said, that he had hoped that the unanimous wishes of the Irish Members which had been so unequivocally expressed, would have induced his Majesty's Government to have delayed the further progress of the measure for the present Session. The Bill was really so crude, that if persisted in the country would have all the inconvenience of a change, without any of the benefits of an improvement. He believed, that all the Irish Members who were in the Committee were most anxious that the measure should not be persevered in; and he therefore hoped, that his Majesty's Government would show some deference to the opinion of those gentlemen, whose local knowledge certainly entitled their opinion to respect and consideration. He also trusted, that his Majesty's Ministers would give the Irish Members credit for not wishing to impede their views, and for being anxious to lend their assistance to the introduction of a better measure in the course of next Session. These continual changes in the Grand Jury laws of Ireland operated most prejudicially, and though he (Colonel Conolly) did not object to a change in the present law, any alteration now made should be permanent. The present measure was partial in its operations, impracticable in its details, and left the root of the evil untouched. He hoped that though he differed on many subjects with his Majesty's Ministers, they would notwithstanding give him credit for being solely actuated in his opposition to the Bill then under consideration, by a wish to forward a better digested measure than that before the House. He thanked the noble Lord (Lord Duncannon) for the exertions he had used to accomplish a good purpose, but he would ask him, whether he thought that such a chaos as the present Bill had not greater claims to novelty than utility; and whether, supposing such a measure to be passed, he considered it likely to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland?

disclaimed the idea that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was to be taken as the sentiments of the people of Ireland, or their Representatives, the Irish Members. He hoped the noble Lord opposite would afford Ireland the benefit of a full consideration of the Bill this Session, despite the suggestion of that hon. Member; and also, that even at that late stage, he would not refuse to receive and adopt any useful suggestions which it would be wise to incorporate with the Bill. The Grand Jury Law, as it stood at present in Ireland, was the fertile parent of innumerable hardships and of much misery, and the sooner even any of them could be got rid of the better. Though the present Bill had a great many objectionable parts, it was better than the existing system. It had also some very good parts; and if he were called upon to particularize one above another, he would point out the abolition of the unchristian and impolitic practice of multiplying oaths.

said, he thought it would be highly improper in him to withdraw the Bill, after it had been so long before the House. It was before the House last Session, and was then printed and sent to Ireland, and soon after the commencement of this Session it was again introduced by his right hon. friend present, the Colonial Secretary. It had also been two months before the Committee, and had had as much discussion as any Bill that was ever introduced. He would detail a few of the alterations which the Bill would effect; it would associate those who paid the taxes with the Judges of the petty Sessions, and thereby give them an interest in all works to be performed; it would, by the appointment of surveyors in each county in Ireland, give to those who paid the rates an assurance, that the money raised was not more than requisite; by compelling all public works to be done by contract and open tender, it would assure the taxpayer that such works were performed at the lowest expense. One of the great complaints against the present system was, that all the business of the country was done by the Grand Jury, with closed doors; but the present Bill would compel the Grand Jury to act in open Court, and in the presence of the public. He thought the Bill would effect a very great improvement on the present system. He did not say, that some of the clauses might not be capable of yet further improvement, and if so, such alterations as might be necessary could be made in the Committee.

said, the argument of the noble Lord, that the Bill, having now been so long before the public ought to be persevered in, appeared to be of very little value; for if that part of the public principally interested in the measure looked upon it with dissatisfaction, the very fact of their disapproving of it, after having had so much time to examine its provisions, afforded a strong reason for believing that it would not be beneficial. The hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) was extremely sensitive on behalf of the Committee; and thought their labours would not meet with due consideration, if this Bill should be abandoned. But the hon. Member forgot that the unanimity of the Committee upon the impracticability of the measure was a strong reason for postponing it. They introduced some alterations and improvements; but they gave it as their opinion, that the framework of the Bill was such as to render it incapable of practical operation. It was a great mistake to suppose, that those Members who urged the Ministers to delay the final adjustment of this question until the next Session did so for the purpose of adhering to the old system; they considered a change necessary; but even those who had been most loud in their complaints in Ireland, agreed that the Bill now before the House was not a practical improvement, as it left untouched some of the evils most complained of, and substituted a complicated and cumbrous machinery for the evils which it professed to remedy. No change in the Grand Jury system could be satisfactory, which did not include an Amendment of the compulsory assessment. At present a moiety of the taxation of the country was imposed without the control, and independent of the wishes, and perhaps the wants, of those who pay it. Presentments for public buildings, and other objects, were now sent down by the Government to the Grand Jury; and, whether the Grand Jury adopted or rejected them, they received the fiat of the Judge. Not only could the Grand Jury exercise no control over them, but they had all the odium of imposing taxes in which they had no concern whatever. No measure would be satisfactory to him which did not make some alteration in this system. He would therefore suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of withdrawing the Bill. In the next Session of Parliament the Committee might be reappointed to report generally upon the laws now in existence with a view to bring in a Bill founded upon such a Report. He could assure the House, that he made this proposal simply for the purpose of procuring a measure likely to be permanent and give satisfaction to those most interested. If the noble Lord would not consent to the postponement, he should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House, and would move, "that this Bill be further taken into consideration this day six months."

said, he would, for various reasons—some of which he would state—support the Amendment of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The opposition to this Bill was obviously not founded upon any party feeling; for Irish Members who differed upon other matters, had agreed in opposing this Bill. His first objection to this Bill was, that it left the compulsory assessment on the counties of Ireland. In this way the Grand Juries of Ireland discharged the highest and most important function of Parliament, without any parliamentary responsibility. These Grand Juries, which were wholly irresponsible, had the power of putting their hands into the pockets of the people, and over the money thus taken from them they had no sort of control. The consequence of thus putting the Grand Juries in the condition of the oppressors of the people, was, that great dissatisfaction was felt against the gentry of whom they were composed. The moral effect of this was very bad, and the unconstitutional principle it involved was equally objectionable. He (Mr. O'Connell) proposed that the further consideration of this measure should be postponed in order to get rid of this power of the Grand Juries in toto. They did not want Grand Juries for such a purpose. The public works, for which the compulsory assessments were made, should be undertaken by the Parliament, after they had been freely discussed and determined upon. If public works were necessary, they should be so carried on as not to tarnish the names or the character of the Grand Juries. It should be seen, too, how much of the cost of these works ought to be borne by the public purse, and how much by the agriculturists; for it was upon the latter body the expense would now be thrown; and whatever opinion might be entertained of the distress or prosperity of other interests, the Committee on Agriculture had had sufficient proofs of the distress of the agriculturists of Ireland. Again, there was another principle laid down in the Bill, an excellent principle, but encumbered by so many provisions, that it would be impossible to work it; and therefore it would be necessary to postpone the measure, in order to make such alterations and modifications as would ensure that admirable principle being brought into fair play. The principle he referred to was, that presentments should no longer be given to favourites of the Grand Jury. No one could defend the present system, by which the favourites of the Grand Jury were fattened. He, himself, knew two families who had made fortunes, and purchased estates out of their jobs in road-making, though the roads they made were now not to be distinguished from the surrounding bogs. The Bill proposed to make the contracts open, and to make the lowest tender for the work. But how would that principle work? Why, not at all, for there were such a number of tedious and vexatious conditions to be complied with, that no man could possibly submit to them with the uncertainty of obtaining the presentment after all. A man would submit now to go through them, because as the favourite of the Grand Jury, he was sure to get the presentment as his reward; but when this was rendered uncertain by making the contracts open, and taking the lowest tender, no man would submit to this trouble and expense as a preliminary to his obtaining the work. He wished, that this part of the Bill should be better considered and simplified, so as to render the good principle capable of working. Again, this Bill treated with contempt the great constitutional principle, that no man shall be taxed without his own consent. If a man in the street set this principle at defiance, and put his hand into the pocket of another, he was sent to the Old Bailey for his reward; but if he should do it under the form of law, he would prosper by it. 80 it had been and still was in Ireland. Grand Juries should, in his opinion, be elected by the cess-payer. Again, it was a complete delusion to say that tenants from year to year should not pay the cess. If they did not, what would be the consequence? Why they would get notice to quit, and thus this very Act of Parliament would operate in increasing the uncertainty of tenure in Ireland, which was the great cause of all the evils and disturbances in that country. Families could subsist only by having land, and the more the tenure was made uncertain, the greater would be the mischief. The Secretary for Ireland would, no doubt, in the vacation, spend a great deal of his time in Ireland, and he would then, with the assistance of a noble Lord (Duncannon), who patronized the Bill, and whose assistance would be invaluable, have the advantage of making himself master of all the facts; and be able, next Session, to bring forward a Bill which should be complete and efficacious. He certainly should not consider any Bill efficacious that did not separate the compulsory principle from the principle of real taxation; and, in the next place, that did not introduce—not by disguise—not in a kind of collateral view—but directly, emphatically, and practically, the principle of representation going with taxation. On these grounds he should support the principle by delaying the Bill.

could not see why the measure should be pressed forward at the present advanced period of the Session. The postponement of the question for one year could add little to the existing evil. He admitted, that the whole system wanted remodelling, but the question was, whether such remodelling should take place in haste, and against the consent of those hon. Members of that House who were most deeply interested in the subject, and who were better acquainted with the effects of the present system, and the change in it proposed by the Bill now before the House, than English Members could be by any possibility. Great difficulties would arise from a hasty arrangement of this most important subject, all of which would be avoided by a postponement until next Session, the propriety of which he would earnestly urge upon his Majesty's Government.

would not give a peremptory opinion on the subject, but must confess, that he thought the utmost necessity prevailed for the adoption of some new measure. Looking at the present measure with an English eye, it appeared to him to be founded on principles worthy of recognition. The principle of taking the powers from the Grand Jury which they now enjoyed, and the conducting the business in open Court, was a point of such importance, that he thought it expedient, that the House should allow the Bill to go into Committee. In his opinion, the most important part of the Bill was that which would let in the light of day upon the proceedings of Grand Juries; no course being, in his opinion, better calculated to effect beneficial results than allowing their whole proceedings to be open to the public eye. What points called for improvement might be looked to in Committee, and he trusted, that the Committee would be appointed, in order that the true principles of the Bill might be understood, its merits appreciated, and its errors amended.

