The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-23 00:00:00

his Noble Friend's former colleagues. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had next attacked him, and had asked him to fulfil
the compact be had made with the people of Ireland, in the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Let them see the exact nature of
the claim, and of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's argument.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman contends that we are bound
by that Bill to apply the same measure of Municipal Reform
to Ireland as to England. Now, in the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill he could find no such compact expressed or
implied ; he could only find that by that Bill was secured
the equal elegibility of Roman Catholics and Protestants
to civil rights, and offices of preferment ; and that this
compact had been substantively fulfilled who could doubt ?
—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had reminded him
of .a speech he had delivered in that House in 1831, in which
he had said that the Roman Catholics should not be any longer
exposed to the obloquy of ineligibility to civil employments,
and that with respect to Corporations, this Bill would have the
effect of admitting Roman Catholics in just and fair propor-
tion with Protestants. That was the compact ; but there was
no compact that the municipal institutions of Ireland should be
framed on the same model as those of this country. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had relied on the Roman Ca-
tholic Relief Bill as a contract, the terms of which they were
bound to fulfil. But did he not consider the Act of Union
a solemn compact ? The inference that must be drawn from
the general context of that Act supposed, implied, and evidently
understood, that the protection of equal laws should be extended
to Ireland ; but there was no clause on which such a construc-
tion could be put as to guarantee the existence and reform of
municipal institutions. He could find in either Act no such
clause, no such guarantee ; in the search which the Hon.
Gentleman had made through the Act there was, however, one
clause that apparently had not struck his eye. That clause
did indeed contain a most explicit guarantee. He begged to
call the attention of the Pion. and Learned Gentleman and of the
[louse to the sth article of the Act of the Union, which was to
the effect that the Churches of England and of Ireland as now
existing should be united into one Protestant Episcopal
Church, which should be and remain in full force for ever. Now
would the lieu. and Learned Gentleman opposite allow him to
remind him of his own words ? Would he allow him to ask
whether or no it was the uniform declaration of the Roman
Catholics, expressed in every petition, in every declaration—
did they not lead the minds of the Protestants of England to
this conclusion, that the restoration of political equality was
perfectly consistent with the maintenance of the Established
Church—not only that, but that the maintenance of the Esta-
blished Church, as the religion of the State, was perfectly con-
sistent with the rights and privileges they sought? Did not
the lion. and Learned Gentleman lead them to believe that,
emancipation being granted, all causes of discontent would
cease, and that agitation would cease too—that neither the
question of tithes, nor the existence of the union, was able
powerfully or personally to excite the minds of the people of
Ireland, but that at that time the sense of individual injustice
and national disgrace combined together to make them seek
emancipation ? That privilege had been conferred, and that
cause of complaint had been destroyed, and not only had that
eligibility been conferred, but the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman had that night boasted of the advancement of
Roman Catholics to trust, power, and influence.—( Hear. )
Not only then had the sense of injustice been removed, but
practical equality now existed. Would the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman now allow him to ask if the present
condition of the clergy of Ireland were consistent with those
professions? Was it consistent with that compact that that
religion should no longer exist, but that now the voluntary
principle was called for ?—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord had
made some reference to the part he took in the Catholic eman-
cipation. If the Noble Lord did justice to a political oppo-
nent, he would acknowledge that in 1829, when he came for-
ward as the proposer of Catholic emancipation, he had the
courage to differ from his party and supporters, and he was
proud to refer those who were so prodigal of taunts to the cir-
cumstance of his being again united with that party. He had
already had occasion to state the part which he took, in con-
currence with the Duke of Wellington, and in entire concur..
rence with his Noble Friend Lord Lyndhurst, on the subject
of the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities. On the
close of the session of 1828 they each of them, after a separate
consideration of the question, came to the same conclusion.
