ignorance or the double-dealing which Ministers had displayed on other questions prevented his friends from trusting them at all. Were they, who falsely told the country that famine would be raging in Ireland at this very moment, to be trusted in any of their other statements? It was mockery and insult, both to England and to Ireland, for Ministers to brandish before their eyes a measure which they never intended to carry into effect; and feeling it to be mockery and insult, he would oppose this measure to the uttermost, and would do his best to kick it and the Ministry out together. He confessed that he should have preferred a direct amendment of a want of confidence in Ministers to the amendment now proposed. Sir Robert Peel used to inform the House that he would not be a Minister on sufferance; but he appealed to the House whether Sir Robert Peel was now anything better than such a Minister, supported as he was by none but his forty paid janissaries, and the seventy other Members who, in supporting him, blazoned their own shame? He then uttered a severe invective against Sir Robert Peel for having separated himself, in 1827, from the Government of an illustrious relative of his (Mr. Canning), on the ground that he could not support a Minister who supported Roman Catholic Emancipation; when he (Sir Robert Peel) afterwards stated, in his place in Parliament, that in 1825 he had declared to Lord Liverpool that that question could not be safely resisted much longer. Was not Sir Robert Peel guilty of most dishonest conduct in resisting Roman Catholic Emancipation for four years after the period at which

he had come to such a conclusion? The country would not twice forgive in the same man the same offence. It was time now that atonement should be made to the betrayed honour of Parliament, and the betrayed constituencies of the empire. It was time that Europe and the world should know that treachery had been committed by the Ministers in power, but that they did not represent the honour of England. The agricultural interests might be betrayed and ruined; but let not the world think that England was a participator in the guilt of those who now sat on the Treasury benches. The time was now come when those who loved the treason which had been recently committed, though they hated the traitor, should join with those who sat on the Protection benches, in showing that they did not approve the recent conduct of Ministers.

Mr. Sidney Herbert rose with great warmth to vindicate the Government from the charges which Lord George Bentinck, with his usual license, had considered himself entitled to cast on Her Majesty's Government. He would not impute to others motives which he should scorn, if they imputed to himself, nor would he import into that House terms which were better suited for any other arena than that where gentlemen of condition were convened to discuss solemnly and deliberately the great interests of the country. The noble lord had accused the Government of not being in earnest with this Bill, because it was now engaged at the commencement of June in discussing the second reading of it. Who had caused that delay except the noble lord, who was now among the first to com

plain of it? The noble lord was once among the foremost to call for the passing of this measure. Where was now all the indignation and horror which he had formerly expressed at the frequency of outrage and assassination in Ireland? Formerly the noble lord had told the House, that if it delayed, even for a single day, to pass this Bill, the blood of every man murdered in Ireland would be on the head of the Ministers, and of every Member who supported them. On whose head was that blood to be now? When the noble lord had answered that question, he would tell him that the Government would persevere in this measure in spite of that factious combination which he had just made with the party opposite, whose motives in opposing this Bill he (Mr. Sidney Herbert) respected, and did not venture to blame. Was the noble lord aware of the rumours which were now about town that some of the noble lords and gentlemen below the gangway had made an offer to Lord John Russell to assist him in defeating this Bill, and in throwing out the Ministry; and that Lord John Russell, with the manliness which belonged to his character, had treated that offer with that which it would not be parliamentary to call contempt?

This declaration elicited loud cries of "Name, Name," but Mr. Herbert declined to respond to the call. After some discussion of a conversational character, Mr. Elliot Yorke asked Lord John Russell whether any such negotiation as that to which reference had been made had been carried on between him and any of the Protectionist party.

Lord John Russell declared that no proposition of the kind had been

made to him from the quarter referred to. He then justified his own course in voting against the second reading, after supporting the first reading of the Bill. Lord G. Bentinck had come to this conclusion on grounds satisfactory to himself, and he (Lord J. Russell) had done the same; but those grounds were public grounds, and there had been no private understanding between them.

Mr. S. Herbert observed, that after this declaration he was convinced of the untruth of the rumours which he had mentioned, and begged to withdraw his observations respecting them.

