said, he did not know whether he was in order, but he wished to put a question to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He found by the Votes that at three o'clock that morning the adjourned debate on Maynooth was further adjourned with his assent, and he wanted to ask the hon. Member when he intended to resume the discussion on his Motion, which he had managed to keep on the paper ever since the 22nd of February?

said, the debate was not adjourned with his assent at first. He voted against the adjournment; and, as he stated last night, he took that division as a division upon the main question. He considered that division to have evinced clearly the opinion of the House, and he did not intend to take any steps further in the matter.

supposed the hon. Member intended to move that the order relating to the adjourned debate be discharged.

knew nothing about that.

said, the order did not remain on the Order book, but became a dropped order.

Then the House would understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire abandoned the whole concern.

said, the order for the adjourned debate on Maynooth was now a dropped order, and it was open for any Gentleman to revive it by giving notice, and to keep it still hanging over their heads. He protested altogether against the division last night being taken as a division upon the main question. It was his intention to have voted with the hon. Gentleman for inquiry; but it was idle to suppose that a division upon a question of adjournment at three o'clock in the morning, upon the list of thirty-five orders of the day, was to be taken as a division upon an important question like that. The truth was, hon. Gentleman opposite were thoroughly tired and ashamed of the way in which they had been carrying on this discussion night after night, and had shrunk from a division altogether.

reminded the House that this question had nothing to do with the question before the House.

rose and said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Bouverie), and he was sorry the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had given up this question. It was not that straightforward manly way in which they ought to deal with it, and it was not consonant with the character of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was his intention to have voted for inquiry, and he believed it was the wish of the great body of Roman Catholics that there should be inquiry. He was sorry the hon. Member had not given the House a fair opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the question; and he hoped the hon. Member would at once declare that he had abandoned it for this Session, or take means to obtain a fair division upon it.

complained, not only of the hon. Member for the course he had taken, but of the Government, who had backed him in it. Great objections were made on account of the lateness of the hour to taking the orders of the day an hour before the division on the question of adjournment of the Maynooth debate, and it was perfectly unpardonable to force upon the House any debate or decision upon inquiry into Maynooth, after all the other orders had been postponed, on the ground of the lateness of the hour. Yet that had no effect on the Government: there they sat to drive this matter down their throats. But the public out of doors would understand that it was done with the view of letting the hon. Member for North Warwickshire out of a scrape, from which he was ready to escape by any trick which could be devised for the purpose.

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not answered the question which had been put to him, whether he would move that the order be discharged? It was evident last night, from the state of the Ministerial benches, there was an uncertainty on that side of the House that there was to be a division. In his experience of Parliament, short though it might be, he had never seen at so late an hour so full an attendance on the Government side of the House, whilst on the Opposition side the benches were perfectly empty. Of course he acquitted the hon. Member of any intention to bring forward the question again; because he agreed with the hon. Member for Athlone in thinking the hon. Member was ashamed and tired of it. Still, it was perfectly competent for some other hon. Gentleman to revive the subject. The hon. Member's Colleague, who felt very strongly on the subject, might take that course. Therefore he thought, as the hon. Member had expressed himself satisfied with the decision last night, and as he had chosen to put a construction on the English language which it would not legitimately bear, he ought to take some steps to remove the question from the Order book.

said, if hon. Gentlemen opposite were really anxious the question should again come before the House, why did they not arrange with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire a day when it should come on? He was perfectly satisfied of the sincerity of his hon. Friend, which seemed to be denied; but for various reasons he doubted the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought they were not sincere, because, when a division might have been fairly taken, they prevented it by inflicting upon the House speeches of interminable length, with nothing in them. If they were sincere in wishing for inquiry, why did they not consent to it? If Maynooth was a subject which would not boar inquiry, it ought to be inquired into; and if it would bear inquiry, it would not be prejudiced by it. It was an entire misapprehension to suppose his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire was anxious to get rid of the question; and he challenged those who accused the hon. Member of insincerity to prove their own sincerity by arranging with him to ask the Government for some day when a decision might be arrived at.

said, if Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House wished the question to be brought to a division, why did they move an adjournment? He (Colonel Thompson) perhaps stood in a peculiar position. He was anxious to come to a bonâ fide division, because he considered himself under an obligation or agreement with his constituents not to vote against the grant to the College of Maynooth; and the last thing he should have thought of doing was, to stop the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, when he was about to take a division on his Motion. But when the adjournment was moved, there was nothing to be done but vote for it, or else give a vote to be counted with the strength of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

repelled the charge of insincerity preferred by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) against Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. He could not allow that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was sincere in his Motion for inquiry, because the means for making inquiry were in existence, and all that could be proved before a Committee would be, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not done his duty. If what the hon. Member alleged existed at Maynooth, there was the way, if there was the will, to inquire; and from the course adopted, he (Captain Magan) thought the House would infer no such treasonable practices did exist, and that this question was a mere election cry, not of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he left the House before the division took place this morning, not supposing it possible that so important a question as that of Maynooth would come on in any shape at so late an hour. It was his full determination to vote for inquiry, hoping that inquiry would be a fair one; but he protested against it being supposed any decision had been come to by the House; and he hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would still see if he could not take that decision upon some future day.

had felt so strongly that the character of the House was compromised by the protracted manner in which the discussion on Maynooth had been carried on day after day without any chance of arriving at a conclusion, or, if the Motion was affirmed, of its leading to any practical result, that it was his intention last night to have moved, though he was in favour of inquiry, that the debate be adjourned to that day three months; but seeing the empty state of the benches, he did not consider it fair, without notice to bring forward, at that hour, such a Motion. If, however, any Member should renew the debate, he should certainly move that it be adjourned to that day three months.

