the expenditure by Government for
the purpose of reclaiming; and beginning the cultivation
of wastes. The Hon. Gentleman has alluded to as-
sistance being given to railways. We had a very
considerable measure introduced by my Noble Friend
the Member for the West Riding (Lord Morpeth) when.
he was Secretary for Ireland, but which certainly
did not meet with any great encouragement in this
House. We last year proposed a vote of a consider-
able amount for a loan to one of the railway companies
in Ireland, which was approved of by this House,
but which met with considerable opposition. But, in
order to introduce any measure of that kind, we ought
certainly to have a more flourishing state of the finances
than we can boast of at the present moment. Ido not
think we ought to incur so large an expenditure as
would be necessary, without such a surplus balance at
the Exchequer as would justify us in taking that course.
Now, Sir, with regard to measures for Ireland, I might
say that they might be divided into three classes—social,
political, and religious. With regard to measures bear-
ing upon the social condition of the people, we have in-
troduced and carried into effect the poor-law, by which
a vast number of people have been fed during the pre-
sent year. We have likewise introduced a measure for
the sale of incurnbered estates, which, although it will
not have an immediate operation, as the Hon. Gentle-
man says, will, I believe, in time, be the foundation of
great social changes. I can conceive nothing more mis-
chievous than an estate being ineumbered in such a
manner that no person can properly perform the duties
of landlord, and when the nominal landlord receives so
small a sum of rental that it is impossible that he can
give anything for the improvement of the land, and
where his interest in the land is so nominal and
so doubtful that he does not feel himself bound by an
obligation of a real and permanent character. I trust
that these great evils will meet with some correcion
from the Bill which we have introduced. With respect
to political measures, thete is the question of the fran-
chise, upon which we introduced a measure which some
think will meet the wishes of many who seek to extend
the suffrage. Then there is the question, which I admit
is a most difficult one, which relates to the religious and
ecclesiatical position of Ireland, and upon which, as the
Hon. Gentleman says, I have myself taken a prominent
part. I allude to the position of the Established Church
in Ireland, as being the church to which only a minority
of the people belong, hut which has all the revenues that
are recognised and acknowledged by the State as belong-
ing to the Church. That state of things is far from sa-
tisfactory.—(Cheers.) No one can deny that the ap-
propriation of the whole revenue which the State al
lows and recognises as the revenue of an Estab-
lished Church to a small proportion of the people
.is itself an anomaly and a grievance.—(Cheers.)
But,Sir, if I look to the subject to consider the
remedy that can be adopted, 1 find the difficulties in
the way almost insurmountable. T e measure that
I proposed was,
that a portion of the revenues of the
Established Church should be devoted to the education
of the people of every class and creed. With respect to
that measure, if it had been adopted at that time, I
think it would have given great satisfaction; but when
it was refused, and refused more than once, the position
was entirely altered. The Protestants felt that it would
be a great grievance to have any portion of the revenues
of their church separated from the purposes of that
church, and they considered that the separation of that
portion would lead to the abolition of the whole esta-
blishment. Those who, on the other hand, considered
that the Church Establishment was a grievance—not see-
ing this measure carried into effect at once, would not be
satisfied with less than the abolition of the entire Pro-
testant Establishment. On such consideration, it was
useless to attempt to advance that measure. It would
have been almost impossible to have curried it, and if it
had been carried, it would not have produced the effect
originally intended. Well, then, Sir, should we adopt
a measure such as that which was proposed by the Hon.
Member for Manchester fur the abolition of the Protes-
tant Church Establishment? For my own part, I be.
