The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-06 00:00:00

situation whose case ran upon all fours with the case of Lord Canterbury? He would pass from Lord Cantorbury to a very worthy and excellent officer, Mr. Bellamy. That Gentleman was an officer of the House of Commons, and had also a deviation in his policy, so that in this respect his case and Lord Canterbury's were exactly alike. He had suffered loss by the fire as well as Lord Canterbury. So far their cases were identical. Mr. Bellamy had, however, insured, as Lord Canterbury repeatedly had done before, but which latterly he had ceased to do. Mr. Bellamy applied to the Insurance office, and was paid the whole amount of his policy without any difficulty being raised ; on the contrary, the amount was paid readily and cheerfully.—( Hear, hear.) Was thr.re a man, then, who could doubt, if Lord Canter bury had insured as Mr. Bellamy had done, that the result to Lord Canterbury would not have been the same as to Mr. Bel lamy ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) His not being insured, therefore was owing to the neglect and forgetfulness of Lord Canter bury himself. It was stated that there were two precedents, to justify the present claim, namely, one with respect to Sir Robert Gordon, and the other with respect to the fire in St. James's Palace. Now, neither the one nor the other applied in the slightest degree to the present case.—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds he felt bound, as a matter of principle, to resist the present motion.—(Cheers.) He thought it right, however, before he sat down, to advert to the particular cir cumstances of Lord Canterbury's case. It was stated by Lord Canterbury in his evidence that as long as he considered himself permanently in the service of the House of Com mons, so long he insured his property ; and that he discon tinued insuring it when, not of his own seeking, but at the request of the Government and for the public convenience, he, not permanently, but for a temporary purpose, resumed his functions. This was the real point of the case. But there was no ground whatever for saying that if Lord Canter bury came back for a year or a session it was not optional with him to insure ; so that such a reason for accedieg to the present motion—although he stated it that gentlemen dis cussing this question might not overlook any point bearing upon it—was altogether untenable. Mr. WARBURTON adhered to the ground which he had taken last session in opposition to the present motion, and that was, that the House of Commons should not show greater fa vour to Lord Canterbury than they would be disposed to do to any other individual.—( Hear, hear.) He must say that if any one transaction deserved to be characterized by the name of a downright job, that to which he was about to refer came under that designation. It appeared that after the fire had taken place, and that the whole house of the Speaker was in a dilapidated state, an application had been made by Lord Canterbury to the Treasury to purchase eight chairs, two screens, and two sofas, for the rum of 500 guineas, that he had given for them. These eight chairs, two screens, and two sofas had been purchased from Lord Gwydyr, who claimed them as a perquisite, because at the coronation of his Majesty George IV. that Monarch had slept in that house the dap preceding his Coronation, and this event, by some old grant, bestowed the property on the individual who held the office which the Noble Lord to whom he referred filled. The demand was made before the Court of Claims and granted. The late Speaker having purchased this furni ture, it was preserved after a fire took place on the premises ; and in order to make it available to the new Speaker, it would be necessary to build a house to suit the furniture, and not the furniture the house. This offer was made during the short administration of the Right Hon. Baronet, and it seemed to have been accepted, and on the very point of being concluded, when a change in the Administration took place. And thus was the most arrant job that was ever attempted to be perpe trated by any Government defeated.—( Hear, hear.) Having, then, this proof that there was a greater disposition to favour Lord Canterbury than any other person, he asked Hon. Mem bers not to outrage their own feelings of justice by voting un justly towards others ; and he begged of them, as they regu lated their conduct by the rule of acting, nee prece nec pretio, not to suffer their sense of the hospitality and urbanity of the late Speaker, which he cheerfully acknowledged, to lead them into the commission of an unjustifiable act.—(Hear, hear.) He contended that, even where the act of the Government made property uninsurable, it was not their habit to grant compensation.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir E. SUG DE N hoped that the fears of the Hon. Mem ber for Bridport with regard to his clients' chance of com pensation would not be further entertained after that night's discussion, and that he would be persuaded that the Treasury was fully competent to meet that as well as the present claim. Mr. W A RBU RT ON I never doubted that. Sir E. SUG DEN—At all events, be thought that the reasoning of the Hon. Gentleman was somewhat singular, and tended to press personally and severely on Lord Canterbury, to whom every Member of that House was deeply indebted for his impartiality and courtesy in performing the duties of Speaker.-( Cheers.) He thought it was most unreasonably feared that this case might be drawn into a precedent. The offices of other public servants were not at all analogous to that which the Speaker of that House filled. Much stress had been laid on the allowance made to Mr. Bellamy by the Insurance-office at which he had, insured. It did not, how ever, follow that the Company atwhich Lord Canterbury might have insured would have followed the example thus set to them, because the buildings differed in situation and in descrip tion.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to the House, whether they would refuse to act in a gracious manner towards one who had long presided over their deliberations, and the justice of whose case was at least as strong as those which the Hon. Member for Bridport had last night advocated.—( Cheers.) Mr. HUME was rather surprised to hear the Right Ho nourable and Learned Gentleman complain of the allusion which his Honourable Friend (Mr. Warburton) had made to the purchase by the late Speaker of the eight chairs and the two sofas. Sir E. SUGDEN—I never referred to chairs or sifr.s at all. Mr. HUME—tic should be glad to know, then, why the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman had at all reflected on the course of argument pursued by his Hon. Friend ? ( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had adduced a case which, in his opii.ion, was an apt illustration of Tory jobbing, and which certainly called for explanation from the Noble Lord opposite (Lord George Somerset), who was Commissioner of Woods and Forests under the Administration of the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth.—( Hear. ) He did not blame Lord Canterbury for getting what he could ; but he considered the 4onduct of the Noble Lord opposite highly censurable in promising five hundred guineas for five old chairs and three old screens, in order that they might be retained until a new Speaker had a new House built —( Much laughter.) The case which his Honourable Friend had laid before them was the most ar;ant job which had ever come under his knowledge.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) He had assisted in raking up many jobs in that House., but he ventured to say that a more disgraceful one than that which had been that night submitted was never yet di closed. —( Cheers. )—The Government of Lord Melbourne presented in this instance a strong contrast to that of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, inasmuch as it demonstrated how anxious the existing Administration was not to yield to the claim of any one as a matter of favour, but to rest every case upon its m-rits.—( Hear, hear.) This was rather a strange time for bringing forward such a claim. The fire took place in October, 1834, and no demand was made until April, 1837. He understood the Right Hon. and Learned Gentlemen had abandoned the law of the case, though it had been mainly re lied upon by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who made the motion. "We give up," said the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, " our right as legal claimants, but we ask you to be generous in your conduct towards a public servant." Now he told the Right Hon. and Learned 14entleman that be ought to be just before he was generous.—( Hear, hear.) No man had a right to be generous with the public money. That was a doctrine which he never could admit, acting in his capacity of trustee of the public.—( Hear, bear.) Supposing, then, that Lord Canterbury appealed to them in farina pauperis, what could be produced to establish such a demand ? " Now I want to know," said the Honourable Member, " why should we be generous ?—( Laughter.) Why should we give away the money of the people unjustly, and establish the precedent of partiality ? I repudiate altogether the right of any Mem ber of Parliament to be generous.