presented a number of Petitions, praying for a separation of Church and State. The first was from Lanark; the next was from the Royal Burgh of Hamilton, signed by 2,111 persons, which he had the honour to represent; and the others were from Paisley, signed by 5,100, Criff, Alyth, Leven, Dysart, Montrose, Kibbarchan, Biggar, and Dunning. These petitions, observed the hon. Gentleman, bore the signatures of upwards of 10,000 individuals. He felt assured, that the Dissenters would continue, as they had done to-day, to urge, in a calm and constitutional, but in a firm and determined manner, their claim to relief from the most practical of all grievances—the domination of a favoured sect—and also would continue to urge the great truth, that the Church has neither a necessary nor a beneficial connexion with the State, and that while that connexion shall subsist, dissension and enmity will continue to disgrace the Christian world. Ample proof of these miserable effects was afforded in the state of a sister country, where there existed a Church in which the hierarchy and the ecclesiastical functionaries were richly provided for, but the people for whose instruction and advantage, as it humbly appeared to him that the Church was designed, were forgotten. Would any man venture to say, that the scenes of blood and devastation which that Church had engendered, were not a disgrace to a Christian people? He regretted the decision come to by that House, that the fitting time to alter and amend the appropriation of the revenues of that Church had not yet arrived, and that much time was being lost by the investigation of a commission into a subject already but too well known. Let but a different appropriation of the overgrown revenues of the Church of Ireland be sanctioned, and, he believed, it would do more to tranquillize that unhappy country than all the Peace-preservation Acts that House might pass. The House had a goodly specimen of the Christian spirit that animated some of the high supporters of that Church, in their regret that there was not now to be enough of tyranny extended to Ireland. Any partial legislation on this subject, any more diminution of the revenues of that pampered establishment, laid, as it appeared to him, but the foundation of future change; it was only by recurring to the original formation of the Christian Church, to the just principles of a voluntary support of the great truths of inspired religion, that anomalies in legislation would terminate, and dissentious among Christians be at an end. He trusted a more liberal spirit would animate the councils of the present Administration than had actuated those of their predecessors, and that they would set in good earnest about the remedying of abuses. He felt convinced, that the voluntary Churchmen never would descend from the high ground which they had taken up, but continue perseveringly to urge the truth of the great doctrines which they advocated, and patiently wait until the reason and the justice of their case should triumph over the intolerance which might be opposed to them; and the pub- lic mind was fully prepared for so great and so important a change. But, forsooth, the "No-Popery" cry was to be got up, and the isle was to be frightened from its propriety, as if Protestantism were in danger. If Protestantism had nothing to depend on but the temporalities of the Church, the loaves and fishes to be divided among the Churchmen; if she had no more lasting and sound basis, she might, indeed, be said to be in danger. Such a cry might well suit the gowned devotees in the walks of their cloister—it might scare some of the owls in the darkness of their anticipated retreats; but its promoters would find it signally fail with the community, in an age of knowledge and information like this. Let him once more deny, in the most explicit terms, the base calumnies thrown out elsewhere, and repeated in that House, that those who defended the voluntary principle were actuated by a desire of acquiring plunder for themselves. Such a doctrine was universally and unequivocally disavowed. The spoliators were the Church itself, which had laid violent hands on the property of the Roman Catholic Church, and in appropriating to their own use the tithes and other Church property, had utterly disregarded the claims which the poor undoubtedly possessed to a share in those revenues. The voluntary Churchmen regarded the property so received of the Church, as national property, available for purposes of general utility, as Parliament might determine— they denied the right of one favoured sect to appropriate it to uses exclusively their own.

must protest against the assertion, that the doctrine contained in the petitions was the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland. There were many Dissenters in that country who were adverse to the separation of Church and State.

held in his hand a petition of very great importance; it was upon a subject which had seriously occupied the attention of the public for several days. The facts to which he was about to call the attention of the House were all detailed in the petition; he should state these facts to the House, not that be knew them to be true of his own personal knowledge, but to afford the right hon. Secretary at War, an opportunity of stating to the House what were the true circumstances of the case. If the statements contained in the petition were true, it would become the duty of the House to take steps to put an immediate end to this most terrific, degrading, horrible, and disgraceful punishment by some legislative act; or, at least, if the House should deem it right that this punishment should continue to disgrace the country, to obtain a solemn assurance from the Government, that it should be administered with some discretion, and with a decent regard to the feelings of humanity. The petition proceeded from some of the most respectable of his constituents, and contained, among others, the signature of a clergyman of the highest character and worth among the parishioners. It complained, that J. Hutchinson, a private in the 1st battalion of the Scotch Fusileer Guards, was most cruelly and barbarously flogged at St. George's Barracks, Charing-cross, upon a charge of being drunk on sentry, and attempting to strike his sergeant when in confinement. The court sentenced him to 300 lashes, and 300 lashes were actually administered. What he complained of was, that after the pledge given by his right hon. friend, that the severity of the punishment of flogging should not be resorted to except in extreme cases, the greatest punishment should be inflicted for a comparatively insignificant offence. The hon. Member proceeded to read the petition, which stated, that the cries of the unfortunate man for mercy were of the most heart-rending and agonizing description, and that several of his fellow-soldiers fainted away, being unable to witness so horrible a scene. For the honour of the British army, he could also state, that two officers were equally overcome, and were compelled to quit such a dreadful spectacle. The petitioners prayed the House to inquire into the facts contained in the petition, with a view to the abolition of this practice, as a disgrace to the service, and an outrage to the feelings of society.

bore testimony to the high character and worth of the clergyman who signed the petition.

would not attempt to say one word in reference to the motives which had induced the petitioners to come forward and represent the case to the House. It did not surprise him that the reverend gentleman who had given his signature to the petition should have been the foremost to express his regret at such an occurrence. Such eases were undoubtedly extremely painful, but it was much to be deplored that when a case of this kind did arise—a case which he was sure had been justified in the opinion of the military authorities, who were responsible for all that had taken place—the complaint should be brought forward in that House. As far as his own opinion on the subject went, he confessed himself an advocate for restraining the practice of flogging in the army within the narrowest possible limits, consistent with the discipline and subordination of the army. With respect to the present case, it certainly came within the order of last year, which restricted the limits of corporal punishment. The charge against this man was for being drunk when a picket sentry on canteen. Now, a soldier was placed as picket sentry on canteen for the purpose of preventing those improper scenes that frequently took place there; it was a situation of peculiar importance, and one in which he was called upon to conduct himself in the strictest accordance with military discipline. In this situation the man was found drunk; and if he were to admit drunkenness as an excuse for all the crimes that were committed under its influence, the Government would have a most difficult duty to perform to restrain the outrages which occurred. The individual in question was guilty of frequently quitting his post and getting drunk, and though it had not been stated to him, that the man was drunk at this time, yet his language was most mutinous towards the sergeant who arrested him. He also threatened to strike the sergeant, and used expressions which were not fit to be repeated, but which amounted to mutiny. He was willing to admit, that if this was the first offence the man had committed, the sentence would have been undoubtedly a very severe one, but within two very short periods Hutchinson had been guilty of making away with his clothes and other regimental necessaries, and of using mutinous language towards the non-commissioned officer, when he had the opportunity of making drunkenness an excuse for his conduct. He was a person of notoriously bad character, had been several times punished for former offences, and the sentence passed upon him was an affirmation of the finding of a Court-martial. With regard to the facts detailed in the petition, not one of them had come to his knowledge. He did not say they were untrue, or that they were correct; he only observed that they had not come to his knowledge. Then, with regard to the infliction of the punishment, under the circumstances of the case, he was certainly of opinion, that if the facts stated by the hon. Member were true,—if some of the officers and several men fainted away at their posts on witnessing the infliction of punishment, —these were circumstances that ought to have induced the commanding officer to consider how far it was proper to proceed in the execution of the whole of the sentence. He had no doubt it would so happen, that some persons of particularly sensitive feelings would have shown themselves strongly affected on the occasion; and, he felt convinced, that he himself should have been deeply affected if he had been present. When it was stated, however, that several soldiers had fainted away, he believed that would turn out to be incorrect; but if those statements should turn out to be true, it fully warranted the warmth of language adopted in the petition. The object of the punishment was, to strike terror into others by the example. He was afraid that those individuals who gave way to their private feelings on these occasions were not always the most correct Judges, and when the Legislature had intrusted the military authorities with the power to punish in all such cases, for the maintenance of that discipline which was necessary for the safety of the country, and held them responsible for the just administration of that power, it was too much to bring every case that occurred of its exercise under the cognizance of that House, and to censure military officers on no better authority than the facts contained in the petition. He would tell the House that they were coming to a pass in military discipline which would require their most sober and serious attention. It was impossible the law could remain as it stood at present; the power in the hands of the chiefs of the army had been so diminished by the continual check of public interference, that the increase of crime had taken a most frightful march. In the last two years, one-fifth of the whole army on English stations had passed through the public gaols. Cases of violent insubordination and outrage were increasing beyond precedent, and therefore he entreated the House, however severe they might consider the infliction of the law, to pause before they interposed between the soldier and his superior, for, under such circumstances, some strong power was necessary to maintain discipline and subordination among men who had arms constantly in their hands. Beyond this statement, it was his duty to observe, as some justification of the military authorities, that the insubordination, which had greatly increased of late, had induced them to be more severe in the execution of the existing laws. He thought, before the House proceeded to condemn others who had a painful duty to perform, it would do well to reflect on the consequences that might result from the want of care and caution in the maintenance of discipline. It was but a fortnight ago, that a private shot a sergeant on parade at Chatham, for which he had been conveyed to Maidstone, and would shortly take his trial. As the facts were not disputed, the House must dread, that a frightful extent of insubordination would speedily prevail, if discipline were not strenuously enforced. And yet, since that period, a report had been made to him of another soldier who had been taken up while loading his gun with an intention of committing the same offence. He did not state these circumstances to defend all the practices winch prevailed in the army at present, but to show that it was absolutely necessary the power of punishment in the army should be maintained. He had been looking back on the floggings which had taken place in the army, and no case came under his notice without the most acute pain. He had the satisfaction however to find, that for a period of thirty years not a single military execution had taken place. Not a single soldier had been shot for an offence against military law during the whole of that period. Let the House take great care how it interfered with that state of things which would render it necessary for the ultimate course of law to be resorted to. What was it supposed would be the consequence of a soldier being brought out for military execution, when such feelings were entertained by the people on the subject of capital punishments? The whole subject had arrived at such a stage, that he felt it quite impossible it could stop where it was. It was therefore his intention to recommend his Majesty to issue a commission, composed of a few persons of great experience, and well acquainted with our military laws, to inquire into the state of the present code, and also into the nature of other military codes, and to embody the whole into a system. He trusted, in the interval between the present and the next Session, he should succeed in obtaining his Majesty's consent to it. The feelings which had induced his right hon. friend to bring this subject before the House were entitled, he readily admitted, to the greatest respect; but he thought, that his right hon. friend had said quite enough to impress on his mind the necessity of paying the greatest attention to the military authorities; though he must add that consistently with the great responsibility which weighed on them of maintaining the discipline of the army, they were not desirous of preserving the system of flogging. It should be remembered that the habits of the people generally were opposed to rigid subordination, which made it the more necessary to maintain a strict discipline among those who had arms in their hands. He hoped that his right hon. friend would believe that in his answer he had stated nothing incompatible with their former agreement on this subject, for he could assure his right hon. friend, that the Government was anxious to limit punishment of all kinds as much as possible, and, was, he could assure his right hon. friend, not deaf to the voice of public opinion on this great and important question. He hoped the House, after this explanation, would see the propriety of not continuing the discussion until the whole facts of the case were before them, and inasmuch as it was very difficult to restrain the public opinion, nothing should be said to inflame it.