in reply to the accusation of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that Gentlemen on that side of the House had delayed this debate to such an extent by interminable speeches, that it was perfectly impossible any satisfactory decision could be arrived at, begged to state a fact which could not be questioned, that only four Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion had spoken on this question. Two of those Gentlemen were the hon. Members for the county of Mayo (Mr. Moore), and for the county of Limerick (Mr. Monsell). The hon. Member for Mayo did not occupy the attention of the House, at the furthest, beyond fifteen minutes, and the hon. Member for Limerick did not occupy the attention of the House beyond twenty minutes; whilst, on the other side, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire himself spoke for two hours and a half. He (Mr. Keogh) wished to repudiate the assertion made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, that he, at least, had ever charged the hon. Member for North Warwickshire with not being sincere on this question. On the contrary, on one of the questions of adjournment, he told the House he believed the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was perfectly sincere, though he did charge, and should continue to charge, and he believed the country, if it attended to the statistics of the question, would see no reason to doubt, that Her Majesty's Government had not a particle of sincerity on this question. ["Oh, oh!"] Let any person who said "oh!" listen to the statement he would now make to the House and the country; and if any Gentleman interested in the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government could contradict that statement, let him rise in his place and say what he (Mr. Keogh) asserted was not positively true. He made that assertion in the presence of Members of Her Majesty's Government, and he said that they had sent from this country candidates to Ireland, some of them Englishmen, and others Irishmen; that in many instances they had supplied those candidates with money; that they had furnished them with letters of introduction from the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and that those candidates on the face of their addresses had in the most open and public manner stated they were favourable to a continuance of the grant to Maynooth; and as to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill of last Session, as the phrase ran, they were perfectly prepared to vote for its repeal. If that was Protestantism, if that was sincerity, then was the present Government Protestant and sincere. He asked the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) whether or not he knew that the present candidate for the borough of Dungarvan—rejected by an English constituency because he was in favour of the grant to Maynooth, and opposed to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—he asked the noble Lord whether that hon. Gentleman was not supported by the introductions, by the letters—the money he did not want—of Her Majesty's present Government, and whether he had not stated upon the face of his address he was in favour of the grant to Maynooth, and prepared to vote for the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill? He would refer also to the candidate for the county of Water-ford (Mr. Hutchinson); he believed that candidate was a relative of the noble Lord. [Lord NAAS: No!] Well, then, he would ask, was he not supported by the whole weight and influence of the Government, and did he not declare upon the face of his address that he was "true to the hereditary principles of his family?" [An Hon. MEMBER: What are they?] It was not necessary he (Mr. Keogh) should define the meaning of hereditary in the present age; but the hon Gentleman declared that, "true to the hereditary principles of his family, he was prepared to vote for Maynooth, and to erase from the Statute-book every Act of Parliament insulting to the Roman Catholic population." He might go on with a whole catalogue, but he would name one other instance. He knew a candidate who had been sent to Ireland with the full authority and sanction of Her Majesty's present Government. He knew he was in communication with Members of the present Government, for those Members had told him he was. He knew he appeared in a particular town, and on the face of his address declared he was prepared to vote for the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and was a strong supporter of the grant to the Royal College of Maynooth. That was in the morning; but having met some clergymen of the Established Church in the evening, the town was placarded with other addresses, from which that paragraph was carefully omitted. He would sum up with the exception—the only honourable and chivalrous exception, because, although the hon. Gentleman entertained views entirely contrary to his (Mr. Keogh's), he was bound to admit that hon. Gentleman had declared them in a plain, straightforward, and manly way—that exception was the address to the electors of the county of Down, which bore the name of Edwin Hill. There was not one other address which did not, either distinctly or inferentially—two-thirds of them did openly and distinctly—avow a determination on the part of the supporters of Lord Derby's Government to sustain the grant to Maynooth, and vote for the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. He would now return to the position from which he started. He took up the new issue which had been advanced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he said he never charged the hon. Member for North Warwickshire with insincerity. He believed on those benches there were many who were sincere, not only on this but on other questions of a more material nature; but he also believed they would find, before a twelvemonth passed, what an aggregate of insincerity rested on those benches before then; and if he was not mistaken, they would find that the Session of 1853 was not a whit less remarkable than that which broke up a much greater party in 1846. He repeated what he had said on this question, that Her Majesty's Government had been, were, and intended to continue to be, playing fast and loose with sincere men who sat behind them; and he would undertake to prove that to the satisfaction of any honest and candid man who would choose to examine facts for himself, undeceived by the flimsy generalities uttered by some Government Member at three o'clock in the morning.

said, he did not rise to answer the general accusation which the hon. Member for Athlone had thought fit to make against Her Majesty's Government. True to his professions, the hon. Member seemed determined to show the same uncompromising hostility to every Government which sat on those benches, and to carry out the principle of the party to which he belonged—to make every Government in this country impossible. With regard to the accusations brought against himself, he (Lord Naas) indignantly denied them. On no occasion had he supplied candidates in the ensuing election either with letters or money; and the hon. Gentleman knew that the Secretary for Ireland had something else to do than to write addresses for candidates who appeared in every borough and county in Ireland. With regard to the Gentleman now standing for Dungarvan, he had not even the honour of his acquaintance; he never spoke a word to him in his life, and never wrote a letter to him, directly or indirectly. If the hon. Gentleman said in his address he would support the Government of Lord Derby, and the continuance of the Maynooth grant, he was only doing that which numbers of candidates were doing in this country; and he Lord (Naas) saw nothing inconsistent in a candidate standing before any constituency and saying he would support the Government of Lord Derby, and that he was not prepared to withdraw at present the grant to Maynooth. It was the opinion which, if he had spoken on the Maynooth question, he should have been prepared to enunciate, that, although voting for inquiry, he was not prepared to vote for a repeal of the grant. He believed no person supporting Lord Derby's Government had said more than that in Ireland; and, as to the statement that he was in any way mixed up with composing addresses or supplying candidates either with recommendations or money, he could only say that statement was utterly unfounded.

thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had scarcely dealt fairly with those Gentlemen who intended to support him. He was one who was anxious to vote with the hon. Gentleman in favour of inquiry; and if he had had the slightest idea it was intended to divide, he would have made it his business to remain until the rising of the House this morning.

said, the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine made a charge against the hon. Member for Athlone, which could never be made against the Government to which the noble Lord belonged—that the hon. Member was extremely consistent—he accused the hon. Member of being extremely consistent in his opposition to the present Government. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) was consistent in his attacks upon all Governments—and he (Mr. B. Osborne) thought justly—that had not the interests of Ireland at heart; and he was sorry to say no Government he had seen sitting on those benches had paid proper attention to Irish wants and Irish grievances, which the nature of those questions required. So far from considering it any stigma that the hon. Gentleman was hostile to the Government, he rejoiced that Ireland had at length a man able, willing, and powerful enough to make known her grievances in that House. The hon. Gentleman's hostility was inconvenient to the Government, because it seldom happened that on any great question he did not put the argumentum ad hominem so completely as to preclude all answer. The noble Lord said he had no time to write addresses. Of that he was never accused. The noble Lord was accused of being engaged with the Government in underhand workings upon these candidates—saying to them, "You may drop all opposition to Maynooth, provided you join in the general paean of success to the Government of Lord Derby. He (Mr. B. Osborne) knew that in the two instances of Dungarvan and Waterford, the whole weight of the Government was given to candidates who professed themselves favourable to Maynooth. In fact, this "organised hypocrisy" on all occasions where the Government was concerned, was being carried to a most disgusting extent in Ireland. He said, Away with this subterfuge, this hypocrisy—away with sending their Secretary of the Treasury to Liverpool—their dumb Secretary in that House, who was not able to defend himself—to repeat his recantations of opinions; away with the deprecated hostility of Irish Members. He called upon the Government boldly and firmly to declare their principles. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland said he was for inquiry into Maynooth, but he did not wish to take away the grant without inquiry. What did that mean? The noble Lord formerly belonged to the Peelite party. When he was the great leader of the spirit duty question, he was doing so as a Peelite; but, having been pitchforked into the Chief Secretaryship for Ireland, he became a supporter of Lord Derby. He did not doubt that both the Members for North Warwickshire were perfectly sincere upon this question; but he would suggest to them that it would be wise to follow the example of a noble Lord in another place, and give fair notice of their intention to bring it to an issue in another Parliament. By the course they were now adopting, they were doing harm to their own cause, because all sensible people, seeing that there could be no fair inquiry on the eve of a dissolution, would question the sincerity of their motives. He had no sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; on the contrary, he believed them to be wrong in theory, and most vicious if carried into practice; but he had that respect for the hon. Member, that, putting all party questions aside, he advised him, for the sake of his high character, to defer the consideration of this question to another Parliament, and to move now that the order be discharged.

