begged the indulgence of the House, whilst be shortly stated the object of the motion, with reference to this line of railway, of which he had given notice. It would be in the recollection of the House that, originally there were two plans of railway communication brought before Parliament to connect London and Dublin. The one was proposed to go through Shrewsbury, so as to avoid the Menai Straits; the other was proposed to go from Chester, through Bangor, and on to Holyhead. The superiority of the latter line of railway had been proved by competent and impartial witnesses. Early in the last year, a large public meeting had been-held in London; the result of which was, a request to the Government to appoint engineers to inquire into, and report upon the merits of the two competing lines. The Government thought the request reasonable, and a commission was issued, which, after able and strict inquiry, reported in favour of the Chester and Holyhead line. Unfortunately, that report was not laid on the table till the end of April, and if the House would not accede to his motion, the promotors of this bill would not be able to give the proper notices for next year, and would be compelled to wait till the year 1842. The first object of his motion was to suspend in this case the standing order which required notices to be given, and plans and sections to be deposited within a given time. When he reminded the house that many of the landowners along the line of road had petitioned in its favour, and that not one petition had been presented against it, he was sure that the House would not think it right to subject the promoters of this bill to any unnecessary delay. The second object of his motion was to suspend the standing order which required 10l. per cent, of the capital to be deposited in the Exchequer prior to the application to Parliament. He did not wish to say a single word as to the merits of this standing order, as he sought an exemption from it on the ground that this was a great national undertaking, which, if this particular standing order were to be rigidly persevered in, might be for a great length of time postponed, In the present state of the money market, there would be great difficulty in getting persons to deposit 200.000l. in the Exchequer, there to lie for a time useless; and moreover, it should be recollected that this line was far more likely to be taken up by those landowners connected with it than by speculators, as the probability was, that the profit arising from it would be remote. He would only further remind the House, that this railway, when completed, would effect a saving of 70,000l. a-year to the country, and on all these grounds he moved—" That the promoters of the proposed railway from Chester to Holyhead, be allowed to bring in a bill in the next Session of Parliament, for carrying the same into effect, on giving notices and depositing plans and sections, as required by the standing orders relating to other bills of the second class except railways and that the standing order requiring a portion of the capital to be deposited in the Exchequer prior to the application to Parliament be dispensed with."

resisted the application, on the ground that the Committee of Standing Orders hid over and over again decided that those orders were absolutely essential for the protection of the public. There was no reason why they should be departed from in this instance. Unless the portion of the capital required by the orders, that is, 10 per cent., were deposited in the Exchequer, prior to the application to Parliament, the door would be opened to the formation of such visionary or fraudulent schemes as the order was designed to prevent.

said, that if this were a mere private speculation, or an ordinary railway, he might concur in the observation of the Gentleman who had last addressed the House. But this was a great national undertaking, by which the country would be relieved from great expense, and the Government and a large portion of the public would derive considerable advantage and convenience. The plan had been recommended by the Government Commissioners, who reported that it would save so much as seven hours in the communication between London and Dublin. The Commissioners, however, reported, at the same time, that it could not be undertaken with advantage by private capitalists, and ought, therefore, to be accomplished by the Government itself, as a matter of national importance. He asked, therefore, whether the House ought not to give every facility to private individuals who are willing to embark their capital in a speculation of such doubtful profit to themselves, and of so much advantage to the public, and especially to Ireland.

admitted that the railway in question was a national undertaking. But so was every other railway. The proposition in question was altogether irregular, and he thought it would be absurd enough to give an hon. Member leave to bring in a bill in the next Session of Parliament. Let the application be made in the next Session of Parliament. It would be for that Session of Parliament to inquire whether the proper notices had been given, and whether the proper deposits had been made, and whether, in fact, the standing orders had been complied with; and if that were not the case, then would be the time to endeavour to induce the House to accede to the proposition now made. At present the House had no jurisdiction to enter into any transaction on behalf of the ensuing Session of Parliament.

said, that he held in his hand a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin in favour of this bill, in which the petitioners called the particular attention to this as a national work. They further stated, that, by the union of the two countries, mischief had been done to Ireland, inasmuch as the excise and customs departments had been removed from Dublin to London, and it was therefore of the highest importance that not one moment's time should be lost in the communication between the two countries. For that purpose the petitioners prayed that this railroad might be proceeded with as soon as possible. He was glad to find from the arguments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Greene), and the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Estcourt), that there was no substantial objection to this motion. The one had shown that the motion could do no harm, because his objection to it did not apply. The other had stated that no mischief could possibly arise from agreeing to the motion, as they could not bind the next Session of Parliament. All the merits of the question were in favour of granting the motion, but a technical rule was against it. The interests of Ireland required that the motion should be granted, and yet a technical rule was to be triumphant. There was actually an enthusiasm in favour of technical rules. The House had a right to shut out bubble speculations, and to prevent the country being cut up and injured by railways which there was no intention of finishing. These things it was that formed the foundation of the technical rule, and it was upon these grounds that the rule was made. But every one of these grounds failed in the present instance, so that they had a mere abstract right, without name or foundation, in the present instance, and yet it was to prevail. Oh ! but for their consolation, they were told that they might apply in the next Session of Parliament. True, but they would not be able to give the proper notices unless leave was now given. Who, under these circumstances, would advance money, or engage in the necessary preparatory expenses? Some other grave and excellent and respectable gentleman would get up with his technical rule, and say that the 25th of March (the day for giving the notices) had not yet come; or if it passed, they would then be told that they must wait till the next Session. The real question was, whether the bill must be postponed till the Session of 1842 or not? He hoped the House would grant the indulgence sought for. It was confessed, it was indeed manifest, that no mischief could flow from it; and, under these circumstances, he did venture to hope, that although Ireland was so deeply interested as she was, a technical rule would not be allowed to weigh against the advantage of Ireland.

said, that, generally speaking, technical rules were useful, but he thought this was a case in which an exception might fairly be allowed.

quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that to establish a speedy communication between Dublin and London, was an object which, since the union, had become of an importance which he might fairly call pre-eminently and peculiarly a national one, and the House had shown at various times, that they entertained the same belief by the public money that had been advanced to facilitate that communication. He thought, however, that no good reason had been offered to the House why they should relax in favour of a private bill those standing orders which it had thought fit and proper to adopt for the protection of the public. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, he hoped they would not set up a mere technical rule against an object of great national utility. He would not do so if he did not believe that, in matters of this kind, not to adhere to a rule was not only an exceedingly inconvenient, but an exceedingly unjust course. It would be opening to parties who happened to have great Parliamentary influence in that House, an exemption which was not given to the public generally. The noble Lord had made two propositions in many respects different. They were to relax two standing orders, the first of which rendered it imperative upon parties to lodge certain notices in March, and it was said, that in consequence of the report of the commissioners not having been made until within a given time, if this indulgence were not granted, the bill must be deferred till 1842. There was a good deal of weight in that part of the argument. He had considered it with care, and he confessed that he came to the conclusion with some difficulty, but he must say, upon the whole, that the inclination of his opinion was, that the safest and best course was not to depart from the standing orders. He had heard Gentlemen, exceedingly interested in the communication between Scotland and England, support this motion, and he knew they would say what was justice to Ireland was justice to Scotland, and the arguments now adduced might be set up in favour of an exemption for the Edinburgh and London Railway, and he did not see how the House could, if they acceded to the present motion, refuse the other. Upon the whole, therefore, he thought it unadvisable to relax the standing orders. With regard to the other proposition, for remitting the payment of 10l. percent. upon the capital, he had not a moment's doubt or hesitation. It might be right that the standing orders should be repealed. He did not think so, but still that would be a fair matter for discussion, but not to give the public the same protection in that respect with regard to one railway which they had in all others, he thought the height of injustice. He thought this a great national object, and he hoped that it contained sufficient advantages to induce the public to support it, but he thought that the public in general had the same right to protection in this case which they had in all others, and for these rea- sons he thought it would be exceedingly wrong to depart from the rule which had been laid down by the House.

did not see why the standing order should not be dispensed with in the present as in public works, such as the railway communication between this and Edinburgh. He thought, as a general principle, that every encouragement should be given to such works, for the sake of the employment they, gave to thousands of the labouring poor.

would advise hon. Members to refuse this motion, unless they were prepared to relax the standing orders in every case. With respect to the general policy of this standing order, about which so much had been said, his belief was, that it would be a benefit to the real holders of railway stock, if subscription lists were prevented from coming into the market, unless the whole or the greater part of the shares was disposed of. If the House did not wish to see all the abuses which were formerly so fully exposed revived, they ought not to relax their standing order. If they did so in one instance, they must do so in all. If it were wished to have it totally repealed, let a motion for that purpose be made; but let not the order be relaxed in this one case, without any special reason assigned, which was only to be made a precedent for general relaxation.

concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would not be expedient to relax the standing order with respect to contributions of ten per cent. It was necessary that the standing order, if it were to be maintained, should be general in its operation; yet, he confessed, he should be very sorry to see it enforced with respect to the two proposed lines of railway to Dublin and Edinburgh. He thought, however, if they relaxed the standing order in respect of the line of communication between London and Dublin, they would be bound in justice to do the same as regarded the line between London and Edinburgh. These great works would enable the representatives of the other two parts of the United Kingdom to have immediate access to the metropolis. This, however, was a very special case. He could hardly conceive greater public objects of this kind than would be attained by the one railway. He had read the report of the commissioners as to the different lines to Dublin, and the perusal had perfectly confirmed him in his opinion as to the policy of Government in appointing commissioners foe the purpose of advising on the best line; far he had never read a more able or conclusive document. It had brought conviction to his mind, that the shortest line was that which they pointed out—namely, the Holyhead one, and that it should decidedly be preferred to others. Looking at the immense importance of the lines of which he spoke, he should be exceedingly sorry if the standing orders were enforced in those cases, at least so far as they opposed an obstacle to the commencement of the work next year. He must at the same time say, that he had the highest interest in coming to that conclusion. It was of the highest public importance that the Mouse should maintain its character for the regular con-duet of private business, but he thought that object would hardly be promoted if there were to be any combination of parties for the purpose of relaxing the rules established to secure that end. There was no pretence for asking public assistance towards the completion of the undertaking, as that would be effected by private speculation. An adherence to the rules laid down by the House would be advantageous both to individuals and the character of the House itself, and he must therefore, however reluctantly, come to the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman opposite had done.

