believed the Bill was imperfectly understood, and it was not known that the Bill would be proceeded with so soon. From communications which he had had with several persons, he found that the provisions of the Bill were not known to Joint-Stock Companies. The provisions of the Bill were not merely applicable to future Railway Companies, but to existing Railway Companies. They were of such a nature, and went into such minute details, that the Bill, if passed, would throw the greatest possible obstruction in the way of Joint-Stock Companies, present and future. It seemed to be the object of Her Majesty's present Government to interfere with everything and to settle nothing. The great object of the Committee which sat on this subject was to prevent the formation of fraudulent companies. But this Bill would not prevent the formation of fraudulent railway companies. It was an attempt to grasp at power which was perfectly unprecedented. There was no kind of petty legislation which this Bill did not embrace. He thought they had a right to know what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers generally. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) seemed remarkably hostile to the employment of capital in those great undertakings to which this country was so largely indebted. From beginning to end Joint Stock Companies were to be placed under the control of the Board of Trade. The Bill had been materially altered since it was first printed, and very extensive powers had been given to the Board of Trade in reference to Railway Companies—[dissent from Mr. Gladstone]—and Insurance Companies. He would join issue with the right hon. Gentleman in reference to Railway Companies. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that the Bill did not apply to them. Now in Clause 76—

The hon. Gentleman, until the Order of the Day be read, cannot discuss the Clauses of the Bill.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that the Bill did not apply to Railways. ["Mr. Gladstone: No."] Then he would assume that it did apply to them; and indeed, he could conceive of no company to which it did not apply. The Insurance Companies had been included recently, and he thought they ought to have had notice. His great object was to elicit a clear exposition of the principles and intentions of the Government. To the Bill itself he entertained three objections—first, that the interference took place without sufficient notice to the several companies; secondly, that the interference was minute to a degree, which would be destructive of the proper management of the companies; and, thirdly, that the Bill gave to the Board of Trade a degree of power in reference to Joint-Stock Companies which it ought not to possess. He would be glad to know what necessity there was for a measure like this. Had there been that extent of fraud and deception in the formation and management of Joint-Stock Companies, which alone could justify such an interference? He maintained that there had not. The evidence taken before the Committee on this subject was of the most unsatisfactory character. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Railways Bill on that day six months.

seconded the Motion. The Bill was one for giving to the Board of Trade unlimited control over all Joint-Stock Companies. Every document even connected with the companies was to be sent to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade by this measure was assuming to itself all those powers for the purpose of making itself an irresponsible tribunal, and enabling it to throw a net over every company, from which they could not escape. That was the real object of the Bill. Every penalty fixed by the Bill was, he would venture to say, unknown to the Constitution, enormous in amount, and unexampled in all times. Under such circumstances, he felt bound to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth.