said, if the hon. Member deprecated the discussion by which so much time was consumed, he ought in particular to deprecate the morning sittings being occupied with the same subject. For his own part, he must acknowledge that he had had enough of the Maynooth debate. The hon. Member for Athlone, on the part of the Roman Catholic Members, ought to have been satisfied with the lengthy address of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully). The question had been fairly discussed; but he must, before sitting down, refer to something which had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Gentleman stated that the hon. Member for Athlone was justified in his opposition to Government, because it had no sympathy for Ireland. He emphatically denied the truth of that allegation, and he unhesitatingly de- clared that Government had every wish and desire to give due consideration to the wrongs and complaints of Ireland, and to carry those wishes into action. The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) was but too ready to throw stones, not only at Governments, but at individuals. He had charged a Member of the Government with being incompetent. He had called the noble Lord at the head of the Government a Fabius Cunctator; but were he (Mr. Beresford) to refer to names in ancient history, he could, perhaps, find one to suit the hon. Member, and he might call him the Thersites of Middlesex. He would say no more on this subject, and he trusted the House would allow public business to proceed.

said, the origin of this Maynooth discussion was the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite last night, and the House had a right to ask the hon. Member for Warwickshire, what he intended to do with this order. On any day the hon. Member might revive this order, and play again the same trick which he had played before. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to discharge that order or not? It must be recollected, with reference to this debate, that the noble Lord the Member for London, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, had both intimated their intention of speaking upon it, and he (Mr. Bouverie) desired to protest against the question being shut up by a snatched decision at three o'clock in the morning. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire meant to go on with his Motion, let him give notice of a day for resuming the discussion.

said, he answered that question last night, when he said he was perfectly satisfied with the decision, and he should take no other steps in the matter. How could he move that the order be discharged, when notice had been given of three Amendments upon his Motion?

said, that the order was not on the paper, and therefore could not be discharged; but it was competent for any hon. Member to put the order on the paper for the purpose of moving that it be discharged.

expressed his readiness to withdraw the Amendment of which he had given notice, if that would assist the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

could not understand how it was the Home Secretary had addressed a very lengthy and acrimonious speech to the House on this question, and yet the Government had sought to dispose of it at three o'clock in the morning. It was quite clear the Government owed the House some declaration of its opinion, and the more so because he saw an hon. Member opposite now standing for the important town of Liverpool, who had taken a directly opposite line from that of his leader the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing could be more inconsistent than the conduct of the Government and that of the hon. Gentleman, who, by an anti-Maynooth cry, was endeavouring to rake up the embers of fanaticism amongst the electors of Liverpool.

thought the House ought to have an answer from the hon. Member for Warwickshire to the question which was lately put to him. He understood the decision of the Speaker to be, that if the Amendments were withdrawn, it would be competent to the hon. Member to put his Motion upon the paper for any day which he might select.

said, that the hon. Member could not put his Motion on the paper without giving notice to that effect, and that until it was placed upon the paper it must be treated as a discharged order.

declined giving any notice for the renewal of the discussion, because he felt it would be useless.