objected to the principle upon which the Bill was founded. There was, notwithstanding the decision of the preliminary Session, an appeal given to the Grand Jury, whose adjudication would under the provisions of this Bill, be final. The Grand Jury was appointed by the Sheriff, upon whom it was made obligatory to select three at least from each barony; and this anomaly would arise, that in the county of Louth there would be only five Grand Jurors so selected, while in the neighbouring county of Meath there would be no less than eighteen out of the twenty-three to constitute the Grand Jury. He contended that, on the principle that those who taxed the people should be elected by the people, the Sheriffs ought to be so chosen, instead of being nominated by the Judges; and unless representation accompanied taxation in this Bill, it would be most injudicious now to proceed with it.

was quite sure, that the Bill had been drawn up with an intention to do good; but he would implore the Government to give time to the Irish Members to consult their constituents, so that they might come to a proper and satisfactory conclusion.

said, that those who now opposed this Bill had been amongst the loudest and foremost to call for amendment of the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland, and he maintained, that if this Bill did not effect all that some might desire, it did embrace some considerable and important improvements. It did, amongst other valuable improvements, recognize the principle, that in such matters taxation should follow representation, though the principle might not be carried out to the extent required by the hon. and learned Members opposite. There might be objections to the Bill, but he had not expected to hear it objected or intimated, that the Bill was a hasty measure. After all that had passed, and after the condemnation on all hands of the present Grand Jury system of Ireland, he called on the House to allow the Bill to proceed, that it might be seen that the principle of the Bill had the sanction of this Mouse.

should oppose proceeding further with the measure, because he considered it in its details to be impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had not answered one of the objections to the Bill which had been urged by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. That hon. and learned Gentleman showed distinctly, that the Bill could not work; but to that portion of his speech the right hon. Secretary had not given any reply. The measure came before the House under circumstances of the most extraordinary nature. It was introduced for the purpose of amending the Irish Grand Jury Laws. It was referred to a Committee up stairs, who, after a laborious investigation, agreed unanimously to recommend its withdrawal. But the noble Lord (Lord Duncannon) said, let us now go into Committee and make such alterations in the Bill as will render it a wise and salutary measure. Now he would ask, could the House in Committee do that which was found to be impracticable by a Committee up stairs? It was impossible, even supposing the Bill to be passed, that it could come into operation before next Summer Assizes, and he there-fore trusted, that his Majesty's Ministers would consent to its withdrawal. Let them employ competent persons in the mean time, who, by inquiring into the subject, and consulting with those most conversant with the details connected with the system of Grand Jury Law in Ireland, might be prepared early in the next Session with a measure calculated to remedy the abuses which no man doubted had existence. He should hope, that Ministers, seeing, that gentlemen from Ireland of every shade of political opinion, concurred in recommending the withdrawal of the measure for the present, would concede; but if they persisted, he hoped, English Members would not insist on forcing a measure upon Ireland which the great majority of Irish Members reprobated.

said, when the Bill was first introduced, and its principles explained by the right hon. Gentleman, now Secretary for the Colonies, the hon. and learned member for Dublin expressed his concurrence in them ["No, no,"from Mr. O'Connell.] He understood, that it was so. However, it appeared, that after two months the Select Committee had been unable to come to any conclusion upon the Bill, although they had the working of the present system before them [Mr. O'Connell "no no."] He was not a Member of the Committee, but he understood, that the Committee had all possible information before them. He saw no use in delaying the Bill. If any portion of it could be adopted now, it would do great good, particularly that part relating to the appointment of surveyors. Because the Select Committee were blind to the merits of this Bill, he saw no reason why the whole House should be equally dull. Its defects might be remedied in Committee.

regretted, that the Select Committee on the Bill had not received the advantage it might have received from the advice and experience of the hon. member for Dublin. He did not admit, that the operation of the Bill would lead to any nomination of two or three tenants, as had been described by the hon. member for Dublin. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin objected to the Bill, but why did he not suggest something better? He approved of the principle, which was founded on economy and justice, and so must every man who knew anything of the system of the Grand Jury in Ireland. It separated the fiscal from the judicial duties of the Grand Jurors, and which, in his judgment, was an exceedingly great improvement. These were the principal features in the. Bill. He would assist his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, in any practical improvements of the details; but he hoped and trusted, that the Bill would not be thrown out.

wished, that the Bill should go into Committee, when, if no one else did, he would move as an Amendment, that none but baronial Magistrates should make a cess, and that the people should not be overpowered by the influx of Magistrates from other districts, as was now frequently the case.

said, there was one ground on which he should press the postponement of the measure. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland in the course of his observations said, that he could only look upon the measure with an English eye—it was in fact the only one with which the right honourable Gentleman could see at all, he not having had an opportunity of seeing with any other. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be enabled, from his own experience, to introduce a measure upon the subject. There was such a conflict of opinion at present, that if the right hon. Gentleman proceeded with the measure, he would find himself quite perplexed. He trusted, therefore, that upon these grounds the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the postponement.

on being called on by the Speaker, said, that before he proceeded with the Motion of which he had given notice, he wished to ask whether any Government existed?^*

who had just entered the House and taken his seat, replied, "Here we are."

said, it did not follow because they were there, that they constituted a Government; but, as he presumed, from the noble Lord's answer, that he must consider them as yet in power, he would proceed with the Motion which he rose to bring forward. He begged in the first instance, to assure the noble Lord, that he made his Motion without any hostility to the Government, since he had never heard one word from the noble Lord in the House which did not do honour to his situation, and because from every opportunity he had had of knowing what the noble Lord had done out of the House, he believed, the conduct of the noble Lord to have been all that could be desired. But whatever confidence he had in Government, he thought that when such great events took place as those which threatened a complete change of the political relations of Europe, it could not, be supposed that this country viewed them with indifference, nor that the House was not anxious to be acquainted with the policy of the

^* In consequence of the Ministers having been defeated in the House of Lords on the Local Courts' Bill, various rumours had prevailed during the week of changes in the Administration. Hence Mr. Bulwer's question.