lieve that the Protestants of Ireland, living in a country
where a church establishment is encouraged, have a fair
claim to have a church establishment of their own, and
have a fair claim that their establishment should be ac-
knowledged by the State. Diminished as the tithes have
been—diminished as the property of the Church has been
by the abolition of church-rates, taking the Protestants
of Ireland at somewhere about a million—

Air. B. OSBORNE—Seven hundred and fifty thou-
sand.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Taking the Protestants as
near a million, I do not believe that there is any great
excess allotted to that portion of the people. Are there
not other reasons why we should not proceed to the
abolition of that establishment? I can well understand
men who are of what is called the voluntary principle,
who think the whole Established Church of Ecgland an
abuse—who think the church establishment au abuse,
and that the American principle is the true principle to
be adopted. I can well understand that they should de-
mand the instant abolition of the Church in Ireland. But
for myself, I;do not, because I have repeatedly expressed
in this House that I consider a church establishment a
wise institution for the country. I believe that where it
is properly devoted to the purposes intended, the church
establishment is a blessing to the people among whom it
exists. Nor, Sir, can I see that there would be any ad-
vantage in doing with the rest of the tithes that which
we have already done with 2a per cent. of them.
Well, then, Sir, there arises this other ques-
tion, whether having the Church established for
the Protestants, whether, existing as it does at
the present moment, you have any other estab-
lishment to which the great majority of the
people of Ireland belong. Every one is aware of the
difficulty that besets this question. Every one is aware
not merely of the difficulty which exists in the strong
feelings of a great portion of the people of England and
Scotland, which, in my opiniok would be no bar, and
ought to be no bar to the establishment, to the endow-
ment of the Roman Catholic Church, if it were thought
desirable fur Ireland; but every one must acknowledge
that there are practical difficulties which show clearly
that the people of Ireland generally are against such
endowment. We have seen the Roman Catholic clergy
denounce any attempt to endow the Roman Catholic
Church, as an attempt to bribe the clergy from the cause
of the people. I feel quite sure that it we declared in
favour of any such proposal, it would be said that we
should be giving an establishment to the majority as
well as the minority, for the purpose of seducing the
clergy of Ireland from their flocks, and bribe them into
service of the state. These are the difficulties of this
question—partly
.ecclesiastical and partly religious. It
forms a difficulty in the state of Ireland which, unhappily,
Mr. Pitt did not attempt to cope with when he framed
the Act of Union. It is, however, a difficulty with
which some Government and some Parliament or
other of this country must cope; but I must deprecate
any attempt to encounter that difficulty unless circum-
stances be favourable to the success of the measure that
may be proposed. I think it would be exciting great
religious animosity, and giving an occasion to attack the
religion of a great portion of the population of these
islands—giving occasion to excite; one man against an-
other on the ground of difference of religious opinion;
and I think the giving of such an occasion would be a
very serious fault—if it were not a crime—on the part of
any Government, unless they could see that, although
that temporary evil might be caused, yet some great ul-
timate benefit would be secured. I, therefore, Sir, leave
this subject—not denying its importance—not denying
that it is a question involving a grievance, but pointing
out its immense difficulties, and declaring that the ques-
tion ought not again to be encountered unless there is
a prospect of a solution of this difficult problem.
The Honourable Gentleman who has made this
motion asks us to go now into the consideration of these
various questions. He asks you for the speedy enact-
ssthmeaybe necessary to improve
grievances, and to establish
people. Sir, the Hon. Gentleman
with great candour, is much mis-
ttinwhhheeenoCrtiosgopnhfodktsistueico,ohtln.lmhtoeusrltersdisarhye,
measures as
mis-
taken if he thinks that it is from any wish of ours that
measures which he thinks calculated to redress grie-
vances have been withheld. Nothing would tend more
to their ease, nothing would more gratify the Govern-
ment, than being able to bring their measures, die after
another, under the consideration of Parliament. It is
surely not the Government, therefore, who can be ac-
cused of delaying the various measures which the Hon.
Gentleman thinks necessary, or which we think neces-
sary for the good of Ireland. But I think no one can have
attended to the debates of this session, or any late session
of Parliament, without observing the difficulties there arc
in the way of carrying any series of measures into effect.
There was a subject of great importance, as connected
with the navigation and manufactures of this country,
and the commerce of the whole United Kingdom, which
we proposed this year, relating to the navigation laws.
We were unable to go on with that measure in conse-
quence of the lengthy debates which have taken place.
