said that, seeing the Attorney-General in his place, he would take that opportunity to present a Petition of which he had given that learned Gentleman notice. The petition in question was an appeal to that House—it was an appeal from the poor to the rich against a scourge which the rich alone could inflict on them. The petition was signed by seventy persons, all of them, with five exceptions, of the labouring class in the county of Radnor, in South Wales. The county of Radnor, it was well known, was extremely mountainous, and, until lately, a great portion of it had been the property of the Crown. However, in the year 1826, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests sold a great portion of the Crown manors there, and that, too, he regretted to observe, by private contract. In that year one of these manors had been sold by the Commissioners to Mr. Watt, of Birmingham. It had long been the custom for the poor of the district—a custom which had not been interdicted by the Government — to enclose small portions of waste grounds on the slopes of the hills and vallies there, and to build cottages upon them. Some of these cottages had been occupied upwards of thirty years. It suited the purposes of the purchaser of the manor, on obtaining possession of it, to institute an action at law to recover one of these cottages, and a small portion of ground attached to it, with a view to the assertion of his dominion over the whole of them. The action was tried, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff, subject to a special case, to be argued and determined in the Court of Common Pleas. It was fully argued there, and the unanimous decision of the court was, that the Crown had not the power to sell the waste; that if it had the power which, it claimed, that power did not pass with the deed to the purchaser, and the Chief Justice observed, that not only the law, but the justice of the case was with the defendant. A rule was accordingly entered for the defendant, and so the matter at that time terminated. Since then his Majesty's Attorney-General, at the instance of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; had instituted proceedings for the purpose of establishing the right of the Crown, and to do so he had recourse to the ancient prerogative writ of intrusion, a writ that had been employed in the very worst periods of English history. It was attempted by this most tyrannical proceeding to deprive those poor people of little properties that they had possessed from a period sufficiently long to consecrate their right to them. Though such a proceeding might be agreeable to law, it was repugnant to the principles of justice; and the very Act of Parliament, passed only a few years since, empowering the Commissioners to sell manors of this description, declared, that encroachments of twenty years' duration and upwards, should be excepted; that where there were such, the Commissioners should give the parties leases for thirty-one years, or come to agreements with them upon equitable terms. The petitioners felt, that if the Government succeeded in this case, their small holdings would be swept away from them, and they would be driven to the workhouse. He trusted that the House would manifest such a feeling as would induce the Government to desist from further proceedings in this matter.

said, that he had attended in consequence of the hon. Gentleman having given him notice of his intention to present the petition. He had made it his duty to inquire into the facts of the case, and having derived his information from a quarter on which he could place implicit confidence, he would lay the real facts before the House. It would then be seen that nothing had been done by the Government which could give just cause for complaint. The Crown possessed extensive manors in the county of Radnor, and large portions of the public property therein had been encroached upon by private individuals. In the year 1826, a number of these manors were sold. Mr. Watt, of Birmingham purchased one of them, and as might be expected from such a man, he had treated the persons who had made encroachments there with the greatest kindness and liberality. He allowed them to remain in possession, on condition of their paying him a nominal rent of 2d. or 3d., and to those who wished to purchase the fee simple of their encroachments he sold it considerably under its value. All of them acknowledged the title of Mr. Watt, except a Mr. Parsons, an attorney at Presteign, who had taken advantage of the matter to stir up dissension in the county; an action was brought against him, and a verdict was had for the plaintiff, subject to a special case to be argued in the Court of Common Pleas. The title of the Crown was clearly proved, and if the action had been brought in the name of the Crown, no defence could have been set up by the defendant. The Court of Common Pleas, however, ruled for the defendant upon a technical point of law—namely, that the Crown being out of possession, it could not transfer the legal estate in those wastes by the deed. Mr. Parsons having thus succeeded upon a technical point, he not only refused to acknowledge the title of Mr. Watt, but he stirred up these poor persons, who had already acknowledged it, to resist it. Mr. Watt, under these circumstances, called on the Woods and Forests to complete his title. It was for that purpose that the present proceeding had been instituted against Mr. Parsons. The hon. Member would persuade the House, that the proceeding in question was a renewal of those oppressive measures which had been resorted to by Empson and Dudley, and for which those eminent individuals had suffered a penalty that no one regretted. Now, what was the course taken against Mr. Parsons, the author of all this mischief? A writ of intrusion had been filed, the only course open to the Government, and he should have neglected his duty if he had not afforded a remedy to enable the Woods and Forests to complete Mr. Watfs title. The action would be tried at the approaching assizes for Herefordshire, when he had no doubt there would be a verdict for the Government, and then he was quite sure that harmony would be restored between Mr. Watt and these poor people, and that having vindicated his title, Mr. Watt would, with his well-known kindness and liberality, allow them to remain in their holdings.

contended, that there was no liberality in compelling these poor people to acknowledge his title by paying him 2d. or 3d. rent, and thereby giving him the power to turn them out when he pleased. The merits of the case would not be tried by the action that was brought. The overruling prerogative of the Crown would override on that occasion all justice and equity. If the facts were as they had been represented to the hon. Member for South-wark, that hon. Member ought to move for a Committee of Inquiry on the subject, and if such facts were proved before it, it would be the bounden duty of the House to address the Crown to stop such oppressive proceedings.

begged to assure the hon. Member for Kilkenny that quite as strong cases had occurred in North Wales. The most vexatious and oppressive proceedings had been adopted there by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests—proceedings that had surprised the whole principality.

vindicated the conduct of the Commissioners, and contended that the proceedings which they had adopted had been necessary for the purpose of asserting the rights of the Crown, or rather of the public.

rose to make a complaint as to the state of the prison-rooms belonging to the House. He had had the misfortune to be the first inhabitant of them, and mere accident prevented his confinement in the same apartment with the hon. Member for Ipswich. The rooms were so constructed, that it was impossible for one Member not to pass through the apartment of the other, and frequently this could not be done without the utmost impropriety and indecency. That no inconvenience of this kind had arisen in his case was owing to good fortune; for the hon. Member for Ipswich, instead of being on his way to Dover and Calais, was comfortably asleep in his bed in his own lodgings. He had no doubt that had they been thus awkwardly circumstanced, the hon. Member for Ipswich would have treated him with the utmost courtesy, and he should have endeavoured to return it; but still the situation might have been inconvenient. He was suffering at the time under severe indisposition, and he might have been compelled to go through the hon. Member's room; and two men of less mild disposition and habits might have found the situation very disagreeable. If the object were to keep quarrelsome Members asunder, no arrangement could be more absurd. Of course he imputed no blame to the Speaker, who was not at all responsible for evils existing in the construction of the present House of Commons; but although not an architect, having some knowledge of the subject, he could state, that no arrangement could be worse adapted to the purpose than the prison-rooms. From what he had observed in the recent change of tone in the conduct of debates, it might ere long be found necessary to put a great number of Members in the cells, and as (according to the proverb) a burnt child dreads the fire, he apprehended that serious consequences would ensue should he ever again become an inmate of them. He would, however, endeavour to conduct himself so as not to incur the displeasure of the House, that he might run as little chance as possible of such a calamity.

