people, but also to the critical state of our foreign relations. This was delicate ground to touch upon, but it should be remembered that all the great political acquisitions of Ireland had been made at such critical times. This allusion was received with some expressions of disapprobation by the house. The debate was a second time adjourned, after a speech from Mr. Macaulay.

On the third night the house was addressed by Mr. Serjeant Jackson, Mr. Thesiger, and Mr. Milnes on one side, and by Sir W. Somerville and Mr. Brotherton on the other.

Mr. Slaney took a middle course. He objected to the low amount proposed for the franchise, which ought in his opinion to be adjusted to a bona fide equivalent for that given by the Reform Act. He should vote, however, for the second reading, with the desire of modifying the 51. clause in com

mittee.

Sir James Graham made a long and powerful speech against the bill. He arraigned in forcible terms the motives of the government in bringing forward the bill which they could not have the slightest hope of carrying, but which was of a piece with that system of continual concessions, of constitutional changes, which they had from the first pursued to conciliate their radical supporters. He traced the progress of this system, in various instances, from the return of the Whigs to power after their resignation in 1835. Then came the present concession of the 57. franchise, which could be regarded in no other light than as a boon granted to Mr. O'Connell. This measure had been proposed by him in 1832, and then

opposed by the government: he had since, from time to time, renewed the attempt to introduce it, and it had been resisted by them with more or less of firmness. Now, at last, they had given way. He must say, he had very evil forebodings as to the use to which this concession would be applied. Mr. O'Connell had declared it was but the means to an end. That end had been explicitly avowed. Lord John Russell and other members of the government had pronounced emphatic condemnations of the agitation for a repeal of the union, but how did their policy consist with such language? Lord Ebrington had recently declared that he would not countenance repeal by bestowing his patronage on any person favourable to it. But what had been the conduct of her majesty's ministers on the subject? The honourable member for Liskeard had said, that there was an instrument by which all popular leaders might be conciliated. That appeared to be the recipe by which the government attempted to put down the repeal agitation in Ireland. It had occurred to him, that it would be worth while to look to a division on a repeal motion made in 1834 by the honourable and learned member for Dublin. In the list there were thirty-eight who voted, and two tellers. He would read it, to show how large a portion of those popular leaders had been conciliated by the delightful recipe. The first on the list was Mr. Fitzsimon, a near relative to the member for Dublin, now appointed to be clerk of the hanaper in Ireland. The next was Mr. Kennedy, then the representative of Tiverton, who now filled the situation of slave commissioner at the Ha

vannah. The next was Mr. Lynch, now a master in chancery. Then came Mr. Maurice O'Connell, clerk of the registry-office in Dublin. Then Mr. O'Dwyer, of the court of exchequer. Then an honourable gentleman who had been made a baronet-the honourable member for Limerick, he believed, sir David Roche. Then came the teller, who was now the president of the board of trade. Last, but certainly not least, came the honourable and learned member for Dublin, who had last year announced in his place that he had been offered the office of chief baron in Ireland by the government, but had refused it, because he could not trust himself.

Sir James Graham then called on lord John Russell to declare whether he was weary of the Reform Act, and to what extent he was now disposed to carry his innovations on that measure. "He thought that noble lord ought frankly to state whether he intended to make further concessions; that he ought to avow his principles, and give them their legitimate effect, even if the fate of his government hung on the issue; or beware, lest it should be said of him with truth, that he was content to govern by the power of the crown, when he had ceased to command the confidence of the nation." (Cheers.)

Mr. Sheil delivered an address, characterised by that species of fervid declamation which usually marks his speeches. He warned the house to consider the present condition of Europe, and to weigh the danger of exciting the enmity of the Irish nation under such circumstances. His speech was followed by a third adjournment of the debate.

On the fourth night, speeches were delivered, for and against the bill, by a great number of English and Irish members, whose arguments, however, were principally a repetition of those used by preceding speakers. A speech of Mr. O'Connell, however, deserves some notice. He asked, "was it politic to tell the people of Ireland that there was no hope for their country or for their religion in any form? The simple question was, whether they would pass a measure to extinguish the franchise of Ireland, or to extend and increase it. That was the real question, and all else was merely collateral matter."

