The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-16 00:00:00

up by Lord Somers, and was read over and submitted to the
critical consideration of a number of the Lords, of whom I had
the honor to be one. The address with the other papers was
published by the Lord,, and made a great impression upon the
body of the nation, and very unfavourable contoasts were
drawn between the conduct of the House of Lords and House
of Commons."—(Cheers and laughter.) Now this was the
Scottish case of 1703, and these were the reasons urged on the
part of the House of Commons for questioning the undoubted

privileges of the house of Lords, and seeking a collision which
was perfectly unjustifiable.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord might
perhaps say, whatever may be the terms of the motion, the
manner in which that motion was brought for sard in the House

of Lord 3 indieitcs an intention on the part of our political pppo-
flouts of gaining a covert and unfair advantage over us. Now,

Sir, as fal: as I am concerned, I utterly deny that such an in-
tention was ever for one moment entertained by me, and I do

not believe that any one in the appointment of that
had any other object in view than instituting a fair and im-
partial inquiry into the state of crime in Ireland.—(Cheers.)
Nothing could equal the surprise I felt when I was informed of
the importance that had been attached to it. That her Ma-
jesty's Ministers had abandoned their situations because the

House of Lords had determined to institute an inquiry into
the state of crime in Ireland I must confess that I was ex-

tremely astonished when I was informed, on the following
morning, that hPr Majesty's Ministers had resigned, berause,
in consequence of a vote of the House of Lords which they had
chosen to construe into a vote of censure. The first thing
I did was to call on the Duke of Wellington to
inquire if he had heard any thing of these reports,
and I was informed that the Duke of Wellington had left town
that morning for Hampshire. I then called on my Noble
Friend, and the answer I received to my inquiries was, that my
Noble Friend had set out for Lancashire. Now, I put it to
the House if it is probable, had we expected such a result, that
the Duke of Wellington and my Noble Friend would have left
town? I think I need say no more; but let this fact show
that, at any rate, there was no deliberate intention on the part
of those with whom I act, to gain any covert and secret advan-
tage over our political opponents by thevote elsewhere. I firmly
believe that all that was intended by the proposers of that
Committee was the institution of a fair and impartial inquiry,
and thlt there never existed any intention of creating by that
enquiry any prejudice whatever. But no doubt the Noble Lord
calculated upon produeiug a prodigious effectas to the unfairness of
that Committee, by observing that Lord Roden, when he proposed
that Committee had constituted it in unfair proportions, by pr?-

posing 13 Members of his own political opiniOns, and tie only
who entertained those of his opponents. This declaration has
doubtless created a great sensation on the part of all those
who sit behind the Noble Lord, as
_to the unfair intention

of a V Committee thus appointed. I do not know exactly
how the Noble Lord makes out his five Members,
because 13 and 5 do not constitute the members of the Comi

mittee actually appointed ; but I will read to the (louse ten of
the naraes proposed to be on the Committee as originally ap-
pointed, and I cannot compliment the Noble Lord on his far-
seeir, powers, because on this occasion, instead of seeing
double, his vision possessed the power of diminishing by one-
half the number of Membe,s so proposed. I will read the
names, and the House will perceive that these Noble Lords in
general are favourable to the political opinions of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers. The ten Members originally proposed were
Lord Plunkett, Lord Cloncurry, Lord Glenelg, Lord Ilather-
ton, Lord Carew, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Duncannon, Lord
_

Normanby, LwdGosford, and the Duke of Leinster. It may
be disputed that this Committee is not fair, because there are
twelve names on the other side, but do not leave the House to

