Debates an Vroceebings in Varliament.
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY : EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF IRELAND.
At an early hour on Monday afternoon, the blouse of Commons was filled in every part. There was also a considerable assemblage of per. sons outside ; and the interest excited in all quarters was mach greater than on any previous discussion of the present session. Many petitions were brought up by Irish Liberal Members, expressing " confidence in Ministers," and a desire that their Irish policy might be persevered in. Mr. O'Connell was laden with petitions to this effect. Some few peti- tions were presented for the dismissal of Ministers : one ftom Dublin to this effect bore 5,298 signatures ; another from Belfast, declaring the necessity of inquiry before approval of the conduct of the Government, had received 4,000 signatures. The other orders of the day having been postponed, Lord Jonx Res. SELL addressed the House. He began by referring to the appointment of Lord Roden's Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835 with respect to crime and outrage which rendered life and property insecure in that part of the kingdom ; to the notice he had immediately given of his intention to ask the opinion of the House of Commons on the administration of the affairs of Ireland by the present Government ; and to Sir Robert Peel's amendment on his motion. lie would in the first place notice that part of the amendment which said that the resolution he proposed referred only to one part of the policy of the Executive Government. The reason why his resolution was limited to the Irish policy was, that the House of Lords Committee was appointed solely with reference to the conduct of Government in Ire- land. Were any other portion of the conduct of the Executive im- peached, Ministers were prepared to defend it. He should be ready to meet his opponents upon the question of the administration of affairs at home ; his colleagues would not shrink from asking the approbation of the House of Commons on the conduct of their several departments- " With respect to Colonial affairs, there are legislative measures, some of which have been already under the attention of this House, and others will be brought forward for their consideration. With respect to Foreign affairs, I am sure that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if they should think fit to take that field of discussion, will not feel afraid to en- counter them on it. If if be made a matter of charge against us, that in the affairs of Belgium we are about to bring to a close long awl difficult negotia- tions, which threatened at one time the peace of Europe, I think we should. be able to give that charge an answer. If it be imputed to us that British in- terests have been entirely neglected in the contest between France and Mexico, I think my noble friend will be able to furnish a sufficient reply. If the affairs belonging to the department of my right honourable friend the Presi- dent of the Board of Control be made the subject of attack, I think we shall be able to meet charges and accusations on that subject likewise ; and while we shall be able to show that we have not been neglectful of British interests in India, or inattentive to any dangers that might have threatened those in- terests, that we have, I trust, succeeded in avoiding the dangers of a war be- tween this and any other country. We shall wait until these accusations are made—we shall wait until these charges are brought forward—before we shall think it necessary to bring them under the consideration of the Ilouse. But it is not from any tear or from any apprehension that with regard to any of these subjects the conduct of the Executive Government will have proved to have exposed the interests of this great country to peril, or to have stained the name of the empire with dishonour."
The opponents of Government had thought fit to take up other ground. He did not deny the right of the House of Lords to institute an inquiry into the state of Ireland and the conduct of the Government there ; but he contended, that the appointment of the Committee of the
House of Lords conveyed a vote of censure upon the Government; and when the circumstances under which the proposed inquiry was re- solved upon were considered, he thought it impossible to deny that the House of Commons was called upon to express an opinion, one way or the other, on the Irish policy of the Government- " No Mall can read even the terms of the Lords' resolution, appointing the
particular date at which the inquiry is to commence, and ending with the words ' render life and property insecure in that part of the kingdom,' without say- ing that the plain conclusion intended to be drawn is, that it is the conduct of the Administration which has thus exposed life and property to peril in Ireland.
i
But if we were in any doubt what to think, it is to be recollected that the House of Lords—which by the way seems to he particularly favourable to breaches of privilege of this kind—has allowed to be circulated throughout the country what purports to be the debate in the House of Lords on this motion ; and the debate thus circulated contains nothing but accusations. It is almost a repetition of accusations and charges of improper exercise of the prerogative of mercy and want of vigour in the administration of the law. It contains charges of' almost every species of negligence, if not criminality, of which a Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can be culpable. And, Sir, let it he recollected, that the very name of the mover himself was calculated to excite suspicion in Ireland—(Louil cheers)—of the censure intended to lie conveyed. When we know the officer in command, we can have little doubt of the colour of the flag." (Loud cheers.) The appointment of the Committee had been rightly called a prima fiwie vote of censure ; and it was no more possible to avoid particular notice of it than to pass by a successful motion for an inquiry into the state of the nation, to which a certain character was always attached by Parliament and the country at large. The motion in the House of
Lords was so worded, as to enable some persons inclined to vote time it to
say that it simply proposed inquiry and did not convey censure ; but while that took away the candour of the proceeding, it took nothing from the bitterness of the accusation. If he had rightly described the nature of the Lords' proceeding, it was not sufficient for this House to adopt a long and elaborate " previous question " in the form which Sir Robert Peel proposed. He considered, too, that this " previous ques- tion" was weakened by the arguments introduced into the preamble for the purpose of strengthening it. Reference was made to returns granted by Lord Morpeth on Mr. Shaw's motion ; but Lord 3forpeth had ex- tended the field of inquiry, so that it was not limited, as the Lords had limited theirs, to the administration of implied affairs by the present Go- vernment. No censure, therefore, was Implied by the motion as altered, which the House of Commons had agreed to with Lord Morpeth's con- currence. If it were deemed necessary to enter into the inquiry which the House of Lords had instituted, why was not the motion made in the House of Commons ? why was the motion in that House confined to a simple request for papers? He apprehended the reason to be this that the opponents of Government, unable to command a majority for a motion which they knew would cast a stigma on the Government, transferred the scene of their operations to the House of Lords, with the intention of censuring Ministers. Now he protested against this proceeding ; and called upon the House of Commons not to abdicate its ancient right of inquiring into, and, if necessary, reproving misgo- vernment of any part of the country—It was said that by pronouncing its opinion on the policy of Government, the House of Commons would interfere with the undoubted right of the House of Lords : but he could not perceive the interference ; and he wished the House to con- sider, with respect to the rights of the two Houses, not what was the theory—the bare right—but the usual and necessary practice of the constitution. The House of Lords could reject any bill—the Consoli- dated Fund Bill, for instance—which rejection would throw the entire country into confusion ; but the House of Lords, with respect to such bills and others passed by large and repeated majorities of the House of Commons, were required to exercise a wise discretion, and to pass them. The case was different when the Representatives of the People were nearly divided on any question then the obligation to pass the bills sent up to them by the House of Commons was weakened. The two Houses might differ with regard to acts of legislation for some time, and no very great peril or inconvenience be incurred; but there were exceptions even to that ; and he believed that at one time every mem- ber of Earl Grey's Government, except one, did advise so large a crea- tion of Peers as would have overwhelmed the independent vote of the House of Lords. With respect, however, to the Executive Govern- ment, there could not be such difference of opinion. Ireland could not be governed both by Lord lladdington and Lord Normanby ; the affairs of the country could not be conducted at the same time by Sir Robert Peel and Lord Melbourne. It was for the House of Commons to say whether the future government of Ireland should or should not be carried on hi accordance with the sense of the House of Lords. There was a precedent for a declaration by the House of Commons of their opinion respecting the conduct of the Lords- " At tot early period of the last century, there was a difference of opinion with regard to some persons concerned in a conspiracy for bringing in the Pre- tender ; and in the opinion of the House of Lords, that conspiracy was rather favoured than otherwise by the Government. The House of Lords thought that no sufficient means were taken to discover, pursue, and punish the per- sons engaged in the conspiracy; and they accordingly took the matter into their own hands, and decided on making their own examination. This House immediately protested against it, and this was the language they used in an address to the Crown—' Your faithful Commons believe the administration of the government best secured when it is left to your Majesty, with whom the law has intrusted it ; and have so firm a dependence upon your Majesty's affection to your people, and your great wisdom, that they can never appre- hend the least danger from any conspiracy, as when the examination thereof is under your Majesty's direction. Your faithful Commons do, therefore, most earnestly desire your Majesty to suffer no diminution of that prerogative, which during your Majesty's reign they are confident will always be exerted for the good of your people. Not contented with preferring their own exami- nation to yours—not contented with excluding your Majesty and the Com- mons—to whom Parliamentary inquiries most properly belong—they appropri- ate to their House only, even in their application to their Sovereign, the name of Parliament.' Presently- afterwards, a resolution passed the House of Lords, reflecting on the conduct of the then Secretary of State, Lord Nottingham ; upon which the House of Commons came to a resolution in favour of the con- duct of Lord Nottingham, which they carried up to the foot of the Throne."
But, owing to defects in the representative system and the corruption of the House of Commons, it seldom happened that such differences occurred. Soon after the Reform Bill passed, however, a difference did arise with respect to Portugal. The Lords passed an address disap- proving of the policy of Ministers ; and then immediately an honour- able and gallant friend called for the opinion of the House of Com- mons on the same question. Now, the government could not be con- ducted on the principles both of the House of Lords and the House of Commons when the two Houses differed ; and he maintained that, ac- cording to the practice of the constitution and the powers vested in the House of Commons, the opinion of the House of Commons ought to prevail. And he did say, that if they resolved to wait till the con- clusion of the Lords' inquiry before pronouncing an opinion on the question before them, the degradation of the House of Commons would be marked from that day.
