The Sun. — London, England, 1837-02-22 00:00:00

refused to vote for Mr. H. Grattan in opposition to the desire of his landlord. Sir W. Somerville told Mr. Smith that lie /vas hound to exonerate himself from the charge, Mr. Smith said, if he had wanted to do such a thing he should not have applied to such a blackgii.rd. Mr. Smith did not pro mote an investigation to clear his character, nor did he indict the man, as advised by Sir W. Somerville and Lord - Killeen. Another individual to whom the clemency of the Crown was extended was a person of the name of Finlfy. He had been convicted of four er five offences, and his sen tence ran thus :—Six months' imprisonment for the first offence, six months for the second, six months for the third, and one for the fourth, that heing a case of common assault. This man, however, was selected as a fit individual to have extended to him the clemency of the Crown, and his sentence was remitted by the Lord Lieutenant without his having con sulted the judges on the subject.—(hear, hear.) The lion. and Learned Member next referred to the jeopardy in which the lives of the clergy were placed in Ireland. Ile knew a clergyman who, from the apprehension entertained, could not effect the insurance of his house against fire. Another clergy man, in a southern county, who had effected a policy of insu rance on his life, was obliged to consent to a proviso being written on his policy to the effect that if the said assurer should be killed, or should die by popular violence, or by assassina tion, the policy should be null and void, and the moneys paid be him or on his behalf on account of the assurance should be forfeited. Surely, if there ever were a country on the face of the earth in which it became the Government to administer the laws firmly, but temperately, it was Ireland. The lion. and. Learned Gentleman then proceeded to detail some cases in which the interference of the Lord Lieutenant had not, as he would contend, tended to the prevention of crime.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had stated that crime was diminishing in Ireland, and this the Noble Lord de clared was in consequence of the conduct pursued there by the Lord Lieutenant. The Noble Lord had on a for !net occasion referred to the calendars as a proof of the ti - anquil state of the country. Now nothing could be more fallacious than the calendars; and he would go the length of saying, that the more rampant crime was in any country the less would be the number of crimes on the calendar ; for the more intimidation prevailed the more difficult would it be to obtain information respecting criminals. But now let them but look to the state of one county for the last year—let them look to the county of Tipperary, which had been already al luded to by a Noble Friend of his. In one year there were no less than 1,567 persons committed for different offences. The number of persons charged or made amenable were these :__For murder, 54 ; shooting, with intent to murder, 20 ; assaults, with intent to murder, 73 ; manslaughter, 51 ; as sault, with intent to commit an unnatural crime, 21. Of the latter offence, he remarked that it was one he had never heard of before in Ireiand, and it only showed how crime was in creasing in tl - ,at unfortunate country. To show what was the state of tranquillity that was so much boasted of, he would .state ...he crime in Ireland for one week, ending February 11, as Stated in the hue and Cry, and what were the rewards of fered for the discovery and prosecution of offenders:— On the 12th of January, house burning, 301. Same day, house burning, destruction of provisions, &c., 401. Same day, six houses attacked by armed parties, and rob bery of arms, 401. Jan. 17, house attacked, and murder committed, 1001. Jan. 24, murder of one man, and severe beating of another, 501. Jan. 25, murder, 501. Jan. 26, attacks on two houses, robbery of fire-arms, and house set on fire, 501. Same day, another murder, 50/. Jan. 27, attack on a church, 40/. Jan. 28, attacking a man and his wife, 501. Same day, placing stones on the road, to overthrow the Cork mail, 50/. Feb. 7, attack on a party of soldiers by fifty persons, and fracturing the skull of one of the soldiers. 50/. Same day, another case of murder, 50/. Same day, attack on the house of a clergyman, 501. Thus there was a catalogue of crimes increasing day after day, .and week after week, and yet the Noble Lord spoke of the tr anquillity of Ireland in the face of such facts.—( Hear, hear.) As to the clemency of the Lord Lieutenant, let them only see 'what was the effect of it in Cavan. Ile had three letters all stating the same facts—that houses had been attacked and shots fired into them, and this for the purpose of making them register. One of these letters stated, " intimidation and ter ror are the order of the day ; the priests are the cause of the violent practices."—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition Mem bers.) As to the Noble Lord, he had utterly failed in the reply he had attempted to make.—( Hear.) He could not avoid now referring to the case of Lord Milltown, who had been recently made a magistrate for the counties of Dublin and Wicklow. That Noble Lord had formerly been a magis trate, but was dismissed from the commission of the peace be cause he had taken part in some tithe meeting. His dis missal took place while Lord Anglesey was Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. His Right Honourable and Learned Friend, if he recollected rightly, was first promoted under the administra tion of Lord Anglesey ; he then obtained a silk gown for his ' efficient prosecution of the anti-tithe conspirators ; Lord Mill _ town had since become a member of the Catholic Association, he had made some very strong speeches there (to give them no arsher name), and immediately after he did that he was re stored to the commission of the peace.—( Ilear, hear.) He by the to prove the charges whi c h h a d b een a d ver t e d t o nit Noble Lord, if a Committee were given to him to inquire Into those charges.—( Cheers from the Opposition Members.) A message was brought from the house of Lords that they ,bad agreed to the Registration of Births and Marriages Sus pension Bill. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN observed that the lion. and Learned Member who had last spoken had addressed the House for no less a period of time than an hour and three quarters, and yet there was not one word in that long speech that bore upon the question then before the House.—( Hear, hear.) The question for debate was whether Municipal Corporations were to be granted to Ireland ? lie had now to consider the argo ,tnents of their opponents ; these might be placed under a few tends. One set of gentlemen contended that corporate institu tions were not necessary for good government in any country, and they instanced Birmingham and Manchester to sustain their a rguments. By others it was contended that they should, by passing this Bill, transfer a monopoly from Protestants to Catholics, and especially that it would increase the power of an individual possessed already of enormous power in Ire land. It was also contended that they would be merely s chools for agitation, and those persons considered the new cor porations would be the means of severing the connection b etween the two countries and the subversion of of the Irish ll'rotestant Church. As far as he could understand the ques tion, this was th e sum of th e reason i ng aga i nst which h e h a d ° contend. If the argument were as to central administra ,_"on, or th e l oca l a d m i n i s t ra ti on of affairs in the cities and "es in Ireland, that, he admitted, would be a most im portant point to discs. According to this Bill the functions abithcrto performed by a complicated system of boards would e volve upon those local bodies who had the best opportuni ities of knowing how they ought to be performed. He alluded i? t he Maintenance of the poor, and the regulation of institu °lts for their relief, every thing that affected the education °' The people, every thing connected with public works, and other such objects. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ire ;and had p l ace d th i s question upon i ts true f oot i ng when he Ire to the H ouse t h at i t was not a quest i on w h et h er t h ey should have central or local authorities—whether they would abolish or reform corporations—hut whether, after wipassing a Bill by which the people of England were per tted t o exercise the functions of self-government, that House tllas to turn roun d an d d ec l are to t h e peop l e o f I re l an d t h at Goey alone were unfit f or th e exerc i se o f these privileges.— ~ 4 r.) No an a l og y cou ld b e d rawn b e t ween a s y s t em o f ofernment based on self-election, and one based on a rea- Z llable r epresentation. The I lon. Gentlemen on the opposite e a the Ho use were not j ust ifi e d i n suppos i ng th a t if th e Catholi csr o f Ireland possessed unqualified power they would ri , ll . l se to se l ect and appoint Protestants equally and indiserimi ately with Catholics. Every day's experience proved the Contrary Bear, hear.) With respect to the argument eti against t h e B ill, that it would increase the power of the y titiriourable arid Learn e d M em b er f or Kilk enny , h e a pproached t h at s subjesubject with some d e li cacy, b ut h e was b oun d to sa y, if th e con d uct of that Honourable and Learned Member wer e as reprehensible as was represented by his enemies, that W°4la f arm no just reason f o r di s f ranc hi s i ng a ll th e constitu of Ireland, and depriving them of their municipal rights. ':1!ong series of mi sgovernment had reduced the public mind " 1 , Ireland to a s t a t e w hi ch compelled the people of that coun r) to place unlimited confidence in th e h onour an d a bility of ' ‘ !t_ro who had offered himself as their _champion and the ad 117._ate of their just rights, and would it not be unwise, un 4tirthY, and unj us t to ma k e the fruits of their own injustice oument for its cont i nuance ?