imag;ne that the disproportion was so great as thirteen to five.
I set out by attempting to establish two propositions, first, that
a partial declaration of confidence in any Government can only
be warranted oa some extraordinary occasion; and, secondly,
that no such extraordinary occasion exists in the present instance,
and that any collision with the House of Lords on these grounds
would be an unjust interference in their undoubted privileges.
I know that if I left the case here, I might be charged with
concealing my opinions respecting the Government of Ireland.
It might be said you rest your objection on constitutional
grounds, but you shrink from letting your opinions on the Go-
vernment of Ireland be known . 1 consider that I might call for
the support of those on this question who approve of the general
Ministerial policy respecting Ireland, and who would not
object to a collision with the House of Lords and this House,
taut who think that this is not the occasion for provoking such a
collision—they might agree with me on this point, although
they do not agree with me on other subjects, and it is because
they do not agree with me on other subjects, that I am deter-
mined to conceal nothing, but will show when the time comes
the reason why I cannot say aye to the motion of the Noble
Lord. The Noble Lord may say that I had the power to leave
the House without voting, when the motion is brou4ht forward
but I will not leave the House without voting, and when the
Noble Lord's motion is put I shall not only say no to that mo-
tion, but state the reasons on which I dissent from it. The
Noble Lord asks me to give my assent to the principles which
have guided the Executive Government of Ireland of late
years, and I will state the grounds on which I must say no.
I am asked to approve of this policy, and also to affirm
that it has tended to strengthen the administration of the
law, and to the general improvement of the empire.
But have the House of Commons considered what the effects of
that particular policy may be upon the United Kingdom? In
the firs: place I must consider the policy of my Lord Normanby.
With respect to Lord Normanby and the Noble Lord opposite,
I can truly state that nothing is more painful to my feelings than
to say anything which can be construed as disrespectful to those
Noble Lords. I have known Lord Normanby almost all my
political life, and 1 can assure that Noble Lord,
though perhaps I may not be privileged to call
him my friend, that no o.te rejoices more in the mature deve-
lopment of those great powers he possesses than I do, and that
Noble Lord, as well as Lord Glenelg, has not only shown great
eloquence in debate, but has conciliated as much as, in the pre-
sent conflicting state of parties, is possible, the esteem of his
political opponents. But I will state the grounds why I cannot
approve of his policy. I wish the Noble Lord had defined his
principles. He asks for an approval of the principles noon
which the Government of Ireland has been conducted, but he

does not state what those principles are. I consider
that, in the first place, and it is almost an insult to be called
upon to make such a statement, a perfect and impartial admi-
nistration of justice should take place throughout Ireland ; the
withholding of which is the withholding of that to which every
subject is entitled, justice impartially administered, without re-
spect to persons. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy
ought to be governed by the same principles as the administra-
tion of justice. It ought to be exerc sed as a strictly judicial act,
and all considerations of personal favour—all considerations of
party po.itics—all considerations of public display ought utterly
to be disregarded in dealing with the prerogative of mercy
Sir, I say this also, that, as the law has declared the civil
equality of all classes in Ireland, without reference to religious
opinion, I think the Crown ought not by the exercise of its
prerogative to create practically that which the law has put
aside. Of course, I agree entirely with the principle laid
down by the Noble Lord, that those who share with you in
your political opinions are, and ought to be, entitled to a pre-
ference in the distribution of your patronage. That is what I
omplain of, because when I was in office and have acted u,,on
that principle it was charged against me that, by so doing, I
was giving encouragement to Orange domination. You won't
give me the benefit of the rule which you contend f-r
yourselves. I have never taunted the Noble Lerd with the
selection of Roman Catholics for office or of advancing his
friends. I have taunted him, because of the encouragement I

