The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-26 00:00:00

s \.eq, IMPERIAL PARLIAM HOUSE OF LORDS, April 25. The Bute Ship Canal Bill was read a third time, and passed. On the motion of Lord ELL ENBOROUGH, the Ex change of Lands Bill went through a committee pro forma, and w•as ordered to be printed. The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented petitions from parishes in Sussex for the better observance of the Sabbath. _ _ BEER HOUSES. "N ' On the motion of Lord KENYON, an humble address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be .aid before the house all communications made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by county magistrates relative to the evil effects produced by the Beer Bill. The Bishop of LINCOLN presented petitions from dif ferent parts of Lincolnshire for the protection of the esta blished church. Lord SUFFIELD presented petitions from Norwich, and several other places in the county of Norfolk, for the better observance of the Sabbath. The petition from Norwich was signed by no less than 3,529 persons. Lord TEYI4'HAM, in presenting a petition, took the opportunity of defending himself from the attack made against him last night by . a noble earl then present, with reference to a case in which he had been con cerned in the Court of King's Bench. On the case being mentioned by the noble earl, the learned lord on the woolsack, stated that this house ought not to take cognizance of the subject, as doubtless a new trial would take place. He could assure the house that every exertion would be made on his part to obtain a new trial, and he had no hesitation in saying that he should then be enabled to refute all the calumnies that had gone forth against him. The Earl of WINCHILSEA regretted that the subject had again been brought. forward in that place. He did not intend to take any further notice of the matter, and all he would say then was, that it was a most unfortunate affair. Petitions in favour of a better observance of the Sab bath Day were presented by the Bishops of LONDON, and LICIIFIELD and COVENTRY, and by the Earl of ROSE DERRY, to the same effect from the presbyteries of Stirling and Skye. EarI'GREY presented several petitions from dissenters, complaining of the grievances under which they labour, and praying for relief. The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from the parish of Forres, against any alteration in the present system of church patronage in Scotland, and se veral from places in Scotland in favour of the alliance be tween Church and State. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions from Pro testant dissenters residing at Taunton, York, Huntingdon, and several other places, praying for relief, and the better observance of the Sabbath. The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition from the dis senters of Bramley, praying for relief, and amongst other things for the separation of church and state ; and that the bishops might be removed from the House of Lords. Earl CAMDEN presented petitions from several places in Brecknock, for the better observance of the Sabbath. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions from pa rishes in the West Riding of York, praying that no alte ration in the corn laws might take place. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a parish in the county of Sussex, complaining of the evils of the beer shops.—Referred to the committee ap pointed to consider the Beer Act. The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented a petition from the justices of the peace of the western district of the county of Westmeath, complaining of the present state of the law affecting gin shops. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from Exeter for the better observance of the Sabbath. ENGLISH AND IRISH JUDGMENTS BILL. On the motion of Lord WYNFORD, this bill was read a third time and passed._ n OLD BAILEY BILL The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the house that it was his intention to withdraw the clause in this bill re lative to throwing open the Court of Common Pleas, his Majesty having been pleased to do so by his Royal warrant. The noble lord then withdrew the clause, and the bill was reported. The house then adjourned to Monday. had ever been governed by corrupkn and the bayonet. If, I however, the bayonet were taken Ikway, Ireland would be lost to this country. Absenteeism was also! a bane ; even the Irish Secretary was absent from his duty the greater part of the year. That Ireland could prosper under such a system was impossible. Catholic emancipation was refused one year by an immense majority, and granted the following year by an equally large majority. Why then should they despair of repeal? Ireland would continue to call for a repeal of the union. They were unanimous on it to a man—nay to a woman. ( A laugh.) Yes, the very children were taught to lisp the word Repeal. In describing the union he knew no words more appropriate than those of Charles James Fox, who declared that " the union was atrocious in principle, and abominable in its operation, and that it was the most disgraceful measure ever carried or proposed." (Hear, hear.) Every true Irishman would coincide in that opi nion. The union was a job brought about by the 'most glaring corruption. It was not the wish of those who supported the repeal of the union to separate the coun tries. All they wanted was a federal union upon equal terms. He denied that there existed a wish for sepa ration if a federal union were given upon a founda tion of equality for Ireland. But one on that foundation was the only one which would content or benefit that country. He denied that there was any danger in grant ing a domestic parliament. A domestic legislature would keep up respect and obedience of the laws, which the weakness of an absentee government could not. In the present state of the country it was necessary that an ab sentee tax should be laid on. (Hear, hear, hear.) The substance was drawn from the country and brought to England, and( when the people who laboured called for bread they were presented with a bayonet. (Hear, hear. ) He (Mr. Ruthven) suspected that the returns readC by the right hon. Secretary for the Treasury were very incorrect, or, at all events, exaggerated. Limerick, for instance, was declared to be in a highly flourishing state, yet what was the fact? That Limerick, which before the union had only one pawnbroker's shop, had now forty. (A laugh. ) Criminal prosecutions too, had increased in Dublin to an enormous extent, and that entirely from • the country being in a state of distress and misery. In Dublin there were sixty woollen manufactories previous to the union, but there were only ten now. (Hear, hear, hear.) At' this moment there were 50,000 persons in Dublin in dis tress and wretchedness. All these were circumstances which strongly showed the exaggeration of the right hon. gentleman's returns. Another proof that property had not risen to a great extent was, that before the union, the value of the houses in Dublin was 794,000/., while in 1830 the commissioners made a return, by which it appeared that the value then was only 704,0001., being a falling off of 90,000/. (Hear, hear.) The references which had been made as to the union were as fallacious as could be. It was to merchants a matter of no consequence, for it cost them nothing whether they put down exports to the amount of 10,000/. or 20,0001., or of 6001. or 700/. He (Mr. Ruthven) had now done with the question of the union. Were that union dissolved, Englishmen could then amalgamate with Irishmen as friends, and would no longer as at present, be looked on as spies whenever they were found in Ireland. Mr. JOHN BROWN felt relieved from the responsi bility he would, otherwise have felt pressing upon him, in addressing the house on this subject, by the circumstance of knowing that, in expressing his own sentiments, he was also expressing those of the large and respectable consti tuency which he had the honour to represent; and know ing and recollecting this, he would not be deterred from the fearless and explicit expression of his (Mr. Brown's) sentiments by any of the sarcasms of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. The house and the country were under obligations to the hon. and learned member for the city of Cork, for the candour he had shown on this occa sion ; for it was chiefly owing to him that the question of the repeal of the Union was now brought to the bar of public opinion. Circumstances might soon arise, in the present state of Ireland, which would make it necessary to grapple with the question then before the