a paramount sense of its necessity, and I tell the noble Lord that the Government will persevere in urging it through Parliament-urging it in spite of all his vituperation-in spite of that factious combination

he is now ready to oppose a measure, al- | Sir, we have introduced this measure from 188 though he thinks it right, because it is a paramount sense of its necessity. The opposed by the hon. Gentleman whose noble Lord, who says that he does not see claims on the affections of the people of in us a conviction of its necessity, sufficient Ireland had such charms for the political to enable him to vote for it, will allow me predilections of the noble Lord. not go back to other matters to which the fidence in the Government that he voted I will to inquire whether it was through any connoble Lord has alluded. We have had for it a few weeks ago? sufficient discussion already on the subject evidence as to the necessity of the measure Was not there of the Corn Bill. I do not think the House laid before the House? Could not the noble has much disposition to go again over that Lord judge of it then by that evidence; ground. The noble Lord may make his and does he not judge of it by the same accusations of treachery; he may charge evidence now? us, in consequence of our conduct, with evidence adduced then that the noble Lord It was from reading the having forfeited his confidence. I must voted. say, if this Government is to cease to rule has happened in the interval, that the Then, Sir, I want to know what in this country after the exhibitions same statements are now to be discredited? I have seen; after the willingness I have How is it that the remedies once so loudly seen in the noble Lord to sacrifice his called for, are now no longer, necessary, opinions at three weeks' notice, and ally and the crimes so loudly decried are now himself with political parties with whom he no longer reprehensible. Sir, the country cannot have any political sympathy-with a will judge of the course which the noble party whose proceedings would tend in my Lord has taken. Sir, I repeat that Gobelief to a dismemberment of the Empire-vernment have brought in this Bill under I say, that after these things, of all the loss with which we are threatened, the loss which I should care the least for would be that of the confidence of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says we are not in earnest in pressing this Bill. He quotes, with that unfortunate love of arithmetic which leads him to calculations in human blood now, just as it led him to grain, tallow, and timber before-a calculation to show that though three weeks back it might be worth the while of the Government to interfere, it is not worth while to interfere now, because he finds only 552 homicides in the returns. Only 552 homicides! The whole tone of his mind, in fact, is changed in consequence of some prospects he entertains from the combination of parties in this House, but totally irrespective of the opinions he himself advanced. But I answer the noble Lord, that the Government, which is responsible for the peace of Ireland, cannot consider that on account of some combination of parties, human life is not to be regarded there. They do attach some importance to that denouncement of the noble Lords, that if they do not persist with the Bill, they incur a fearful responsibility. The people of this country will judge between them and the noble Lord. They know the professions which the noble Lord and his party had made from this side of the House. They know the opinion which he expressed, and the strong terms in which he hurled defiance at that party with whom he is now leagued in compact.

I make no charge against hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those hon. Gentlemen who have opposed this measure are right, nay, are bound to continue their opposition. It is those who alter their course without any alteration in the circumstances, I denounce. Sir, if I may be allowed to allude to the rumours circulated for the last few days, I may repeat that I have heard it stated that proposals have been made to the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) to bring to his assistance the services of a number of Gentlemen who are more anxious to divide with him than to consider the merits of the question-a proposal in reference to which the noble Lord had acted as I should have expected him to act-he treated it with that silence which I Parliamentary to designate as the silence suppose it is hardly of contempt. ["Name, name!"] Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who are so anxious to know the names of those who have thus preferred to make combination to unseat a Government, rather than to act upon the plan which they had enounced-rather than to continue to give that vote which by every pledge they had bound themselves to give-I can only recommend, after the division shall have taken place, to study the list, where they will find the names they are in search of.

!

I have made no charge against an indi- | same necessity for it now as when they had vidual. I was speaking of a party, and voted for it upon the first reading. They judging them by their acts. I see a party were then assured that the Government who suddenly, on the same measure, and were in earnest about it; and yet they perwithout any change of circumstances, take mitted the Corn Law Bill to pass through a diametrically opposite course; and the this House instead of this more important noble Lord at once avows that it is done measure. He could not believe that the with the intention of displacing the Go- same necessity now existed for it. They vernment. Under these circumstances why said that now they would not pass this Bill should I be called on to name? Well, Sir, because they had no longer any confidence to this measure, introduced as it has been in the Government. They had but little with much deliberation-introduced as it has confidence when they supported them on been with the support of the great body of the first reading; and he thought that that this House-whatever may be the altered littleness was now considerably less. That circumstances we have now to combat, want of confidence was further increased by whatever may be the combinations against the conduct of the Government in respect us-I repeat, Sir, that to this measure the to the Poor Law Settlement Bill. They Government are determined to adhere. I had been told that they had entered into a know not what may be its fate, but this I compact with Gentlemen on the opposite do know, that in the attacks which the side of the House. He was not aware noble Lord has made on the sincerity of that the noble Lord had ever entered into the Government in bringing forward this any such compact. He believed that the Bill, he shows that he has but little know- only agreement and compact that existed ledge of the motives by which public men between them was this-that they had no are guided; but I trust that this House will confidence whatever in Her Majesty's Gonever sanction a departure from that hon-vernment. ourable spirit in which the affairs of the country should be conducted. I for one, at least, shall deeply regret to see power placed in the hands of those who seem to be incapable of understanding that a public man may have higher than mere party objects, and that he may be ready to sacrifice even party support for the purpose of ensuring the success of measures, necessary, in his opinion, for promoting the happinesss and prosperity of the country.