At that period, having experienced a renewed defeat on the
question of the Catholic claims in the House of Commons,
having taken into consideration the various indications of
public opinion, and—he would not deny it—the result of the
Clare election—seeing the division in the public mind in
England and Ireland on that question, and the impossibi-
lity of forming an united Government, he certainly did come
to the conclusion, not that those claims were founded in
abstract right, but that, upon the whole, it would be bet-
ter for the Protestant Establishment in Ireland to concede
than to resist them. But he had stated before, and he
now repeated, that when he gave his advice, in conformity
with that opinion, he gave it under the full impression that he
might have been permitted to retire, and support in a private
station the removal of the Catholic disabilities.—( Hear.) The
reason he remained in office, and as a Minister proposed the
removal of those disabilities, was simply this—that it was
brought home to his mind by the force of demonstration, that
unless he remained in office, and unless he consented to brave
the storms of calumny (and it was not from arrogance or pre-
sumption that he said this, but simply because it was consistent
with the truth), the Catholic disabilities would not have been
removed.—( Hear.) An erroneous construction had been put
of something which had fallen from him, and it had been in-
ferred that he had been out of of from an unwillingness to
redeem the pledge he had given to his Noble Friends with
respect to the Catholic question ; and that a difference of
opinion had existed between them. Such was not the case ;
for, having come to the conclusion of the expediency of
conceding the Catholic claims, and having given notice of
his intention to bring forward a measure on that subject,
he never once thought of shrinking from the performance
of that task.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) But the Noble Lord
opposite, while admitting that his conduct on that occa-
sion was free from the suspicion of interested motives, asked
why he (Sir R. Peel) did not take the same course with re-
gard to the Catholic question in 1825 and in 1827 as he
had done in 1829 ; and how it happened that at that latter
period an entirely new light broke in upon his mind? Now,
he ( Sir R. Peel) declared that he for one never professed to
entertain in 1829 the sanguine expectations which others en-
tertained with regard to the effect which would be produced by
the removal of th Catholic disabilities.—( Hear.) He had his
misgivings—nay, looking to the state of Ireland, he enter-
tained great doubts whether the removal of those disabilities
would restore peace, and afford full security for the Protestant
Establishment in that country. But in 1829 he made up his
mind upon a consideration of what ought always to have in-
fluence over every Statesman, upon a comparison of the evils
snt
ad o
Tel t
oh
fe
anyw'h o
new
colvi e
lcigamhte,
that the Catholic claims
ht—he came, he repeated,
latavonneddrtehdlNen,aitt:icgtl ooenfuroctsul uleclsxdbiieoasdnnt ig—oningnwga-ointnhyhobiasoabttshottrphsaiieendtieaorssn:gs
to the conclusion that those claims ought to be conceded, and,
that if conceded, the concession ought to be full, frank, and
generous. —( Hear.) The Noble Lord opposite asked why he
had not taken the same course at an earlier period? The same
question might be put to many other public men. Would
the Noble Lord have the goodness to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Foreign Department—( Hear, hear)
—why
he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to
Reform ?—(
Hear.)—Would the Noble Lord opposite inquire
of the head of the present Administration—_( Cheers)—why he,
too, had not been an earlier convert toßeform ?—( Hear, hear.)
—lf it were blindness in him ( Sir R. Peel) not to foresee in
1825 the necessity of granting or conceding the Catholic
Claims, was not Lord Melbourne, then, blind in 1826, when
he made the most vigorous opposition to all reform, even to the
transfer of the representatives from Penryn to Manchester?—
(Cheers. )—Nay, even the leader of the House of Commons
could not escape the searchieg question of the Noble Lord his
colleague.—(hear, hear. )—Had a prophetic vision of what
was now passing appeared to the Noble Lord tome ten years
00, he ( Sir. R. Peel) doubted whether any eulogium on
ld Sarum, or any declamation on the necessity of preserving,
Aladdin's lamp, and cherishing the vestal flame, would ever
have proceeded from the pen of the Noble leader of that
House.—( Hear. )-11e. feared danger to the Protestant Esta-
blishment. Had he been entirely wrong ? Yet if he had now
to act over again the part which lie on that occasion took, he
would retract nothing that he had then done. But had he no
reason to relinquish all the fears which he might once have
entertained of the danger of conceding the Catholic claims ?