Government directing its affairs. What he had to say, he should say in a very few words. In the first place, he did not consider that it was the intention of Russia to take present possession of Turkey. The destinies of nations were not changed by a coup de main. He looked upon its conduct merely as a proof and a developement of its plans, and not as their completion. By the Treaty of Adrianople, Russia with the same consummate policy which had ever directed her affairs, showed a generous abnegation of territorial acquisition in Turkey, in order that she might more widely and safely extend her moral power over that country. She made her agents, however, independent of the Turkish authorities, and even assumed the right of naming for a time the Turkish authorities themselves. The Sublime Porte was degraded in the eyes of its subjects, and the prestige which formerly hung around it was gone. This was all that Russia wanted. A government that depreciates itself cannot stand by itself, and its territories must soon become the province of another. The disgrace of the Porte naturally occasioned a variety of insurrections among its subjects; Mehemet Ali, of those subjects, was at first the most powerful, and afterwards the most formidable, and on the part of France was his revolt stimulated, as it was said by some of no contemptible nature. His army, at first forced to retreat, vanquished the brave but imprudent Hussein Pacha. The fate of the Sultan and of his capital depended on a battle which his general was likely to lose; and Russia offered herself at once as his protector and supporter, and was accepted. Admiral Roussin arrived at Constantinople, and engaged for the retreat of the Pacha on certain terms, which included the refusal of Russian assistance. To this Russia refused her consent—" you have asked for me, and you shall have me," she says; her troops marched accordingly on Constantinople. It was impossible not to admire the talent of a cabinet which actually compelled the Power it was determined to destroy, to receive it to its bosom as its best and its dearest friend. But he begged the House to observe, that in all these transactions of France on one side, and Russia on the other, we appeared as cyphers, and as far as the public knew anything, the whole fate of the East was about to be changed without our knowing more of the matter than if we had been some petty German principality. But Russia excused herself, he understood, in this manner, and here it was that the House required a satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord. It was said, that some time previous to the Russian expedition, or consent of assistance, she informed us, and the Porte specially informed us, that events were taking place in Asia which would oblige the Porte to have recourse to foreign interference, and that we were asked by both parties to put a stop to Mehemet's progress, which a note from us—a mere note from us—would have been able to do. That this note we delayed writing, and that thus Russia was forced to take the part she took. He mentioned this, in order that the noble Lord might explain the fact, or that the papers might be produced which would afford the explanation. The affair ended by Mehemet accepting the conditions the public were acquainted with, and the Russians, he presumed, were to withdraw from Constantinople, as the noble Lord said, or he would not otherwise surely have struck so strong upon the string of non-interference. Russia was to retire from Turkey; but what of that? If Russia retreated home, the mischief was done. Her moral ascendancy over Turkey was increased—it was for the increase of this moral ascendancy that she marched into Turkey. She meant, and wanted at this moment nothing more. Since 1776, Russia had extended herself over two-thirds of the coast of the Black Sea. Of the eleven millions of inhabitants in Turkey, three millions of Greeks and Armenians were attached to her yoke. By her commercial relations with different parts of the Continent, she had endeavoured to connect their interests with her, and by her power and magnificence, which with an oriental people had great sway, she had also endeavoured to obtain a strong hold over their imagination. Working with such materials and such means, she expected that if the Turkish empire dissolved, it would naturally fall into her possession, and with the consummate policy for which she was remarkable, she understood the art of waiting upon events, the termination of which she contented herself with calmly and deliberately preparing. Ultimately looking to the Dardanelles, her next step would probably be to get possession of Trebizond, which would give a dépôt for her military stores, and open an easy access to Persia or Turkey for her armies. This being the state of things, it seemed pretty clear, that if they were allowed to continue, with the immense power and concentrated designs of Russia, the weak and divided government of Turkey, that important part of the world, unless other influences interfered to prevent it, would necessarily fall under her sway. With these important changes before the House, to which he presumed the Government had cast the considerate eye of statesmen, the country, he thought, in a matter so important to its interests, might fairly claim to know the general outline of the policy of Ministers. This became a still more reasonable expectation, since the views of another party, rival candidates for power, were well known. A noble Lord, with whose general views he disagreed, but of whose character he entertained a high opinion, and whose kindness he had personally to acknowledge, had stated on a former occasion, that he did consider the diminution of Turkey for the aggrandisement of Russia an object of serious alarm to this country, which it would be his duty to prevent; some persons, however, were of a contrary opinion, and seemed rather to favour the idea of Russian dominion in the East as favourable to the general civilization, and to the happiness of the people of that part of the world. He acknowledged that, of all ideas, this seemed to him the most singular of any that ever entered the brain of any man acquainted with history. But as his opinions were briefly explained in an able and eloquent passage of a pamphlet that had been written on the subject, he would read that passage to the House:—" Yet is this to be effected by Russia, by a nation which itself has just emerged from obscurity, scarcely possessing a complete legislature, and not yet free from the fetters of Gothic vassalage. Would Turkey (if conquered) adopt the manners and embrace the religion of the conquerors? Without this can such a change be effected?—will not a humane and beneficent modification of its own religion be more likely to improve its advantages? tinder the government of foreigners, to whom no allegiance is due but that of conquest, are we to expect the same coincidence in views, the same assistance in projects, as when national prejudice, religion, and duty—in fine, all the principles on which Turkish government is founded, unite? Observe, the precepts of the Koran are the rules of legislation as well as of moral conduct. Would Russia be able to dissolve the fabric of a religion so pleasing and gratifying to the passions of eastern nations, after it has stood eleven centuries? If they could not do this, what could they do?" The writer was actually speaking of the proposed plan of Turkish civilization. The dominion of Russia had not, he believed, in general been favourable to the civilization or happiness of the conquered; but even if Turkey could be civilized and rendered more happy under the dominion of Russia, was that the case with the other nations to which the possession of Constantinople would only open the way? If a nation had one particular point to gain, a natural frontier, a peculiar river or mountain, for which it would be always ready to wage war, it might be a question whether it would not be sound policy to yield that point. But was that the case with Russia? Let the House look to any part of the world in which Russia had not manifested the same grasping desire to add to her possessions—let them look at the map, and see what she had taken in the north, the south, the east, and the west. What power had not suffered from her fatal neighbourhood? Half a century ago Russia was not half European, now Europe was half Russian. But the dominion of Russia had not, he believed, in general, been favourable to the civilization or happiness of the conquered. Even the Crimea from 1770 to 1790 decreased in population from 250,000 to 60,000—a decrease of four-fifths in twenty years. He could conceive nothing more miserable than the lot of the Turks under the dominion of Russia. Shocked in every feeling, habit, and prejudice, and deeply imbued with the sentiment of predestination, revolts would be certain; the Russian punishments for revolts are known; and he thought humanity must pause before it would make even of Turkey another Poland. But it was not only by territorial increase that Russia had become formidable since the Treaty of Teschen, where she was first allowed to appear as a European power (a fault, said a diplomalist of the time, that it cost forty battles to efface). Since that period she had penetrated herself so deeply into the heart of all European affairs, that there was nothing which could take place in the smallest and most distant nook of Europe in which she did not take an active and decisive part. Bold, where anything was to be gained by force—crafty, where it was to be gained by intrigue—she took as much pains with her diplomacy as with her military force. Wherever an able man was to be obtained, she had rewards, and service, and distinctions at his disposal; wherever a secret was to be purchased, she had the money ready; whenever war was probable, her armies arrived at their destination before we were suspicious of their march. There was hardly a court in which she had not family alliances and secret agents. In Holland, in Portugal, in Spain, in all the states of Germany, and now in Turkey, her influence was predominant; uniform in her plans, she had never moved without an object, and, concentrated in her power, she never struck but with the whole force of her arm. Such was the Russia, which was slowly but steadily advancing towards Constantinople, and determined at no distant day to take possession of the Dardanelles, when all her energy, enterprise, and ambition would be directed to the extension of her maritime power. Such was the Russia, meditating upon which the greatest political and military genius of his age exclaimed, "Que l'Europe ait garde, ou en 50 ans, elle sera toute Cossacque." It was not such a Power as this that we could deceive by professions of friendship, or turn aside from her course by courteous remonstrances. If we wished to stop her—if we deemed it our policy to stop her while it was yet time, we must do so by employing the same language and maintaining the same bearing to her that she maintained to us. He would not insult or offend her, and he owned that the vote of the other night was, under all circumstances, a difficult one to decide upon; but, at the same time, he thought we should not shrink, or seem to shrink, from expressing an opinion fairly and openly upon her policy, and a determination to resist her further aggrandisement and aggressions. He thought we should not shrink from doing this, nor from averring that we did this; since, in spite of what might be said to the contrary, the great power of England on the Continent was a moral power, and she could influence the conduct of its sovereigns by influencing the opinions of their subjects. For this reason, also, he asked for the papers for which he should conclude by moving; and it seemed to him more especially his duty at the present time; because, while he felt the more dread at the progress of Russia—because, with her progress, her principles would advance also—he found that there were princes who, for the sake of those principles which they imagined favourable to their personal interests, winked at an ambition which must be finally fatal to the independence of their subjects. No longer ago than last Christmas, it was pretty generally reported that Count Appony, the Austrian Ambassador at Paris, stated—in speaking on the affairs of the East—that his Court had a greater apprehension of French principles than Russian ambition. Here, then, was a new hinge for politics. It was no longer the power of a state, but the opinions of a state, which were dreaded; and those opinions were the opinions of an enlightened country, with whom, on account of corresponding views and ideas, we had entered into alliance. Moreover, he found, that the enlightened opinions to which Russia was inimical, had been combated, and combated successfully over different parts of Europe. They were put down in Italy, in defiance of the most able and energetic remonstrances of Mr. Seymour. They were put down in Germany, in defiance of the most solemn promises and the most binding treaties. They were put down in Poland under circumstances which exalted every humane feeling, appealed to every political interest, and aroused every sense of national honour. They were yet combated secretly in Belgium, openly in Holland, and even the expedition against Mehemet Ali, who, though a powerful and enlightened prince, did not chance to be a legitimate sovereign, seemed founded upon the same policy; and we might learn at Vienna and at St. Petersburg, that armies were equally ready to start for any part of the world, for Rome or for Constantinople, as it might be necessary, to rivet the loosening chains of Papal or Mahometan despotism. He could not think, with these circumstances passing before his eyes, that it was the part of a great Minister and a great statesman to turn the attention of the people from events which might endanger their dearest rights, their national power and existence, by a commonplace appeal to their pockets. It was the duty of a Government to curb, but not to put down the spirit of a nation—to avoid war as long as it was possible, but to keep alive the hearts of the people for any emergency. Gentlemen talked of war as if it were a thing which always depended upon ourselves, and which we had to choose as we might happen to like it, or the reverse; it was a thing only to be forced upon us; but when we saw it inevitably coming, then we need not wait for the rest, but take the best opportunity of meeting it; and, though he agreed in thinking that war was a great calamity to any country, this he would say, that if there were any country which, under the present condition of the world, could hope to wage a prosperous and successful war, it was that country which was at once mistress of the seas and possessed of the sympathies of the civilized portion of man-kind. He used this language, not because he thought there was any necessity for us now to go to war, or that there need be such necessity. He knew, if such a necessity were to arise, the people would be ready to meet, it; and he did not wish foreigners, who did not understand us, to take that grumbling at our poverty, and our debt, which had always existed since the days of Marlborough to be perfectly and literally true. The brave and gallant spirited people of England would shrink from no emergency in which their liberties and the liberties of Europe might require them to take a part. The burthens of the country had increased, but with the burthens of the country had also increased its resources; and though Russia had advanced from the Don to the Danube, from the Dneiper, to the Dneister, to the Pruth; though she had quartered herself in Moldavia and Wallachia, supplanted us in Holland, defied us in Germany and Poland, and entered, regardless of our diplomacy, the very gates of Constantinople, yet, notwithstanding, if Great Britain saw the necessity, or had the will, she never in a greater degree than at present, possessed the power to bid defiance to the armies and the principles of Russia. He hoped, therefore, we did not stand in disgraceful awe of a power which it would be equally as ridiculous to despise. He hoped that the noble Lord would explain frankly his views and feelings, such as would satisfy, both as to the course he might follow, and the policy he had pursued. For his own part, he had only to hope, that, however warmly he might have alluded to our political relations, he had indulged in no unbecoming personal remarks, and, thanking the House for its attention, he concluded by moving for "an humble Address to his Majesty for Papers respecting the Measures pursued by Russia, in her late interference with the state of Turkey."