said, if this railway at all partook of the nature of a job, he should agree with the right hon. Baronet; but the right hon. Baronet had himself shown, that no suspicion could attach to the proceedings of the House, if they should consent to make this case an exception to the general rule.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the further abolition of the punishment of death. It would be a source of unmixed gratification to him, if through any effort of his, the improvement which he sought to introduce into the criminal law of this country should be effected. He believed the alteration he proposed would tend alike to further the ends of justice, and to improve the national character. He was quite aware of the many difficulties that surrounded the consideration of this question. He was aware how difficult it was—when the public mind was agitated, as it was at this moment, by the recent perpetration of crimes and enormities of the blackest die —he was aware how difficult it was for any hon. Member to propose to Parliament, under, such circumstances, a bill of this nature. But it was the system under which those crimes had been committed, that he sought to modify. He thought it was impossible not to feel that the time had at length arrived when some further abolition of capital punishment should take place. Before he called attention to the kind of offences in respect to which he now proposed to abolish capital punishment, he might remark that out of the 180 descriptions of crime in which the punishment of death had been abolished by the bills that had been passed at the instance of the noble Lord opposite, in not one single instance had that amelioration of the law been attended with any increase of those particular crimes; on the contrary, in the great majority of them a considerable diminution had resulted. He regretted much that the motions that had been brought forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Ewart), when the measures to which he had alluded were under consideration, had not met with the sanction of the House, but he trusted that the principles which they advocated in common with himself, would soon obtain both in that House and in the country, and that full effect would be given to their humane and benevolent intentions. He (Mr. Kelly) did not now propose such an extensive alteration of the existing law as in former Sessions had been advocated by those hon. Gentlemen, because as it appeared to him that the sense of the House, and, perhaps he should add, the sense of the country, having been declared against the abolition of capital punishment in all cases, it would be useless for him, at the present moment, to attempt to press, in opposition to that opinion, so general and extensive a measure. For this reason, the abolition which he proposed in this bill did not extend to the case of murder. He had certainly intended to include within the operation of this bill these numerous and grievous offences which came under the denomination of high treason; and, as his opinion was still unaltered, he felt it due to some hon. Members of the House (who he was most proud and happy to say agreed in his opinion) to state the reasons why he was compelled to except from his bill the case of high treason. It might not be known to the unprofessional Members of the House, that even the most atrocious and dia- bolical act of high treason, the taking away of the life of the sovereign of these realms, would not be punishable as murder, as the offence of murder, great as it was, would be merged in the higher crime of treason. If, therefore, he were to include the crime of high treason in the scope of his bill, the result would be this—that while the murder of a subject was punished with death, the murder of the sovereign would be punishable only with transportation for life. Such a state of the law would be absurd in the highest degree. The only way in which he could have avoided such an anomaly would have been by the introduction of a clause in his bill including as punishable with death all attempts upon the life of the sovereign, and of course the actual murder. But he had a conscientious objection against visiting any crime whatever with the punishment of death, and he therefore could not introduce any such clause into his bill. These were the grounds, added to the opposition which he must have expected from her Majesty's Government, which induced him to except the case of high treason. He felt that it would be extremely desirable to extend the operation of the abolition law to Ireland. He knew no reason why any difference should exist between the laws of the two countries with respect to the punishment of death. He had, therefore, wished to extend his bill to Ireland, ay, and to Scotland; but he had found that there were doubts whether the majority of the Members connected with Ireland would agree to it. He had held communications on the subject with several influential Irish Members, and he had now every reason to believe that he should have been supported by them in such a proposition, but unhappily that communication was too late to enable him to make the necessary alterations in his bill without endangering its passing through the Legislature at this period of the Session. For this reason, and this reason only, the present bill would not apply to Ireland; but, upon the sanction of the House being pronounced upon his bill, he should be happy to bring in a bill extending the whole provisions of the present measure to Ireland, and if he received a like assurance from Members connected with Scotland, to Scotland also. It had been objected to his bill, that he ought not to abolish the punishment of death without the substitution of some adequate secondary pu- nishment for the prevention of crime. He was free to admit that the law as it now stood did not provide any efficient or adequate secondary punishment for the punishment of death. It was, however, one thing to make this admission, and another to say that the punishment of death should be uselessly and unjustly inflicted on individuals. When the noble Lord opposite proposed to the House in 1837 the abolition of the punishment of death in many cases, he took occasion to state the difficulties which stood in his way in his attempts to discover an adequate secondary punishment. The noble Lord observed, that it would be desirable to introduce some extension of the silent and solitary system of imprisonment, particularly if followed by transportation, and that such a system would be a better secondary punishment than any which the law would now permit. The noble Lord had, however, suffered nearly three years to elapse, and had never even attempted to introduce any system of secondary punishments. He could see no danger from the introduction of a good system of secondary punishments by which criminals would be placed under a course of correction before they were transported to foreign lands—a system by which the most hardened would be reformed, instead of being turned loose upon society again, to associate with their former companions, and to relapse into their old habits of vice and crime in this country, and should the House pass the present bill, he would be ready either to introduce one on secondary punishments, or support the Government in doing so, or assist any hon. Member who might bring forward such a measure. Having thus alluded to what he conceived to be a great defect in our laws, he would express a hope that the House would not suffer the absence of a good system of secondary punishments to be an excuse for the punishment of death, if they were satisfied that it was neither just nor reasonable, nor necessary, to go to that extremity. He would now proceed to state the offences to which he intended the bill to apply. They were fourteen in number; but they might be reduced to three or four different classes, or to five at the most. When he reminded the House that at no very distant period, a period within the recollection of many hon. Members, instead of fourteen there were nearly two hundred capital offences, and that owing to the more effective, but not to the more sincere, efforts of persons who had thought and felt as he did, those two hundred capital offences were now reduced to fourteen, or rather to sixteen, including the two to which his bill did not apply; and further, that there had been no increase in those 180 offences since the alteration of the law with respect to them, he thought these facts were sufficiently strong to induce the House to agree to extend the abolition of capital punishment to these remaining fourteen offences. It might, perhaps, excite some surprise amongst the non-professional Members of the House, when he stated, that although by the measures introduced by the noble Lord opposite, by his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, and by some other hon. Members, it might be substantially said that all offences committed merely against the rights of property had ceased to be punishable by death, there yet remained four offences on the statute books which certainly, neither within his memory, nor perhaps within the memory of any hon. Gentleman now present, had ever been punished or prosecuted at all; he alluded to embezzlement by any of the servants of the Bank of England, or of those of the South Sea Company, being persons in their employ and having intrusted to them any description of Irish stock, and certain other stock specified in four different Acts of Parliament. He believed that the hon. Member for Dover and other hon. Gentlemen who were connected with the Bank of England, would concur with him in his wishes for the abolition of the punishment of death in these cases. At all events, he might venture to say, that should a case arise in the present day of a servant of the Bank of England committing an act of embezzlement and of being prosecuted capitally, it would be utterly impossible in the present state of the public mind and of public feeling on this subject to procure his conviction; and it would be necessary to prosecute such an offender under some other statute, so as to prevent the case being treated capitally. He took it for granted, then, that with regard to these four offences there would be no difficulty in his way. But there were some other offences requiring more particular attention. There were the two offences of riotously destroying buildings, and riotously and tumultuously destroying the Queen's ships; these were not offences directed against the safety of individuals, except in so far as the danger which might possibly arise out of the riots themselves. The other cases were rape, unnatural offences, and violating the persons of children under ten years of age. Then there was the offence of shooting at, wounding, or otherwise injuring with an intent to murder, or, in other words, attempted murder, accompanied with great violence. Upon this there was a great diversity of opinion. Three more offences might be classed together:—burglary, when attended with any violence and danger to life; highway robbery, attended with like violence; and piracy, when accompanied with attempts to murder or violence. The 14th and last offence to which his bill applied was arson. For all these offences he contended, that the punishment of death should be abolished. He did not think that he should deal fairly with the House, if he attempted to to repeat any of those general observations applying to the whole system of capital punishments, which had been so ably urged on former occasions when that subject was under consideration; and, therefore, he should content himself with a few incidental remarks. He would come to that offence concerning which he had heard the strongest objections from those with whom, both in and out of the House, he had privately communicated, and concerning which, with the exception of rape, a great difference of opinion prevailed— namely, an attempt to murder, attended with danger to life and great bodily injury. It had been put to him by those to whose intellect and perfect knowledge of the subject, and to whose great ability and experience, he paid the greatest deference, and for whom he entertained the highest respect. "Can there be any difference in the guilt of a man who shoots at another from behind a hedge and grievously wounds him, intending to murder him, and leaves him for dead, because he does not kill him, and because through the skill of the surgeon his victim is restored to life?" He would meet that question, fairly and openly, and if he failed to satisfy the House that upon principles which were recognised and admitted by all, there was no necessity for capital punishment in the case of an ineffectual and unsuccessful attempt to murder, then he would no longer hope for the sanction of the House to the bill he was about to introduce, at least, as far as this offence was concerned. If it were the only object of punishment, or if it formed any material part of punishment, to inflict vengeance upon the offender, according to the moral evil he had committed, he was willing to admit, that there was no manner of difference between the crime of a man who had attempted unsuccessfully, and him who attempted successfully to murder another. But surely the time was past when the degree of moral guilt was to form any consideration in the amount of punishment awarded by a human tribunal. The only object of the legal and judicial punishments of men was to deter the offender from a repetition of his crime, and others from following his evil example. There were many heinous offences which, by the law of England, were not punishable at all. The law did not profess to punish according to the amount of moral turpitude. The crimes of seduction and adultery, for instance, crimes which disgraced and tortured families, and produced incalculable misery to persons, and mischief to property, were wholly un-punishable by the criminal laws of this country. If he needed high authority for his views on this subject, he could appeal to that of the noble Lord opposite, who when he brought in his series of bills for criminal reform in 1837, thus addressed the House:—

"No one now doubts, that it is the object of criminal punishment not to satisfy the purposes of divine justice, nor to inflict human vengeance, but to deter from the commission of crime."

That was the principle for which he contended, and in favour of that principle he had the noble Lord's admission; no, he would not say admission, for he did not regard the noble Lord as an opponent on this occasion; he had the noble Lord's high authority for this principle that the sole object of the law was not the punishment of the guilty, but to deter others from the commission of crime. That concession being made, he trusted that he should satisfy the House that the concession carried with it the necessity for the total abolition of capital punishment with respect to attempts to murder. It was unnecessary for him here to address himself to those who agreed with him that even for murder itself capital punishment should not be inflicted: but to those who conscientously believed that the punishment of death should be awarded to murder as a security against the repetition of the crime, and that the fear of death and of incurring capital punishment did deter men from committing murder, he would say, if that were the case—if the fear of capital punishment did deter persons from committing murder, so long as that punishment was retained in the criminal code, security was retained likewise against attempts to murder. Still all the security which the law could give against attempted murder would remain. The slightest consideration would make this manifest. The dread of the law was supposed to operate upon the man who attempted to commit murder ex vi termini, and who expected to succeed. Would it not have an equal, nay, a greater effect upon him who attempted to kill with less determination of purpose? As long as a man was punishable by death for murder, so long would there be security afforded by the law against attempted murders. And let it be remembered what the effect of the change in the law which he proposed would be upon men when under the excitement or temptation to commit murder. In looking at the history of crime, in nine cases out of ten attempts to commit murder were found to arise out of attempts to rob, or burglaries, or when persons were seized with a sudden passion, and gave blows, or fired shots, or stabbed others. Was the successful and unsuccessful attempt to murder to be punished alike? Would they take away all inducement from a man, who having struck the first blow, but not having despatched his victim, relented, and would not repeat the blow, but for the sake of preventing detection, and saving his own life? The effect of the present law was to make such a man complete the murder, because no difference was made between the successful and unsuccessful attempt at murder. Upon what principle of justice and humanity were both to be punished alike? Could such a practice promote the safety of the community? No; because it tended to make criminals more hardened and desperate, and complete offences which otherwise they would not. He remembered some cases which had come under his own observation. The following case was tried in the county of York, he believed:—A young man was attacked on the highway and robbed. The person by whom he was assailed was a much more powerful man than himself, but in the course of the struggle he struck him a severe blow which nearly fractured his skull. The robber turned upon him, and would have killed him, but on his knees he prayed him to spare his life. The robber did so, and at the trial the prosecutor implored the court to spare the life of the robber, but in vain. The man was not only convicted and sentenced, but executed. If the law established no distinction between those who showed mercy to their victims and those who practised towards them the extreme of cruelty, what motive to be merciful could be expected to arise in the breasts of men engaged in the perpetration of a crime? In support of the views which he entertained upon the punishment of death, he could quote the authority of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, who in preparing a report upon the subject of the law in India, urged upon the Government in that country the very principle for which he had been contending—namely, that the punishment of death ought to be reserved for the crime of murder and the highest crime against the State. The right hon. Gentleman most justly said in the notes to that report:—