was convinced, that other punishments might be found which would be efficient substitutes for flogging, and he trusted that the practice would be abolished.

was opposed to military flogging. He was of opinion, it defeated the very object it had in view. It was well known in the army, that a repetition of the punishment hail no effect upon the offender, when once he had become lost to a sense of shame. There was one great difficulty in effecting the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. He must necessarily attend to the opinion of officers in the army, and however great their experience might be, and however wise and humane their intentions, they would be very reluctant to give up the opinions they had so long entertained, or to alter a system in which they had been brought up. He would not recommend the appointment of a Commission such as the right hon. Gentleman had proposed: but if it should be appointed, he would earnestly advise him, that it should not be exclusively composed of military men, but that there should be some few persons among them who had turned their attention to legislation generally. In his opinion, the only way to remove violation of the military laws was to improve the condition of the soldiery, and that could only be done by abolishing the practice altogether. In time of war, the alteration would be attended with danger, but it might now be tried with safety.

trusted, that the right hon. member for Lambeth would not give up the further consideration of the question in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary. He had read the account of the sufferings of this poor man, and he thought a more horrible a more appalling account, had never been published. He believed the feelings of the whole country were shocked with the occurrence, and that an investigation was loudly called for. He did not agree with the right hon. Secretary of War, that this was the way to maintain the discipline of the army, which would be better preserved by a remission of the horrible practice.

brought up a Report of the Committee appointed to consider the circumstances of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey's exclusion from one of the inns of court, which was read as follows:

said, he would not trouble the House with any observations on the present occasion, if any hon. Gentleman during preceding debates had happened to take the same view of the subject with himself; but, as this had not been the case, and feeling, as he did, that Parliament ought not to legislate for the suppression of local disturbances in Ireland, without fully inquiring into the peculiar state of society in that country, which created those disturbances, he should beg to offer a few words. It had been said, that agrarian outrage was intimately connected with political agitation; but when it was considered, that the character of the outrages had been the same for the last fifty or sixty years, he thought, the more correct conclusion would be, that they proceeded from want of sufficient work, of sufficient wages, and sufficient protection to the Irish peasant. The insurrectionary spirit which prevailed now, did not differ from that which had prevailed for the last sixty years. It sprung front the same feeling, and was signalized by the same outrages. The offences of the present day were exactly like the White Boy offences immediately after 1750. The Reports made by Committees of the House confirmed his view. He would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1832, which stated, that the chief cause of disturbance in Ireland was the removal of tenants from their farms. He added, by the way, that he could not agree in the eulogium that had been pronounced upon that Report, for he saw, in every line of it, the finger of the Irish landlord. He believed that the real cause of the agrarian disturbances of Ireland was to be found in the competition of a starving peasantry for the possession of land, through which alone they could be certain of obtaining the means to support existence. The hon. Member quoted the Report of the Committee at considerable length, to show, that all these disturbances had originated in struggles for the possession of land. The hon. Member also quoted a letter from Dr. M'Hale, in which there was a melancholy account of the number of families which had been ejected in a district with which he was familiarly acquainted; and further, to show the frequency, he cited the statement of Mr. M'Guise of 174 families being ejected, from the Report of a Committee in 1831. In Ireland they had no Poor-laws, few manufactures, and not sufficient agricultural employment for the population; the possession of land accordingly was essential to the existence of the Irish peasant. He complained that the law of Ireland, which was always too severe, had given additional facilities of late to the ejection of tenants. In proof of this position he cited the authority of Dr. Doyle, and he maintained that the object of Whitefeet combinations was similar in practical effect to that of combinations in general—it was to protect the many against the tyranny of the few. A noble Lord had lately said, that no Government which did not grant protection to its subjects was entitled to their allegiance. Now, he asked if the Irish peasant was protected? No; he was neither protected against ejectment nor starvation, which was the consequence of ejectment. He was not protected against the mission of an absentee landlord, which practically amounted to a mandate of death, to the unhappy tenant, the landlord by his wholesale murders, taking away life, by taking the only means by which it could be supported. It was therefore because the peasantry were left without protection that they combined against the law, and shewed no more scruple at shedding blood in open day, than did the soldier in the hour of battle. They looked upon such acts as the sentences of the self-appointed tribunals to which their allegiance was due. Let the noble Lord fancy himself for one moment in the condition of an ejected tenant—let him divest himself of the recollection of the happy home and the unnumbered comforts and luxuries with which he was surrounded, and, above all, the sense of freedom, giving a zest to them,—let him fancy himself in the situation of an Irish cottier tenant, who having striven assiduously to support himself by cultivating the few acres of ground which he had been fortunate enough to obtain possession of, at length, fell into arrear in the payment of his rent. His landlord came down with a distress warrant, seized his furniture, and his crops in the ground, and served a process of ejectment on him—he could not resist, for the law gave a cheap and summary power of ejectment. He would remind the House of the heart-rending picture given by Dr. Doyle of the condition of the ejected tenantry in Ireland, who resorted to hovels in the outskirts of towns, and there awaited in famine the diseases which want engendered. Dr. Doyle said that they died in a little time; and he spoke of a case in which thirty families were crowded into one small cabin in the neighbourhood in which he resided, and of which at the end of twelve months only ten were left! But did they all die? No; the feeble and impatient sunk under the weight of the oppression; but the able and energetic men, were not so easily got rid of—they survived, and became desperate and active members of the Whitefeet combination. The miseries which they had suffered induced others to combine together and form tribunals, which, by inspiring terror, prevented ejectments. That system was effectual, —it protected the peasantry, and would continue in force—more or less occasionally lulled by Coercion Acts—until the law of the land superseded these tribunals by providing for the tenant. Could that statement be contradicted? Could it be denied, that the Whitefoot system was a real and practical check on the ejectment system? If this were the cause of the disturbances which had so long continued to prevail through Ireland, it was in vain to hope to put them down by Acts of this description. Would more coercion, further Insurrectionary Acts, and more unconstitutional powers effect that object? No; they had been tried, and had failed. There was one simple means of putting an end to these disturbances,—do justice to the Irish tenant—give that protection to his life which was lavished on the property of the landlord, and he ventured to declare that further outrages would not be heard of in Ireland. How was that to be done? In the way in which it was done in England. Who could be ignorant that the state of England, before the passing of the Poor-laws was the same as that now existing in Ireland—that the condition of the two countries might be described in the same words, and that the statements made by Hollinshed and others before the passing of that law, were equally applicable now to Ireland? Robbery, insurrection, murder, and outrages of violence were then common; in the county of Somerset alone, there were sixty executions in one year, and in the whole of England no less than 2,000. The measure applied by the Legislature to remedy this evil completely succeeded; why should not the same success ensue from passing a similar measure for Ireland? Was not such a measure called for, not merely in justice to the population of Ireland, but in justice to the population of England? Did not all classes in England suffer from the want of Poor-laws in Ireland, paying a large proportion of their Poor-rates for the maintenance of the Irish poor? Look at the condition of the farmer in England; after having paid a high rate of wages, and a large amount of Poor-rates, he was met in his own markets by persons who paid no Poor-rate, and the produce of whose land paid merely the labour expended on it, at the rate of only 4d. or 6d. a-day. The operation of the Poor-laws effectually prevented the English landlord from exacting as the Irish landlord did such a sum for land as would leave the tenant merely a bare subsistence; so that, when an unfavourable season came he was compelled to feed upon the weeds of the earth and the sea to avoid actual starvation. He could not reconcile it to his conscience, to vote for a measure for coercing the peasantry of Ireland, without making some attempt to ameliorate their condition. He felt it to be his duty, therefore, holding the opinions which he did, to submit a Resolution to the House, which propounded in moderate language what might be considered a truism, though it had never been acted on in Irish legislation. The Resolution was as follows; and he moved it as an Amendment to the original Motion:—"That in order to secure life and property in Ireland, to remove all pretext for criminal outrages, and to give effect to whatever measures of severity may be enacted for their suppression, it is expedient that the population of that country be assured of the means of supporting life by peaceful and honest industry; and this House will, at the earliest opportunity, turn its attention to some measure for securing this desirable end."

