said, he would, at a proper time, object to gentlemen who were interested in the measure giving their votes in favour of it. Never was a bill brought into the House in so barefaced a manner as that of last year. Persons holding shares to the amount of 50,000l. had voted for it. He would move, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."

saw no necessity for these docks. The London Dock afforded sufficient accommodation to the commercial world, and if more were required, they could furnish it.

supported the bill. The parties wanted no exclusive advantages. They had not brought forward the measure lightly. It had undergone the most mature consideration. It was fit, that, in a great commercial country, there should be competition in undertakings of this description. Accommodation of the best kind should be given to merchant-vessels, and that would be best obtained by open competition. Why should the London Dock Company have a monopoly? The fact was, that those who opposed the bill were afraid of losing the gains which they realized by a monopoly.

said, he would advise gentlemen to keep their money against a rainy day, instead of trying to ruin each other by embarking in all sorts of projects. He wished to give every protection to the mercantile marine of this country, but he thought there was sufficient dock-room already. When he saw the number of bills which were called for, he felt that there was a clashing of interests, which was likly to end in the ruin of different parties. There were companies of all descriptions: companies to bring salt water from Brighton, and air from Bognor— companies to "bring airs from Heaven, and blasts from Hell." When he saw this, he fell back on his own resources, on the principles of his own unconquered mind, and seriously asked himself, whether the gentlemen who thus employed their capital were in the right. In his opinion they were not; and therefore he should oppose the bill.

thought that competition was a very good thing; and had no doubt that if the proposed docks were laid aside, the existing companies would raise their prices.

said, that the only opposition to the measure had proceeded from those who were interested in the present dock companies.

objected, not to the principle of the bill, but to the particular place selected for the erection of the docks. The parish contained 8 or 10,000 persons, who were chiefly employed in the lighters on the river, and they would be deeply injured if it were carried into effect. He objected also to the sacrilegious exhumation of the ashes of the dead, which must be a consequence of it.

said, that, a large number of the inhabitants had consented to the measure, and almost the whole body of merchants and ship-owners were unanimously in favour of it.

said, there was not an out-port in the country which did not, with good reason, complain of the accommodation in the London docks. He saw no possible objection to the bill.

said, there was at present as much competition as was advantageous without any new docks.