—( Renewed laughter.) Of the urbanity and impartiality of the late Speaker it is un necessary to say more than that every Member, young and old, preserves a strong sense of them; and as for me I have ever bad kind and generous feelings towards him.—( Laughter and cheers.) That generosity shall not, however, be exercised at the expense of the people.—( Hear, hear.) He was, in the present circumstances of the case, compelled to ask, what right had Lord Canterbury to appeal to the generosity of the public ? His office was worth 7,000/. a year, with house and every convenience.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord then re tired—( Renewed laughter)—on an allowance of 4,0001. a year, whilst his son would gain, under a Bill to which he had in that House given the most strenuous opposition, and which was forced through Parliament in the most unusual manner, a sinecure in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury of 10,0001. a year. If any individual, therefore, received full and ample compensation for his public services it was Lord Canterbury.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. PE ASE was convinced, by much consideration of this case, he ought to support a proposition similar to that which was now submitted ; and, under all its circumstances, he saw no reason for changing that opinion. —( Opposition cheers. ) Mr. F. BARING could not admit that those who served that House should be favoured beyond those public officers who were not equally fortunate in point of emolument or of the distinction of their position. He knew of cases of great hardship which occurred with respect to persons in public situations. He would mention one—the destruction of the Kent East India- Imam After the occurrence of that event the officers were told that they could not receive anything but what, upon a strict calculation of their services, they were entitled to. He felt bound to declare that the claim urged was not established. Colonel SIBTHORP fully agreed with the view taken upon this subject by the Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease.) Sir R. P E L--- He must in the first place state his sin. core conviction that the opposition given by her present Ma jesty's Government to the pr esen t mot i on was f ree f rom the alloy of any political feeling, b u t t h at i t was o ff ere d under the impression that imperative duty required them to act as they had done.—( Hear.) He was d es i rous o f remov i ng a prejudice to the consideration of this claim which was attempted to be raised by the Hon. Member for Bridport. Th e consi deration of that point had nothing whatever to do with the matter properly before the House but as the H on . M em b er had thought proper to attach to it the epithet "j o b," an d , as i f this term applied, he was, as forming part of the Administra tioni when the transaction took place, more or less mplicated in it, he begged the indulgence of the House for a few mo ments while he endeavoured to place it in its true light. Pre viously to the coronation of George IV., certain rooms at tache 1 to the Houses of Parliament being royal property, and furnished by the Crown, were attached to the official residence of the Speaker, and were by him used as reception rooms for the House of Commons when they visited him. They did not in the slightest degree contribute to the comfort of the Speaker, but en state occasions were, as well as the furniture, used by him when holding levees. During the coronation of George IV., these rooms were occupied by the Crown, and upon its conclu sion the Great Chambei lain laid claim to the furniture; and upon an investigation of his demand by the Court of Claims it was awarded to him. Lord Canterbury (the then Speaker) instead of going to the Treasury and complaining that he had been deprived of the use of the furniture, and urging that he could not, in its absence, entertain the House of Commons as he bad been accustomed to do or call upon them to repurchase the property, gen eroua ly d eterm i ne d upon making a sacrifice to keep up his state, and, without referring to any party, stepped forward to purchase the furniture from the Great Chamberlain. The Parliament Houses were burned, and all that remained after the fire was this very furniture so purchased by Lord Canterbury. Seeing this, the Treasury, taking into consideration all the circumstances —considering, in the first place, that for a long period the Speaker of the House of Commons, virtute ojficii, bad had the care of this furniture, and that upon its being declared after the coronation ro longer the property of the Crown but of the Great Chamberlain, he had purchased it, not for his own comfort, but to enable him to receive the House of Commons as he had been accustomed—the Trea sury determined, not upon giving Lord Canterbury the price he had paid for them, but upon having them valued by an upholsterer, and then giving him for them the sum which this person should decide as being their actual worth. Now in how far this transaction deserved the term job he left to the House to decide.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the ease under the consideration of the House, it would be affectation in him not to deny that he thought it one of coasiderable difficulty. Thus much he would say, that had Lord Canter bury scught to remain in the office of Speaker, or had he continued in it without the expression of any wish to be per mitted to retire, and, having insured for fifteen years, had discontinued without any visible motive, he did not think be would have any valid claim. —( Hear, hear.) He admitted that the strong point against the claim was the discontinuance of the insurance. Unfortunately, during this very year of discontinued insurance the fire took place, not originating, be it observed, in the Speaker's house, but in a distant part of the building ; and the property having been destroyed, Lord Canterbury thought proper to present the matter to the House, not as a claim of right, but as the claim of the first servant of the House of Commons, praying for its generous consideration of his case. He (Sir Robert Heel) felt dis posed warmly to support the claim.—( Cries of " Ilear, hear.) It appeared to him that the House of Commons stood completely in the situation of the Crown, and Lord Canterbury in that of a servant of the Crown, and he saw no more reason of by the one should receive compensation in such A case as the present more than the other. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by expressing his intention to vote for the proposed Committee. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was glad to perceive, from the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet who had preceded him, that the question of right in the case under consideration was abandoned, and that it now stood in the only position it could reasonably present itself, namely, as an appeal to the generosity of the House. It was a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money; but he feared the public would be a little suspicious of the disinterestedness of the House should they find that a different measure of justice was dealt out to Lord Canterbury, on the ground that he was a servant of the House, than that which the Government was almost every day, on equally if not better founded cases, met ing to humbler individuals. Hid the fire taken place imme diately after he had been invited to return to the chair by Lords Grey and Althorp, and before he had etime to arrange himself in the office, then the case would be different : but, as it was, a long period had been allowed to elapse, and even at the time the fire did take place the Noble Lord was not con templating carrying into effect his retirement. It was for this reason he had come to the conclusion that there had been such neglect on the part of Lord Canterbury as disentitled him to the favourable consideration of the House, and he, therefore, would resist the motion which his }lon. Friend had introduced. The House then divided— For the motion Against it Majority SCHOOLS of PUBLIC FOUNDATION in IRELAND 163 173 On our return to the gallery we found Mr. W YSE on his legs moving the renewal of the Select Committee to Inquire into Schools of Public Foundation in Ireland. After few words from Mr. SI-I A W the motion was agreed to. Mr. WYSE then proposed the names of the Members of the Committee. Mr. GOULBURN observed that it was of the utmost im portance that such a Committee should be impartially consti tuted ; and he put it to the Hon. Gentleman whether such was the case wish respect to the names he had mentioned? After a few words from Mr. HOME, Mr. WYSE, and Sir R. INGLIS, the appointment of the names of the Committee was postponed until to-morrow. THE BATTLE OF THE DIAMOND. Colonel VERNE R rose, and said—The indulgence of this House has always been manifested towards any one of its Mem bers who had anything of a personal nature to complain of. Encouraged by this generous and always conceded indulgence —( Hear) —I come forward reluctantly to trespass upon its time and crave its attention—( Hear)—while I endeavour to relieve myself from a temporary stigma cast upon my charac ter and conduct, which, if merited, would render me unworthy of addressing you from this place, and unfit me for the high honour conferred upon me