Sir, I made an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government, some time back, whether, in consequence of the recurrence of hostilities between Denmark and Germany, they would have any objection to lay upon the table the negotiations that had taken place between these two Powers under our mediation. The noble Lord at the head of the Government then stated that, notwithstanding the recurrence of hostilities, negotiations were still pending under the mediation of Her Majesty's Government, for a definitive peace between the two Powers. I wish to take this opportunity, as some time has elapsed since that answer, of again inquiring from Her Majesty's Government whether those negotiations have been pursued under the mediation of the British Crown; whether any project has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government to Denmark and the Central Power of Germany; and whether that proposition, if one has been made by Her Majesty's Government, has been accepted by both or either of those Powers.

Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding the renewal of hostilities between the two parties, felt it their duty to omit no effort that might, by possibility, effect either, in the first instance, the renewal of an armistice, and, in the second place, the conclusion of a peace between the two parties. Accordingly it became my duty to make to the two parties a fresh proposition, with a view to the establishment of an armistice. That proposition is still under consideration; and I am sure the House will feel it would not be fitting for me to go into particulars as to in what degree it may be likely to be accepted by one or both of the parties. But I can state so far, that not only is that proposition for a renewed armistice under the consideration of the two parties, but that also we are in communication with the two parties with a view to the final settlement and adjustment of the questions at issue between them. I feel that anything I might say with regard to holding out hopes is so likely to be misunderstood by persons whose commercial interests are concerned, or, if not misunderstood by them, so likely to be misrepre- sented, in case anything happens afterwards, that the House will excuse me if I do not enter into any explanation further than merely stating that negotiations are going on for an armistice, and the conclusion of a peace.

said, he wished to put a question to the Under Secretary to the Colonies. He perceived by the Gazette of Friday, that Hong-Kong had been instituted a bishopric, and it might be fairly said to he the foundation of a new see, for, by the terms of the constitution, it extended not only over that small island, but 100 miles at sea. He wished to ask his hon. Friend what was the amount of the salary that it was proposed to pay to the Bishop of Victoria, and from what fund it would be derived; secondly, whether the outfit, transport, and palace of the Bishop, or any part of those expenses, were to be defrayed from the public Exchequer of this country?

, in answer to his hon. Friend, begged to state that Hong-Kong was erected into a bishopric, and that the bishop was paid from the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund—a fund entirely private, and raised out of private contributions. The salary of the bishop, therefore, could be a matter of no importance whatever to the House, as no part of it was to be paid out of the public funds. [Mr. OSBORNE: Nor his outfit?] The Colonial Office had nothing to do with the outfit, and he knew nothing of it. It had, however, been the custom hitherto to pay the passage out of colonial bishops; and he had no reason to suppose the practice would be departed from in the present instance. Beyond that, the public would be put to no expense.

moved, that Orders of the Day have precedence of notices of Motions on Thursday, the 7th day of June next. Finding it impossible to get any day for the adjourned debate on the Marriage Bill before the 7th of June, and considering that this was a part of the Session in which all Thursdays were given to the Government, he did not think it unreasonable to ask for one Thursday for the adjourned debate.

begged to move an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Ministers, he thought, did not intend to bring in any more Bills, and there were several important Motions on the Paper. The hon. Member for the West Riding had had his Motion for peace arbitration on the Paper for three months.

begged to remind the House that the other night, at an early hour, the hon. Member for the West Riding might have brought forward the Motion, and declined doing so. After having liberally conceded to the Government the use of these days, he thought the matter should be left to the good sense and feeling of the Government.

said, that this was a question for the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, for they were in a backward state as to Motions of Supply. The miscellaneous estimates were not yet laid on the table. If the Government gave way to the allegation that the measure was of importance, the real business of the Government would be postponed sine die.

said, that he was not called upon to bring on his Motion until a quarter past Eleven o'clock, after the hon. Member for Surrey had finished his de-bate; and he put it to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, whether a quarter past Eleven was a proper time to bring forward a Motion on which a larger number of petitions had been presented this Session than upon any subject now before the House?

thought, that if Government acceded to the Motion, they would be setting a dangerous precedent. The House should lay down a general rule as to the days on which Notices and Orders should have precedence, and adhere to it.

felt great objection to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had proposed to the House, with a view to the more speedy and regular transaction of public business, that alternate Thursdays should be allowed for Orders of the Day and Special Orders of the Day moved by the Government. The House having acceded to that proposition on the grounds which he then stated, he thought it would not be fair to the House if they were to accede to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Members for Middlesex and Oxfordshire had made some observations as to the present state of public business. He begged leave, in the first place, to say that it was not at all to be inferred, from the number of Bills before the House, that there would be no other Bill which it would be necessary or expedient for Government to introduce. He had thought it tended more to the despatch of public business, instead of agreeing to the request of hon. Members to bring in the Bills at once, that the attention of the House should be directed to certain Bills, and that they should be disposed of before other Motions were introduced. In regard to supply, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire was right in his statement that they were late in many of the votes. As to the vote for the Army, they had waited till this time to see whether the Select Committee would make any report on that branch of supply. They had now informed him that they would not be able to go into the consideration of the Army at present, and therefore, until now, they were not in a state to proceed with the votes as to the Army. Whilst he said that he could not vote for the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he must ask the House to fulfil the arrangement to which they agreed before Easter, and allow Government to take the Orders the Day.

said, that after the speech of the noble Lord, he should withdraw his Amendment.

understood that the feeling of the House was, that he should not persevere in his Motion, and he would therefore withdraw it.

moved—

"That there he sent a Message to the Lords, for a Copy of the Record in the House of Lords in the case of Smith O'Brien v. the Queen, in Error."

said, that before Mr. Speaker left the chair, he wished to take the opportunity which, he believed, the forms of the House afforded to him, of expressing his opinion respecting the general policy—if, indeed, he could attach such a word to such proceedings—of Her Majesty's Government towards Ireland. Of this he was sure—having paid, as he had paid, great attention to the proceedings of the Government towards that unfortunate country, and having taken great pains to learn what the Government intended to do with respect to Ireland—the public money had already been expended there to a large amount. He had himself paid it, and they had all paid it, and now again they were called upon to expend money, through means of an appeal, that Ireland was in a state of distress. Ireland had been, he believed, in a state of distress of this sort for a period of three years. He did not speak of ordinary Irish distress, which was a thing that they had been always accustomed to; but he alluded to that remarkable description of distress which had arisen in Ireland in consequence of the failure of the potato crop. Some three years ago, the Government, he believed, of the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth, had been informed that there was about to be a famine in Ireland, in consequence of the potato crop having failed, and of those who had lived on that root being no longer able to obtain subsistence. The right hon. Baronet, terrified at the prospect before him, proposed a repeal of the corn laws. He succeeded in that attempt, and if he had not done so, he (Mr. Roebuck) sincerely believed, that, instead of the peace and tranquillity which now reigned throughout this empire, and the comfort which was known in certain portions of the kingdom, they would have had to wade through those calamitous scenes of terror and revolution with which surrounding nations had been visited. After that providential proposal of the right hon. Baronet had been carried, the right hon. Baronet seceded from the post which he had then held, and the noble Lord the Member for the city of London succeeded to office? What did the noble Lord do? They should understand this clearly, for he had a right to enter upon it before his fellow-countrymen were compelled to pay an additional tax to a large amount out of their pockets. The noble Lord had a right to have considered the state of that country. What was that state, and how was it brought about? It was brought about by the landed proprietors of Ireland having been long sustained in all their objects and wishes by that House and the legislation of Parliament. They had become expensive and wasteful in their expenditure—they had been accustomed to live far beyond the incomes that they derived from their property. They burdened their estates in order to maintain their vanity. They did one thing more; they allowed parties coming to them to offer the highest rents for small pieces of land. They divided their properties into small holdings, the better to carry out this system; and the persons so offering these enormous rents were only able to pay them by living themselves on the lowest species of food which the ingenuity of man enabled him to derive from the earth, namely, the potato. At length that unhappy accident arrived—the potato failed; and now the Irish proprietors found themselves in this condition, of having enormous populations on their lands who had been accustomed to live on the lowest sort of food, suddenly deprived of the means of existence by an extraordinary visitation of Providence. That was the state of facts for which the noble Lord had been called upon to provide a remedy. The evil was this, that a very large proportion of the agricultural population of Ireland were suddenly left without food. Now, if they had provided that population with food for a year, allowing them to apply their energies to the cultivation of land in the interim, there would have been a chance of an end being put to the distress in that time. Or if the Government had even required two years, by employing them in other labour, so as to save the people from that state of degradation and misery to which they had been subjected, he would not have objected. But what was the number of persons likely to have been subjected to that state? It was not everybody in Ireland that was in danger of perishing from the destruction of the potato crop. Everybody was not likely to suffer, though a large portion of the agricultural population was likely to suffer. But a general cry of distress went forth. He would not enumerate classes; but in what he was about to state he included all classes, from the highest to the lowest. He found that there was in all of them a desire to acquire without labour. [An Hon. MEMBER: What do you know about them?] We who pay for it, and not they, know this. But what I say is, that the Government have contributed to foster that habit. It has extended to all portions of the population, and if I wanted a pretext to speak of the state of morality among the Irish people, I might take all the returns that have been laid before us, referring to the expenditure of the grants that Parliament has voted during the last three years for the Irish people. Who have we found receiving this money? Was it the poor? Not at all. The money of England was put as it were into a vast heap, and there was immediately a general scramble of Irishmen to get part of it. It was not the poor, for whom it was voted, that came for it, but the whole mass of the population, and they rushed as people do into an opera-house, each scrambling over the others, and all endeavouring to get the most they could of what was going on: that was a fair and not an exaggerated description of what took place on that occasion. And what was the effect? It fostered the habit of the people of Ireland to live on the produce of other men's labour. The people were not taught by the Government to live on their own labour—to be self-dependent, as in this country, where all were taught to depend on the labour of their own hands for their own subsistence. In Ireland every one looked to some external source for help. He never heard from any Irishman, either poor or rich, anything but the one cry of "somebody must do something for us;" but that somebody was never the person himself. [Mr. J. O'CONNELL: Hear, hear!] Did the "hear, hear "which he heard from one of the Irish Members answer his statement? He would repeat it in the face of his countrymen who were asked to provide for those who would not provide for themselves. He had heard it said that English legislation interfered with Irish interests; but there was no attempt made by Irish Gentlemen—for he felt that the noise made about him was from them, or at least from persons so calling themselves—to show that they were ready to do anything for themselves. He would maintain, that the call made upon the English people for the maintenance of the people of Ireland, was not a call bonâ fide for the maintenance of the Irish poor: he should be the first man to vote for, or to propose or second a proposition that the poor should be maintained. But he was not one of those who would agree to vote money, in order that it might be expended on Irish proprietors, whether they were proprietors in name or in reality. There was something very Irish in the manner in which this term was applied. Irish proprietors were persons who had no right or title to the land they called theirs. They had no more right to live on the produce of that land than he had. He had watched whether the Irish proprietors would over hit the real blot in the Irish poor-law, but they never had. An Irish proprietor was supposed to be the proprietor of—say 10,000l. a year—but he had mortgaged his property to the extent of 9,000l. a year. The Irish poor-law subjected him to a tax for the 10,000l., instead of for 1,000l.; and it was one of the remarkable characteristics of the Irish nation that this point had never been fairly stated. He had hoard all sorts of complaints against the law; but he had never heard any man come forward and say, "I am nominally the proprietor of 10,000l a year, but I have really only 1,000l., and yet you tax me on the whole 10,000l." He had never heard any Irish Gentleman put that grievance forward, though it was well known to every one to be one of the real evils of the poor-law. The Solicitor General of England had, it was true, suggested a means of getting rid of that difficulty, by facilitating the sale of property so circumstanced. Every man had his own mode of suggesting a remedy for Ireland. The man who made shoes would defend the city by leather, the mason by stone walls. So it was that his hon. and learned Friend had a lawyer's mode of getting rid of all the difficulties of Ireland, simply by an alteration with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. The hon. and learned Gentleman had read them a lecture, which quite captivated his (Mr. Roebuck's) fancy, though it did not convince his reason. He had told them that if they passed his Bill they would hear no more of the troubles of Ireland—that they would have no more insurrections or discontent—because the people would be enabled to apply the powers of production in the country to the cultivation of the land. But his hon. and learned Friend totally forgot the political grievances of Ireland—the anomaly of the Irish Church never once struck him, the feuds of Celt and Saxon passed away from his mind, and all the other themes of discontent which agitators would still be enabled to make use of. By a lawyer's machinery he hoped to settle all the difficulties of the country. But even if those difficulties were got rid of to-morrow, could they suppose that the Irish people would attain to that without which no hope could be entertained for them—namely, that passion, if he might so term it, or desire which actuated Englishmen, of living simply by their own industrious efforts? Any approach to this feeling in Ireland the Government had destroyed by the unheard-of way in which they had lavished the money of the English people in that country. What was the Bill now before them? It was a Bill to tax the English people in order to drain the lands of Ireland. They did not drain the land in this country, though it would be useful to do so. Nobody wanted the Government to do it here, though it was true that they had passed a somewhat similar Bill for England. That objectionable measure for England was the only justification that could be alleged for extending a similar Act to Ireland. He had, he would suppose, an acre, perhaps more, that he should like to have drained. The taxgatherer came in and put into his hand a bill. He asked what it was for, and he was told, "To drain the land for the Irish proprietors." "But I want to drain my own land," he would reply. "Oh, no, you must not drain your own land with your own money. The money must be paid into the Exchequer in order to be sent over to Ireland to pay the Irish proprietors for draining their own land." But the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that the money was paid back. Granted; but what he contended for was, that that was no excuse at all, and that the public money should in no case be so applied. What was the principle that ought to govern them ordinarily in the application of capital, not only to land, but to everything else? Had he not heard, repeatedly, not only from the right hon. Baronet opposite, but from the present occupants of the Ministerial bench, that capital ought to be left exclusively to private enterprise, to private industry, and to private skill? If they undertook to show him a reason why they should deviate from that rule in a particular case, he would listen to it; but if they merely told him that it was a good thing to drain Ireland, to ensure the arterial drainage of Ireland, as it was called—for in these cases there was nothing like finding out fine sounding phrases—he at once admitted the truth of the proposition; but so would be a new mode of spinning two yards of cotton whore they now spun one; and yet who thought of asking the Imperial Parliament to ad- vance money for such a purpose? The result in both cases would be good; but he begged to record his solemn protest against the system of applying public money for individual advantage, either in this country or in Ireland. But, said the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, "There is at present great distress existing in Ireland, and we want to employ the people in reproductive employment." This was a thing that was often spoken of. He thought he remembered having heard a lamented nobleman talk of expending sixteen millions in the construction of Irish railways, with the view of giving reproductive employment. The noble Lord was violently eloquent on that occasion; and yet to make roads through the country where they were wanting would no doubt be an admirable thing. Where, he would ask, in Heaven's name, was the difference between making roads through Ireland, and making channels through Ireland, to let the water off, excepting with regard to the relative amount asked for? Or rather, would it not have been better, instead of dragging on day by day, and week by week, and year by year—would it not have been better to propose a vast measure at once, like that brought forward by Lord George Bentinck? In both cases it was an application for the funds of the empire to individual enterprise; and if the money of the State were to be applied to private purposes, which he objected to, he would rather vote for a well-conceived scheme, like the general plan of that noble Lord, than for such measures as that now before them. But it was no answer to say that the money was paid back. The people of England, when they paid their taxes, were out of their money, and saw it no more; and on behalf of the people of England he would ask, what was the concerted scheme which the Government contemplated when they brought forward this single measure for the improvement of Ireland? He would ask, did any man suppose that this sum of 300,000l. would be of any real substantial use in employing the Irish people? Or was it not rather a measure by which it was intended, under the guise of seeking some support for the poor of Ireland, to provide a means for lending money to the proprietors of Ireland? He would appeal to the common sense of the people of England, whether they believed that lending 300,000l. to the Irish landlords would be any relief to the poor of Ireland? But he might be asked, what did he want to have done? If this question were asked of the Irish Members, one got up and said that all the evils of Ireland proceeded from the area of taxation being too large. On one occasion an hon. Gentleman got up and talked on this subject for six hours by the clock. But when he heard of advances of money for Irish purposes, he could not but recollect a conversation that had taken place in the House the other night between two Irish Members. He would not repeat the words, as they were disagreeable to his car, that he had heard on that occasion, bandied about from one side of the House to the other. But, in the course of the recrimination, one of these hon. Gentlemen said to the other, "Did you not go with me to the Government to ask to have these people paid?" "To be sure I did," replied the hon. Member for Dublin—and there was a happy phraseology about the expression which he would not hope to realise, but which he could never forget—" To be sure I did; I wanted to have a pull at the Exchequer." But when the pull at the Exchequer failed, when they found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not bite, one of these hon. Gentlemen thought that the corporation of Dublin was hound to pay. "Oh," said he, "won't the corporation pay?" "The corporation pay!" was the response. "Oh, ye are a set of cormorants; ye are a set of highway robbers." So long as the hon. Gentleman thought he could have a pull at the Exchequer, he was the abettor of those who wanted compensation; but then came the old story—he would not repeat the words—as to what honest men gained on these occasions. But they quarrelled among themselves. Then we were let into the secret of the whole affair, and they were told that it was the regular practice in Ireland to endeavour on all occasions to have in the first instance a pull at the Exchequer. But the debt was at once pronounced a dishonest one, as soon as the hon. Member was told that he would have to pay it himself. Now, he had taken a lesson on that occasion, and he was determined that, on the first possible opportunity, his countrymen should hear it. It was that Irish Gentlemen came there with the hope of being able to get what they called a pull at the Exchequer. The Bill on the table was nothing more than one of those attempts to get a pull at the Exchequer. That Exchequer was filled by the industrious labours of their hardworking countrymen, who toiled in their vocations with an honest and upright spirit, and with virtue; and he might say it fully, with an indignant virtue, when they considered the demands that were thus made upon the proceeds of their industry, He declared it in the name of those hardworking men, whom he had seen, within the last few weeks, congregated in thousands, asking him whether there was not something wrong in the system which obliged them to pay so largely. In his answer, he told them that he knew they were often misled with regard to facts put forward by associations; but he well knew at the time, that the first voice that he would raise in that House of the Commons of England should be against the rapacious desires and selfish attempts of a wasteful and extravagant proprietary—that wasteful and extravagant proprietary being the landed gentry of Ireland. They were not in any sense of the term the proprietors of Ireland. Let them, therefore, get rid of the name, let them go abroad and earn their own subsistence. The land did not belong to them, and it was not to them, but to the mortgagees, that the rent ought to be paid. Let them act like men whose capital was in their bare hands. It was on these grounds that he entered his solemn protest against this Bill. He could see nothing in the policy of the Government to relieve them from constant taxation hereafter of a similar kind. He saw great numbers of the country gentlemen of England around him, and they should recollect that they would be called upon from day to day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve the poor of Ireland. As they came towards light, the darkness grew more dark, and so, as they approached the harvest, the famine would become more rife. When the months of June and July came, they might expect to hear still more dreadful stories of the horrors which prevailed. But was it not an afflicting thing to know that they had been for nearly four years in this state of terror, arising from the failure of the potato crop in Ireland? Would not a provident Government have enlisted the aid of all the intelligence of Ireland, and have divided the country into sections, in order to obtain an accurate list of those who were likely to require relief, and who might be employed in the profitable cultivation of their fertile soil? Should not the gentry have been told to make themselves the overseers of the poor? and above all, they should have been told to recollect that into that sacred fund they did not put their hand. That would have been a most judicious thing to have said, and it would have been not only a virtuous but a most proper thing to have remembered. But it was not said. The admonition was not acted upon, and what was given for the poor was but too often seized by the rich, and that scramble took place to which he had before alluded. This had disgusted the people of England; and he would give an instance of the manner in which it had been carried out. A friend of his, a clergyman in the country, was told by a friend of his in Ireland, "We are in a starving condition—for God's sake apply to your parishioners, and try what you can get to relieve us," His friend set to work with all the energy of a young man—he preached charity, as he always did, and went from house to house, and gathered together what he considered as a little sum, but which ought not to have been considered as a little sum, considering the means of those from whom it came. He forwarded it to his friend in Ireland, and the reply he got was, "God bless you for your charitable donation; we are quite happy, all the rents are paid." His friend fell almost into a swoon on reading the letter. And was it that for which he had gone about among the poor English labourers, who were earning their 8s. and 9s. a week, to raise subscriptions? Was it for that that he went into the school, and to collect pence from the children? Was it to pay the rents of the landed proprietors that his rev. friend went from house to house asking alms? No! It was to relieve the poor starving wretches, and not to pay rents to their grasping improvident landlords. It was this, he repeated, which had disgusted the people of England, when, instead of being the almoners of the poor, they saw the landed proprietors of Ireland the rapacious receivers of those gifts which were intended for that poor. If the Government and Parliament did not stand forward and say, "We command and assist that the poor of Ireland shall receive the benefit of the charity of this country," they would drain up the source of private charity altogether, and he would be among the first to preach it. [Sir H. BABRON: Hear!] He heard an Irish proprietor cry "hear;" he wished he had an Irish peasant on the floor to meet that hon. Baronet. It was true they were all bound by the law; but there would be no private charity, unless the Government look to this, and enforced some rigid rule as to the mode in which the charity of this country should be applied. If that were done, and the peasant labourers were employed in cultivating the land, they might within two years rescue the people of Ireland from the desperate situation into which they were now plunged. If you would only adopt something like order and system in the application of the funds, and not allow the Irish landlords to be the almoners, the English people would not fail you in the hour of need; but you would find them really and truly brethren in heart and hand to help you. But, he would repeat, if they allowed the Irish landlords to interfere with the distribution of English charity, they would not only have the source of that charity dried up, but they would make those whom the Union had brought under one united Parliament a separate and a hostile nation. It was only by the course he had pointed out that Government could achieve the good they sought to accomplish, and not by such a poor, and petty, and piecemeal legislation as that now before the House, and which would only be treated with scorn by the people whom it was intended to serve, and be regarded as a proof of the utter insufficiency and imbecility of the Government.