had voted for the adjournment on the ground of common sense, and because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that if the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully) were to recommence his speech on this question, he should go home and go to bed.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to continue an Act of the 11th and 12th of Her present Majesty, for the better Prevention of Crime and Outrage in Ireland. He said that, as it had been clearly intimated that this Bill was to be opposed on every stage, he thought the best course for him to pursue was to state at once the objects and circumstances which in the eyes of the Government justified the measure which he now asked for leave to bring in. He must first, however, express the hope that the angry observations which had been made that morning with regard to Ireland would not lead the House to enter on this subject in an im- proper temper, and that those discussions would not ensue which so often were irrelevantly drawn in on Irish questions; but that they would confine themselves to the merits of the Bill, and on which he was free to admit much might be observed on either side. He grounded his claim for the necessity of this Bill on indisputable facts, which he would endeavour to submit with simplicity and in a proper tone of temper. He should ask the House to consider the Bill which the Government proposed should be continued for a limited period of time. It was an Act passed by the present Parliament for a limited period. It was renewed under the late Government for a further limited period, and he thought the inquiries of the House should be directed on the present occasion to the circumstances under which that Act was passed and renewed for a further period, and whether they were substantially so similar to the present as to prove the necessity of continuing the Act. He thought it important to call the attention of the House to the exact character of that Act. It was easy to get up a number of phrases of coercion and gagging policy to go through the country influencing persons who did not examine the Bill, but who took their views of its character from those phrases; but let the House see what the character of that Act really was, and whether the circumstances of the country did not demand its continuance for a limited period. The Act he proposed to renew was originally passed in December, 1847, immediately after the present Parliament assembled. It was passed within a short period after a general election, when there had been a great deal of excitement in the country, and when the lists of crime had been in consequence aggravated. That was a circumstance which ought not to be disregarded at the present moment. They were now on the eve of another general election, and they ought not to leave Ireland unprotected during the whole period of Parliamentary agitation by those special powers in the hands of the Executive of that country for the protection of the peaceable and orderly portion of the population. This law was not intended to punish but to prevent crime. It was a wise and salutary law. It was passed with reference to a particular class of crimes which then prevailed, and it provided the Executive Government, on the advice of the Privy Council, which was not a fluctuating body, with the power, under special circumstances, of proclaiming any particular district, and, if necessary, to send down to it an additional force of police; and in particular instances where crimes were committed in a particular district, and when the ordinary powers of the Government were useless, it gave the Lord Lieutenant power of reverting to the sound principle of the old Saxon law, of making the constabulary so sent down a charge on the whole district. He thought there was nothing coercive or severe in that. The next particular portion of the Act was, that it provided that the Whiteboy code should come into force in those districts which were proclaimed. That code applied to districts in an insurrectionary state, but it could not be put in force without the continuance of this Act. The Whiteboy code also contained a very important clause, introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Hull (Mr. Baines), which made persons who screened or harboured offenders amenable to justice. A most important conviction had taken place under that provision. The Act also had a provision with regard to arms, by which the Lord Lieutenant could call upon persons in particular districts to surrender their arms. No arms excepting those which were licensed were allowed to be retained by private persons. This provided a security against lawless persons having arms, to which circumstance was to be attributed a great portion of that loss of life which had taken place from time to time in parts of Ireland. There had been various Acts of this and of a severer character with regard to Ireland. There was the Act of 1816, and the Coercion Act of 1834, which suspended trial by jury and other constitutional privileges of the subject. The present Bill was not at all analogous to those Bills, nor would he then raise any question of the details of the clauses of those Bills. But he must say when murders were taking place, and the rights of property outraged in the open day, it was indispensable that the law should be made efficient for the purpose of preventing crime and outrage. He begged to call the attention of the House to the circumstances of Ireland when the Bill became law. It was passed in December, 1847, for a limited period, and had reference particularly to agrarian outrages, with respect to which it was difficult to enforce the law of the land. It was intended to come in aid of the ordinary law, to punish outrages, and to protect life and property in those districts in which the Whiteboy confederacy existed. If this law was not continued, they would renounce the only proper law which Parliament had passed for the purpose of preventing crime and outrage in Ireland. In the year 1847, when the Act was first passed, he found that the number of agrarian outrages in the whole of Ireland was 620. He wished to rest his case on plain facts and figures, as a matter of simplicity and truth. In 1849, the year before the Act was renewed, the number of outrages was 957, and in 1851 it was 1,013, or nearly double the number when the Act passed, and one-third more than it was when the Act was renewed. Those were the agrarian outrages; and, he found, on looking over the list in another column, that in Armagh, 92, in Monaghan, 24, and in the county of Down, 65, were for threatening notices. By the late Government, proclamations had been enforced under this Act affecting twenty-one counties. In 1847, there were nine, in 1848, seven; in 1849, two, in 1850, two; and in 1851, two. Since 1850, six counties had been taken off, that was to say, the proclamations had been withdrawn. In 1851, portions of Monaghan and Armagh were proclaimed. At present seven whole counties were proclaimed, and parts of twenty-one others. If the Act were allowed to expire, which it would at the end of the present Session, all those proclamations would at once fall to the ground, and all the offences which had been committed and were punishable, all the prosecutions for threatening notices for which the writers now in jail were awaiting their trial at the next assizes, would at once fall to the ground. A case of this kind had occurred when the late Government were prosecuting Mr. O'Connell, under a temporary Act; that Act expired during the prosecution, and it immediately became nugatory. If such a result were permitted now, they would have, in fact, an effectual jail delivery in Ireland. He remembered in 1850, when the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) was asking for the renewal of this Bill, that he did so chiefly on the ground that the Government could not take upon themselves the responsibility of allowing the licences for bearing arms to expire; and it was with a deep sense of the responsibility that he now asked the House to renew the powers of the Lord Lieutenant for maintaining the proclamations now in force. The Act was founded on the assumption that the ordinary law was not sufficient to repress crime, and experience had proved its necessity and utility. In the county of Louth alone, out of seventeen murders within the last two years, there had not been a single conviction. In the county of Monaghan, out of numerous crimes there had been only one conviction. That single conviction was a most valuable and important one, hut it took place entirely under this Act. The case was a singular one. During the time that the Judges were sitting under the Special Commission, information was given to the police of two men being about to commit a murder. The police prevailed on the man whom it was intended to murder to go along the road, while they went themselves along the fields on each side of the road, and they found two men concealed in a ditch, armed with loaded blunderbusses. These men could not be indicted for a conspiracy to murder, because such was the reign of terror which prevailed that evidence could not be procured; hut under the Act of Parliament now in force, which made it unlawful to be in possession of arms, the police proved the possession, and he believed that the conviction for that offence under the Special Commission was a most valuable and important one. The men were imprisoned for two years, and the result proved most valuable to the locality. At the last assizes, a man was convicted for having in his possession ammunition; and in the county of Limerick, at the last assizes, there was a conviction under the Act, respecting which he had the authority of Sir Matthew Barrington, the public prosecutor in the south, for stating that it was the means of quieting the county. The Government having been charged with the duty of maintaining the law in Ireland, he must say that he thought Parliament was bound to assist them in their efforts. He hoped the House would consent to the continuance of the law for a limited period, in order that the proclamations made under it by the late Government might not fail to produce a lasting effect, in order that offenders might not escape from jail, and in order that desperate criminals might not be able to effect their purposes during the period when Parliament would not be sitting. The House would take upon itself a fearful responsibility by refusing such a moderate request. The Government could not he responsible for the peace of Ireland if the Bill were not passed. He might be asked how it was that there was such an apparent calm in Ireland, that the Judges could go the circuits without any danger? Why, there were parts of that country in which he could walk with as little concern as in Westminster, although the confederacy existed in the locality. Persons were shot down now and then, here and there, from behind a ditch; there was no general disturbance; the confederacy was of so peculiar a character that Englishmen could form no idea of it. In the county of Louth, from the 1st of April, 1849, to the 1st of February, 1852, there were twenty-three cases connected with crimes growing out of this confederacy, and in seventeen of those cases, including several murders, not one of the parties were brought to justice. Yet that county was otherwise very peaceable and quiet. It was not the number of crimes that was so much to be regarded, as the peculiar character of them. There prevailed a regular organisation of this confederacy against life and property, not only over all Ireland, but its ramifications extended to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places. But the Government had not only to grapple with this huge confederacy against property, life, and law, but they had to encounter the effects of intimidation on the minds of jurors, by whom alone the law could be administered. The sheriff of the county of Louth had stated that if the protection of the constabulary, and of the law which forbade the people to carry arms, were taken away from the persons who acted as jurors, the law could never be carried into effect. To what a position would these men he exposed, who, by their oaths, were called upon to give a verdict according to the evidence, if the Legislature permitted the members of this confederacy to go about with arms in their hands! The only protection, therefore, for all the peaceable portion of Ireland was to continue the powers now vested in the Lord Lieutenant for the suppression of crime and outrage. It was not just or fair to call this a coercion law. He believed that many who were obliged to succumb to this confederacy would be glad to have the law renewed. A magistrate who had gone about the country said that in one house he saw a list of subscriptions; and on examining it he found the names of many persons who he knew would not have subscribed one halfpenny but for terror. A pound was contributed by a farmer who held only twenty acres of land. Even Dr. Cullen, the Roman Catholic Pri- mate of Ireland, had on two occasions) been led to denounce the confederacy, particularly in a pastoral letter published in January, 1851. He would ask the House this question—if the late Government were warranted in issuing these proclamations, would the present Government be warranted in revoking them where crime had increased? He had received a letter on this subject from Sir Matthew Barrington, the Crown prosecutor for the southern circuit, who said—

"As Crown solicitor for the largest and most important circuit in Ireland, I wish to impress upon you the necessity of continuing the Crime and Outrage Act. It has been of great use, and may be required again. We had a Whiteboy prosecution of the utmost importance to the peace of the country at the last Limerick Assizes, in which it was necessary to prove the proclamation under that Act, and for which several persons were convicted. More remain to be tried for the same offence at the next assizes. What is to become of this, and similar cases, if the Act is allowed to expire? The knowledge that the Act is in force has, I have no doubt, prevented many an outrage, and I hope Parliament will not be dissolved without renewing it."