had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, and he could not do so without, as an Irish member, returning his thanks for the very able manner in which the hon. Member had brought the subject forward. Indeed, he was astonished how the hon. Member, in so short a time, had amassed such a heap of conclusive evidence. The hon. Member had shown—he had at least asserted—and he (Mr. O'Connor) coincided in the assertion—that the outrages which existed in Ireland arose, in a great measure, from the competition for land. The statement of his hon. friend was fully borne out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the master of the Mint) (Mr. Abercrombie) in a very able speech which he made the other evening upon the State of Ireland; and he now asked that right hon. Gentleman could he refuse to agree to the Amendment? In Ireland, the most disgraceful means were frequently resorted to in ejecting the tenants from their farms; and the landlord was frequently actuated by the most disgraceful motive. When a tenant became possessed of a farm, if he, by the expenditure of labour and capital improved it, that moment the landlord fixed upon it a jealous eye; and the result generally was, that the occupier was turned out, that the landlord might obtain an additional fine, the price of the tenant's improvement. Ireland had nothing to look to but agriculture; and it was not, therefore, to be wondered at, if outrage was so generally and so intimately connected with it. No doubt, after the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech, proposing, as it did, specifically to pledge the House to relief, no doubt the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take refuge behind the Commission at present in Ireland. But as yet there was no Report from that Commission; and was it too much to give, at least, a promise of relief, to a people three-fourths of whom were in poverty while this commission was slowly wandering over the country? He could himself say, that he had seen one hundred families turned out, as his hon. friend had described, houseless upon the world. If that House could not be influenced by any feeling of humanity, he would appeal to their interests, to grant to Ireland a measure of relief such as that contemplated by his hon. friend. The hon. member for Oldham, when this question was formerly under discussion, showed distinctly that England, where a good system of Poor-laws existed, was comparatively prosperous; that Scotland, with a worse system, was better off than Ireland; and that the last country was wretched, because it had no system of Poor-laws at all. English landlords could not act like their brethren in Ireland. They did not drive their tenants out of their farms to make way for others, who would give them a few pounds more. And why did they not do so? Because they knew, that if they impoverished their tenantry, the burthen of supporting them must fall upon them by means of the poor-rate. The wise and humane system of Poor-laws which existed in England made it the interest of the landlords to maintain the population around them in a happy and comfortable state. The public institutions of England, from Greenwich Hospital to the meanest almshouse, were based no less on policy than humanity.

said, that as the Amendment had been submitted without any notice, he should not, he thought, be acting fairly towards the House if he were to enter into any discussion respecting it. He regretted that any language had been used which might by possibility be construed into an extenuation of the dreadful atrocities which unhappily were committed in Ireland. The hon. Member argued as if the Whiteboy parties were generally composed of ejected tenants; but, as far as his (Mr. Littleton's) knowledge extended, that description of persons had very little to do with them; in fact, they were for the most part formed of farmers' servants. He once more protested against the course which the hon. Member had pursued in bringing such an important subject before the House prematurely. The Commissioners were prosecuting their inquiries in Ireland, and their Report would be prepared before the next Session.

Sir, not having had an opportunity of expressing my sentiments on this Bill during its introductory debate, and apprehensive of not being able to stay in town to the conclusion of its progress, permit me to offer a few remarks, considering it, as I do, a measure upon which my constituents and country are entitled to the opinion of their Representatives. I very much coincide in a great portion of what has fallen from the hon. member for Stroud, and from my hon. friend the member for Cork, who have just preceded me, I mean as regards employment and protection for the poor in Ireland; but before I apply myself to that interesting branch of the subject, I shall take the liberty of troubling the House with a few observations on the original and present character of the Bill now before us. When, a short time back, it was expected down from the other House of Parliament, I was amongst those who characterized it, in its then most obnoxious shape, as an unjustifiable and unwarrantable infraction of one of the most essential principles of the Constitution, and one of the most beneficial privileges of the people, "that of freely discussing and meeting to discuss the tenor and tendency of public measures and affairs"—a privilege, Sir, that combines, in a land of freedom, various indispensable advantages, constituting as it does a powerful safeguard of our public rights, exercising a salutary control over the conduct of our public men, affording a valuable opportunity for ascertaining public opinion on passing events, and not unfrequently of thereby correcting our own; and finally presenting a most useful outlet or safety-valve to the fervour of public feeling in moments of public anxiety. These, Sir, are advantages and safeguards which nothing short of the direst necessity would justify the slightest interference with. Sir, I then also designated it as indicating a peculiar and uncalled for disregard of the liberties and feelings of the people of Ireland, because I was of opinion that, under the same circumstances, no such restraint would be interposed to public discussion or complaint in this country—utterly uncalled for, Sir, I assert; for whatever cause or causes may be supposed to have existed when this Bill was originated in the last year, not the slightest has existed or occurred since, not even the shadow of a shade to call for or justify such restraint on public discussion, and it would now, therefore, be justly considered a purely gratuitous assumption of wanton and arbitrary power. Indeed, Sir, you would be as much warranted in extending this restriction on discussion over the whole of the country as continuing it for the next year, for you would be equally legislating not on facts, but upon bare possibilities or anticipations, imitating, I may say, the "master," who is stated to have punished his servants not because they were then transgressing, but lest, perchance, they might futurely do so. But, Sir, as regards the other branch of the subject—agrarian outrages— I shall say, that whatever means be indispensably necessary and discreetly adviseable to suppress outrage and more especially nocturnal outrage, I would not be disposed to withhold, and I would be so disposed as much, or rather vastly more, for the sake and protection of the humble, but honest, peaceable, and industrious, who are so much more exposed to the violence and envy of the vicious of their own class, than the higher orders who necessarily possess various and superior means of prevention and defence. Residing, Sir, as I do in a city, I experience the comfort of retiring to rest with the consciousness, as far as regards external outrage, that I am protected from harm or disturbance, and that comfort and consciousness I would be anxious to procure, as far as practicable, for rural as well as municipal districts. Indeed, in this respect, I would be glad to see some proper plan devised calculated to enable the well-disposed to maintain, or co-operate in maintaining, the peace of their respective neighbourhoods, for, Sir, by calling the well-disposed to our aid and uniting all those interested in tranquillity, the vicious would soon discover, that they miscalculated in preferring turbulence to tranquillity, or mischief to industry. Tranquillity and prosperity are ever associated together, at least prosperity cannot exist without tranquillity, and the protection of person, property, and industry, constitutes the very elementary principles of civilised society. With these sentiments, Sir, I would be far very far from conceiving and co-operating, as I have so often done, with my hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, were I not convinced that he was as anxious or rather more truly anxious, than the loudest declaimers for the tranquillity, the perfect, the permanent tranquillity of Ireland, a wish, I know, to be interwoven with every sentiment of his soul and every effort of his powerful understanding. But, Sir, he would endeavour to obtain that blessing, not through the exasperating and transitory impressions of fear and coercion, but through the more lasting and useful influences of kindness, justice, and consequent contentment. Sir, these sentiments must be the result of pure and unbiassed conviction, for I never asked nor never had occasion to ask, my hon. friend for any favour either personal or political. But, Sir, all our endeavours and devices must fail of their full effect unless we reach the root of the evil, unless we take away all just grounds of complaint, unless we correct the many causes of widespread poverty, want of employment, and consequent misery which pervades Ireland. Until then, Sir, we ourselves will be the primary offenders, nor can we expect that the poorer classes will escape the mischiefs of idleness and want, until we substitute in their stead the means and inducements of honest and steady occupation. As regards Poor-laws, Sir, or call them by any less obnoxious name, I fear that without some judicious system of that kind we shall not be enabled to extend to the mass of the people comprehensive or permanent protection, for I do not see how else we can counteract the evils of absenteeism, or back rents, or those desolating clearances of estates which, whether they have occurred to a greater or lesser extent, have been productive of deplorable consequences. What, Sir, I mean by "Poor-laws," is employment for those that are able to work, and protection to those that are incapacitated from doing so. Scarcely any one, Sir, is more to be pitied than the poor man who is able and to earn his bread, and yet, without any fault of his own, cannot obtain opportunity. I therefore trust, Sir, that this subject will be taken up in the next Session, at all events, with due spirit and maturely. Sir, I shall conclude by entreating that, when you legislate for Ireland, you reflect whether you would under similar circumstances legislate in the same tone and tendency for England, and that if you desire to reconcile Ireland to British connexion, you will grant her a full and cordial share of British freedom.

said, no honest man could oppose the Motion. The want of labour was the cause of the miseries of Ireland. If men had no assurance of being relieved by labour they should not be bound by the laws of the land. He was opposed to the Coercion Bill, and he was sure that the noble Lord opposite also disliked it; if he did not, then he had not the same heart in his body that he had twenty years ago. The Coercion Bill did not check predial outrage: it was as bad as ever. There was no use in passing such a Bill. He read of a horrible case of predial outrage which occurred the other day. Thirty men were killed and drowned in the presence of the soldiers and police. He also read of three persons, while in the hands of the police, having been rescued and killed. [Mr. O'Connell: The report was not true.] He was glad to hear it. If the noble Lord opposed the present Motion, he should hope to see him before long reduced to the same pinching poverty as the poor. When the people asked for bread, the Government gave them a stone and a serpent.