Sir, the thunderbolt has fallen, and we are not crushed. The storm with which we have been threatened for the last week in the newspapers, and which has been gathering over us with accumulated intensity, has at last come with all its fury upon us, and enforced with all the grimaces of a mountebank, and the spite of a viper.

I must inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that these expressions are quite unparliamentary.

And I confidently appeal to you. Sir, whether, on any occasion when it was my misfortune to fall under your rebuke, I did not bow to it at once; and I am now ready to withdraw the expression. But, at the same time, I must submit to you, that the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom I refer, used such expressions as these—he spoke of persons calling themselves gentlemen. That Member—whatever he may choose to call himself—has, indeed, given a terrible account of Ireland, and he has taken care to include all Irishmen in his denunciations. He has accused us of immorality. Immorality! If I were to enter upon that charge—and I will enter upon it, because it is not right the these taunts or insults upon my fellow-countrymen should be received with laughter and good humour by the House, and without any Member making the slightest remonstrance. I will ask the hon. and learned Member to compare the two countries with regard to their morality. Have we the system of poisoning infant children for the sake of getting their burial money, which prevails in the north, south, east, and west of England? Have we such a system of abortion-houses as prevails here in the metropolis? Have we in Dublin, as you have in London, a body of Guards, from which all Irishmen are scrupulously excluded, and who are so moral that the subject is not safe to go near them after nightfall? Have we any schools in which education is so wretchedly taught that the scholars are in ignorance of the name of the Redeemer, or of the great mysteries of salvation? Have we police reports informing us that the roads are insecure after dark? Have we professors of political economy, or writers in newspapers, under the patronage of Government, who blasphemously say that the people of Ireland are disproportioned to the capital of Ireland, and ought therefore to be starved down to the level of the capital, and that it would be interfering with the will of God to save them from starvation? No, we have no such persons in Ireland; and I therefore throw back with indignation the charge of immorality, and I ask, is it not cruel that the people who are perishing, without committing a single outrage, should be accused in this heartless manner? To be sure, this being spoken by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it does not matter much; but it has been spoken in this assembly—the first assembly in England; and it is not right that the people of Ireland, who are suffering so many accumulated evils, should here be accused of immorality, or subjected to the attack of slander in this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that we come here and ask for money. If he will give us back the management of our own affairs, we will not ask for money. But you take from us the management of our affairs—you do not allow us to manage them for ourselves; and now, when we are starving in consequence of your mismanagement, you deny us relief, or you fling it to us, like a bone to a dog, with insult and scorn. The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked of the landlords of Ireland. I have often had occasion to attack the landlords of Ireland for their misdeeds; but let it be recollected, that if the landlords of Ireland have been guilty of misdeeds, they were encouraged by this House in their misdeeds; and the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland—put there by no popular appointment—declared two years ago that the legislation of the Imperial Parliament was of one uniform tone—to give power or to increase power to the landlords of Ireland over their tenants. Since, then, the landlords had been encouraged and fostered by the legislation of this House, it was too bad to turn round upon them now. If they blamed the landlords, they must blame this House still more. With regard to the grants, I hold that they will give employment, and, therefore it is well to have them. They will not feed the people, but everything which tends to give employment will tend to keep them alive. The House had shown itself very niggardly; for the Government, with all its faults, would have done more, but their exertions were crippled by the House, and therefore the accusations against the Government, like the attacks upon the landlords, ought to fall rather upon this House, who had shown themselves so very niggardly towards the distresses of Ireland.

would not follow the example of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, by entering into personalities, but he did regret that any English Member of Parliament should have shown such a bad spirit as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had done. But the hon. and learned Member had completely contradicted himself in the course of his speech. He told them that it was the duty of the landlords to undertake the drainage of their own property, and not come to this House for grants for the purpose. Now, as a general principle, that might perhaps be maintained; but the hon. and learned Member concluded by saying, that the Government ought to have organised the people for the purpose of improving the land and increasing the amount of human food: if the hon. and learned Member did not mean by that that Government ought to make grants for this purpose, he was at a loss to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman could mean. But he begged to say that these were not grants at all. The House had maintained the principle, and acted upon it for the last twenty years, embodying it in Acts of Parliament still existing, with respect both to England and Scotland. By papers presented to Parliament within the last twenty years, it ap- peared that the Parliament of Great Britain had advanced to England and Scotland loans to the amount of eight millions sterling for bridges, roads, canals, lunatic asylums, workhouses, parish relief, or other public purposes. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of the landlords of Ireland having been benefited by the former grants to Ireland. He did not know how the hon. and learned Gentleman could make such an assertion, when it was well known that the landlords had remonstrated against the whole system as a wasteful and improvident expenditure of money. The whole operations were conducted by the Government, under the Board of Works. The landlords had no control over them whatever; and, therefore, it was a gross mis-statement to say that the landlords could have appropriated a single shilling of the money. It was notorious that the landlords of Ireland had this year spent 1,600,000l. in poor-rates for the support of the poor in that country; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently told them that the landlords of Ireland had paid up all their instalments on the loans received for drainage; and yet the hon. and learned Member had the hardihood to come forward and say that the money grants had been spent in such a way as only to benefit the landlords. He would emphatically say, it was spent for the benefit of the poor; and he believed many Irish landlords had imprudently borrowed money to improve their estates for the sake of relieving the poor. He gave his cordial support to the measure. The money was lent on terms which any Jew might lend it upon; and if the Jew got his pound of flesh he could not complain. The people were dying in thousands, of famine, the worst of all deaths. To say that this money was pocketed by Irish landlords, was an uncharitable and groundless taunt. He assured the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was more in sorrow than in anger that he expressed his dissent from his bitter and unchristian speech.

observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield having been so long absent from the House might account for his evincing a much keener appetite for an Irish debate than hon. Members who had been present from the commencement of the Session were likely to possess; and it was because their hunger was so much abated by the large supply of this kind of food with which they had been furnished, that they had not enjoyed the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman with that relish which he probably expected they would do. It did not appear to him (Lord J. Russell) that the hon. and learned Gentleman had entered at all into the subject of debate, or that his speech had any reference to the Bill before the House; it was rather a string of reflections—a sort of moral lesson addressed to them on the subject of Irish distress and Irish prospects. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech reminded him of the fable of the French horn, which, having been frozen up and dumb for a longtime, suddenly became thawed, and gave forth the most melodious sounds. He was glad to hear those sounds again in that House; but, certainly, he would rather the hon. and learned Gentleman had chosen some theme that had not been so repeatedly gone over as the one they were now discussing. He, certainly, should not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman, by entering into any defence of the Irish landlords; there were a sufficient number of persons connected with that body, both in that and the other House of Parliament, to undertake that duty. But with regard to the labourers of Ireland, he must say, that he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had cast a very unjust reflection on them when he said that, either from the fault of the Government or from some other circumstance, they were unwilling to work and to depend for their subsistence on their own exertions and their own industry. He believed in many districts they were only too impatient to obtain work even at the smallest remuneration—a remuneration that would scarcely procure for them the barest subsistence. In some places, he understood the labourers were willing and anxious to work for their food only; and in others, men, with families to support, were only too glad to labour for 2d. a day. Therefore, it was not just to say that the Irish labourers required any lesson such as that which had been read to them by the hon. and learned Gentleman to induce them to embrace any means by which they might obtain, in exchange for their labour, not a living, but mere subsistence. The Bill before the House proposed that a certain sum should be advanced for the purposes of drainage: such drainage to be accomplished partly by the proprietors and occupiers themselves; and partly, where the drainage was of a more extensive character, by the union of several proprietors. This proposition, as it appeared to him, recommended itself on three grounds: first, the whole of the money so advanced was to be expended in labour; in the second place, it was likely to improve the soil, and to increase the production of human food from the land; and, thirdly, that they were in a position to give to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his constituents the most satisfactory proofs that there was every prospect of the sums so advanced being fully repaid, principal and interest. The hon. Member for Waterford had said, truly, that in that country and in Scotland, within the last twenty or thirty years, large sums had been advanced for useful purposes of a similar character—which sums had been repaid—and by means of which many fields, which were previously of little comparative value, were now growing wheat and other crops in the most luxurious profusion; and large tracts of land had been brought into an improved state of cultivation by the draining and other improvements which the money so borrowed from the Exchequer had carried out. Such having been the result in England and Scotland, he did not think they would be adopting a just or a wholesome principle in saying that the same system ought not, under present circumstances, to be applied to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke had said that they were driving a bargain with the Irish people that any Jew would be glad to make. That observation reminded him that there was another question to be brought before the House that evening, which he hoped would not be postponed longer than was absolutely necessary.

felt, and was sure the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and every other Member of the House, must feel, that Ireland at the present moment had a strong claim upon our generosity. The people of this country had acknowledged that claim; and he had no fear that while the present awful destitution existed, the sources of well-regulated charity would be dried up. Hon. Members ought not to forget the fact that the imperial legislation of the past had tended to Ireland's ruin, and England's benefit; that the misfortune and burden of the connexion between the two countries had been borne by her, and that for years all the profit had been reaped by us; and if by a system of shortsighted and selfish policy we had destroyed her manufactures, annihilated her resources, impoverished and degraded the people, driven capital out of the country, rendered life and property insecure, and the people discontented and miserable, then they must all feel, that even if for years to come they poured out their contributions much more profusely than they had done for the last three years, they would never make up for the poverty and wretchedness which their past legislation had entailed upon her. Such, he believed, was the feeling of the English people. He confessed he felt much sympathy for the landlords of Ireland at the present moment, knowing, as he did, that for three years past many of them had hardly received any rent, and that many of them had been making the most honourable exertions to struggle through the difficulties with which they were overwhelmed. But, if he understood the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield rightly, they were not so much objections to aid the destitution and famine existing in Ireland, as to do it by a system objectionable in principle and pernicious in its results. He (Mr. Horsman) held in his hand a Parliamentary paper, which was laid before the House a few days ago, and to which he had referred in his speech on Friday night; and he bogged the attention of the House, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to some extraordinary facts which he found in that paper. The Government had admitted that their first duty was to preserve life in Ireland. Well, how had that principle been carried out? At this moment he found that the destitution and mortality were greater than ever—and he found, moreover, that destitution and mortality distinctly traceable to the Government not answering the demands of the Poor Law Commissioners for assistance. The Commissioners stated that, unless money were sent, starvation and death would be the consequence, and they desired to be absolved from the responsibility of such a result. On one occasion he found them asking for 18,000l, and the Treasury sending them 5,000l. On another occasion, instead of 10,000l., he found the Treasury sending them 4,000l. The Commissioners say—

"In the case of Bantry union, the Commissioners have to acquaint their Lordships that a report from the temporary inspector has been this day received, stating that in consequence of the advances last week having been curtailed, to the amount of 47l., the relieving officers were left without a shilling for the relief of any urgent cases of destitution, which leads to such cases being sent for food and shelter to the workhouse, and to the consequent overcrowding of the house; and further stating that the deaths in various parts of the union are daily increasing, and for the most part arise from want and exposure. And the inspector further states, that he deems it his duty to impress it strongly on the minds of the Commissioners that any derangement either in the amount or the time of issuing the weekly relief to the people, must prove fatal to many; and he adds, that the relief at present given is, in itself, barely sufficient to support existence for the week; but that should eight or nine days elapse, the natural consequence must be starvation and death; and that the weekly estimates sent up are calculated on the exact amount required for food only for the current week, without including Is. in cash for urgent and pressing cases."

