House, perfectly willing and ready as the have created, and withdrew from the AdGovernment are to enter into a full, a ministration. A limited acquiescence in free, and fair discussion. The question which the House has now to determine is, shall we go into committee on this Arms Bill for Ireland, or shall we acquiesce in an amendment to refer it to a select committee up stairs, professedly, as is admitted by the hon. Mover himself, in order to consume time and allow this law to lapse. I must admit that much higher grounds have been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to-night, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, who spoke last night, and I think that the sooner the great question mooted by them is fairly raised, the better for the people of Ireland, and for this country, also, as tending to determine the position which we are to hold with regard to Ireland. The conduct of the hon. Member for Sheffield on this subject, has all along been perfectly consistent. The hon. Member referred in his speech, to the period when he himself raised the question of the Church of Ireland in this House. The hon. Member raised this question in 1834, and I beg the House to consider what at that time had already been done for the sake of conciliation with regard to Ireland. In 1829, we passed the Catholic Emancipation Act; in 1831, the Reform Act; in 1833, the Church Temporalities Act, by which a large diminution was made in the hierarchy of the Church; we then passed the Tithe Commutation Act, by which the amount of tithes was diminished about 25 per cent.; after this, the education plan was adopted for Ireland. These were large measures of concession and conciliation, which are now declared to be unavailing, as long as the Protestant Church exists in Ireland. This is the proposition for which those who address those multitudinous meetings which I have already alluded to, contend; and which is now again mooted in this House yet the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and the hon. Member for Sheffield. When the hon. Member for Sheffield brought forward his proposition in 1834, I and my noble Friend (Lord Stanley), at that time in the councils of her Majesty, feeling that it was impossible for us to make such a concession, or anything approaching to such a concession, and having thus the misfortune utterly to differ from our then Colleagues, relieved the Cabinet of any obstruction which our presence might

the principle propounded by the hon. Gentleman was obtained from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and those of his Colleagues who remained in office; but Parliament had been found so resolved to resist the proposition-the House of Commons had remained so true to the articles of the Union the House had been so staunch in its determination to uphold the Protestant Church in Ireland, that, notwithstanding the secession of myself and my noble Colleague from the councils of his late Majesty, those who had remained in office, found it expedient to yield to the sense of Parliament, and were driven by an overwhelming necessity to withdraw the proposition. It is now sought again to raise it, to raise it under circumstances allowed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to be of great danger and urgency. It is impossible that questions like these can be mooted in Ireland without exciting dangerous hopes and perilous fears. The British House of Commons is the proper place for their discussion. If those views are entertained seriously by a large portion of the House, by any Members of weight or authority, let them be brought forward in the shape of substantive propositions. Let them not be discussed incidentally upon an Arms Bill. They are far too great, far too mighty, far too important, imperial in their character. If the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition party, possessed of great influence in the stateif the noble Lord, in great emergency of public affairs, does really believe, that some propositions of this kind are absolutely necessary for the salvation of Ireland, let them be brought forward distinctly and fairly. If the noble Lord thinks the pressure of the Irish church too great, if he thinks that church should be reduced let the question be raised, and let it be debated and decided as it deserves. If the destruction of the Irish church, and the transfer of its property to the Romish priesthood, are to be discussed-if the question even of a fixity of tenure is to be mooted, let these subjects be discussed as distinct and substantive propositions but it is unworthy of this House-it is unworthy of the Legislature-unworthy, I will not say, of statesmen, but even of men of ordinary public virtue or common sense in a moment of great public

danger, thus to tamper with questions of in what circumstances is the country now this magnitude. I am ready to debate placed? Catholic emancipation has been them whenever they are brought forward; agreed to, and conciliation has been carI will not debate them now. On a former ried to its utmost limits in Ireland. [Exoccasion there was quoted a passage from pressions of dissent from the Opposition a most sagacious speech of the most sa- benches.] That is disputed. I am glad that gacious statesman of his day (a speech issue has been joined on that question; I rebearing in some parts almost the character joice at it, and I hope the House will permit of prophecy)-a speech pronounced in me-not in a tone of party triumph, but of this House, in 1817, by my right hon. sincerity and truth-to say that I am glad, Friend at the head of her Majesty's Go- very glad, to arrive at a distinct understandvernment. I always steadily advocated ing on this point. If the noble Lord oppoconcession to my Roman Catholic fellow site or the hon. Gentlemen who surround subjects. I supported their claims under him can point out any one measure of a deep conviction that the prophetic warn-conciliation which would not raise the ing of my right hon. Friend was not well two questions-of total and immediate founded. I believed the assertions made overthrow of the Church establishment by their nobility and gentry-I believed in Ireland, and fixity of tenure in respect the solemn oaths of their prelates, given to the land-If they can point out any before a solemn tribunal and on a solemn measure which has not the destruction of occasion. I believed their recorded state- the Irish Church as its object, or an agraments, statements made in the most im-rian subdivision of the soil trenching pressive manner, that if equal rights, as upon the property of the country, both citizens, were given to them they would of which, especially the former, Parliarest satisfied with the terms of the Union,ment is distinctly bound by the Act of and the Protestant church would be safe. Union between Ireland and this country My right hon. Friend notwithstanding all these asseverations, arguing from general principles, expressed some doubt whether these persons, honest at the time, and not intending to deceive others, but deceiving themselves, would, under altered circumstances, be able to act in conformity with those assurances. I, however, at the time, did not share the doubts of my right hon. Friend, and here, perhaps, the House will permit me to read the words of a distinguished statesman, who also disregarded the prophetic warnings of my right hon. Friend. Mr. Canning said :