Lord John then passed to another part of the subject : be referred to history to prove that Ireland had been uniformly- turbulent, and that outrages and lawless proceedings had always been common in that country. Front the commencement of the reign of George the Third to the present day, there had been continual combinations of armed men to resist the execution of the laws. He quoted passages front the speeches and writings of Lord Clare, Arthur Young, and Burke, in con- firmation of his statement. He found that the Government had passed 11 hiteboy Acts and Insurrection Acts for pursuing crimes with penal- ties, but had enacted no laws for providing permanently for the benefit of the poor—none for treating Catholics as free subjects of a free country. In more recent times it appeared from evidence given before Committees of Parliament, that outrages of the most atrocious descrip- tion were of the commonest occurrence; and all this during the time that persons of Lord Roden's opinion held almost uninterrupted sway in Ireland. He wished to impress this het upon Members, who seemed to imagine that the horrors to which he had referred were the exclusive production of the years of Lord Normanby's government. Of late years, political agitation had been mixed up with social disturbances; but this was the necessary consequence of the system of granting to intimidation what had been denied to justice. Much had been said re- sliming the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and the number of acquittals and committals of prisoners under Lord Normanhv's ad- ministration ; but he would not dwell much upon this subject, as Lord Morpeth would deal with it more at large. Ito however explained, that the apparent increase in the number of crimes was owing to greater vigilance in pursuing offenders; and he read a table to show that the proportion of convictions to acquittals had increased from 40 per cent. in 1833, to 46 per cent. in 1838. The remission of punishment, in point of time, amounted only to 140 months, or an average to each offender of about five weeks. Such was the wanton exercise of the pre- rogative of mercy.
Lord John complained that Lord Roden's Committee was not only an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, but being composed in the proportion of 13 opponents of the government to 5 supporters of Ministers, could not be considered a fair tribunal.
With respect to Associations, Lord John said that he and his colleagues uniformly disapproved of them; and that their disapprobation of the Precursor Society had been signified to Mr. O'Connell. He had ap- proved of putting down the Orange Association, and was ready to take any measures to put down Ribbon Societies. But Lord Normanby had to struggle with associations because it had gone forth—it had been proved by experience—that to associations the Legislature would yield what they never would concede to petitions. Complaints had been made respecting the distribution of patronage : now he admitted that it had been the policy of Government to patronize their friends rather than their foes, and he saw no wisdom in pursuing any other course. Who had been the supporters of the Irish Govern- ment He saw no reason for denying the fact, that they were the great majority of the Irish nation.
Lord John made some observations on the social evilsof Ireland, espe- cially in connexion with the tenure of land. The present Government had applied a partial remedy by the Poor-law ; but it was idle to expect a speedy removal of misery which resulted from centuries of misgo- vernment. Certain it was, that the most favourable laws could do little for a people when the disposition of the ruling power was against them- " Men do not live upon blotted paper. The favourable or the hostile mind of the ruling power is of far more importance to mankind for good or evil than the black letter of any statute. Impressed with the force and truth of these observations, I now invoke your approval of a course of policy favourable and conciliatory to the feelings of the Irish people. And though you reject this resolution and persevere in adhering to the course of conduct taken up by the House of Lords, and, in so doing, condemn the policy of her Majesty's present advisers, I think you will never infuse into the Irish people a notion favourable to the Government which would probably succeed the present one, nor any belief or coMidence in the goodness of its intentinns towards them, but rather that a constant and ranklinr, suspicion will rest upon their minds that under this new rule justice will not be impartially administered, nor favours impar- tially shown.',
He adverted to 'Mr. Duncombe'f: amendment-
" In asking this !louse for its opinion upon this subject, I may say I mu speaking the sentiments of the present Government in regard to Ireland; and I 41111 also aware, that whilst we have a numerous party opposite to its who are opposed to us upon this subject, the present Government is not regarded with fitvour on some other subjects, totally disconnected, however, with that under consideration, by another party in this House. One honourable Member has
given notice of moving a resolution in ease that which I now propose is propose, enter car- ried. I need not now upon a discussion of that resolution, which is
upon a totally different subject, and which when brought forward, will, of course, be preceded by a statement of the reforms which he intends to prose and the subject matter which he intends the House to enter upon. That the reforms which the honourable Member intends can be of no minor effect and intent, may he gathered from his baying given notice of them on this occa- sion. When the honourable gentleman has stated what be intends to do, and the extent to which he wishes to go, I shall be ready to state my opinions— not as they have been by some carelessly, and by others carefully, misrepre- sented, but as' entertain them, resting on great principles of policy, and having in s-kw the present and future welfare of the country. There may that pos- sibly he such a diGeence of opinion between us as may lead the honourable Member to say, that however he may agree with us upon the subject of this resolution, yet that it would be better for its to make way for another Go- vernment. 1 can only- say, that I shall rest satisfied with the decision of the House on this subject whenever it is come to."
The position of himself and colleagues-
4, With respect to the present resolution, though a majority of the House may vote for the amendment, in that case, though 1 may think the cons.e- queneo of such a vote may be to Ireland dangerous, and to the empire in general disadvantagonts. yet. with respect to ourselves, we shall have no reason to regret. (Ironteat laughter ,front the Opposition, and Ministerial cheers.) We shall regret not ; for if the measures which we have proposed he not acquiesced hi, we have no inclination to give way to measures which we have thought it our duty to resist. It will be some consolation to us to reflect, crone the dissolution of this .Ministry when it may, that with regard to the affairs which are this night brourift under con- sideration—that with regard to the affairs of Ireland—we have endea- voured to introduce kinder relations between this country and Ireland; and in doing so, we have been ready to encounter the obloquy to which it has sub- jected us in some quarters, and to incur the loss of some stiength and popu- larity in this part of the United Kingdom. 'Regardless of these impediments, we have been ready at all times to endeavour to unite by affection and a feeling of good-will and 'love the people of this country and the people of Ireland, so as to make the whole United Kingdom stronger against all its enemies, and to found a government in Ireland which should secure the opinions,the affections, and the good-will of her people ; Rua if the Nlinistry it wvill be by perse- vering in an attempt to knit together the hearts of her Majesty's subjects.'' The question was then pat from the Chair, on the following rewin- d ?: That it is the opinion of this House, that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to the effeetnal administration of the law, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kin:dom."
Sir ROBERT PEEL ruse. 'lie said that he did not regret that, by de- claring the terms of his amendment, which he might have reserved till the time for moving it, lie had given Lord John tim,,4ell an opportunity, which the noble lord had largely but not unthirly used, of commenting upon that amendment. In framine it he had not sought to conciliate support, nor yet to exelude the support of any one who might think his motion founded on reason and truth : assuredly he had not aimed at gaining votes from those with whom in polities he widely differed. He • had been warned of the prejudice which any mention of the House of Lords would excite in some quarters ; and he had been asked to move for a Committee of inquiry, as the more
captivating form of ho- But, on the present occasion, when the House of Commons was called upon for a practi- cal vote of confidence in the Government, and to place itself in collision with the House of Lords, he was resolved to consider nothing but the plain rules of equity and justice ; and, however a majority might trample upon his amendment, yet if it were, as he believed, really con- sonant with equity and reason, no vote could extinguish its principle. He desired to discuss the question before the House without acerbity, and would express beforehand his regret should he be betrayed in the heat of debate into harsh language. The introduction of an abstract proposition might remind him of the treatment his Government received in 1835, and he might refer to the abstract proposition then passed as an example of the fallacy of such a mode of proceeding ; but he would endeavour to prove by the tone he should adopt, that he was not in- fluenced by any feeling Which ungenerous minds might harbour ou re- collecting the defeat he had suffered. Before dealing with Lord John Russell's motion, he wished to lay down two propositions-
" In the first place, I submit, that it is not suitable to the character or func- tions of the House of Commons to make abstract declarations of opinion re- aps:ding the public policy of government, unless under peculiar and special circumstances ; and in the next place, that the objections to abstract declara- tions of opinion arc infinitely aggravated when they are sought to be the cause of an unjust conflict with the House of Lords. If I establish either of these propositions, I then think I shall have given a conclusive answer to the noble lord's resolution. I say, in the first place, that declarations of confidence should be resorted to with extreme caution ; they should be rather inferred by the general support which this House gives to the Executive Government, and the manner in which it deals with the measures proposed for its considera- tion by the Ministry, than declared by abstract resolutions of this sort. There certainly arc occasions which may justify a Government in calling for such an ex- . pression of confidence on the part of the House of Commons; but the occasions are rare indeed which should justify the selection of one particular feature in the policy of' the Government, to the exclusion of the general consideration of the whole course of' policy of the Government ; and st would be leading to great embarrassment both to this House and the Government, if such a prac- tice were often resorted to. It wealth be difficult to conceive the existence of any Government, however perfect in its aeneral policy, which should not make some errors, or adopt some individual course of policy which the House of Commons could not justify or approve of if appealed to for its opinion ; and then this evil would result to the country from our coming to a vote of partial approbation or condemnation, that we should leave the public in utter doubt and ignorance whether the house of Commons approved or not of the general conduct and policy of the G overnment. It would be impossible for any Govern- ment to stand in the face of such a system of procedure on the part of this House, because if any ground or point of policy were to be selected, upon which they might be successfully assailed, the defeat of the Government must be the result. Still, I am ready to ndiult that there may be occasions in which a partial declaration of confidence ou the part of the House of Commons may be justified. But for this purpose, a branch of policy should be selected in which the facts are so clear as not to be disputed, and in which also the Government are prepared to give a full and complete explanation as to the course which they intend to pursue in respect to it. But if the Government, in moving a partial resolution of confidence of this kind, have not the courage or manliness to avow what course of policy they intend to pursue in respect to this particular branch of their proceedinas—if they do not tell us what public men they intend to applaud for their public acts—then they involve the House in considerable embarrassment."
