Lord William Lennor said, a petition had been presented against the return for Windsor, and afterwards withdrawn. It appeared to him rather extraordinary that it

BOROUGH OF WINDSOR.] Mr. Sheil presented a Petition from 155 of the electors of New Windsor, praying the House to prevent the officers of his Majesty's establishment from interfering in any way whatever with the freedom of election. The petition stated facts which were well deserving the attention of the House. It stated, that at the last election the freedom of election had been grossly abused by the interference and influence of his Majesty's Household Officers, compelling persons dependent on his Majesty to vote for a person named by them. That Sir Frederick Watson and different officers of the Household appeared at the last election, and did all in their power for the purpose of influencing electors-that by their undue promises of their influence from their situation, they induced many persons to vote for Sir Samuel J. B. Pechell. They (the officers) stated, that Sir John was a personal friend of his Majesty, and that it was necessary they should vote for him, &c. Persons had been sent from Brighton to vote for this individual, and it was alleged that the Earl of Belfast, one of the Household, had attended in the hall, to see that they did so vote. He (Mr. Sheil) had apprized Lord Belfast that his name was introduced into the Petition, and had requested him to name the subject to Sir John Pechell. Lord Belfast had stated, that he was certainly at the election, but that he went there only from motives of curiosity. The petition was not signed by persons who were wholly undeserving of regard, for it was signed by 155 persons, all of them

voters.

Lord Althorp said, he spoke in great ignorance of the subject, but he should really hope that no improper interference whatever had been used. Every one knew that in elections, when persons connected with candidates canvassed, it was often the case that the disappointed party attributed an improper interference in favour of the successful candidates. He was aware of Lord Belfast's name being introduced into the petition, but he was not aware of any other part of it. Lord Belfast was present at the election merely from curiosity, and not for the purpose of influence.

ment contained in the present petition was

true.

The Petition ordered to lie upon the Table.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] On the Motion, that the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill be read,

Lord Howick said, that before the debate was resumed, he wished to take that opportunity of setting right a misunderstanding that had gone abroad in consequence of the speech of the hon. and learned member for Bridport, delivered on a former evening. That hon. and learned Member had read a passage from a journal of Sir Samuel Romilly's to show, that in the year 1807 the Government of that day had been prepared to bring in an Insurrection Act for Ireland, which they did not think proper to mention to the then law officers of the Crown; and it was understood, that one of the reasons on which the hon. and learned member for Bridport did not think fit to give his support to the Government on the present Bill was, that two of the Members of the Government of that day were now in office. He (Lord Howick) believed that that was a misunderstanding of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member, but at all events, it was right, that the House should know what were the circumstances alluded to. It was perfectly true, that an Act for the Suppression of Insurrection in Ireland was in the contemplation of the Government of that day-that a Bill for that purpose was drawn up in Ireland, and was submitted to and approved by Mr. Grattan. It was then sent to this country, which it reached only a few days before the Government of that time was broken up. The draft of the Bill was sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but just at that moment began those discussions which ended in the breaking up of the Government. It so happened that his father, who then represented the Government in that House, had actually received the draft of the Bill, but had not had time to read it. It was fit that this circumstance should be known, in order that the impression which had been created

that a Bill of that kind had been concealed from the Attorney and Solicitor General of that day should be removed. The fact was, that the Bill was not in a fit state to submit to the Cabinet, and consequently had not been placed before the law officers of the Crown.

Mr. Romilly thanked the noble Lord for the opportunity thus given him of correcting the misapprehension which it appeared had occurred with respect to what fell from him on a former occasion. The embarrassment he felt at addressing the House for the first time, rendered it impossible for him to be sure as to the expressions he used, but he was quite sure what his intention was. It was not to create such an impression as that of which the noble Lord had spoken. The mode in which he had introduced the subject was as an argument in answer to the remark that this Bill could not be drawn into a precedent, with regard to which he had observed, that he did not think this measure itself would have been introduced but for the example which was set in 1807, and that there were now two Members of the Government who on that occasion had likewise been members of the Government. Nothing was further from his intention than to cast any blame on the Members of the Government of 1806; and if, by what he had said, that impression was created, he was quite sure he had no intention of creating it, for if he could have had such an intention he should have been acting quite contrary to the feelings of the author of the passage, who, to the last day of his life, had entertained the strongest feelings of respect and friendship for the two Members of the Cabinet alluded to-feelings in which he (Mr. Romilly) then and now fully participated.