house ; and his Majesty's Ministers, now that it was brought before the house ; ought to grapple with it firmly, vigorously, and fearlessly. He (Mr. Brown) had no hesitation in saying, that there was no part of the respectable portion of the community who did not contemplate the possibility of the measure passing without dismay. He could state, that according to his own knowledge, the people of Ireland did did not wish for a repeal of the Union. It was not their question, but solely the question of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. Even of those who did petition for a repeal of the Union, there was a great part who did so, not because it was with them a question of principle or feeling, but merely because they had been dragged into it by the agitators in Ireland. Were it not that he (Mr. Brown) was afraid of exposing them to the fury and vengeance of an enraged populace, he could mention the names of hun dreds of the peasantry of that country to prove this. Sir DANIEL K. SANDFORD said, that if, in the observations he was about to address to the house, he should trespass on its time, the blame would not rest with him, but with the hon. and learned gentleman who brought the question forward. The hon. and learned gentleman, in presenting a petition in favour of the repeal of the union from certain of the inhabitants of Paisley, took occasion to say that a considerable proportion of the people of Scot land were friendly to the measure. The statement was altogether unfounded. With regard to the west of Scot land, with which he (Sir D. Sandford) was most intimately connected, he could state some peculiar circumstances, which would account for a certain number of persons there being friendly to the measure of repeal. There were in the west of Scotland no fewer than 45,000 Irish emigrants, belonging, with very few exceptions, to the Roman Catho lic persuasion ; and in Paisley, the town he had the honour to represent, there were nearly 11,000 Irish Roman Ca tholics. It was almost exclusively by this class of persons that the petition which the hon. and learned member for Dublin presented was signed. It was a rather singular circumstance, that the first question which came before the house on his first appearance in it was the momentous question of the repeal of the union—one of the most momen tous questions, he would say, which had for years come under the deliberations of parliament. He (Sir D. Sand ford) came there a perfectly independent man ; he did not belong to either of the parties into which the house was divided, and therefore his sentiments were the more entitled to respect. He would, then, give his most decided opposition to the motion of the hon. and learned gentle man ; and he could assure the house that in doing so, he was acting in accordance with the sentiments of the peo ple of Scotland—a fact which he trusted would be shown by the conduct of the representatives of Scotland when the house came to a division on the question now before it. They had been referred by the hon. gentleman to returns and statistical tables, but he must say that this was a fal lacious way of arguing a question relating principally to the moral condition of the people. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Irish members.) Tables of exports and imports might show the wealth of a country, but would they show how that wealth was diffused ? (Continued cries of " Hear" from the opposition.) Their attention had been called to the evil of absenteeism—to the conduct of individuals who, deriving their wealth from the country, absented themselves, instead of living in the neighbour hood of their estates, setting a moral example, and looking to the interests of those around them with a fostering care. None were more guilty than individuals who forsook such ties, and abandoned the responsibility that properly attached to them. But absenteeism did not commence with the union. It had been for ages the curse of Ireland. It was worthy of remark, that the union with Scotland had not given rise to evils such as were attributed to the union of Ireland, and why ? He supposed it must be because they were a more contented and more peaceable people, and were more ready to submit to the authority of the law. In Scotland there were no agitators—in that country there were no individuals who wished to make a trade of agita tion. ( Hear, hear.) Was there anything in the union between England and Ireland to make it less palatable to the people of Ireland than was the union of Scotland with England to the people of Scotland? There had never yet been meted out to Scotland so full a measure of justice as Ireland had received. (Loud cries of " Hear," from the Irish members.) He referred particularly to the mea sure of parliamentary reform. In the measure for Scot land, she was not treated so liberally as Ireland was. (Cries of " Hear," and laughter, from the opposition.) The question was one of property and intelligence, and numbers, and of contributions to the state ; and taking this view of it, Scotland was entitled to a more liberal measure ; at all events, she had no reason to be more satis fied than Ireland. The benefits of the union were not de rived all at once to Scotland ; she also had her period of distraction, for she also had her Pretender to supreme authority, who agitated the minds of the people. Ile in vited the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) to go and with his own eyes see the state in which Scotland now was ; to go with him and see the prosperity which Scotland, united to England, and enjoying peace, had attained. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 25. The SPEAKER took the chair about a quarter after five, - - - - - - When a message from the Lords wasbrought up, request ing to be furnished with a copy of the report and evi dence on which the borough of Hertford was disfranchised; also requesting a conference with the Commons on Monday next, respecting the saving of expense in the printing de partment._ Ordered._ . . . Lord OSSULSTON presented a petition from an indi vidual, named William Nickson, against the General Re gistry Bill. Mr. GLADSTONE brought up the report of the com mittee on public charities. Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from the free holders of Tynemouth, against the General Registry Bill; also from the dissenters of the same place, for relief from their grievances. Mr. C. O'DWYER presented several petitions from the counties of Mayo and Monaghan, for the repeal of the union. Admiral FLEMING presented a petition from a parish in the county of Stirling, against church patronage in Scotland ; also from Dumbarton, against the Dumbarton Roads Bill ; and from the hand-loom weavers of the same place, praying for relief. Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from Worcester for the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. BISH moved for some returns connected with lot tery contracts. Sir J. SCARLETT presented a petition from Norwich for the better observance of the Sabbath ; also a petition from the same place against the General Registry Bill. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from Great Parnell, against tithes. Mr. HARDY brought up the report upon the Bribery Laws Amendment Bill. The hon. member then presented two petitions for the better observance of the Lord's Day. Mr. GUEST presented two petitions from Merthyr Tidvil, against the Small Debts Bill. Mr. WM. ROCHE presented a petition from the guild of carpenters of Limerick, praying for a repeal of the union. Mr. FIT Z SIMON presented two petitions from Swords and Malahide, and from Garrestown, county of Dublin, praying for a repeal of the union. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented a petition from Monmouth, signed by 1,900 persons, against the se verance of church and state. Also a petition from the traders of Newport, praying for a repeal of the light-house duties. Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from the dissenters of Merionethshire, praying to be relieved from their disabilities. REPEAL OF THE UNION. On the order of the day being read for resuming the ad journed debate on the repeal of the union, Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY begged to ask the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would postpone the second reading of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill until that day fortnight. Lord ALTHORP said that as it was desirable the bill should be forwarded during the present session, he could not assent to the proposition of the honourable member. Sir HENRY HARDINGE complained that the second reading of the bill had been moved after the termination of the discussion on the repeal of the union, at a. late hour last night. There were several individuals who wished to take a part in the discussion of the bill brought in by the noble lord, and he ( Sir H. H.) complained of the unusual proceeding that had taken place last night. Some conversation also took place respecting the Foreign Enlistment Bill, during which some hon. members coin complained of its being introduced at so late an hour last night. Lord G. SOMERSET wished to ask the noble Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether, if the Irish debate was concluded to-night, the poor laws would be . introduced immediately thereafter. Lord ALTHORP was understood to reply in the affir mative. The order of the day was then read for resum ing the adjourned debate on the repeal of the union. Mr. RUTHVEN said that he was quite aware that this question was not an acceptable one to the house ' • and though he would not detain it by his speech to the extent that other honourable members had gone, he felt he must do his duty to his constituents and country. The repeal of the union was making rapid pro gress in Ireland, so much so that, even at public dinners for charitable purposes,it was impossible to repressthe feel ings of the Irish people in demanding a repeal of the union. He did not say that Ireland was the most charming picture in the world ; no such thing. But Ireland had natural advantages, and she did not receive justice from a British House of Commons. Partial laws were bad; the same administration of justice should ; be extended to all parts of Great Britain. The Coercion Bill had been passed without affording Ireland the power of resisting it in impartial discussion, because of the preponderance of English representatives in an Imperial Parliament. The repeal of the Union was the only remedy for Ireland. The ques tion could not be kept back. Eight millions of people were calling for it, and it could not be delayed. (Hear. ) The state of Europe was one in which there were a great many particles of a highly combustible nature. The state of France was not quiet. Another three days might arise which might make a change,—another revolution in France. Ireland had been looked upon as a vulnerable part of Great Britain. The Irish Parliament was not one of , that execrated and corrupt bodies that had been described by the right honourable Secretary for Ireland. The parliament here before it was reformed was not free from corruption, neither were its minist t from that serious imp u t a ti on . The differgoe," c • tended, between the Irish and s:fft:Ttwperat ents was not so great as xte people -sie A. to imagine, for the Irish" parliament hidiit •w n habeas corpus, and the control of its own ..) ,, :!.equer. There was, no doubt, great corruption in thai Parliament, and Ireland &Pt' Mr. H. GRATTAN thought the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Spring Rice) was easily answered. Two words would answer it, and those two words were " the Coercion Bill." (Cheers from the Irish members.) As his Majesty's Government appeared to rest their case on the speech of the right hon. gentleman, so he would have the people of Ireland rest theirs on the Coercion Bill. (Cheers.) Under the pretence of putting down acts of plunder and rapine in Ireland the Coercion Bill was in troduced, the effect of which was to put an end to free discussion. Was this an argument in favour of the union? The right hon. gentleman had talked of finance, of com merce, and of income ; but there was one thing he omitted —he never alluded to liberty. (Cheersfromthe Irish mem bers.) He forgot his country. He forgot that the prin ciples on which had been founded the greatness of this country should have also founded the greatness of his own. When Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Pitt were advocating the union they promised peace, and they promised also equal laws. The promises were unperformed. Had they found peace ? (Hear, hear, hear.) And as to the equal laws, it was sufficiently clear that this was an advantage they could not boast. No, the promises of Pitt and Castle reagh had not been kept—the promised equality had not been adhered to. Talk of finance, indeed, and all its con sequent prosperity ! Where was the prosperity—where all the great result of the country's increasing trade ?. Was not the contrary the fact ? Did this assertion require proof? 'Did any one doubt tale distress of Ireland? To could justly be called an opulent merchant ;at present the him who questioned it he would only say— 1 merchants of Wexford were a most respectable body of in- Si qunris argumentum circumspice. I dividuals. It might be said that an Irish Parliament would Pitt and Castlereagh promised, as results of the union, in- , occupy itself with local taxation, and with local arrange creased trade and the introduction of British capital. ments, and that the consideration of foreign policy would Where was the one or the other to be found ? Ireland had be left to the Parliament of Great Britain. But could that been spoken of as if all the obligations of the connexion had be considered an independent legislature which was re been conferred on her. Did hon. members forget the stricted from discussing all the great and paramount ques valuable assistance sheafforded at the time of the threatened tions of foreign policy ? And how was the independence invasion during the French War? Did they forget that, 'of the Irish Parliament to be guaranteed? Was the Bri . Jus t after having paid off her large debt, Ireland raised an ! tish Parliament without a single Irish member in it to be army of 24,000 men-16,000 of which she kept for the the guarantee of the independence of the Irish Parlia protection of her own shores, and granted the other 8,000 ment? To be really independent, the Irish Parliament to fight the battles of England? (Loud cheering from the 'must be really in a condition to resist the British Parlia - Irish members.) Did they forget that Ireland raised 1 ment. (No, no.) " No, no ;" well, then, it would not be 30,000 recruits, and granted a sum of 600,000/. to support in a condition to resist it. Hear, hear, and a laugh.) the wars carried on in Germany ? (Cheers.) Were these Then let him ask what kind of Parliament it would be, the not to be counted—were all the advantages received by duty of which would be merely to register edicts of a Bri- Ireland—were all the benefits conferred by England ? tish Parliament, and to confine itself to the discussion of (Loud cheers from the Irish members.) The Irish par- vil'aee politics? (Hear, hear.) Was it such a Parliament liament had been taunted with inactivity, or worse. Would as that which was to make Ireland gentlemen be pleased to remember that this calumniated " Great, glorious, and free" ? body repealed the perpetual Mutiny Bill, repealed Poyn- Such a Parliament would be a mere mockery. In order ing's Law, and established a final Judicature? But it had to show some of the arts used to induce the great body of been said the Irish parliament became corrupt. Who (ex- the people of Ireland to urge the repeal of the union, he claimed the hon. gentleman) made them corrupt? You would mention a circumstance which had occurred at a —you made them corrupt, and then you turn round meeting of vintners in Dublin, in 1832, for the purpose of and taunt them with the evil which you caused. considering some grievances under which they laboured. (Loud and vehement cheers from the Repeal members.) At that meeting a popular orator pressed upon them the The people of England would see forty members, be they expediency of assisting in endeavouring to obtain a repeal right or be they wrong (Hear, and a laugh), standing of the union, and, amon g other things, he told them that stedfastly by a measure which they firmly believed was for in 1792, when the Irish Parliament was sitting in College the service of their country. The right hon. gentleman Green, a bill was proposed for the purpose of putting an who moved the amendment took care to exclude from his end to the combinations which then existed among the va statement, or at least neglected to put forward, theservices rious trades in Dublin ; that a meeting was consequently which had been rendered to Ireland by a parliament of his summoned of the members of the different trades in Dub own countrymen. There was amongst these one para- lin and twenty miles round ; that the meeting consisted of mount one which should not have been omitted. Did the 50,000 persons ; that those persons proceeded to College right hon. gentleman never hear—did the house never hear Green, and called out the speaker of the House of Coin -that it was an Irish parliament, despite the remonstrances mons, who came forth to them in his wig and gown of the English—despite the suggestions of grand juries, (A laugh)---that they told him they did not approve of the first began to strike off the shackles of their catholic fellow- proposed bill, and that the answer of the speaker was,that countrymen ? (Loud cheers from the repeal members.) if they did not like it, it must be abandoned • that it had Why was it stated that a single fetter had not been re- passed the House of Commons, but he would take care that moved?