said, it was hardly necessary for him to state that he should consider it his duty to oppose the Motion, because the transactions to which the papers called for referred, were incomplete, and the character of the whole transaction would depend upon its termination. The papers asked for, related to the late interference of Russia with Turkey, and the part this country took with reference to that proceeding; and, as the results were not yet known, the House would at once perceive that the Motion of the hon. Member must be premature. The hon. Member had taken advantage of the Motion before the House, to express his opinion as to the general policy of his Majesty's Government with regard to Russia, and from the tendency of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he seemed to attach greater importance to the opportunity afforded him of declaring his sentiments on this subject, than to the production of the papers he moved for. There was always some inconvenience attending the entering into a detailed discussion on the conduct of the Government on foreign affairs, when the transactions to which it had reference were not, complete. The Ministers were, no doubt, responsible for their acts, but it was too much to expect that, while transactions were pending, Ministers should undertake to explain not only their own conduct, but the motives which influenced the conduct of others. It was probable that at the very time at which they were speaking the Russian troops had evacuated Turkey. The pledge to do so had been repeatedly and solemnly given, not only to this country, but to all the other Powers of Europe, and, it was certainly, premature to declare that Russia did not mean to keep her faith? The hon. Gentleman had urged it as an accusation against. Ministers that they had not interfered to defend the Sultan against Mehemet Ali, and prevent the advance of his army. He was not prepared to deny, that the latter part of last year an application was made on the part of the Sultan to this country for assistance, but the Government was at that time not prepared to afford it; Ministers, in short, did not think it fit to afford assistance to the Porte at that particular juncture. No doubt if England had thought lit to interfere, the progress of the invading army would have been stopped, and the Russian troops would not have been called in; but although it was easy to say, after events had happened, that they were to be expected, yet certainly no one could anticipate the rapidity with which they had succeeded each other in the East. From this reply, and the subsequent rapid progress of the Egyptian arms—a progress not to be anticipated from any preceding events—the Sultan felt himself called upon to apply for assistance to Russia, and from Russia he obtained it. The Russian government, in granting this aid to the Sultan, had pledged its honour, and in that pledge be reposed the most implicit confidence, to limit its assistance to the defence alone of the Sultan, and had promised to withdraw whatever force might be placed at the disposal of that sovereign, for the purpose of securing his defence, as soon as peace was established between the Porte and Egypt. The hon. Gentleman would find in these observations an answer to his question, as to the policy of his Majesty's Government with regard to Russia and Turkey. The hon. Gentleman also asked would his Majesty's Government allow the conquest of Turkey by Russia. He had no hesitation in saying, that it was of the utmost importance for the interest of England, and for the maintenance of the peace of Europe, that the Ottoman empire should remain entire, and be an independent State. Whether the inhabitants of this large empire were Mohammedans or Christians—though he wished they were Christians—was not the question, for the subject must be dealt with in reference to political, and not to religious interests; but if Russian conquest should lead to the Christianizing and civilizing the inhabitants of that country, such advantages—and no one could estimate them higher than he did—would be counterbalanced by the consequences which would result to Europe from the dismemberment of the Turkish empire. Undoubtedly, then, his Majesty's Ministers would feel it to be their duty to resist any attempt on the part of Russia to partition the Turkish empire; and they would equally have felt themselves at liberty to interfere, and prevent the Pacha of Egypt from dismembering any portion of the dominions of the Sultan. The integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire were necessary to the maintenance of the tranquillity, the liberty, and the balance of power in the rest of Europe. At the same time, he had great doubts that any intention to partition that empire at all entered into the policy of the Russian government. Besides, he very much doubted also whether the Russian nation—properly so called—would be prepared to see that transference of power, of residence, and authority to the southern provinces, which would be the necessary consequence of the conquest by Russia of Constantinople. Such an event, too, would lead to a general war in Europe, for other Powers were as much, if not more, interested than ourselves in preventing such aggrandizement of the power of Russia. He therefore, thought, that sound policy, good faith, and every consideration of its own interest would induce the Russian government to abandon such a course, if it ever had the inclination to pursue it. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, that the British Government felt that the maintenance of the peace of Europe was an object of the greatest importance; and, as far as the Government of this country was concerned, without minding the taunts thrown out as to their pacific policy, they would do their utmost to preserve the peace of Europe. His Majesty's Government had been taunted with being afraid to go to war, and had been accused of truckling to other Powers in consequence of this fear. These accusations he (Viscount Palmerston) distinctly denied. If the present relations established between this country and France were pointed at in these sneers, he would only say, that he should look back with feelings of pride and satisfaction at the part he had acted in bringing about that good understanding. No apprehension could be excited in any reasonable mind on this score, for the circumstances of this connexion, both in France and in this country were greatly altered during the period that the present. Ministry had conducted the political affairs of Great Britain. At the same time he repudiated the idea that England was afraid of Russia. There certainly existed many reasons on both sides for the wish to avoid hostilities. Russia herself must wish for peace; she was a very large country, and immense commercial relations were established between her and this country. On what principle could she wish for war, or on what principle could those, who in this country were so loudly calling on the British Government to draw the sword, justify the appeal to arms at the present moment? Did they contemplate the calamities, the fatal and disastrous consequences, attendant upon a state of general warfare—consequences in which the conquerors, no less than the conquered, shared? The taunt of being afraid of war in any sense but this was puerile; for no country on the face of the globe was likely to suffer less than England from war. From all the unexampled sacrifices this country made during the last war with France, her internal resources and energies were such, she had recovered and repaired her means far sooner than any of the other nations which had been engaged in those hostilities. He had thus stated, to satisfy either the curiosity, or the anxiety, of the hon. Member, what had been the conduct of his Majesty's Government, and upon what principles they had proceeded. They had pursued the course which their duty to their country required; and if they had quietly beheld the temporary occupation of the Turkish capital by the forces of Russia, it was because they had full confidence in the honour and good faith of Russia, and believed that those troops would be withdrawn in a very short time, he believed he might almost say, before a few days had elapsed. On the ground of public convenience, therefore, and of the confidence he had in the fulfilment of her engagements by Russia, he thought the present Motion ought not to be agreed to.

declared, that he reposed no confidence in the pledges of Russia, and believed she would continue to violate them on every occasion, as she had already violated them, when it was her interest to do so. Had she not pledged herself to maintain the Constitution of Poland, pledged herself by Treaties, and had she not broken through them all? He would not trust her; for he was of opinion, that if she now retired from Turkey, it would only be for the purpose of rendering her return more easy, and her prey more sure. Such was her honesty in his estimation. He agreed with the noble Lord in his commendation of the present friendly relations between this country and France, and thought the interests of every free nation in Europe dependent on the continuance of that good understanding, for he was convinced a conspiracy was in operation against the free institutions of Europe, and that Russia, who was at the head of this conspiracy, would never rest satisfied until she had subjugated every country within her reach. When Poland was crushed, the thraldom of the German States, and afterwards of this country, was contemplated by that overbearing Power. The noble Viscount had informed the House, that the Government had remonstrated with Russia on the subject of her treatment of the Poles. But why did he, then, prevent the House of Commons from associating itself in that remonstrance? The discussion which took place on the subject the other night, would, however, go forth to Europe, and show what sentiments were entertained by the British Legislature of the conduct, of Russia towards Poland. With reference to the Motion he acquiesced in the statement of the noble Lord, that it would be improper to produce the papers till the negotiations were entirely at an end.

thought it, right on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to resist the taunts which had been thrown out against certain parts of their public conduct, but at the same time he could not help expressing his surprise at the confidence which the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) seemed to place in the good faith of Russia. If they were to judge by its former acts, he would say, that there existed no grounds for such confidence, and that it was utterly unfounded; nay more, was altogether disproved by her conduct, not only towards Poland, but towards Turkey. With regard to Poland, she had been guilty of twenty years of infidelity and breach of faith; and with respect to Turkey, her conduct had been marked by want of faith and honesty. He was not anxious to see this country plunged into war, but he felt that if we, with France, had interfered immediately after the battle of the Pruth, we should have been right: but we allowed this opportunity to escape, and three months after the Russians had entered the Turkish territory as protectors, they declared that they had claims of their own, independent of the other Powers, which they were determined should be satisfied. The same conduct pursued by us in India, and by the Spaniards in South America, for increasing their territories was now about to be resorted to by Russia with respect to the States by which her territories were surrounded. The gallant Officer referred to the Treaty which existed between this country, France, and Russia, with respect to Turkey, and said that Treaty had been violated by the Russians. When the question of the conduct of Russia had been broached on a former occasion, the answer of Ministers was then, as now, that their noninterference was grounded on the fear of a war. But when the Russians had reached Adrianople, then the fear of war appeared to have ceased, and the English and French Governments gent fleets up the Dardanelles to check the progress of the Russians. There was no Power in Europe greater than England, and no opponent whom we had less reason to fear, great as was its power, than Russia; and if any such fear ever did exist, it must be done away with by the Reform which had taken place both in France and in this country, and the consequent amicable alliance between the two countries. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would not place reliance on the faith of Russia, and, above all, that they would prevent the continued occupation of the Turkish capital by that overgrown Power. He hoped that the very fact of this occupation would be a lesson both to England and France, and induce them to take the necessary measures to preserve Turkey as an independent State. He wished to state, that he agreed with the general policy of his Majesty's Ministers, notwithstanding their conduct towards Poland, and that he wished to see a little more vigour thrown into their measures, and he felt sure that, in the event of our being obliged to go to war, they would not be found unprepared for the occasion.

in reply, said, that after what had fallen from the noble Viscount, he would not press his Motion. He was satisfied with the expression of opinion which had taken place, and would, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Motion.

rose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the Expenditure of Absentees from Ireland. In doing so, he could not help expressing the astonishment he felt at seeing scarcely any of the Members for Ireland in their places. This circumstance proved what value was to be attached to their professions. According to the most accurate information which could be obtained, the number of absentee proprietors from Ireland was so large that 4,000,000l. a-year was spent by them abroad. Among other expenditures of Irish money in England, he thought it right to refer them to the 13,000l. per annum (as we understood the hon. and learned Gentleman) spent in contesting elections before Parliamentary Committees. Then let them recollect that the large majority of Irish bishoprics were filled by Englishmen, who became the founders of families in England on their accumulations in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to argue that the 1,000,000l. of Irish money annually lodged in the English funds, which Mr. Spring Rice had quoted as an instance of the increasing prosperity of Ireland, was so much annually drained from the capital of that country, when

moved, that the House be counted. Forty-one Members being present,

proceeded. Wealth, he argued, was of no value, except as it was used. Money was made for man, not man for money. The proper distribution of wealth was the great benefit which it conferred on nations. The wealth taken out of Ireland by absentees might, had they continued to reside, have been used for the benefit of the Irish people. If a country exported all its raw material, and imported all its manufactures, the people of that country must necessarily be idle and discontented, and exposed to all the evils flowing from idleness and discontent. Such was, in a great measure, the state of Ireland. The landlord who drew all his rent away from that country, inflicted the injury upon it of withdrawing the most powerful stimulus to exertion. At present Ireland exported all her raw material to England and other countries—thereby throwing away the advantages which she might otherwise enjoy. By these means the incitement to labour was taken away, which might render the Irish an industrious and a happy people. It had been stated, on one authority, that one-fifth, if not one-fourth, of the population of Ireland was at present unemployed. on another authority, that, out of a population of 8,000,000,2,000,000 were unemployed. That was the true source of all the disorders in Ireland. The rioters and disturbers were arranged in different classes; but idleness was the mother of all the mischief. If they could not employ the population in doing good, the population would employ themselves in doing evil. The first mischief of absenteeism was the want of that moral example which the higher orders in every country ought to set to the lower orders. The ancient hospitality of Ireland was almost at an end. Those mansions, the doors of which were wont to be ever open to the stranger and the needy, were now falling into utter decay. Another evil of absenteeism, was the destruction of those ties of affection and attachment which formerly existed between the landlords and the peasantry. Another evil was, that the estates, not having the eye of the master upon them, were neglected; and no portion of the rent was applied to the improvement of them. Another effect of absenteeism was, that for want of revenue, there was no accumulation of capital. When capital was abundant in Ireland, the Irish could produce and manufacture as cheaply as other nations. But now, the diminution of revenue prevented the accumulation of capital. The consequence was, that workmen and tradesmen of every description were reduced in number, and were left almost without employment. He admitted, that the cotton manufacture in the North of Ireland, and the making of kelp in Gal way were tolerably prosperous; but with those exceptions, trade and manufactures were in a most decayed state throughout Ireland. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to read a voluminous paper, describing the number of persons belonging to different trades in Dublin before the Union, and the number at present, as also the wages of the two periods, to show the extensive falling off' that had taken place;—in the middle of which,

