presented a Petition from a parish in Londonderry, against the new system of public Education in Ireland; also, a petition from a Congregation of Seceders from the Presbytery of Ulster, in the county of Down, against the same system; and another, to the same effect, from the Sunday school teachers in Belfast, and praying that the grant to the Kldare-street Society might be continued.

said, that the whole of the disturbances in the county of Clare, in 1829, originated in the attempts which were made to compel the Catholics, under the auspices of that Society, to send their children to schools in which the Scriptures were used as a school book.

denied that the disturbances in Clare had any such origin. He referred to the report of the Commission of Education, published in 1825, to show that the Catholics of that county were desirous that their children should receive a scriptural education, but that they were prevented by their priests from sending them to the schools of the London Hibernian Society. He was surprised that, in the face of these facts, any man would presume to say that compulsory attempts to force the Catholics to send their children to the scriptural schools were the causes of the disturbances.

was sure that his hon. and gallant friend, the member for Clare, being a resident landlord, a Magistrate, and a Grand Juryman of that county, must be better acquainted with the causes of the disturbances which took place there than any other gentleman, Englishman or Scotchman, in that House. The hon. Gentleman who so flatly contradicted his hon. and gallant friend was much out in his chronology: the hon. Member had attempted to show that persecution was not the cause of disturbances in 1829, because in 1825 there was no persecution, and the people were compelled to receive a scriptural "Iddication." His hon. and gallant friend had pledged his high character to the statement he had made as to the origin of the disturbances in Clare. And most truly had he stated, that they proceeded from the cruel persecutions of the bigots of that country, seeking to force Catholic children into the hands of Protestant teachers. A Magistrate of that county had been publicly convicted at Sessions of breaking into a house were a Catholic priest was administering the sacrament to a dying Christian, for the purpose of disturbing him in the exercise of his sacred functions.

begged permission to make a remark upon the observations which the hon. member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell) had made upon him, and upon the language the hon. Member had dared to use. He asked that hon. Member, how he dared to criticise his language? He believed he had the good fortune to be always able to make himself intelligible to the House; and if he was not so competent a master of the King's English as the hon. member for Kerry, at least he could pride himself upon not bringing into the discussions of that House, as the hon. Member did, the vulgarity of a pauper, and the insolence of a demagogue.

was sure that, in the phraseology which the hon. Member had just used, be had been guilty of a gross violation of order. The hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of making some explanation to the House for the error into which he had been betrayed.

was willing to apologise to the House if he had been guilty of any sin against its laws. To the House he limited his apology, because he could conceive nothing more vulgar or unwarrantable than for one Member of that House to criticise the pronunciation of another. This was not the first time that hon. Member had taken this course. He denied that he had used the word "iddication," as put into his mouth by the hon. Member. "Education" was the word he had used. With reference to the allegations of the hon. Member against the Protestants of Clare, whom he called "bigots," he thought they ought to have names given as authority for such assertions; they ought not to rest on the mere ipse dixits of individuals.

moved, that the Order of the Day, that Thomas Sheehan do appear at the Bar of that House, be then read. The right hon. Gentleman then called the attention of the House to The Dublin Evening Mail newspaper of the 21st inst. and put it into the hands of the Clerk, who, having stated the title of the Paper and the publisher's name, proceeded to read an article entitled "Irish Tithes," in which it was stated that the Editors of that Journal had received, exclusively, through their resident parliamentary agent, the second Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat upon the subject of Irish Tithes; that at the hour at which they had received it, it was only in their power to give it a cursory glance, but that they were enabled to perceive, even from that hasty notice, that the Committee had recommended that the State should constitute itself the proprietor of all the tithes of Ireland; that they should be converted into a permanent land-tax, payable by the landlords instead of the tenantry—that Church cess should be abolished—and that there should be a new valuation of Church property. Another part of the paper was also read. It was headed "Second Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on Irish Tithes." The Order of the Day, that Thomas Sheehan do appear at the Bar, was read, and Mr. Sheehan being in attendance was placed at the bar.

What is your name?—Thomas Sheehan.

Look at that Paper; are you a proprietor of it?—I am.

Look at its contents. Have you any statement to offer to the House on the subject?—The only statement I have to make with respect to the present proceeding of the House is, that the document referred to is that I sent to Ireland for insertion in this Paper.

In what character or capacity did you forward that document for publication?—In my own individual character, and none other.

Purporting to be——

I beg to decline answering any question which might possibly criminate another person.

Then the House is to understand that you decline answering this question?

I am sorry to decline replying to any question which is put to me by the House; but I shall certainly give no reply that could compromise any other person.

Has the House any question to put?

Had the document, when you received it, the usual caution marked on the back?

I deline replying to that question.

Was the document when you received it in print or in manuscript?

I have the same objection to answering those that went before.

inquired if the House had any other questions to put? and there being none, Mr. Sheehan withdrew.

said, that in the present case there was evidently gross negligence amongst some one or other of the officers of that House, or of some person employed by them, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the House if they did not take a decided step, with a view to putting an end to practices of that nature. With respect to the draft of the Report in question, there were but twenty copies of it printed, and those copies were transmitted under sealed covers, and it became, therefore, impossible that the document in question could have reached the hands of Mr. Sheehan otherwise than through a gross breach of confidence on the part of some person in the employment of that House. The House had had Mr. Sheehan at the bar, and had put certain interrogatories to him, and he having declined to answer any questions respecting the means by which he had possessed himself of the document in question, he thereby took upon himself the whole responsibility of the publication; and now one of two courses remained open to the House; either they might commit Mr. Sheehan to Newgate, or to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. He should of course leave it to the judgment of the House to decide which course it would pursue; but before he sat down, he thought it right to call the attention of the House to an article published in The Dublin Evening Mail newspaper of the 28th of May, from which it was very clear, that it was the intention of Mr. Sheehan to set the authority of that House at defiance. In the conclusion of the article to which he referred, the writer stated, that having procured the Report of the Committee, at which the editors were much gratified, they would be wanting in the duty they owed to their readers, and the public, if they did not give it immediate insertion, referring, as it did, to a matter of the highest importance. The article then went on 'We have all becoming respect for the privileges of Parliament, and would not infringe an iota upon the rights of its Members; but we should be wanting in that duty we owe our readers were we to withhold from them a piece of interesting intelligence which happened to be in our possession. Mr. Stanley is talking of summoning the proprietor, editor, and printer, to the Bar of the House. He may save himself all this trouble. One of the former is now resident in London, and has, if we be instructed rightly, apprised Mr. Stanley of his willingness to take all the responsibility attachable to the publication of the Tithe Report upon himself, and his readiness to give the Irish Secretary and the Committee just so much information as he thinks necessary upon the subject, and not a bit more.' Having made this statement to the House, he should not then trouble them further than to move a Resolution, declaring that the publication of that draft of a Report was a high breach of privilege. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving "Resolved—That Thomas Sheehan, Editor of the Irish paper called The Dublin Evening Mail, having published a Report purporting to be a Report of a Select Committee of this House, the same not having been presented to this House is guilty of a high breach of its privileges."

observed, that when they allowed the Press generally to publish so many things that constituted breaches of privilege, and openly and notoriously to commit those breaches of privilege, they could scarcely, with much justice or consistency, select Mr. Sheehan for a victim. The House and the country could not fail to see that Mr. Sheehan was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that all Ireland was laughing at him. When a display of artillery, cavalry, and infantry was recently made to protect the sale of some cattle for tithe, the people of Ireland laughed at the government of the right hon. Gentleman, and not a man in the city of Cork was to be found who would offer a single shilling for a bullock worth ten guineas. Could the House, then, shut its eyes to the fact, that the people of Ireland were laughing at the Irish Government? He wished that the House would not assist the right hon. Gentleman to punish Mr. Sheehan for joining in the laugh with the rest of his countrymen.

confessed himself unable to discover upon what grounds Mr. Sheehan should have been selected, when so many others had been guilty of breaches of privilege; but it was to be observed, that the other offenders all belonged to the opposite party in politics, and it was on account of his opinions, he presumed, that this most uncalled for severity was exercised towards Mr. Sheehan.

could not justify the publication of this document, nor could he deny that a breach of the privileges of the house had been committed; but he did not think it expedient that the House should be called upon to interfere in this case. The right hon. Gentleman had placed the House in the very awkward situation of either abandoning its privileges, or of unnecessarily punishing the editor of a paper. He would not allude to papers in which much greater breaches of privilege were daily published, but he must say, that the right hon. Gentleman had acted most harshly in the course which he had thought proper to pursue with regard to this paper. If he had held out a warning to the editor, he would have acted wisely, instead of passing over affairs of a similar nature without notice, and suddenly falling on the proprietors of this paper. Under such circumstances, he considered the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman to have been most unfair and unjust.

rose to reply to the uncalled-for attack made upon him, as if, under such circumstances, he could be at all actuated by the politics of the paper committing the offence. The duty which he was discharging was not one which he had taken upon himself—it was a duty imposed upon him by the Committee. In stating this, he felt bound to add, that the Committee, in coming to the decision of instructing him to adopt the course which he had pursued, came to that decision by a vote, in which the minority was only one, and that member of the Committee was of politics opposed to those of The Evening Mail and of the hon. Members opposite. He begged also to remind the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, that a near relative of his had expressed an earnest wish that the conduct of Mr. Sheehan should be brought, as it had been, under consideration, and that hon. and learned relative of the last speaker was the more anxious that it should thus be gone into, seeing that he himself was one of those members of the Committee whom the draft so often referred to had not reached. He (Mr. Stanley) felt fully assured that Mr. Sheehan had never obtained the draft through that hon. and learned Gentleman. The last speaker ought to have known how the matter really stood, and, knowing it, he ought not to have made such an attack as the House had just heard; he should not have imputed party motives where none whatever existed, and when hon. Members com- plained that Mr. Sheehan was the only person punished, they should have been prepared to show that other persons were accessaries to a breach of confidence on the part of the subordinate officers of that House, or any breach of privilege with which he (Mr. Stanley) was similarly connected. The complaint, it seemed, was, that other papers had committed breaches of privilege, but who originated them? The document had gone the round of the papers, and it was of that he complained. He also contended that Mr. Sheehan's chief offence consisted not so much in publishing the document, though that was of itself a breach of privilege, but in now refusing to assist the House in discovering the person who had really abused the confidence of the House.

