was a sort of compact which would tend fing that it would prove that the Court of to produce a better feeling than that Directors had acted with justice, and at which had previously existed between the same time with leniency. In 1841, employers and employed. Whether it during his voyage in a troop ship to Bommight prove a sound remedy for the bay, Lieutenant Hollis was put under abuses which prevailed, he did not pre-arrest; he broke that arrest, and made tend to say he might have some doubts use of language to his superior officer upon that point; but be certainly did utterly subversive of all discipline, and think, that as no objection had been such, indeed, as no one gentleman would started by the masters, and as the measure use towards another. He was therefore had been held out to the men as one of tried, and sentenced to be cashiered; but security for them, that unless any hon. in consideration of the conduct of his suMember were prepared to state that there perior officer, he had been recommended was any practical objection standing in to mercy, and the East Company had, in the way, it would be hard to interfere with consequence of that recommendation, the passing of the Bill. granted to him a pension of 70l. a year, being only 10. below that to which he would have been entitled had he retired upon half-pay, without a stain upon his Motion agreed to. Sir J. Graham suggested that further debate upon the subject should be adjourned until Friday, by which time he would have had an opportunity of consult-character. ing his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade upon the Bill. The effect of the proposed alteration in the law would be to make compulsory that which was optional under the Bill of the hon. Member for Montrose. The feeling of the working classes he understood to be strongly in favour of the Bill. Amendment withdrawn. Debate journed until Friday. BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.] Lord John Russell: I do not think that the Motion of which I have given notice will interpose to prevent the disposal of any public business now remaining for our consideration. I understood from the ad-right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Consolidated Fund Bill and some other Bills would be passed at an early period of the evening, and I was perfectly satisfied to postpone my observations until a later period. These measures having been passed, I will take this opportunity-one of the last we shall have this Session-of considering in what way we have performed the duties we were called on to perform by Her Majesty in Her Speech delivered at the commencement of the Session. And in so doing, I CASE OF LIEUTENANT HOLLIS.] Mr. Bickham Escott moved for copies of all letters and other documents which had passed to and from the Court of Directors of the East India Company, and Lieutenant W. Hollis, and to and from the said Court and the Board of Control, relative to the dismissal of that officer from the East India Company's service. Lieutenant Hollis was dismissed from the East India Company's service in 1841, in conse-shall refer to those subjects rather with quence of having made use of insulting language to his superior officer. He (Mr. Escott) admitted that the expressions employed were unjustifiable; but he urged that strong provocation had been given by the unwarrantable conduct of the officer insulted, and he hoped that the case would be taken into the merciful consideration of the Court of Directors. He maintained, also, that the court-martial which condemned Lieutenant Hollis was illegally constituted, and read extracts to prove the extenuating circumstances of the case and the irregular constitution of the Court. Viscount Jocelyn had no objection to the production of the correspondence, believ the view to measure the progress we have made-to point out the defects that are to be found in those measures, and to ask the House to consider the prospect before them-than with the view contemplated on another occasion, and in another place, of proving the Ministers of the Crown to be incompetent to the functions which they have to perform. Whether that be so or not, it is not my present purpose to inquire. If, however, it were my purpose to imitate the practice to which I have referred-if it were my purpose to found a charge of incompetency on the fact that measures were delayed until a late period of the Session, and only sent from one House to the other in the month of July, when there was not time deliberately to consider them; and that many measures brought forward at an early period of the Session were given up at the end; I think ample materials could be found in the course pursued by Gentlemen opposite, for enforcing such topics on the attention of the House. One Bill alone, the Bill of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department I mean the Physic and Surgery Bill-would form the subject for lengthened comment of this description. The right hon. Gentleman was accustomed to lay great blame on me for bringing forward a measure on the Poor Laws of a complicated nature, and afterwards making Amendments in it, in compliance with the suggestions of Members of this House. It is not the custom of the present Government to listen to objections made in this House at least not frequently-but they have the custom of altering from time to time their measures, owing to the suggestions which some particular classes of the community make. Thus, with regard to the measure I have just referred to: first, the Council of the College of Surgeons was implicitly to be relied on; then the general practitioners were to be looked to, and their suggestions complied with; then, from the objections of the physicians and surgeons, it was altered again, and though put in so many different shapes, each one was found unsatisfactory