Now, LordJohn Russell's resolution was not only a partial declaration of approval—it was inexplicable and unintelligible. The 1-louse was asked to approve simply of the Executive Government of Ireland—that is, of Lord Normanby : but Lord Normanhy must not be separated from his colleagues. He could not he complimented without approbation of the
Ministers whose policy he carried out. Last year, when Sir William Molesworth moved a vote of censure upon Lord Glenelg, it was said that Lnrd Glenelg could not be separated from the rest of his colleagues, who rallied round him with chivalrous devotion, rare indeed in political warfare.
" Never since the days of Ni3I1S and En/Talus has there been witnessed such an exhibition of disinterested and devoted affection as was displayed upon that occasion. (Laughter.) The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs loudly protested against the attack made upon his noble friend:
' Nadi Ism, nee eases, Nee pontit ; culture hoe et conseht sidera tremor ; Tann= intelieem nindom dthudt amieum: The noble lord said, " Did time honourable 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.' (" Hear, hear!") Those were the words used by- the noble lord. The noble loss:. was determined not to incur the reproach levelled by the sarcastic moralist at the quondam companions of
'the poor se9nesteCd stag, That from the hentor s aim had ta'eu a hurt.'
But if that feeling were just,—if ' were not allowed t r 'part the flux of compauy,'—so, a compliment could not be paid to one deaartment of the Government, but the whole Administration must participate in it."
It is said that this resolution has reference only to the executive government of Ireland, and therefore the forty-six gentlemen who with the Member for Sheffield condemned the kg/station of Ministers with respect to Ireland, might support it : plainly, therefore, only a partial vote was asked for ; and thus his first objection was substantiated. His next objection was, that finding--such Was the Ministerial assumption, which however he denied—that their ccnduct in Ireland was censured in the House of Lords, the Ministers did not come boldly forward, and state distinctly the principles which they asked the House of Com- mons, in opposition to the Lords, to sanction. Did they ask for a vote of approbation of their conduct since the auspicious year 1835 ?— " No, but you ask the House of Cononons to approve of the prinriples which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years. (Laughter.) will not trouble you with qnotat frOM the various writers who would show hat the words 'of late year::' apply indiscriminately to every period from two years to two hundred. But will the Ilouse of Commons not require any further specification of the period to which the resolution applies than is to be fnUnd in the expression 'of late years Now, I ask this specific question, and I hope the noble lord will interrupt mime to answer it—IM you, by your resolutiou, mean to include the. Government of' Lord Grey ? bus you mean to include Lord Wellesley ? DO you mean to include Lord Plunket and Lord A ligh.sey DI) you mean to deliver up Lord Well +ley and Lord Anglesey to the obloquy with which they have been assailed in particular quarters, and to permit au
Then with respect to principles, it was not decent to call upon the House of Commons to vote approbation of principles which were not specified or explained.
He came to another point—the collision with the House of Lords. The Ministerial proceedings meant collision and nothing else, and were so received throughout the country. Mr. O'Connell had praised Mi- nisters for adopting the manly course of seeking a collision with the House of Lords. Now he would ask, whether they could discover any justification for that course ? How did the case stand with regard to legislative measures? The two Houses had come to an agreement on the Poor-law and the Tithe Bill : there was a difference on the Munici- pal Bill ; but surely the Ministers would not seek in that quarter for the elements of quarrel? No—the appointment of Lord Rodeo's Committee was avowed as the sole ground of quarrel. It was denounced as a virtual vote of censure. But he could show that the appointment of Com- mittees with similar powers and purposes had not been so considered. In 1827, Lord John Russell moved for and obtained a Committee to inquire into the Criminal Commitments and Convictions in England and Wales. Was the appointment of that Committee considered a cen- sure.on the Government ? It was said, indeed, that the Committees of 1824 and 1825 rendered further inquiry into the state of Ireland unne- cessary : nevertheless, in 1832, a gentleman connected with Government— Sir Henry Purnell—proved for a Committee ; and he begged the House to compare the terms of the motion with Lord Roden s—" to inquire into the disturbed state of the counties in Ireland, the immediate cutouts which have produced the suture, and the deficiency of the law for the suppression of outrages against the public peace." Well, is nut the same objection applicable to this resolution as to Lord Rodeo's? If it be alleged that the limitation of the inquiry renders it offensive, why did not Ministers in the House of Lords at once move to extend it, in- stead of making this application to the House of Commons ? Sir Robert did not shrink from the investigation of his own acts and cor- respondence. lie was not prepared to say that the Irish Government had encouraged crime, and therefore he would not sanction a direct vote of censure upon it ; but he did think there was ground for inquiry, and would suspend his judgment till the inquiry was completed. Had not the Lords been taunted with their motion for papers merely, anti challenged to move for inquiry ? and yet what a storm of indignation was raised in Dublin because at length they had appointed a Committee! Did Lord John Russell recollect his own words when, in 1837, he had the astonishing boldness to challenge the House of Lords to make in- quiry ? Hear what he said on the 7th of February 1837, in reference to the proceedings of some gentlemen who had assembled iu Dublin and passed resoulutions condemning the Irish Government-
" It was this miserable monopolizing minority, which has not dared to bring forward any charge in Parliament against the present Administration in Ire- land, but which has met and passed certain resolutions containing charges highly eliminatory of Lord Midgmve, charges which, if true, should insure that noble lord's instant dismissal; and although Parliament has been net a week, and although Members of both Houses of Parliament were present at the meet- ing at which those resolutions were passed, not one of them has ventured to give any notice that he will bring before Parliament those high crimos and misdemeanours."
Thus, when the Lords were forbearing, they were taunted-
" The noble lord had taunted them to come forward; he had taunted thentto prefer their charT;,..i. They had not visited the noble lord's Owernment with a vote of censor., but IIt y had asked for inquiry ; and now the noble lord contended that such an inquiry ryas tantamount to a vote of ceniure on the Government, and be sought to eecape from the inquiry by provoking a colli- sion with the liouse of Lord:,. llow could the noble lord reconcile this course of proceeding to the people or nia the noble lord believe tied when the people of Digits's., cm mrarnd I lie Committee; which had been appointed by the House of Conanons ititlu the duties of that appointed by the Muse of invidious contrast between the Government of Lord Grey and the Government of Lord Melbourne ? Do you mean the Marquis of Norma)), to be eorii plimented at the expense of Lord Anglesey and Lord Wellesley ? If not if you do include Lord Anglesey and Lord Wellesley in your resolution, I ask how is it possible for those who have directed their utmost censure against the administration of those noblemen, and who have declared that they were Ms! worthy of public confidence, and that their whole course of administration was marked by the greatest acrimony towards Ireland, to vote for this resolution? But if you do not include them, why have you not the manliness to say so? It would be easy to say, ' Our approbation is limited to some period,' But no, you evade that difficulty. You are unwilling to make an invidious content between Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne on the one hand, and Lord Nurmanby and Lord Wellesley on the other ; 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 do include in your resolution the policy pursued by Lord Grey. I infer this from the speech of the noble lord, because he obscurely insinuated in the course of it, that Lord Wellesley was not indeed quite so successful the administration of Ireland as the Marquis of Normauby, but that there were difficulties in the state of affairs at that time with which Lord Normalk had not to contend. Do you then mean to include Lord Wellesley ? You in- elude him, of course. But if you include Lord Wellesley, you include me. (Loud laughter.) You really place me in a great difficulty m asking
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 sue say, that I had the satisfaction of acting with Lord Wellesley in the govern- meld of Ireland for five years, from 1822 to 1827, and that the differences which led to our separation had no relation to the policy pursued in the admi- nistration 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 I can say that any differences with and separation from Lord Melbourne did not arise from any difference upon Irish affairs. What therefore is the date from which you call
for approbation ? Perhaps you will take 1830, the date of Lord Orq's Admi- nistration. We were then excluded from power, and you brought forward the
Retinal Act. But perhaps you will not go so far back, and will take 1814, 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 -honourable
baronet the Member for Cumberland, from those with whom they finmerly acted. Take it then from 1834; still you include me. You snake no excep- tion. Your resolution is laudatory of the principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years ;' and if you take ymu•elate from 1834, the Govermnent over which I presided must come in tan its share of public approbation."
