The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-02-12 00:00:00

Emptrial Variiamtnt. HOUSE OF LORDS. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 6. The house met at one o'clock. On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, it was ordered that peers should be at liberty to sign their protests till the rising of the house to-morrow. The Lord CHANcELLoti-and several other peers, including the mover and seconder, went up with the lords' address to his Majesty, in answer to the Speech from the throne. T UltS DAY. Petitions were presented--I;ytiteiiiifrop of BATH and WELLS, from Bath, against the Beer Bills; bTthe Duke of LEINSTER, from a parish in Ireland, against tithes. The LORD CHANCEL LOR brought in a Bill for Economising Lunatic Commissions. ,Lord TEYNHADI gave notice, for Monday, of a motion for a copy of the proclainatibn of the Lords Justices of Ireland de claring a barony in Mayo in a state of disturbance; the con duct of the Marquis of SLIGO and that of Viscount MEL BOURNE being involved, he hoped both noble lords would be in their places. (Hear.) THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS. The LORD CHANCELLOR, who had then taken his seat on the woolsack, stated that he, with other noble lords, yesterday proceeded to St.. James's at two o'clock, with the address which their lordships had agreed to, in answer to his Majesty's most gracious speech from the throne, and that he had now to com municate his Majesty's most gracious answer to the address. — The noble and learned lord then read as follows : "MY LORDS, I thank you for your loyal and dutiful address.—l receive with peculiar satisfaction the assurance of your determination to support me in maintaining inviolate* the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland, and in putting down a spirit of insubordination and violence, the prompt and effectual ' repression of which is indispensable to the welfare of my Irish subjects, and to the general peace and security of my domi nions." CHURCH REFORM. Lord KING, on moving for of papers regard-. in , / the amount of church property, expressed' his 'satisfaction at finding that a reform in the church was contemplated. 'lie also expressed his conviction that -reform, to be useful, must come from the government, and hot from the church. The Bishop of LONDON observed that 'the queries of the church commissioners had been framed' with - the Most anxious desire to procure the fullest information. It was satisfatory to know that the abuses which had crept into the establishment had-long been diminishing. He had eVery•confidence in the disposition of ministers to preserve, and not to destroy, • the church; and could promise for the sacred bench that there was nut a member of it who would oppose any reform that might be. necessary. He hoped, however, that the motion would udt be pressed, as the information required by 'it was already . prepared. Earl GREY expressed his belief that the scheme of church reform contemplated by ministers would , give satisfaction, while it would maintain the respectability and permanence of the esta blished church. The Bishop of BATIi and WELLS declared his readiness to concur in any reform which had for its object the promotion of the true interests of religion. The motion was finally withdrawn, FRIDAY. . The Lunacy Commissions Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on Tuesday next. Lord TEYNHAM moved that a message be sent to the Com mons, requesting a copy of the evidence given before the com mittee on the Cotton factories' Bill. Ordered. The noble lord wished to know from the noble lord on the Wool Sack, whether those c'oininissioners of his on the poor laws had made any report, and whether it would soon be laid before their lordships. The Lout) CHANCELLOR said the Poor Law Commission was issued as a measure of the government; he at first was opposed to the issuing of that commission, so, that the house would see how far the noble lord was right in calling in his commission; and, iu fact, the house was never moved upon the subject. (hear.) These commissioners had collected a great mass of most useful information, which would soon be rendered into the shape of a report, and he had no doubt his Majesty would be advised to lay it on the table of the house on an early day. HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY; FEB. 6. The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock, and after prayers had been read, several members took the oaths and tneir seats. Lord MILTON gave notice of his intention, on Wednesday, . the 20th instant, to call the attention of the house to the subject of the Corn Laws. (Hear, hear.) Mr. D. W. HARVEY gave notice that, on the sth March, he should move for a return of all Irish, Scotch, and English pen sioners on the civil list, with their names, occupations, the ser ' vices entitling them to such pensions, and the dates at which they were granted. 'Vhe hon. member then moved for a return Of the number of causes and matters remaining, in the office of the Masters in Chancery, in Trinity Term, 1825; and of all the . causes and matters referred to the Alasters in Chancery, from that period, in each subsequent year, up to Trinity Term, 1832; and also for a return of the number of reports made on causes and matters in each year, for the same period. Ordered. Mr. D. W. HARVEY gave notice that, on.the 18th of March, be should move for the appointment of a select committee on the subject of the Land revenues of the Crown under.the.con frol and directions of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Mr. GODSON gave notice that, on Thursday; the 14th instant, he should move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to Patents for inventions. Sir A. AGNEW presented two petitions, from the parish of 'Sowerby and from the town and parish of Wigton, praying for provisions for the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. FINCH presented :a petition to the same effect from a parish in the county of Leicester. Mr. Div Err gave notice that, on Friday week, he would move for returns of the names of the members of all the municipal corporations in England, and of the• mode of election, and also for copies of the charters, under which such elections were con ducted.. Colonel DAVIES gave notice that, as soon as the army es timates came before the house, he should move that the whole of the military and colonial expenditure should be referred to • a select committee. Mr. HumE renewed his notice, of the sth of June last, for a return of all persons employed in the diplomatic service,, with • their names, rank, and date of appointments, also for a return -of the unclaimed shares of the Suitors' Fund, in the Court of Chalice' y. Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know from the right hon. baronet, whether there existed any intention of remedying the evil of the want of provision for the religious instruction of persons professing the Homan Catholic faith who were serving in the army in India. -Sir J. C. HounousE said he was not aware of any_complaint on this subject having been made by the parties themselves. He thought that some provision ought to be made, but, as the secretary at War could only act, in this regard, under the terms of a Treasury minute of the year 18•28, he had no power to in terfere SESSIONAL ORDERS. Lord ALTHORP, in proposing the sessional orders for the present year, adverted to the great inconvenience which had neeb found to arise out of the practice hitherto observed in. the presentation of petitions to the abuse. To remedy this, he sug gested that members who had petitions to present should place their names on the Speaker's paper, de the in diem, and that they should be heard iu regular rotation ; •that, for this purpose, the Speaker should take the chair each day at twelve o'ciock, .and sit till three, for receiving petitions and despatching private :business; that, at three o'clock, he should adjourn the house, and that, whatever debate on a petition might happen to be at that time before the house, should be adjourned till the next day; that the house should re-assemble at the o'clock, when the:orders or notices—the regular' business of the house—should be immediately proceeded with. He said he Should also pro pose that a member, on presenting a petition, should haYe the right of speaking twice, and no more ;—first, on the motion that the petition be :laid on the.table_; and again, if he deemed it necessary - that the petition should be printed, on moving that question. The noble lord then moved— " That this house do meet every day (except Saturday) at 12 .e'elock at noon, for private business and for receiving petitions, and do continue to sit until 3 o'clock, unless sooner adjourned. "'That at 3 o'clock precisely Mr. Speaker do adjourn the house, and leave the chair without putting any question for adjournment. " That the business then before the house be taken up on the next day, and have precedence in respect of other business of ,the same kind. "That the house be adjourned only till 5 o'clock, and that it do then meet and proceed. With the business set down 'in the Order-book. "That if a house is not formed before 1 o'clock for the sit ting between 12 and 3 o'clock, Mr. Speaker do then take the flair; and if 40 members be not present, do adjourn the house till 5 o'clock; and in like manner if the house is not formed at fl o'clock for sitting in the evening, Mr. Speaker do then take the chair; and if 40 members are not present, do adjourn the house till 12 o'clock next day. " That committees do sit from 9 o'clock till 12, and from 3 till 5. " That no committee do sit during the sitting of the house without the special leave of the house." Sir ROBERT PEEL said the plan now proposed required, in his mind, much consideration, and he hoped the noble lord would postpone it for three weeks or a month, to give new Members the benefit of so much experience as that period Would probably afford; to guide them in forming a judgment of the probabie number of petitions which were likely to come before the house, and of the expediency of such au arrange ment as that now suggested, or some other that might be more suitable. - Mr. O'CONNELL said, that as to the number of petitions likely to be presented this session, he could say for himself; that he had enough to occupy a fortnight or three weeks. It would be well to consider whether, during three days in the week, they might not meet at 10 o'clock; and, lest there might be a difficulty in ►nakipg a house, they should frame a law or order, declaring that the day after the failure of collecting 40 members the house should be called over, and every member who could not give a sufficient excuse fdr his absence should be taken into custody. On these three days two hours might be set apart for petitions, and from 12 o'clock to 8 might be de voted to public business. lie would suggest that on the alter nate days the house should not sit at all, but the different com mittees should proceed with business. An immense expense with reference to private business would thus be saved, because the attendance of witnesses and of legal persons would be very much shortened. They would, by this plan, have three full working days (not nights) in the week, and they would also have three additional days for committees. Lord ALTHORP was willing, after what had fallen from the right hon. barolit, to postpone the debate, not for three weeks, but till this day fortnight. The debate was then postponed accordingly. - Lord A LTHORP next moved the following resolution :—" That when the contents of a petition have been opened, and the prayer stated by the member who may have the chargé of such petition, Mr.' Speaker do desire such member to bring the same to the table, -and do then direct the clerk to read it, without allowing any other member to speak, or putting any question upon such petition, before the same shall have been read, unless it should appear to Mr. Speaker, or to any member, that the matter of such petition was in breach of the priiilege of the house, or that, according to the rules and orders of the house, such peti tion ought not to be received, in which cases the question, 'That the:petition be. brought up' be put and agreed to, before such petition be brought up." 