The MARQUESS of GRANBY: The right hon. Gentleman had said that his noble Friend had used language in that House that was most unusual; he thought that the Government had taken a course that was also most unusual. The conduct of the Government had been such as had not before been witnessed in that House. They were sent by their constituents to deliver their opinions honestly and fairly in this House; and if the conduct of the Government had been so extraordinary, language might naturally have been uttered in respect to it which, on more mature consideration, might not have been uttered. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the noble Lord had remarked that the blood of all those who were murdered in Ireland, would fall upon the heads of the Government if they delayed this measure for a single day; but Her Majesty's Ministers had delayed it for a period of six weeks. They could not suppose that there was the

MR. ROSS moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. J. O'CONNELL complained that the Secretary at War should have spoken of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien) as a person who desired the dismemberment of the Empire. The charge, if at all applicable to that hon. Member, was equally applicable to those who held his opinions as to the legislative union between the two countries; and when made in that House must be met with the shortest and promptest denial.

MR. S. HERBERT said, all he had stated was that the noble Lord was entering upon an alliance with a party which sought objects which, in his opinion, would lead to the dismemberment of the Empire. This, however, was merely a matter of opinion, and on which a difference of opinion undoubtedly prevailed.

MR. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said, he would take advantage of the question of adjournment to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) for an explanation of a phrase in his speech, which, under the circumstances in which the House was now placed, would, he thought, be deemed but a reasonabie demand on his part. The right hon. Gentleman had made allusion to rumours about town that those who retained the principles which they held this time last year, but who now found themselves at variance with Her Majesty's Govern

dated 21st March, 1846, and was addressed to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Young). His noble Friend, in that letter, said—

I then frankly told you, with respect to the Anti-Murder Bill, that I believed the whole party with whom I served were but of one opinion, that it was a most unconstitutional measure, and only to be justified by some dire exigency. I believe I termed it another Curfew Act, and said that nothing but the most imminent danger could excuse it; but that if the Government were prepared to state that the emergency did exist, and were ready to have their honesty and sincerity tested by pressing the measure with all possible speed through the House, we should be disposed to give them credit for the existence of so dire an emergency, and, in spite of the statement of Lord Clanricarde in the House of Lords, we would support them. But if, on the contrary, it should appear from their conduct that in their hearts they did not believe such dire necessity did exist-if the danger to life was so little imminent that they the security of life was said to depend—a measure could afford to postpone the measure on which not intended to come into operation for three years then the complexion of the case would be very much altered, and I conceive we should feel ourselves bound to take a different course, presuming, as we must under such circumstances, that no true or lasting ground did in fact exist for the adoption of so unconstitutional a measure.” Now, the right hon. Gentleman must see from the letter he had received that the casus fœderis was not with his noble Friend, and he must also see that situated as that party (the country party) was in that House, it did not become them to let one single night pass away without demanding from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of the grounds on which he asserted that such rumours were prevalent in town, and whether he had traced them to their source, or could apply them to any hon. Member who had a seat in that House at present?

ment, had entered into a compact against | the Ministers with the noble Lord who conducted the Opposition. He did not state that such a compact had been entered into; but he said a proposition had been made by the Gentlemen below the gangway, which the noble Lord had treated with something which it would be unparliamentary to term contempt. If the right hon. Secretary at War said this in the heat of debate, he could get up and offer an explanation; but if he said it decidedly, believing it, and intended to adhere to it, he would no doubt be glad, before the debate concluded, to have an opportunity of definitively and decidedly reiterating, not only that statement, but also informing the House who, amongst the party maintaining the principles of protection in that House, was the man to whom he alluded. It was not his wish to add a word of bitterness to the debate; and he trusted that neither his language nor manner proved that he had such a wish; but he felt it incumbent upon him to ask, and he thought the House would sympathize in his wish to know, what ground the right hon. Gentleman had for the charge he had made against them? He said charge, because it was preferred as a charge. He might say, and he would say also, that if they felt themselves obliged to oppose the measure of the Government, they could not hold out to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) any reason to believe that they could sympathize with the policy which he had exhibited, or that they could forswear their own principles to follow his; although differing, as they widely did, from the noble Lord, he knew of nothing in his character, public or private, to make them ashamed of having had intercourse with him. But he MR. S. HERBERT assured the hon. must remind the House that the original Gentleman that he believed there was no casus fœderis was not with the noble Lord, Member of the House against whom any but with Her Majesty's Government. His charge of discourtesy could be made with noble Friend had proposed to read to the so little justice. With respect to the letHouse certain correspondence which some ter which the hon. Gentleman had read, time since passed between him and a Mem- he did not think he was called upon then ber of the Government; but no Member of to enter upon it. The noble Lord, at the the Government had responded to that pro- time he wrote, no doubt, took what he position; and the correspondence therefore thought the best course; but all it amountremained in obscurity. With the permis-ed to was, that he told the Government, if sion of the House he would read one extract from that correspondence; and if it were the wish of the Government, or of any Member of the House, his noble Friend would make that correspondence public. If his noble Friend had written in the spirit of prophecy, he could not have rendered his letter more opportune to present circumstances. His noble Friend's letter was