—( llcar, hear.) The course ,v p 0 ,.2 1 the Conservatives pursued necessarily augmented the de "7 of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny ; it in dirt many men to associate and co-operate with bins who L n ot approv e of some of the principles which the Hon. and earned. Member avowed, but who still had one cause in cons ttot.\vsth him, viz., a determination to resist the degradation se lofir country.—( Ilear, hear.) Another argument made by the opponents of this Bill was, that it would tend to i n , e 7n the connection between the two countries. Slender tbil:7l(rdoaimltu4 that c onnect i on b e if it could be endangered by of m un i c i pa l i nstitutions to Ireland. This true teal c onnections between the t wo countr i es was th e i r mu terest:f connection and if that House consented to disturb that in pre,es .n. ,1 to add insult to injury, thought but forty Irish Re utliontatives voted on t h e l ast occasion for the repeal of the the n o i n - louble that number would be found to declare that co g r d _ u!act of the united Parliament was such that Ireland Pt o ee longer endure the Legislative Union.__( Hear.) The kiePedieteoflreland had made up their minds—they were deter- W ato , have their just rights—they sought no more—they - r.etie;,enotbecontent with . less.. What . liacf that House done to tha t th _ them from the odious impost of tithes ? Did they suppose tha t i i "): c ould make th e p eop l e o f I re l and pay tithes ? If atod 1 ,77 e wa s d etermined to uphold the Protestant Church— ,egt- time he feared had arrived when they could no longer mode;iiet c.ould only b e d one b y reducing that Church to a,, jmensions, an d ta ki ng away from it the character us eoaseZt asecntlancy.--( Hear, hear.) Wh a t h a d b een th e ragitrron Le of the course which the Conservatives took with NI T to this question? It had created the Association in . a * -- ( Ilea la hear.) If they rejected this Bill, did they % tot % _e u th at their idle denunciations would suppress that As -8,? attitude Cheers.) The public mind in Ireland stood in owe 1710 con fiewhich it took up in 1792 ? Before he sat t he la sauft l a not help expressing his sincere satisfaction at itte sitr '„ ge of the Noble Lord who brought forward this s itt s• - -( Laid .1, t; a a the n u ,. cheers, He knew not what might be the - ,° l l of t h e ~_4 , ste r e, but he was truly delighted at the declara ffepared to " s. ou n i . Lord that his Majesty's Government was present , : a eri t c or fall by its suecess.—( Loud cheers.) If have countrA.,i inlistraticas were in real danger, let them appeal a noble ) 0 decide this great questions. Thev could not r ePportunity of making that appeal than upon the simple question whether or not they were right in offering to Ireland free institutions.—( Loud cheers.) Mr. YE SE Y rose merely to substantiate the statement made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bandon; viz., that the Lord Lieutenant of the Queen's Cettnty refused to recom- Mend the appointment of Mr: Cassidy to the magistracy. The reasons assigned by Lord De Vesci were that he believed Mr. Cassidy to be the clerk of his brother, who was a distiller; and further, that Mr. Cassidy took an active part in rescuing cattle which were taken under a distress for tithes. He thought that upon this very circumstance the Govern ment, in making this appointment, had violated one of their own rules to the Lord Lieutenants of counties not to recom mend any one who was engaged in distilleries.—( Hear, hear.) But there were other grounds upon which his ( Mr. Vesey's) relative had refused to recommend this individual. This very person had been convicted of an aggravated case of outrage on the occasion of a tithe seizure, for which he had been brought before the Court of Petty Scissions and fined la After this a second seizure was attempted, when the servants of Mr. Cassidy behaved in a most riotous manner in the public roads, attempting to rescue the seizure. As one, therefore, who by himself and his servants had been concerned in two cases of outrage against the peace, his relative had thought himself fully justified in refusing to recommend him to the commission of the peace. The Noble Lord opposite had said on a former occasion that Mr. Cassidy had been recommended by many most respectable gentlemen ; he (Mr. Vesey) did not pretend to know who those gentlemen were, because the Noble Lord had abstained from naming any of them ; but this he could say, that there was not one gentleman of any rank, station, or pro perty in the county who had not felt himself greatly outraged by this appointment.---( Cheers from the Opposition.) If they would do justice to Ireland, let them give peace to the Irish peasant ; but then give him substantial justice—( Cheers from both sides)—but then give him an equitable and just provision to secure him from penury, starvation, and want ; let them put him in a position to share the benefits of the State--(Marked Ministerial cheers)—let them arrange a just and equitable settlement of the tithe question, which should take the burthen from the poor peasant and lay it on his landlord ; let them abolish corporations and do away with party feuds—( Marked cheering)--let them give to all parties a firm ground of secu rity in the State, consequent upon a just administration of the law, and a well-restricted clemency. Mr. E. L. BUL WE R said—There was one peculiarity in gentlemen who, as practical Irish residents, had spoken that night on the opposite side of the House: they had thrown over their predecessors, and had thought it more prudent and po litic not to tell the Irish people that the Protestant Church was omnipresent in abuse. I now begin to perceive what is meant by the expansive principle of the Establishment. It is not content with the little circle of tithes and hierarchies, but now it expands with a vengeance, and swallows up a score or two of corporations.--( Laughter.) They say one crime can only bo defended by another, and your way of defending an unequal ecclesiastical Establishment is by stifling the power of the people in equal political privileges. When the man in the crowd had his hat stolen, another obliging gentle Man cried, " Since you have lost your hat, I'll just make free with your wig." You rob the Irish of their Church Reform, and then by way of making it up to them you run away with their corporations.—( Hear, and laughter.) Oh 1 but the Associa tion has sprung up, and Mr. Pigott has been put into office, and these are arguments against corporations. Why, what a subterfuge is this l There was no Association last year, and yet last year you refused the Municipal Reform.—(Cheers.) Sir, there was an Association in Birmingham, nay, all over England—this quiet, loyal England—for obtaining Parlia mentary Reform ; and in the meetings of these Associations language as violent, sentiments as democratic, opinions as much in favour of Ballot and short Parliaments, ay, and of the voluntary Church principle too, were uttered. How did you dissolve these Associations—by what spell did they wither away—by what rites did you lay them in the grave 7 Why, you granted the Reform. Oh I but says the Right Hon. Ba ronet, if you cannot put down the Association, why do you en courage it—why do you mix it up with the Government—why do you put Mr. Pigott into office? And is it possible that I heard that from the Right Hon. Baronet ? Why, who con demned the Orange Lodges more than lie did ? And was it not one of the first acts of his government to put into office the Deputy Grand Master of the Orange lodges, the Hon. and Gallant Colonel the Member for Sligo ?—( Hear, hear, hear. )—Compare the Orange Lodges with the Associa tion ; both are bad, both are symptoms of constitutional dis ease : but one is open, universal; the other is secret, exclu sive. Why did you mix up the Government with those Lodges? Why did you encourage them ? Why did you put your Mr. Pigott into office ?—(Cheers.)—Oh I but you will not take power from one party to give it to another; and then you talk of contests and animosities of party in every town. Is this argument honest ? If so, why did you never apply it to England? Are there no parties here? Did you not transfer power from one party to another, when you passed the Municipal Bill for England and Scotland ? Parties The word parties is more applicable to this country than it is to Ireland, for here at least there are two parties nearly equally balanced in point of rank, property, and numbers ; but when I look to Ireland I see indeed one party, formi dable from its rank, intelligence, and the long habit of lordly domination. Where is the other party ? I see the people. Ireland, so long united with the most enlightened country in the world, is not in the nineteenth century fit for the institu tions which, on a far more gigantic scale, grew up amidst the feudal ages, and which even the Roman despotism accorded to its dependent towns.