Mr. Baldwin rose to continue the adjourned debate. The explanation which they had just heard given, had no doubt given great satisfaction to the noble Lord opposite; but it had given him none, for, whatever were the feelings of respect which the hon. and learned Gentleman testified to the individuals alluded to, it was impossible to forget that they were two of the Government, that in 1807 were ready to propose an Insurrection Act for Ireland, and that now brought in this tyrannical measure. It was impossible, too, that he could fail to observe (and this circumstance did gratify him) that so good, so great, and so eminent a man as Sir Samuel Romilly had been opposed to the Insurrection

Act, and that in that, great man's mind, it made no difference whether the Act was proposed by his colleagues in office or not. To Irishmen it was no matter of consolation that the hon. and learned Member should talk of his feelings of respect for the noble Lord at the head of the Government, for it was impossible to forget what he now proposed to do, and recollecting that, he could not entertain feelings of respect, similar to those professed by the hon. member for Bridport, though, when he first entered that House, no one possessed them so strongly as he did. He had told his constituents that he believed he should only find himself opposed to the noble Lord on the question of the Repeal of the Union. He had felt, too, the greatest respect for the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp), but he must confess, that the Bill which he now held in his hand was so direct a violation of the rights of man (he hoped he was not using language not recognized in that House nor by the Constitution, for he did not mean to speak in a revolutionary manner, nor contrary to law), but it was so direct a violation of the rights of man, and its enactments were so unjust and so uncalled for, that no individual should have his support who could bring in such a measure. Thenoble Lord (Lord Althorp) was well known to possess great kindness of disposition but it would seem that by some fatuity some unaccountable self-forgetfulness, he had been induced to give his respected name to a Bill which would excite throughout the country a degree of agitation, that no healing measures could afterwards appease. The present Bill, too, he thought, came with a very bad grace from a man, who, a few months since, had so strongly pressed forward the Reform Bill, on the ground that the people did not possess the rights they ought to have. Why were the Irish people to see military tribunals established in their country, instead of the ordinary administration of the law? Why was the old example of France, in former times, to be thus imitated? Were Ministers aware of the probable consequences of their own Act? The men who sat upon these tribunals in Ireland, and thus became familiarized with military law taking the place of the law of the land, would be ready instruments, on future occasions, to sit on military tribunals in Great Britain. He warned the people of Great Britain against the example. If the noble Lord still continued to think that the power of such a military tribunal was necessary

if his enlightened and benevolent mind continued to retain the conviction that such a measure of severity was still to be dealt out to the unhappy people of Ireland, then he was not the noble Lord the world had hitherto taken him to be-he was not that high-minded and virtuous man which he had hitherto imagined, and which society at large was willing to believe the noble Lord to be. He could not, therefore, refrain from expressing a hope that the noble Lord would re-consider a proposition so adverse to the peace and the well-being of the Irish, and so diametrically opposed to every principle of sound policy and even of common justice-a measure not merely injurious and oppressive as respected the Irish, but inconsistent with the character of the noble Lord himself, and with the dignified position which he had hitherto maintained in the political world. Let him only reflect on the dangerous proposition then under the consideration of the House, and save his reputation before it became too late, else the laurels he had won in the past years of his contests for freedom would be tarnished, and his name become a term of reproach, when ever political character happened to be mentioned. The condition of Ireland had been referred to by some hon. Members as a reason to sustain such a measure as the present; and the right hon. Baronet who had addressed the House with so much effect on Friday, had referred to that condition, as affording a justification of a measure which no impartial or intelligent man could suppose admitted of any justification. Now, he would rest the issue upon this question-had or had not the ordinary means of attaining justice been resorted to, and had such an experiment been tried and failed? If so, a British Ministry, acting upon British principles of freedom, would not stand under the ban of such deep condemnation as they must do, if it were true, as unquestionably it was, that no such experiment had ever been even mentioned, much less tried by them. Would not the independent portion of that House feel, that in omitting to give to the Irish people that species of fair play, the Irish Government had been guilty of the very grossest neglect? And was the noble Lord or his supporters prepared to say, that the country should be punished on account of their neglect? Was Ireland to be hunted out of the pale of all civilization-of all law-of all constitutional right-of the fair and equal distribution of justice to which the