He

Mr. Hawes could not concur in the arguments which had been directed against this Bill, on the score of delay, by several Members on both sides of the House-for, considering the other important business which had been before Parliament, it appeared to him that that delay was unavoidable. concurred, however, with some other Members who had spoken, in thinking that there was no such mass of crime in Ireland, at present, as would justify the introduction of this measure. He further showed, from the criminal returns, that ever since the year 1843 there had been a large, decisive, and progressive diminution of crime in Ireland. He also showed that the price of land in Ireland had been advancing for some time past, and was still advancing-that its trade and manufactures had been and were improving, and the consumption of exciseable articles had been and was increasing. How, then, was it possible to say that this Bill was necessary for the preservation of life and property?

Lord F. Egerton observed that there were certain broad facts on

the record which he could not deny. He believed that there was a diminution of crime generally throughout Ireland, but only in one of the five counties affected by this Bill; while in the other four counties, which contained a population equal to one-sixth of the whole population of Ireland, the crimes which this Bill sought to prevent rather than to punish, had increased full 60 per cent. The question to be really considered by the House, before it assented to this Bill, was this:-"Were the ordinary powers of the law sufficient to repress the existing disorders?" He frankly confessed that he thought that they were not. Nay, he would venture to predict, that if Lord John Russell should, as was expected, shortly become Minister, and if his benevolent projects for the conciliation and amelioration and regeneration of the people of Ireland should lag behind the progress of these social evils, which all lamented,-as it was very probable, that without any fault of his they would, -he would be found coming down to Parliament to propose a measure with clauses, either analogous to those of the present Bill, or only differing from them in departing more widely from the constitution. There were portions of the present debate to which he had listened with great pain. He did not wish to re-infuse acrimony into a discussion which for some time had been conducted with exemplary moderation; but he must express his unaffected regret, that differences on politics had led to the sacrifice of the feelings of private friendship. He then disclaimed the appellation of a renegade, which Lord G. Bentinck had applied to several gentlemen as honourable as any in the House, and amongst others to himself.

He concluded by stating that this measure had not been proposed as a cure for the evils of Ireland; that he did not support it as such cure; but that he did support it as the means of putting down certain crimes which were prevalent in certain districts of Ireland.

Sir R. Inglis rose to explain the reasons of his vote in support of this Bill, in consequence of Lord G. Bentinck's declaration on a former evening, that all the Members who sat around him had made up their minds to oppose it, and to support the amendment of Sir W. Somerville, with the view of turning out the present Government at all events. He was speaking for himself alone; but having felt that there was a necessity for a measure like the present, he would not allow any collateral matter to disturb the vote which he had originally given in its favour. He should give the same confidence to Sir R. Peel which he had formerly given to Lord John Russell, when that noble lord had introduced, upon the responsibility of the Government, a measure similar to or even stronger than, the present. He could not justify the long and inexplicable delay of the Government, in deferring to this period of the session the second reading of a Bill which they deemed of such vital importance; he would, therefore, tell them, that though he was prepared to support this measure, provided it remained unaltered, he would be ready to oppose it should they consent to allow it to be mutilated like the Bill they abandoned on the 16th of February.

Mr. Colquhoun frankly admitted that Ministers had made out an impregnable case, and that the proofs which had convinced the House of Lords were sufficient to

convince the House of Commons. He thought, however, that Ministers had not pressed their Bill afterwards as rapidly as they ought to have done. The Bill, as it stood, was scarcely adequate to the emergency, and yet Lord J. Russell had objected to two of its most valuable clauses-the curfew clause and the transportation clause. He had noted some extraordinary words which fell from Sir R. Peel, and which filled him with alarm, lest they were employed to provide him with a loophole through which he might creep to the abandonment of those clauses in Committee. If those clauses were abandoned, then the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it was written, for the repression of crime. He therefore called upon Sir J. Graham to inform him distinctly, when he addressed the House, whether the Government intended to stand by those clauses or not. If Sir J. Graham declined to afford him that information, and refused to give him an explicit assurance as to those two clauses, he (Mr. Colquhoun) should certainly not vote for the second reading of this Bill; but if Sir J. Graham spoke out manfully, and declared that the Government would maintain those clauses, he would give it his strenuous support. He then discussed at considerable length the question, whether the Conservative party would be in a better situation by supporting Sir R. Peel as Minister, or by expelling him from power and placing Lord J. Russell in his place. He ultimately decided the question by declaring that it would be better for the Conservative party to have Lord J. Russell in office, whose projects they could defeat by meeting them with their forces undivided, than Sir R. Peel, who, by

creating division in their ranks, was enabled to carry out all the schemes of their opponents.