--( Hear, hear.) Then, not contented with disguising a people under the title of a party, you view that people through the medium of a single man, hour after hour ; and when we are to legislate for Ireland you declaim against the Learned Member for Kilkenny. Grant him all that you contend for, and what then ? Are we to legislate for a nation, or are we to legislate against a man ? Why, is it not you who tell us that you will never be daunted by the phy sical or moral array of numbers—that you laugh to scorn allu sions to the power of millions? and yet, from the height of your superfluous chivalry, you call upon the great British Parliament to present to Europe the ludicrous and dastardly spectacle of doling out justice to a people, according to our fears of an individual.—( Cheers.) I neither deny nor vindicate the power of the Learned Gentleman. I don't tell you that if you pass this Bill—nay, if you do the amplest justice to Ire land—you will crush the power of the Learned Gentleman. So long as there is gratitude in a people—so long as there is eminence in intellectual superiority—so long the Hon. Mem ber for Kilkenny must be a leading authority with the Irish people. But the power of a man is for his life, the effect of legislation is immortal. Train up the people to think for themselves, to act for themselves, to govern themselves: on the constant stage of local legislation give them that rehearsal of their liberties, and you will raise a state of society in which individual agitation cannot again attain the same exag gerated power. You may not weaken the Learned Gentle man, but you may render him the best of his race—go on le gislating against the people, and you legislate for a perpe tuity of demagogues.—( Hear, hear.) Whenever two countries are united together, one more powerful, more civilised than the other, the evils to the less powerful country are ob vious—she loses national independence—she loses na tional legislation—the polish and wealth of her neighbour will drive away her resident aristocracy. This is what she loses. What ought she to gain in return ? The blessing of the wiser laws, the firmer order, the more liberal institutions by which her neighbour was governed—by which her neigh bour prospers. If she does not do this, she loses all, and she gains nothing in return. And to this total in the balance sheet of benefits you wish our legislation to arrive.—( Hear, hear.) It was formerly the custom in Royal houses to unite the young Prince, when he began his letters, with a kind of flogging-boy—that is to say, a boy who was flogged whenever his. Royal Highness was in fault. If the Prince did well, he had his cakes and sugar-plums ; if ill, they hoisted his double, and his Royal Highness was flogged by proxy. Precisely the connexion between England and Ireland.— ( Cheering and laughter.) Ireland has been the flogged boy to England, and always on this principle, that England is to have all the sugar-plums and Ireland all the flogging. Why, what did you all agree to give to England 7 Municipal reform. What did you all agree to give to Ireland ? The Coercion Bill. —( Hear, hear.)— You say you are willing to correct abuses ; you prove your sincerity by giving up the Orange Corporations. But that is no longer enough—it is no longer enough to correct abuses in the administration of power—the time has come when you must admit the people to a share of the power. This is where you stop short. You will do away with the flogging, but you still wont give the boy any of the sugar-plums.—( Bear.) Do not rely on the smallness of our majorities. Do not let that thought actuate your friends in another House. Recollect this Parliament is your own creature, not ours.—( Hear.) Recollect, still more, that a majority of one-carried the Reform Bill. And be convinced that if you consider the majority we may have on this occasion small, the majority that the Right Honourable Baronet will ever get in any Parliament, while he professes the same poli tical doctrines, will not amount to the half.—( Hear.) But I have is high authority on this head. Mien the Right Hon. Baronet yielded to the necessity of Catholic Emancipation, what was a principal argument ss ith him ? He said, " Ido not go only by numerical majorities. I have examined the con stituencies on both sides of the question, and I find the larger constituences on one side, and the smaller on the other ; and I do—what ? I yield to the force of public opinion." Will he now abide by his own test ?—( Hear, hear)--the test he established as a guide to his conduct in the most memo rable crisis in his brilliant political life ? Why, what has he to set against the multitudes of Birmingham, Manchester, Sal ford, Nottingham, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, and the metro politan districts ?—( Cheers.) Oh, let him now look to mere numerical majorities—let him compare the constituencies on either side, or let him once more yield to the force of public ' opinion ?—( Cheer.) You have had your turn—lreland has been in your bands—you have exhausted upon her all your sys tems of treatment—you never gave us up the patient until you had found the disease incurable. Is it not justice—is it not logic, that we should now have fair play for our experiment, which after all is only to leave a little to nature? Be just while you have it in your power to be generous. Recol lect how often Ireland comes before you, always a suitor, and always a rejected one, beginning every session with hope, end ing every session with disappointment.—( Hear.) You say these grievances are not practical ; their fruits are prac tical—discontent, excitement, Catholic Associations, pas sive resistance, the fears of the rich, the combinations of the poor. Practical, indeed, must be the es ils that result from keeping a whol e people eternally vibrating between the excitement of suspense and the exasperation of despair.— ( Loud cheers.) Sec the state of England at this moment : her trade prosperous, her commerce increash,e, peace abroad, tranquillity at home, no foe to menace her safety, or curb her power. Look at her gigantic colonies, covering a new quar ter of the globe. Look at that vast Indian empire, which she governs almost with the easy hand of neglect; and close be side her see that fatal neighbour, whom you have proved that you cannot crusii as a slave, and whom you will not suffer us to conciliate as an ally.—( Hear.) We are weak, we are dis- THE SUN, LONDON, IVRIINF,SDAY, 1 7 16iltUARY 22, 1.-37. eased only in one quarter—there, where alone we have abused our power, and sullied our great name, as the hereditary as sertors of political rights and religious toleration.—( Hear.) If in this question our constitution, still the 'elonstittitiou of an aristocracy, should be endangered—if in this struggle that constitution should ultimately perish, I do say it would be the most striking instance of moral retribution which the w hole history of nations could afford.—( Hear, hear.) But, what ever may be the consequence, our course is clear. Of that people we are the trustees and representatives. When we refused to repeal the Union, when we placed the present Administration on the ruins of the last, we pledged ourselves to do justice to Ireland. You ask what we mean by justice. Justice to Ireland is something your philosophy cannot com prehend. Why, what can it mean but this—the just applica tion of equal laws ? Again and again upon this and the Irish Church question you nave told us that it is for a shadow we contend. It may be a shadow, but it is the shadow of a gi gantic substance —it is reflected upon you from the largest towns—from the most powerful constituencies—from the esta blished and legitimate administration of these realms—the shadow is the principle of justice, the substance is the deter mination of the people. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said there might be some truth in the statement that the state of society in Ireland was ill adapted for such municipal government as that granted to England ; but though he admitted that to a certain extent he differed with those who said there was no town in Ire land so fit for municipal institutions as even the smallest towns in England.—( Hear.) It could not surely be said that Dublin, Belfast, and Limerick were not as well or better entitled to Corporation charters than such towns as Caine and Godalming.—( Hear.) If those who opposed the Bill would grant Corporations only to towns in Ireland of equal size and trade with those in England which enjoyed these institutions, and refuse to grant them to others of less importance, there would be some grounds for an amendment : but such was not the position taken. As to the Protestant Church in Ireland, he would only say that he wished to see that Church reformed and maintained : and he could not see why Corporations might not be reformed and maintained at the same time. By bringing together inhabitants of towns to consult upon matters in which, whether they were Protestants or Catholics, Whigs or Tories, they were equally interested, a great step would be taken to do away with those acrimonious feelings which had for so many centuries prevailed. For these reasons, and not because he had any great attachment to Cor porations generally, he should vote against the motion of the Noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire. Colonel PE RCE VA L thought the course pursued by the Noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, to do away with Corporations entirely, was the course of justice. The lion Member for Lincoln's very poetical speech it was not for him (Col. Perceval) to answer. That lion. Gentleman had attacked the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. A sentence from his Right Hon. Friend would reit an extin. guisher on him.