'Which, after a few obServations from Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. WYNN, and 31r. RoniNsoN, was put and agreed to. The 'usual resolutions respecting election committees, peti tions, &c. were afterwards put and agreed to. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Lord 'J. RUSSELL moved the following •resolution, which had been adopted by the house four years'ago :—" That all persons who question any future return of members to serve in Parlia ment upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and who shall in their petition specifically allege any payment of money or other reward to have been made by any theraber, or on his account, or with his privity, since the time of such return, in pursuance of, or in furtherance nf, such bribery and corruption, may question the same at any time within 28 days from the time of such payment; or if this house be not sitting ,at the ex piration of the said 28 days, then within 14 days after the day when the house shall next meet." Mr. WASON expressed his opinion that this resolution did not go far enough to be effectual.; and he moved• an amendment, making parties guilty of bribe!) , liable to the penalties at any time after the return of the writ. Mr. WARI3LIETON thought it would be improper to pass any resolution which might expose candidates to the danger of being compromised by the acts of other poisons. - 11M1. - O'CoNNELL said there should be no protection afforded to bribery. According to his views, bribery by unsuccessful can didates should be made equally amenable to the laws. (Hear.) He only postponed a motion on the matter until such time as he could see how it could be best shaped. Sir F. BURDETT entered into the views of the hon. member for Ipswich, but recommended him to withdraw his amendment until a more seasonable juncture for discussing it, and wished him to add to it some proposition for extinguishing a farther source of corruption—that of intimidation: (Cheers.) Ile thought it also but just that, as voters were subject to an oath in disavowal of bribery, the members should submit to the same. (Cheers.) Lord ALTIIORP said that for his part he would not object to the operation of the . Bribery Act being extended to five years were it necessary. Mr. BALDWIN held, that the only effectual cure for theseevils was the ballot. Ile likewise wished to see an extension s of the right of suffrage. Mr. WASON withdrew his amendment, and the noble lord's resolution was put and carried. The SPEAKER afterwards proceeded to put some of the cus tomary sessional orders, amongst which were the following:— That no private bill be received. after Friday, the 22d inst.; that no private bill be read a first time aftei Monday, the March; that no private bill be reported after 'Monday, the 12th May. TUE SLAVERY QUESTION. Mr. POWELL BUXTON said he had given notice of a motion on the subject of slavery. He had only done so in consequence of his uncertainty as to the intentions of his Majesty's ministers. .He would theietore ask the noble lord what those intentions were? Lord -ALTHOS P said he was happy to inform the hon. gent. that his Majesty's government had before therii a measure which they *Mild Shortly bring forward, and which he (Lord Althorp) trusted would prove both safe and satisfactory. (Cheers.) The order of the day having been read for resuming the ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS, Mr..E. L. BLLWEI: was called for, and thereupon rose and said,.there were some parts of the proposed address he approved; others; with which he was dissatisfied. He sympathized in the complaint of the hon. member for Dublin, and he thought, with the hon. member for Knaresborough, (Mr. Richards) that the condition of the labouring classes, and the introduction of poor laws into Ireland, were topics which ought not to be passed over. But at the same time he anticipated much good from the revision of the Bank charter, from the reform of the church, 'and from other.projecis ilhideii to . in the address. So far he was satisfied, and would give it his support; but When he turned his eyes to Ireland, he felt that satisfaction counterbalanced by regret. The right hon. secretary from the hustings of Lancaster had pro claimed to the English people that the good they had obtained was to be final, and the same voice bade Ireland submit to her 'grievances. What says the speech ? Mark the distinction : that in England " the public peace has been preserved—that in Ireland the spirit of insubordination and violence has arisen to a 'fearful height." But why was there this difference? Why was there good order in England, where, two years ago, half the agricultural population were in arms? Because in England they governed by conciliation and firmness.. And why is there insubordination in Ireland? Because in Ireland they governed by menaces and.weakness. And how were they going to remedy this insithiirdination ? By a repetition of the same causes—by a continuance of the same menaces and the same - weakness. When the right hon. gentleman, the secretary for Ireland, at tempted to turn aside the effect of the member for Dublin's illus trations froni hiStory, by asking whether he meant to saddle the offences of Henry \ 111. upon the present government, he per verted the obvious meaning of that hon. member;. what he meant was_this—to.prove that this policy of extraordinary powers and additional coercion was nothing new—to prove that it had been tried for centuries, and found wanting—to prove that it had, acrainstits feasibility, the experience of 700 years. Why is it that these extraordinary powers have not been practicable • and why is'it that, with so much violence, the laws have such little strength ? Let the right hon. secretary ask the hon. member for Leeds. He would tell him, as he told some member in the last Parliament, why we could not .put down the Birmingham Union, and why we could not put down the people themselves. "'Because (he said) you cannot gove rn a gaßant nation by the laws of the quarter sessions; because 'it is in vain, if you have law on your side, if you have the people against you; because there is Only one power that makes the l aw s t rong , ad that is, the consent—the public opinion, of the people for whom the law is Made." The right hon: secretary confessed that he had already 'laws sufficient to put down insurrectionary - meetings of every de scription. What more did he require? fie required a law that would make those laws suffice. And did not the right hon. gent. 