"But we are convinced that it ought to be very sparingly inflicted, and we propose to employ it only in cases where either murder or the highest offence against the State has been committed. We are not apprehensive that we shall be thought by many persons to have resorted too frequently to capital punishment; but we think it probable that many, even of those who condemn the English statute-book as sanguinary, may think that our code errs on the other side. They may be of opinion that gang robbery, the cruel mutilation of the person, and possibly rape, ought to be punished with death. These are, doubtless, offences which, if we looked only at their enormity, at the evil which they produce, at the terror which they spread through society, at the depravity which they indicate, we might be inclined to punish capitally. But, atrocious as they are, they cannot, as it appears to us, be placed in the same class with murder. To the great majority of mankind nothing is so dear as life. And we are of opinion that to put robbers, ravishers, and mutilators on the same footing with murderers is an arrangement which diminishes the security of life. There is in practice a close connexion between murder and most of those offences which come nearest to murder in enormity. Those offences are almost always committed under such circumstances that the offender has it in his power to add murder to his guilt.—They are often committed under such circumstances that the offender has a temptation to add murder to his guilt. The same opportunities, the same superiority of force, which enabled a man to rob, to mangle, or to ravish, will enable him to go further, and to despatch his victim. As he has almost always the power to murder, he will often have a strong motive to murder, inasmuch as by murder he may often hope to remove the only witness of the crime which he has already committed. If the punishment of the crime which he has already committed be exactly the same with the punishment for murder, he will have no restraining motive. A law which imprisons for rape and robbery, and hangs for murder, holds out to ravishers and robbers a strong inducement to spare the lives of those whom they have injured. A law which hangs for rape and robbery, and which only hangs for murder, holds out, indeed, if it be rigorously carried into effect, a strong motive to deter men from rape and robbery, but as soon as a man has ravished or robbed, it holds out to him a strong motive to follow up his crime with a murder."

It was that state of the law here described which he called upon the House to alter; it was in cases such as those to which he had just referred that he called upon the House to spare human life. So far as the fear of punishment was concerned, he hoped he had satisfied the House that the extreme punishment would be not more effectual than the secondary in cases of attempted murder. The other offence upon which there was probably the most difference of opinion was that of rape. It was a subject which perhaps they had better reserve for the committee, if his proposed bill should arrive at that stage; but he might now be permitted to say a few words on the subject. If he were called upon to select from the whole catalogue of human crime one which above all others ought not to be subjected to the punishment of death, he should say it was the crime of rape; not so much on account of the nature of the offence as on account of the kind of evidence by which it was proved. Rape and a nameless offence were crimes which could only be proved by the testimony of an individual, and he thought that that circumstance alone warranted his saying that the irrevocable punishment of death ought not in such a case to be inflicted. "An irrevocable sentence should be pronounced only by an infallible judge." In his opinion, nothing but a stern, an overwhelming, an irresistible necessity should justify its infliction. The evidence of rape must always depend upon the testimony of a single witness, that witness might be mistaken, or she might commit perjury for the purpose of retrieving her own character, the temptation was strong, the chances of her being misled and deceived were great, and yet upon single and unsupported testimony, given under such circumstances, it was the practice of the law to inflict the punishment of death. The prosecutrix, thongh an honest, might be an erring witness, and yet, under the present system, the awful responsibility was incurred of inflicting the punishment of death. He would refer them to a case which occurred in a county not very distant from the metropolis. A young woman returning home was followed by a man whom she heard called by a particular name, to which he answered. By that man who so followed her, and who thus answered, her person had been violated. She took notice of the features of the man who had committed the offence. Soon afterwards she saw a person at a neighbouring village whom she instantly accused, and swore that he committed the crime, and his name proved to be the name that she had heard. Here was a strong case of circumstantial evidence, which carried conviction at once to the minds of all who heard it, and the prisoner was very properly committed for trial. His brother, on going home, heard of the occurrence, and declared that he was the guilty man. He presented himself to the young woman, who instantly exclaimed, "Oh God ! I have taken t false oath—that is the man." It was a strong case of circumstantial evidence, and it was clear that the innocent man might have been hanged. Did any one who without prejudice reflected upon the subject, suppose that the punishment of death could be necessary to the prevention of such a crime? An innocent man might be brought home from transportation, but could not be recovered from death. He had been able to find seventeen cases tried during the present century, in which the accused were convicted and received sentence of death, although their innocence had subsequently been established and rendered as manifest as that of any man now living. He had not been able to render this collection of seventeen as perfect as an official return. He had not much time to devote to the subject, and he could only enumerate the cases which he happened to find, but even such as they were they amounted to one in one hundred of the whole number executed within the period. Hence, then, it was clear, that a certain number of innocent men had been sacrificed. If there were any doubt as to the necessity for the punishment of death in these cases, the benefit of such doubt ought to be given in favour of human life. Some secondary punishment should be devised. He had just been reminded by a noble Lord near him, that he had not stated how many of the seventeen just mentioned had been executed. No fewer than eight of the number had suffered death, and one of them was within four hours of perishing on the scaffold when his pardon arrived. The result of his investigation and reflection on the subject led him to the conclusion, that the use of capital punishments, without absolute necessity, tended not only to the sacrifice of the innocent, but the escape of the guilty. He would produce an instance which came under his own knowledge. The case occurred in Buckingham, and it was that of a farmer who was robbed of about 70l., and savagely murdered by being shot through the skull. His own son, a lad of eighteen, was tried at Aylesbury, and, though there was the strongest circumstantial evidence against him, such as would have convicted any human being of any crime, yet, as there was just room to raise a doubt, the jury, to the astonishment of all, returned a verdict of not guilty. At the next assizes the son was indicted for the robbery, immediately found guilty, and transported to New South Wales. What did this show? Why, that in cases, where no possible sympathy could possibly exist, yet where a doubt can at all operate, the jury object to convict, and a criminal thus escapes. If the charge of robbery had not been made the son would have been set at large, perhaps to commit other murders. The event of the trial for robbery showed, that had the punishment being less than death, there would have been no doubt of the prisoner's conviction for the murder. From the disinclination of jurors, justice frequently was not allowed to have its way. He did not think he ought to trespass on the House further than to make a few observations on other crimes, such as burglary, robbery, and piracy. What he had said with respect to attempts to commit murder would apply to all other cases where violence was resorted to. The offender would be anxious to spare life if the punishment of death was confined to murder. There was one difficulty which he wished to overcome. It had been said, if death was abolished for arson, a man might set his dwelling-house on fire and burn a whole family. His answer was, that for burning houses or stacks, if the mischief was confined to property, the punishment of death would not be inflicted, but if the offender did sacrifice life, although he might not have contemplated anything of the sort when he set fire to the property, then the offence became murder, and the punishment for murder was inflicted. There was one topic which he would shortly advert to before he closed his observations, and it was the lamentable effect on public morals of public executions. If it were good to inflict the punishment of death on any ground, it was absurd to say, that one of those grounds was the good effect it produced on the bystanders. The only effect it could have was to degrade and to further corrupt the minds of the spectators Men of right-thinking minds, and virtuous habits, would experience no injury, but it was not on those classes that the spectacle was intended to operate. The effect was to be produced on the minds of the vicious, the uneducated, and all those most easily open to evil impressions. And if the House wanted to know what effect public executions had upon those classes, let them consult the public newspapers, and there they would find, that whether in town or country, the only consequence was to fill the public-houses, to promote debauchery, and to harden the depraved in their villanies. Those were the inevitable consequences of public executions, and it then became the House well to consider that important subject. Public executions, as could be proved, instead of producing benefit to the community generated nothing but mischief. Before he concluded, he begged to remind the House, that in respect to the multitude of offences for which the punishment of death had been abolished, there was not one in which it could be proved that the commission of crime had increased. This would be proved by a reference to any given number of years before and after the abolition of capital punishments. The noble Lord in his powerful speech, and by the papers he laid on the table, proved that the abolition of capital punishments had not increased but diminished crime, and that, in addition, the number of prosecutions had increased. The effect, therefore, of miti- gating punishment was to ensure prosecution, and to procure the punishment of offenders. So that not only had the number of prosecutions increased, but the number of convictions had very considerably increased. This evidenced the fact, that now the public were more inclined to prosecute, and juries to convict. From the noble Lord's statements in 1837, it appeared, that not only no increase of crime took place, but that an actual diminution of crime occurred, for while the number of cases appeared the same, yet, when the increased property and population were taken into consideration, the return really showed, that there had been an actual diminution of crime. So, from the period when Romilly first commenced his noble efforts to the time when the noble Lord brought in his series of bills for the mitigation of the criminal code, it was shown a substantial diminution of crime, or at least no increase, had been the result of the more merciful system of legislation. And if so, on what principle did they stop? Why did they not carry the principle further? The time which had elapsed had confirmed the soundness of the principles upon which the noble Lord had proceeded. With the opportunities of information which he (Mr. Kelly) had from the counsel for the protection of bankers and merchants from forgery, and from his learned Friends who practised at the Central Criminal Court, he found one general sentiment in favour of the further abolition of capital punishment—a conviction that the experiment, so far as it had gone, was successful, and a universal desire that he should prosecute a task which he should have wished to have seen undertaken by some one of greater ability, but which was sure to be successful and beneficial if it met the sanction of the House. He should not longer detain the House. For the reasons and principles which he had laid before the House, he would beseech them to take the subject into consideration, and more especially he would appeal to the noble Lord to lend his great and powerful aid to the completion of a work in which he had done much wisely and beneficially, and from the ultimate success of which he would derive more lasting and solid fame than he could ever obtain from the greatest political triumphs. The hon. Member moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish capital punishment in the cases he had mentioned.