—(A laugh.) That Hon. Gentleman had said that whoever might sit with his Right Hon. Friend in a new Cabinet would be fortunate if they should have in that House half the majority (composed as it was) which sanctioned the measures of his Majesty's present Government. He would leave the Hon. Gentleman in full possession of all the self satisfaction which lie must derive from this and other poetical fancies. But the Hon. Gentleman maintained that those must necessarily be partial judges on the subject who had been mem bers of the Orange Association. lie (Colonel Perceval) had a right to complain of the conduct of his Majesty's present Government towards him and the other members of the Orange Association who had come forward, and in obedience to the wishes of their King, honestly, unequivocally, and without mental reservation—(hear)—yielded up that Institution as far as in them lay, and laid it at the feet of their Sovereign, and recommended their brethren in Ireland to follow their example. What was the conduct of the Gentlemen opposite ? He (Col. Perceval) well knew at the time that the course which he and his friends wore pursuing was gall and wormwood to those gentlemen. The Government, and those who governed the Government, pursued, through the Press of Dublin, a course of taunts and insults which induced his Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Cavan and himself to remonstrate with the Noble Lord opposite on the subject, and to represent to him that if that course were continued it would do away with all the ad vantages which he might have expected from the termination of the Orange Societies. The Noble Lord said he would write to Dublin on the subject, and, as far as he could, put an end to the practice.—( Hear.) No doubt the Noble Lord did fulfil his promise ; for in a few days a change took place' s in the tone of the papers ho alluded to ; but that change was made in such a manner that it had better not have taken place. Now what was the course which his Majesty's Government had subsequently pursued ? During the existence of the Orange Societies they had loudly declared, and acted on the declaration even to mere and ungrounded suspicion of the fact, that no member of those societies (although established for the most loyal purposes, and though constantly evincing their attachment to their King and country and to the connec tion between Great Britain and Ireland) ought to hold any office under Government. Would any one say that, after such a declaration, it was impartial justice on their part to sanction and encourage a political society in the heart of Ireland, in Dublin, consisting of 2,300 and odd persons, and to select from the most turbulent ranks of that Association, which was avowedly , founded on opposition to the law of .the land, and which he had heard eminent lawyers say was illegal, magistrates, constables, barristers, and confidential advisers of the Crown ?—( Hear.) The High Sheriff of the county of which he had the honour to represent was a member of that Association. He had a great respect for that gentleman; but he must say that his being a member of that Association ought to have prevented his appointment. And as to the county which he had the honour to represent, he had further reason to complain of the conduct of his Majesty's Government re specting it. It was in the latter end of August, or the be ginning of September, that the Lord-Lieutenant paid that county a visit, and, with a degree of clemency highly improper and unconstitutional, ordered the liberation of no fewer than twenty-five prisoners. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland sent to the Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Sligo for a recom mendation for an individual of the name of Kelly, the son of a bleacher, whom his Majesty's Government desired to appoint a magistrate. The Lieutenant refused to give the recom mendation; but Mr. Kelly was nevertheless appointed. To show the means that were resorted to in Ireland, by menace or otherwise, to obtain a preponderance in power, he would read to the House a letter which appeared in a liberal Irish paper on the 25th of November last, signed by Mr. Dillon Browne, the Honourable Member for the county of Mayo. The Hon. Gentleman (Colonel Perceval) here read the letter ; which recommended that a death's head should be placed on the doors of such of the people as refused to regis ter, and that if they happened to be visited with greater afflic tions, they should be allowed to bear them, and which con cluded with thanks to Mr. O'Connell and Lord Mulgrave. If the letter was not authentic, the Hon. Gentleman was in the House and could disavew it. lie had himself spoken to the Hon. Gentleman that evening, who had admitted that the letter was genuine. Mr. DILLON BROWNE said that the lion. and Gallant Member misapplied the application of the letter. Colonel PE RCE VA L, in continuation, observed that since the appointment of the magistrate to whom he had alluded, a rule nisi had been granted against him by the Court of King's Bench in Ireland for vituperation on one of the assistant bar risters. Then again, a measure had been introduced by the Right lion. Gentleman the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, under the seeming fair pretext that there ought to be Crown prosecutors for sessional purposes in every county in Ireland ; and no less than thirty-two Crown prosecutors were accord ingly appointed; and of course the measure was not the less palatable to the Ministry on account of the patronage which it brought with it. Most earnestly did lie entreat the Noble Lord opposite to grant a Committee, with a view to prove the facts adduced by his lion. and Learned Friends the Members for Bandonbridge and Dublin city. He thought that if such Committee were granted, the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would not again venture to prime himself on the accu racy of his information. Lord Viscount Howice and Mr. Dleime Bnowsos rose at the same moment, amidst loud cries of " Lord Ilowick." The Noble Lord, however, gave way to Mr. DILLON BROWNE, who rose to explain. He had said that if any individual could be base enough to receive a bribe, it would not be too great a punishment to such a per son to have cross bones and a death's head marked on his doors. lie thought this was a sufficient explanation of the matter. lie could understand, however, the feeling under which the charge had been made; he knew the slight tenure on which the Honourable and Gallant officer held his seat fur Sligo ; and he was proud to say that the position in which he stood was mainly owing to his (Mr. Browne's) humble exer tions. Ile would not trouble the House further. Lord Viscount HO W ICK (who rose amidst cheering) pro ceeded to address the House in nearly the following words : --I deem it wiser to confine myself to this one point—a point which has given to this debate a new and deeper importance than it before possessed—l mean the grounds which have been put forward for rejecting the Bill on the other side, in consequence of its being assumed that its adoption will cause increased danger to the Established Church of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) I will not inquire why it is that during the last Session this argument was not put forward ; I will not stop to ask why it has happened that, except in the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham), I do not recol lect any stress or weight being laid upon that argument. Is there a wish on the part of those who hold these opinions to excite religious dissens i ons, and to create religious prejudices in Eng land, Scotland, and Ireland, in the anticipation of the event of a general election ? Is it for this that honourable Members are prepared, for party purposes, to degrade and • villify The name of religion? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I say, if such be the views on which such arguments are brought forward, I trust in the good sense of the people of England and Scotland to defeat the views of those by whom this attempt is made, and to refuse to mix up a question with religion which, first and last, is entirely political. My Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) last night said that the object, or, if not the object, the tendency of this measure was the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland ; and he further said, how can his Majesty's Government persist in the course which they are pursuing, seeing they are told by those who support them and who sit behind them, that the certain tendency of this measure is the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland ? and my Noble " How can they go on, bur n ic nd's quest ion was, roving on like moles, ignorant of the tendency of the measure? " I have been too many years in this House to at tach much value to that argument, but I was surprised to hear that argument used by my Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley.) When he was sitting—l wish he had continued with us— C s, when he ries s Hear, happily t e t a i from the ng wills us o f_ r ) ) pg e s s i e ti o b n e c s le s ), — a 11 ): t e defend ing the Reform Bill, that , argument was t r ea t ed with all the euottnupt whiull it deserved. When we were advocating the Reform Bill, I ask my Noble Friend whether we were nut told by those who are now his allies, that it would lead to universal suffrage and the