said, he was instructed from Dublin, the merchants of which port had not at present sufficient accommodation in the London Docks, to support the bill.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to empower magistrates at quarter sessions to effect Exchanges between counties of insulated Parcels of Land, for the more convenient administration of justice. To provide a remedy for the inconvenience and perplexity which resulted from having certain parcels of land belonging to particular counties situated at a considerable distance from those counties, was the object of his bill. The best method of prevailing upon persons to apply a remedy was, to prove the existence of the evil. That he would endeavour to do, by stating a few short facts. In the first place he would remind the House that Holy Island, which lay off the coast of Northumberland, did not, as one would naturally suppose from the situation, belong to that county, but to the county palatine of Durham. Another place belonging to Durham, called Crake, was situated in the centre of Yorkshire, fifty miles from the courts of the county of which it was called a part. Its inhabitants voted for members of Parliament for the county of Durham, whilst the assessments for land were made in, and men were raised and embodied for, Yorkshire. In the same way a part of Derbyshire was to be found in Leicestershire: and a part of Huntingdonshire in Bedfordshire. From the town of Oakingham, a tract of land belonging to Wiltshire ran into Berkshire, for about four miles in length. It was, in some places, two miles in breadth, and in others not half a mile; and there was no notorious mark by which the boundaries of the two counties could be defined. In like manner Swallowfield East, and Swallowfield West, both belonging to Wiltshire, were situated in Berkshire. He had the authority of all the magistrates on the Oakingham bench for stating, that the situation of the, three parcels of land which he had mentioned, had for many years produced great inconvenience. He had seen a bill which had been framed with reference to this very subject, by lord-chancellor Hyde, who had resided for some time in the parish of Swallowfield. The bill was drawn up with great accuracy, it enumerated every parish, tithing, and village within the three parcels of land before-mentioned, as well as all the evils which had arisen, or were likely to arise, from their locality, and the remedy which it proposed was, that those three parcels of land should be annexed, for all purposes whatever, to the county of Berks; that all power and jurisdiction over them should be taken from the lord-lieutenant and the magistrates of Wiltshire, and vested in those of Berkshire, with full authority to raise all dues and subsidies, all tenths and fifteenths, and all taxes whatever. The bill also contained a saving clause, guarding the right of every man's inheritance. He would not enter into an inquiry as to whether the divisions of the kingdom were effected under the reign of Alfred—or under that of Offa, or whether the division by tithings.—or by counties, was of the greatest antiquity: but he must say a few words on the constitution of shires, as he thought he could make it appear, that the establishment of those isolated spots in particular counties, which created so much inconvenience, must have been the effect of some overpowering influence, in direct violation of the principle which led to the establishment of county courts, itinerant magistrates, and of the office of high sheriff. He found, from several authorities, that there were three objects proposed to be attained by the constitution of shires. The first was to suit the ease and convenience of the people, because all justice being at that time immediately in the Crown, and administered only where the king was personally present, the increase of population rendered this mode of dispensing justice troublesome. It was therefore ordered, that every shire should have justice administered within itself, by county courts holden monthly to settle disputes between parties, and by sheriffs' courts holden half-yearly, to take cognizance of criminal cases. The second object of the constitution of shires was the more easy conservation of the peace; because the sheriff, being constantly resident in the county, and at a convenient distance from all parts, could without difficulty suppress all tumults, and execute all process. The third was the more easy defence of the country, and to facilitate the raising of, subsidies, and all kinds of taxes. These being the objects proposed to be gained by the constitution of shires, it remained for him to show by what influence these isolated spots which he had before described, could have been established in almost every county, of England. He was of opinion, that they were established by the influence of men of great rank and power, and of the church. Dugdale, in his Warwickshire, speaks of a spot of ground which interfered with his survey, and which he found to belong to the county of Worcester. He ascertained, that this piece of land belonged to the church of Worcester, which, upon the general division of land throughout the kingdom, had influence enough to preserve it, and, ever after, it continued to be taxed as part of that, county. Sometimes those isolated parcels of land had been retained in counties, because they were attached to the seigniories of great noblemen. In Devonshire was a parcel of earldom land which had always been taxed as belonging to the county of Cornwall. In Berks was a piece of land called Twyford, which belonged to Wiltshire, although it was twenty miles from that county: the reason, was, that it constituted part of the possessions of the abbey of Amesbury, in Wiltshire. He knew that the House would be likely to object to any thing like innovation, and therefore he would show a precedent for the measure which he proposed. In 1698, the counties of Ross and Cromarty were, by an act of session, united for all purposes, and have since been considered as one county by almost every act of parliament which had been passed relative to them. In 1740, many changes took place in the geographical situation of the county of Dorset; and a variety of changes had, at different times, been made in counties, by forming several small hundreds into one large hundred, and by dividing large parishes, in order to collect the poor's-rate, more easily. There was one precedent, which he could not omit to mention, because it would have weight with the House as being one of its own measures; he alluded to the act of the 41st of George 3rd, which was passed for the purpose of annexing Malta, to the map of Europe He trusted that the House would not object to the introduction of the bill.

had no intention of opposing the motion; on the contrary, he would give the bill every consideration, although he could not at present pledge himself to support it. As it struck him, there would be some difficulty as to the, detail of the measure. The hon. gentleman, for instance, had not stated what he intended to do as to the elective franchise. Again, what arrangement was to be made with respect to county rates, assessed for works which were already completed, but not paid for? The bill, further, only proposed to give the power of exchange to counties; it was not provided, what a county should do which desired to take, and had nothing to offer in return.