, in seconding the motion, expressed his satisfaction that the principles in which it originated were diffusing themselves generally, and were not confined to any one particular party or section. He had the more pleasure in supporting the views of the hon. and learned mover, because three years ago he had brought under the notice of the House the same proposition. Three years ago the measure was all but carried in that House, being lost only by a majority of one. The numbers were seventy to seventy-one, and he was happy, although at that time the House did not legally establish the law, that capital punishment should be abolished in all cases except murder, yet that the principle had been acted upon; and since 1837 no capital punishment had taken place, except for murder or attempt at murder. It was not paying the noble Lord below him a compliment—it was merely doing justice, to say, that he had done more for the amendment of our system of prison discipline than any other Minister had done. He believed the noble Lord was more peculiarly fitted for that department of the duties of the office of Home Secretary than any who had preceded him. It was to him we owed in a great measure the separate system, which was destined to be the model of all schemes for criminal reformation in this country. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member that transportation, although it should be abolished as a punishment, ought to be retained as a supplement to punishment. Punishment might be inflicted by previous confinement, but there were certain cases in which it was desirable that the offender should have the opportunity of making a new life, and establishing a new character, and for that purpose of going to a new world, where, untainted by past recollections, he might establish a new and good reputation. It was the opinion of one of the greatest foreign jurists, as well as his, that this was the use, and the only use, which ought to be made of transportation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the anomaly in our law by which a man committing felony might, if death ensued, be executed, although the felony had not been committed in contemplation of death. This reminded him of another anomaly with respect to cases of common intent. In many instances a man might join with others in a common intent, and if the others went on to perpetrate an ulterior crime, which he had not contemplated, he was still liable to the extreme penalty. These were anomalies which ought to be taken into consideration, with a view to their removal as speedily as possible. The two crimes which the hon. and learned Gentleman excepted from the abrogation of the punishment of death were murder and high treason. He did not mean to raise any exception to this part of the proposition. He was willing to accept it as a compromise between the concession of the whole and the total denial of any part of that principle which every reformer ought to wish to see established. He thought, however, that, with respect to high treason, a distinction might properly be drawn between acts in which the death of the chief of the State was contemplated and those in which no such object was premeditated. There were circumstances, such as had recently occurred at Mon-mouth, which he thought might suggest such a distinction as this. He wished to call the attention of hon. and learned Gentlemen to a work published twenty years ago by the present ambassador from the king of the French, M. Guizot, in which, in commenting upon the punishment of death for political offences, the ingenious author remarked that in cases of popular commotions the ostensible leader was not a person acting from his own impulses, but was generally compelled by others. He thought if the hon. and learned Gentleman attended to this he might make a distinction, and, while he exempted treason from the abrogation of the punishment of death, might see that there were circumstances which might call, in a peculiar manner, for exemption from the extreme penalty. The abolition of capital punishment had made less progress in this country than in others; but now that we had begun, though late, to act, he hoped we should not show the less zeal or earnestness in the cause of reform; and he had the greatest confidence in the success of the cause since it was advocated by both sides of the House, and was supported by the talents of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had so ably advocated it this evening. In this, as in any other legal reform which he (Mr. Ewart) had ventured to urge, he was guided by the direction of the popular feeling—the inclinatio temporum, which had been so often referred to from the time of the great philosopher who first used the term. He was sure that the time would ultimately, if not very speedily, arrive, when not only that House, but the people of the country, would cordially entertain and happily accomplish the principle which was involved in all these amendments— the total abolition of the punishment of death.

was sure the House had no cause to regret that the hon. Gentleman who had made this motion had undertaken the subject, because the strict investigation, the talent, and the enlightened principle which he had brought to the task, could not but be useful to the House and the public in the further investigation of the matter. Neither did he (Lord J. Russell) wish to oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, but it would not be fair to the House if he did not state that he could not consent to the final enactment of the bill without further investigation, without several alterations, and, as he thought, without a further delay to a future session of Parliament. Great changes had recently been made in the criminal law of the country. Without entering minutely into the history of those changes, it would be sufficient to mention that, thirty years ago, two hundred offences were liable to capital punishment, and the opinion of the Parliament was then opposed to any considerable alteration of the system. It was impossible to read the memoirs which had been recently published of Sir Samuel Romilly without observing what great difficulties that excellent, learned, and upright man had to contend with in opposing a system which we now all condemned as sanguinary, cruel, and inefficient. It was considered at that time that stealing, to even a small amount, if not visited with capital punishment, would make all property in the country unsafe, and other offences lighter still were liable to capital punishment. When the right hon. Gentleman, who was not now present, introduced his bills for the amendment of the criminal law in 1827, one in ten of all the convictions were capital. About the year 1835, when he (Lord J. Russell) was charged with the business of the Home Department, about one conviction in thirty-two was for a capital offence. In consequence of the various bills brought in, many of them by the hon. Member for Wigan, and some of them by himself, in the year 1837, the capital convictions were reduced to one in 317. Not merely had a change taken place in the letter of the law, and in the formal number of convictions, but the number of executions had been reduced in a great degree, for in 1838 the number of executions was only six, and in 1839, eleven. This showed that the punishment of death had not been so frequently inflicted as to make it necessary for the House to interpose without due consideration. He admitted, indeed, that if weekly and daily instances of the infliction of capital punishment had occurred, because we were in doubt what would be the best system of secondary punishment, it would bean unjust and revolting argument that human life should be taken away on such grounds; and we ought immediately to consider, without loss of time, what secondary punishments would be best to be adopted. But he did not believe such to be the case. What had been our experience since the act of 1837? During the year 1838 many of those who were capitally convicted were tried under the former state of the law, under which many additional crimes were capitally punishable. That, therefore, could not be taken as a fair criterion of the operation of the new law; and the year 1839 was the only year which furnished practical experience of the operation of the new law. He did not think the hon. Gentleman could justly charge him with delay, or neglect of the subject, if with but one year's experience, he said that he did not feel himself bound to proceed to legislation within the present year. If capital punishments had been unnecessarily inflicted he should admit the obligation; but neither in the number of the inflictions, nor the nature of the crimes had that been the case, and, therefore, he thought it would be wise to consider further before capital punishment was done away with to any greater extent. In the mean time, that interval would not have been lost, for communications had taken place between the judges and the Secretary of State—not upon the general state of the law upon which the judges were not in the practice of giving an opinion, but upon particular cases, from which with further experience, sufficient grounds might be made out for further amendment of the law. He might refer to one instance—that of rape. When he brought in his bills in 1837, considerable discussion took place between the criminal law commissioners and himself; but he believed the prevailing opinion to have been, that if the crime was committed in combination, and was the result of combined force, the punishment ought to be capital, but in other cases not. Since that time, however, there had been no execution for rape, although there certainly had been cases in which he should have thought, if this principle was to be adhered to, the capital punishment ought to have been inflicted. In such cases, however, some of the judges who had paid most attention to the crime and to the state of the law had recommended the parties to the mercy of the Crown. That was a point which was raised for their consideration. If, as he believed, the judges had recommended that in such cases—and some of them aggravated ones—mercy should be extended, it might be a ground for calling upon the House to take away the punishment in such cases. He rather wished to avoid for the present following the hon. and learned Member in his argument as to certain crimes, with regard to which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to remit the capital penalty, but for which he (Lord J. Russell) thought it ought to be retained: but with regard to another subject — imprisonment as a secondary punishment—he thought we had now arrived at a stage—having improved the system of capital punishment, and with the evidence which was before the House with respect to transportation and imprisonment—at which we might consider that we were approaching the time when the whole subject might be placed before the Legislature, for the purpose of the adoption of some consistent system—because, if on the one hand, no wanton expenditure of human life had taken place, he contended that on the other hand we were bound, for the safety and happiness of society, to take care that an effective system of secondary punishments should be adopted. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, said that transportation ought to be retained as a supplementary punishment. That opinion had been held many years ago, and had been acted upon in many instances. When the punishment of death for forgery was first taken away, it was no uncommon thing for the judges to order one, two, or three years' imprisonment, with a view to subsequent transportation; but he doubted the wisdom of that system, for such was the stimulus which it offered for applications for mitigations of the sentence, that what with applications to the judge grounded on evidence which could have been given by parties not examined—applications to the Secretary of State, founded on the respectability of the connections and previous conduct of the individuals, and recommendations by persons upon the jury or otherwise, it came to be considered that the fixed imprisonment was intended as the punishment, and the transportation was looked upon as an unexpected punishment. He could not tell the reason of this notion, but such was the practical effect. He, therefore, thought that transportation, instead of being a contingent infliction, should be the commencement of a real and effective punishment, and not a lottery, by which a man might be sent to the borders, and condemned to the most servile tasks, or find himself employed as a cook or butler or the confidential clerk of a merchant in a town, and enjoying greater luxuries than he had ever known before. He thought when capital punishment was abolished, transportation should be looked upon as a substantial punishment, and that few persons should be sent to the Australian colonies for a few years, which had the effect of taking away from the terror that ought to attend that punishment. Transportation ought not to be confounded with minor punishments. He had gone further than the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman gave occasion for, but he wished to state his views on the whole subject of the alteration of the criminal law. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted himself to be an advocate for the total abolition of the punishment of death; he thought that for certain offences it ought to be retained. He thought that the system of prison discipline, and of transportation, ought to be improved as far as was possibly compatible with the welfare of the prisoner. In bringing forward the subject now, after the various bills which had been introduced, and the inquiries which had been instituted, there ought to be a consistent system submitted to the attentive consideration of both Houses of the Legislature. He did not think that at the present period of the Session there was sufficient time, nor in some particulars sufficient experience to enable the House to decide on any such system, and, therefore, he told the hon. and learned Gentleman fairly, that, thanking him for the light which he had thrown upon the subject, and for the attention which he had paid to it, for which the House and the country were much indebted to him, he was not disposed to support the further stages of the bill.

, after an acknowledgement of the attention and research which the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich had so usefully bestowed upon this subject, said that the more we ameliorated the law under which exhibitions so disgusting, so disgraceful, and so injurious to the morals of the people, and so contrary to the objects which the Legislature had in view in the infliction of punishment, the more would the character of the people be improved. In no instances had offences increased in consequence of the punishment having been mitigated. On the contrary, in every instance they had decreased; and it rested, therefore, with the noble Lord to prove, that in the punishments which had heretofore taken place, there had not been an unnecessary sacrifice of human life. He was one of those who always thought that the utmost severity of punishment could never operate so as to prevent the murders resulting from passion; and he also thought that executions, and the conduct of spectators at them, tended to demoralize, rather than improve the public mind.

said, he was by no means opposed to the bringing in of this bill, for he had on former occasions 'lent his assistance to the Secretary of State in seeking to abridge the number of offences to which capital punishment applied. This was to him a most grateful task; but though he thought they had not yet arrived at the point to which they might safely advance in abolishing capital punishments, yet he must say there had been no supineness in the progress which had been made. He was of opinion that there were yet some offences liable to capital punishment which might cease to be so, though he could not go the length of his learned Friend. He hoped, however, as his learned Friend had now obtained leave to bring in the bill, he would be content to do so, and allow it to stand over until next Session of Parliament, inasmuch as they were not at present prepared to enter upon its consideration. He thought it was monstrous that this bill should be limited to England. He did not see why it should not be extended to Ireland and Scotland. He thought there could be no difficulty in including all three countries in one measure, or if there was a difficulty, they might have three bills brought in and pass them pari passu, so that they might all receive the royal assent on the same night. Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his bill farther this Session.

said, that after the appeal which had been made to him by his hon. Friend, he must say, in reply, that he was impelled by a sense of public duty firmly, decisively, and openly to declare that he would not consent to delay the further progress of the bill for a single day. If there was any thing less at stake than human life, no one would be more ready than himself to agree to the suggestion of his hon. Friend; but considering the nature and objects of the bill, and the mischiefs which resulted from having our practice different to our law, he felt bound to say that at every stage of the bill he would take the sense of the House as to whether it should pass or not. He would therefore put down the second reading for the very earliest day, and he only regretted that after repeatedly putting off the bill to suit the convenience of the noble Lord who wished to take the sense of the House on the first reading, he should now put it off to the second reading. He had, however, the most sanguine hopes, from the state of public opinion both out and in the House, that the bill would be successfully carried into law in the present Session. With respect to what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend, as to extending the bill to Ireland and Scotland, he should be glad to do so, and saw no difficulty in doing so in the present Session, and he hoped he should have his hon. Friend's assistance in accomplishing that object, in which case he would forthwith bring in bills for both countries, and it would be then for the House to say whether it would trifle with human life, and with public opinion, by unnecessary delay.

