The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-17 00:00:00

'BILL.

On the question for thu consideration of the report en
this Bill, _ _

Mr. J. O'CONNELL proposed the adding of a clause
securing the right of petition in reference to the
repealing of Acts ; and, in doing so, he again took
occasion to denounce the Government and those
Members who supported them for introducing this mea-
sure to curtail the liberties of the Irish people.
He insisted that no case had been made
out for passing this Bill; but, at all events,
if they must suspend the- constitution in Ireland, let
them take care to secure to the peaceful portion of
the community the right of meeting to discuss their
grievances. The Right lion. Baronet who introduced
the Bill had been ashamed to admit that it was
intended to prevent the Irish people from en-
deavouring to procure the repeal of the Act
of Union. When a Minister was not ashamed to
own such an object there was no hope for the people
over whom he proposed to tyrannise; but in this instance
the Right Hon. Baronet was too honest to avow the real
intention of the Ministry in seeking this unconstitu- 1
tional Bill ; and he therefore had some hope the cries of
the people of Ireland for relief from oppression would
not be disregarded. The purport of the clause proposed
was, that whereas doubts were entertained how far the
Act of last session applied to the holding of public meet-
ings, "that it should be declared that nothing in the 11th
and 12th Victoria should apply to the holding of legal
meetings in Ireland," he was astonished that this
measure should have been brought forward at all upon
such flimsy pretences as had been adduced in support of
this Bill. lt was most unjust to deliver up the liberties
of Ireland to the despotic power of a few individuals.
Its effect would be to place despotic power in the hands
of the Lord• Lieutenant and the Secretary of the Home
Department, under whose control he acted. He con-
tended that the people had a right to coiduct a legal and
peaceable agitation for the repeal of an obnoxious Act of
Parliament, which was struck at in the letter of the Lord-
Lieutenant. It was said indeed that the Government
had not interfered with the meetings of the Repeal
' Association.. They could not take credit for that as dis-
playing moderation, because the sittings of that
assembly had been suspended before the passing of the
Habeas Corpus Act. In 1817 the Marquis of Lans-
downe :opposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act, lest it might be brought into a precedent of evil
imitation in future times. He should like, when he came
'forward to support this measure, that some one should
ask him why he had changed his mind, and what was
1 the difference of circumstances which influenced this
I change of opinion. He thought they ought to allow the
1 addition of this clause to the Bill, to show, at least, that
they were not disposed to shackle the right of the people
to petition against the repeal of an Act of Parliament.
Ho appealed to the representatives of Great Britain, be-
cause it would not effect what it was proposed to accom-
plish. It was said it would be the means of introducing
capital into Ireland, but ho would tell them it would
have a contrary effect, and cause capital to leave that
country. Neither would it put down agitation, which
existed only through the grievances it suffered, which
was now prostrate, and which this Bill would revive.
They had made their election. They determined to rule
Ireland by force, and they must pay for their own course.
It was not the policy of former Whigs the present Govern-
meat were pursuing, but that of Nicholas, the despot of
Russia, who fomented an insurrection in Poland in 1830,
in order to crush and utterly destroy the liberties of
the people of that country. A member of that Ministry
was allowed to retain his situation, although he had
during the recess been writing articles in his newspaper
advocating the utter and permanent extinction of the li-
berties of Ireland. That individual was the Secretary
of the Board of Control (Mr. Wilson), and proprietor of
the Economist newspaper, and yet, though receiving the
pay of his situation, he was allowed to continue his dis-
graceful course without check or contradiction. The
Hon. Member concluded by moving the addition of the
clause to the Bill.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY seconded the motion. Ho did
not subscribe to all the violent expressions used by the
Hon. Member who had just spoken, yet he felt a grievous
injustice would be inflicted on Ireland by the passing of
this Bill. As an instance, he would mention that, when
the WWI which he had the honour to represent (Galway)
was proclaimed last summer, it so happened that the
judges of assize were in town. and, in charging the grand
jury, of which he (Mr. O'Flahorty) was foreman, the
Learned Judge told them that the district was perfectly
quiet and peaceable.—(Hear.) He should give the
measure every opposition in his power, though he felt
that opposition would be fruitless.
On the motion being put,
Sir GEORGE GREY said, the question was, whether
the clause proposed by the Hon. Member for Limerick
should be added to the Bill, and he did not, therefore,
think it necessary to follow the Hon. Gentleman through
all the statements ha had made. He should not detain
the House, but merely remind Hon. Members that, as on
two former occasions they had rejected a similar amend-
ment, and that as he was not aware of any new reasons
being now given for its adoption, he felt certain the mo-
tion would be negatived.
Mr. H. GRATTAN should again record his protest
against the measure. But he saw na use in prolonging
the discussion, the more so as it was already discussed so
often. All he could say to his countrymen was, that he
hoped they would bear their-sufferings with that philo-
sophy which injured innocence was always sure to com-
mand. He hoped, however, that those individuals who
would be entitled to their liberty in March next might be
set at liberty ;
i he believed eighteen of those who were
now immured n prison, who had not been brought to
trial; or, indeed, against whom no specific charge was
for the Right Hon.
Depart-
ment, that Gentleman F.
° the' °NHome adduced, and who were treated with a severity which•
ought to be discontinued.
Mr.
Statebelieved,
the
the question then before the House was the
same as that already discussed, and he should not,
therefore, detain them by any lengthened observations.
C Secretaryl%Tß o f
lie was not, perhaps, justified in saying to the Irish
Members who had now spoken in that nouse that they
had not acted as they ought to have done in opposing
that measure, but in 1833 and 1834, when he repre-
sented an Irish county, a greater set of tiltiv etnever ex