said, he had been intrusted with a Petition from certain freemen of Canterbury, to which he would call the particular attention of the House. It had reference to a petition which had been presented the other evening by the hon. Member opposite, complaining of undue interference on the part of certain persons in the late Canterbury election. No sooner did the intelligence of the presentation of that petition, and of the statements contained in it, reach Canterbury than the present petition was prepared, which denied in toto the assertions of the former petition, and expressed an anxious desire on the part of the petitioners for the fullest inquiry and investigation into the matter. He had no personal know- ledge of what had occurred at the last Canterbury election, but he was quite sure that the hon. Member would not contradict him when he said, that the charge made against the aristocracy residing in the neighbourhood, of having interfered in that election, had no foundation in fact. He was sure, that no such thing occurred. He had himself never, either directly or indirectly, interfered in the elections of Canterbury, and having many friends amongst the gentry, in that vicinity, he thought he could safely say the same on their part. He thought, that the hon. Member, as well as the parties to the petition he had presented, had been warmed by their zeal into somewhat indiscreet assertions on the subject. He recollected, that on a former evening, the hon. Gentleman himself had mentioned an occurrence of a rather singular character. He had said, that he had been called up early in the morning on one of the days of the election to witness some proceedings that were going on, and that on taking his station in a tavern, he saw three or four clergymen at that early hour (seven o'clock in the morning) endeavouring to tamper with some of the electors. Now, this was the more extraordinary, considering that the election took place early in January. Perhaps he misunderstood the hon. Member, but he understood him to make that statement. He would repeat, that the petitioners denied all the statements contained in the former petition against them, and that they were ready to meet any inquiry, that the hon. Member might move for, or that the House might think proper to institute.

would just say a few words in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member. What he did say was, that he was sent for on one of the days of the election, to witness from a house opposite five clergymen endeavouring to tamper with two electors, who had declined to vote. He did not mention the hour at which that had occurred. He had mentioned another instance where he was informed, that at seven o'clock in the morning three clergymen, one of them the brother of the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, were seen tampering with a coach proprietor, and endeavouring to get him to vote for the Government candidate. He had every reason to know, that the clergy in Canterbury had acted with the greatest zeal against him. Twenty- four clergymen polled against him, and one of them actually went to two polling-places, and polled twice against him. He first went to one of the district booths and polled there, and he afterwards went and polled at the Guildhall. When taxed with it, he said that it had been done by mistake. It was very fortunate, however, for him (Mr. Villiers) that no more mistakes were made in that way.

said, he rose to call attention to a Breach of Privilege greatly affecting this House, and committed by the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Speaker of the House had asked, and obtained, at the opening of the Session, perfect freedom of debate within its walls; but it made little difference whether that freedom was effected by the Crown, or by the Ministers of the Crown; for the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had called upon the hon. and learned Member for Middlesex(Mr. Hume) to account out of the House, for words spoken in it. Hon. Members were sent into that House to express all their opinions as public men, and in so doing, they were acting in the performance of a public duty. Should he offer to form an opinion of any man, particularly Ministers of the Crown, as to whether they were pursuing a course fitting Members of that House, it was not only his privilege, but his duty, to express that opinion; and it was most important that not any one should be permitted by means of threats or intimidation of any kind whatsoever to induce hon. Members to depart from that expression. He would say, if called upon to express an opinion as to the course of the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in reference to his late proceedings, as a Minister of the Crown, compared with his proceedings as one of the Opposition of the late Parliament, he should have felt it his duty to express himself as the right hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) had done, and he claimed the right to tell the House, and the right hon. Baronet, that he held such an opinion; and as that was his opinion, was it come to that pass, that threats of swords and pistols were to be used, and was there to be calling out to mortal duel; and that, too, by so high an authority as a Minister of the Crown, who had also done a similar thing in the case of a judge of high station in the Ecclesiastical Court? He thought, that it had appeared they had come to that stage of civilization, when men were not supposed to decide the truth by shooting each other. It might be said, that the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no such warlike intention; it might be so, but according to the usages and forms of society appearances were extremely warlike. If in writing to another complaining of an imputation, the person written to does not retract the offensive expression, the writer as a man of honour is bound to call the other out: whether or not the right hon. Baronet intended to do so in this instance, he could not say. Considering the state of civilization of the country, considering public morality, and as a representative of the people caring for the public morality of the Ministers of the Crown, he called upon the Speaker, as the defender of the privileges of that House, to defend and protect him—to shield him against the attack of the right hon. Baronet, should he speak the truth. He chose to express his opinion, but did not choose to be shot. If it happened, that he did use words not Parliamentary, the proper mode to canvas the matter, was within that House, by word of mouth, and not by pistols; as was done by a right hon. Member holding a high station in the State, and who was the great champion of the Church. [The hon. Member having concluded without making any Motion, there were loud cries of "What do you move?" and laughter."] He would move, "That it was a breach of privilege for the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to call out the hon. Member for Middlesex" [laughter.] Well, perhaps, that would not do. He would read the letter written by the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to the House; it was, indeed, couched in courteous language, but the intention of the writer was obvious. The letter was as follows:—

"House of Commons,

"March 20, Friday Evening.

"SIR—In the course of the debate, this evening, I understood you to make use of expressions of which the purport was, that I was pursuing a course with respect to the measure then under discussion, that was inconsistent with the conduct of a man of honour.

"Thinking it probable, that such expressions fell from you inconsiderately, and in the warmth of debate, I gave you the opportunity of recalling them, by an appeal to you in the House. I could not with propriety pursue the subject further at the time, but I am confident, that you will feel, that the expressions of which I complain are not consistent with the usages of Parliament, and not warranted by the freedom of debate; and that you will therefore not hesitate to disavow them as applied to me.

"I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

"ROBERT PEEL."

"Joseph Hume, Esq., M.P."

did not think that was a proper time for a motion of that description, nor did he think it was one of those questions on which the House would be disposed to interpose its authority. He was one of the last persons who would wish to have the present discussion introduced. He did entirely dissent from the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Bath. He did not speak particularly with reference to the present motion; but as a Member of Parliament, he could not admit the principle advanced by the hon. Member. If, in personal discussions in that House, hon. Members made use of expressions contrary to their honour and feelings, the principle, as laid down by the hon. Member for Bath, would preclude Members altogether from explanation. They were not an assemblage of gladiators—they were not an assembly of cut-throats, but an assembly of Gentlemen. He did not wish that they should be under no control in the sentiments they expressed. When, a few days ago, an hon. Gentleman and he had some altercation during a debate, he was not one, and considering the matter in the abstract, who would have thought rightly of himself for taking shelter under the privileges of the House for the expression of such opinions. He could not say what gave rise to the correspondence then before the House, but he would, entreat the House not to be induced to enter into discussions of that description. He meant nothing disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), but he would entreat the House not to go into or entertain the question upon the principles laid down by the hon. Mover. He thought if the question were discussed, it would be found there was no breach of privilege committed; but if committed, he would entreat the House not to precipitate itself into a discussion of that description, as it would be not otherwise than productive of great inconvenience.

said, it was not for him to say one word as to the course which the House might think fit to pursue on the subject. If he consulted his own personal feelings in the matter, he should regret that the hon. and learned Member had felt it to be his duty (for he was sure that it originated in a feeling of duty) to revive a matter with respect to which, as the hon. Member for Middlesex knew, all unpleasant feelings on both sides had been entirely obliterated. He felt perfectly satisfied that that hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had made use of expressions, at which any Gentleman would take offence, which they were not intended by him to give, and therefore he was sure, not intending them in that sense, the hon. Member for Middlesex was glad of an opportunity to remove any unpleasant impressions which had been produced on his mind. In the course of the very same night, the hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork referred to certain expressions stated to have been used by him (Sir R. Peel) on a former occasion, and he did not hesitate to assure the hon. and learned Member, that his impressions were altogether erroneous, and that he had never used expressions calculated in the slightest degree to wound his feelings. He would not go further into the question. But he should be very sorry, after having been a Member of that House for twenty years, having been engaged in angry party discussions, and speaking as warmly as any man, if it were thought that this matter deserved further notice. He was in the habit of avoiding personalities himself, and was as little disposed as any man to take offence at comments which might be made on his conduct as a Member of that House, or as a Minister of the Crown. But those who heard the debate were aware that the language which had been used, was applied not as discreditable to Government, but personally to himself, as pursuing a course which was inconsistent with the conduct of a man of honour. Such language being used, if unintentionally, he thought the hon. Member would be glad of an opportunity of retracting or explaining it; and as that could not be afforded in consequence of the interruption that took place in the debate, he had done so as soon afterwards as possible. The hon. Member, as a man of honour had availed himself of that opportunity to explain, and the explanation was perfectly satisfactory. Politically hostile they might continue to be, as he had no doubt they would, but not by any means on unfriendly terms. If the House thought it necessary to take any further steps in this matter, and treat it as a breach of privilege, he would at once retire; but it would be most satisfactory to his own feelings if the discussion were allowed altogether to drop.

said, certain expressions had been used by the hon. Member for Middlesex, towards the right hon. Baronet, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and that right hon. Baronet had desired to give the hon. Member an opportunity to explain, and there could not be a more proper course. He was not in the House at the time the expressions were used, and therefore, he could not say what took place; but he was sorry when any expressions of a personal nature were used, as they did not tend to raise the character of the House. When expressions were used that demanded the interference of the House, he always wished the House to use its power, as it had done during the last Session, in the case of Lord Althorp and another hon. Member (Mr. Sheil). He thought that no hon. Member in the House was more cautious of giving personal offence than the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He hoped the House would go no further in this matter.

hoped the House would allow him to say a few words. He thanked the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) for the Jury Bill he had given the country, he also thanked him for another Bill which he had passed about ten years ago. In so doing, he acted properly, virtuously, and honestly; in that Bill he had made it capital felony, without benefit of clergy, for one Gentleman to pull a trigger upon another. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not forget his own child. He had made it murder to kill another, or to inflict pain by a blunt instrument. The right hon. Baronet had acted with manliness, and the hon. Member for Bath might be well advised to withdraw his motion.

said, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) has himself been guilty under the same act, for he certainly inflicted pain on me, with a blunt instrument.

begged to put question to the right hon. Baronet, as to the course he meant to follow in bringing up the report on the resolution which had been agreed to the other night, on the subject of Tithes in Ireland. He believed there was no disposition to throw any impediment in the way of the introduction of the Bill; but, at the same time, there were some hon. Members on that side of the House who might wish to accompany their vote in that respect with some explanations, in order to let it be understood that they were not pledged by that Resolution to the views of the measure when it might be introduced. As the report could not be brought up early tonight, he hoped some other evening would be set apart for its reception. He also took that opportunity of stating, that his wish was to bring forward the whole question of the appropriation of Irish church, property on Monday next, according to the notice which he had given; and it was also his intention to enforce, on that occasion, the call of the House. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would not object, for the convenience of all parties, to its being brought forward as a substantive motion.

was very sorry to observe that the practice was increasing every week, to take the supply days for motions. The time of the House was absorbed with discussions, leaving no day for the transaction of the public business. Still he was very much indisposed to take any course which might be against the general feeling of the House. As far as the day was concerned on which the Motion was to be brought forward, the noble Lord having given notice of it very early in the Session, and as he might insist on his right, an extreme right, which, on public considerations might be productive of inconvenience, and especially as in consequence of the order for the call of the House, many hon. Members must have made their arrangements to meet it, he (Sir R. Peel) would oppose no obstacle to the noble Lord in bringing forward his Motion on Monday. With respect, how- ever, to the mode of bringing it on, he should certainly reserve to himself any advantage which he possessed. But if there was an understanding on the part of the House that the Bill founded on the resolution should not be read a second time till the question of appropriation was disposed of, could there be any objection, not being committed by the resolution, to permit the Bill now to be introduced? The Bill was of the utmost importance. Under present circumstances it was the law of the land that the clergy should repay the instalments of the 1,000,000l., and it was the duty of Government to enforce the demand in conformity with the law. But the clergy replied, "Although you have a claim on me, I have a claim on another party—the occupying tenant—founded in law; enable me to enforce my claims and recover my rights, and then I will repay you." Now, it was a very inconvenient thing for Government to take upon itself a discretionary power, and discharge those payments which they were called on by the law to enforce. He therefore, hoped the House would not interpose any obstacle in the way of the introduction of the Bill; the most convenient course would be to permit the resolution to be brought up now, and the Bill, so far as it could be founded on it, to be introduced, on the understanding that they should not proceed to the second reading, when discussions on its principle might take place, till after Monday next.