was surprised that a measure like the present should have been met in the manner it had been by the hon. Member for Lambeth. The hon. Member made the measure a source of accusation against Her Majesty's Government. Thinking that such an accusation was unworthy of the hon. Member, and totally uncalled for by the provisions of the Bill, he should take no further notice of it, but go at once into the discussion of the objection that the hon. Member had raised. It must be recollected that the hon. Member for Lambeth was a Member of that Committee upon the resolutions of which the present Bill was founded—and if he (Mr. Gladstone) was not mistaken, that hon. Member agreed in every word of that Committee's Report. Whether the provisions of the Bill were meritorious or not Her Majesty's Government were not to blame. It was the act of the Committee, and the Committee alone, and the Bill was founded upon the resolutions they had come to. If there were details in the Bill that were objectionable, why should not the House go into Committee in order to amend them? The resolutions of the Committee had been printed no less than four months, and he challenged the hon. Member for Lambeth to state that any serious objection had been taken to the Bill during that period. Added to this, not a single Member of Parliament had given notice of any amendment to the measure. The principal object of the Bill was, that there should be established a public office, to which all parties soliciting to take part in Joint Stock Companies might repair, in order to know the real history of these companies. That was the groundwork of the Bill, and could any hon. Member doubt that it was most important that the Legislature should put a stop to the system that had been so long carried on of attaching the names of hon. Members, and men of importance and property, to schemes in order to entrap the unwary. The principle of the Bill was prospective legislation, and its provisions were to be applied to future companies. The registration required by the Bill for present companies consisted of a few and simple particulars, every one of which was recommended by the Committee, and assented to by the hon. Member for Lambeth. [Mr. Hawes: "No, no."] The twentieth resolution required that the registration should take place, and who was an assenting party to this resolution in the Committee? Why the hon. Member for Lambeth himself. How that hon. Gentleman could now come down to the House and make the large and general statement he had done—how he could assert in so sweeping a manner that this Bill was to apply not only to all future but to existing companies, was to him (Mr. Gladstone) a matter of so much surprise, that he could only account for it by supposing that he must recently have drunk very deeply of the waters of oblivion. But if there were all those evils really attached to the Bill which were asserted to be attached to it, let them get into Committee at once, and prune them out. The hon. Gentleman said the Bill would bring all future companies under its operation. He should meet that allegation as he had met the preceding one, by plainly asserting that it did not bring all future companies under its operation. This was not a point of law. Were it so he should not presume to say one word upon it, for he was no lawyer. It was simply a point of fact; and as a point of fact he contradicted the view taken of the provisions of the measure by the hon. Gentleman. But it was charged upon him (Mr. Gladstone) that the great object he had in view was to increase the power, the patronage, and the emoluments of the Board of Trade. By an Act, already in existence, the Board of Trade, in conjunction with Her Majesty in Council, could now exercise every privilege that the Bill now before the House gave, and many more privileges besides. The express object of this Bill was to get rid of the discretionary powers already vested in the Board of Trade—powers which caused him and all connected with him in his office very great anxiety and uneasiness. He could assure the House that when he was sitting in the Board of Trade with others about him, attending, to the best of his ability, to his duties, there was nothing gave the Board so much uneasiness and annoyance as the exercise of the discretionary powers already vested in them as to the management of commercial matters. He repeated the object of this Bill was first to limit these ungracious powers, and then to get rid of them altogether. As to the discretionary power which this Bill was to give with respect to joint-stock banks, it would give the power to make them a statutory body. But even this discretionary power was not a new one, but one rather of a relaxing than of a stringent character. Joint Stock Companies at present could not be formed with any privilege such as that of suing and being sued, except by coming to Her Majesty in Council, or by applying to Parliament. What was one of the main principles of this Bill? That under it they could be formed entirely irrespective of the Board of Trade, and they would be subject to that department only as to certain forms of construction and regulation. Under this Bill, there would be a power, for the first time, for persons to associate themselves in companies, for the purpose of commercial pursuits, without the fear of interference from any human being whatever. So that this Bill was, in fact, a limitation of the powers of the Board of Control, and not an extension, as had been asserted. But the most ridiculous of all suppositions was that the Bill was conceived in a spirit adverse to Joint-Stock Companies. Why he stood there as the organ of the Committee on whose resolution it was founded, rather than as a Member of the Government. And all that the Bill, in fact, proposed was to establish publicity as to Joint-Stock Companies, and a certain degree of regularity in their proceedings. For his part he could not conceive anything more extraordinary than that a Bill should be framed on the Resolutions of a Committee—that it should be passed without opposition in its early stages—and that it should afterwards be combated by one of the very Members who assisted in passing those Resolutions. But the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) said alterations had been made in the Bill within the last twenty-four hours. So there had been, as far as regarded Insurance Offices. They were to be not exempted, but excluded from this Bill. But this had been agreed to simply and solely on the condition that they were to be regulated separately hereafter. Even here, however, there was surely no extension of the powers of the Board of Trade. Then, as to railway schemes—what was the specific effect of this Bill? This—to cut away the encouragement which the present system gave to jobbers in scrip.—men who had no real or permanent interest in the undertakings whose shares they sought for. This Bill certainly struck a very severe blow at those persons, and he was sure neither of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would disapprove of this. But whatever they did disapprove of would be best discussed and best settled or re- medied when the House got into Committee.

thought the Bill called for by the necessity of the case though some of its provisions might be susceptible of improvement, ft fairly carried out the Resolutions of the Committee, of which he was a Member. As to the effect of the Bill on Joint-Stock Companies, if there was anything on which the public mind was made up, it was on the necessity of some change in the mode of forming Joint-Stock Companies. The object of the Bill, by one general enactment, was to give all Joint-Stock Companies those advantages which they now sought by separate Acts. He should support the Motion for going into Committee.