Dods, when they looked to the taunting language used by the noble lord chal- lenging inquiry, their deliberate sense and judgment would justify the noble 104 in the course he was taking ? The noble lord might tell the House and the country that the state of Ireland was improved ; but was there no- thing in the state of Ireland to account for the desire manifested by the House for an inquiry into the crime and outrages endangering life and property? The state of Ireland might be improved, but that remained to be sub- stantiated. At any rate, the House of Lords had before them an admission to this effect—an admission on high authority. The Solicitor- General for Ireland, on opening the Special Commission at Clonmel, said, *I am personally a stranger to your county, but the perusal of the calendar of the prisoners and of the informations upon which the prisoners are committed, demonstrate to me, whatever is the issue as to the guilt or innocence of the ac- cused, that there is no doubt of the lamentable fact'—of what were the House of Lords thus made cognizant on this admission? why this= that in no place where the laws of England extend is human life less regarded than in the county of Tipperary.' Well, Ireland might be improved; but if the Government made that melancholy admission, that in no part of the coun- tries in which the English laws existed—and might it not be said in no part of the civilized world ?—was human life less regarded titan in the county of Tip- perary, were they surprised that the House of Lords should be desirous to in- vestigate the causes which led to such outrages and disregard of human life ?" Suppose a Member of the House of Commons had been murdered as Lord Norbury was murdered, and the House of Commons had msti- toted an inquiry into the state of things which rendered life and pro- perty insecure,—and suppose the Lords had adopted a resolution con- demnatory of such a proceeding,—what would the House of Commons have thought and done upon such an occasion ? There would have been no limit to its just indignation. Let the House consider what would be its next step. Would the Lords be called upon to rescind their resolu- tion? If not, what would be gained by adopting the proposed motion? That was a point worthy of consideration.
Lord John Russell had referred to the singular precedent of what was called the Scottish plot ; but Sir Robert considered that precedent a beacon to warn, not an example to follow. Let the House mark the Character of that precedent- " In 1703, there was a suspicion that Simon Lord Lovat was in communica- tion with the Court of France and the Court of James the Second at St. Germains, fbr time purpose of organizing an invasion of Scotland. If I re- collect rightly, there was a certain party named Boucher, who, I believe, was in the service of time Duke of Berwick, and who was seized, with others, on the coast of Sussex. The House of Lords insisted upon an examination of Boucher. The Commons resented it. But in the first place, it should be observed, that there was no sort of analogy between the two cases. Here time Lords appoint a Committee of inquiry into crime : what was time nature of the Committee of 1703? The complaint of the Commons was, that when persons suspected of treasonable practices were taken into custody by her Majesty's Ministers to be examined, the Lords, in violation of the known laws of the land, had argued that they themselves had the sole right of examination. Here was the precedent. The house of Lords, jealous of the Crown, takes a party under its own jurisdiction and proceeds to examine him, and the Com- mons protest against it."
But even here the Lords were in the right. Attend to the history of this transaction as given by two Whig historians— 'Tindal says, " It was an amazing thing to see a House of Commons affirm, in so public a manner, and so positively, that the Lords taking criminals into their own custody, in order to an examination, was without warrant or prece- dent, when there were so ninny instances fresh in every man's memory. But this was entirely owing to part y feeling time High Tories, who were strongest in time House of Commons, laying hold of all opportunities; both to ingratiate themselves with the Queen, and to oppose the ll, hips, who had the majority in House of Lords."
Substitute Whig for Tory, said Sir Robert, and the picture is com- plete. Bishop Burnet gave the following account-
" The House of Commons were in an ill humour with time Lords, so they were glad to find occasion to find fault with them. They thought the Lords ought not to have entered on his examination. They complained of it as a new and unheard-of thing. In an address to time Queen, they said it was an inva- sion of the prerogative of the Crown. * * * The House of Commons con- tinued to protest ; but the Lords' Committee went on with the examination, and concluded with voting that there had been dangerous plots between some persons in Scotland. and the Court of France in 't. Germains. This being concluded, the Lords made a long and vigorous address to the Queen in answer to the Commons ; and time Lords, in their address, observed how uneasy the Commons had been at the whole progress of the inquiry which had been insti- tuted. They had taken methods to obstruct it, all they could. The Lords had not taken up the examination themselves us excluding others who had the same right, and the Commons might have done it as well as they
[Much laughter and cheering accompanied Sir Robert Peel's effec- tive reading of these extracts.]
But as to the intention of Lord Roden's motion : Lord John Russell maintained that the Lords intended to censure the Government : Sir Robert denied the existence of any such intention— As the leader of a party to which he was attached, he could positively dis- claim all cognizance of any such intention. (Cheers.) lie could assure the House, that nothing could. equal his surprise when he bad heard of time import- ance which had been attached to the proceeding in question ; for he, had heard the next clay that her Majesty's Ministers had abandoned their situations be- cause time house of Lords had undertaken to inquire into crime and outrage in Ireland. On this he would say no more, but that, at any rate credit could not be claimed for extreme acuteness in this proceeding, when it was mentioned as a fact that the appointment of a Committee° of the Lords was considered as a vote of censure by the Government, and that it was to lead to an abandon- ment of their station as a Government. He went from home on hearing this, and called on time Duke of Wellington, and also on his noble friend the Mem- ber for North Lancashire, to inquire what they had heard. The answer he re- ceived at the Duke of Wellington's was, that his Grace had left town for Hampshire that morning ; and he then learnt also that his noble friend haul gone out of town to Lancashire. Now, was it credible, if they expected such re- sults as were reported, that the noble duke and his noble friend would have left town that very morning? (Cheers.) Ile need say no immure on that head, than that at any rate there was no deliberate intention of gaining secretly and covertly an advantage over time Government in this matter. There was a desire to have a full inquiry ; but as for as he knew, there was no desire that it should be preceded by a vote of a criminatory character.
The composition of the Committee—of the jury who were to try this case—was objected to ; and Lord John Russell had said that it was composed of thirteen opponents and only five friends of Government— How the noble lord got the number of five, he did not know, because thirteen and five did not constitute the total of the entire Committee. But there were
He fully participated in the address to the Crown adopted in 1833, which expressed " just indignation " at the attempts made to excite the people of Ireland to demand a repeal of the Legislative Union. He did not think that Lord Normanby had suflicieutly discouraged socie- ties dangerous to the public peace, and he considered his exercise of the prerogative of mercy much too indiscriminate. He disapproved of the appointment of Mr. Pigot, an active member of the General Associa- tion, to the post of Solicitor-General ; and lie could not understand how the Government could claim credit for discouraging such societies, when they appointed to to responsible a situation a leading member of one of them. The conduct of the Marquis of Headfort at an Anti-Tithe meeting had met with no mark of disapprobation ; and, considering the situation the Marquis held at her Majesty's Court, it was difficult to sup- pose that the Government desired to prevent further agitation on the subject of tithes. He would move no vote of censure—it would be in- consistent with his view of the case to do so ; but he warned the House against entering into needless collision with the Lords. Looking to the present position of affairs, abroad. or at home, was there ever a period. in which it was more desirable to avoid a quarrel between the two Houses ?— " Do you think, looking at time proceedings in the North of England, you are promoting the entice of tranquillity and the public interest by holding up the House of Commons and the House of Lords as being at variance ? Above if these considerations do not move you, I emplore you earnestly, but respect- fully, to consider what is due to your honour and to your own character. I implore you not to enter into a premature resolution without the necessary in- formation to guide you ; nor to make abstract declarations of opinion upon partial branches of policy, unless you feel confident that there is some absolute and overruling- necessity : above all, I ask you not to enter into a collision with time House of Lords, unless you feel justified that there is good cause for col- lision, and unless you have well considered the consequences of such a proceed- ing. That great poet to whom I have already- alluded, and whose writings are faller of moral lessons of practical wisdom than time writings of any unin- spired writer, has given advice with respect to entering into quarrels, which although addressed to an individual, may be equally profitable to a public and national body-
' Beware Ot entrance to a quarrel ; but being in.
Bear it that the opposed may beware of thee.'
You are about to commit a double violation of that precept. You are about to enter into a quarrel hastily and unwarily ; and you have proved that you are about to conduct yourselves in it in a manner that will insure neither terror nor :respect. While yon are on the threshold of that quarrel, and can still recede, I entreat you to pause. I entreat you, its you value the character of the House of Commons—believing in my conscience that you have no super- fluous authority, and desirous as I ani that you maintain every privilege that belongs to you, and that your authority over the people may be preserved intact—with these feelings I conjure von to reserve the manifestation of your displeasure for some occasion when, cheered by the sympathies of the people, and confident 'in the righteousness of your cause, you may lw enabled to as- sume a pert and to speak in accents bet tor suited than the present resolution is to the offended dignity of the:ill:nee. of Commons."