by those whom I represent here Sir, I need hardly remind the H :us,: that I have been lately deprived, by the Irish Government, of the Deputy Lieu tenancy of the county of Tyrone, and of the Commission of the Peace for that county, an office which I had held for upwards of three-and-thirty years ; the reason assigned by the Government for that deprivation being, that I had pro posed, to a number of my friends whom I entertained, by spe cial invitation, at dinner, after my late election, as a toast, " The Battle of the Diamond." The toast was not a new one —was not one given at my table for the first time—but one which had for nearly half a century been proposed and cheered in very many of the convivial meetings inthat part of the country. It was a local t , ,ast, but one well known in the county of Ar magh and the adjoining counties, and which had been current, uncensured and unrebuked, from September, 1793, up to Au gust last. I am, therefore, bound, not merely fur the credit of myself, or of my friends who were assembled at my table, but for the credit of all belonging to the county I have the honour to represent who have so often pledged that toast, to show to the House, and to inform the Government of Ireland of the true character and qualities of those whom they have incon siderately and unwarrantably designated as a " lawless and disgraceful mob." And here I must observe, that this is not a question of orange and green, of Protestant and Roman Catholic, but it is a question between the unpaid independent magistracy of Ireland on the one hand, and an unconstitutional and tyrannical exercise of the Executive authority on the other.—( Cheers.) I shall now proceed to read the letter of Mr. Secretary Drummond—the first communication I had upon the subject : " Dublin Castle, August 22, 1837. " Sir—lt appearing in the Newry Teleoraph o the 10th instant, that at an election dinner given by you on the 7.h, one of the toasts was The Battle of the Diamond,' lam directed by his Exc.llenc?, now that the elections are all ter minated, to desire that you will inform him whether it can be possible that you were thus a party to the commemoration of a lawless and most disgraceful conflict, in which much of the blood of :your fellow-subjects was spilt, and the immediate consequence of which was, as testified at the time by all the leading men and magistrates of your county, to place that part of the country at the mercy of an ungovernable mob.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, T. DRUMMOND. " To Lieut.-Colonel Verner, Churchillf Moy." This is the letter which I receiv,d from Mr. Drummond, and I submit it to the judgment of the house ; and I ask, is it a letter such as ought to have been written? Is it a letter to which a calm answer could be returned ?—(I-lear, hear.) I shall make no further comment upon it now. The letter of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Irelrnd, which I shall pre sently read, will supply the best comment upon it.—(Hear.) I shall now read my answer _ _ . Carlton Club, London, Aug. 29, 1837. " Sir—l have received a letter, dated August 22, bearing your signature, and inquiring of me, by the direction of his Excellency, whether it is possible that I was a party to the commemoration of a lawless and most disgraceful conflict, in which much of the blood of my fellow-subjects was spilt, and the immediate consequence of which was, as testified at the time by all the leading men and magistrates of your county, to place that part of the country at the mercy of an ungovern able mob ?' " I am disposed to think that, when you put a question in a form like this, you can hardly expect, onicool reflection, that I should condescend to answer it—at least, I would imagine you could expect no other answer than one which I hold su perfluous, namely, that I am not capable of being a party to the commemoration of anything lawless and disgraceful.' I would request, if I am ever again to be favoured by a ques tion which you are directed to propose, that it may be ex pressed in terms better calculated to invite an answer, and more likely, also, to be understood. I must say that your letter does not appear to me very intelligible. " His Excellency seems to assu me th a t th e a pp earance o f a statement in a public newspaper authorises a call upon me to contradict or confirm it. I do not feel myself at liberty to do either. I had the honour to entertain several of my friends at dinner on the day to which . your letter r e f ers . I am b o ld to affirm that at that enterta inment nothing took place which loyal and honourable men would hesitate to avow most frankly. But I speak, I am confident, the sentiments of my friends, and of every gentleman whose feeedom is not restrained by official station, when I say that a question like this in your letter ought not to be proposed to me, and that I am bound to decline replying to it." I pass over a few sentences, in which I complain of some slanderous observations made in a paper, the supposed organ of the Castle of Dublin, and I come to a paragraph to which I would beg the attention of the House, as it has been tortured by the most perverse ingenuity into a meaning which I defy any straightforward intellect to give it : " Upon the various misrepresentations, unintentional I have no doubt , which your letter contains, I have no desire to com ment. I feel it necessary only to assure you that, of all the conflicts, and they are, unhappily, numerous, which took place at any of the various places called by the name of Diamond,' i in the cou n ty o f A rmag h, t h ere i s none to w hi c h your d es cr p tion is, in the least degree, applicable." I disclaim for the conflict which I commemorated, and for every other of the same name and nature, the opprobrious character which the Irish Government of the present day have been taught to affix to it. I now come to the letter of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, who, it will appear, had re ceived my reply t o M r . S ecretary D rummond ' s letter, and submitted it to the Lord Lieutenant.—(The Hon. and Gal lent Member then read the Noble Lord's letter.) The Noble Lord here describes the course invariably adopted by the Government, when addressing an inquiry to a gentleman holding the Commission of the Peace, Two questions, he says, are addressed to them. The first, bas a certain act im puted to them been committed ? The second, have they any explanation to offer ? This was not the course pursued to wards me. I was told an act was highly criminal, and then asked had I committed it.—(Hear, hear.) These are he words .—" I am directed by his Excellency to desire that you will inform him whether it can be possible that you were a party to the commemoration of a lawless and disgraceful conflict," &c. To which I replied, " I am not capable of being a party to the commemoration of anything lawless and disgraceful." This is my answer—it does not appear to have given the Noble Lord satisfaction. I can only say it would have been far more gratifying to me to hare had an opportunity of framing my answer differently, but I could not, after the fullest consi deration, reply in any other spirit. Had I said " Yes," I ad mitted that I was guilty of commemorating what was " law less and disgraceful." Had I said " No," I should appear to equivocate, as if I had denied the fact of the toast, when I only meant to deny the description given to it by the Noble Lord at the bead of the Dish Government.—(Hear, hear.) This manifesto of the Noble Lord did not appear to me at the time to require any answer from me. The greater part of it consisted, as I have already said, of a laboured effort to draw an analogy between a private party and a public procession, and in an endeavour to pervert my meaning, as :f I was my self ignorant what battle of the Diamond I intended propos ing; and it ended by telling me that " his Excellency deemed it expedient to recommend to the Lord Chancellor that I should not be included in the new commission of the peace about to be issued ;" and also directed that my name should be omitted from the revised list of Deputy Lieute nants for the county Tyrone. Had I supposed for one mo ment that this letter required any reply from me, I should not have bepn so deficient in courtesy to the Noble Lord as not to have given it an immediate answer. This was conclusive. I shall now proceed with my statement. The Noble Lord may recollect the state of England sufficiently well at the period to which I have alluded, to render it unne cessary for me to remind him what it was. Struggling against the designs of foreign and domestic enemies, engaged in an expensive war, suffering under a scarcity of grain, and an ac cumulation of taxes, her people excited by dangerous associ ations, the very life of the King attempted, she was unable to give to Ireland that military assistance which " secret and treasonable associations of dangerous extent and malignity" from within, and a threatened invasion from without, impera tively called for. For the state of Ireland I shall refer the Noble Lord to documents ready at his hands of a public na ture and indisputable evidence ; or, if the Noble Lord would prefer the authority of writers not favourable to Protestant or Conservative principles as to the state of Armagh in the year 1795, he will find the facts proved