, instead of the Bill going too far, he thought it did not go far enough. One object of the Bill was to register existing companies, in order that they might be known. The Bill merely regulated the great discretionary powers already vested in the Board of Trade. Its object was to prevent the imitation of good companies by bad ones.

could not suppose that the Board of Trade, was actuated by any hostility to Joint-Stock Companies. But he would suggest the propriety of excluding Railway Companies from the operations of the Bill.

agreed that great harm had been done by the abuse of the principle of Joint-Stock Companies; but he considered that the advantages which had arisen from them more than preponderated, and they should be careful while legislating against the dangers, that they did not destroy the advantages also. One great principle distinguishing this country from others was, the non-interference of the Government with the regulations of trade. The right hon. Gentleman had accused them of being actuated by party spirit, because they alluded to the manner in which the Bill had been drawn up, and on the late period of the Session at which it had been introduced. Now, he recollected when the right hon. Gentleman would have been eloquent against any Bill of ninety-one Clauses, with every Clause ill-drawn, which should have been introduced on the 2nd of July. One great advantage they were promised from the change of Ministry was, that they were to have no ill-drawn Bills. Every measure was to be carefully considered, everything was to be well done; and now the right hon. Gentleman accused them of being actuated by party-spirit, because they objected to an ill-drawn Bill. He thought the Bill would confer very great patronage on a certain office in Whitehall. He objected to any preliminary interference being thrown in the way of companies, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do better if he had entirely confined himself to that class of Joint-Stock Companies not yet incorporated under Act of Parliament. He thought it would be better to separate the two classes which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to unite. He would not object to going into Committee if the right hon. Gentleman consented that no preliminary difficulties should be thrown in the way of persons coming to Parliament for Acts.

was opposed to the Bill, not so much because it interfered with Joint-Stock Companies, as because it interfered with Railway Companies; but he would not object to going into Committee, because he could in Committee propose those alterations he thought advisable.

had never held a railway share in his life, and he believed that he never should. Therefore anything which he might say would not be open to the objection that he was an interested party. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have thrown something like a slur upon those Gentlemen who had given the sanction of their names to the projected railway from London to York. He himself was one of those individuals; and his sole object had been to provide a check against the existing monopoly. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he was still of opinion that not only additional, but very great powers, were given to the Board of Trade with respect to the formation of new Railway Companies. The twenty-seventh Clause declared that it should not be lawful for the officers of the Company to exercise the powers given to them by Act of Parliament without the consent of the Committee of the Privy Council.

proposed that they should go through the provisions of the Bill generally, and that it should then be open to any Gentleman to propose that railways should be excepted in certain particulars.

thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not justified in introducing some of the Clauses he had done into this Bill, with respect to railways. It was surely not the duty of the Board of Trade to throw obstacles in the way of measures of this description. All that the Board of Trade was called on to do, was to put an end to fraud; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only bring in a Bill for that purpose, he had no doubt it would receive the support of every Member. No statement had been made why railways were included in this Bill. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman intended to take this measure into his further consideration.

said, there was now sought in this Bill a power to regulate railway companies in their proceedings, even before coming to that House for their Act. This was a power which might be exercised in a very dangerous manner, and which, therefore, he should strongly warn the House to be careful of conceding. The Bill gave the power to receive the deposits of shareholders—a thing unheard of before. Again, it was proposed to invest in the Board of Trade a power to purchase hereafter such railways as might now or at any future period be contemplated and formed. These things, he must really suggest, were eminently worthy of the reconsideration of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade.

thought there had been a good many railway schemes brought forward in connexion with which there had been more fraud and felony than ever he had heard of before in connexion with public matters. Many persons were extremely anxious to have railway matters excluded from the operation of this Bill; but, though he was aware it was an unpopular opinion, he felt bound to say they ought not to be excluded. There were constantly bubble schemes going forward to derange the market, and injure the honest bonâ fide speculator, that, under the provisions of this Bill would never see the light at all. Let them go into Committee, and then they might be able to correct the defects of the Bill, and send it forth to the world a useful and valuable measure for the protection of the community.

thought the Bill a most useful measure, encouraging, as it did, the trade of the country on the one hand, and discouraging bubble companies on the other. He approved of the preliminary investigation which had been objected to by the Member for Sheffield. A preliminary investigation was insisted on in all cases in which companies came to Parliament for a Bill, and he thought such an investigation ought to take place in all cases.

