borough. Such a sum was ridiculous as a test of respectability, even for a burgess; but that qualification, however paltry, was dispensed with in the case of a magistrate; he was not even required to be resident in the town; so that a mendicant, without a home or a shilling, was eligible to take his seat upon the bench as a guardian of the public peace. The professed object of the measure, too, was to place corporations on a more ample basis, and extend popular influence and control in the management of their affairs. Under the bill Belfast was to be provided with thirty common council-men, who were to be charged with the management of its police, paving, lighting, watching, charitable trusts, and, in short, all its internal and local interests. At present these interests were watched over by a variety of boards, elected under local acts of parliament, and comprising between 140 and 150 persons. The functions of all these persons were to be forthwith superseded for the purpose of consolidating them in the thirty common council-men; and yet the people of Belfast were told to consider this as widening the basis of political privileges and popular control. If, at the present moment, these various duties were sufficient to occupy the time and attention of 150 individuals, how could they be efficiently performed by one-fifth of that number?

Mr. O'Connell insisted that Ireland must have justice; and justice would be denied to her, if she was not treated as England and Scotland had been treated. The question before the House was that of entire and substantial reform in the corporations of

Ireland, instead of agreeing to which, it was proposed to destroy them for ever. He asked a substitution of something else, identical with the municipal institutions of England, not in detail, but in principle. Scotland had once been in the same situation ; her corporations were self-elected and corrupt, and no man defended them; but did any man rise to propose the entire and eternal abolition of them? The old system of Scotch corporations was swept away, and a new system introduced, leaving the principle of government to vigilant popular control. Next came England; and were not her corporations corrupt, profligate, and bigoted, first by law, and then practically? But the old elements and officers of these corrupt institutions were dismissed and dispersed; the corporations were created anew, and brought into communion and connexion with the people. England had got corporation reform; Scotland had got it; and where was the repealer that would say, Ireland was not to have it? He would enter into no compromise he would have the principle of popular control preserved; he would not object to the details being discussed in committee; but if he went into committee, he would demand the identification of the principle of popular vigilant control with all the details, and he knew that the people of England would insist upon its being given. A royal commission had been proposed for the management of the corporate funds; because, he supposed, the people of Ireland were not possessed of common sense enough to manage their own affairs, and therefore a commission of lunacy must be

issued. What reason or pretence could there be for still continuing to treat Ireland with injustice? Was there any real union between the two countries? Why, there was the parchment, it was true; but he would put it to any Englishman, whether, if Ireland were in the possession of corporate rights, any man from that country should dare to say that England should not have corporate rights, they would think much of the union? Would they not, with their own good swords, break the head of the man who dared to tell them so? Since the Reformation, the Catholics had achieved power three times; and, though it could be easily shown that many Protestants had become martyrs to the dominant power in other countries, he denied that the people of Ireland had ever injured any man, on account of his religion, in life or limb. He had been called a professor of agitation, and so he was; but would they make him less so by refusing justice to Ireland? Agitation was sometimes wholesome. If waters were not agitated, they became stagnant, and peaceable political agitation was essential to freedom. The people were naturally sluggish, if they were tolerably protected, they were apt to become torpid; and peaceable political agitation was a privilege which wise men paid for liberty. Agitation was necessary for Ireland, and though attempts might be made to do away with peaceable agitation, there was no chance of success. The people of Ireland, he admitted, were anxious for a repeal of the union; they naturally felt a pride in their independent legislature; and there was a period when he

was of the same opinion, but he came now authorised from three provinces of Ireland to join this House heart and hand, if they would join him in pacifying Ireland. There was only one way in which they would, could, or ought, to pacify Ireland - by promoting a real union through an amelioration of her institutions, by treating her fairly, by giving her equal privileges, and equal rights. Deny us that,” said the learned member, "and let me tell you that your union is at an end."

Lord Stanley felt some hesitation in receiving Mr. O'Connell as the plenipotentiary of the people of Ireland to treat with the British parliament. Where had that authority been given? Was it at a dinner at Tuam? was it at a supper in the King's County? or was it at a meeting in a room at Dublin? And were the House of Commons to be told that on either of these occasions the people of Ireland had authorised their plenipotentiary to treat with the Commons of England ? He doubted not that the learned member was a representative of the democracy of Ireland, but before he could listen to the terms proposed regarding the manner in which Ireland was to be treated, he should like to know exactly what those terms were, and what security could be given for their fulfilment. "We must have justice," said the member for Dublin; "we will have no compromise; we must have entire, impartial, and equal justice." Now, who could tell what was here meant by equal justice? Were they on every occasion to take the word of Mr. O'Connell ? Were they to take his definitions, given on the spur of the moment,

of the exact meaning of the term "equal justice," or of the political principles which he meant to include in that term? Measures of municipal reform in England and Scotland had been introduced; was the criterion of equality to be deduced from them? Was Ireland to be considered as degraded, unless it was placed under the same municipal law as England, or did equal justice mean being placed under the same law? When it was said that Ireland would not be satisfied, unless equal justice were done to her, he must first know what this meant. For his own part, he would not be satisfied that Ireland had equal justice, till he saw every man, in whatever situation, or profession, or station of life, whether humble or high, brought under the control and dominion, and also under the protection, of one and the same law, till he saw life secure, right vindicated, violence restrained, and the law carried into effect for the protection of the people at large. This was his demand for equal justice for Ireland, and seeking this, he was bound to look at the state of Ireland at the present moment. If the house were not to look at this, if they were to take into consideration no circumstances, to look at no political experience or observation, but boldly legislate at once for Ireland, because they had already legislated for England and Scotland, why should time be spent in idle debates?