for a second time, moved, that the House be counted; but there being forty Members present,

proceeded to read the paper. It related principally to the number of artizans and manufacturers in Dublin in 1799 and the present moment, and showed the decrease in their numbers, and that the same decrease had taken place in Cork and Limerick. This referred, he said, merely to some towns, but, at all events, one-fourth of the people of Ireland were unemployed; and if the population continued to increase, and a young, brave, and idle race were brought up without feelings of attachment or respect for the class above them, the landlords who now enjoyed the sky of Italy, and the luxuries of London, might lose their estates, and the military force of 22,000 men would fail to preserve them. The Irish, like all uncivilized people, were vindictive, and no one knew the moment at which a crisis might arrive. The hon. and learned Member below him (Mr. Sheil) had a Motion relative to a tax on absentees, and he would not interfere with that subject, not even pronounce an opinion upon it. The remedy he would propose was the having local bodies to legislate on local subjects, and that these local Parliaments should sit for three months in Ireland and three months in Scotland, while the Imperial Legislature should go on here. This would diffuse a part of the revenue exacted from the people of Ireland, over that country, and the people would have the feeling that they were not, neglected and deserted. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the history of Rome and Lacedæmon, to prove that the moment the revenues of the provinces were spent in the capital without any return, the State became corrupt, and gradually fell to decay. A federal government was in his opinion the best; and the instances of America, and of our own colonies, proved, that the principle of separate Legislatures for countries united under one head, worked very advantageously. Would they, he asked, after thirty-three years' experience, which proved that Ireland was not happier, although perhaps some individuals were richer, and the country was more populous, continue the same system? It had been said by a right hon. Gentleman, that the reason Ireland was ill-treated by England was because she had a Parliament of her own; and the hon. Gentleman went into a statement to show, that from 1720 to 1822 the reverse was the case, and that the Irish Parliament was the only protection the country had from monopoly and injustice. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the various forms of absentee expenditure by which Ireland is afflicted, to ascertain its effects on the prosperity of the country, and on the happiness of the people, and to discover a remedy, if possible, for the evils it occasions.

it was his wish not to press his Motion at present, but to record his own sentiments on the subject.

suggested, whether it would not be better for the hon. Gentleman to give a notice for the next Session.

said, that the Motion was a very important one, and that hon. Members who brought forward questions relating to Ireland were not to be laughed at.

said, that there had been no such thing, and that it was only to save trouble he made the suggestion. He knew the subject ought to be inquired into, but the hon. Mover himself saw that at this period no practical result could follow from his Motion. Neither could it be supposed that indifference on the subject influenced the House; for, if so, it was equally chargeable upon some of those Irish Members who claimed most emphatically to be the Representatives of the people of that country, and who were absent upon this discussion. When the proposition should be made, he would be ready, as he was then, to negative it, particularly because a Motion professing to inquire into absenteeism was in reality one for the introduction of a federal Government; and when such a proposition as that was to be considered, it was one to be considered by the whole Legislature, and not delegated to a Committee. To a Committee on absenteeism he should have no objection, as he was not one of those political economists who did not consider it an evil, and above all, an evil in a country circumstanced like Ireland. This he admitted, but how was it possible to remedy it? That could not be done without destroying the right of property, as well as degrading the people of Ireland, by leaving them without the power of free agency and making them mere adscripti glebœ—without the liberty of leaving their country. For the benefit of any country, the freer property, capital, and population, were, the better. The hon. Gentleman had read a paper relative to the decrease of manufactures, but every fact he had stated, was traceable to other sources than the Union, as the introduction of machinery alone would account for all he had mentioned. There was only one way to bring the absentees back to Ireland; that was, to make the country happy, and to put an end to all feelings of irritation and division. The hon. Gentleman had entertained the House by reading a long paper, giving an account of the number of persons engaged in the different branches of trade in Ireland. He was aware of the danger of referring to papers of any description; but, upon a subject which not only called the attention of the people of Ireland, but excited their passions in no inconsiderable degree, would the House indulge him whilst he read a single paragraph, not so long as the hon. Gentleman's paper, but as good an authority—the authority of an Irishman—of one of the best and greatest Irishmen who ever did honour to his country. He begged to call the attention of the House to a single passage in a letter from Mr. Burke to Sir Charles Bingham. The hon. Gentleman admitted, that one of the great evils of a tax upon absentees was—that you must apply it to absentees generally. The hon. Gentleman seemed fully aware of this fact, because he appeared to imagine that many of his observations were equally applicable to Scotland; and he wished to adopt the principle of compulsory residence in that country. He certainly was disposed to think that the Scotch people were perfectly able to judge for themselves; and when the Representatives of the. Scotch people neither asked for a Repeal of the Union, nor a tax upon absentees, he thought that a primâ facie case was made out, that they did not suffer from this cause, as the hon. Gentleman would induce the House to believe. Burke said, and he begged the attention of the House to the remark: "A man may have property in more than two parts of this empire; he may have property in Jamaica, and in North America, as well as in England and Ireland. What shall we say to this case? After the poor distracted citizen of the whole empire has, in compliance with your partial law, removed his family, hid adieu to his connexions, and settled himself quietly and snug in a pretty box by the Liffey, he hears that the Parliament of Great Britain is of opinion that all English estates ought to be spent in England, and that they will tax him double if he does not return. Suppose him then (if the nature of the two laws will permit it) providing a flying camp, and dividing his year as well as he can between England and Ireland, and at the charge of two town houses and two country houses: in this situation he receives an account that a law is transmitted from Jamaica and another from Canada to tax absentees from those provinces which are impoverished by the European residence of the possessors of their lands. How is he to escape from this ricochet cross-firing of so many opposite batteries of police and regulation? if he attempts to comply, he is likely to be more a citizen of the Atlantic Ocean than of any of these countries. The matter is absurd and ridiculous, and while ever the idea of mutual marriages, inheritances, purchases, and privileges, subsist, it can never be carried into execution with common sense or common justice. I do not know how gentlemen of Ireland reconcile such an idea to their own liberties or to the natural use and enjoyment of their estates." The hon. Gentleman might say, that this was an extreme case. It was; but it was only by extreme cases that a fair test to try an argument of this kind could be found. If it were right to confine Irish landlords within the limits of Ireland, it was certainly equally right to confine all persons possessing estates in England within the limits of England. He deeply lamented the existence of absenteeism, and sincerely wished it should cease. He hoped it would. It was ceasing in his own county. He would refer to proofs. Let the hon. Gentleman who doubted it go to the great architects of Ireland, and inquire what number of great houses had been built by the nobility and gentry within the last ten years. He would find, that there never was so large an outlay of capital in that species of property, in the course of any ten preceding years, in the history of Ireland. Let the hon. Gentleman start from Dublin and view the various mansions, of the nobility and gentry in different parts of Ireland, and then let him say whether there had not been a considerable expenditure. That was the case in Limerick, and he must say it, with all possible respect for the hon. Gentleman, that his statement was much exaggerated. To say that the property of the absentees was 15,000,000l. was monstrous; the whole income of Ireland not exceeding 20,000,000l. He had been very reluctant to offer a word on the subject, but was induced to do so, by a wish to reply to the hon. Gentleman, guarding himself, however, against the supposition that he was indifferent upon the subject of absenteeism. He admitted it to be a great evil, but it was not a subject for legislative interference.

observed, that the indifference with which Irish Members were often pleased to charge English Members upon the subject of Irish affairs, was not an indifference to the interests of Ireland, but was the result of the want of conduct and discretion on the part of the Irish Members themselves. Whenever any matter of practical advantage to Ireland was to be considered, the English Members were attentive enough; but it was impossible to expect them to be so when hon. Members from the Sister Country brought forward mere formal Resolutions for the purpose of making them the means of introducing a series of observations to the House. He trusted that that system would not be persevered in, and that these unfounded accusations would not be repeated.

did not wonder at the lecture read the Irish Members by the hon. member for Worcester, for that hon. Member had experienced the evil effects of the practice he reprobated in his own instance, when he effectually depopulated that House by a Motion regarding taxation. He thought that there ought to be a tax upon absentees; but, if they did not like that, they might effect the same object by increasing the facilities for the transfer of property. The evils of absenteeism were very great. Most of the disturbances that took place were on the estates of absentee landlords, and were occasioned by the misconduct of those who represented them. The people on other estates were at the same time quite tranquil. Such had been the case with the tenantry of Lord Cloncurry, who resided on his property, and who, in the year of the famine, had not only supported the poor among his own tenantry, but many others.

was ready to admit that absenteeism was an evil. But the remedy now proposed would be a greater evil. Absenteeism was an evil in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Those who said that to remedy the evils of Ireland, it was necessary to increase the value of property there, spoke truly, but those who proposed restrictions on property were proposing that which would diminish, not improve the value of property there. In fact, he believed that most of the plans recommended by the hon. member for Cork, would be found to have a tendency rather to increase than lessen the evil.

said, that the evils of absenteeism were admitted. But what was done to get rid of them? Nothing—only a wish was expressed that quiet might be restored, and then it was said there would be no more absenteeism. He almost doubted that. It was a habit of the landlords to be absentees. Scotland suffered from absenteeism, but not so much as Ireland, and there was this difference between the two countries, that in the first place, there were no confiscated Scotch estates possessed by large English proprietors; and in the next, Scotland was a tranquil country. He observed then, with regard to Ireland, that every year England gave less and less to Ireland. In the year of the cholera morbus, England sent over to Ireland 40,000l., but in the same year the amount of the estimates showed that less was to be given to Ireland than in the year before. [Mr. Hume observed: So much the better.] The hon. Member said so much the better; but it was admitted that absenteeism was an evil. How, then, was it to be cured? The hon. Member surely would not deny that absenteeism was an evil. [Mr. Hume: Yes, in the way you think it.] The Irish had observed the magnificent liberality with which Parliament had given the 20,000,000l. in what he must say he thought the holiest cause in which that money could be expended; but while his country admired the liberality of the Parliament to the negroes, she could not but contrast that with its parsimony to herself.