had come down to the House entertaining considerable prejudice against the Bill, but the course which the debate had taken had convinced him of the propriety of going into Committee. He certainly, with regard to railways, thought considerable caution ought to be exercised to prevent companies making an improper use of names. He himself had been asked some time ago by an hon. Member to put his name on the back of the Carlisle and Glasgow Railway Bill, and considering that a direct communication between Manchester and Glasgow would be advantageous, he had consented to do so. To his surprise, a few days afterwards he had seen his name in the newspapers as a member of a provisional committee of a railroad in embryo. He of course took measures immediately to rectify the mistake.

hoped that, while excluding Railroad Companies from the operations of the Bill, they would not exclude sham railroad companies. One of the grossest frauds ever perpetrated had been called a railroad company. He thought the Clause making those who lent the guarantee of their names liable to a most wholesome enactment. He had no pity for those persons who thus lent their names and induced others to risk their property in undertakings of this nature. He thought the word "promoter" ought to be more clearly defined. He had himself, before he had the honour of a seat in that House, been a promoter of a Railway Bill before a Committee. He thought the words of the Clause ought to be so defined as not to include those who were professionally employed in promoting Bills before Committees. The hon. Member for Lambeth had agreed to the whole of the resolutions of the Committee on which the Bill was founded with one exception, a point on which he divided the Committee. If the resolutions were compared with the Bill, they would be found closely to resemble each other.

objected to part of the principle of the Bill, and stated also that within a very few hours a most important Clause had been introduced into the Bill. He did not see any objection to including Joint Stock Companies and the formation of railways in the Bill. If it was to prevent fraud, it was as proper to prevent frauds in railway companies as in any other. He complained that the Solicitor General was not present on an occasion of discussing a Bill so important as the present one, and objected to the power under the Act given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was no less than that of preventing parties from coming before Parliament for Bills. This was a distinct principle, and as it had not been discussed sufficiently, he hoped the Committee would not be pressed.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade at what time there would be parties in Java and Manilla who would be authorised to issue certificates of origin of sugar, and also whether in cases where certificates could not be obtained sugar would be admitted without a certificate?

said, that the advices which would go out by the July mail from this country to Java and Manilla, would find persons there qualified to issue certificates as to the produce of those islands. In answer to the other part of the noble Lord's question, he said that a discretionary power of course would be vested in the Board of Customs as to the admission of sugar without certificate.

on moving that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, that the House may resolve itself into a Committee on the Smoke Prevention Bill, said, he deemed it his duty to explain to the House the reasons that had induced him to bring forward this measure and to frame this enactment. In the course of last Session a Committee was formed of which he was named Chairman to investigate whether detriment arose to the health of the community from the increase of smoke in all large manufacturing places. The attention of the Committee was directed in the first instance, to ascertain whether such nuisance was injurious to the health of the population, which was shewn to be the case from preventing among the lower elasses that attention to personal cleanliness and comfort so necessary to a healthy state of existence. The Committee then, under his advice, proceeded to investigate whether or not the nuisance of smoke could effectually be prevented; next, if such was the case if the prevention could be effected without injury to the interests of the manufacturers, and lastly, in the event of the two former enquiries being answered in the affirmative, whether any legislative enactment could be framed so as to prevent the nuisance. After a considerable time was occupied in examining witnesses and proprietors of factories, the evidence was conclusive, that smoke, which is imperfect combustion, could be effectually prevented by the admission of atmospheric air into the furnace in a certain quantity, it also came out in evidence that a considerable saving of coal might thereby be gained, in fact, the saving of fuel to the proprietor would in a very short time, more than make up for the expense of the apparatus to cause perfect combustion. In fact some of the ingenious persons who had devised the means of preventing smoke, were willing, at their own expense, to put up the requisite apparatus in furnaces at their own cost, on being allowed by the proprietor one-half of his gain in the saving of fuel. He (Mr. Mackinnon) thought it right here to mention that the Committee was not composed of his personal friends, or of Members on his side of the House, but was composed chiefly of Gentlemen representing large manufacturing towns such as Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Ashton, Liverpool, and others, and also of the Members for Lancashire and Cornwall, and the metropolitan districts, districts where most coal was consumed. After hearing a vast mass of evidence the Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the nuisance was great and ought to be abated, and that a resolution should be agreed on, that a Bill be brought into Parliament for the purpose by the Government, that in the event of Her Majesty's Ministers declining to frame a Bill, that he (Mr. Mackinnon) as Chairman of the Committee should undertake that duty; he added, that as far as he was individually concerned, he felt no interest in the matter, as both in London and the country he was not annoyed by smoke but that he had undertaken the measure on public grounds as Chairman of the Committee and as a Member of that House. So satisfied were the population of Leeds, that the nuisance of smoke could be prevented that they passed a local bill to prohibit the nuisance; this Bill had been rendered inoperative from the manner in which it was drawn up, as the Bill allowed the magistrates, under their warrant, to let an Inspector enter the premises of a factory, and examine if the apparatus for preventing smoke was equal to the purpose. This power to enter premises was very obnoxious to the occupants of factories, besides which, the inspectors did not turn out to be persons capable of forming an opinion as to the efficiency of the machinery set up to prevent imperfect combustion. In consequence, the Local Bill of Leeds, became a dead letter. In his Bill he (Mr. Mackinnon) had endeavoured to avoid the mistake in the Leeds Bill, he had thought, it advisable, in the first place to define the nuisance of opaque smoke and then to fix a fine for the commission of the offence. He added that any one acquainted with the forms of that House, must know the hopelessness of any Bill being taken through that House by an individual unless supported by the Government, even the Government themselves were often foiled in their attempts at legislation, he was however desirous at this stage of the business, to learn the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and to ascertain this, and the sense of the House, he moved, that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair.