Did he not find that all the public men who appeared as the
advocates of the Roman Catholics—all, without exceptions,
made two declarations—first, that they considered the mainte-
nance of the Established Church essential to time well-being
of Ireland, and to the maintenance of the connexion between,

the two countries ; and secondly, they gave the most positive
assurances that, the disabilities of the Roman Catholics being
removed, all fear of danger to the Established Church would
be removed ?—(Hear, hear.) Did not he find those decla-
rations solemnly recorded in the preamble of Mr. Grattan's
Act, by which it was proposed to remove the Catholic dis-
abilities ? The preamble of that Act declared that " The
Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and its doctrine
and government, were permanently established, and that it
would promote the interest of the same, and strengthen our
free Constitution, of which they formed an essential part, if
the disqualifications under which the Roman Catholics
laboured were removed." Had he not heard Mr. Grattan
declare that he thought the removal of the Catholic disquali-
fications consistent with the preservation of the Protestant
Establishment, the maintenance of which he considered es-
sential to the peace of Ireland ? Did he not find it written
in that paper, which that eloquent individual called a testa-
mentary bequest to his country, that the Protestant Esta-
blishment should be maintained inviolate ? Did not Mr.
Canning, Lord Castlereagh, and every advocate of Catholic
relief, attempt to banish all fear with regard to the result of
the removal of the disabilities? When he (Sir R. Peel) had
at an earlier period than 1829 stated his apprehension that by
the passing of a Catholic Bill animosities would not be sub-
dued, that distractions would still continue, and that the sta-
bility of the Church would be endangered, how was he then
replied to by-Lord Plunket ? That Noble and Learned indi-
vidual stated " that the Catholics, finding the Protestant reli-
gion established by the same law y which their own lives and
property were protected, would not attempt to subvert it ; that
they would preserve the Protestant Establishment in an un-
impaired state, and would consider the possessions of the
Protestant Clergy as their absolute property."—( Hear.)
Such having been the universal language of the advocates
of the Roman Catholic claims, was it not rather strange
now to hear the declaration that religious freedom could not
exist in Ireland until the Protestant Establishment was de-
stroyed, and that municipal institutions were desirable in
order to supply a means of subverting that establishment?
—(Hear.) When he was asked to give his vote in favour
of the establishment of municipal institutions in Ireland, he
was bound to consider whether he should do right in placing
in the bands of the enemies of the Church those instruments of
offensive warfare.—(Hear, bear,) The lion. Member for

Liskeard said it was right to trust the lighting, paving, and
watching of the different towns in Ireland to local authorities.
Upon this point did any difference of opinion prevail between
him and the Hon. Member for Liskeard ?—( H ) Had the
Hon. Member read the 9th of George IV. ?—( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Member for Liskeard was also desirous for the
establishment of municipal institutions in Irelaqd, because he
said they would inculcate lessons of mutual forbearance and
concession. If it could be proved that such was likely to be
the result of the creation of corporations in Ireland, his ( Sir
R. Peel's) objections to the Ministerial proposition would in a
great measure be removed. But when he saw the maintenance
of political institutions, which all admitted to be perverted, was
insisted on, he then suspected that it was the object of the pro-
moters of the present proposition to get hold of political power
for their own benefit, and to exercise it through the instru-
mentality of those corrupt bodies, the existence of which was
so strenuously advocated, but to which he was opposed, be-
cause he believed they would continue be be perverted to
bad purposes.
•' Quo semel est imbuta recent, servabit odorem
Testa diu."