I cannot promise that I shall have any influence in
changing the rules of this House, by which long and
protracted debates and discussions would be avoided. 1
cannot promise any great influence in making any great
change in that respect. As long as that habit of pro-
tracting discussions lasts, Ireland must take her share
with the rest of the United Kingdom in the delay which
may happen in the postponement of measures which are
of very great importance. It is not, I feel confident, any
indisposition on the part of the Government, or any
indisposition on the part of a majority in this House, to
consider such measures as may tend to the welfare
of Ireland. If the representatives of Ireland in a
body were once to demand the enactment of certain
measures—if those measures would tend to the benefit of
Ireland—l believe those measures would be as readily
considered and as soon adopted as any measure that
could be proposed for the consideration of Parliament.
But whatever those measures may be, let me conclude as
I began by stating, that the grievances of Ireland were
not grievances of recent date—not caused by enactments
of the last few years, or the neglect of enactments in the
last few years. Their principal characteristic is social,
but there are also political and religious grievances
which are of long standing, and cannot easily. or rapidly
be removed. I trust that that want of rapid and easy
redress will not be imputed as a fault to the Parliament
of the United Kingdom, any more than it was when there
was a special Parliament in Ireland. I believe that we
have some advantage over a Parliament sitting in Ireland
for redress of grievances, especially affecting Ireland, be-
cause wo must always recollect that in Ireland there is
not that clear and undisputed path which, in the
opinion of the majority of the representatives of
Ireland would lead to prosperity and happiness.
On the contrary, such is the division of opinion, that I
do think it is useful very often that violent asperities
should be soothed by_those persons who have not mingled
with party politics and religious differences in that part
of the 'lrked Kingdom, All, however, that I can ask
the House is, not to assent to the impossible task laid
before us by the Bon. Gentleman, but to proceed calmly
and gradually to the amendment of any grievances that

affect the people of Ireland, and, abcve all, to be per-
suaded
that it is by the peaceable method of discussion
and Parliamentary redress that those grievances are to
be treated, and that the resort to arms and to rebellion
can but lead to aegravated misfortunes for that country;
that the resources of Ireland, great as they are, would
speedily be squandered and dissipated in civil warfare,
and that we should look to the maintenance of the au-
thority of the law to enable the industrious and peace-
able in Ireland, under this free constitution, to advance
in happiness and prosperity.—(Cheers.)
Mr. H. HERBERT said that it was not so much the
want of remedial measures that Ireland had to complain
of, as that measures had not been introduced concomi-
tantly so as to help each other. For instance, he locked
upon the poor-law as a most admirable measure, but then
with it should have been introduced measures for the
cultivation of waste lands, in order to give employnanit
to the poor. He regretted that the Incumbered Es- '
tates Bill, a valuable measure, had not been introduced
together with the poor-law. But he at once admitted
that too much might be expected from legislation.
Would
,legislation make the tyrant landlord just um'
humane, the idle tenant industrious and honest? Would
legislation make every man in the country feel that he
ought to do his duty in the station iu which God had
placed him? He thought a more arrant delusion was
never entertained. Ile asked those who wished to throw
the responsibility of delay on the Legislature to con-
sider whether there might not be a divided responsibi-
lity—a responsibility on those who obstructed the laws,
as well as on those who made the laws. He believed
that any legislation in a couatry so torn by agitation as
Ireland, must partially fail. The great object in his
opinion was, that the leaders of the people of Ireland
should have the moral courage to speak the truth. He
could not conclude without expressing his satisfaction
that the priesthood of Ireland should have generally
set a good example to their flocks, and stood forward
as the defenders of public order. Considering their
condition, Isis wonder was, not that many of them were
disaffected, and the enemies of this country, but that
there should be amongst them one loyal subject.
• Mr. FAGAN attributed the evils of Ireland to defec-
tive and vicious legislation. It was in consequence of
legislation of that kind that the maxim of the Right
lion. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, aide-toi a is
ciel t'aideru, would not apply in that country. He re-
gretted that the Hon. Member for Kerry had introduced
' the name of the late Mr. O'Connell as he had done.