referred to the letter he had written to the Speaker, expressing his sense of the courtesy shown to him by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and complained of the order of the House, for which he had found no precedent. No Member ought to be ordered into custody unless he had contravened the orders of the House, or refused to comply with its just demands.

stated, that he had received information from the Sergeant-at-Arms, that the prison-rooms of the House were not well adapted to the purpose. As far as the evil was capable of a remedy he would take care that it was remedied.

rose to call the attention of the House to a circumstance peculiarly and personally affecting him. He alluded to the irregular and improper manner in which he had obtained admission into the House on Friday night, so as to have his name inserted in the list of the majority in the Division. He was aware that it could not be retained on the votes, and he admitted that he had transgressed a rule which it was of great importance to observe. He could palliate it only by the great anxiety he naturally felt to be present, in order to record his opinion upon a question of so much magnitude. In his cooler moments he deeply regretted the course he had taken, and through the Speaker begged to express his sincere contrition. He must, however, after apologising for himself, bg the attention of the House to the case of the messenger (Bailey), through whose instrumentality he had contrived to get into the House, so as to be counted in the Division, although previously locked out. He understood that he was a most respectable and excellent man, who had unwarily yielded to his (Mr. Smith's) most earnest solicitation and entreaty, and had thus transgressed his duty. He himself was, in truth, the only guilty party, and he hoped that the offence would only be visited upon himself.

bore strong testimony to the good character of the messenger, who came from the same county as himself. The offence he had committed arose out of his extreme obligingness of disposition; and he hoped that the Speaker, yielding to the sense of the House, would take no further notice of the transaction.

This being a matter bearing upon the privileges of the House, and looking to the position in which I stand on this occasion, I am sure the House will feel I should be wanting in respect to them, and injustice to my own feelings, if I did not immediately take the opportunity of dismissing any individual who has so misconducted himself in violation of its established rules. I can assure the House that I was not aware of what had occurred, until my attention was drawn to the matter by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk).

felt much disappointment at what had fallen from the Speaker, after the House had expressed its opinion that no further punishment should be inflicted on the messenger.

observed, that the messenger came from the county he represented, and that he bore an irreproachable character. The rules and orders of the House having been vindicated, he thought that no further proceeding was necessary.

was of the same opinion, and in the name of the House entreated the leniency of the Speaker.

I can assure the House, that I feel it is not for me to hesitate in complying with their wish, but that, on the contrary, I feel it to be my duty to give effect to the general sentiment of the House. I feel, however, that a sense of duty to myself, as well as my sense of duty to the House, require that I should not retain this individual, or any person in my service, without being first assured that, in so doing, there should be no chance of a recurrence of a neglect of duty. I can only assure the House that the messenger was deeply sensible of his error within five minutes after he had committed it, and has repeatedly expressed his extreme sorrow at the very culpable act of which he was guilty. I am satisfied the House will see that there is no one thing which it is more my duty to attend to, than that of seeing that its regulations are strictly abided by; but, in this instance, I shall conform to the suggestion which has been made, and admonish the individual in severe terms.

wished to ask a question of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, relative to a subject which he had questioned him about last year—he meant the negotiations that were going on between Spain and the South American States respecting the recognition of the independence of the latter Powers by the former. When he put the question to the noble Viscount, on a former occasion, his reply was, that Senor Mendizabal had dissolved the Cortes, and the consequence was, that it had led to an interruption of the negotiations. The noble Lord might now make him the same answer, for the present Prime Minister of Spain had dissolved the Cortes in a similar manner. He understood, however, that Senor Isturitz, when a Deputy, said, in his place in the Chamber of Procuradores, that he did not think that the determination of the question rested with the Cortes, but that it was part of the prerogative of the Crown, and therefore the Crown should direct the proceedings; in short, that the Crown should settle the matter without the intervention of the Cortes. If this was the present opinion of Senor Isturitz, which he had given as a Deputy, he hoped the noble Lord would be able to say, that it was probable that the parties would come to a satisfactory settlement of the question. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give the House some assurance that the negotiations were likely to be soon terminated. He did not complain of the noble Lord or of the Government; but when he recollected that it was a year and a quarter ago since the late Administration sent over General O'Leary and General Soublette, as deputies from the South American States, to Madrid, he thought that he was justified in again putting a question on the subject to the noble Lord, and in expressing his hopes that there was a reasonable prospect of bringing the matter to a conclusion. It was a subject deeply interesting to this country; and he was sure that the mercantile classes would hear with satisfaction that it was probable that the parties would soon arrive at a satisfactory result.

did not think that the slowness of the negotiations could in any way be attributed to his Majesty's Government. The noble Lord must be aware that his Majesty's Government had nothing to do with the negotiations, for they had not been invited by either party to intervene in the matter. If, therefore, the negotiations were brought to an early termination, they could claim no merit for it, and if they did not succeed, his Majesty's Government could not be blamed. He could, however, assure his noble Friend, that his colleagues and himself were extremely anxious to see the differences between Spain and her South American colonies at an end; and as far as Great Britain could interfere between independent states, without being called upon, the Government would exert its influence to promote this object. He had not heard any thing on the subject since the change in the Government of Spain. That change, however, was so recent, that it was hardly possible that the negotiations could have been carried to such an extent that a result had been arrived at. He, however, could state, that he knew that Generals Soublette and O'Leary were still at Madrid; and whilst they were there, he hoped there was every probability that the negotiations would be brought to a satisfactory termination.

^* said, Sir, the motion now made by the right hon. Gentleman, will enable me to address to the House the observations I wish to offer upon the measure we have so long had under our consideration; but more especially upon the proposal of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to confer municipal corporate powers upon twelve towns, and only twelve towns, in Ireland, in opposition to the amendment sent down to us by the House of Lords; and, Sir, no person can be more unwilling than I am to open a discussion which hon. Members may wish to consider closed by the division of Friday last, but it will be in your recollection, Sir, how frequently I endeavoured to obtain a hearing on that night, especially after the hon. Members for the city of London, for North Derbyshire, and for Meath, but it appeared that arrangements had been made with a view to close the debate on that evening, and I felt it my duty not to interfere with that object, but to reserve myself for the present stage. Sir, in commenting upon the statement of the hon. Member for the city of London, I would premise that I have not been led to do so by any view taken of the subject subsequent to that debate, but the remarks I shall make are those which occurred to me at the moment the hon. Member was speaking, and the substance of which I communicated to him, when I apprised him that it was my intention to endeavour to controvert his positions. Sir, the hon. Member stated, "that if the other House chose, upon all subjects of legislation, to decide upon different grounds from those upon which the Commons proceeded, it was high time and perfectly right that this should be proclaimed out-of-doors to the people;" and the hon. Member proceeded to infer that out of this state of things a necessity arose for some change which he did not very distinctly describe. I venture to deny the

^* From a corrected report.