said, that since the Bill was introduced, it had been his business to make some inquiries on the subject of the parties interested in the Bill, and the result was so very unsatisfactory that he felt the greatest difficulty in pronouncing any decided opinion upon it; and as he did not think the House was then in a condition to come to a decision upon that important measure, he hoped the further consideration of it would be adjourned.

said, if the Bill were persevered in, he was determined to oppose it in every stage. He moved that the House would resolve itself into a Committee that day three months.

I presented a petition from the town of Leicester, in accordance with the general principle of the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Lymington, and I am quite disposed to concur in the general principle of his Bill; but, perceiving as I do the prevailing sentiment of the House to be against proceeding with it at the present time, I recommend his consenting to its postponement, and I hope it will be revived with success early in the next Session.

also expressed a hope that if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Bill for the present, he would be enabled to take it up more successfully next year. This, however, would mainly depend upon the assistance he could get from those who were capable of affording it; and he did hope, that all persons connected with the manufacturing districts, and who were anxious for the health of the towns with which they were connected, would turn their attention to the subject; otherwise the exertions of the hon. Member for Lymington next year would probably turn out as fruitless as they had been on the present occasion. He understood that there were some forty or fifty inventions for abating this nuisance, and he hoped that men of practical experience would examine some of them.

, according to notice, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether the Government had given its sanction to the introduction of oaths in Custom-house matters in China, as directed by the British Consul at Ningpo. He understood that this practice was carried on to a very great extent, captains being called upon to make oath of the number of passengers, and to swear to the manifests of cargo.

said, that the administration of oaths in the way described by the hon. Member, had been done without direct authority from Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government, however, would take care to communicate with the Consul at Ningpo, directing him to adopt, as far as possible, the practice of the English Custom-house in these matters. The Consul had, probably, acted hitherto in the way described, under the apprehension that the practice in England was such as he had adopted.

rose to move,

"That this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the Act 17 and 18 Car. 2, c. 7, intituled, 'An Act for provision of Ministers in Cities and corporate Towns, and making the Church of St. Andrew's, in the suburbs of the city of Dublin, presentative for ever', with a view to the repeal of so much thereof as relates to the payment of ministers in corporate towns in Ireland."

The Act was passed for the purpose of providing religious instruction for Protestant immigrants from this country and the Continent into Ireland. It was no longer necessary; and although it produced no more than 15,000l. a-year, it was at once oppressive and offensive to the Roman Catholic population. He knew many Protestant clergymen who derived a portion of their stipend from this peculiar source, who would feel grateful to the Government if it would devise means for relieving them from getting their revenues in such an unpleasant manner. He had read a statement from a Protestant clergyman in Cork on this subject. It was stated that the late Dr. Warren had distrained on a portion of his parishioners for Ministers' Money. A deputation waited on him, and requested him to give back the goods which he had distrained. His reply was, that he wished to God some other mode of remunerating him could be devised by the Government, but that he owed it as a duty to his successor to maintain his rights. Dr. Warren was, he thought, justified in saying so. He trusted the House would do him the justice to believe that he was actuated by no sectarian motives in bringing forward this subject, as all he wanted was to induce the Government to provide a revenue for the clergy, without having recourse to these charges. The Act had established a valuation of all existing houses, but it had fixed certain limits, by enacting that no House should be valued as being worth more than 60l. a-year. The consequence was, that the houses of the rich, which were perhaps worth 200l., were assessed to the Ministers' Money only at 60l. a-year, while the houses of the poor were assessed at their full rental, and if the assessment was not paid the goods were at once distrained, and there was no appeal against the restraint. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by proposing his Motion.