had hoped that the good feeling of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have restrained him from throwing out the insinuation he had thrown out against his relative ["no, no!"]. The right hon. Gentleman certainly had seemed to convey an imputation upon his relative as one of the two who had not received their copies of the Report.

felt perfectly assured that his hon. friend near him altogether mistook the right hon. Gentleman opposite: so far from implying any imputation upon the hon. and learned member of the Committee, he distinctly acquitted him of any participation in the affair. That this was a breach of confidence to the House, and to some members of the Committee, could not be doubted, for those Reports were enclosed in sealed covers, so that the packets must have been opened by some person having no authority so to do. The House should likewise look to the consequences of such a breach of privilege to the country, if persons into whose hands such papers fell, and they must occasionally fall into the hands of unauthorized persons—were allowed to give them to the public. He would instance the Committee, of which both he (Mr. Goulburn) and the right hon. mover were members, on the Bank Charter. The publication of some of the papers which were before that Committee, if divulged, might have the most alarming effect upon the public credit; yet many of them must occasionally come into the hands of subordinate and irresponsible persons. As to Mr. Sheehan, there could be no doubt that, under the circumstances, it would have been thought expedient to treat him with lenity, had he not shown a disposition to resist the authority of the House. Seeing the many breaches of privilege that were every day committed, he might have thought it no great matter, especially as there was no caution appended to the document; but that had now ceased to be a question; there had been a manifest breach of duty on the part of some officer of that House, who had been instrumental in giving publicity to a document which had been carefully made up, sealed, and directed to an individual. He did not mean to say, that Mr. Sheehan had broken a seal, but from the refusal of Mr. Sheehan to assist them in discovering the real offender, he should support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

was of opinion that the House should endeavour to ascertain who the real offender was. He, as a member of the Committee, had not been a regular attendant, for a paramount duty had called him elsewhere, but in the usual course, the draft of the first Report, and the evidence, were duly transmitted to him; but the draft published by Mr. Sheehan had never reached his hands. The case then before the House was of a character which they could not overlook, and he was decidedly of opinion that they should impose upon Mr. Sheehan a heavy sentence. That gentleman ought, in his opinion, to be made to endure a severe punishment, till he gave up the name of the person who had furnished him with the papers.

rose to make a few observations upon what he considered the peculiarity of the case under consideration. Abstractedly considered, it amounted to no more than a simple breach of the privileges of the House, and, when viewed in that light, it stood upon a footing with those tolerated breaches of their privileges which were taking place every day throughout the year. He was bound to look at it in that character, because there was no evidence before them to prove that Mr. Sheehan knew that the document which he had transmitted to The Evening Mail was a private, and not a public document. The difference, then, between the present case and any other, consisted, not in the manner in which the privileges of the House had been violated, but in the refusal of Mr. Sheehan to answer certain questions which had been put to him by the House. This constituted the peculi- arity, or what might be considered the aggravation of the case, and the House would recollect, that this contempt of their authority, or whatever it might be con sidered, resulted not from the breach of privilege, but from the course which had been pursued by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, towards the person who had committed the breach. He well remembered that the right hon. Secretary, upon a former occasion, had complained of a similar breach of their privileges, by the publication in a Dublin paper of opposite politics, of some of the evidence of Dr. Doyle or the Archbishop of Dublin; but that complaint was not followed up by his calling the party to the bar. Had the right hon. Gentleman taken the same course then as he had upon the present occasion, the result, he (Mr. Gordon) had no hesitation in saying, would have been precisely the same in both cases. The party complained of would, as in the present instance, have refused to give up the individual from whom he had received the information. This was a well understood compact, subsisting between the conductors of the Press and the persons through whom they derived their information upon the subject, and no editor or proprietor would give up or betray his correspondents without their personal consent. The only difference, therefore, between the present case and those which occurred every day of the year, consisted in the refusal of Mr. Sheehan to answer questions which no person placed in his situation would have felt himself at liberty to answer, and the House would recollect, in coining to a decision upon the question, that the onus of this responsibility had been forced upon him by the course which had been pursued by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland.

observed, that the case of Mr. Sheehan, considered apart from his conduct at the Bar, was not a new case; it was his refusal to assist the House with information, which constituted his chief offence. He would not recommend the committal of Mr. Sheehan to Newgate, but rather to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, where he might have a locus pœnitentiœ.

said, there could he no doubt that a breach of privilege had been committed, and such a breach as ought to be punished in the usual manner; and it was, therefore, waste of time to oc- cupy the attention of the House further with the subject.

disclaimed, on his own part, and on the part of his hon. friends, any intention of attributing to the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley), that he had brought forward the subject with reference to the line of politics adopted by the paper in which the document appeared. Differing as he did from the right hon. Gentleman in politics, he was perfectly convinced that the right hon. Gentleman had not been biassed in any degree by the politics of the paper. His hon. friends considered, however, that it was a hard case to punish Mr. Sheehan for a breach of privilege, in publishing a Report of a Committee, when it was well known that breaches of privilege passed unnoticed every day. Without entering further into the general question, he wished to call attention to two points which appeared to be relied upon by the right hon. Secretary as aggravations of the offence. It was stated as an aggravation, that the report in question, though distributed amongst the Members of the Committee, had never been presented to that House; and the second circumstance was, an article which had been published in The Evening Mail, in reference to the pretended report. Now, as regarded the first point, it had not appeared that Mr. Sheehan was aware that the report had not been presented to the House; and as to the article which appeared in The Evening Mail, and which was printed subsequently to the publication of the report, there was no evidence that Mr. Sheehan had written that article. It was in evidence that he was the proprietor, but it did not appear that he was the editor; and he (Mr. Shaw) understood the fact to be that he was not the editor. He might have indiscreet friends in Dublin; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not desire to visit that circumstance on Mr. Sheehan. He had merely thrown out these observations for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman at the House.

—I wish to ask, whether it makes any difference that the document did not refer to any proceeding of this House?

said, that no Member of the House, who was not also a Member of the Committee, could have been presumed to know anything of the document which the resolution referred to. The question on the Resolution agreed to.

