The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-29 00:00:00

their partisan policy in the w rds of the Hon. Member for St.
Alban's, and he was confident that all who viewed it impartially
would agree in its reprobation. You are taking power from
the weak to give it to the strong—from the few to bestow it
on the many, and stripping the dwarf to clothe the giant.
Henceforth the minority in Ireland would be at the mercy of
the majority—a principle which also had its eulogists in that
House ; but he would say, thank God we have not yet arrived
at the tyranny of the majority.—( Oh, oh.)
Mr. GISBORNE commented on the part taken by the
Hon. Member for Oxford ( Sir R. Inglis) in the debate, whose
opinions, whether in the majority or minority, always com-
manded respect. It appeared that the object of him and his
party, in the present debate, was to avoid extending power to
the popular party in Ireland. When the Right Hon. Baro-
net the Member for Tamworth invited him to follow him in the
cause of Reform, he had suspicions of the character of that
Reform, which his previous conduct had not tended to allay.—
( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had never willingly
extended power to the popular party. He had, in so doing,
always acted under the pressure of apprehension.—( Hear.)
The time for Reform, they were assured, had never come

when the Right Hon. Baronet securely held the reins of
power. He rejoiced that all sections of the Opposition were
pledged to oppose this measure, for it would afford him and
other thorough-going Reformers all the strength and efficacy
which results from a union into which they were compelled
by inevitable re-action. He condemned the propositions of
destruction urged on the part of this opposition as most un-
necessary and inconsistent. If on a motion for the reform of
the Irish Church some hot-headed Radical should get up and
propose as an amendment the abolition of the Church altoge-
ther, he could not act more inconsistently. What would be
the fate of this ill in the other House he knew not ; but
if, in passing :rough it, it should be altered, injured in
any material degree, he thought the House would display a
most unworthy spirit if it should tamely submit to the de-
gradation.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said—Sir, I have been labouring
under every possible discouragement ; I doubt if I shall be
able to make myself intelligible ; but after the pointed speech
of the Hon. Member for the county of Tipperary (who, I trust,
is present to hear my reply, after the direct personal appeal
he has made to me) I confess I should be unwilling to let it
pass without some observations, confident as I am in the
justice of my cause. Being fully aware at the same time
of the powerful effect which the brilliant speech of the Hon.
Gentleman must have made on the House, I feel naturally
anxious to examine and analyze it, and to attempt (without
any similar effort at effect) at once to grapple with its reasons,
if any can be found in it, for that is, after all, the main point
for the House to look to.—(Hear.) For my own part I could
wish it bad been less prepared, and we might have had more
free and useful development of argument ; but the Hon.
Member was apparently in such-haste to arrive at the brilliant
and ornate parts of his speech, which he was well aware would
amuse and delight his hearers, that he abstained from dwelling
on the more homely materials of argument and inference
which might have been expected in the advocacy of a measure
of the importance that the present avowedly is.—(Hear, hear.)
It was particularly remarkable that the Hon. Member care-
fully abstained from all reference to the argumentative, power-
ful, and most convincing speech which immediately preceded
his own.—( Hear, and laughter.) It was, in reality, more
remarkable for acuteness of style and brilliancy of diction
than for any attention to facts in general, or the subject
before the House in particular. —( Hear.) But, whether
present or absent, I must do the Hon. Member for Tippe-
rary the justice to say, that his talents and eloquence in-
vests all he utters with a charm of a powerful character,
and that Ireland should be justly proud of his genius.—
( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, let us closely examine the deco-
rated robe in which the Hon. Gentleman has arrayed himself
on this occasion ; let us detach, if possible, the purpurei panni
—the ornament of art from the coarser texture of garment
which it overlaid. The Hon. Member had taken three points
of consideration for our conviction, on the ground of inconsis-
tency, in opposing this motion. First, he had doubted whe-
ther the spirit of the Irish Corporations was not at variance
with the Act of Union, and whether this measure could be re-
sisted without trampling that Act in spirit and letter under
foot. Secondly, he doubted whether the spirit of the corpo-
rations was not at variance with the Reform Act ? and, thirdly,
whether they were not opposed to the whole tenor and object
of the Relief Bill of 1829 7 But these were points of specu-
tation beside the real argument of the night. It was very easy
to construct a striking sentence compounded of " the boldness
of the Duke of Wellington"—" the dexterity of Lord Lynd-
hurst"—" the excitement of the Earl of Winchilsea," and
" the inspiration of the Earl of Roden"—(Laughter)—but
these were not the matters in debate.—(Hear, hear.) It was
also an extremely attractive expedient to introduce the name of
Dr. Philpotts and the Intimidation Committee, though it ap-
peared the charge was half intended to refer to my Hon.
Friend the Member for Exeter in answer to a strong appeal on
his part to facts in Ireland on the subject of Priestly inter-
ference at elections. What was the answer of the Hon.
Member for Tipperary? " Yes, I refer you to the Intimida-
tion Committee. Have you never heard of Dr. Philpotts ?"