If the proposed municipal institutions would be beneficial to
Ireland, why should they not be extended to all the large towns
in England ? The truth was that Manchester and Birming-
ham, and the boroughs of Southwark, Westminster, Maryee-
bone, and Finsbury, were satisfied with their present condition,
and municipal institutions, such as Ministers proposed to give
to Ireland were not considered necessary by the inhabitants
of those places. In Ireland he did not think they would be
found, as the amiable simplicity of the Hon. Member for Lis-
keard supposed, conducive to mutual good will, concession, and
forbearance. It was much more likely they would be under
the control of that species of central government, the General
Association, and would constantly interfere with the elective
franchise ; and the result would be that the ascendancy of one
political party would be effected, while all confidence in the
Administration of justice by the local authorities would be des-
troyed. In support of his argument he might quote a
passage from the Report of the Commissioners appointed
to inquire into Muncipal Corporations. They stated that a
great number of Corporations had been preserved solely
as political engines, and that the towns to which they
belonged derived no benefit, but often much injury, from
their existence : to maintain the political influence of a family,
or the political ascendancy of a party, had been the sole end
and object for which the powers intrusted to a great number
of these bodies had been exercised. It appeared, then, that
the most flagrant abuses had arison from the perversion of the
municipal privileges to political purposes, and that the corpo-
rations not possessed of the Parliamentary franchise had most
faithfully performed their duty.—( Hear, hear.) Did the Hon.
Member for Bath consider the present position of the Church
in Ireland as no proof that a minority might be persecuted ?
( Hear, hear.) ilad the Hon. Gentleman read the history of
the French Revolution ? Were not the emigrants, were not
the Girondists persecuted—and were they not the minority ?
—( Hear, hear.) Did not the Hon. Member for Bath bear
in mind that the Government of Spain had confiscated the
property of General Alava, and that it had lately sent a
General into Andalusia with authority to proclaim that every
man who did not join him should be hanged—and was not
that persecution ?—( Ilear, hear.) Would it be right,
then, to establish the proposed municipal bodies in Ire-
land, the election of which would, in his opinion, be
influenced by pacificators appointed in every parish, and
acted upon by Roman Catholic priests ?—( Hear, hear.)
Pacification was, indeed, a noble object but he did not think
it most likely to follow from a transfer of authority from one
section in the state to another, and certainly he had serious
doubts whether it was conducive to religious peace, above all,
that the transfer should be from a minority to a majority.
He had been tauntingly reminded of the minority in which he
was in that House, but what was his minority compared to the
overwhelming importance of the' question before them ? The
Noble Lord had asked him, and with considerable anxiety too,
which was not to be wondered at, as the Noble Lord would soon
have to ask the question of himself, what his intentions or
designs were under the formidable circumstances which Ireland
presented. Yes, the Noble Lord would have to ask himsel

that puzzling question, when, with these municipal corpora-
tions in the foreground, he peered over the battlements of
the Church—(Cheers,)—alich he and his colleagues were
ashamed to abandon and afraid to defend. ( Loud and
continued cheering.) They pointed to thefAssociation, and
the) asked him how he proposed to meet the power which
was in open resistance to the Church, and which medi-
tated a violence as, open ? Who had made the Association
powerful—not he, but they. Now, he would say, that the
existence of that Association was fraught with importance to
the Church, for that Association had determined on its de-
struction, had resolved that in Ireland peace should not ensue
until that destruction was complete.—( Hear.) They were
persons fond of secret determinations as to the benefits they
might receive ; they never could be satisfied with what they
got ; they were always asking for more, and each new boon
was an instalment only, a fraction of some greater claim. This
was the way they had received the appropriation clause be-
stowed on them by that House, and this was the way in which
every thing else would be received. The Prime Minister had
declared that he disapproved of the Association, and thought
it ought to be discouraged--that was the declaration of a gen-
tleman, but the mode of discouragement was a singular one.