said, that, looking to all the circumstances of the case, be felt bound to follow up the Resolution which had just been agreed to, by moving that Mr. Sheehan should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. He thought it was also better that the officers concerned in printing and distributing the Reports of Committees should be in attendance to-morrow evening, in order that, if Mr. Sheehan persisted—as he (Mr. Stanley) trusted he would not do, upon better reflection—in concealing the means by which he became possessed of the document, they might endeavour to trace it out by a strict examination.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the State of the Laws affecting Dramatic Literature, and the performance of the Drama. They all knew that there was a patent granted to the two great theatres for the performance of the drama. The extent and power of these patents, with the laws by which they were strengthened, had long been a matter of dispute; but by the late decision of a high judicial authority, it seemed that all performances worthy of the attendance of persons pretending to a reasonable degree of education—all performances, except those of the most mountebank and trumpery description, fit only for the stages of Bartholomew Fair—were to be considered as infringements of the law, and as subjecting those who assist in them to serious penalties. The minor theatres were, therefore, at this moment—with their many thousand actors, proprietors, and decorators, who depend for support on their existence—without the pale of the law; and the question was, therefore, forced before the public in the following shape:—"How far is it expedient for the public, that privileges and enactments of this monopolizing description should be continued; how far is it expedient that the minor theatres should be suppressed, and the exclusive patents of the two great theatres should be continued?" In the first place, he contended, that the original reason for suppressing the minor theatres had long since ceased to exist; and, in the second place, he contended, that the only possible ground upon which these patents were given in trust to the metropolitan theatres had not been fulfilled. Now, the reason for suppressing the minor theatres appeared, both by Act of Parliament and in the literary history of these times. In the licentious period in which the first patents were granted, viz. the time of Charles 2nd, in all the unbridled re-action and intoxicated ferment of the Restoration—it seemed that the minor theatres were the scene of very disorderly and improper exhibitions; and it became necessary to suppress them—not so much for the sake of preserving decency as of protecting the drama. But did that reason exist at present? Could any who had ever by accident attended the smaller houses, assert that the performance and the audience were not of the most decorous and orderly description? So far as that consideration went, the minor theatres were fully as entitled to a license as the two great theatres themselves; and the original reason, therefore, for suppressing the minor theatres had, amidst the growing good taste and civilization of the age, entirely ceased to exist. On the other hand, why was a patent granted to two theatres alone? There was but one possible ground—there was but one alleged ground—for the preservation of the dignity of the national drama. Now, how had the patents obtained that object? It happened, curiously enough, that no sooner were the two great theatres in possession of this patent, than the national drama began to deteriorate, and a love for scenic effect to supersede it. It was a reproach made to Sir Wm. Davenant, it was a reproach made to all the stage managers under the new patents, that they looked, as their chief object in theatrical decoration, to a mechanical improvement. This reproach, with more or less justice, had constantly existed—this reproach, with peculiar justice, existed at the present time. Indeed, it was impossible to look back to the last fourteen or fifteen years without being struck with the extraordinary poverty of intellect which had been displayed in the legitimate drama, compared with that which any other department of literature had called forth. There had been exceptions, very honourable exceptions; but, never had any general rule fewer exceptions; and he was tempted to ask, with the Lord Chancellor, not how many plays had been produced of our literature, but rather, how many plays had been produced fit for grown-up men and women to go and see? When the Legislature had given so vast a privilege to two theatres, solely for one object, viz. the preservation of the dignity of the national drama, it was bound in justice to see if that object had been effected. It was bound in justice to say, "where are the plays, to produce and encourage which we gave you this exclusive privilege? Where are the immortal tragedies, where are the chaste and brilliant comedies? You were to preserve the dignity of the drama from being corrupted by mountebank actors and absurd performances; you have, therefore, we trust, driven jugglers and harlequins from the national stage; you have admitted no wild beasts; you have introduced no fire-eaters and sword-swallowers; you have preserved the dignity of the national drama inviolate; you have left it such as it was when you took it from the hands of Ben Jonson or Shakespeare; for if you have not done this, then you have not fulfilled that object for which we took from your brethren those privileges we have intrusted to you." When they looked round and saw the dioramas, and the cosmoramas, and the jugglers, and the horses, and the elephants, and the lions, which had been poured forth upon the stage, they could not but feel that the dignity of the drama had not been preserved, and the object of these patents had not been fulfilled. Seeing, then, that the reason for suppressing the minor theatres no longer existed, seeing, that the object of these patents had not been realized, they were enabled to take a broader view of the question, and to recognize the monstrous injustice that the law inflicted on the public; for was it not absurdly unjust to say to the immense and scattered population of this metropolis, you shall go only to two theatres for the harmless recreation of a play—no matter how remote the habitation of the play-goer—no matter how inconvenient for the purposes of hearing and seeing, the arrangement of the theatre? Paddington and Pimlico, Westminster and the Tower Hamlets, Mary-le-bone and Shoreditch, were all to disgorge their play-going population in the direction of Covent Garden or Drury Lane, where, when they had at last arrived, they would find, not perhaps a tragedy, not perhaps a comedy, but a very fine scene in a very bad melo-drame—or, perhaps, if they were in eminent luck, a couple of lions and a diorama by way of keeping up the dignity of the national drama. Was not this, indeed, unjust to the public, whom it deprived of all the numberless advantages of competition? Was it not unjust to the author and the actor, whom it limited to so overstocked and narrow a market? But it might be said that the minor theatres, notwithstanding their illegality, continued to exist, and that this injustice to the public was not, therefore, committed. But would not that fact alone be sufficient ground for inquiry? The small theatres were liable to serious penalties. They were told that those penalties would be enforced. If enforced, what injustice on the part of the law! if not enforced what mockery of the law. In either case amendment was necessary. Laws that were iniquitous should be altered; but so also should laws that were impracticable. Why expose the laws to be at once hated for their doctrine and laughed at for their impotence? Why have all sound and fury in the theory, signifying nothing in the practice? Besides, if the law could not, in the teeth of public opinion, shut up the small theatres, why not let them assume a respectable, a lawful character? What encouragement did it give to the proprietors of the minor theatres for a regular and continued spirit of enterprise, while this uncertainty hung over their head? What injustice this precarious uncertainty of the law caused. One proprietor broke the law with impunity. The Lord Chamberlain, however, honoured the illegal theatre with his presence—sanctioned the illegality by his patronage—and another proprietor, as at that moment was the case, might be suddenly prosecuted and cast into prison for the crime of earning his bread exactly in the same manner as his brethren, but not exactly with the same fortunate impunity. Let, then, these laws be defined, and let them be clear and uniform in their application. Let the public he informed what theatres shall exist, and the actors what performances they shall be allowed to act—and do not let the law keep up iniquitous uncertainty, which, while it rendered the property of the minor theatres so precarious and illegal, frittered away by contraband far more than it would by open rivalry, the property of the great theatres—involved them in constant prosecutions, and constant litigations, and made idle public ridicule as impotent, or hate as tyrannical, those who enforced the law, and sympathise as martyrs or heroes with those who defied it. A great cause of the deterioration of the drama, it was universally acknowledged, was to be found in the size of the theatres. It was in vain to expect plays that should not depend upon show, in theatres where it was impossible to hear. The enormous size of these houses rendered half the dialogue lost to half the audience, and thus the managers had been compelled to substitute noise, and glitter, and spectacle, and the various ingenuities of foil and canvas, for wit which would be three parts inaudible, and for pathos which would scarcely travel beyond the side-boxes. It was absurd to hope that the drama could be restored until it was exhibited at houses of a convenient size. But what was the cause of the overgrown size of these theatres? Why, the patents. No sooner were the proprietors of the two great houses in possession of the exclusive right of entertaining the town, than they naturally enlarged their houses, to take in as much of the town as possible. The patents encouraged them to hope for unreasonable profits, and their only care was, to find room for all the new comers whom they thought would be driven into their net—quite forgetful, that though the law might shut up a commodious theatre, it could not force the public to yawn and shiver in an inconvenient one. But it was said, that the proprietors of one, or both, of the large theatres intended to diminish the size of the theatres, and to make them reasonably less; but while that would be a very fair arrangement for one part of the public, would it be fair to the other part? while it would be very fair to those who were admitted, would it be fair to those who were excluded? Would it be fair to the public to say, "You shall go only to two theatres," and then to reduce the size of those theatres, so that only a very small part of the public could be admitted? But, as the size of the houses was diminished, the character of the drama would be elevated—a new impetus would be given to the stage—people would be able to hear and see better—many more persons than at present would be desirous of going—but where were they to go? Exactly at the time that you would increase the number of the frequenters of the theatre, you would diminish the accommodation afforded them. So that the two houses were in this dilemma; either they must retain their present size, and the legi- timate drama must continue debased or banished, or they must lessen their size, and commit a greater injustice to the public, exactly in proportion to the greater improvement they made in the stage. No: while they reduced the size of the theatres, in order to restore the drama, they must increase the number of the theatres, in order to receive the public. Now there was also another point he should just touch upon—viz., the authority of the Lord Chamberlain, and more especially that of the Dramatic Censor. It might, perhaps, be remembered, that when Sir Robert Walpole brought in the bill, commonly called the Play-house Bill, in which the authority of the Censor was for the first time settled and defined, Lord Chesterfield said, in his celebrated speech on that bill, "That we were about to give to the Lord Chamberlain, an officer of the household, a power more absolute than that which we would extend to the Monarch himself." He was at a loss to know what advantages they had gained by the grant of this almost unconstitutional power. Certainly, with regard to a Censor, a Censor upon plays seemed to him as idle and unnecessary as a Censor upon books. Let them look back for a moment, although until Walpole's Bill, the powers of a censorship seem to have been unsettled and doubtful; it was certain, at least, that the Master of the Revels at first, and the Lord Chamberlain afterwards, exercised a right similar to that of a censor; whole passages in Davenant and in Massinger, were expunged by the Master of the Revels; and now mark how really useless, so far as morality was concerned, were the pains he took upon the subject: They knew what those passages were; they contained only some vague political allusion, and did not contain a line of the indecencies and immorality that might be found in those plays. And why? Because a Censor sees only with the eyes of his contemporaries, and because the custom and temper of the times sanctioned the indecency and the immorality. The only true censor of the age, was the spirit of the age. When indecencies were allowed by the customs of real life, they would be allowed in the representation, and no Censor would forbid them. When the age did not allow them, they would not be performed, and no Censor need expunge them. For instance, while the Licenser at this moment might strike out what lines he pleased in a new play, he had no power by strict law to alter a line in an old play. The most indelicate plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, of Wycherly or Farquhar, might be acted unmutilated, without submitting them to the Censor; but they were not so acted, because the good taste and refinement of the age would not allow them; because, instead of attracting, they would disgust an audience. The public taste, backed by the vigilant admonition of the public Press, might, perhaps, be more safely trusted for the preservation of theatrical decorum, than any ignorant and bungling Censor, who (however well the office might be now fulfilled) might be appointed hereafter; who, while he might strain at gnats, and cavil at straws, would be without any other real power than that of preventing men of genius from submitting to the caprice of his opinions. There were two other points for the Committee to consider; viz., the number of theatres that should be allowed, and the performances they should be permitted to exhibit. With respect to the first, he would read a short passage from Sir W. Scott's Life of Dryden, which was applicable in itself, and emanated from no common authority. 'I do not pretend,' says Sir W. Scott, 'to enter into the question of the effect of the drama upon morals; if this shall be found prejudicial, then two theatres are too many; but, in the present woeful decline of theatrical exhibition, we may be permitted to remember, that the gardener who wishes to have a rare diversity of a certain plant, sows whole beds with the species; and that the monopoly granted to two 'huge theatres must necessarily diminish, in a complicated ratio, both the number of play-writers, and the chance of anything very excellent being brought forward.' Now, he must confess, for his own part, that he thought the public likely to be the best judge as to the number of theatres. On the one hand, he did not think there would be more theatres than could find audiences to fill them; on the other hand, he thought there ought to be as many theatres as the public were willing to support. With regard to the performances, he did not think it would be wise to lay any restrictions on the legitimate drama; for, putting out of the question the difficulty of defining what the legitimate drama really was—a difficulty that would open the door to new disputes, and new litigations—he thought it was absurd to allow what was frivolous and to forbid what was great; to allow vaudevilles from the French, and not to allow tragedies from Shakespeare. It was unjust to the public to suffer what was indifferent of its kind, and to forbid what was best of its kind; to allow what might lower and enervate the public taste, and not to allow what might refine and exalt it. He would wish them to leave the stage free from such restrictions; and in so doing he did not ask them to try any novel experiment, he only asked them to leave it such as it was in the days of Massinger, and Beaumont and Fletcher, and Jonson and Shakespeare, when seventeen theatres were constantly open to a metropolis a tenth part of the size of London at present, and a population by a hundred degrees less wealthy and intellectual. He now came to the last point he should touch upon; viz., the state of the laws regarding dramatic copyright. As they had heard a great deal in that House of the advantage of the close boroughs, in returning to Parliament men of intellectual habits, whom some hon. Members declared were the Representatives of literature, he might ask, what had they done for the literature they represented? The state of the law regarding literary property was infinitely more harsh and inconsistent than that existing in France; but the state of the laws regarding dramatic copyright alone, would long be a proof how indifferent that House had been to the general claims of that property, which ought to be the most sacred of all, because it encouraged all—because it ennobled all—because it produced all—the property that is derived from intellectual exertion. The instant an author published a play, any manager might seize it—mangle it—act it—without the consent of the author—and without giving him one sixpence of remuneration. If the play was damned, the author incurred all the disgrace; if the play succeeded, he shared not a farthing of the reward. His reputation lay at the mercy of any ignorant and selfish managerial experiment; he might publish a play that he never meant to be acted, that he knew would not bear to be acted; but if, as in the case of Lord Byron, his name alone would attract an audience, he was dragged on the stage, to be disgraced against his will, and was damned for the satisfaction of the manager, and the dignity of the national drama. He had no power—no interest in the results of his own labour—a labour often more intense and exhausting than the severest mechanical toil. Was this a just state of things? The commonest invention in a calico—a new pattern in the most trumpery article of dress—a new bit to our bridles—a new wheel to our carriages—might make the fortune of the inventor; but the intellectual invention of the finest drama in the world, might not relieve by a groat the poverty of the inventor. If Shakespeare himself were now living—if Shakespeare himself were to publish a volume of plays, they might be acted every night all over the kingdom—they might bring thousands to actors, and ten thousands to managers—and Shakespeare himself, the producer of all, might be starving in a garret. The state of our laws in this respect was scarcely credited in foreign countries. In France, no work of a living author could be performed at any theatre, provincial or metropolitan, without his formal consent, on the penalty of forfeiting the whole profits to the author. In Belgium, the same law existed, and in both countries the author's family, his widow, his children, succeeded to his intellectual property, and for a certain number of years, shared in its profits. By this a two-fold purpose was served; justice was done on the one hand, and emulation excited on the other. Should they, then, be more backward—more unjust than their neighbours, and should these poor authors who had so much to struggle against, in the common literary calamities of a slender income and a diseased frame—be the only men in the whole community, literally denied that necessary blessing pledged by every free State to its subjects, viz. the security of property? He trusted he had established sufficient ground for the appointment of a Committee, but, as one of the English public, and as a Member of that House, he was desirous that the age, the nation, and the Legislature should be freed from the disgrace of these laws on the one hand, and the want of law on the other, which were so glaringly unjust in themselves, and so pernicious to one of the loftiest branches of intellectual labour. He moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the law respecting Dramatic Literature, and the performance of the Drama.