Sir Robert concluded by offering his amendment-
" That, on the 13th day of March last, a motion was made in this House for the production of various documents connected with time state of Ireland in respect to crime and outrage, uling communications made to the Irish Go- vernment relating to offences connected with Ilibbonism, and all memorials, resolutions, and addresses, forwarded to the Irish Govermnent by Magistrates, or othir official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in Ireland, and the answers thereto.
" That the period included within the returns so called for extends from the commencement of the year 1835 to the present time ; and that the motion made for the production of them was assented to by this House, no opposition to it having been offered on the part of her Majesty's Government. " That, on the 21st day of March last, the Ilou;T. of Lords appointed a Se- lect Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of time empire.' -ten names which he would read as having been originally proposed to be ap- pointed on the Committee, and he thought it would convince the House that the noble lord had not the peculiar faculty of seeing double, but that on the contrary he had the power of diminishing the number just one-half. When he had read the names, he thought there could not be a question about the persons being generally favourable to the Government. 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. Those ten might be disproportionate in number compared to the twelve on the other side, but at any rate Members could not leave the House under the impression which the statement of the noble lord. had created, that the proportion was as thirteen is to five.
He had stated reasons why he could. not vote for Lord John Rus- sell's resolution ; but lie would not shrink from going further, and stating the principles on which he thought the government of Ireland ought to be conducted- " I say, in the first place, that there ought to be a perfectly fair and impar- tial administration of justice justiceadministered Without respect to parties, and with perfect impartiality. To withhold that, is to withhold the right to which every subject of the British Crown is entitled. I think, in the second (place, that the prerogative of mercy ought to be governed by the same pm- emple as the administration of justice : I think that that prerogative ought to be exercised as a strictly judicial act—judicial at least so far as this, that all considerations of a personal nature, all considerations of party and political interest—that all considerations of public display ought utterly to be disre- garded in dealing with the prerogative of mercy. I say this also, that I think, as the law has decreed a civil equality to all classes in Ireland, without refer- ence to political distinctions, the Crown ought not, by the interposition of its prerogative, to create practically a difference which the law does not recognize. I think that the Crown ought to act upon the principle that the law is not to make religious differences the ground either for favour or the reverse. This is what I complain of When I was in office, because I prefiared those who agreed with are in political opinions, I was accused of encouraging Orangeism. You world not then give me the benefit which you now clainm for yourselves. I never taunted the noble lord with his selection of Roman Catholics—the only instance in which I have blamed the noble lord has been in his encouragement of those who were the members of a political association. I say this also, that I cordially adhere to time resolution of 1836, to which I subecribed with respect to Orange Societies in Ireland. Whether I may pro- voke the opposition of those who think that a distinction ought to be drawn between Orange Societies and other associations, I know not and care not ; I declare that 1 adhere to the resolution of 1836, in which it was declared advisable that the Orange Lodges should be dissolved."
" That, in consequence of the appointment of such Committee by the House of Lords, it has been proposed that this House should resolve That it is the opinion of this House that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the law, and the general improve- ment of that part of the United Kingdom.'
" Resolved, That it appears to this House that the appointment of a Com- mittee of inquiry by the House of Lords, under the circumstances and for the purpose above-mentioned, does not justify her Majesty's Ministers in calling upon this House without previous inquiry, or even the production of the infor- mation which this House has required, to make a declaration of opinion with respect to one branch of the public policy of the Executive Government, still less a declaration of opinion which is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve, nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is not fitting that this House should adopt a proceeding Ivbich has the ap- pearance of calling in question the undoubted right of the House of Lords to Inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and outrage, more espe- cially when the exercise of that right by the House of Lords does not interfere with any previous proceeding or resolution of the house of Commons, nor with the progress of any legislative measure assented to by the House of Commons, or at present under its consideration."
Mr. SPRING RICE replied to Sir Robert Peel. He contended that the vote of the House of Lords was an intentional censure upon the Go- vernment; but if this were denied, then all which Sir Robert Peel had said about collision was beside the question, for there could be no colli- sion in a declaration approving of the conduct of Ministers. He re- monstrated against the nnfairness of making the existence of crime in Ireland a charge against the present Government, when nobody ever thought of censuring preceding Administrations on account of tarba- knee and outrages in Ireland. Mr. Rice quoted instances of atrocious criminality under previous Administrations ; and contended that there vere symptoms and evidence of' improvement in later years. If, as was intimated by Mr. Duneombe's amendment, it were intended to assail Ministers on general grounds, they were quite ready for their defence.
At the conclusion of Mr. Rice's speech, the debate was adjourned, at twelve o'clock.
Tuesday's debate was opened by Mr. EMERSON TENNENT, who was followed by Colonel BERCEVAL, Mr. LASCELLES, Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT, Colonel CONOLLY, and Mr. Lucas, on the Opposition side; by Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, Mr. BELLEW, the O'CONNOR Dos, Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE, and Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, on the Ministerial. The House was thin and inattentive ; it having been understood that no division would take place and no leading Member speak on the question that night.
On the part of the Opposition it was argued that the tendency of Lord Normanby's Administration had been to encourage crime ; that to laxity in enforcing the law and the injudicious readiness in commut- ing punishments, which the late Lord-Lieutenant had exhibited, and not to the harshness or extortion of landlords, were the crimes and outrages, so common in Ireland, justly attributable ; that Lord Nor- manby had encouraged political agitation, and had himself rode into Dublin at the head of an illegal procession, in which banners with the mottos of 1798 were carried ; that the united operation of the en- couragement given to political agitation, the neglect to punish offenders, and the ease with which pardons were obtained, had caused a great intrease of offences, and rendered parts of the country, formerly peaceable, the scene of outrages and disorder. On some of these points Colonel PERCEVAL made distinct statements— Ay, the very first step of Lord Normanby's government was the commencement of what bad taken place. He saw the cavalcade of Lord Normanby's entrance into Dublin ; and it was such as, in his opinion, was most unbecoming in one about to till so high an office as that of Viceroy of Ireland. It might be said that it was only displeasing to the Orangemen ; but to this he would reply, that from the time the act passed for the abolition of Orange Societies there had never been a single demonstration of that party-spirit in Sligo But what were his feelings when he saw Lord Normanby attended by a cortflge carrying banners with the same mottos as were borne by the rebels in 1798? (Cries ry'' "No, no 1' fisnn the Ministeriul side.) He stated only what be had seen, and gentlemen might deny it if they could. He took down the names and the mottos .1. the !manners as the procession passed; one of them being emblazoned with an Irish harp without e crown, the same as was carried by the Rebels in 1798. It was indeed a party procession headed by Lord Normanby, and con- sisting of Tll en distinguished for their agitating propensities—some, indeed, having been just let loose from Newgate.
In August 1836, Lord Normanby made a tour through several dis- tricts in Ireland, and among others through the county of Sligo— That county was at that time perfectly tranquil ; but on time noble lord's visitation, he was attended everywhere by crowds of persons—be might say by as many as ten thousand—and preceded by banners, the same as on his entry into Dublin. He was received by all the Roman Catholic priests, by all the
agitators, and by all the Liberals as they were called, in the county, but by very few of the possessors of the soil, of the landed gentry of that district. On that occasicn commenced the excitement that had been evinced in Sligo, and
more particularly against him (Colonel l'erceval) as one of the Representatives. * * * neve was not a chapel in his own county, except one, in which he had not often been denounced ; and to such a condition had that part of Ire-
land been brought by agitation, that lie could not dine from his own home at a friend's house without staying there all night. He mentioned this merely to show how much time residents of Sligo were indebted to the Government of Lord Normanby.
Mr. Lsses:i.lES ':PTIBOrted the amendment because it partook of the nature of the " previous question ;" but he would not impute blame to the Government for the existence of crime and outrage in Ireland, and he would pass no vote of censure upon them. He was surprised that Ministers, considering the treatment they had experienced from the Opposition, should have so eagerly seized the opportunity of an implied censure, to appeal to passions which they ought to allay— If the Government did feel the present state of affairs to be a crisis, it bad not been brought on by the Conservatives, but by themselves. It lead not been the policy of the Conservatives to disturb the Government. With regard to him- self; he might refer to all the votes he had given during the present session up to Easter ; and it had not yet teen his mbitiirtune to role arinst the noble lord opposite. He was aware that a portion of that House fancied that the support of the Conservatives was more injurious to time Government than their opposi- tion. This was not, however, the fault of the Conservatives. They performed their duty, and gave, whenever they conseieutiously could, their support to the Govern meat.
The other speeches from the Opposition side of the House do not re- quire particular notice.
Mr. &nun O'BRIEN contended that Lord Normanby, by tempering judgment with mercy, and acting upon the principle that property had its duties as well as rights, had improved the condition of the Irish people ; and he would offer every resistance to the reestablishment of the old system of exclusion and harshness. He asserted that the 'node of letting land and consolidating farms—for which the Government ought not to be blamed—was the chief cause of Irish crime and wretchedness.
Mr. BELLEW said, that if the amendment were carried, the old Orange ascendancy would be restored.