had no objection to that course. Many Gentlemen, however, could not consent to the Report without expressing their opinions with regard to it. But he had no wish to prevent the Bill from being brought in. He thought that an hour might perhaps be all that would be required for the discussion, if it were taken now.

was anxious to see the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, in order to see if anything would be done by it for that unfortunate country. It was with that view that he should support the Resolution for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Baronet to bring in his Bill. There was, however, matter in the Resolutions which he should most strongly object to; for instance, the purchase of land out of commutation money. It was a principle disapproved of by the last Parliament, and would be alike injurious to the clergy and the people if adopted by the present. He could not, therefore, conceive how any hon. Members who supported the measure of the preceding Session could give their support to the measure of this Session. He considered, that there would be no peace in Ireland until the question of appropriation should be satisfactorily settled, and the people relieved from the support of a sinecure Church, in the tenets of which they did not believe. Until that great question was set at rest, all other attempts to settle the subject were mere trifling with it. It was on these grounds that he and those who acted with him deemed it better to forego all immediate opposition to the present Resolution, and waive their intentions respecting it until the whole question should come under consideration on Monday next. The people of England had no question more at heart than the question of Irish tithes; and it was in vain for the Government to suppose that there would be either peace in Ireland or satisfaction in England until it was finally and satisfactorily settled. As the right hon. Baronet had intimated his intention to be merely to bring in the Bill and give its details, not to advance it a single stage further until the discussion of Monday should have terminated, he (Mr. Hume) would, as he had said, waive all opposition at present to the Resolutions, only declaring that he did not regard them as pledging himself to anything, and content himself with entering his protest against the principle of the measure.

put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which we could not catch; in answer to which,

said, that if the House affirmed the Resolutions his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland would be enabled to bring in the Bill, with the clauses respecting the nonpayment of the instalments due at present by the clergy to the Treasury, and remission of that amount, together with the apportionment of the residue of the million, 370,000l. If the Resolutions were not passed, the Bill would have no ground work. The instalments were now due from the clergy, and the Treasury would be obliged to enforce the repayment if there was any suspension of the Resolutions. He, therefore, thought the best course the House could take was to allow the Resolution to pass. By the Standing Orders, no money could be granted out of Committee, and to grant it in Committee there was due and proper notice required. All the forms in the present instance had been complied with, and, therefore, he should suggest to the House to permit the Resolution to pass. On Wednesday or Thursday the Bill could be introduced in its complete shape and printed for the use of hon. Members.

thought the Bill might be introduced with the clause as to the money grant printed in italics; it would be quite competent for them afterwards to move that clause in the shape of a Resolution in a Committee of the whole House. His opinion was in favour of a remission of the instalments; and he would take the million, superseding as it would the necessity of levying tithes on the people as pro tanto a pacification. In the mean while Government had no option, they must apply to the clergy, and if they were called on they, must have assistance in asserting their own claims. A decision ought to be come to immediately on that subject. He implored the House to recollect how impossible it was that this Bill could tend to promote the peace of Ireland. The principle of the Bill was, that the landlords should be applied to in the first instance. In his opinion, the effect and operation of the Bill would be to shut out all hope of remedy; and with no chance of relief from tithes in one shape or other, what hope could there be of peace? In one point of view the change would prove a change altogether for the worse, for as long as the tithes remained in the hands of the clergy, there were certain small tenements which they by Act of Parliament could not distrain; but unfortunately under the measure of the present Session, as developed to the House by the right hon. Baronet, the tenants of those holdings would be most effectually reached by the landlords when they had become the collectors of the tithes. According to the Bill formerly proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, those small holding were not made liable, and in that respect, which was a most important point, the present Bill differed from the former. It was a material difference, a decided difference, for the worse. The effect of the proposed measure now under the consideration of the House would be completely to repeal the exemption contemplated by the noble Lord, and at the same time to give the poor occupying tenant nothing in return. The Bill would give the landlords a double right—a right to distrain for the rent and for the rent-charge in lieu of tithes; and thus it became perfectly vain to talk of the tenant experiencing anything like relief. He need scarcely suggest that which must be known to every lawyer, that the landlord might distrain for the rent-charge, and avow for the rent. Having got possession of a certain sum from the tenant in consequence of the distress, he will say, "Now I can put in my pocket sufficient to pay the tithe, you may have back, if you please, what is over that sum, and retain it till you can make up the whole of your rent; but that which I have now received, and which I have exacted from you by means of the power of distraining, I will retain as payment of the rent-charge that has been substituted for tithe, since I am aware that you are more reluctant to pay that demand than the rent itself." Thus (continued the hon. and learned Gentleman) the affair of the payment to the landlord himself, and the payment in lieu of tithes, would be mixed up together, and the landlord, in an abortive effort to establish the claims of the clergy, would deeply endanger his own. The Bill was by no means so well entitled to the appellation of just and humane as was the measure of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. The former Bill went to protect the lowest class of the tenants, whereas the new measure, if it should uuhappily pass into a law, would have the effect of placing them directly under the lash of the tithe system. The plan was represented as being a project for the comfort and advantage of the poor occupying tenant, but it was a strange sort of advantage which subjected him to that which he was not now paying, and imposed upon him a burthen, which that Bill upon which the measure of the right hon. Baronet was said to be a mighty improvement had completely abolished. He would repeat, that the picture he gave of the probable conduct of the landlord towards the poor holder of a small tenement was no exaggeration—no extravagant colouring of a picture. It had occurred a hundred thousand times, and would of necessity occur again, the landlord, as he before stated, would pocket the amount of the charge when he sued for his own rent, and only give credit to the tenant, at foot of his account for rent, for the difference between the amount of his payment and the sum claimed on account of the rent-charge. Oh! but then the right hon. Baronet told them that pecuniary transactions between the peasant and the parson would be at an end, for that in all time coming the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be the receivers of the fund, and that they would sue the landlord; they might perhaps sue the landlord if they could find him, but he was at liberty to go whithersoever he thought proper, to France if he pleased, he might go to gaol, but wherever he went, the proper tenant would be found, and would be eventually ground till he made the required payments. He only requested the House to look at the sort of argument by which the Bill was sought to be sustained; the Irish peasant was said to be most inveterately averse from payments to a parson, whose religious offices yielded him no benefit; he had a mortal antipathy to pay a single parson, but the moment you set on him a batch of parsons in the shape of an Ecclesiastical Commission, you completely altered the case, and deprived the transaction wholly of its repulsive character. To the Corporation sole the tenant had a most unconquerable objection, but when you gave him an aggregation of about a dozen parsons, throwing in a Bishop or two, he instantly fell in love with them, and declared that that which no consideration under heaven could induce him to yield to the demands of one, he is quite ready to concede to the entreaties of many, and that that which he would rather die than pay to an individual parson, he had not the least objection to hand over to a dozen of them, under the new appellation of Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was really quite ludicrous and absurd to talk of such a measure as that being equitable and final. A portion, and no small portion either, of one of the finest, most powerful, and best disciplined armies in the world had been employed to collect tithes in Ireland, and had been so employed without success. The army had been resorted too much too, he presumed to their annoyance, and not at all to the public advantage, and did the House suppose, that if necessary to the individual parson, they would be unnecessary to the company of parsons united under the collective character of Ecclesiastical Commissioners? The House might assure itself that the Commissioners would require to call out the army as frequently and as extensively as the parsons had done. Looking at the whole measure then, was he hot justified in saying, that they had not advanced a single inch towards the pacification of Ireland? Would any one acquainted with the condition and character of the Irish people attempt to affirm that the promoters of the measure had even approximated towards the work of pacification? There might, no doubt, be certain Irish landlords attached to the present Administration, who, by congeniality of sentiment and feelings with the parsons might be ready at once to believe, and to assure the House, that there existed every facility for the collection of tithes; but there was not a man living who knew anything of the state of Ireland, and held his mind free from the influence of party prejudices, could for a moment doubt that a resistance to rent would now be identified with the long-established resistance to tithes, and that Whiteboyism and the Rockite system, would in future apply itself to rent, in the same manner as they had in times past offered resistance to the collection of tithes; the pressure of rack-rents, and frequent changes of possession amongst the Irish tenantry, brought their position with the landlord to a state which wanted nothing but that further aggravavation, which the present Bill supplied, to complete the character of its misery. The project of Ministers put the landlord in a double capacity, and created a fresh feud between him and the tenant, adding to his previous unpopular character the additional unpopularity which at all times, but more especially at present, attached to the levier of tithes. It went to complicate the grievance of which the Irish tenant had to complain, and instead of redressing both, or even mitigating either, it stimulated each of them, and imparted a force and violence, of which it might be supposed, that neither was individually susceptible. For all these reasons, then, he did most earnestly protest against the idea of holding out the slightest hope, that a measure like that could have the effect of producing a pacification in Ireland. What possible considerations could be suggested to the minds of the Irish people, which could reconcile them to be treated in a way utterly and totally different from that experienced by the rest of the King's subjects? In England the people paid not tithes to a clergy with whom they had no connexion, for the majority of the English people belonged to the Church. Did the House forget the struggles that even in this country prevailed from the beginning of the reign of James 1st, up to the Revolution, in the attempts to set up the Established Church in Scotland? From the time of the Restoration to that of the Revolution, the bloodshed which ensued arising from the same causes, could not but be recollected; there was then a struggle to identify the people with the Establishment, but it failed, and the result was, that the Government were compelled to accommodate the Establishment to the people. The Scotch nation would not pay for a Church to which they did belong, and the weakness of the English Government compelled it to submit, and adopt, and pay the clergy of the people. Ireland did not require so much—she did not want that England should pay the clergy of the people—she only required that they should go the next stage to that—namely, to set them free from the necessity of paying the clergy of another persuasion. There, therefore, could not be anything final in such a measure; it was nothing but an extreme and intolerable aggravation of an existing evil—it did not answer the expectations excited by the King's Speech, and no more deserved to be regarded in the light of a final measure, than any of those which had been resorted to by various Governments during the last seventy years.

observed, that an attempt had been made to set up a distinction between the Resolution of a Committee of the whole House on the subject of a vote of money and on any other subject, it having been contended, that that alone was binding on the House and on individual Members which related to pecuniary grants. If that doctrine prevailed, he confessed he did not see how they could get out even of that Resolution upon which the intended Bill was proposed to be founded, for it professed to deal, first, with 670,000l., and, secondly, with 330,000l. He believed that it was not necessary to have introduced any Resolution such as had been agreed to on the former night. A simple Motion for leave to bring in the Bill would have been quite sufficient, and more in accordance with the ancient practice. When the late Administration had introduced their Bill, they proposed to do so by a mere Motion for leave; objection was taken to that course, a Select Committee was appointed to ascertain, what was the usual practice, and they reported, that they could not discover whether a Resolution in Committee was necessary or not. On these grounds, however, the Ministry adopted the plan of founding their Bill on a Resolution. He suggested, therefore, that it would be better for the right hon. Baronet to move for leave to bring in a Bill and withdraw his Resolution, giving notice of a Resolution relating to the money clauses.

said, that if the objection adverted to by the last speaker were taken, he should not persevere in offering to it any opposition. He had only further to observe, that one of the reasons which determined him to proceed by resolution was, that he had not given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill, and he thought the Resolution would best serve the purposes of a notice. Besides that, there was nothing in the Resolution which did not admit of being reconsidered, and there would be time enough for that purpose between that and the 30th of March. He was anxious, he confessed, to have the Bill introduced, and in the hands of Members, for it could not but be satisfactory to them, as it would be to him, that they should be made fully aware of its provisions. It was, he assured the House, by no means a matter of choice that led Ministers to adopt that additional stage in the proceedings. There could be no natural love on the part of Government to additional stages, but he was sure the House would agree with him, that looking to past precedents, and especially to that established in the case of the measure introduced by Lord Althorp—he meant the Irish Church Temporalities Bill—it would have been impossible for him to have done otherwise than propose a Resolution in a Committee of the whole House. Lord Althorp's Bill, as every hon. Member must recollect, had its origin in a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House. Influenced, then, by such considerations, he felt that he could not depart from the course which he had originally prescribed to himself—a course perfectly in accordance with the usages of Parliament, and as he conceived with the obvious convenience of the House, as well of individual Members.