was meant? He concluded that it was some principle of popular control; but, assuming this, he was not a whit nearer the object than before. What species of popular control? Was it the power of making laws, or the power of appointing those who were to make the law? Was it the power of executing the law, or was it merely the control of publicity? The control may be exercised by aconstituency of householders, of 50l. or 20l., or 10l., or 5., or by any individual; and yet all this is said to be a matter of simple detail, having nothing to do with the principle of the measure. The English bill required a residence of three years, in order to insure solvency and independence; for Ireland, a residence of six months was to be sufficient, and a 5l. qualification, and yet there was an identity of principle. But it had been said, that there were towns in Ireland, a majority of the towns, in which there might not be found a 10l. constituency for the purposes of a corporation. If so, would it not show a prima facie case, where there could not be found a constituency with a 107. qualification, that there was no claim for and no need of a corporation at all? If it were asked, were the cities of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and Waterford, to be left without any kind of municipal government; he would ask in return, whether the city of Westminster, and the towns of Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, were not places which might compare with most of the great towns of Ireland? and they had not only gone on without any corporations,-had not only not considered it an insult not to be provided with corporations, but he

had not heard that those places, or any of the metropolitan boroughs, had petitioned for the blessings of a corporate body. There were, how ever, places in Ireland where a species of municipal government was exercised, and subject, in various degrees, to popular control, without the intervention of corporations at all. The act of 9 George 4th conferred and regulated the power of managing the paving and lighting of certain towns: and it had been applied to seven or eight towns. In seven or eight other towns the question had been put to the 51. householders, whether they would undertake the control of the expenditure, and they had refused the burden. The cities of Cork, Londonderry, Belfast, Sligo, and other towns, had local acts of their own, with which this Bill would not interfere. There were also various boards which exercised a control in different towns. The harbours of some of these towns were not under the control of any corporation, but were under the superintendence of a body connected with the trade and shipping of those places. These boards were not directly interfered with even by this bill. With respect to property, the whole amount, which fell under the control of all the boroughs in Ireland, was 61,397., of which 28,000l. belonged to Dublin; and of that sum the greater part was not matter in dispute now, being otherwise controlled. There remained 33,000l. for the rest; and of this sum five towns only had 21,8007., leaving to the other forty-four towns the management of corporate property to the amount of only 11,000l. He had no fear of trusting the Irish people with these corporate revenues for local purposes, pro

vided he could be assured that they would be applied to such purposes; but he was bound to look at the relative situations of the Protestants and Catholics, and to see that they applied the funds to municipal objects alone. There was a provision in every town for municipal purposes, and therefore he thought that the system of ministers was altogether unnecessary. He thought it would lead to mischief, and was in every respect a plan eminently calculated to provoke religious disputes and animosities. He could not help seeing the atrocities perpetrated in Ireland, as they were daily reported in the papers. He could not help seeing that the Catholic clergy were united for Catholic purposes, and that it was under their influence that the misguided population were, unfortunately for themselves and their country, everywhere acting. The moment ministers established these new corporate bodies, that very moment they made them objects of political excitement, and in every little town in Ireland there would be the bitterest religious hostility; for the Protestant would be arrayed against the Catholic. He could not blind himself to facts like these; and here he begged to be understood as referring especially to the danger which beset the national establishment. It was not that he placed no trust or confidence in the Catholic population, but it was because he saw the dreadful state of society in Ireland, and the aims and objects of the priesthood, that he felt himself compelled to withhold his support from the measure of government, and to decide in favour of the system contemplated

by those who sat on his side of the house, and which, on comparison, appeared to him far less cumbrous in its machinery, and full of more real benefits. The member for Dublin had told his majesty's ministers that he did not desire influence, and that this bill would diminish his power; and they had the good nature to believe him. That learned gentleman's equal justice meant, in point of fact, the predominance and establishment of the Catholic church in Ireland: he had objects in view of which the government knew little. They brought forward a bill to place Irish corporations under the unnecessary control of the Catholics, and hoped by means of such a bill to diminish the learned member's power. They deprived the corporate towns of all their present officers of every description, and placed political power in the hands of another class of persons altogether. The learned gentleman's objects were gained by these very means; and although the government did not see it, yet he could tell them that the learned gentleman went generally straight towards those objects, although he seemed at the same time to be, doing otherwise.

Lord John Russell found himself placed in a singular position. In former times, he said, he had to contend that it was incumbent on the government to reform and not to destroy our institutions-that there was sufficient worth and excellence in them to make it desirable to bring them back to their ancient intents; but he now found himself, whilst advocating these doctrines, opposed by those who styled themselves the conservatives of this country. It was they who maintained that it

was rash to preserve these institutions, and that no sentence of extinction was too severe to be uttered against them. They who maintained opinions so different from what they had formerly held, had no right to call upon ministers for extraordinary exertions to prove that their case was that which ought to be adopted by the house. It was for them to show that there was something so peculiar in the corporations of Ireland, that ministers ought to abandon the common principles of both parties. He had as yet heard nothing which any rational mind could receive as a reason for preferring the utter abolition of the corporations to their proper reform. The only thing that bore the semblance of a reason was, that the Roman Catholics formed the great majority of the people of Ireland. If that were to be received as a reason, for what purpose had the measure of Roman Catholic emancipation been passed? He hesitated not to say, that that great change had not yet been carried through our institutions, as its authors, or at least its earlier advocates, originally designed; and to him it appeared that there was nothing of wisdom or of policy, still less of justice or of generosity, in delaying to let its spirit enter into all our councils, and form an element in every proceeding of the legislature. He fully recollected that when emancipation was under consideration in the House of Lords, the duke of Wellington was asked, would he agree to Roman Catholics becom ing prime ministers and colonial secretaries, and holding such high posts as presidents of his majesty's council. In answer to that question the duke of Wellington, then