Sir WimaAm SOMERVILLE denied that Lord Normanby had been pro• fuse in pardons. He had himself applied for several, but never ob. taMed one.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN counselled union and forbearance on all sides—
He hail some stake in Ireland ; he was a Protestant, and ready to stand by his faith ; but he would not support the abuses of the Church. He wished to see Catholic and Protestant living together in peace. They did so in private, and why should they not in public ? He admitted there had been errors ou both sides, but they might shake hands and forget them. Let the Orange Lodges come forward and leave their foolish disputes, and peace and concord might arise if the malignant spirit of party and newspaper hostility ceased. Sir Robert Peel owed a duty to his country—to keep down this spirit, and to de- vote himself to the reconciling of parties ; an object which had been attempted by Pitt and Fox, by Ponsonby, and Grattan, in vain.
At a quarter before one, the second day's debate was adjourned, on the motion of Mr. BARRON.
Mr. BARRON'S was the first speech on Wednesday. It consisted chiefly of statements to prove the increasing prosperity of Ireland un- der Lord Normanby's administration, the care with which the preroga- tive of mercy had been exercised; and the harshness displayed by cer- tain landowners, especially the Marquis of Waterford, towards their pauper tenantry. Mr. Barron expressed his regret that Ministers should have adopted the absurd doctrine of " finality," and was favour- able to Mr. Dunconube's amendment ; but he supported the original mo- tion, and warned Liberal Members against the impoliey of " overturn- ing the coach."
Sir ROBERT BATEsos and Lord INCESTRIE denied that the Marquis of Waterford, or other landlords in time same county, had treated their tenants harshly ; on the contrary, kindness, forbearance, and liberality marked the conduct of the calumniated parties. Sir Robert Bateson affirmed that Lord Normanby, by appointing such men as Mr. Gore Jones, Mr. Duff, and Mr. Hancock to Magisterial offices, encouraged time agitation which it was his deity to repress.
Mr. GiurrE then addressed the House. He hoped that he should not be charged with want of interest in the affairs of Ireland, if he declined to follow Irish Members through the various statements they had made during the discussions of the two previous days. Ile had beard enough to convince him that the condition of Ireland required watchful solici- tude, and that the Legislature had very inadequately discharged its dit- ties towards that country. With reference to Lord John Russell's reso- lution, he remarked , that in terms it expressed nothing more than an opinion as to the propriety of conducting time future government of Ire- land on the same principles which had been adopted by the Marquis of Normanby ; it did not sanction or condemn any other branch of the Ministerial policy ; and if the real issue involved nothing more, he should have had no difficulty in supporting the resolution ; for he be- lieved that Lord Normanby's administration, in its general features, had been equitable to all parties, and conciliatory to the Roman Catholic majority in a degree superior to any which preceded it. But, Mr. Grote went on to say-
" I cannot conceal from myself; that the question of Irish executive govern-
ment is not on this occasion really put in issue by itself and on its own ground. I cannot conceal from myself, that there lies wrapped up in the literal and primary sense of this resolution another question, indirect indeed and collateral,
but still of serious importance. We are told that the vote of the House of
Lords, naming a Committee to inquire into the executive government of Lord Normanby in Ireland, was tantamount to a censure of the Ministry : the pre- sent vote, invoked by the Ministers themselves, is intended as a Ibrinal con- tradiction and counterpoise to the vote of the House of Lords ; it is intended as the negation of a vote of censure, and therefore unavoidably is a vote im- plying snore or less of general approbation and confidence. And 1 do not doubt
that, as this motion is made with a view of determining the continuance of the Ministry, so on the morning after the division all their partisans will point to the number of the majority, and cry aloud= Look what an evidence is here afforded of the lofty estimation in which time Ministry of Lord Melbourne is held by time House of Commons and by the country ! ' Aware as I am of time con- struction which will be put upon this vote, it has been with me a mutter of much consideration whether 1 could with propriety take any part in it. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion, that, agreeing as I do in the terms and special import of the resolution before us, it is my duty to give my vote in its favour. But I certainly shall not do so without explaining what my vote is intended to imply, and without guarding myself against those collateral in- ferences which persons might naturally be inclined to deduce from a silent support of this resolution. My vote on the present occasion goes no further than time express and literal terms of the resolution proposed by the noble lord. I intend to signify approbation of time principles upon which the executive go- vernment in Ireland has been conducted, and I intend nothing more. Others will connect with time expression of this opinion, a feeling of esteem and con- currence with the general policy of the present Government : I entertain no such feeling, nor is may vote meant to denote it. Others may include among the reasons of their vote a desire to maintain Lord Melbourne's Government in office : I harbour no such desire—I have no belief that their continuance in office is any benefit to the nation, nor would I concur in a vote for that pur- pose if it were separately and specifically proposed. I vote in favour of this resolution,just as I should vote in favour of a resolution approving of the policy by which the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 was dictated, without intending thereby either to express or imply any concurrence with the general policy and views of time right honourable geutleman opposite, by whom that act was passed." He was driven to the opinion, that with respect to administrative or legislative reforms, there was no greater chance of obtaining them from the present Ministers than from Sir Robert Peel ; and he believed such was now the persuasion of a very large proportion of those who desired a steady course of political progression and reform-
" For, what is the doctrine of finality, the doctrine that no alteration is to be
made in any one of the essential principles or features of the Reform Act, which has been so often preached from the Treasury bench, except a negative of all advance —the Conservative principle announced in all its plenitude and Mall its rigour. ? It can be no secret to any man, that under the present state of the representative system we shall obtain no reforms, either administrative or legislative, except such as it pleases the right honourable baronet the Mem- ber fOr Tat:worth to consent to and sanction. We have the Conservative principle predominant at present, with the full choice and concurrence of Lord 3Ielbourne's Government, who unite with the gentlemen opposite in maintain- ing the finality of the Reform Act. Assuredly the Conservative principle could not be more predominant than it is now if the right honourable baronet the Member for Tamworth were Prime Minister, with all the difficulties and responsibilities of office on his shoulders. For my part, Sir, I am opposed to a Conservative and a Finality Government by whomsoever it may be carried on; but, if the country is fated to experience the misfortune of having a Go- verument conducted on such principles, it is to me a matter of perfect indif- ference whether the Premier of that Government be Lord Melbourne or the right honourable Member for Tamworth. It would, indeed, be gratifying to me to sce an efficient Liberal Ministry at the helm ; but, if that he forbidden, the next best condition is to have an efficient Liberal Opposition. At the present moment, for the first time in modern English history, we have neither a Liberal Ministry nor a Liberal Opposition. We have a Ministry which, having once professed. Liberal principles, now neither manifest the will nor possess the power to accomplish any thing but Conservative purposes ; we have a very powerful Opposition, which both now is and always has been con- sistently Conservative. The patronage and emoluments of Government are, indeed,distributed among those who are called Liberals; but the real ascendant and influential principle of Government is that of the Conservative body, Whig as well as Tory. How long this inglorious and unpromising state of our political world may be destined to last, I do not know ; but of this I am quite sure, that no new combination of parties, let it be of what character it may, can be more adverse than the present to the success of liberal principles, and to the attainment of progressive reform throughout our institutions."
Mr. Ginsos said, that if it were true, as had been said, that certain tactics had been resorted to by the Conservatives with respect to the treatment of the question before the House, he knew nothing of the:a. He never would permit himself to be made a mere voting-machine. He approved of many parts of Sir Robert Peel's speech, and especially of the declaration, that religious opinions were not to act as a qualifica- tion or disqualification for office, He felt certain that were Sir Robert Peel again in office, he would zealously endeavour to carry out the spirit and intention of' the Catholic Emancipation Act, Bat lie did not agree with Sir Robert, that men of his own party should alone he ap- pointed by a Minister to office ; and lie should have been better p'.: axed had Sir Robert declared, that he would be guided solely by the merits and ability of the individual candidates. It would, he knew, be difficult rigidly to abide by such a principle; but he protested against the gene- ral doctrine of Government patronage. Neither did he approve of the condemnation of political associations. It was a delicate question, when it was seen, that all public objects—whether it were to pass a beer-bill or to raise a Catholic or a Protestant party to ascendancy—all was brought about by means of associations, which were a very power- ful ingredient in the working of the social community. He was glad that Sir Robert Peel discouraged party demonstrations and processions ; and hoped that the "Protestant Association which had advertised a meeting at Exeter Hall for the purpose of hearing Mr. O'Sullivan and 3Ir. M'Gce declaim on the immoralities of the Catholic priesthood, VC1111d bc:Ir to Mind that the eminent leader of the great Conservative party had most positively denounced such proceedings. With respect to the question immediately before the House, Mr. Gibson professed himself unable to come to a satisfactory decision. If the appointment of the Lords' Committee were really a vote of censure, he conceived that Ministers would be entitled to ask the opinions of the House of Commons on the question ; and he would not wait for the report of that Committee before he gave his own opinion, which, as a Member of the House of Commons, he considered himself perfectly competent to declare without waiting for the decision of' any other body. But a great difference of opinion existed as to whether the appointment of a Committee by the Lords was or was not a vote of censure. Ministers declared that it was ; Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, that it was not ; Mr. Lascelles, that it went far on the road to censure ; others that there was a prima fiwie case of censure. As his Par- liamentary experience did not enable him to say whether censure was or was not intended, he should give no vote at all on the preliminary question.