concurred in the suggestion which had been thrown out respecting the convenience of printing the money portion of the Bill in italics, and then submitting that portion afterwards to a Committee of the whole House.

wished to make a few observations upon the subject before the House. He really had hoped that such a measure as that then before the House—a measure, the effect of which would be to transfer to the Church something little short of the third part of the lands of Ireland in fee—would have been better considered before it was proposed, and would have been introduced in a manner totally different from that in which it had been submitted to the House. He would make bold to say, that the Bill would altogether fail in attaining the object which its promoters proposed to themselves, though perfectly willing at the same time to give the Bill and its author (the right hon. Baronet opposite) full credit for all that they deserved; but when he looked at it and saw the manner in which it dealt with the loan of the million, he found it impossible to apply to it the language of approbation. One effect of the measure certainly would be most prejudicial as regarded those by whom the arrears to constitute that million had to be paid, and he could of his own knowledge declare, that the smaller the tenement, the more severely would the pressure of the demand bear upon the poor tenants, many of whom paid from 10s. to 18s. a-year for potato gardens of not greater extent than the area of the room in which they were then assembled. One of the greatest faults in the Bill was, its permitting the liability to affect holdings of that very small extent. Did the House suppose it was necessary that he should support the view which he took of this part of the question by reference to positive instances? Was it necessary that he should remind them, that one of the most remarkable murders committed in Ireland, was perpetrated on the person of a clergyman of the Established Church, engaged about that time in the collection of the tithes of the class and description to which he had been just alluding? The odium attaching to the system it was impossible for him by any effort of language to exaggerate. Having attended several tithe meetings in various parts of the country, he had had good opportunities of judging of the feelings and sentiments of the people; and he hesitated not to declare, that they were in a temper most unfit to derive satisfaction from the Bill, and in a condition in all respects incapable of being improved by any one of its provisions. He objected last year to the purchase of land for the use of the clergy, and he should continue to do so, for the effect of it would be, to increase a political influence already too great—to establish small farms in every parish which would be badly cultivated, and to extend the power of political partisanship throughout every district of the country. In his opinion it was vain to attempt to collect tithes; the organization against them was in all respects so complete, that anything of the kind must of necessity prove unsuccessful, for neither by gentle means, nor by force, could it be accomplished. They had certainly been told by the right hon. Baronet, that the conduct of the clergy of the Established Church had been throughout mild and indulgent; and, as a proof of the gentleness and pacific character of their deportment towards the tithe-paying peasantry of Ireland, he was enabled to state that only in thirty or forty instances had he been applied to with requests for the assistance of the military. He confessed he thought thirty or forty instances was doing pretty well in so short a time; but even were the fact so, were it perfectly true, that the conduct of the clergy of the Established Church was in all respects exemplary, still, so long as tithes continued to exist, they would regard with contempt and disdain every effort at conciliation: they would look upon justice as cowardice, and mercy as caprice. He, and those with whom he acted in Parliament, had often been taunted with not bringing forward any specific measures, and their opponents sought to establish a contrast by referring to the measures which they themselves introduced. True it was, they did bring forward many measures, but not one for Ireland. They spent 20,000,000l. on one object alone, by which the negro slaves in the West Indies received the first instalment of Reform. After thus giving away 20,000,000l. in one direction, Ministers affected to say, that they conferred a mighty boon on Ireland, in giving up twenty-two and-a-half per cent on the value of tithes, by which operation there would be grievous injustice towards the payers of tithe, and a benefit to the clergy of nothing short of twice as much as under other circumstances they might have been able to obtain. The people of Ireland were confessedly shrewd and sharp, they were not likely to be imposed on by any thing like the provisions of such a measure as that, and there was no part of it more likely to excite disgust and disdain than the surrender of the million. It was perfectly true, that the clergy of the Established Church were in a most deplorable situation; it was quite certain, that they could not collect the tithes, and that they had been compelled to yield to the direct intimidation, he did not mean physical force, but that moral strength against which they could not make head. The right hon. Baronet might suppose, that he derived substantial support from the parsons, and from their friends; that they helped to keep him and his colleagues in office; but let the right hon. Baronet be cautious how he exposed them to the grasping dispositions of the landlords. There seemed to be some latent feeling of that sort when the advocates of the present measure asked,"What! would you put all the money hitherto paid for tithes into the pockets of the landlords?" To that he should reply, that he would not certainly allow, if he could help it, a robbery of the clergy by the landlords; neither would he be a consenting party to a spoliation of the occupying tenant by the same party. Neither the one nor the other ought to be endured. Although he augured no advantage from the present measure, he was not without hope that beneficial results would ensue from its discussion. The tithe question had been for some time rapidly gaining ground, and one of the first steps which opened the way for that final and irrevocable settlement now not far distant, was the Bill of 1823, introduced by the present Home Secretary, then chief secretary for Ireland; but notwithstanding that measure, if the proposed Bill of the right hon. Baronet became law, a third of the landed property of Ireland would be in the hands of the Church—that, as he conceived, formed a legitimate ground of complaint, and it would be vain to meet that or any other complaint by the remark, that those now filling the Cabinet of the King entertained a stronger disposition to deal fairly by Ireland than those who, being now in opposition, were supposed to entertain no insuperable objection to being called to the councils of the Sovereign. He repeated, that that was not the way of meeting the argument. In reference to the tithe question, there was one observation which naturally suggested itself, it was founded on the extreme unpopularity of the tax; he remembered on a former occasion that mere unpopularity had been admitted as a legitimate ground upon which to urge the repeal of an obnoxious tax. He must be allowed to say, that there never existed a tax more open to the argument founded upon unpopularity than was the impost of tithes. What, he would ask, was the purpose of so pertinaciously adhering to them? Was it expected that Protestant ascendancy could be re-established in Ireland, even at the expense of a civil war, or by means of the most powerful army? They might resort to an army, they might prosecute the people for turbulence or violence, but they never could eradicate from the breasts of the people of Ireland their disinclination to pay tithes. How did the widow Ryan answer in Rathcormac, when questioned as to what influenced the conduct she pursued? Her answer was, that she "did not wish to make a head of herself in the parish;" could anything evince more plainly the sentiment prevailing amongst the peasantry? He entertained no doubt whatever but the right hon. Baronet had fairly and fully reflected upon the course which he had to pursue; no doubt, likewise, that the Reform Act had helped him to infuse no small share of liberality into his measures; had it not been for that Act, a differently constituted House of Commons would have invested him with very different powers, and the course of his policy would have been widely dissimilar from what it was; but with all that, when he looked to the power which the new constitution of the Parliament conferred upon a Minister disposed to liberal measures, he did hope that the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Government would not permit himself to be too much influenced by his old associations, but would do something substantially useful for Ireland. If the Parliament continued to go on legislating as it had done, agitation must be renewed, and continued. So long as such scenes as that enacted at Rathcormac continued, there could be no peace for the country. When such persons as the widow Ryan were sued, as she had been by Mr. Ryder, for 4l. 16s. of arrears, what hope of peace could there be? In conclusion, the hon. and, learned Gentleman said, that he would resist anything in the shape of tithes being levied upon the Catholic population of Ireland.

begged the hon. and learned Gentleman not to suppose that it was from any disrespect to him, that he declined entering into a discussion upon the subject. Ample opportunity would be afforded hereafter of considering the whole question; and as the army Estimates were appointed for this evening, he thought it would be imprudent in him to delay them by offering observations upon another matter. One remark, however, he would make in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's allusion to the Protestant clergy, and their desire to make use of the military in the collection of tithes. He could assure the House, that he had received a great number of letters from Protestant clergymen, in which they expressed their deep and conscientious repugnance to levying their tithes by military force, and declared, that they had rather remain in their present poverty and misery than resort to violent measures.

, as an English Member, protested against the 1,000,000l. alluded to being taken out of the pockets of the English people, which it would appear was intended to be effected by means of a coalition between certain parties of English and Irish Members. He thought, that this sum ought to be paid out of the property of the Established Church.

also protested against the 1,000,00l. being paid out of the pockets of the English people, and suggested to the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Bill might be brought in without the money clauses in the first instance, while these clauses might, at the same time, be printed and laid before the House, so that both together might be actually under their contemplation.

thought it quite impossible that the arrear of tithe ever could be raised; and that the entire 1,000,000l. should be given up. When hon. Members complained of this sacrifice of 1,000,000l. to Ireland, he begged to remind them of the great sums which had been expended in the advantages derivable from which Ireland had no share, as, for example, in the 1,500,000l. granted for building churches in England, the sum granted for the Caledonian Canal, and for the works in the Canadas. He declared that, without the appropriation, Ministers must fail—without it they never could tranquillize the country.

hoped the House would not prejudge the question of appropriation, and deprecated the present discussion as highly inconvenient. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated some instances in which public grants of money had been made without Ireland's participating in the benefit; but there were several others which he might also have cited. For instance, 250,000l. had been appropriated for the purpose of dealing with church-rates in England; but as church-rates had been already abolished in Ireland, it was quite clear that country could not, under any circumstances, derive advantage from the expenditure. Many votes, too, might be proposed for the relief of the landed interest, from which Ireland would have no benefit. He, therefore, put it to them, that it would be unfair to prejudice the question by premature discussion, or to raise objections to the relieving Irish agriculture.

remarked, that the changes which had taken place in the opinions and conduct of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches were wonderful in the extreme. He found, in a publication called the Mirror of Parliament, a fatal objection to the Bill. He had therein read expressions of the right hon. Baronet in the last year which were totally in opposition to the measure. In a speech of the right hon. Baronet, delivered on the 30th of July, 1834, it was stated, that the House ought not to accede to the Motion until it was perfectly satisfied Government had vindicated the law by showing that the collection could be made; and the right hon. Baronet asked, until this was done, was it just to force the collection on the landlords of Ireland? Now he (Mr. Barron) asked the right hon. Baronet and the gallant officer, if the law had been vindicated in Ireland? Had they been able to vindicate the law, and to enforce the collection? The very circumstance of their now proposing the resolution proved that they had not. The very foundation of it was, that they placed the collection on the landlord. And this they did notwithstanding the deliberate and distinct declaration of the right hon. Baronet. But there was also another charge, and that was on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) who sat immediately behind the right hon. Baronet. On the same occasion that right hon. Judge had declared, "All I maintain is, that, unless the authority of the law be restored by the collection of tithes, the necessity for which has been so strongly stated by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, the landlords will not, and cannot, in justice, be forced to take this payment on themselves." But now observe how great a change of opinion had come upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman with his change of place. He now supported this measure, although he had before spoken against one which was acknowledged to be in its principle quite similar. The truth was, that the right hon. Gentleman and his party had rejected the former Bill—that was to say, had rejected it through the agency of their friends in the House of Lords, though it was a measure which would have satisfied the people of Ireland; and now they came forward to ask the people of Ireland to pay 1,000,000l. for that rejection. He maintained that the people would have been satisfied with that measure, coming, as it did, from a paternal Government—a Government in which they could have confidence. He was convinced the people of Ireland would have paid their tithes if that measure had been suffered to pass. And he contended that the persons who had rejected the Bill were answerable for the massacre at Rathcormac and all the other bloody scenes which had recently occurred in Ireland. Yes, he would repeat, that these frightful atrocities, these revolting massacres, had been the result of that heedless, that factious opposition which had been offered to that measure. Never, he said, had there been exhibited by public men such a base dereliction of duty and proper feeling as had been displayed by the present Government—such a vile factious course of proceeding; and it was an insult to the understanding of the people of Ireland to invite them to place confidence in such an Administration. It was, he repeated, an insult to an intelligent body of men to ask them to place confidence in any portion of the association upon the Treasury Benches. They had adopted the measures of the late Government—the Dissenters' Marriage Bill, this very Tithe Bill, and were now endeavouring to pass them off as their own. This very Bill was taken from the late Govern- ment, and yet the right hon. Baronet and the gallant Secretary had the modesty to claim credit for it as their peculiar work. Well might the late Administration say to them, while they thus robbed them of their honours—

"Hos ego versiculos feci, tulit alter honores!