To discourage the Association they gave office to a gentleman
who had tried the 'prentice-hand in that Association—be-
cause he had graduated in the normal schools of agitation,
they thought him fit to become a Professor in Dublin
Castle—( Cheering)—they had actually created a vacancy
for him. If that were their mode of discouraging, to hint it
appeared anything but an efficacious one. They might
think to limit the evils by the plan they were pursuing, but
their turn would come next, their lukewarmness would
fail them. He knew that it was difficult, and ungracious,
perhaps, for a Government to exert it power to restrain, but
it should not lend its power to incite or goad on those who
were, or might become, disaffected ; if it were so lent, then
it was a perversion of power, and became a formidable encou-
ragement. He did complain of such conduct as unjust, un-
generous, and impolitic; it was unjust to discourage one spe-
cies of Association merely, and from another to take an, impor-
tent functionary, whose duties as a lawyer of the Crown ought
to be uninfluenced by the spirit of any Association; it was un-
generous to avail themselves of the loyalty of Orangemen, to
cajole them with praises of their love for their Sovereign and
deference to his commands, to confess that the law could not
reach them, and to obtain their ends from their good-will,
and then to turn round on them, and call them a miserable
monopolising minority—( Loud cheers)—it was impolitic, for
if a Government did not interfere to restrain, it at least should
not interpose to encourage. When did the principle of succes-
sive concessions, of constant compliances, cf a nervous horror
of refusals, ever succeed ? Never ; it was revolting to common
sense to suppose that it would. Such a system, if pursued in
private life, would be most injurious to society ; in official life
it was much worse, much more pernicious. Persons in official
life should recollect how great the interests were committed
to them, and they should never interpose their authority—no
matter what the direction of its exercise—to encourage, or to
do acts tending to encourage, any party or political sect what-
ever.—( Loud cheering for some time.)
Mr. O'CONNELL rose, and we regretted to observe ap-
peared still to be labouring under great indisposition. He
said he wished it were in his power to enter fully into the
subject, but the clock reminded him of the inexpediency of
doing so. He rose to bring back in the recollection of the
House who the claimants were in this case. The claimants,
then, were the Irish people, and they required equality of civil
rights. The Irish people were the claimants before a Legis-
lature which was not Irish, and they asked only for that
which an Irish Legislature would concede to them. :He stood
there a repealer ; he stood there us one convinced that the
Union should be repealed. He was, therefore, persuaded
that the period had not arrived, and he feared it never would
arrive, when a British legislature would be prepared to do
perfect justice to Ireland. Everything he had heard that night
and everything which he had witnessed, convinced hint the
more strongly that there was not the disposition on the
part of a great portion of that House, nor in another
place, as it was termed, to do justice to Ireland. And yet
he saw sufficient to warrant him in not abandoning the hope
that the Irish people would be able to obtain justice for them-
selves. But he should not be doing justice to those who op-
posed this measure if he did not caution them against pur-
suing that conduct which might induce the Irish people to
look to constitutional means for the restoration of their own
Parliament. He would bring the attention of the House to
the history of the connection between the two countries, quot-
ing a few dates, and abbreviating the facts as much as pos-
sible. He would call attention to the repeated times that the
people of Ireland at various periods had appealed for equality
of laws with England. It was a fact almitted that there was
no country in the world which had suffered so much from
another as Ireland had from this. This country had had do-
minion in Ireland for a period of six hundred years, and they
were still to be deceived by professions and treachery • and
now at the end of six hundred years the British Legislature
were as little disposed to do justice as if they were beginning
their work for the first time. The Irish people had always
claimed British institutions. From the very first period of the
disastrous connection between the two countries to the present
day, their prayer had been for British institutions. Let them
give dates. In 1172, in the reign of King Henry 11., that
claim had been mode. In 1200, in the reign of John, that
humble petition was repeated ; and in the reign of Edward 111.,
in 1336, the question was taken into solemn consideration.