'know thatno law of itself would make law suffice ?—that to make law effectual there was but one mode; and that was, to make the people, and not the police, co-operate cheerfully to carry it into effect? That was a principle that all statemen, from the oldest times, had laid down. It was on that principle that a noble lord in his Majesty's government said, that in order to put down sedi tion you must do what?—Put down the grievance. Why was that principle'applicable to England and not also applicable to Ireland? It was on that principle, too, that the hon. member for Leeds, whom he had already quoted, made use of those words on the third reading of the English Reform Bill—"that discontent which the great body of the people think they have reason to entertain cannot be put down by penal restrictions. Measures of coercion and severity have failed former governments—they failed Cromwell—they failed James 11. against the bishops, and Pitt against Larne Tooke—they failed Lord Castlereagh —and they will fail every government which shall attempt to smother the voice of the people of England without re dressing their grievances." For England read Ireland ! Was not what was applicable to one people applicable to. another ? Where there are extraordinary grievances, the only extraor dinary power you should ask for is that of immediate redress. On two points they were all agreed, and therefore he should not dwell on them,-Ist, that there were great grievances in Ireland; 2nd, that the state of that country, was most alarming. For this last evil—the state of the'country, what were the remedies? The right hon. secretary told them to enforce the law by bayonets, —the members for Ireland, with one voice told them to adapt the law to the interest of the people. It was with this last opinion that lie concurred, on the grounds of common sense, — on the plainest principles of right legislation,—out of respect to the consistency of the right hon. gentleman himself;—for in the last Parliament, on the question of reform, what was the cry of the Tories? Force. And by what cry did the Whigs answer them ? Redress. Could he believe his ears, had he not heard the right hon. secretary, never usually at a loss for words or thoughts of his own, plagiarize from some former speech ? From whom ? Why no less a person than the right hon. hart. the member for Tamworth. Did not the following sentence re mind them of Toryism in its last cry :—" To legislate for griev ances in this state of things, is not to call on them to legislate, but to crouch in submission ? How often have those very benches thrown back that very argument by the unanswerable reply, that the only disgrace in legislating in the midst of dis turbance was in the delay .that allowed the disturbance to begin There was one part of the address which he disliked upon con stitutional grounds—that part which pledged that house to sup port without discussion, without inquiry, indissolubly to support the legislative union. He was against a repeal of the union; it would be worse for Ireland than England. It should be a last resort, it is the resort of necessity, not reason; but he was also against the principle of pledging a deliberative assembly to re ject a great and solemn question without any previous delibera tion. If we were to be an united empire, we must not haie separate interests—we must not have reform for England and constabulary forces for Ireland. Did they not all feel how ge nerously the Irish members helped them in their reform?— Should they repay them in the first reformed Parliament by a donation of musketry, or a repeal of the trial by jury? He, for one, would not consent to that requital. He would not vote un qualified approbation to the address, nor could he support the vote of unqualified disapprobation of the hon. member for Ire land. He trusted there was a middle course left, and that his right 'hon. friend the member for Lambeth would, as he believed he intended, move an amendment suited to the difficulties of the case—an amendment which should imply at least that if redress was not to precede, it was yet to s accompany, this grant of ex traordinary power. He should thus be enabled to give his vote —not in the spirit of hostility to the English government, but in the spirit of suspicion against the Irish government—a pledge of his sympathy with oppression wherever it existed, and a proof of his attachment to the union itself—a union only to be ce mented by convincing Ireland that we will adopt towards her the same legislative principles we have just carried into effect for ourselves. Mr. STANLEY said, that he was anxious to take the first op portunity which had b'een offered him of explaining an opinion which had been erroneonisly attributed to him. He never had stated, and never could state, that the reform bill was to be the " be-all and the end-all"•of all reform in the laws of the coun try. On the contrary, on the only occasion on which he made use of any expression which could by ingenuity or perversion be construed nito.such an absurdity, he stated that he conceived the reform bill to•be the machinery by which other necessary reforms were to be carried into