Sir Eowmus IsyrroN BuLwisn, in supporting the motion, condemned the vote of the Lords as arrogating to itself a constitutional preroga- tive of the Sovereign. He considered it a sufficient reply to the charge of confining the question to a part only of the Ministerial policy, that a part only had been attacked. He was astonished by the eagerness which some Irish Members exhibited to paint their own countrymen in the blackest colours ; and he really thought that the Irish Protestants ought to be grateful to Lord Normauby ; by whose aid a Tithe Bill, without the Appropriation principle, had been carried,—a mea- sure which they never could have obtained from a Tory Administra- tion. Ile very much regretted the tone of Lord John Russell on seve- ral occasions, and expressions which, if the opportunity occurred, that noble lord ought to explain, for they had given just offence to many of his supporters ; but he put it to Mr. Grote, whether, on the whole, they were likely to get an Administration which would keep better faith with the gradual development of popular civilization ?
Mr. LITTON contended, that the discontent, disaffection, and distress of the peasantry of Ireland were not to be attributed to the severity of the landlords, but to the continuance of that system of agitation, which estranged the servant from the owner of the soil, rendered the one poor and clamorous, and drove the other to seek in absenteeism the peace and comfort denied him at home.
Mr. PIGOT (Solicitor-General for Ireland) applied himself chiefly to answer the charges advanced by Mr. Emerson Teunent in his speech of the previous night,—a speech which had been reported with asto• rushing accuracy and at great length, and which would be industriously circulated throughout Ireland. It was assuredly not all ill-cousidered piece of declamation ; and it contained poison, to the effects of which Mr. Pigot would endeavour to apply at least a partial antidote.
It was a charge against the Irish Government, that they had forbidden Jurymen to be challenged on the ground of religious opinions, or any
other reason which could not be specified ; but Mr. Pigot argued that the new law had tended to create satisfaction in the decision of juries, and that it was monstrous, that the public prosecutor should be enabled by the power of unlimited challenge, to secure, as in former times, juries adverse to the prisoner. It had been said that the Government had abandoned the right of reply in criminal prosecutions : but he could mention, in disproof of the assertion, a case in which a Roman Catholic priest, being the party charged, a Roman Catholic counsel engaged for the prosecution spoke to the evidence against the culprit, and the result was a conviction. That Lord Normanby had refused promotion at the bar to opponents of Government was another assertion : but there were the cases of Mr. Collins, Mr. Miller, Mr. Brooke, and others who had obtained silk gowns, to refute that charge. Such was not the conduct of Tory Governments, as the treatment of Mr. Perrin proved : that gentleman got a silk gown from Lord Manners, but not until the Judges of the Court in which he principally practised remonstrated against the injustice, not only to Mr. Perrin but his clients, which his exclusion from the advancement to which his standing entitled him, occasioned. " Not one single person was elevated to the bench, who could not pro- nounce the Shibboleth of faction, and would not join in worshipping the Dagoa of agitation :" such was another charge of Mr. Emerson Tennent,—refuted by the fact of the advancement of Mr. Perrin, Mr. 01,oghlen, and Mr. Woulfe. A similar accusation was preferred. against the appointments to the Board of National Education : but in that Board were Dr. Sadleir, Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Sergeant Greene, all belonging to that class to which the National Board was said to be unacceptable. With respect to criminal statistics, Mr. Tenuent was satisfied with stating that there had been 27,000 offenders in Ireland in one year : but the question was, whether there had been an increase or diminution of offences ; and to set the House right on this point, Mr. Pigot read. a figure statement, made from the printed returns of the " Inspectors of Prisons," which showed, that in 1S36, as com- pared with 1834, crimes of various descriptions had decreased from 13 to 70 per cent. The Inspectors of Prisons were appointed by act of Parliament : they were generally clergymen, and reported the actual number of persons in confinement. The returns made by the Clerks of the Peace and of Sessions exhibited a greater number of crimes, be- cause the same offence frequently appeared under the three different heads of ' riot, rescue, assault,"—the party accused being only one, though counted as three : if his trial were postponed, the three offences were again put down ; and thus one breach of the law figured in the returns as six. The improvements in the Police effected by Lord Nor- manby rendered life and property more secure ; but at the same time the greater vigilance swelled the returns of crimes, and rendered the comparison unfair between the criminal statistics of the present with those of' former times.
Mr. SHAW replied to 3Ir. Pigot. He said that the appointment of the Committee of the House of Lords last session had produced a satisfac- tory change in the manner of nominating those officers. 11 ith respect to Mr. Perrin, lie believed he could state, on that learned Judge's per- sonal authority, that lie was made King's counsel on his first applica- tion, and that no junior counsel was ever put over his head. As to the criminal statistics, if there had been any mistake it arose from the neg-• lect of duty by the Clerks of the Crown, who were directed to return the numher of offenders, not of crimes. But the real question was, whether the House of Lords had not a right to satisfy themselves by in- ;firing whether crime had been increased or diminished—whether the laws had been properly or improperly executed under Lord Normanby's administration. He contended that the Government had encouraged agitation, by making it the surest passport to office; and that by such a course illegal proceedings had been sanctioned. Mr. Pigot had avoided the charge against the Irish Government of indiscreet exercise of the prerogative of mercy : on this point Mr. Shaw called partieular attention to the liberation of two men, Bremhan and Gahagan, as furnishing proof that Lord Normanby was more desirous of gra- tifying agitators and Catholic priests than of enforebig the law. The Judges of the land had been treated with disrespect the sentences passed in their courts had been unceremoniously set aside ; and the ab- sence of the Judges front the late Viceroy's levees was occasioned by this treatment. He called upon the House to act fearlessly. and dismiss the notion that a rebellion in Ireland would be the result of a change of Ministers. The Precursor Society had been a complete failure. Where were the two millions ? As to there being seven millions of Ilepealers, lie did not believe half a million could be produced. All that was needed was the mild, temperate, but firm administration of existing laws.
On the motion of Mr. ..NIORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL, the third day's debate was adjourned, and the House rose at twelve o'clock.
OD Thursday, Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL opened the discus- sion, with a speech in praise and defence of Lord Normanby's Ad- ministration. He especially commended the practice Lord Normanby had introduced, of calling upon " other classes besides the aristocratic to perform the duties of jurors," as calculated to give the people a feel- ing of confidence in the Government. He referred to the history of Ireland under Tory Ministers, to prove that outrages were frequent, and the perpetrators of them seldom punished. As to the ameudinent, when stripped of the gauzes with which it was enveloped, it amounted to a simple declaration that the House of Commons did not think it worth while to express any opinion upon the governms•nt of Ireland.
Mr. JOHN YOUNG would support the amendment ; lint if he thought that a change of Administration would lead to the adoption of a narrow policy, or such events as had preceded the Union, he would oppose it.
Sir DAvin ROCHE believed that a change of Government would lead " to one of the most dreadful scenes that had ever desolated Ireland."
Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS would not vote against Ministers. were he not persuaded that the present Government would be succeeded by one which would remedy every abuse.
Mr. WILT.IAM ROCHE denied assertions frequently made, that Pro- testants could not dwell safely in Ireland. There was not even amongst the humblest portion of the people an instance of a Protestant having been injured on religious grounds.
Mr. PLITMPTRE expressed his belief that the great bane of Ireland was the existence of the Catholic religion, and the delusions prac- tised on the people by a numerous, ignorant, immoral, and political priesthood.
Mr. REDINGTON said, that he, as a Roman Catholic, would pronounce Mr. Plumptre's assertion most calumnious. Not only every Irishman, but every one of Mr. Plumptre.'s own countrymen, knew that his asser- tions were founded on the grossest calumny. Sir FREDERICK TRENCH was an Irishman, and not ashamed of the
green flag of his country ; but as there was a harp upon it, he should like to see the crown there also. He believed there was but one way of really benefiting Ireland—let Mr. O'Connell use his influence in turn- ing his countrymen to agricultural and peaceful pursuits, and their prosperity would follow ; while there would be no cry for a repeal of the Corn-laws, which would be destruction to England.
Mr. RUNE supported the motion, and the principles on which Lord
Normanby had acted in the Government of Ireland. He regretted the inconsistency of Ministers. He would himself have resigned rather than abandon the Appropriation principle ; but at least they had mani- fested a desire to please the Irish. He felt satisfied in voting with Ministers against Sir Robert Peel's amendment, because the vote ap- plied only to their Irish policy, and was not a general vote of confi- dence; in which he could not have joined, as he differed with Minis- ters on every part of their policy except the Irish part of it.
