The following passage of a speech, delivered at a public meeting some years afterwards, lets in the light upon the motives which actuated many of the Irish members in their conduct with regard to this famous measure: "I went into a certain room in London," said the speaker, "where some thirty Irish members sat in conclave, after the intimation from Lord John Russell that he would resign if the Bill passed the second reading. The question raised at that private conference was, what was the state of each man's constituency? and it was agreed that, wherever there was a constituency that would not brook a sale, its representative must vote against the Government; but wherever there was an inactive clergy, and local leaders who sought places, and instructed their representatives in making a traffic of the votes of the people, for the purpose of getting cousins, nephews, and other connections appointed to places of emolument and gain, in these cases the representatives were required to vote against the people, and to sacrifice them; because there was a consciousness, on their part, that there were none amongst those they ought to fear, who would call them to account, before God and man, for their treachery and baseness (tremendous cheers). We are dealing here to-night, not so much with theories as facts; and I, therefore, tell you of those things which I have seen, my statements in reference to which I can vouch."[208] The positions taken up by the proposer of the Bill were not seriously damaged during the discussions which followed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the chief speaker on the Government side against the second reading; but his arguments were characterized by an honorable member as "a mockery." The only effective objection he made to the Bill he put in the foreground, when, he repeated what the Premier had said more than once before, namely, that the Government would not undertake to carry out the noble lord's plan, as they could not do so consistently with their views of public duty. He also asserted that loans to Ireland, as a rule, had not been repaid, and he instanced the loans for the making of canals in that country: a loan given to the Dublin and Kingstown railway had, he admitted, been repaid, which confession elicited cheers from Lord George Bentinck and his friends. The charge made against Ireland of not paying back what she had borrowed was met by Mr. Bernal Osborne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he did not wish to see the State become a great money lender; in reply to which Mr. Osborne expressed the opinion, that it would be much better for the State to become a great money lender than to continue a profligate spendthrift--dissipating the funds of the country on the highways of Ireland. "Had not," he asked, "the policy of the State always been to become a great money lender? Since the Union £18,000,000 of money had been lent to England and Scotland, of which £6,000,000 had