thought, that there was a great delusion as to the evils of absenteeism, and he hoped the opportunity would soon arrive when the question would be fairly discussed, and that delusion put an end to. Absenteeism was an evil, but the remedy now proposed was a greater evil. The real and the greatest evil in Ireland was the want of employment. That employment could not be given without capital—there was plenty of capital in England that the owners were anxious to send over to Ireland, but they were prevented by the disordered state of the country. Civil discord, anarchy, and bad Government were the causes of the evils of Ireland, and taxes on absentees would not mend those evils. Capital would not go over to Ireland while that country continued in its present unquiet state.

said, that absenteeism was the great evil of Ireland. She made more progress than any other country—than even England between the years 1782 and 1796, when she had an independent Legislature of her own.

never had been able to comprehend how an absentee tax could effect any good for Ireland. It would prevent any Englishman from investing his surplus capital in Irish property, and it would make Irishmen invest their surplus capital in England, where they might enjoy it with freedom, and thus, instead of tending to increase the means of employment in Ireland, it would diminish them.

and withdrew his Motion.

rose to move for the production of the minutes of the Court-martial on Captain Robison. He said, that he had on a former occasion presented a petition on the subject, and he had no hesitation in saying, that the principles upon which Courts-martial were constituted had been violated in this case. His object was to obtain justice for an injured individual by means of that House, which was now the only tribunal which could administer justice to him. He would shortly state the facts upon which he required the House to accede to his Motion. In the year 1828 Captain Robison, who had been appointed to the command of three veteran companies, which had been raised in this country for the purpose of being sent out to New South Wales, to serve there as mounted police, was brought to a Court-martial at the instance of General Darling, the Governor of that colony. General Darling, who was at that time exercising all the powers of the Crown, acted as prosecutor of Captain Robison. General Darling had the selection of the Court-martial which was to try Captain Robison, and he mentioned this to induce the House to consider the odds which this officer had to combat in contending with the tremendous powers with which the governors of our colonies were armed. Knowing those powers, the House would see that if it shut its ears against complaints of the misuse of those powers, it would leave to the arbitrary rule of our colonial governors all who served under them either in a civil or a military capacity. To the Court-martial thus selected by General Darling an officer was sent to act as Judge Advocate, who had been previously a member of the Court of Inquiry which sat upon Captain Robison. He had read the evidence of two of the witnesses who had been examined on the Court-martial, and from that evidence it clearly appeared that the Judge Advocate to the Court-martial had also been Judge Advocate to the Court of Inquiry. Now he understood that it was not only contrary to military law, but also to military practice, that the same officer should act as Judge Advocate both before the Court-martial and the Court of Inquiry. The Court of Inquiry lasted three weeks; the Court-martial lasted from the 11th of July to the 15th of September. One would suppose that from the length of time which the Court-martial lasted, that it required witnesses to be brought, not merely from different parts of the colony, but also from different parts of the world. But no such thing; for the charges, though voluminous, confused, and complicated as almost to defy anybody from comprehending the intention of the accuser, consisted in themselves of a few facts, and required the presence of only a lew witnesses. The trial lasted two whole months, from day to day, and during its continuance a circumstance occurred which, whatever might be the result of this Motion, ought to annihilate the whole of the proceedings taken against Captain Robison, for it was impossible to say, after that circumstance had been mentioned, that justice had been done, when that was prohibited from being done without which justice could not be administered. His first complaint was that an attempt had been made on the part of the prosecution to tamper with the witnesses. Before, however, he proceeded to that part of the subject, he must state to the House that one of the charges against Captain Robison was, that he had sent to England complaints against General Darling without having communicated copies of them to General Darling. During the inquiry General Darling addressed a letter to Captain Robison, desiring him to state whether he had sent home any such complaints, and on receiving an answer from Captain Robison, made that answer evidence against that officer. Another of the charges against Captain Robison was of a most extraordinary nature. Captain Robison was accused of having improperly made use of a letter written by the Governor's Military Secretary, Captain Strutt, to Lieutenant Sweeney, who was summoned to give evidence against him. To support that accusation Lieutenant Sweeney was called as a witness. Now, what would the House think when he read to them the contents of two letters, which he held in his hand, and which were written by Captain Strutt to Lieutenant Sweeney pending this inquiry? Captain Strutt sent an express to Lieutenant Sweeney with an official letter desiring him to attend the Court-martial with a detachment of his company, and in that official letter he enclosed a private letter of his own, which in his (Dr. Lushington's) opinion was nothing else than an attempt to intimidate that witness from giving the evidence which he was generally expected to give. The House would allow him to read those letters, and when he had read them he thought that every Gentleman who heard him would be of opinion that he had substantiated grounds for the Motion with which he intended to conclude. The official letter was dated 1st of April, 1828, and stated, that the Lieutenant Governor having directed an inquiry to be made into the conduct of Captain Robison, had instructed him to signify his desire to him (Lieutenant Sweeney) that he should afford every facility by the presence of his detachment to the fulfilment of the orders of the Court-martial. In the same envelope was the following letter, headed with the words "strictly private and confidential." In this letter Captain Strutt stated that "he could not allow the inquiry to proceed without discharging the disagreeable duty which had fallen to his lot." "I am anxious for your sake," continued the writer, "to warn you of the precipice on which you are standing. Circumstances have come to the knowledge of the Lieutenant Governor which implicate you jointly with Captain Robison. He may be right or he may be wrong, on that I give no opinion; all that I wish to call your attention to is the consequences which may attach to you individually. Your name has been mentioned in some of the despatches addressed to the Lieutenant Governor, and has not escaped his notice; but hitherto I have parried the subject. An honourable line of conduct is now open before you, and I hope you will follow it." Now, he begged the House to consider when, and by whom, this letter was written. What object could the writer have except to intimidate the individual to whom it was written? The warning given to Lieutenant Sweeney, that he was standing on a precipice, and that he was implicated with Captain Robison, was nothing but an attempt to intimidate Lieutenant Sweeney, into the suppression of such evidence as might be unfavourable to the prosecution. The most singular part, however, of this case was yet to come. When this letter of Captain Strutt was communicated to Captain Robison, he wrote a remonstrance to General Darling, against the tendency of such a letter to sap the foundation of all justice. That remonstrance was afterwards made the subject of a fresh charge against Captain Robison. At the Court-martial Lieutenant Sweeney was produced to substantiate a charge against Captain Robison. This he failed to do, on which the President took out of his pocket a prior written statement of Lieutenant Sweeney in order to contradict the evidence which he had then given, and to discredit the witness for the prosecution. That written statement was admitted as evidence, not only against Lieutenant Sweeney, but also against Captain Robison; and to conclude the whole of this extraordinary transaction, in which the prosecutor at one and the same time discredited his own witness and illegally introduced against Captain Robison, as evidence, that, which was no evidence at all, General Darling had circulated a printed statement, which he had seen, averring that Lieutenant Sweeney was undeserving of credit. Even that was not all; in consequence of the evidence of Lieutenant Sweeney being unfavourable to the prosecution, he was, first of all, suspended from military duty, and afterwards sent home without trial. He submitted, that if there was a shadow of truth in these allegations, the grossest injustice had been done in these particulars, and further investigation was absolutely necessary. He knew that General Darling disavowed all knowledge of Captain Strutt's letter to Lieutenant Sweeney. It might be true, that it was written by the imprudence—no, that was too light a term—of Captain Strutt himself; but by whomsoever written, and from whatever motives, it made no difference to Captain Robison. General Darling had called on Lieutenant Sweeney to account for the letter which had been written to him by his military secretary, Captain Strutt. Now, Sweeney was a man in distressed circumstances, and on receiving that demand saw that his all was at stake. In the agony of the moment he wrote a letter to General Darling, scarcely knowing what he was writing, and that letter was subsequently produced by the prosecution to contradict the testimony which he afterwards gave upon oath. He now came to another of the charges which had been preferred against Captain Robison, and which was not less extraordinary than any of those which had preceded it. Whilst Captain Robison was commanding a detachment at a distant outpost, he gave orders that the mailbags, in which he expected some despatches of his own, should be opened in the absence of the postmaster. For doing this a charge was brought against him before the Magistracy, who, on hearing the facts, dismissed it as frivolous and vexatious. This charge was again reiterated before the Court-martial, which expressly acquitted him of every part of it which implied either dishonour or discredit. Another complaint which he had to urge on behalf of Captain Robison was, that in violation of the law, the questions put to the witnesses were not taken down in writing, in order that the Government at home might be enabled to judge of their relevancy and pertinency. Now, unless such questions were reduced into writing, how was it possible for his right hon. friend, the Judge Advocate at home, to decide whether all had been done, that was necessary to the elucidation of justice? Another complaint was, that the Chief Justice of the colony, Mr. Forbes, who had been summoned as a witness for the prosecution, instead of appearing to give evidence in person, as he might have done, he being in the town, only sent a letter, which was improperly received as evidence against Captain Robison by the Court-martial. It had been stated, that Captain Robison might have insisted on the personal appearance of Mr. Forbes in his defence. But need he mention how dangerous it would have been for Captain Robison to call in his defence a witness summoned for the prosecution, a witness whom he would not have been allowed either to cross-examine or discredit, and who might be cross-examined at any length by the other side? The fact to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the manner in which the Court-martial had admitted that letter to be evidence. How could it be evidence? It was obvious, that if such proceedings were permitted to go uncorrected, no man's character could be considered safe. He now came to another fact, which appeared on the minutes of the Court-martial, and which to this moment remained uncontradicted. Captain Strutt had been permitted by the Judge Advocate to read over the minutes of his own evidence, and to refresh his memory as to what he had sworn previously, before he underwent cross-examination. That was another violation of justice. He therefore asked the House to let the minutes of the Court-martial be laid upon the Table, in order that every Gentleman might judge for himself of the justice or injustice of its proceedings. The sentence which it passed upon Captain Robison was, that he should be dismissed from the army, in which he had served for twenty-five years, and gone through all the Peninsular campaigns—after having been thrice in India; and after having gone out to New South Wales with as high testimonials to character as any officer could desire. He should now conclude by saying, that if this motion were to be opposed, the House ought at least to know the grounds on which it was met with opposition. He hoped that he should not hear a doctrine laid down which would deprive the House of one of its noblest functions—he meant that of administering justice to British subjects whenever and wheresoever they were injured. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving, that a humble address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that a copy of the minutes taken by the Court-martial held upon Captain Robison, in 1828, be laid upon the Table of the House.