Lord John Russell, after a few preliminary observations on the speech of Sir R. Inglis, said, that in commencing an examination of this Bill, he was almost tempted to take the same course which a Minister of the Crown sometimes took in proposing a measure of importance, and to propose that that paragraph of the Queen's Speech should be read on which the present measure was founded. Now, giving Ministers every credit for their wish to secure property and life, he must say that the delay of five months after such an announcement could not have been of any advantage to them in securing confidence to the measure which they had brought forward, either on the grounds on which they proposed it, or on the details which they had included within it. In reply to the argument, that Ministers had been prevented from bringing this measure forward sooner by the state of public business, he observed that two courses had been open to them. One would have been, seeing that life was in danger and that famine was impending over the country, to introduce a temporary measure for the preservation of life, and a temporary measure for the supply of food, and to have left the great permanent measure for the adjustment of the Corn Laws for subsequent consideration; but it was clear that, as soon as they attempted to unite a temporary measure of restriction with a permanent system of Corn Laws, they must excite a formidable opposition. Another course would have been to advise Her Majesty not to allude to the subject of Irish outrages and murders in her Speech; to have

passed the Corn Laws and the Custom Laws, and then to have considered whether they would introduce such a measure as that which was then before the House. Referring to the question Lord Lincoln had asked him, namely, 'why he, who had voted in favour of a similar measure in 1835, refused to vote, in favour of this measure in 1846?-he replied, that each case must be judged by its own circumstances, and that it was no justification to say that, because a peculiar course had been pursued at one time, it ought therefore to be pursued at another. In the year 1819 several new and unconstitutional Acts were brought in by the Government of that day for the purpose of putting down democratical outrages. Those outrages were repeated during the period of his Administration. He did not, however, renew those unconstitutional measures, but called upon Parliament for a larger military and constabulary force, and succeeded in repressing them without applying for any extraordinary powers. The same course was subsequently pursued by Sir R. Peel under still more trying circumstances, and was pursued, he was happy to say, with the same success. Again, in the

year 1833, an Irish Coercion Bill was introduced into Parliament more harsh and oppressive even than the present. In 1834 it was mitigated, and again in 1835 it was still further mitigated, until it met with the support of nearly every party in the House. He must, however, remind those who then heard him, that in 1833, when Lord Althorp introduced his measure of severity, he proposed several measures for the improvement and conciliation of Ireland, and that in 1835, when it was renewed, full

confidence was placed by the people of Ireland in the Whig Administration that it would not abuse the power so entrusted to it. From 1835 to 1840 the Act was in existence, but not in operation; and in 1840 the Whig Government determined to let it expire. He then proceeded to show that all the moral effect of this Bill in repressing disorder had been lost by the delay which had occurred in forwarding it through Parliament; and to oppose it, on the ground that there were not in the state of crime in Ireland sufficient reasons for a measure so severe; that its provisions, whilst they were harsh towards the innocent, were ineffective in detecting the criminal, and that they were not accompanied by such measures of remedy and conciliation as ought to accompany any measure of restriction. He had mentioned on a former occasion that he intended to offer to the clause shutting up men in their cottages from sunset to sunrise the strongest opposition, and that he should propose its omission in Committee. He should not have refused his consent to this Bill if he had deemed it necessary, on the ground stated by Lord G. Bentinck, that he had no confidence in the Government. Politically speaking, he had no confidence in the Government; and he was justified in having no confidence in it, by the measures which the Ministers had introduced even during the present year. Those measures were a practical testimony that the Government now in power had been mistaken, and that the Government which it had supplanted was in the right. He called the attention of the House to the fact, that, slandered as the late Ministers had been, not by Sir R. Peel, but by some of his colleagues,