The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-07 00:00:00

THE LIBERAL LORD STANLEY v.

THE TORY LORD STANLEY.

It is a favourite argument of those who have deserted
the Liberal cause for that which, whatever name it may
assume, is still the same old cause of Toryism and anti-
Reform, that it is really the Reformers who have adopted
new principles, and not they who have retrograded. In
support of this view they point to Lord Stanley and one or
two others, who, having deserted their Reform party, and
having for a short period wavered between opposing princi-
ples, are now safely anchored n the harbour of Toryism, as
specimens of the genuine Reform school, who are con-
sistently opposing a policy which is founded upon different
principles from those which they formerly supported.
Nothing can be more utterly untrue than this argument ;
the principles of the opposing parties are still the same.
From those benches to which the Noble Lord and his
friends have betaken themselves, the same arguments, the
same language, the same opposition to every large and
real measure of Reform, has been constantly main-
tained. Substitute Irish Parliamentary Reform for
Irish Municipal Reform, the debates of 1832 might
furnish all the speeches of the present day. The
cases are exactly analogous—the policy is precisely similar.
The object of Parliamentary Reform was to open the close
Corporations, which monopolized the Parliamentary fran-
chise, to the inhabitants at large ; the object of Municipal
Reform is no other than this. The Irish Reform Bill was
opposed by the Lefroys, and the Shows, and the Inglises,
on the same grounds. The same opposition, avowed in the
same guarded language, was offered by Peel ; and the only
difference is, that then Mr. Stanley introduced the Irish
Reform Bill, and combated the Tory arguments of Shaw,
and Lefroy, and Inglis, and Peel ; and now, a humble fol-
lower of Peel, lie stands forward to defend the narrow and
exclusive system which he formerly repudiated, to revive
those odious distinctions which he formerly declared were
for ever effaced, and to thwart, as far as in him lies, the
identical policy which, in his better days, he supported, and
which the party he has deserted, has never ceased to avow
and pursue.
In the debates on the first and second readings of the
Irish Reform Bill, it was argued by the Tories, that there
was no analogy between the two countries—that those men
who had supported reform in England might oppose it in
Ireland—that the extension of the suffrage would intim-
diately throw the representation into the hands of the Ca-
tholics, and raise up a power which must be dangerous to
Protestantism, and subversive of the only bond of union
between the two countries. But what said Mr. Stanley,
in anticipation or in reply to the very reasoning which he
HOW advances? In his speech, on introducing the Irish Re-
form Bill (19th January, 1832)?—Mr. Stanley said—
" But I shall perhaps be told that by this extension of the
elective franchise the Protestant interest will be entirely over-
whelmed. I can very easily show that this is a most falla-
cious, a most unfounded apprehension. I do not wish to
overthrow the Protestant interest, or to give undue power to
the Catholic interest. My desire is to see all parties fairly and
properly repreSented. I do, indeed, wish to overthrow that
system, the only object of which appears to be the acquirement
of political power, and of which I may say that the Protes-
tantism or Catholicism of those by whom it is supported is
only shown in their violent and intolerant spirit. In the
borough representation it is intended by this Bill to make ex-
tensive, but necessary, alterations. Here again I shall, no
doubt, be told that the whole strength and vigour of the Pro.
testant influence in Ireland depends on the preservation, in
their present state of fifteen or sixteen rotten boroughs. I
utterly deny the assertion ; Protestant property, wealth, and
influence will still have, as they always have had, their due
share in the representation of the country, and Ido not wish
that they should possess more than their due share. But this I
will say, that if the assertion of these objectors be true—if the
security of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland does, in-
deed, depend on fifteen or sixteen rotten boroughs—then,
whether we pass this Reform Bill or do not pass it, that Es-
tablishment cannot last."
But it may be said, Lord Stanley is still willing to de-
stroy the vicious Corporation, and only objects to what'',
toting others in their place, founded upon the "false
analogy" of the English Bill. Let us hear the Noble
Lord as to this branch of the subject. The Irish Parlia-
mentary Reform Bill, like the Municipal Bill, might be
said to contain two principles. One of destruction, as far
as the monopoly of the close system was concerned—an-
other of construction, conferring the franchise upon the in-
habitants at large. Lord Stanley then supported both
principles ; he wished not only to destroy a system con-
fessedly vicious, but to build up another based upon popular
suffrage, and especially contended for the necessity of
Ain.- upon " the same principle" in both countries. Mr.
Stanley then spoke as follows
I have now gone through the principal details of this Bill,