With regard to the usefulness of the law, he would observe that the evidence of Mr. Kerr showed that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) acted wisely in adopting the old Saxon principle of making the locality responsible for the crimes committed in it. The collection of the police rates had in many cases had the effect of arresting crime; and one person who was examined declared that he had seen parties previously belonging to the confederacy become themselves conservators of the public peace. As regarded the effect of proclamations, he would mention the following facts. In the county of Armagh the number of offences committed in the three months before the proclamation was issued was twenty-seven; in the three months afterwards, fifty. In Louth the number was eight before, and seventeen after; in Monaghan eleven before, and twenty-eight after; but in Clare it was 178 before, and fourteen after; and in Limerick 262 before, and thirty-nine after. Where the proclamation had been issued early it had gradually got to be effectual, but where it was only recently issued, it had not been attended with the same success. He also had a letter to the same effect as the one from Sir Matthew Barring-ton from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, than whom there could be no higher authority. They all agreed that there must be some special power, and he (Mr. Napier) was not aware of a more mild, more mo- derate, or more constitutional one than was provided by this Act. It came then simply to this, whether they would renew this Act, or leave Ireland without that protection which her condition required. If by any change of the ordinary law it could be so administered as to render this special power unnecessary, no one would be more delighted than himself. He had a deep sense of the responsibility in asking the House to continue this Act for a limited period, until time had been given to accomplish that policy which he hoped would render it unnecessary; but under the present pressing circumstances he must ask Parliament again to assent to its extension, though he should be quite content to limit that extension to the 31st December next, and then until the next Session of Parliament.

said, some years ago there were tithe riots through the south and west of Ireland, and stringent measures were submitted to that House for their suppression. But those measures were accompanied by remedial measures, and ultimately the causes of complaint were removed. The Attorney General for Ireland some time ago said, he had quite prepared, and would soon produce, a Bill on Tenant Right. He would ask, was this Tenant Right? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned that there were several persons, in a proscribed list, and sentenced, and from what he had stated it might be supposed their execution was imminent. He thought that statement should not have been made unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to substantiate it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also alluded to Ribband conspiracies; but he contended that the Ribband associations were originated for the purpose of protection against the outrages committed by the armed members of the Orange associations. Under the Government of Lord Clarendon he should have opposed the giving these extra powers to the Executive in Ireland; and from the tone and feeling displayed by the present Government he saw no reason why they should be more trustworthy. He thought that a party engine of this nature was dangerous if left in the hands of those now exercising power in Ireland, and that Irish Members were bound to use every endeavour to prevent the Bill being passed. Unaccompanied as it was by any ameliorative measures, he would do his utmost to defeat it, and he should certainly divide the House upon the question.

said, he would support the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Lawless) in his opposition to this measure. He thought it unfair of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) to bring an exparte statement before the House, framed upon the evidence taken before the Committee on Crime and Outrages in Ireland, when that evidence was not yet in the hands of Members. He (Mr. Scully) was a member of that Committee, and he knew the evidence extended to upwards of 6,000 questions. Until that evidence was thoroughly understood and thoroughly sifted, how could the House fairly decide upon continuing the system of coercion commenced in 1847? It was all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say this was not an invasion of the rights of individuals—that it was not a suspension of the Constitution; but he wanted to know whether the making a man liable to two years' hard labour for having arms in his house was not an infringement of the constitutional rights of the subject. Was such the state of the law in England or in Scotland? Another objectionable feature was the saddling upon proclaimed districts the expense of a police force, for the parties who were compelled to pay it were often entirely innocent. The Lord Lieutenant would have the arbitrary power to send 300 or 500 policemen to any part of Ireland. That might be very useful on the occasion which was just approaching, to keep the country quiet, that the candidates might have the support of the Government at the next election; but it was not the less unjust to make innocent districts pay the penalty for crimes of which other districts had been guilty. Another very severe clause, which did not exist in England or Scotland, was that by which constables, when a crime was committed, might call upon all individuals to follow the perpetrators of it, and if they refused, they were made guilty of a misdemeanour, Reverting to the subject of the Crime and Outrage Bill, he must complain that the witnesses proposed by those who agreed with him in opinion, had been almost unanimously rejected. The House would be surprised when he stated, that the first re- solution proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland, in the Committee of which he was the Chairman, was in substance for the continuance of this Act for a limited period; and that after discussion the Committee rejected the resolution. The evidence given before the Committee was very important; that of the assistant barrister for the county of Monaghan showed that Acts of this nature were totally useless and unnecessary. Another witness stated that there had been no evidence of crime resulting from conspiracy since the late Special Commission. Why, then, in the face of such evidence, require this Bill? It had been stated that the prime movers of this Ribband conspiracy consisted only of some ten or twelve persons, and those of the lowest class and well known to the magistracy and to the Government. He contended, that in justice to the people who were assailed by this Bill, namely, the members of the Ribband societies—the members of other societies should be dealt with in a similar manner. They were all secret societies, and if they put down Ribbandism they ought to put down those societies with which Ribbandism had always been in a state of antagonism. The whole case appeared to him to be entirely a party measure. It was clearly proved before the Committee that these crimes arose principally from the disorder in the relations between landlord and tenant; and when the Bill was first introduced in 1847, they were promised remedial measures. Five years had elapsed, and he wanted to know what had become of the remedial measures which both the late and the present Government had promised? In the absence of those measures he thought it unfair and unjust to ask the House to give their assent to the renewal of the Bill. He could not see why the Act should extend to twenty-one counties in Ireland. He thought no cause had been shown for its continuance in many of those counties. The criminal returns proved a general decrease in the numbers of offenders and outrages. In Ulster, in 1849, the number of committals was 6,370; in 1850, 5,260, or showing a decrease 17"66 less per cent. In Munster, in 1849, the number of committals was 17,179; in l850, 12,773, showing a decrease of 25 per cent. In Leinster, in 1849, the number of committals was 11,636, and in 1850, 9,198, showing a decrease of 20 per cent. In Connaught, in 1849, the number of com- mittals was 6,784; in 1850, 4,095, showing a decrease of 39·7 per cent. The particulars of crimes gave the same result. The cases of murder in Ireland were in 1847, 117; in 1848, 195; in 1849, 170; and in 1850 they had fallen to 113. The same was the result in assaults, and in all those crimes which arose from the disorder in the relations between landlord and tenant, with very few exceptions. He would take the opportunity of asking why the annual returns of crime in Ireland for 1851 were not yet delivered, when the returns for the year previous were dated in April? He presumed it was because it bore out what he had stated, that crime had greatly decreased; and in proof of that statement he could appeal to the charges of the Judges, who, through the grand juries, congratulated the country upon its improved condition. He maintained that Orange societies ought to be put down as well as Ribband associations, and that this was an entirely party measure. He regretted that the land question, which was admitted to be at the bottom of all the crime in Ireland, had been left untouched by the present Government, though they had objected, not to the principle, but to the details, of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. W. S. Crawford). It was not just to continue coercive measures under such circumstances, and he, for one, would give every opposition in his power to the Bill.

said, he had opposed every proposition that had been made for coercive measures in Ireland, upon the ground that they had not been accompanied by remedial measures. He did not impugn the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in promising remedial measures for Ireland, but many difficulties might arise in the meantime, and his Government might not be in existence when he was ready to bring them forward. The people of Ireland, therefore, might be disappointed. He should, therefore, oppose this Bill.

