The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-13 00:00:00

. .

7-

1
tetally at variaeee with ebservari,,ns rewle in that House,
when he stated that agitation was the bane of Ireland?
Colonel RA WDON gave every credit to his Hen.
Friend for the manly manner in which he always ex-
pressed his sentiments, but he ought to recollect
that it was no; a letter of the Lord-Lieutenant they
e ere now discusAtig, but an Act of Parliament.
Tile Bill was one expressly inn oiled to put down
treasonable practices, and not constitutional agi-
tatien, for had it been against the right of meeting or
petitioning, no man in Ireand would offer it greater op-
position than himself. He believed it was an Act which
would be looked on by the great majority of the Irish
people as a protection to their lives and properties—
(Hear, hear, from O'Gorman Mahon)—for there had
been instances during the late commotion, where even a
father came forward tend delivered up his son to the
authorities for his future safety from the wiles of mis-
guided men. On these grounds he should support the
measure, believing that at a period when the right of free
discussion existed, and when the power of the press was
paramount, there was no fear that any undue exercise of
the powers about to be entrusted to the Lord-Lieutenant
would even be attsmpted, because if such were made it
would be met with the unanimous indignation of the
country.
Mr. REYNOLDS said as there appeared to be a mis-
conception of the object of the Bill he would refer Hon.
Members to the first clause of it, where they would find
it stated that its object was to empower the Lord-Lieu-
tenant of Ireland to apprehehd and detain, from the Ist
of March next, such persons as he might suspect guilty
of conspiring against her Majesty's person or govern-
ment. Now, notwithstanding the explanation of the Bill
by the Learned Solicitor-General, it appeared to him
that the Lord-Lieutenant would be the sole judge as to
the party who ought to be arrested—that he would have
the sole power of interpreting the law, and of causing to
be apprehended any one he might consider troublesome.
It had been said that the Lord Lieutenant would not
abuse the powers granted him by the Bill. He had
no hesitation in admitting that he had not hitherto
abused those powers, and that he had administered
the law with great temper, judgment, and mercy,
But still he objected to extending those powers, because
he was not prepared to place the, liberty of the subject
on so slender a footing as the opinion of any Lord or
Commoner. To say that the Lord-Lieutenant had not
abused those powers was merely to beg the question. If
the Bill passed in its present shape it would be impos-
sible to hold a meeting in Ireland for the purpose of
petitioning Parliament for the redress of any grievance,
because the tear of arrest would prevent people attend-
ing. It was said that political agitation was the curse
of Ireland. It was an evil when carried to an unconsti-
tutional extent in any country. It had, however, con-
ferred great benefits not only on Ireland but on Eng-
land. If the free-trade s had been threatened witk
the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act when they
were agitating the country against the corn-laws, would
those laws have been repealed ? He differed from the
majority in that House, and believed that the ques-
den of the repeal of the union was one worth agitat-
ing, and that the repeal would confer great bene-
fits on Ireland without doing any injury to England.
Suppose they were to take it into their heads to agitate
against the temporalities of the Protestant Church in
Ireland—he, for one, was much disposed to do so—were
they to be threatened in that case with a suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act? Formerly a person who re-
fused to pay tithes in Ireland was regareed almost as
a traitor. Tithe had been abolished in name, though
not in fact; and the agitation against it had ended by
making the rich church richer, and a poor people poorer.
An lion. Gentleman, talking the other night of the ap-
propriation clause, said it was dead. He doubted it.
It was entombed, but the inscription on the tablet was
•' Resurgatn."—(Hesr, hear.) He believed that its re-
surrection would shortly take place, and that all Ireland
would declare against the temporalities of the Pro-
testant Establishment as a grievance too great to be
longer endured. They would declare the 1,000,000/.
a year should be applied to national purposes,
and not to the support of the clergy of a small
section of the population.—(hear, hear.) What was
the object of England in forcing this Protestant Church
on Catholic Ireland? That was a question which they
were asking among themselves. Why should not the
same principle be applied to Ireland as had been applied
to Scotland ? Scotland, to be sure, bad fought for
"happy hearths and altars free." In Ireland the altars
were not free. The Protestant Church had been esta-
blished in England because the majority of the people
were Episcopalians. Presbyterianism had been esta
blished in Scotland because the majority of the people
were Presbyterians; but in Ireland the Protestant Church
had been established because the Episcopalians were the
minority.—(Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland were
heartily sick of it. They felt that they were degraded
slaves, that the Emancipation Act was a nullity
so long as the Protestant Church was established
in Ireland. The people of Ireland were not apathetic
on this subject. Their idea was, that by repealing the
union they would be able to abolish the Church. But
now they were told that repeal agitation would not be
permitted. He begged the Government to do something
for the people of Ireland, so as to rid them of the tem-
poralities of the Established Church. With regard to
the amendment before the House, he hoped his Hon. and
Learned Friend would not divide. If he should, he
would vote with him; but he hoped he would not di-
vide, for it would look like a compromise of a great
principle, inasmuch as it would appear that they were
willing to accept the Bill if the Government agreed to
the amendment.—(Hear.) He was opposed to the Bill on
the broad grounds that it was unnecessary, uncalled for,
and an unprecedented invasion of the rights of the sub-
ject. It was admitted Ireland was tranquil. The people
were tired of agitation, and were looking for some-
thieg substantial.—(Hear.) He understood the cheer
of the Hon. Member for Ennis, but did not accept it in
the sense in which he had uttered it. Ireland was tran-
quil, and the most troublesome of the opponents of Go-
vernment had been tried and found guilty under the
ferocious Act of Edward 111. There was no disturbance
now in Ireland. The balance of the agitators bad expa-
triated themselves, and 40 or 50 of them only still re-
mained in prison untried. The tranquillity which pre-
vailed in the country was perfect. But, independentlye
of all this, they had a better guarantee for the peace of
Ireland ; for they had between 40,000 and 50,000 of the
Queen's troops quartered in the kingdom; and, besides-
those, there were 11,000 police, 30 or 40 of whom
had gained the great battle of Waterloo at Bailin- .
garry. In the midst of the presence of al that powerful
force they were asked to suspend the Habeas Corpus
Act. For his own part, he had no hesitation in assur-
ing the House that there was no danger whatsoever to
the pubic peace under any circumstances. The people
were looking to Parliament for relief from the pressure
which was on them, and had discarded from their minds
all intention of fighting.—(Hear, hear.) Even the raw
material of agitation was dispersing. That source of
agrarian disturbance, the competition for land, was en-
tirely removed. The people were quitting the soil, and
men who would perhaps have shot a landlord 12 months
ago fur being dispossessed from land, would not take the
same course now. He regretted much to see the present
Bill introduced by the Government on these broad
grounds, that the Right Hon. Gentlemen now occupying
the Treasury benches were always the friends of civil and
religious liberty. He regretted, therefore, that they
should be the parties to move the resolution then before
the House, but concluded by suggesting to his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member tor Limerick not to divide
the House upon such a narrow point as that embraced in
his amendment.
Mr. ANSTEY also rose to appeal to tho Hon. and
Learned Member for Limerick not to press his amend-
ment to a division, as it seemed to him it would be im-
possible for the House to come to a satisfactory vote
upon it. He thought the amendment took more the
shape of a question to be moved in Committee than any
other. In the Committee the Act might be amended
so as not to press upon persons engaged in the agitation
for the repeal of the union. Now it that was a treason-
able agitation the matter was ended; it it was not, then
the proposed measure did not bring it within its scope.
—(Hear.) Under all the circumstances it appeared im-
possible for him to hesitate as to the vote which he
should be obliged to give. In one point of view the
amendment was unnecessary, in another pernicious.
Mr J. O'CONNELL rose to explain. He wished
to know whether, from the speech of the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Solicitar-'General, it was
understood that the letter of the Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, or the comment upon It by the Chief Secretary,
implied it was proposed to prevent, by the present mea-
sure, anything like constitutional agitation.
Sir G. GREY said neither the letter of the Lord-
Lieutenant nor the speech of the Chief Secretary could
be supposed to have the force of law. He was quite et )
willing to concur in the opinion expressed by his Learned " 4
Friend the Solicitor-General and the Hon. and Learned 11
Member opposite (Mr. Anstey). He thought the Hon.
and Learned Member who proposed the amendment''
would act wisely in attending to the suggestions which,,,,'sH-1
had been thrown out.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL then withdrew his motion, in--W
titnating that its substance might be embodied in a clause_
in Committee.
The question was then put that Cie House should go
into Committee.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved a negative, and the
House divided on the question.
The numbers were:—