most degraded of mankind were entitled, merely because the Government, which, to her great misfortune, had been placed in authority over her, was guilty of a neglect, for which they, and not the people deserved to be punished? The noble Lord had himself admitted, that the disturbances which were said to have made that measure necessary, were confined to a few counties of Leinster-there was nothing to be found in the other parts of Ireland which could at all warrant a proceeding of such strong coercion. Now the noble Lord had, by the measure itself, recognized the principle, that one part of the Empire might be legislated for without reference to the other parts; for he took out Ireland, and proposed to subject that unhappy land to the provisions of an Act, to the oppression of which the remotest ages and the most barbarous countries could furnish no parallel. Well, if he might do that with respect to a large portion of the Empire, it was perfectly competent to him to do so with respect to a smaller portion. What was there, he should be glad to learn, that prevented the noble Lord from bringing in a Bill that should only extend to the disturbed counties, and to them alone? The inconsistency and the injustice were monstrous, of applying the law to the whole island, when confessedly a large proportion of it was in a state of the most perfect tranquillity. He was aware that every portion of an argument of that nature would be met by the assertion that the political state of Ireland and the condition of society rendered such coercion not a matter of choice but of necessity. What, had there not been disturbances in England, and that very recently too? He happened to have been in England at the time when the present Administration came into office, and he had the pain of witnessing scenes of incendiarism in various parts of the country, and to have read of many more; but had there been any attempt to put an end to those crimes by means of such a measure as the present? On the contrary, that very course was adopted in reference to England which was not tried for Ireland, but which, if tried, he entertained not the slightest doubt would be attended with the most signal success-he alluded to the sending down of Special Commissions into the disturbed districts. The reason of the different treatment applied to the two countries was so apparent, that no man possessing the use of his understanding could be blind to the motives which led to the distinction-Ireland was treated not as an integral

part of the Empire, but as a conquered province. Had such a measure been proposed two years ago in reference to England as was now before them against Ireland, the English Members would have shuddered at the bare mention of such a step in legislation, or rather, he should say, in the destruction of all law, and the abrogation of every thing like justice. For England there was no military tribunalon Ireland, almost without a hearing, Martial Law was to be instantly inflicted. In England an experiment had been tried before extreme measures were resorted to -in Ireland not even the semblance of an experiment was attempted, but the sentence of condemnation pronounced with a prompt itude and a recklessness for which a warrant could in vain be sought in any verified facts, or in any sound principle of policy. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, in one of the most brilliant one of the most persuasive, but at the same time one of the most artful speeches ever delivered within the walls of Parliament, had endeavoured to show, that the circumstances of Ireland did present some justification for that which he should not hesitate to describe as a grievous departure from every principle of constitutional right. Yes, the right hon. Baronet laboured, and not without great success of a certain kind, to show that his Majesty's Ministers might find in the present state of Ireland some justification of the course which they were pursuing. Let the Ministers beware of such hollow support-let them distrust their own measures when they found them supported by such advocacy as that of the right hon. member for Tamworth. Could they be so short-sighted as not to see in that support a deep design of entrapping them into harsher measures than ever the right hon. Baronet had himself perpetrated when in power? And by such means it was evident that that artful statesman sought to inflict a stain upon the character of his political opponents, which in the warfare of party, he might afterwards render subservient to his own purposes. That right hon. Baronet had made large sacrifices for the accomplishment of a great end, upon an occasion that must be fresh in the recollection of all who heard him. He differed from his constituents-he severed himself from his party he made abler speeches in support of liberal principles than he had ever before uttered against them. He had thus gained the good opinion of many; but the advantages thus accruing he flung to the winds by his declaration on

the subject of Reform. Reform, however, had been carried in despite of his opposition; and knowing him as they did, could they suppose he meant well towards them, when the adoption of his counsels would but plunge them deeper in the very courses which they had so often and so severely censured him for pursuing and which had at length cost him his place. That view of his conduct would be much strengthened, if they only took the trouble to examine the reasoning-if reasoning it could be called-of the right hon. Baronet's speech. A tissue of more cunning and ingenious sophisms it had never fallen to his lot to hear, and more especially in those portions of his speech in which he talked of the superabundant population, in which he abused the landlords and defended the Church. But the most remarkable incon sistency in his speech was that in which he in one and the same breath advocated the Bill, and admitted that it was no remedy for the evils at present existing in Ireland. Was there any hon. Member in that House, possessing the slightest degree of penetration who did not see, that the Ex-ministers rejoiced at the proposal of the measure which the present advisers of the Crown had so unwisely been induced to bring forward? It was abundantly clear, that the late Administration and their supporters would give their treacherous assistance in carrying it through both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench should remember that they had been placed there by the voice of the people. Were they prepared to destroy that liberty for being the advocates of which they were raised into power and place would the Ministers now in the Councils of the King coalesce with the supporters of passive obedience-would they do that for the sake of oppressing those who in Ireland presented nothing to them but passive resistance? It had now become the fashion to denounce that passive resistance; but did the Ministers feel themselves safe, when they heard those denunciations echoed by the right hon. member for Tamworth which were recognised as arguments in favour of their own favourite measure? Had they ever found that right hon. Baronet the advocate of any one principle favourable to public liberty? Had he ever said a word in favour of one liberal sentiment, otherwise than with reluctance, and under the pressure of extreme necessity? Not even to the Catholics was he willing to make concessions, until he felt