The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-19 00:00:00

PRIVILEGE

Mr. CRAWFORD Wish4toialce—the earliest possible op-
portunity of calling attention to a question of privilege. On
Friday night three members of the house were ordered by the
Serjeant at Arms to retire just previous to a division taking
place. (Hear.)
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIs, which, from the
noise which prevailed, were not heard in the gallery,
The SPEAKER said he was perfectly willing to take upon
himself the responsibility of the Serjeant ordering three mem-
bers to leave the house. (Hear.) The door had been closed
for a division, and it was therefore contrary to the rules to
force it. (Hear, hear.) He desired the Serjeant to order the
members in question to retire. (Hear, hear.)
After a few observations from Mr. HUMPHERY, Mr.
CRAWFORD, and Mr. GODSON, the subject dropped.
Mr. O'CONNELL then rose to present a number of peti-
tions in favour of the policy adopted by the present govern-
ment in Ireland. He trusted that the country would not
again become the prey of an Orange faction. (Loud cries of
order, order, order, and cheers from the ministerial benches.)
Mr. Lucas rose to order. It was a rule of the house that
members should not enter into an argument on the presenta-
tion of a petition. He (Mr. Lucas) and other members were
not allowed to do so, and as he did not see the honourable
and learned member for Dublin enjoyed any exclusive right
or immunity, he would not allow that learned gentleman to
depart from the general rule. (Loud cries of hear, hear, and
order, order.) He rose to order, and would insist upon the
honourable member for Dublin being kept within the gene-
ral rule. (Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL.—There was a laugh when I alluded to
the Orange faction. (Order, order.)
Mr. Lucas denied that there was any laugh on the 'op-
position side.
Mr. GRATTAN rose to order ; but the confusion in the
house was so great that not a word the hon. member uttered
could be heard in the gallery. After order had been some-
what obtained,
Mr. O'CONNELL proceeded with the presentation of his
petition, and read the name of every place, and the county in
which it was situated, very slowly and deliberately. After
occupying a length of time, the hon. member said, I shall
reserve the other petitions I have for presentation until to-
morrow," (Laughter.)
Mr. SHIEL and other members presented a number of
similar petitions, the presentation of which occupied the
time of the house until six o'clock.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Rochdale, pray-
ing the house not to pronounce any opinion on the inquiry
, quiry before the highest tribunal in the country. (Hear,,
hear, from the opposition benches.)
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
_ _ _

Lord JOUN RUSSELL rose to address the house. On the
21st of March, the House of Lords appointed a committee
to inquire into the policy of the executive government of Ire-
land during the last five years. On the following day he
gave notice of the resolution he was about to bring under the
consideration of the house It would not be necessary for
him to dwell at any length on the importance of the subject,
or at the present time to go into a minute detail of the policy
adopted in Ireland. In the first place, therefore, he would
remark on the necessity of the House of Commons adopting
the resolution he proposed, and remarking on the amendment
which was to be made by the right hon. baronet opposite.
In the course of the debate, he trusted he should be able full
to justify the conduct of her Majesty's government. (Hear.)
He should not introduce various-points and subjects adopted
by the executive government, but should wait until they were
alluded to by others, and then he thought of being able to
answer them. (Hear.) The proceeding in the House of
Lords called for an expression of opinion from the represen-
tatives of the people. (Hear.) Without disputing the right
of the House of Lords to appoint a committee and institute
an inquiry, it would be idle to attempt a denial that the ap-
pointment of that committee was neither more nor less than
a vote of censure on the executive government. (Hear.) The
name of the mover of the resolution in the House of Lords,
proved what was the intention of those who voted for it ; and
therefore he considered that it was the bounden duty of the
Hones of Commons to declare to the country whether they
approvgd of the proceedings of the Lords or not. (Hear.) At
the commencement of the reign of George 111. he found that
accounts were reported from Ireland of attacks upon houses,
of persons going about armed, of persons forcing other to
give up land, of witnesses threatened, of force, and parti-
cularly of combined force, to effect certain objects of their
conspiracy. In this lawless and lamentable catalogue there
was nothing which very much differed from what they might
find happening in other countries at one period or other of
their history ; there was nothing which differed much from
what the state of England was represented to have been under
Elizabeth, nothing which differed much from what was the
case in Scotland (according to the representation of her ablest
writers) as matters stood there about the year 1688, and sub-
sequently; nothing but what had baffled the wisdom of the
ministers of Elizabeth and William 111. But was there any
thing in Ireland which forbade the eradication of these evils?
He thought that with respect to the upper ranks of the Irish,
no man could point out a people of greater pregnancy of wit,
or of greater aptitude for arts or arms, than was to be seen
in the natives of Ireland. If they looked to the lower classes,
no man could say that any people need disdain comparison
with them as soldiers ; and in other walks of life, whether as
labourers or machanics, more industry or more of those
qualifications by which a country rises to eminence, could
not be found in any nation. He would read to the house
what was said of the causes of that state of thing in Ireland,
by one who spoke not very long after the passing of the
White boy act ; and he could not but think that the remarks
of the learned person he was about to quote were not inap-
plicable at the present period, when they knew that the se-
cretary to the lord lieutenant had met with abundance of
obloquy, because he had written a letter, stating in plain
language that property had its duties as well as its privileges.
Mr. Fitzgibbon, afterwards Lord Clare, the great leader of
the government of Ireland, said, " He knew it was impossi-
ble for human wretchedness to exceed that of the miserable
peasanty of Ireland. He knew that the unhappy peasantry
were ground to powder by rapacious landlords. He knew
that, far from being able to give the clergy their just due,
they had not food or raiment for themselves ; and some land-
lords were so rapacious as to instigate the peasantry to rob
the clergy of their tithes." Would to God that the state of
things was confined to past times. But he must quote
another description of the state in which that country was,
and of the causes why the evils were not evident to the
government of those days, from the " Tours of Arthur
Young." After stating that the people had been treated
better-and better, he said, " The old measures bore very hard
on the people. The landlord of an Irish estate, inhabited
by Roman Catholics was a sort of a despot. To discover
what the liberty of the people is, we must live, amongst
them, and not look for it amongst the statutes of the realm.
The law of the poor is only that of slavery. The landlords
assert a very lofty superiority, and their vassels are ground
down into submission. Nothing will satisfy them but unli-
mited submission. A poor man, if he appeared to lift his head
in his own defence, would have his bones broken." He would
take another description, written with more philosophy, with
more eloquence, with more reflection. Burke, in his letter to
Sir H. Langrishe said, " You that have looked deeply into the
spirit of the popery laws must be sensible that a great part
of the present mischief, which we abhor in common, if it at all
exists, has arisen from them. Their declared objects was to
reduce the catholics of Ireland to a miserable populace, with-
out property, without estimation, without education. The
professed object was to deprive the few men who, in spite of
those laws, might hold or obtain any property amongst them,
of all sort of influence or authority over the rest. They di-
vided the nation into two distinct bodies, without common
interest, sympathy, or connexion. One of these bodies was
to possess all the franchises, all the property, and all the edu-
cation ; the other was to be composed of drawers of water and
cutters of turf for them. Are we to be astonished when, by
the efforts of so much violence in conquest, and so much
policy in regulation, continued without intermission for near
an hundred years, we had reduced them to a mob ; that,
whenever they came into act at all, many of them would act
exactly like a mob, without temper, measure, or foresight ?"
If at that time measures had been passed putting the Roman
catholics on an equality with the protestants; a spirit of jus-
tice pervading the laws of the realm, and at the same time
providing as they had lately attempted to provide, in the spirit
of the laws of Elizabeth, for the substance of the poor, he
thought they should not now have to regret the state of 'lre-
land. What was done? A law was passed—the first law,
he thought, with respect to whiteboys, in 1756, was law of
punishment. The next law passed with respect to whiteboys
was in 1775. After recounting the disorders which then existed
—after recounting that farmers were obliged to leave their
land, and householders their houses, that arms were obtained,
and illegal oaths enforced, it proceeded to enact severe clauses,
in one the punishment of death. If any person was found
out of doors in a garb not his usual garb, and any dress not
his usual dress, and in which lie pursued his usual occupa-
tions, for that he was subject to fine and imprisonment. That