remarked, that his hon. and learned friend in the speech which he had just made had culled out of the paper which Captain Robison had circulated only two or three of the charges which he had brought against the Court-martial which had tried him, and had entirely left out of consideration the many other charges which Captain Robison had preferred which had made, he believed, a very considerable impression upon those who had read them. As those charges had been very generally circulated, he trusted that the House would allow him greater scope in replying than he should otherwise have ventured to take. He should begin by stating, that he was not there to defend General Darling—all that he undertook to perform on this occasion was, to defend the proceedings of the Court-martial. His hon. and learned friend had complained that Captain Robison had been charged before the Court-martial with having opened the postbag without due authority—an offence of which he had been accused before a civil tribunal, which had acquitted him of the charge, describing it as unjust and frivolous. Now, it might be wrong for General Darling, under such circumstances, to bring that charge before a Court-martial; but how could that be made an imputation upon the Court-martial, which, on hearing the charge, had acquitted him of it? Let not the House suppose, from his silence respecting General Darling, that he intended to throw blame upon that officer; he was neither his champion nor his accuser; and he should only refer to that officer when he found him in connexion with the Court-martial. He admitted exclusively that the House had the power to supervise the proceedings not only of Courts-martial, but of all judicial tribunals, and that in exercising that supervision it was to be guided by no general rules, save the immutable principles of justice. But the House, which might exercise its supervision in all instances, ought it his opinion to be very cautious how it exercised it in any. The question, then, with regard to this Court-martial resolved itself simply into this: "Does there appear in its proceedings a case so pregnant with injustice and oppression as ought to induce the House to take the first step in the career of censure by agreeing to an Address for laying the minutes of the Court-martial on the Table?" His opinion decidedly was, that there was no such case, and therefore he thought, that the House would be well advised in not acceding to this Motion. The charges which Captain Robison had preferred against this Court-martial were numerous; but yet they resolved themselves easily enough into three heads. There were, fast, the objections to the constitution of the Court, next the objections to its proceedings in admitting and rejecting certain evidence, and, last of all, the objections to its decision and sentence. Now, if he could prove, that the constitution of the Court was legal, that its proceedings were regular, and that its decision was right, the conclusions to which he had come, and which he had already stated, must be assented to by the House; but if not, the Court-martial must submit to censure, and he along with it, for not expressing his disapprobation of its conduct, from the commencement to the close of these transactions. He would remind the House, that it was not called upon to decide on the merits or demerits of Captain Robison. The question was not whether the decision of the Court-martial on the charges preferred against Captain Robison was correct or not, but whether the members of that Court-martial performed their duty fairly, and came to such a decision as honest and intelligent men would be justified in coming to: for he need not say, that if they came to such a decision, it could be no impeachment of their integrity if the House came to a contrary decision, seeing that it was a matter of daily occurrence for Juries, against whose integrity not a suspicion was breathed to come to different conclusions upon the same evidence. The first objection contained in the paper of this unfortunate man—for unfortunate he certainly was—respected the constitution of the Court. That paper stated, that the Court consisted of a President and eight other officers only, the ordinary number of officers upon Courts-martial being thirteen. Now, nine officers were four more than were required by the Mutiny Act and the articles of war to constitute a Court-martial. Considering, therefore, the numerous duties which the military had to perform in New South Wales, it was favourable to General Darling, and a mark of respect to Captain Robison, that his Court-martial consisted of a greater number of officers than the law required. There was another circumstance connected with the constitution of the Court, which he felt it necessary to state in justification of the Court itself. With the exception of one officer, who was junior to Captain Robison, all the rest were his superiors in rank. His hon. and learned friend had told the House that the Court-martial sat from the 11th of July to the 15th of September, two whole months; but he had not told them that four-fifths of that time had been taken up by the defendant in cross-examining the witnesses, and that this oppressive Court had given him three weeks out of those two months for the preparation of his defence. The next objection of Captain Robison was, that he had been compelled strenuously to object to two members of the Court, but that his challenge had been over ruled and disregarded. Now, he (Mr. Grant) believed that this petition had been framed in London; and therefore he must suppose that in the lapse of time Captain Robison had forgotten the facts, or else he never could have so misrepresented them. It was true, that Captain Robison had objected to one member of the Court; but his other objection was to the Judge Advocate; and if he reckoned the Judge Advocate as a member of the Court, as undoubtedly he was, then the Court-martial consisted of ten officers. He (Mr. Grant) wished the House to attend to the terms of the objection which Captain Robison raised against one of the officers. "The defendant particularly requests that Captain Crottin will withdraw from the Court, in consequence of the intimacy in which he has lived with that officer, and he puts it to his feelings whether he (Captain Crottin) ought to be present at the investigation." He should, therefore, contend that he had made out his case that the Court-martial was properly constituted. His hon. and learned friend had laid it down as a general rule, that a Judge Advocate who had attended a Court of Inquiry could not sit upon a Court-martial instituted by the recommendation of that Court of Inquiry. Now, the manner in which this objection was stated in Captain Robison's paper was not quite so mild. Captain Robison stated, "The officer who acted as Judge Advocate of the Court was not an impartial and unprejudiced person, having been a Member of the Court of Inquiry, and he acted in that important capacity in defiance of my solemn protest against it." His answer to this objection was, that the Judge Advocate was not removed from the Court, because, by Act of Parliament, he was not challengeable. The Orders of the Army were, that no man could protest against the President of a Court-martial in a foreign country, because he was appointed by a warrant from the Governor, nor against the Judge Advocate, because he was appointed by the Crown. Besides, in this case the Court of Inquiry gave no opinion, and only examined witnesses and collected evidence to see whether there was any ground of charge against Captain Robison. It was the opinion of many high military authorities, that the having been a Member of a Court of Inquiry, when that Court had pronounced no opinion, was no good ground for objecting to an officer being afterwards a member of a Court-martial arising out of the facts collected by such Court. As to the objection that the Court was blamable in having received as evidence the letter of the Chief Justice of the Colony, he must say, that that could form no ground for revising the proceedings of the Court, for the letter was of no importance whatever to the case; but he would add, that if the receiving evidence which would not be received as evidence in a Court of Law was to be an objection to the proceedings of a Court-martial, that Court would stand the test, for it was an object with Courts-martial to let in any evidence that was tendered. Indeed, in the 1,050 pages which these proceedings occupied, four-fifths might be said to consist of inadmissible evidence, but this was owing to the indulgence of the Court, in allowing the defendant to go into matters which were irrelevant. There was, he would admit, evidence admitted for the prosecution which, strictly speaking, was inadmissible, but it was not of that material nature which would justify a revision of the proceedings. No objection had been made at the time by the defendant himself to the admission of the letter of the Chief Justice, and in his subsequent protest against its being allowed to remain on the minutes, he admitted the fact, adding, that he was taken by surprise, but the Court in its decision on this objection, stated, that having been warned in the opening statement that such letter was to be produced, and having made no objection at the time it was produced, he could not justly require it to be struck out. They allowed it to remain, but not as evidence. This decision he (Mr. Grant) contended was perfectly consistent with the strict rules of Courts-martial. The next objection of the defendant was, that the prosecutor was permitted to object to the testimony of his own witness, and to bring a previous letter of that witness to shake his own evidence. Now, on this point it was distinctly stated by Captain Strutt, and also by the Governor, that he (the Governor) knew nothing whatever of the private letter written by Captain Strutt to Lieutenant Sweeney. The letter was marked "private and confidential," and in opening the other letter in which it was enclosed it fell out, and was picked up by Captain Robison, and though so marked was read by him. When Lieutenant Sweeney found, that it had been so read, he in great agitation begged that he would not say a word about it, which Captain Robison pledged his honour not to do, but the first step he took was to write to the Governor making a complaint that such a letter had been written. It was not unnatural that Captain Strutt should have written this confidential letter to a man with whom he was on intimate terms, whom he knew to have been in some degree exposed to risk from some of the proceedings against Captain Robison, and whom he also knew to be in a great measure under the influence of that officer. When the complaint, of Captain Robison was received respecting the private letter, a letter was written by order of the Governor to Lieutenant Sweeney, calling on him to explain. In answer to this Lieutenant Sweeney wrote the letter which had been afterwards produced in Court, and in which, after giving an account of what occurred, which it was unnecessary for him then to repeat, he added—" I further beg to pledge myself on my honour, as an officer and a gentleman, that what I have here stated is consistent with the truth." This was written in May, but, in the July following, when he was called upon as a witness to some of the same facts, he gave evasive and reluctant answers, which brought upon him the public censure of the Court. Now, in point of law, he must contend, that a prosecutor was perfectly authorized to bring evidence to contradict the testimony of his own witness, not to discredit his general evidence, but to contradict him in the particular parts of it where he may have given evasive and reluctant answers, as in this case, and to show that at another period he had given a different account of the same transaction. This he stated on the authority of Mr. Phillips, in his work on evidence, who quoted the opinion of Lord Ellenborough as authority for the rule thus laid down. This, then, was the whole of the case as to the letter, with the exception, that it was not pulled from his pocket by the president of the Court-martial (who was a most honourable man and an excellent officer, and who knew his duty better,) but was produced by the prosecutor. There was, therefore, he contended, no ground for calling the proceedings of the Court in question on this objection. There was in the paper which the defendant had circulated amongst the members of the House another and most important objection, on which he would say a few words; it was, that one of the witnesses, a private soldier, named Budd, had been tampered with by General Darling, and promised rewards and promotion if he gave evidence against the accused; but supposing that this fact was as the defendant had stated, it would still form no ground for calling the proceedings of the Court in question, for though the Court had discredited Budd, yet the facts to which he spoke against the accused were proved by other witnesses, against whose testimony no imputation had been directed. He referred to this fact, not as any willing impeachment against General Darling—he admitted that, if true, it was a blackening and a serious charge against him, but he had mentioned it solely in reference to the case before the House. It should, however, be added, that the story told by Budd was improbable, to an extent bordering on romance. He stated, that on his return to Sydney, he had an interview with the Governor, with the knowledge of his military secretary, Captain Strutt, and of his private secretary, Lieutenant Condamine; that he had remained seated with him at the Government-house for several hours; that the Governor had promised him promotion if he would give evidence against Captain Robison, and that not only would he promote him, but any one of the veterans who might be ready to give similar evidence. On his cross-examination, however, he admitted, that he had never been at the Government-house, had not seen the Governor, and that he had no idea that he should receive his discharge. To this should be added the statement of Captain Strutt and Lieutenant. Condamine, who both swore, that Budd had not been to the Government-house, and had never had any interview with the Governor to their knowledge. This, he thought, was sufficient to put an end to that part of the charge. There were several other points contained in the paper circulated by Captain Robison—but not mentioned in the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman—of which he would only say, that they were not borne out by the evidence on the minutes of the Court. When first Captain Robison felt himself aggrieved by having what he considered an unjust charge made against him, he should have sought an inquiry at the hands of the Governor. If the Governor refused, he should have transmitted copies of his application, with his complaint as to the refusal, to the authorities at home; if that were refused or delayed, he then might send his communications and complaints home by any way he could, taking care not; only to apprise the Governor that he had so done, but also to send him copies. Without adopting this course, he sent not only charges of his own, but also written charges of some of the veterans against the Governor. When written to by order of the Governor, to know whether he had sent any such charges, he gave evasive answers to the first and second letters, and it was not until a threat was used in case of further refusal that he gave an answer, that he was not bound to criminate himself. It was perfectly clear, that in matters of a criminal nature, no party was bound to criminate himself; but this was not an examination by a magistrate of a party accused, but a demand made by a superior officer to one under his command, to know whether he had done that which it was his duty to do; for, if he had sent any complaint to England, he was bound to report it at once to the Governor. It was idle, therefore, to say, that this demand of the Governor was for the purpose of procuring answers to criminate himself. If the Court had sentenced Captain Robison to be dismissed for sending home charges clandestinely, there could be little doubt that the authorities at home would have restored him to his rank; but his dismissal was not for that; it was for refusing to obey the orders of his superior officer, in not making a return when he was legally called upon so to do. The objection of Captain Robison, as to the Court having refused to erase questions and answers, objected to by him from the minutes, was not better founded than the others: the Court had undoubtedly the power to allow such questions and answers to remain, though they might not be strictly evidence, for they were aware, that the whole case would be revised before a final decision. One of the great errors of Captain Robison in conducting his defence, which he did with much ability, was, that he thought he had a right to repel charges made against him by recriminating on General Darling. A great part of his statements were made up of such charges, in which he also introduced charges made by some of the veterans. The Court had properly refused to record matter of a recriminatory nature, and tending to inculpate absent parties. The Court-martial found, that the letter written by Captain Strutt was not liable to the construction placed on it by Captain Robison, and that the latter had acted in violation of all confidence and every principle of gentlemanly feeling in the matter. Without reference to the charge of exciting the veterans to mutiny, the finding of the Court-martial, which decided, that Captain Robison had acted in a manner so gross and scandalous as to be utterly unbecoming the character of an officer—that finding could not be impugned, and left no alternative but the dismissal of the party. Such being the case, there was no pretence for saying, that the dismissal of Captain Robison was an act of cruelty or injustice. The members of the Court-martial were undeserving of the censure attempted to be cast upon them: they had acted honourably, and in the strict discharge of their duty. In conclusion, the right hon. Member expressed his intention to resist the Motion