said, he considered that no case had been made out to justify the House passing this measure. It would not touch Ribbandism; if they wished to put that down they must grant remedial measures. Such Bills as these took all responsibility away from the Government. The Lord Lieutenant had sufficient power to suppress the crimes to which this Bill related, but the Government shrunk from the responsibility. Such a law as this was wholly ineffectual for its purpose. Good men would not require it, and bad men would resist it. [Cries of "Divide!"] He knew the object of those cries. Ministers wanted another "count out." He would sit down upon condition that they were not to be forced to a condition—

said, he objected to a Bill of this kind, as being an isolated measure, without any regard to the social wants of the people of Ireland. The Bill gave the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the power to send any amount of constabulary force to a proclaimed disturbed district, and thus to make the innocent pay for the offences of the guilty. The Bill also gave power to any common constable to search the person of any of Her Majesty's subjects for arms in a proclaimed district, and this was an unconstitutional power which he could not consent to give. Another reason why he would oppose the Bill was, that the Government had not given notice of their intention to introduce it, until after the evidence given before the Crime and Outrage Committee had been closed. He denied that the Government was in possession of any materials to warrant them in asking for extraordinary powers. He had been taunted for taking a different course on this occasion to that which he did on a similar measure when formerly introduced. But he felt he was perfectly consistent in supporting a measure under special circumstances when he believed that a case was made out for it; and in opposing a similar one under other circumstances when no case had been made out to justify its being enacted as a law. In 1846, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking in the debate on the Coercion Bill introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel, said—

"For my own part, I should be, under any circumstances, loth to join in passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland. If I saw such a Bill recommended by a majority of the Members for Ireland, on whatever side of the House they may sit, I should certainly come to its consideration with feelings very different to those with which I entertain this measure; which all the Irish Members opposite oppose as tyrannical, and which most of the Members for Ireland behind me denounce as futile. But, Sir, I cannot forget that this is not the first Coercion Bill which Ireland has been supposed to require, which we have passed, and which have been so ineffectual that there have been repeated appeals to us for novel powers."—[3 Hansard, lxxxvii. 518.]

But there then followed some very remarkable words from the right hon. Gentleman, not as demonstrating any inconsistency in his conduct, but as showing that men might take a different course of action under different circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"I, for one, am not prepared, under any circumstances, to support a Coercion Bill which shall stand isolated, and be taken into consideration without reference to the social state of Ireland generally."—[Ibid.]

Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman in 1846, and now, in 1852, he was supporting this Bill. It had been stated that Government had been most anxious to deal liberally with the people of Ireland, and in the address of the right hon. Gentleman to his constituents the other day, he used these remarkable words, "The claim of Ireland to the consideration of Parliament is irresistible." Had not the Members for Ireland, then, a right to complain that a Government who made such declarations as these should not introduce any Bill for Ireland except this one Bill, which had been properly characterised as a measure of coercion? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had put the facts in an exaggerated form. He (Mr. Keogh) had in his hand a comparative statement of crime and outrage in Ireland for the years 1849, 1850, and 1851. The numbers of persons arrested for such crimes in 1849 was 203; in 1850, was 139; and in 1851, was 157. The number arrested for offences against the person in 1849 was 98; in 1850 was 66; and in 1851 was 50, showing a decrease of 50 per cent. It was proved that these crimes were limited to a particular district in Ireland of about eight or nine miles in diameter; and was it for those crimes that Parliament was to inflict a Bill of this description on the whole people of Ireland? The evidence of Mr. Major, the assistant barrister of Monaghan, who was a most distinguished member of the Irish bar, and had been engaged in administering justice for twenty years in the very county where these crimes were alleged to have occurred,—the evidence of that gentleman had not been referred to by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. In answer to a question, Mr. Major said—

"There was an Act of Parliament which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim counties, and it was put in force in the particular district to which he referred, but it had been perfectly abortive. As far as his experience went, he was not aware of any good resulting from it."

He was then asked, "What was the effect of proclaiming a county?" to which he replied—

"There were two proclamations—the first proclamation prohibited persons in that district from exhibiting arms, and the second required them to bring in their arms. The effect of that, as far as he had any information, was, that all the persons who were well-disposed and were possessed probably of arms for the protection of their properties and families, would obey the law of the land and bring in their arms. Persons who had arms for protection brought them in or took their licences; but persons who were disposed to keep their arms for other purposes than those of protection, retained and concealed them. Arms might be sought for; but, as for finding them, he believed there was no instance of any large number being found. As far as his experience of that law went, he should say it was perfectly abortive."

That was rather a poser to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had actually summoned that witness before the Committee. And yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman now asked Parliament to continue that Act in force. But there was a still higher authority in England, for the Earl of Derby, speaking of this measure in 1847, said—

"He could not avoid stating his opinion that he would be astonished if it were found sufficient; he thought the Bill was wholly insufficient, and not at all calculated to cope with the principal part of the evil."

If that were so, he did not think the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would change that opinion, when he (Mr. Keogh) stated in 1847, before the Act, the crimes were 620; that in 1849, after the Act, they rose to 957; and in 1850 they reached 1,013—clearly showing that the very existence of the Bill was perfectly consistent with the existence of crime. How the hon. Gentleman he then saw opposite to him could reconcile the passing of this Bill after what had been both written and spoken within the last fourteen days, he was at a loss to understand. But of this he was perfectly certain—no matter how eloquent in expression his statement might be—that he who out of that House made one set of statements and avowed one description of principles, but who in that House made contrary statements, however well he might succeed for the purposes of a general election, would never be able to convince a people of quick capacity and discernment in the detection of deceit and fraud, that such a man cared one farthing for them, or that all his ideas were not concentrated in self-seeking and the love of power.

Sir, I quite agree that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House is not hound as to the vote he may now give by any vote he may have given on a similar measure some years ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, has a right to form a judgment from the circumstances which are placed before him; and if he should think the circumstances under which the present Bill is recommended for adoption, are different from those which were adduced for his consideration on a former occasion, undoubtedly the hon. and learned Gentleman would be perfectly justified in the course which he is now pursuing. The hon. and learned Gentleman has done me the honour of referring to some expressions which I used in the year 1846; but I do not for a moment recognise any similarity between the present measure and the one which I at that time opposed.

Your words were, that you would under any circumstances be loth to join in passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland.