had certainly promised last Session to take the subject into consideration, and he had redeemed that pledge, for both his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland and himself had maturely considered the subject, but be regretted to state that the Government had been unable as yet to devise any plan which would be satisfactory to the persons subject to the payment of the tax, without depriving the clergy of that to which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted they were fairly entitled. It should be remembered that at the time this Act passed, Roman Catholics were incapacitated by law from holding houses; therefore it was a tax imposed upon Protestant property exclusively, and Roman Catholics, who had since become possessed of that property, had acquired it subject to this tax, and, therefore, had purchased it for less than they would otherwise have given for it. He did not abandon the hope of being able to devise a measure at some future time to remedy the grievance, which he admitted the existence of, but he could not accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped he would not press it.

hoped, that before another Session the Government would prepare a measure to carry out the object of his hon. and learned Friend.

could inform the House that the subject had occupied the serious attention of Government, with the view of devising some substitute for Ministers' Money. They had not yet succeeded, but he trusted that before the close of next Session they would be enabled to submit some measure on the subject to Parliament.

said: In addressing you on the important subject now under consideration, it would be presumptuous in me to suppose I could suggest any view, or unfold any argument not already submitted to the legislative wisdom of Parliament, or the collective intellect of the country. The present is a branch of that great question which, so fatally for Ireland, has long absorbed the feelings of that country, and painfully occupied the attention of this House. The temporalities of the Protestant Church in Ireland are inseparably connected with its history, and from the period of their first alienation, even to the present time, have been intimately and avowedly associated with those social distractions, with those national disturbances which have so long retarded the prosperity of that country, deteriorated the moral character of its people, and arrested the development of those physical capabilities with which it has been so profusely but so unavailingly gifted. The unexampled position of such a Church—repudiated by the prejudices, disavowed by the opinions, yet sustained by the contributions of an impoverished and dissentient people, has been, in the anomalous history of Ireland, that fatal malady, that organic defect, which has poisoned the springs of national prosperity, given to seetarian hatreds an unnatural longevity and prohibited that incorporation of the vanquished with the victors, which the claims of a common country and the instincts of a mutual interest would ere now have successfully achieved. The people of Ireland resisted the imposition of an alien church; the fervour of religious zeal was fortified by the suggestions of national pride, and the Anglican Church in Ireland, rich in revenue, but poor in ecclesiastical utility, with parishes without churches, with churches without congregations, stood forth in bold relief, the enduring and conspicuous monument of your injustice and of our subjugation. But well would it have been for the repose of Ireland; well for the safety of that empire of which she forms so important, yet so unregarded a portion; well for the character of that common Christianity which suffers in the conflict of creeds, had the claims of secular ambition superseded those of sacerdotal rapacity, and had the forfeited rights of the national church in Ireland been transferred to a lay proprietary, no matter what the denomination of its creeds. Prescription would have ratified the transference, time would have obliterated the recollection, and the constant interchanges of property would have called into aid a native of Catholic proprietary. Thus, the country would have been saved the distractions—the empire the peril—and religion the desecration of a spiritual coporation tainted by earthly passions, corroded by unappeasable fears, viewing with vindictive consciousness the sullen jealousies of a dissentient population, and proclaiming in permanent and offensive commemoration the fallen condition of the ancient Church, and the humiliation of a subjugated people. The Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland is an anomaly in the history of mankind, it is perfectly without a parallel. By what remote or analogous example will you vindicate its character? In what region will you find the Church of an opulent minority claiming a national and exclusive establishment? Not in philosophical France, so wisely adopting the ministry of all its creeds. Not in despotic Austria, ruling its many sects with equal and paternal sway. Not in Spain. Not in Italy, the consecrated abode of Catholicism. Perhaps the Ottoman, who spurns the Christian dispensation, may furnish a precedent to justify Christian rapacity, but he refuses to give you an exculpatory example. He propagates the doctrines of the Prophet by the congenial instruments of the Koran and the sword; he exterminates, it is true, but he does not, in the name of a merciful religion, proscribe kindred and associated sects; he does not gild the minarets of his mosque with the patrimony of the poor, nor, in the name of a