Ayes
Noes

84

Majority
—7O
The House then went into Committee—Mr.
Bernal in
,he chair,

On clause 1 being proposed, •
Mr. ANSTEY rose to propose, pursuant to notice, the
following amendments :--At page 1, line 3 from bottom,
to omit "is are or." At page 2, lines 3 and 4 from top,
to omit, "or treasonable practices ;" lines 5 and 6, to
omit, " without bail or inainprise until," and to insert in
their place, " for any time by order of the said Privy
Council to be limited, such time not to exceed ;" line 8;
to insert " whereby any order of the said Privy Council
shall be so directed ;" line 10, to omit -"
without" and,.
substitute "until ;" line 11, after "council" to inser''
to the contrary or ;" and to omit the whole of section
2. And t page 3, line 5 from top, alter "that" to
insert " true ; ' and at line 6, before " warrants" to in-
sert " orders and." In moving these amendments he
avowed himself opposed totally to the principle of the
present Bill; but us the Ili also had affirmed that principle,
he conceived thst the Bid would be modified and im-
proved considerably by carrying out his suggestion. lie
v,ould propose the very reverse of what the Bill con-
templated, and would only give the extraordinary powers
which it invested in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant

to a committee of the Privy Council. It appeared to
him strange that so many lion. Members on both sides
of the House should feel so apathetic about a measure
which went so much to infringe upon one of the oldest
and most important principles of the constitution. HQ
concluded, however, by announcing his intention of ry.'t
dividing the House on the first of his amendments.