"Sic vos non vobis nidificatis aves!

said, that, having been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman as a person who had forfeited principles for place, he begged to observe, that he was not aware of any elevation to place which had attended his removal from the opposite side of the House to that on which he then sat, nor had he deserted any principle which he had formerly professed. On the subject to which the hon. Member had particularly alluded, his opinions had not suffered the slightest change; and, with great respect to that hon. Gentleman, he must be allowed to say, that he (Mr Barron) did not seem to know anything at all about the measure on which he had been speaking so energetically. He had been evidently confounding in his mind the first Tithe Bill of the late Administration with their second Tithe Bill; and obviously he was equally ignorant of the principles and details of both, as he was of those of the present measure. The present Bill was like the first Bill, with a slight difference, which went in favour of the occupying tenant, and was against the landlord. It was not similar to—it was extremely unlike—the second Bill, which was the Bill in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and that to which he had alluded. And as for himself, he (Mr. Shaw) had repeated essentially the observations this year which he had made before. He had re-stated in the substance what he had said about throwing the payment on the landlord, but did not think that he should be justified in opposing the Bill, in consequence of feeling the objection to particular provisions of it which he entertained.

, who spoke amidst much noise and confusion, was understood to say, that, after the very coarse invective on himself and his right hon. Friend, and the other Members of the Government, in which the hon. Member opposite had been pleased to indulge, perhaps he might be permitted to say a few words. The hon. Member had imputed base motives to them. He had accused them of abandoning every principle for the base desire of holding office. And he thought they would not be justified at present in sitting down silently tinder such an imputation, although it might be supposed they could well suffer to pass unnoticed accusations preferred against them in such a strain of vulgar insolence. [Cries of "Chair!" and "Order!"] Sir Henry Hardinge made some further observations, which could not be heard from the noise in the House, and then resumed his seat.

said, that if the gallant Officer alluded to him, he treated his observations with the utmost contempt. He threw back the gallant officer's imputation with scorn.

rose to order. He said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Barron) had alluded only to the political conduct of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and could not have intended to offer them any personal offence. He suggested that the hon. Gentleman should explain.

I am at all times, Sir, ready to give the House any explanation in my power, when it appears to me that they require it. I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that when I was charged with bringing forward a measure merely through a base love of holding office, and when it was stated that, in introducing that measure, I acted upon different principles from those which guided me on former occasions, I say I should be unworthy of standing in the position in which I have the honour to be placed, or, indeed, of any position in this House, if I did not meet the invective which was pronounced against me by declaring it to be most unfounded and untrue. I might have used, perhaps, a word different from "untrue." At the same time, when such motives are attributed to me, as one of his Majesty's Ministers, I feel it incumbent on me to repel the insinuation with indignation.

arose amid renewed cries of "order, order!" and said with much vehemence, "I can only say, that I believe in my conscience what I have said to be true."

said, that freedom of debate was never more secure than when the discussion of the debates in this House were conducted with temper and decorum, and, was never in greater danger than when hon. Members permitted themselves to use expressions which they might have reason afterwards to repent. From the course which the discussion had taken he regretted, he took blame to himself, for not having interfered sooner, and called the hon. Member to order at the moment, for using expressions that a gentleman ought not to have used. But he was fearful of giving more importance to the matter by interfering, than it, perhaps, deserved. He now felt bound to say, that any Member, who said, that any man acted basely, or from base motives, used an expression which he ought not to have used, and that hon. Member should recollect that, in doing so, he offended not only against the individual Member whom he so improperly assailed, but also committed a grave offence against the House. He was sure, that hon. Member, having so offended, would discharge his duty by apologizing for the offensive expressions he had used.

So far as the House is concerned, I have no hesitation in giving the fullest apology. With respect to the expression which I made use of, I can only say, that I never spoke of individuals; but if any individual thought fit to take it to himself, I have no apology to offer.

On the part of my constituents, I have no hesitation in saying, that the political conduct of the hon. Gentlemen opposite (on the Treasury bench) exhibits a gross dereliction of principle, and is disreputable and dishonourable. [Cries of "Order, order!" and cheers.]

was understood to require a more ample and satisfactory apology from the hon. Gentleman.

said, that conceiving that the honour of every Member was best placed in the hands of the Speaker, he would, under his directions, retract the expressions he had used, and apologize for having used them.

said, that conceiving the explanation of the hon. Member to be satisfactory, understanding that it was meant to be perfectly satisfactory, he would at once express his regret at his warmth of his expressions,

said, that divesting what had been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Barron) of all offence and all personality, he would not shrink from declaring that he entirely concurred in the opinion of the present Government, which was held by that hon. Member. He had no disposition to use any expression which could be personally offensive, but as he had taken opportunities of adverting to the public political conduct of his Majesty's present Ministry, on the hustings and elsewhere, and as what occurred here might lead to a conclusion out of doors that they (the Opposition Members) shrunk in the House from expressions used there and elsewhere, and as he found that a kind of bravado was used on the other side, he felt it necessary to avow there, and to repeat, if necessary, all that he had said elsewhere, as to the public conduct of the Members of his Majesty's Government, and, he must say, that the right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge) had more than once taken the course of endeavouring to intimidate, to which he had just referred. There, for instance, was the case of Lord Londonderry's mission, which was before the House the other evening, and when not one word was said against that noble Lord, that could by implication be considered personally offensive, the right hon. and gallant Officer stated, that if anything had been said against that noble Lord, he should have felt it his duty to notice it, and this, too, when it could not be supposed that the right hon. and gallant Officer was excited by the heat of debate, for it was after the debate on that subject was over, and when the right hon. and gallant Officer was quite cool.

rose to order. He would appeal to the Chair, and ask whether the course which the hon. and gallant Officer was pursuing, had anything whatever to do with the subject of debate before the House.

wished to say, as an appeal to the "order" of the House had been made, that it was decidedly contrary to the first order of the House to refer to words used in a former debate. He would contend, that if words spoken in debate were to be referred to, they must be questioned on the night they were used; but if not on that night, it could not be questioned after, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair if this were not so.

said, that the rule, as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, was in strict conformity with the rules of the House, and he anxiously wished that the practice of the House was in strict conformity with that rule; but it was well known that it was the common practice of the House to refer to previous debates, and to opinions delivered in them. This was the practice; but if particular words of former debates were referred to, it would not be regular.

said, that the reference to previous debates, was a matter of daily occurrence. He would not go out of his way, or refer to any other subject. He referred to a case in point, which occurred a few days ago. On that occasion, the right hon. and gallant Officer did refer to what took place in a previous debate, and was allowed to do so without interruption, by those hon. Members opposite, who were now so loud in calling "order." Those assertors of Reform on the other (the Ministerial) side, had said, that if any one had said anything against the character of Lord Londonderry, they would have felt it necessary to notice it. ["Order!"]>

said, that the proper time for explanation for one hon. Member was, when the Member addressing the House, had concluded. He must now say, that the House had completely lost sight of the question before them, and he put it to the good sense of hon. Members, whether they ought not to return to that question.

was at a loss to know the cause of the interruption he had experienced. He had risen to explain, and looking to the transactions of the last two or three days, he would say, that it behoved those who looked to their characters, and who were in the habit of expressing themselves as to the conduct of public men, not to shrink from an avowal of those opinions, and so far from accusing hon. Members at his, (the Opposition) side of the House, of irregularity, in referring to their public conduct, he thought that Ministers ought to thank them for their forbearance. He thought the conduct of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Sir Robert Peel and Sir Henry Hardinge) was most extraordinary, for he would assert that their conduct as public men, exhibited a most flagitious instance of dereliction of public principle. He should be glad to know to what party the right hon. Baronet and some of his Friends could appeal for support, if they looked back to the transactions of the last seven or eight years? Was it of that party which sat immediately behind him, that the right hon. Baronet could ask for confidence? Was it of those who had resisted all the claims of the Dissenters, that he sought for this confidence and support? Why, he (Colonel Evans) would ask, had not the right hon. Baronet gone out of the House in disgust because he was beaten on the Motion respecting the Dissenters, and did he not come back again in a few days and consent to the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts? Had not the House seen him in August last voting against the very Bill on (Irish tithes) which he now made his own? He did not know to what section of any party the right hon. Baronet and his Friends could look for support. There might, perhaps, be the expediency men, those who turned round, and who were ready to deal with any, and every question, on the principle of expediency, not of course for the sake of office, it would be personally offensive to entertain such a notion, but there were some hon. Members who came over to particular questions on the ground of expediency. He thought it a deplorable circumstance, that the country should have confidence in the present Government. But their days were now numbered. The country had seen their modicum of Reform; and what was it? They proposed first some change as to the marriage of Dissenters, but good sense should have conceded this long before. Did that, however, touch upon the emoluments of the high Church party? What else were these proposed Reforms? They were nothing. He would not trespass further on the time of the House. He would repeat, that with the exception of two or three expressions unguardedly used, there was nothing said on that (the Opposition) side of the House, from the avowal of which they were disposed to shrink. On the contrary, they were prepared to assert, that his Majesty's present Ministers had taken office on grounds discreditable to, and destructive of, public character.

rose to explain. The hon. and gallant Officer had assumed what he supposed him to have said with respect to Lord Londonderry. Now, what he had said, was, that if any expressions had been thrown out against the honour of his noble Friend, he should have felt it his duty to vindicate him. Those, as nearly as he recollected, were the words he used, and he would put it to the House whether, from his near connexion with that noble Lord, and his long association with him in his military career, he was not bound to vindicate the honour of his noble Friend, if it had been attacked; and he was sure the hon. and gallant Officer, from his own high sense of honour, would be the last to object to such a course. The hon. and gallant Officer accused him of dereliction of public principle. He did not object to the use of those words on public grounds. No doubt, that was the hon. and gallant Officer's opinion, but if the hon. and gallant Officer attached any base or personal motives to the course he had pursued, he should then feel it his duty to resent it.

The right hon. and gallant Officer had said, that the words he used on the occasion referred to, were, that if the honour of his noble Friend had been attacked, he should have felt it his duty to vindicate it. He (Colonel Evans) was sitting down in the House at the time, and he owned that the words, as they struck his ear, were not like those which the right hon. and gallant Officer said he had used; but having said, that the right hon. and gallant Officer had used them, he could not doubt that they were the exact words; but as to the rest of the right hon. and gallant Officer's remarks, he must protest against the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken. He had not attributed any personal or unworthy motives to the right hon. and gallant Officer, and yet the right hon. and gallant Officer said, that "if he had, he would have resented it." Every one who knew the high character of the right hon. and gallant Officer, could have no doubt of his personal valour, but he could assure him, that the disposition to which he alluded, afforded no proof of it.

asked, whether his previous conduct had shown any disposition to repel charges not made? What he had said, was, that he would understand charges in a political sense when so made, but that he would notice only those which personally attributed unworthy motives to him in his public conduct. The hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Evans), had himself too high a sense of honour to make any charge of the kind, unless he could prove it, or not to repel it if made against him.

begged, after the attack which had been made on his Majesty's Ministers, to call the attention of the House to the state of the debate. He was sure that he spoke the sense of a large majority of the House, when he said, that the interposition which had been most properly made by the Chair, ought to have put an end to the discussion, and brought the House back to the actual question before it. They (the Government) had no disposition to make hostile charges; and he hoped that those which had been made, would not be carried further. They were before the House with the measures which they had introduced, and they wished to carry on the business of the country; but if it was impeded, the fault would not rest with them. He knew the disposition of a large number of the Gentlemen opposite towards the Government; but he also knew the firm position which they (the Ministers) occupied in the confidence of the House, and the still more firm position which they occupied in the confidence of the country, and by those they were prepared to abide.

asid that, he took some of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster to apply to him. That hon. and gallant Member, and others at his side of the House, had spoken of the inconsistency of Members at his (the Ministerial) side; and one ground of that charge was the different votes given with respect to "appropriation:" but hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they carried their memories back, would find that many of them were more inconsistent than his Majesty's Ministers could possibly be. Did hon. Members forget what had been said by a right hon. Gentleman who had been a Member of the late Government? On the discussion of the Catholic Question, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, then the Member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey)—and having mentioned that hon. Member's name, he felt it due to him and due to himself to take the opportunity, which he gladly embraced, of doing him justice. [A Member: the hon. Member for Southwark is not present.]

said, that he would take another opportunity of doing the hon. and learned Member for Southwark justice. But to proceed; when the Ca- tholic Question was under discussion, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark said that he looked not to the immediate consequences of the passing of that measure, he looked to its remote consequences, he looked forward to the time when they might reach the overgrown revenues of the Church. Well, how was that received? How had it been met by the right hon. Gentleman now the Member for Cambridge (Mr. S. Rice)? That right hon. Gentleman had said that, if he thought the passing of the Catholic question could have the effect of touching one shilling of the revenues of the Church, he would be one of the first to oppose it. Why, after this, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would consent to die in the last ditch rather than consent to any appropriation of the Church revenues.