fact of the hon. Gentleman and his conclusion. I discover no authority for the statement that the House of Lords proceed upon different grounds from those upon which the Commons proceed; and, on the contrary, it is obvious that, between a very considerable number of the Members of this House and the great majority of the House of Peers, there has been no difference of opinion. Indeed, the actual state of things, as opposed to the hon. Gentleman's statement, forcibly brought to my recollection an anecdote of the great Frederick of Prussia, who, in consequence of a certain supposed position of the enemy, submitted a military measure to a council of war, at which several officers delivered their opinions, until one of the members, instead of giving to the King a military opinion, said, "May it please your Majesty, I doubt the fact." The King admitted the reasonableness of ascertaining the fact prior to agreeing upon the military measure; and it was soon discovered that there was no foundation for the position assumed. Sir, I believe that to be the precise case of the hon. Member: he assumes this House to have acted with unanimity, upon definite grounds, directly opposed to those adopted by the House of Lords; and if there had been no difference of opinion— if the general opinion had been that to be collected from the Bill sent from this House, then, undoubtedly, he would have been justified in stating that, as to this particular measure, the two Houses did proceed upon different grounds. But what is the fact?—So far from unanimity having prevailed in this House, a motion was made for an instruction to the Committee to frame the Bill upon the precise principle adopted by the great majority of the House of Peers; that motion was supported by a minority in this House so large as to make it questionable what was the opinion of the House. It is true that, for the purpose of the proceeding, there being a majority, the Government were entitled to claim the benefit of a decision in their favour, and so they would, had the majority consisted of a single vote only; but when the hon. Gentleman thinks proper to represent this case as of an extraordinary description—as requiring to be" proclaimed out-of-doors to the people," then he must not stand upon a mere majority, but upon a clear, fixed, almost unanimously-agreed principle, within these walls, brought into doubt, only, and for the first time, by the House of Peers. But what pretence is there for such a statement? We find a minority, consisting of between 200 and 300 Members, affirming, in this House, the very principle adopted by the other House of Parliament—we find in this House a number in favour of the ministerial plan, not equal to the aggregate number composed of the majority of the Peers, and the minority of the Commons. So that in opposition to the Government plan you have actually a majority of those possessing the right to legislate, and yet we are to be told of some remarkable, even culpable, difference, between the two Houses. But I would invite the attention of the House to another view of the question raised by the hon. Member. It must be well known to every hon. Member that the House of Lords is a Court of final appeal from other Courts of Justice. Suppose, for a moment, that in its judicial character, it had reversed three or four decisions of some inferior Court, would it be a fair ground of complaint against the House of Lords, or would not the inference be that the fault lay with the Judges of the inferior Court—that their law was unsound; or if the learned persons were not deficient in their law, would it not be suspected that they had been subject to some pressure without—that their erroneous judgments following each other in quick succession were to be ascribed to some unhappy leaning to one party, rather than a rigid adherence to sound and impartial justice? I do not stop to apply the supposed case; I will not ask whether the senatorial qualifications of the representative legislators are unquestionable, or whether, admitting their general fitness, yet that individuals have been obliged to yield to those influences to which they owe their elections, and upon which they depend for further returns. I have a right to contend, and I do so with confidence, that the decision of the majority of the House of Lords is as likely to be consonant to justice and the principles of sound legislation, as the judgment formed by the majority in this House. What, then, are we to proclaim to the people? That each House has exercised its judgment as to the best mode of promoting the general good; that the House of Lords, in the case of this Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, has followed the course adopted upon every other Bill, namely, examined the principle and the details, and decided thereon as appeared to them just; that you do not question their right or their discretion in general cases, but are mightily displeased in this particular instance; and is this a ground upon which we can expect to stand well in our proclamation "out-of-doors,"—in our appeal" to the people?" Always remembering that we are complaining, not of any usurped power on the part of the House of Lords—not of any new and extraordinary proceeding, but merely and simply that we having exercised our jurisdiction, they have discharged their duty according to their own sense of right, we therefore complain not of the House of Lords, but of the Constitution; and until it can be shown that the House of Commons ought to be invested with the sole right of legislation—until the Constitution of England is overturned— we can have no right to complain that an independent branch of the Legislature has not been unfaithful to its trust by failing to afford protection to the people. Sir, the station in and out of this House of the hon. Member for the City of London—his reputation for talent, and the importance of the question, demanded that I should offer these remarks; and with the exception of one passing observation upon another attack upon the House of Lords made by the Member for North Derby-shire, I shall leave the measure of their Lordships to furnish its own justification. That hon. Member thought he could not more strongly express his dissent from the course taken by the House of Lords, than by imagining a fit preamble to be inserted in the Bill as amended by the Peers, and accordingly he proposed that it should read thus — '. Whereas it is expedient to abolish all Municipal Corporations in Ireland; and whereas three-fourths of the people of that country are unfit to enjoy municipal institutions, because they are Papists." Now, Sir, I am always happy when I can agree with the hon. Member for North Derbyshire, and I perceive that we approximate, at least, to an agreement in the present case,, and that if he will add to his preamble, that by means of the great disproportion in numbers, the Roman Catholics would obtain the exclusive government of all municipal corporations in Ireland, I should be disposed to adopt his conclusion, that they are indeed unfit, and, for their own sakes, ought not to possess municipal institutions. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman is too liberal to claim a monopoly in legislation; and as he has proposed a preamble for the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, he will Dermit me to suggest a title for that Bill which His Majesty's Government contemplate sending up from this House, and, with your leave, I will re- commend that it shall be intituled, "An Act to facilitate agitation in Ireland, and more effectively to deliver over to the Papist agitators the persons professing the principles of the Reformation, and especially the members of the Church by law established." Sir, there were other speeches delivered in the course of the general debate, upon which I should have been glad to offer some remarks, especially upon the endeavour of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary to prove that no contract had been made between the incongruous parties on the other side, but merely ''a close alliance"—"a junction upon terms most honourable"—"an alliance so compact that he considered it indissoluble;" but I feel discouraged by the disadvantages under which I have to discuss the question, with the knowledge that the Bill is now in the hands of the Government to be moulded, so far as this House is concerned, into any shape they may think proper, and that no further division will take place upon the changes they may make. Still I am bound to record, not merely my opinion, but some facts which ought to be, and in justice must be, in the possession of my fellow-subjects in Ireland, and in England; and I shall proceed to that part of the subject as rapidly as possible. The Bill, as it went up to the House of Lords, was calculated greatly to increase the means of agitation in Ireland; and while it possessed that injurious faculty, it was not necessary to the good government of the towns in Ireland. In short, to me it appeared that nothing could be worse than the Bill carried through by a majority in this House; but I was mistaken in that conclusion—the House of Lords sent down the Bill, providing for all the useful purposes of municipal institutions, but deprived of the injurious character which it carried in its original transit, and the Government have the merit of proposing an altered plan to conciliate the Lords, by which the evils of the former measure are aggravated an hundred-fold. According to the improvement to be proposed, twelve Corporations are to be retained, of which Carrickfergus stands number one; or, as the Member for Waterford happily, but for his own argument, indiscreetly, described them to be— little Parliaments: — Parliaments, you will recollect, in which all the power is made to pass over from the Protestants to Catholics; and while, by the original Bill, the mischief of such bodies would lose much of its power from its dispersion over the country, and its interest would be weakened by its having an ordinary possession, in this new proposition, of twelve Irish Roman Catholic Parliaments, the power would be increased by its concentrated form—by the elastic character and operation which might be given to it—by the interest which it would be enabled to create—by the systematic working which it might command. A more effectual instrument for the increased agitation of Ireland could not be conceived by human ingenuity. But is it for the interest of Ireland that she should be subject to increased agitation? I will answer the question by a fact. Sir, in and prior to 1823, the landed proprietors of England were greatly inconvenienced from their inability to collect their rents, on the one hand, or, on the other, to raise money upon mortgage during the temporary pressure; and it is notorious that persons, with the ample security of unencumbered estates, were obliged to obtain money at annuity interest. In 1823, the difficulty was removed by the resolution of a great public body to lend money on mortgage, at 4 per cent, interest. The example was immediately followed by other capitalists, and loans on mortgage were readily obtained at a still lower rate than 4 per cent. In short, a greatly improved state of things, as it affected both landlords and tenants, immediately followed upon the adoption of this important measure; and it occurred to those who took an interest in the welfare of Ireland, that the benefit experienced in England furnished conclusive proof of the most effectual means of promoting the prosperity of Ireland. It was known that money was more scarce in Ireland—that the means of employing it were more ample, and the necessities of the population more urgent; and although I am not an Irishman, my acquaintance and connexion with Irish interests have led me to feel deeply for Ireland, and to spare no pains to confer substantial advantages upon my fellow-subjects in that part of the United Empire: and I assert most solemnly, (with ample means in my possession to prove the fact), that from the year 1824, and founded upon the experience enjoyed by English landowners, I exerted all the means in my power to introduce capital into Ireland. I did so when capitalists possessed such a redundance of money as to be incapable of find- ing employment for it;—I did so through the year preceding the panic—I did so upon every occasion which presented a favourable prospect of attaining the object; but, Sir, I did so with very limited success; my recommendations to capitalists, as well individuals as public bodies, were met with this single objection—" While agitation is permitted to exist in Ireland, there can be no security for property, and the promise of a high rate of interest will be no equivalent for the loss of the principal." I frequently pressed the distinction between the north and south of Ireland, and stated the regularity with which rents were paid in the former—the mitigated state of the tithe question in the north— nay, the absence of that question, in particular instances of landlords having the tithes of the whole parish in their hands; but the argument had very little effect. I was often told, that the comparative quiet of the north was a false peace not to be relied upon; that it would be wiser to lend, if at all, upon property in the south, because it was in its state of trial; and if rents could in that state be collected, it would prove something upon the question of security; but as to those parts not yet subject to the influence of agitation, their turn must come, and there was no probability of their being at rest; in short, at the very moment at which a security in England could not be obtained, even as a matter of favour, for money ready to be lent at less than 4 per cent.; at that same moment money could not be obtained upon the best Irish security at the high rate of 6 per cent. Sir, I could state many facts to establish and illustrate this position, but I am persuaded that it is unnecessary. I would only add, that the statement is made, not from hearsay or report, but from my own personal knowledge; and but for this agitation which has prevailed in Ireland, I am confident that this difficulty of finding investments in England, would have caused capital to flow freely into Ireland, and Irish works and Irish labour would have been largely paid for with British money. It is my solemn conviction that agitation is the moral pestilence of Ireland, and is working the destruction of the political and social happiness of the country. It is a war against property, life, and religion; — it is a cowardly system, inviting the many to persecute the few —it inflicts upon the people of Ireland the misery of a contagion which, while it is preying upon them keeps at a distance those who would afford them help, and the very poverty which it produces increases their readiness to become the dupes and instruments of demagogues. I may be told it is not enough to deprecate agitation—that we should remove the causes of discontent. Sir, I attach no value to that argument; it has been urged too often to deserve respect, it has been urged by the same persons, too, who, no doubt, believed the promise upon which others acted; they were confident that particular concessions would produce corresponding content, but experience has shown, that concession has operated only as an encouragement to make new demands, and I cannot feel that the advice of those who have been themselves deceived, and have deceived others, ought now to be followed. But it will reasonably be expected of me, that as I resist the course of concession as a mere instrument to endeavour to obtain peace for Ireland, I should point out what measure I would suggest; and, Sir, I do not hesitate to press upon noble Lords, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—I even implore of them, to change their present course. Let the rights of property be respected—let protection for life be afforded—let the supremacy of the law be vindicated—let the disturber of the public peace be restrained and punished, whether high or low—whether he be the nightly assassin or the pampered preacher of sedition, whose harangues are incentives to treason, whose every speech is a punishable misdemeanor. This would be justice to Ireland and justice to England, and secure general safety—and it would secure the Gentlemen opposite the possession of their places, because it would obtain for them the support of all who acted upon Conservative principles. They would have nothing to fear from party struggles; it is no question with the Conservative who shall rule: irrespective of the principles on which they govern, he will not oppose one party in measures proposed and maintained upon Conservative principles, nor will he support his friends in measures of destruction. But if Gentlemen opposite will cling to their close alliance, and rely upon their junction formed upon honourable terms, they may boast of the indissoluble character of their alliance; but they will find it dissolved, as many un- happy alliances are, by the power of Parliament, and they will find, when it is too late, that in conferring professorships upon their supporters, and granting them licences to agitate, they will destroy their own party, and they will withhold from, Ireland and from the United Kingdom, that justice which they have now the power to confer. Under other circumstances, I should have entered more fully into the subject, but I am aware of the indisposition of the House to entertain a renewed debate, after a division; and nothing but a conviction that the people of Ireland and the people of England ought to know how much mischief has been produced by agitation, and how much the measure now before the House is calculated to augment that agitation, could have induced me to do so much violence to my own inclinations, or to incur the risk of trespassing upon the indulgence of the House.