—why was this act of the Irish parliament kept out it should not pass the House of Lords (A loud laugh)— of sight? It was not just. Let the combat be an honest that the meeting then took off their hats,gave three cheers, one—let not one party be bound hand and foot to be dealt' and all went home in the greatest good humour possible, with at pleasure by every pickpocket who passed. Give that that was the way in which matters worked whenthere the Irish parliament its due—let them acknowledge that in was an Irish Parliament at College Green, and that that this instance it nobly maintained its dignity, and, resisting was the way in which they would work again if an Irish power, and bribe, and menace to a great extent, emanci- parliament were to be sittingagain at College Green, and that pated their catholic fellow-subjects by the measures of in that case all the members of any trade which felt itself 1793. How, he would ask his right hon. friend as a states- aggrieved would have to do, would be to repair to the man, as a man, could he forget to overlook these acts of an House of Commons, and to call out the speaker, and that Irish parliament? (Cheers from the Irish members.) On everything would be settled on the spot amicably and satis many occasions England had violated the treaties by which factorily. (A laugh.) Such were the fallacious statements she had guaranteed to Ireland the inviolability of the laws which had been made on the occasion to which passed in the Irish parliament previous to 1782; and in a he alluded. He would now call the attention of the particular and gross manner this treaty had been violated house, and he begged they would favour him with by this English Act of 1783. Much had been said as to their particular attention—to some of the Irish speeches of the difference of opinion in the two parliaments on the the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He said, em question of peace and war ; but this was a subject on phatically, " Irish ;" for there was an essential difference which they could not come into collision, as the power was between the speehes made by the hon. and learned gentle not vested in the legislative body. The question of the man in Ireland, and the speeches which he made in that Regency had been emphatically dwelt on ; hut the Irish house. He (Mr. Lambert) had met in an Irish paper with parliament considered the subject only as far as it af- an account of the dedication of a Roman Catholic chapel fected them in Ireland, denying the power to appoint in the county Kildare, on the 2d November, 1832, at which to certain places. Would this, which was a mere do- the hon. and learned member for Dublin was present. It mestic question, in any degree risk the connection be- certainly was to be regretted, in the _first place, that such tween them ? (Hear.) Indeed, it was no question at an occasion should have been chosen for the promulgation all as between the two nations,... but, as Sheridan described of any political sentiments. The account stated that , at it, between two parties. ( Hear, hear, from the repeal the further end of t he ch a p el a p latform was erected, on members.) What was the use of talking of finance ? which, half an hour after the chapel was opened, the " libe- Ireland had been reduced to her present state by the rator" (A laugh) made his appearance ; and that the mo measures of the British parliament. The hon. member ment he was seen by the crowd, amounting to no less than then went into some statements, to show that the imports 50,000 in number, the air was rent with acclamations and and exports of Ireland had increased in a much greater enthusiastic expressions of delight.. At that meeting the ratio for seven years after 1782, than for eleven years after hon. and learned gentleman stated, that if an Irish parlia the union, and much greater than they had increased in ment were sitting in College Green, the people , if they proportion since. The right hon. gentleman opposite disapproved of the proceedings in parliament, would have (Mr. S. Rice) had referred to the linen factories of Ire- nothing to do but to take a short stick in their hands, and land. Was it possible that from the trade in linen the walk up to Dublin to admonish them of their error. He right hon. gentleman could deduce any indication of pros- (Mr. Lambert) knew that this circumstance had been perity? hy in 1782 Ireland exported 25,000,000 yards mentioned last night; but it appeared to him to be of so of linen; in 1796 she exported 47,000,000 ; but ten years much importance in connexion with the other declarations after that union she exported 36,000,000 only. (Hear.) and speeches of the hon. and learned member for Dublin Thus it appeared that the linen trade went back seriously that he had thought it right to repeat it. Among other after the union. Now he would ask had the revenue of inducements held out by the hon. and learned member at Ireland been beneficially promoted by the union ? It had the meeting to which he alluded, for carrying the repeal not. In proportion it had certainly fallen. In 1805 it of the union, the honourable and learned gentleman amounted to 3,000,0001. ; in 1811, six years after, it in- said, " If the union were repealed to-morrow, only creased to 3,600,000/., and now it was only 3,400,000/. imagine (and it certainly required great strength of The right hon. secretary had spoken of a tax upon coals. imagination) two hundred and fifty gentlemen taking Now what was the fact ? The Irish parliament imposed a houses in Dublin, furnishing them from the shops of the duty of 101 d. per ton on coals, which duty the English different tradesmen, and spending their incomes in the parliament doubled, in direct violation of the sixth article city." Two hundred and fifty gentlemen ! Gentlemen ! of union. The King's Attorney-General declared this (The tone in which the hon. member for Wexford uttered article to be nonsense ; but who was a gainer by the nonsense ? The duty on coals was 1,650,030/., of the last word threw the house into a convulsion of laughter.) Why, in the supposition of the repeal being which Ireland paid 800,000/. The King's Attorney,- carried, the very suspicion that a man was a gentleman General had, however, the candour and justice to admit would be sufficient, and more than sufficient, to exclude that it was a violation of the sixth article. The honour- him from the slightest chance of success if he had ever the able gentleman then referred to various particulars, in courage to become a candidate for a seat in the Irish House order to prove that the value of property had not in- of Commons. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He confidently creased in Dublin. He knew one woollen factory which maintained that th e v e ry lowest standard of personal qua formerly let for 471. per }ear, and which now only let for lification or rank which the courtesy of the house which he 8/. He then referred to various extracts from the speeches had the honour to address permitted to any of its members of the right hon. secretary (Mr. Spring Rice). The would be considered far too refined and far too aristocratic right hon. gentleman had referred to a speech of a rela- for this projected Irish parliament of 250 gentlemen. He tive of his, long deceased, in which he certainly stated him- rejoiced at the manner in which the question had been met self an enemy to separation, and expressed an anxiety to by his Majesty's Ministers, and he congratulated the house embrace the British connection ; but that observation was upon the proper basis on which it had been placed. not made in reference to this question. This question was Look at the present state of Ireland. Every county in it not, as the right hon. gentleman had stated, a new ques- was now agitated. He would begin with Kilkenny—that tion. It was mooted in Ireland in 1809 ; and, in 1810, unhappy county, the occurrences in which had given occa was recommended by the grand jury of the city of Dublin. sion for the Coercion Bill. Transactions had taken place In answer to an addess of the grand