said, that with respect to the elective franchise, it would be impossible to make any new arrangement at the eve of a dissolution of parliament. His view was, that no alteration should take place until one year after the next general election. For the matter of county-rate, the sum at stake would be so trivial that it might be easily disposed of.

felt no disposition to oppose the bill; for, to satisfy all parties, the readiest course was investigation. The established church must be maintained in Ireland; and maintained, as to all expenses that were necessary, by the population; but, as far as the correction of abuse could go, if abuse existed, the present measure should have his best assistance. With respect to the particular instances, he was not prepared to go into them; but he had already looked through the returns, and, before any further discussion took place, would endeavour to attend to them more fully.

, pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the acknowledged defects of the law of Ireland, concerning Landlords and Tenants. He did not intend to propose any thing to the House by way of giving more power to landlords to recover rent; his object was, to remove those impediments which were in the way of landlords improving their estates, and to check that habit of subdividing farms which had so much contributed to the excessive population of Ireland. If the causes of the misery and destitution of the people were properly explored, they would be found all to concentrate into one— the excess of the numbers of the people, above the funds that existed for giving them employment. The consequence of this state of things was, that the wages of labour were much too low to admit the lower orders to provide for more than their bare subsistence, when provisions were plenty; and that they were exposed to ail the horrors of actual famine, the moment the prices of provision advanced beyond the ordinary lowest prices. Whatever variety of opinion might prevail respecting the depression or improvement of the condition of the lower orders of society, this principle was undeniably certain, that their misery or comfort depended wholly upon the wages the labouring class could earn. If wages were as low as they are in Ireland, it was with the greatest difficulty that human existence could be sustained, there existed nothing like enjoyment or comfort; on the contrary, in a county where wages were high, there the labouring class were not only able to live on good food, but, to purchase many of the smaller luxuries and conveniences of life. Now, in regard to Ireland, it had been shewn by several intelligent witnesses, before the committee now sitting, that if the whole sum paid in the course of one year, was divided among all the labouring class, it would not make a higher average per man, per day, throughout the year, than four-pence. Many persons considered this too high an average: but, taking it at the rate of four-pence, the House would at once see in what an extreme state of depression the lower orders of Ireland exist. In order to improve their condition, and to place them in such a state as human beings ought to live in, the rate of wages should not be less than one shilling a day, which was one third less than the rate in England. But, to accomplish this object, no less a difficulty occurred than that of some how or other making the funds for maintaining labour in Ireland three times as great as they now were. That this might be accomplished was certainly practicable, and no doubt the capital of Ireland was rapidly increasing; but this great mistake was made by all those persons who were in the habit of confining their plans for improving the condition of the people of Ireland to the augmentation of capital, that they wholly overlooked the fact—that while capital was increasing, the population of Ireland was also increasing. They ought, there- fore, to extend their views, and do all in their power to promote those measures which might be fit for the retarding of the progress of this increasing population. But the population was not only increasing, but, according to all past experience, and the authority of all writers upon the subject of population, it was, no doubt, increasing more rapidly than capital was increasing. The principle universally laid down and acknowledged to be correct was, that the tendency of population to increase, was greater than the tendency of capital to increase, and therefore that there existed the greatest difficulty to bring the ratio that capital bears to population to that point which will secure a steady demand for labour, and consequently a sufficient rate of wages. For these reasons, besides doing all that can be done to increase capital, every effort should be made to produce some change in those habits of Ireland, which were so much calculated to increase the existing population, and in this way to increase the wants and misery of the people. Among those habits none had been more productive of the present distressing condition of the lower orders, than the facility with which farms were divided and subdivided, without any consideration of the means by which the families reared upon these small tenements were to be employed. This had been very much owing to the practical difficulty that landlords had found in enforcing the clause against alienation that was commonly inserted in their leases; not that the law was against the landlord, but because there prevailed a great prejudice in the courts of law, both on the part of the judges and the juries, against the enforcing of the law. Mr. Blacker in his evidence before the select committee in Ireland, said, "Very great difficulty arises in preventing alienation, not in the law, but in carrying the law into effect; juries are always against any case of forfeiture, and indeed the courts also." What the exact alteration of the system was that was wanting, the firm, member said he would not now undertake to say, but it must not be any thing short of giving to the landlord a simple and effectual power absolutely to prevent sub-letting, contrary to the covenant of the lease. If the House gave him leave to bring in a bill, he would wait, before he presented it, to hear what further evidence on the subject might be given to the committee now sitting on the state of Ireland, and frame his bill ac- cording to the plan that appeared to be best suited to his object. He should also provide for relieving under-tenants from being distrained by the head landlord, and also for some remedy for the great abuses that were now practised under the laws for taking distress for arrears of rent. He hoped the House would think favourably of this attempt to put a stop to the practice of subdividing farms; for there was no circumstance in Ireland that led to so much poverty and misery, and contributed so much to obstruct internal improvement, as this universal practice of sub-letting, in defiance of the rights and interest of the landlords. He then moved, for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of Ireland, respecting the sub-letting of Tenements."

