House to consider whether it was wise for them to interfere in measures affecting the representation of the people. He supported the Bill, because it would place the franchise on a basis consistent with the constitution of the country, by making it dependent on the payment of local taxes.

The Marquis of Lansdowne, after the opinions he had heard expressed, could not doubt that an 81. franchise was too low; and though he had, from respect to the other House, submitted that proposal to their consideration, he should now consent that this provision should be negatived.

Their Lordships then divided upon Lord Desart's amendment for substituting a 157. qualification, which was carried against Ministers by a majority of 72 to 50.

Another important victory over the Government was obtained by Lord Stanley upon an amendment moved by him upon the 16th section, enacting that clerks of the peace in counties should prepare the lists of persons registered. Lord Stanley moved as an amendment, that the clerk of the peace should prepare a list of the names upon the existing register, and transmit it to the clerks of the unions, having excluded from the register all persons whose franchise depended upon occupation. That he should also send a second list of persons whose franchise depended upon occupation, and who, if they were not rated to a certain amount, wonld be liable to be struck off the register; and that the clerk of the union should not be called upon to introduce any new names upon the register, but that it should be left to persons desiring to have their names placed upon the register to make their

A conversation then ensued, the result of which was understood to be that the Government did not propose to ask their Lordships to reverse, on the report or third reading, the decisions which had been come to in Committee, and that the remaining stages of the Bill would be taken the following week, without any opposition on the part of Lord Stanley.

This understanding being acted upon, the Bill in its altered shape passed the third reading, and came down again to the House of Commons for consideration of the amendments on the 31st of July.

Lord J. Russell said, the first question upon these amendments was as to the alteration made in the amount of rating, from 81. to 15l., which would reduce the number of electors from 264,000 to 144,000. This appeared to him a very serious alteration, and he proposed to substitute 121. for 157., which would give 172,000 electors. Another alteration, to which he attached greater importance, affected the

principle of the Bill, which, instead of requiring a claim for registration, had proposed that the ratebook should be a self-acting register. He moved to disagree with that alteration altogether. The other amendments he did not object to.

Mr. Gaskell supported the amendments of the Lords, and moved that the amount be 15. instead of 12.

Several Irish Members approved of the course proposed by Lord J. Russell.

Mr. Moore spoke strongly against the amendments of the Lords, and against the conduct of the Government in respect to this measure.

Mr. Bright, with much vivacity, attacked the First Minister, whom he accused of undue deference to the other House.

Lord J. Russell defended himself with animation, and charged Mr. Bright in turn with apparently desiring one absolute democratic assembly, suffering no barrier to its will, and no opposition to its decrees, to which all estates and constituted bodies were to bow. The sum of good enjoyed under our present system, he observed, was so great, our institutions were so valuable, and their fruits so precious, compared with other forms of government, that he was not willing to change our present constitution for any scheme which Mr. Bright might propose. Lord John referred to the policy he had pursued in various public measures, to show that great good might be effected by concession and compromise, instead of bluntly saying, "Here is my measure; I will listen to no change, and will rather run the risk of a collision between the two Houses of Parliament." In the present case the Bill was a practical good, and if, as altered,

it did not content the people of Ireland, it would not prevent a further extension of the franchise.

Mr. M'Cullagh strenuously opposed the Lords' amendments, as well as the proposition of the Government, which was supported by Mr. M. O'Connell and Mr. Sheil.

Mr. Disraeli, in the course of some observations upon the measure, charged the Lord President of the Council in the other House with giving the Bill a stab in the back.

Sir G. Grey defended Lord Lansdowne, whose conduct with reference to this Bill, he said, had been misrepresented.

Upon a division, the propositions of Lord J. Russell were affirmed by considerable majorities.

Finally, the alterations made by the Commons were brought before the Lords for adoption or rejection on the 6th August; on that occasion, the Marquess of Lansdowne, in a conciliatory tone, urged various reasons for accepting the modification of the franchise made by the other House, and for conceding the restoration of the registration clauses as there agreed upon. The Commons, he said, had yielded to three amendments proposed by the Lords, while they demanded assent to the compromise of a 121, franchise. With regard to the registration amendments of the Lords, they certainly were in contravention to the spirit of the Bill.