rose to bring forward a motion for the restoration of the towns to the present Bill, which were in schedule C. of the original Bill. He said that, according to the proposition of the noble Lord, twelve towns were to have mayors and town councils. The seven first towns were in the original Bill in schedule A, the others were to be found in schedule B, to which Carrickfergus and Derry were added. The effect of the noble Lord's proposition would be, to exclude four towns with a population of 10,000, and four others with a population of 9,000. Why they were to be excluded, while Derry, with only 10,000, and Carrickfergus, with only 8,000, were included, he could not understand, unless it was on the principle of a concession to the other House. The proposition he had to make was, that the towns which were placed in the old Bill in schedule C, should be restored to the honourable position of corporate towns. The towns to which he alluded were as follow: Bandon, with l2,6l7 inhabitants; Athlone, with 11,362; Wexford, with 10,673; Dimdalk, with 10,078; Youghal, with 6,608; Armagh, with 9,189; Carlow, with 9,111; Tralee, with 9,562; Ennis, 7,711; Cashel, with 6,971; Kinsale, with 7,312; Portarlington, with 3,091; New Ross, 5,011; Enniskillen, with 5,270; Colerain, 5,752; and Dungannon, 3,515. He objected to any such compromise as that of abandoning these towns. The Bill, as it had come from the other House, was an insult to the people of Ireland; and a British Government should refuse to be a party to it. But if this insult was received, he did not blame his Majesty's Government —he did not blame the British representatives of the British people. If their country was degraded, the blame would rest upon the shoulders of the Irish representatives alone. What was the use of talking about the repeal of the Union, and the reform of the House of Lords? What was the use of such vain boasts, if, on the very first moment when these professions were brought 'to the ordeal of practice, their valour oozed out at their finger ends, and they proclaimed themselves to be the humble servants of Britain, ready to accept any pittance which she in her pride condescended to offer for their acceptance? Were they now to learn that such vain boasting was not the way to maintain Irish character and Irish rights? For himself, he never held language of menace without the full intention of execution. Ireland could demand the repeal of the Union, and could enforce that demand, if justice were refused; but that could only be effected by the steady, determined, and unflinching stand of her representatives against every compromise of her rights or honour. He particularly regretted that the great leader of the Irish people was not present to support him. He should be sorry to be acting in opposition to the feelings of that hon. and learned Member; but while he entertained every respect for him, his own honour would not allow him to compromise his own opinions for the sake of following the opinions of any individual. He had reason to apprehend that he now stood in the breach of a forlorn hope; but at all events he ought to have one supporter—he called upon the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. H. Grattan), who had in a late speech nobly repudiated the insult offered to his country with all the fervour of his departed and illustrious predecessor. He called on him to remember the sentiment of the great Grattan, when he said," the honour of a country, like the honour of a woman, when once sacrificed can never be redeemed." He did not exactly know how he could best frame his motion so as to accomplish his object; but he was disposed in that respect to attend to any suggestion that might be made to him. If he moved that the towns be included in schedule A they would have the 101. franchise; perhaps they had better be included in a clause by themselves, giving them the 51. franchise. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the town of Bandon, which was the first in the list of the sixteen towns he intended to propose (being the largest in population), should be included in the number of towns which were to have a mayor and council. If he succeeded in this he would then proceed to move the others seriatim, accompanied by a clause restoring the 5l. franchise, and the qualification for mayor and councils, as in the original Bill for the smaller boroughs.