He travelled over the oft-repeated topics of Irish grievances, the penal laws, the insults which Ireland had sustained from England, and the disproportion of the burdens which she was made to

bear, He complained, among other things, of the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders; and utterly denied that it was a compact, or a condition for granting the Relief Bill. He complained of the unequal proportions in which the franchise and representation were distributed by the Reform Act. The constituencies in Ireland were gradually diminishing, and the Irish people had to thank lord Stanley for having called attention to this fact. He denied that this bill would extend the franchise too far. He would gladly give a vote to every man in Great Britain as well as in Ireland. Again, alluding to the danger of foreign war, so long as Ireland continued dissatisfied, Mr. O'Connell exclaimed

"I want you to tell the people of Ireland that all these divisions shall end; that you will identify them with you. Oh! refuse it

I threaten you with nothing. I prophesy-I tell you that you are the real repealers, and not I. I tell you, that by this additional insult you bring the banner of repeal amongst a people altogether of the middle classes, and many of them of the leading gentry."-Of this they might rest assured, that while he lived, no violent measures would be taken in Ireland. He relied with confidence on the Catholic clergy, those truest "unpaid magistrates," to second his efforts to this end. Outrages committed by a remnant of the Orange party on Catholics might occur, but never a tangible rebellion.

Sir Robert Peel began by some severe animadversions on Mr. O'Connell, for the spirit in which he had dwelt upon the old animosities between England and Ireland. It was a libel on the Irish people, to say that they would not join England in resistance to a foreign enemy. He hoped that Messrs. Macaulay, Sheil, and Buller, who had held the language of menace, were prepared to take their course when, in the next session, Mr. O'Connell should advance still further demands as the price of peace. The real object of the present measure was to subvert the old, and to substitute a new representation. He would not suffer himself to be diverted into a consideration of the details of lord Stanley's bill; the introduction of which, however, was the whole argument of the ministerial party, for not one of them said a word in favour of the government measure itself. He wished for a test which would exclude the present difficulties, but he would not agree to continue a system of proved abuses until a new test could be agreed upon. The miVOL. LXXXIII.

nisters had no right to tack on to the remedy a condition which must certainly defeat it. By that condition, the county franchise was thrown open to persons possessing not an atom of property; it was a fraud on the compact made at the time of the Reform Act-a compact which, on the ground of its continuing obligation, lord John Russell himself had, so lately as 1837, refused to disturb. It was a fraud on the arrangement for the relief of the Roman Catholic body, whereof one condition was, that the county voters should, if possible, be made an independent body. Without that condition, the Relief Bill would undoubtedly not have been suffered to pass. When lord Morpeth refused to Mr. O'Connell the permission even to introduce his bill for the enlargement of the Irish franchise, it was on the twofold ground of the Relief Act and the Reform Act. On the other hand, he (sir Robert Peel) should himself regret to see any diminution of the constituent body below the standard fixed by the Reform Act. The 40s. franchise had been abolished, not by the wishes of the government which passed the Relief Act, but by the testimony of the Roman Catholic witnesses before a committee of the House of Lords in 1825. Mr. O'Connell's evidence at that time was, that the abolition of the 40s. franchise would be a positive benefit to Ireland. The persons who really abolished that franchise were Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Sheil, by the proofs which they adduced of the miseries resulting from it; and should we now be told that we were insulting Ireland by refusing to restore such miseries? He then read passages from the evidence of Mr. D. Browne, to show the frau

[E]

dulent system on which the Irish landlords concocted these small votes, and he explained how the franchise now proposed would lead to all the same abuses-to political jobbing, and to the increased subdivision of land. If this franchise were granted, what ground had they for resisting a similar concession to England and Scotland? He called on lord John Russell to declare his intention respecting the Reform Act, whether he meant to hold it permanent or not. The noble lord might have reasons now for holding different opinions to those which he avowed in 1837, There were lukewarm supporters whom it was necessary to conciliate, and his falling power required to be propped up. But his power of resistance to all future demands would be greatly weakened by the precedent now established. Sir Robert Peel then quoted several emphatic declarations made by lord John Russell in 1834 and in 1837, against fur. ther changes in the constitution of the House of Commons. These were manly declarations, but the noble lord might now find the pressure upon him too strong to allow him to maintain the same language. He might find it necessary to seek compensation for the loss of that public confidence which he now saw was leaving him, by renewing the alliance with those in that house who appeared ready to withdraw from him their support. He might purchase, by concession on these points, a tem porary support. But he (sir Robert Peel) could not help thinking, when the noble lord recalled to mind the declarations of 1834 and 1837, it would abate something of the feeling of satisfaction with which he contemplated his