could not let the Motion pass without saying a very few words. He would, however, trouble the House for only a very few minutes, especially as he should feel it his duty to address it at some length on the question, that the Bill be read a second time, in respect of the clauses which he thought ought to be omitted. He was anxious to see the present Amendment withdrawn, and the more so because it had taken the House unawares, and embraced a great principle which required the most deliberate discussion. He was really astonished at the ignorance displayed by some hon. Members as to the state of Ireland. His hon. friend (the member for Birmingham) had spoken of a lamentable feud lately fought in Kerry, and had treated that as resulting from agitation. It had nothing to do with agitation or predial disturbance. The parties fought for no other reason than that they had different names and liked fighting. It was a deplorable state of things; it could be removed only by a general amelioration of the condition of the country. He must say, too, that he regretted deeply that the language used by some hon. Members might be deemed palliative of the offence of White-boyism. That was most unfortunate. He had ever been most cautious to avoid utter- ing a syllable which could have such an effect. He had been engaged in the defence of more men accused of White-boyism than perhaps any other Counsel; and yet he had never, to the least extent, defended one on the plea that for the offence there could be any excuse. The fact was, that the crime injured the class guilty of it more than any other. For a time it injured and distressed the landlord; but it likewise injured the humble peasant, and ultimately it brought upon him greatly-increased sufferings and oppressions. The county of Clare had been a prey for a year and a half to that description of insurgents. There were nine murders, and only one of the parties murdered was a gentleman, all the rest of the victims being of the same class as the murderers. Again, there were twenty-seven resident clergymen, and only one of those clergymen suffered any personal injury. And that case was worthy of notice. The son of that clergyman collected tithes in the name of his father, and, putting them in his own pocket, the father demanded repayment. The injured tenants struck the father eight or ten blows, and compelled him to furnish receipts to those who had paid their tithes.

expressed his astonishment at the cursory way in which the subject involved in the Amendment had been treated by the Secretary for Ireland. It was perfectly true, that no formal notice of bringing it forward had been given, but the House had a right to expect that a gentleman filling the position held by the right hon. Gentleman would at all times be prepared to go a little more into a matter so deeply interesting to Ireland. He felt grateful to the hon. member for Stroud for calling the attention of the House specifically to the subject, and he thought that some pledge should be given by the Government that it should receive particular notice and be fully inquired into.

said, undoubtedly the question involved in the present Motion was one of the greatest possible importance; and therefore in ordinary circumstances it would require very full and ample discussion. But there were two reasons why it should not be now entertained. In the first place, the House had been taken by surprise, as had already been noticed; and in the second place, so far from the subject not being under the consideration of Government, an inquiry had already been instituted, and when the result came before the House, they would be much more able satisfactorily to discuss the question. This was a subject, hon. Gentlemen must be aware, on which those who were avowedly most friendly to Ireland, most materially differed in opinion. It was not, to be sure, a mere question of inquiry; but it was most desirable to have the real state of the Irish population fairly ascertained and submitted to them, before they could judge whether the adoption of Poor-laws would have the effect of benefiting them, or whether it would have the directly reverse effect. No doubt the Irish population were in a state of very great distress, and it was the imperative duty of the Legislature to adopt every means in their power which they thought could have the effect of alleviating or removing their distress; but until the report on the state of the poor had been presented, it would be premature to discuss the general question. The hon. member for Birmingham had insisted that every man in Ireland was legally entitled to, and should have support. He (Lord Althorp) was only anxious to know how that most desirable object could be attained. But he had expected, when the hon. Member had said that every man in Ireland had a right to bread, that the hon. Member would have added, that every man had also a right to "paper."

stated, in reply, that he had been prevented from giving notice of his intention to submit his Motion on Friday last; but if the House thought it would be more convenient, he was ready to withdraw it at present, and move a Resolution to the same effect on the third reading of the Bill.

suggested, that the public time might be economized by taking at once the sense of the House upon the question.

rose to move, as the right hon. Secretary of War was in the House, that the Report he had that evening laid on the Table be printed.

said, if, after the statement which he should have the honour of making to the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to make the Motion, he should have an opportunity of doing so at some later period in the evening without any opposition. For the first time since coming into the House he had just seen, although he was not altogether unacquainted with the fact, that something had passed in the course of the morning, with reference to the subject, in a Committee up-stairs; for the first time, he had just seen the Report which had been presented by that Committee, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) was Chairman. In that Report it was stated, that a noble friend of his had applied to him, as Secretary to the Treasury, for an advance of money by the Treasury, for the purpose of paying the expenses of an election then going on in the borough of Colchester. He had no hesitation in stating to the House, that the facts so stated by his noble friend—he was satisfied quite unintentionally on his part—had been misrepresented, and were totally untrue. It was quite true, that during the course of that year (1831)—a year, he believed, which would be long recollected by the youngest Member in that House—when they, at least those among them who were reformers, were anxiously engaged in the arduous struggle to carry that question on which the previous Parliament had been dissolved, great preparations and exertions were made both by the friends and opponents of that important measure, On the part of its opponents a club was estab- lished in Charles-street, to the fame of which he thought it unnecessary now more particularly to allude, but where it was notorious large sums of money were collected to pay the expenses and advance the interests of those who repudiated reform in different parts of the country. The advocates of Reform had no other way of meeting that state of things than by endeavouring to promote similar subscriptions in their turn, in order to prevent their friends being oppressed by the general contest. It would be recollected by many hon. Gentlemen, that at that period be had taken on himself the labour of making arrangements connected with the general election then about to take place—not so much in his official situation, as he knew some would be disposed to impute to him, but simply as an humble individual most anxious for the success of that great constitutional principle for which they were contending. In that character several Gentlemen who had superintended subscription funds to a considerable amount on the side of Reform, were in the habit of asking his advice, and, indeed, he might say of consulting his discretion, as to their appropriation when collected; and he had no hesitation in saying, that beyond the money applied towards the election at Colchester, various sums out of the funds raised were applied under his advice at different times, by different Committees throughout the Metropolis. Beyond the misrepresentation in the evidence of his noble friend, which he repeated he was quite sure had been altogether unintentional, it was stated in the Report, that the money in question had been advanced for the particular purpose of forwarding the interests of one individual in the borough of Colchester. Now, it would be recollected that they were then exposed to the execrable system of sending down all the out voters; and it having been represented to him, that one side had the means of sending down those voters while the other side had not, he stated to an independent friend of both parties, that he knew no individual, except as engaged for or against Reform, all he asked being whether they were in favour of the principle for which they were contending; and on a statement, that there was a Committee or some other means of conducting the general expense of sending down voters,—a perfectly legal expense,—he certainly did apply to the Committee who had the management of the funds at that time, and procured the advance of 500l. for the Reform interest. Such was his recollection of what had passed when the subject was first mentioned to him by his right hon. friend, the member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Wynn). Whether there had not been an indiscretion in bring the matter before a Committee up-stairs, he would not take on himself to determine; it was a matter of the most perfect indifference to him, whether it was discussed in a Committee up-stairs or in that House. His answer was, that he acknowledged at once the fact, that he had been the instrument at the time of apportioning the funds which had been subscribed throughout different parts of the country; and having stated that to the House plainly and candidly, he was content to throw himself on their impartial judgment. So far went his recollection, without having had the opportunity of referring to documents, or other means of ascertaining whether the facts were precisely in accordance with his impressions. But since he had entered the House, by the courtesy of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey), he had been put in possession of the letters which he (Mr. Ellice) had written to that hon. Gentleman on the occasion alluded to; and if the House would allow him to read them, for they were very short, it would be seen in the first place, that the funds had not been advanced for the exclusive use of one or other of the candidates for Colchester, but for the purpose of enabling the Reformers of that borough to send Members to that House who would support "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He used those words because they formed, in point of fact, the test which had been put to all the Reformers throughout the country. The two notes to which he alluded completely bore out his own recollections, so that whatever opinion the House might form as to the propriety of the transaction itself, there could be no doubt whatever as to the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following Letters:—

Wednesday, May 4, 1831.

Dear Sir,—I hope all will go right. I have done everything in my power to contribute to it. 500l. was sent from one subscription fund to Mr. Savill; and 200l., I hear, has been contributed by the other—(Meaning the Crown and Anchor Committee, of which the hon. member for Middlesex knew something. That hon. Gentleman was very meritoriously engaged at the Crown and Anchor, while he (Mr. Ellice) was occupied elsewhere.)—I am obliged to return to Coventry to-night, and shall not be again in town till Saturday, but if you are in difficulty in the mean time, you must press upon the Committee at the Crown and Anchor, who feel every disposition to exert themselves on behalf of Colchester.

Yours faithfully, E. ELLICE.

D. W. Harvey, Esq.

Sunday.

Dear Sir,—I had written (before opening your letter), according to the wishes of Mr. Western, to Mr. Savill relative to affairs at Colchester, and given him authority to do any thing which I held out to you the prospect of being able to do on behalf of the liberal cause.

I hope what has been done will be sufficient. At all events, it is all I have at present in my power; but if you send me up a good account of your proceedings to-morrow, I will urge the Committee to make further exertions. That, however, must depend upon their means and inclination, neither of which are under my control.

Yours faithfully, E. ELLICE.

D. W. Harvey, Esq.

After what he had stated, he thought it quite unnecessary to add, that not one single shilling of the fund had been contributed front the public money; indeed, it was much more likely that it had come out of his own private purse. Such was the explanation he had to offer, and which he trusted would be satisfactory to the House. Throughout the transaction he did not think he had done more than any other Member, agreeing with him on the great principle in question, would have felt himself justified in doing, under the circumstances he had described.

had no hesitation in corroborating the statement that a Committee had sat at the Crown and Anchor for the purpose of receiving subscriptions to be employed in advancing the interest of the Reform Candidates; and he believed that an hon. Member of that House had acted as honorary Secretary on that occasion. He had been anxious to know whether the 500l. had really come from the public money, and he was glad his right hon. friend had so satisfactorily answered that question.

was anxious to state, that he had not derived one farthing of benefit from the fund which had been collected at the Crown and Anchor. As to the 500l. in question, it never should have come under the attention of the House but for the inquiry with which it was incidentally connected, and which had occupied the attention of the Committee for some time past. Lord Western having stated that he applied for that money expressly and exclusively for Mr. Mayhew, and denying most positively that it had reference to any other party, he should say nothing as to the motive or tendency of that denial, but was perfectly satisfied to find that his (Mr. Harvey's) representations had been substantially confirmed.