Now what an injurious conclusion might be drawn from this
very unwarrantable use of the name of that Rev. Prelate, by
those who were not aware of the fact that it did not once occur
in the report of that Committee Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member makes strong use of the arguments previously urged
by us against any interference with the Established Church of
Ireland as being an infraction of the Act of Union, and urges
as a corrollary that it is equally unconstitutional to think of
destroying the corporations ; but the Hon. Gentleman forgets
that there is an express clause in the Act of Union in favour of
the Irish Church, but none whatever in favour of the corpora-
tions.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman says that, while in
power, we invariably refused all redress against corporate
abuses, but this is not the fact. We never refused to reform
anything attaching to corporate rnanageuent which we found
amiss, or to redress any just cause of complaint in those Cor-
porations. It was necessary that the Imperial Parliament
should exist, and the Catholic Relief Bill of 1829 only
followed up the Act of 1800, in affording it the broadest
and most secure basis. Pointed reference has been made
to the Act of 1829, and to the part which I took in its
accomplishment, as well as to the further consecutive
steps now requisite. The Honourable Member for Tippe-
rary is well aware that the expectations formed at that period
of the promised peace and concord to follow have been very
completely disappointed.—( Hear, hear.) It is utterly in vain
now to deny that, after the passing of that measure, there was
not in Ireland as much acerbity of feeling and as much of reli-
gious animosity as there had been previously. This, however,
does not at all alter my view of the measure of Catholic
Emancipation. I believed then, as I now believe, that, con-
sidering the state of the Protestant mind in this country at the
time, considering the powerful support the measure had in this
House, considering the accession of strength the question was,
year after year, obtaining in the public mind, considering the
state of Ireland, I think now, as I thought then, that further
resistance would not be safe, and that great danger must re-
sult from a further delay of the measure. Such was my opi-
nion then. Such it is now ; and events which occurred not
long after make me now rejoice that the measure was then
successful. But, says the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman (Mr. Sheil), the reason why political dissensions,
why religious animosities, still continue, is, that you
then did not go far enough. He says that in 1829 the
concession was made in an ungenerous spirit, that it
could not have been conciliatory, as it contemplated the ex_
elusion from that House of an individual, alluding to the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin. In a case
of this kind, where there were so many important circum-
stances to be taken into consideration, so many interests to be
conciliated, so many conflicting opinions to be reconciled, it
could be no very difficult matter to select one incident, and to
say that by that Incident the whole was vitiated. I entirely dis-
avow having been actuated upon that occasion by any per-
sonal feeling against the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen.
Personal considerations never entered into the contemplation
of those who took a lead upon that occasion, but they took the
course which, under all the circumstances, they judged most
likely to ensure the success of the measure. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, was returned
for Clare, under the existence of a law which excluded him
from a seat in that House, except upon the condition of taking
a certain oath. That oath lie could not take conscientiously,
and there remained no alternative but exclusion. But, says
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ( Mr. Sheil), this circum-
stance should have been provided against in the Bill. Now
if we had done so, if we had made the measure retrospective,
instead of being, as it was solely, prospective, what would be
now the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the
Member for Tipperary ? They were often told the measure
had been extorted from their fears. Had it been so arranged
as to meet this particular case, had a retrospective clause been
introduced allowing the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(Mr. O'Connell) to take his seat for Clare, .would it have
weakened the cry of intimidation—would not that charge of
yielding to fear be urged, and justly urged now, with tenfold
tdbortcye,
?—and( Che
elr s.
now) tTo hbee At
ocltd ot
that
tl 8e2111) t
bwea
gs
oaond eel e
eotfs publicwbie b
would otherwise have arisen from it were lost because the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was prevented from
taking his seat for Clare ? Far be it from me to say or to sus-
pect that the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. O'Connell)
had since pursued the course he did from merely personal mo-
tives, from a recollection of this one circumstance. We were,
however, confidently told that the Emancipation Bill once
passed, agitation would cease. This prediction is not veri-
fied ; and now the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member
for Tipperary comes forward and urges further concession as
the only means of putting an end to agitation. If such be
opinion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it is his duty
to show that further concession will have this effect.—
(Cheers.) I will read a letter from Gentleman who could
have been influenced by no considerations towards me of a
private or personal nature, and who had long acted as Secre-
tary to the Catholic Association; I mean Mr. Purcell O'Gor-
man. (Here the Right Hon. Baronet read the letter. It com-
menced by an acknowledgment of the services rendered to the
Catholics of Ireland by Sir R. Peel in his successful advocacy of
the Emancipation Bill, stating that by this measure he had
made ample compensation for all his previous hostility, and
that at the expense of the greatest personal sacrifices. He
had no doubt that the best results would follow from that
all-healing measure, and for himself he entertained no
other than the deepest feelings of gratitude for the support
given by him (Sir Robert Peel) to the Catholic Relief Bill.)
Now, I will put it to the House whether this letter does
not express feelings and anticipations very different to those
which we have heard upon the present occasion from the
Hon. Member for Tipperary ? So far, therefore, as the
opinion of Mr. Purcell O'Gorman be of any value or import-
ance his letter to me gives no ground to suspect that the
exclusion of the Hon. Member for Dublin from a seat for
Clare prevented the Emancipation Bill from effecting the
great object of conciliation. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Member for Tipperary asks why it was that
we did not pass the Relief Bill in 1825, as well as in 1829 ;