to some large class of the profession. I think I have said enough, if I were to imitate the language that was used with respect to me-if I were to place on such a foundation the charge of incompetency for the functions of legislation that that Bill alone would afford me a sufficient opportunity of making such an attack. But, Sir, I acknowledge there is another question, far more important than the exact mode of legislation carried on as to a number of detailed measures; and that is the question for our consideration, how the great interests of the country are affected by the measures brought before this House, and in what position the country now stands in consequence of them. In reviewing those subjects, I will take the measures in the order observed in the Queen's Speech from the Throne, at the beginning of the Session. The Queen's Speech began by alluding to what will form a very small part of my present remarks namely, the state of our Foreign Affairs. I rejoice to say that we are not now, as we were at the close of the last Session, looking anxiously to the settlement of differences with France, which threatened a rupture of our amicable relations with that country. I am happy to find our friendly relations so close and unbroken, and that there is every prospect of the continuance of peace between these two great and enlightened countries. Sir, there is a question, however, to which, though I do not mean to enter on it in detail, I cannot help adverting for a mo ment or two-I mean the question pending between this country and the United States of America. I wish, without at all desiring to interfere with the discretion of the Executive Government, or at all dictating to them as to the course they may think fit to pursue for the settlement of the question of the Oregon Boundary-I wish still to say that those opinions which I gave this House at another period of the Session, of the justice of our claims, are entirely unshaken by anything I have heard or read since on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, on that occasion, said the Government of this country were prepared to maintain our rights. I do not question that assurance. I do not propose to ask him any explanation of the mode in which he proposes to maintain these rights. I am glad to see-regretting as I do the loss of that distinguished and enlightened man who is now the Minister of the United States in this country-I am rejoiced to see a person, who was here many years ago, and who made himself universally respected and esteemed in the society of this country, has been appointed to replace Mr. Everett. I trust that, with fairness and moderation in the discussion of these questions between the two Governments, without any loss of honour or sacrifice of substantial interests, the negociations will be brought to a friendly and amicable conclusion. With these few words (and I am glad they should be so few), I leave the subject of foreign policy; and I come, at once, to what has been done in the course of the Session with respect to our domestic concerns. My opinion on this subject is not that we should be altogether disappointed at the result of the Session-not that much was not done that affords good prospect for the future; but that while, on the one hand, we may congratulate ourselves on the progress made-especially on the statement of opinions on the other, much has been left unsettled, much that is of principle left unasserted, and much of a practical nature that remains for us to accomplish, if we really wish to serve the interests of the country by our legislation. Now, Sir, I will take, in the first instance, that question pressed so often on the attention of this House, which I imagine will be again pressed on it next Session, and perhaps for many future Sessions I mean the anxious subject of Ireland. Sir, in adverting to that subject, I cannot but, in the first place, rejoice that those opinions which were held by Gentlemen who sat opposite some years ago, have been in a great degree abandoned; that even the language held by one of the principal Ministers of the Crown since he came into office has been retracted; and that, therefore, so far as renouncing former erroneous opinions, and being ready to enter on a new course, I have reason to congratulate the House on what has taken place on this subject. It will not be forgotten, that many years ago, when the Government of Lord Grey was divided on the subject, not only did those who were opposed to us resist the Appropriation Clause (which, as I still think, would have been at that time a fair and moderate compromise on the subject of the Church of Ireland)-not only did they oppose that Appropriation Clause (which I do not say was unnatural with their views of Church property and Church establishments)-but they likewise denied to the Irish the rights which the English and Scotch had obtained, with regard to popular election in municipal corporations. Sir, a Gentleman who then filled a distinguished situation in Government, and who was afterwards raised to a still higher station on the Bench of Ireland, and whose death we have had unfortunately since to deplore-I mean Chief Baron Woulfe-expressed very logically the reasons why he thought those privileges should be accorded, and very feelingly the degradation which would be inflicted on our Irish fellow subjects if they should be withheld. He said, he thought it a matter of right, that if those who belonged to England and Scotland obtained the power of popular election in corporations, Ireland should have it likewise; and that it would require the strongest reasons of necessity to justify us in refusing those rights. He stated further, that if they were refused, it could only be done on the ground that the Irish Catholics were unworthy to be members of a free community, and were only fit