as the whole spirit of the law, and the laws passed after-
wards of the suspension of the habeas corpus act, all the acts
that were passed intended to punish—all using severity ; all
taking care, and very properly taking care, to pursue crime
to the utmost punishment ; but none of them providing for
the permanent welfare of the people ; none of them admitting
the Irish catholic to be treated as the free subject of the free
country ; none of them passed in the spirit of mercy. He
would show them the consequence of this. He would not go
through the evidence of crimes, of murders, of insurrections,
on the one hand, that prevailed in 1786, in 1798, and 1806,
at various periods; he would not go either through the cata-
logue of those laws of a violent character by which we had tried
from time to time to repress, and only could repress for a time,
those disorders, but he wished to take them on to the consider-
ation of a period which bore on the question. The date of the
whiteboy act was 1775. He wished them to consider the period
from then to 1824 and 1825. These 50 years were perhaps 50 of
the most remarkable years in the history of the country. In
France, there was an ancient monarchy overthrown—a bloody
and restless republic established. A military despotism suc-
ceeded, and the government again submitted to an ancient
monarchy. During this period almost every country in
Europe had seen its thrones abandoned, or the possessors
changed—had seen its institutions altered—had seen foreign
potentates in its capital, and also sometimes, and without
occasion, a violent revolution. In our own country, though
we had no foreign invasions, owing to the mercy of Provi-
dence, yet we had had great changes in the country—a foreign
war, an immense increase of debt, a debased currency—and
on the other hand, prodigious victories in arms, and very
great and almost miraculous prosperity. Such were the
changes which for 90 years took place on the continent of
Europe and in this country ; and now he would show them
what was the account which at the end of 50 years was given
by a person well competent to speak to facts—to speak to the
state of Ireland. They had not either corrected their laws,
nor admitted the catholics to a free participation of citizen-
ship. He described the country in this way. He said, "he
found the whiteboy system for the last 60 years continued.
The outrages had been of the same kind for the last 60 years.
Illegal associations had existed. The preamble of the 15th
and 16th of Geo. 111. almost stated the state of the country
—attacking houses, taking arms, taking horses at night,
murder of proctors, and other outrages similar to these."
Thus filly saw that these 50 years—that that half century
which had produced so great a change—which had produced
revolutions in almost every country in Europe—that, accord-
ing to the evidence of Mr. Barrington, Ireland was to be
described in the same words as it was by the authors of the
whiteboy act in 1775. He might read to them many cor-
roborations of this testimony of Mr. Barrington. He might
show by the evidence of Mr. Becher, that country gentlemen
had their houses shut up, that they did not venture to go out
but in the day-time ; that they saw fires at night on the hills,
and heard horses in the night trampling by. According to
the evidence of Mr. Blacker they did not allow their windows
to be open, so as almost to be excluded from the light of day,
for fear; and he could show them that the country abounded
at that time in murders. (Hear.) And he would ask,
was that state of things, which had rendered life and pro-
perty insecure in that part of the empire, owing to the over-
much liberality of the government ? Was it owing to the
excessive clemency exercised ? Was it owing to the too great
favour shown to the Roman Catholics ? Had not persons
professing the opinions of Lord Roden during nearly the
whole of that period of the government of Ireland, except
when Lord Fitzwilliam was lord-lieutenant ? The whole of
that period Ireland had been under the dominion and guid-
ance of men who came now to complain to them, and who
told them these tales, and related these horrors, as if they
were the exclusive production of those years of Lord Nor-
manby's government, either blinding themselves, or wilfully
concealing the fact that these crimes were the offspring of a
former oppression—were the offspring of that social misery—
were the offspring of that intolerable conduct of the landlords
of pdst times—of the conduct exercised by persons in office
at that time, but to which no effectual remedy was placed.
The Orange faction trampled over the liberties and over the
interests of a great proportion of the inhabitants. He had
thought it necessary to state these things, that the house
might not suppose, if it agreed to the resolution recounting
the vote of the House of Lords, that these crimes, as this
resolution would seem to imply, had been the production of
the present government, which had rendered life and property
insecure in that part of the empire. It was certainly at-
tempted to state these outrages as if they were something
new, and had never occurred before. If it were necessary to
go into that, it would be easy to show the nature of the crimes
which formerly prevailed, and to show what was the social
state of the country at that period ; and therefore he should
protest, if it were moved in that house, as his noble friend
the prime minister had protested in the other house, against
any inquiry which it was proposed to limit to periods since
1835, as an inquiry totally inadequate to the cause to be
looked to—(hear, hear)—or an inquiry totally incomplete
with respect to the cases to be investigated, which, if investi-
gation took place at all, ought to be investigated. But what
really took place in 1824 and 1825 ? Committees of both
houses of parliament were appointed. These committees of
both houses went into the inquiry with respect to all those
cases of social outrages and misery which prevailed in Ire-
land. So far as that inquiry was concerned, therefore, up to
1825, the proceedings of the inquiry were before the house.
With respect to the accusation that had been laid against the
government on the subject of the misgovernment of Ireland,
it extended only to the period of Lord Normanby's govern-
ment. It was, therefore, only to that portion of the govern-
ment of Ireland that he need direct his attention ; but he
would, nevertheless, be always most ready to assume all the
responsibility for which he was justly liable. By stating the
condition of Ireland when Lord Normanby undertook the
government, in April, 1834, it would appear that the charge
now brought was, that the evils which were described as then
existing in that country still continued. But from statements
that had lately been made, and more especially from a speech
that was reported to have been spoken by Lord Oxmantown,
it would seem that the character of the peasantry was en-
tirely changed during Lord Normanby's administration—
that they now possessed a desire for violence and outrage,
where formerly they were most harmless and forbearing.
What, now, was the description which Lord Wellesley gave
of the state of Ireland in 1834 ? Why, he complained of the
system of the legislature being such as must tempt a severe
exercise of power in the executive in almost every district of
the country, and said that on this subject he could not ex-
press his opinions more fairly than would be found in the
letter which had been addressed by Lord Oxmantown, the
Lord-Lieutenant of King's County, to Mr. Littleton, in
which his lordship had truly said that the people themselves
surpassed the law in vigorous and prompt punishment, and
thatthat they considered it safer do violate it than to obey it.
they a-. I._l____ -e lr.try
night e
right, but that there were combinations amongst the people
directly opposed to the laws, and that those who violated the
mandates of those biadiei were more severely punished than
if they suffered only the ordinary punishment of the law."
In another place, too, the same noble lord, speaking of the
misery of the peasantry, said, it was impossible to form an
adequate opinion of their state without seeing it, and that
many had emigrated to America. He (Lord J. Russell) had
no doubt that Lord Oxmantown had given a correct descrip-
tion of the condition of the people of Ireland at the time
when he wrote—viz., in 1832 ' • but it was monstrous, it was
most unjust, to say that the law was not in the same calami-
tous state, that there was not as much power in these com-
binations, when Lord Normanby's government began in
1834. One of the greatest evils existing in Ireland, and
which had been mentioned in all the evidence that had been
given-before the committees of both houses of parliament at
various periods, was the distrust of the people in the law.
That opinion had been given by Mr. Barrington, Mr. Leslie
Foster, and Mr. Justice Daly, and various instances were
mentioned as proofs of its correctness. There was one of a
person who committed a murder; and although every one
well knew who was the guilty person, yet even those to whom
he was obnoxious would not deliver him up, but took him
and punished him themielves, treating him so severely that
his life was despaired of, although he afterwards recovered.
Other instances might also be given, and one he remembered,
which, although it was trivial in itself, nevertheless showed
the disposition which existed amongst the people. The pre-
sent Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, on visiting one of his
estates a few years ago, had met the •son of a farmer, one of
his tenants, and had formed a favourable opinion of him ;
but on returning to Ireland in the following year and not
seeing him, he inquired of his father what had become of
him, and was informed that he had been waylaid, and was
struck so violently with a stone that he died in consequence;
" but," added the father, " I know the persons who did
it." His noble friend, Lord Ebrington, 'then naturally
said, as any person would have done in similar circum-
stances, " Why then do you not bring him to justice ?"
to which the farmer replied, "We know perfectly well
who did it, and we will do as much for them another time."
It appeared to him that one of the causes of this distrust in
the law had arisen from the law having never been adminis-
tered in a way that the people might confidently expect equal
justice to be given to all men. Among other things, too,
there was a general belief, when persons were about to un-
dergo a criminal trial, that where any one who was called to
serve as a juror was known to entertain opinions hostile to
the crown, or was of Roman catholic religion, he was set
aside more frequently than justice required. Great pains
were taken, however, by his honourable and learned friend,
Mr. O'Loughlan, not to give up the right of the crown, or
the right of the prisoner, and a very necessary right it was,
to challenge any one of the jurors, by taking care that no man
should be objected to on account of his politics or religion.
Nothing could be more likely than that to give confidence in
the administration of the law to a people who, according to
ancient as well as modern testimony, could well appreciate the
value of justice ; and if they could once see that it depended
on themselves whether outrages should be favoured or not, a
great and beneficial change would be produced in the way in
which the laws were enforced. It was to be expected that
complaints should be occasionally made, and there might
have been some instances of improper persons serving on a
jury. It was impossible to counteract all the disadvantages;
but he thought the returns which had been made would show
satisfactorily, that far from there being this great distrust in
jurors, there was now no want of confidence in the adminis-
tration of justice. He held in his hand a return of the num-
ber of persons who had been committed for homicide from the
year 1832 to the year 1838, both inclusive, by which it ap-
peared, that in 1832.there.had been G2O committals, and 168
convictions ' • in 1833, '687 committals, and 274 convictions ;
in 1837, 519 committals, and 175 convictions ; in 1838, 424
committals, and 199 convictions; so that, comparing the
proportion of convictions to committals in 1833 with the pro-
portion in 1838, it would give a result greatly in favour of the
latter ; for in the former year the proportion was 40 per cent.,
whilst in the year 1838 it was as much as 46 per cent. This
was from the return of the-inspector-general of prisons.
There was a question into which he would not now enter, as
to the various returns of the clerks, of the peace and the
crown, and the ingenious method which had been resorted to
to show the disparity in point of number between their
returns arid those of the inspector-genesal. Now, not only
did these returns contain a great number of offences as to
crimes which were not mentioned in the latter, but often
contained the same offences three times over. There were
assault, robbery, and rescue, all taken as three offences.
(Cries of " no, no," from the opposition benches.) He
believed that such was truly the case. If the right hon.
member for the University of Dublin questioned these re-
turns, and compared them with others of different years, he
hoped he would at least compare them with returns of the
same character. Although it might be said that the one was
incorrect, and the other contained a true view of the facts,
yet a most ingenious method had been resorted to, so that
one class of returns should be brought forward for one
lord-lieutenant, and another class for another lord-lieutenant.
Now he might as well make a comparison between the num-
ber of crimes in 1830 and 1838, and in the account of 1830
take only the offences that were tried at the assizes ; whilst
in those of 1838, he took all the offences that were tried at
the quarter sessions and at the assizes. That, he believed,
was the method by which they had endeavoured to make out
the vast increase of crime in Ireland. In one return showing
that the offences in one year in the county Tipperary were
300 and upwards, the number had in four years increased to
upwards of 3000. This remarkable increase had naturally
called attention to the fact, and it was fair, therefore, in mak-
ing any statement against Lord Normanby's government,
not to go into such gross exaggeration. He would now take
all offences, including those tried at petty sessions, for the
two years 1833 and 1834, and the two years 1837 and 1838
taken together. In 1833 and 1834 the number of commit-
tals for offences was 39,700, and convictions 25,697, whilst in
1837 and 1838 the number of committals were 49,896, and
convictions 38,514 ; so that comparing one period with the
other, it appeared that therdwas no want of committals, and
the number of convictions was not diminished in proportion
owing to any rules that were adopted in the respective years.
Now, he would say, that if they could make the laws efficient in
the number of convictions as compared with the committals
—if they could establish a proper administration of justice,
and bring the people themselves to take a part in that ad-
ministration, they would be not merely doing a temporary