overthrow of the Constitution ? W a s not that, I ask, the language of those who refused to grant that great measure? But certainly my recollection is much mistaken if the Noble Lord felt any difliculty in receiving the ' support of those who professed to go much further. There was no lack of gentlemen who were ready to take up the Reform Bill, and I think the result proved that both extremes are wrong, and it further shows that we were right in maintaining that the Reform Bill, in spite of these sinister predictions, was calculated to maintain the Constitution, and not to form a stepping-stone to universal suffrage. Can any man suppose that if we had refused to carry the Reform Bill in 1830, though we might now be sitting with a Constitution and with the Members for Gatton and Old Sarum, in their places, we might have had a revolution, accompanied by anarchy, universal suf frage, and a military despotism ? But I am convinced that no man can look back and think that in such case we should still have a House of Commons essentially forming a part of the British Constitution. But with regard to those who took a middle course between the violence of contending parties, is it to be maintained that they were the tools of one party or the other? I was the more surprised to hear this argument used last night, because it was resisted most ably in the speech of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, who said he would not con sider his aversion to the Church Establishment, that he was its open and professed enemy, and that being so, it was not that he trusted the granting of the Bill would remove those objections which he had' to the Establish ment that he advocated it.—( Hear, hear.) What he said in effect, moreover, was, " and therefore I rejoice that the English Establishment in Ireland has this additional odium, of ' being an obstacle to the attainment of civil rights and privi leges." He said_" You will find by rejecting the Bill on the grounds which have been put forward, you will show the Irish people not only that they are to have no national endow ment—that they arc not only to be excluded from the advan tages of a national endowment ; but you also teach them that to bolster up the Church Establishment, you are determined to shut them out from the rights of British subjects." I ap peal to the House whether this was or was not the argument of the Hon. Member for Liskeard ?—( Cheers.) And this, Sir, brings me to the consideration I wish more particularly to advert to—l mean as to whether the tendency of the mea sure is to be fatal to the Established Church in Ireland or not. If it is, let me ask how is the danger to the Establish ment to arise ? You do not apprehend a display of acteal force —you do not suppose that the Town-councils will take up arms and resist the Church ?—( Hear, hear.) No, but you are afraid that, inasmuch' as the municipal councils . will have the power of discussion, of petitioning the Parliament, where, as representing the wishes and feel ings of the great body of the inhabitants of the towns they will wield a moral force, that force which will be added to their enmity to the Established Church. Do those gentle men who use the argument to which I refer consider what it is that they really assume ? Do they mean to tell me that the Church Establishment of Ireland is so obnoxious to the whole population of Ireland, that it is so hated and detested by the great body of the people, that any increase of their political power, or any means which may be afforded them of increasing that political power, will contribute to the fall of the Established Church ? I confess, if that be what is meant to, be asserted by the strong friends of the Established Church, it is, from those who profess to support it, the most inconsistent argument I ever heard made use of. But what will be the effect of a denial of this Bill? Is it possible that it will not be what was last night hinted at by the Honour able Member for Liskeard ?—( hear, hear, hear.) Will it not be felt by the people of Ireland that the Church Establishment is the great obstacle to the , attainment of their civil rights ? And if that feeling be created, with a political power alluded to, do you think you will have improved your position by the refusal to grant them Muni cipal Corporations ? But, Sir, there is one ground upon which I can understand the character of this argument. Perhaps there may be Honourable Gentlemen on the other side who mean to put forward this position—that if the Church of Ireland be ever so odious, if the feelings of the people be against the Church, and our authority as hostile as it may be, we are, nevertheless, still determined to maintain both by means of our superior power ! If this, I say, be their position—if they mean to say that they know the Church of Ireland is odious, that for the sake, nevertheless, of maintain ing that Church, and on account of it, they refuse to grant mu nicipal corporations, and thus defeat that system of government which they necessarily produce, their power in Ireland shall be maintained by force of arms—we then might understand their argument. Then, indeed, I should say you act consist ently by striking out all those clauses that give civil privileges to the people of Ireland ; I say that you are right to legislate as you would for aliens anxious to shake off the yoke. But before we come to this question of policy let us consider all it involves and implies. Remember you will have, not the vo luntary, but the forced obedience of the people, if you rest your Government upon coercion and not the affections of the people. They must carry out a principle to the greatest extent. What then have you to do ? Have you not commenced the very strug gle you had in the case of Catholic Emancipation. Yes, the very pages might be transferred from " The Mirror of Parlia ment." I could quote from that work the very sentiments then uttered by honourable and right honourable gentlemen opposite. If, then, I say this be the same struggle, let us look back to the period I refer to, because it affords a most instructive lesson to us. I will go back no further than 1825, - when, it will be remembered, that a 13111 for emancipating the Roman Catholics Was passed by this House and sent up to the other House of Parliament, where, unfortunately, it was defeated by a considerable majority, led on by those who were then the colleagues in office of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) opposite. Two years afterwards, in 1527, a new Parliament was assembled,and then, for the last time, this House decided by a bare majority against Catholic emancipa tion. In the following year the decision of the House was re versed ; but again a majority of the other Hoose, acting, as I before said, with those immediately connected in office with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), stopped the progress of improvement, and defeated the measure.—( Hear, hear.) In the following year, within only two years of the time when the Right lion. Baronet had separated himself from the Go vernment of Mr. Canning, lest his assumption of the lead in that Government should give some remote assistance to the ad vancement of Catholic emancipation—( Cheers)—within two years from that time, the Right Hon. Baronet was compelled himself to come forward, to confess that his previous policy bad been wrong—that his former opposition had been unfortunate —and to call upon this House to pass a measure of Roman Catholic Emancipation.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet on that occasion was arguing on precisely the same question as that which I maintain is now before us, namely, " Can you or can you not carry on the Government of Ireland by a system of coercion ? Can you or can you not go on per manently resisting that which the people of Ireland are deter mined to obtain ?"—( Hear, hear.) And these are the words used by the Right Hon. Baronet :—" I say you would then be commencing a Government with nearly the whole con stituent and representative body against you, and it would be practically impossible to conduct the internal Govern ment of Ireland. Separated as that country necessarily is from England, it would be impossible to carry on an in ternal Government in opposition to the feelings of the re presentative and constituent bodies. There would be a moral influence opposed to you which would render it hopeless to conduct the business of Government."—( Hear.) Let me ask, would that difficulty be diminished now? An Hon. Member, who last night sat immediately behind the Right Honourable Baronet, told you distinctly that the Roman Catholics were daily increasing in wealth and influ ence, and that in a very short space of time they would have seventy or eighty representatives in the House.—( Cheers.) Those representatives would be arrayed against the lion. Gentlemen opposite : because, let the Right I-ion. Baronet remember, that this question of Municipal Reform, which originally only interested the cities and towns of Ireland, has been, in consequence of the course taken by the Opposition, a question deeply interesting to the feelings of every Roman Catholic.—( Cheers.) My Noble Friend (Stanley) stated last night distinctly, " it is because they are Roman Catho lics—it is not because they are Irishmen, but because they arc Roman Catholics, and because being Roman Catholics, they would be opposed to the Established Church, that I refuse to grant them the privileges proposed in this Bill."