Lord Stanley urged the Peers to insist on their own amendments, and he made a sharp attack on the Roman Catholic priesthood in Mayo for their interference in the late elections. "It is a scandal," said the noble Lord, " upon any system of representation, and the gentleman who has been returned to sit in Parliament represents nothing of the property

-nothing of the real opinion of the owners, and, I may also say, of the occupiers of the soil, but represents merely the dictation and opinions of Archbishop M'Hale and his subordinate clergy. My Lords, when, in a case like that of Mayo, you perceive the enormous extent of power used by the priests, you ought to be the more cautious how you make experiments for the introduction of a class of voters who, by reason of their poverty and want of intelligence, must be the subservient tools of a Roman Catholic clergy."

On a division, there appeared a majority of 11 in favour of the 121. franchise. Lord Stanley then advised the Earl of Desart not to divide on his motion to disagree with the Commons' amendments respecting registration, to which the noble Earl reluctantly assented; and further opposition to the alterations of the Commons was abandoned.

The next important measure bearing on the internal Government of Ireland, which emanated from the Ministerial counsels, was a Bill for the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant. The proposition was somewhat suddenly announced, and took the public by surprise. On the 18th of May, the Prime Minister moved for leave to bring in his Bill for this purpose. In commencing to lay his views before the House of Commons, the noble Lord observed that the measure was important not only to the interests of Ireland, but to the future welfare of the United Kingdom. He proceeded to dispel two misapprehensions-first, that it was intended to remove the courts of law from Dublin to London; secondly, that this was a project of very recent origin both rumours were totally devoid of foundation. No

one, he proceeded, could deny, on general principles, that when two countries were united, there ought to be but a single administration, and this had been the decided opinion of Lord Somers at the time of the Scottish union. But at the time of the union with Ireland, temporary objections existed to the extinction of the Viceroyship; though even then George III., as appeared from a letter which was read by Lord John Russell, declared that this was a measure which, at a future time, it might be proper to adopt. He next adverted, first, to the general reasons why it was now desirable to abolish the office, and secondly, to the particular objections that might be urged against its abolition. It was obvious, he remarked, that it must be better that the person charged with the administration of Ireland should possess the means of ordinary intercourse with those who carried on the general government of the empire. This was the rule of the British system of government, to the genius of which the exception in the case of Ireland was peculiarly adverse. The difficulty of obtaining explanations respecting that country in the form of letters was felt in England, while to Ireland it was a manifest disadvantage that there was no Minister in the Cabinet specially intrusted respecting her interests as regarded administration and legislation. So much had this inconvenience been felt, that a Chief Secretary for Ireland had been placed in the Cabinet, who gave instructions to his own chief, and was sometimes the virtual governor of Ireland. Plausible objections had been heretofore started to the abolition of the office. The distance and delay of communication through adverse winds had been urged; but this

By

objection disappeared with the ra pidity of locomotion, which had reduced the delay to a few hours. The existence of the Lord Lieutenancy, he thought, was far more injurious than beneficial to Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant was placed in a kind of anomalous position; he was asked for everything, applied to for everything, and blamed for every thing, without having the power belonging to his situation; he had the responsibility, but not the freedom of action of a Minister of the Crown; he was an object, moreover, of jealousy, resentment, and obloquy to different parties in Ireland. blending the Irish administration with the general administration of the United Kingdom, these feel ings would be extinguished. It might be objected that a separate local administration ought not to be destroyed, on account of the money spent in Dublin, and the access to a court which was afforded to the nobility and gentry of Ireland, -but there was no reason why the Irish aristocracy should not now resort to the court of Majesty itself. He did not think it, however, desirable that, when the Viceroy was withdrawn, the people of Ireland should have no opportunity of seeing the Sovereign, and he announced that it was Her Majesty's gracious intention from time to time to visit Ireland, and that the residence at Phoenix Park would be maintained for Her Majesty. He then explained the manner in which he proposed to effect the abolition, namely, by Order in Council, after the passing of the Act; and by appointing a fourth Secretary of State to carry on the business connected with Ireland, some of the functions appertaining to the Lord Lieutenant being transferred to the Secretary of