Yes; but I do not think this is a Coercion Bill. It is not a measure of coercion; it is a measure of police. The Bill which was passed in 1846 contained a clause, enacting that no man should he out of his house after sunset, and the stringency of that clause led to its being called "the curfew clause." That was a provision which I could not sanction. I need not, I think, say more upon that subject. I should not be prepared to sanction any measure, even like the present, speaking totally irrespective of what occurred in 1846, if a clause of that kind were included in it; especially if it were unaccompanied by any measure of a remedial character. I am not aware that the present Government have shown any disposition to evade the sentiments which were expressed by me on that occasion. It is not, and has not been, as the hon. and learned Gentleman must be well aware, in our power to introduce any measure in the present Session having reference to the social condition of Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has at this mo- ment three measures actually prepared relating to Ireland, one of them concerning the much-agitated question of landlord and tenant; but I may ask whether it has been in our power to introduce any of those measures to Parliament? I ask whether there is any person taking a candid view of the position of Her Majesty's Ministers, and of the temper which has been shown by the House of Commons generally as to the transaction of public business, who is of opinion that it has been in our power to introduce those measures? Under what circumstances, then, do we find ourselves placed? We find that this law has all but expired. We find at this moment that there are many persons in the gaols in Ireland awaiting their trial for grave offences under this law, who, if the law be not continued, will be at once discharged from those gaols. Now, what, I ask, would be the effect on public opinion in Ireland if such a thing should be allowed to take place? How much should we weaken the authority of the law, and how far should we encourage that state of tranquillity and order which we wish to foster, if we allowed the present Session to close in a state of circumstances which would give, as it were, a triumph to those who had violated not only the laws of the country, hut also those principles upon which the civilisation of Ireland and of every other country in the world alone depends? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Keogh) denounces this as a coercive and tyrannical law, and he then turns round and says that he has unimpeachable authority to prove that it is a Bill which will be utterly futile in its operation; and the evidence on which he depends is that of Mr. Major, the assistant barrister of Monaghan, who, in his examination before the Committee, certainly did not speak of this law in terms of great panegyric; but, at the same time, the evidence of Mr. Major was not in favour of a law of a less restrictive power. I will just state what the system is which Mr. Major would wish to see established in Ireland. Mr. Major, on being asked whether he had not stated that certain other measures might be adopted which might supersede the necessity of any law of this nature, said—"Yes; and that in places where the necessity existed, such as in some particular parts of the county of Monaghan, he should give extended powers for domiciliary visits to the houses.' This is the great authority to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. In support of his opposition to this coercive measure he adduces evidence which declares that the measure is much too mild. The policy recommended by Mr. Major (the highest authority in Ireland, according to the hon. and learned Member for Athlone) is not that mild and conciliatory legislation which we are recommending, but a legislation which would give extensive powers of domiciliary visits to houses. But this is not the only measure recommended by Mr. Major, and upon whose credit the hon. and learned Gentleman pins his faith. Mr. Major says, "There was an Act in Ireland which had expired for many years, called the Insurrection Act; he should not be disposed to re-enact that Act; it was one of great power, and had been very efficiently and very effectively used." These were the words of this high authority referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and how did he conclude? "He was not exactly prepared to propose an Insurrection Act." But, encouraged by the panegyrics of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not know but that Mr. Major may yet be bold enough even for that. He says that the Insurrection Act had had the effect of perfectly quieting the districts wherever it was applied; but that the powers given by the Act were so very unconstitutional, that he should be very slow to avail himself of such a law, or to recommend the re-enactment of it. He was, however, of opinion that some provision was desirable in particular cases, so long as dangerous conspiracies existed, that would be capable of suppressing those conspiracies, and that the Government of Ireland ought not to be altogether left to apply to Parliament to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act when such cases occurred; but that some provisional Act, the nature of which he was not then prepared to suggest, should be passed, by which the Executive should be armed with a power to apply a prompt and immediate remedy to such a state of circumstances as were existing in a part of the county of Monaghan. This is the description of evidence to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. He was a distinguished member of the important Committee on Crime and Outrage; he has adduced testimony to warrant the policy he recommends, and to prove that this Bill is a coercive and tyrannical Bill; and that evidence recommends a course of policy which, if put into the shape of an Act of Parliament, would in- deed be a Coercion Act of the greatest severity. Circumstanced as Government are with respect to this law, how do they act? Have they shown any desire to avail themselves of Parliamentary aid to continue in the possession of any extraordinary powers, or to evade the responsibility which attaches to the Government to maintain the peace and good order of society by the ordinary laws of the country? Certainly not. But, at the same time, let the House consider that we cannot incur the responsibility of letting this law suddenly cease, when great criminals, who to-morrow would then be free, would be allowed to ravage society with impunity. And what, therefore, is the proposition we have made? We have asked that this law shall only continue until the 31st of December next, and to the termination of the then ensuing Session of Parliament. So that the question must necessarily be considered in the next Session of Parliament, or in the course of the next year, when the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends might, indeed, attack the then existing Government who should propose the continuance of a coercive measure, if they did not accompany that proposition with the introduction of those remedial measures which I believe are necessary and practicable. The hon. and learned Gentleman has also referred to some expressions of mine which I used in an address to my constituents—expressions which I admit were well weighed, and not idly written. Those expressions conveyed accurately to the country what is the disposition of the Government on this important subject. Our feelings towards Ireland are those which we have uniformly expressed while in Opposition; and our policy with regard to Ireland will be the policy which we have always deemed essential to its welfare, namely, the development of the industrial resources of the sister island. But as yet we have had no chance of accomplishing any of these objects; in the meantime we address ourselves to the House to aid us in securing the tranquillity of the country, and in vindicating the majesty of the law.

begged to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works what course the Government intended to pursue in reference to the report and recommendation of the Committee on the Ventilation and Lighting of the House; and whether Dr. Reid was to be restored to the position he occupied before 1846, and to have the charge of ventilating and lighting the House and its appurtenances, under the supervision of the Chief Commissioner of Works, assisted by a committee of observation, to be appointed annually by the House, in order to report their opinion as to the way in which the management is conducted?

said, that in the opinion of the Government, the recommendation of the Select Committee was a very wise and prudent one, and there was every disposition on the part of the Government to carry it into effect. In answer to the second question, which referred to the competent person alluded to in the recommendation of the Select Committee, at present he was not in a position to say who that competent person, in the opinion of the Government, was likely to be. At the same time, he could not sit down without expressing his individual opinion, that the system of ventilation suggested by Dr. Reid had not received that amount of fair play which would enable it to be properly judged of. He did not wish it to be understood that he was now expressing more than an individual opinion; but it would be unjust to Dr. Reid if he sat down without expressing that opinion on his behalf.

said, he rose to move the following Resolution:—

"That this House, recognising the undoubted title of the Queen's subjects resident in foreign countries to the continual protection of Her Ma- jesty, in respect of their liberty, property, and other personal rights, and considering that in the case of the Rev. Messrs. Wingate, Smith, and Edwards, arbitrarily expelled from the Austrian dominions in the month of January last, with their wives and children, under circumstances involving much sacrifice of property, and other hardships to the sufferers, those rights were violated, and that no redress has been hitherto obtained for the violation, is of opinion that the ease is one calling for prompt and earnest measures on the part of Her Majesty's Government."