, after presenting several petitions against any further grant of public money to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, proceeded to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, that after the grant for the current year no further payment of public money be made to Maynooth College. He did exclude by his motion the grant for the current year, because he knew that the grant had been anticipated for this year. This he was aware had been the ground on which many hon. Members had refrained from opposing the grant for the current year. The Roman Catholic priests in Ireland could bring their power to bear upon any question whatsoever, and this they had done in several recent instances at the election of boards of guardians under the New Poor-law. The hon. Gentleman read extracts from newspapers and various communications he had received, in order to show that this power was extensively exercised by the Catholic priesthood. His principal objection to this college of Maynooth was, that instead of its professors and members being the aiders and abettors of religion, good order, and submission to the laws of the land, they were ever found to be the leaders and promoters of disorder. Another objection was founded on the works that were introduced there, which were destructive of the best principles of morality. The grant in effect went to support a religion that was at once idolatrous and unsocial. It was a feeling among the Protestants of this country—a growing and a lively feeling—that they ought not to pay for the dissemination of a religion which, in their hearts, they believed to be contrary to the true religion; and this independently of any of the other considerations arising out of the doctrines taught in the college. Therefore it was, that he felt he ought not to shrink from his duty, but upon the grounds of the nature of the education, the character of the books used, and the strong feeling of the Protestants, to move, that after the present year the grant to Maynooth should be discontinued.

said, that there were two points from which the vote now complained of might be viewed. The first was the principle of the grant itself, and the second the mode in which this grant was administered. The hon. Member who had just sat down had taken both grounds of objection; he objected to the mode of instruction adopted in the college, to the books read there, and to the conduct of the clergymen who issued from its walls. This, evidently, was an objection to the mode and system in which the college was carried on; but the hon. Member further objected to it on the ground that no grant should be made from the public funds for the education of Roman Catholic priests, or of the Roman Catholics at all. Now there might be a general objection to the grant of public money for the instruction and the education of the Roman Catholic clergy; but taking the propriety of such a grant as admitted, then, with respect to the system carried on in the college, and the mode in which the grant was administered, he contended that they were more the subjects for the consideration of the Roman Catholic clergy and of the Roman Catholic authorities, than of the hon. Member for Kent. So also with respect to the objection which was made to the books which were read and the studies which were pursued there. For himself, he confessed that he was not compelled to enter into any argument as to the character of the books, or the extent of the studies pursued there, for he had felt that into these matters it was no part of his duty to inquire. But from what he had heard, he believed that the books which were used were the recognised books of the Catholic Church, but he believed also that upon these points the House had no more right to inquire than any Roman Catholic Member in that House would have to come forward and object to the books which were used or to the education that was pursued at either of the universities of Oxford or Cambridge. One specific objection which had been made to the books at this college was, that they enforced intolerance; he was glad to see that hon. Members had become so sensitive to the evils of intolerance, because, after this sensitiveness, when the hon. Member for Kent, in the presence and in the hearing of so many members of the Roman Catholic faith, branded their tenets as idolatrous and anti-social, he was sure that the hon. Member would raise no blush nor give one pang to any one of those Members. Now, with regard to the system of instruction pursued in the college. A commission was prayed for by that House, and appointed by the Crown, in 1837. That commission had laid upon the table a specific and minute report of every thing with regard to the college, the statutes, the constitution, the education, and the discipline. This was the statement made in the 8th report of the commissioners on the Irish Education Inquiry in the year 1837:—

"The instruction given in the divinity classes generally at Maynooth, we are assured, does not differ materially from that given in the university of Paris. The discipline maintained in the college is stated to differ very little from that which is observed in other institutions for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy."

An opinion has prevailed, that the free education which the bounty of the Legislature has provided at Maynooth, has both induced and enabled persons of a much lower class to enter into the Roman Catholic priesthood than those who generally filled the ministerial office, and who, without such aid, could not have prepared themselves for holy orders. He collected, however, from the evidence, that this effect has not been produced, and that the care of the previous education, the expenses of admission, and the charges which still attends the course of instruction at Maynooth, accompanied by other regulations adopted by the Roman Catholic bishops, have prevented this result. That report had been laid on the table of the House in June, 1807, and since that period no Parliament that had been subsequently called together, and not one administration that had since been entrusted with the Government of the country, had been called upon to submit to the House any motion to Parliament with respect to the College of Maynooth, or had proposed any alteration, or sought to diminish the annual grant. By the statutes and an act regulating the college, certain visitors were appointed; some were named in the act, and others by reason of the office which they held; and he must state, that if there had been any abuse or neglect, or any departure from the understanding on which the original grant had been made, an appeal would lie to the visitors. If they had refused to give to the complaints any attention, the next most advisable course would have been to lay the matter before the Government, that they might have the opportunity of impressing upon the visitors the propriety of conducting every thing connected with the college orderly and correctly, and in accordance with the intention of the grant. If all this had failed, and if the abuses had still continued, then would have been the time to make the appeal to Parliament. As it was, no complaint had been made to the Government of any neglect or abuse, or departure from the original intention. The only complaint that had reached the Government was of the utter inadequacy of the funds allotted to the college, and he believed that the correctness of this representation was more to be feared than those of the hon. Member for Kent. He believed that the walls of Maynooth, without the help of other colleges elsewhere, were utterly incompetent to supply the demand which was made of proper parties to discharge the duties of the parochial clergy throughout Ireland, and he believed that great good would ensue if a larger amount of annual provision could be assigned to this college; if, for instance, the salaries of the professors could be enlarged, and their position raised in the scale of society, and if something more of the human ties and refinements of learning could be mixed with the more severe studies of the college. He was sure that the worst effects would be produced, and the worst impression made upon the public mind, and that the very feelings which the hon. Member most dreaded, would be fostered among the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland if the House in a moment of haste or carelessness should refuse to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland any assistance from the State in aid of their education. The hon. Member for Kent had been pleased to deal very largely in wholesale charges against the whole body of the parochial clergy in Ireland. No doubt that in this community, as in every other large community, there would be found some bad, some ill-judging, and some turbulent men; he would like to know in what church, in what community, some such were not to be found. The hon. Member for Kent had dwelt with just severity on those who called in the terrors of the life to come in aid of secular objects, and who debarred from religious privileges those who would not vote for particular candidates. He was sure that no one would reprobate such conduct more than himself; but when the hon. Member for Kent chose to infer that this conduct was to be charged exclusively on the Roman Catholic clergy, he, although he was most unwilling to carry on a war of recrimination, yet must say he thought that this conduct was not confined exclusively to clergymen of that persuasion. He found that this conduct was adopted by a clergyman of another Church in Ireland, in or near Londonderry — a minister of what was certainly a Church—the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. He did not know whether hon. Members meant in that House, as had been done elsewhere, to deny to the Presbyterian Church the character of a Church, but these were the words of a Presbyterian clergyman addressed to those of his congregation who were about to join in the Lord's Supper:—

"I debar from this holy table (both doctrinally and officially) all those who, at elections, give their votes in favour of the candidate who supports an anti-Christian Government—a Government that has ever been the patronisers of Popery and idolatry throughout the British colonies."

And as words were sometimes misunderstood, he would quote the reverend gentleman's own explanation of the words which he had used, and which left the matter very much in the same state as he found it:—

"I did, therefore, debar from a seat at the table of the Lord, all voters at elections for candidates for office under un-scripturally constituted systems of civil government. And, as an illustration of the anti-scriptural basis of the British Constitution, I instanced the provision which, by its law enacted, was made for the maintenance and propagation of Popery in the British colonies."

Clearly alluding to the present Government alone; but, continued the reverend gentleman:—

"This I did, sir, without reference to personality, to the political creed of any Member of Parliament, or to any individual candidate for office under the general Government, but as being applicable to all governments and to all politicians who pay no regard to the moral law as the basis of their national constitution, or to the infallible directory of God's word in the choice of their governors, or in the regulating the obedience and submission to which they are entitled from their subjects. Under the same precept of the decalogue, I also debarred all anti-government men —all who would not vote at elections for eligible candidates for office under a scripturally constituted civil government."

He was afraid that it would only be when the hon. Member for Kent assumed the Government that the reverend gentleman would find cause to desist, or that his denunciation of candidates would be brought to a climax. Then the hon. Member for Kent brought forward the cases of the contests for Poor-law guar- dians; and although he complained of the logic and casuistry of the doctrines at Maynooth, the hon. Member himself exhibited rather loose logic and some casuistry, when he referred the proceedings at the election of Poor-law guardians to the education at Maynooth and the writings of Thomas Aquinas. He would not now go into an account of those proceedings, as they might be made matter for judicial inquiry. He could only say with respect to them that the statements which he had received were of a most conflicting nature; and whether the taking of tenants from their beds was so constraining and compulsory a proceeding as the hon. Member for Kent had represented, he could not now say. He would only now refer to what had been the parting remark and the mainspring of the petitions which had been presented to the House, the objection to any grant of public money for the maintenance of the Catholic religion, and the statement that it was wrong to support a religion which the hon. Member charitably and kindly called idolatrous and anti-social. He should not quarrel with the hon. Member's conviction upon that point. He knew it to be a conscientious objection on his own part, and so might it possibly be on the part of the petitioners, although they had not, perhaps, exercised their own opinions so freely as they would have done if some artful misrepresentations had not been made use of. They started, however, with the proposition that it was wrong to support a religion of which they disapproved. That might be a very good opinion to hold; but it appeared to him, that any one who conscientiously held that opinion, was bound to support the voluntary system. How any one could, in common candour, say, that it was wrong to support a religion which they thought erroneous, and yet exact the very same support for another religion of others who equally thought that erroneous—how they could allow the great majority of the people of this country to impose upon the vast majority of the people of Ireland, the duty of supporting persons to advocate the tenets which the majority in Ireland deemed wrong, he could not conceive. It seemed to him to be utterly at variance with every notion of consistency, of candour, and of sense. In this sense, the laws which required the payment of church-rates from persons of all persua- sions, ought to be instantly repealed, and these rates—which, in his opinion, were a fair provision—if the hon. Member's proposition were adopted, must be given up. He could not conceive, he really could not see, if the hon. Member called upon that House to support the union; if he called upon them to support the present tithe-commutation in Ireland, which was working better than could have been or was anticipated, how, with any sense or candour, the hon. Member could grudge the paltry grant of 8,900l. a year, which was all that they gave for religious purposes to the great portion of the people of Ireland, or to the supporters of that religion which extended its influence through every part of Ireland. The last thing which had been brought against this offending college at Maynooth was, that a large part of the students had lately taken the temperance pledge at the hands of a Roman Catholic clergyman, Father Matthew, and in so doing, in his opinion, they were giving an excellent example, and afforded a good omen for the flocks about to be committed to their charge. And he thought that the hon. Member for Kent would do better by teaching his fellow-religionists in England, and even some in his own neighbourhood in Kent, to imitate the example, and to lay aside the filthy habit of drunkenness, and adopt a life of sobriety, which would perhaps bring with it some of the Christian virtues of charity and good-will; and that the hon. Member would thus be doing more good to that religion which he so warmly cherished, than by calling upon Parliament to deny the grant which was now doled out to a large portion of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects in Ireland.