After the course which this debate has taken, notwithstanding, at a previous period of the evening, questions were put to me to which I gave answers, not expecting that any discussion would ensue, but taking it for grauted, that we should come to an early decision on the subject, and that the public and political conduct of Government would not be called in question, the House will probably not insist on the rigid rule of order, and preclude me, because I then spoke, from making a few observations on what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. I understood the hon. and gallant Member in the latter part of his speech to declare, that while he asserted his right to condemn in as strong terms as he pleased, the public conduct of Ministers, he by no means intended to indulge in any personal or offensive allusions to them. Now, Sir, although I think, that if in the heat of debate, expressions should be used reflecting on the honour of any individual Member, it is highly proper, for the satisfaction of the persons using such expressions, as well as for the satisfaction of the persons towards whom they are used, and for the satisfaction of the House, that an opportunity should be given for disclaiming all intention of offence. I, at the same time, fully admit the right of any Member of this House to question, to the fullest extent, the conduct of Members of his Majesty's Government as public men. I now speak, then, with reference to the construction which I believe the hon. and gallant Member put upon his own words. I am sure that he would not—his character is too well established—go as close to the wind as possible for the purpose of indirectly conveying a personal imputation. I therefore do the hon. and gallant Officer the justice of believing that, strong as his expressions were, they were directed against the public, and not against the personal, character of those whom he assailed. Having stated this, I come to the point. It is certainly of great importance to a public man to have an opportunity of vindicating with calmness the course which his sense of public duty has prescribed to him. I do confidently assert, then, that I do not think that the charges which the hon. and gallant Officer has brought against me as a public man, have the slightest shadow of foundation. Whether or not I undertook to discharge the duties of the office which I have the honour to hold from motives of ambition, from the love of power, or for the sake of anything that power can give, is a question which I will leave entirely untouched—it is a question which the House will decide as it may think fit. But I come to that much more important question, whether if, in the course which I have taken while I have been engaged in the discharge of those duties, I have done anything that should justly subject me to the charges which the hon. and gallant Officer has advanced against me? But, first, I will advert to some of the observations which were made by the hon. Member for Waterford. That hon. Member referred to certain expressions which he said, I used last year, indicating my opinion of the danger and inexpediency of applying to the public purse to solve difficulties in the administration of Government. Sir, I did use those expressions. For I felt, when it was first proposed to advance a million to the Protestant clergy of Ireland, that there was no probability that the money would ever be returned. The hon. Member for Waterford says, that I advised the advance of that million. That was not the case. I advised the enforcing of the law. The enforcing of the law has been tried; and it has been found impracticable to collect the tithes. Under such circumstances, does the hon. Member for Waterford think it inconsistent with our public duty to advise the giving up of the million, rather than the adoption of a course which would involve the certainty of many scenes such as that which recently occurred. I did not advise the advance, because I thought it would never be repaid. The advance was made; and now, when I find that it cannot be repaid, what shadow of inconsistency is there in my advising that the demand for the repayment should be remitted. I now come to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He says, our days are numbered. He says, that we have given so little satisfaction to the country, that we have shown so little a modicum of Reform, that public opinion must declare against us. Now, how does the hon. and gallant Officer reconcile this with his other charge, that we have adopted all the principles of our predecessors?

said, that he had never charged this Government with adopting every principle of the preceding Government; quite the reverse. He had never thought that the Dissenters' Bill, even when brought in by the late Government, was a measure of Reform for which they could claim any great merit.

The charge, then, of the hon. and gallant Member against me, amounts to this:—"The right hon. Baronet always opposed the great measures of his predecessors, and he does so still." It is a strange way of charging me with inconsistency, to say, that I am pursuing the same course in office that I did when in opposition. "You oppose the liberal measures of your predecessors, you have brought in my modicum of Reform," says the hon. and gallant Member, "and the country therefore rejects you; your measures and politics are not sufficiently liberal for the spirit of the age, and your hours are numbered." This may be a perfectly good accusation; but how is it consistent with that other, earnestly insisted upon, that, for the sake of place, I have adopted the principles of my predecessors; that I have submitted extensive Reforms to the House, for the purpose of retaining the emoluments or distinctions of office? So much for the general principles of the Government. Now with respect to this particular measure, regarding tithes in Ireland. I have heard charges made against me with respect to the course I have pursued on the question of commutation of tithes in Ireland, which can only be founded in utter ignorance—for I should rather attribute them to ignorance, than intentional misrepresentation—of what my conduct really has been on that question. How stand the facts? A Bill was brought into this House at an early period of last Session, by the late Government, providing for the arrangement of the Tithe Question. That Bill imposed, in the first instance, a land-tax, which was to endure for five years, at the end of which period it was to be laid upon the landlord as a rent-charge: that rent-charge was redeemable, and the redemption money was to be invested in land. The amount, the payment of which by that Bill was imposed upon the landlord, was, I believe, 77½ per cent, of the tithe. That Bill I supported. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary for Ireland, will acknowledge that he had support in the passing of that Bill. I come into power; I bring in a Bill in my turn for the settlement of the Irish Tithe Question; and what are its principles? It imposes the payment of 75 per cent, upon the landlord immediately; it provides for the redemption of the rent-charge so imposed; for the investment of the money thus realized in land; and that tithe-property shall be strictly reserved for Ecclesiastical purposes. Now, I ask, whether it be possible, in the vicissitudes to which human affairs are subject, to suppose a case of less inconsistency, than my supporting the first measure I have described, and originating the second? The hon. Gentleman may object to me if he pleases, that I do not consent to devote Ecclesiastical property to secular purposes; that I place a rent-charge upon landlords, and other things; but if he looks to the Bill brought in by the late Government, to the principle of which I did not object, I defy him to show that there is any inconsistency in my submitting the present measure to Parliament. But throughout the whole of this discussion, the original Bill brought in by the late Government, has been confounded with the measure which subsequently received the assent of this House. It may be said that I opposed the latter; some hon. Gentlemen may suppose that I was a party to some organized plan in the House of Lords to throw it out. Sir, the House of Lords determined on their own course, and I was no party to any combination in that House. I saw the Bill modified by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; I saw the Government oppose his modifications, but he was successful in making them, and the Government afterwards permitted it to pass. What was the language I then held? I place full confidence in the declarations made of absence of intention to give me personal offence, but the charges against my political character are serious, and it is politically that I propose to select them. On the 30th of July, the day referred to by the hon. Member for Waterford, I said that "I felt great objection to ever attempting to decide upon such an important question at that extremely late period of the Session. It cannot be denied that the goodwill of the landlords is most essential, and unless the Legislature have their goodwill, it will be impossible to make the alteration a benefit. For the change to be efficacious, too, the provision must be compulsory; and then comes the question, how can we, with justice or with propriety, impose such a responsibility on the landlord, without giving him any notice of our intentions? I do not believe that there are at present a sufficient number of Irish landlords in the metropolis to form a fair representation of the general feeling of that body. I throw out these remarks merely as suggestions; but if the proposition be resolved upon, something must, in justice to the landlords, be done by Government, with reference to the arrears. There has now been two years of intermission in the collection of tithes in Ireland; and, however the question may now be shrunk from, the time must come when the law must be vindicated." A little lower down comes the sentence referred to by the hon. Member. I then said, "I decidedly think that it is for the benefit of all parties concerned, that the landlord should take upon himself the payment of tithe, to the release of the occupying tenant; but I would also take good care to encourage, as much as possible, the principle of redemption. That appears to me the just, and best, or only way, of really settling the question. I do not think, however, after the Session we have had, we can hope to consider, with any good effect, a Bill for such an object, in the month of August. At present, the vindication of the law ought to be the first object, and when we have taught persons, who have refused a legal payment, that the law is paramount, then we may well call upon the landlord to take the post which would at once be beneficial to the community and himself. At the same time, I must say, that I despair of the question being settled satisfactorily, by any scheme in which redemption is not included; and still more do I despair of being able to come to any settlement of the question, while the great majority of Irish landlords are out of town." These were the expressions I made use of, not objecting to the original Bill, but to the principle of the Bill, as modified by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Now, I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to say, whether, in submitting to Parliament a measure I like, that forms a valid ground for charging me with inconsistency. So much for the question of tithe. With respect to the other measures—but really, Sir, I do not think I ought now to trouble the House with any detail respecting other measures. I shall reserve what I have to say in my defence respecting them, when they come before us. I will only at present observe, with respect to the Dissenters' Marriage Bill, that I did not object to the principle of the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, the Member for Devon. Its principle I therefore adopted; but was it not my duty, as a Minister of the Crown, to attempt to make the Bill as satisfactory in its details as I could, consulting the feelings of the Dissenters, as far as was consistent with the interests of the Church. I ask hon. Gentlemen not to deal in vague general charges, but to tell me what is the particular measure which I, as a Member of the Government, have introduced, or have given notice of my intention to bring in, that is inconsistent with the course I have pursued since the meeting of the Reformed Parliament. But, Sir, I do not think myself—being the responsible Minister of the Crown—bound to look out for every speech I have made, in order to accommodate my course to those speeches, and relieve myself from the charge of inconsistency. Having undertaken the task, I feel it to be a public duty to look to the circumstances of the country, and abandon all minor personal considerations, in considering the measures necessary to meet those circumstances. But rather than listen to vague charges of inconsistency, and dereliction of principle, I should like to hear some specific measure stated, which justifies the charges brought against me. I am conscious that in the task I have undertaken, I am not acting with the view of gratifying personal ambition, or from any desire for the advantages or emoluments of office. I did not seek the office I hold, by any factious attempts to thwart the late Government. I did not enter into an alliance with those who entertained the extreme opinion of the side of the House on which I sat. I am stating merely a fact with respect to myself, and mean no insidious reflection on any man, for I can appeal to those who are now my political opponents, for the truth of what I say, that I did not attempt to gain power, or thwart their proceedings, by factious combinations with men, whose opinions went beyond mine. Opportunities for so doing, did present themselves, but I never took advantage of them. Looking to the circumstances which accompanied my taking office, I was determined, feeling it my duty to accept it, and having accepted it, to make every constitutional effort for maintaining myself in it, and I shall continue to do so, in spite of the charges of inconsistency which may be brought against me. Sir, I rely upon the purity of my own motives. I shall attempt to shape my course upon principles which will be likely to give most satisfaction to the country; but I never will consent to hold office one hour beyond the period when I think I can hold it consistently with the interests of the Crown, and with the honour of a public man.

begged to say one word in explanation. The right hon. Baronet had misrepresented what he had said. He stated that the principle of the measure now before the House was, to place the burden of the tithes on the landlord. He then quoted the words employed by the right hon. Baronet last year, and showed that the circumstances of Ireland were in no way changed, except in the opposition to tithes having become greater, since the right hon. Baronet made his observations upon the very principle which was now at stake before the House—viz., that it was impossible, in the language of the right hon. Baronet, to fix the payment of tithes upon the landlord until the law had been vindicated. That the right hon. Baronet had not explained, but, with his usual dexterity, he had wandered into a variety of matters unconnected with the charge.