in the trial of Jackson. He will find them noticed in the memoirs of Wolfe Tone, and confessed by M'lrwin and Emmett. However, the Noble Lord will find in the speeches of the Lord Lieutenant to both Houses of Parliament in the year 1796, that there existed then in Ireland " secret and treasonable associations of dangerous ex tent and malignity ;" that it was " the scene of insurrection and of outrage ;" and that the King had been obliged to direct an addition to be made to the regular forces in Ireland by troops sent from Great Britain. The Noble Lord will find in an Act of the same year that during the year 1795 "several parts of Ireland were disturbed by treasonable insur rections of persons assuming the name of Defenders ;" in another, that "traitorous insurrections had arisen, principally promoted and supported by persons associating under the pre tended obligation of oaths unlawfully administered ;" in a third, that "it was necessary, in order to deter men from en tering into conspiracies to murder, to increase the punishment of persons convicted of such horrid crimes ;" and in a fourth, that " tumultuous risings had of late happened in Ireland, and that the persons engaged therein bad practised various secret contrivances for being supplied with and keeping arms and ammunition." This shows to the Noble Lord, on the one hand, a secret, extensive, armed, and organised confederacy, pillaging, destroying, burning, murdering—and, on the otaer, a Govern ment willing, perhaps, but unable—few troops, no police, no yeomanry. In this state of things was it "lawless and dis graceful"—was it deserving of blame and stigma—for the well-disposed to take up arms on behalf of " the security of property and the preservation of tranquillity and good order ?" The Lord- Lieutenant of the present day, at his ease, and with England and its whole army at its back, may say so ; but so did not say the Lord-Lieutenant of that day.—( Loud cheers.) My father, in his own county, where he resided, Armagh, and in the adjoining county, Tyrone, where he also possessed property, with his brother Magistrates, entered into resolutions, which were unanimously approved of and warmly recommended to be adopted in the different towns and parishes throughout the country by the Magistrates, whose names were affixed to them, at the Quarter Sessions held at Dungannon on the 15th of July, 1796. In this spirit, and acting upon these resolutions, my father presented himself to the Lord-Lieute nant at the head of a list of several hundred men, of whom some of the first yeomanry corps were formed. I need hardly add, that amongst them were many of that small but gallant band who, at the Battle of the Diamond, associated themselves upon the side of the King and his Government for " the security of property, and the preservation of tranquillity and good order."—(Loud cheers.) The " ungovernable mob," including my old friend, who favoured me with his company at my dinner, and whose name I coupled wd.h the toast, were, " under his Majesty's authority," enrolled in yeomanry corps, and gallantly, faithfully, arid fearlessly did their duty to their King arid to their country as soldiers.—( Loud cheers.) I ask the Noble Lord were the yeomanry of Armagh an " ungovernable mob" when the French invaded Ireland? Were they an "ungovernable mob" when the rebellion of 1798 broke out ? Were they an ‘• ungovernable mob" in the rebellion of 1803 ? When the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Kelverden) was butchered in the streets of Dublin, did England look upon the yeomanry of Ireland as an "ungovernable mob," when both Huuses of Parliament, upon two occasions, passed a unanimous vote of thanks to them for the services they bad rendered to their coui try ? And were these in whose honour I proposed the toast an " ungovernable mob," and was their conduct " 'aaless and and disgraceful" from the time they took up arms oluntarily, the 21st of Septembe, 1793, until they laid them tiown to be replaced by n.itv ones under a Whig Governmer t in 1831? I must now beg leave to call the attention of the Noble Lord to a very few short testimonials, in order to let his Lordship see the opinions entertained by the Government and thosa in authority at that pct iol of the " ungovernable mob" who constituted the yeomanry of Ireland. Upon the 16th of January, 1797, I find the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland ad dressing both Houses of Parliament in these terms :—" I have b. he'd with pleasure the zeal and alacrity of his Majesty's re gu'ar military forces, and the prompt and honourable exertions of the yeomanry corps, whose decided utility has been so abun dantly displayed. I have not failed to represent to his Majesty this meritirious conduct of his faithful subjects in Ireland, and am expressly commanded to convey them his cordial acknow ledgament and thanks." Again, upon the 18th of March, in the same yea-, the Lord Lieutenant thus address the House of Commons :—" The dangers and daring outrages committed in m.ny parts of the province of Ulster, evidently perpetrated with a view to supersede the laws, and prevent the administra tion of justice, by an organized system of murder and robbery, have lately increased to so daring a degree in some parts of that province as to bid defiance to toe exertions of the civil power and to endanger Vie lives and properties of his Majesty's sub jects in that part of the kingdom." On the 17th of May in the same year we find a proclamation by the Lord-Lieutenant and Council in Dublin, to this effect:—" That there exists within this kingdom a seditious and traitorous conspiracy, by a number of persons styling themselves United Irishmen. That they have frequently assembled in large armed bodies, and plundered of arms the houses of many of his Majes ty's loyal subjects in different parts of the kingdom, and cut down and carry away great numbers of trees, where with to make handles for pikes and other offensive weapons to arm their treacherous associates, and have audaciously at temp'ed to disarm the district yeomanry corps enrolled under his Aiajeaty's commission for the defence of the realm. We do hereby strictly charge and command all our officers, civil and military, and all other of his Majesty's loving subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to discover all pikes, pike-heads, concealed guns, and swords, offensive weapons, or ammunition of any kind whatsoever. And we do hereby strictly charge and command all officers, civil and military, and all other his Majesty's faithful subjects, to be aiding and assisting in sup tressing all treacherous, tumultuous, and unlawful assemblies, and in bringing to punishment all persons disturbing or at tempting to disturb the public peace." Notwithstanding the impatience of some Hon. Gentlemen opposite who seem unwilling to hear me, I must trespass further upon the attention of the House and the Noble Lord by reading two or three circulars issued about that period. The first is dated " Dublin Castle, August 25, 1797," and is marked " Circular :" Sir—His Excellency has directed me to express in the strongest terms the very high sense he entertains of the exer tions which have been so conspicuously and so universally displayed by the district corps in preserving the tranquillity of their several districts. W. ELLIOT." The next is dated Dublin Castle, December 18, 1797, and is also marked " Circular :" Sir—l have his Excellency's particular injunctions to convey in the warmest terms to yourself and to the officers and privates under your command, his high approbation of the zeal which you have manifested by your regular and assiduous at tention to your military duty, and which is no less honourable to yourselves than it has been conducive to the protection and security of your country. " PELHAM." To the letter I am now about to read I would beg the at tention of the House, because it is addressed to Captain At kinson, a Gentleman who resided not more than half a mile from where the " Battle of the Diamond" was fought, and who commanded the Crawthill Corps of Yeomanry, the greater part of whom had been engaged in that conflict :-- " Armagh, Sept. 5, 1793. " Sir—l am desired by Major-General G o ldi e to know from y ou w h a t n umber of loyal men you can b r i ng forward, yeomanry case standing of necessity, orders to join as ourcor ps, a n d act under the supernumerary men, and for whom you think you can be responsible. " H. ARCHDALE, M.B. " Directed to Captain Atkinson, &c." I have already informed the house that, upon two occa sions, a vote of thanks to the yeomanry of Ireland passed both Houses of Parliament. Upon one of those occasions it was accompanied by an order of the House, which I shall read : " That there be laid before it a return of all corps, &c., in or der that such return may be entered on the Jo urna l s of the House, and the patriotic example of such voluntary exertions be transmitted to posterity. "J. Lay." The Battle of the Diamond took place before I was of suffi cient age to take part in it,. but I have a full recollection of the state of the country at that period, and I knew the course of life, the character and the loyal and constitutional princi ples of the gallant and respectable gentleman who at my table represented them who took the side of "good order" and of the King at the battle