Who seconds the motion?

said he could not sit and hear it proposed that the town which he had the honour to represent should he included amongst the towns which were to have corporate honours and privileges extended to them without rising to second the motion. If there were to be any additional towns included he should certainly respectfully put in his claim for the very respectable town of Bandon. When the hon. Gentleman opposite declared that he would not compromise his opinions, he certainly did cheer the hon. Member, because whether in this House or out of it, in his humble judgment, a more honourable man was not to be found. He begged to add a word on another subject. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had on a former occasion referred to an inscription which he said he had seen on entering the town of Bandon. Now he had received letters that morning, stating that there had been neither a gate nor any walls at the entrance of the town of Bandon within the last century. The letters informed him that there was not even the vestige of a wall or gate, nor was there any tradition to warrant the supposition that there ever had been a wall or gate. He seconded the present motion, because he felt that if there were to be towns added to the list, there could not be found a more loyal or more respectable town than that he had the honour to represent.

said, that although he had opposed the Bill in its first shape, he had cheerfully supported the proposition of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home department, for introducing the 12 towns which he had named, because he thought it would make a Bill, originally bad, worthy of the support of the House. He was decidedly opposed to the principle of adding other towns to the list; and if the hon. Member for Dundalk was allowed to get up and add three or four other towns, his example might be followed until all the small towns, as originally proposed, would be replaced in the Schedules, and the measure would be again reduced to that impracticable, and as he thought, improper state, which it was in before. He thought, as the measure stood at present, it would not only pass this House, but the other House also. Although an Englishman, he had as much regard for the welfare of Ireland as if he were a native of that country, and he was anxious to see ample justice done to Ireland; but the question was, what was justice to Ireland? He considered it to be the same as that which was considered to be justice to England. With respect to the House of Lords, he had never heard it contradicted in that House, that the House of Lords had not a right to revise the proceedings of the Commons; but he doubted whether on the present occasion they ought to press their right to the extreme. He believed the House of Lords would best consult the peace of the empire by allowing the Bill to pass in its present shape; and therefore he should support the noble Lord in opposition to the hon. Member for Dundalk.

said, the motive which some Gentlemen had assigned for voting in favour of establishing new Corporations in Ireland was, that they considered it as likely to effect the pacification of that country; now, his reason for voting against the measure was, the very strong conviction, founded on observation and experience, that it would do no such thing, but that the rejection of the measure was more likely to produce the desired effect. Neither did he concur with those who maintained that the rejection of the new Corporations for Ireland was a rejection of the Irish people from the enjoyment of those rights which were possessed by the people of England; because, beyond doubt, previously to the enjoyment of any right, it ought to be shown that those to whom it was imparted should be in a condition to exercise it for the general benefit. He thought it had been clearly proved, first, that those who had already possessed these corporate rights in Ireland, had not exercised them for the general benefit, but only for the advantage of their own party, and therefore that they ought not to be conferred upon them; and next, he thought it had been proved with equal clearness, that those whom it was now proposed to endow with these corporate rights, would not enjoy them for the general benefit, but for the good of their party, and that therefore they ought not to be conferred, but that both sides should alike be deprived of them: the rights themselves should be suffered to fall into disuse, and another mode of corporate government established. The old Corporations had undoubtedly been made, in Ireland particularly, an instrument of abuse which one party had used for the oppression of the other. But now what did they propose to do by this measure? They preserved this instrument of abuse, simply placing it in other hands, that is, in the hands of that party which had suffered by it, and who had therefore motives of resentment to instigate them, as well as the ordinary disposition of the human mind to abuse power. By this observation he intended no disrespect to Catholics or Irishmen, but argued only on general principles applicable to mankind, whether on this or on the other side of the Channel. England and Scotland had been adduced as examples why the same rights should be conferred on Ireland; but he would beg leave to ask whether we had yet had any experience of the content afforded by these new-modelled systems? The chief and just complaint against the old bodies had been the abuse of self-election; and that abuse having been removed, he doubted whether in other respects the new system would long continue to give universal satisfaction. But the peace of Ireland, it was said, was to be effected by this and by another concurrent measure—the appropriation measure. He had no more confidence in one measure than in the other. What could be more conciliatory than the course proposed the other night by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, for the adoption of a measure based on a commutation and ultimately a redemption of tithes, and such a disposition of Church property as would satisfy the Protestants, by whom, in fact, four-fifths of the tithes were really paid; and to the Catholics he would grant funds for education equal to those of which it was proposed to deprive the Established Church? He thought with that noble Lord, that as the grant for education would be a mere trifle, unfelt by the country, if taken from the Consolidated Fund, the Catholics ought not to be supported in endeavouring to wring it from one particular class of men, whose property it was, and by whom the loss would be severely felt. We said to the Catholics, "fill your bucket, if you please, from this vast river,''—namely the Consolidated fund; and their answer was, "No, we will take it from this poor man's well, (the property of the Church of Ireland,) though the owner had scarcely-sufficient water for his own personal and domestic wants." But, after all, would either, or both, of these measures, now under the consideration of Parliament, have the effect of tranquillizing Ireland? Did the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home-department, expect such a result? Was it not declared by those about him that these were only preparatory measures to future changes—one or two steps more in the path of incessant change? It was said, that the Roman Catholics insisted upon more now, because they had not previously had so much as they ought. But was a nation, or were the rulers of a nation, to be governed by such a maxim as this—that more should be granted at one time, because enough had not been granted at another? He said, that such a course as this was the mere exercise of vindictive feelings in others; and that justice, and no more than strict justice, ought to be done at all times. Such a course might do very well between individuals, but ought not to be pursued by a powerful Government towards dissatisfied subjects. They had now had six years' experience of the introduction of reform measures into Ireland, and they were likely to go on six years longer in the same way—change after change, but no peace, no tranquillity, nor any tendency to either. He should not detain the House longer than to recall to its recollection the various promises which were held out by the leading Catholics before the great measure of emancipation was passed. He would just as soon expect that peace would be restored by these new measures as he had seen it had been effected by conceding Catholic emancipation. The predictions were as confident on this occasion as they were then, and he believed the issue would be just the same. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department had spoken of the mischiefs that would result from taking away local government from the people in various districts, and transferring it by centralization to the Administration of the State. He thought that this was a singular opinion in one who had destroyed the local administration of the Poor-laws throughout the kingdom. He regarded both the questions as mere delusions. If Gentlemen were really interested in the welfare of Ireland, he thought they would act with more patriotism if they would first turn their thoughts to provide for the 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of their countrymen who were acknowledged to be in a state of destitution and wretchedness; rather than endeavour to agitate the country upon measures from which he believed not one in ten thousand could derive the slightest benefit.