subjects for a despotism. Sir, I do not think he represented more strongly than the justice of the case required, the feelings of indignation which the rejection of such measures as those I have referred to were likely to cause. And yet the rejection of equal corporate rights was the object of a great party move by the Gentlemen opposite, with the honourable exception of Earl St. Germans, and two or three others. There were other matters with regard to Ireland which then came into question; on every one of which it happened that those opposed to us were inclined to raise in this country both national prejudices and religious convictions, to assist them against the claims of the people of Ireland. Sir, that course of policy, since they came into office, they have, at first doubtfully and silently, but at last explicitly, abandoned. It is now admitted that Ireland ought to have equal rights; it is now admitted, that, in point of principle, as to the rights of voting for Members of this House, or for Members of municipal corporations, they ought to have the same rights as the people of England and Scotland. This, so far as principle is concerned, is a great progress. But let us examine a little how far their measures have been consonant to their professions, and what they have effected for the great object of reconciling the feelings of the people of Ireland to those of the people of England, and inducing them to join in sympathy for defence against a foreign enemy, and in mutual harmony and good will in their domestic concerns, as becomes the people of one united kingdom. Sir, on this subject it is hardly possible to use an expression too strong to convey an idea of what they professed themselves ready to do. Well, with regard to municipal rights, with regard to the rights of election as to Members to serve in Parliament, what Bill have they introduced? It is notorious that the number of electors in the counties in Ireland, from the strict interpretation of the present law, have been in a great degree, and gradually, diminished. That is a grievance which requires the attention of Parliament. The attention of Parliament, however, has not been called to it. With respect to another subject on which they proposed to legislate, and on which mission to interpose between landlord and tenant with regard to any transactions that might take place for the improvement of the land. How any practical man could have thought such a remedy at all suitable to the affairs of Ireland, I own I am at a loss to imagine. That Bill never arrived at this House. I suppose the universal outcry made by Irishmen of all classes and politics led to the abandonment of that Bill. Well then, Sir, what farther measures have they proposed? They have proposed a Bill for the endow they made a very elaborate inquiry, no legislative measures have been introduced. I allude to the subject of the relations between landlord and tenant. It was my opinion, that the issuing of the Commission of Inquiry into the relations between landlord and tenant might be a wise measure; but I was not enabled to say positively it was so, until I should see the result at which that Commission arrived. It was evident that very considerable evils must attend the issuing of that Commission. It tended, in the first place, to raise great hopes amongst the tenantryment of the College of Maynooth, and a -amongst the poorer and more igno- Bill for establishing of academical edurant class especially-it tended to make cation, pointed to by Her Majesty in the them believe that some great measure Speech from the Throne. I do not wish was at hand; that a comprehensive and to go over the arguments on these subefficient remedy would be applied for the jects. I think the endowment of Mayrelief of their misery, to supply the want nooth was made on a good plan; but I of food and shelter, as well as put an end think the observation made with respect to the want of security of tenure, which to it by a gentleman who has written very they felt to be one of the greatest hard-ably on the subject of Ireland perfectly ships they suffered. That was an evil in-just. He says there are two objections separable from the issuing of the Commission. In the next place it was very likely, unless conducted with great care, to excite in the country considerable animosity on the part of the tenants against the landlords, from the former thinking they had the Government taking their part as against the landlords, who were looked on by the Government as tyrannical. In this respect the effect must have been far greater than that produced by the phrase which I heard some of those opposite condemn very strongly, which I think was a very proper phrase, and which was used by my late respected and ever to be lamented friend, Mr. Drummond, that "property had its duties as well as its rights." But the evils accompanying the issuing of the Commission might be remedied, if the Government, in issuing it, had a clear perception of the remedy which they wished to introduce, and only desired to frame its details by the additional knowledge they would acquire from the evidence taken before a Commission. I supposed, therefore, that some such remedy was in the contemplation of the Government. But, Sir, it appears I was totally mistaken in that supposition. It appears that there has been brought forward, as the result of that Commission, a Bill, which I must say was one of the most extraordinary measures ever brought under the consideration of the Legislature. It was a plan for the appointment of a Government Com made to the endowment of Maynooth; one is, that the sum is so trifling that it is hardly worth the acceptance of the Irish ; and the other is, that it would lead to the endowment generally of the Roman Catholic clergy; and this gentleman's answer is, "I think the first objection answered