they went on with the Corn Bill, he would vote against them. So much for that letter. With respect to the observations he made, and of which the hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation, he begged to recall the House to the exact expressions he had used. He had not asserted of his own knowledge any fact whatever, nor had he quoted any authority. He said that ru

mours had flown about town that the noble | wished to omit the clause which obliged Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) and those who persons to remain in their own houses from acted with him had made an offer to the sunset to sunrise. On further considering noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) to this Bill, he thought it would be the fairer support him in opposing the second reading and more direct course to oppose the seof this Bill. Rumour had no name; but cond reading of the Bill, rather than so to as the noble Lord appeared to dislike the mutilate it as to leave none of its important imputation, he would beg leave to show clauses. He stated on the 25th May, the him how he might easily disprove it. If day on which this Bill stood on the Orders any blame attached to the noble Lord or of the Day, that he wished the right hon. his party for taking that course, it was not Gentleman opposite to state whether he for proposing to do it, but for actually meant to bring it forward, or whether it doing it; and, therefore, if the division was not to be brought forward in the course should ultimately show that a large portion of the present Session; and he stated at of the Gentlemen in that House who voted the same time, that he thought it fairness in favour of the Bill on its first reading to him to state that when he did bring it should vote on its second reading directly forward he should think it right to oppose against it, he contended he should be jus- the second reading. It was true that tified in assuming that rumour to be well some of his intimate friends had since that founded. time asked him what it was his intention to do with regard to the Bill, and whether they were authorized to state his intentions to any person who might apply to know what his intentions were. He did not use any contemptuous silence; he said, "I have already declared in the House of Commons my intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill; and you will declare those intentions to whatsoever person or party may ask." With regard to the noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, he had come to his conclusion on grounds which were satisfactory to him; and he (Lord J. Russell) had come to the same conclusion with regard to this Bill, on grounds which were satisfactory to himself. He trusted he should have an opportunity of stating them in the further course of the debate; but those grounds were entirely public, and they rested on this, that he thought it would be injurious to Ireland and to the protection of life to allow this Bill to pass.

MR. E. YORKE observed that it had been most distinctly stated that a negotiation had been declared to have been carried on. He appealed to the House whether any other construction could be put upon the words made use of by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, that some application had been made to the noble Lord; and he asked the House to judge impartially, whether, if an application had been made, that application was not made by some one? If the application had been made to the noble Lord, he trusted the noble Lord would say so, for the sake of the House and the party by whom the application was made. This would give the person an opportunity of stating upon what authority he made it. If they had a denial on the part of the noble Lord that any such statement was made, then it gave good ground for knowing that they could have no possible confidence in a Government which sought to abandon a Bill for the Protection of Life for the purpose of carrying one which abolished the Corn Laws.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, that he would answer the hon. Gentleman who sat on his bench (Mr. Stafford O'Brien), and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. No application or proposition had been made to him on the part of the noble Lord, or of any other hon. Member. He might, perhaps, be permitted to state that the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland seemed not to be aware of the objections which he had stated to the House on the first bringing in of this Bill; that he then stated that he had objections to some of the clauses; that he particularly

MR. S. HERBERT said, that after what had passed, it was due to the hon. Gentleman who had first put the question to say that the noble Lord's statement was conclusive on the subject: he was misinformed.

Debate adjourned till Friday.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

SIR R. PEEL said, it was his intention to move that from and after Thursday, the 18th June, Orders of the Day should have precedence over Notices. It had been the uniform course to move, at the present period of the Session, that a third day should be devoted to the transaction of the public business which belonged to the Government. He begged leave, therefore, to

H

MR. R. YORKE apprehended that the PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from proposed course had been usually adopted every year, and had been found to work well. If the matter went to a division, he should, therefore, vote with the Government.