And they further say—

"With respect to the Ennis union, the Commissioners desire to remark, that although they made application to their Lordships on the 25th ult., to place funds at their disposal to enable them to assist this union in case of emergency, no portion of the 6,000l. last received has been appropriated to this union, as there does not appear to have been an absolute stoppage of relief al-though carried on now entirely on credit, to an extent far beyond the means of the union to repay within a reasonable time. As an instance of the irregularities arising from the wants of the necessary funds to meet the engagements of the board of guardians, the Commissioners observe that at a recent meeting the guardians ordered the stewards on the outdoor works to be placed on the out-relief list for support, until the guardians should be in funds to pay them; and also with regard to such of the small contractors as should apply for assistance, that a like indulgence should be granted to them.

"The Commissioners now estimate that the sum of 12,000l is necessary to enable them to afford sufficient assistance to the distressed unions at the close of the present week, taking into account the deficiency in the amount now sent towards the requirements of the last week."

The contractors (at least some of them) refused to supply food to the paupers who were on the point of death, because their bills had not been paid. There was no less a sum than 160,000l. due to those contractors, and the result of non-payment was, that some of the contractors themselves were obliged to go into the workhouse. They were also informed that no less than 20,000 persons were requiring relief without a shilling to feed them, and that if a remittance was not sent by return of post, the death of thousands by starvation was inevitable. To this last communication no answer was returned, nor, so far as appeared, was the least notice taken of it. Week after week did the Commissioners write to the Treasury that 20,000 or 30,000 persons, were in a state of destitution, and that many of them had been Friday, Saturday, and Sunday without any relief whatever. He doubted if the history of any country could exhibit a more awful statement than that such a state of distress should be officially communicated to the Government, and that no notice what- ever should be taken thereof. In the face of Europe he would say that this was a spectacle more disgraceful than anything this country could patiently contemplate. He must say that a tremendous responsibility rested on the shoulders of those upon whom the relief of that destitution and the preservation of life depended; and, considering how generously the people of England had contributed to that object, and that they were ready to contribute generously still, he was surprised how those upon whom the responsibility of distributing the relief rested could sleep in their beds under such a state of circumstances as he had described.

said, the hon. Gentleman began, as he did on Friday, by complaining of the system of grants, and he then complained in the next breath that the Government would not give a sixpence to relieve Irish distress. He would say, in answer to the first charge, that under the circumstances in which some of the unions of Ireland were placed, the Government did think it necessary, though they differed from the hon. Gentleman, to appeal to Parliament for a limited sum, in mitigation of that distress. In answer to the second charge, that the Government had received repeated applications for pecuniary assistance, and that they had not sent sixpence in return, he told the hon. Gentleman now, as he told him on Friday night, that he spoke in utter ignorance of the facts of the case, for he (Sir G. Grey) could not suppose, if the hon. Gentleman knew them, that he would indulge in such misinterpretations, anxious as he appeared to be to throw upon the Government the undivided responsibility for the Irish distress. The Government sent to Ireland the further sum which had been placed at their disposal by Parliament; and when they saw the indisposition, the not unnatural indisposition, of Parliament to vote any additional sums, they proposed a Bill in which they inserted a clause that would enable them immediately to advance 100,000l. for the relief of distress; and against the third reading of this Bill—after the House had determined the question as between the mode of raising the money there proposed and an income tax—the hon. Gentleman voted. He recorded no unmeaning, empty protest as now, but he recorded his vote in favour of a policy which would have deprived Government of the means of doing that which the hon. Gentleman said they would not do. He would not further notice the attack of the hon. Member, for it had really as little to do with the measure before the House as his attack on Friday had to do with the measure then before them. The hon. Member said he protested against the grant, being utterly unable to distinguish between a Bill for a grant, which might be looked upon as money thrown away, and between a loan secured on Irish property, with respect to which past experience showed that there was a reasonable prospect of both loan and interest being repaid. But as the remarks of the hon. Gentleman had no earthly connexion with the measure before the House, he would satisfy himself with this answer to the charge brought against the Government by the hon. Member for Cockermouth.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had charged him with having brought an unfounded accusation against Her Majesty's Government, in having said that they had not laid out sixpence beyond what Parliament had granted, to relieve the starving Irish people. What he had said was founded on what appeared in two letters, dated the 20th and 23rd of April, which were amongst the papers on the table of the House. In one of those letters, addressed to the right hon. Gentleman himself, it was stated that from 20,000 to 30,000 people were in danger of dying of starvation, unless some assistance were afforded them; and the right hon. Gentleman had allowed the observation to remain without any answer at all.

said, he should remind the House that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury had said, when the vote of the 50,000l. was before the House, that after it should be exhausted he would take upon himself to apply such further limited sum as might be required. He afterwards found that the 6,000l. which was advanced would be totally inadequate to relieve the urgent distress, and Parliament was called upon to advance the further sum of 100,000l. His noble Friend said he would not feel himself bound by the limita-of the 6,000l. and that he would apply such further sum as would be necessary. And he (Sir G. Grey) should now tell the hon. Gentleman, who sought to cast such an aspersion upon the Government, that since the 50,000l. had been expended, 26,000l. more had been advanced by the Government.

hoped that as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had alluded to him during his absence, he would be excused for occupying the attention of the House for a moment. Though he had not the pleasure of hearing the hon. and learned Member, he had had the opportunity of hearing the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he understood that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, after his usual custom, had indulged himself and a portion of the House by abusing every Member from Ireland—every person in that country, from the landlord down to the humblest peasant. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had not thought it necessary, in replying to the hon. and learned Member, to advert to those Irish landlords of whom he had on a former occasion spoken in terms of high praise for having made every exertion within the last twelve months to relieve the distress by which they were surrounded. Upon the other hand, the noble Lord had congratulated the House on the return of the hon. and learned Gentleman to Parliament, and said that he was highly pleased at hearing these melodious notes, which, by the way, had been heard three times since the hon. Member's return, and always in terms of censure and satire upon everything and every quarter of the House.

"Thrice the brindled cat hath mowed."

The noble Lord, instead of replying to the hon. and learned Member, and the sneers he had thrown out against the Irish representatives, indulging in the same tone in which he had so often indulged before, had spoken of an Irish debate in terms of censure and disapprobation. He (Mr. Keogh) thought he could account for the reason why the House had so many Irish debates. If the question were justly considered and impartially weighed, it would be found that they had not originated from any desire on the part of the Irish Members eternally to obtrude the misfortunes and grievances of their country on the House; but that they were fairly deducible from the bit-by-bit and patchwork legislation which had proceeded from those in power. If the noble Lord had come down once and for all to the House, as he ought to have come down at the commencement of the last Session—as he might have come down at the commencement of the present Session, but as he was not likely to come down during any part of the Session—with a broad, concentrated, and comprehensive declaration of policy for Ireland, the Irish Members would not be compelled to lay open those sores which it grieved them so often to be obliged to do, and thereby to expose themselves to the censure of others. Therefore, he respectfully said, that he thought observations ought not to be indulged in against Irish Members. He thought the Irish Members, whether they sat on the Opposition or the Ministerial side of the House, ought to be unanimous in rejecting them. He, for his part, would resist to the whole extent of his energy any person, whether he sat on the one side or the other, who assailed the Irish nation through the Irish representatives. So much for the congratulations of the noble Lord, upon the arrival of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He (Mr. Keogh) believed that there was no hon. Member in the House who had so often assailed the Irish representatives as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. Now, one word to that hon. and learned Member. He (Mr. Keogh) trusted that when next he indulged his vein—his habitual vein—that green bitter vein which characterised every inch of his body—he trusted that when he assailed Irish Members again, he would have the courtesy, the manliness, to assail them in their presence, and not indulge in a spirit of severity and satire when those who ought to watch him, and would watch him, and were not afraid to reply to him, were not present to hear him. The hon. and learned Member had done him the favour to notice the debate which occurred in the House upon the last night; he had done so in his (Mr. Keogh's) absence. He now told the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was far from thinking that he represented the feelings of his English countrymen out of doors as regarded the Irish people. So far from thinking so, he remembered with gratitude the noble generosity with which the people of this country had come forward in the last two years to relieve the distress of Ireland. He recollected the unanimous feeling of sympathy they had evinced, and he preferred rather to look at their acts than to listen to the bitter words of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. But the hon. and learned Member was not so desperate a person, after all, as some Irish Members were inclined to think him—he was not so very dangerous. True, he had indulged in a sweeping attack on the measure now proposed, but he had wound up his attack without submitting any Motion to the House. Therefore, after all, the Sheffield blade was not so dangerous a weapon. The House would judge of his motives, and the country would be able to distinguish between those who opposed and supported the present measure. The country would also he able to discriminate between what ought to be the honest indignation of a patriotic senator, and the bilious acerbity of a spiteful self-tormentor.

sincerely hoped, that the very few words he should offer to the House, would have the effect of putting an end to the debate that had arisen. He would not have risen but for the extraordinary remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, upon what had fallen from his noble Friend at the head of the Government. These remarks took him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) altogether by surprise. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that his noble Friend had added to the sneers against the Irish landlords, and immediately afterwards said, that he had on a previous occasion done full justice to their efforts to relieve the distress of the people, the two expressions contradicted one another. His noble Friend said, that he would not then undertake to defend them, because it was utterly unnecessary. "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "he sneered with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield about lengthy Irish debates." Why, was it not an appeal of his noble Friend against the hon. and learned Gentleman renewing debates upon subjects that had been already over and over again discussed? What he begged and prayed of the Irish Gentlemen was, that when they (the Government) were carrying plans for the benefit of their country and themselves, they would not occupy the time of the House with discussions upon matters that were altogether irrelevant. He did not by these observations mean to interfere in the slightest degree between the hon. Members for Sheffield and Athlone. They might fight their question out between themselves. But he certainly could not avoid saying that the hon. and learned Member for Athlone had made a most unnecessary and uncalled-for attack upon his noble Friend.

said, he was not going to make any observations on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, but he would make a very brief remark on that part of the address of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, in which he accused the hon. Member for Cocker- mouth of having voted against the rate in aid. He (Colonel Dunne) believed that most of the Irish Members had voted against that rate, and he thus publicly thanked the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth for having voted against it also.

regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield should have raised a debate in which he had exhibited the worst passions and the worst feelings that prevailed amongst the worst classes of the people of both countries against their fellow-subjects. The charge against the Irish was, that they might share amongst them as they pleased the causes of their ruin—idleness and improvidence on the part of the peasantry; mismanagement, extravagance, and incapacity on that of the landlords. That was the showing of the question by their opponents. It reminded him of the fable of the man and the lion, who stopped before the picture of a fight between a lion and a man, in which the man was depicted as slaying the lion. "Ah," said the lion, "had the painter been a lion, I have no doubt he would have given a different version of the story." And so with the present case. As a Connaught man, he felt bound to say that there never was an assertion more unfounded in fact, nor one more unjust, ungenerous, and untrue, than that in which all the English Members appeared to agree, as a fair conclusion, with regard to the causes of distress in the west of Ireland. To say that the people had become wretched because they were idle and improvident, was an assertion which was worse than a perversion of the truth. And as to the landlords, the motto seemed to be, "Hit them hard because they have no friends." That was the cry, and hit they were by every one, from the killing candour of the Minister to the melodramatic enmity of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He (Mr. Moore) did not mean to say they were faultless. But they had only gone on pari passu with England; and when they were fairly swallowed up in distress and misery then England left them. Cromwell had driven the people in distress and utter poverty into Connaught. They were driven naked into the wilderness; and from that time forth the policy of England was to crush and rend them, to prohibit the Irish people on every point from rising in the moral scale. The landlords could not be fairly reproached with the consequences of the systematic policy of England for ages; and when at length England saw her error, and relaxed her code of policy, the evil was too deeply rooted to he easily eradicated. When she felt her error she ceased, but slowly, to prosecute; but she lent no helping hand to redeem the folly of the past. He admitted that the landlords might he to blame for some portions—that they might have done a great deal which they did not. They did not sacrifice themselves to posterity. But England was more to blame than they. Let England show the good example. Let England, let the English people, now sacrifice themselves to posterity. They were responsible. Let them manfully bear the penalty. History would be their judge; and if history would not acquit the landlords of blame, neither would it acquit those who made the country waste and destitute originally, and kept it so for their own profit, and who at last, but not until after a long lapse of time, found out that they were but dividing their own house against itself. If the landlords were the cause of the present state of things, bitterly and grievously were they suffering for it. But let those who had so long ruled the country by a system of sectarian legislation, and who had brought it to the ruin now beheld, not expect to escape the penalty of retribution. As to the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that the landlords received their rents in the west of Ireland, he could know nothing whatsoever of the existing state of things there, if he believed such to be the fact. It was notorious that not 25 per cent of the rents had been paid during the last year.

took the opportunity of repeating what he had previously said, to which Her Majesty's Government had not replied. It was very easy to bring charges of ignorance, and of drawing upon imagination. His charge was this—that on the 23rd of April Mr. Nash wrote to say, that 20,000 people were left on the relief officers, who had not a shilling for their support; that those people had been without food for three days; that many of them had died from want and exposure; and that no notice had been taken of that letter. His knowledge of this fact was derived from the official documents laid on the table by the right hon. Baronet; and, if he wished to say he (Mr. Horsman) spoke in ignorance of the facts, he might do so. If his stating those facts was unpleasant to the right hon. Gentleman, his extreme sensitiveness was no proof that he had done his duty—it was a sign rather of a conscience ill at ease. He knew what the right hon. Gentleman's powers of debate were; but he should say, that his extreme sensitiveness was no proof that extraordinary powers of debate might not be found united with extraordinarily defective powers of administration.