said, the noble Lord had endeavoured, in this discussion, to raise questions with which, as he conceived, the Government of this country had nothing to do. The Government had no right to think it an open question whether the established religion of this country should be looked upon in the same light as the faith of the Dissenters. The Government was bound to support the religion of the State, and that religion alone which the State recognised as truth. For himself, he never would consent to pay a sixpence for teaching as the word of God what he believed to be contrary to that word. We were living in a Christian land, having the blessing of an Established Church, and the State and the Government ought to give no support to any church but the Established Church founded upon truth; because if they adopted any other rule, they might give a grant to every college—to the college of Mill-hill or Hoxton as well as the college of Maynooth. But the noble Lord went even further, and had uttered sentiments which would never have been tolerated in any Member of the Government forty years ago. [Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.] A pretty compliment was that interruption to those who, on conviction had granted, or against their conviction were compelled to grant, to those who now cheered, the seats which enabled them to cheer. The noble Lord had twice used the term "parochial clergy," as applied to the Roman Catholic priests; so that the present Government must recognise the Roman Catholic priests as the parochial clergy of Ireland; and the noble Lord thought, that instead of 8,900l., they ought to add to the amount, for the purpose of adding humanities and refinements to the severer studies of the college. Be it so, if the members were of the Established religion, [Cheers from the Ministerial benches] but unless the hon. Members who cheered, and among them the hon. Member for Kerry, were prepared to vote sums for the support of the Memnonites and the Morganites, were prepared to propose grants to members of every persuasion, they could not support the present grant. He held that it was not right, when the great majority of the people of England recognised the Church of England as the repository of divine truth, that they should give to any other religion the countenance which this vote was likely to afford. The noble Lord had imputed something like uncharitableness to the hon. Member for Kent, for representing the Church of Rome by strong expressions, but he would ask the noble Lord himself, whether at the table of that House, he had not characterized the tenets of the Church of Rome by the same terms as his hon. Friend had used? Therefore, the noble Lord ought not to complain of his hon. Friend for characterising that same Church by the same terms which the noble Lord himself had used. He had been content in former years, and when he was a young Member of that House, to vote for this grant as a legacy from the Parliament of Ireland; but even then he had often felt great repugnance to the grant, and of late years had voted against it. There were something like thirty-six votes for charities, which the Irish Parliament regularly maintained. So long as those votes remained unaltered, he felt that he ought not to resist the vote for this college. He did not feel at liberty—he would not say bound—to enquire what particular tenets were taught, any more than he would feel himself at liberty to dispute the disposition of a legacy bequeathed through him to another individual. He only felt bound to discharge the trust committed to him, and to pay over the money as a matter of course. But when Parliament had taken away from other institutions the money which the Irish Parliament had granted, then every case stood on its own merits; and those who stood on the claims of precedent, and of a legacy from a deceased Parliament, here ceased to have a firm footing. He thought himself at liberty to say, that he would be no party to the teaching of any such tenets. He felt that he was not bound to be a party to it, because, although it might be true, that an agreement had been entered into, it had been broken in other respects, and he conceived that the nation was not bound to hold itself to any Christian obligations, except such as called for the support of its Church—that Church was at variance with the college of Maynooth. He, therefore, should vote for the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kent.

; Salamanca would, in the Spanish Cortes, be faithfully represented by the Member whom a Protestant University delegates to this House. He is a consistent politician, whose virtues are best illustrated by the Horatian metaphor, for if any man ever was, the hon. baronet must be on all hands admitted to be "totus teres atque rotundus." In some of his positions, however, there is a good deal of anomaly; he says, that because the Protestant Charter schools were deprived of the fund once annually voted to them, we ought to perpetrate what amounts to a violation of Conservative principle in reference to the Catholic seminary at Maynooth. The case of Maynooth rests on a clear contract entered into before the Union, and ratified by Act of Parliament. I have been a good deal surprised that this act has never been quoted, at least has never been relied on as strongly as it ought to have been in this House. In 1795, the British Government felt that the foreign education of the Catholic priesthood was a very great evil. They became apprehensive that doctrines hostile to British interests might be diffused through Ireland through the system of instruction which then prevailed; the infusion of Jacobinism into foreign seminaries was dreaded, and it was considered to be most impolitic to encourage a continental connection with Ireland, through the colleges in which the Catholic clergy had, previous to the foundation of Maynooth, been educated. It does strike me indeed to be most preposterous to intrust to foreigners, who may become our worst foes, the instruction of men who exercise, and ought, and must continue to exercise, so vast and so legitimate an influence over the Irish people. The Catholic clergy are a most powerful corporation; the parochial minister is found in every priest, and over the whole frame of our Church presides a hierarchy, composed of able and enlightened men, whose talents, whose station, and whose virtues concur in giving them a great and inevitable sway. We have in our Church all the advantages resulting from a division the most minute, accompanied by a perfect centralization. It seems obvious, then, that the members of such a body ought not to be driven from their country to seek for that instruction among your enemies, or your rivals which you are called on to deny them. Mr. Pitt felt, that the ministers of Catholic Ireland ought not to be conductors of French principles or instruments of French machination, and accordingly, the college of Maynooth was founded and endowed under the 35th of George 3rd. That act recites the expediency of endowing a Catholic seminary, and a grant of 8,000l. (after various provisions for the establishment and regulation of Maynooth) is made by that Act of Parliament. The college having been thus endowed, another act was passed in 1800, confirming the former act, and making further regulalations. Thus Maynooth, before the Union, became one of the national institutions of Ireland. It was in some sort incorporated with the State. The Union passed, and the grant was continued to be regularly voted by the Imperial Parliament. In 1807 the Whigs increased the grant to 12,000l.; but Mr. Perceval reduced it from 12,000l. to 8.000l., on the express ground that the Imperial Parliament was bound to give what the Irish Parliament had granted by a legislative donation. It is very extraordinary that the Member for Kent, who referred to what happened in 1808, did not allude to the opinions of Mr. Perceval. Mr. Perceval was a great enemy of Popery—bore it the deepest antipathy, yet found himself bound by contract—bound by two Irish Acts of Parliament. It was not, I trust, in the spirit of "pious fraud" that the Member for Kent suppressed Mr. Perceval's opinion. For forty years the grant has been annually made, but I have more recent authority than that of Mr. Perceval. I hold in my hand Mr. Gladstone's book on the Church, in which, after condemning Maynooth, he says, that if it rests on the public faith, the public faith must remain inviolate. Sir, while the Member for Oxford was inveighing against the Catholic religion, having Mr. Gladstone's book in my hand, I turned to the first page of it, in which is contained a dedication to the University of Oxford. It is inscribed to the University of Oxford as the tried in the vicissitudes of a thousand years. A thousand years ! Did the Member for that famous university, who denounces Popery, hear the word—a thousand years? I will not ask where was your boasted truth a thousand years ago; but I will venture to refer to the sermons of Father Prout, of Watergrass-hill—" These words are taken from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans; did you ever hear of his writing a letter to the Protestants?" The Member for the University of Oxford, was sufficiently vehement in his denunciation of the religion once taught in the University of Oxford, and to which that magnificent assemblage of colleges owed its chief ornaments; but he abstained from the use of opprobrious expressions. The hon. Member for Kent, could not restrain himself from an indulgence in invective against the religion and the priesthood of one-third of the inhabitants of these islands. I will not follow him, however, through the snares of his theology. I leave the Member for Kent to "rush in, where angels fear to tread." While he preaches, I practise the precepts of Christianity, and listen to his vituperation with the forbearance and the patience which ought to be produced by the spirit of Christian commiseration. He is accounted by his associates as sincere. I own that in listening to him, I am inclined to exclaim with Bassanio—

"Thou almost tempt'st me to forswear my faith, And hold opinion with Pythagoras."

The hon. Gentleman furnishes a proof of metempsychosis, for he must have lived two hundred years ago, and played a conspicuous part in that celebrated Parliament of "Praise God" legislators, associated by history with the name of a religious statesman of whom such strong reminiscences are presented by the hon. Member for Kent.

said, that his objection to the grant of public money to the College of Maynooth was founded simply upon the mode of education adopted in that seminary. If ever there were such a contract as that to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, it must be considered as a contract made between the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland and the people of both countries, and a portion of that contract was, that doctrines useful to the morality, the religion, and the peace of Ireland, should be taught in that college. This he contended had not been done. He maintained that the doctrines taught at Maynooth were deeply injurious to the welfare of the country; that they were doctrines of great intolerance towards the Protestants of Ireland; that they were doctrines of great immorality, staling that allegiance to the pope was higher than allegiance to the lawful sovereign of these realms; and he was convinced that if hon. Members would take the trouble to look into the class-books referred to by the hon. Member for Kent, they would find that these doctrines, and worse, were taught and inculcated in this scholastic seminary. No denial had been attempted to be given to the statements on this point which had been made by his hon. Friend near him. He was a friend to a real and just system of education, and he was opposed to a system which inculcated doctrines inimical to the best interest of the nation at large. The Roman Catholic priests who sanctioned the doctrines promulgated at Maynooth were the fixed, the determined, the avowed enemies of the Established Church; they proclaimed the doctrines of that church to be heretical, and they claimed the ascendancy of the church of which they were members. Feeling that the Established Protestant Church afforded the only means of protecting the liberties of Ireland, and looking upon the attacks already made upon that Church, he should give his vote in favour of the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kent.

said, he could not but think the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down somewhat singular, inasmuch as the hon. and learned Member had complained of the desire for ascendancy on the part of the Roman Catholics, and declared his intention to vote in support of the ascendancy of another church. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, by his speech to-night, had answered the arguments upon which he must found his motion on Tuesday next, on the subject of Church extension, for the hon. Baronet had to-night said he would not give sixpence in support of any religion which he did not believe to be true. The hon. Baronet had, therefore, laid it down as a principle that no man should contribute to a church in the doctrines of which he had no belief. The hon. Member for Kent, had in the mildest manner, and with the meekest spirit, laid down tonight the most intolerant and bigotted principles ever heard in that House within the last few centuries His speech formed a forcible illustration of Byron's lines:—