good to Ireland, but would be laying the foundation for the
permanent prosperity of that country ; whilst Lord Roden
and those who held the same opinions, would utterly fail in
proving the contrary from the conduct of the government.
But in the year 1830, at the end of which the Duke of Wel-
lington went out of office, he found the number of com-
mittals for offences was 15,794, and convictions 9902 ; whilst
in 1838, the committals, were 25,440, and the convictions
19,329 ; showing that in the former year there was only two-
thirds of the number committed who were convicted ; but in
the latter year the convictions were three-fourths of the
whole number. This, he thought, would furnish a proof of
'the efficiency of the law as administered by Lord Normanby.
It might be said, that although persons had been brought to
trial, and the law had been fairly administered, yet that there
had been no activity, no energy, in pursuing crime. He would
say, however, that the energy and activity which had been
exercised during Lord Normanby's government, was greater
than had ever been shown by any other lord-lieutenant. One
of the first acts of the hon. and learned Mr. O'Loghlen was
that the Attorney-general should practice at the quarter-ses-
sions, and take cognizance of various offences which had not
been hitherto noticed at all ; for previously many of those
bloody feuds which were attended with great violence, and
were afterwards treated as murder, were, in consequence of
no person taking any interest in them, and also from the in-
disposition of the Irish to resort to criminal trial, as he had
before mentioned, left unpunished. It had been said in for-
mer times, but strongly he did hope that those times had en-
tirely passed away, that magistrates, not only took care to
prosecute in particular cases, but often leaned to one side or
the other, and that, consequently, many persons committed
offences with impunity, owing to the protection of the magis-
trates. He would not impute that conduct to the magistrates
during the time of the administration that went out of office
in 1830, but he would say that the law officers of Lord Nor-
manby had given orders more vigorous than had hitherto
been acted on for the punishment of all offences. It was in
a great measure to their conduct that we owed the increase of
committals during late years ; and he was sure that thehouse
"would agree with him in thinking, that although there was,
apparently a great increase in offences, yet it had arisen from
the increased number of committals from the course which
had been adopted, and that that course would lead to perma-
nent good. Lord Normanby had been very much attacked
for showing too great leniency towards certain offenders. He
did not mean to go into that part of the case before the year
1837, as that had been already fully discussed. The high pre-
rogative of mercy had been exercised, and he believed very
properly, in Ireland, in the last two years; but it had been
exercised the same as in this country, not solely from the
opinions ofthe judges, or circumstances that had appeared
upon the trial, but from other circumstances that were known
in various ways. He would say, too, that the exercise of
that prerogative had often had reference to the tranquil or
disturbed state of the country. An instance of this was
given in the evidence before the House of Commons with
regard to some person who had been tried for murder during
the administration of Lord Anglesea. Sentence of death had
been passed upon him, but it was then understood that if the
county became tranquillized in the mean time, the sentence
should be commuted to transportation. It happened that the
state of the county. did become improved in the stated period,
and the man was accordingly reprieved from death, and trans-
ported. That would show that it ought not to be argued, that
because Lord Normanby had exercised the high prerogative of
mercy at all, that it had necessarily been improperly exercised.
[The noble lord then proceeded to charge the Orange Insti-
tution as the source of most of the evils with which Ireland
was afflicted. He then proceeded—] Whether right or
wrong, it so happened that the great majority of the people
of Ireland were the supporters of the government. That
was a fact which he was proud to proclaim, and of which they
had sufficient evidence that night in the number of petitions
presented, praying the house not to oppose a gohrnment
which the Irish people looked on with favour and regard,
and which they hoped to see conducted on the same princi-
ples as of late years. And why, he asked, if it was right to
conduct the government of England in accordance with the
wishes of the English people, why should not the wishes of
the people of Ireland be consulted in a similar manner with
respect to the government of Ireland? Was it to be said,
that there the opinions and wishes of a small minority were
alone to he attended to, and that all consideration for the
desires of the large majority of the people was to be omitted ?
If such a course were pursued, no permanent improvement
could take place in the country ; for to effect improvement
they must rely on the good-will and confidence of the Irish
people. He asserted then, and in proof of his assertion, he
appealed to the general testimony which had been given to
the house, that in consequence of the good-will and favour
with which the Irish people regarded the government, the
condition of Ireland had greatly improved. Laws affecting
the state of the poor had recently been passed, and measures
had been adopted providing against those evils which had
been the source of much suffering and injury to Ireland.
These laws, however, must necessarily be slow in their opera-
tions. Let the house bear in mind the declaration made by
the Duke of Wellington in 1829. On the occasion of the
passing of the bill depriving the 40s. freeholders of their
franchise, that noble duke observed, that in many counties in
Ireland they were driven up to the poll in thousands like
cattle. These voters had been deprived of their franchise,
and it was obvious that the landlords who had so treated
their tenants would, when the franchise was taken from them,
exert their right as landlords, chiefly with a view to improve
their property, without much regard to the misery they might
inflict on this unfortunate class of persons. This had been
the spring of one additional difficulty, with which every go-
vernment since 1829 had had to deal: In Lord Normanby's
time, and previously, the rights of property had been exer-
cised with the utmost rigour. This had taken place not only
in former days, as Mr. Drummond said, but in the prosent.
The evil resulting from such a state of things was to a certain
extent remedied, when a law passed giving to, every person
turned out of possession, a right to demand relief from a
board of guardians. What, however, had been the case in
former days ? They had the evidence of various persons
likely to be well-informed of the fact—they had the testi-
mony of landlords and overseers, that in many instances
hundreds of these poor people who had been turned out of
possession, had perished from starvation. These things, too
were going on, not merely in former days—not only in 1775,
but in April, 1839. The ejectments continued ; large num-
bers of individuals were driven from their honneS ; and then
the Irish government had to deal-with outrages which were
often committed by persons in this unhappy condition, left
to starve. Tell him not, then, that within the space of the
last four years could be found the origin of evils which were
so deeply rooted. In 1829, the right him. gentleman oppo-
site said that the attacks on houses in Ireland, and the out-
rages on persons, were symptoms of a diseased state __ef. so-
- " Minister to a mind diseas'd,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow ?
Raze out the written troubles of the brain ;
And, with some sweet oblivious antidote,
Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart ?"
This it was not in the power of any government by any
measures of legislation to accomplish. They might, however,
do this ; they might show a determination to administer im-
partial justice to all classes; they might show a determination
to promote -laws tending to diminish poverty and misery ;
they might show confidence in the people, and reliance on
their affections ; and they might then expect that confidence
would return where it had been long unknown ; that in time,
the affections, which had been long alienated, would again be
given to the government ; they might then expect that the
misery and suffering to which the people had been subjected
would yield to tfie remedies which the government might ap-
Ely—to such remedies as the ministers of Elizabeth applied in
ngland—to such remedies as the ministers of William ap-
plied in regard to Scotland when they established a religion
closely bound up with that of England, and which therefore,
tended most effectually to unite the two countries, and which
being thus united in the reign of William was to be regarded
as one ofthe most glorious circumstances of a time so favor-
able to English liberty, but he was sorry to add, of degradation
to Ireland. He thought the time had long ago come when
they ought to have given complete religious liberty to the Ro-
man catholic population of Ireland, and when measures
ought to have been adopted to promote the peace, the happi-
ness, and the prosperity of Ireland, without jealosusy, and
without regarding distinctions of class or sect. He thought
that in 1829, when they settled the catholic relief bill, other
measures ought to have accompanied the settlement of that
great question, tending to secure the affections of the Irish
people, and thus the more firmly to unite Ireland with Eng-
land. This too he still felt, of this he was fully persuaded,
that the present administration by pUrsuing the principles
which they had pursued, adopting the measures which they
had adopted, by giving that confidence to the people which
they had given t hey had in return secured a degree of confi-
dence from the people—a confidence which could never be
given to an administration composed of those persons who
had long been hostile to theta, to those who in 1839, in fram-
ing municipal corporations for Ireland, such as had been given
to England and to Scotland, had insisted on giving an £8
franchise instead of a £lO franchise, and who had made other
distinctions in the statute directed against the Roman catho-
lic portion of the people. (Hear,' hear, hear.) They might
depend upon it that, in such circumstances, they could not
obtain from the Irish people that reliance on their measures
which was necessary for their success—that they could not
persuade them that they really wished to place Ireland on a
footing of equality with England ; but on the contrary, there
would be a constant and rankling conviction in the minds of
the Irish people that justice was not impartially administered,
and that favour was not impartially shown. He was aware
that the extreme reformers were unfavorably disposed to the
government. Their arguments he would deal with when the
hon. member for Finsbury should move his amendment ; and
then, too, he would restate his own declarations, not as they
bad been carelessly, or perhaps carefully, misrepresented by
others, but as he himself had uttered them. They might be
made a ground for expelling the government, but he was not
prepared to unsay them, either as to Ireland, or as to the rest
of the empire. The government might think the consequence
of rejecting the motion he proposed dangerous as regarded
Ireland, and doubtful as respected the rest of the. empire ;
but as far as they themselves were concerned they could have
no reason to regret the result. They could not regret the
measures they had proposed for the welfare of Ireland, and,
they had no inclination now to give way to measurea which,
when proposed by others, they had hitherto felt it their duty
to resist. It had been their constant aim, with respect to
the affairs of Ireland, to do justice to all parties, and to in-
troduce a kindly relation between the people of that country
and the people of Great Britain. They had endeavonred to
found the government of Ireland as the government of Eng-
land was founded—namely, on public opinion, on affection,
and on good will ; and if they were doomed to fall, as the re-
sult of the motion before the house, they would have the
consolation of knowing that they fell in an attempt to knit
together in the bonds of love the hearts of her maesty's sub-
jects throughout the United Kingdom. (Loud and prolonged
cheers.) _ _ _