feared, that the proposition would go to the extent of compromising the principle laid down by the House, of hot interfering with the disposal of property. If he understood the hon. baronet, his object was, to limit the landlord and tenant as to the disposal of their property.

said, his hon. friend was quite mistaken. The object was, to enforce the performance of contracts between landlord and tenant, which had been hitherto frustrated by courts of law and juries. In support of the necessity of the projected measure, he could mention instances wherein land leased out twenty-five years ago had been infinitely deteriorated, in consequence of the transmission through various branches of families.

rose to submit another motion, of which he had given notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the office of Justice of Peace in Ireland. He did not intend to enter, on this occasion, into any detail as to the conduct of the magistracy of that country, but he thought that some measure was necessary to follow up and enforce the excellent regulations respecting the magistrates which had been introduced by the marquis Wellesley. One of the great evils which that noble lord had tried to remedy was, that of magistrates acting in their private houses, instead of holding courts of petty-sessions; a practice from which the most injurious Consequences had proceeded. Independently of this, he thought it necessary that the number of magistrates should be restricted, so as to get rid of many at present in the commission who were unfit for that situation. In the propriety of the regulations which had already taken place, he entirely concurred; but he thought they did not go far enough. It was, he knew, objected, that if all who were unfit were removed, there would not be enough to do the business of the country; but, if the objection had any weight, the way in which the evil might be remedied, was not by appointing persons wholly unfit for the duties of the office. He was anxious that the leave for bringing in the bill might be a sort of pledge that something further should be done on this subject; but what the nature of the precise remedy should be, he would leave in the hands of the committee appointed to bring in the bill. He thought the House ought to go further than the Irish government had done, and that some new principle should be laid down in the appointment of Irish magistrates.

said, he would not oppose the motion, but he begged that his assent on this occasion might not be considered as a pledge to support the measure when introduced. Indeed, there were some clauses in the intended bill to which, if report spoke truth, he could not give his assent; as he did not think they would benefit that country. This was a subject which had been under the consideration of the Irish government. Persons had been sent into the different counties with instructions to make inquiries. Their reports had been submitted to the judges of the land; and the reason why no measure had been introduced upon them was, that it was not considered expedient at the present time. But, he could assure the House, that where any case had occurred which called for the interference of the lord-chancellor of Ireland, he had discharged the difficult and invidious task in a manner highly beneficial to the interests of justice.

begged to suggest in the proposed bill the substitution of lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants, instead of the governors and sub-governors of counties in Ireland. He wished to see the plan assimilated to that of England, where the lord-lieutenants of counties were answerable to the Home office.

said, that if by this bill it was intended to introduce paid officers among the magistracy, he should deprecate it as having a most injurious tendency.

said, that as far as he understood the present bill calculated to produce a regular attendance at petty sessions, he would give it his support.