deprecated being led by the hon. Gentlaman into a long discussion upon various other Bills besides that before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said, he would not be deterred by any fear of displeasing him (Sir G. Grey) from stating facts. But what he complained of was, that the hon. Gentleman did not state what were facts, but that he had drawn upon his imagination for charges against the Government that were unfounded. The hon. Gentleman charged the Government with dispensing grants of money in a way tending to do harm rather than good, and with spending double the amount that was necessary to do all that was effected. His (Sir G. Grey's) answer was, that they had applied the funds placed at their disposal by Parliament in the way they thought the destitution could best be relieved. They had done that which the hon. Gentleman said they had not done—they had expended the 50,000l. granted by Parliament, and 26,000l. besides. And they had been authorised by Parliament to expend 100,000l. more. And then the hon. Gentleman turned round and charged them with not having dispensed what Parliament had entrusted them with.

said, if he were irregular at all, it was the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, who had charged him with ignorance, and drawing upon his imagination when he could not rise to give any reply. The right hon. Gentleman then repeated those charges. He now asked him in what had he drawn upon his imagination? He had stated from the papers that the people had no relief and were dying, and likely to die in thousands; that during Friday, Saturday, and Sunday the poor in one union workhouse had no food; that the papers showed that there were no funds to be obtained in some of the unions. And he wanted to know why the Government had hesitated to ask Parliament for a grant of the means to relieve that urgent misery. He said it was a libel and a foul calumny upon the people of England to say that they (the Government) would not obtain any amount requisite for saving the people of Ireland from starvation. They might be assailed by some parties in the House, and blamed by others, but it was a calumny upon the generosity and charity of the people of England to say that they would refuse the requisite funds for such a purpose.

said, he hoped the Chairman would allow him to say a few words in explanation of the remarks he had made in a former part of the evening. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had evinced very good humour in the way in which he alluded to him; and he was sure he (Mr. Roebuck) felt much obliged to him for the way in which he put his allusion to his return to the House. He had not the least objection to the joke. But the noble Lord had not answered his observations. His charge was this—that three years ago distress was produced in Ireland—that the Government knew the causes of it—and that they were called on to prevent its recurrence. The distress arose from a famine in consequence of the sudden disappearance of the potato. Now, the noble Lord had not met that destitution by a bold and well-considered set of measures. He (Mr. Roebuck) had said so, and he repeated it—that the noble Lord was frightened—terrified he might say; that he had no system, was governed by no rule, had listened merely to his own sense and sensibility, and immediately had recourse to the large Treasury of England—that, having so had recourse to it, and employed many millions of money, he had left the people of Ireland worse off than he had found them. That was his charge; and his assertion was, that the noble Lord had employed those millions improperly—not improperly in any sense which could affect the noble Lord's character in any way, but in a way which he considered an un-statesmanlike proceeding. He knew the noble Lord's ability—he knew he was powerful in debate—that he possessed perspicacity and generosity; but he (Mr. Roebuck) might say, without any of that asperity—even of manner—which had been 80 often laid to his charge, that the noble Lord had not met those difficulties in the spirit of a statesman—that he had exhausted the resources of this country, and had not relieved the distress of Ireland. That charge the noble Lord answered. He said it had nothing to do with the Bill before the House. He (Mr. Roebuck) thought it had. He thought that at every step of giving money he had a right to ask what had been done with the money already given, and how Government had relieved the distress of the people of Ireland. The hon. Gentlemen from Ireland all got into a rage when he said a word—when he questioned the policy of the course, they all turned round and looked at that frail body of his. One said he was little, another that he was bilious, and a third that he made grimaces. To return to the debate before them, and leave those Gentlemen to what, he dared say, they called satire—the Gentlemen from Ireland themselves said the noble Lord had misapplied the money. When he asked them how the money should have been applied, every hon. Gentleman had his nostrum. But he found them all saying, the people had been deprived of the fruits of English liberality by persons not paupers engaging a large share of that charity. He did not bring that charge on his own responsibility—it had been the language of every newspaper, of every blue book—in every man's mouth who spoke truly in that House. Today's papers were full of it. There was a fresh misapplication of it in that sense; but he went further, and he said, when the noble Lord threw that money abroad with both hands, he did mischief in creating habits which it would be exceedingly difficult to eradicate; and in making, where there had been want of thrift, that want double now. When the noble Lord said all this had nothing to do with the Bill before the House, he could not understand him. The Bill was another mode of taking money for Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary told them by implication that he dared not ask the people of England for more money. What did that mean? That the people of England thought (for they did not care for the amount that Government granted) they had done mischief to the country, and no good to the people of Ireland, by the way in which they had laid out that money. It appeared, too, that the hon. and learned Member for Athlone had been pleased to make some remarks on what had fallen from him in the course of the evening. He said nothing more than that he had heard a dialogue of a very peculiar description between the hon. and learned Gentleman and an hon. Member. But the hon. and learned Gentleman having made those remarks, went on to accuse the Government of precisely the same thing as that of which he (Mr. Roebuck) had accused them—bit-by-bit legislation. It might be very good for us, and when they came to legislate for all the various peculiarities of the English people, they must go step by step; but here Government had ten millions of money at their disposal almost in one day—they laid it out in one year. He asserted that by the employment of that sum properly, they could have set the people to work on their own fertile soil, and have replaced the lost potato by the produce of their labour. What had they done with the ten millions? They had flung them away in every possible manner. It was that which pressed on the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and not the amount of the sum; but that, largo as it was, had been expended so injuriously that it had left the people worse off than it had found them. Now, was there anything improper in his making that statement? Then he went further, and asked why the educated body of Irish Gentlemen had not stood forward and set the example of virtue in the appropriation of that sacred fund of charity? Why [said the hon. Member, turning to the benches behind him] could you not keep your hands out of it? I only asked your forbearance, and that you should have kept your fingers from that sacred fund.

Sir, when I said the hon. and learned Member's speech had no immediate reference to this Bill, I spoke of his remarks as being applicable to the general measures which had been adopted for Ireland in the last four years alone; and I certainly surmised that, the House having heard many discussions on this subject, I could hardly obtain such a hearing as the hon. and learned Gentleman with seems to suppose if I entered with him into a general discussion with respect to what those measures had been, the events to which they had been applicable, and the general results of their application. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, again repeats his question, and forces me to go somewhat into the consideration of this question; but I observe, with regard to him, as in an equal degree with regard to every Irish Member, that he attacks the Government in this way—he very much admits the evils with which we had to deal; but then he asks. Why did you not apply remedies? Why did you not make Ireland prosperous? But at the same time he never supposes the magnitude of the calamity with which we had to deal. I shall not ask whether it was wise in landlords of Ireland originally to give leases by which the land suffered—whether the farmers of Ireland did well to allow labourers to have patches of land to cultivate the potato, instead of paying them money wages—whether the labourers did well for their own interest in incurring and promoting early marriages, thereby keeping down the wages of labour, and increasing competition to such an extent that such wages as they did obtain, independent of their own labour, hardly afforded subsistence: whether these things were wisely done or not, is not now matter for consideration. We know they have been done, and we know the sudden stoppage of their progress by the decree of Providence was the calamity with which we had to deal. Could anything have been greater than that calamity? Say there have been three, four, or five millions—take any number you please—there was an immense population not required for the cultivation of the soil by the farmers and occupiers of the land. When the potato failed, was it likely they could obtain more employment? On the contrary, was it not evident they would obtain less? Those who would be called small farmers here, but who were large farmers in Ireland, were afflicted with the same calamity. Their means were diminished at the same time, so that they had less for their own support, or they would no doubt have given the people employment, or that charity which we know was so abundant in Ireland, as long as food was supplied by the harvest. When the calamity appeared in the first instance, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, then in power, proposed a total repeal of the corn laws. I think, with the hon. and learned Member, he proposed that measure wisely. I agree with him with respect to the results we are now reaping from it, as far as the great body of the people are concerned; but that measure, of course, was not a remedy for a great part of the evils which affected Ireland—it certainly was not any relief to those who had other productions of the soil to rely on, who had corn to bring to market, and whose prices for their corn had been of course diminished by that measure. Another year of famine appeared to be approaching. We then undertook to introduce a measure similar to those adopted in 1822; and in the beginning of 1846—a measure simple in its nature—not, as the hon. Gentleman now represents, of granting ten millions to prevent the people of Ireland from starving, but one by which, selecting the local bodies such as we were told by authorities acquainted with Ireland were likely to administer those funds most usefully, we placed in the hands of those bodies the power of presenting for sums to be raised for the districts for which they acted, and to ask for advances on the sums so presented. In 1822 a similar measure was adopted, but no very large sums had been applied for; but in 1846, and the beginning of 1847, the calamity was so overwhelming as to produce consequences far exceeding those of any similar measure adopted in any former year. I am not now blaming the different parties concerned in that Bill, some of them connected with the Government, some individuals connected by property with Ireland; but the effect was this—those local bodies were alarmed, on the failure of the potato, at the prospect of suffering; they were alarmed by the menaces of a starving people; and the result was, that immense presentments were made. The Board of Works was called on to undertake gigantic operations far beyond their means, or the staff at their disposal. The hon. and learned Member is quite well founded in what he says as to the great abuse which arose in the application of the vast sums placed at the disposal of the baronial boards and the Board of Works; but they arose from the gradual increase of the evil—from the prospect that the people would starve unless employment of other kinds were given, and the conduct of the boards in presenting for immense sums for the purpose of those works. When we found those works had extended to such a vast amount, we undertook—certainly a very bold operation in itself—to reduce 120,000 of those workmen at one time, for the purpose of substituting another method of relief, which was, in effect, a charitable distribution of food, placed under a commission in Dublin, of which Sir J. Burgoyne was the head. Now, I don't tell the House that some other measure might not have been adopted if we could have foreseen the exact number of persons wanting food, and that some better application of those sums could not have been devised; but, in the first place, it was impossible for any Government to say what would have been the exact amount of food which would be deficient; and, in the next place, it would be impossible for us to say in what way the sums placed at the disposal of the local boards would be used, or to what extent the amount of applications would be carried. But this I say, that, though I do not stand up as the defender of this system of relief—though I have heard many suggestions every year during the whole time of its operation, I cannot admit I have heard any in which there were not at least as great evils as in that we adopted. Take, for instance, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He would have set the people to work in reproductive labour on the soil of Ireland. How was this to be carried on, unless by saying Government should put itself in the place of all the landed proprietors and occupiers of land in Ireland? What proprietor or occupier would then have exerted himself? Who would have undertaken to plough or to sow? If we said every one in Donegal should have seed, and should be paid for ploughing his land, we should have similar demands from other counties, and not ten millions but thirty millions would have been the least required. But the waste of money, says the hon. and learned Gentleman, has been a small part of the evil. You took off persons who were delivered from distress by this mode of relief from the cultivation of the soil. No doubt we did so. But every species of relief, every species of charity, but, above all, compulsory relief by law, is accompanied with this evil, which tends to reduce that stimulus of want which urges men to exert themselves for the produce of food. That is an objection to all poor-laws—it is equally applicable to our own mode of relief. But, if all the ordinary operations of the soil should have been carried on in that way, we should have multiplied tenfold the want of industry, and would have increased almost beyond comparison the evils of which the hon. and learned Member spoke. As to other years, the hon. and learned Member seems to suppose the Government should have reasoned in this way:—In 1846 the potato failed; in 1847 there will be a less quantity of potatoes sowed, and the amount grown will, therefore, be very much diminished; a large part of this will also fail, and in 1848 there will be another failure; and that we should consider what would be our conduct under all these circumstances; but I humbly beg to say no Government could tell what would be the result of the harvest in three different years. We knew there must be severe suffering, but as to the exact amount of the harvest, and the productiveness of the potato, it was quite impossible any Government could have means to enable them to judge. I stated in 1847 the policy we adopted was this—that while we required very large grants for that year, there should be an amended poor-law, by which the land should be made to support the people of Ireland. I thought it unjust that the charity which had been extended to the residents of Ireland should not be made compulsory on all persons, whether resident or not, and that regular support should by law be provided for the relief of the destitute poor. Now, how has that law answered? In the last half-year I find more than 1,000,000l. has been raised for the destitute poor in Ireland. When the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the un-willingness of proprietors and occupiers in Ireland to afford relief, I beg to state that, with their diminution of resources, with all the reduction of fortune which individuals have suffered, upwards of 1,000,000l. has been raised in that short time to relieve the poor; and I say further, that while I think we were justified in imposing in this Imperial Parliament those burdens on Ireland by the mode in which the collection has been made, the—I cannot say willingness, but—obedience to the law which has induced the people to pay such sums for the purpose, has been highly creditable to those who have paid the rates, and should certainly diminish considerably that virulence of invective by which it is asserted Ireland is not willing to make efforts to relieve her poor. Another measure we introduced in 1847 was to facilitate the sale of incumbered estates, one of great importance, but at the same time of vast intricacy and difficulty. It was carried into effect in 1848, but after some period of experience we found it necessary to invigorate that Act, and to give further powers, that our object might be made effectual, and that the land of Ireland may, if possible, be held by persons who are able to lay out capital on the land, and to employ it for the maintenance of the people. On this subject the House has received suggestions, and the development of views of the highest importance, from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, not now present. And if it be any degradation, or if it be any humiliation to a Government to receive from an opposite quarter, or to receive from a Member of the House with whom they are entirely unconnected, suggestions and developments of plans of the highest importance, which we are ready to adopt, I am quite ready to submit to that degradation, and to suffer that humiliation; and if I can receive from any person any addition to the plan the right hon. Baronet suggested, I am quite willing to bear the taunts which may be thrown on us—that in this great calamity—in this great peril and crisis of Ireland, we have been forced to act upon the suggestions of others, and that not from our own wisdom, but from the borrowed plans of others, we have devised a remedy. Sir, I think it would be false pride if I were not to hold this language. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think—as many others think—that it is but a sorry result of all this labour that the people of Ireland are still more distressed than ever. But I have not heard any one say that there are plans so powerful, so omnipotent I should say, by which, when the crops which formed the main subsistence of the people had been blighted and destroyed in four consecutive years, an immense population created by that very food could be maintained, so that the calamity would not be greater at the fourth year than at the first. I know no such magical remedy by which you can prevent them suffering increased distress in the fourth year of their calamity. Undoubtedly, Sir, I believe this dispensation has been intended for the good of Ireland. That social state which has been matter of lamentation so long—which has been described by the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland in 1833 in terms which must excite the pity and lamentation of every one who read them—will in the end be improved by the calamity which has of late years befallen it. That great sufferings must be endured, I think quite necessary to that end. If we have in any measure alleviated those sufferings, I certainly should be contented, but if beyond that we can pave the way for a better order of things—if we can, by any measures, well considered and applied to different objects, and carried out by various machinery, at length amend the social state of Ireland, I certainly shall be proud that such a result should be found to have arisen. But by all this calamity there is one effect I should like to see produced. I could wish that those who have influence on the public mind of Ireland would not represent those who are concerned in the Government and in the legislation of this country as insensible to the evils which affect that part of the empire. I hold in my hand a paper which I read to-day, and which is an address by the Most Rev. Dr. M'Hale, and published in the Freeman's Journal, praising, and very justly, certain contributions which have been made for the relief of distress; but he goes on to say—

"While some of the contributors have withheld, as may be seen, their names, the truly Christian and patriotic sentiments to which they give utterance would not fail to read a humiliating lesson not only to Her Majesty's Ministers and other officials, by whom the sufferings of the people are looked on with the calmest indifference, but to those unfeeling disciples of the modern school of political economy, who would regulate all the impulses of benevolence, as well as all the duties of Christian morality, by mere arithmetical caculation."