I object, Sir, to the introduction of such questions as the Church Bill and the Poor-laws upon this occasion. On the Poor-laws we have already read enough in The Times newspaper. We had discussion after discussion upon them. The Times is the mighty thunderer upon the Poor laws, and the hon. Gentleman, I believe, really thinks that he is writing a paragraph instead of making a speech. And then, as 10 the Church question—as to what he calls the robbery of the poor man; why, the first time that question was stirred in this House, it was by the hon. Member for Tipperary; there were then only twenty-seven Members who voted for that spoliation, and one of the most prominent of them was the hon. Member for Berkshire. I have read his name in the list—the list published in The Times, so that he cannot renege from that. I wish to Heaven the hon. Member would take himself from this side of the House. I scented him in the past Session, as "the last rose of summer," and yet he still remains amongst us. I wish he would go to the side upon which he votes, and not remain where he ought not to be [Colonel Peel—"Order!"]. I leave it to the hon. and gallant Colonel, whether he could think it right himself to act in this way? I leave it to him, as a man and a gentleman, whether he would condescend to pretend to be one thing, and yet be another? We have then his dissertation upon the Church question. Why does he not in this conform to the columns of the paper I have referred to? Has that paper observed the slightest decency towards me, and as an earnest of the wages of its iniquity, has it not done this, and shall not I now be permitted to retort upon—

rose to order. Sir, said he, if his Majesty's servants, for they are Ministers no longer—I say, Sir, if his Majesty's servants can submit—if they are so humiliated as to submit—to the bullying conduct of the hon. Gentleman, I shall not submit to it. I wish to know, Sir, is this proper conduct in this House? I'll divide the House upon it.

I wish the hon. Member for Berkshire joy of his ally. There could not be two more completely suited to each other. I may, perhaps, indeed be permitted to express my astonishment at this; what an excellent constituency it must be that is represented by the hon. Member for Wigan! But to return; I have here the division of the 8th July, 1833, which is exactly as I have said. If it is wished by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I will read the contents of it. On the 8th July, 1833, exactly as I have stated, the hon. Member for Berkshire voted for the spoliation clause. I have now done with that part of his speech which referred to Poor-laws, and also that referring to the spoliation of Church property; we then come to the question before us. The hon. Member says, that the prophecy was wrong which declared that emancipation would procure the pacification of Ireland. Why so it would, if it had been honestly followed up. I did not say that emancipation would be a final measure. On the contrary, I always said, that it must lead to others; that it was only the means, and not the end itself. It was to be one of the means working to this end—the amalgamation of all parts of the British Empire into one consolidated body, enjoying equal rights and equal privileges. When emancipation passed, that did not follow; why? Because the Emancipation Bill itself was stingily, and I may even say, with individual exceptions granted. What then followed? The people of Ireland, as they had every right to do, looked to their own resources; they called for the Repeal of the Union, and they would have the right still to insist upon it, if there had not been given to them a distinct pledge that they should have equal rights and privileges with the people of England. Does any man say, that if this measure be granted it will pacify Ireland? No, but it will be one step taken by the British Government to confer upon them those rights—it will be advancing, and they have advanced to that end. The hon. Member for Berkshire, however, says, you are still to continue to make an exception as regards Ireland— that having nominally emancipated the Catholics, they are still to be actually un-emancipated, as they must be, until they enjoy equal rights and privileges with other British subjects. He states, that abuses have already existed. Is that the reason that they are to continue? He says that the corporation was essentially a government of Protestants for Protestants, Why the Protestants of Ireland are in number 850,000; there are 80,000 Dissenters. Now of the whole number of Protestants, there are only 13,000 who are members of the corporation; and of the entire 13,000, but 1,100 belongs to the governing body. That is the representation of the Protestants of Ireland; it is no more a representation of them than of the Roman Catholics. Thus, then, we perceive there are no more than 1,100 of the governing body Protestants. I wonder that the hon. Gentleman does not read sometimes as well as write. I submit to him that a writer ought, or is at least expected, to read a little. If he read at all, he ought to know that of all the Protestants there are but 1,100 of them who do not govern for others, but who make a monopoly for themselves; and it is because that paltry monopoly has misgoverned the country, that the people of Ireland are to have privileges taken from them. Because power is taken from a miserable party, the people themselves are to be treated as a party. Those who assert this are utterly ignorant of the Constitution. The people are not a party—as individual interests universally predominate when these individual interests accumulate in the majority, so is it necessary that the interests of the great majority never can be that of a party. The speech, however, upon which I am remarking, was not pronounced for this place—it was composed to be published for the miserable purposes of a party, and that it may appear amongst those things with which honest men are so much disgusted. Yes, disgusted, justly disgusted with a tergiversation of principle the most astonishing that ever occurred. The most disgraceful, too, that ever yet occurred.

called the hon. Member for Kilkenny to order. An attack was made upon the hon. Member for Berkshire as if he were connected with The Times newspaper, when he (Mr. Richards) contended that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had not shown any connexion between the hon. Member for Berkshire and that paper. The hon. Member for Kilkenny could not be permitted thus to browbeat and ruffianise, if he might use the expression; it was not consistent with the order of the debate. He appealed to the Speaker to say whether such language as that used by the hon. and learned Gentleman, was consistent with the order, decorum, and dignity of that House.

The hon. Member for Berkshire has reason to rejoice in his second defender.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman; I only ask the favour of being permitted to reply.

considered it would be most desirable if hon. Members would only refer to what occurred in the course of the debate.

Certainly; and therefore I only wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Berkshire upon his second defender. I think nothing can be more flattering to him than the first—except the second; one, too, so especially remarkable for his exceeding delicacy and extreme polish, which make him shrink from any thing that belongs to the kennel.

I rise to order, Sir. It is not right to bring into this House the manners of a blackguard, instead of those of a gentleman [" Order! "]

was sure that the House must agree with him in thinking, that expressions had been used on both sides which were not proper to be used in that House. He would conjure the Members, for the sake of that House, not to indulge in language inconsistent with propriety.

I care not for his expressions. As to mine, I only talked of hopping over the kennel, and I think it was not inapplicable to the occasion.