did not much admire the practice of introducing specific measures into the House, upon which a committee up stairs was sitting, and upon which it had not yet reported. With respect to the effect of the proposed bill, if it sanctioned the introduction of a paid officer as an assistant to the magistrates at petty sessions, that officer not being a magistrate, it would have a most injurious effect.

expressed his surprise that any member should object to the introduction of a particular measure with respect to Ireland, because there was a committee on the general state of that country sitting up stairs. Such a doctrine would place the whole government of Ireland in the power of the committee for the time being.

rose for the purpose of submitting a resolution by way of instruction to the committee. He had, from the first introduction of this measure, felt that it was unjust towards the Association against which it was directed, and cruel to the great body of the people of Ireland. One of the evils by which that unhappy country was afflicted was, the practice of introducing bills on every occasion. They had bills on all sides of the House to patch up some part of a bad system, instead of adopting a general measure which would go at once to the root of the mischief. The present was one of those patching bills. No one had attempted to say that it would remedy the present system in Ireland. It was introduced without any evidence of its necessity. The only evidence given were the verbal statements of one or two members on one side of the House, which were most flatly contradicted in every part by hon. members on the other. It was stated, amongst other things, that this Association had caused great alarm in Ireland. He denied the fact. If any alarm was felt, it must have been by the small faction who had so long held the ascendancy in that country, and the undisturbed monopoly of place and power. The representations made by the advocates of the bill, were of a very contrary description. One party said, that the proceedings of the Association had disturbed the tranquillity of Ireland, whilst the other asserted that Ireland was never in a state of less riot and disturbance. The House ought to have inquired which of these representations was correct before it allowed the bill to reach its present stage; but as it had not made such inquiry, he should feel it his duty, if the bill must pass into a law, to render it as equal in its operation as possible. He should, however, give the bill his most strenuous opposition in every stage. He knew that, in all probability, such opposition would be fruitless; but it would be a consolation to him to have done all in his power to resist so partial and tyrannical a measure. It was too common an adage, that when men were down, they were to be kept down. That was the disgraceful principle which the government were determined to act upon towards the ill-treated population of Ireland. The Protestants—a small body of men—were to be preserved in the enjoyment of the spoils of that country. Let no man tell him, that this unjust ascendancy was to be upheld on any religious impressions. Religion had nothing to do with the question. The true cause of the alarm was, that the monopoly of the few of the rights of the many was in danger. It was for the possession of the spoil of the Irish people, by a fraction of that community, that all these fears were propagated; and as that spoil was of large amount and had been for centuries continued, the effort to retain it was most vigorous. The Catholics of Ireland were degraded and debased by such a system, and when they endeavoured to obtain redress they were also to be vilified. He held in his hand a document which showed that it was for the public spoil that the Protestant ascendancy in that country were struggling. In the Customs, the number of Protestants holding places were 226 while the number of Catholics were 14. In the Excise the number of Protestants were 365, while the Catholics amounted to 6. Indeed, driven as the Catholics were to despair, it was natural that they should look for relief to any quarter where relief was presented to them. For his own part, he was ready to declare, that if he were an Irish Catholic, it would be a mere question of calculation with him, whether he should assert his rights as a man and a patriot, or run the risk of being hanged as a rebel and a traitor. Our ancestors had watched for an opportunity to strike the blow which gave them freedom; and he repeated, that if he were a Catholic, he should follow their example. By denying to the Catholics of Ireland their just claims, which were refused to them, not from any fear of their religious opinions, but from a fear lest they should obtain a portion of those offices of trust and emolument which were monopolized by the dominant faction in that country, the people of England were incurring the risk of losing that fine island altogether. They had been told by the Attorney-general for Ireland, that if further concessions were not made to the Catholics, he dreaded the effects of foreign aggression upon that country. Why, then, should they hesitate to make the Catholics their friends, and thereby place Ireland out of the reach of danger? Irishmen were treated as men in every country but Ireland; but there, he was sorry to say it, they were treated as brutes. Why should parliament continue such a system, when, by getting rid of it, it would not only attach a gallant nation to its side, but would rid England of an annual expense of four millions which was now incurred to keep it in subjection? The hon. member then proceeded to point out the difference between the Orange and the Catholic Associations, and to contend that if the government had wished to act fairly between them, it would have dismissed from its service all those who were members of Orange lodges. Those lodges were decidedly illegal; whereas, the Catholic Association was proved to be legal, by the necessity of having this bill to put it down. Considering the insulting manner in which the former petitions of the Catholics had been dismissed, he thought they had adopted a constitutional mode of obtaining a redress of grievances in forming such an Association. So far from objecting to it, he considered it a laudable Association, in perfect consistence with the principles and spirit of the constitution. Believing, therefore, that this Association had been most unjustly vilified, and seeing that the bill, which was intended to put it down, was shamefully partial in its operation, he would move, "That it be an instruction to the committee to receive a clause, providing that any person now holding or who might hereafter hold, any office under the Crown in Ireland, should take an oath that he does not now belong, and that he will not hereafter belong, to any Association declared to be illegal by this act."