I wish to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Ministers, that to represent us as looking "with the calmest indifference" on the sufferings of the people of Ireland, is a gross calumny. On the contrary, I beg to say that to us their condition has been a source of the greatest anxiety. We are well aware, on the one hand, that if we refuse relief, for many it will be a sentence to perish from the land. We are aware, on the other hand, that if we give that relief lavishly and indiscriminately, it will increase that apathy and that want of foresight which, unhappily, in that part of Ireland is already too common. Our object has been to steer between those two opposite evils. While dealing imperial resources with no niggard hand to calamity in Ireland, we shall endeavour to apply those resources so that they may in future years be the means of improved cultivation, of increased food, of habits of industry, and of general welfare to the people of that country. While bearing the taunts and reproaches, as well of those who say that we are lavishing the funds of this country on Ireland, as the invectives of those who tell us we are indifferent to or care nothing for the sufferings of Ireland, we shall endeavour to lay the foundations for a complete union of that part of the united kingdom with the other portions. We believe that greater and improved intercourse with Ireland will tend much to that end. Whatever may be the reproaches which were justly cast on Irish proprietors in former times, certainly my belief is that the majority of those proprietors are now only anxious to find the means by which they can improve that country, and provide for the subsistence and for the improvement of those around them. I trust that those who do not take that care—who within the last three years have done nothing for the improvement of their estates in Ireland, will be shamed into imitation, and that they will follow those who have set a glo- rious example to their fellow-countrymen. For, however it may please Gentlemen in this House to lay all the blame on the Government—however much it may please others who say there ought to be domestic legislation, to lay the blame on the Imperial Parliament, my belief has been, is, and will be, that, unless there is harmony among the various classes in Ireland—unless religious bitterness is assuaged between different sects—unless the feeling so often prevailing between landlord and tenant gives place to a good understanding—unless all classes unite, from the poorest and humblest class of all, in endeavouring to elevate that country, it is in vain that the Government proposes measures—it is in vain that Parliament adopts them—we should only incur miserable failure by all those efforts. But believing, as I do, that the commercial jealousy which so long induced England to withhold from Ireland the means of advancing her own prosperity is now at an end—believing that that political ascendancy which during the last century made the governing class in England look to the support of only a minority in Ireland, has with the change of laws ceased to exist—believing that these circumstances will in time, and by the operation of natural causes, finally have their effect—I am persuaded that we shall at length see, and that our children will see still more clearly than ourselves, that the case of Ireland is not hopeless, and that the people of Ireland, who have been reproached with idleness and improvidence, and who have been beset by adverse circumstances, are as capable of labour, and as greatly endowed with all the physical and moral qualities which lead to eminence and make a people fit to bear the rule of empire, as the people of any other country.

said, that he would give no answer to the foul charge of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield—that Irish landlords had put their hands into the sacred fund for the relief of the poor, simply because his answer would not be Parliamentary. His speech was most unfair and most inaccurate. The poor-law might be fitted for an ordinary state of society, but it was wholly unfitted for the present condition of Ireland. Giving the Government credit for the best wishes towards that country, he could not but think they were most unfortunate in their choice of measures.

asked whether the 500,000l. now to be voted would be applied to the immediate employment of labour, or would, as had been the case with former advances, be spread over several years?

said, that the 900,000l., the remaining portion of the l,500,000l. not yet issued, would not be available for the employment of labour this year. But it was obvious that when a work was once commenced, it went on much faster than at the beginning; the great difficulty was in the beginning. After the first instalment was expended, the second and subsequent ones went much more rapidly. With regard to the 300,000l., part of the 500,000l., he did not see how it was possible to apply it in a way different from that in which former appropriations for the same purpose had been applied. He could not compel gentlemen to drain their land faster than it was ordinarily drained, nor to expend the whole of the 300,000l. in one year; for, were he to do so, they would come to him next year, arguing that, as they had given them the means for beginning, they must be enabled to go on. The whole would be required to be spent within a given time, but not in the first year. With regard to the sum for arterial drainage, the whole of that was to be expended in one year.

said, that if he understood the right hon. Baronet correctly, the whole of the 300,000l. would not be applied this year, but only about 100,000l.

said, he found it stated in the evidence that some proprietors had obtained these advances without intending to use the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night that that money was allocated—not expended, and that he had no further power over it. Now, if there was a certain number of proprietors who had taken this money, and were waiting to see how things turned out before they commenced their improvements, he wished to know if the House had not the power either to make them expend it within a certain time, or repay the advance, that the money might be lent to others, who would make good use of it. There certainly ought to be some limitation of time, as in Railway Bills.

The answer to that is, simply, that what the hon. Gentleman says ought to he done has been done. I stated the other evening, that a great part of the 300,000l. had been advanced in that way.

Still, that is not the question. Have those gentlemen the power of keeping the money back as long as they like?

They have hot that power. I issued a circular not long ago, informing those gentlemen who did not choose to go on spending the money, that I should not grant them any more.

complained of the desultory nature of the discussion, and said, that reference to past grants was not apposite on that occasion. The past was gone by; and an hon. Gentleman was not justified, because he had been absent from the House some time, in coming down and renewing a discussion on the 10,000,000l. grant which had been disposed of last year. The sum now proposed was not a grant, but a loan, which he doubted not would be scrupulously repaid. If any grant at all were to be made to Ireland, it could not be better laid out than in advances for drainage. He had seen its excellent effects; he had seen cases where, had not the proprietors obtained these loans, the whole of the district around would have been in a state of starvation. He had also seen the good effects of this system on the agriculture of Ireland; and he must do the Lord Lieutenant the justice to say, that the sending of agricultural instructors into different parts of Ireland had been attended with the very best effects. For, in the midst of this horrible poverty and destitution, there was a manifest improvement in the agricultural districts. We were too apt to put down to Providence what had resulted from our own neglect. Ireland had long been suffered to remain in total dependence on the potato. The danger now was of rushing into the other extreme, and striving to supersede or abolish the potato. Should that take place, no legislation could possibly save the people from further famine; for this they had only to look to the resuscitation of the potato, to a certain extent and within proper limits. Hon. Gentlemen might theorise for ever; but nothing would ever convince him or the people of Ireland that a cheap and easily-grown food was a bad food. It might be cultivated to too great an extent, but they could never hope to struggle through their difficulties in Ireland without its revival to a certain extent. The potato had this year been cultivated to a greater extent than for many years past; he trusted the result would be successful. Government could not pass any measure which would support the poor people; they erred, but with the best motives, in attempting to do that in the first instance. He would remind the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who had talked of liking to have money to drain his own farm, that it was perfectly open to make application for a loan, as these advances were not confined to Ireland, but were made both in England and Scotland; it was therefore invidious to hold up one country against the other in this respect.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He by no means joined in the feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, or sympathised with the bitterness with which he had expressed his hostile feeling towards the Irish Members—their conduct, as it appeared to him, had not merited any such censure—but when the hon. and learned Member said that the population of England looked with considerable anxiety to these votes, he said nothing but the truth. The House was aware that there existed in this part of the united kingdom very great distress; and it therefore became their duty to inquire where this grant of money was to come from. It was very well to say that it was a loan, and would be honestly repaid; but they were to advance the money, and he wanted to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer where it was to come from. When did the right hon. Gentleman intend to make his financial statement or budget? Already the Session had advanced to a period beyond which it would not formerly have been thought becoming to delay it. Looking at the distress which prevailed among the agricultural classes, and at the anticipated deficiency in the revenue—alleged to arise from the blockades in the North, and other causes—he thought he was doing nothing unreasonable in asking for answers to the questions he had put.

said, that in answer to the question where the money was to come from, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that he had stated, last Session, that expenses had been incurred for the Kafir war, and other matters, which had been defrayed out of the moneys in the Exchequer, and which it was necessary to replace. For that purpose, two millions had been bor- rowed at the close of last year. This had placed the balances in the Exchequer in such a state that he trusted there would not be the least difficulty in advancing this money from the Consolidated Fund, without calling on the country to pay a single sixpence out of pocket. As to the annual financial statement, the usual period for bringing forward the budget was by no means past. He had been anxious not to make the statement at an earlier period—and for the reason which the hon. Gentleman had given. Had he done so, he should have been justified in making the statement more favourable than he should do at the present moment. The blockade of the northern ports, and the unsettled state of the Continent, had given a considerable check to that anticipated improvement of trade in which the commercial world had indulged in the month of January. These elements of uncertainty still prevailing, he had delayed making the statement; and he hoped the House would allow him some short delay further before doing so. Of course it was desirable he should make it with the greatest possible accuracy; he proposed to make it as soon as possible; but, had he made it in February, he should certainly have led the House into a misapprehension—not by any fault of his own—but owing to the financial prospect having been changed by circumstances over which legislation could exercise no control.

said, that certain gentlemen had recently been accused of "cooking a dividend;" he thought the right hon. Gentleman had been taking a leaf out of their book. He said the taxgatherer would not go round in consequence of this advance, because he had borrowed the money, and had in hand enough for the advance. But surely, like an honest man, he meant to pay his debts. Therefore, every farthing he had borrowed only went to postpone the pressure; and he was in reality, at the present moment, "cooking the public accounts."

said, it was a mistake to suppose that every assistance to Ireland pressed unduly on the industry of this country. This assumed that Ireland was not fairly taxed; whereas he was prepared to show that she was more heavily taxed than this country.

asked if a receiver would be appointed over the estates for the improvement of which these advances were made; also, as to the conditions on which the grants for drainage would be made, particularly as it regarded what were called "second assents."

said, the definition of the word "owner" had been settled by the former Act, and this it was not proposed to alter. Whoever came into possession of an estate after the cessation of a limited interest, would have the benefit of the land being better drained than if the money had not been expended. As to the other case alluded to, where second assents were necessary in order to authorise a greater expenditure than 3l. per acre, there were some instances in which it might be desirable to dispense with those second assents: but, in general, he was not prepared to give the whole power to the Board of Works. He could not undertake to introduce Bills for amending these Acts. Recent experience of the difficulty of getting Bills on Irish matters through the House, did not offer any inducement to bring in amendments on existing Acts, which might lead to interminable discussions.

said, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had referred to the Archbishop of Tuam, he thought it his duty to state that that prelate, by his exertions, had secured an amount of subscriptions which had prevented great waste of life, and hundreds of persons owed their lives to him at this moment.

, in answer to Mr. Arkwright, said, he hoped to produce his financial statement within a month. Bill passed through Committee, the blanks being filled up with 300,000l. and 200,000l. respectively.

rose, and said: Sir, I have a question to put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as to the effect of this Bill on the position of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion. I had hoped that it was the intention of the Government to place the Jews on precisely the same footing, with respect both to Parliamentary and civil offices, on which all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, with that single exception, at present stand. The law has provided an oath to he taken by the Roman Catholic which qualifies him to take his seat in either branch of the Legislature. That same oath, to which the Roman Catholic has no conscientious scruples, and takes without the slightest difficulty—which was formed that he might take it without difficulty—gives him with respect to civil offices as well as to Parliament, a clear and unquestionable qualification. With respect to the Protestant Dissenter, and other classes of Her Majesty's subjects dissenting from the Church of England, the state of the law I apprehend to be this. In respect to municipal offices, all parties elected to any municipal office are enabled to hold such office on making a certain declaration—which is a substitute for the necessity which formerly existed of taking the sacramental test. That same declaration is required also, on the appointment to civil office; but in the new form of declaration words are inserted which make it impossible for the Jew to take that declaration. Those words are—

"I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, upon the true faith of a Christian, that I will never exercise any of the powers which this office may confer upon me, for the purpose of disturbing or injuring the Church as by law established."

The Dissenter, other than a Roman Catholic, who makes that declaration, is qualified for municipal office, qualified also for all other offices, provided he makes that declaration within six months. If I recollect right, in the case of municipal office, the declaration must be made at the time of admission or within one month before admission; in the case of civil offices generally it must be made within six months after admission. Still, it is a declaration which the Jew cannot take. The noble Lord relieves the Jew, as far as Parliament is concerned; but if this Bill passes in its present form, the Jew will still remain disqualified from holding civil office; as he must still profess to make the declaration "upon the true faith of a Christian." There may be a question whether the passing of the annual Indemnity Act will not practically capacitate the Jew for holding civil office, by extending indefinitely the period within which the declaration must be made; but I, for one, wish to see the situation of the Jew the same as that of all other classes, and that it should not be necessary for the Jew to hold civil office by the precarious tenure of an annual Indemnity Act. I think the measure will be incomplete, unless the Jewish subjects of Her Majesty are placed, both with regard to civil office and to Parliament, on the footing on which all other subjects of Her Majesty are placed, whether professing the religion of the Established Church or any other. If the noble Lord tells me that the difficulties of dealing with the limited question are sufficiently great, and that he does not wish to hazard the loss of the present measure by increasing those difficulties, I am so desirous of attaining the object which it contemplates, that I shall forbear from pressing my objection. But I do hope that the noble Lord does not intend to place the Jew on any less favoured—I should rather say on any less just—footing than the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.

The Bill which I introduced last year, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, was a Bill which allowed the Jews to enter Parliament, which relieved them from the words which they object to in the oath, and likewise admitted them to civil offices. That Bill was rejected in the other House of Parliament. The Bill I have introduced this year is a Bill partly upon a different subject. It is a Bill applying, as its main object, to a regulation of the oaths to be taken by the Members of both Houses of Parliament. It provides for the oath to be taken by all the members of the Church, and by Protestant Dissenters, leaving the Roman Catholic oath as it stands; it likewise provides a declaration to be taken by the Quakers, and a form of oath or declaration to be taken by the Jews. I do not think in this Bill, which relates to a separate subject, that it would be possible to introduce any provision for giving the Jews civil office; but I consider that it does admit them to the highest privileges of the constitution, namely, the power of sitting in the two Houses of Parliament. And I cannot conceive, if this Bill pass, that there will be any difficulty or any objection in either House of Parliament to the carrying of a measure by which the Jews should enjoy the same privileges as the Protestant Dissenters and the Roman Catholics. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that they ought to have the same privileges; and I wished to show that opinion by the Bill which I introduced last year. I certainly do not wish to take the benefit of any hon. Member supposing that I do not intend to carry into effect the principle of that measure to its full extent, or that I do not intend to introduce, soon after this Bill shall have become law, a measure admitting the Jews to civil offices. Supposing the Bill to be carried in its present shape, the situation of the Jews, for a time, will be similar to that which, for a long period, was the situation of the Protestant Dissenters. They sat in this House, by virtue of the oaths they took, to which they had no objection; but they could not hold civil offices, except by virtue of the Act of Indemnity. If this Bill pass, therefore, the Jew will be from that time in a situation similar to that of the Protestant Dissenters. But certainly my opinion is, that there ought not to be a disqualification of any kind, and that the Jews should be admitted to all civil offices, in the same way as the Dissenters. By an Act passed during the administration of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, the Jews were already admitted to municipal offices; and a member of that persuasion has filled the office of sheriff in the city of London.

said, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had told them with truth that the Bill now introduced had two objects: the one was to amend the oaths at present taken by all persons not being Roman Catholics, on entering the House; the other object of the Bill was to admit, for the first time, Jews to hold seats in Parliament. Now it had been said, with reference to admitting Jews to Parliament, that there was a smaller degree of numerical opposition to this Bill than was offered to the Bill of last year; but this circumstance was, perhaps, owing to the present Bill not being solely confined to the admission of the Jews, but also embracing the amendment of the oaths taken by all the Members of that House except Roman Catholics; and it was pretty generally allowed by all parties in the House, that the present oaths were now in many respects obsolete, and even in some degree ridiculous, such as in seeking to bind persons taking the oaths not to support the claims of parties who no longer existed. Now, although he (Mr. Bankes) considered the part of the Bill for altering the existing oaths was not framed in the manner which he believed desirable or convenient, yet he would join in Committee in effecting their amendment; but as to that part of the Bill relating to the admission of the Jews, he would most certainly support the Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for West Surrey, viz., to exclude that portion of the measure alto- gether; because he must give his most determined opposition to admitting Jews to a seat in a Legislature where they would be allowed to pass laws for the Christian Established Church, they having not only no belief in the Christian faith, but a decided disbelief of every part of its distinctive tenets. He, however, had no objection to Jews being allowed to exercise administrative functions; and he felt surprised at what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Tamworth with respect to the Jew being disqualified from holding civil office, the more so because he found gentlemen of that persuasion holding the office of sheriff of the first county in the kingdom, and of sheriff of the first city in Europe. He (Mr. Bankes) thought that a legislative measure had been passed which enabled Jews to discharge magisterial and all other civil and municipal offices, with the exception of acting as judges of the land. He believed that such would be found to be the case, and that there was no necessity for resorting to the Bill of Indemnity. When this Bill was first introduced, it was attempted to be supported by reference to the practice of foreign countries in allowing the Jews to sit in their legislatures and hold high civil office. Now, without attributing the events that had recently taken place on the Continent, to the practice of excluding no class of religionists from their legislative assemblies, yet he must be permitted—simply as a refutation of the argument of the noble Lord, and nothing more—to refer to what had since taken place in France and at Frankfort, as proving that the safety supposed to be found in the admission of persons of all classes and opinions, was fallacious and unfounded. But with regard to the oaths taken by Catholic Members of this House, he (Mr. Bankes) would be glad to relieve them from what they called a stigma cast upon them in pledges and assurances being exacted from them which were not exacted from Protestants; but he (Mr. Bankes) was prepared to say that he would not require the Catholic to enter into any obligation that he was not equally ready to subject himself to; and surely no Catholic could reasonably feel offended at such impartial treatment as that? Surely a better title could be found for this Bill than its present one. It professed to be a Bill to alter and amend the oaths taken by Members of Parliament; but surely it would be more creditable to their legislation to make this a Bill to regulate the oaths, declarations, and affirmations to be taken by Members of both Houses of Parliament. That course would be more simple, precise, and complete, and would unite in one Bill all the different oaths applicable to this subject, instead of leaving the oaths to be gathered from the three different Acts referred to in this Bill, a course which led to considerable inconvenience and difficulty. Having made these suggestions, he would not delay the House any further from going into Committee.

wished to explain that his previous observations about the Jew had reference to all civil and military offices under the Crown, in respect to which the declaration against transubstantiation was obliged to be made. They had no reference to municipal offices, because in 1845 the Jew was relieved from the oaths and placed on the same footing as other classes of Her Majesty's subjects; but this applied to municipal offices only.

said, that there was a general wish that those who entered Parliament should be bound by one common oath, and he sincerely trusted that they might on that occasion come to such a decision as should realise that object.

said, that by the Bill of last year the same oath was to be taken by the Jews that was taken by the Roman Catholics. The oath taken by the latter contained a restriction with respect to the disturbance of property. By the present Bill, however, the case was altered, for they did not exact from the Jew the same pledge which they called on the Roman Catholic to make. He should like to know from the noble Lord what was the cause of the alteration, as he considered the pledge to be as requisite in the one case as in the other.

said, he stated the reason of the alteration when he introduced the Bill.

must enter his protest against the inference that the Roman Catholic Members were under any peculiar restrictions.

said, as to the rejection of so much of the former oath as related to the disavowal of the belief that the Pope had any spiritual jurisdiction or ecclesiastical authority in this country, that he could not consent to part with these words of the oath, as he considered them to be a security even in the case of Protestants themselves.

moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, for the omission of certain words in the clause. He could not understand why these words should be retained in the Protestant oath; for, with regard to Protestants, they appeared to he altogether superfluous. Then, with regard to the declaration, "that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within these realms as established by law;" although something might be said in its defence as respected the Roman Catholic, he did not know to what it could refer as regarded the Protestants and the Jew. Then came the declaration which was to he abolished as far as the Jews were concerned, but which was retained as regarded all others, "I declare and promise all this on the true faith of a Christian." It was said by some hon. Gentleman, that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were retained in order not to shock public feeling. He should be the last person to wish to shock public feeling when founded on just grounds; but in the present instance he thought that that House should rather lead than follow public feeling. The retention of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," as the law would stand after the passing of this Bill, appeared to him to be not only unnecessary but improper, because when there was such a variety of creeds in the House, it appeared to be a mockery to make a declaration on the faith of a creed. When hon. Gentlemen meant totally different things when they made this declaration—not only doctrinally, but when they could not even agree, in many instances, in the sense of the word "Christian"—he thought it would be more decorous to have the words expunged from the oath than to retain them. There would be something indecorous likewise in calling on the Jew to stop when he came to these words. He considered the Bill to be a clumsy contrivance, and not framed with the usual adroitness of his noble Friend, who had, however, too much to attend to to be able to devote much time to the details of such measures. With regard to the Roman Catholic Members, nothing could be more unseemly than the position in which they were put by the oath they were called on to take. The right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Mint, the hon. Member for Limerick, and the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, each following his own view of the oath, put a different construction on it. An hon. Gentleman of that House, on another occasion, taunted the Roman Catholic Members with the non-observance of their oath. Was it right that such scenes should continue in that House? It was thought that the words in the Roman Catholic oath gave some security to the Established Church. On looking over the debates in Hansard, at the time of the passing of the Emancipation Act, he did not find any one Member stating that he assented to the Bill owing to that security. He had been much pleased to hear the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth express a wish to place the Jews on an equal footing with other classes; and he must say he did not think they were so placed in this Bill. Look, again, at the position in which Catholics would stand if this oath were left to be taken by Protestants and Jews. Though the terms of the Catholic oath had now been in existence twenty years, yet no man had ever considered that it gave any of the securities it professed; and it contained some words of which even the Earl of Winchilsea, one of the most generous opponents of the Catholic Relief Bill, suggested the omission, as they related to doctrines which he believed had been held by no Catholic for very many years. If the sixth clause was altogether omitted, as proposed by the hon. Member for Dundalk, he thought that the simple oath of allegiance and of adherence to the succession of the Throne as now established, would be quite sufficient for all. As the law would stand when this Bill passed, the Protestants would have to take one oath; the Jews would have to take the same oath, with a bit out; the Roman Catholic would have to take a different oath; and the Quaker would have to make an affirmation. He thought it much better than one oath and one affirmation should be taken by all who came to be sworn at that table.

Mr. Bernal, there were at present three classes of persons who took the oaths: first, the Protestants, all of whom took the various oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. There wore, however, a class of Protestants belonging to the Society of Friends who did not take that part of the oath of abjuration which ended with the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." They declared that they made the declaration "heartily, willingly, and truly;" and this declaration had been made by two hon. Gentlemen now Members of that House. Yet they were told that the whole sanctity of the oath would be destroyed if the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were not taken by all the Members of that House. The Roman Catholics took an oath in which the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were not included; and this oath was settled by the Act of 1829, after a contest which lasted many years, and after many disputes as to whether there were any securities under which Roman Catholics could be admitted to the Legislature with a due regard to the safety and welfare of the existing institutions of the country. These three classes of oaths being thus administered, and each of these classes of persons being willing to take the several oaths and declarations he had mentioned, what he proposed was, that with regard to the Protestant Members generally there should be a more simple form of oath, because a great part of the oath now taken was evidently inappropriate to the present time, and bound Members of that House to declare that a number of persons who had no existence whatever had no right to the Crown of these realms. It was obvious that in so important a matter as that of the oaths to be taken by Members of that House, there should not be a deal of unnecessary declaration in those oaths. His right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton said, he proposed a short declaration which the Roman Catholics as well as other persons should take. Now, he did not think it would be wise to disturb a settlement which had been made after so many conflicts and so much consideration, and which, as he had understood, the Roman Catholics had supported as a full and complete admission of their claim to sit in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman thought that the declaration which he (Lord J. Russell) proposed was clumsily drawn. Now, he had suggested the oath in question as being word for word, with the exception of the last two words, according to the form recommended by the commissioners appointed to consider the subject, and who recom- mended that this oath should be administered to all Roman Catholics appointed to offices under the State, although they did not make any suggestion with regard to Members of Parliament. That commission included Sir E. Ryan, Mr. Starkie, and other persons of considerable authority and great learning; and they made their report, in May, 1845, to Lord Lyndhurst, as Lord Chancellor, after considering the whole subject of this declaration. With regard to Jews, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that he should consider it an insult, if he were a Jew, that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be left out of the oath. He did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should so consider the omission of these words. They were not contained in the oath taken by Roman Catholics, or in the declaration made by Quakers; and why, therefore, his right hon. Friend would consider it an insult that they should be omitted from the oath taken by Jews, he could not conceive. He had put them in the proposed declaration to be made by this Bill, because, as his right hon. Friend admitted, it was likely to be considered offensive that the words now contained in the oath of abjuration should be omitted, and the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be maintained in the declaration. The right hon. Gentleman wished to substitute one oath for all denominations, and instead of having four oaths to have two. Now it did not seem that they could very well accomplish that object. He admitted that it was desirable, but he did not think they could take the oath of Roman Catholic Members without encountering many objections from the Protestant Dissenters, who would object to take that oath; and if they took the shorter form of that oath, and substituted it for the Roman Catholic oath, as settled in 1829, they would be taking away the foundation of that settlement, to which many Members would also object. The practical object was to place all classes of Her Majesty's subjects upon such terms that they should all be willing to take the oaths prescribed for them; and that was more important than framing in exact and simple terms a form of oath which so many persons would object to that it would not be possible to carry it.

considered it would certainly be unadvisable to do anything which, by altering the oath taken by Catholics, should have a tendency to disturb the settlement of 1829. He had listened to the observations of the noble Lord to see if he could answer the question which he had put to him before the Speaker left the chair. He took the liberty to ask why, if he thought the clause to which he referred was necessary in 1848, he did not think it was necessary in 1849; and the noble Lord said he did not think them to be necessary, because certain learned commissioners approved of the oath introduced in the Bill: but he (Mr. Goulburn) wanted to know why, within the last year, the noble Lord had proposed an oath different from that approved of in 1845. After the statement of the noble Lord, he was as ignorant why he had changed his mind as he was before that statement was made. The noble Lord had said that a portion of the oaths taken was inapplicable to the present times, and that it was wrong to call on people to swear to what was not absolutely necessary. But if it was a sacred duty not to swear to that which was not applicable to the immediate age in which they lived, why did the noble Lord retain the oath of abjuration with regard to office when he did not retain it with regard to Membership of that House?

said, he found a new term introduced in the Catholic oath, to this effect:—

"I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm as established by the laws:"—

now, if he were called on to take this oath, he should like to know what it was that he really had to swear. He could attach no definite meaning to these words. For the sake of argument, he was a younger brother—and he might be opposed to the law of primogeniture.

believed the words were originally introduced with a view to security with' respect to the Roman Catholics in Ireland, but not in reference to seats in Parliament, but with regard to certain places which they were allowed to hold in Ireland, it having been a general and current accusation against them that they wished to disturb the settlement of property, not only church property, but lay property, for the purpose of restoring it to those who held that property before the settlement was made by law. When the Roman Catholic Bill was introduced into the House, it was thought desirable to take the words of the former oath. It was also thought that it would not be desirable to have a different oath for Irish and English Members, as there could be no religious scruple on the part of any person in saying he would not interfere with the settlement of any property as settled by law.

was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that: it was according to his interpretation of the Catholic oath. He found in the Catholic oath the following words: "I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within the realm as established by the laws;" and after that he found, "I solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law." What was the difference between" established by law, "and "settled by law?" He did not propose to subvert church property, but merely on the grounds of national justice, and because he was not an advocate for violent changes in the institutions of the country of any kind; and when people of a particular sect had the faith of the nation so long pledged to them, and got accustomed to a certain system, he would not advocate the violent abrogation of it; but there was nothing, he conceived, to prevent him from taking part in making any fresh settlement that might be expedient.

observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick seemed to him to confound two matters which in their own nature were perfectly distinct. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he might vote for the confiscation of any property in the country. But, even though he possessed the power so to vote, no one would say that he had any right to exercise that power; nor did the hon. and learned Member say so himself. On the contrary, he considered that the Roman Catholic Members of that House were bound to leave the succession to property as they found it. They had no right whatever to take a single farthing of property belonging to the Church, without making ample compensation for any loss which such appropriation might occasion. If the commissioners were to preclude the House by that portion of the report to which reference had been made, he considered that if they did so it must have the effect of forcing the House to adopt the whole of the report. It appeared to him that they ought to avail themselves of the present opportunity to revise all the oaths which Members of Parliament were called upon to take; and in the use of that opportunity he saw no reason why they should keep within the strict terms of the report of the commissioners. It need scarcely he observed, that any one who read the Roman Catholic oath must at once see that it was full of anomalies. The oath was, in fact, to this effect, that they held it would be unlawful for them to depose any sovereign who had been excommunicated by the See of Rome. Then, though Roman Catholics might have the best possible reasons for opposing a sovereign, the moment it became his fortune to be excommunicated, that instant the hostility of the Roman Catholic must cease. Next came mental reservation. Surely, if the Roman Catholics were capable of practising one degree of mental reservation, they must be capable of that still larger reservation against which no form of words in an oath could possibly provide. He repeated that he considered the Roman Catholic oath, as it stood at present, precluded him from voting away the property of the Established Church; he hoped that Protestant Members would reconsider the question, with the view of making some concessions, and he begged to remind them that if this opportunity were lost it would be difficult to find another.