Were it nut for his agitation and his exertions there
would be no Roman Catholics in that House now.—
(lien, hear.) He did not feel satisfied with the speech
of the Noble Lord. It would not be a messenger of
peace to Ireland. It held out no hope. It seemed to
him as if the Noble Lord was averse from carrying out
any of those measures which lie said were necessary for
the amelioration of Ireland. The whole public must re-
collect the way Ireland was treated as regarded the Mu-
nicipal Reform Act. For five or six years Parliament
was agitated by discussions about that Bill, and at length
it was given to them in a stunted form, just as a bone
would be thrown to a hungry dog. They bad had com-
mission after commission on the subject oflreland, and yet
scarcely one of the measures they advised had been adopted.
What he asked now wise, were the people to die? Was
there to be no attempt to remedy their condition? It
was said that a great share of the evils of Ireland was
attributable to the inclinations of her people. What was
time meaning of this? If they looked abroad, they fount!
Irishmen holding the greatest offices, to which they had
risen by their energy, industry, and talent. The evil of
Ireland,ugiitt to
to b
do to ci u
promote
its
mglmprovement.jon. ) ee);
in his opinion, lay in the soil. All their energies
ought to give Irish A..e.nbers some control over the
House in the administration of Irish affair!.
d
o
Mr. MONSELL would not go into the question whe-
thersomething the moment selected for bringing forward this
motion was the most judicious that could have been
selected—(Hear, hear)—but as the motion was before
the House, with the feeling he had of the miserable
condition of Ireland, he could not do otherwise than sup-
port it. lie did not believe that there was a Member of
the House, English, Irish, or Scotch, otherwise than
disposed to promote any sound remedy which might
be proposed for those
.evils which undeniably weighed
down Ireland, and in weighing dov,ai Ireland weighed
heavily upon England. It was an admitted maxim, that
no national discontent ever manifested itself unless
• where there was national physical suffering. It was
needless fur him to expatiate upon the wretchedness of
the Irish people; that misery was already too notorious,
and until some effectual remedy was applied, that misery
would continue, in one-fourth of the counties of Ire-
land the rating to the relief of the poor was not less on
the average than lis. a head of the population, whereas
in Dorset, one of the most pauperised counties of Eng-
land, the proportion was not wore than 4s. 8d . He did
not mean to say that legislation alone would effect this
remedy, but he would say that without legislation the
remedy could not be effectual. One of the chief means
of removing the social evils of Ireland, would be found
to consist in a comprehensive system of emigration; and
he considered, further, that the measure for the relief of
incumbered estates would be productive of much good.
In relation to political evils, he would demand from the
Government the speediest possible settlement, in a
popular sense, of the elective franchise in Ireland, and,
still more, the establishment of religious equality there.
Mr. B. OSBORNE looked upon the question before
the House as a great national one, and as such he would
treat it. The Parliament began in November, with
promising good measures for Ireland, and yet all it had
achieved was a coercive Bill, and another for the sus-
pension of the I; abeas Corpus Act. It was a remark-
able fact, that on tho very day on which they we-re now
debating, the House of Comteons was engaged, 45 years
ago,in suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. And
what had been done during these forty-five years ?
Nothing. He very much feared that the people of Ire-
land were right when they said they expected nothing
from the Imperial Parliament. Ile did not mean the
Young Ireland party, but those fairly entitled to rank
as the Irish people. The milk-and-water proposals of
the Noble Lord would never satisfy the nation. How
did it happen, after six hundred years of dominion over
Ireland, that she was still in a state of smothered war ?
It was said that Irish grievances were not remedied, be-
cause she never care belore the Parliament in a proper
manner. Was Ireland, then, always to he an humble
suppliant for justice ? Every concession that had been
maue to Ireland had been extorted by fear. Nothing
had ever been done to arouse the gratitude of Ireland.
What had been the game of England towards the Ro-
man Catholics there ? In 1799 England cajoled them.
In 1801 England deceived them. in 1803 they were
discarded. What was the language of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1829 ? " Some-
thing must be done." What was the language of
the present Premier in 1844 ? " Ireland is oc-
cupied and not governed." So it is now under the Noble
( Lord. Was not Ireland as truly occupied and not
governed in 1848 as in 1844 ? Ile was sick and tired of
such an imbecile Government, the end of which would
seem to be either civil war or the repeal of the union.