I think that the debate cannot continue. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has used most offensive expressions. He has made use of a word which I am almost afraid to repeat, but which you, Sir, I am sure, must have heard, as every hon. Member near me has heard it. I must, then, request of the hon. Member for Knaresborough to withdraw, before this House, his exceedingly offensive expression.

observed, that words had undoubtedly fallen from the hon. Member for Knaresborough which ought not to have been used. The inference was, that if they were not directly applicable to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, they were intended to apply to him.

Oh! I do not remember them.

I hope that upon all occasions I shall bow to the Speaker. I understood the hon. Member for Kilkenny to say, that the words used by me were brought from the kennel. Understanding it so, if he did not use the word kennel, I withdraw the expression.

stated, that he understood the hon. Gentleman to have said that the words savoured of the kennel.

remarked, that in the first instance the hon. Member for Knaresborough had used the word" ruffianise. He left it to the House to say whether that was a proper expression to be used.

If the word was not applied to me, in the manner I understood it, I withdraw the expression.

I think that the hon. Member for Knaresborough has no right to enter into a compromise upon this subject. I think he should be called upon at once to withdraw the offensive expression as indefensible.

I do not do so, feeling the compliment that has been paid to me by the hon. Member for Knaresborough.

But the other Irish Members do feel it. I call upon the hon. Member to explain the expression ruffianise.

The hon. Member, I am sure, will withdraw the expression; but I appeal to the hon. Gentleman opposite, whether the tone in which he has conducted this debate is not calculated to call forth angry expressions.

As it appears to me, I must have been under a mistake, in the application of the word kennel, I am at once ready to withdraw the expressions objected to.

I was arguing upon three points introduced into his speech by the hon. Member for Berkshire; one on the Poor-laws, the other the Church, upon which he has voted against his colleagues; the third is the real question before the House, and I was proceeding to comment upon it, when I was called to order by the Hon. Member for Wigan, who was very disorderly in doing so, and who sat down extremely quietly, as he usually does when he is in the wrong. I was then next called to order by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, who got into that species of language which is so familiar, that until it was proved to him, he did not know it was improper [" Order.'"].

said, the manner in which this debate was conducted, was a strong argument in favour of a repeal of the Union. He would put it to the Chair whether the debates of that House could be properly conducted if such language as that which had just been used was allowed. He would ask whether, after an hon. Member had retracted certain expressions which had been reprobated by the Chair, it was parliamentary to say, that the hon. Member who used them was so familiar with them that he did not know when he uttered them. He thought that an insulting observation, and if such expressions were to be tolerated, he submitted that it would be quite impossible to conduct the debates of that House with anything like decency, and therefore he hoped that the Chair would have the goodness, on all occasions, to interfere on the first moment anything of the kind occurred, in order to maintain the dignity of the House, and to relieve it from the difficulty in which it was now placed. It was a question of Order on which he was speaking. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had imputed to the hon. Member for Knaresborough the use of improper expressions, which he said were so familiar to him, that he was unconscious when he used them. He would repeat his question to the Chair, was that Parliamentary?

Behold! a third advocate. Another cause for congratulation to the hon. Member for Berkshire I do not believe a fourth could really be found in this House. The hon. Member for Knaresborough makes use of offensive expressions: I do not require any apology for them, whereupon the hon. Member for Norwich—

It is not for the purpose of making a commentary that I now rise to order; but I submit to you, Sir, whether, if this species of discussion is continued, it is calculated to insure respect to this House?

I have done with the subject. I thought, indeed, that a fourth could not be found. I forgot the right hon. Gentleman; I forgot that in this House a fourth could be found. If any Gentleman calls me to order, I shall immediately sit down—to find a fifth is impossible. And now, Sir, I hope I may be allowed to go on.

Jackson rose amidst shouts of laughter and cheers. He was understood to say, that if hon. Members persevered in this mode of conducting the proceedings of the House, he should move that the House do adjourn.

moved that the House do adjourn.

seconded the motion.

I must agree in what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that any personal expression is, in itself, irregular, and ought not to be persevered in. No interruption of the kind ought to be permitted, but the debate should be allowed to proceed. Now I cannot help remarking, that the last time the hon. Member for Kilkenny met with an interruption, it appeared to me that he was about to proceed with what is the proper subject for discussion.

thought he could not have a more suitable occasion than the present for recommending to Members to be guarded as possible in the words used by them. Upon a great many occasions, when subjects were brought under consideration in which hon. Members felt deeply interested, expressions were used in the heat of debate, not perhaps intended to be personally offensive; and it was exceedingly difficult for one placed in his situation to catch at those expressions, and to give them a meaning with which they were not intended to be applied, and were not probably so understood. The predicament in which he was placed upon such occasions was exceedingly painful. He was at all times unwilling to lay hold of particular expressions; what he had always endeavoured to do, and often, he was sorry to say, not very successfully, was to promote as far as in his humble powers lay, that these debates should be maintained with discretion, order, and conduct, and in such a manner as would be consistent with the dignity, character, and honour of that House.

The speech of the hon. Member for Berkshire, to which I was adverting when interrupted, contains three subjects. The last was the Poor-laws, the last but one the Church question. Upon that I have shown his utter inconsistency. Whatever that person's inconsistency may be, it is not my fault. I have nothing to do with it—it is no act of mine if a man becomes a renegado to the one side or the other—but when a man does so, it is natural that he should have, at least, the sympathy of those who are also renegadoes, and have abandoned principles they formerly professed. It is matter so completely personal that it is not to be accounted for. The inconsistency of the hon. Gentleman is, however a matter of very little importance in itself; it certainly has very little to do with the public interests. He has attacked all the Protestants—he has done so in identifying them with the wretched Corporations. Why he has done this in utter ignorance of the fact, that the number of Protestants in those corporations was so miserably small. And, beside this, there is the evidence before this House that those Protestants who from their intelligence and education belonged to the class of politicians, were as decidedly and as strictly excluded from the Corporations as the Roman Catholics themselves. So totally ignorant is the hon. Member for Berkshire upon this subject, that even this fact, so notorious to most others, he is not in the least degree aware of it. He is, too, doubly ignorant, when he founds an argument upon the assumption that the corporators have been the representatives of the great body of Protestants. Now, in connexion with the hon. Member for Berkshire, I have made observations upon The Times newspaper. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, for the first time in his life, is perfectly correct. Well, then, he was not perfectly right; but in principle he was right, and if there is a denial in this House, that the individual is not connected with that paper, the moment I have heard that denial, I shall never again say a word on the subject. But he is right. Let there be, as there ought to be, in this House, a disclaimer of any connection with an instrument of falsehood, foulness, and calumny—of one that affords an instance of the most abandoned, and certainly the greatest degradation of talent—of one that has lowered literature, and debased the character of public writers—that has shown them up as marketable commodities—that has only done this, that the higher they rise in public estimation, the more ready are they to be bought, and the greater must be the price paid for them. If there be any human being, out of this House—recollect I speak of a man not in this House—who continues to earn the wages of public prostitution; if there be such a man as I describe, then I say he is too despicable for further notice. I leave him to pocket a portion of the wages of his pensioned writers. Those who poison the waters that even an enemy in a hostile country drinks of, are accounted guilty of a crime most abhorrent to civilised life; but what are we to say of those who poison the first sources of litera- ture, who stigmatise the character of a nation, and debauch the instruments of learning—theirs is the worst mode of earning the wages of villainy, for theirs is the most abominable of all prostitutions. They are those who argue for a question, and turn against it; who hope for one thing to-day, and hate it to-morrow. Does this touch the hon. Member for Berkshire? I hope not. I really hope that he has no connexion with an instrument of that kind. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Knaresborough that he has not. I adopt the suggestion. I believe at once that the fact is as the hon. Member has stated, and then every word I have said is merely in reply to that base instrument which has attacked me so long. But if my words do apply, I mention no name, I say qui capit ille fecit. Let him who chooses take them up—if any man wishes to find them, and in the vulgar phrase "the cap fits him," I cannot help it. The people of Ireland are not so degraded as the hon. Member for Berkshire has suggested, that they are incapable of managing their own affairs. What is the ground, what is the pretext for saying so? Is it because they are Catholics? That is not a topic which suits this House, though it might read well elsewhere. It is as British subjects they claim their rights. Does any man contend that this measure alone will pacify Ireland? I shall not do so. Refuse it, and you create agitation, because you afford additional materials to the grievances which the people already endure: grant it, and you advance another step, for I admit you have already commenced, in giving to the people of Ireland equal rights with every other part of the empire. Why should not a measure like this be adopted towards Ireland, and which tends so much to the pacification and tranquillity of all. It is for these reasons I have risen to repudiate the speech of the hon. Member for Berkshire, and to call again for justice to Ireland.