Would any one say it was not as notorious as the sun at noon-day that the Government, during recent elections, had been in the habit of assisting Candidates favourable to their own views? Government had been long ia the habit of doing so. He put it to Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if that was not the fact. One advantage, at all events, would arise from the present conversation, namely, that the attention of Parliament would be directed to the expediency of discontinuing the secret service money, or at least of much reducing it.

had no wish to protract the discussion, but having held two or three offices for a considerable time, he must say, upon his honour, that he had never known a single instance of the public money having been applied in the way alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He by no means thought the question a light one. At the same time he implicitly believed the statement which had been made by his right hon. friend opposite; and he was satisfied that if the case were referred to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, (and if he were his right hon. friend he should be most anxious to have it so referred), the Report of that Committee would be, that there was no ground for any further proceedings.

said, it was necessary, if the House wished to preserve its own respect—if it wished to preserve the respect of the country, that the matter under discussion should be made a subject of inquiry; because no invasion of the rights and privileges of the people ought to take place without the fullest investigation. This was a question which ought not to be lightly passed over; it involved the most important privileges of that House and of the people. It was for the House to institute an inquiry, and then to determine whether any and what measure ought to be adopted upon it, He would say, that no step could be taken by the House until the paper was printed. He had heard that paper cursorily read, and he would say, that he was not aware that the name of the right hon. Secretary of the Treasury was once mentioned in that paper. It was indeed stated, that a most respectable Gentleman connected with the Treasury had paid over a certain sum of money for electioneering purposes. True it was, that no Gentleman of greater respectability, of higher character, than his right hon. friend, the member for Coventry, could be found in the country. But yet, having received the Report of the Committee, they were bound to print it, otherwise they would depart from a course quite usual with the House. He felt that the paper ought to be printed, and it would then be for the consideration of the House whether any, and what ulterior measure ought to be resorted to.

felt it necessary to state to the House the situation in which this Bill was introduced to the House. The second reading of this Bill was now proposed to them under circumstances perfectly unintelligible, without a reference to the Act of last year. In that Act there were certain objectionable clauses. In the Bill now before them some objectionable clauses were omitted, but they had no specific information as to which were to be retained. As the Bill at present stood, an unlimited license was to be given to the soldiery, because no proceedings could be taken at law for any violence or outrage they might commit without the authority of the Attorney General. There was an almost equal protection extended to those Magistrates who might interfere with the liberty of the subject. This was the measure of last year. What, he would ask, was the nature of the measure now before the House? What was the intention of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) opposite? Did he mean to leave these clauses in the Bill, which he had found it necessary to introduce? If such were the intention of the noble Lord he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the subject. By the proposed Bill it was to be enacted, that no meeting should take place for political purposes; that was to say, for instance, with a view to presenting a petition for a redress of grievances without giving ten days' notice, and having, at the end of that period, the signature of the Lord-lieutenant, or his Secretary, sanctioning such meeting. If the noble Lord would only leave out the necessity of the signature of the Lord-lieutenant, or his deputy, he would not object to the ten days' notice. He must, however, oppose the eleventh clause as it stood, which prevented the meeting for the purpose of presenting petitions to that House for the redress of political grievances. It was cruel—it was arbitrary in the extreme. He would say, that nothing had, during that Session, been done for Ireland—save, perhaps, the Tithe Bill—nothing else had been done for his unhappy country. Here, then, were the Irish Members and the Irish people grateful, and for what? Why, grateful that an English Government were willing to pass certain coercive measures without some few clauses of useless severity. Well, they were grateful for that—they were grateful for anything. But did it never enter the minds of Ministers that this Irish Coercion Bill had been proved to be of all others the least effective? When they passed the Irish Insurrection Act there was for a time a lull, a period of repose; when they passed the Algerine Act, again there was a lull; but with respect to this Coercion Bill, it had been found to be totally ineffectual. This, however, would not do; there existed a wretched faction—a Tory, an Orange faction—ready to pounce upon and hunt down the remaining liberties of Ireland. They stood upon the present occasion; they volunteered their services for the depression, the degradation of Ireland. They went out of their way for the purpose. But why was it to be thus? Why was it that the people of Ireland were to be the only persecuted people in the United Empire? For a long period had Ireland been left without remedy or redress of her many grievances. No measure, that was to say no effective measure, had been introduced into Ireland, save the Coercion Bill, or some such oppressive measure. Oh, what a misery it was for unhappy Ireland to be cursed with a party so prejudiced that they were anxious to inflict every injury on their country. And why? Merely, he would say, from an abstract love of mischief. And how was it that such a state of things was endeavoured to be forced upon them? It was because the party, the rank Tory party, who recommended such a course, felt that while they were doing so they were relieved from all responsibility. But thank God that party was gone from the Councils of the Crown—from the Government of the country—never, never, he trusted, to return. He cared not what had been urged by the supporters of this Bill, and would deny altogether that there was anything in the documents on the Table which warranted its introduction. He denied that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made out any case in justification of it. He would go further and say, that the only ground for the measure was made out by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. That right hon. Gentleman had put the question on a footing in which he (Mr. O'Connell), to a certain extent, concurred. He put it not upon the letter of the Marquess of Wellesley; but he had asked whether any man connected with Ireland could have witnessed the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, or have even read the statements contained in the report of 1832, without a desire to repress the outrages therein described. Upon that ground he went with the right hon. Secretary. It could not be denied that his statement was true. But it was an equally true statement, that during the last sixty years there had only existed the Whiteboy Act, and that without effect. He wished he could induce hon. Members representing English constituents, to read the report of 1832. If they would only take the trouble to do so, they would find the evidence of Mr. Barrington (a gentleman of whom the right hon. (the Secretary for the Colonies) could, if questioned on the subject, give a most satisfactory account). That gentleman stated, that he had had for a number of years the most ample means of judging of the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, and he was in a situation to prove, that they arose not from any political feeling, but altogether out of local circumstances. He would take an instance mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Barrington. Lord Stradbroke had, upon a particular occasion, thought proper to turn from his estate some sixty or eighty persons, and to let the whole of the land to a single tenant. This gave rise to feelings of discontent and revenge, and the consequence was, that the unfortunate man who took the land was found murdered in his bed. He next came to the statements made by that gentleman relative to the management on the estates of Lord Courtney, a nobleman with reference to whom a kind of delicacy was used to which the management of his estates did not in any way entitle him. Upon his estates there were, from various causes, considerable arrears of rent. An agent carne and bought up these arrears, and immediately commenced proceedings for the recovery of the back rents. This gave rise to feelings of discontent, and to disturbances of a most serious nature. This they had from the evidence of Mr. Barrington, a most honest and faithworthy witness. That gentleman went on to say, that from all his experience he had been unable to discover the existence of any, even the slightest, connexion between these disturbances and matters of a political nature. It was, indeed, stated, that there was one conspiracy, that of Doneraile, which bore a political character; but let it be understood, that that was a conspiracy of the Magistrates against the people, and that, of the four persons there prosecuted three were now living comfortably at their homes, while the fourth was in New South Wales, where he certainly ought never to have been sent. Much had been said upon this subject, and he knew—he well knew—the quarter from which certain statements contained in the proclamations and other official documents came. He bad heard the right hon. Secretary for Ireland declare in that House, that the Irish Attorney General was a most liberal and upright man. He concurred with the right hon. Secretary in thinking the Irish Attorney General a most honourable man; but he was bound at the same time to say, that a more rank partisan, a more undisguised a more unmitigated, opponent of liberal principles did not exist in that country. What had been the conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman? When the Marquess of Anglesea was canvassing and using his interest in favour of Mr. Perrin, the Attorney General, it was true, voted in his favour, but neither his family or those with whom lie had influence, did so; they voted the other way. It was enough for him to say, upon this difficult and delicate question that he could not countenance the charge of political agitation urged in support of this Bill, They were told as a justification of this measure, of the outrages which took place in Ireland, in a communication made from the Irish Government, on the 18th of April; but he defied any man to show to him that these outrages were in any way connected with political feeling. They had heard, indeed, the statements of Lord Oxmantown, asserting that the agitations and disturbances in Ireland were of a political nature. This he denied; he felt convinced, that such statements were without foundation, and if he (Mr. O'Connell) could, in the course of the next Session, obtain the appointment of a Committee, he would undertake to prove that fact, and show that the noble Lord was as much mistaken as ever he was in his life. They had heard a great deal about political agitation—now, what was the meaning of the word? If he understood it, it meant the discussion of a real or imaginary grievance. Would it not, he would ask, be difficult to show that any grievance of which Ireland complained was imaginary? If this, then, were so, who was there hardy enough to say, that the Irish people had not an undoubted right to petition that House for a redress of the grievances under which they suffered? Let any man then show to him any imaginary grievance of which the people of Ireland complained. He defied any Member of that House to do it. Unfortunately their grievances were too deeply rooted, too sorely felt, to be cured by anything short of the most effectual remedies, What was the course pursued towards the city of Kilkenny? The county was proclaimed, though the city was known to be perfectly tranquil; but it was found that it would be convenient to quarter their troops in the city, and therefore they proclaimed the city too. Was it not the principle of the British Constitution—was it not the essence of the Government of this country, that every subject of the realm should have the means of petitioning Parliament for a redress of the grievances under which he laboured? Without further detaining the House, he would advert to the proceedings which had taken place against Mr. Barrett, who published a letter written by him (Mr. O'Connell) to the Irish people in his paper. The learned Judge, who tried that case, made it matter of aggravation on the part of Mr. Barrett, that he had reprobated the Algerine Act. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not quarrel with the power claimed by Government of declaring portions of counties or parishes to be brought within the meaning of this Act, because, by doing so, they took the responsibility of this proclamation upon themselves. But if hon. Members would only look to the evidence given by Mr. Barrington, page 21, they would find that there existed under the Whiteboy Act sufficient power to repress or punish any attempt at seducing the people into sedition, or leading them to disaffection by public meetings. This Act made any attempt at leading the people to disaffection a transportable felony. He would ask the noble Lord then whether this was not, of itself, a sufficient power to be vested in the hands of Ministers? If they feared public meetings, the Whiteboy Act enabled the Government to transport any person found holding out inducements to disaffection and outrage. Why then was it necessary, in addition to the ten days' notice of a public meeting, to have the Lord-lieutenant's signature, or that of his Secretary, before such meeting could be legally held? He would not object to the ten days' notice if the noble Lord would consent to give up the necessity of such signature to render legal such a meeting. Now, he would take a case; last year it was found, that there were no more than seven or eight cases of felony in Dublin to be tried during three months in a population of 300,000 persons. Now, supposing that city even to be proclaimed by this Bill, would it be fair or just that its inhabitants should be prevented from the power of petitioning Parliament for redress of the grievances under which they laboured? What county in Ireland had presented a greater number of petitions against tithes than the county of Wexford? Every town and every parish in that county had petitioned. Petitions had been carried about from house to house for signatures, and what was the result? That Baron Foster, in his charge to the Grand Jury, congratulated them on the happy aspect which that great county presented; and stated that the calendar was the lightest that he had ever met with in his judicial career, there being only seven cases for trial, cut of a population of 245,000 persons. Here it appeared, that although there was great political agitation, yet there was little outrage. On the contrary, in the years 1821 and 1822, when, in consequence of the King's visit to Ireland, and other circumstances, there were no political meetings, the agrarian disturbances were at a greater height than had ever been known. What was the reason, that when political agitation was considerable, agrarian disturbances were diminished? Because a hope of redress was generated by the former which tranquillized the people. There were parts of the Bill under consideration of which he approved. He approved of that part which had been called for by the Catholic clergy, and which provided that no man in a disturbed district should be allowed to go from his house at night without being able to assign a sufficient reason for his absence. No man knew better than he did how many cases of seduction, with acts of violence, were produced by these midnight absences. The provision, therefore, was a protection; and he was quite ready to embody it permanently in the Whiteboy code; but it was a calumny to say, that by so doing, he should take anything from the just liberty of the people. It was an injury to no man to prevent him from going out to commit outrages which deserved punishment. While he said this, he must repudiate the false calumny, that there existed any connexion between these predial disturbances and political agitation. The latter was the just and natural result of the neglect which had been shown of the interests of Ireland. He would now inquire what had been done by that House for Ireland? No measure had passed that House in favour of Ireland, save the stingy and unsatisfactory Reform Bill, a Bill doubly unsatisfactory when it was compared with what had been done in the way of Reform both in England and in Scotland. That Bill left the registration defective, as was exemplified before the Election Committee for the county of Monaghan. Nothing in the shape of redress was given to Ireland. He had, he thought, shown that these clauses were unnecessary, and if he could get an assurance from his Majesty's Government that they would not prejudge these clauses in the Committee, he would not divide the House upon the second reading of this Bill. But if that assurance were not given, he would certainly divide the House upon this Motion. He thanked the Government for the sacrifice they had made; and it afforded him no small pleasure that the right hon. member for Cambridge had stood by the rights of his fellow-countrymen. Again he repeated, that unless he obtained some assurance from the Government as to the objectionable clauses, he would certainly divide the House upon the second reading of the Bill.