said, that the speeches which had been delivered upon this subject were a striking illustration of the vanity of attempting to guide the conduct of men by oaths. The interpretations put upon the oath by the two hon. Members who spoke last, were exactly opposed to each other. If the hon. and learned Member for Limerick were correct, he would ask hon. Members opposite what it was that they contended so earnestly for? And what security had the present state of the Church Establishment in the words they were so anxious to preserve in the oaths taken by Roman Catholic Members of Parliament? If that interpretation were correct, they had no security whatever that the hon. and learned Member would not go the length of moving the abolition of that Church as a political establishment. If the hon. and learned Member for Youghal were correct in his interpretation, his constituents had a right to complain that their representative was debarred from touching a large and important subject, in which they, in common with the remainder of their fellow-subjects, were deeply interested. The hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents might say, "We sent you to Parliament to legislate on whatever concerns our well-being: we pay to the Church of England whether we belong to its communion or not; it is in possession of large endowments, given for the spiritual culture of the entire population, and we have a right, at least, to look after the proper disposal of those endowments." The question of Church property was continually touched on one way or the other, and the constituents of the hon. and learned Member had a right to complain if his lips were to be closed upon that question. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in explanation, had rightly said that a portion of the oath which related to the settlement of property was a portion of the oath which might be conscientiously taken by all. He (Mr. Fox) apprehended it might be taken by everybody; but what did it amount to when taken? The arguments advanced showed that it was worth as much as that portion of the oath which related to any arrangement of ecclesiastical property. It was the general feeling of this country to respect property. Communism itself scarcely denied the rights of property; and when the noble Lord referred to an oath deemed indispensable fifty years ago—because at that time some Irishmen claimed property possessed by their ancestors 100 years before that—he could not have given a juster or more forcible reason why the words should not now be dispensed with. But the question was not whether any portions of the oath might be left out, but whether they would be responded to by any feelings in the breasts of those who took the oaths, so as, in short, to be a moral and mental obligation. If the words were simply superfluous, as, for instance, he took those to be which referred to the authority of the Pope, he must ask whether it would promote the respect with which the proceedings of that House were received in the country, whether it accorded with the sanctity of religion, that unmeaning and superfluous words should be introduced into this oath, simply because they might be conscientiously taken? An oath should be something more than a mere acquiescence in terms; every word in it should speak to the reason, to the heart, to the conscience. A compact of twenty years' standing was pleaded by the noble Lord as a reason why the terms of the Roman Catholic oath should not be changed; but what party contract ought to be allowed to bind the free course of legislation in this country? Since that time parties had changed—new leaders had arisen, and old leaders had changed. If the hearty concurrence of the mind were wanting, no good could result from the imposition of an oath, but it was certain that evil would result. Supposing both sides to be honest in its interpretation, as he believed they were, it would expose Members of the House to reproaches and taunts from others, painful for them to endure, and painful to others to be auditors of. The prevention of such scenes would be alone a sufficient reason for the forms of the House being changed. "The true faith of a Christian." What was that? Each individual in his own conscience must answer the question. They could not impose a creed by those words upon the conscience of another. It included all varieties of Christians, from those who believed the most, to those who believed the least. But by those words hon. Members were anxious to exclude the Jews, and yet they admitted those who had more affinity with the Jew in his notions of the Deity than with the Christian. He doubted, however, whether the words had any reference to doctrine or creed at all. The noble Lord had stated that the words were introduced because oaths were at that time taken with mental reservation, and the words on "the true faith of a Christian" were added to show that there was no such reservation. "True faith" and "false faith" were then terms of common parlance, and might be found in all the writings of the day. Shakspeare, in Richard the Third, speaks of "false faith," and Bolingbroke, in another play, asserts his "true faith." "The true faith of a Christian" was the phrase then continually in the mouths of knights, nobles, and commoners; it meant no creed or doctrine, but was an asseveration of sincerity and fidelity, of truth and honour, and that there was no mental reservation or equivocation. In this way the conscientious Jew might, although not in the same words, take the oath with a faith as true as that of a Christian. For these reasons he would vote for the Amendment.

remarked that when the hon. Member who had just sat down asserted that his constituents would have reason to complain, he would have acted more discreetly had he first inquired whether his constituents and himself had any understanding upon the matter. It did so happen that he (Mr. Anstey) had taken the earliest opportunity of making a declaration that he would never give a vote which would lead to the spoliation or the confiscation of the property of the Church Establishment to the value of a single farthing. He was happy to say that he had not lost one Roman Catholic vote by that honest declaration.

desired to explain his position with regard to the measure, because he sat in that House as one of perhaps a small number who believed that the taking oaths at all was not effectual for any good or useful purpose, and was opposed, as he undoubtedly considered it to be, to the precepts of that very religion which was brought before the notice of the Gentlemen when they took their seats in that House. But he voted for the Bill on this simple ground. It did not increase the number of oaths to be taken; it did not adopt the principle of oaths where the principle did not previously operate; and it would open the door to a class of our fellow-countrymen for whom he felt great sympathy, and whose full liberty he hoped to see established as completely as the liberty of the sect to which he himself belonged, and of every other sect existing in this country. There had recently been an occasion in the House on which he thought the state of this question was shown to be absurd and ridiculous. On that occasion, not long ago, three Members of the House stood at the table on the same evening and at the same time to make the declaration or to take the oaths required of them prior to taking their seats. One of these Gentlemen was the noble Lord the Member for Horsham, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, the other two being Members for Leicester, one of whom belonged to the sect of which he (Mr. Bright) was a member. The noble Lord took the Roman Catholic oath; the one Member for Leicester took what might be specially called the Protestant oath, the other Member for Leicester took the declaration appointed for members of the Society of Friends. He could not exactly say, at the moment, how much this last differed from the oath, but it was not an oath at all. It appeared to him at the time, that, had a stranger watched the course taken by these three Members on the occasion, he would have come to a conclusion entirely different from that which the actual state of things in this country justified. He would have supposed that a great and bitter antagonism prevailed among the various classes of the community, and that three of those classes, represented by the three Members, were, by reason of this bitterness and hostility, called upon to take oaths, the one as against the other, in order that they might be hound not to destroy certain institutions which the great body of the House, and of the country, thought worth preserving. He thought the House would do wisely to agree to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Northampton, on this ground, that it would simplify this question of oaths extremely, and place all the Members of the House on the same footing, at least, as to taking any oath at all; and he was prepared to maintain that every man who, under our constitution, was elected a Member of that House, had a fair right, on all the principles of that constitution, to enter that House on the same terms and with the same powers as other Members, and was to be considered fully entitled to exercise his judgment upon, and to vote upon, any and all subjects that came before him. The other day, when the Bill of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the Clergy Relief Bill, was under discussion, a Motion was made in Committee that a clergyman should be allowed to secede from the ministry of the Church of England without declaring himself a Dissenter; that, in fact, he might become a layman of the Church. When the House divided on that question, several Gentlemen, Roman Catholic Members, felt themselves unable to vote on the question, and walked out of the House in a humiliating position—not so much humiliating to them, for, on the contrary, they were acting as conscientious men—but humiliating to the character of the House, inasmuch as some of the best, most intelligent, and certainly most conscientious Members of that House, were, by the operation of this absurd distinction, compelled to walk out and take no part in a division upon a matter most important to the community. The House must see the absurdity of a system which, time after time, in every Session, whenever any question affecting the management or funds of the Church arose, prevented forty or fifty or sixty of the representatives of the people from giving their votes upon subjects so closely connected with the interests of the people. No man could pretend that civil or religious equality in that House was complete so long as this system prevailed. He had already observed that in his opinion oaths were not necessary or effectual for any good purpose. A Committee of the Lords, some time ago, sat for two Sessions upon the subject of oaths, and, in accordance with their reports, many oaths were abolished in several departments of the public service, especially in the customs. Did any man believe that any evil had arisen in any department from the abolition of the hundreds of thousands, the millions of oaths, which would otherwise have been taken from that time to this? What was the use of the oaths taken at the table of the House? In France, the National Assembly, had abolished political oaths, because the Assembly considered that, from 1790 up to 1848, a great number of oaths had been taken, and taken honestly, under one order of things, which were no longer at all events necessary or practicable under a new order things. There was not a single proposition in any one of these oaths, not even in the oath in question, which might not, under certain circumstances, be broken—he did not say criminally, but from the inevitable nature of the case. There was always a mental reservation in taking an oath or making a declaration like this—a mental reservation not actually felt, but arising from the necessities of the case. He could describe a state of things in which every hon. Member of that House would in a manner act directly opposite to the terms of the oath he was required to take. For himself, as a Member of the House who had been permitted to come to the table without taking an oath, upon a declaration to which he should adhere as firmly as though it were an oath, he was bound to say he should be exceedingly glad if every other Member of the House were in like manner dispensed from the necessity of taking an oath. He believed that the public respect for truth would be greatly increased were oaths abolished altogether, and men taught that the pledge of their word and their honour laid an obligation upon them the most impressive that could be imposed. He should vote for the Bill as far as it went, because it admitted the Jews to Parliament, and he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, because it simplified the question, and would relieve the Roman Catholic Members from the unjust and unpleasant position in which they now stood in relation to oaths.

could not say that the explanation given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, was at all satisfactory. The noble Lord in his explanation referred to the re- port of a commission; but that report only recommended modifications in the oaths of parties not Members of Parliament. Now, in his opinion, there was a great distinction to be drawn between parties who had to obey the law, and those who had to make the law. He hoped the noble Lord, or the hon. and learned Solicitor General, would further explain the meaning of the words which had been objected to in the oath.

said, that his interpretation of the clause relative to the non-disturbance of property was this. The expression was originally put into the Roman Catholic oath, because it was known that church property originally belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and it was the opinion of the members of that Church that they were still entitled to it; and it was thought necessary to raise a shield, so that members of that religion should not take advantage of having seats in that House to get the property of the Church restored to the Roman Catholics after the lapse of so many years. He did not believe that any hon. Member would feel himself bound not to vote on an Act of Parliament, relative to the settlement of property, which might come before them in the ordinary course of business. If the clause were to be so interpreted, it would fetter the House so as to prevent a large number of Members voting on every Act which came before them on questions relative to real property. He believed that that portion of the oath might be unnecessary.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking of the Catholic oath, while his question referred to the Protestant oath.

said, that the clause was originally found in the Roman Catholic oath, and he was giving the reason why it was so introduced. When it was proposed by the commissioners that there should be a general oath for all persons, it was proposed to put all matter that was not objected to on religious grounds, and which had been established by length of time, into one general oath; and they did not introduce the words which applied to Roman Catholics more than any other. If they made a general oath, it appeared desirable that it should not merely apply to one particular denomination, but that it should be of such a nature that those who might feel induced, if they were not restrained by an oath to undermine or alter the settlement of the Church, would be bound to respect it. The words first appeared in the oath to be taken by Roman Catholics; but he did not know that the words were of any great importance, as he did not believe that even the Roman Catholics wished to interfere with the settlement of the Church property. All oaths he considered to be difficult of explanation, as it was manifest that, among the various denominations of Christians, some would be bound by particular words which would not be binding on others. For these reasons the words had been introduced into the oath to make it as binding as possible, though, as he had stated, it originally appeared in the Roman Catholic oath.

Sir, I do not think the explanation which has just been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman quite satisfactory. He endeavours to explain a general question by a particular application; and such explanation, I think, will not be quite satisfactory to the Committee. I apprehend—I speak under correction—that the first time the settlement of property was referred to in an oath, was in the first declaration made by the Prince of Orange, and that there could be then no doubt to what it referred. It included Woburn Abbey; and though the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown is, like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, a younger son, I believe that is a settlement which even the noble Lord would not wish to disturb. I agree with the right hon. Member for the university of Cambridge, that it is not only unadvisable, but that it is impolitic and unnecessary, to destroy the old form of the oaths. But when we are called upon to consider a new oath, it is our duty severely to examine and analyse it. For myself, I have no doubt that the clause was originally intended to prevent the Roman Catholic party interfering with the settlement of the church property. It is easily understood, and why it was introduced. I now come to the present oath; and I cannot understand why the expression is introduced. If it is only intended for the Roman Catholics, nothing can be more preposterous than its introduction. The Government have framed an oath which the Members of the Government themselves cannot define. The idea of an oath which is to be restrictive only on one class of persons taking it, is preposterous. We see here that the Government have brought forward a new oath, and introduced a phrase which they cannot define, and which phrase, there appears to be no doubt, only applies to an undivided and very limited class of persons. I consider that the Government have not daily considered the oath; and I trust they will pardon me if I advise them to take a little time for reflection, before pressing it on the Committee for adoption.

trusted that the Government would not press the clause as it stood. They ought to remember who they were calling to witness when taking an oath, and use as few words as possible. However applicable the words might be in a Roman Catholic oath, could any one believe that Protestants thought "that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign Prince, Prelate, State," &c, had any power in this kingdom, especially when only three lines before they had sworn allegiance to the Sovereign of the realm? The settlement of property had been explained to allude to the settlement of the tithe question, and also to have a bearing on the forfeited estates in Ireland. Could any one believe that Protestants wished to alter those laws; and if they did so, were they not entitled to bring them forward in that House? He begged to tell the noble Lord that they ought to be left free and unshackled in the performance of their duty. Could they forget that the head of the Legislature—George III.—had considered himself restricted by the oaths he had taken at his coronation to giving his consent to the admission of Roman Catholics to the Legislature? The head of the Legislature to whom he had alluded might have acted under a mistaken notion; but it was well known that that was the interpretation he put upon his oath. There could be no doubt that the words "true faith" had been meant to refer to those belonging to the Church, and the words were originally directed against those opposed to the Church, and who were supposed to act under peculiar errors. If that was the meaning of "true faith," why should an oath containing these words be imposed on parties who never held, and who were never suspected to have held, any doctrines adverse to the Church—especially as all parties who were sworn on the New Testament must swear on the faith of a Christian, if they believed in it at all. This oath was evidently not intended to apply to Jews, because there was another clause especially for their benefit. If these words were intended as a test, he should object to them, as he was sure the abolition of tests was one of those points which, sooner or later, would be established; and that House had already sanctioned the principle that they would not require tests by the large majority by which they had approved of that Bill. They wished to have the Legislature exclusively Christian; but the nation was not exclusively Christian, and surely the admission of two or three Jews could no more unchristianise the House of Commons, than 42,000 Jews could unchristianise the nation.

Sir, objections have been made to almost all the parts of this oath. Some hon. Gentlemen who have objected to this oath might as well have objected to any oath at all, for they said it was not necessary to make an oath in respect to matters upon which persons were generally agreed; and certainly no Member of this House would object to take the oath of allegiance. But with respect to the words which my right hon. Friend proposes to omit, I must say that I took the whole words of the oath from the report of the commissioners; thinking it was better to use their language than to propose words of my own. I must admit, however, after the objections which have been made, that I do not think the words with regard to the "Pope of Rome," and the "settlement of property," are necessary. But I am asked whether I would not leave out those words besides, "And I do make this recognition, declaration, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian." Now, it does not appear to me that those words ought to he omitted. I know it was stated by hon. Gentlemen, that it is almost a mockery to use these words, because the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," are differently understood by different sects of Christians. It appears to me that the only value of these words is the value originally attached to them—namely, as a sanction and imparting a certain solemnity to the other words of the oath. I imagine that this is the purpose for which those words were originally introduced, and I see no objection to retain them for that purpose. That form of swearing upon the New Testament, "and upon the holy contents of this book," might be said not to be a good form of oath, because many persons might not agree in their interpretation of the different texts of Scripture—there might be different opinions upon different texts, and, therefore, it might not be proper to swear all upon the same Testa- ment. I see no reason for omitting those words. Many think their omission would diminish the sanction of an oath; and upon the whole, I think it would not he fitting in me to assent to their omission. I shall be however satisfied, if such he the wish of the Committee, to leave out the words—"And I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this realm."

said, that he could assure the House he would not long trespass on its attention. He thought there were three great objects attained by the present oaths, which ought not to be given up or lost sight of. In the first place, they imposed a religious obligation for the proper performance and discharge of our duties; secondly, they tended to explain and inform us, as clearly as possible, what is meant by allegiance; and, thirdly, they gave, and were meant to give, some satisfaction or guarantee to the people of this country—that is to say, to the Protestant feeling of this country—that the Protestant Church and Protestant Establishment should not be interfered with. With regard to the first, he believed that the country were still prepared to continue to maintain that religious obligation; and as, in point of fact, they did retain it in all their courts of justice, he thought that the country would not desire to give it up when it was applied to the highest of all our courts—the high court of Parliament. With regard to the second, he wished to remind the House that the three oaths which were now taken by Members were the oath of allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of abjuration. If he understood the meaning of these three oaths, it was this: the oath of allegiance confesses the allegiance which we owe by birth, and bind ourselves to pay, to the Sovereign of the country for the time being; the oath of supremacy shows that this allegiance is an undivided allegiance; and the oath of abjuration continues allegiance to the heirs of the Sovereign, according to the Act of Settlement. Now, anybody who considered the nature and object of these three oaths would clearly see that the principle embodied in them was, first, allegiance; secondly, undivided allegiance; and, thirdly, a continuation of that allegiance according to the Act of Settlement. Therefore, he would vote for retaining the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton proposed to omit. These words he thought necessary, so as to satisfy the Protestant mind and feeling of this country. However, he would suggest that the words "temporal and civil" should be omitted from the proposed oath; for now the oath contained the words "ecclesiastical or spiritual," without the words "temporal and civil;" and leaving out the words "ecclesiastical or spiritual," and putting in the words "temporal and civil," it might appear, byway of inference, that they were going to recognise no ecclesiastical jurisdiction other than that already recognised. One word in reply to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, for the omission of the words "on the faith of a Christian." The hon. and learned Member said that the admission of two or three Jews here would not make this House less Christian. He should, however, recollect that one of the great arguments with which we were pressed was this, that the Parliament was originally a Protestant Parliament, and that by the admission of Roman Catholics it could not be considered such any longer. By parity of reason, therefore, if they admitted a few Jews into it, they might make it no longer a Christian Parliament. In conclusion, he observed that if the oath was altered in the way he proposed, it would still give satisfaction to the Protestant mind and feeling of this country, while it would materially improve it by abbreviating and simplifying it; but he must also add that, in his opinion, it was only right, before the Members of this House took their seats, that they should give a guarantee to the Protestant people of this country, not merely of allegiance, but of undivided allegiance to the reigning Sovereign, remembering always, in the language of Lord Bacon, that no one should become "a competitor and co-rival with the Queen for the hearts and obediences of the Queen's subjects."