This occurred 500 years since; and the Irish people were
again to be deceived in 1837, though the King was disposed
to allow them constitutional local government. But the great
lords declared it to be their interest that municipal institutions
on the principle of those in England should not be created.
To the petitions and demands of the Irish people the Govern-
ment in England had persevered in their refusal to do justice.
The excuses made were, to be sure, various. At one time the
Irish were too numerous, and the British were too few ; at
another period the English were' too powerful, and the Irish
too few in number, and therefore of course it was safe to re-
fuse their demands ; at another period it was said that the
Irish people were hostile to the Government, and therefore
they must be treated as enemies ; at another time it was said they
were friendless, and therefore it was unnecessary to do anything.
And thus the excuses which had been made changed, and thus
they had varied up to the present day. But the excuse which
Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side now gave was of far greater
value, though that excuse had been given before. In the anxiety
to find out a mode of refusal it had varied from day to
Last year they were told that if they granted these Corpora:
tions they would only become normal schools of agitation ;
and on the present occasion they were refused, because it was
said the agitation caused thereby would be endless. But they
had put their refusal on another footing—namely, that of de-
cided bigotry on the part of the Roman Catholics. The Right
Hon. Bart. the Member for Cumberland ( Sir James Graham)
had read what he ( Mr. O'Connell) hoped was a slanderous,
as it was a vicious, description of the second order of clergy in
Spaini 11114 lie bad natured Co insinuate the game tbina as

against the clergy of Ireland. " You have raised the No
Popery flag," said the Hon. and Learned Member. " and un-
der it you think to fight your way into office." Yes ; I tell
you the Right Hon. Member for Cumberland did not (I's-
' guise it. He gave this excuse, to be sure, that if .ou
granted Municipal Reform to Ireland you would endanger
the Protestant Church.—(Hear, hear.) What ! does fin:
Protestant Church depend upon doing injustice to Ireland ? Is
this your recommendation of Protestantism? In the first
place, then, the Protestant Church cannot exist unless you
tax those who have no concern in it for its support; and next,
unless you deprive the people of the same rights as you your-
selves enjoy. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded
to say, that he rose for the purpose of distinctly stating that
the people of Ireland, though they came forward as petitioners
for that relief which had been given to England anti Seetbled
—although they came forward with a respectful demearre- to
ask this justice—he was by no means prepared to
.say that
their fate and fortunes depended upon the British Legislature.
They were anxious to show that that Legislature was cap-tble
of giving equal laws with the people of England and Scot-
land. But they knew full well that seven millions of men
never yet were outraged with impunity unless the fault was
their own. The overpowering. sentiment on his own mind
was the impossibility of getting equal laws from a British
Parliament, which they would do if the Irish had their own
Parliament. It was said that the Union was not founded on
an equality of rights. If it had not been so founded it was a
fraud on the one country and an act of tyranny on the other.
He desired to put upon record his conviction of the necessity of
looking to other means for redress.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to address tile House, amidst
great confusion, and loud cries of " Divide 1" The Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had accused the Govern-
ment of cajoling the Orange Societies in Ireland—of in-
ducing them to abandon their Association, and afterwards
allowing similar societies to be raised. He ( Lord John Rus -
sell) denied this charge. No intention whatever had been
entertained of cajoling or deceiving any one upon the sub-
ject. But those Orange Societies were exclusive in their
character they were formed of persons who were exclusively
of one religion. They were secret in their character and
conduct. It was on that ground that he had asked them to
dissolve, and it was on that ground that they yielded, saying
only that all other secret societies should be dealt with

i the same way.—(Cries of " Bear hear, hear.") Whatever
might have been the grounds of the dissolution of these so-
cieties, he must own he could not see any resemblance
whatever between the Orange Lodges and the General Asso-
ciation of Ireland. The latter might be considered dangerous
or objeCtionable in different ways; but it did not resemble
those secret societies to which allusion had been made. But
Hon. Gentlemen had accused him of bringing into this de-
bate a question with respect to the Government of Ireland.
