The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-15 00:00:00

RAILWAY.

Mr. WILBRAHAM moved that the report on this Bill be
now taken into further consideration.

Sir OSWALD MOSLEY moved as an amendment that
the report be taken into further consideration on that day six
months.

After some discussion the amendment was withdrawn, and
the report was received.
SPAIN AND THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES•
Lord MAHON wished to ask a question of the Secretary
for Foreign Affa'rs relative to a subject which he had ques-
tioned him about last year—he meant the negotiations that
were being carried on between Spain and the South Ame-
rican States respecting the recognition of the independence
of the latter Powers by the former. When he put the ques-
tion to the Noble Viscount on a former occasion, his reply
was, that Senor Mendizabal had dissolved the Cortes, and the
consequence was, that it had led to an interruption of the
negotiations. The Noble Lord might now make him the
same answer, for the present Prime Minister of Spain had
dissolved the Cortes in a similar manner. He understood,
however, that Senor Isturitz, when a Deputy, said, in his
place in the Chamber of Procuradores, that he did not think
that the determination of the question rested with the Cortes,
but that it was part of the prerogative of the Crown, and
therefore the Crown should direct the proceedings ; in short,
that the Crown should settle the matter without the interven-
tion of the Cortes. If this was the present opinion of Senor
Isturiz, which be had given as a Deputy, he hoped the Noble
Lord would be able to say that it was probable that the parties
would come to a satisfactory settlement of the question. He
did not complain of the Noble Lord or of the Government;
but when he recollected that it was a year and a quarter ago
since the late Administration sent over General O'Leary and
General Soublette, as deputies from the South American
States, to Madrid, he thought that he was justified in again
putting a question on the subject to the Noble Lord.

Viscount PALMERSTON did not think that the slowness
of the negotiations could in any way be attributed to his Ma-
jesty's Government. The Noble Lord must be aware that
his Majesty's Government had nothing to do with the nego-
tiations, for they had not been invited by either party to inter-
vene in the matter. He could, however, assure his Noble
Friend, that his Colleagues and himself were extremely
anxious to sec the differences between Spain and her South
American colonies at an end; and, as far as Great Britain
could interfere, between independent States, without being
called upon, the Government would exert its influence to pro-
mote this object. He hoped. there was every probability that
the negotiations would be brought to a satisfactory termination.

