The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-18 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL CONVENTION.
( YESTERDAY.)

Mr. B

O'BRIEN, Delegate for the metropolitan dis-
tricts, and the Is!e of Wight, in the chair.
Mr. LOVETT reported the correspondence. A letter
from Bolton stated that Mr. Wood, the member for Bolton,
had left the Convention, and did not intend again to take
his seat till after the petition had been presented ; the
Working Men's Association bad, therefore, thought proper
to elect another member in his place.
Mr WsaDEN, the new member, was then introduced, and
on the motion of a Mr. F. O'Connor, de name of Mr.
Wood was struck out of the journals, and that of Mr.
Warden inserted.

Mr. NEESOM handed in 1/. rent, from the Charter So-
ciety holding its meetings at the Barnsbury Castle, Is-
lington.

Mr. PITK
EITIILE7 reported a letter from Chesterfield of
a cheering description. The people there had formed a
Charter Association, had passed resolutions in favour of the
Convention, and desired to know how they might remit the
rent.

On the motion of Mr. O'CONNOR the people of New-
castle were allowed to spend W. snore' of the money in their
hands in agitating their district, it being represented that
the former vote of Si. was not enough.
All the Members who had notices on the paper having
given way,
Mr.
.WHITTLE rose to move " That it appears to this
Convention, both from the terms of Lord John Russell's
motion in approval of the present system of governing Ire-
land, and his arguments in support of it, that the motion
he has made, not only for the factious purpose of retain-
ing the present Ministers in office unfettered by any
pledges for the benefit of either Great Britain and Ire-
land, but with the insidious intention of giving that Mi-
nistry indirectly the sanction of the House of Commons in
further aggressions upon liberty in England; and that this
Convention will consider_ as utterly unworthy of public
confideace, and treacherous to the principles he pro-
fesses, any Membd ofithe.,House of Commons who,
professing himself even in the most limited sense
a Reformer, shall give his assent to the motion of
Lord John." He had not asked the other itlembOrs to put
off their motions, and therefore he need not apolo-
gise for it, other Members thought his motion of impnr_
tance at the present moment, and therefore he would at
once proceed. The constitution of the present I-louse of
Commons was so essentially bad that motions were brought
forward which involved the whole attention of the Members
in a matter which did not at all, concern the public inter-
ests. However, he was aniious to assure all those
who had got into Parliament upon professions of
liberality, that their constituents were alive to
all their tricks, and would visit them with punishment
if they were found for party purposes swerving from their
professions. The case had been well put in a letter which
had been published under the signature of Mr. Swynfen
Jervis, yet he was assured that all the members calling
themselves Liberals were intending to vote for Lord John
Russell's factious motion, and amongst them he was assured

was Mr. S. Jervis, notwithstanding the manner in which

described the vote Its was prepared to give. It was,
in fact, a resolution to give a vote in favour of the
general policy of the Government. Any one member
professing Liberal opinions who fell into the trap, was vio-
lating his engagements with his constituents and voting
against his conscience. It was evident, from what fell
from Lord John Russell, that he wanted to gain by a side-
wind fresh power to put down the Convention. He asked
for a vote, approving of the manner in which the Executive
Government of Ireland had been conducted. But they were
to bear in mind, that the Noble Lord approved of the Coercion
Bill and called upon the House to do so too. He called upon
the House of Commons to approve of the Arms Bill,
which had been smuggled through Parliament last Ses-
sion, according to the terms of which no 1 erten was
allowed to keep arms without a license, which might be
taken away at the will or whim of any Justice ; no person
was allowed to sell powder without making a monthly re-
turn of the sales they made, and according to the same
Act no person could carry on the trade of a blacksmith
without a license, in case, he supposed, that he might be
induced to engage in the manufacture of pikes. He did
not think that the Noble Marquis of Normanby deserved
so much praise as he had got for purifying the Magis-
tracy. He had done something, but he had not done any-
thing like so much as was in his power.
Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR, in rising to move an amend-
ment to Mr. Whittle's motion, wished to remind the Con-
vention of the resolution passed on the Bth of April list,
when the same subject was brought under discussion. Mr.
Rogers then proposed a resolution to the effect that the
Convention would take nv,_ part in the present crisis, in the
factious contest for place and power between the tyrannical
plundering Whigs and the tyrannical plundering Tories.
—( Hear, hear.) He should therefore move as an amend-
ment on Mr. Whittle's motion " That this Convention
sees no reason to induce it to rescind the resolu-
tion of Mr. Rogers, unanimously passed on the Bth of
April, and that the adoption of Mr. \Vitiate's motion
would have the tendency of producing that effect. That
the Convention does not recognise the House of Commons
as at present constituted as a constitutional representation
of the people, and would therefore consider any attempt
to aid either Whig or Tory, in the present struggle for
usurpation, as a violation of that trust which has been com-
mitted to this Convention." He agreed with Mr. Whittle
in his remarks as to the'may grievances which the Whigs
had inflicted upon Ireland—in hiertimarks on the compre-
hensive terms of Lord John Russell's motion, and also that
the question really at issue could not be fairly dis-
cussed upon that motion, because the real question
at issue was the trial of the Marquis of Normanby
for the manner in which he had carried 'on the Exe-
cutive Government. Lord John Russell asked the

sanction of the House to every measure of the administra:
tion of the Whigs in Ireland. If he had introduced the
Coercion Bill, there was no reason why the people should

