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

, 2

for, said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it was accom-
panied in 1825 with two securities which the measure of
1829 had not. I never was more surprised than at hearing
this declaration from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. One
of these securities to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
alludes, as accompanying the Bill of 1825, was the extinction
of the forty-shilling freeholders ; and the other a provision
from the public )urse for the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ire -
land. Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman forget that in
1829 the abuse of the forty-shilling freeholders was removed?
And as to a provision for the Catholic Clergy of Ireland, I
never was aware until this moment that it was desired by them.
I did, on the contrary, understand that such a proposal was
received with something not far removed from indignation—
that it was objected to alike by the priesthood and the laity.—_
( Cheers.) That Hon. and Learned Gentleman says that the
Act of 1829, which removed the disabilities under which the
Roman Catholics laboured, gave them a new and specific inte-
rest in the existence of the Irish Corporations; and he asks,
am I not inconsistent, after successfully advocating the mea-
sure of 1829, in now refusing them the advantages of muni-
cipal rights; in endeavouring to overthrow Corporations alto-
gether, and thus depriving the Catholics of what they ought,
and were fully entitled, to enjoy in the spirit of that measure
which I myself brought forward in 1829. I must say that in
this part of his speech the Hon. and Learned Member seems•
to have produced a powerful effect upon the House, but it
must have arisen more from his brilliancy of phrase, and
from having drawn largely on the feelings or on the
fancy of the House, than from any force of argument or con-
clusiveness of reasoning. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
says the Roman Catholics have an interest in preserving the
corporations of Ireland, that they are no less interested in their
existence and in their admissibility to them than in the exis-

tence of other offices. They are admissible, says he, to the
army, to the navy, to all offices, civil and military; and are
they to be deprived now of municipal rights ? Is that my pro-
position? Is there not a vast difference between this, and
saying, I will not destroy municipal Corporations, but I will
take care that there shall be no abuse —(Cheers)—that the
monopoly which before was the object of complaint shall
not exist in another shape.—(Cheers.). We say our object
is not to destroyt he Corporations, that they shall continue,
but not under such circumstances ; that all power must be
in the hands as much of a party as it was before. That
this would be the result was not attempted to be concealed.
•It was impossible to deny that it must necessarily be so.
What said the Honourable Member for Northamptonshire ?
" Do I deny," said the Honourable Member, " that this Bill
will give power to the majority in Ireland ? No," said he, " I
rejoice that it will give power to those who are as seven to one
of the population." (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
The Hon. Gentleman, therefore, and those with whom he
acts, foresee very clearly that the result of this measure will
be to transfer corporation monopoly from the Protestants
of Ireland to the Catholics, and the Hon. Gentleman exults
in the prospect of the unqualified, the unmitigated, exclusion
of the Protestants. "It will," said he, "be a transfer of
power, but a transfer into the hands of the majority, who by
right are entitled to it." I sincerely believe that it will have
that effect—that in place of removing it will perpetuate the
evils which it is proposed to remedy—that it will lead to civil
and religious animosities, even more rancorous than those by
which the country is now harassed. lam ready to admit the
force of the prima facie analogy drawn between this country
and Ireland as regards municipal reform. But if the analogy
will not hold throughout—if I find circumstances connected
with municipal reform in Ireland which are not to be found in
this country—if a principle must necessarily come into opera-
tion there which is not at work here—then I say you are not
right in following out the analogy. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman (the Member for Tipperary) said that my
Administration could not stand, that at the moment of its for.
mation my grave, as the head of that Administration, was dug
deep in Ireland. In this respect I am not much worse off
than many of those who have been most highly lauded by the
Roman Catholics of Ireland. Their graves were dug as
deep as mine, and they were treated with equal, if not
greater neglect than I, who never presumed to consider my-
self entitled to their gratitude. We now hear a great deal
about acting upon analogies with England, because it serves
the purpose of the moment. It was not long, however, since
a Noble Lord (Duncannon) was reminded by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the Member fOr Dublin, of the injuries
that Noble Lord and his colleagues were inflicting upon Ire-
land by following English analogies.—[Here the Right Hon.
Baronet read a long extract from a letter of Mr. O'Connell,
written in 1834 to Lord Duncannon, condemning in the
strongest language the policy pursued by Lord Grey's Govern-
ment towards Ireland.] If ever there was a plan more
effectually devised than another to promote agitation, to
give triumph to one party and discontent to another, to ex-
cite civil and religious animosities—it is this. Here we have
Commissioners empowered to tax not only for the salary of
mayors, and other corporate officers, but for every other officer
they may please to appoint. Take, for instance, the first and
the last on the list of these Corporations. Now, Belturbet,
the first on, the scale, has a population of 2,000. Here a
power is given to tax for the erection of a building for corpo-
rate purposes, for cleansing, lighting, and paving, and pay-
ment of officers. At the same time towns, with a much
larger population are entirely omitted. Ardfert, for instance,
is called a village in the report. It has, however, a larger po-
pulation than Belturbet, but has not the honours of a corpora-