said, that feeling satisfied the Bill, as now brought forward, was approved of by the general sense of the House, and that it would he carried by a great majority, he did not think that he was called upon to occupy the attention of the House more than a few seconds. The scheme on which the Bill was drawn was this:—So much of the Act of the last Session as was not repealed by the present Bill, was to continue in force for one year longer. But those parts which were repealed were the clauses which had formerly been most strongly denounced in Parliament, and which were looked upon by the country as the most arbitrary and most oppressive. All those portions of the Act which gave the Lord-lieutenant the power of forbidding any meeting which he might consider to be dangerous, ceased, and lie now was only vested with the power of suppressing a meeting which, after it had assembled, assumed an illegal character or resorted to acts which were adverse to the laws, and inimical to the peace of society. In districts which were proclaimed, meetings could not and ought not to be held, without the previous sanction and authority of the Lord-lieutenant. But there were many clauses repealed, as the Courts-martial and other clauses, which were of a harsh and forbidding character. These, which on a former occasion had met with a very serious resistance, were now entirely repealed; and all civil offences were to be adjudicated by the natural and constitutional tribunals of the country. With regard to the two clauses which had been so strongly objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his opinion, they ought not to be removed—if these did not remain, then would the act be of little or no effect for the objects contemplated by its framers. The hon. and learned Gentleman had himself suggested a clause, which required that in a proclaimed district every householder must give an account of his lodgers, and that in the dead of night they must answer, if called upon—a clause that certainly made the Bill much more efficient for the maintenance of the public tranquillity. But without these clauses the Bill would be of no avail; the powers vested in the Lord-lieutenant would come to nought. With regard to the 28th section, he would take the liberty of saying, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely misconstrued it. He had supposed, that if a soldier or a constable should commit any offence, he could not be tried except by a Court-martial, or by warrant of the Attorney General. But this was only when he was bonâ fide acting in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Bill. If any such person were to assault a man when not acting under the powers conferred by this Bill, an action of law would lie against him; he might be indicted, or made the subject of any process, civil or criminal. But it was not thought right that a soldier or constable should be liable for any inadvertence he might commit under the Act. To take away this protection from the soldiers, would only promote suits to the advantage of pettyfogging attornies. Under these circumstances, he trusted that even in the Committee the two clauses would be considered indispensable. It was only on the plea of necessity that the Bill had been brought forward.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had taken great pains to satisfy the hon. and learned member for Dublin, why certain parts of the Bill were maintained, and he (Mr. Lefroy) hoped some reason would be given why his Majesty's Ministers omitted other parts of the measure. He did not rise for the purpose of pressing upon the Government the more coercive parts of the Bill, which had been omitted, but he felt intitled to call upon them to state why they now omitted certain clauses which they had introduced into the Bill in another place? When he said he did not rise to press any unnecessary measure of coercion upon the Government, he hoped he had sufficiently guarded against the misconception and misconstruction into which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had fallen on the night when he (Mr. Lefroy) had last the honour of addressing the House upon the subject. On that occasion he had, as explicitly as he did now, disclaimed urging upon the Government, upon his own judgment, any additional measure of coercion: but he did then, as now, claim, on behalf of the peaceable portion of the inhabitants of Ireland, some satisfactory reason why those parts of the measure which were proclaimed by his Majesty's Government to be necessary, and which were particularly recommended by the Lord Chancellor in another place as being absolutely essential for the preservation of the peace in Ireland, should now be abandoned? The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, said, that he would be satisfied with so much of the measure as was called for by the Roman Catholic clergy and the Roman Catholic farmers. He would ask were there no other persons in Ireland worthy of protection. He should like to know why the feelings of the landed proprietors of Ireland—why the feelings of the Protestant clergy and the Protestant gentry of Ireland were not as worthy of being consulted as those of the Roman Catholic clergy and farmers. His Majesty's Government were bound to pass a measure that would ensure protection to all classes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for the sacrifice they had made in omitting certain clauses of the Bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman might well feel grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for conceding to him what they refused to concede to the merits of the case. Government brought in a measure with certain clauses to which the hon. and learned Gentleman strongly objected —these clauses had been withdrawn without any valid reason having been assigned. To what other motive, he would ask, could such conduct be ascribed but a concession to the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was alleged, it was true, that there were other reasons for the change which had taken place in the minds of his Majesty's Ministers, and a great deal had been said of a public-private correspondence between the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Of that correspondence, which had never seen the light, he would only say—

De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio.

Another reason was given for the change, namely, the impossibility of carrying the measure through this House after the disclosures that had been made. But see what had passed in this House upon the subject. On the 7th of July, after the House was aware of all that had passed between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned member for Dublin, a vote was taken by which this House pledged itself to the measure then on the Table of the other House of Parliament. On the occasion of the papers being laid upon the Table of the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, moved that they be referred to a Select Committee, upon the very ground that the Bill as introduced into the other House contained all the clauses, except those for Courts-martial. Government resisted the Motion, and they then expressed their determination of abiding by the measure as introduced into the House of Lords. The House divided upon the subject, and it was perfectly understood that in voting upon the question, hon. Members were voting whether or no they would maintain the whole Bill. The numbers who divided with the Government were—175 to 72. Thus, on that occasion, the House pledged itself, and Ministers had a majority in favour of the Bill of more than two to one—therefore, their stating that they could not carry the measure was a mere pretence. What! this House which had come to the vote it did on the Russian loan question—a vote which was described by an hon. Member who joined in it as voting black was white —not to support Ministers in carrying the Coercion Bill. What! the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) who was the person so to characterise that vote—he who had taken such pains to lure back into office the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made the noble Lord change his unchangeable purpose. What! that hon. Member and his friends not support his Majesty's Government, if they had thought fit to hold consistently to their own first measure? Parliament and the country had a right then to know the truth, why the measure had been cut down in the way it now appeared before the House. He did not urge this as a cause for the reinsertion of the clauses, but he did think that Parliament and the country had as good a right to be satisfied with respect to the cause of the change that had taken place, as the hon. and learned member for Dublin. When he recollected the course too that had been taken, and its tendency to degrade another branch of the Legislature, he could not but deplore the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. They, in the first place, pressed the measure in the full plenitude of its coercive power upon the other House; and when they had induced the Peers to carry it through most of its stages, then they withdrew it. It was now to be sent back to them curtailed of what was then represented to be its most important clauses, and the other House was to be called upon to pass it, and in doing so they must either degrade themselves, or, by refusing to do so, be brought into collision with that House. When he (Mr. Lefroy) considered these circumstances, he must say, that his Majesty's Government, in the course they had taken, had not dealt with Ireland, with Parliament, and he would add, with their own characters, in the way they ought to have done, The hon. and learned member for Dublin had alluded to the Reform Bill, and stated, that the mode of registration had tended to produce the most mischievous effects; and he alluded to what had occurred in the Longford committee, and what was now taking place in the Monaghan committee in support of his allegation. He could take upon himself to say, that the evil did not originate in the mode of registration, but in that undue spiritual dominion over the lower orders in Ireland, which was powerful enough to induce persons to come forward to register votes who had no real qualification. He could state of his own knowledge in the Longford case, that so strongly impressed were the committee with the fact of this influence having been used, so as to infringe on the freedom of election, that it was matter of discussion in the Committee whether a Special Report should not be presented to the House on the subject. He regretted exceedingly the consequences that must result in Ireland from the conduct pursued, on the present occasion, by his Majesty's Ministers. That conduct was calculated to exhibit the hon. and learned member for Dublin, as having in effect the Government of Ireland in his hands. His Majesty's Ministers had placed themselves in such a position, that they could only be looked upon as pensioners upon his bounty for their daily bread. It was for him to say, whether he would abstain from agitation —and how long: but the moment he set about agitating again, Government would be obliged either to come to Parliament and ask for strong measures, and thereby forfeit his support, or by succumbing to him retain their places. As, however, it was open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to renew agitation at his own discretion, his Majesty's Ministers could only be looked upon as tenants at will to the hon. Gentleman for the peace and security of Ireland. But he must again disclaim any wish to force on the Government what they now rejected. He used these arguments merely to show the extraordinary part which the Government was acting, and the deep responsibility they were taking upon themselves, in submitting to Parliament a measure short of that which was at first proposed, and which was represented by themselves as necessary to maintain the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. It was not his intention to oppose the second reacting of the Bill, or move the reinsertion of the clauses in committee, but should leave Ministers to bear the full responsibility of the course they were pursuing.