resisted the motion. The principle of it was, to call upon every officer to take an oath, not merely that he was not guilty of a particular offence, but that he would not at any future time be guilty of it. If this were a fit principle to proceed upon, why did the hon. member call for such a declaration with regard to a minor offence, punishable only by fine and imprisonment, and neglect it with regard to greater offences, for which severer penalties were inflicted? Was it just to call upon an individual to take an oath, when, by refusing to take it, he gave indirect evidence that he was a member of a society denounced as illegal? He knew of no case in which such a test had ever been required from public officers; and he did not see any reason why it should be demanded from them in the present case. The object of the motion would not be answered, even by the success of such a clause as he had proposed. If any Orangeman was at present in the employment of the Irish government, it was because the constitution of those lodges had been so completely altered as not to transgress the existing laws. Should any servant of the government be discovered to be a member of an illegal Orange lodge, he would not only be dismissed from his situation, but handed over to the law, to suffer the punishment which it affixed to the offence. For these reasons, he should oppose the motion.

observed, that no man was bound to take office against his will; and argued, that as every man had to take some oaths before he entered upon office, he saw no reason why the test recommended by his hon. friend should not be added to those already in existence. He defended the Association from the attacks which had been made upon it, and said that he could not find any thing in the language used by its members half so violent as that which had been used regarding it by several members of that House. If they wished to give a triumph to neither of the two parties into which Ireland was divided, and to hold the balance impartially between them, they would not send this obnoxious bill to that country without adding to it the clause recommended by his hon. friend.