temporary triumph over the pressure of immediate difficulties. Something of dissatisfaction in reflecting on the small majority he might bring to his aid to-night must cast a gloom over the festivities with which, perhaps, he might celebrate the new compact and the new alliance, when the mortifying regret came across him that he had gained that support by receding from the position which had enabled him to arrest the progress of democratic principles, by stopping the progress of social improvement in Ireland, by encouraging hopes in this country, by rousing passions and exciting expectations which he could not disappoint without being the object of indignation, and which he could not gratify with out being the fomenter of convul sion." (The right hon. baronet sat down amidst loud and protracted cheering.)

Lord John Russell said, that the Tory government which passed the Relief Bill had been guilty of the same concession to the apprehension of popular demands as sir Robert Peel had reproached the present government with giving way

to.

If there was any breach of faith, it was in those who shackled the franchise with so many difficulties, that the government, con. stantly taunted with protecting the abuses of the registration, found it necessary to take some measure on the subject, which, on other considerations, they would have preferred to postpone. They had deemed it indispensable, in introducing such a measure, to apply a remedy to the great cause of the evil-the ambiguity of the franchise. They had selected the franchise now proposed, consisting of a tenure which seemed appropriate to a county franchise, and a rating

which afforded a measure of real value. It was enough to warrant the second reading of this bill, if gentlemen were prepared to vote for the principle; the rest was matter of detail, to be adjusted in the committee. He censured the reflections thrown out upon the judges of Ireland, and regretted that they should be consulted at all upon political questions. Lord John Russell then read some official returns, with the view of showing that a diminution had taken place in the number of electors, and illustrated the fact by reference to the unwillingness of landlords to grant leases. Under such a reduction, some restorative measure was necessary. He then addressed himself to the question, whether any change had taken place in his opinions with respect to the repeal of the Union, and the finality of the Reform Act. With respect to the former subject, they were the same as ever; he still looked on the repeal of the Union as the greatest calamity which could happen to both countries. But it was because he was attached to the Union that he felt bound, as a minister of the crown, to see that the Irish people were not wronged. As to abiding by the principles settled by the Reform Act, his views were still the same as those which he had avowed in 1837, in his letter to the electors of Stroud. But when he found the elective franchise in such a state of doubt and obscurity, so vague and undefined, as to lead to the greatest abuse, and at the same time so restricted as almost to extinguish the constituency, and when he found the judges themselves divided as to what was the law on the subject, he could not think that, by interposing a remedy for such an extra

ordinary state of things, he was introducing a precedent for a change of system in England and Scotland. He had been reluctant to interfere with the Irish Reform Act till it became absolutely necessary, as it had now beccme, in consequence of lord Stanley's bill, and the votes of the House of Commons in the last session. He then referred to the statistics of the question, and contrasted the number of registered electors in English counties with the number of those in Irish counties of equal population, and argued that there was more danger of making the Irish exasperated by the restriction, than the English dissatisfied by the extension, of the Irish franchise. He did not fear, in any event, that the allegiance of Ireland would be transferred to a foreign power, yet it was a matter of no small importance at the same time to be able to treat with France, America, or any other power, as the ministers of a sovereign who ruled over an united and happy people. He disbelieved Mr. O'Connell's assertion, that there was any indisposition in the people of this country to do justice to Ireland. On the contrary, he believed that, if the case were fairly stated to the people of England, they would be glad to do that justice. The Irish people had laboured under many disadvantages, but he believed that, from the inestimable effects of the free working of the constitution, the advancement and improvement of that country were rapidly taking place, and that parliament would soon see the benefits derived to the community from their measures. (Loud cheers.)

The house then divided, when the numbers were--For the second