The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had, in his speech
that evening, seemed to say that there was only one
party to whom Ireland presented an insuperable difficulty.
Ireland was the bugbear of time Right Hon. Baronet,
and nothing was to be done until the Noble Lord was
seated on the Treasury bench. The Irish were lcd to
look upon the Noble Lord as a second St. Patrick. The
poor people of Ireland had hardly expected to find the
Noble Lord in the situation of the "Bottle Conjuror."
They expected the Noble Lord to fulfil his promises.
They were enraged to find [fiat instead of creeping into
his bottle ho had only crept into office. The Noble
Lord ejected the Right Hon. Baronet on the Coercion
Bill, and all present would doubtless remember the
promises made by the then Minister in posse,
and be able to compare them with the per-
formances of the Minister in esse. The people of
Ireland, however, had long memories, and they looked
for the completion of the promise Lord. On the 15th of June,
taunted the Right lion. Baronet with having brought in
• nied by any ameliorative
promises h4e6l, d
theou t by the Noble Lord
a Coercion Bill, unaccompanied
measures. What had been the course of the Noble Lord
andae d hisa
u colleagues?abas
Corpus
i tdwuoritClgoethrce present
eßseilnist
session. And what did he hold out now? The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer talked of " self-reliance," and
the Noble Lord recommended them to look forward to
tranquillity and onward progress, as the only ameliora-
tions to be expected. But were these the proper lehad
Suspensionpa" Acted
com-
pletion of the promises made by the present Govern-
ment? The members of the Noble Lord's Ministry had
volunteered a pledge to place the Irish people on an
equality, as between the Catholic and the Protestant
Churches. But this was when they were out of offiee.
Ile would not say one word against the Protestant
clergymen in Ireland. The representatives of Ireland
had been told that their apathy was the reason why no-
thing had been done towards piecing the Roman Ca-
tholic and Protestant Churches in Ireland on a more
equal footing. This question was the cause of all
the difficulties and discord that prevailed in Ireland,
and until the canker was cut away from the root
they would never cease. There never had been witnessed
in any country such a system as that which had pre-
vailed in Ireland with respect to the Protestant Church.
There were twelve Protestent bishops kept up in that
country endowed with little short of 70,000/. a year, and
all the while it was forgotten that there was such a
thing existing in Ireland as a population of 8,000,000
Roman Catholics. It was true that Catholic priests were
allowed to officiate as chaplains in gaols, but they were
left to wring the pittance necessary for their support
from the poorest cottiers. When the Noble Lord talked
of "gradual progress",in Ireland, what did he mean to
do with the Church establishment there? If he l(Mr.
B. Osborne) did not agree in what the lion. Member for
Manchester had said, it was because he did not think the
plan was ripe for execution. The defence made by the
magnates and bishops of the Irish Church for their large
benefices and incomes was, that if the whole sum re-
ceived by them were spread over the Church there,
not a single clergyman would receive more than 200/.
a year. That was true, but the country had a right
to inquire whether Protestant cler • e were wanted
gym n
in Ireland. And when the lion. Member for Limerick
asserted that the people of England were not prepared
to do away with the Irish Church, he would tell him that
he (Mr. B. Osborne) was ready to go to the hustings on
that question, quite sure that the electors of Middlesex
would not turn him out upon it, The Noble Lord at
the head of the Woods and Forest, when Secretary for
Ireland, had defined the Protestant Church there to be
a mass of livings without cures of souls, and a large
amount of pay without any work, and the Hon. Mem-
ber for Manchester had only borrowed the Noble Lord's
thunder in saying what he did on a former evening on
this subject. How had the Roman Catholics been
trusted by the Government in respect to grants of public
money ? By a return which he held in his hand, he
found that from the year 1800 to 1842, the Protestant
Church in Ireland had received from the public purse,
the fern of 2,075,4604 The Protestant Dissenters in
Leland had received 1,019,000/. during that period ;
whilst the Roman Catholics had received 365,611/.