seconded the Motion.

thought many of the observations of the hon. Member for St. Ives were a sort of side-scene slap at Lord Brougham. He had, after an elaborate inquiry—having called the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice James Park to his assistance—given his judgment and advice to the Crown, that the Crown, though it might allow the minor theatres to keep open for a longer time than at present, ought not to allow them to keep open all the year. That was saying, by implication, that the Crown ought not to consent to the establishment of additional theatres, and against that judgment the Motion and speech of the hon. Member were opposed. Lord Brougham had, then, by implication, decided that the multiplication of small theatres was not advisable. He (Sir Charles Wetherell) objected to the Motion for appointing a Committee, however, because it was interfering very unnecessarily with the prerogative of the Crown, which had hitherto been exercised with great judgment. That was a very ancient prerogative, and without some necessity he could not consent to reform it. The House had Reform enough upon its hands without also reforming the prerogatives of the Crown and all the theatres. If any case of abuse were made out, he might, perhaps, agree to the inquiry; but till a case of abuse was clearly established, he certainly should oppose the Motion. If a case of abuse were established, he would then support the hon. Member; but to hear what was said on the subject, it might be supposed that the liberty of the people was invaded—that the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, so much was made of dramatic liberty being infringed and violated. He admitted that the stage was deteriorated—that lions and tigers had taken the place of actors—that camels and camelopards now walked over the boards, and that the whole theatre had departed from the classic models of Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. Admitting this, however, what was the remedy? Why, to multiply the theatres. Then we should have similar spectacles in the Tower Hamlets and in the Finsbury Divisions—we should have lions and leopards in Lambeth, and camels and camelopards in all parts of the town. To multiply the theatres, instead of purifying them, would only render what was bad, incurable and intolerable. Again, with respect to the composition of pieces; did the hon. Member suppose that multiplying theatres would improve that? At Paris there were thirteen or fourteen theatres, and he had never heard that it made any modern Corneilles or Racines. The multiplication of theatres had there only deteriorated and depraved all composition for the drama, and the same effect would take place here. The moral discipline of the theatre was the next point noticed by the hon. Member. Now he denied that that discipline was likely to be improved by an increase of the number of theatres. He could state advisedly, and his observation was founded on historical research, that in proportion to the multiplicity of theatres, the moral discipline had been relaxed. To take away from the Crown the wholesome exercise of that power which it at present enjoyed with reference to theatres, would, in his opinion, be a most improper interference on the part of that House, especially as no case whatever had been made out for any such interference. He believed that the hon. Member, versed as he was in these matters, could not show a single instance where this power had been abused. The hon. Member could not, he was convinced, mention any case in which the Lord Chamberlain had refused to license a drama which could, with propriety, have been played. He therefore thought, that a proposition for the removal of the salutary control which at present existed ought not to be entertained by that House. If they did away with that control, anything, however sacred, might be made the subject of dramatic exhibition. By taking such a step, they would at once say, that the Crown had no right to interfere. But if they did not go to that extent—if it were not contended that this power should be wholly abrogated—then it necessarily followed, that the Crown should watch over and protect the interests of religion and morality, as connected with theatrical representations. The hon. Member had adverted to literary property as connected with the drama, and regretted that it was not better protected. In descanting on this part of the subject, he had complained that some of the close-borough men, who were literary characters, had but ill requited the advantages which they owed to literature, by neglecting its interests in that House. That, however, as a general proposition, was not the fact. Some of those literary close-borough men had strenuously advocated the cause of literature, whenever it was directly or incidentally brought before that House. It was alleged that the decline of the drama here was to be traced to the present monopoly. But if, in modern days, the classic drama had gone down in England, it had also gone down in France, where a different system prevailed. Did the hon. Member hope, if his views were carried into effect, to restore the golden age of dramatic literature? Did he imagine that he could give to us other Shakespeares and other Ben Jonsons? He (Sir Charles Wetherell) contended, that with thirteen or fourteen paltry theatres, the legitimate drama was less likely to flourish than with two great ones. The passing or the rejecting of a "Dramatic Bill," at Drury Lane or Covent Garden, stamped the work with the character of merit, or consigned it to deserved oblivion. The audiences at those theatres formed a body of competent judges. Could the same be predicated of those who probably would attend the host of minor theatres, the establishment of which appeared to be the object of the hon. Member? He did not think, if the proposed change were made, that it would lead to the production of such works as Addison's Cato, or Dr. Johnson's Irene. Considering the variety of questions which this subject embraced, as it related to theatrical property, to the encouragement of dramatic genius, to the interests of morality, and to the prerogative of the Crown, he thought that they were called on by this Motion to go into, not merely a useless, but a very mischievous inquiry. He opposed this Motion, amongst other reasons, because he believed that every interest of the drama would suffer by agreeing to the proposition, and thereby, in some degree, sanctioning the sentiments of the hon. Member. The object of the hon. Member seemed to be, the indefinite multiplication of theatres. Now he had the opinion of a dramatic writer—a man of acknowledged taste—and that opinion was, that the establishment of a great number of theatres would not be the means of producing excellent plays; but, on the contrary, that it would tend to the multiplication of had plays and worse actors. For these reasons he should oppose the Motion.

would not enter into any competition with the hon. member for St. Ives on the subject of dramatic criticism, for, though he had formerly known something of the matter, he had not of late frequented the theatres much, and he knew he should be no match for the hon. Member. He admitted that there was a great falling-off in the drama, owing, he believed, to the falling-off of patronage, and the encroachment of the minor theatres, which had brought theatrical property into a most inefficient and inconsistent state, and showed that a full inquiry into the subject was needed. He should not have much time to attend the Committee, but, if that were to go fairly into the subject, and examine the influence of the prerogative, the power of the Licenser, the management and discipline of the theatres, they would find that the inquiry would last longer than the longest five-act play. He had rather the motion for a Committee had originated in the House of Lords, where the officers to whom the Crown delegated its powers over dramatic performances had seats. He considered that the drama had always flourished more under kingly than any other patronage, as, for instance, under the patronage bestowed upon the theatre by George 3rd and George 4th. Referring to the recent hearing of the claims of the major and the minor theatres in Lincoln's Inn Hall, he said, he did not mean to impeach the judgment of the Lord Chancellor and the learned Judges who assisted him on that occasion; on the contrary, he believed it to be perfectly just and equitable; but it had the singular effect of completely dissatisfying every party concerned, not an uncommon case, certainly, with the decisions of Courts of Law. With regard to the question of prerogative, so many Acts had been passed limiting the powers of the Monarch, that it was really too late to say that Parliament had no power to interfere; but he would much rather extend the powers of the King's Officer, the Lord Chamberlain, than give the control into the hands of the Magistrates and Courts of Law; for, in his opinion, the more the controlling power was placed in the hands of the authorized officers of the Crown, the more flourishing would be the drama. The hon. Gentleman said, it would be a dethroning of the King's prerogative. Why! was not that prerogative practically violated every night"? And if ever the Act for limiting the number of concert and ball-rooms was violated, it was violated every night by the performances of the theatres in the suburbs. He did not mean to stand up as the champion of the patent theatres; let them have their rights—he did not see why the whole matter between them and the minor theatres should not be amicably adjusted. One great advantage of a legal settlement of this question would be, the establishment of the censorship of the Chamberlain over the performances at these minor theatres, which was loudly called for, and would be of great service to public morality. Some of their exhibitions were exceedingly improper, and it must be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen, that at one of these houses the murder perpetrated by Thurtell was represented before the trial, and the curtain dropped as the Judge was putting on his black cap. As the Committee was to be granted, he should not trespass on the House at any length; but if the hon. Gentleman imagined that the effect of this Motion would be to multiply theatres, he begged to state, that he was an enemy to such a multiplication. The effects which he anticipated were two-fold—first, upon literature; and secondly, in relation to police. The multiplication of theatres would, he was sure, be of no service to literature; and, as to police regulations, no one could deny its injurious tendency. He hoped the result of the labours of the Committee—and he feared they would find themselves in a labyrinth from which they would not be easily extricated—would be, to place the police of theatres on a consistent and intelligible basis. He hoped they would be subjected to proper regulations, and that we should no longer behold a law, which was either a perfect mockery, or else put into execution through motives of vengeance or favouritism. With regard to the question of dramatic authorship—that of giving to authors a copyright in the acting of their plays—he himself had once attempted to bring in a bill for that purpose, and he only desisted because the dramatic writers came to him in a body and said that the bill would be perfectly useless and nugatory; and, upon reflection, he was convinced it would be so, unless a clause were inserted, empowering any Justice of the Peace to convict an offender. Though the hon. Member had referred to the example of France, he would find, on an investigation of the point, that notwithstanding the numberless Acts passed there for that purpose, it had been found extremely difficult, if not impossible, to protect the rights of dramatic authors. His desire was, as he had already said, that the connection between monarchy and the drama should not be severed. The drama, he repeated, was the flower of the Crown—the child of monarchy—and he did not think that it would ever flourish under any other parent. He trusted that the result of the labours of the Committee would be, to place the theatres in this metropolis upon a proper footing, and the Motion should, therefore, have his support.