declared, that there was no man on earth who could make this measure bearable; it was a complete mass of incongruities. It reminded him of an anecdote told of Pope the poet, who, in his fits of irritation, was apt to use the expression, "God mend me!" Being once much provoked at some clothes that were ill made for him, he vented his spleen against the delinquent artist by exclaiming, "God mend me! Can't you make a better coat than this?" "Mend you, indeed," replied the man, looking archly in his face, "it would be easier to make two new ones than to mend you!" On the same principle, he would say, that it would be easier to make ten fresh Bills than to mend this. He objected, among other things, to the evidence on which Ministers had framed this Bill, but yet, from that very evidence, lie would show, that their Bill was quite unnecessary. Major Miller, the Inspector of Police in the county of Waterford, had stated, that for the last month prior to his writing that Report, there had been a great decrease of crime within that county, notwithstanding the political excitement of an election at Dungarvan. But he was surprised that Government was more disposed to rely on the evidence of stipendiary Magistrates than on the opinions of the Judges of the land, unpaid Magistrates, and country gentlemen, when they premeditated this act of despotism. He would refer Ministers to the charge of Baron Smith last year, and to the opinion of Sir John Harvey, the Inspector-General of Leinster, respecting the state of the county of Wexford, that it was as free from crime and agitation as any part of the empire. The evidence also of a highly respectable Magistrate in the county of Meath stated that, for the last twenty years, he had never found the laws better supported than at the present moment, and that the existing laws were quite sufficient for the protection of property. The charge of Mr. Baron Pennefather to the Grand Jury at Ennis established the same facts. For his part, he was rather suprised that the hon. and learned member for Dublin should have directed his hostility so peculiarly against the 11th and 28th clauses, for he thought there were many others fully as objectionable. Any one, he was sure, who had a regard for the constitution of his country, would not give his assent to this measure —an Act which allowed those who apprehended persons under its provisions, to confine them in any part of Ireland they pleased; so that the poor creature might be shut up in any dungeon, in any bastile, far away from his friends, and left without any opportunity of communicating with them. Would any Gentleman say, that the state of Ireland required so arbitrary a measure as this? Another clause forbade the lighting of a bush, or a bonfire, blowing a horn, firing a gun, or making a smoke. Now was not this most unjust and most absurd? He was unwilling any longer to occupy the attention of the House; but feeling, as he did, that the ordinary powers of the law were quite sufficient for the professed purposes of the Bill, he could not approve of any portion of it, and he should, therefore, move that the Bill be react a second time that day six months.

said, he would cheerfully second it. This Bill was unjust and tyrannical—it was not necessary—no reason had been given for its enactment, and, therefore, he would oppose the Bill. The House had no sufficient information upon this subject, and without some acts of kindness, Ireland had no reason to be grateful to his Majesty's Government. Ireland should be treated as England, or else justice would not be done to each impartially. However, on the present occasion he would not further trouble the House.

wished the House to throw the Bill out entirely. He was sure it would be most beneficial to Ireland that they should do so, for not one drop more of human blood would be shed by its suspension, and perhaps many drops would be saved. Now, the Government was gaining great credit by adopting the advice of calm and rational men, ameliorating the harsher clauses of the Bill, and why should they not follow the advice of men of peace altogether, and give up the whole Bill. He had told them last year that, by their measures towards Ireland, they were cutting the lock of hair which constituted the strength and greatness of this vast empire. And now he would tell his Majesty's Ministers, that they were deluded by the Tories, who only wished to destroy them. They talked of agitation—why he knew some little of that trade—he knew what agitation was. Yes, he had been an agitator himself, and he had done much good by it. Yes; in 1832, when he agitated to the utmost of his power, there was not a single case of depredation in Birmingham—the very thieves and pickpockets, and vagabonds left off their occupations to follow him. The evidence they had before them proved, that the outrages, of which they heard so much, had no connexion with political agitation, but were the result of grinding and bitter misery. Let the House turn to page 54 of the documents laid upon the Table, which he had opened by accident, and they would find one of the first statements of the outrages to run thus:—'The habitations of John Horan, 'Keran Horan, and John Coghlan, all of Isker, in the parish of Clonfert, were attacked by three men (one of whom was armed with a short gun and another with a pistol), who forced open and entered the several habitations, obliging the inmates to go on their knees, and swearing them not to work for Mr. Finney for less than 8d. per day with their diet, or 1s. without it, which Mr. Finney complied with." Surely it could not be said that, compelling a man not to work for less than 8d. per day had anything to do with political agitation. The next case he should read was of a different nature, but was equally unconnected with politics:—'A large number of men collected 'on the lands of Claremadden, said to be about 200 or 300, and drove off stock seized for rent and arrears of rent; the police patroles from Killimore and Kiltoriner pursued the stock, a greater part of which they brought back and gave up in charge to the drivers, but were obliged to retreat from a large mob; and on next night they were again taken, some of which were only recovered, and sent to Ballinasloe to be disposed of. The next two cases were also upon the face of them the offspring of extreme misery:— Mary Goode (of no certain place of residence) arrested by the police for aban- doning a female infant child, committed for trial. Several head of cattle, the property of the Marquess of Clanricarde, were driven from off the island of Innisgall, on the river Shannon, supposed to be by persons who formerly held those lands, and were ejected for non-payment of rent. Had a mothers abandonment of her child anything to do with political agitation? What was the next case?— "The habitation of Martin Coen, of Eyre- court, was entered on this night by two men, one of whom told him that, unless he sent a release for John Larkin and Patrick Lally, now in Galway gaol, he might prepare his coffin, for that he would be murdered; long since it would have happened to him were it not for his orphan brothers and sisters. This he was apprized of, and told, that if there were no persons to murder him but his neigh bours, they would do it. He might, he supposed, go on quoting case after case, but he would only read one more. The habitation of Richard Finney, on the land of Isker, in the parish of Clonfert, was entered by three men, one armed with a short gun, the other two with a pistol each, who demanded arms, and, on being told that he had none, one of them threatened his wife, and said he had, and would not leave the house. They then ordered him to put away a servant boy, which he promised to do, and to restore the grass he had taken from his labourers cows. They then desired a trunk and box to he opened, but made no search.' It was clear that all this was the result of poverty, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that it was. If, then, they desired to put down predial agitation, they must attack what they knew to be its cause.