said, that in the hope of either shaming or terrifying ministers out of this bill, he should again express his execration of this abominable measure, which was founded in injustice, and was in direct opposition to the principles and practice of the constitution. It was calculated to rouse every honest man in Ireland to acts, if not of outrage, at least of active exertion to put down the men, who in a time of general peace and prosperity, had brought in a bill which was calculated to spread rebellion and war through that unfortunate country. Majorities of that House might indeed carry this odious bill, but they had all, unfortunately, heard of majorities packed and corrupted for the most mischievous of purposes. They had been, in this country, the means of imposing taxes upon the people to the amount of millions, and had thus enlarged the debt of the country to an extent irredeemable, during the largest period allotted to human existence. At one period of her history, they had brought England to the very brink of ruin. Similar majorities had goaded Ireland to rebellion; and to a similar catastrophe ministers seemed to be trying to drive her again. He had seen some short and transient periods of prosperity in Ireland; but he had witnessed there much longer and more troubled periods, for the most part, of affliction, misery, and oppression. He had had woful experience of the effects of those majorities, by which government was sometimes content shamelessly to carry through the most fatal and obnoxious bills. It was, therefore, as an Irish gentleman informed, by a long residence in that country, of what she had endured, and might yet endure, through a perseverance in the employment of similar means, that he stood there to warn the House, that the persisting in oppression and injustice, had before driven Ireland to madness and to revolt. If they were the last words he should utter, he would solemnly declare that the rebellion in Ireland of the year 1798 was justified by the circumstances under which it arose: he desired to protest, that every creature who on that occasion had suffered as a rebel was a martyr: and that every man at that time in power, who had lent his countenance to their destruction was a traitor to his country. While he said this, he begged it to be understood, that he had himself always resisted the armed rebels; but he did not less oppose and deprecate the persecuting spirit of the government of that day. He might refer to the authority of the gallant member for Southwark (sir R. Wilson) to corroborate him in saying, that they who were termed rebels were not the worst subjects of that day, nor the most to be denounced; but that rather they were such, whose oppressive measures had driven them to be rebels. He would tell the House who the person was who thus addressed them, that they might not suppose he had not been a supporter of government. When the French landed in Ireland, he had left Dublin and travelled night and day to meet them. He had the honour to deliver up to lord Cornwallis the French general second in command, who had been taken on the field of battle. The French general, in conversation afterwards had asked him how it was that the Irish opposed them, when he expected they would have received the French with open arms? He replied, that though the people desired a change, they would take no alteration which came recommended by French bayonets. He would tell the ministers they were risking the safety of the empire by the present bill. It was a measure likely to create rebellion in that country, where, according to the speech from the throne, prosperity was at last beginning to prevail. They were going to put down an Association which had done no harm, but a great deal of good: and this, too, to gratify, he would not say the Orange faction, but the rump of the Orange faction. This system might, possibly, be pursued a little longer; but the day of retribution must come at last. Hon gentlemen might think they could pass this bill safely; but he conjured them to pause in their course. From information which he was almost hourly receiving from Ireland, he knew that the agitation of this measure had excited the most intense sensation; for never had there existed in Ireland a body which so entirely possessed the confidence and affection of the Catholic millions, as the Catholic Association. And these sentiments were fully justified by the talents of his learned friend Mr. O'Connell, and other members of the deputation.

said, he as much approved as the hon. member for Aberdeen could do, of the broad principle that no person, being a member of any illegal society, should be admitted into office; but the hon. member must allow him to say, that the effect of his proposed instruction was quite irreconcileable to law or common sense. What was it that he proposed? First, that any person on entering upon an office, should swear, that he was, or was not, guilty; and secondly, that he would not thereafter belong to any society that should be an illegal one. Until the motion of the hon. member, he had never heard that it entered into the range of human legislation to compel a person to swear to a point of law. And yet this would be the effect of the oath proposed. The bill properly provided, that though the acts of only a portion of its members might render a society illegal, and therefore subject those members to its penal consequences, yet they who should be members, in ignorance of its illegal character, and not participating in its illegal acts, should be exempted from the penalties. But, by the hon. member's amendment, the party would be compelled to swear whether the society was legal or not, in order to determine his eligibility or ineligibility to office. He would thus be required to swear to a point of law, of which he could scarcely be supposed to be cognizant; that point of law going to a point of fact, of which, also, he could not be cognizant. He was disposed much rather to rely on the honour and justice of his majesty's government, that no one connected with it would venture to appoint any body to an office who was likely to be a member of a society declared to be illegal, than consent to the amendment.