effect: that he considered the reform bill as ministers had considered &when they introduced it, as being the machinery by which those reforms were to be worked. Here some observations of Mr. O'Connell's interrupted the right hon. gent., and was resented by loud cries of "hear," and "order," from all parts of the house. Mr. O'Connell rose to explain, but the cries of "order" were renewed, and Mr. Stan ley proceeded. Mr. STANLEY said—" I thank the house for giving me time to remember that it is unnecessary to take any notice of the lion. member." (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman then proceeded to say, that upon the occasion referred to he stated, as minis ters had stated in that house, that with respect to the constitu tion of the House of Commons the reform bill was a complete and final measure; but. that it was a measure by which he hoped that an honest government, supported by the cordial concur rence of the people, would etiect such honest reforms and amendments of the - law as the country might think desirable and necessary for the welfare of the state. In that sense, and that only, did he and could he have ever said that he hoped or believed that the reform bill would be a final measure. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to be allowed to say one word in ex planation. He declared most distinctly that ne had no inten t►on or idea that what he had said in answer to a question put to him would have reached the ears of the right hon. gentleman. He was replying to a question, (rather too loudly, it seemed,) but he declared most solemnly that he had not the least inten tion of interrupting the right hon. gent. (Hear.) Mr. TE:siNYSON said he was glad to hear the right. hon. gen tleman's explanation of the sense in which he had used the term " final measure," and he was sure it would prove highly satisfactory to the country vt large. There were other amend•. meuts which. he, in common with the great body of the people, regarded as necessarily consequent upon the Reform -Bill, the vote by ballot, and the shortening of the duration of parliaments, for instance, which he concluded, from the explanation they had just heard, his Majesty's government did 110 U-clean to resist. Mr. STANLEY said his meaning was again mistaken. • Mr. TEN:vvsoN:—" In that case, the right hon. gentleman's language is difficult of construction." He was glad that Minis ters meant to take the refoiin of the Church into their own hands. He wished, however, he could have perceived by the speech any intention to revise the articles of the Church of. England. Although he was himself a Churchman—a member of the Establishment—a sincere friend to it—anxious for its sup port, and, therefore, most anxious for its reformation as the surest means of securing that support, he did not heiitate to say that the religion of a State ought to be the religion of the ma jority. In this country, he believed, the established religion was just the religion of the majority, and no more. Undoubt edly it would be well, if, by extending judiciously and wisely the pale of the church, they could obtain a larger community. The articles of the church were a mass of contradictions, and they were in fact considered so by many ministers belonging to the establishment. Would it not be prudent, then, to consider the possibility of extending the pale of those articles of our re ligion; that by so doing, communities now excluded might be induced to enter within it? He gave ministers credit for good intentions with regard to Ireland; but he contended that the house ought to agree to no address unaccompanied by a distinct, declaration Oat they would immediately enter into a strict in vestigation'nf the causes of Irish grievances, with a view to the application of prompt and effectual remedies; and that although they would preserve the right of receiving petitions and discus sing.the question of 'Repeal of the Union, still that they would resist all'lawless attempts to separate the two countries, or invade' the peace • and welfare of his Majesty's - dominions. Mr. Tennyson concluded by moving an amendment, the sub stance of which is embodied in the preceding sentence. Mr. MACAULEY said that. his hon. friend, the member for Lincoln, so ingenious in the construction of an argument, and so successful in making a point, was sometimes not always aware of the effect of the words which he used. His hon. friend told the house that the government proposed coercion, while the hon. and learned member for Dublin recommended redress. When called. upon to choose between both, the hon. .member for Lincoln .declared that he could not Imitate; but he was sure that, upon reflection, his hon. friend would see that he - and the learned member for Dublin did not attach the same meaning to the words that the one was the to,use, and the other had but too readily adopted. The hon. and learned mem ber for Dublin meant repeal of the Unior —to that his hon. friend was adverse. When they were told that the affairs of Ireland ought to be investigated, after the fullest inquiry, and after the gravest debate, he could not help punting the question, whose fault was it that they had no full anc. fo:mal debate upon the subject? Ile demand&l to know why it was that the ques tion had not been fully agitated? Had not his Majesty's government given the Challenge, and was it not fully in the recollection of the house, that the lion. end learned member for Dublin had addressed them for two or three hours—he forgot how long, for no one could consider the time long while that gentleman continued speaking; but had be not spoken for hours, without opening the question of the Union in a manner that could be grappled with, or indeed fairly encountered at all? This he coda not help thinking the more remarkable, when he remembered that that honourable and learned mem ber had already placed fourteen notices on the book, and that not one of them related to the subject of the legislative union between Great . Britain and Ireland. He had no difficulty, then, in saying, that the honourable and learned member had permitted judgment to go. against him by default. Honour able members at that side of the house (the ministerial) had called • upon the honourable and learned member to pro ceed, but he had declined the invitation—he shrunk— he skulked front the opportunity of giving effect in that house to the doctrines which he had promulgated elsewhere with so much vehemence, and accompanied with so much of personal invective and objurgation.