The noble lord's motion having been put from the chair,
Sir R. PEEL could not regret he had given the noble lord,
by declaring antecedent to the present debate what the amend-
ment was which he intended to submit to the house,. the ad-
vantage of which the noble lord had largely, but not unfairly,
availed himself, of commenting on the terms and purport of
that amendment. He considered that he had made no con-
cessioa, and be would deprive himself of no advantage, by
not reserving to the present moment the terms of the propo-
sition which he had now to submit, for he felt that that pro-
position was so consistent with common sense, and that it
was so strongly founded upon truth, that he had willingly
courted every opportunity. for comment. In framing that
proposition he had sought not to include the support of any
one who might think the amendment justified by the occa-
sion, but he had not attempted to conciliate the support of
those who on other questions were opposed to, the measures
of policy which he himself advocated. He had been advised
not to introduce the name of the House of Lords into his
amendment, because he was told that if he did so it was cer-
tain that those hon. gentlemen who were hostile to the peers
would necessarily oppose it. He was asked to move for a
committee on the state of the nation, as that was a course
likely to be more captivating than any other which he could
adopt. He had refused to admit either proposition in this
great crisis, for surely it was a great crisis, when the house
was called upon to give a partial vote of confidence in the ex-
isting government, and to seek unjustly a collision with the
other branch of the legislature ; he had determined, in framing •
the resolution which he had to propose, to keep in view no-
thing but considerations of .equity and union, and he felt in
so doing that, although ministers might triumph, yet if it
was confirmed by the voice of reason, they could not extin-
guish the principles of truth and justice which gave vitality
to his motion. Now, he would appeal to the house whether
it was right to ask for a partial declaration of confidence on
one particular portion of the policy of the government ? Were
they, as one of the branches of the legislature, justified in
carelessly seeking a collision with the other and co-ordinate
branch? It might be that the introduction of abstract pro-
positions in regard to Ireland in the month of April migh
awaken remembrances of those of 1835, yet he could assure