of the Diamond, and the whole tenor of his life and character, and those principles forbade me to be lieve that he would have been a participator in anything " law less and disgraceful." It might be supposed that in bring ing that gentleman forward I was subjecting him to the vindictiveness of the Government, and putting him in the way of punishment. I shall, therefore, refer the Noble Lord, who does not seem to be deeply read in the narratives of those times, to an Act of Parliament, which will show him that those who took part in the endeavour to preserve the peace of the country in those days ran no risk, and which bears most materially upon the Battle of the Diamond. It is the 36th of Geo. 111. chap. 6, passed early in the year 1796, a few months after the affair of the Diamond. It says, " Whereas during the year 1795, several parts of the king dom were disturbed by treasonable insurrections of persons assuming the name of Defenders, and the lives and proper ties of many peaceable and faithful subjects destroyed, and several of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace and other officers and persons, in order to preserve the public peace, the lives and properties of his Majesty's faithful subjects, and to suppress and put an end to such transactions have apprehended several criminals, &c., and without due authority have sent others accused and suspected persons out of the kingdom, and also seized arms, and entered into the houses and possessions of several persons, and done other acts not justifiable by law —(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—but which were yet so much for the public service, and so necessary for the suppression of such insurrections, and for the preserva tion of the public peace, that the persons by whom they were transacted ought to be indemnified.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) "Be it therefore enacted," &c. This is the law the Parliament thought proper to enact a few months after the Battle of the Diamond, for the protection of those who had came forward upon that and similar occasions "to preserve the public peace, the lives and pro perties of his Majesty's faithful subjects ;" and yet, Sir, in violation of that law, and in the face of that Act of Parlia ment, the Government in Ireland have denounced me for corn morating what the Legislature of that day pronounced to be " so much for the public service, so necessary for the sup pression of insurrection, and for the preservation of the public peace."—( Hear, hear.) I have thought it becoming me to say thus much, and to say it in this place, as a defence against the insult and attempted degradation, which, c,nning from the high quarter it did, was not to be defended at a public meet ing, a dinner table, or through the medium of the public press. --( Hear, hear.) I conceive I owed it to the dignity of this House, of which I have the honour to be a Member, and to the preservation of my own character, to stand up in my place and say that I am not a commemorator of anything that " lawless and disgraceful."—(Loud cheers.) Were the ate of Ireland again, which God forbid, such as it was in 1795, and were there arrayed on the one side secret as saciations, traitors, and rebels, and on the other zealous persons who, to preserve the peace, had ass'embled in arms, I should not hesitate which side to take, certain that though is the estimation of the advisers of the present Irish Govern ment I acted " lawlessly and disgracefully," the wise, and just, and good, would say that my conduct, though not per. haps in strict accordance with law, was so necessary, and so _ much for the public good, that it deserved no blame.--( Hear.) I have now no hesitation in assuring the House that I had not the remotest intention of proposing as a toast " The Battle of the Diamond." It was not upon my list of toasts, and it was not until after at least two-thirds of these who honoured me with their company at dinner had left the house, and I was about to retire myself, that the toast was given—when. observing a gentlemen in the room who was at the Diamond conflict, and whose name I had heard coupled for so many years with that event, I did out of compliment to him propose the toast, never intending the slightest offence, or supposing it could be made the subject of animadversion.— (Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the public press, I think it only fair to tell the House that there was no reporter pre sent. —( Hear.) A respectable gentleman of the county con nected with the press was amongst my guests—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) But he came because he was specially invited, the same as any other gentleman.--( Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) But as the Noble Lord and the Under Secretary have so pointedly alluded to the newspaper report, I conceive I have a❑ equal right to do so, and what do I find 1 " The Battle of the Diamond" was the very last toast given, followed immediately by this observa tion :—" At this period (half-past twelve) Colonel Venter re tired."—( Hear.) I could not then have remained only for the purpose of giving that toast.—( Hear.) In giving this candid and true explanation, and which I would have given at the first had it been required of me in less unbecoming terms, I beg I may not be understood as intending, by the admission thus made, to convey the impression that I consider the toast one, the commemoration of which ought to be objected to by any loyal subject, but as one, like many others, which has been wilfully perverted and misrepresented.—( Cheers ) The Hon. and Gall tut Gentleman concluded by moving for " a Copy of the Correspondence between her Majesty's Government in Ireland and Colonel Verner, with respect to his removal from the offices of Deputy- Lieutenant and Justice of the Peace for the county of Tyrone." Lord AI ORPE TH said the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had himself intimated, and indeed a further evidence of the fact was afforded by his speech of this evening, that sufficient publicity had already been attached to these transactions ; and be might also observe that some vacancies which-met his eyes on the benches opposite, seemed to say that there were others who entertained his opinion. —( A laugh and cheers.) He had no objection to the production of the papers for which the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had moved ; but having so said, he hoped he should be allowed to make a few comments on the observations nth which the Hon. and Gallant Gentle- man had accompanied his motion. In the first place, how ever, he begged to declare than at the present moment, as well as at the period of the transaction itself, he experienced sincere regret at having been put in a situation in which he felt himself called on to act in a manner that might seem un gracious and harsh towards a gentleman whose personal honour and whose conduct in all the relations of private life had always been undisputed, and who as a private individual he had ever held in high estimation. So much as to what was merely personal between them. He would now address him- self to the question itself. As regarded the Battle of the Diamond, the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman objected to the terms of the letter originally written to him by the Under- Secretary, Mr. Drummond, wherein that gentleman asked him whether he had given the objectionable toast, and whether he had assisted at the dinner. If, however, the House com pared the letter written by Mr. Drummond with the reply to that letter written by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, he thought there could be but one opinion as to which was prefe rable for correctness of language and general propri e ty o f style,—( Hear, hear.) But the Hon. and Gallant Gentlemen contended that the Battle of the Diamond having been de scribed in the letter as "a lawless and disgraceful conflict," en being asked if he had given the toast, he was called on to ad mit he had been guilty of an act that was discreditable to him self. Now, in his (Lord Morpeth's) opinion, the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman was bound to afford the information required of him as to the simple matter of fact, whatever might have been his individual opinion on the subject.--( Hear, hear. ) He thought they had a right to expect that when the re presentative of the Sovereign demanded an explanation of a gentleman holding the Commission of the Peace, his answer would be explicit, with some appearance of deference, and that at least it would be addressed to the point at issue, in stead of deviating into matters contained in the Dublin Evening Post, which he called the organ of the Irish Go vernment; but he begged to assure the Honourable and Gallant Gentleman that for no expression in that journal was the Government in any way responsible. The Honourable and Gallant Gentleman complained of the use made of cer tain expressions in his letter iu allusion to the conflicts that had taken place in the neighbourhood of the Diamond. He was glad to find that the Honourable and Gallant Gentle man did not intend to raise any doubt on that subject, be cause when he spoke of all the conflicts—and unhappily numbers had taken place in the county of Armagh—it did seem as if he wished to distract attention, by the multipli city of those transactions, from what Colonel Blacker called that " great day, the 21st of September." But if there were in the same neighbourhood several conflicts in which blood was shed, then surely the case of the Government against the Honourable and Gallant Gentleman was greatly aggravated. He would carry the House as quickly as he could over the historical facts, but he would ask whether he had not received some provocation from the speech of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman to enter a little into details?