On a former occasion, when the motion for the introduction of
the Bill now under consideration was not likely to lead to a
discussion, he did think it right and fitting to place before the
House the question between his Majesty's Government and the
Earl of Mulgrave, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. With
regard to Orange Societies, he had never entered into that
topic under the impression that he must of necessity be de-
barred from undertaking the defence of Lord Mulgrave ; nor
would be have spoken one word in the least disparagement
of these societies but that the heaviest possible charges had
been made. Having said those few words as to the charge
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, he would beg to call
the attention of the House to the question then before them,.
and this question, as his Noble Friend had put it, was not se
question applying to the Right Honourable Gentleman per-
sonally ; it was not the question of appealing to the great,
body of the Members of that House who had fixed on a certaiee
course of conduct for that night ; but it was a-question for the,
Parliament of Great Britain as to what in future years shouk I
be their course with regard to legislating for Ireland. It sae is
a question, whatever party might be in power, to decide wh at
should be their rule and guide, and to discriminate what cow le
it would be wise to pursue for the promotion of the interests . of
seven millions of their fellow subjects who were united to us,
and were ready to apply themselves, as he believed, as cordially
in the support of this great empire as any of the great body
of inhabitants of England or Scotland.—(Hear, heana
hear.) It did then become a great question to say who-.
ther they should adopt the proposition before them ; she,
only proposition being utterly to extinguish and abolisht
Corporations in Ireland, though at that time of night how
should not attempt to go over the arguments which had beers..
urged on this matter.-41Iere the Noble Lord was interrupted
by cries of " Divide !" and confusion on the floor.] He must
be allowed in a great question of this kind to make some
observations.--( Hear, hear.) He would not go over those
arguments which had been so admirably put by the Honour-
able Member for Liskcard with respect to corporations in.
general, because nothing could be more complete than then
proof he had given the House that corporations tended to,
invigorate those excellencies of a free character on which, e),O,
Government of all free countries must depend. Thc.,2r ,u.
ment of the Hon. Member for, Liskeard had not beese
it had not been denied. But he must remark on 0,003
Lion made upon that speech by his Noble Friend tire member
for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), who, • misieterpreting
the purport of that speech, stated that the Hon, Member for
Liskeard had stated that the great recommendation for institu
ing corporations was, that they might be made the engie for
destroying the Church Establishment in Ireland. T'.;ow, his
argument was, that where, by the establishment of
corpora..
tions, they created a general interest in loePa matters, there
the power and influence of priests and demagogues would
be overwhelmed ; but the Noble Lord had understood the
argument in an opposite sense.—(licar, hear. )._The
Right lion. Gentleman said (and certainly he did rot agree
with him), that in some states of society tlee„ eerpc,„
''..
rations might be good. In a very refined gate they were
not so fitting, whilst under other circuits'stances they were
useful. But let him ( Lord John Ru"...sell) put to the House
the question whether in respect to adoption of corporations
in England the argument was good? And yet, according
to the Right Honourable Ger.ileman's argument, in a state
of civilization corporations were not productive of good.
And why, he would ask, at one moment should it be main-
tained that corporations could not be adopted under a highly
civilised condition, and in the next breath tell them that
Ireland was not so civilised as to allow them to give her mu-
nicipal institutions ? But he was told, as an answer to every
plea that had been urged that the Honourable and Learned
Member for Kilkenny had made certain predictions, and
had said that these corporations must be followed up by
certain effects. Why, Honourable Gentlemen opposite took
these predictions as certain consequences. The Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down had said that no one but
violent partisans would be chosen to the town councils. It
seemed somewhat extraordinary that when the Right Honour-
able Gentleman had to state the effects which this measurer.
might have on Ireland, he should take the sayings of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kilkenny as perfect oracles. Hon.