natural disposition in man to abuse the power with which he k
was entrusted.—(lronical cries of Hear.) In his opinion the
Act of the 9th Geo. IV. gave every advantage that could be
required in the towns of Ireland. He believed that neither
this measure, nor the Tithe Bill proposed by Government,
would, is carried, tend to the pacification of Ireland. He no
more expected peace to be restored by those two measures,
than it was by emancipation of which the same wished for con-
sequence was predicted.
Mr. O'CONNELL—I object, Sir, to the introduction of
such such questions as the Church Bill and the poor-laws upon
this occasion.—( Hear, hear.) On the poor-laws we have al-
ready read enough in the Times newspaper.—( Hear, hear,
and laughter.) We had discussion after discussion upon
them. The Times is the mighty thunderer upon the poor-
laws, and the Hon. Gentleman, I believe, really thinks that
he is writing a paragraph instead of making a speech.—
(Laughter.) And then as to the Church question, as to
what he calls the robbery of the poor man's week; why, the
first time that question was stirred in this House, it was by
the Hon. Member for Tipperary ; there were then only
twenty-seven Members who voted for that spoliation, and
one of the most prominent of them was the Hon. Member
for Berkshire. (Hear, hear, and cheers. I have read
his name in the list—the list published in The Times, so that
he cannot renege from that.—( Hear, and laughter.) I wish
to Heaven the Hon. Member would take himself from this side
of the House. I scented him in the past session, as " the last
rose of summer," and yet he still remains amongst us. I
wish he would go the side upon which he votes, and not remain
where he ought not to be.—(" Order, order," from Colonel
Peel.) I now leave it to the Hon. and Gallant Colonel whe-
ther he could think it right himself to act in this way? I
leave it to him, as a man and a gentleman, whether he would
condescend to pretend to be one thing, and yet be another.—
( Hear, hear.) We have then his dissertation upon the Church
question. Why does he not in this conform with the columns
of the paper, I have referred to.--( Hear, and cries of " Or-
der.") Has that paper observed the slightest decency towards
me, and as an earnest of the wages of its iniquity has it not
done this, and shall not I now be permitted to retort upon—
Mr. WALTER and Mr. KEARSLEY rose to order. In
reply to the general call of the House,
Mr. KEARSLEY proceeded to address the House. Sir,
said he, if his Majesty's servants, for they are Ministers no
longer—(Laughter)—l say, Sir, if his Majesty's servants can
submit—if they are so humiliated as to submit--to the bully-
ing conduct of the Hon. Gentleman, I shall not submit to it.
(Laughter.) I wish to know, Sir, is this proper conduct in
the House ?—( Hear, and laughter.) I'll divide the House
upon it.—( Continued laughter.)
Mr. O'CONNELL—I wish the Hon. Member for Berk-
shire joy of his ally.—( Laughter.) There could not be two
more competently suited to each other.—(Laughter.) I may
perhaps indeed be permitted to express my astonishment at
this; what an excellent constituency it must be that is re-
presented by the Hon. Member for Wigan.—( Hear and
laughter.) But to return ; I have here the division of
' the Bth July, 1833, exactly as I have said. If it is
wished by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, I will read the con-
tents of it. On the Bth July, 1833, exactly as I have stated,
the Hon. Member for Berkshire voted for the spoliation
clause.—(Hear, hear.) I have now done with that part of his
speech which referred to poor-laws, and also that referring
to the spoliation of Church property ; we then come to the
question before us. He then says that the prophecy was
wrong which declared that emancipation would procure the
pacification of, Ireland. Why so it would if it had been ho-
nestly followed up. I did not say that emancipation would be
a final measure; on the contrary, I always said that it must
lead to others ; that it was only the means, and not the end
itself.—(Cheers.) It was to be one of the means working
to this end—the amalgamation of all parts of the British em-
pire into one consolidated body, enjoying equal rights and
equal privileges.—( Hear.) When emancipation passed that
did not follow ; why ? because the Emancipation Bill itself
was stingily, and I may even say, with individual exceptions
granted. What then followed ? The people. of Ireland, as they
had every right to do, looked to their own resources ; they
called for the repeal of the union, and,...they would have the
right still to insist upon it, if theri; was not given to
them a distinct pledge that they should have equal rights
and privileges with the people of England. Does any
man say, that if this measure be granted it will pacify
Ireland ? No, but it will be one step taken by the British
Government to confer upon them those rights—it will be ad-
vancing, and they have advanced to that end. The Hon.
Member for Berkshire, however, says, you arc still to continue
to make an exception as regards Ireland—that having nomi-
nally emancipated the Catholics, they are still to be actually
unemancipated, as they must be, until they enjoy equal rights
and privileges with other British subjects.—( Hear.) He
states that abuses have already existed. Is that the reason
that they are to continue ? He says that the Corporation
was essentially a government of Protestants for Protestants.
Why the Protestants of Ireland are in number 850,000 ; there
are 600,000 of the persuasion of the Dissenters. Now of the
entire there were but 13,000 members of the Corporation ; and
of the entire 13,000, but 1,100 of the governing body. That
was the representation of the Protestants of Ireland ; it was
no more a representation of them than of the Roman Catho-
lics. Thus, then, we perceive there were no more than 1,100
of the governing body of the Protestants. I wonder that the
Hon. Gentleman does' not read the same thing as well
as he writes.—(Laughter.) I submit to him that a writer
ought, or is at least expected, to read a little.— ( Laughter.)
Because power is taken from a miserable party, the people
themselves are to be treated as a party . Those who assert
this are utterly ignorant of the Constitution. The people
were not a party—as individual interests universally predomi-
nate when these individual interests accumulate in the majo-
rity, so is it necessary that the interests of the great majority
never can be that of a party. The speech, however, upon
which I am remarking, was not pronounced for this place—it
was composed to be published for the miserable purposes of a
party, and that it may appear amongst those things with
chich he is so much disgusted.—( Hear, hear, and cries of
order.) Yes, disgusted—justly disgusted with a tergiversa-
tion of principle the most astonishing that ever occurred.—
( Hear, and cries of order.) The most disgraceful, too, that
ever yet occurred.