And this was what they called putting all religious

creeds on an equality. It was idle to talk of Pro-
testant ascendancy having been put down in Ire-
land. The shadow was removed ; the substance still
remained. By the same return he found that there were
forty-one Protestant benefices in Ireland in which not a
Protestant was to be found ; there were ninety•nine in
which there were less than twenty Protestants in each ;
and there were 124 benefices in which the number ofPro-
testants ranged from twenty to fifty, but slid not exceed
the latter amount. If such a state of things had been
observed by the people of England to prevail in any other
nation of Europe there would have been only one opinion
as to its injustice and impolicy ; but they were fami-
liarised to its existence in Ireland and forgot its wicked-
ness. Ile might be asked what he proposed to substitute
for the present state of the Irish Church. He would
answer, that if the Government desired to work a cure,
and do real good in Ireland, they would alter the present
territorial system of the Protestant Church to the con-
gregational system. The territorial system parcelled
out the whole land in districts, and gave clergymen and
hiehops to them, whether they contained any Protestants
or nour.—(Hear, hear.) Such a system might
be very applicable to a country where there
was only one prevailing religion ; but it could not be
fairly enforced amongst a people whose religion was op-
posed to that so enforced. The congregational system,
that paid each clergyman according to the wants of the
district, was the only proper mode of maintaining the
Protestant religion in Ireland. Strange to say, that
system had been proposed by a member of the Right
Hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Peel's) former Government.
When the Noble Lord below him (Morpeth) proposed in
the year 1835 to sequester all the livings in Ireland
where there were not fifty Protestants to be found, Mr.
Bingham Baring, the present Lord Ashburton, proposed
to have recourse to the congregational system, and that
proposition was received by the lion. Member for Mon-
trose with satisfaction, and by the Noble Lord (John
Russell) with praise; only, said the Noble Lord, " the
time has not yet arrived for it to be carried into prac-
tice." Well, they were now arrived at the year 1848,
and yet, according to the Noble Lord, the time had not
arrived. But he (Mr. B. Osborne) would tell the Noble
Lord that had Mr. Bingham Baring's plan been put in
practice in 1835, there would have been perfect content
merit existing throughout Ireland on this subject at the
present time. He would propose also, that the eccle-
siastical tenths, together with all existing rent-charge
in Ireland, should be disposed of, reserving life i.e to
rests, and the proceeds invested in the fund', to con-
stitute the sources of endowment of the ministers of the
Protestant Church there. The glebes he would convert
into money in the same way, and the lands of the bishops
and archbishops he would also sell, reserving all existing
life interests, and invest the proceeds in the funds, as al-
ready stated. He saw no difficulty whatever in carrying
out this plan, whatever the Noble Lord might say to the
contrary. There was one thing more wanted to effect
perfect equality between the Roman Catholic and the
Protestant—that was the removal of the Irish bishops
from the House of Lords. A change in this respect would
nut only be useful as conducing to equality, but it would
afford an opportunity of reducing tno incomes of the
Irish episcopal body.—(Hear.) The surplus revenues
of the Irish Church he would appropriate as Lord Mel-
bourne proposed in 1835, viz., pay them over to the con-
solidated fund, which would take away all ground for
jealousy. Certain it was that until this question of the
Irish Church was settled they could not hope fon perma-
nent tranquillity in Ireland. This was the opinion ex-
pressed by 29 members of the present Government, in-
cluding eight Cabinet Ministers, expressed by their votes
or speeches on Mr. Ward's motion, in 1843 and 1844. The
present state of the University of Dublin was another
ground of complaint. There could be no equality in
Ireland while Roman Catholics were excluded from
fellowships and the other honours of that University.
—(Hear, hear.) Although without the settlement of
the Irish Church question Ireland could nut be tran-
quillised, he did not mean to say that that alone would
be sufficient. No patchwork system of legislation would
be of use for that country. It was of no use coming
down with an Incumbered Estates Bill, which as now
altered would not work, and expect that the difficulties
of governing Ireland would be solved.—(Hear, hear.)