Dr. LEFROY attempted to enter into a defence of Lord Lorton's con- duct towards his tenantry ; but the House refused to listen to him, and he sat down amidst cries of " Question l"
Lord Monewrir felt it impossible, considering the situation he held, to remain silent ; although, having so recently gone into a vast number of statistical details, bearing immediately on the subject before the House, he was relieved from the necessity of dealing with minor points, and should, for the most part, confine himself to general prin- ciples and broad results. lie had no cause to quarrel with the tone of Sir Robert Peel's speech, in introducing an amendment which had neither shape nor substance, and no more colour than a eameleon, but was only a new version of the song of the "previous question," re- sembling the " needless Alexandrine " of the poet,
" which like a wounded snake drags its slow length along."
Sir Robert Peel's speech formed a striking contrast to those which the House was often destined to hear upon Irish subjects ; and he was happy to say that the entire debate had been conducted in a tone of less acerbity than Irish questions usually produced ; with one exception— Mr. Plumptre had made a solitary and desperate attempt to renew the, he trusted waning and expiring fires, of religious discord. Lord Mor- peth then proceeded to justify the Government in bringing forward the motion on which the debate was founded. He contended that the ani- mus of those who appointed the Committee in the Lords, and several speeches which had been delivered from the Opposition benches in the House of Commons, clearly proved that the appointment of the Com- mittee was held equivalent to a vote of censure, although Sir Robert Peel had denied that such was the intention of the Lords. The resolu- tion of the Lords was in the true spirit of party—in the carping and invidious spirit of censure. It fixed its implied condemnation on the men who had administered the affairs of Ireland during a specified period ; whereas Lord John Russell's resolution left the expression of confidence to apply to all to whom it might be due. It had been asked why he had himself complied with Mr. Shaw's motion for papers to il- lustrate the state of crime in Ireland : but quite a different character and complexion belonged to that motion. It was carried in a thin and careless House of forty. Members, and could not be compared with an inquisition founded on imputation of misgovernment, and to be con- ducted by a Committee composed of materials he need not describe- " If the House of Lords and the gentlemen opposite really and actually be- lieved in a tithe of that which they have no scruple in expressing—if any por- tion of the big words with which they arc pleased to fill their mouths—( Great laughter and big any portion of the big words of charge and crimi- nation, with which they are pleased to fill their mouths—(Increased laughter and cheering)—were capable of being substantiated, the impropriety of the late course of proceeding would appear in colours infinitely more manifest and glaring ; fur enough has been stated twenty times over to warrant I do not know how many impeachments." (Great cheering.) But if so grave and decided a view was taken of the proceedings in the Lords, it might he asked, why did not Ministers resign ? He thought it would have been a fair subject for consideration, and he was not sure whether it was not the most difficult and debateable point on which Ministers had to decide ; but, considering the support Lord Mel- bourne had received from the House of Commons, he thought it just and fair, and more respectful to the House, to ascertain whether the Representatives of the People, who called the present Ministers into power, still sided with them, or had determined to join the ranks of their opponents. He would not enter at any length into isolated and partial charges ; but some had been so prominently introduced into the discussion that he felt obliged to notice them. With respect to the liberation of prisoners by the Lord-Lieutenant, all cases of this de- scription had occurred in 1836. They had been the subject of pro- longed discussion in both Houses of Parliament. Lord Normanby had entered into the fullest explanations in the Lords, and he himself had done the saute in the Commons. Neither House thought it necessary to take any step in the matter. Whether the experiment which Lord Normanby tried had failed or not, it had never been repeated. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Was it an offence that it had not been repeated ?— a Was that the matter with which the Government were now charged? (Cries of " Ai), no " from the Opposition.) Then what was the meaning of those taunting shouts with which he had been met ? But so it was the other night. His noble friend Lord John Russell was sneered at for calling the at- tention of the House to the conduct which the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland pursued subsequent to the period when the subject last engaged the attention of Parliament. It seemed, indeed, that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was the only subject upon which no statute of limitation was to run ; that the exercise of clemency was the only crime which was inexpiable and to be unforgiven." (Much cheering.)
He explained at great length the two cases adduced by Mr. Shaw as proof of the improper exercise of the pardoning power. It appeared that in both the Lord-Lieutenant acted with great consideration, and on the well-considered advice of the Law-Officers of the Crown ; and that
there was no ground whatever for believing that the pardons were granted in compliance with the demands of Catholic priests. [Lord Morpeth's explanation of these cases occupies nearly two columns of the Morning Chronicle—the result is as stated.] Referring to Mr Shaw's denial that junior barristers had been promoted over Mr. Per- rin's head by Tory Governments, Lord Morpeth cited the cases of Mr. Doherty, Mr. Crampton, Mr. Warren, and Mr. North, who, though Me: Perrin's juniors, received silk gowns before that gentleman. He read a letter from Lord Caledon bearing testimony to the high character and qualifications of Captain Duff, whose appointment to the office of Sti- pendiary Magistrate had been attacked. He referred to the reports of the Inspectors of Prisons to show that crime had decreased in Ireland; to letters from land-surveyors, which proved a great increase in the value of landed property in that country ; to similar statements respect.. ing the worth of shares in public companies ; and to the augmentation of deposits in the Dublin savings bank—all of them indications of im- provement. It had been asked, to what class of men in Ireland Govern- ment could appeal for confirmation of their alleged success in conduct- ing the affairs of that country—to the bar or the bench, the Magistrates, the aristocracy, or the gentlemen of landed property ? Lord Morpeth was content to appeal in the name of the Government to the omitted class—the people of Ireland. Were the bulk of the people on the side of Ministers or of their opponents? Was it only the least-educated and the poorest class who supported Ministers ? He referred the inquirer to the late meeting in Dublin, where the proud name of Geraldine was linked with the lordly house of Charlemont in support of equal laws to Ireland. Ministers were resolved to obtain a declaration front the House of Commons, which should settle the question of their Irish policy- " We are now determined to have this point cleared up. We will not ae- cept your commentaries, nor your gloss, nor your palliations. We will leave no room for ambiguity. 'We have had enough of partial attacks and isolated charges—of inuendoes and ahuse—of motions for papers here and for Committees there. We now come for a direct, an unequivocal opinion at your hands; we will take no low ground ; we will exist no longer on sufferance. (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) We tell you that we will not put up with passive acquiescence, or bare endurance. We will not he even eon. tented with acquittal. My noble friend asks you this night for a direct, down- right vote of approbation. In the name of the Irish Government, and of the whole Government, as implicated in its Irish policy, I assert fearlessly that we have deserved well of our country This is a conviction which no taunts of yours can lessen the farce of; and upon this issue I call you, the represen- tatives of the empire, to come this night to the vote." (Long-contained cheers.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he had not succeeded in ascertaining from the speeches of Ministers what their real object was in bringing forward this motion. If, as he suspected, it was to 'prop up their tot- tering Cabinet, the attempt would fail. It was looked upon as a sort of cordial to a dying man ; but he doubted whether it would keep up the patient long. Ministers were doomed to fall—not from any hostile effort of the Opposition, but from an honest divisor of opinion among their own supporters on questions of great national importance. The remainder of Sir James Graham's speech consisted chiefly in repeti- tions of the charges against Lord Normanby of misusing his patronage and encouraging political agitation ; the intimate connexion between which and prirdial disturbances had been expressly asserted in one of Lord Wellesley's etespaiches. Sir ;holies Graham taunted Ministers. with the vague terms of their resolution ; and asked whether they agreed among themselves, and with their Lord-Lieutenant, respecting the Irish Church and the settlement of the Tithe question ? He ridi- culed the notion that Orange ascendancy could ever be restored in Ireland—it was of all ideas the most extravagant. Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE moved the further adjournment of the de- bate ; which motion being agreed to, the House rose at one o'clock.
In the House of Lords on Thursday evening, a conversation took place relative to members serving on Lord Roden's Committee. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE being asked by Lord Ronny, said that he should not attend the Committee ; neither would Lord Duncannon. Lord GOSFORD said the same. Lords BROUGHAM and ELLENBOROUCH denied that the appointment of the Committee was a " criminatory act."
MISCELLANEOUS.
Nnw WRIT. A new writ was ordered on Tuesday for the county of Tyrone, in the room of Lord Alexander, now Earl of Caledon.
ELECTION PETITION. The following Members were appointed, after abiaglalont, a Committee to try the validity of Mr. Ewart's return for wr
Conservatives, Liberals, Mr. De Horsey; Mr. Hollond ; Mr. Ilawkes ; Mr. Childers; Mr. Hurt ; Colonel Butler ; Mr. Meyne11-1. Mr. Cayley ; Mr. J. II. Vivian ; Mr. }Await ;
Mr. Iltunphery-7. POST-OFFICE. In reply to a question from Mr. GIBSON, Mr. WAL- LACE said, that if Government declined to undertake the measure, lie, as Chairman of the Committee on Postage, should introduce a bill on the subject about the middle of next month. ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS SUSPENSION BILL. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Bishop of ExETER, the Duke of WELLING- TON, and the Bishop of SALISBURY, objected to the provisions of this bill, which enabled the Crown to name a candidate for the Deanery of Exeter to the Chapter of Exeter; and Lord MELBOURNE reluctantly postponed the further consideration of the measure for a week.
Previous page