thought, that his hon. and learned friend (Sir Charles Wetherell) had taken rather a mistaken view of the effect of the Lord Chancellor's decision in relation to the question before the House. At the time the reference was made to the Lord Chancellor, assisted by the Vice-Chancellor and other Judges, the question to be discussed was, as to the state of theatrical property as it then existed, the validity of the patents, and the interest of certain creditors of the larger theatres in the result; and judgment was given, partly on the ground of validity, and partly on that of the interest of the creditors. But the question which the Lord Chancellor had to try was one thing, and that which it was the duty of the House to consider was another. It was for the House to inquire into the state of the law, and also into the propriety of that law, with a view of rectifying it if it were wrong and productive of evil; whereas, it was merely the duty of the Judges to pronounce their opinion upon the law as it stood; and it was the sole object of his hon. friend's Motion for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law. He did not imagine that, when Shakespeare wrote, there were such large theatres as Drury Lane and Covent Garden. He was sure that the drama was not benefitted by them; on the contrary, if they wished to encourage the drama, they should encourage smaller theatres, where they might have an audience more select and more capable of appreciating the higher beauties of the drama than the mixed audiences which generally attended the larger theatres. In smaller houses the actors could be both seen and heard, which would be a great advantage not only to the audience but to themselves; whereas, in the large wildernesses of Covent Garden and Drury Lane no man, unless he were fortunate enough to secure a seat near the stage, could either see or hear. And what had been the conse- quence? Why, the drama had degenerated into melo-drama, and horses, and elephants, and jugglers occupied the stage. As the law now stood, any minor theatre, within twenty miles of the metropolis, performing any pieces except burlettas, violated the law, and every actor was liable to a penalty of 50l. for each performance. And if public opinion was so strong as to enable actors to violate this law night after night with impunity, surely this was a reason for inquiry—this was a reason for legalising those theatres which the public necessity commanded. His hon. friend near him (Mr. Lamb) said, that the Chamberlain had power to license theatres; but the Chamberlain had only power to authorise the performance of burlettas. His hon. friend differed from him in opinion, but he had carefully considered the laws relating to the subject, and must adhere to his own opinion, which was most distinctly that every theatre performing the drama, whether with the Chamberlain's license or without, was liable to an information. The fact was, they performed regular comedies and tragedies, which could not be denied. It was, indeed, difficult to say what was a burletta and what was not. He had heard it maintained that any play, into which music was introduced, became a burletta; and he had heard that Othello even had been performed as a burletta, which was effected by having a low piano-forte accompaniment, the musician striking a chord about once every five minutes, but in such a manner that it was totally inaudible to the audience. He conceived that no man could deny the claims of an increased population to an increase of places of amusement. The mass of the people could not enjoy those more polished amusements of Almacks, of driving out, &c. and, in his opinion, they could partake of no amusement more harmless than that to be found in a well-regulated theatre. He gave his most hearty concurrence to his hon. friend's Motion.

said, he should strenuously support the Motion. The laws respecting theatrical representations must be revised. At all the minor theatres an Act of Parliament was nightly violated, and with public approbation. Regular tragedies and comedies were there acted, without even the subterfuge, some time resorted to, of occasionally touching the keys of a piano-forte, although the license extended only to music and dancing. These representations were attended by persons of the gravest character. The hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge himself probably recreated himself from the labours of the Reform Bill, by going to the Olympic, and admiring the performances of Madame Vestris. Yet the proprietors, managers, and performers, at these theatres were liable to a penalty of 50l a night, and, till very lately, might be punished as rogues and vagabonds. This was a state of things which ought not to endure. Where the laws and the habits of the people were at variance, there was something vicious in the system; and the laws should be made to conform to the habits of the people, or the habits of the people to the laws. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the monopoly of the two patent theatres ought to be strictly preserved, still he should vote for the Committee, that some plan might be devised for effecting that object. For his own part, he thought the principle of free trade should be extended to theatrical representations, and that the state had no right to interfere, except to enforce the observance of decorum, and to see that the pieces represented were not injurious to private character, or to public morals. Some insinuations had been thrown out against the minor theatres; but, he believed, there was more to outrage decency at the great patent theatres; which, indeed, made a greater display of depravity than any theatres in Paris, Naples, or Madrid, and, in this respect, were a reproach to the country. He trusted that, by the exertions of the Committee, a rational code upon this subject might be framed, which would be practically observed, and which, while it repressed every thing improper, would allow the public to be the directors and judges of their own amusements.

was glad to find that the learned Gentleman thought that there should be a free trade in theatres, as well as in other matters. If it should appear, as he was sure it would, that talent was checked and thwarted by the monopoly of the great theatres, the result of the labours of the Committee would effect great good, by doing away with such an evil. It was quite wrong that there should be only two patent theatres in the metropolis, for the performance of the regular drama. The performance of it should be open to all theatres, and the public should not be obliged to come from Mile End, and the Tower Hamlets, to the West end of the town, to witness its performance. Now that they were emancipating themselves from other monopolies, they should also put an end to that very injurious and most indefensible one—a theatrical monopoly.

thought it high time that the law relating to this subject should be altered. As to the talk about the invasion of the rights of the patent theatres, why they were already invaded, and the invasion could not be prevented. He should support the Motion, because the existing laws were anomalous, and because he considered the people of this great metropolis were entitled to more than two theatres; for, although he did not think dramatic performances were, in themselves, calculated to improve the morals of the people, yet, when he considered the many other temptations to immorality which existed, he must treat them as the lesser evil. Many a man accompanied his family to the theatre, who would, if debarred from such an amusement, spend his time and his money in a public-house, or even in a worse manner. The Motion only contemplated ark inquiry, and, in his opinion, it was high time an inquiry should take place.

said, that there were three subdivisions of the question before the House;—the first was, whether a dramatic censorship should exist, by which a previous approbation by a Licenser should be rendered requisite;—the second, whether certain theatres should enjoy a monopoly of the dead, as well as living, genius of the country, through their exclusive right to represent regular tragedy and comedy;—the third, whether means ought not to be taken, to give to dramatic writers a privilege analogous to that which was conferred, through the medium of copyright, on other authors. With respect to the first question, the propriety of making a preliminary license indispensable to the production of a new play, he thought that a series of continued facts was preferable to any speculation. In Ireland, a license for a new play had never been required. When a national stage did indeed exist; when Garrick, and Mossop, and Barry, performed before the assembled nobles and great gentry of that country (and, in that country, civilization had at that period reached the highest point to which it could attain), no Licenser was found necessary. Why? Because the spirit of true decorum, and that refinement which is inseparable from decency, forbad the performance of irreligious or immoral compositions, and issued its inviolable injunctions against the infringement of propriety. Reliance ought to be placed on the good feeling and good taste of an intellectual people for the prohibition of whatever might offend the moral sensitiveness of the purest minds. Observe the great evil that may ensue from committing to a Licenser an arbitrary and absolute dominion over the stage. He might consult that fanaticism which is apt to prevail most lugubriously in the minds of those who, by a sudden transition, throw themselves from one excess into another, and who expiate their own aberrations by their rigour towards the faults of others. The next question was, whether the great theatres should have a monopoly of the genius of Shakspeare, and Otway, and Congreve, and Sheridan. Wherefore? Did not the works of these great men, like their fame, belong to their country? If plays were to be performed in minor theatres, wherefore should not the best plays be exhibited, and he thus made the means of diffusing literature, through the most pleasurable medium, through the national mind? The last question was—should not authors be secured some of the fruits of their success? A play is performed; it is eminently prosperous; the author receives a certain sum on the third, the ninth, the twentieth representation. Why should his emoluments end there? Why, as long as the theatre has a profit, should he not participate in it? Why should the managers of the provincial theatres be permitted to perform his play, and allow him no portion of the receipts? Take the case of Mr. Sheridan Knowles. That gentleman—whose name he felt a peculiar pleasure in naming in that House, because he was a near relative of the illustrious person who had in that House been so eminently distinguished—had written a variety of works, which refuted the allegation that dramatic genius was extinct. The tears of thousands who witnessed Virginias, performed by Mac-ready, afforded the best proof that the tragic muse had not departed from the British stage. His new production was as deeply impressed with the signet of genius. Was it not most unjust, that from the performance of his tragedies in the theatres of Dublin, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, he could derive no sort of emolument? But he was convinced, that to these abuses an end would be put. A great interest had been displayed on this subject by men apparently alien and foreign from it. It was delightful to see the hon. member for Borough bridge, after his great political achievements, engaging in a discussion so purely literary as this. He was, in truth, a sort of ambulatory encyclopædia—there was nothing he did not touch, and he touched nothing which he did not adorn. But he owned, that to his opinion on dramatic questions he was not inclined to attach any very great importance, when he found the hon. and learned Member mistaking Steele's comedy of The Conscious Lovers for Addison's Cato; and how could he have made such a mistake with regard to Cato? Was he not himself the great stoic of Toryism? Was not Borough bridge a modern Utica? Did not the hon. the learned, and exceedingly dramatic Gentleman, realize, in the opinion of his party, the famous lines—

"A good man struggling with the storms of fate, And greatly falling with a falling state"?

The hon. Gentleman had not only been a critic on the drama, but a great performer in those scenes which were now enacted in the political theatre; and he (Mr. Sheil) was bound to acknowledge, that whatever might have been the defects of his character, the hon. and learned Gentleman had, at all events, adhered to the Horatian rule of unity, and observed the celebrated injunction of the poet—

"—servetur ad imum,

Qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constat."

could not but allude to the remark of the hon. and learned member for Borough bridge, that in the days when Shakspeare wrote, theatres were not so numerous as at present. He begged to say, in reply to that remark, that he was only anxious for a restitution of the same system with reference to theatres, as that which existed in the days of Shakspeare; and, with that object, he trusted the House would not hesitate to grant the Committee he sought for by his motion.

objected to the delegating to a Committee of the House the power which was already vested in the Crown. He could not concur in the appointment of a Committee to investigate a subject which the Government ought to take into their own hands.

rose, pursuant to his notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the existing enactments relative to the sale of Beer in Beer-shops. He was aware he should have several prejudices to contend with, in combatting a Bill which was considered a boon at the time. He had, however, for some time watched the operation of the Act which had been passed for placing the sale of beer upon a different footing from that upon which licensed victuallers were placed. From all that he had observed, the alteration had been productive of increased drunkenness and disorder, and he thought that the time was arrived when some amendments ought to be made. The evidence of the Magistracy and the Clergy, in districts both great and small, and even of some of the working classes, was, that the great number of these beer-shops, spread over the country, led the labouring people into idleness and drunkenness, which, not unfrequently, was the means of the consummation of crime. He did not think that it was any answer to his objections, to say that the Bill had not had a fair trial. Such was not the fact. The Act had been in operation eighteen months, and had been found to fail in all the objects which had been anticipated by its projectors. The shops were opened as early as four in the morning, and did not close till ten at night. The remedies he should propose were, first, the establishing a more complete and perfect responsibility to the magistracy on the part of the beer-seller than existed at present. There was too great facility at present given to parties applying for licenses, which should be checked, by making it necessary that they previously should obtain a certificate that he was a proper person to hold such license, signed by the Clergyman, or two Magistrates of the district. He, should, moreover, propose, that every individual seeking a license for a beer-shop, should be required to give the security, to the amount of 20l. each, of two householders, assessed for the taxes, resident in the same parish, for the good and orderly conduct of his house. He should propose, also, that the hours for the sale of beer, instead of, as at present, being from four o'clock in the morning until ten at night, should be from six o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Sale of Beer Act.