and I will not trouble the House with those minute details
which can be more properly considered in Committee. It will,
I hope, be found, that while, on the one hand, we have not de-
parted from the principle of the English Bill, we have, on the
other, not unsuccessfully laboured to do that justice to Ireland
which we have strenuously endeavoured to do to England. We
have considered the interests of the one country as different in
any degree from the interests of the other. Nothing, in my
opinion, could be more mischievous or fallacious than such an
idea ; and I am perfectly convinced that if we wish to convert
it into a warm, honest, and sincere union of the heart—that
union which has been effected by the Legislature—that object
can only be achieved by acting towards the one country ort
EXACTLY THE SAME PRINCIPLES as those which are adopted
towards the other."
Again, on the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill
(May 25, 1832), Mr. Stanley said—
" In rising to move the second reading of the Irish Reform
Bill, I feel that I am relieved from coffing the attention of the
House to the consideration of any of the general topics of
Parliamentary Reform, as this would be a waste of their time,
the principle having been recognised already, not only re-
peatedly by the decision of this House, but now, I am happy
to say, by that of the other House of Parliament. There ',icily
be, however, some who say that the same system should not pre-
vail in England as in Ireland ; that although here nomination
ought to be extinguished, it ought to he allowed in Ireland ;
that although the principle is odious in England, it is excellent
in Ireland ; TIIAT ALTHOUGH GREAT TOWNS OUGHT NOT TO BE
DISFRANCHISED IN ENGLAND, YET THEY OUGHT TO BE IN IRE-
LAND. To persons who hold such opinions I will now say
nothing, but will rather call upon them to vindicate their own."
Mr. Stanley then adverted to the opposition which he
" had every reason to believe" would be raised " upon a re-
ligious ground," and declared that from the passing of the
Emancipation Act such a ground of opposition as this was
perfectly untenable. Nay, more, that that great question
would still remain unsettled as long as any of the Catholics
were debarred from any civil rights on account of religion.
" You have admitted," said he, "the general proposition of
an equal share, of civil rights. You have affirmed that there
is no distinction between the rights of the members of the
Church of England and the Dissenters--between the Pro-
testant and the Catholic. Upon what ground, then, do you.
say we will not grant an equality of rights in these Corpora-
tions, but we will continue to exclude the Catholic and the
Protestant Dissenter from having a share with ourselves? We
will extend privileges to that individual or class because he or
they is, or are, Protestant ; and we will exclude all Catholics.
say f tiis is done the Catholic question is still left behind to
be settled, for in fact this dictum is
.founded on religious dif-
ference. lf, then, the Parliament is to act upon the principle
of exclusion, there will still remain a Catholic question to be
settled."
And again_
" If we allow the present system of close corporations to
continue, under the pretence that it is unsafe to intrust to the
Catholic inhabitants of the towns with the franchise, we may
justly be told that so far from making a settlement of that
great question in Ireland, we have continued the grievance
and added to the insult."
And Lord Stanley is now forced to avow that on reli-
tgnot:ie ag
sulgbreoettlionfidtss lie
icoipppaols
eeoftrhaeocchlaiismems
000fttIlle Irish people
Let the Noble Lord ponder upon the following language,
and then say whether it is not inconsistent with his present
language anal his present conduct :
" We have been told that the English Bill does not in any
case apply to Ireland, and that the circumstances of the two
countries are different ; but lam sure that Hon. Gentlemen
will find that the principle of reform is the same whether ap-
plied to
Ragland or Ireland: and if it be just here, so it must
be just there. I would entreat those who advocate the Con-
servative interest, and who consider themselves the supporters
of the Protestant institutions, to look to the danger to which
these institutions will be exposed by withholding the privi-
lagcs which this Bill is to confer. If they wish to give Ire-
land a real, solid, and substantial grievance—if they wish to
give some handle to excitement, and to present a strong argu-
ment for the repeal of the Union--,they need only show that
ajn oneOO
wa douse of Oommons itnglisli interests are treated
y, and Irish in another ; that in England the Govern-
ment rule by free representation and the voice of the people,
while in Ireland that voice is stifled, and the people are shut
©aft from a fair share in their choice of representatives.
. • •
•
" I cannot conceive anything more clear than that present
measure is only the extension of the principle of the English
Bill to Ireland."
Mr. Stanley's '1 ,pelaration on the
}necessary effect of
hay CRriceded etnancipatip not he)ii,g' properly under-
qi).
Whet I said that wh,tley°(l,. 4 'afterward's said in explanation (to Mr. j. E,
was,a roan was a R 011144 CZ:
tlicliP of a, Protestant, was no longer, after the measure of