Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-08 00:00:00

THE LONDON COALWHIPPERS.

Lord KINNAIRD moved that the Coalwhippers Bid be
referred to a Select Committee, under the standing order
respecting the bills for regulating trade.
The motion was opposed by Lord STANLEY of AL.
bERLEY, on the ground that the measure was a private
One.
After some discussion, their lordthips divided—
For the motion
Against it

Majority

and made Ireland a dependent, not upon her
own exertions, but upon the Government. Bat
let them lo k at the cost of this tinsel monarch. He
believed that the court at Dublin cost the government of
this country not less than £lOO,OOO a-year. Ireland was
within 11 hours communication with London, and he
wished the distinction between an Irishman and an
Englishman should be abolished. He wished Cork to be
like Ya.k. The argument that Ireland was too far off to
be governed by the government of England was absurd,
for the same argument would apply to the government
of Scotland. Two acts injurious to Ireland had been passed
—the Coercion Bill and the Ecclesiastical Titles' Bill—
which, when they found a clergyman assuming the title of
Bishop of 'ream, they had not dared to enforce. The
meaning of the previous question was, that the time which
he had chosen for bringing forward the motion was not
propi ions. But Ireland was now in a flourishing state.
There was no popular agitation ; and he contended, there-
fore, that the oppose ion failed in 1850, when the proposi-
tion was made, by Lord John Russell, to abolish the office
of lord lieutenant. the noble lord met with the support,
amongst others, of Mr. M. T. Baines, and Mr. P. Bouverie,
Lord E. Bruce, Mr. Cowper, Lord Duncan, Sir G. Grey,
Mr Hayter, 111 r. Keating, Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr. Monsell,
Llrd Mulgrave, Mr. Osborne, Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. Wilson,
Sir Charles Wood, and Lord Palmerston, and he called
upon those members to support his motion on that
occasion, and not avail themselves of the shallow pretence
of the previous question.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the resolution.

Mr. T. M. CCLLAGH .was at a loss, from the speech of
the hon. member for Sheffield, to know up )n what grounds
he based his rn,tion. His objections to the motion were
twofold. He did not think that that was the way to deal
with the subject, whatever might be its merits,
and he did not think the proper time had
been chosen for the agitation of the question.
He must 519.0 tell the hon. member that he did not consi-
der him the proper person to bring forward the question,
but that the measure upon such a subject should origicate
with the government. There were 120 statutes relating
exclusively to Ireland, and until the laws of the three
kingdoms were identical, he held that there could be no
identity of government. When he saw members willing
that acts of Parliament should apply equally to each of
the kingdoms, he should expect identity of leg;slation, and
the acc.impltshment of the dream of the member for
Sheffield. He did not wish to oppose the principle of the
motion, and he therefore moved the preview question.

Mr. Gitoo.iN opposed the motion on similar grounds.

Mr. WHITESIDE could not deny that the Govern-
ment of Ireland was in an unsatisfacrory state, and he
did not think that the isolated motion of the member for
Sheffield would remedy the defects.
Sir WM. SOMERVILLE supported Mr. Roebuck's motion,
and stated his conviction fhat the anomaly of the Lord
Lieutenancy could not exist much longer. With regard
to ab,enteei,m, he believed that the Secretary for the
Treasury could do more by improving the communication
between the two countries towards the abolition than had
been done by Lords Lieutenant.

Mr. VANCE considered that Mr. Roebuck had failed to
show any ground for the abJlition of an offile which had
existed since the year 1,100. He asked if the Huuse be
prepared to give compensation to Dublin for the abolition
of the Vice- hoyalty, as suggested by Sir R. Peel. He
urged Parliament not to take a step that which the repeal
of act of Union could not produce greater exasperation
amongst the people of Ireland.

Mr. BAGWELL observed that Ireland was swindled out
of her rights at the time of the Union, and urged the
House roc to interfere ,n the matter of the Lord Lieuten-
ancy till some change was wished for by the people of
Ireland.