the house that he had no difficulty in eradicating from his
mind every root of animosity which in the discussion of those
resolutions might have been engendered, and although he
might perhaps refer to those in order to show the impolicy of
the House of Commons consenting to the adoption of abstract
propositions, he would attempt to prove that he was not then
labouring under any of those irritating feelings which the
most generous mind might irxibibe in the heat of political
conflict. He had two propositions to submit to the house.
In the first place he called upon them to declare that it was
neither fitting nor suited to the character of that house to
make abstract resolutions with respect to the conduct of the
government, unless under peculiar circumstance's; and in
the greatest emergency. Secondly, he objected to abstract
declarations of opinioh as unfair when they were sought to
be obtained as a cause for unjust conflict with the other
branch of the legislature. (Hear, hear.) He would say, in
the first place, that declarations of confidence on the part of
the House of Commons in favour of the government ought
not to be asked for or given except in extreme cases. The
confidence of the house in the government ought to be in-
ferred from the kind of support which was given to the ad-
ministration, from the manner in which the house dealt with
the legislative measures proposed by the government, rather
than from abstract declarations of opinion. It was difficult
to conceive any government which could not meet with occa-
sional opposition. It was impossible to conceive that any
government could be formed which might not fall into occa-
sional error, and in some particulars follow a line of policy
which the house might not be able to approve ; and if they
acceded to the proposition of the noble lord, they would make
it impossible that any government should be formed hereafter,
because if they selected particular parts of the policy of the
government for approbation, and called on the house for a par-
tial declaration of confidence, they must, if such a proceeding
became general, paralyse the hands of any administration, and
lead the public into erroneous impressions, that because they
partially approved of one part of their policy they gave their ,
full approbation to the general policy of that government.
He would say; therefore, and he thought every one would
admit it, that there ought to be some strong reason upon
which a government would have a right to call upon the
House of Commons for a vote of partial approbation. Still,
it was possible that a partial declaration of confidence might
be justifiable. It might have this advantage, that by limiting
the approbation of the House Of Commons to a particular
line of policy, there was obtained, most unquestionably,' a
clear and explicit definition of that particular system of
policy of which they meant to approve. But if the govern-
ment took this double course—if they took a single branch
of administration, and had neither the courage nor the man-
liness to avow what were the principles of policy for which
they sought for the sanction of the House of Commons—if
they did not tell the house what was the period over which
the administration of government extended while those
principles were acted upon—if they did not tell the house
who were the public men of whom they were called upon
to approve—if they did not 'enunciate the principles which
they invited them to sanction in a way beyond the reach of
contradiction, they would be involving the House of Com-
mons in what would prove a most embarrassing precedent.
He would ask hon. members opposite, if the resolution of
the noble lord was not open to this objection ? Was it not,
in point of fact, a resolution calling for a partial approval of
the acts of the administration, and being so, was it not vague
and indefinite ? " You ask me," continued the right hon.
baronet, " to approve of the principles which have guided
the executive government of Ireland. But the executive
government of Ireland means her majesty's government
generally. You cannot separate the executive government
of Ireland from the whole cabinet. You cannot pay a par-
tial compliment to the Marquis of Normanby, and the noble
lord (Morpeth) who sits opposite to me, without at the same
time paying a compliment to every member of the adminis-
tration. Do you recollect Lord Glenelg ? Do you recollect
that when it was proposed last year to pronounce a censure
upon that branch of your administration over which that
noble lord presided, you declared that it was impossible to
separate an individual member of the government from the
rest of his colleagues ? If you have forgotten, I will remind
you of it. To show that if censure cast upon an individual
member of the administration is to be construed as a censure
upon the goverment, a compliment to the executive govern-
ment of Ireland is a compliment to the cabinet generally.
The noble lord (Palmerston) loudly protested against the
attack made upon his noble friend. The noble lord said,
" Did the hon. baronet suppose that the present cabinet
either would or could remain in office if one of its members
were to be driven from it by a direct vote of censure of that
house ? Why, if they could be so base and dishonourable,
that house would never permit a set of men to retain their
places who had allowed one of their number to become a
scapegoat to save themselves." Upon that occasion the
government did present an instance of generous devotion
which is rarely seen. But if that feeling he just, so, when a
compliment is paid to a particular branch of the administra-
tion, you cannot exclusively appropriate that compliment to
oneidepartment, but the whole administration must participate
in it. This, then, is a compliment sought to be paid to the
executive government of Ireland. Do you mean to extend
that approbation to the course of legislative policy which
you pursued with reference to that country ? Do you
mean to say that, in paying a compliment to the princi-
ples which have pervaded the executive government of Ire-
land, you cordially approve, in respect of legislation, of the
language of this resolution ? What, then, becomes of the
46 gentlemen who followed the hon. member for Sheffield
last year in denouncing the government for the course
which they had pursued in reference to legislative mea-
sures for Ireland? I conceive, then, that this vote of
partial approbation is not to be construed as extending to
your legislative policy, and that it relates only to the admi-
nistration of the affairs of Ireland. But is that my only
objection to this resolution? Far from it. My second ob-
jection is, that finding, according to your assumption, which
I utterly deny, that the House of Lords have taken pro-
ceedings which are tantamount to a vote of censure upon the
government, you do not come courageously and manfully
forward in opposition to those procedings, and say what are
principles of executive government which you call upon the
House of Commons to sanction and approve. Do you take
the auspicious state of 1835, and -ask fora vote of approba-
tion from that period of the administration of her Majesty's
government in Ireland ? No, but you ask the House of
Commons to approve of the •principles which have guided
the executive government of Ireland of late years. I will
not trouble you with quotations from the various writers who
would show that the words " of late years" apply indiscri-
minately to ever period, except that between two years and
one. But will the House of COmmons not require any fur-
ther specification of the period to which the resolution ap-
plies than is to be found in_ the expression " of late_svg,r'
will interrupt me to answer it—Do you, by your resolution,
mean to include the government of Lord Grey ? Do you
mean to include Lord Wellesley ? Do you mean to include
Lord Plunkett and Lord Anglesey? 'Do you mean to deliver
up Lord Wellesley and Lord Anglegey to the obloquy with
which they have been assailed in particular quarters, and to
permit an invidious contrast between the government of Lord
Grey and the government of Lord Melbourne ? Do you
mean the Marquis of Normanby to be complimented at the
expense of Lord Anglesey and Lord Wellesley in your resci-
lution ? I ask how it is possible for those who have directed
their utmost censure against the administration of those
noblemen, and who have declared that they were unworthy
of public confidence, and that their whole course of adminis-
tration was marked with the greatest acrimony towards Ire-
land, to vote this resolution? But if you do not include
them, why have you not the manliness to say so? (Hear.
hear.) It would be for you to say " Our approbation is
limited to some period." But do you evade that difficulty?
You are unwilling to make an invidious contrast between
Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne on the one hand, and Lord
Normanby and Lord Wellesley on the other hand, and you
call on the House of Commons to sanction your policy under
cover of the convenient generality conveyed by the " policy
pursued of late years." But probably you take the more
generous course, and you include in your resolution the
policy pursued by Lord Grey. I infer from this speech of
the noble lord, because he obscurely ins'nuated in the course
of it, that Lord Wellesley was not indeed quite so successful
in the administration of Ireland as the Marquis of Nor-
manby, but that there were difficulties in the state of affairs
at that time with which Lord Normanby had not to contend.
Do you mean to include Lord Wellesley? You include him
of course. But if you include Lord Wellesley, you include
me. You really place me in great difficulty in asking me to
vote for a resolution which conveys a direct approbation of
my own policy. But perhaps you mean to exclude me.
Well, I will take that for granted ; but let me say that I had
the satisfaction of acting with Lord Wellesley in the govern-
ment of Ireland for five years, from 1822 to 1827, and that
the differendes which led to our separation had no relation
to the policy pursued in the administration of affairs in that
country. I acted with Lord Wellesley as lord lieutenant,
and with Lord Plunket as attorney-general, and the disunion
which afterwards ensued between us did not affect in any
degree the system of policy pursued in Ireland. I acted also
with Lord Melbourne, who was chief secretary for Ireland,
when I was secretary of state ; and all I say is, that my
differences with, and separation from, Lord Melbourne, did
not arise from any difference upon Irish affairs. What, there-
fore, is the date from which you call for approbation ? Per-
haps you will take 1830, the date of Lord Grey's administra-
tion. We were then excluded from power, and'you brought
forward the reform act. But perhaps you will not go so far
back, and will take 1834, the period of the retirement of Lord
Grey from power and of the separation of the noble lord the
member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. baronet
the member for Cumberland, from those with whom they for-
merly acted. Take it then from 1834 ; still you include me.
You make no exception. Your resolution is laudatory of the
principles which have guided the executive government of
Ireland of late years, and if you take your date from 1834, the
government over which I presided must come in for its share
of public approbation. " No," says the noble lord, " we must
have something definiteand precise. We do not mean to ap-
prove of two governments in Ireland ; we do not intend to
praise both Lord. Haddington and Lord IVlulgrave." You
evade the difficulty, however, by not saying whom you pre-
fer. The right hon. baronet went on to say, that, it was
neither fit nor decent to call upon the House of Commons to
approve of principles, and yet not have the manliness to state
the period within which those principles had been-called into
action, and who were the persons of whose conduct they
meant to approve..-The gramadethene on which he objected
to this resolution was the vagueness of its terms. Ile came
now'to the second:point. He would ask whether the govern-
ment was justified in bringing.about a collision with the House
of Lords? It was a collision, for their proceedings meant
nothing else. It had been universally received throughout
the country -as a collision. That was the construction put
upon their policy in all parts of the kingdom. After the
House of Lords had appointed a committee to inquire into
the state of crime in Ireland, the noble lord the secretary of
state for the home department came down to the house and
gave notice of his intention to move this resolution. The
comments made upon.this proceeding on the part of the go-
vernment were these—" This is a manly course ; this is seek-
ing collision with the House of Lords." These, he believed,
were the words used by the hon. and learned gentleman the
member for Dublin. Now, the entrance into collision with
one of the constituted 'authorities of the state was no light
matter. It would he for the government to consider what
were the instruments with which they would carry on the col-
lision ; but, above all, it would be for the House of Com-
mons to ask itself whether there was any justification to be
found for such a proceeding. The justification alleged was
this, that the House of Lords had appointed a select com-
mittee to inquire into the state of Ireland since 1835, with re-
spect to the crime and outrage which had rendered life and
property insecure in that part of the united kingdom. How
did the two houses stand in respect of legislative measures re-
lating to that country ? On the poor-law bill they had come
to a concurrence with the House of Lords ; on the tithe-bill
the two houses had agreed; on the municipal corporations
bill a difference had hitherto prevailed. But surely they were
not seeking to fasten a quarrel upon the, House of Lords for
the acts of last session. The government professed, indeed,
that this act of theirs was founded upon the appointment of a
committee by the House of Lords ; and they construed it, as
it was necessary for their argument that they should construe
it, as a vote of censure upon the government. So far, then,
as legislative measures were concerned, they had not even a
pretence for a quarrel with the House of Lords. In the course
of the present session there was but one single act from which
they had a right to infer anything as to the intention of the
House of Lords with respect to Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The
government asked the House of Lords, at the commence-•
ment of the present session, to reply to that paragraph in her
majesty's speech in which municipal reform was recommended
for Ireland, and the House of Lords said, " We concur with
your majesty in thinking that the reform and amendment of
municipal corporations in Ireland is essential to the inter-
ests of that part of the United Kingdom." At the instance
of her majesty's government the House of Lords, reviewing
the conflicts which had taken place on the subject of munici-
pal corporations in Ireland, yielded to their suggestions, and
all that the government at present knew of the intentions of
the House of Lords in respect to legislative measures, still un- I