My:. RIC HA RDS called the Hon. Member for Kilkenny
to order. An attack was made upon the Hon. Member for
Berkshire as if he were connected with the Times newspaper,
when he (Mr. Richards) contended that the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny had not shown any connection between the Hon.
Member for Berkshire and that paper. The Hon. Member
for Kilkenny could not be permitted thus to browbeat and
ruffianise, if he might use the expression ; it was not consis-
tent with the order of the debate.—(Hear, and cries of
" Order.")

Mr. O'CONNELL—The Hon. Member for Berkshire has
reason to rejoice in his second defender.—( Hear and laughter. )
Mr. WALTER—I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman ; I only ask the favour of being permitted
to reply.—( Hear, hear.)
rne SPEAKER considered it would be most desirable if
Hon. Members would only refer to what occurred in the course
of the debate.

Mr. 0' CONN E L L—Certainly ; and therefore I only wish
to conn•ratulate the Hon. Member for Berkshire upon his
second defender.—(Laughter.) I think nothing can be more
flattering to him than the first—except the second—( Laughter)
—one, too, so especially remarkable for his exceeding delicacy
and extreme polish, which make him shrink from anything
that belongs to the kennel.—( Laughter).
Mr. RICHARDS—I rise to order, Sir. It is not right to
bring into this House the manners of a blackguard, instead of
those of a gentleman.—( Long-continued cries of " Order 1")
The SPEAKER would conjure the Members, for the sake
of that House, not to indulge in language inconsistent with
propriety.
Mr. O'CONNELL—I care not for his expressions. As
to mine, I only talked of hopping over the kennel, and I
think it was not inapplicable to the occasion.--( Hear, and
laughter).
Mr. N. FITZ SIMO N—l think that the debate cannot con-
tinue. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough has used most
offensive expressions. He has made use of a word which I
am almost afraid to repeat, but which you, I am sure
must have heard, as every Hon. Member near me has heard it.
I must, then, request of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough
to withdraw, before this House, his exceeding offensive ex-
pressions. —( Hear. )
The SPEAKER observed that words had undoubtedly
fallen from the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, which ought
not to have been used. The inference was, that if they were
not directly applicable to the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, they
were intended to apply to him.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Oh 1 I do not remember them.

Mr. RICHARDS—I hope that upon all occasions I shall
bow to the Speaker. I understood the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny to say, that the words used by me were brought from
the kennel.—(No, no, from several Hon. Members, in which
Mr. O'Connell joined.) Understanding it so, if he did not
use the word kennel, I withdraw the expression.
The SPEAKER understood the Hon. Gentleman to have
said that the words savoured of the kennel.
Dr. BALD WIN remaked that, in the first instance, the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough had used the word " ruffia-
nise.” He left it to the House to say whether that was a pro-
per expression to be used.
Mr. RICHARDS—If the word was not applied to me, in
the manner I understood it, I withdraw the expression.
Mr. N. FITZ SIMON—I think that the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough has no right to enter into a compromise upon
this subject. I think he should be called upon once to with-
draw the offensive expression as indefensible.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL—I do not do so, feeling the compli-
ment that has been paid to me by the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough.
Dr. BALDWIN—But the other Irish Members do feel it.
I call upon the Hon. Member to explain the expression ruffian-
ism.
Colonel PEEL—The Hon. Member, I am sure, will with-
draw the expression ; but I appeal to the Hon. Gentleman
opposite, whether the tone in which he has conducted this
debate is not calculated to call forth angry expressions. (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition Members).
Mr. RIC H ARDS—As it appears to me I must have been
under a mistake, in the application of the word kennel, I am
at once ready to withdraw the expressions objected to.
Mr. O'CONNELL—I was arguing upon three points in-
troduced into his speech by the Hon. Member for Berkshire;
one on the Poor-laws, the other the Church, upon which he
has voted against his colleagues ; the third is the real ques-
tion before the House, and I was proceeding to comment upon
it, when I was called to order by the Honourable Member
for Wigan, who was very disorderly in doing so, and who sat
down extremely quietly, as he usually does when he is in the
wrong.—(Laughter.) I was then next called to order by the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough, who got into that species of
language which is so familiar that, until it was proved to him,
he did not know it was improper.—(Hear, laughter, and
cries of order.)

ctujvui-ucu.