by admitting the value of the second, namely, by admitting that this grant will lead to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy." Now, at least, it would be an intelligible line of policy (without discussing whether it is right to endow the Roman Catholic priesthood) to introduce this measure to which the Roman Catholic prelates gave their consent, as the foundation of that still larger endowment to which it has been said the prelates would not consent. But the Members of the Government, one after another, explicitly declared that it was not their intention to follow up this measure by another such as I have hinted at; that such a measure might, in course of time, follow it, but that, at all events, the measure they introduced was a measure entirely by itself. Thus it is obvious they have raised a very great clamour in this country. They have excited, beyond any immediate clamour, a very deep feeling. If they do not mean to proceed fartherif they have not some measure in contemplation for another Session-I say they were unwise to provoke such resistance. Now, with regard to the other measure of lowed, he had sufficient authority from the prelates to state, that no Roman Catholic bishop would be appointed to whom the Crown objected. That would have been a great concession to the Crown of this country, and it would have enabled the Crown to refuse its sanction to the nomination of any prelate likely to use his religious authority for seditious agitation. That offer was rejected, and the Roman Catholic claims were refused. In 1825, another proposition was made by a noble Lord, still a Member of this House, that provision should be made by law for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. The House agreed to that Resolution; but the Government of the day refused to concede the Roman Catholic claims, and that proposition fell to the ground. If you had agreed in 1813, or in the other years that Mr. Grattan made the proposal of conceding the Roman Catholic claims, you would have had the security of the nomination by the Crown of the Roman Catholic bishops. If you had agreed to Emancipation in 1825, you would have had the security-and a great one I consider it-of an endowment of the priests provided by the State, they no longer depending on voluntary support. You lost the opportunity for these measures. You grant academical education, it happens that, on | am not mistaken, Secretary for Ireland, this subject, as on many others, although Mr. Grattan said, more than once, that Ministers refused to listen to the counsel if the Roman Catholic claims were alof this House, they did take counsel from others out of doors, and answered the demands made on them by a certain portion of the people, as to a question in which the latter felt an interest. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, told us-what I was very sorry to hear, on the subject of Maynooth-that his object was very much to break the confederacy that existed in Ireland for the purpose of promoting Repeal, and to divide the Roman Catholics, by proposing the Bill as a satisfaction to one portion of the Roman Catholic population. Well, then, it does appear from this that the Repeal Association (as was justly said by the principal member of it) was the chief cause of the introduction of this measure; that it was not founded on justice, or adopted with the view of affording an improved education to the Roman Catholic priests, but was yielded to the clamour of the Repeal Association, supported by the increasing multitudes which the Association collected. Well, that Bill, in its course through this House, produced a great excitement in England, and that excitement was chiefly caused by those who are opposed, not only to Maynooth, but to all ecclesiastical endowments those who maintain that we are here to regulate secular questions alone, and that all reli-ed Roman Catholic Emancipation at last, gious instruction, in chapel or school, because you chose it as the alternative should be given on the principle of volun- instead of civil war. You did not found tary support. Such being the case, the it on justice and large policy, but you Ministers introduced their next measure chose it as the least of two great evils. on that principle; and all the arguments Such was your want of foresight, such your stated by the right hon. Secretary of State improvidence with regard to the past for the Home Department in favour of Now, with respect to the present-let us his academical measure, were arguments look to another measure I have alrearly repeatedly urged by some Members in mentioned, namely, that for giving the this House, and very forcibly maintained people of the towns of Ireland an equality by persons out of this House, against any of municipal privileges with those of EngState support of religious instruction what- land. In 1836, it will be remembered, ever. But, Sir, above all, I would wish the King of this country, by the advice of to impress on the House that these mea- his Ministers, stated that he hoped Parsures are late and are imperfect. In the liament would agree to the reform of the first place, I maintain they are late; and municipal corporations of Ireland, founded I think that a great lesson is to be learned on the same principles as the measures from the mode in which the party oppo-adopted as to England and Scotland. For site, in Government and in opposition, have treated the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Many years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, was, I believe, a Member of this House, and was, if I my own part, I thought the assurance so general that it would be adopted by the whole House. I was disappointed; for I found the strongest opposition was raised to a concession of that kind. The question, then, was, whether or not you would |