was glad the noble Lord had consented to omit the words "and that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm," and to relieve Protestants from the obligation which the oath would otherwise impose upon them. He had heard various accounts of the origin of the introduction of these words, but without being satisfied that they were correct. The words were originally inserted in the Roman Catholic oath at an early period in the relaxation of Roman Catholic disabilities, for the purpose of meeting objections made to the Roman Catholic that he was not disposed to acquiesce in the settlement of property in Ireland. Those words, "the settlement of property," had a special meaning. They had reference to a declaration made by Charles II. in 1660, shortly after his restoration, in which he made a settlement of the forfeited estates—adjusted various conflicting claims to landed property in Ireland, and he gave back to the Protestant Church the properties in the possession of which that Church had been disturbed during the rebellion of 1641, and the troubled times that followed. In 1662 the Parliament of Ireland confirmed the declaration made by Charles II. in 1660, by an Act which was called the Act of Settlement. That Act of Settlement constituted his title to large masses of Irish property. The Roman Catholic, on being relieved from certain civil disabilities, was required to give an assurance that he would acquiesce in the settlement of property, as made in 1662, and not attempt to disturb it. When, therefore, the Roman Catholic oath was inserted in the Act of 1829, the words relating to the settlement of property were continued from the Acts of 1793 and 1795; and the Roman Catholic repeated the assurance that he would acquiesce in the settlement of property which had taken place after the restoration of Charles II. Such was the immediate cause of the introduction into the oath of the words "the settlement of property." He thought the noble Lord had acted wisely in not disturbing the Roman Catholic oath in the Act of 1829. The House might effect one or other of two objects. They might possibly devise some better or more philosophical oath than they had at present; or, retaining the existing oath, they might relieve their Jewish fellow-subjects from their disabilities. Now, he advised the House not to lose sight of the latter object, and not, by attempting to make an unexceptionable oath, to raise up additional impediments to the accomplishment of that object. Let the House remember the efforts made last year, which then failed. If the noble Lord introduced a new form of oath to be taken by Protestants, it would no doubt become the House to examine it, and to remove any objections to which it might be fairly liable. To require an English Protestant to declare that he would maintain the settlement of property was quite unnecessary. The noble Lord had referred to the report of the commissioners. But the oath they proposed was a common oath, to be taken both by the Roman Catholic and the Protestant; and they were unwilling to relieve the Roman Catholic from the obligation to declare that he would not disturb the settlement of property in Ireland. If there were to be a separate oath for the Protestant, it was needless to require from him any such assurance. He was inclined to think the noble Lord judged wisely in consenting to omit the words relating to the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. It certainly seemed superfluous to require from a Protestant or a Jew, or a Protestant Dissenter, any denial of such jurisdiction. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst, who never made a suggestion which was not worth consideration, proposed that the noble Lord should omit the words "spiritual and ecclesiastical." But even if they omitted these words, the objection which the Earl of Clancarty and others maintained, would still continue to be urged. If, then, there was to be any alteration in the oath for those who were not Roman Catholics, it was better to omit, as the noble Lord proposed, any reference to the jurisdiction of the Pope, than attempt to qualify that jurisdiction: the more simple the form of oath the better. His earnest desire was to concur in the main object of capacitating the Jews to participate in all those privileges which the other subjects of Her Majesty enjoyed; and his advice to the supporters of the measure was, not to enter into a nice disquisition on the subject of oaths, but to bear in mind the object of the Bill, which was to put a loyal and estimable class of Her Majesty's subjects upon the footing of political equality with the other subjects of Her Majesty.

considered the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst of great importance. The hon. and learned Member proposed words which seemed to him (Mr. Stuart) to be of great importance, as they would exclude the advice or interference of any foreign Power to induce the subjects of this realm to disobey the civil power in any matter whatever. He thought that was the most rational view to take, because there were many cases where a man might doubt whether it came under the head of the temporal or spiritual power. How would the question stand, as he had already said, with regard to education? and he could mention ten other matters which would present equal difficulty. He wished to ask, moreover, whether the oath was to remain as it stood in the printed copy of the Bill, or whether it was to be amended in the manner which the noble Lord had expressed his willingness to-night to agree to? for this alteration had come upon them quite suddenly. He would ask the Solicitor General how they would stand with respect to common law, which excluded the power of the Pope, as well spiritual and ecclesiastical as temporal and spiritual? Even when the Church of England adhered to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, she defied the power of the Pope as much as she ought to do now. He wanted to know whether they were still to consider that as the common law of England or not, because, for his own part, he professed himself utterly unable to understand the opinions either of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, or of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.

, in explanation, said, the hon. and learned Gentleman completely mistook the view he (Sir R. Peel) took of the subject. He did not like the insertion of the words "temporal or civil," as proposed by the noble Lord. He had taken the oath, and with a safe conscience, that neither the Pope of Rome, nor any other foreign Power, prince, state, or potentate, had any power whatever, whether ecclesiastical or civil, temporal or civil, within these realms. If he were now to insert the words "temporal and civil," he would give rise to the presumption that he recognised the existence, on the part of the Pope of Rome, of a spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Therefore he said, he would rather that the words calling upon them to disclaim the temporal and civil jurisdiction of the Pope were omitted altogether, lest it should by his silence appear as if he recognised the other kind of authority. He could, with a safe conscience, take the oath which excluded the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Pope, in the same manner as many Roman Catholics did immediately after the Reformation; that was to say, he denied that the Pope had any spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of a co-active nature. He denied that he had any jurisdiction which a court of law in this country would enforce; but he did not deny that, if there were any persons in this country who did defer to the authority of the Pope, they were in conscience bound by his decisions, and would recognise his authority. He conceived that the Pope's authority was of the same nature with the meeting of a Dissenting body in the United States, or of the Wesleyan Methodists; those who deferred to the authority of that body would be bound in conscience by its decisions, but that external authority would have no power to enforce its decisions upon any one within this realm. He would, therefore, much rather leave the oath in the simple form, which was sufficient for every conscientious man, for it appeared to him to include everything—"I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, her Crown and dignity."

said, that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark had appealed to him to state his opinion in respect to this matter, he would give it to him in a few words. He had always taken the oath, understanding by it that the Pope had no authority or jurisdiction which could be enforced by any court or tribunal in this kingdom. This was his interpretation of the oath. But many persons—among others, two Peers of the realm, the Earl of Clancarty had Lord Grantley—were of a different opinion. They held that spiritual jurisdiction or authority meant such as was known to be exercised over persons in this country, and more particularly in Ireland. He (Lord J. Russell) did not agree with that interpretation; but he thought, when they were altering the oaths to relieve other parties, it would be fitting at the same time to make such an alteration as would enable those noble Lords to take their seats in the House of Lords. He wrote to Lord Clancarty, who had put his opinions in print, to ask him if he had any objections to the words of the Roman Catholic oath; and he replied that he would have no objection to take that oath. His object, therefore, was to take away words which were misunderstood by persons entitled to take their seats in Parliament. But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark said, if these words were omitted, what would become of the common law? Now, he could not see that their omitting to take an oath would affect the common law one way or the other. The common law maintained its force with respect to many subjects on which it was not thought necessary by the Legislature to impose any oath whatever, either upon Members of Parliament or others. The supremacy of the Pope not being allowed by the common law of the kingdom, he imagined that it would remain the same whether an oath was taken on the subject or not.

would respectfully remind the Committee that they were not framing a new oath, but altering an old one, and that they were altering it, not for the realm at large, but for themselves, so that whatever they omitted now they would, in the judgment of their fellow-citizens, be held to have abandoned. But he must also add, that they were altering only for themselves—they were not altering for their fellow-subjects. The First Minister of the Crown could not take his place at the Council board without taking the very oath which here he proposed to nullify, or to reduce almost to nothing in the case of a Member who took his scat in that House. He objected also to the sudden manner in which, since the debate had commenced, the Government had proposed to relinquish certain clauses in that oath. He could not think this was a fair specimen of the way in which legislation ought to be conducted; and he trusted that the House, if it did not reinsert all the words of the old oath, would at least not agree to the form of oath which the noble Lord proposed to substitute for it.

suggested that all the difficulties would be obviated by leaving out the word "hath" in the declaration that no foreign prince "hath" or ought to have jurisdiction in the country. The form would then run, that "no foreign prince ought to have jurisdiction."

denied that he had said this proposed form was a clumsy contrivance of the noble Lord's. He certainly said it was a clumsy contrivance, not conceived with the noble Lord's usual adroitness; and the noble Lord had since proved the accuracy of his opinion, by stating that the clumsy contrivance was not his, but taken from the blue book of the Commissioners on Criminal Law. With regard to what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, if he thought his Amendment would endanger the success of the Bill elsewhere, he certainly would not press it; but he could not think that would be the case, and he was deeply impressed with the impropriety of the words used, as he thought it would be much bettor if one simple form of oath were substituted, which could be taken by every Member. As for the Amendment which he had proposed to the existing Bill, he found that the noble Lord agreed with him in part, and he would leave the rest of it to the sense of the House, that hon. Gentlemen might deal with it according to their opinion.

thought it was hardly consistent with the importance of the subject to press it upon the House in this fragmentary form, as it was scarcely possible to understand the question.

wished to know distinctly what question was before the House, and how the Chairman was to put an Amendment which, abandoned by the Mover, had passed into the hands of the Government?

then read the clause of the oath beginning "and that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome," &c. "hath or ought to have any civil jurisdiction," &c, and said, the question he should put to the House was, that the words "and that I do not believe that" stand part of the Bill, as this way of putting it would allow Members cither to negative these, and with them the subsequent words of the clause; or, retaining these, to move what amendment they should think proper on the rest of the clause.

said, there were really two questions before the House; one part of the clause referred to the jurisdiction of the Pope, and the other to the settlement of property.

said, it was obvious, if the words to be put by Mr. Bernal to the House should be negatived, the rest of the clause would be lost; and if not, there was still opportunity for amendments.

moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said, he thought he had never heard a question better debated. Speeches had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, the right hon. Member for Tamworth, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and the hon. and learned Member for Newark, quite exhausting the subject, and therefore he submitted that there was no reason, after all this discussion, for the hon. Member for Warwickshire interrupting the Committee for some observations that he might wish to make.

said, that it was not because the House had manifested its unwillingness to hear any observations on this question that he had moved that the Chairman report progress, but because he really did not understand the question which had been put from the chair. The noble Lord himself had been distinctly asked what was the question really before the House, and he could not answer the question.

The reason why I proposed to put the question upon the first words only was, to afford any hon. Member, as I have before said, an opportunity of proposing any amendment as I proceeded to put it; because, if the question were put upon the omission of the whole of the words, no amendment could be proposed.

thought his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire had acted very properly in moving that the Chairman report progress. The House had been completely taken by surprise by the course just adopted by the Government. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, had first spoken against, and now declared that they were prepared to vote for, the Amendment. This was too important a question to be disposed of hastily. He thought that the noble Lord would not be doing justice to himself or to the House, if he would not consent to the Chairman reporting progress, and asking leave to sit again. Let the noble Lord state what course he meant to adopt, so that they might know distinctly what they were about. He would suggest the propriety of printing the oath in the form in which it was proposed, before proceeding further, because it was hardly possible to decide upon it in its present state.

could not understand how the House had been taken by surprise on this matter. When the case was looked into, he must say that it was very difficult to find any arguments by which to defend the retention of the words in the oaths to be taken exclusively by Protestants, which words were intended to be taken as a security against Roman Catholics. The way in which the Chairman had put the question was very clear. If there were any hon. Gentlemen who thought that the oath, in the form in which it was now inserted in the Bill, ought to be retained, they, of course, would vote against the exclusion of these words, "And that I do not believe," &c. If they did not think it necessary to impose on Protestants any declaration about the Pope of Rome having temporal or civil jurisdiction in this realm, he presumed they would vote for the omission of the words in question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, when he said that the House had been taken by surprise, only meant to say that the House was surprised that the Government should have brought forward a form of oath which the Secretary of State had just informed the House no human being, in his opinion, could defend; and after having discussed the question, as I think, on the whole with very good temper, and twelve o'clock having arrived, I did not think that it was an unreasonable act on the part of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, to suggest that the noble Lord should print the form of the oath which he recommended to the House. I am very anxious to see no obstruction offered to the passage of this Bill, being a warm supporter of it—being as warm and perhaps a more fervent supporter than many hon. Gentlemen in this House—having laboured for the cause before they dreamt of it, and having supported it, not for those merely political reasons which some hon. Gentlemen do in this House; but really after the critical observations which have been made upon the Bill as brought before the House, to all of which Her Majesty's Government have assented, I cannot conceive that Her Majesty's Government should impute any desire to make a factious obstruction to the Bill, because my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire has, at this hour of the night, moved this Amendment, with a view to obtain further time for consideration on the proposed alterations. I am sure that my hon. Friend, and every one present must be anxious to proceed with the business, if the Government would only supply the House with accurate information as to their real intentions. I think the Government are not entitled to call upon the House at once to assent to a new form of oath on so important a subject, when they themselves are not prepared precisely to recommend any definitive course. I hope the Government will really consider these things in a better temper.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not prepared to come to any definitive conclusion upon the subject. Now, I have said, I believe, three times, and this will be the fourth, that after the discussion which has taken place, I am quite right in omitting the words with respect to the Pope of Rome, and the words with respect to the settlement of property within the realm. I think it is unnecessary to retain them in the oath; and I cannot conceive how anybody can say that there should be a discussion for several hours in this House upon the question, and still that no understanding has been come to as to its meaning.

desired to know what was the meaning of the words "settlement of property" in the oath? Could a Catholic, under the noble Lord's Bill for the sale of estates in Ireland, purchase lands now settled in the possession of Protestants?

thought the construction of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would probably mislead many hon. Members. They should take the oath word by word. If they objected to a word, conceiving what it led to, they would vote against it; if looking at the word, and knowing to what it led, they would vote for it. If he said "No" to the word, let them say "Aye."

expressed a hope that the Chairman would be allowed to report progress, as it was impossible they could settle the question satisfactorily that night. The result of a division now would merely be to leave these words of the oath standing, "I do not believe."

rose and said, he did not wish to utter a word against the understanding of the Chairman, who had certainly put the question in a very intelligible way; but the only question for the House to consider was, whether a Bill of such importance, involving an alteration of the whole of the Parliamentary oath, should be assented to before the country had an opportunity of understanding it. After having in the first instance opposed the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Northampton, the Government now acceded to it, and proposed out of twelve lines to strike out eight lines of the oath. He therefore thought that it was but reasonable that the Chairman should report progress, and ask for leave to sit again, with the view of enabling the Government to print their alterations, and lay them on a future occasion in a definite shape before the House.