Gentlemen opposite said they could not bear the influence of
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny; they adjured this influence;
but here was what he said, and what he said was infallible and
must come to pass. Now he would refer, on this occasion, to
what had been alleged by the Hon. Member for Cavan. The
lion. Member for Cavan said his opinion was that at first par-
ties in these Corporations would be likely to use their power
for political or party purposes, but when the offices were vested
in merchants, and tradesmen of repute, they would soon lose
that heat which would first be evinced, and men of charac-
ter, and wealth, and leisure, would be the persons chosen
in these Corporations. That was his (Lord John Russell's)
belief, and he begged on this occasion to adopt the authority
of the lion. Member for Cavan, and he could only say he
thought it so good an argument for the institution of these
Corporations that he much regretted he had not the benefit oe
his vote. But it was said, and it was urged, indeed, as a
conclusive argument on this subject, that although these Cor-
porations might in themselves be fitting, they would be. dan-
gerous to the Church of Ireland. He would not deny that
the Church of Ireland, in the position in which she stood,
might be placed in danger by many circumstances; and he
knew not that they could save that Church from all dangers
by depriving the Roman Catholics of their political :end civil
rights. But he would readily do what he supposed those who
opposed this measure were not prepared to do. He did not
suppose that they meant to repeal the Emancipation Act.
Then in a country where there were more than six millions
of a different religion, and not more than one million were
Protestants, and the six millions of Roman Catholics were
daily increasing in power, it could not be said that the
Church could remain free from all danger.—( Hear.) They
were not to look to a supposed contingent danger—and
he could see no danger in receiving these new Corporations.
It was ten times a more dangerous proceeding to tell the
people of Ireland, " You cannot have Corporations, because
the Protestant Church is there established." If they did this,
they would indeed most unquestionably increase the danger to.
the Church, whilst they would place it in an odious position..
It was a late hour of the night, but he could not refrain from
quoting some observations made by Mr. Burke upon this
subject, because the question then under their consideration
was not very different from that on which Mr. -Burke spoke..
Mr. Burke said, " You have an Ecclesiastical Establishment
which, though the religion of the Prince aed of the first clay
of the landed proprietors, is not the religion of the majew
part of the inhabitants, and consequently does not anss.v er
any one purpose of a religious establishment. This is nest a
state of things which any one iu his senses can call perfectly
happy. But it is the state of Ireland, and has beret the
state of Ireland for upwards of two hundred years. "—( C./seers.)
Mr. Burke then said, " To-day the question is, ate we to
make the best of a situation which we cannot wholly, salter ?
shall the condition of a body of the people be alienated front
a burden to which they arc now subject--the bterdea of living
under and paying for two religious establishneents, from one
of which they do not receive any religious instruction or con-
solation ; or are we to aggravate their condit-ion by stepping out
of our way to cut off three milliens!of people from all connexion
with popular representation? Such was the view which Mr.
Burke took of a question '.cry similar to that at present un-
der the consideration of the House. Mr. Burke's argument
was, do not areere evate the burdens of the great majority of
the. Irish people—do not aggravate in the eyes of the
people of Ireland the burden of having to support a'a estab-
liehreent to which they do not belong, and from wlisich they
derive no benefit; rather try to elevate it, and shows them that
if the Church Establishment cannot be altered, at; least that
they were not inferior in other respects.—(Chcere.) e With
these observations,- continued the Noble Lord, ", I have now
only to beg the attention of the House Pe the 'real question
before it. It is not a question of degree—nee a question of
whether any part or parcel of this rneseure shall Le concede d
—but a question of whether you. wit now agree to aboli; 4h
entirely Municipal Corporations in Ireland ; and whether :by
so doing you will affix upon the people of Ireland-the stirwia
of being unfit to enjoy our free institutions ; and whe Abet' you
will look for the suture to 'nothing but force. to er table you
to conduct the Government of that country ?"—(' contimued
cheerinK.)
Mr, 11, GRATTAN .r9§9 and ding cries
:.!