He should proceed with his statement, notwithstanding a rumour that had reached him of the determination of the Government to take measures for putting a summary stop to discussions upon the case; hut if they did resort to a count-out, he was sure they would feel the consequences at no distant period. Not two years ago that House had been called upon to record their votes against a most un-English resolution adopted in another place on the occasion of the Greek claims, the mover of that resolution being the noble Lord now at the head of the Government; and on the 15th of March last, soon after the Earl of Malmesbury, to the misfortune of this country, was installed in office, his Lordship informed Count Buol that he highly valued the friendly feeling expressed by Prince Schwarzenberg on the part of Austria towards this country. At that time Lord Malmesbury was fully aware of the facts which he (Mr. C. Anstey) was about to bring before the House. The Government were making a premature and indecent attempt in order to prevent his doing so; but, while the issue would be indifferent to him, it would redound only to the discredit of Her Majesty's Ministers. Messrs. Smith and Wingate were two ministers in the Scotch church at Pesth, where they had settled in 1848. Mr. Edwards was in Lemberg in 1848; but all three gentlemen had settled in the Austrian dominions with full permission from the Austrian Government to undertake their spiritual functions. The first two having resided more than ten years in Pesth, had, by the law of Hungary, become naturalised; all of them had acquired property, both real and personal, in the country, and they, no doubt, intended to pass there the rest of their days. On the 10th of December, 1851, Count Buol wrote to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), then at the head of the Foreign Office, and informed him that by way of retaliation upon England for protecting Kossuth and his companions, the Austrian Government intended to subject English travellers, however innocent of acts to the prejudice of the Austrian Government to what he called exceptional measures of precaution. Mr. Edwards had not resided for so long a period in Lemberg, in Galicia, as his companions in misfortune; but his residence there was equally sanctioned by the Austrian Government. When the revolution broke out they retired for a season to avoid being identified with either party, and returned as soon as what was falsely called "order," but which was in reality the reign of despotism, was restored; and in the month of December, 1851, Mr. Edwards was made the first victim of the arbitrary policy of Count Buol. The wife of Mr. Edwards was at that time within a month of her accouchement. He had several small children, some of whom were ill, and they were ordered immediately to quit Lemberg and to cross the Austrian frontier, a distance of five hundred miles, within six days, and that in the most inclement season of the year. Mr. Edwards went to Vienna, and applied to the British Minister, the Earl of Westmoreland, who received a large salary for doing nothing; but the British Minister-refused to interfere. In point of fact the Earl of Westmoreland was fiddling or directing high mass at Prague, so that he had neither time nor the wish to assist his countrymen in trouble, which it was his duty to do. Mr. Edwards, who owed nothing to the interference of the British Ambassador, was scarcely permitted to return to Lemberg; but a happy contradiction in the orders of the Austrian police enabled him to return and accompany his family to the Prussian frontier, immediately after crossing which his wife was delivered of a dead child. All these steps were taken without the interference of the proper authorities, but by a simple mandate from Prince Schwarzenberg—who had since gone to his account elsewhere—issued solely, as that Minister had declared, in a despatch to this Government, as a punishment to Englishmen, for the reception which this country had given to Kossuth. On the 5th of January following, Messrs. Wingate and Smith received orders to quit Pesth, Hungary, and the Austrian dominions in five days. They also appealed to the Earl of Westmoreland, and to the tender mercies of the Austrian Government. The Government paid no attention whatever to their appeal, neither did the Earl of Westmoreland. At a later period, when a remonstrance was forwarded to him on the subject by Earl Granville, the Earl of Westmoreland was directing a high mass at Prague for the repose of the soul of the late Prince Schwarzenberg; and, as far as he (Mr. C. Anstey) was aware, he believed that the Earl of Westmoreland originally approved of the inhumanity of the Austrian Government. He was also astonished to find that the Earl of Malmesbury quite concurred in that approbation. No charge or allegation was made against these gentlemen. No explanation was given, because it was not asked; and though they were so ill treated by the representative of their own country, they found shelter and assistance in the legation of Mr. M'Curdy, the American Chargé d'Affaires, who, though not so highly salaried as the Earl of Westmoreland, opened his house and his purse to them with great liberality. The property which these gentlemen had acquired in Hungary, consisting of real and personal property, being too heavy to be secured, they were obliged to abandon to the mercies, not of the mob, but of what was worse, of the cowardly and bullying Austrian Government. The English Government were bound to apply to this case the principle which had been acted on with reference to Mr. Finlay. The whole question was one of international law, which was decidedly opposed to the oppressive, despotic, and unjustifiable treatment these missionaries had received. He complained that in this, as in Mr. Mather's case, Lord Malmesbury had made excuses which would make the one as disgraceful to him as the other had been proved to be in the course of the discussion which took place last night. The Free Church of Scotland, and the Society for the Conversion of the Jews, then interposed on behalf of the missionaries, who were in their employ, and they presented a memorial to the Foreign Office. In answer to that memorial, they were told by the Earl of Malmesbury, on the 20th March, 1852, that it appeared from a preliminary inquiry which had been made, that the measure was adopted by the Austrian Government in pursuance of a determination not to tolerate any longer interferences of foreign missionaries with the religious faith of the Austrian Jews. The noble Earl also stated that Her Majesty's Government could not dictate to the Austrian Government what amount of religious toleration should be conceded within the Austrian dominions, and that therefore he should abstain from making any formal claim for redress. Another remonstrance was thereupon addressed by the same parties to the noble Earl; and, on the 28th of April, a reply was received to it, in which it was stated that repeated appeals had been made to the Austrian Government to make some compensation for the loss and injury these parties had sustained, but that the answer had been completely unfavourable. The facts of the case were not denied. It was admitted, amongst other things, that there was a loss of property; but the Earl of Malmesbury condescended to be the apologist of the Austrian Government, and would not ask redress for the wrongs which had been inflicted. The parties complaining were told, in effect, in the name of the Austrian Government, whom the noble Lord wished to conciliate, that they had no right to endeavour to convert Jews who were the property, soul and body, of their Austrian master. It was not to be expected that Scottish blood would remain quiet under such treatment. Accordingly meetings were held in which was used language adequate to the occasion; and it was determined no longer to memorialise the Government but to appeal to the Legislature. It would appear that the Earl of Malmesbury then began to reflect seriously on the course which he had pursued; and on the 28th of April, 1852, he desired his Under Secretary to write a letter which closed the correspondence. In this letter the Under Secretary said he was desired by the Earl of Malmesbury to state that after several urgent appeals made to the Austrian Government through the Earl of Westmoreland, a reply had at length been received; that the reason assigned by the Austrian Government for the delay which had occurred in giving this reply, was the necessity of awaiting the detailed report of the local authorities on the matter; that this report had now been received, and that the Earl of Malmesbury regretted to say that it was completely unfavourable. Unless the British Government was prepared to be called a bully and a coward, it ought to apply to these outrages upon Messrs. Edwards, Wingate, and Smith, the same measures as it applied with respect to the outrage on Mr. Finlay, at Athens. If the Government shrank from the application of such measures towards Austria, it would be at once inferred that this country, whilst it played the bully with a weak Government, was not prepared to deal with a strong one. Vattel and Grotius, and every writer on the subject of international law, showed that the Earl of Malmesbury, as the organ of this country in foreign matters, ought to demand justice from the Austrian Government.