said, the hon. member for Durham was an advocate of the old monopoly which had so long disgraced the country, and appeared to be desirous of reviving the system under which the brewers met yearly to regulate the pure strength and degree of wholesomeness, or unwholesomeness, of beer. He objected to the hon. Member's attempt to bring back the beer trade to a state of things which had been the subject of long and general complaint, and which caused the substitution, to a considerable extent, of spirits for beer, in the consumption of the humbler classes. One of the evils of the system consisted in the mode of granting licenses, which admitted of the grossest partiality and injustice. He had hailed with pleasure the passing of an Act that struck at the root of the mischief, and which, he maintained, had been attended with great advantage to the community. Such being his feeling on the subject, he should oppose the hon. Member's Motion for altering the Beer Bill, in the outset, and in every future stage of its progress.

could not agree to the principles on which the hon. Member proposed to found his Bill. He had no objection to the enforcement, as far as possible, of police regulations, with a view to the preservation of order, but disliked the hon. Member's plan of previous security. Neither could he consent to the proposed alteration in the hours of keeping beer-shops open, thinking, as he did, that, if any change were made, it ought to be one which should assimilate the hours observed by public-houses and beer-shops. The effect of saying that beer should not be drank on the premises was to declare, that no beer should be sold except to known persons. He thought it better not to attempt to legislate on the subject at present. It might have been well, perhaps, if the hon. Member had moved for a Committee of Inquiry at an earlier period of the session; but he (Lord Althorp) must object to the introduction of the Bill at a time when it was too much to expect that the matter could be duly considered.

opposed the Bill, and expressed a wish that beer-shops and public- houses might be placed on the same footing; and, above all, hoped that the power of licensing, as hitherto exercised, would not be allowed to remain in the hands of Magistrates, lay and ecclesiastical.

had seconded the Motion; not that he approved of the hon. Member's Bill, but because he wished to afford an opportunity of discussing the subject. He declared his opinion that beer-houses were injurious to the community, and ruinous to their owners. Perhaps the House would be surprised to hear, that the number of beer and ale houses in England and Wales was 80,000; which was in the proportion of one to every 200 of the population, or forty families. Half the proprietors of these houses were in a state of ruin, and the commodity sold was frequently of the worst description. At the same time that he saw great evil under the existing system, he did not think the hon. Member's efforts to correct it would be attended with success, because his Motion was short-coming and partial. He would have all men qualified to keep beer-houses, on giving proper security, and thought no distinction ought to exist between the regulations of two sets of houses selling the same article. He did not see why beer might not be sold in a shop, over the counter, like any other commodity. This, however, did not apply to the act of consuming on the premises. On the whole, he recommended his hon. friend (more particularly after the remarks of the noble Lord) to withdraw his Motion.

was not averse from a free trade in beer, but wished to see the enforcement of police regulations, which should prevent beer-shops from being converted into tippling-houses. However, he thought it better for the hon. Mover to leave the matter in the hands of Government, where a disposition appeared to exist to regulate it. He believed that the great body of the Magistrates desired not to have the power of granting licenses.

expressed the greatest possible satisfaction at what he had heard from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon this question. He was inclined, if any distinction were made, to give the advantage to those places where beer was sold, rather than those where gin was sold.

moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Queen's County, with a view to provide a remedy for the disturbances there existing.

seconded the Motion: he wished to see the county reduced to order and quiet, and free from that excitement which led to acts of outrage, rebellion, and destruction. As a person desirous of residing in Ireland, but who was unable to take his family there, from the want of due security, he was most anxious that the laws should be examined, and, if found unequal to the suppression of outrage, that they should be made stronger.

quoted the opinions of several of the most able administrators of the law in Ireland, to show that the tranquillity and prosperity of that country depended more upon the exertions of her country gentlemen, than upon any attempt to amend the laws at present in existence. The want of Poor laws, and the distressed condition of the people, combined with the conduct of the gentry, were the cause of the disturbances in Ireland. The object of those who had induced his right hon. friend to bring forward this Motion was, he was afraid, the renewal of the Insurrection Act, a measure which he deprecated. For this reason he should feel himself bound to oppose the motion of the right hon. Baronet.

also expressed his determination to oppose the Motion. He had just returned from the scene, and could bear witness to the prevalence of a system of terrorism. There was no sympathy, however, between the criminals and any class of the people, and he thought, therefore, that the existing laws were sufficient for the suppression of the disorders. He believed, that any extraordinary exertion of the powers of the Legislature would be useless. Let the Irish proprietors live at home; let them lend their endeavours to better the condition of the poor, and Ireland would cease to be disturbed. But while the present state of things continued, he was satisfied, that all coercive measures would be useless, or worse than useless.

said, that Queen's County was one of the most peaceful and well-conducted counties in Ireland. There was a link between the middle classes and the peasantry, and there was not that want of connexion between the two which had been deplored. The gentry of that county set an example to the whole of Ireland, in the attention which they paid to the comfort and welfare of the peasantry. What was the altered state of the county now? That county was now in a most deplorable situation, and what was the cause? A person, well known in Ireland, had set up his standard in opposition to the payment of tithes, had been acknowledged on all hands—he had himself avowed it in his examination before the House of Lords, that he had set an example to the people of that part of the kingdom: every man must admit that he had done so. The individual to whom he referred was Dr. Doyle. Looking at the number of outrages now committed—at the increase of crimes—he must say, that he took a totally different view of the subject from the two hon. Members who had last addressed the House. He thought that inquiry was necessary, and he would not object to the appointment of a Committee, though he did not think that it would produce any immediate and beneficial effect in Ireland. In the first place, it would be occupied between two and three months before it could come to any conclusion; and then would but recommend the adoption of some measures that would have afterwards to be carried into execution. During all this time the disorders in the country would continue unchecked. Something, however, ought to be done by the Government immediately, for the system of terror was such, that hardly any respectable person could live with security in the country. It was not necessary to cite instances, but he could not help giving one. The son of the Bishop of Ossory, one of the most worthy Clergymen of the Irish Church, had been obliged to give up his living on account of the endless annoyance and indignation to which he had been subjected. The hon. Baronet behind him (Sir Charles Coote) was in a similar situation; although, as every one knew, that hon. Baronet had always manifested the greatest attention and kindness to the wants of all around him. Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the way had stated, he was sorry to say, that the division between Catholic and Protestant was increased, instead of diminished. The Government was not inclined to give support and assistance to those persons who would embody themselves for the purpose of preserving the public peace, for this reason, that it was contrary to the principle they had themselves laid down—a principle which he should wish to see carried into effect; for nothing would give him greater pleasure than to find the members of both religions acting in unison for the purpose of preserving the general peace of the country. He must confess that he did not view an insurrectionary enactment with the same horror as the hon. Gentleman; for although it might be described as a bloody Act, he thought it was a peace-preservation Act; and although it necessarily interfered considerably with the rights and privileges of the people, still it was attended with great blessings and advantages to society at large.

said, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, instead of supporting the Motion, appears to me to have opposed it. He talked of the distinction of Catholic and Protestant being put an end to. He expressed a wonderful anxiety to terminate all sectarian distinction in Ireland, and, in the very same breath, He did all in his power to be its most effectual and successful promoter. I ask any one who has heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, whether he has not most happily illustrated that kind of oblivion of religious differences which he inculcates. The hon. and gallant Member expressed his dislike to anything like the distinction between Catholic and Protestant, and, in the very same breath, he showed how much his practice differs from his theory, for whilst he expresses a dislike to religious dissension, he accompanies that expression with an attack upon an eminent and distinguished Prelate of the Catholic Church. We have, however, got one declaration from the gallant Member, that there is nothing of Catholic or Protestant in the disturbances at present going on in Ireland. I wish, before I go further upon the subject of the present Motion, to know whether there is any truth in the rumour, that Government have agreed to give their support to the motion of the right hon. Baronet, on condition that there shall be no inquiry into the causes that have produced these disturbances. It has also reached me, somewhat indirectly, that this Motion is nothing more or less than a pretext for the renewal of the Insurrection Act. I hope the Government won't deceive us on this point. Let them for once be candid, and tell us what they mean. I don't speak from authority; but, certainly, the rumour has reached me, that Government have con- sented to the Committee upon condition that there shall be no inquiry into the causes of the disturbances. It is certainly of importance that, if there be no truth in this rumour, it should be denied. I hope there will be no delusion on the subject. There has been enough of delusion practised towards Ireland, and let the Government at once be candid, and tell us what they mean. Is this Motion an application for the Insurrection Act? I certainly look upon it in no other light. The speech of the right hon. Baronet who introduced the Motion has been a speech for the Insurrection Act. The speech of the right hon. Baronet who seconded the Motion, has been a speech for the Insurrection Act. The Motion itself appears to me to be a motion for the Insurrection Act, and it is, therefore, of the utmost consequence that we should know what are the exact intentions of the Government upon this subject. I again say, that I trust there will be no delusion. Let them speak out plainly, and tell us what they mean. Has not the hon. Baronet spoken of the danger of bringing his family into the country, unless that the law was additionally strengthened. The right hon. Baronet, to be sure, is ready to go there and stand the battle, but he says, that he could not venture to bring his family into the country unless under the protection of the Insurrection Act.

explained, that from the representations which had reached him of the state of the country, he did not consider it safe to carry his family there, unless under the protection of some strong measure, but he had not said the Insurrection Act. He felt that the law was unable to repress the disturbances in their commencement.