Rathcormac had not then occurred.

No; and that only proves that it is as bad to place the burden upon the landlord now as it was then.

said, he was bound to acknowledge that the right hon. Baronet had well defended himself from the charge of inconsistency on this particular measure, which he, (Colonel Evans) never looked upon as a very great reform; but the right hon. Baronet had only succeeded by throwing overboard all his colleagues and supporters.

was understood, amidst loud cries of "Order!" to say that that was not correct.

hoped his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would give him credit when he said that no individual could be less prone than himself to impute to him motives of action not founded on principles of the highest honour. He had had the honour of being in some degree privately acquainted with the right hon. Baronet—for many years they had acted in each other's presence, and sometimes in concert, and he had never noticed any thing that could lead him to suppose the right hon. Baronet pursued any but the most honourable conduct; but he must take the liberty of reminding the right hon. Baronet of what he appeared on this occasion to have altogether forgotten, viz., that he had colleagues in the Cabinet. He knew, and so did all the world, the extreme caution with which, during the last Session of Parliament, his right hon. Friend expressed himself on most public questions; and upon none did he express himself with greater caution than upon the Irish tithe Question. But, nevertheless his right hon. Friend was undoubtedly associated with gentlemen in this and the other House of Parliament—the latter especially—the justification of whose consistency would be extremely difficult, and any attempt at which the House would not, he was certain, hear from his right hon. Friend. But to deal fairly and frankly with his right hon. Friend, he must tell him that his conduct with respect to this very Bill did not stand quite clear from the charge of inconsistency. Like the right hon. and learned Recorder, the Member for the University of Dublin, sitting behind him, his right hon. friend contended that the measure proposed by the present chief Secretary for Ireland resembled greatly, in its principal features, the Bill submitted to this House in February last. But the right hon. and learned Recorder added, and so, he believed, did the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was one feature in which this measure did not resemble that of last year, namely, the imposition of a rent-charge immediately. But was that the only feature in which it did not resemble the measure of last August, when the Bill assumed its final shape. The Perpetuity Fund, was that a feature of the first or of the last measure? Undoubtedly that of the last. He was not perfectly sure whether the right hon. Baronet objected to the introduction of that feature, but he believed that he objected to the application of that fund to the secular purposes to which it was undoubtedly to be open; and he was sure that the right hon. Recorder inveighed against the principle of securalizing Church property in terms the most severe that language could supply. Now how could he stand up as he did the other night to argue that there was no secularization in the Bill before them, because the money was to be paid to the clergyman in the first instance, whereas last Session it was to be paid first to the Treasury, and afterwards by the Treasury to the clergyman, as if the relief of the landlord was not the main object of both measures? Never was there a grosser inconsistency than that the right hon. and learned Recorder was guilty of in opposing the measure of last Session, and in now supporting the Bill presented to them by his Majesty's Government. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on this, as on other occasions, when speaking upon this subject, always alluded to the measure as it appeared in the month of August last, as the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But he could not allow it to assume that character; not because he should be at all ashamed of adopting any measure suggested by that hon. Gentleman, if he believed its principles to be good; but because to give the Bill that character would not be consistent with the truth. He was aware that part of the alterations made in the Bill were suggested by the hon. and learned Member, in a speech he made in bringing forward a Motion on the night previous to those alterations being announced; but the hon. and learned Gentleman only echoed sentiments anteriorly expressed by other Irish Members. In fact, the alterations made in the Bill were the result of representations made by two large and numerous deputations of Irish Members, in which were included the prin- cipal representatives of the landed interest in Ireland, and those immediately connected with the Government. Among them were Lords Clements and Acheson; and he might say, that if there were one individual more than another to whom credit was due, and he thought that credit was due to him, it was to the noble Lord the Member for Meath. The Bill was not accommodated to the wishes of the Hon. and learned Member for Dublin, any more than to those of thirty or forty other Irish Members. He did not wish to prolong the discussion on this subject; and would only add, that as it was his duty last year as chief Secretary for Ireland to bring forward the Government measure upon this subject, he should consider it a point of honour to stand by the representatives of the landowners of Ireland and endeavour to attain for them terms not less advantageous than those which would have been afforded them by the Bill of last year.

said that, his right hon. Friend assumed him to have approved of the Bill of August last year; but he objected to it. He did not object to the Bill of February; and he would venture to say that if the Bill of February had been presented to the House of Lords, his impression was that it would have been passed. The Bill which his colleagues in the House of Lords rejected was the Bill of August last, which contained no redemption clause and admitted 40 per cent. [Mr. Littleton: You forget the Perpetuity Fund.] He would not enter into any explanation upon that point. All he wished to show at present was, that his colleagues in the House of Lords were acting last year in conformity with his own objections; but as he had already stated he did not join in any attempt to get up a party against the Bill in the Lords. The resolution was read a second time, and agreed to.

rose to move, as an Amendment for a Select Committee, to inquire into the nature, character, extent, and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and to report their opinion thereon to the House, of which he had given notice. He did not anticipate that his motion would be opposed by his Majesty's Government, though the Orange party, with Lord Roden at their head, aided and supported by many hon. Members of that House, arrogated to themselves in Ireland the exclusive loyalty, and the exclusive religion of that country. The time was come when, in this respect at least, something like equality should be established between these noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, and the rest of their fellow-countrymen; but the intolerant spirit of the dominant party was manifested by the oath prescribed to be taken by them, and which he would read to the House. The oath was as follows:—I do solemnly and sincerely swear, of my own free will and accord, that I will, to the utmost of my power, support and defend the present King George the Third, his heirs and successors, so long as he and they shall support the Protestant ascendency." The galling yoke, so long borne by the people of Ireland, could not, he felt assured, be long sustained, or supported by the honest and proud spirit of the English people. Of the evil effects of the system he could afford ample proofs, but he would first rely upon the opinion which had been expressed by a learned Judge (Mr. Justice Fletcher). That eminent individual had said—"I have found that those Orange lodges have produced the most mischievous effects in society: they have induced the magistrates to violate their duty—verdicts have been often given in direct opposition to the charge of the Judge." Such was the slavery to which the Roman Catholic portion of the community was reduced, and such was the cause. Justice was perverted, as it was difficult to get a jury, save of Orangemen; and yet this was the body whom the King (the common father of his people) had received in private with an address in the manner detailed in the Dublin Evening Mail. This was not the method by which to conciliate the feelings of the Irish people—rather tell them in the field of battle that the services of Catholics would be dispensed with—rather have sent them home from the field of Waterloo without claiming their valour—than thus brand them with inequality in the land which gave them birth. He had already said, that justice was perverted, and he put it to the House how it was possible that it could be otherwise, when juries, grand juries, and high sheriffs, were nearly entirely composed of Orangemen. Nay, even the Knight of Kerry had declared that the Roman Catholics would consider it a mercy to be tried for offences alleged against them by courts-martial, rather than by juries and functionaries thus exclusively composed. The exclusive character of the Orangemen of Ireland was manifested by the grounds upon which the objection was raised to the late Government at the Down-shire meeting recently—a meeting at which according to one account, 70,000 Orangemen, to another 35,000, and to a third account 25,000, had assembled. The objection was founded upon the general system of education in Ireland adopted by the late Government. An Orange lodge had been formed at Newry, and to connect it with Conservative politics it had been called the Adelaide Orange lodge. This was the language in which the formation of that lodge was publicly announced:—"Her gracious Majesty has been much blamed for supposed interference in great political matters. Whether or not she shall express herself highly gratified at the high honour which the High-street boys have conferred on her, by making her their patroness, we cannot presume to say. This, however, we can confidently assert, that she neither would fling dead cats and rubbish over the High-street Nunnery wall, nor annoy the ladies walking through the grounds by indecent expressions; nor, we are assured, would she have joined in the wrecking of the convent, or lent the weight of her little finger to the crow-bar which was used in attempting to force the gate." Such was the language used by these Orangemen. He would next refer to an opinion which Lord Chief Justice Bushe had given upon a case tried before him in the county of Down. An Orangeman had been indicted for a libel, which was brought home to him by the clearest evidence; and yet, though there could be no doubt as to the grossness of the libel, the jury instantly brought in a verdict of acquittal. What was the observation of the learned Judge? Nothing less than this—"That is your verdict, gentlemen of the jury, thank God it is not mine." In the county of Cavan an equal number of Orangemen and Catholics were indicted for being engaged in the same riot. An Orange jury was impannelled, and the result was, that the Orangemen were all acquitted, and that the Catholics were one and all convicted. The injustice of this verdict was so flagrant, that the learned personage who tried the case, took the law, as it were, into his own hands, and obtained the pardon of the convicted Catholics. Now, could they, as men of common sense and fairness, expect that the Catholics would be contented so long as they saw that owing to these societies they could have no confidence in the administration of justice? He would next show the feelings of Orangemen by their own language, as published in their recognized organ, the Dublin Evening Mail. A Mr. Phillips at one of these Orange meetings said,—"We are now 3,000,000 of men, and our advanced guard is the Orangemen of Ireland. The Orangemen are a well organized body, comprising 160,000 men, every one of whom is ready and willing to die for his religion, for the principles of the constitution, and for his King, if he act up to the principles which he has sworn to maintain, and which were established at the glorious Revolution of 1688. Let those fight for their new-fangled constitution who will; but this I know, they will not be the Orangemen of Ireland." So, that whether the Catholic Emancipation Bill, or the Reform Bill, or any other Bill, made what these exclusively loyal and religious gentlemen were pleased to call a new-fangled constitution, against that they were prepared to make their stand, and if upon such measures the King upon the Throne did not choose to act as their exclusively loyal and religious mightinesses deemed expedient, their loyalty was at an end, and their allegiance was to be dissolved for ever. These they were told, were the sentiments of 20,000 men in Armagh, and in these 20,000 men were to be found the grand jurors, the petty jurors, the magistrates, the high sheriff, almost all the persons who were engaged in the administration of justice, and could the House expect that the people of Ireland would appeal to tribunals over which such men had the power of exercising influence? He would next quote the language of Lord Mandeville to an Orange meeting in Downshire, where his arrival was said to be greeted by the simultaneous cheers of the whole assembly. These were the words of the report:—"Lord Mandeville next presented himself. A simultaneous burst of applause rent the air, the band at the same time striking up the air of the 'Protestant Boys.' His Lordship said:—'Gentlemen and Brothers.' [Not less than 20,000 persons were present; almost all, to a man, were dressed with the insignia of the Orange institution. The equipages and housings of the horses of the gentlemen were decorated with Orange ribands.] 'We are assembled here in order to show you the necessity of standing together, that we may be protected from recurrence of those scenes of outrage which have invariably been committed by Papists over Protestants whenever they possessed power over them. It is to ourselves, it is to the Orangemen of Ireland that we are indebted for being enabled to meet this day in the broad face of heaven; and if Protestants be not united together, we have nothing to hope for short of again hearing the tinkling of chapel bells, calling our enemies to another Sicilian vespers, commemorative of the occasion when Papists rose and massacred every Protestant they could lay their hands upon.'" Of whom was it that the noble Lord was speaking in this violent language of execration? Of 7,000,000 of his Catholic fellow-countrymen. Whose religion was it that he was denouncing in these terms of unmeasured scorn and bitterness? The religion of the greater part of Europe—the religion of our faithful allies in Austria—the religion of our rivals in arts and in arms in France—the religion of Spain, and Portugal, and Italy. Where the noble Lord had learned his religion, he (Mr. Finn) knew not; but in the language of Mr. Boyce he must say, "His (Lord Mandeville's) religion is not my religion: his God is not our God." His religion could not be the religion of the Gospel, for that was a religion of peace, good-will, and charity—a religion which bade us love and not hate one another—a religion, which sought to eradicate, and not to exasperate, the bad passions of human nature. He would not however, pursue this train of reflection further. He entertained a grateful recollection that the religion which the noble Lord professed, was the religion of Grattan, of Charlemont, of Fox, and of many other great and good men, who, through bad report and good report, had laboured to achieve the emancipation of their Catholic fellow-subjects; and with that recollection fresh in his mind, he would not suffer any observation to escape which could cast discredit upon that religion. He would, therefore, suppose that the noble Lord was labouring under some gross delusion—that he was speaking in utter ignorance of the subject on which he was talking, when he gave a description as he had done of the religion professed by so large a portion of the people of Ireland. The man who charged the Catholics of Ireland, with such atrocious sentiments as the noble Lord supposed to reign in their hearts must be utterly ignorant of their religion and its tenets. Hon. Members had heard something about the poetry of Johnny M'Crea from his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Tipperary. He would now proceed to give the House a specimen of the deliberate sentiments of that reverend personage, and, what was more important, a subscription of two hon. Members of that House in approbation of those sentiments. He would first point out to their notice the atrocious language used by this Johnny M'Crea, and he would then give them the words in which two hon. Members of that House had given in their subscription to it. It appeared that Johnny M'Crea was in the habit of preaching in Dublin; and that, on one occasion, he was defending himself from the imputation of having brought uncharitable charges against his religious opponents, or, as he himself styled it he was "defending the foundations of Protestantism against the unprovoked language by the Goliah of Gath, during his lecture in the chapel of Westland-row." Speaking of the prophecies of scripture, and the analogies of history, he observed,—" If I live to the natural period of three score years and ten, I shall not be surprised to see a moral reaction, in which the Protestants of this country, roused to indignation, shall execute the fury of the Lord of Hosts upon their enemies. I am not dismayed because of the acknowledged beautiful edifices that superstition is raising in every quarter of the land. These stupendous and magnificent structures, are so many churches being built for us. I have preached in the pulpit at Perth, in which Knox uttered the memorable declaration, that to banish the crows we must pull down their nests. The recollection is a stimulus to the zeal of the humble person that now addresses you; and should the enemies of the Bible advance one step in the invasion of the territories of Christ, he is pledged to God and to the Church, with the blessing of the highest, to rouse a spirit that no power on earth or in hell can resist. If my interpretation of sacred prophecy is true, Popery is the antitype of the 'abomination that maketh desolate.' Sin must therefore cease. 'Every Popish altar in Ireland must be broken down; every Popish temple in Ireland must be cleansed and consecrated, and every Popish priest must either hide his diminished head in obscurity, transport himself to the congenial soil of the Cherokee, become a preacher of the faith he now seeks to destroy, or fall a victim to the (perhaps) unrighteous indignation of a people, the blood of whose forefathers cries to Heaven for vengeance against the man of sin." This man, he wished the House to remark, was the poet laureat and chaplain to the Orange Lodge in Dublin, and held, moreover, a high rank among the Conservatives. The Catholics were now building chapels out of their own pockets; and this reverend gentleman, acting as he supposed, in the spirit of Christian charity, told them that all their altars must be broken down, and all their temples cleansed and consecrated, or in plain English denied and spoliated. It would perhaps surprise the House to hear, that he found this curious testimonial to the merits of Johnny M'Crea, in the Evening Mail. It was headed with the usual Orange motto—"No Surrender," and was couched in the following terms:—"Protestant testimonial to the reverend Mr. M'Crea. The untiring and successful labours of the reverend Mr. M'Crea on behalf of scriptural religion, and his magnanimous assertion of constitutional principles at the Royal Exchange, which defeated O'Connell and his confederates in the design to embarrass the King and his Ministers, have led the following persons to subscribe towards presenting the reverend gentleman with a service of plate, as a testimony of Protestant approbation and gratitude." Among the names of the subscribers to this testimonial were those of Captain Childers,—but he was loth to proceed; for it was one of the faults of these institutions that they drew into their vortex men of amiable temper and manners—men who, in their private capacities, were irreproachable, good husbands and good fathers, good landlords and kind masters. There was also another Member of Parliament, Mr. Cooper, 5l., Colonel Verner 5l. He would not dwell on these topics. He had visited every country in Europe, but had seen none so miserable as Ireland, gifted though she was with all the attributes to render her flourishing and. happy. Was it not wretched that a country so blessed by the bountiful dispensations of Heaven should be so cursed by the blighting dissensions of man? He had spoken with the utmost frankness on this subject—he had no wish to give any man offence—it was more in sorrow than in anger that any expressions which might have given pain had fallen from him. If the House should determine to grant the Committee for which he was about to move, and that Committee should be empowered to inquire into this system, which extended, he believed, over three-fourths of the Protestant population of Ireland, he trusted, that the Committee would be constituted without any party bias. He implored the House to consider what would be the effect if the circumstances of the present case happened to be reversed,—if the Catholics had similar signs with the Protestants, if no Protestant were admitted a member of their secret societies, if every Protestant was denounced as an enemy? Would not the Protestants in that case naturally look upon every Catholic as their enemy? Under the present system the Catholics looked upon themselves as outcasts, and would be so looked upon by others, so long as it existed. But they were not the slaves of the ascendancy party, nor would they consent any longer to be considered in any other light than as their equals. He hoped, that a fair Committee would be appointed. For his own part, he would say, "let no Catholic nor Orangeman be on it." Before such a Committee let the Catholic have an opportunity of showing the mischief which emanates from these secret associations of Orangemen, and let the Orangeman if he could, show their beneficial results. The hon. Member concluded by again reading his Motion.