considered, that the question was not so much what was the conduct of Captain Robison, as whether there were prima facie reasons for consenting to the returns moved for. The conduct, therefore, of the Court-martial, was chiefly to be considered; and, for his own part, though he did not accuse the members of it of gross misconduct, still he thought their proceedings, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, highly irregular. Besides, Captain Robison was found guilty on the evidence of Lieutenant Sweeney, which evidence had been severely censured by the Court.

said, he knew neither of the parties, and only interfered from a sense of duty. He thought, that it was extremely prejudicial, that when Courts-martial had acted in a proper manner, that House should be converted into a Court of Appeal. It was also to be deprecated, that inferior should be allowed to censure superior officers, through the medium of petitions widely circulated. He admitted the imprudence of Captain Strutt's letter; but, like the members of the Court-martial, he thought that the letter was written with a good intention. The conduct of Lieutenant Sweeney had been very improper, and it was impossible for General Darling to act otherwise than he had done, under the circumstances in which he had been placed. How could it be said, that he had tampered with the witnesses, when the minutes of the Court-martial were in existence, to show that he had not done so. There was another charge, viz.—that a witness had been rewarded who had given evidence which tended materially to damage the prisoner. Now, he was Secretary at War at the time of the transaction in question. The witness Budd, had at that time been discharged, and had been allowed an allotment of land as an invalid, along with many other invalids; and this was what was construed into a proof of undue tampering with a witness. Reflections had also been cast upon the President of the Court-martial, Colonel Lindsay, an officer of the highest honour and integrity, of forty years' standing. The petitioner had also said, that the minutes were garbled in order to prejudice his cause. Was it likely, that officers like those who constituted the Court-martial, would do so? It was surprising to him, that Captain Robison, who had been for thirty years in the army, could possibly entertain such an opinion of the officers who composed it. Great inconveniences would, in his opinion, arise, if the House of Commons were to convert itself into a Court of Appeal from Courts-martial. No case had yet occurred in which the sentence of a Court-martial had been dealt with in the manner now proposed. He should, therefore, vote against the Motion.

said, he regretted the opinions which had been announced by his Majesty's Ministers. If the minutes were refused, in his (Major Beauclerk's) opinion, there would be a case of gross injustice. He did not mean to say, that the members of the Court-martial had not done their duty; but, in his opinion, it was the duty of that House to call for the minutes of their proceedings. It was no argument to say, that such a course had not been pursued for a hundred years. It was the duty of that House to throw the shield of its protection over the army; and the longer that protection had been delayed, the sooner should it now be conceded.

denied the possibility of a Court-martial being tampered with: he appealed with confidence to every military man in the House, to confirm that statement. After detailing the services of General Darling, the hon. Member pronounced a eulogium on the character of that officer, which he declared to be wholly above suspicion.

observed, that Captain Robison had been convicted of misconduct with respect to the letter, solely on the evidence of Lieutenant Sweeney, which testimony was of an equivocal nature.

considered, that the course which had been pursued by the Court-martial, in respect to the evidence of Lieutenant Sweeney and the letter, had been correct. In his opinion, there was no just ground for calling for the minutes of the Court-martial. The petitioner had been misled, and his statements, brought forward at the end of five years, had been completely refuted. The proceedings of the Court had, in fact, been revised by two Judge Advocates General; and, if the House were ready to listen to such complaints, men of honour would not be very willing to sit on Courts.

said, that the House would do an act of injustice if it did not call for the minutes. He denied the dangerous doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant), that calling for the minutes of a Court-martial was a reflection upon the members. The evidence of Lieutenant Sweeney and the letter, contradicting each other, had both been received by the Court-martial, which, he contended, was not correct. Lieutenant Sweeney was admitted to have prevaricated, and of what value was the testimony of a prevaricator? He was the sole witness in the case. Being convicted on the evidence of a prevaricator, Captain Robison had a claim upon the House, and was entitled to call for the minutes of the Court-martial.

was bound, though he did it with reluctance, to condemn the conduct of Captain Robison. General Darling was an honourable and high minded man, and, he believed, could not be guilty of many of the things of which he had been accused by Captain Robison.

said, that, notwithstanding the opinions of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, British officers were equal to the proper discharge of their duties on Courts-martial. Those officers acted upon their oaths, and he would venture to assert, that no nine officers in the British army would be found capable of being intimidated from a proper discharge of their duty. He had himself been a long time in the service, and he had never known any instance of the kind. He would say, too, that he had long known General Darling, and had always known him as an honourable and upright man. The hon. member for Dublin might enter as he pleased into the more minute points of the law; with these he did not pretend to be acquainted; but he would say, that the officers of the British army carried about them as much common sense and understanding as any lawyer.

protested against the character of General Darling being brought forward to prevent an act of justice being done to an individual. The character of Captain Robison stood as fair as that of General Darling, and perhaps purer, in the present matter. No Court-martial in any colony had been regarded as more oppressive than the one in question.

observed, that there was great difference of opinion in the House on this subject. It was quite as essential to the honour and character of General Darling and the Court, in his opinion, as to Captain Robison's, that the minutes should be produced. If ever the production of such records was necessary, it was necessary in this case.

rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the conduct of the Police on the occasion of the meeting in Coldbath-fields. He observed, that the verdict of the Jury on the Coroner's Inquest, and the decision of the Jury on the subsequent trial at the Old Bailey, rendered this course desirable. The meeting in question was clearly assembled for an illegal object, and did not become illegal in consequence of tumult. The police, consequently, were instructed to prevent the assembling of the meeting, but were ordered to use no violence in the discharge of that duty, except it were necessary for the arrest of any persons who might take a lead in the proceedings. But they were assailed on their appearance; they were pelted with stones before they exercised any violence whatever to-wards the assembly. It was possible that, under these circumstances, some of the body might have behaved with more violence than the occasion required; he believed, however, that, upon inquiry, it would turn out, that they did, as a body, conduct themselves conformably to the instructions they received, and did not use any violence until attacked. He believed, that the Jury, by their verdict, on the late trial, did not wish to cast any blame upon the police, but came to the decision they did solely because the identity of the person charged was not clearly proved. This he would also add, that as far as the Government had made inquiries into the subject, they had come to the conclusion, that the police were not materially to blame in the proceedings in question. But for the reason he had stated, he should move, that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police, on the 13th of May last, in dispersing a public meeting in Coldbath-fields."

asked, whether the instructions which were given to the police would come under the investigation of the Select Committee.

said, that the instructions under which the police acted must certainly be brought before the Committee.