—( Cheering. ) Why, these are precisely the grounds on which, for so many Mars, the measure of Roman Catholic Emancipation was re sisted ; and I tell you that the difficulties with which you will have to contend in resisting this measure, will he of pre cisely the same character as those with ishich you had to contend on the question of Catholic Emancipation, and by which you were ultimately defeated—( Loud cheering.) But I c on ti nue m y quo t at i on from the speech of the Right lion. Baronet in 1829. The Right Hon. Baronet goes on to say : Again, then, I ask, Sir, what is to be the remedy ? Is it to retrace our steps? I would warn you that finding the powers, you have already conferred so great that you can no longer struggle with them, you should be cautious how jou struggle with them ; you should be cautious haw you trifle with- them, or encounter a collision which may en danger the welfare of the State ; for I firmly believ,e that the commencement of a system of recalling civil pri vileges already bestowed, without an attempt to settle the question, and a declaration that nothing is to he conceded, would be attended with consequences the most disastrous-- It would cause a re-action, which would of necessity lead to a struggle ; and that struggle, if pursued to its legitimate consequences, would end in a result little short of the re enactment of the penal laws. But, Sir, can the penvl laws be applied to Ireland as it at present exists? Reflect upon the difficulties that would attend such a project. Can we force back the great spirit that we have let loose by lifting the seal from the vessel, and inclose him again within his narrow ? Looking, therefore, to the different considerations which bear upon the subject, I would ask the most determined enemy to concession, in what mode the internal Government of Ireland is to be conducted ?" This was the opinion of the Right lion. Baronet in 1829. Will the difficulty of carrying on the Government in Ireland upon the principle that Catholics, as Catholics, ought to be denied the advantages which are to be extended to England be less now than they were in 1629 ?—( Cheers.) [An allu sion was here made by an Hon. 'Member, as we understood, to the General Association, but we did not hear the terms of the observation. ] I admit the real danger of it ; far am I from undervaluin g th e i m p or t an ce of it as the symptom o f a dis turbed and di sease d sta t e of society.—(Hear, h ear . ) B ut what, I ask the Right - lion. Baronet, is this—will he find the present Association loss formidable than that to which be yielded in 1;.+251?_—( Cheers.) Is it easier now to deftsnd your ground when you have given up every commanding position that you then occupied ? when all the aids to resistance you then possessed have since been completely abandoned ?-- ( Cheers. ) When you have given such an extensive political power to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, is there any safety, nay, is there any thing but the greatest madness in ebruptly pensing and refusing to go further ?- e -( Cheers.) In ;.125 Mr. Canning said, and although I had not then tht honour of a seat in Parliament, I happened to be present on the occasion, and had the pleasure of hearing him, and his word.: made a great impression on my mind—Mr. Canning said ; speaking of the former system of government, " The rack is a horrible engine, but a beautiful piece of mechanism—so, the penal laws arc dreadful a but admirably adapted to the purpose for which they were originally intended a" and he went on to show that, by trampling down and brutalising the whole people of Ireland, you might chance to carry on the Government for a time, but that the very first concession that was made would carry with it, of necessity, all those other concessions which have since gradually followed.—( Hear, hear.) Unfortunately the Right Hon. Baronet would not take the warning which Mr. Canning then gave him.—( Hear, hear.) A few evenings ago the Right Hon. Baronet felt it necessary to enter into a defence of his change of opinion upon the subject of Catholic Emancipation in 1824. But lam sure that those by whom he was then most condemned can now hardly resist the conviction that in 1829 the Right Honourable Baronet acted in the manner that best became. him.—(hear, hear.) But if the Right Honourable Baronet were right in 1829, I ask him was he right in 1825 and 1827 ?—( Hear, hear.) I impute no motives to him for his change of opinion in 1829. lam convinced that he was sincerely anxious to do that which was best.--( Hear, hear.) It was reserved for some of those who - have now joined his ranks to impute to the Right Honourable Baronet unworthy motives for his conduct.—( Cheers.) —(Sir James Graham half rose from his scat and seemed to address an observation across the table.) Ido not in the least allude to the Right Hon. Baronet thel Member for Cumberland.— (Laughter and cheers.) I am alluding to some of the speeches made in 1829 by some of the Hon. Gentlemen who have since taken their seats on the same side of the House with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel).--(Hear, hear, hear.) Did not Mr. Canning—did not Lord Plunket, and many other distinguished persons, the associates in office of the Right Honourable Baronet, describe to him in language which might now be quoted as historical of the event, al though it was then used only prophetically—did they not point out, in language exactly conforming with the event, the certain and obvious tendency of the course lie was pur suing ?—( Hear, hear.) Did they not repeatedly call upon him to say, whether he could permanently maintain the line of policy he had adopted ? Did they not repeatedly ask, whether it was possible that the existing state of things could go. on from year to year without at least coming to a fatal result? And did not the Right, Hon. Baronet refuse to listen to their . warning voices, and blindly perse vere in his mistaken career, until at length the fatal result so long predicted actually happened; and which I am afraid did not verify the assertion made by my Hon. Friend last night, that they would " refuse to clamour what they would not deny to justice?"—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet in 1825 and 1827 made use of very much the same language as at present in speaking of the danger of the Association in Ireland—of the danger to the Established Church—of the im possibility of placing confidence in giving political power to the Roman Catholics. And why was it that he at last con sented to give them power? Was it because the Association had been less urgent in its demands, or less menacing in its attitude ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it because the Church was in less danger?—(Hear, hear.) No ; the reasons were those stated by the Right Hon. Baronet himself—that the means of further carrying on the struggle had altogether failed him.— ( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.) With this experience—with this reason—with this dearly-purchased experience 'before us, shall we again commit the same mistake ?—( Hear.) Shall we once more commit ourselves to a system of Government to which the great body of the Irish people and the Irish Repre sentatives . are and will be the determined opponents ? ( Cheers.) Will the Imperial Parliament once more commit itself in a struggle of that kind ?—( Hear.) Is the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) now prepared to face those self same dangers which in 1829 he most wisely shrunk from encountering—(Cheers)—or will he again come down to the House and advise us to retrace our steps ?—( Hear.) Having denied what was asked in justice, will he tell us to give it up to clamour, when the power opposed to you no longer thanks you for the concession, but boldly tells you you dare not refuse it ?—( Cheers.) I ask the House whether they are prepared to risk the peace of the country, the existence of the empire, upon so desperate a chance as this ?—( Hear.) Will they embark in this career? If not, I say let them lose no time in adopting those measures of conciliation which the present circumstances require, and which experience tells us cannot be permanently resisted.—( Cheers.) We have already, fatally in my opinion, lost the best and the wisest occasion for conceding with grace. —(Cheers.) Already, if lam not greatly mistaken, the effect of the boon, even though granted upon the instant, would be infinitely less than if it had been yielded in the last Session of Parliament.--( Hear. ) Sir F. POLLOCK sincerely entertained the alarm which the Noble Lord who last addressed the House appeared to sneer at. He did think that the granting of Municipal Cor porations to Ireland would have a tendency to degrade reli gion.—( Loud cries of " Oh !" from the Ministerial side ; cheers from the Opposition)—and he did think it safer for the Protestant religion, as established in the united empire, that the resolution of the Noble Lord (F. Egerton) should be agreed to rather than that the Bill should be carried in the shape in which it then stood.—( Hear, from the Opposition.) He would refer presently to the arguments advanced by the Noble Lord (Howick), but he begged first to allude to a speech made, he believed, by the Hon. Member for Limerick, who stated that the only' arguments on the opposition side of the House were, that Municipal Corporations in Ireland were not necessary, and that they might be mischievousaa--( Hear, hear, hear.) He begged to ask whether those arguments were not well founded ? If it were said that Municipal Cor porations were necessary, let him ask what had been their experience of such bodies in England ? By the English Corporation Bill his Majesty was empowered to grant a charter of incorporation to any twin in any part of the king dom, where, such a charter should be required. What was the result ? There had not been a single application for such a charter since the Bill passed.