jury of his constitu- in that county which were hardly credible, but which never ents, the late Mr. Grattan said he could not object to pre- theless must meet the light. In Waterford the bishop— sent their petition, and that he would support the repeal tle Catholic bishop—had been assailed with stones and with of the act of the union, although he was decidedly at- mud, merely because he had presumed to express a diffe tached to the connection between the two countries; but rence of opinion on the subject of the repeal of the union. that, so far from impairing that connection, it could not be (Hear.) The Bishop of Ossory was treated in the same maintained without a repeal of the union. ( Hear, hear.) way. These things lie deeply lamented, but he was at no He knew that, up to the last moment of his life, his father loss to find a cause for them. The object invariably pursued supported repeal, because he feared separation—because by the hon. and learned member for Dublin was not the the English Parliament had not done justice to Ireland. good of Ireland—an increase of her trade, of her comforts, ( Hear, hear.) He would not support such a government or of her respectability as a nation—but it was hatred of as had been carried on, a system at once of treachery and England. ( Hear.) In one of his speeches he distinctly tyranny, a system which had delayed Catholic emancipa- stated that the British people, even under the most favour tion for a quarter of a century, and which had forced the able circumstances, were incompetent to do justice to Ire tithe question down the throats of the huh people at the land ; they were incompetent both from ignorance and from point of the bayonet. (Hear, hear.) prejudice. (Cheers from the repeal bench.) The British Mr. LAMBERT certainly had expected, after all the Parliament had of late years been the grand object of at excitement which had been created by the hon. and learned tack of the lion. and learned gentleman--with what justice, gentleman—after all the expectations which he had held with what fairnesss, with what propriety, he would leave out to the people of Ireland—after all the solemn pledges others to judge. There was now a point which he approached that he had given upon the subject, that the hon. and with unfeigned reluctance, but which he felt it to be his learned member would have brought forward some propo- duty to say a few words upon—that which was called in sition more distinct and more decisive in its character than Ireland the national tribute (Hear), but which he, and he a mere resolution that it was expedient to appoint a coin- knew many, many others, looked upon as a national mittee to inquire into the manner in which the union with nuisance. (Great cheering.) There was no one in that Ireland had been effected. (Hear, hear, hear.) Why the house more willing to bear testimony to the full extent of hon. and learned member might almost as well have moved the services which had been rendered to his country by the a resolution, that it was expedient to appoint a committee hon. and learned member for Dublin, and in that house he to inquire into the manner in which the original invasion had often borne testimony to those services.' Would to of Ireland had been effected. (A laugh, and cries of " Oh, God he had always dedicated his great talents to the cause oh !") Nay, it was clear that the hon. and learned mem- of usefulness. (Cheers.) The first tribute, as it was ber must have had some idea of the expediency of such an known, had been awarded in consideration of the exertions investigation, for a great portion of his speech entirely re - which the hon. and learned gentleman had made in the ferred to that early period of the Irish history. ( Hear, cause of Catholic emancipation • and that reward he hear, hear.) With respect to the sentiments of the great (Mr. Lambert) freely admitted had been as well earned as body of the Irish people on the question of the repeal of it had been willingly bestowed. (Hear, hear.) But here, the union, the real state of the case was this :—The hon. after years of religious toleration, and in some degree of and learned member for Dublin had called for two millions religious peace, to allow such a thing—to turn churches of signatures to the petition to be presented to Parliament, into counting-houses--chapels into arenas for political praying for a repeal of the union. Now how many signa- warfare (Loud cheers), nay, worse than warfare, to make tures had actually been obtained to those petitions? Not them the scenes of insult and of menace (Cheers), was a hundredth part of the number which the hon. and beyond endurance. He had seen these results himself, learned member felt, and indeed expressly declared, he and therefore it was his duty to publish them. On this ought to have had, in order effectually to support him subject he had received a letter from a Roman Catholic in the object which he had in view. He (i Lam- gentleman, which stated that the writer could not, in his bert) hailed this deficiency with great pleasure, as a con- conscience, pay the O'Connell tribute, and therefore was vincing proof of the sound sense of his' countrymen. compelled to stay at home on " Tribute Sunday" (Great And the gratification was the greater, as he well knew laughter), as he did not choose his family should be beset, every means to which it was possible to resort were cheated, and plundered. This indeed was the treatment used in order to induce the people of Ireland to subscribe which on these occasions they experienced from the their names to the petition in question. It was, therefore, jackalls of the honourable and learned gentleman. (Hear, undeniable, and especially when it was recollected, that hear.) Before concluding his remarks, lie must express with reference to many subjects which had at various times the regret he felt at the speech of the hon. gentleman op been brought before that house, and which were compare- posite (Mr. Tennant), which had almost conjured up the tively of minor importance, petitions had been presented spirit of Dr. Duiguenan, and he must express his hope that much more numerously signed than the petitions which had the sentiments which it breathed were not in accordance with those entertained by his Majesty's Ministers. (Loud been presented for the repeal of the union—that the at tempt to get up these latter, however ingeniously contrived, cheering, especially from the Ministerial benches.) The and however actively pursued, had been a complete and wholesale attacks which had been made on the Catholic miserable failure. (Hear, hear.) [Mr. O'Connell here body were—he would not say ungenerous, for the word entered the house, and took his seat amidst the cheers of was wholly inapplicable—but most unmerited and unjust. ( his friends.] From 1782 to the period of the union, the (Continued cheers.) Protestants and Catholics were hap table of the House of Commons of Ireland was constantly pily now embarked in the same vessel, and for God's sake full of petitions complaining of the distressed state of the let them try to gain the haven of religious peace in quiet manufacturers, the alarming condition of the commerce, ness together. (Hear, hear.) He had stated his opinions and the extreme wretchedness of the people of the coun- honestly and candidly to the house, but in doing so, he well try. Shoemakers, weavers, carpenters, printers, and knew what he had to expect (Cheers from the ministerial, others, all complained of the stagnation of their respective echoed by the repealing bench); he well knew the impla trades, and of the consequent want of employment to which cable vengeance that would follow his every step—he knew they were subjected. In tracing the history of that pe- it, and was prepared to meet, but certainly not quietly to riod, even the hon. and learned member for Dublin, whom submit to it. (Cheers.) To the amendment which had he was glad to see now in his place, had been able to dis- been proposed, he gave his deliberate, his determined, and cover only one oasis in the last desert ; and that was when his most cordial support. (Loud cheers. ) one aristocratic family so completely governed Ireland, and Mr. SHELL was ready to admit that the speech just de enjoyed such unbounded authority, that whenever a lord livered had been received with an admiration (Loud lieutenant came over, they told him explicitly, "We will cheers from the Ministerial, answered from the Opposition manage the country if you will leave it to us, but if you do Benches) which in many respects, it was worthy of, but list, we will make you repent your interference." This was he thought that its ability was detracted from by the per during the " green spot" in the period alluded to. ( Hear.) sonal matter which had been infused into it. (Hear, He had stated the condition of the agriculture, manufac- hear.) Now, if his memory did not on the present occa tures, and commerce of Ireland before the union. He sion fail him, he thought he could, without going far back, would now state their improved condition since the union. recall the time when the hon. gentleman's feelings of hu- The farming interest had improved from year to year since manity triumphed over what he now called his sense of jus the union, with reference both to the food, clothing, and tice—when he declared in that house, that if the question comfort of the labourers, and to the new modes of tillage of tithes was not speedily arranged to the satisfaction of the which had been introduced. An inhabitant of the county people of Ireland, he should himself become a repealer.