considered he gave to dangerous associations, by theadvance-
ment to office of members of associations which certainly are
dangerous to the peace of the country. (Loud cheers.)
Therefore, I say that religious opinion ought to be no disquali-
fication ; but I accompany that, by saying that the persons
selected for office should be of the same general politics as the
Government, and not members of a dangerous association.—
( Cheers.) I say, Sir, that I cordially agree with the resolu-
tion of 1836, to which I subscribed, for the putting down of
Orange societies. I care not for names, but I adhere to that
resolution which declared that it was advisable to put down all
societies having secret oaths, and of a dangerous tendency. I
go further, and I say that my opinion is that the Crown ought
to discourage, not merely by the interposition of the law—
but by the expression of its opinion it ought to discourage—all
processions, and all manifestations of party feeling, which can
be wounding to the feelings of any portion of the people.--
(Cheers.) I contend, however, that the Government ought to
act with perfect impartiality.--(lmmense cheering.) While I
agree to the resolution of 1536, I beg leave also to say that I
agree also most cordially in the address which at the instance of
the Noble Lord and his friends, I had the honour of presenting
to his late Majesty. I am for discouraging Orange Societies,
but lam also concurring in the address of 1834. I take both
the propositions, and I think that those who discourage Orange
Societies are bound also to discourage other associations, which,
though they have no secret symbols, still excite snitch apprehen-
sion which tends to keep alive the opinion, that physical force
must eventually be resorted to. I speak not of coercion laws,
or of insurrection Acts ; I speak of the interposition of the au-
thority of the Government, by the manifestation of its opinion
in the distribution of its patronage, and by the impartial
exercise, of its authority.—(Loud cheers,) If it was right
that his Honourable and Gallant Friend behind him
(Colonel Verner) should have been dissmissed from
the commission of the peace in consequence of giving a par-
ticular toast, upon the same principle many appointments that
had been made ought not to be made ; and if the Government
had acted with impartiality, many similar visitations would
have been had.—(Loud cheers.) Entertaining this opinion, I
cannot conceal from the House that the maintenance of the
Established Church, as the Church of Ireland, is most essen-
tial. I apprehend that the Noble Lord comes to the same con-
clusion as myself, that consistently with all the guarantees
given by the Act of Union, and by the Catholic Emancipation
Bill, I apprehend that the Noble Lord will not withhold his
assent to the proposition, that the Church must be maintained.
Now, Sir, I have not shrunk from declaring what I think
ought to be the principle upon which Ireland ought to bo
governed. If the hope of power was to actua'e me, and I was
to find that the Church must be trenched upon--because that I
wished to maintain the Church—if I were compelled to sacri-
fice one iota of it—l am content to abandon every hope of power.
But I will tell the Noble Lord why I must withhold my
assent from his resolution. Sir, I propose no vote of censure,
I merely propose an inquiry. lam wiling that the whole of
my official acts shall be open to the same rigid inquiry. I can-
not withhold my assent from all the acts of Lord Normanby.
I think that great praise is due to the Noble Lord and his Go-
vernment for the administration of their ecclesiastical pa-
tronage. I think that that administration of their patronage
redounds much to the honour of the Government. This is
the ground upon which I withhold my assent from the resolu-
tion. I don't think you have acted with impartiality.—
( Loud and continued cheering.) I don't think you have
effectually discouraged illegal and dangerous Associations
by withholding your patronage from the Members of such as-
sociations. In the first place, I cannot say that the conduct of
Lord Normanby in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy,
was such as entitles him to the confidence of this House.
don't accuse him of corruption, but he remitted judicial
sentences, without consulting the judges who had tried
the prisoners. I, for one, cannot vote that this
tended to the effectual administration of the law. The
number is not, in my opinion, of importance. One single
remission under improper circumstances, might paralyse the
whole justice of the country. The Noble Lord boasted that
though 120 prisoners had been discharged, the amount of pu-
nishment remitted amounts to only 145 months' imprisonment.
Now, Sir, that reminds me very much of the story of the two
men, who, having nine miles to walk, consoled themselves with
the idea that it was only four and a half miles a piece.
It is the public impression that is created—the travelling
through the country and making it appear that the remission
of crime is a sort of ornament to a Lord Lieutenant's progress.
There may be no had intention in it, but I cannot help think-
ing it is most injudicious, I will read from a paper favourable
to the Government, an account of the entry of the Lord Lieu-
tenant into Sligo. The number of persons turned out of
gaol may have been small, the offences light, and the term
of imprisonment long ; but in such a country as Ireland, with
such impressions as you have created with respect to law and
justice, I ask you, when you desire me to Tote approbation of
your conduct, whether it is possible. far the to approve of the
indiscriminate exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The Right
Baronet then read an extract front an Irish paper, stating
that Lord Mulgrave was followed by at least 40,000 persons ;
that on his Excellency's arrival at the Court-house, he found
the door shut.—(Laughter.) " The people, however, soon
burst open the gates, and peasessed themselves of the Court-
house. Much to their gredit, they behaved themselves as
th(411111 Ole tilldges were there. Lord Mulgrave then pro-
eed.ed tq the gaol, when he Lbeeated some of the
prisoners fqy minor offences,"—( Hear, hear, hear, and a
I'3loo Now, however good the intention may have
been, yet I cannot say that is the mode m which the
administration of the law is to be promoted by the exercise of