State for the Home Department, who would more conveniently exercise them. There would still be a Privy Council in Ireland, presided over by the Lord Chancellor; and the Irish Poor Law Board would be reconstructed. Lord John then recapitulated the advantages to be expected from this measure, which might claim the support both of those who were favourable and those who were hostile to the Parliamentary union between the two countries. To the former he said, that if Mr. Pitt had been able to propose the abolition at the time of the Union, he would have followed the example of Lord Somers; and those who thought that the Union ought not to exist should not be satisfied with a partial representation-a system of administration which did not give the people of Ireland a representative in the great Ministry of the empire, or anything as a substitute in the shape of local power.

Mr. Grattan, in a speech of great vehemence, abounding in satire and invective, denounced the measure as a destruction of the last remnant of Irish nationality, and a violation of the compact between the people of Ireland and the English Crown. The speech of the First Minister he characterised as destitute of argument, solidity, point, or interest. He moved that leave to bring in the Bill be refused.

Mr. Grogan seconded this amendment, joining Mr. Grattan in a determined opposition to the measure, which he founded chiefly on two grounds-one, the material and permanent injury it would inflict upon Dublin, the other the effects which it would work upon political parties in Ireland. He urged at much length

various objections to the principle of centralization, of which this measure was an exponent, and contended that, so far from the present moment being, as Lord John Russell alleged, favourable for the project, the time was peculiarly ill-chosen.

Mr. Fagan said, if the people of Ireland, or even of Dublin, were opposed to the proposition, he should act upon his own judgment, which was in its favour, but he believed the people of Ireland were generally not opposed to the measure; on the contrary, as far as his experience went, if not favourable to it, a great portion of the popular party were divided in opinion. So long as the office of Lord Lieutenant was maintained, it would be impossible to establish union amongst Irishmen, and that union was essential to the prosperity of Ireland.

Mr. M. O'Connell, not as an Irish member, but as a member of the Imperial Parliament, bound to protect Imperial interests, should vote against this Bill. As a Repealer, he should not ask a greater boon than this measure; but he acted against his feelings upon a principle of duty.

Mr. Osborne said, the question was merely this-whether the government of Ireland should be conducted upon the same principle as that of Scotland and Wales. If the retention of the office was desired by the people of Ireland, the pageant was a cheap one; but if steam-power had rendered the communication with Ireland as easy as with any part of England; if the office made the Union an unaccomplished theory, and the people of Ireland were indifferent; it was the duty of Parliament to remodel the Executive of Ireland by

was

abolishing an office which a badge of serfdom-which, so far from being a national institution, was anti-Irish in everything. Mr. Osborne gave a lively and humorous description of the torments of a Lord Lieutenant-placed in a gilded pillory, pelted, if impartial, by all parties-and of the anomalous and mysterious incidents of the present complex system of Irish administration.

Sir L. O'Brien could not support this measure, which would loosen one of the strongest ties that bound the two countries together, nor would he incur the risk of serious evils for uncertain advantages.

Mr. Reynolds, in opposing the Bill, denied that the citizens of Dublin were favourable to it, and went at great length through the catalogue of Irish grievances, to which this would be an addition.

Mr. Disraeli observed, that Lord John Russell had successfully demolished his own proposition; Ireland, he said, was well governed by Lord Clarendon, therefore let him be removed. His moral and social reasons were equally inconclusive, and another, a royal reason, was that, inasmuch as Her Majesty had been gratified by her last visit to Ireland, and the people had been loyal, therefore he would take care she should never visit the country under the same circumstances. The second proposition contained in the motion, though it had attracted little notice, was extremely important. It might be right to accede to the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, and not to the appointment of a fourth Secretary of State. As the colonies were to govern themselves, the Colonial Secretary would have much leisure; or why should not the Home Secretary undertake the business of Ireland as