Such patchwork legislation was merely furnishing an
argument for repeal. Another subject of great import •
time was that referred to in the address of 1845—the
improvement of the condition of the industrious classes,
anti the development of the resources of Ireland. At
this time one-third of the population of Ireland were
absolutely paupers. He admitted they had passed a
poor-law for Ireland, and he lamented such a law was not
passed a century ago; but there was one point which should
have been thought ot, viz., the capacity of the country, in
relation to its property, to bear a poor-law: that was how
far the property of the country could bear the burden
of its poverty? Looking at the whole rateable value of
Ireland, and comparing it with the poverty, it was ob-
vious that a poor- law and nothing else was mere patch-
work legislation. What were they to do with 2,500,000
of the working people out of work, out of a population
of 8,000,000, and the majority of the young men of the
middle and upper classes without professions? The only
way of meeting this evil was by some such plan as that
advocated by Sir W. Molesworth—a systematic scheme
of colonisation. He believed it would be a cheap expen-
diture if they withdrew the army from Ireland, and laid
out the money it cost in this way. Then, as to the Go-
vernment of Ireland, the union, as they all knew, was a
one-sided bargain, and the whole system of Irish go-
vernment under it had broke down. There was no set-
tled system. The Government consisted of a mock sove-
reign, a Brummagem court, and a Pinchbeck executive.
There was a Lord-Lieutenannwho as soon as he knew his
business and could do his work well, was removed (as in
the case of Lord Normanby) and a new Lord-Lieutenant
was sent over, who held peculiar views on the subject
of national education ; and, using the church
patronage, which was the chief patronage of his office,
to suit those views, he appointed a set of bishops, whose
language would better become dragoons than clergy-
men, and who declared that the national education sys
tem was a devil's system.--(Hear, hear.) Another evil
was the Lord-Lieutenant. If they wished to ameliorate
the condition of Ireland, they must get rid at once of
the Castle of Dublin.—(Hear, hear.) This was the
opinion of Lord Monteagle, in 1830, and of Mr. Shaw,
the representative of the University, in 1845, who de-
clared that the highest offices were tilled by strangers,
and that that of the Viceroy was nothing better than an
empty pageant. The most sensible thing the Govern-
ment could do in this respect—judging from the appear-
ance of the iieeretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, who seemed to be growing " small by degrees and
beautifully less"—would be to appoint a fourth Secre-
tary of State to manage the affairs of Ireland. Another
proposition he had to make—although it might be met
with derision by that House—was, that the time
had arrived when the English Parliament should hold
a session in Dublin—a course which had been recom-
mended by Lord Clare, who was of opinion that the
English Members knew much more of Belgium than
they did of Ireland. He had still another suggestion to
make, which he probably would be told was uneonstitu-
ng
Lionel. Without meaning to say an
character, he must suggest an humble address
courseaif such a
o to her
Majesty to pay an annual visit to I 1
which had been recommended by that great historian
and philosopher of his day, Sir J. Davies. No monarch
of her race but one—and that one not greatly respected
by the English people—had ever visited Rebind, and so
enthusiastic and loyal had been the reception given to
him that the people bad his footsteps carved upon a reek.
Such visit would, he was sure, go tar to tranquillise the
feelings pf the Irish people. lie could not be taunted
like her Majesty's Ministers with having proposed no
plan. The Noble Lord had rather sarcastically last night,
recommended the Irish Members to return to Ireland,
at least those of them, ho said, who possessed property
and influence. Now ho begged to tell the Noble Lord
that it was not those who had property in Ireland who
had also influence—(Hear)—and he must tell him,
moreover, that the state of things had been brought
about by the non-introduction of the measures he had
so long promised. If the Noble Lord would pledge
himself to those measures, he (Mr. Osborne) would
have no objection to go to Ireland; but, until he did, he
, would remain in that House and urge upon the Govern-
ment the absolute necessity of not putting off those
measures to " a more convenient season," which, con-
sidering the present state of affairs in Ireland, might
never arrive.—(Hear, hear).