religion which, disavowing the attractions of this probationary scene, points to the eternal recompense that awaits the self-denying virtue of the Christian, does he aggravate the sufferings of an impoverished people, by the infliction of an intolerant law? But, perhaps, the New World may furnish you a precedent denied by the Old. Look to America, with her multiplied and enlightened community, combining the accumulated wisdom of years with the vivifying energies of youth. I cannot find that she considers the ascendancy of a dominant Church essential to the purposes of religion; she does not hold it vital to her great federative republic, to consign any sect of her associated communities to a legislative inferiority; she has improved upon the wisdom of her ancestors, and has transferred to a virgin soil the great principles of your free institutions, unstained by irrational bigotry or sectarian distinctions. But "is there aught in the domestic economy of your empire" which indicates the anomaly of your Church? But here also you fail in gaining a precedent or an apology. In England the Church Establishment, venerable by its virtue, and recommended by its utility, represents the opinions, and is sustained by the affections of an enlightened people. Scotland, Presbyterian Scotland, with all the hardihood of its strenuous character, resisted the encroachments of an Episcopal Church, and exults in the profession and in the establishment of its simple and republican creed. In Wales, a subordinate principality incorporated with your empire, and participating in your privileges, the national priesthood are established by the law, and sustained by the willing contribution of the people. Ireland alone, in disastrous singularity, stands forth an exception to the principles of reason, to the spirit of the Gospel, to the example of the Turk, to the concurring testimony of the Old World and the New—and there we have an unblushing Church, repudiated by the belief of the country, and deriving a disreputable existence from the compulsory contributions of a dissentient people. But, perhaps, you will here suggest, it is the right of governments to establish true religion; this is the argument of the bigot and the persecutor; each sect claims the distinction, and is equally entitled to the privileges of the orthodox Church; persecution becomes the prerogative of the priest, Catholic or Protestant, Mussulman or Hindoo; religion is desecrated, and society shaken to its base in the barbarous conflict of creeds. Your Establishment has been ratified, it is true, by the concurring compact of two Legislatures. I waive here all reference to the character or questionable authority of that Parliament which, in the condition of the Legislative Union, so inadequately provided for the interest and dignity of their country. But I ask, on what principle it is you claim for Governments or Parliaments the right to legislate in perpetuity, and control the discretion of a posterity yet unborn. What are the duties of legislation? What, but to promote the well-being of society, and wisely to accommodate its enactments to the varying character of the moral, the political the material interests of man. Neither in his moral or physical relations ought you if you could—nor can you if you would—enact a stationary law. Change and progression are the condition of our being; and the character of religion, and the well-understood interests of society, alike prohibit the unavailing effort to limit the development of intellect, and the indefinite progress of mind. Religion, with all its accessaries, is among the most difficult, as it is the most important, of those subjects which awaken the attention and exercise the intellect of mankind. For it too, perhaps, as in other sciences, may be reserved in fulness of time the aids and illustrations of a maturer development. The acrimonious spirit of sect may yet be absorbed by the properties of a comprehensive Christianity; and sublime morality of the Gospel, unimpaired by the advocacy of the bigot, or the doubts of the infidel, may yet rule a fallen but regenerated world. Abandon then, the illusion of inflexible compacts, of immutable establishments; accommodate your institutions to the advancing spirit of the age, and to the existing condition of the country; and tried by either test, can you say that the Church temporalities of Ireland are entitled to a legislative maintenance? It is said, that in this establishment consists the safety of the international connection. It is the fatal taint which portends its dissolution; it cannot be denied it is the legitimate offspring of that connection, for Ireland, unless so controlled, would not tolerate the indignity; hence the alienation of which you complain; hence the agitation of that portentous question, which now, as you announce, menaces the integrity of your empire. Protestant ascendancy essential to the international connection!