I would wish to ask, what else can the hon. Baronet mean by a strong measure, but the Insurrection Act Does he mean to say that there can be any intermediate measure between the laws which exist and the Insurrection Act? I wish to ask, is it possible, when hon. Gentlemen talk of strengthening the existing law, that they can mean anything else but the Insurrection Act? I would wish to be informed more fully upon this point, for it does not appear to me that there can be any medium between the law as it exists at present, and the Insurrection Act? Is there not the Whiteboy Act, every step of which has been trod in blood? Is there anywhere a code of more sanguinary severity? It makes almost every act capital felony, and it is a code to whose sanguinary genius thousands of victims have been immolated. Under this code, assaulting a dwelling-house is made capital felony. To raise the hand is an assault, if the intent be proved; and thus, to raise the hand against a dwelling-house, even though that house be empty, is a felony, punishable by death. Never was there a more sanguinary and terrible law; its every letter is trodden in blood and desolation. I admit that many of these laws have been much mitigated, with respect to offences committed by day, and the beneficial effects of that mitigation have been practically felt, in the restored tranquillity of a part of the country which was before the scene of great outrage and disturbance. Believe me that it is not severity and strong laws that always best succeed. The peace of a county or a country is as often restored by justness and vigour in the execution of laws that do not shock the Constitution, as by resorting to measures of extreme severity and unconstitutional rigour. I have heard much talk about a strong measure. I should like to ask what is meant by a strong measure? The right hon. Baronet who instituted this Motion, and the right hon. Baronet who seconded it, have not pointed out any intermediate measure between the existing laws and the Insurrection Act; and what is the Insurrection Act? I say this, and I say it emphatically, that if the peace of Ireland cannot be preserved without the Insurrection Act, that the connexion between the two countries is not worth preserving for one single hour. I repeat that as my conviction. What is the Insurrection Act? It abrogates all constitutional authority. It goes to supersede the Judges of the Court. It takes away the power and protection of juries. It destroys the prisoner's right of challenge, and places in the hands of a few individuals, and one or two King's Counsel, the rights and liberties and life of every single man in the entire community. Is this the law that is now sought for? I ask any man in this House, who has ever witnessed the effects of that measure, to say whether, with a heart in his bosom, he can wish for its recurrence? I ask any man who has ever seen the operation of that law in Ireland, to ask his own conscience whether he can consent that it shall be again wielded against the unfortu- nate people of Ireland? Oh! how often have I watched and traced its progress in oppression, and blood shed, and immorality, and tyranny, and oppression. Oh! how many an act of immorality has it not produced. Many a blooming, chaste, and innocent sister has been seduced to the commission of immorality to bribe some village despot, or some neighbouring Magistrate, that a brother or a father may be kept at home. Oh! how many a farm has been given tip, and how many a home left desolate to bribe some heartless landlord, that a father or a brother may not be transported under the operation of this law. How many a claim of right has been surrendered, and how many a litigation given up, to bribe a landlord to make interest, or to exert his own power as a Magistrate, in favour of some unfortunate relative, falsely, perhaps, accused under this Act. Have we not often (and the instances are on record) heard of the policeman hiding gunpowder in the thatch of the house, and sending another policeman to find it? and have not there been instances where a man has been induced by the servant of a Magistrate to walk out of his house after sunset, and when he had proceeded a little from his own house, overtaken by the police purposely sent to watch him, then taken before the magisterial tribunal, and transported. I have witnessed the horrors of that unconstitutional law, and I say that the social state is not worth preserving under the Insurrection Act. It is better that it he dissolved at once. It would be better for Ireland to be annihilated than cursed again with the operation of that horrible and unconstitutional enactment. The Insurrection Act marks the end of all civil government. Every species of abuse, and tyranny, and oppression are perpetrated under its guise. Oh! let me intreat of the Government to abandon all idea of the Insurrection Act. Let them abandon the government of Ireland altogether, or make up their mind to govern it according to the principles of the British Constitution. What then is the pretext for this Committee? what will be the result of its labours? I am anxious for information upon these points. Either this Committee is a pretext for the Insurrection Act, or it is not; if it be not, I cannot conceive what object it can possibly have. Talk, indeed, of an inquiry into the state of the country. Don't you know what the state of the country is? Does not every one know what the state is? If you want a record of the crimes, or a chronicle of the offences, all you have to do is, to look to newspapers, and you will find it. Do you want to know what the state of the law is? Go to the Four Courts of Dublin, or even without going to the Four Courts of Dublin you may acquire that information. What then do you want? I say the Insurrection Act. I can see no other object in the proceedings of such a Committee. It is little wonderful that crime should be committed in Ireland, where so little attention is paid to the condition of the people. Somebody or other is eternally engaged either in transporting or convicting them. The upper classes have no sympathy with the people, and those who ought to be their internal and legitimate protectors, are, in many instances, their most cruel and tyrannical oppressors. What can be expected when the people are driven out upon the roads, or into the bogs, to starve? I have heard a great deal of the disturbances that have taken place in the Queen's County; and I think it was in that county that one single proprietor turned off his estates, and out of their holdings, 800 human beings, who were thus driven into the dykes and ditches to perish or starve. Can any one wonder that such excesses as these should prove the fruitful parent of crime? Can any one wonder that disturbance should exist where outrages of this nature are perpetrated on the people? I have heard of another part of the country—and it is a fact which admits of proof—that an entire village was destroyed, and the inhabitants turned out upon the charity of the winds of the world, because a report had accidentally reached the landlord, that a school belonging to the Kildare-street Society had been pulled down. It is oppressions of this nature, perpetrated against the people, that produce disturbances of this nature. This is what in Ireland is technically called clearing the land; but I ask, do we ever hear of outrages or disturbances throughout whole districts unless, where they are directly produced by this clearing of the land, or by some such oppressions of the people? There is another great source of oppression, the high rent at which land is let out to the people for that food upon which alone the unfortunate wretches subsist. Now, I believe the disturbances in one part of the country which was greatly disturbed were directly to be traced to the high price of the con acre, which was 10l. How can there be anything but distress, and discontent, and disturbance, where the con acre is set for 10l.? These disturbances have nothing at all to do with religion they have nothing to do with tithes, on the contrary, the resistance to tithes is from a class perfectly and essentially different from the others. It happens that Mr. Lalor, of Tenekil, who was the first to resist the payment of tithes in that county, had his house and property attacked by those people. These disturbances entirely originate in what is called the clearing of the land; and it is only where the people have been oppressed that the people have at any time attempted resistance. The disturbances of Ireland have a palpable and evident cause. They are produced by the total alienation and estrangement of the upper from the lower classes of society by the accumulation of want in the country, and the continual export of its produce without any return. The people are neglected, impoverished, and oppressed. Can it be wondered at, then, that they should be discontented; and that, under the pressure of evils that press upon them, they should occasionally break out into discontent? The great evil of Ireland is, the accumulation of rent in the country, which is spent out of it. I ask, is not the annual drainage of seven millions out of the country fully sufficient to paralyse and wither the arm of industry? It is astonishing how the country can subsist under such a continual drainage of its resources. Ireland, indeed, may be said to be in the situation of a strong man, who has a vein in his arm opened from which the blood is constantly flowing, and which is a source of progressive and increasing weakness. These disturbances are some of the throes which, in the man, precede death, but which, in Ireland, precede destruction, unless some means be taken to rescue the country from its present position, by measures very different, indeed, from the inquiry of a Committee, or the extension of the Insurrection Act. Such disturbances have often before occurred, and the existing laws have been found strong enough to put them down. All the experience we have had sufficiently convinces us that the existing laws are strong enough to quiet the country, and put down all disturbance. Take any county that is disturbed—the assizes come on—convictions are had—the state of the country may require that this assizes should be followed by a commission. After this, perhaps, a few may be found bold and daring enough to commit crime, but after a short time they relax and in all instances, at the utmost a second commission has been found perfectly sufficient to restore tranquillity to a county. The Insurrection Act, so far from putting down crime, is itself the parent of crime. It has never been found effectual in repressing crime; but, on the contrary, has led to its additional commission. I have considerable acquaintance with those who conduct Crown prosecutions in Ireland, and I believe a majority of those gentlemen will be found to concur in these opinions. I believe, also, that there is at present in this town a gentleman of great experience, who has been many years engaged in conducting Crown prosecutions, and I believe his experience would bear me out in the fact, that all the murders of Magistrates which have taken place in the counties of Clare and Limerick, have been murders of those who were active under the Insurrection Act. This has always been seen to produce dissatisfaction, and those who have suffered by this kind of severity have been ultimately the Magistrates themselves. The Insurrection Act, instead of having a tendency to check crime, has always a contrary tendency, and has uniformly been found inefficacious to repress disturbance. What, then, can be the object of the present inquiry? If we want to get a detail of the crimes that have been committed, we have only to look for their chronicle into the newspapers. If we want to ascertain the state of the law, we shall find it elsewhere, and I therefore should be glad to ask, what good can possibly result from this inquiry, or what possibly can it add to our information, unless the hearing of a tale which we have heard more than a hundred times told? I hope that the Government will treat us with candour, and let us know fairly whether they intend to give us the Insurrection Act, or whether they have any understanding with the right hon. Gentleman, that this Motion should lead to the Insurrection Act. I wish to know whether this Motion is not supported from some secret desire on the part of those who wish for the Insurrection Act. The right hon. Baronet has talked of the security of his family. I can assure the right hon. Baronet, that no person can be more anxious than I am that his highly respect- able family should have all the security and protection possible; but he mistakes if he thinks that protection can or will be derived from the Insurrection Act. Surely he cannot think it. No one would more regret to keep that hon. Baronet or his family out of the country than I should; but would he prefer to return there as a soldier, bearing the Insurrection Act along with him, rather than as a friend, the capacity and character in which he has hitherto visited the people? What way is there in a Committee to state facts, or produce facts of a different complexion from those which have already existed? If this Committee sit, what will be the result of its labours? They may summon witnesses, but what then? Why this; they get one Magistrate to give them a chronicle of offences such as exactly may be found in the newspapers for the last six months: another Magistrate will be ready to indulge some speculation as to the causes of the offences; and a third will be ready to ascribe them all to the interference of Dr. Doyle and the Catholic Clergy. This will be the full amount of the labours of the Committee, and this will be their result. I call upon the King's Government to disconnect themselves from this proceeding. Let them take the preservation of the peace of the country into their own hands. Let them go on with their special commissions, and succeed, as they have already done, in restoring peace and tranquillity to the disturbed districts by the firm assertion of the existing ordinary law. I am sorry that, in the course of the observations which an hon. and gallant Member had made to this House, that the trials of the county of Kilkenny have been alluded to. I was there, and have a right to have some knowledge on the subject, and I must say, that never was any county more slandered than this county by the King's officers. In regard to the acquittal that took place, no conscientious Jury would have come to a different conclusion, and, in my mind, there never was a more upright or conscientious verdict. Now, so far from the law having been found inefficacious, in many instances at those assizes, several convictions took place for Whiteboy offences, and for crimes connected with the combination of the Blackfeet and Whitefeet. With respect to the Jury that tried Kennedy, five of that Jury were nominated by the Crown after all the prisoner's challenges had been exhausted. It is quite impossible that any honest or conscientious Jury would have found a different verdict. I entreat the Government not to resort to the dangerous experiment of the Insurrection Act. It is unwise and imprudent. It is teaching a bad lesson to the people; when you show them an example of a disregard of all decency and respect for the Constitution, and a reckless prostration of all the safeguards which British law has set up for the protection of the subject, you must expect that they will improve upon the lesson you teach them. I sit down in the confident hope, that his Majesty's Government will disavow all those intentions that rumour imputes to them: that they will be frank and candid, and that, above all, they will disavow any intention of again subjecting Ireland to the terrors of the Insurrection Act. If they do, the Committee goes for nothing.