settled and relating to Ireland, was that the House of Lords
had acceded to the address of the government, in which they
stated their concurrence with her Majesty, that the reform
and amendment of the municipal corporations of Ireland
were essential to the interests of that part of the United
Kingdom. So far, then, as a collision could be justified by
differences on legislative measures, there was not a pretext
at present for entering upon it. The sole ground for that
collision which was now assumed was, that the House of
Lords had appointed a committee of inquiry. The whole as-
sumption made by the noble lord, in the course of his argu-
ment, was the very convenient assumption that the House of
Lords, by the appointment of a committee to inquire into the
state f Ireland since the year 1835, in respect of crime and
outrage, which had rendered life and property insecure in
that part of the empire, -was, in point of fact, a virtual cen-
sure oh the government : that he (Sir R. Peel) denied—he
denied it could be considered as tantamount to a censure, and
he would prove his position. The noble lord, in the course
of his speech, had said it was not exactly a censure; but it
was a prima facie censure. He avowed that of that expres-
sion he did not exactly understand the import. But was the
appointment of a committee by the House of Commons tan-
tamount to a censure on the government? Even though that
appointment appeared to question the conduct of the govern-
ment, would it justify this house in seeking a collision? Had
the House of Commons never appointed committees to in-
quire into the state of Ireland, and had it ever been heard
when such committees were appointed, even with powers to
consider the whole condition of that country, that such a
course was paralyzing the functions of the government? In
1824 Lord Althorp proposed a committee to inquire into the
state of Ireland : that committee, as amended on the propo-
sal of his hon. friend, was granted on these terms—" That a
committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of
Ireland, particularly into the circumstances which led to the
disturbances in that part of the country," Now, was it not
perfectly notorious that every question connected with the
government of Ireland was open to the inquiry before that
committee ? It was wrong to suppose that the committee
had been limited in its inquiries to the counties where the
insurrection act had been in force ; for was it not, he re-
peated, notorious that the acts of the government had been
questioned by that committee ? When Lord Althorp moved
that committee, which was to be a general committee,
open to examine into the acts of the government connected
with the administration of justice and the exercise of the
prerogative of mercy, he had not contended that the func-
tions of the government were inculpated. That committee
had lasted two years ; every subject had been inquired
into. It was true the Catholic question had been excluded
from that report, but every subject of practical government
had been made matter of investigation before that committee
—a committee which they (the House of Commons) had
appointed. Would they (the House of Commons) then say
that the recent appointment by the House of Lords of a com-
mittee which had precisely the same object—should they (the
House of Commons), which had appointed a committee not
merely to inquire into the state of Ireland, but into every
function exercised by the executive government, before which
every particular case connected with the administration of
justice, and, amongst the rest, with the exercise of the pre-
rogative of the crown, had been examined into—should they
(the. House of Commons) be justified in saying that the ap-
pointment of a similar committee by the House of Lords
was a censure on the government, and that therefore there
should be a collision between the two branches of the legis-
lature? Again, in 1827, the noble lord himself had appointed
a committee. It was a select committee to inquire into the
causes of the increase in the criminal committals and con-
victions in England and Wales, and to report thereon to the
house. That was a committee which went distinctly to in-
quire into the exercise of the functions of the government
connected with the criminal justice of the country. Was the
appointment of that committee -on the motion of the noble
lord considered as a censure on the government? Certainly
not. It was the House of Commons who appointed that
committee, yet the noble lord had invited the House of Com-
mons in effect to determine that the House of Lords had the
right to institute such an inquiry. In 1832 the noble lord had
said that the committees of 1824 and 1825 had nearly ex-
hausted the subject of inquiry into the state of Ireland. He
(Sir R. Peel) must tell the noble lord that that was quite a
different argument. The noble lord might say, if he thought
fit, that there had been inquiry enough, but still that was no
argument or ground for a collision with the House of Lords.
The noble lord might say that inquiry was superfluous, but
that argument did not not justify a conflict with the other
branch of the legislature, who did not entertain the same
opinion. But he (Sir R. Peel) would take away from the
noble lord the whole of that argument, becausehe would show
him that in 1832' the House of Commons was not satisfied
with the inquiries of 1824 and 1825. They appointed another
committee, and that too at the instance of a gentleman now
holding office with her Majesty's government. In 1832 the
hen. member for Dundee, the Paymaster of the Forces, not
satisfied with the inquiries of 1824 and 1825, not thinking that
the inquiry had been then exhausted, moved a resolution,
which he (Sir R. Peel) would ask the house to compare with
the resolution of the House of Lords. Sir H. Parnell had
moved that there should be a committee " to inquire into the
state of the disturbed counties in Ireland, into the causes
which produced the same, and into the efficiency of the
laws for the suppression of outrages against the public
peace." Supposing the House of Lords had taken the
words of Sir Henry Parnell, would not the objection
now raised by the. noble lord to the resolution of the
House of Lords equally, nay with more force, apply ?
Perhaps the noble lord may say that, whatever the terms of
the motion might be, there was a lurking intention on the
part of the leaders of the opposition to gain an advantage
over him. I utterly disclaim such intention, and Ido not
believe that any other object has existed than to obtain an
entire and complete inquiry. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) At
all events, I can utterly disavow that I was cognisant of any
such intention, even if it existed. Nothing could equal my
surprise at hearing of the importance that had been attached
to the course, adopted by the lords by the ministers. As soon
as heard of it, and that they considered the appointment of
the lords' committee to be a vote of censure on them, I went
from home, and called on the Duke of Wellington and on
my noble friend, in order to inquire what they had heard on
the subject. What I heard at the Duke of Wellington's was
that he had left town for Hampshire ; and I learnt at the
house of my noble friend that he had gone that day to Lan-
cashire. Now, is it probable that if they had expected that
such ..results would follow, they would have left town that
very day ? There was a desire to have full inquiry, and, as
far as I know, there was no intention entertained that the
proceeding should constitute a vote of censure on the minis-
ters. But thenoble lord certainly produced a great effect as
• bs elw constitution of the committee, by observing that Lord
were Of 'ins' own opinion, while Wye only were of the Opposite
party. Why, that occasioned great sensation on the part of
those members who sit behind the noble lord, who were con-
vinced by that statement that the object in the appointment
of the committee was unfair. How the noble lord obtained
his number of fiste, I do not know; but I can name ten
names as originally on the committee, and convince the
house that the 'noble lord does not possess the peculiar fa-
culty of seeing' double, but, on the contrary, of diminishing
the number by one-half. I will read the names, and I think,
whcnl do re td them, there will be no question that they are
persons who are favourably disposed towards the govern-
ment. They were—Lord Plunket, Lord Cloncurry, Lord
Glenelg, Lord Hatherton, Lord Carew, Lord Lansdowne,
Lord Duncannon, Lord Normanby, Lord Gosford, and the
Duke -of Leinster. (Loud cheers.) Having read these ten
names, I shall not leave the house under the impression
that the committee contained a majority of 13 to five. I
think that, first, as regards the present question, the go-
vernment have no right to call on this house for a vote of
confidence except on very extraordinary occasions ; and,
secondly, I do not think there is any such occasion now.
I deny that censure is intended by this vote. lam ready for
inquiry, and am ready to submit my official acts to that in-
inquiry, but I cannot give you a vote of approbation. Ido
not disapprove of your conduct in all respects. Thus in the
case of ecclesiastical patronage, I think Lord Normanby's
conduct was worthy of praise, and redounds to his honour.
But I cannot say you have taken all the steps you might have
adopted to discourage associations that are dangerous to the
country. (Hear, bear.) Not can I approve of the Marquis
of Normanby's conduct with respect to the exercise of the
prerogative of mercy. I do not think there was corruption
in it, but I think that the manner in which the noble lord
remitted sentences, without consulting the judges, in 1836,
had not the tendency " to the effectual administration of
the law, and general improvement of that part of the united
kingdom ;" and I cannot affirm that I am of opinion that
the Marquis of Normanby acted properly when he remitted
those sentences. The number is not of so much importance
as the circumstances under which any single remission
took place. There were 70 cases, and only 145 months of
punishment ; which rather reminds me of the illustration of
the two men who had to travel together a distance of nine
miles, and therefore, thought they had only four miles and a
half each. Is the travelling through the country any test
by which you can determine the effect of the remission of a
judicial sentence ? I have, in the paper which I hold in my
hand, an account of one of these remissions of sentences,
which are made a sort of ornament to the lord lieutenant's
progress. It is an account of the entry of the lord lieute-
nant into Sligo. The number of persons who were turned
out of gaol, may have been small—the offences may have
been light—and the term of imprisonment long ; but in such
a country as Ireland, with such impressions as have been
described, I ask you, when you call for approbation, is it
possible to approve of such acts ? The account is this :
" We have often said there was a rich mine of sterling pa-
triotism in the county of Sligo; and-the enthusiastic recep-
tion which Lord Mulgrave met with on his arrival here, has
fully verified our words. There was never before such
a display in Sligo. Lord Mulgrave was followed into the
town by at least 40,000 persons—the whole road was one
living mass. We never before saw such a concourse. On
his excellency's arrival at the court house he found the doors
closed, and he had actually to go the back way into his own
house ; for, as the representative of the King, it is his own.
Nothing-could excuse the sheriff for not having the doors
open ; the populace, however, soon broke open the gates,
and possessed themselves of the court house. Much to their
credit, they behaved themselves as if the judges were there.
Lord Mulgrave proceeded to say that he had liberated some
of the prisoners for minor offences."
However. good Lord Mulgrave's intentions may have been,
yet Fcannot say that that is the mode in which the adminis-
tration of the law is to be promoted. I appeal to any man,
whether knowing the impression produced on the people of
Ireland by the acts of the executive government, he would
not come to the same conclusion. On that ground I cannot
give a vote of approbation. As to associations, I have taken
down the noble lord's own words. I, am not speaking of
associations, but those associations which have met for the
purpose of preparing the way for repeal. The noble lord
says that associations are illegal, and that government has
always discountenanced these associations. He says that
the effect of such associations is to give countenance to other
associations of an illegal and dangerous character. I cannot
have .a stronger declaration of opinion; but I cannot assent
to the noble lord's statement that the government, either
here or in Ireland, has done every thing in their power
to discountenance these association. The noble lord
says that my proceeding is not a vote of censure. It
would be inconsistent with my course to move a vote
of censure. It is more consistent with my course to ask
the house to suspend their judgment. If lam to express my
assent to, or dissent from, the amendment, then upon the
reasons which have been assigned I will not hesitate to say no.
I have now done. I have attempted to show that a partial
declaration of opinion is not to be justified. I have not
shrunk from declaring why, on Irish grounds, I dissent from
your resolution. If you, the House of Commons, think fit
to pronounce judgment without inquiry, you will do so. If
you agree with Mr. Burke, that it is one of the peculiar
functions of the House of Commons to exercise a strict con-
troul over all executive and judicial magistrates, you will
pause before you pronounce an opinion. Look at the increase
of crime—look, above all, to those most discreditable docu-
ments, the reports of inspectors of persons and clerks of the
peace. With these before you, do you think it fit to declare
that the administration of the law is effectually provided for.
Documents relating to the same offences, and for the same
Period, show obviously a difference as to crime. Here is the
account given by the inspectors cf prisons, and by the clerks
of the peace, of the same description of crime in Ireland in
the year 1837. The inspectors declare that, in 1837, 14,804
persons were committed for trial for criminal offences ; the
clerks of the peace say 27,304, being a difference of 12,000
on the same return. How will you undertake to pronounce
anything with respect to the administration of the law
with these discrepancies ? The noble Earl may talk of
the character and dignity of the House of Commons ;
but it is neither consistent with character nor dignity to make
a declaration as to crime on such data. As to collision with
the House of Lords, I ask you whether it is not for the pub-
lic interest, looking at the state of this country—at the posi-
tion of her affairs abroad, to maintain harmony between the
two branches of the legislature ? Do you think that with the
proceedings in the north of England you are promoting the

FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 19, 1339.

As we announced in our second edition of Tuesday

last, the packet-ship Roscius, Captain Collins, has
brought intelligence from New York to the 26th ult.
inclusive. The news brought by the Roscius is not
of great importance. Nothing decisive had taken place
in reference to the boundary question. Considerable
embarrassments were felt in the money market at New
York. Recent events in Maine are alleged as the causes
which have produced a comparative stagnation in the
sale of public securities, and a general want of confi-
dence in the banking institutions of the country. -
The House of Representatives of the State of Maine

had adopted, by a majority of 105 to 1, resolutions de-
claratory of the right of Maine, to the exclusive juris-
diction of the disputed territory. The House also in-
sisted upon the alternative of proposing to the British
government a joint commission, for the purpose of run-
ning the boundary line in accordance with the treaty
of 1783, and alleged that, if Great Britain refused to
accede to this proposition, it would be competent for
the Senate of the United States to decide upon taking
possession of the whole territory in dispute. The Senate
of Maine, however, did not concur in these resolutions,
and a conference between the two houses was, in con-
sequence, appointed. The cDmmittee of the conferees
ultimately decided in favour of the previous resolutions
of the Senate, and against those of the House of Re-
presentatives.