—( Hear, hear. ) For some time previous to the Battle of the Diamond, the ad jacent country had been the scene of repeated conflicts between the two parties, one of them composed of what were called " the Peep-of-day Boys," consisting of Protestants and Presb yterians, and the other party consisting of Roman Catholics. The most painful excesses were the result of their respective hostilities. Now, he was not curious to ascertain the fact, nor did he desire to contend that in the actual affray, which went by the name of " The Battle of the Diamond," the de fenders were the Roman Catholic party—he believed that for that day they were not the defenders, but the aggressors. But assuming that it was quite clear they were the aggres sors, it appeared equally plain that they were the sole suf ferers. What was the account given by Colonel Blacker, a witness of the transaction ? In his examination before the Orange Lodge Court, he was asked the following questions, and gave the following answers : What did you see at the Diamond ?—When I got up I saw the Defenders making off in one direction, and the firing had nearly ceased, I may say had ceased except a droppixg shot or two, and I saw a number of dead bodies. " Can you state about the number ?—No : they were con veying them away on cars in different directions, so that I could not make an exact calculation. ~ Were there fifty ?—No : if there were thirty killed, that was the outside. Were there any Protestants killed?—Not that I could hear of." Impute what they would to the Roman Catholics, talk as they might of their bad faith and treachery, say what they would of their provocation, he asked whether, by all the blood that had been shed, sufficient atonement had not been made, and if the period of forty years was not time enough to obli terate the recollection of those unfortunate proceedings ? (Much cheering.) Was this to be so, he would say— " satin jam pridem sanguine nostro Laomedontm luimus perjuria Trojw." —(Hear, hear, hear.) Was such a result as that which he had described a fitting object for commemoration or for toasts at moments of convivial congratulation ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it the best means of promoting peaceful habits and a respect for the laws in the minds of those among whom were many of the descendants and some of the sufferers on that sanguinary occasion? The Battle of the Diamond took place on the 21st of September, 1795, and the state of the county of Ar magh, a short time afterwards, was described as follows at the FIRST MEETING OF THE MAGISTRATES OF THE COUNTY OF ARMAGH, OCT. 19, 1795. " Whereas the peace of this county has been and continues to bb disturbed by mobs of riotous and disorderly persons, who assemble in considerable bodies, attack the houses of well-dis posed inhahitants, and rob them of arms, money, and other matters of property," SECOND MEETING, OCT. 26, 1795. " As we find that bodies of armed men still continue to parade through different parts of this country, both by day and night, committing great outrages, and disturbing the peaceable inhabitants." Resolutions signed, and subscription entered into, by GOSFORD, WILLIAM ARMAGH, the Primate, CIIARLEMONT, CAPEL MOLYNEUX, W. BROWNLOW, H. HAMILTON, Dean of Armagh, after Bishop of Ossory, W. HISSETT, after Bishop of Raphoe, JAMES VERNER (it is stated), &c. &c. —( Cheers. ) The next extract be should read was from the Earl of Gos ford's address, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of Armagh, on the 21st December, 1795. Lord Gos ford said—" Gentlemen—lt is no secret that a persecution. accompanied with all the circumstances of ferocious cruelty which have in all ages distinguished the dreadful calamity, is now raging in this county.—(Cheers.) Neither age nor sex, nor even acknowledged innocence as to any guilt in the late disturbances, is sufficient to excite mercy, much less to afford protection. —(Loud cheers.) The only crime which the wretched objects of this ruthless persecution are charged with is a crime, indeed, of easy proof ; it is simply a profes sion of the Roman Catholic faith, or an intimate connection with a person professing that faith.—(Hear, hear.) A lawless banditti—(Loud cheers)—have constituted themselves judges of this new species of delinquency, and the sentence they have pronounced is equally concise and terrible ; it is nothing less than a confiscation of all property, and an immediate banish ment. It would be extremely painful, and surely unneces sary, to detail the horrors that attend the execution of so wide and tremendous a proscription—a proscription that certainly exceeds in the comparative number of those it con signs to ruin and misery every example that ancient or modern history can supply ; for where have we heard, or in what his tory of human cruelties have we read, of more than half the inhabitants of a populous country deprived at one blow of the means as well as the fruits of their industry, and driven, in the midst of an inclement season, to seek a shelter for themselves and their helpless families where chance may guide them ?" ( Loud cheering.) Such was this Noble Earl's opinion of the state of the country two or three months after the Battle of the Diamond, and such was the description he gave as being the situation in which this illustrious conflict placed it.— ( Cheers.) He could not refer to the distinguished name of Mr. Grattan without alluding to the fervid eloquence in which he clothed his ideas ; and on this subject he found gentlemen who generally differed from that distinguished man in debate agree with him. In this same debate he was followed on the same side by Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, then, as now, Knight of Kerry—( A laugh) :—" Mr. Fitzgerald (Knight of Kerry) could not reconcile it to himself to remain silent at the state ment made by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grattan) of the outrages which had occurred in the county of Armagh. He was sorry to say he must subscribe to it in its fullest ex tent. He lamented that in that picture which the Right Hon. Gentleman had drawn he could trace no exaggeration. It was, he feared, the melancholy truth that numbers of the un offending and peaceable inhabitants of that county had been expelled from their habitations and their property by the vio lence of a bigoted sect ; that there existed in that county, a furious and unrelenting persecution of a particular denomi nation of big Majesty's loyal subjects. * Idle and nugatory would be good dispositions on the part of the Go- vernment as long as they continue to be counteracted by those who must be employed to carry them into effect.—(Cheers.) It is lamentably the fact, that in the county of Armagh mul titudes of families are driven from their homes, the victims of a dreadful persecution, while the magistracy rest in a kind of lethargy, supinely indifferent to this outrageous violation of justice. He deplored that the magistracy should be so blind to the danger which they were suffering to grow.—(Cheers and laughter.) He trembled at the pernicious effect of mixing any religious prejudices with the distractions which alr e ady agitated the kingdom. There was no man so ignorant but must be aware of the poisonous acrimony which religion adds to any contest in which it shall mingle ; nor can any man, in the utmost scope of speculation, calculate the horrors to which that conduct may give birth, which would infuse into the agi tations of this country a spirit of bigoted religious animosity. A reform in the conduct of the magistracy is the remedy for the peculiar evil alluded to, and no legislative act, no exer tion on the part of Government, would have any effect unless that magistracy would concur in the impartial administration of its laws."—( Long continued cheers.) Whether such was the case at present he would leave to Mr. Maurice Fitzge rald to determine, who, , no doubt, entertained the same opinions now that be formerly so eloquently expressed.—( Loud cheering, and laughter.) This gentleman was followed by Mr. William Smith, who afterwards filled the high situa tion of Baron of his Majesty's Exchequer in Ireland. He did not think that an incorrect description of the Battle of the Diamond was given by Mr. Secretary Drummond when he called it a lawless scene of outrage. He went on to say— " Acts had been committed shocking to human nature; cruel ties that would disgrace savages had been perpetrated in the county of Armagh. Perhaps these acts had been exaggerated on both sides ; but, taking them on the mildest representation they called for the immediate interference of law and exer tions of justice. With whom those enormities commenced he considered as immaterial, for both parties were aggressors against the law, and both must suffer; however, when the law was satisfied it would then become a national object, a duty incumbent on every man who loved his country, to inculcate on the minds of all parties forgiveness and oblivion."