— of Wexford, a man of great ability and a decided liberal, (Cheers.) That, however, was not the place where per and who had been long acquainted with the town of Wex- sonal weapons should be used (Hear, hear) and he ford, told him that, at the time of the union, there were would not wish to take them up, though he could not but only twelve or fourteen small coasting vessels belonging to remark how greatly the hon. gentleman hadwandered from Wexford, but now there were upwards of a hundred sail of the cardinal points which were then before the house. In vessels belonging to it, almost all of which were employed stead of going into the main question, the hon. gentleman in the provision trade with Liverpool, Bristol, and other had poured out a great deal of something, or of nothing, as the ports. In 1800 there was not a man in Wexford who case might be, on the subject of the tribute. Now, he called on that hon. gentleman to place in one scale all the gold which his hon. and learned friend had received, and in the other the liberty which he then enjoyed, and mainly owed to his exertions—he called on him, he said, to do this, and see which would preponderate. (Cheers.) Did he not himself confess the magnitude and the glorious results of his exertions? Yes, he did—he owned they were in calculable. (Hear.) Would any man deny them, or say that the triumph of Catholic Emancipation was not mainly owing to him ? His honourable friend the member for Wexford (and proud he was to call him friend), might have sustained wrong—he believed he had sustained wrong ; but he would ask him, if he were in prison, and one came to liberate him, and that one afterwards gave him a buffet, would he not, instead of re turning the blow, arrest his hand, and see that his fetters were removed? (Cheers.) His hon. and learned friend Mr. O'Connell had given up a profession, the emoluments of which were immense. LAn hon. member here said, 5,0001.] He had heard that whisper, though it was not intended he should; and in answer to it he would say that he was mistaken in the a guess, if guess it was ' • and that. for forty years his hon. friend had di v id e d hi s whole exertions between the toil of his profession on the one hand, and the resuscitation of the liberties of his country on the other. (Hear, hear.) But he would pass on to the main question. It was a singular fact, that though there had been much speaking, there had not been a single word said on the subject of the amendment. The question was, should they pass a resolution which sought to pledge the House of Commons that the policy exercised towards Ire land had been judicious and just? Let them look to the first part of the amendment. It commenced, " We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords and Commons, in Parliament assembled, feel it our duty humbly to approach your Majesty's throne, to record in the most solemn manner our fixed determination to main tain unimpaired and undisturbed the legislative union be tween Great Britain and Ireland, which we consider to, be essential to the strength and stability of the empire, to the continuance of the connection between the two coun tries, and to the peace, and se :urity, and happiness of all classes of your Majesty's subjects." Why was this ii.troduced? Did it not convey a statement that the Imperial Parliament pledged itself that the uniform tenor of the policy exercised towards Ireland was that of wisdom and justice ? (Hear, hear.) What cause was there otherwise for adopting this clause ? He would take leave to present the matter in this view : Let them suppose that in the year 1827, .when Mr. Canning was Prime Minister, that the noble Paymaster of the Forces had brought forward his motion on parliamentary reform. Mr. Canning at that time declared—and many of the pre sent Ministry were his colleagues—that he would resist parliamentary reform not only to the death, but to his death. What, then, if he had moved an address to the throne similar to that now moved by the right hon. Secre tary to the Treasury? (Hear, hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Shell) would undertake to how, that all the arguments then used against reform were equally applicable now to the question of the repeal of the union, and he called on the house, therefore, to reject the present address, on the same principles that they would reject it if intended against reform. Now if, with respect to the Reform Bill, it had since been carried exactly as it was, notwithstanding that address should then have been proposed, why now should they present a similar address to the throne ? What were the arguments against the Reform Bill? It was said that it would level the power of the Crown in the dust, as was said of the present question. That course would have de nounced reform, which had since been carried ; and he, on similar grounds, submitted that the present address should be rejected. With regard to the.question of whether the policy pursued towards Ireland was vicious or not, he (Mr. Sheil) was one of those who thought they ought not to go far back into history to inquire into it. The only thing they had to look to was, if the state of Ireland was the same before the union as it was at present. [The hon. member was at this time interrupted by some noise at the bar, upon which he turned round and said that there had been power ful arguments brought forward by one Secretary of the Treasury, in opposition to the views he entertained on this question, which he should have much difficulty to refute, and he hoped another Secretary of the Treasury would not prevent him, (Mr. Sheil) from endeavouring to do so. (Hear, hear.) He thought it was unnecessary to go back further than the year 1782. At that time England had had its foot on the neck of Ireland, as much as at present; and at that time the advocates of independence were treated with as much harshness and disl ke as the advocates for the repeal of the union were at the present time. At that time the book of Molyneux was burnt, by order of the English parliament, in Palace-yard. He would now endea vour to show that the situation of Ireland was not now analogous to what it was in 1782. The right hon. Secre tary for the Treasury had cited Grattan, for the purpose of showing that he condemned the conduct of the Irish par liament from 1782 downwards. Ile (Mr. Sheil) might with equal justice cite him, to show that he had praised it, in his most eloquent style. He would, however, not cite him ; but there was another great authority whom he would cite, because he had been cited by the right hon. Secretary of the Treasury with such ample praises; he meant Edmund Burke, and of him they had the most ex plicit praise and the most unqualified panegyric of the Irish parliament. The hon. member for Wexford had stated that the mob overawed the Irish parliament ; but had the hon. member forgotten that a Cromwell had lived, who called that mace a bauble ? or had he for gotten Lord George Gordon, who came down to the British House of Commons, accompanied by his rabble, and endeaVoured to overawe it ? ( Hear, hear.) He might as well have said that there ought to b e no British House of Commons. He came next to the observation, that an in dependent Irish Parliament would lead to rebellion and se paration. Did they forget the alarming rebellion that took place previous to the union ? There was a strong party in Ireland in favour of total separation—was there any party in the Irish Parliament in favour of rebellion ? The charge had never been brought against a single member of the Irish Parliament. No assembly had ever been charac terised by a more warm and enthusiastic loyalty than the Irish Parliament was at that period. (Hear, hear.) Was that nothing ? When they were in the