The prevalent tone of opinion in the State of Maine
seemed to be decidedly adverse to any amicable settle-
ment of the important question in dispute between the
United States and Great Britain. We do not, of
course, place much reliance upon the pompous boasts
of the House of Representatives. The character of
Jonathan for exaggeration and braggadocio is too well

known to justify any serious apprehensions from thie,
tone of defiance in which the Mainites have so large:
indulged. The empty threats of these folks are °le"
lated to provoke no other than sheer contempt. J.
It appears that Governor Fairfield, in pursuance..o:
a resolution passed by the. Senate of Maine, had 0,.
drawn his troops from the vicinity of the Aroosn
A. few individuals only were left to prevent any full!'

depredations on the timber.
The news from Mexico is of a pacificatory C
ter. Two diplomatic agents, General GuadaloUlle
Manuel Govostiza, had been in treaty with Min,
Baudin for the cessation of hostilities. There svathe
strong probability that an amicable adjustment of
existing difficulties would take place.
An express from Mazatlan to Durango brought ill'
telligence of the arrival at the former port of the ,11,!4
lish ship of war Emolchis, the captain of which ce:tr
stated that the admiral of the French naval forces 'O5
tioned on that coast had raised the blockade of 13tIelicri
o
Ayres, for the purpose of operating against the I
San Blas, Acapulco, and Mazatlan.

We adverted, on Tuesday last, to.a pamphlet
Sh
cently published, under the attractive title of
we overturn the Coach ?" the authorship of whieh
ssil
attributed to Mr. Grote, and the object of which
to induce the "squeezable" ministers of the dat)ito,
pledge themselves to further changes in the On' di,
tion, in order to obtain the support of the ultra,.
cals in the House of Commons on Lord John But
sell's motion. Mr. Grote strongly insists uPnlift,„t,
of
necessity of according to the ministry the sliPP°_
the radicals, and offers as an inducement to this e7Ant
the probability that Lord John Russell may alsP—
the principle of finality.
The pamphlet, however, speculates on the eel
gency of Sir Robert Peel's accession to office, nlifit
of
dulges in some strange calculations on the aronlinne
reform which may be wrung from the right lion' a-bp
ticman and his associates. That our readers may
ty
enabled to judge of the prospects held out to
" movement" party we have extracted from this to
chure the following observations, to which we la
particular attention :
no ire
" It remains to be considered what are the I-Ilea-their
should possess of extorting from their policy or
co.
apprehension the measures their judgments would
demn.
" These could consist only of a parliamente'ibd
nority so formidable as to be worth conciliating lo
sacrifice of principle, or of pressure from withoet•,
both anticipations I entertain the most comPlete. cool
viction that we should be miserably disappointedeveo
doubt our having a very formidable minority,
bt
without a dissolution. After a dissolution we °ries
possibly have a very feeble one. Should the t°oi,
come into office on the resignation of the presento
nisters, produced by a defection of a portion of of
ordinary supporters, I believe that many men3he sof
our party would at once support Sir Robert peel,hito,
that many more would abstain from opposing
They might say, and not unreasonably, to the tt
ters they have hitherto supported, we prefer seelpsh 0,0
the helm men of principles agreeing mainly with at,
own, but the country cannot be without a goverroarty
and we will not, therefore, embarrass the course al
only administration which can retain office--ali, tbt
ministration supported by men who have at lea-'llO
sense not to play the game of their opponents- Sl'o
tr
we fare better after a dissolution ? What was the de
suit of the two last dissolutions-? At the fortoel: the
spite the just indignation at the manner in wh
,;1:(
liberal government had been expelled from office uiitto
late King, we greatly lost in Strength ; at the '3.4,i
notwithstanding the spell of our youthful Sovereiriedet
favour, we barely retained our majority. 13'4
what circumstances would Sir Robert Peel now aPr,ll5
to the country ?—how difficult to resist would onsi
rbs
his plea for a ' fair trial ?' Not elevated to rice bot
any unseemly exertion of the royal prerogativei
bjS
taking office only on the approved incapacity °
opponents, from the dissensions among their oviinort,
herents, to retain it, he would have claims to soProi•
which, added to causes to which I shall preseodYa tyt
vert, would insure him a large majority.- Sho.l3lestet
dissolution occur while the disputes among the tiliot
sections of the liberal party were yet at the hott7e of
own quarrels would be added to every other chan
dpf...n,- .g
oor
ministers partaking of the unpopularity whicl,l the
own friends had been so diligent in fomenting or
section which ejected the administration laughed starscorned, as has been invariably the fate of those 11.
plots in politics who have played a game too ft:3i° der
too wise for the comprehension of ordinary na,
standings. As for pressure from without, it is 3 dread
Ole
I do not believe that it would be possible to agitate: ill
masses for any object short of universal suffrage; to
that agitation none of the upper classes, and ne,xlielll
none of the middle classes, would join; without `550
you may get up a jacquerie-_you may have elced
that will give strength to conservatism—hut Yna iir
have no pressure from without that would have 311,er
fant's might in urging forward or displacing a CO-
-
vative administration.
" I have alluded to circumstances other than th
001
immediately connected with the present state of Pc
affairs, which would in a general election be eoce
to the prospects of the liberal party. I had reef pc;
to the sentiments of the middle classes. I believe' 000
only that those important and influential classes '11.,00
not join the masses in agitating for any large exteai;jer
of the suffrage, but their attachment to liberal I°,oll
pies is much less ardent than it was some fe's,i' 'ter/
back. Ido not mean that they have adoPte',
principles. I believe the instances to be extreod
rare of men of calm and sober judgment having 1:00%
the conservatives; but I believe those classes, sPe o of
of them generally, to have subsided into a statd
to
considerable indifference on political matters, as the
feel nothing like their recent zeal for fartherivrditfr
progress of reform. Nor is this state of fedi:4.ool
cult to be accounted for. There is, first, the
Kati
and inevitable reaction after great excitement, the; eel
ety that follows success, and the disappointment a
tP
finding that effect produced on the well-being f tb°
community which they had, in the excitement thette
struggle for parliamentary reform, permitted 111e0"
selves to expect as the immediate result of that
rod
sure ; some, too, of the best measures of the ref° vo
parliament—the new poor-law for instance—have feis'
strangely misunderstood, and still more strap; eli)1
represented. Next must be reckoned the per li' "
P°
influences of wealth, power, and station, always rre
tial in a country so aristocratic to its very co t,P
England. These permanent influences are alrn.""
adverse to the extension or existence of liberal oPli rer
It is not only that in the higher classes the great,'
jority of families have, or conceive themselves t% 00 I
some chance of sharing in the good things whic4ord' I
church, the army, the navy, or the colonies may
and adhere therefore to the party by which the,:d
lieve those sources of advantage will be maintain;"
enlarged, but that property itself renders its P°s7)ootill
timid and abhorrent of change. Lastly, la° Or
to say, and some opportunity of forming a son, ' tiv't
ment leads me to speak confidently on this he3oieti,
in my opinion the manifestations of a burning abeo
for further change on the part of some rail air
our party, more eminent for their zeal than tillajelieeste
cretion, have not a little tendel to disgust anti 13,
the very best and most influential men of those c
Those men are sound reformers, but they °e 01,
strongly imbued with that love of what is Piled of
indifference to or contempt of theory, and r°°t h ore
tachment to old habits and associations, whii,loe;,.lisir
mixed up with the strong common sense of 'l3-11.114/:
men, and form its peculiar characteristic. As ayttle.
sopher you may lament this indifference t°
heft}'
truth ; but as a practical statesman, you must °f
to admit that it is the main security for the stay'
all we hold most dear."

•It appears from the estimates for civil contiage-00015
of which we give extracts below, that Lord PurLic
" trip to Canada" has not been as cheap an '`..hos°
might have been inferred from the oft-repeated to
of the reformed ministry, that the government %lei'
country is at present conducted on economical Prarli
ples. We should very much like to know what
Hume would say of the following " tottle of the '',l3
elite
We wonder whether he will discover in it any
of the saving disposition of the Whig ministry, °l3s,oreg
behalf he has avowed himself to be willing -
that " black is white:"

And, ;
ch"ge,
abo,e sp

In re.
lia.vsage
gwern,i,
the
expe
him beir,

To
def
l'l tlVer
b t
-.etiten
"d in re,
"diLary.
account (.)
Total
fi

fob 0
4',,erlor
total e;

s frog' the
-e so largel'
:s are calm.

jipt. r
tirsuanCe
had With:
Aroostook,
any further

Tory CO
dalouPe 314
ith Adrrn

as s
['heresy
the
nient of

brought
of the Ihick g:
`.e`s'
Li forces 55'
e Of ntiet",t
r 1 5
St the 10'

-Imphlet reg.
'e
Of "S"..
Of IVIIiCII
which
the daY. "
lie consult':
-ultra-11'
John PP;
upoll
suplortt
9 this er-'
iay abalia°°

the Olt
rice, and -0(
amount
It hon• go
lers nig Ad
out to
jrn thiS
:11 we in"

he Mean if
licy or tl,'efr
would c°

mentar9
$
hating 11,0
without.
Co
replete
Tointed.si
,nority, e
Ti we
ld the ttl(01.1,
present if
do o,ty

ncreileie!;
half
ea
boa- e
I pro' I,
it josePo
ewh°lece
evidt,eo,4° e
scY
to ,tie