—it is a false and unsubstantial pretext. We require no sectarian garrison to control our allegiance; if so permitted, we shall willingly abide by British connection, from a sense of the many benefits it is calculated to confer. We are the poorer and less prosperous country: I stop not to reproach you with the causes—but we, even more than you, should seek a full and unreserved connection; our relative positions point to its necessity, and the triumphs of intellect, and the miracles of science, are each day facilitating a more intimate incorporation. How is this question to be adjusted? Will the Catholic submit to the indignity of your exclusive Church? Let the experiment of three centuries, let the accumulating wealth and numbers of a rapidly-expanding people reply to your inquiry; and shall we, then, be reserved for a perpetuity of discord? Yet do not suppose that you are uninterested parties. Imperial interests are compromised by our distractions. Look to your Exchequer, calculate what our disaffection stands you in—it exceeds the revenue of that Church for which you lose the affections of Ireland, and are content to lose them. Look to your present profuse expenditure, to your elaborate preparation for war, alternately the subject of our ridicule and of our humiliation. This is emphatically an Imperial question, and therefore I call upon the representatives of England and of Scotland to adopt it with all the energy of a personal interest. Let them, as they ought, and as they are constitutionally entitled to, interfere with the weight of a decisive authority. Let them, I would say, relieve the Irish Protestant representatives from the painful, though now imperious obligation of legislating against the temporalities of their Church. It may not, perhaps, be for me to dwell on this branch of the subject, I shall only say, that I do not depreciate or underestimate the peculiar character of their position. Nor is your condition—I address myself to the Government—without its difficulties. You rule by a minority, you administer the prerogatives of office by the instrumentality of party; your Church Establishment and its policy place in hostile antagonism, as respects you, the universal Catholic population of Ireland; its evil genius follows you in every department of the State. Would you liberalise the franchise, you place constitutional weapons in the hands of your enemies; do you open the corporations, the taint of your ascendancy poisons the gift, and excludes the Protestant from municipal dignity; do you extend the blessings of education, you sharpen the sensibilities and augment the power of an intelligent and hostile people. You speak of what is termed an impartial distribution of patronage; it is an impracticable announcement. What Catholic can seek, can accept your patronage, while in his regard the great principles of justice are violated, and the religion he professes, that of four-fifths of the Christian world, consigned to ignominy and humiliation? The Catholic who accepts your patronage, forfeits character, and you gain no accession. It cannot be denied that the Protestant mind of Ireland is not unprepared for some important change. The Protestants begin to feel that their ascendancy as a sect may be too dearly purchased by the prostration of their dignity as a people—that national distractions impair national influence, and that they suffer in imperial depreciation the penalties of an unjust prominence. For what is the value of our representation in your Parliament? It, is not the sum of, but the difference between antagonist parties: we are balanced and neutralised by our dissensions; even on subjects of the most urgent or most ordinary interest we have not the compact energy of Scotland—we have not your dispassionate unanimity. There is, it cannot be denied, a fast growing apprehension in the humbler but intelligent classes of the Protestant community, that, as regards them, their value of those temporalities is much overrated, and that the great prizes in the clerical lottery are reserved for the members or the dependants of a limited oligarchy. There is a strong persuasion rapidly developing itself among them, that social distractions, national weakness, perishing trade, paralyzed industry, and emaciating absenteeism, may be a somewhat extravagant price for the pride or the vanity—for in their regard it is no more—of an ascendant sectarianism. The inquiry recurs, how is the important and now urgent question to be arranged? There is but one course, simple, direct, and unequivocal;—rescue the Protestant from his ascendancy, the Catholic from his humiliation; give equality to all, pre eminence to none; at once, and for ever abandon a system condemned by reason and the results of centuries. Are you prepared for this great work of national redemption, of imperial safety? I am not insensible to the embarrassments which surround you, nor to the principles and professions by which you gained, and on which you accepted office. Yet there are more imperious duties than the obligations of party—there are yet loftier considerations than the distinctions of office, or the possession of power. You have announced that you will assert the supremacy of the law, and you have assailed the pride of Ireland in the person of its distinguished leader, of that eminent man, long associated with their constitutional triumphs, with their proudest recollections. Perform the corresponding duties which now devolve on you to discharge, and legislate for the wrongs of Ireland with a fearless and paternal spirit. Retrieve, ere it be too late, the all but forfeited affections of her people, and even at the eleventh hour give to them the pledge of an altered policy, by assenting to the Motion of my hon. Friend.

said, that although the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had wandered somewhat widely from the sub- ject - matter of the Motion before the House, he could not commend the courtesy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in endeavouring to interrupt him by counting out the House, more especially when he recollected that the Government were often permitted to take votes for thousands of the public money, when the attendance of Members was even smaller than on the present occasion He should support the Motion.