midst of the famous rebellion, and when the eyes of France were di rected to Ireland, with a view to cripple the resources of England, the members of the Irish Parliament—aye, uni versally—showed themselves to be amongst the most loyal subjects of the realm, and the determined upholders of the connection with England. (Hear.) But they had never forgotten the manner in which the union was brought about ; and the people of Ireland could not look back to the venality and turpitude of the manner in which their legis lature was surrendered, without shame and indignation. He would not, however, go into details upon the point, but pass at once to the immediate effects which it pro duced. The question divided itself into two parts, and he would not go into them at any length. The first was re specting the commercial question; the other, the financial. It had been denied by the Secretary for the Treasury, that Ireland was ever in a more prosperous condition than they were at that moment. Burke, at the commencement of the war, wrote a pamphlet, entitled, " Thoughts on a Re gicide Power," in which he contended that peace was ob jectionable, because England had never been in a state of greater prosperity than since the commencement of the war. What would the right hon. gentleman say to that now that England enjoyed such prosperity in a time of peace? Yet that argument was just as sound as that advanced by the right honourable gentleman. Ca nada, too, was prosperous without any union • and if the prosperity of Canada could not be referred to any such cause, why should the prosperity of Ireland be referred to the union? It was contended, too, that the prosperity of Ireland depended much on the use of steam and on free trade, and that free trade would cease if a re peal of the union should take place. (Hear, hear.) But did not Ireland consume seven millions of the manufactures of England ; and was it likely that no compact would be entered into between the legislatures of the two countries as to their commercial relations? (Hear, hear.) They were then endeavOuring to establish a free trade between this country and France ; and was it likely that they would refuse to do so with Ireland, if repeal took place ? Ireland was now a great consumer of English manufactures, and she found a market for her produce in England. It would be for the advantage of both countries that the consumption should continue. He denied that the repeal of the union would be an abolition of free trade. Would the right lion. Vice-President of the Board of Trade say that there was ? He was sure that the right hon. gentleman was too good a political economist to uphold such an opinion for a single moment. He had heard gentlemen, arguing in favour of the corn laws, say, that to keep those laws the union must be maintained, and in point of fact, that as long as they maintained the union, they should keep the corn laws. But he (Mr. Sheil) would ask, what would the English members say to such an arrangement ? (Hear, hear. ) Let them put the corn laws on one side; and the repeal of the union on the other, and what would be the wishes of - the manufacturers? He was sure they would at once vote in favour of the exclusive market in Ireland. (Hear. ) With respect to the financial question, he felt it unnecessary to trouble the house with many observations, as he found that the opinion he entertained had been upheld by Sir John Newport, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, and by Lord Plunket. Both these great autho rities had stated that Ireland had been injured, in a financial point of view, by the union. It had been argued that two-sevenths of the revenue of the country should be contributed by Ireland. At the period of the union Sir John Newport had said that the arrangement was most unfair. The fact was, that Ireland was unable to pay so much, which was immediately demonstrated. A deficiency occurred every year, which was necessary to be made up by loan. The money for this purpose was raised in England, instead of, as it ought to have been, in Ire land. In many years the amount necessary to be thus raised was between four and five millions a year. At the time of the union it was agreed that the surplus revenue of Ireland should be expended in Ireland, but by the inju rious bargain which had been made, it was clear that no surplus revenue could be fairly looked for. Mr. Slit ii next proceeded to take a rapid view of the state of Ireland since the passing of the union, and said, if Ireland 1 ad been listened tom 1824 there would then have been no agi tation. The repeal cry would not have been heard. He (Mr. Shell) knew that lie might be told that many of the great landed proprietors were absentees previous to the union. He did not deny that the descendants of many of those granted, English re eers, absentees. t ewhom e allowed forfeited theestatesp Duke k e had of been p n: s vonshire, the Marquis of Hertford, the Marquis of user-, downe, the Earl of i'gremont, and other great landownera_ were absentees. It was admitted that the evil was grte.; evil had not increased to an immense extent since y l O 7. , s the condition of Irelandth peeetlia putlrnie eio v n i h o o? u n s .( t i o siee t c h arr e e,t u ha n ery i a o r i o. i f) ; but would any one tell him that evil _ (Mr. Shell.) and his friends around him had . ~, not Justine. that the right honourable gentleman was TT r hear) in the case he had attempted to make out. ("ea -, to Were they not justified in calling for a committee e quire into the subject ? There was a dispute on th e: 0 A n n l y ,lrs o ,ea n ass e i l m i y st o, e s n t listening o s p t e h ro e u s s grantof t h e inquiry. case and it ( H w e a a s x, u l u e a a l r o s such rlticousnmu:spt Secretarysuppose lie ht for the Colonies, who had been Secretary for Ireland, t hat granted a committee to inquire into the complaint: had been made as to the government of Canada. y: 44 hear.) The legislative assembly of Lower Can . 4 1 , entered a resolution on their journals implying a conwo nation of the right hon. secretary (Mr. StanleY)• du ty, right hon. gentleman replied that he had done his aLti o but he courted full inquiry, and said, " Let the C,l :av ois prove their case if they could." In the case 0T she ii) they had unhesitatingly granted inquiry. He (Mr' an d to would ask, was there no case for inquiry with regentie, Ir,land? Were the statements of the right 11 0 ° " harg es o ( f H n e i ar ini . man (Mr. S. Rice) undisputed? Were there u° tiv ? ministerial e r w misconduct as glaa tha the ith case regardof Canadato tl iat He lead arga alluded to, as it furnished him with more than one ment on the present question. The right hon. 8 v ee ls for the Colonies (Mr. Stanley) in the course of his sg te in granting the committee to inquire into the s held Canada, alluded to the number of Canadians tha_ office in that colony, as compared with the number of t" the who held office who were not Canadians. W,_ ll , oo o ,be right . hon. Secretary for the Treasury was speo' n l.l g lit (Mr. Sheil) could not help calling to mind that the 0 , 17 , hon. gentleman was the only Irishman in that hoeseyero - office who was directly connected with the P o ") ment. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and " N ° ', lo oo At any rate, observed the hon. and learned gen` f the (Mr. Sheil), not one of the Irish members out ° ;a1 off° 105 in that house who held a governmen t There situation. Look at the independence of Belgium. a u to was one ground of complaint which he wished to ree'refe the recollection of the house. It was the undue P oint . renee given to Dutchmen in all the government aPP.,OI ments. That, indeed, was one of the reasons ol e o. for the seiaration of Belgium from Holland in th e s ore ration of independence in November, 1830. The re e 105 Irish members, but not one of them had had the degree of ministerial favour conferred on him. Th01°1;01 and learned gentleman next alluded to certain Earl Grey and the Duke of Wellington, and said had been conceded, why not repeal? You did not grant the measure of reform, you need not fear,: repeal. {Here the hon. and learned gentlemauen wt some interruption from the ministerial benches , sa id, c o c u i n bet , looking in the direction whence it proceeded, heurs yet. phatically, .. Come, I have not spoken six ho i;ers (Loud laughter.) It has been said th a t 300 an Irish parliament would be in danger of being ° I in their deliberations by factious considerations• continued the hon. and learned gentleman, that luu s as bad. (Cheers from the repealers. ) The adv ocat :a repeal in that house were accused of having origin a t , cry for repeal by