—( Loud cheers.) The law was satisfied—numerous trials took place —and there were several capital convictions, and many exe cutions took place. The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman said that he would refer to history as to the state of the county of Armagh, and undoubtedly the Honourable Member had referred to certain statements, but not to such as bore on the state of that county at the period in question. He (Lord Morpeth ) thought that in the quotations he bad just read he had supplied this defect. The Hon. Gentleman referred to the 37th of Geo. 111. ; but from that Act it appeared that the people who fled from the county of Armagh were not merely Peep-o'-day-boys or Defenders, but industrious and peaceable persons. The Hon. Gentleman had referred to the In demnity Act of Lord Carhampton ; but he believed that it was not necessary to attach much importance to that docu ment. Thus much, however, he would say with reference to passing that Itidemnity Bill, that however necessary and expedient it might be for the Parliament to pass that Act, it was a thing, from appearances, making it an act of corn memoration.—( Cheers.) Such was the state of things which he had endeavoured to bring under the attention of the House in a continued series, and he had referred for his authority to the evidence of magistrates, to law-officers of the Crown, to lord-lieutenants of counties, to Members of Par-- liament, and even to the Viceroy himself. His proposition was, and the motive for the letter that was sent to the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman was, and his defence of the Govern ment was then as it now was, that it was not a state of things —he did not say that should be buried in oblivion, but erroneously to be referred to, and he believed that the error was not in intention, but in the judgment of the Hon. Gentleman ; but it was not wise nor discreet to make it an object of commemoration and rejoicing on the part of these whose duty it was to protect the innocent and to punish the disturbers of the peace—(Cheers)—in such an excited popu lation as the inhabitants of the county of Armagh.—( Hear, hear.) At any rate, where such a toast had been given, and he regretted to hear that it was constantly given, he thought that that county should not be made the scene for the enact ment of such proceedings, or for giving such toasts as were given on the occasion of the dinner he had described by the Hon. and Gallant Member.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman said that this was a private party. No doubt the Hon. Gentleman who invited all the guests paid the whole of the bill.—(Laughter.) This fact was not dis puted ; but it appeared that no reporter was present, but there was a gentleman present who was connected with a news paper, and of course he considered himself authorised to pub lish what took place.—(A laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman re ferred to what he was pleased to call the conversation that took place at the dinner-table ; but he for his part must admit that a more extraordinary conversation he had never heard of, if the account given of it was correct ; for the Hon. Member, as well as other gentlemen, made ex tremely long speeches, which were loudly cheered, and they all concluded with toasts, and among others given was the " Battle of the Diamond."—(Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman said the toast was given by accident, when most of the party had withdrawn. Now, he had no hesita tion in saying, if the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had stated this, and had shown any disposition to palliate or excuse what appeared to the Government to be a matter call ing for explanation, the proceeding that night would not have been necessary, and he would not have had reason to complain of the alleged rigour of the Government---(Hear, bear.) He begged the House to recollect that toasts at public din ners were not matters of very little importance. It was known to all those who heard him that a person of much higher rank and station than the Hon. Gentleman, namely, the Duke of Norfolk, was turned out of the situation which be held of Lord- Lieutenant of Yorkshire, for giving as a toast " The sovereignty of the people."—( Hear.) He did' not intend to defend the propriety of the toast, nor, on the other hand, the conduct of the Government that dismissed the Noble Duke. He must say, however, that the toast of " The sovereignty of the peo ple" at any rate admitted of an interpretation to which all lovers of a limited monarchy, such as existed in this country, could entertain no objection—(Hear) —and in drinking that toast they certainly did not gloat on any images of carnage. George IV., on his return from his visit to Ireland, dictated a letter in which he strongly condemned the continued use of party , toasts, and he was thought to refer to the well-known instance of the " Glorious memory."—(Hear, hear.) He might object to the toast on the other side of the water ; but in this country he saw so little ob jection to it, as he bad always considered it comme morative of a great deliverer, that there could be no pos sible harm in drinking it. But this was not the case on the other side of the water ; for there it was offensive to the great body of the people, and was considered to involve an attack upon their religious feelings. The memory, however, of King William was a very different toast from that of the " Battle of the Diamond." The former toast was not com memorative of a scene of lawless conflict, where man was set against man, and neighbour against neighbour, and by which disturbance and desolation were spread throughout the coun try. The Hon. and Gallant Member appealed to his conduct while he hal acted as a Magistrate, and had appealed to the 33 years during which he had held the Commission. He a (Lord Morpeth) had already borne testimony to t he p erson character of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman ; but be beget: to remind him that his public character had bee n brought question for conduct in his own neighbourhood in 1831, where a number of houses were wrecked at a place called lalsafr hera, in the county of Armagh.—(Hear , he ar.) Mr. geant Perrin was sent down to make inquiry , and he(L?rde alorpeth would only read the conclud in g expresso of the Report of that Honourable and Learned Gentlemanears :---t " I am further of opinion that Colonel Ve rner app no to have performed his duty as a Magistrate at Vernepr's: bridge, in order to disperse (as he was bound and req by law) the persons there tumultuously and unlawfully assembled, and comel them to depart to their habitations; that he did not tike the. measures and precautions proper for that purpose, which he was empowered and required by law to take, and which the result evinces to have been necess sary for the preservation of the peace, and the threatened t breach thereof; and that he is liable to be prosecuted a r . the suit of the Crown by information for such (as it ap pears to me) criminal neglect of his duty."—(Loud cheers.) He had already stated that he lamented that the unplea santr o duty which they had performed had b een reserved f the Government of Lend Mulgrave. He would not proceed to rip up old sores. Loud Colonel VERNER : You are doing so now.—( cheers from the Opposition.) Lord Viscount MORPETH—Yes • it became ne cessa r y when the conduct of the Government 'had beer, attacked In the way in which it had been by the Hon. and Galla nt Gentle man. He (Lord Morpeth) had a right to show what hads. been the previous conduct of that Hon. and Gall ant Member himself.—( Loud cheers.) He was bound to say a b e t withou t _ any other prelude, or any other matter of debate , the toast of f o the Battle of the Diamond was quite sufficient to justify the Government in calling for the explanation which they h id don to from the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman ; but he refused give any explanation, and appeared to sneer at the Governe meat when it was demanded of him. He was per fectl y P lals, r, _ pared to leave the conduct of the Government in the hands, and to the judgment, of the House.—( Loud cheering.) Mr. COL QUHOLTN admitted that the toast proposed ey, the Hon. and Gallant Member was an ill-advised t oast, and somewhat uncalled for.—( Laughter and cheers from Ministe rial Members.) It was for an ill-advised toast the Irish Go vernment had dismissed the Hon. and Gallant Membe r frau' the Commission of the Pea c e.—( C r ies of " No, no.) Was that denied ? Was that Gentleman in the Commissio n of t ha ha t t Peace now ?—( Cries of " Oh, oh I"). The result was , the Hon. Gentleman had been dismissed from the Commissl°lLl of the Peace for an ill-advised toast. In this the House r s t .' s admit there was somewhat sharp practice. —( Cries of no.") It showed, in his opinion, a very vigilant discharge 0_ their duty on the part of the Government ; but wer e they aess vigilant in all other cases? The Hon. Member mad e sot % further remarks, which the great length of the debate conWe us to omit. Mr. O'CONNELL—I am glad, I am exceedingly g? d ' h t i: have the °ppm- unity of discovering the precise spot- House which the Hon. Member dignifies with his presets:l)le ( Laughter.) He has had a journey through Ireland , a, d et has brought home with him a great many stories, and a on t s full—l will not say of blunders—but of mistakes; inistaheat too, of a most curious kind.