rose with great pleasure to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He was himself an Orangeman, and proud of avowing it. Like the hon. Member, he prayed for the fullest inquiry, and hoped that the Committee to which such inquiry was intrusted, would be constituted in the most impartial manner. He concluded by expressing a hope that Government would have no objection to grant the proposed Committee.

said, that as the discussion on these Orange Associations had been so frequent during the present Session, and as there appeared to be an universal, or, at any rate, a common desire on both sides of the House, to investigate into their nature, constitution, and tendency, he would, without answering a single objection propounded by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, state that it was the intention of Government to assent to his proposition. Under such circumstances, the House would feel that all discussion on the subject was premature, and ought to be deprecated. The only point on which he thought that it was necessary for them to come to an understanding that evening was, the appointment of a Committee. He thought that it would be advisable to exclude from it all party men on either side. As that appeared to be the desire of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he would accede to his proposition, and would express a hope, that the Committee would be so appointed as to conduct its labours and investigations with perfect impartiality.

objected to the terms in which Mr. Finn had couched his Motion, and complained that it did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not give the Committee power to inquire into the tendency of the Orange Associations to frustrate the administration of justice in Ireland. The House had already appointed Committees to inquire into the state of society in Ireland. Those Committees had instituted long examinations, and made voluminous Reports; and, as the right hon. Secretary well knew, nothing had been done upon those Reports. This, as it had occurred before, might occur again. The House would perhaps excuse him, if, with that circumstance in his recollection, he now mentioned a number of cases which had happened within his own knowledge, in which the due course of justice had been frustrated by the influence of these Associations. He would commence by referring to what had recently taken place in his own county of Meath. It appeared that the son of an individual who had been recently promoted to the Lord-lieutenancy of that county, had been guilty of the conduct which he was now about to describe. A number of Orangemen, linked arm-in-arm together, and wearing their usual insignia, passed by a Magistrate of that county, as he was going to Church. Not knowing them, he asked where they were going; but he received no satisfactory answer. It turned out that they were persons in the pay of Randal Plunkett, who, by his desire, were going to form part of an Orange procession. They were armed themselves, and were headed by a Protestant clergyman, who held a pistol in his hand. In the course of the day they drew their pistols more than once upon the inhabitants of the district through which they passed. Five of them afterwards went to a village in the county of Meath. Whilst there, a quarrel ensued between them and some of the villagers, and blood was shed. The men were put on their trial in consequence. The man whom they had assailed was a Roman Catholic, and it was put to the High Sheriff how the affair could be settled. He believed that the right hon. Secretary would bear him out when he said that the Attorney-General (Mr. Blackburne) had not ordered any Crown prosecution in the case of the murder of the man Henry. The matter, however, was settled in this: they got a jury empanelled to try the indictment, consisting of six Catholics and six Protestants. This was to all outward appearance fair enough—but what was the result? The jury could not agree, and if any man had shown him the names of those jurors before they were empanelled, he would have ventured to predict from his own knowledge of their habits and characters, that they would not agree. They did not agree, and by this proceeding the due execution of justice was frustrated. When the officers of the law interfered in this manner in Ireland with criminal proceedings, and when they attended Orange meetings, at which toasts of the most exasperating description were drunk with enthusiasm, it was impossible that the minds of the people of Ireland should not be filled with strong doubts that justice would not be done to them, whenever they had any dispute with any member of an Orange Association. In four counties in Ireland, Cavan, Antrim, Armagh, and Tyrone, there had been large Orange meetings, and in all and each of them the High Sheriff had been called to the chair. In Cavan and Antrim two of the toasts had been, "The glorious, pious, and immortal memory," and "The Protestant ascendancy in Church and State." He believed that in both places the parties who assembled were staunch friends of the right hon. Baronet opposite, for the re- ports stated that "The health of Sir Robert Peel was drunk amid thunders of applause." In the county of Armagh they drank, with similar honours, "The health of Lord Roden and the Orange Lodges." In the county of Tyrone they went further. One of the toasts was, "The man who would not barter his principles for emolument—Lord Farnham." Another toast was, "Colonel Verner and the Orangemen." A third, "May Protestantism flourish all over the earth, until not a vestige of Popery is left in the creation." A fourth was, "The Pope in the pillory, the pillory in hell, and the Devil pelting him with priests." The last toast was rather out of date in the present times: it was, "May those who say their prayers on their beads, never make laws for Protestants." This toast was said to have been received with loud cheers." Those sentiments and toasts proceeded from persons to whom were confided the administration of the laws. Could, then, the House be surprised that the people in Ireland were not satisfied with that Administration, when persons who administered it, avowed their participation in such sentiments were so intimately connected with it? Several Judges had given decisive opinions as to the illegality of these Orange Associations. Among other opinions he had got the opinion of Judge Jebb, who stated that Orange processions were illegal, because they emanated from societies which were themselves illegal. At a large Orange meeting which took place at some town or village in Downshire, 150 Orange Lodges were marshaled under their different officers. ["Question!"] He asked hon. Gentlemen who called "Question," whether they made any question about the lives of their tenants? He was obliged to feel an interest in these displays, for on more than one occasion he had been obliged to retain counsel on behalf of his tenants, who had been injured in the course of them. These Orange Lodges, when thus marshalled, proceeded to Lord Roden's park, at Tullamore, where, in spite of the Duke of Northumberland's proclamation denouncing the illegality of such processions, the noble Lord addressed them in a most inflammatory, and if Lord Chatham's definition of seditious might be taken, in a most seditious speech. To show how fully he entered into their proceedings, he commenced his address to them by calling them, "My friends and brethren." The noble Earl to whom he had referred described the Orange body as an exclusively Protestant Association for the support of the law and the maintenance of true religion, and declared that no honest politician could refuse to belong to such a society. The Orange institutions were for defending Protestantism, and the accession of the House of Brunswick to the Throne, and the customary oath taken was, "I swear true allegiance to George 3rd and his heirs so long as he and they support the Protestant religion, which is the true religion established by law." Lord Roden said, that no honest Protestant could refuse to belong to those institutions, and that he that did so was a Radical. The hon. and learned Recorder, and Member for the University of Dublin, favoured those societies, notwithstanding their having been pronounced illegal by his Majesty's advisers. The hon. Member next referred to divers cases in which Orangemen and Catholics met in arms. The Catholics were invariably the first to cede to the voice of the Magistrates, and in one instance when they had done so the Magistrates retired, and a scene of great confusion ensued. Houses were burnt and destroyed, and twenty-nine men were taken in arms and committed for trial. Many acts of partiality were committed by persons who thought they were justified in committing them, seeing that so many persons avowedly favourable to Orange Societies, had obtained places under the present Government. He regretted, that Government should sanction these Societies; but when he found persons of high rank and station countenancing the Orange body, he contended that it became doubly dangerous, and that the conduct of the Government in recognizing it directly or indirectly was quite inexcusable. He should be glad to see the recommendation of conciliation offered by the right hon. Baronet a few nights ago adopted. No man could rejoice more than himself to see Protestants and Roman Catholics shake hands and forget their mutual differences.