. .
pass over Tory usurpation.—( Hear, bear.) Mr. Whittle
had quoted largely from Lord John Russell's speech. but
he had forgotten to quote a word from Sir Robert Peel's
malicious reply. Although Sir Robert affnted to dread a
collision between the two Houses, he knew that ho had pro-
voked it ; and his object was not to destroy the House of
Commons, but to place it in abeyance to the llouse of
Lords. Moreover Sir Robert Peel stated that too much

justice had been done to the Irish people—he
accused the Whigs of too much lenity.—(llear,
hear, hear.) Mr. Whittle must know, that the Tories

as well as the Whigs joined in the Coercion Bill, and that
Lad Normanby, although he found that law on the statute
book, yet failed to bring it into operation—in no one in-
stance had he brought it into operation. If acts of atro-
city had been committed, they were not so frequent
under the Administration of Lord Normanhy, as under
former Lords Lieutenant, and the House of Commons
had lost sight of the real question. The \Vhigs
had sought to gain credit for the entire administra-
tion of efaiis in Ireland; the Tories had tailc.cl to say a
word against Lord Norma• nby on which he .cou'ld be'con-
victed, while they endeavoured to convict the Whigs of
they
transactions in which had themselves aided and
abatted.—( Hear, hear.) Suppose Mr.
he
Fielden should bes
inclined, as he most probablywould
the motion of Lord John Russell,
was it' to vote against
the to look
n
to the Convention for protection for al character which stood
above all reproach? If he voted against the motion, Le
would have discharged his duty as a man. He had
no objection that the Tories should beat the Whigs ; but
he had a great objection that either by the neutrality of
this Convention or its assent,. the country should
imagine they had aided in bringing the Tories into
power. If the Whigs voted ,!or The Coercion Bill, the
Tories did the same, and if t hey sbauld be restored to
power to-morrow, they would not allow it to remain a
dead letter. If the Tories beat: the Whigs, let them re-
ceive office with a halter round their necks,affording even
let them
m
not imagine that the Conventi on, by even the
smallest support, was favourabl oi to their Government.
This was no-ta question in which "the Convention ought to
interfere. If they did not acknowledge the Members of
the House of Commons to he the representatives of the
people, how could they expect: a fair vote from it ?
He had, as he said before, no objection to the
Tories beating the Whigs, pn avidcd that neither
the people nor the Convention would either by
word or deed aid them in so (loin Z. He did not care
which party got the ascendancy, 'outihe objected to lending
their The
the name of the Convention to rlace the Tory faction in
the ascendant.—( Hear, hear.) I le knew their power,
rule, and had tasted bitterly of th ieir cup of poison.
question ought to be not whethe r Lord Norrnanby's Go-
vernment had been entirely pure, but whether it had been
better than that of other Lords L 'lieutenant, and whether it
had been discharged as well as it tn,:ght have been by the
Noble Lord. Mr. O'Connor co. 3c, tuded by moving his
amendment.
Mr. DUNCAN, concurring in all tj e remarks which had
fallen from Mr. O'Connor, cordially seconded the amend-
ment.
Mr ROGERS said he had heard Mr. Whittle's remarks
with a great deal of pleasure, and went beyond him in
many respects. If he were a Ma mber of the House of
Commons, he should have no objet t on to vote against the
Whigs, in order to relieve the c ou utry from their rule.
But as a Member of the Conventh m, it was his duty to do
his best to advance its objects, and he trustedit
whowou were
interfere in the disputes between t he wo parties
now contending for power.... Chia former occasion
the Convention came to a resoluti an that the Whigs were
not to expect any assistance ; that i 'esolution proclaimed the
line which the country ought to take. That was the
course which ought to be taken Os.'
motion without
the present occasion,
hr.) and they could not adopt TVI
acting in the most inconsistent ma 211 uear, ea
nhcoe dint
the Dublin
v Convention
Mr. DEEGAN said that thehemdee; non
cheer Mr. O'Connell when
as vagabonds, did not deserve they pport or co-operation
of the people of England. It.ww not the duty of the
people to interfere in the strufal‘n le rhich was now going
on. There might have been soul( amelioration in the
Government of Ireland during the a dministration of Lord
Normanhy, but there had not been a general improvement
in the great body of the people, who h ad to toil for the neces-
saries of life and the aggrandisemen tof the higher classes
of society. The present Governmet it, therefore, deserved
no support in that respect. The• teiti act of the Convention
was to obtain Universal Suffrage. If Lord John Russell
should carry his resolution would :" he give that measure?
No; and therefore he protested it gainst any vote which
might imply an expression of con. it 'once in the Ministry.
Mr. CLEAVE could not vote for tl ,e amendment without
returning his thanks to Mr. O'C, ant or for the manner in
which he had brought the subj jet . forward, and for not
having entered into anything c,f a
ti t the people p. etrsonalneaptle of
nature. lle
could not agree with Mr. De egan h
Ire-
land had no claim to our sym
.path,--1 ) The Hear, hear

A