means of agitation. The charge w", together unwarranted. Why he (Mr. Sheil) was °- deputation who waited on Lord Grey respecting th e , bill of 1831, and he then told his lordship that if t it of sure were persevered in, the demand for a repeal ° union would become universal ; and yet, th ey and others of his friends had thus done what they `, - tt , induce ministers to remove the causes which led e demand for repeal, they were charged with being tit meters of that desire for repeal by a course of t _ (Cheers.) There were now forty-eight advoca,eost, peal in that house, and he could tell hon. r o (;_u,,lt h i t ' if government persevered in the course they o '_': oui d followed with regard to Ireland, the nurnber..v,al bc doubled. Hon. members expressed sarsly follow in the event of the repeal of t „ ern, s:ons that a separation of the two countritehhseNivi accomplished. He (Mr. Sheil) would asg w ,',,",, the they not afraid of separation from a collision 1( pie, in the event of the motion of his hon.nen°,',s) friend being rejected? If government did intend severe in the present system—if they were to c w isdorns to every admonition—if they were not to learn own „ ai l (Chthe failure of others only, but by their 0 eers), then he (Mr. Sheil) was afraid _l n t u u_ e _ quences that might ensue. He trusted the his pardon the hypothesis which he entertained ° ts or to jest. He did not wish to hold out th e rea ! tempt to intimidate the house, but h did motion raise his warning voice. If the present form jectcd, the mass of the people of Ireland would which no selves into a state of organization _s to could resist, and then that house would ha and a local pent that they had refused tohgrca.ntfofloowed the hon. g - islature. (The cheering which h ii.nued for some time.) 1 earned gentleman's spee';', e union e n resented Ininsclf, Sir ROBERT PE."' • on !" The right hon. baronet, would subside, said that lie would whether the cries withdraw or go on, according as the sense of the he The cry then becominl expressed on the subject. he commenced by sa: 'avflteranw(-tai';in(g;') to"' general loud r a c l r cries of ohfi tom W iptrbodcrea:dv wihra his own opinion was that th e y should make_s_ome he in bringing this debate to a termination. T an , of the question had now lasted four nights, the of the house, if he (Sir H. Peel) understood it was, that it should now be brought to a conch. tie debate were to last ten firms ,he time it had_ ten times the argument were to be brought to hea r . tv which already had been—if ten times the inge n _ u : s 'ea t be displayed, the conviction which would 107 ~ country would still be, that the house ought nottito to the dismemberment of the empire. (L °ll t These are truths which the feelirgi of the heaS e a ' abstract conviction go to assent. When Dr% „ . asked to refute the arguments which had ; li e ' e non' of by some philosophers of his day to prove ' c o his tence of matter, he stain Fed on the grouatl su ch ' at the idea of any one supposing that 31r. ments required to be answered. And wh e % ning was asked to refute the arguments sch°: (l, advanced against the union, he indignantly sai t he the union—restore the Heptarchy." Not tha not have argued the question, but because the ic'eat pressed on his mind that if the union was r e p eai e land must be reduced to a fourth-rate poWer,_ a ce to ' nations of Europe, and Ireland to a mere pro L, other country. Look at the map of Europe• relative position to Spain and other countricslot say if you can resist the conclusion that the gre a ! would be to be apprehended from the disunitu•4'ig this country. • He begged pardon for not lla‘T; alluded to the very eloquent and very enter tainu o a t of the hon. and learned gentleman who had jot he He would pass by three-fourths of his speech ; f pass by his (Mr. Shell's) defence of the speech 0 . and learned friend, and his attack on the right h°_iltbele:,,, tary for the Colonies, and would address himself tufbeholi timate arguments which he had made use of. ,„ te and learned gentleman had spoken in commentlat:Jrtlelot of the sacrifices which he (Sir Robert Peel) hak e carry the measure of catholi c emancipation. “„teettie think he was entitled to praise for his conduct oil at ej, sion, as, in sacrificing his abstract opinions to ceue i tie e o Catholics of Ireland, he was only doing what he e ° t in the circumstances of the case, to be his duty. et a) ,of only given certain advice to the Cro wn with resr measure, and undertaken to abide by the resP °° ,je that advice. (Loud ch eers .) B u t if he had °r e p in icb flees on that occa s i on , h e h a d now little satisfaet%e`ales. reflection that he had done so, when he saw thejoal' e rtno was made of the power which the measure 0 1, ee rsd o o0 5 tion conferred on certain individuals. (Loud e ither P e or e i hon. and learned gentleman had spoken a ().,. be Sued changing their opinions on this subject, but n', s eS_„,,,,,°tia% that he had changed his own ? In 1825, wh e [re'r t i l oW 4 htheeforcei v a il co d m is m ab it il t i e t e ies of u t n h d e er H w ou li s i e nh of tChoomani°C,33oa Tic the l f a o b l .1, 0 R i e n d gy u , th e nts v follownerk incase u in g eJ :the Catt've s. general uc h t e l emancipation were settled by o; j •- - 5 o sria power existing in any indiviintal to get publi c .f j .ela lw ,,;l l3 ,',, h tt et : titer, and to cream a combined operation in °{ convinced that it would not be in the powe r or •, 0 0: J so. Parliament, q t s matter however great his influence might b e :,, col? of richo,oo how perverse his ambition may be, to draw lairs of men together in Ireland ; nothing but the 5, e ,, 1 ";,i0r,: th e injury produces these great and systematic g 3 ". ue i ' i taniar the medium of which so much passion and so nL et loco . ° s t. tory matter is conveyed through the country. . ,any forilY question of the union as an example ; thereare ~t i sf3 l 3 ot pose that if the Catholic question were to be !; e d. _A ranged, the merits of the union would be disci' , set tlel.oo o il• convinced that if the Catholic question wo e t i, l i lt o' ll body of the population, so far from being disss p:e 0 0. f me. perfec ly co:itented with the union, or be ' ? retir e e., ° the Whenever any Inenton is made in a Homan Caurpor4ol.,,dg: of the evils of that measure, it is made fur the 1 , ,,,, 0 te / /D eo torical excitement, and not with any serio o pit‘otb, pa ae rt of the speaker, to disturb that which, in qe' ment, is perfectly indissoluble. In answer t 0 .%, f el to add this, that neither upin tithes, nor ,ti re i,otd yij usl s o l l other political subject, could the people ot ma ca fully and pern.anently excited prese!! t ent themsAves aggrieved by the law, and public sentiment, as from n sense of 0 ,11 ; they are marshalled and combined togetl'learne d - 0 f a (Immense cheering.) The hon. au' iton hecies endeavours to frighten the house by hi."). Irelan c , s talo neral rising and organizing of the peor iv .h. he ll e c ' ' a th e d , event of the measure being rejected , triu r ' oc ided, o f l'; ; , that he thought it would be impossible,. P e ass eiiih'Y aiit l emancipation was granted, that any , ur pose - 0 ,0 1 e,0 sons could be got together for any other I wa s it $ m ewl. blv, presses his conviction that when anY lie " s em . ith the repeal of the union in any Catho and "ri, I to dist", w id serious view upon the part of the speak ll b t would as ,viers et, for the pnrposes of rhetorical excitemente,r, which should be indissoluble. Why, Ilne be s° at ' s' ch„ ij ir' and learned gentleman, should he tti the repeal of the union, when lie What events had occurred, what c ir • Roman Catholic, that that union ouskhotntiostbateleion:his;ttav ° P in r ef t t n lU 'a:g‘ni.agf:g-(e t l:eaor.ll;t h asentniall o :t:tfal;ibEelltdi'luttl a;.°l.ttta g h rec.lc.3 11 • 11 l he icy C outi tii ,. led t° J- ug the I. l t r ,'„, )f agitate tes of r Cates t het's, ad h i t her t , would sot, apprehe i : ou ld neee , union than , sc e :, i t h the pig ten an d lea r ' pr , „ en d to F ri ' - ;,f o ntion e n '„t fao" own °rise- f the c user` ° 3n° this se', or to a t „ .s, id woo on w ere l f , form thel,'et , no o eason to .„ a local le,il . 0 hon• a' time.) .. I t, 5.1 f, urn' , Go on, ing to se e r Nou ld eith e . osdie em a e y d h t h i i n :li e u : e g o g s ! . i i" i s to l, C , 1 y LI it rigi. If 'ad done i is I bear I.ll ' ° tv . e nuitY the o t , pr es. _ n 5 01 to ee n m a exit' ' e non e ith b" Su ch ca n 31r-, De :i bac' h (1, geP o o I at b e i c :tiO e con ` E ns; ealca' th e am ong o ; nice w St its L°°l' a t a nd,r :j o t ( 1 7 0 : 0 tin' it fd c. axi n g _7 ° ho w h is 01-se.c.`A,