— He would, himself, undertake to prove, whenever the clues- THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. re to be compelled to return its elemel of its practical benefits? What must 1 must be .the prudence and discretion t contend that, because he had oppose( ago, and had subsequently found tha ted by it, he was therefore to be bon 'ns •' he was not to reap the benefits of e • akthe connection which he had forts :very link of it, and to destroy the nobt ed ornament and value from the la' kd that it was the duty of Parliamen 11 of a. free country, when it was made 1 aseas which ought to influence the Lc rY, that general opinion was the chief. Itniment, did he mean to assert that the se hief—the incendiary who gloated of a " 11 0 made the defenceless his prey— ' through all the bonds of society—wh I vi l good—who planted his footsteps in ;A L , path by the ruin and desolation whicl ''' he mean to assert that the feelings oi ''' respected?—and was he to be told, w ,the, sangnary atrocities of such re Pie that he could be a friend to Irelan , fl , e for any man who voted for these stron l `" w e wrongs of Ireland? There mig ; 'llld not give him credit for feeling t ail () e il h at Tdi 'b t uwtasif hits is vo s t e e le in re f a a s v o o n ur fo o r liicsil o uta shelt er hi m self under the authorit d Irish patriot, who had not scrupled „of violence when the emergency seems ,; 'rant quoted the declaration of Mr. 6 r :tied measures of temporary coercion ii 1, 11 0 f quiet for the application of perrc reontinued grievances. The subjects of 1 ~,t /r4l, Mr. Grant said, would soon be broul - t i l l °I Parliament. Into those projects, 1 Sri enter, for his wish was to advert soh i ' , them. Mr. Buiwer had attributed ; e i l !l_ 3 v prevailed in Ireland to the conduc , - , ; `,,a,a (...abinet. Now, he for one would i tb "(aas compliment. lie frankly avowe ,/, Party to ail the measures adopt I It, „ ‘ ' e r great the reluctance might beed by with v L e 'easures of coercion, yet he was prepar, :ecasion required, and necessity called t o t e of of Government, not only to those wl i and assassinated, but also to those :d o :delusion, to apply them with a firm ; i t ,he cont previous to the Union would not 1 e l)-mq :„ 11 , e es. The old Irish Parliament had bet 'o. der, the slave of every base and tyral tion was mooted, that so far from a repeal of the U a remedy for the political ills and social grievances it would bitterly, perhaps incurably, aggravate both• Did they want a separation ? a Hibernian ref so, their conduct was comprehensible and consist Ireland to be a second Hanover ?—a nominal King i a virtual government in Dublin ? England might Hanover at war. Now, this was not the aim of of Ireland. Well, then, they meant one exe4 two independent legislatures.. This was utterly ifll with the first principles of the science of governmel such a state of things as two independent legislatures actual executive, possible ? The King's Bench might be independent of and, as to Ireland, co-equa King's Bench in London, but it was wholly otherwise machinery of legislation. Suppose that the English Commons was favourable to war, while the Irish Hous mons declared that we should remain at peace a court, at which our ambassador had in vain sought S some national grievance, would the honourable me), a representative to that power from the King of Ell another from the King of Ireland? Or suppose thel perial ambassador impeached in Ireland, while tl Parliament was voting thanks for his diplomatic con the two Houses remain under the same executive year ? Did not Ireland, herself furnish a painfully lesson of direct application ? In ] 782 she obtain first time, the semblance of an independent legislate deplorable events which, 18 short years after, led td gamating the two separate and independent Parliaml for themselves as to the possible existence of such ail In 1778 the English Parliament chose the Prince regent with extensive restrictions, while the Parham' land chose him regent without any restrictions Their choice of the same person was merely an accide might have had one regent with her independent and England another; and this, too, without violati stitution. These facts would show the monstrosity proposition as two independent legislatures under on —a fact which all history confirmed--namely, that it NV politically, and, he might add, physically impossible dependent legislatures to co-exist under one executive The grievances of Ireland were not peculiar to held rapt Judges, tyrannical magistrates, and sinecuirists peculiar to any form of government. If a local legisli necessary to redress grievances in Ireland, why note or in Cornwall? Nay, to come nearer se his owl home—Leeds; he could assure the House that a la rity of his constituents complained loudly and with grl of the grievances imposed by its corporation; but it, had been thrown out to him that the best remedy ; I I establishing a nice little federal independent domes ture in the west riding of Yorkshire. (Hear.) not Protestant Ulster and Catholic Munster have t rate legislatures? (Hear.) Why should not the 0, a of Derry have his Parliament as well as the Catholic . d to , „,. d e- It as the Parliament round which the m The hon. member for Lincoln had not made a fair a ell its'Jitphpeerary f INoenamercial code, which of these observations of his (Mr. Macauley's) whi ,• quoted. He stated, at that time, that although thg e , r ; e 1 atai-Cby baser t re now breathing