"He was the mildest-mannered man afloat That ever scuttled ship or out a throat"

He had called upon the House to legislate upon the principle followed by the Inquisition in Spain, and to apply a secular arm to the extinction of all dissent. The hon. Member by his resolution called upon the House to rescind the grant of 8,900l. voted to the Roman Catholic priesthood, while upwards of 5,000,000l. was enjoyed annually by the, clergy of the Established Church. The hon. Member had said that Maynooth college had failed to effect the objects for which it was established, and he had cited the language of Mr. Pitt to show that the principal object was to establish a college of loyal men. Now, he begged to ask, whether the scholastic establishments of this country had answered that end? Was the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, satisfied in that respect even with his own establishment? Did the hon. Member for Kent, looking to the occurrences which had taken place in his own county, mean to claim for it exclusive loyalty? Could he refer to the transactions near Canterbury with feelings of either pride or satisfaction? The hon. Member had also spoken of the political character of the priesthood of Ireland. He would, however, ask the hon. Member whether there was a county in England, in which the clergy of the Church of England were not the best possible whippers-in at any election. There was just as much of politics mixed up in the English Established Church as in any church in the world. He said this with regret, for he thought it a misfortune to the country and a blot upon the Established Church; but while such a system existed here, it was too much to talk of the Irish clergy as those who alone exercised political influence. He wished to put this question upon the basis that there were faults in both establishments; on the one side there was the Irish clergy struggling for existence, and the clergy of the Established Church struggling for ascendancy. The one was supported by 5,000,000l. annually, while the Irish clergy were to be denied the paltry pittance of 8,900l. Much had been said on the subject of the petitions which had been presented against the grant to Maynooth; on inquiry it would be found that the signatures did not exceed those affixed to the petitions praying for the abolition of the dog-cart nuisance. It was with great pleasure that he observed the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had returned to his place; it was necessary the right hon. Baronet should be there in order to rebuke the follies of some of his followers on this occasion, and to redeem his party from the difficulties in which they were placed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Kent, and of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The right hon. Baronet had come in just in time to redeem the errors of his friends, and if not by his speech, at least by his vote on this occasion, to draw a line of distinction between his own conduct and that of his followers.

said, the hon. Gentleman was a correct prophet with respect to the vote he (Sir R. Peel) should give on the present occasion, but the hon. Gentleman was not equally happy in his anticipations as to the speech he (Sir R. Peel) should make. He did not intend to rebuke those who had proposed and supported the present motion, neither should be express any compunction or regret for the course he was about to take. He was bound to say, that no man at present in this House, or who had ever sat in it, when he did come forward on a public question, was actuated by purer or more disinterested motives than his hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, who had brought forward this motion. But he (Sir R. Peel) had not the slightest hesitation as to the vote he should give on that motion, or in avowing the grounds upon which he should oppose the pledge contained in it. In the first place, it would be calculated to give equal dissatisfaction to those who would be affected by the vote, whether the grant were to be immediately withdrawn, or whether the House pledged itself to a withdrawal at a future period, for if there had been a contract, as was contended, that contract would be quite as much violated by a withdrawal of the grant next year, as if it were to take place now. Having passed the grant for the last thirty or forty years, and as persons had prepared themselves for Maynooth, on the faith that it would not be withdrawn, the pledge to withhold it next year would be productive of quite as much embarrassment as if it were proposed to withhold it at present. For his own part, he did not think that there were sufficient grounds for violating an implied understanding upon which Parliament had acted for thirty years, and he could not acquiesce in any motion for withholding the grant unless stronger grounds were made out to show him that he had been in error in the votes which for the thirty years that he had been in Parliament he had given upon this subject. The foundation had been established in Ireland at a period when religious animosities ran as high, at least, as they did at present, and political divisions were as great as they were now. It had been established by a Parliament exclusively Protestant as an instrument to produce a disposition favourable to the Established Church, and to discourage the Jacobin doctrines which a foreign education was calculated to engender in those who were educated for the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland. The grant had survived the Act of Union, and had been continued by Mr. Perceval in 1806, though something diminished in amount. It was continued even after the event connected with the election of 1806 by Mr. Perceval, who thought that its continuance was necessary for the fulfilment of the public faith. It was still further continued after the removal of the disabilities which affected the Roman Catholics, and, being retained under all these great changes, he did not see now why the House should pledge itself to the abolition. He did not mean to say, that there had been any contract entered into, but, originating as the grant did, and having survived so many changes, he must confess that he could not help thinking that a concurrence with a pledge would show a hostile disposition towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He could not, however, concur in an observation which had fallen from the noble Lord. He did not think that there existed such a compact as ought to prevent the interference of the Legislature if the grant should be perverted to evil purposes. He could not agree in the opinion that the system of instruction pursued at Maynooth ought to be a matter of indifference to the House. He had not heard that observation made by the noble Lord, but he had heard it imputed to him, and he had not seen, on the part of the noble Lord, any sign of an energetic denial. Now, the system of education was a legitimate matter for the consideration of Parliament, and the House would abandon its duty if it were to avow the doctrine, that because the grant had been continued for thirty years; it was, therefore, pledged to say to Maynooth, "You may inculcate what doctrine you please, however injurious to the supremacy of the law, and destructive to the established government and monarchy of the empire." If an opinion of that kind were put forward, he, for one, would never concur in it, and he thought it should be repudiated by every Member of the House. A misappropriation of the grant would form a very proper subject of inquiry, and if it were proved, the question might be submitted to the House whether on that ground the vote ought not to be discontinued. If accusations of this sort were made, all he could say was, that the recipients of the grant were the persons who should show most interest in challenging inquiry, for the purpose of conciliating the good will of the public by showing, if such was the fact, that the charges were groundless. Under such circumstances, so far from inquiry being injurious, they should, as he said, be the first to challenge it. But, at the same time, he should say, that nothing but full proof of abuse would render it wise in the House of Commons to enter into a pledge as to the future with respect to this grant. To him, however, it would be much more satisfactory to have the ground of accusa- tion cut away, and, having established that, he should be able to give the vote which he was about to give with greater satisfaction. When persons not hostile to the establishment admitted the necessity of inquiry at the same time that accusations were made, it was but fair that some inquiry should be entered upon which would remove the suspicions thus engendered. He had now given his opinion upon the question, without either censuring the opinions or impugning the conduct of the hon. Gentleman by whom the question had been brought forward.

explained that he had not meant to say, that it did not signify what was the course of instruction pursued at Maynooth. All he said was, that he did not think himself bound to examine the contents of the books used in the education of persons destined for the Roman Catholic church, as long as he knew them to be the books sanctioned and prescribed by the Roman Catholic authorities. On the contrary, he had said that if any abuses existed, or practices that were contrary to the intentions of the grant, the visitors ought to be appealed to, and after them the Government or the Parliament.

felt bound to state that the feeling of a great number of Roman Catholics as to this grant was positively indifferent. If the principle laid down by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford were adopted, and if the grant were withdrawn on the ground that it was unfair to tax the inhabitants of a country for the support of a religion in which they did not conscientiously believe, he was quite sure it would meet with universal approbation. This motion came most appropriately from the hon. Member for Kent, for that part of Kent which contained the metropolitan see was the scene of operations of the missionary Thom. He had remarked, in the course of this discussion, that while the hon. Member for Kent was engaged in an attack on the Roman Catholic religion, the Scotch Members had loudly cheered; but when the hon. Member came out with his exclusive Church of England doctrines, those Members retired to the back benches. He cautioned those hon. Members against supporting such a measure as this, seeing on what principle it was founded.

did not see how any man at all acquainted with the law could vote for the discontinuance of the grant on the ground of there being no compact. He recommended his hon. Friend to withdraw his motion, and instead of proposing that there should be a discontinuance of the grant after the present year, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should, on a future occasion, propose that the Government should institute an inquiry with the view of seeing whether the charges which had been brought forward against the system of education in Maynooth, and against the system of morality inculcated there, were founded in fact or not. If such abuses existed there as had been described, it was the duty of the executive to prevent future grants being made to such an institution. He trusted, therefore, his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his motion.

cordially concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in opposing any breach of any compact that had been entered into on this subject. But independent of the compact, he would go upon general principles, and would ask whether they, the House, could adopt the motion on the general principles laid down by the hon. Member for Kent. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him, for a motion for inquiring as to the course of instruction at Maynooth, or as to the regulations there, were very different from the present proposition for the discontinuance of the grant. The matter had been taken up on grounds very different, and it involved questions to which he would not allude. He must observe, however, that having been engaged in attending to matters connected with the improvement of Ireland, he wished to disconnect these practical measures with those topics which could only cause disunion. He had expressed these feelings with reference to the subject of education generally, and he thought that it should be the object of the Legislature to do all that they consistently could to conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland; and if, therefore, they came to a vote on the subject of a grant to the College of Maynooth he hoped that it would be distinctly understood in the country that it was not on the minor point as to the regulations of that institution, but whether a system of education should be continued there in conformity with the feelings of that country. He was ex- tremely sorry to have heard many of the opinions that had been uttered by hon. Gentlemen who sat on the same side of the House as himself, but he could not refrain from expressing his cordial concurrence in the feelings that had been expressed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth.

recommended that the motion should be withdrawn, in conformity with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend.

was willing to withdraw his motion, if such was the opinion of those who supported the view which he took of the subject; but he was in the hands of the House.

stated that the hon. Member had brought forward his motion in the proper form, if he was anxious to take the decision of the House on the subject. After the statements that had been made by the hon. Gentleman and others who supported the motion, he thought that it was incumbent on him to take the sense of the House on the subject.

observed that it would be considered an insult to the people of Ireland, if the House did not go to a division on this subject. It was notorious that many Members opposite had gained seats in that House by their declamations on the hustings on this subject, and by the base and cowardly manner in which they had made their attacks on this institution.

called the hon. Member to order, and declared that the application of the terms cowardly and base to any Member in that House was clearly out of order.

stated that if the Speaker declared the terms to be unparliamentary, he of course must withdraw the expression. He, however, would suppose a case, and would observe that he could not conceive anything more base or cowardly than for any body of men on the hustings supporting the gravest charges against an institution, and coming forward before their constituents, whether in Kent, or Maidstone, or Cambridge, he would not stop to say, and addressing to them the basest calumnies and falsehoods that could be invented, and indulging in the most unfounded and uncharitable observations against a body of their fellow Christians, and denominating the college of Maynooth a den of thieves, and even worse than a den of thieves. He must say that it was the very acmé of baseness, when the question came before the House for discussion, to shrink from a division.

rose to order. He appealed to the chair whether the observations of the hon. Member did not distinctly apply to certain Members on his side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had stated that hon. Members had shrunk from using language in that House which they had addressed to their constituents out of it.

was extremely sorry to attribute proceedings to certain persons which the hon. Member had said were so applicable to his friends around him. He thought that it would have been more prudent of Gentlemen opposite to have followed the example set them that night by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, for the language which he used did him honour. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would give credit in the country for the conduct which he had pursued, and he (Mr. Barron) was happy to see him shrink from contact with a certain portion of the party with which he was still connected.

