Committee, or the Members would not have violated the usual practice of Committees by making distinct proposals for the suppression of these outrages. The making of such proposals was almost invariably left by Committees to the Executive Government; but when we find a Committee, consisting chiefly of Members elected by popular constituencies, making such proposals at the very time when they were about to appeal again to their constituents, we must admit that the case must have been strong which had led them to so unusual a determination.

6

The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had taunted him with inconsistency because he supported this measure now, after having opposed a similar measure some years ago; and the hon. and learned gentleman who had just preceded him had said: If such a law had been proposed by a Tory Administration, the Whigs would have risen in files to oppose it.' He hoped that both the hon. Gentlemen would listen to the answer which he was going to give to this charge. In the year 1822, on February 7, the Administration came forward and proposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the enactment of the Insurrection Act. They did so upon their own statement and upon their own responsibility: they asked for no inquiry, they reverted to no committee, but they introduced the Bill as the present Government had introduced this measure, upon the proper feeling that such a measure should be introduced upon their single and undivided responsibility. There was a discussion on the measure on Thursday, February 7; the Bill was then read a first time; very few persons divided against it; and he (Lord John Russell), feeling that the measure was necessary, did not come down to oppose it. When the debate was over, the late Lord Londonderry proposed that the second reading should take place that night, in order that the Bill might be committed and read a third time the next night, that it might then be sent in to the Lords on the Saturday, and after passing

through all its stages in one night in that House, be sent off without delay to Ireland. It was not read a second and a third time that day, but within a week both measures were passed and sent to Ireland. Now, if the Administration of the day had met with the opposition that the hon. and learned gentleman who last addressed the House had stated it had met, it could not have passed those Bills, for there were two of them, within the short space of a week. His opinion was-and he had always avowed it-his opinion was, that Acts of this description rested for their justification on the necessity of the case. He believed that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin were in full possession of power, he would not be slow in producing a measure to suppress these outrages. The hon. and learned Member had admitted that the greatest sufferers by these outrages were not Protestants but Catholics, and had said, that he was ready to agree to any law which would make it a misdemeanour for a man to be absent from his house at night. If such were the case, what became of this charge of inconsistency and desertion of principle, so confidently made against his right hon. colleagues and himself?

The present was a case in which every man must judge, according to his honest conviction, whether these laws. were necessary or not. If they were not necessary, let them not be enacted; but if they were necessary, he called upon gentlemen not to shrink from the duty which they owed to their country, but to pass them at once. Let them be assured that, whatever measures of concession, conciliation, or improvement might be necessary, that must be a great improvement which rendered life and property safe. Talk of men not obtaining employment! How could they expect to gain employment when the inland conveyance of goods on canals for the purposes of trade was interrupted in open daylight by bands of armed men traversing the country? From whom could employment come, except

from men in the possession of capital? And what capitalist would vest his capital in Ireland until he was certain that his property would not be destroyed, and his servants would not be murdered, in performing his business? If employment be wanted in Ireland, pass Acts to give it to the people; but do not fancy that you are doing your duty towards Ireland by refusing your consent to a measure without which, life and liberty would be left insecure, and made the sport of every miscreant or ruffian who may delight in blood. He was convinced that by subduing insurrection, while they maintained, as they ought, the authority of the laws and the dignity of the Crown, it would be confessed in the end, even by those who were averse to own it now, that they had been the best friends. to the peace, the liberty, and the prosperity of Ireland.

DEFECTS IN THE REFORM OF PARLIAMENT ACT.

Wednesday, May 22, 1833.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL objected to the Motion, and trusted that the House would not adopt it. The Government had entered into a consideration of the doubts said to arise upon the face of the Reform Bill, and after carefully considering those doubtful points, and the difficulties stated to be thrown in the way of easy and cheap registration, they had come to the opinion that no alteration of that measure ought to be introduced in the present Session. They thought it better to give men who had been taken by surprise before the opportunity of registering their votes now, and they believed that many of the objections which at first sight appeared so formidable, would be found, upon trial, not to be so serious as was imagined. He wished the House to wait till the end of the next Session of Parliament, and see whether many of the objections now conjured up would not be found to be of no value or weight whatever.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.

May 23, 1833.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL was unwilling to lose the opportunity of declaring his approbation of the principle of this Bill. As a question of practice, he could not understand how the Constitution could be exposed to danger by the Bill. The number of Jews in England was 27,000; three or four out of them might be called to the Bar, five or six to inferior offices of State, and one or two to seats in that House; but they might be sure they would never hear from these latter any sentiments which would lead to the opposition of the peculiar tenets of the Christian and the Jewish religions. But although it was of no great importance as a question of practice, yet it was of great importance as a question of principle; for if differences in religious opinions were to lead to civil disabilities, they ought not to stop at exclusion from Parliament, but ought to go to the fullest extent-even to banishment and death. They should either adopt the principle in its complete application, or not at all. He had never seen any reason why a Jew should not fulfil all the duties of a citizen: why he should not act as honestly, bravely, and patriotically as any other English subject.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker,-After the speech made last night by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think it due to the House to give such explanations as I can afford of the conduct and intentions of the Administration of Lord Melbourne, of which, as well as of that of

Lord Grey, I had the honour to be a Member. Before I do so, however, I will state the reasons which induce me to support the Amendment of my noble Friend. Although no longer connected with office, yet as a Member of Parliament, anxious for the improvement of our institutions, I feel bound to provide that, notwithstanding the dismissal of the Ministry and the dissolution of the Parliament, the Reforms now to be proposed and carried shall not be less searching in inquiry, or less efficient in remedy, than those upon which it was the intention of the late Administration of Lord Melbourne to have asked the consent of the late Parliament. It is for that reason I am glad my noble Friend behind me has proposed an Amendment to the Address moved on the other side of the House. That Amendment I look upon as a necessary step on several grounds. I look upon it as necessary, because it embraces a declaration of principles on the question of Municipal Corporations, not contained in the Address-because it gives a pledge on the part of the House respecting the claims of the Protestant Dissenters-and, finally, because it touches upon that question which seems to be so carefully avoided in the long and elaborate speech from the Throne, namely, the abuses of the Irish Church Establishment.

For these reasons it is I give my entire support and approval to the Amendment of my noble Friend, and for these reasons I invite that portion of the House who desire to be classed in the ranks of Reform to join with my noble Friend in his endeavour to carry it. If the House of Commons mean to maintain Reform in the same place it was left by the Administration of Lord Melbourne at the period of their dismissal,-if they mean to assert that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which removed from power one Administration and caused the appointment of another-if they mean that the exercise of the Royal