tliei a te - Catholic code, l- which it protected—ol " Around Lachpu i r t e fl r asmpa' spark ozv ti o r b d j . ee objects o f del i a the Catholics to the condition of hen t m h i e h n is u tra nd t e ie r n di t s h e r u n s i s h i g on a n d ae e l a b f e e e a n r m to ai t n h l e y c c r a ie u s se o d i b t y he th p i e ''',,k , which it c violated—of the Penal Las to Pwers punished. All agreed as to the necessity of punishing tr e i alient g reform, such daring violations of the law ought not „tland ought w h a t t t e o r ;beanredvtihveend revived! tell H u e s si t i li eu at ld th h e k : but they differed as to the time when. He would not o q .. returning heil.Heho in hi p d ro li c k e e ss t i e on se , e h i e h ad a e h d e lv l ; a government . that would delay to redress grievances, put he in the mean time to see the law outraged—nay, di e s -, t a furious and misguided multitude? Talk of the te greatest patriots of which Ireland could 1 w rhge h u i li c;hi r d kof b ed e: l n rt.h b Na r it a a n ca d iur e i d es‘ b ,h, y the burnm of church property in a country in which no pr i nperts; a ' ,to t o do with the real subject of debate. ] moment was respected, and be told that to en or h ee diao , er ; but had indulged against the robber, and the murderer, and the in he c e e a treated this deep and solemn subject w to drive au injured people into civil war! (C r5 , .) 4 , thing offensive to Mi. Shell, but this he the civil war has long since begun, and, if not chectcuro end in the ruin of the empire. not( Cheers.) The e r a tan he ought; for When we pronounce that abused by Mr. O'Connell would complain of his ing )oliey or inconsistency. He may be assured that the who braved the "no popery" ci7 in all its ry are n security of the empre. b plr. D. \V- HARVEY complained that Mini: be scared by all the cry which has raised a reeal of t t .ke e . of the Union, 'tye pronounce that i seended to inform ' the house what plans the (Cheers.) History will do the Whigs justice: for ttitation for the redress of the grievances c lies they renounced power and place, without obtainin_g o _ re ,__, , the poor reward of a fleeting popularity. (Cheers.) 1' r im , e ", col."'"mes as powerful as words—the justic years they retired from public life," because the knock off the fetters from their Catholic brethren. they Vat they intended to place Ireland out of th. i s titution, and to call Upon the House of COI) moor, therefore, which the learned member for Dublin ea however, to recognise by their silen oar against 8,000,000 of our fellow -subjects or vouriug to excite against Earl Grey's government, ,ref confidence►in them. Such confidence he of much moment compared with that which Earl tx t ne. vield to this or to any other administra already withstood in order to place the learned .e ge eri sT f where he is. (Loud cheers.) They were not t d l t the time of the house had been taken up s exits and demerits of Mr. O'Connell and Mt clamour from making the learned gentleman not British subject ; he may be assured they will never last a 1,3 0 g e s s uirv . at had the house to do with either the merit it roceeding from. those gentlemen, except so far as they des to be more. (Deafening cheers, which lasted ate As the representative of a numerous and flourishing ertauweig atrhue?various measures which they respecti If one of those gentlemen were out nity, sent " to advice his Majesty on a e ther out of parliament, the grievances of 1: urgent affairs concerning' the state and defence of his ,_ rotested against being considered in layout dom," he was prepared to vote for the address which . p b sist, and would still require a remedy at Parliament to preserve inviolate a union on which au the well-being of the empire. (Cheers.) e Union, - th gh he - voted for the amend amount c ha t Mr. SHELL said there was a practical antithesis, amo-nt iye his su ) because I 1 port i a had b , advanced by government or contradiction, in the course pursued by Mr. Macaulay. 4ieb they Le • a spoke, but concealed benefits al he enters into a most elaborate discussion on the unio u l ,„ l „,... on bp ou to the amendment, ere afraid of their own work, and who were commends the extinction of all argument, puts an end . _ he assumes is unpremeditated, he supports an address "" lie saw' nothing but the efforts bate, strikes Ireland dumb, and claps a padlock on dne. ow took of it. though it can never stop the throbbings of her big and Lord Jortai RUSSELL said, he consider( nant heart. What a strange proceeding on the pa hieh 'was .made to ' the Address, and, the member for Leeds,—to discuss the . question himself, and , t any measures, however hard, to mainta Peeth which came from many members, as eight millions the right to entertain it,—to recommence pension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in order to commit a ment in Ireland to incarceration, while he himself wantotil at the disposition to give the country the o rr a luxuriates in so wide a field of discursive expatiatio ar i was manifest from the speech; but wished that Mr. Macaulay had exhibited the advantages. i w.i. --ca lls measures could not be mixed up in vincial dependence, and of having a maority of Engiisa i Was it too much to ask, that if they hers to overwhelm a majority of the Irish" members ► ere confessedly favourable to Reform, they a distorted view of the cis ence in them for a very few days—that tat House of Commons. He was , prompt to recognise the „ of Earl Grey, who had always proved himself a devote . a p ay next, when robabl the would hear t slevelopment of the measures intended by to Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL said—" No, no." maintained the absolute necessity of :givin rliti Mr. SHELL continued—At all events he was so . at the onalpewer, in order to put the law into 0 sion of the union. Charles Grey opposed the union. p,, „. 0 and quoted some passages from Mr. O'Co dieted the evils that would result from it, and almost . - aie people of that country, to prove t .kaost dreadful outraaes.