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

sentiment; .but what (;id le',;:er of the Llrd-Lieu-
teeatr, :Ay? w, re net the ilee eatdens it contained
,total at veri MCC hub vatif 'Ds rievie in that irrim'e,
when he stated .t eeitation was the bane of Ireland?
Colonel RAWDON gave every credit to his Hon.
Friend for the Leanly manner in which he always ex-
pressed his sentiments, but he ought to recollect
that it was not a letter of the Lord-Lieutenant they
v‘tirc now di3eussing, but an Act of Parliament.
The Bill was one cxpresly int. nded to put down
treasonablo practices, and not constitutional agis
Cation, tor had it been against the right of meeting or
petitioning, no man in Ireland would offer it greater or
positiin than himself. Ho believed it was an Act which
would be looked on by the great majority of the Irish
people as a protection to then- lives and properties--
(Hear, hear, from O'Gorman Mahon)—for there had
been instances during the late commotion, where even
father came forward and 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 attempted, 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 mice
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 apprehend 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 Selicitor-General, it appeared to him
that the Lord-Lieutenant would bo 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
he apprehended any one he might consider troublesome.
It had been said that the Lord Lieutenant would ineS
ebuse 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 ho 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 fear 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 wit
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 quese
Lion 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 regarded almost as
a traitor. Tithe had been abolished in name, though
not in fact; and the agitation against it had ended 139
making the rich church richer, and a poor people poorer.
An Hon. Gentleman, talking the other night of the AP'
propriation clause, said it was dead: He doubted
It was entombed, but the inscription on the tablet was
Resurgam."—(Hear, hear.) He believed that its re'
surrection would shortly take place, and that all Ireland
would declare against the temporalities of the Pros
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 purpostt
and not to the support of the clergy of a smell
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 the/
were asking among themselves. Why should not
same principle be applied to Ireland as had been applied
to Scotland ? Scotland, to be sure had fought for
" happy hearths and altars free." In Ireland the altars
were not free. The Protestant Church had been este'
blished in England because the majority of the people
were Episcopalians. Presbyterianism had been esW
blished in Scotland because the majority of the peopl°
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 degrade'
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. 13116
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 tense
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 t°
the amendment.—(Hear.) He was opposed to the Bill°
the broad grounds that it was unnecessary, uncalled f°!'
and an unprecedented invasion of the rights of the sou'
ject. It was admitted Ireland was tranquil. The pear°
were tired of agitation, and were looking for some
thing 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 trail'
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 had eXPIe
triated themselves, and 40 or 50 of them only still re.
mained in prison untried. The tranquillity which pre'
veiled in the country was perfect. But, independently
f
of all this, they had a better guarantee for the peace °0
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 wh°.°3,
had gained the great battle of Waterloo at Balhei
Barry. In the tnidA of the presence of aff that powering
force they were asked to suspend the Habeas Corpc'
Act. For his own part, he had no hesitation in assor:
ing the House that there was no danger whatsoever i"
the public peace under any circumstances. The people
were looking to Parliament for relief from the pressor!
which was on them, and had discarded from their min°
all intention of fighting.—(Hear, hear.) Even the rel
material of agitation was dispersing. That source 0
agrarian disturbance, the competition for land, was era
tirely removed. The people were quitting the soil, en,
men who would perhaps have shot a landlord 12 molts
%
ago for being dispossessed from land, would not take al;
same course now. He regretted much to see the preseo;
Bill introduced by the Government on these bros.'
grounds, th.,t the Right lion. Gentlemen now occup)ing
the Treasury benches were al ways the friends of civil tei
religious hoerty. He regretted, therefore, that Ode
should be the parties to move the resolution then befera
the House, but concluded by suggesting to his Hon. 9110
Learned Friend the Member for Limerick not to dived
the House upon such a narrow point as that embraced m
his amendment.
ad,Mr. ANSTEY also rose to appeal to the Hon. ese
Learned Member for Limerick not to press his anseeo,
went to a division, as it seemed to him it would be iiire
possible for the House to come to a satisfactory rc:s-
upon it. He thought the amendment took more
shape of a question to be moved in Committee than e's
other. In the Committee the Act might be age Ciao
so as not to press upon persons engaged in the agitatlo7,
for the repeal of the union. Now if that was a treas°o..
able agitation the matter was ended; if it was not, the'
the proposed measure did not bring it within its scae
—(Hear.) Under all tee circumstances it appeared 'he
sossible for himto hesitate as to the vote which
hould be obliged to give. In one point of view i"
amendment was unnecessary, in another pernicious. d
Mr. J. O'CONNELL rose to explain. He weep
to know whether, from the speech of the Right o°o
and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, it wof
understood that the letter of the Lord-Lieutenantee,
Ireland, or the comment upon it by the Chief Secreteiti,
implied it was proposed to prevent, by the present Ine
sure, anything like constitutional agitation. rd'
Sir G. GREY said neither the letter of the Vol
Lieutenant nor the speech of the Chief Secretary suite
be supposed to have the force of law. He was cled
willing to concur in the opinion expressed by his Lest'
Friend the Solicitor-General and the Hon. and Leear-os.
Member opposite (Mr. Anstey). He thought the s'epg
and Learned Member who proposed the amend °3.0
would act wisely in attending to the suggestions obi
had been thrown out.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL then withdrew his motion' is
timating that its substance might be embodied in o°'
au
in C
he omittee.
Tquestion was then put that Cee House shook.' "
into Committee. the
Mr. J. O'CONNELL mcved a negative,ttri-
House divided on the question.
The numbers were:—
Ayes

Noes l4
Majority
11 in

The House then went into Committee—Mr. Berne
the chair,
On clause I being proposed, the
Mr. ANSTEY rose to propose, pursuant to notice, 0,
following amendments :—At page 1, line 3 from betTop9
to omit "is are or." At page 2, lines 3 and 4 fre°36 to
tn omit, "or treasonable practices ;" lines 5 anut,tiin
emit, " without bail or rnainprise until," and to i°sp—rifY
their place, " for any time by order of the ssia,`„",
Council to be limited, such time not to exceed ;",:. 0- 00
to inert " whereby any order of the said Privy u°7ocl
shall he so directed ;" line 10, to omit " witnoet: sett
substitute " until ;" line 11. after council" t°
" to the contrary or ;" and to omit the whole of 58-0 to
2. And at page 3, line 5 from top, after "than in.
insert " true ;" and at line 6, before " warrants" ti t. he
sert "orders and." In moving these amen of
avowed himself opposed totally to the principle ° iple9
present Bill; but as the I louse had affirmed that prill
he conceived th ,t the Bill would be modified 90" ile
proved considerably by carrying out his suggestieiTcoly
would propose the very reverse of what the „fele
ternplated, and would only givo the extruordinarY root
which it invested in the hands of al, Lord-Lied to
to a committee of the Privy Council. It aPPekarcs*Je°
him strange that so many Members on bet" Meet
of the I-raise should feel so :Tatitetio about a Ilvohies‘
which went so much to infringe upon one of the lie
and most important yrinciples of the constitution' not
concluded, however, by announcing his intentiontg.
dividing the House on the first of his Mondale°