hoped he might be allowed to say a few words in answer to the personal charges brought against him by the learned Member for Kilkenny. In the first place he might observe, that he had not intended to take any part in the discussion of that evening, but the hon. Member for Warwickshire having risen to defend his vote, he felt it right to say a few words in defence of the course which he had taken, on the BUI. With respect to the press, he had on a for- mer occasion said all that he thought it necessary to say, and all that he should say, upon that subject. With regard to abuse, the most malignant nature could not prompt the most voluble tongue to heap more abuse upon the learned Gentleman than he himself had poured out upon those who were his present friends. In answer to the accusation of inconsistency upon the appropriation question, that inconsistency, he said, merely resolved itself into the inconsistency of others. The most extravagant estimates had been made by some hon. Gentlemen of the amount of the Irish Church revenues—one hon. Member had at one time estimated them at 3,000,000l. Now, he would ask, was there no difference between voting for the application of an asserted surplus, and when it was found that no such surplus existed, voting against the further diminution of a moderate Church revenue in order to create a surplus? cries of ["Spoke, spoke," and "Order"]

said, that the House would hear the hon. Member in explanation of any parts of his speech on which other hon. Members might have commented; but having already delivered his sentiments on the question before it, it could not allow him to reply.

submitted, that by the courtesy of the House he was entitled to reply to the personal and unfounded charges made against him by the learned Member for Kilkenny. One of the most extraordinary of those charges was that of sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. When he (Mr. Walter) looked round and saw the numbers of Members who were now on that (the Ministerial) side, who two years ago had sat on the opposite side, he thought that the Member for Kilkenny, in blaming him, had cast an imputation on many of his own friends. The Ministry, it was said, was the same; but no parties had abused each other more than those who now appeared to have cast their lots together. He retained his original seat, because his opinions were unchanged; but though his opinions, on things were unchanged, those on persons were, of course, affected by the closer observation he was able to make of their public conduct; and if, on such nearer observation he appeared to himself to have discovered some individuals better qualified to conduct the business of the country, than others of whose talents he had for a time entertained an undue opinion, he was of course open to conviction, and preferred the abler statesmen. He would only fur- ther assure the learned Gentleman, that he would pursue his own course in that House; having neither obtained his seat in it in the manner the learned Gentleman had formerly represented, nor receiving hire and pay from the most distressed and destitute class of his countrymen, kept in a state of excitement only to be rendered more easily the dupes of false pretences and the victims of plunder.

said, there had been no wish or intention on the part of himself and the friends of the Government to disturb the House by a debate upon the question now before it, which was, whether Bandon should be included in the schedule or not? and if the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had not volunteered his services in that way, he felt convinced that his hon. Friend behind him would not have found a seconder to his proposition; He regretted to see that there seemed to be a determination on the part of Members on the opposite side of the House, that whatever business might be doing, on any Irish question, nothing should be done peaceably, amicably, and according to the usual parliamentary course. There were many Gentlemen on the ministerial side of the House who thought that Ministers had not made a sufficiently determined stand upon this question. He could only assure the House, however, that whatever had been done by them, had been resolved upon after the best consideration, and with the firm and honest conviction that they were doing the best which, under circumstances, could be done for Ireland. He thought that the thanks of the country were due to the Government for having adopted a course which was likely to lead to an honourable compromise, and afford an opportunity of bringing this great question to a settlement. He regretted extremely that anything of a personal nature had occurred in the course of the debate. He would express a hope, also, that his hon. Friend behind him would see the importance of not continuing the discussion further. He trusted his hon. Friend would see the great advantage which would result from this Bill being sent up to the other House in its altered form, without any division upon it whatever. He begged his hon. Friend to consider this, and not permit himself to "listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely."

merely rose to say, that it was his intention to have seconded the motion of the hon. Member for Dundalk, when he was anticipated by the hon. and learned Member for Bandon in so doing.

hoped his hon. Friend near him would not press the House to a division on this question.

did not deny that Irishmen were fit to enjoy political liberty and political institutions; but he thought that these must be given them by different means to those adopted in England, on account of the difference in the social characteristics of the two nations. He did not mean to say, that Irishmen were inferior to Englishmen; on the contrary, he thought that, in many particulars, they were their superiors, as in their great vivacity and quickness of apprehension.

felt strongly the insult which was offered to the Irish people by the House of Lords; but still he hoped that his hon. Friend, for whom he entertained great respect, would withdraw his motion.

said, that it was not to be supposed that he did not feel strongly the insult which was offered to his country by the House of Lords; but he trusted his hon. Friend would not bring division into the camp of the reformers by pressing a motion which was calculated to embarrass that Administration which seemed to him determined to do justice to his country. He would not argue the question; all argument upon it was exhausted; but he rose merely for the purpose of asking his hon. Friend not to persevere in his proposition.

said, he would consent to withdraw it, if he heard any just reason urged for his doing so; but in the absence of all argument in favour of the course which he was pressed to adopt, he must persevere.

objected to it, as creating doubts as to the validity of marriages, and imposing difficulties in the way of establishing the legitimacy of children.

thought his hon. Friend misconceived the scope of the clause, the object of which was to confine the operation of the law (concerning invalid marriages) to as narrow a circle of cases as possible.

thought the present law as to annulling marriages very objectionable, but he did not think it possible to omit the clause. It might, however, be advantageously modified, and he would lend his assistance to improve it on bringing up the Report.

regretted that the clause, which originally closed retail houses the whole of Sunday, had been altered. In that shape, it gave universal satisfaction in Ireland.

would have been pleased, if he could have retained the clause in its original shape; but the representations of the magistrates and the police officers had convinced him that it was impossible, and he had been reluctantly obliged to alter it.

wished that, at least, an attempt should be made to close retail spirit shops in Ireland, as they were closed in England and Scotland.