"For my own part, if I thought that we could not move one step in concession without danger to our civil and ecclesiastical establishments, my part is taken. I would stand at all bazard and at all inconvenience where we are. I would not ask the security of those establishments for any theoretical hope of improvement. But as in my conscience I believe there is no such risk likely to be incurredthat ample securities may be taken, not only against real, but even against imaginary dauger, I am not deterred from examining patiently the practical remedies to be applied to a state of things allowed on all hands to be inconsistent and anomalous, and capable, as I believe, of being amended not only without risk, but with advantage and with increased security to the Establish

ment.'

It was upon these principles, that I supported Catholic emancipation. And

to defend, it will be their duty to propose it, and I venture to promise, that it shall receive every attention on the part of the Government. It is for that reason that I say I am rejoiced that issue has been joined on the subject. It is urged that the late Government had more conciliatory measures in reserve; but what could they be? Already a perfect equality as citizens has been conceded to the Roman Catholics-they have Parliamentary Reform in Ireland the same as in England-there has been a great reduction of the Protestant hierarchy in that country-the burthen of tithes has been transferred from the tenants to the landlord-they have a system of national education, and municipal reform has been cheers; but what was the peculiar chagranted. [Cheers.] The noble Lord racter of the old corporations ? should be borne in mind that they were of a most close and exclusive character; that they were established for the purpose of securing Protestant ascendancy; and that their effect was, to give one party a complete power over the other. Now, however, these bodies are not only thrown open to the public at large, but the Catholics are absolutely in the enjoyment of the chief advantages arising from the change. Then with respect to persons, Roman Catholics have been admitted into

It

the Privy Council of her Majesty, and in this House, lawyers of distinction from Ireland, of the Catholic faith, have taken their place as the legal advisers of the Crown, Then, again, the noble Lord admitted that he had offered Mr. O'Connell not the Chief Baronship of the Exchequer, as that hon. and learned Gentleman asserted himself, but an office second only to that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in station and responsibility namely, the Master of the Rolls. I say, therefore, that unless the House is prepared to adopt the principle of fixity of tenure, or agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield and the hon. Member for Bath, that the Protestant establishment must be overthrown -unless the House is prepared to accede to schemes so dangerous as these-I do not see what measures of further conciliation can be proposed. In the meantime, a power which experience has justified, cannot be parted with, and I do say, that in the present state of Ireland, legislative precautions are indispensable; not to take them, I am satisfied, would be little less than madness.

garding the introduction of gunpowder into Ireland. Formerly these two subjects were, I believe, treated separately, and they certainly are distinct from each other. The one affects outrages which take place in the interior, and has reference to quarrels between the inhabitants of the same district arising from disputes regarding the possession of land, or having an origin in private revenge, or those faction fights which have too long been the misfortune of Ireland. The second object of the bill is an enactment originally introduced in time of war, and seems specially to have in view the danger which may arise in case a disposition for insurrection should evince itself amongst any part of the population, and in case any attempt should be made to procure arms and ammunition from abroad for the purpose of carrying that insurrection into effect. Now, I find, as the noble Lord has truly stated, that precautions on this subject, very slightly varying in their stringency, have been continued from time to time for a period of fifty years. With regard to the first object, in 1838, Lord J. Russell: I had hoped, Sir, that I being then in connexion with the Goit would have been only necessary for me vernment, inquiries were made as to wheto say a few words to justify the course ther the power could not safely be abanwhich I shall take on the important ques-doned, and whether for all useful purposes tion under consideration. The noble Lord a mere registration of arms would not be the chief secretary for Ireland purposes to sufficient. The result of those inquiries go into committee on an Arms Bill, was to convince the Government of Irewhich he has introduced; my hon. Friend land, and to convince me likewise, that the Member for Waterford desires that the effect of such a measure would most that bill should be referred to a select probably be to increase outrage, to incommittee, to inquire whether, with re-crease faction fights, and to throw diffispect to the particular privilege of bearing culties in the way of the police, who were arms, it is necessary to continue the re- seeking either to repress offences, or to strictions at present in force. Such, I bring offenders to punishment. With reconceive, are the questions for our consi-gard to the state of Ireland in 1838 and deration; and I should have been satisfied at the present time, I see no reason why with saying a few words only upon the we should now refuse that power which we subject, had not the right hon. Gentleman thought necessary in 1838. With respect -following other Members, I admit, but, to the other power, it certainly could have as I think, very unnecessarily following been better parted with in 1838 than in them-raised a question as to the whole 1841. We may believe that there is no state of Ireland, and entered upon a dis- present danger of outbreak in Ireland, cussion regarding measures brought for- but certainly I do not think that this is ward in former years and respecting the the moment for giving increased facilities present policy of the Government as it for the introduction of arms. now stands. Into that question I am now therefore, as I am called on as a Member obliged to enter; but before I do so let of Parliament, I am ready to go into comme say a word as to the grounds on which mittee to consider a bill for these purI shall give my vote. The noble Lord poses. I will not now enter into the deproposes-first, certain restrictions regard-tails of such a bill, but I may say in passing the power of having and keeping arms ing that I agree with the argument used in Ireland; and, secondly, restrictions re- by my hon. Friend the Member for Clon