" FOR THE EARL OF DURHAM.
:s, r4Penses incurred on account of his lordship's mis-
,ll,,as Governor-General of all her Majesty's provinces
apd "L'in and adjacent to the continent of North America,
high commissioner for the adjudication of certain
meant affairs affecting the provinces of Upper an
Lower Cana £29,218 18
JeirnbUrsement of expenses attend-
the accommodation and entertain-
ment of the Earl of Durham and suite
" Ca their passage from this country to
llada, on board her Majesty's ship
Hastings

2,224 5 6

£31,443 3 7
An
ektr_2ed_,:f:terwards, there appear the following items of
7al, hick certainly conspicuously contrast with the
77 Specimens of outlay :
In • SIR F. B. HEAD,
, re'llnbUrSeMellt of additional expenses of his
to
t" and outfit on proceeding to assume the
tVvrne nient of Upper Canada in 1835, as well as
hi expense of his passage to this country upon
Deing relieved from the government of that pro-
' • • ......................... £1,330 8 0

defray the-expense of his passage
41,..:11Per Canada on his appointment
ahr.titenant-governor of that province,
044 al reimbursement of certain extt a-
ae 02rY expenses incurred by him on
—unt Of that service
'Total for two governors
gri Tow of this class of expenses of one
..............
Total
- expenses of two governors...
ttai
hitt tl4ce 0f expenditure in favour of
--"llezley the Earl of Durham . £29,312 15 7

800 0 0

2,130 8 0

31,443 3 7
2,130 8 0

(liken -e nights have been already occupied with the
1111- 2,8,i"
' in the House of Commons on Lord John
the motion on the subject of the Irish policy of
Pnrti)resent government. We have given as full a re-
e.o4lf the debate as our space would admit. The
4111:17si.ltween the speeches of Lord John Russell
kry -,,,__l(°bert Peel cannot fail to strike the most cur-
""erver. The harangue of the former was a
4,etii°l. elaborate nonsense, proving nothing but the
()Nit itY of the speaker, and the hopeless rottenness
Si? mouse which he had to advocate. The speech of
of 01...7ert Peel, on the other hand, was an effort
eliazi'rlY eloquence, conclusively establishing the
and fe% which have been brought against the ministry,
iortitZ justifying the House of Lords in resolving to
otklet a searching inquiry into the state of Ireland,
every misgovernment of Lord Normanby. What-
-1,1 he the issue of the debate, (and it is not im-
sZe.that ministers may be able to carry Lord John
tlitre-Res motion •by a "measuring cast majority,")
Greit ean be no doubt whatever that the people of
" • 11aritain are ready, on the evidence furnished
ttphtiPending debate, to pronounce a sentence
lea 'vivified condemnation on the contemptible imbe-
% kih_ne'w to office. -An appeal to the constituency of
had hTtP:h3to, at the present moment, if the Whigs
teR -1 courage enough to have recourse to such a
114;:11°1114 issue in the total discomfiture of Lord John
The' and his associates.
to on question now at issue in the House of Commons
it d tif the most momentous character, involving as
16:4 the destinies of one of the most important sec-
tll4 ~.cif the British empire. To contemplate the debate
to ta' week as a mere party dial of strength would be
ia rerY contracted and partial view of the sub-
'ne question to be decided by the vote of the
kid °f Commons is, not whether Lord Melbourne
tive:-IWlligs, or Sir Robert Peel and the Conserva-
oliali:'all obtain the ascendancy, but whether Ireland
tabblo-eiihanded over to the merciless domination of the
ail °Fish priesthood, or rescued from their tyran-
tll4 icii°lltroul—whether the persecuted Protestants of
111,1'-fated country are to obtain the protection of
liveiiislature, as a guarantee for the security of their
terliokld Property, or be permanently subjected to the
lessPre,b sway of O'Connell and his traitorous band
Stb,:4.Bnrs—whether murder shall be tolerated with
tilde Y' or the strong hand of the law shall be ex-
It tt° defend the victims of Popish malice.
,t°llllt,i`" Ind tsr not ? Does the
14114,'Y abound in flagrant outrages or not ? Has Ire-
oe
`q el,
ege en misgoverned or not within the last five years ?
e It
questions which admit of a ready answer.
tive -"answerable evidence of facts prove the affirma-
'4;: each of them. It is impossible to take up a
city Journal possessing any claims to honesty and 7-
°ll4' Iwithout being struck with the horrible details
I','titoh(aailY outrages perpetrated in that country on the
I,t4i and property of the unoffending Protestants.
'4c04t41 established. fact, supported by evidence of an
for:aertible character, that there exists in Ireland
the \-"hidable conspiracy, having its ramifications over
the ti't:,,°le extent of the land, and having for its object
41111eht-t. annihilation of Protestantism, and of British
},e as identified with the Protestant Established
At this conspiracy the present government
e:.'iaed"fillY connived. Lord Normanby has so ex-
'to °r rather so abused, the prerogative of mercy,
.tie°nrage the Ribbonites in their murderous
s'ttkeill:- He has, in effect, offered a bonus on the per-
L the the most outrageous crimes. Under his
oc `s,
d~d has
eep-laid plot against the Protestants of Ire-
tiNtitl been nearly fostered into maturity, and a short
ablY IZlke of the policy on which he acted will inevi-
-04 *(1
t° the consummation of all the hopes enter-
dasePo pish priesthood—hopes which will only
toY realised when Ireland ceases to be an appen-
lio*eltile British crown.
4,Njoi;er the House of Commons may decide on
ttnill Russell's motion, we fervently hope that the
1)41111' -44," far distant when a firm and impartial ad-
Li.citetita`l°ll will have it in its power to extend to the
;ilitv° 4148 of Ireland that protection of which they
teqii4,...ett, for the last five years, most notoriously
red b Ills inestimable blessing can only be con-
y a Conservative ministr.
i y
ille roll .
:Wing is an extract from a letter, dated St.
t'll tele :ew BrunSwick, 20th of March, which has
I)t;vN t'v
~at ed in this town via Cork. It will be per-
,wayit i
of sof a later date than the news received
lit, AR fo_ "York.
Lt r war it is all newspaper controversy, and a
viy
tt,ottlhoe kl feeling, that is seen on reflection; both
t,llts, however, must see the necessity of
trek ge question. At present it is settled until the
thi le tflOvernment is heard from. The whole thing
tk thie°°l 4t of on the liver. Lumbering and every
sidi
gvado is going on as usual. The very thought of
el'lnus, notwithstanding all Governor Fair-
5,
iOt t 64,e
'4l,Dl:'leeed.lgiven, in another column, a report of the interest-
aigs at the meeting of the society for the better
objlG ee,°tsf the
.Lord's Day, which was held.last evening.
kttt,4 et,el,., or this society we most heartily concur ; and
114, N I! trust that its exertions in so good a cause will be
-
Ot t4l.
It 4n increasing measure of success. During the
Ci44iNi of sell has been done, in this town, towards the sup-
ia „' ariday trading. The hair dressers and the drug-
ttlith_tsobirztit.lciueilrar, have very generally agreed to abstain
shops on that hallowedday. We trust that
'47*._ecl; "Mich they have set, will soon be universally
itaild that the people of this country will become
abbath-keeping community.
g
t4de114'41%1 CONCE RT.—On Wednesday last thi
4,.tt,,,m-street°olc,place at th e Royal Amphitheptre, G_raeas
t'Pq(ll4':‘lf.eted
an the whole it was as pleasing and
tY4' or 507rv.412..Y concert we have had the pleasure of
tyk'll,,ott eolapile "we. The selections reflect great taste
Setiianoe r$ and the highly respectable and nume-
Neetr!tertai,,P:oeves sufficiently the increasing taste for
Ivrte,.
oufir y
th ntilto.sstinour town, as alsothewseurcecemssoroef
:iiihytot 4•11:i4,1: dx roost so i
sce awiriiieganug expectationseienvieenrthl
I boxes Miss Whit-
eeard.h_er: i better than
Z:kvitttion9griabneais_sisteed ; and there was not apparently
kl P-1441 _ug encored.—Miss Fanny W,yndham.
IA 4 1" effecthole of her pieces, Logic
*it); Qrave,good ; she was encored in this soni; it,lthsio Miss AY,lg.ger," and the duet, " I know a Bank,
thi„, jvethitnall. Miss Whitnall's knowledge of
41,N4V,Isejfia thewas much admired.—Mr. Machin ac-
'Nrl;; 1-B:eng She wore
_ii Wreath ofltoses,''
at thb~ wast-sinrglittiger:i!saughable incident occurredt
I i ballad, "Oh ! Weep no ,tic)t 1'0°8e.... wl3rds (when Mr. H. was so pathetic)
Teet thy last fond gaze,
`"liittit'' or u hear th
cOlt ohld sotte _ 3r fervent prayer for me,"
qtr longs
of the species, in the vicinity,.
04 81% vSe
ill
a titter Wiyell had the effect of putting the
s+Nte tor ett er ot laughter.] Mr. Hobbs was vet?,
vitlik,!.liohik ins style of " The Meeting of the Waters. ' t4'el(,'ls aecu:l,l conductoler,presided at the piano-
thek -ttinl!d,ailiy. The concert closed about
c national anthem-