tion. It might be said that Belturbet is an improving place,
rising in wealth and population—that it is a prosperous corpo-
ration. Judge from the amount of its funds. The whole
amount to 91.—(A laugh)—and the clear revenue 41. a year;
and this place, with such funds, is to be burthened with the
charges of a house, a mayor, and corporate officers, while
places having a population of 6,000 or 7,000, are to be quite
exempt from all these burthens. Take the city of Dublin.
This Bill gives to Dublin a Mayor and a town-council ; but it
gives no right of appointing either a sheriff or a recorder. It
is to have a mayor and town council, but the care of paving,
lightiag, watching, and improving the harbour, are not to be
transferred' to the new Corporation. What was the natural in-
ference to be drawn from this ? Why, no other can be drawn
but that the new corporation is to be exclusively political.
—(Cheers.) Such a system can lead to nothing but agita-
tion, animosity, and discontent. I feel assured at the same
time, and I am perfectly ready to admit that no good object
can be gained by retaining the old Corporations. I will con-
sent, therefore, to their abolition. We are ready to extinguish
existing abuses, but when you attach a condition to the con-
tinued existence of municipal Corporations in which condition
we cannot concur no course remains for us but to refuse
our assent.—( Cheers.) The Hon. and Leariied Gentle-
man said that it was the spiritual influence of the priest-
hood that carried the removal of the political disabilities
under which the Roman Catholics of Ireland laboured.
So far it might be right that the spiritual influence of the
priesthood should be exercised; but when the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman also tells us that the same spiritual
influence was exercised to carry Reform, can he be sur-
prised that when he declares that he thinks it glorious that
that spiritual influence should have been exercised for the
promotion of a merely civil object—can he be surprised, I
say, or think it unjust that we should refuse to consent to
the creation of a new mode of exercising that influence by
the erection of fifty popular assemblies, through the medium
of which that influence shall be exerted for the spread
of the political power of the priesthood ?—(Hear, hear,
hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentleman re-
fers with triumph to the annihilation of the power of the
Beresfords in one county and of the Fosters in another, as
having been the result of the influence of the Irish priesthood.
Then, I say, that, for the sake of that common religion which
we all profess, and from the spirit of which nothing can be
farther than the practices which the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman has shown, if the boast of the Hone and Learned. Gen.

ieman is well founded, I have a right to say that I do not

think it will conduce to its legitimate influence,' to its mainte-
nance,
or to the spread of Protestant institutions throughout
Ireland that this new sphere should be created, in which the
same influence may be exerted, and that, too, under circum-
stances calculated to do much more serious injury to the cause
of religion and good government than any popular election for
mere political purposes could effect. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman has declared his belief that the Roman Catholic
priesthood may legitimately continue to exercise their spiritual
influence over political affairs, and after that admission of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's, I must say that, while I re-
tain my determined desire to place Roman Catholics and Pro-
testants on a perfeot footing of civil equality, I will not con-
sent to the establishment of institutions which must be des-
tructive to that equality, which will afford a new scope for the
exercise of that influence which, he thinks, may legitimately
be directed to the ruin of the Protestant Church. I will not
allow the erection of a vehicle for the promotion of adverse in-
terests, which are to be directed towards the annihilation or
the humiliation of the established religion in Ireland.—(The
Right Hon. Baronet then sat down amidst loud cheering.)
Mr. O'L OG HLEN would not detain the House more than
a few moments, while he replied to certain observations
which had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for
Exeter on the subject of the original constitution of the cor-
porations in Ireland. If be had rightly understood the Hon.
and Learned Member he had said that a great number of
these corporations had been established for the benefit of the
Protestant inhabitants, to the exclusion of the Roman Catho-
lics. He (Mr. O'Lochlen) found, on the contrary, that so
far from there having been any exclusive privilege of that
description, all these corporations had originally been chartered
for the benefit of the inhabitants at large, without reference
whether they were Protestants or Catholics. It had also
been stated in the course of the debate that the forty corpora-
tions established by James I. had been established exclusively
for Protestant purposes. In refutation of this position he need
only refer to the speech of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Stanley) when introducing the Irish Reform Bill in 1832,
where it was expressly combated. The report to which the
Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had referred distinctly
stated that the object of the charters of James I. was that
they should affect the respectable inhabitants of the towns
generally. Where, then, did the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man get the materials for his statement that those charters
were granted for the benefit of Protestants exclusively ?
Another statement of the Hon. and Learned Member was
that, having deprived the Corporations under this Bill of the
right of electing sheriffs, they had been deprived of all share
in the administration of justice; and the Hon. and Learned
Member asked what was left of power to the Corporations ?
Why, they were still left the power of levying rates for local
purposes and of managing the revenues thus created, and the
maintenance* of the peace as far as the functions of the mayor
were concerned. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth had asked on what principle Belturbet had been in-
cßluadroendeti,nhotwheeveßr,icllo,m‘pvahrile thee A
excise revenue
t was excluded ; and he
seemed at the same time to think that Belturbet was so wholly
that
place of
nam eewmoprtahris and td
with hewo
one uld findci-
which that t
itu
r
e
insignificant as not to deserve being included. Let the Hon.
ißt b
to Parliament, and maintained undisturbed its corpora-
r returned wase d of
nottsi
t cm t and
em-
bers trifling
a