thought it most extraordinary that the right hon. Baronet and his Majesty's advisers should have counselled his Majesty to receive certain Addresses in the most gracious manner, and others, though of a perfectly legal character, scarcely to be acknowledged at all. Orange Addresses were received in the most gra- cious manner, whilst other Addresses that he presented from the inhabitants of most respectable boroughs were received with merely the acknowledgment that they were so. The answer to the Address from the Grand District Lodge, was signed Henry Goulburn, and stated that he had the satisfaction of informing them that their Address was received in the most gracious manner. Another Orange Address was acknowledged by the Duke of Wellington in similar terms. He had presented two Addresses, one from Derby, and the other from a most respectable borough, respecting the dismissal of the late Government and the appointment of the present one, and the only answer he had was from the Secretary of the right hon. Member (Mr. Goulburn), stating on the part of Mr. Secretary Goulburn that the Address was received. There was nothing in the answer intimating that his Majesty had received the Address in the most gracious manner. One of those Addresses was transmitted to the Duke of Wellington, and no answer whatever was received to it. Was this partiality or was it not? And could the country have confidence in men that sanctioned such proceedings? Here were Addresses from public bodies, acknowledged to be legal, received almost without acknowledgment; whilst others from illegal bodies were most graciously received. This was not fair; it was most unfair and unjust, and being so was most unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, that as there was no disposition on the part of Government to oppose the appointment of a Committee, he thought the present discussion uncalled for, and that it was scarcely necessary for himself or his right hon. Friends to make any observation on the subject. On a former occasion he had stated, that whatever Addresses were presented during his occupation of office had been treated precisely in accordance with previous precedents. The general rule and practice at the Home-office was this—where Addresses were forwarded, approving of the course taken by the existing Government, the answer was invariably that given in the cases complained of by the hon. Member for Middlesex, so where Addresses supported views to which it might be supposed from the policy of Government the Crown was opposed, the other course of a simple acknowledg- ment was pursued. He only wished the hon. Gentleman had read to the House the Addresses of which he spoke, and the answers. It would appear, that in the latter there was nothing to recognize the bodies addressing, but that the Addresses had been received as from certain persons who signed them. This was acting in accordance with established precedents, and implied no intention on the part of the Government to recognize Societies constituted as Gentlemen opposite described these to be. The answers merely contained that gracious acknowledgment which it was customary for the Crown to afford to those Addresses which were dictated in accordance with its presumed sentiments. It was not necessary to enter further into the subject. It might be convenient to attack the individual holding the Seals of the Home-office, and to attempt to discredit the Government by such remarks as had been made on this occasion, but he doubted the wisdom or policy of such a course, which tended rather to create the impression complained of by Gentlemen opposite, by attaching undue importance to what after all was merely a formal proceeding in conformity with the ordinary course in such matters.

The right hon. Gentleman stated his desire to avoid a recognition of Orange Societies, but he called the right hon. Gentleman's notice to one answer, which stated—"I have had the honour to lay before the King, the loyal and dutiful Address of the Brotherhood Club." Was not that a recognition of an Orange Society? Another answer was—"I have had the honour to lay before the King the loyal and dutiful Address signed by yourself (the Secretary) and others of the Orange Lodge No. 903." Yet, in the face of these replies, the right hon. Gentleman ventured to deny his recognition of Orange Lodges. In his opinion, the Government had clearly manifested a disposition to sanction such Societies. Persons holding the highest offices in them were courted and promoted. This was the charge brought against Ministers. Did the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department forget a Motion formerly made by a Member of the present Cabinet, a Mr. Goulburn, for a Committee to inquire into the Constitution of Societies calling themselves Orangemen, though the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman now be- longed had proceeded on a recognition of I those Societies? These were charges which the Government could not escape, or reply to, before the tribunal of public opinion.

would not be tempted to enter into a discussion of the subject; but he was perfectly ready to meet particular charges. That the Brotherhood Club was an Orange Society he solemnly declared, he did not know till he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman assert it. Were there no Clubs that occasionally addressed the King—Odd Fellows and others? And how were they to be discriminated? He would lay the Address of the Brotherhood Club on the table, to show that it afforded no evidence of proceeding from an Orange Society; the answer had been given under that impression. With respect to the other Address of the Orange Lodge, No. 903, if the hon. and learned Gentleman looked carefully at the answer, he would see that it avoided any recognition of the Society, and simply acknowledged the receipt of the Address as that of the individuals who signed it. He complained of the unfair imputations of a design to encourage and maintain Orange Societies. Such a charge was unfounded when made against the Government, and especially unjust when directed against an individual who, as the hon. Member for Tipperary admitted, had introduced measures to put down those Societies; and at a time when the attempt entailed on him much undeserved unpopularity.

said, that he had received a letter in reference to a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, on a former evening, relative to Mr. Robinson, a statement to which he (Sir Henry Hardinge) did not attach much importance at the time. The writer (Mr. Robinson) stated, that the hon. and learned Member was altogether incorrect in his allusions to him—that he was not an Orangeman or Member of any Conservative Society, and that he had not the honour to be nephew to Lord Farnham. He could also state, that the individuals mentioned as being improperly appointed by the Lord-lieutenant were not Orangemen or partisans, as stated by the hon. Member. The fact was, that in every act of the Government there was the utmost desire to treat Orangemen and Ribandmen with the strictest impartiality. The hon. Member for Meath had alluded to a murder at the town of Kells, and thrown out an imputation against the Attorney General for improper conduct in the prosecution of the parties accused. The hon. Member was altogether mistaken in his allegation, there were no attempts made to procure an acquittal. So far from the law-officer of the Crown having prosecuted, the fact was, that he abstained from doing so at the desire of relatives of the deceased. He expressed his willingness to prosecute if called on, but had no wish to undertake the case if the relatives did not desire it. The trial, therefore, came on at the instance of the private prosecutor, who employed eminent counsel to conduct the case. The case was such that the acquittal of the prisoners was expected after the Jury had been locked up; but the Jury having remained together three days without agreeing on a verdict they were discharged. Such were the facts of the case, as stated to him in a letter from the Crown Solicitor. It therefore appeared that the imputation that the Crown Solicitor prosecuted, and was anxious for an acquittal of the accused, was inconsistent with the fact. Six Catholics, and six Protestants were on the Jury, and they could not agree.

thought, that when loyal and dutiful Addresses (such as he had been intrusted with by his countrymen) were presented, in which the Ministers in whom his Majesty had reposed confidence up to the 15th of November last were approved of, they ought to be received with the common forms of acknowledgment, as well as Addresses from Orangemen, in which those Ministers were termed "revolutionary."

said, an hon. Member opposite had alluded to an outrage that recently took place in Enniskillen (the town he had the honour to represent). He could tell the hon. Gentleman, that the transaction occurred in consequence of an irruption of several thousand Ribandmen from Leitrim and adjoining counties. He would not undertake to say, who were right, or who were wrong on that occasion; but this he knew, that the sufferers were Protestants—one individual being killed on the spot, and another mortally wounded.

said, that he had received a letter from Leitrim only the other day, stating the great increase of Orange Lodges since the accession of the present Government to power. The writer remarked upon it as an extraordinary circumstance, that a Ministry professing to enforce the law should require the assistance of bodies, formerly stigmatized by Members of the present Cabinet as illegal.

corroborated the statement of the noble Lord, as to the increase of Orange Societies since the accession to office of the present Government. It was not sufficient that Members of the Administration deprecated such things, the House and the country looked not to their words, but their acts. It was seen how the Government deprecated an Orange outrage in the theatre of Dublin! Had a green flag been exhibited at the theatre over the Marquess Wellesley's head, with an inscription of "No tithes," and if no notice were taken of the transaction, we should have heard the Whig Government denounced as "revolutionary" by the Orange party. When like conduct was displayed by Orangemen, why had there not been a word of reproof from the Lord-lieutenant?

said, that as an indirect allusion had been made to the exhibition of an Orange flag in a box above that in which the Lord-lieutenant sat on his visit to the theatre, he begged to say, that Lord Haddington was much displeased at the occurrence, and on the following day the Lord Mayor called on Lord Haddington, and expressed his regret at what had taken place. He would only ask hon. Members opposite, how Lord Haddington could have prevented the exhibition which was complained of?

was rejoiced to find, that his Majesty's Government had done justice to the Motion before the House, by admitting the necessity of the inquiry asked for. He had strong feelings on the subject, and he would tell the gallant Officer, that he had derived his opinions from that which the gallant Officer would consider a legitimate source. He took his impressions from a work of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, who published some years ago—a work entitled "Three Months in Ireland, by a Protestant." The noble Lord's opinion—[Lord Mahon rose, but was called to "Order."] If the work were not the production of the noble Lord, he was very sorry to quote his name as an authority. The hon. Member read an extract from the above work, in which the author observed, that "whilst in England there were very few Orangemen; whereas, in Ireland they ruled the country with a rod of tyranny; but that now they were reduced to fruitless rancour, &c." He did not quote this with the intention to misinterpret the opinions of the noble Lord, though he thought the sentiments he had quoted would do him, or any man, great credit.

felt quite sure, that after a charge so personal, and so unexpected, as that which had just been brought against him by the hon. Member for St. Alban's, the House, with that regard for justice, which he had always observed a British House of Commons disposed to manifest towards private individuals, would allow him to trespass on their attention for a very few moments. He had been accused of being the author of a work called "Three Months in Ireland." He utterly disavowed being the author of it; it had been published some years before; and he could solemnly avow, that he had never seen or heard it ascribed to him, until within a few weeks ago, when he saw it imputed to him in an anonymous pamphlet. The hon. Gentleman said, it was sold in his (Lord Mahon's) name. This was the first time he had ever heard of it; and unless the hon. Gentleman stated the fact from his own knowledge, he could not believe the assertion. For what he had written he was willing to answer; but it was most unfair, under any circumstances whatever, to charge a man with being the author of an anonymous work, simply because it was very difficult for a mere denial to carry with it sufficient weight. If this were intended as an attack on his political character, he appealed both to the House generally, and to Gentlemen opposite, to whom he was politically opposed, whether he had ever swerved from the principles he professed, or hesitated to maintain them with honour, integrity, and consistency. The debate had been prolonged by hon. Gentlemen who had prepared speeches, and did not like to be disappointed. He hoped they would have the satisfaction of hearing some more, but he trusted they would not be couched in that character of personalities which had disgraced the preceding part of the debate, and which could not fail to impress the country with an opinion of their proceedings, far from honourable to the deliberation of that House. He might have taken this opportunity of recriminating upon the hon. Member for St. Alban's, if he were so disposed, by adverting to charges which were recorded against him; he would not do so. [Cries of "Name."] Well, then, he alluded to the hon. Member's mission to Mexico, which gave rise to serious charges against him.

said, that the noble Lord, whilst disclaiming personalities, had made an attack upon him which was most unfounded and untrue. He would not deny that in the course of his mission to Mexico, circumstances occurred, which, though most painful to his feelings, were not injurious to his character. He acknowledged frankly, and fully, that he committed an error upon that occasion; but Mr. Canning, in, he believed, one of the last letters he ever wrote, told him, that he was perfectly satisfied with his explanation regarding it, and that he stood as high in his estimation as before. That was his distinct answer to the charge which the noble Lord, flushed he supposed with a few weeks' possession of office, had most unfairly, most wantonly, if not cruelly, brought against one, who never injured him. The noble Lord seemed to think, that he (Mr. Ward) had brought a charge against him by erroneously attributing to him the authorship of a pamphlet, of the opinions contained in which the noble Lord needed not to be ashamed. He was led into the mistake in consequence of seeing the noble Lord mentioned as the author in the pamphlet which the noble Lord had referred to, and when he sent to his bookseller for "Lord Mahon's work on Ireland," he sent him the "Three Months in Ireland." He would not press the matter further at that moment, but he called upon the noble Lord, after consulting with Mr. Planta, who was acquainted with all the circumstances connected with his mission to Mexico, to declare from his place in the House, on some future occasion, whether the statement he had made relative to Mr. Canning being perfectly satisfied with his explanation, was or was not correct.

said, he would at once declare, that the transaction to which he alluded, in no degree affected the personal character of the hon. Member. He regretted that he had alluded to the subject at all; but he felt that he had himself been personally attacked. Again he must express his regret that he had alluded to the matter in question.