—( Hear.) Experience showed them that Corporate rights were not much valued in England, and certainly were not considered necessary where they had not formerly existed. As regarded the existing corporations of Ireland, it was notorious 'that the greater por tion of them had been created for the 'single purpose of main taining the Protestant religion in that country ; and down to a recent period all Roman Catholics were carefully excluded from any participation in them., This was one of the reasons why he dreaded the adoption of the present measure; because where' theie had been a system of exclusion on one side, the result of the proposed change would in all probability be to es tablish a system of exclusion on the other. He contended, in opposition to the Noble Lord who had just addressed the House, that these corporations would be the means of foster ing political agitation in Ireland. He entertained the greatest respect for the people of Ireland, and he protested against being supposed to be a 'party to any insult to .that nation, or to any gentleman from it, by opposing the extension of such muni cipal rights to Ireland as were proposed in thii Bill ; he did not conceive that he could be charged with any such inten tion, but he was only anxious that the towns of Ireland should be governed as Westminster, Mary-la-bonne, and Manchester now were.—( Hear, hear.) Several Hon. Members rose to address the House ; among others, Mr. T. Fowcll Buxton, Mr. Roebuck, Mr Callaghan, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Grattan, and other gentlemen. Mr. ROE BUCK having been loudly called for, proceeded to address the House as follows:—I am happy that I have the satisfaction of rising after some Hon. Gentlemen who have spoken more immediately to the question before the House. I believe that we have here met to determine whether the po pulation of Ireland should have a municipal system for the government of their own internal affairs, without rendering it necessary to dwell on the proceedings of certain Orange lodges, or on the registration of Sligo, or any petty grievance as to the Executive Government in Ireland.—( Hear.) Supposing that the Executive Government of Ireland'is unworthy of the con fidence of the House. is that an argument, or would it ope rate as a - sufficient reason with the representatives of Great Britain and Scotland to refuse to the people of Ireland the means of obtaining a system of self-government, which was found so efficient in its operation in Great Britain and Scot land? My object at present is to state, as briefly and clearly as I am able, the grounds of my assent to the second reading of this Bill, and, if possible, to answer some of the objections urged as to th 3 policy, as well as justice,. of the- measure contemplated by big Majesty's Government. It has been admitted by the Right lion. Gentleman, the. Mem ber for Tamworth, that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of this Bill, and he has acknowledged that on them who (*pose it devolves the necessity of. proving, by special reasons and peculiar circumstances, the wisdom of denying to the Irish people those rights which by this Bill we seek to con fer on them ; and ray immediate purpose is to show, how fee ble to this end are the circumstances stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman—how inconclusive is the argumentation by which he has attempted to support his proposition.—( Hear, hear.) It seems, as far as I was able to ascertain the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, that lie believed, that as Ireland and England was now one nation, said to be under one Government, and as we bad seen reason to give to the people of England municipal governments, that there was a presumption at once in favour of extending the same measure to Ireland. I desire, however, to go one step farther into this inquiry. I wish to know why it was thought necessary to confer these rights on the people of England, for when we have clearly est . 's rtained the nature or the tic-_ cessity for creating municipalities iti England, we shall be better prepared to determine whether there be any difference in the two cases of England and Ireland, and whether the necessity which was so potent in one case exists in Ire land, and whether there be anything in the peculiar condition of the latter country to counterbalance the need which is found to be similar in both countries.—( Hear. ) Now I suppose it will be allowed that the principle on which we created muni cipal governments in England was this, viz., all communities of men in towns have, from the very fact of their neighbour hood and society, certain interests and concerns peculiarly their own—interests which they have special reason to watch over with care, and to guard and forward with prudence and assiduity. While these societies have these peculiar or local interests, they have also general ones—that is, interests which arc general to the greater community of the nation. Now, here in England, we have determined that while the general government watches over the more wide or general interests of all, the neighbourhoods which have local interests shall watch over and protect those more narrow and peculiar mat . ters of concern.—( Hear, hear.) lee in the same manner we have also determined that each individual has matters and interests peculiar to himself and family, which are left to 11's own individual goxernment.— then, in England and Scotland we have divided every parate (gasses—personal or in man's interest info three se dividual ; local, or those of his peculiar neighbourhood ; and thirdly, general or national. The first set are under his own immediate and singular control; the second lie governs in conjunction nith his neighbours ; the third he sit r erinterid; in common with the whole nation.—( Hear, hear.) Such is the view we have taken with regard to the people of England and Scotland, and such at first sight, every one must allow, we should naturally take with regard to the people of Ireland. In Ireland, as in England, every man has personal, has local, has national interests ; and, at the first glance or impulse, we should be inclined to believe that we should in Ireland-: . -as we have already done in England—establish personal, local, awl national rights. In Ireland—(confining myself to the second class—viz., the local or municipal rights)--it is undeniable that there are precisely the same circumstances of a local na ture which have in England induced us to grant municipal rights to the localities in which these peculiar neighbourhood interests existed.—(Cheers.) No one who has the slightest knowledge of the circumstances out of which municipal go vernment has arisen, will deny this.—( Hear, hear.) The necessity is inherent ; it arises the moment men associate ; and the matter we have to discuss is this:—Why should we travel out of the ordinary path of government in the case of Ireland ?—( Hear, hear.) Why depart from a rule in their case which lone experience had taught us to be the Wisest one in the case of all other people, viz., to trust to every man the guardianship of his own concerns, because his interest in those concerns is closer and more potent than any other man's. We now come to the Right Hon. Baronet's reasons, or rather reason, for it is but one :—" I believe," says the Right Hon. . Gentleman, " that the existence of Municipal Corporations, which admit all sects and denominations as members, to be fatal to the existence of the Irish Church. Irish Corpora tions have hitherto been exclusive and Protestant—if you allow them to be open to all, you will destroy the Protestant Establishment-4" Hear, hear," from the Opposition)—and I therefore call upon the House of Commons, without fur ther argument, to refuse to the Irish people - Municipal Government."—( Hear, hear.) It is evident that in England and Scotland we have found that, for the.good government of the country, these Municipal Governments were needed— needed, be it remembered, in consequence of circumstances common to Great Britain and to Ireland. Therefore, for the, really good government of Ireland, the same machinery is re quisite; but it seems there is something in Ireland of far more import than good government, and that thing thus exalted above all that we have hitherto thought of paramount import. ance, is the existence of an exclusive monopoly corporation, called tho Protestant' Church Establishment of Ireland. The assertion of the Right Honourable Gentleman was that the Municipal Corporations would prove fatal to the Esta blished Church. Now what was, and• is intended by this statement? What is its precise signification? Does it mean what the words really import—(Hear, hear,)—that the religion of the Irish Established Church would be in danger ?—( Hear, hear.)—or that the Church, namely, 'the congregations, would come to harm in consequence of good municipalinstitutions? —( Cheers.) Suppose we take the first hypothesis. Sup pose we inquire into the assertion, that the religion would be in danger. My first question is why would it be in danger 7 I can find but one answer to this question, the clergy would be unpaid. The corporations, it is said, would lead, in some way not spe cified, to the non-payment in any shape by the State of the Protestant clergy ; and thereupon (thus I suppose the argu ment was) the parsons would cease to preach, and the people cease to believe. Now, there was some strange things sug gested by this train of reasoning. First, it is assumed, that Protestant parsons will not preach without State pay.