entreated Ministers to follow up the good work they had begun. He hoped they would accede to the request of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and strike out those clauses objected to by him; in so doing he could see no difficulty whatsoever, they would merely be carrying into effect their own principles, and declared intentions; they had already an- nounced, that they only intended to retain so much of the late Bill as related to the suppression of agrarian outrage, and that they would expunge those clauses which related to Courts-martial, and political meetings. Now, that portion of the Act which gave indemnity to the military and police for any act they might commit within a proclaimed district, and declared, that they should not be amenable for misconduct to the ordinary Courts of law, but should be tried by Courts-martial alone, ought to be considered as appertaining to the expunged Courts-martial clauses, and ought not to be retained. It was most monstrous, that any man, no matter whether military, or policeman, should have the privilege of committing a gross outrage, or injury on any of his Majesty's innocent subjects who might be unfortunate enough to dwell within a proclaimed district, and that the injured man should be thus deprived of all redress. The English Attorney General had just attempted to defend this protection which was given to the wrong doer, by saying, that otherwise any soldier, or policeman, for every trifling or supposed offence, would be pounced down on by some pettifogging attorney, and although only one farthing damages should be given, yet he would be ruined by the weight of the costs; but was that any reason that every gross outrage by such persons was to go unpunished, and that the innocent victim was to go wholly without redress? But the argument of the Attorney General with respect to heavy costs falling on the soldier, or policeman, in case of only a farthing damages being given, or that he should appear to the court justified in his conduct, could not hold a moment as regarded such trials in Ireland, because those costs would be paid by the public, as Government had repeatedly, in prosecutions against the police, even where to his own knowledge the police were greatly in fault, paid their costs and expenses out of the public purse. Then, again, the Attorney General stated in defence for retaining the prohibition to hold meetings for the purpose of petition, without leave within proclaimed districts, that no district would be proclaimed by the Lord-lieutenant unless it was in a state of disturbance. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know, that such was contrary to the fact? did he not know that districts might, and actually had been pro- claimed under this Act, which were in themselves perfectly peaceable, and for no other cause but their contiguity to other districts which were disturbed? For instance, when the members for the King's county and Westmeath complained to this House, that peaceable baronies had been put under the operation of the Coercion Bill, the Secretary for Ireland explained, that the reason was, their contiguity to other and disturbed baronies, and that unless such adjoining peaceable barony had been proclaimed, its peaceable inhabitants would have been unprotected, and be exposed to the inroads of offenders who would take refuge in it from the disturbed districts. He did not complain of the Government for having so acted; on the contrary, he thought the explanation was satisfactory, and was to be considered in some measure protection to the peaceable and well-disposed in that peaceable barony; but was that a reason, that because it might become necessary to give protection to the peaceable and well-disposed, it must be accompanied by robbing the peaceable and well-disposed of one of their most valuable constitutional privileges—the free right to meet for the purpose of petitioning Parliament? And let the House recollect, that the meetings here prohibited were merely meetings for the purpose of petition. How could it be alleged by the Government, that any danger could arise from such meeting, when they considered it perfectly safe to hold any other political meeting whatsoever, even although the Lord-lieutenant might consider such a meeting dangerous to the public peace; and had very properly expunged the clauses which went to prohibit such meetings. He hoped the Government would reconsider this, and would see, that the restriction on meetings for the purpose of petition within proclaimed districts, as proposed by the learned member for Dublin, would be quite sufficient for every useful purpose—namely, that any such meeting might be held without interruption, after due notice to the legal authorities. This would enable Government to take every precaution against any breach of the peace, but would at the same time leave the subject the full exercise of his right to petition Parliament. It had been said, that any meeting might be held in a proclaimed district, provided it were convened by the Lord-lieutenant of the coun- ty, or the sheriff. To say that this gave any advantage to the people was pure delusion, for this Government had, in many instances appointed, as Lord-lieutenants of counties, men who were Tories, and the bitter enemies not only of the present Government, but of the constitutional liberties of the people, and many of the sheriffs were of the same party. Those men being of anti-popular politics, and viewing in a different light what the people considered as grievances, it was absurd to suppose such functionaries would aid the people to hold meetings for petitioning for redress of them; but even if those functionaries should call a meeting in a proclaimed district, the act prohibited the attendance of any person except a 20l. freeholder or upwards. Surely it could not be the intention of Government to continue a provision, which made it penal for any one under the rank of a 20l. freeholder to attend at a legally convened meeting. He was sorry to say, that the state of society was such in some parts of Ireland, arising from centuries of misgovernment, and the continued delay to redress her grievances, that some temporary extra measure was necessary to put down agrarian disturbances, and to protect the poor man and the farmer from the whitefeet outrages; he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Dublin in his view, that such a measure was protective to the lower classes, and would prevent crime; but he could not agree in what the member for the College of Dublin had said, that this only went to protect the Catholics, while it left the Protestant gentry and clergy without any protection; on the contrary, it protected every class and religion alike; but it was more immediately beneficial, no doubt, to the lower classes, because on them had the cruelty of the Whitefeet been most frequently exercised. The member for the University of Dublin had likewise, as was his custom, found fault with the Government for only renewing that portion of the Bill which had been recommended and approved of by the Catholic bishops and clergy. The hon. and learned Member had also attributed the growth and continuance of outrage to the spiritual influence of the Catholic priesthood; but it would have been well for Ireland, and well for England and the Government, had the advice of that body been more frequently attended to; and he was happy to see, that Ministers were at length beginning to find out, that the best preservers of the peace, of propriety and good order in Ireland, were the Catholic priesthood. He felt very thankful to the present Ministry for having expunged so much of the late Act, but while any portion of the objectionable principle remained, he should, although reluctantly, vote against them.

agreed, that parts of this Bill were necessary, but other parts of it were mischievous. He did not deny, that it would stop the disease, but certainly it would not cure it. The evil was deep-seated; it was in the distress of the country, in the want of employment, and in the great population and distress of the people. Surely it was not surprising that there should be discontent and disturbance in a country where the great mass of the people were in a state of such extreme wretchedness. The hon. Member read letters from the county of Mayo, stating an instance of extreme persecution of tenants, and also a letter from the county of Monaghan, stating an instance where a number of people were most cruelly persecuted, because they would not send their children to a Bible school. Surely, under these circumstances, it was easy to see who were the real agitators. Were they not those who persecuted and oppressed the people? The hon. Member mentioned another instance, when 700 persons were by wholesale turned out upon the world. He did not think, that this Bill would effect the object which he had as much at heart as any one—the tranquillization of Ireland. A great number of the disturbances in Ireland arose out of tithe cases; and if the Government wanted peace in the land, they ought to protect as well as coerce the people. He could not support those clauses of the Bill which had been objected to. They ought to keep the absentees of Ireland at home; and instead of making that country a source of weakness, they ought to endeavour to make it a source of greatness to the empire.

felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for the removal of the clauses of the Bill of last year, which were most decidedly hostile to constitutional liberty; but there were still provisions in the measure before them which would be deservedly unpopular in Ireland. He had in vain looked through the evidence for any justification of them. The only grounds on which they rested, were the Reports of stipendiary Magistrates and Constables, which were certainly not sufficient to rest a measure of this kind upon.

asked, whether the distribution was to be upon the same scale as that made to the fleet engaged in the battle of Algiers?

said, that the precedent of the distribution relative to the battle of Algiers would be followed as nearly as possible upon this occasion. The distribution would be made, not under any Prize Acts, but according to the provisions of an Order in Council. The Commander-in-Chief would receive 7,888l.; the first class of officers, including captains, 1,068l. each; the next class 94l.; the next 61l 1.; the next 15l.; the next 6l. 3s.; the first class of seamen 4l. 10s.; the next class 3l. 2s.; and the last class, consisting of boys, 1l. 10s.

said, that if he had known that so large a sum as 60,000l. would have been granted for this purpose, he never would have supported the proposition. He had understood the gallant Admiral to disclaim any share of the reward for himself.

said, that if the distribution were to take place under the Prize Acts, the gallant Admiral's share would be larger than it was now proposed to be. It was intimated to the gallant Admiral, that the reduced allowance was considered sufficient, and he immediately admitted that it was.

thought, that the sum of 4l. 10s. was a pitiful allowance to the seamen. He wished to know, why the rule laid down as to prize money by the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham), by which a more liberal allowance would have been given to the seamen, had not been followed?

said, that however the gallant Admiral might wish to avoid receiving any share of the reward, he was bound, for the sake of those who might succeed him in the service, to accept it. The hon. member for Wigan, who said, he would not have supported the proposition for rewarding the persons engaged in the action if he had thought that 60,000l. would have been appropriated to that purpose, seemed to measure his justice by the amount it would cost.

objected to the proposed distribution by which the Admiral would obtain as much as seven years' pay, and a seaman only as much as two months' pay.

protested against the principle on which the grant was made. It was establishing a dangerous precedent to make an action, entered into without the distinct authority of the Government, and in consequence of accident, of the same credit as battles fought in the discharge of instructions given to Commanders by the Government.

had opposed the grant originally, but yielded to the almost unanimous feeling of the House.

was sure, that the House would have yielded to the noble Lord if he had persisted in his opposition.

said, that he should have had more pleasure in pressing this vote to the utmost if he had been allowed to relinquish his share of the grant; but he had been told, that such conduct on his part would be an unfair precedent for officers who might be subsequently placed in a similar position as he was, and who might not be able to afford such a sacrifice of their claims. He thought that the distribution in the case of the battle of Algiers was a fair one to be adopted in the present instance, for the two battles were fought under circumstances remarkably similar. Lord Exmouth, in the former case received orders to negociate with the enemy, and in default of success by those means, to fight. He (Sir Edward Codrington) had received similar instructions: he bad acted upon them, and it was not till the enemy had fired upon his ships that he acted hostilely towards them. He was prepared to show, that according to the instructions with which he was charged, it was impossible for him to act otherwise than he had done. He would trouble the House by reading the order which he issued to all the Captains of the ships under his command, which, after informing them, that the Ottoman Government had rejected the proposed armistice, which had been accepted by the Greeks, instructed them to "intercept every supply of arms or men which might be sent against Greece, whether from Turkey or elsewhere; but to take most particular care that any measures they might adopt against the Ottoman navy might not be such as to lead to general hostilities." These orders were in strict accordance with the instructions he had himself received from home. He read those instructions to Ibrahim Pacha himself, and showed him, that he could not do otherwise than he did, and the latter acknowledged that such was the case. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by expressing his sincere thanks to the house for their kindness in coming forward, forgetful of all party feeling, on the present occasion.

said, that in accordance with the views and sentiments he had already expressed, he should move, as an Amendment to the present Motion, in place of the words "to be distributed in such proportions as his Majesty in Council shall direct," the words "to be distributed according to the recent regulations for the division of prize money."

interfered. The hon. and learned Member's Amendment would interfere with the undoubted prerogative of the Crown in the disposal of its bounties.

said, that the proposed distribution was an extremely inequitable and unfair one.

admitted, that the new prize regulations were much more fair and satisfactory; but it should be recollected, that the battle of Navarino was fought seven years ago, and any bounties which might be given on account of it should be distributed in accordance with the practice and expectations of the parties at the time.

said, it was very true, that the battle was fought before the new prize regulations were established; but it was also true that the present grant was to be made after these regulations had been adopted, and he could therefore see no reason in equity why its distribution should not be in accordance with them. He would persevere in taking the sense of the House on his Amendment.

said, that there was no analogy between this distribution and that of prize-money. It appeared from the reply of the hon. Member for Taunton that the distribution in the case of Algiers was made out of the droits of the Admiralty, which were, undoubtedly, at the disposal of the Crown. But the present was a grant from Parliament, who had, undoubtedly, a right to have a voice in its distribution.

said, the gallant Member would find room enough for his display of economy in the English Pension-list without going to Ireland to cut down such a paltry sum. The reductions in Irish expenditure were already carried too far, and caused much dissatisfaction in Ireland.

said, the present Irish Estimates were fixed by some of the stoutest economists in the House, and among them his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex.

said, there could not be worse authority on Irish financial affairs than that very Gentleman. He carried his notions of retrenchment in Irish matters far beyond the mark. He might be a respectable Member and a useful economist in England, but a very bad one for Ireland.