So far,

mel last night, that power recommended | Gentleman the Secretary of State has in 1810 by Mr. Wellesley Pole, to be challenged me to give my opinion, and abandoned, is not a power which need to state my views upon this subject; now be continued. The power of enter- and though that statement will be rather ing into houses by night may be exercised a suggestion of difficulties and of what it most oppressively and with much infrac-is most important for a Government to tion of the liberty of the subject. Re- consider, than any proposition of measures specting the branding of arms, too, I on my part, still, thus challenged, I feel think that is a measure more of odium that I cannot withhold it from the House. and offence than of real security; and I Let me first, however allude to that cannot but think that the argument of the which I have seen, and which I have Member for Bath respecting the stealing been told fell from the right hon. Genof these arms or the forgery of the brands tleman with respect to a Government of is a most forcible argument upon this part Ireland long since past, that which the of the question. But, Sir, as I said before, noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland likeI will not enter into the details of the bill, wise alluded to, as having proposed an but will rather come at once to the consi- Arms Bill for Ireland-I allude to the deration of the larger question which the Government of Ireland in 1806. Nearly right hon. Baronet has raised. The right related as I am to the Lord-lieutenant of hon. Baronet, I admit, only followed that period, I cannot think that the meaothers; the Members for Sheffield and sures of that period were of a similar chaBath, no doubt, gave their opinions on the racter to those of the present day. There state of Ireland; but still I must say, that were other measures under consideration the right hon. Baronet, unless he had at that time. Mr. Ponsonby the Chanmore attentively considered the subject- cellor, Mr. Elliot the Secretary, and Mr. unless he had taken into his view the Grattan, who did not hold office, by the whole state of Ireland, and had come advice of the Lord-lieutenant of that day, down here prepared to say what his mea- transmitted to England a plan for the sures should be, and what he was ready commutation of tithes, which, under the and willing to assent to-unless, I say, he Governments that succeeded, was not had been prepared to do this, I do think taken into consideration for about twenty he had better not have made the speech years afterwards; but which, if it had been which he has just delivered. Sir, the im- adopted, would have prevented much of pression that speech has left upon my that ill blood which has since been promind is this-that the right hon. Baronet duced. There was also a plan for the has made it a charge against the Roman improvement of education in Ireland, and Catholics of Ireland that they have not which did afterwards render effective serbeen sufficiently grateful for past conces- vice to the causes of education. Such sions, and that they, and others on behalf were some of the measures in the contemof the people of Ireland, ask still for con- plation of that Government, while, at the cessions when all has been done for them same time, they thought it necessary to which it is possible for the Legislature to continue the Arms Bill; and what I comaccomplish. Such is the sense which I plain of in the present Government is, attribute to the right hon. Baronet's obser- that while citing the authority of the Govations. They are most important falling vernment of 1806 or of 1835 for their from a Member of the Cabinet; they are present measures, they completely shut still more important coming from the their ears to everything that is conciliatory Secretary of State for the Home Depart- and likely to tend to the permanent welment; and they cannot fail to make a fare of the people, and they look only to deep impression in Ireland. Sir, I thought the temporary restriction of the means of that as a Member of Parliament I might offence against the laws. Is it true, or is be permitted to make some suggestions as it not, that there are grievances to be reto the government of Ireland, but I was dressed in Ireland, to which a Government told by several of my friends that such having what this Government has in was their view of the present state of Ire- greater proportion, and far more, indeed, land, that a discussion in this place would than the late Government had, the means most probably only tend to inflame mu- of carrying their legislation into effect, tual animosities. On that ground I was might well look as affording the opportuwilling to be silent, but the right hon.uity for a permanent improvement of Ire