--( Hear, hear, hear.) Next, it is assumed, that Protestant congrega tions will lose their religion, if parsons, not having State pay, desert them ; and thus religion is made dependent upon money and nothing else. I feel a great difficulty in assenting to this statement. I thought that Protestants were accustomed to think their religion the true one—( Hear, hear)—one which had in its time been opposed to a powerful State Church, and had in many parts of the werld, by its own inherent truth, conquered its opponents ; but here we see the possessors of this religion, which is said to be based CB the right of private judgment, and self-supporting truth, ope.nlY avowing that Protestantism will die out if not fed like a pauper by the State.—( Hear, hear.) It should, moreover, be recollected that the Catholic religion has in Ireland no State pay; it is, nevertheless, believed that, although wholly voluntary and unpaid, it will be too strong for Protestantism, if they are both left to depend upon their own unaided strength and truth. This speaks not well for the faith of those who use the argument. They must have but a ,poor opinion of the force of truth—or they must believe that they ought to doubt their own faith. But it may be said that lam not put ting the right case—that it is not the religion of the congre gations that is in danger, but the congregations themselves. (Hear.) The dread is not that the people are likely to lose their faith, but that they .will lose their lives. Can anything be so wild, so outrageous, so thoroughly contemptible as such an argument ; because you allow Irish to regulate the lighting, watching, and paving of the towns, to determine how the rub bish shall be carried away,—(Hear, and laughter,)—how the inhabitant shall be guarded against, and so on, the Catholics will incontinently proceed to cut the throats of the Protest ants. Such and no other is the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman, if this hypothesis be the correct one. (Cheers.) I may here be permitted to remark that the Church, in this case, is in as great danger as it can be—a danger not to be in creased by any change in the municipal corporations of Ireland. The majority of the people at this moment object to pay the State Cnurch parsons from whom the claim spiritual benefit. The question is wholly unconnected with, and independent of, the question of municipal government—deny or grant the re form in the Corporations, and the question respecting the State Church must again occur, and must be settled.—( Hear.) You do not hasten, you do not retard, the fate of the State Church Establishment by anything you do in the present mat ter.—( Hear.) The fate of the compulsory principle is really settled, the doom of forced payments is sealed. Da what you will—insult, injure, thwart the wish of the people in this matter, as much as you may—the great question of religious freedom will haunt you night and day. In Evltinde in Ire land, in Scotland, the same question is mooted, and your paltry opposition to the present Bill will in no way influence the fate of that important question. It may be thought shrewd policy to bind the two questions together ; but to me it ap pears that a more fatal course for the very interests which you seek to defend, could not have been suggested. You here plainly tell the Irish people that the existence of the State Church Establishment is incompatible with good government; aed you bring this question at once, in all its nakedness, be fore ,the people. Oh, Sir, this is wise policy.--this is ex cellent statesmanship—and be it remembered that it has re ceived the sanction of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Tamworth.—(Loud cheers.) The truth upon this matter has at length been openly told to the Irish people and the Tory party—and the Right Hon. Gentleman in England is now allied to • the bigot Orangemen of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) There can be no further disguise in the ,matterbee (Cheers.) The people of Ireland now know that from the Right Hon. Gentleman they need expect no hope of peace ; and they must bear steadily in mind that persecution will follow his dominion in Ireland. He has thrown off the mask. - (Cheers.) He is a mere tool of the Orange •party.--4lte lievred cheering.) He shouts as they shout—( Hear, hear)--- and to obtain their support he is now fast sworn to uphold, in all her rampant prodigality of mischief, the harlot Church Es tablishment of Ireland.,( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I cannot leave this part of the question without congratulating the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland upon the part he has played in this great matter. Some men, it is said, like mischief for mischief 's sake; but he, lam sure, is far too devout to desire, and far too shrewd to be content with mere mischief as his sole reward. Yet am I puzzled to discover what other object he could pos sibly have in view, when he conceived his argumentation in opposition to the present measure, and successfully contrived to add another element of discord to the already too turbulent compound of Irish politics. The Right Hon. Member for Tamworth contented himself with stirring up to the utmost of his ability religious strife in Ireland. The Right Hon. Mem ber for Cumberland endeavours, according to the measure of big ability, to set the poor in hostility to the rich.—( Cheers. ) The one gentleman made the question to depend upon secta diff,2rences ; the other, on the distinction between rich and poor. Ireland cannot have a good Government, says one. because the majority are Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) Ireland cannot have a good Government, says the other, because the Catholics are poor. Oae bands the Protestant against the Catholic—the other incites the poor against the rich. For just in the same way that the Rig lit lion. Member fur Tam worth has endeavoured to show that good Government and the Protestant religion cannot co-exist in Ireland, so does the Right fi"n. Member for Cumberland seek to prove that pro perty and good Government must also be sworn enemies. I cannot but admire the benignant inspiration , in obedience to which they both have laboured on this memorable oc casion -4 Hear, hear, hear.) There is one argument on this subject, however, which deserves some consideration. It runs through the speeches of most of those who oppose the present measure, is constantly influencing opinions, though it is never very definitely or distinctly stated.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It is thought, that as the community is divided into two separate, and, to a certain extent, hostile, religious sects, the one party will always seek to oppress the other. The majority of the people being Catholics, the moment that you give power to tine community generally, you in reality give it to the Catholics ; and as the rule has hitherto been for the party in power to persecute, it is believed that now that the Catholics are about to have power, it is about to be the tern of the Protestants to suffer what they have so long inflicted, vies,. great outcry Hear, hear, hear.) — And hereu p on a outcry is raised by those who side exclusively with the hitherto he hitherto persecuting Protestants, and a p ro p osal is brought forward, how that the Protestants ca n no longermaintain their former supremacy, to take power parties,fromboth on. i e a a n r, d give up for ever after the pleasur es of persecution.—(Hear, nail cheers.) —The case, then, stands thus: t • ..tv have been in power , and have perseen h t e t r ti t e o l a i ro r i m t; nil a t t o t Itjseni majorityajo ri- e ve ludeth power —(Chety, and our opponents immediately co ers. )---It is now proposedtogni will now persecute the minority. ( Hear , hear, and cheeis.)— We should remember, in the first place, that this objection, if admitted, is fatal to all representative government.—(Loud cries of hear.) Somebody must govern, and the real ques tient at issue is, whether the majority or minorii,y shall govern, ll:therto'in Ireland the minority have governed, and they have persecuted. We now seek to give the power of governing their local affairs to the people at home, and . I see no reason to anticipate any persecution on the part of the majority,— . ( Lend cheers.) It should always be borne in mind that the pesition of a niinority and majority are essentially different.-- ( Hear.) The mere necessity of self-defence, the desire fur gain, induce tyranny on the part of a few possessed of power. Now, the interests of the majority for the most part o,incitie with the interests of the community, and being the 'artier number, fear does not drive them to harsh conduct,: Rut let us imagine how the majority can persecute in die case. You say they will persecute because they arc Catho• lies—that they will persecute the Protestants. Now, I ask, in what manlier? Have Honourable Gentlemen inquired e hat are the powers conferred by this Act on 'city commu• viies--really and truly, nothing Leyond the power of clean shin the streets, teeing them, lighting the tdwn, and watch ing..--(ller.) Now, is it to be believed, that a Cor roratiun will leave rubbish before a man's door, because be is