In moving "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to direct a Commission to be sent to the Ionian Islands, to inquire into the grievances which at present exist," said, I will not trespass on the attention of the House at any great length. I propose to consider this question on the broad principle of the advantage of the Ionian Islands to this country. I will, in the first place, call the attention of the House to their geographical position. They are situated centrally between three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—and bear strongly on our line of commerce with the Mediterranean. I wish to submit to the attention of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the attachment of these islands to our protection, or the discontents arising from it, must not necessarily weigh with Russia. That power, in all the negotiations which have taken place, has manifested an anxious desire to obtain a footing in those seas; and, in the event of a war, no doubt great advantage would be taken of any misunderstanding which might exist between those islands and this country. I know those islands well; and the continued protection of England is their desire; but what they seek is an honest protection, and not to be subjected to a servile submission. It is for this reason that I advocate their cause. I am not here to rouse them to a sense of their grievances: they know and feel them, and now for the first time, dare to declare them. It is too much the practice to despise small dependencies; and, in this case, it is said, they are only Ionians. On this point, I perfectly concur in the language of the Westminster Review, in October, 1833:—

"Let not the weakness of the sufferers produce indifference to their just complaints. Is the mismanagement of 190,000 of our fellow subjects a trifle? If it is pleaded that the Ionians are not "lieges" of the king of England, does not the peculiarity of their dependence aggravate, in the eyes of Europe, the disgrace of the misgovernment?"

Now, Sir, the first arbitrary act that I shall notice, of which the Ionians complain, is the dissolution of their Parliament; because in the difference of opinion that took place between the legislative body and the Senate, on account of the new civil and criminal code, the Lord High Commissioner sided with the Senate. Now, Sir, this disagreement arose upon the different interpretation of the constitution. By the constitution, the laws are ordinary and fundamental: the ordinary laws pass through the Senate and Legislative Assembly, and are ratified by the Lord High Commissioner; the fundamental laws are discussed by the legisla- tive body alone, and pass directly to the Sovereign Protector, for ratification. And this law of the civil and criminal codes, being a fundamental law, should be subjected to this form. Lest any doubt should arise on this subject, I will read to the House Art. 8. sec. 3. chap. 6.:—

"Whereas, in the preceding article, provision is made for establishing a temporary court of justice, denominated the Supreme Council of Justice of the United States of the Ionian Islands, and for maintaining the same till such time as new codes of civil and criminal law and procedure can be framed and adopter, and which provision operates, for the time being, as a reservation to a future period of the adjusting the final constitution in these states, as far as regards the judicial authority within the same; it is hereby declared, that whenever such civil and criminal codes and procedure shall be framed, or when the three years shall have expired for which the Supreme Council of Justice is established, the Legislative Assembly of these states shall, on a message to be transmitted to that effect by his Excellency the Lord High Commissioner, consider itself to be sitting for the immediate consideration of the said reserved matters of the constitution; and all the enactments then made for the final adjustment of the due courts of law, and of a fitting and civil criminal code and procedure, shall, in the first instance (as in the instance of the constitution itself), be submitted to his Majesty the protecting Sovereign; and, if ratified, they shall then be considered, to all intents and purposes, as forming an integral part of the constitution itself of these stales."

It is impossible to read this and not agree with the Legislative Assembly when they objected and refused to discuss the codes with the Senate; and this provision was made, from considering the codes as an integral part of the constitution. Now, the House should be informed, that the Senate is not a high legislative assembly, but an executive power elected by the Assembly; the mode being, after the Legislative Assembly is formed, for the Lord High Commissioner to take five from that body, to form the Senate, supplying the vacant places in the Legislative Assembly by his own nomination. The determination of the Legislative Assembly to stand by their privilege determined the Lord High Commissioner, first, to prorogue them, and, afterwards, to obtain an Order in Council for their dissolution. It was in this interim that the Cavaliere Mustoxides came to England, to explain to the Government, here, the grounds upon which they, the Legislative Assembly, differed with the opinion of the Lord High Commissioner, expressing a wish that the reasons of the Legislative Assembly might be heard. No courtesy was shown to this gentleman, though he was entitled to it in every way, from his high literary character, and his decoration of the order of St. Michael and St. George, conferred by George 4th. After four months waiting in this country, he returned home, and had the further mortification of seeing that the Order in Council was dated six weeks before he left England. The dissolution of the Parliament then took place; and I will inform the House that such an act is not an appeal to the people. The election or selection, takes place in the following manner:—The Lord High Commissioner chooses eleven men out of the forty, as the nucleus of the new Assembly; and for the remaining twenty-nine, he sends double lists of names to each of the islands; and one of these lists the electors must return. Such a mockery of a popular assembly does not exist anywhere else. But the Cavaliere Mustoxides, for having dared to go to England, experienced the spite of the Lord High Commissioner, who, upon pretext that he might have been concerned in the Greek plot against the Government of Greece, made use of his high police power, and seized the Cavaliere Mustoxides's papers, public and private, as well as those of Signor Petrizzopula, Count Roma, and others. The Government of Greece declared that the Cavaliere Mustoxides was in no manner concerned in this plot, which, after all, subjected the persons concerned to be tried for a misdemeanour only; but, under this high police authority, the Cavaliere Mustoxides might have been banished to Cerigo, in the same way that the Lord High Commissioner treated two shoemakers, who, for the crime of having run against a senator in the streets and abused him, were, without trial, under the authority of the high police, banished to the island of Cerigo. Having this power, say the least for it, the Lord High Commissioner placed his victim (Cavaliere Mustoxides) under a cloud, insinuated all that was bad against him, and then refrained from making any public accusation. Having stated these facts, I will not detain the House, but simply move,

"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct a Commission to be sent to the Ionian Islands, to inquire into and report upon all grievances against the Government of those islands that may be laid before it."

I do not think the motion of the noble Lord would lead to a solution of the difficulties which have existed in the Ionian Islands. The noble Lord says that a difference of opinion prevailed as to whether were of that nature which required the concurrence of the Assembly only, or of the Assembly and the Senate. Upon that question being stated by the Lord High Commissioner to the Secretary of State, the latter thought it right to inform the Lord High Commissioner of the opinion of the Sovereign; and no better course could have been taken than stating the interpretation which the law officers of the Crown put upon the original contract; and that interpretation was, that the Senate must concur with the Assembly in agreeing to such laws. The opinion of the protective Sovereign, however, was considered of little importance; this concurrence did not take place, and the Lord High Commissioner proposed to receive the consent of her Majesty in Council to dissolve the Assembly. After a good deal of correspondence, that assent was given, and the Assembly was dissolved. A new Assembly was called; it has passed the new code; the Senate have concurred with them: and that code is now about to become the law of the Ionian Islands. That question is therefore at an end. I do not conceive how my noble Friend can say that the Assembly of 1839 was the supreme power, and that the Assembly of 1840 is not. If my noble Friend stands on the act of the Assembly, I may quote the opinion of the latter against the opinion of the former. The question with respect to the general Government remains. I do not deny that the present constitution of the Ionian Islands, while it exhibits the form and figure of a free constitution, is not based on those principles which give the people the right of free election, and their representatives, the control of the Government; but as was said by Sir Howard Douglas, the people are exceedingly uninformed and ill-prepared for the exercise of the constitutional powers of a free Government; and if they possessed those powers, they might in all probability, use them in a very improper manner. I do not think the benefit of a free Government ought at once to be imparted to the people of the Ionian Islands. I am convinced that the best mode of governing them is, in the first place, to keep the finances and Government of the Island free from corruption, and in the next place, to give the native population a due share in the advantages of office, and to give them an education which will prepare them for a better form of government. The contrary course can only lead to a state of anarchy. We ought to recollect what has already taken place. It is notorious that an extensive conspiracy was carried on under the eyes of the Greek government, and that those persons who were the loudest in their complaints were not strangers to the existence of that conspiracy; and I have seen papers promulgated by persons acting under the direction of the late Patriarch at Constantinople, the object of which was to destroy British influence and connection, and establish some other government in its place. Happily, the Patriarch was deposed, on the representation of the British ambassador, and that intrigue put an end to. It was the duty of the Lord High Commissioner to guard the island committed to his care against such attempts, and he was perfectly justified in adopting the necessary measures for its security and protection. Upon the whole, I cannot agree to the motion of my noble Friend, which while it can produce no benefit, may tend to weaken the authority of the Government.

I believe that no country was ever worse used than these islands under Sir Thomas Maitland, who disarmed the whole population. They had the semblance of a free constitution, but they never derived any benefit from it. Corruption was notoriously prevalent, and I believe it was practised chiefly by the Governor. Situations were bestowed on Englishmen, to the exclusion of the natives, and the salaries were increased to an enormous extent. Similar complaints were made with respect to Malta. A Commissioner was sent out, who ascertained that those complaints were well founded, and this House adopted the recommendations contained in the report made on that occasion. I trust the House will now institute an inquiry, and I have not the least doubt that it will be attended with the same result.

It appears to me very difficult to lay down any general rule with respect to the policy of sending out Commissioners; because much must necessarily depend on the nature of the inquiries to be instituted. To send out a Commission to determine the great constitutional question of the Ionian Islands, would, in my opinion, be pregnant with the greatest danger, and I, therefore, cordially concur with the noble Lord in resisting the present motion. If the object be to inquire whether the Ionians are fit for employment or not, that is another matter; but as the principle of the employment of the natives is admitted, I cannot see the utility of sending out a commission for that purpose. At this late hour of the night, I do not think it requisite to enter into any defence of Sir Howard Douglas; indeed, this is rendered quite unnecessary by the testimony given by the noble Lord, in his despatches of the correctness of his conduct.

I think it would be quite useless to send out a commission, because the Government are in possession of all the facts of the case. I believe the state of the population has been materially improved within the last few years. The hon. Member for Kilkenny has complained that Sir Thomas Maitland had disarmed the people. But why did he disarm them? Simply because they rebelled against him. A strong Russian party was perpetuallly intriguing; and if strong measures had not been resorted to, I have no doubt that much blood would have been shed. I trust the noble Lord will consent to withdraw his motion.

I believe the discontent which prevails in the Ionian Islands has been caused by mis-government; and that the disaffection of the people to our protection has not arisen from the restlessness of their character; and as to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the difference which existed between the legislative body and the Senate, I now boldly declare before the Attorney-general that he never read the constitution of the Ionian states, and that he does not appear to know, that there is a difference between the mode of passing fundamental laws and ordinary laws. If the two last acts of the new Legislative Assembly obtain the approbation of her Majesty, under the advice of a Liberal Government, I shall exceedingly regret it—I mean the one allowing the police to flog prisoners at discretion; the other establishing a censorship for books and newspapers. After the discussion which has taken place, I do not think it necessary to press the motion to a division.