said, that after the protracted debate which had taken place on this subject, not twenty evenings ago, he should not now detain the House long. If the hon. and learned member for Kerry had heard that debate, he would certainly have thought it unnecessary to put the question, whether the Government were about to support the introduction of a measure so odious as that of the Insurrection Act. He had lost no opportunity—and, unhappily, since he had been connected with the government of Ireland, the state of that country had given him frequent opportunities—of stating his determination, and that of the Government to which he belonged, to adhere, so long as it was at all likely to prove effective, to the ordinary administration of the law, and to repel that extraordinary application of the powers of Government, which, however it might put down an evil at the moment, was calculated ultimately to increase that evil ten-fold; and which put down a weed to raise a stronger and more noxious produce from its root. He distinctly disavowed any intention whatever, by word, act, or any idea entertained in his imagination, of introducing the Insurrection Act into Ireland. If his words were doubted, he appealed from what the Government had said to what they had done. These disturbances he distinguished altogether from those connected with religious questions in that country. They were committed by a very different sort of persons, and arose from a very different cause. With respect to what had been said about the Government desiring not to go into the causes of the disturbances in Ireland, the fact was, that he had told the hon. Baronet, that a motion so framed would be too large for any chance of advantage from the inquiry, and which, if made, would be productive of no result whatever. On the other hand, he thought that some inquiry would be beneficial. That an inquiry into the immediate causes of these crimes; into the manner in which they were perpetrated; into the sort of offenders who committed them; and the mode in which they had before been put down, would be sufficient to show that the existing laws were fully adequate to extinguish these disturbances. The experience of the past had shown this to be the case in Clare, Galway, and Kilkenny, and if he were to select three counties which were now the most peaceable in Ireland, he should choose those three in which, by the means of special commissions, the ordinary laws of the land had been administered. If the Magistrates did their duty in Queen's County, he had no doubt the result would be the same. With regard to inquiry into the causes of the disturbance, he was afraid that that would open such an extensive field of inquiry, that no good result would arise out of it. He thought, however, that it would be of importance to inquire into the state of the disturbances, into the amount of crime, and into the mode adopted in other countries for restoring peace. That, he thought, might be of service, and, were it properly gone about, by some fifteen or twenty Members, he thought that they would find, on inquiry, that the law, as it existed, would be sufficient. He must at the same time say, that the Government did not anticipate any great advantage from a Committee; but nevertheless, if the country required it, he should accede to the request. Something might be done by proper inquiry, and one result he anticipated from it; he meant the disabusing of the Magistrates of the mistaken idea that, since the appointment of a police force, the constables, and others formerly acting under their directions, were not required to act. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman said, that he felt he should not be justified in offering any opposition to the Motion.

thought the member for the Queen's County had not been fairly treated. It was well known that all means had been tried to restore order, but without; effect. He must beg leave to contradict the assertion, that the ordinary operation of the law had been found sufficient to repress disturbances in Kilkenny, Clare, and Carlow. The tranquillity which prevailed in those counties was deceitful, and would speedily be replaced by violence and outrage. The present state of many parts of Ireland was such, that gentlemen could not go to church without arms. They could not dine without pistols on the table, neither could they go out without a musket on the shoulder. In such a state of the country, could any one say inquiry into the inefficacy of the law was not necessary? The hon. member for Kerry had said the object was, to apply the Insurrection Act, but he did not believe that was the object. On his own part he disclaimed that object. He did not think the Insurrection Act would answer the desired purpose. At the same time he should say the law had totally failed. In the atrocious murder of the policeman in Kildare the law had been totally inoperative; and he was one who thought the Magistrates had not done their duty. The murderers, up to that time, had not been brought to justice. If a Committee was appointed, there could be no doubt that useful information must be obtained. According to the statement of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, neither lives nor property were safe in Kilkenny; but he could say property had been more secure in that county than any other in Ireland. The banking affairs of that county had always been conducted upon the most admirable system of accuracy; but the moment agitation was excited by demagogues all went wrong. The hon. member for Kerry said, that every thing went out of Ireland, and nothing went in. The fact was, that within a short period 14,000,000l. of Stock had been transferred from the Bank of England to Ireland. The hon. and learned Member, too, was constantly in the habit of drawing a very exaggerated picture of the poverty and destitution of Ireland; but he knew that the resources of the country were progressively improving; and in proof of the abundance of capital in that country, he might mention, that in the last five years the sales of land averaged 5,000,000l. per annum. These facts proved that speculation and property were in action in that country. When the hon. Member said civil society could not exist with the Insurrection Act, he might ask, whether civil society could be said to exist in the Queen's County and the county of Kilkenny at the present time? The fact was, no one could go abroad without arms for their defence. He would vote for the appointment of the Committee, because, if it had no other good effect, it would at least show the people of Ireland that the House of Commons was not inattentive to their interests, and they needed that conviction to ensure them confidence.

said, if the hon. and learned member for Kerry drew pictures in strong colours, the right hon. member for Harwich was no inconsiderable painter in the same way. He rose, however, to defend the law officers, and to deny that Judges and Jury had not done their duty. He was convinced that the Common Law was sufficient to punish crimes, but not sufficient to prevent the disorders which had arisen in the Queen's County. The right hon. member for Harwich had, however, a panacea for the evils of Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman thought it the Tories came into Government all would be right.

wished the inquiry to extend to the disorders of Ireland as they existed, as well as the causes of those disorders. As a constant resident in the north of Ireland, he was enabled to say, there never had prevailed more religious animosity than at present. All were dissatisfied. When his Majesty's Ministers came into office, party animosity was at a low ebb, but it had since increased to an alarming extent. Wanton attacks were made by Catholics on Protestants. It was no longer Protestant ascendency, but Catholic ascendency. There was not equal protection of persons and property. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland must be aware of the frightful extent of emigration then going on. What was the cause of religious animosity in Ireland, carried as it was to a greater extent than ever? It was bad Government. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had asked what had the Government not done for Ireland? He would answer nothing. It was known that arms had been lately introduced clandestinely to Ireland, with ammunition. The communications from Magistrates on the subject had been treated with contempt, and, in short, his Majesty's Government had taken no steps to prevent those transactions. The hon. Baronet expressed a hope that the Members of the Committee would endeavour to find out the causes of the atrocious crimes which had disgraced Ireland. He had no other object than to put down religious animosity, and restore peace and tranquillity.

said, he approved of the appointment of a Committee, but thought that the Motion of the hon. member for Queen's County came too late; for the Session was so far gone that but little could be done at present. He thought that at least the Committee should confine its inquiry into the state of the laws. He thought the efforts of Government had a tendency to restore peace to Ireland. Coercive measures had exasperated the people, until the Magistrates had fallen victims to the laws they were desirous to enforce. If the Irish gentry, instead of drawing their rents and spending them here, should reside at home, and exert themselves to pacify the country, he had no doubt but they would in that case easily succeed.

said, that outrages had of late increased. He believed the measures taken had not been sufficiently strong to prevent or put them down. In the present state of things, it would not be possible to get the farmers to combine for the preservation of the peace. He would not oppose the Motion, though he did not see what object could be gained by it.

said, this Committee would be received with a great deal of suspicion by the people. He hoped the Government would not be decoyed into a re-enactment of the Insurrection Act. He, as a Protestant, did not entertain the fears expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Bateson).

moved, as an Amendment to the original Resolution, the insertion of the words, after the word Ireland, "and into the immediate causes which have produced those events, and the efficiency of the laws for the suppression of outrages against the public peace." He believed that this Amendment would meet with the concurrence of every hon. Member.

hoped more good would re-suit from this inquiry than had been anticipated. The object of it was, to ascertain the present state of the disturbed districts, and the state of the law. The hon. and learned member for Kerry said, they already knew the state of the law, and of the disturbed districts, and, there- fore, that the inquiry could be of no use. It was true they did know the state of the law; but they knew also that ingenious and elaborate contrivances had been suggested and acted upon, for the purpose of evading the law. Were they not, under such circumstances, justified in taking such steps as would ensure the execution of the law, and defeat the artifices contrived for evading it? Would it not be fit that a Committee should inquire, for instance, into those immense masses of persons who were in the habit of assembling, and who must, necessarily, overawe the execution of the law? This was the more necessary, after the opinion given by the Attorney General, that it was not competent to read the Riot Act for the dispersion of such meetings. He supported the Motion for the purpose of ascertaining whether the law, as it now stood, was sufficient. Was it anything less than paradoxical that, if the existing laws were sufficient, they should, at the same time, have a state of things unparalleled in any country in the world that boasted of civilization? The present situation of Ireland was a disgrace either to the laws, or to the Government. The Motion did not pledge them to any specific measure, but they were not precluded from inquiring whether some other means might not be adopted for enforcing the law. The Attorney General for Ireland gave recently a short and correct summary of the actual state of the country. There was, be said, no security for life or property. The peaceable part of the inhabitants were groaning under an uncontrollable and uncontrolled power. Could they refuse to endeavour to find some remedy for such a state of things? He was not disposed to question the sufficiency of the Common Law, if applied promptly and perseveringly. If, however, it was sufficient, why had the country for eighteen months been left in so deplorable a state? During the first six months of these eighteen, not less than 600 or 700 crimes were committed; in the next six months, 800; in the succeeding five months, 500 crimes; and in the last month, 200. How came it that Special Commissions were not had recourse to during that period, and the efficiency of the laws ascertained? This inquiry would demonstrate either the inefficiency of the law, or the delinquency of those who did not apply it. The Amendment would lead to interminable inquiry.

said, he saw no reason to oppose the Amendment.