—Was it too mud) picture of the ev il s w hi c h ore .passing before our eyes. these were of every-day occurrence, tha Shell here quoted from a speech of Earl Grey, de live 11 1 , 1799, a passage strongly-condemnatory of the pending k-eage itself to assist in restoring order to of the union, and contrasted it with the language of the . rn ` staneed? But there were other eircumst g Inkch a course on the attention of parliame speech. What does that speech recommend ? An entire such of the existence of that feeling in pression of all reasoning on the subject. It enjoins mie n ~ pa ot; -;onnell so well knew—the feeling out says, not only shall you not have repeal, but you shall atest tendered to so many candidates at to demand it. The you Corpus Act is to be suspe I t est which threw Lord Killeen out at a the principles of British liberty are to be trampled under.. p which he in every respect so well d the prerogative is to be strengthened; the sceptre is to 14,, T he Repeal of the Union was the test t, with. iron ; what was carried by corruption is to be seel i t -„ was that subject, so much dwelt upot opression ' nay, more, the boast of Britons, the pride :,1 bud as held up as every thing in Irel sustainment, the ornament and the prop of the constit to; y its advocates - in the English Parliame all that we hold valuable and dear, the trial by jury, is p Jects were known to be in contemplation an end. (Loud cheers.) Good God ! is it Lord Grey, , jus. op tall on Parliament to give all the power it from the triumph of reform, who recommends this . 0• vent such a dismemberment of the united there is, there must be, some superior spirit of dominahe act of the Restoration Parliament in 1688, the cabinet, who exercises a fatal ascendancy, and is t .Corpus Act to prevent the separation of t genius of Ireland. Earl Grey had declared misgovernirr et question less important now when an parent of Ireland's evils, which were made the pretext not separate the two countries, to confiscate a ing away from her the very sem bl ance o f liberty. Is _ri Ireland, to overturn the Protestant gown true? is there one Irishman in the government of 1 e It and to substitute in its place some kind ( Is there a member of this house representing a place in 1 A -lament in which the hon. and learned who is a member of the government? Not one. Not o i link exists between the people and their rulers. Look Would become the leader or chief—(loud Secretary, who, before a committee of the house acknow c • 11 had several of "no, no")—and in which his ignorance of Ireland. How did he defend himself .0 Would no doubt play a very conspicuous i ha which it would be impossible to adyam day ? g Did he answer why there were twenty-six stip! magistrates, and all Protestant? How two chief judges . p i volving the two countries in a war that destruction of one or the other, arid in ;° such a degree as, to involve the final 11 own nomination are above his influence ? and why he destruction t the Cloninell jury ? He asserted that the crown had t kt was therefore that he called on parl thirty-six Catholics, and empanelled three juries, with A , Permanence of the union. Protestants in one, and eleven Protestants in each of the ‘ wig` alr. EWART said that he should hesita two. (Loud cries of " Hear.") Is this consistent t e 0 /3011 t to give, if he had'not the assuram principles professed by Lord Brougham, when he 1) 0 n; . rese i j 3 nesters that strong remedial measures v petition of the Irish Catholics, detailing enormities of ta o • ; 'nye legislation for Ireland. When he and when he denounced these detestable practices ? ti e el ( Aathorp) state this, his confidence_ in II wonder that Ireland is in combustion ? The speech depr. c w as -unabated. What were coercive ei civil war, at its outset, in Portugal.. Englishmen, do n° 1 - 1 the feelings and the eonfiaence of elf, fine your sympathies to your allies. We are your counto...„ e rertv to be carried into execntion ? In our blood is precious as any which can be shed upon a t t Paw • • ht gain a battle, but y( i t y, .er ; youme, me, shore • save, save us in the name of justice, of human . a ,,„ 4 „ r the vanquished wt a -- varY,• the defeat 0- of the' obligations which you once conferred upon us, by , csa a - --- -r - - r_Avart) was not on y satisfied l of and timely redress of our insupportable grievances, fr e chn o AL -- -sa that, all further change . should. be a which wilt be worse than civil, and to which the hoard_d eu . , i m ai ntain d - 0 detail only. You. cannot t itii of centuries, and the rancours of religious hatred, will I the decide r a Small minority agains infernal and horrible contribution. (Cheers.) we' ' He recollected na I. Y• (Hear hear.) Mr. CHARLES GRANT very much admired Mr. She.' . relief • 'some shailaw'Po alluded t ° l• 'hill was passed, lie never (pence, • and his dexterity still more. He had allu e Would be a final measure. Macaulay's speech at the outset of his own, but had cane measure,religious the principle of re, while The ' to ' st do the old tor] abstained from grappling with its arguments. before the house was the Repeal of the Union with t e say, that they maintained that, if you The members opposite were anxious to deviate from it, e °0 f urther, So it had baOie7 d; so it viol they were unable to cope with the arguments of the me you amended only in detail and left Leeds. With regard to the speech delivered thirty , , t , s' itt the i real source f -o evil, unaltere. d and u tui , by Lord Grey—Did any man suppose that a measure . _ ..1 1 other of great ,moment . n the tu contenir snort!.lie was happy to be ()rimed thirty years ago, when it was only afte , refer. . infer and might not be as justly eulogized thirty years -F(ast.india Compan)'s charter, that e when experience had given proof of its beneficialtend o to our eastern commerce. He was What was all government—what was all the constitution} ountry—if, alter an even had been successfully acco V'