—( Hear.) A small one Delany Delalv ever was a priest; it is anoth e r that his friend ses iaa respectable person ; for that respectable person novr• in one of her Majesty's gaols, convicted of some atroci ous b ra t sank in Ireland.—( Laught e r.) Hi s e xc use, indeed i s t i . the spirit overcame him.—( Laugher.) Yes, it was the sp °t of potteen.—(Laughter.) T he n th er e is, too, the notion I the Hon. Member that he is acquainted with historical fae" He says that Ulster was quiet the moment that the P ro of tants united with the Presbyterians Did be never bear atid the battle of Antrim? Does he know that in that battle is vi n r i O'Neill lost his life? Does he know that Antrim is i n , a 'a g e . , ter ?—( Laughter and cheers.) Now, that happened in ", - be and there then is his defence for peace being preserved in ' IA north from 1797. Does he know that there was a battle foug a in Down by the rebels? Did he ever hear that there wa,, - a bi Committee of United Irishmen established in Belfast ? but then said the Honourable Member, they were Pr ts ' s terians.—( Hear, hear.) What I Is he for throwing the Pr e : byterians overboard? I thought th a t s ome o f his constit uenw a were Presbyterians.—(Laughter.) Oh ! they do some b a r jobs sometimes.—( Laughter.) Here, then, is the denou laa s of the Presbyterians I Let it sound through the stre etc . o e Kilmarnock—let the people be told what their rep: ear lit atl e c a thinks of them. But then the Hon. M em b er quoted asp a b e e - s t which he made for me.—( Lau g ht er .) N ow I tell bin ) {or the first intimation I ever had o f th a t s p eec h b e ing mad e rise, was by a letter that I rece i ve d f rom M r . Drummond."' (Laud cheers.) I was in Dublin when I received that letter; I gut it at my house, and the moment I read it, I a sked!, liberty to see Mr. Drummond. I did see him, and I t ". - se said to him, " Good heaven ! who told you that I ever la ise such a speech?" "Oh !" he replied, "it was stated in t Evening Mail of last night." I s a id t o hi m , I was goi n g 1 a public meeting, and I should, if he wi s hed it, COnt rsdic that speech.--(llear ) Now, I never said a word in el s e irs ei diction of that speech, but o th ers did. Th e hi g h-sherDA the coun y, who was pres e nt a t th e di nner w h ere the O ce an was said to be delivered, contradicted it. The late R °fa s . Catholic bishop, Doctor Nolan, w h o i s s i nce dead, e °o ;. dicted it. Mr. Houghton, and one or t wo other 11 4.17 1 0 trates who were present, contradict e d it.—( Hear.) t he was another speech said to he mine, and made 11 ', 8 of public streets in Carlow. That was quoted in the 1 1 ° 11- , e cl Lords by the Bishop of Exeter. No w , I neve r contra lie that speech from that day to this, and yet it was equallY, I ns a y with the other, with tlos difference, that it was ridiet" ° "> false, not atrociously false, like the calumny in questio,a"the (Hear.) It is really m t worth my w hil e to con tradict sk ip() calumnies that are uttered agai n st me . I cou ld n ot have t he to do any thing else if I took the trouble o f refuting a" us eo calumnies that are published respecting me. I have calumniated in Ireland, in England, and in Scotian, (Cheers);—and when I have replied to my calumni atv ibe have been met with a total silence.—( Loud cheers.) „ e t. Hon. Member says I gave the repeal of the union as a t his Well, to be sure I did ; and did I not make a motion in ~,h House for the repeal of the union ?—( Cheers.) But al th 7ef the Hon. and Gallant Member for Armagh gave the t° °s ; to the Battle of the Diamond, be did no t move in this 1 413us h - t r, raise a monument to the heroes o f th a t b a ttle.—(ba u g - d e i and cheers.) I was heard in this House for five hours, a li o, am sorry the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock was not Pr es ; st o When the repeal of the unio n was fi rs t a d vo cated I ha-see idea of seeing Lord M u l grave i n hi s p resen t p o sition--°' leg an English nobleman there.—( Hear. „eing alr LITTON said that in speakirg of the toast, for ?b e et' which the Hon. and Gallant Member for Armagh bad leco expelled f. one the magistracy, he would say that it was /Roo at a dinner to which the friends and supporters of that re . Member were invited, with closed doors, and not in t a be a P n eto seam of any one who tho ug ht fit t o go th ere . It was "L' a io friends who were p resent , an d t hi s was t h e fi rs t insta ll , e- s of which this species of p r yi ng i n t o th e h ouses a nd the ricuaben social life had keen exercised ; ani he called upon B °11 ;p r il so tlemen in that House to j o i n hi m i n con d e mning a sY s- at he base and so improper. The Hon. Me m ber for Dublin s ad let had given the toast of " The R e peal of the Union," vi .at be him gave it.--( Hear.) He had justified it by stating t !:, 5 ia had moved the Repeal in that House ; but was that a J; cation for a Magistrate and a Me m b er of this Hou se ` t - a er had proposed the toast in the midst of a great number ;are sons -of thousands of the lower classes of Irish wb n ci an d around him, and his speeches were to be canvas stioa to be repeated by millions of others. Was it a just'n c- ne o• that in t,e midst o f a large assemblage he should ha v h r s be, pesei a toast of thi s exciting nature, not that ther e In ' g hae la a legisla ire repeal of the Union, but that the peoples it an agitate and should fight for it ? Or, he would as k, fa coo argument that the Hon. Gentleman should be suffered hitn oo tinue in the Commission of the Peace, to hear from one or two occasions he had proposed to the o Legislat ureidsch peal of the Union ? B u t t h ere was anot h er subject tse. he would call the attention of the Right Honourable the se• cretary for Ireland, and the Right Honourable the S t.owe r t ° for the Home Department. Could they give an a nu alin ti e county for having suffered the Hon. Member for .'s;bin a to be held in the Commission of the Peace, when, 11 ,! j oioe , year and a half, he had declared in the Irish Asso‘ co te amidst excited thousands, that he would not advise tie r asfe, not to pay tales, but, so help him God, he would r ater his bed seized from under him, and have his body n e r vc ' a s through the streets to gaol, than pay a farthing. Tina in t h e a speech made in January, 1837, and it was rep She Evening Post of the lath of that month. He would Mel d' House whether it was proper that the Honourable_o3ooo° should have thus spoken upon the subject of the alive's* ? _ stained tithes ? rather Mr. O'CONNELL rose to order. It wa s g oing too far to talk of blood-stained tithes.—(A laugh.) moth er The SPEAKER (we believe) said that the Hon' was out of order: t Te e to Mr. LITTON knew the Hon. Member would n 0 lice 00 He mend any course to the people with respect to (-PP ge , tithes, nr r would he go to any meeting for that polio held himself too sacred for it. pee key fie Mr. O'CONNELL again rose. The Hon. ik1e, 1 1 4 . 1 , that he was at liberty to say what be pleased o f : a slowr stated that he was not at any meetings, but that be _ n o o gated others t o go to mee ti ngs . He thought this saw , " et order. eSt ra ij Mr. LITTON said, then, that he would read an from the seech attributed to the Hon. Member, ell s ". b e ba d leave it to p the House to say whether the construction issent:f put upon it was not a correct one, and that the n i a c r ies her had instigated others to go to the meeting.--a " Order." r was aga in oo The SPEAKER thought the Hon. Member tarY of order. for M lr r e . la L e l d T , T en O d N th w e ou s ld ee a re sk te t r h y e e a N e ob th le e Home disnl i9s3 eie• whether there was anything that could justifyh _ role alod the Hon. and Gallant Member for Ar e m ti a o g t LArodsothDe ei 7 a e r s t I c o r t e , f a f the 00 7 the tracy, and the appointment and retention b e were not bound , ,Y a bo th. not ° elf Peace, d e n dMe whethermber for the G Dublin ove re n elt th and uttered a few w°' - ``'' Major 111‘NAMARA rose be as a. us. tie of justice and honour, if they d led one to dismi s s ,. t he tendency of which did not reach f it had been r : ar a at opinion that it would have been d not been brought fo e. Mr. SHAW said that vi to sink into obliviou, and if it had who was e hnr i g tsi ct all, more especially when t . h t e re p t e e thirty-three yea rs e e are i c e tc D o ith having given it was a Mars obe a respectbetter i to the toast, er wed mission of the peace, an but who enjoYed %rise f o rtun - c i gainst whose bi n ryb ros itio: charge had ever been made,. in society, and who h t the Noble Lord shout h,_et He was surprised, too,t and that "l aw. 80! transactions with the matte", e ,the _ f the, up any old transa was in the possession of a - ' g a ve commission of um F o f the t° Gallant Member from the .the giv in g have been made a ground for the dismiss ° , l - e ace. I e st circumstances immediately regarding THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1837