was, in principle, opposed to the amendment, because it was adding another test, and he was opposed to all tests. But, if the present bill passed, he should then vote for the proposition of his hon. friend, as a means of showing the people that this measure was to be an impartial one. The bill ought to be framed so as to apply equally to Orangemen as well as others. The right hon. and learned gentleman argued, that its enactments would not affect a person acting in ignorance; and had asked how his hon. friend could propose to make a man swear to a point of law and a point of fact that could not be within his knowledge? Why, in the first place, the very objection that he (Mr. D.) most strongly felt to the bill was, that it did affect those who might be connected, even through ignorance, with an association that was illegal. [Here the learned gentleman read the clause of the bill relating to the "Punishment of persons becoming members of any unlawful society."] Here was a clause, by which a member of societies, hitherto quite lawful, was made liable to a punishment which was left in blank. [Here Mr. Denman was reminded, by some friend near him, of the proviso in the bill, "for members of Societies, not originally unlawful, becoming so under this Act."] This was, certainly, to some extent, a qualification. The reason for calling on a person before he took office, which was a voluntary act, to take the oath proposed by his hon. friend seemed to be this—to discover whether or no he belonged to any society of the kind alluded to—a knowledge which, without some such means of ascertaining the fact, there seemed to be no means of coming at. But, the object of the bill, should rather be directed to the secret associations than to the open ones. The societies which were leagued together by secret oaths, such as the Orange Society, were those that should be proceeded against. On this ground alone it might be possible to support the clauses he had just read; but on the same ground, he would vote for the instruction proposed.

thought, that the hon. and learned gentleman would do well in future to read bills before he discussed them. Surely it was not too much to ask of a learned judge, like the hon. and learned member, at least to hear the defence of a prisoner before he pronounced his condemnation. It seemed to be insinuated, that government were desirous of passing this bill without sufficiently discussing it. Now, after it had, during five nights, been largely discussed, and every hon. gentleman who had risen to oppose the bill, had been followed by some hon. member who was friendly to it, the course that had been pursued did not very much indicate a desire to evade discussion. The fertility of the proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen had been already so well exposed that it was unnecessary for him to offer any further observations on the subject. If the bill in question should be passed into a law, the Jaws that would affect societies in Ireland would be these—that there should be permitted in Ireland no societies bound together by secret and illegal oaths; that those who might thereafter enter into those mysterious engagements should become liable to certain punishments. To the penalties of this bill? No; but to transportation. Now, the hon. gentleman's proposition went to make a man swear, on entering office, that he did not belong to any secret society. Why, if he could not swear this, he would have already exposed himself to the penalty of the other law, making connexion with a secret society so punishable. Suppose, then, he should swear that he was not so connected; could any great reliance be placed upon that person's oath, seeing what must ensue if he declined to swear? If, belonging to a secret society, he should conceal that fact, he would commit perjury, and be liable to all the penalties of that heinous offence; but, if he should refuse to swear, and admit his connexion with any illegal association, then he would have offended against the law in question, and might be transported. But then it was said—suppose he should prove to belong to an Orange Lodge? Why, upon that point, he could find no difficulty in saying, that it would be the duty of government to remove from office any body who should be in such a situation, [cheers]. The proposition of the hon. member he opposed upon principle; because he opposed tests, generally, on principle; but he thought that the hon. gentleman must see that his own motion would not effect the object he had in view; and, therefore, he did hope, that he would not press the matter to a division.

said, he thought that measures of this kind had always a tendency to produce bloodshed and confusion; but he did trust, that the good sense of the Catholics would prevent any fatal consequences. It afforded him great pleasure to hear from the right hon. Secretary, that no Orangemen would be permitted to hold office. This single declaration from the right hon. gentleman would do more to put down all illegal societies in Ireland than this bill or any other measure. On this account, he was glad that his hon. friend had submitted his proposition to the House.

, alluding to the absolute necessity of conceding to the Catholics their claims, begged to ask the right hon. gentleman opposite whether he was prepared to resist Catholic emancipation until it should be wrung from him by the Irish people? Was he prepared for all the miseries attendant on a separation of Ireland from the empire; for all the miseries of a civil war; and for the imposition of new taxes to support it? These were questions which the right hon. gentleman ought seriously to ask himself. Meanwhile, parliament should determine on measures of relief; not such as would be pleasing to the Orangemen in particular, nor yet in particular to the Catholics: but such as would be most beneficial to the people of Ireland at large.