Mr. ANSTEY agreed with the Hon. Member for
Middlesex in almost everything he said except his de-
claration that the Established Church was the monster
grievance of Ireland. He (Mr. Anstey), as a Roman
Catholic, must say that the Romau Catholics of
Ireland did not consider the Established Church
as the chief grievance of that country, nor indeed
any grievance at all. No; the grievances of Ire-
land were of a social and agrarian nature. He would
have contented himself with giving a silent vote on this
occasion, but that he might be supposed to agree with
the principles laid down by the Honourable Member for
Middlesex. He condemned the conduct of the Govern-
ment in delaying remedial measures for Ireland, while
they took but very little time to pass measures to de-
prive the people of their rights and liberties. The fact
was, that at the end of the session the people would
have no more evidence of the anxiety of the Govern-
ment to do justice to Ireland than by their having passed
three coercion Bills, which were only rendered necessary
by their scandalous legislation with regard to that coun-
try. He was happy to give his support to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Rochdale.
On the motion of Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, the de-
bate was adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow (this
day).
FARMERS' ESTATE SOCIETY (IREL AND) BILL.
On the motion that the House should go into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Colonel DUNNE made some observations in opposi-
tion to certain principles contained in the Bill, and ob-
jected that Hon. Gentlemen had not been furnished with
it for a sufficient time to enable them to come to any
conclusion on the measure.
Sir W. SObIERVILLE hoped that, as the Bill was
a most important one, no obstacle would be put in its
way.
After a few words from Mr. STAFFORD,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that this was a Bill which
would be most advantageous to Ireland, inasmuch as its
tendency was to enable a society to purchase lands and
to dispose of them in smaller portions, amounting to 30
acres at the least, admitting no smaller subdivision, and
as it contained provisions which rendered it impossible
that any mischief should arise from the Bill. There
was a precedent for such a society in the existence of
the Waste Lands Improvement Society, which had been
of great benefit to the people of Ireland, though not to
the promoters.

LABOUCHERE said, that if the House ap-
proved of the principle of the Bill, they need not lose
time by discussing the details, seeing that they would
be amply attended to by the Committee. Be should
support it with full confidence that its provisions would
most, ctirefully utt.;:lided to by the Committee up
stairs.

Mr. REYNOLDS supported the Bill as a step in the
right direction; but he should have been better pleased

if the minimum quantity of land had been placed at a
lower figure. 'Thirty acres were too much; in his
opinion ten acres should be the minimum quantity of
land purchaseable under the Bill.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the haste with which the
measure was being pressed through the House. He
thought it not unreasonable to ask for twenty-four
hours' delay, so that Hon. Members might have an
opportunity of reading the Bill.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL defended the course taken
by the Select Committee in transferring this Bill from
the private to the public business of the House. He
supported it, as tending to increase the number of small
landed proprietors in Ireland, and thus to increase the
socurities for the preservation of law and order.
Mr. R. PALMER deprecated haste, and approved
of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Oxford-
shire.

Mr. MONSELL supported the Bill. Its object was
merely to open a retail shop for laud, so as to enablo
persons of small capital to obtain freeholds, a thing
which it was, at present, almost impossible to do in
Ireland.

After some further conversation the House went into
Committee pro forma, the Chairman reported progress,
and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.
BRITISH SPIRITS WAREHOUSING BILL.

The House went into Committee pro forma on this
Bill. Some amendments were added by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and, after a short discussion the Bill
was ordered to be reprinted.

PUBLIC WORKS IRELAND (No. 2) BILL.

On the motion fbr the third reading,

Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY objected —to the Bill, because
it assumed that 954,000/. would be received from Ireland
and took from the House all control over that money.
After past experience of the way in which money had
been spent on public works in Ireland, he was opposed
to any more being voted.

Dr-. BO WRING also opposed the Bill.
Colonel BLACKALL said it was only lending the
Irish people their own money back again.
Mr. STAFFORD opposed the Bill.
The opposition was not pressed to a division, and the
Bill was read a third time.
CHANCERY FEES.

On the motion of tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
leave was given to bring in a Bill to alter the mode of
collecting certain fees payable in the High Court of
Chancery in England, and to collect the same by means
of stamps.