The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-01 00:00:00

counted for. The matter to which he alluded was a
letter which occurred in the course of the negocia-
tions between this country and Portugal on the sub-
ject of the Slave Trade, which this country had been so
long anxious to put an end to, and in his efforts
to put down which Mr. Wilberforce. had distinguished
himself in a manner which would immortalise his memory.
He would now call the attention of the House to a re-
markable letter to which he had before referred. This
country had paid twenty millions of money to put an end
to the slave trade—and, in fact, no effort had been left
untried to put an end to the slave trade in 1817. The
Congress of Vienna resolved that all nations should be in-
vited to put an end to that atrocious traffic. Portugal
then bound itself to comply with a resolution passed by
that Congress, and it was thought that nothing less than
that declaration could put an end to it. Lord Howard do
Walden was employed by her Majesty's Government to
negociate with Portugal on that subject. But while this
country were pressing the question with all possible zeal,
the letter of which he had spoken was published in Por-
tugal. And why was it published? Because part of
the proceedings connected with that negociation had
been laid on the table—no other country but Portugal was
named in those documents. This House passed the Bill
declaring the Slave-trade to be piracy, because Portugal,
which had agreed to the resolutions for the suppression of
the Slave-trade, had afterwards violated the treaty to
which it was a party to effect that purpose. When Portu-
guese Ministers saw the proceedings of that House, what
did Portugal do ? They published the whole of the letter
written by Lord Howard de Walden in this country. He
hoped that her Majesty's Government would not object to
give a proper explanation of this matter, because they
must all feel anxious about the honour or the country, and
for himself he hoped that explanation would be such as to
retrieve this nation from the indelible disgrace which
must otherwise attach to it—was he not justified,
then, in the absence of all explanation, in making the ob •
servations which he had made, and in thinking that letter
was a forgery, when it had been published in the Papers
throughout the country, with a striking observation at-
serration attached to it, " most confidential?" The Hon.
Member then proceeded to read the document, in the
course of which it was stated that England was the only
country which had declared the slave trade to be piracy.
He (Sergeant Jackson) did then believe that he was
justified in concluding that that letter was a forgery, for
the day after that very curious note appeared, the
20th of May, 1838, Lord Howard de Walden
addressed a note to the Portuguese Minister,
in which he stated " the undersigned cannot too strongly
impress upon you that the condition of making the Slave
Trade piracy, must be a sine qua non." Thus on the 20th
of May, the day after the note referred te, does Lord How-
ard de Walden address another note making the declara-
tion of the Slave Trade piracy. Ho would ask was
there ever anything like such a proceeding? He would chal-
lenge the Noble Lord to produce a case having even the
semblance of that to whick helreferred. The Noble Lord
knew how anxious were the people of this country for the
abolition of the Slave Trade, yet at such a moment as this an
English Minister writes to the Portuguese Ministry to
pursue an equivocal course, and to cover the duplicity by
some declaration which would have the effect of satisfying,
by deluding, the people of England. The Noble Lord
knew well that had the Dissenters and the Quakers, and
all who had struggled for the abolition of sla-
very, properly understood the deception, it would
have given them marked offence—(Hear).—yet in
the face of this deception, the Government had taken cre-
dit to itself for accomplishing in this respect what the ex-
ertions of others had achieved. In fact, he looked upon the
conduct of the Government in this instance, when fairly in-
terpreted, to mean, " give me a handful of dust to throw
in the eyes of John Bull." He believed there was
not a parallel case to be found. There was a long expla-
nation in the other House on the subject, and there he
found the Prime Minister of England giving an explana-
tion somewhat different to that given by the Noble Lord,
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in that House ; there
were two explanations, they both differed, and neither was
satisfactory. What was now the excuse given? Why,
that it was usual for friendly Powers thus to communi-
cate. Perhaps it was usual, where two friendly Powers
were negociating with the same views, to furnish
each other with draft copies; but would the Noble
Lord tell him that England and Portugal had an
indentity of interest? No such thing ; England had
abolished the slave trade—Portugal was still carrying it
on. The only other excuse was that in submitting a mea-
sure for the suppression of the slave trade to the Portu-
guese Legislature, the language in which it was embodied
should be as moderate as possible. Now, he would ask
what was it to us if Portugal put itself in the wrong?
Perhaps if it had done so it would have been all the better
for us—but it struck him that those excuses were utterly
false. If that document was before the House when the
question of the slave trade was under their consideration he
did not know what would have been the effect. He would
not detain the House further upon this subjecnbut would pro-
ceed to an observation which had been made relative to this
Chief Secretary for Ireland, and would address himself to
other topics, which he thought would have more weight.
The Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, had never
denied that thousands in Ireland had confidence in the
Government; he could not !ao surprised if that were the
case, because everything which could be had been done to
satisfy them. It was but within a very recent period since
the loyal people of Ireland had been disappointed, who,
till then. had acted in such way as to please even the
Conservatives, but the Noble Lord had afterwards turned
over a new leaf, he did not know at whose suggestion, or
how much the Hon. Member for Dublin had to do in
producing the change. The Noble Lord, the Member
for North Lancashire, may not possess the confidence
of the Government ; does he not possess the confidence of
the people of Ireland? With respect to the confidence of
the Protestants of Ireland, the Government had received a
heavy blow, and whatever might be its popularity among
the lower classes, they had not the confidence of the middle
ranks, who, be was happy to say, had ;continued steadfast
in their adhesion to the laws and faithful to Protestant con:-
stitutional principles. Had others done so ? He wished
he could say they had.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
then the Noble Lord proceeded to dilate a good deal on
the tranquillity of Ireland. Ho (Mr. Sergeant Jackson)
was firmly persuaded that no one cause would more
conduce to tranquillity than that very question, namely, the
settlement of the Tithe Agitation. But was that question
settled ? Would the Hon. Member for Dublin permit the
question to be settled ? Was it not intended as a final
measure ? Had they not thought that the best measure
for tranquillity in 1837 was the amendment of the Corpo-
rations ; and had not a Noble Duke, in the other House,
declared in 1837 that he was anxious for tranquillity, and
that a good Tithe Bill was necessary to set that matter at
rest, and also that a good Poor Bill was requisite, and
that then they, the Conservatives, would take the measure
into their consideration ? They, at that time, put faith in
that measure as one put forward as a final measure. But
what had been the course pursued by the Hon. Member for
Dublin ? Why, he had been proceeding with the re-con-
struction of various societies in Ireland. He had given
names—he knew not what. He had changed the name of
the Precursor Society into that of the Loyal Regis•
tration Society, composed of Roman Catholic Priests
and others, patronised by the Honourable Member for
Dublin. What was the fourth rule of that new-created
Society ? It was to transfer the tithe rent-charge to the
Poor-law Commissioners in substitution of the Poor-law
fund. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) asked, whether that
was fair dealing with Ireland? He asked, whether that
was not a subversion of the established law? He asked
whether, on Christmas-eve, be had not harangued multi-
tudes, and directed them to use force ? And he asked,
whether the Lord-Lieutenant—a Minister of the Crown—
the representative of her Majesty—should show favour in
such an unequivocal manner to the Hon. Member for
Dublin, by inviting him to the Castle, and entertaining
him as a guest at the Royal table? He said that man
was gull.), of an offence amounting to sedition—in short,
amounting to high treason ; for he (Mr. Sergeant Jack-
son) said it was high treason to attempt by force to alter
the law of the land ; and he said such a man was guilty of
an attack on the Crown, and would forfeit his life
on the scaffold. And he said, when a man bad de-
livered a speech of the most outrageous and seditious
character, and was then patronised by the representative
of her Majesty—he asked what was the inference that the
people of Ireland would draw? Could they blame the peo-
ple of that unhappy country, if a man making. such a sedi-
tious speech, was received piping hot by the highest au-
thority ?—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He ( Mr. Ser-
geant Jseltson) confessed that they were an excitable people
—a generous people—easily led by feelings—and easily
led the right way, if they had but proper directions; but
on the other hand, capable of being corrupted by vicious
examples. And he must say that in this respect her Ma-
jesty's Government contrasted in a striking manner with
that of Lord Grey—for that Government would not coun-
tenance the Hon. Member for Dublin—they would neither
countenance him nor his legion. They dragged him in
even before his own Court by a bill of indictment, and he
would have been convicted by a jury of his country if he
the Government calleddidp upon
o rto
odid vote
not
uponp thes s
t
b e e question
confidence
had not withdrawn his issue. He ( Mr. Sergeant Jackson)
whe o
whether
was
w
that Hosaiduse. On what ground could they be to bare
that confidence. He had stated, arid he would state
,aga n, the
s s
various qualities necessary for a Government. Terre were
two or three specially essential ingredient. necessary for
the character of an administration, by wh,ch alone they
could command the confidence of the House of Common;
They ought to have fixed principles; next they shsuld
act upon those principles ; and, thirdly, a Government pos.
seating capacity should be capable of understanding what
was for the good of the country, an I should have the
power of carrying it into effect.—( Hear, hear.) He
denied that the present Government possessed one of those
attributes, and the Government could not pos;ess the con-
Vence of that House. There were a few mere topics to
which the Noble Lord opposite had thought proper to
advert. The Noble Lord admitted many things had been
done by the Hon. Member for Dublin, of which he (Mr.
Sergeant Jackson) hoped he disapproved, and among
other things chiefly of that oration, in which the 1-lon.
Member for Dublin talked of turning out, and dying in the
field, if her Majesiy presumed to exercise her prerogative of
calling another Government to her assistance; and at that
speech also in which he used language calumniating the
Conservative party, headed by Peel and Wellington. lie
had there basely insinuated that they would drug the cup
of her M ijesty, in fact, he said that they would poison her.
Ho was called on to retract, and he then solemnly de-
clared his conviction that if there should be a change of
Administration her Majesty would not survive at six
months. Was it possible that such language could be ut-
tered by any gentleman ? and he was sure that every in-
dividual, be he whom he might, would condemn such
monstrous and outraeeous language. Could anybody be-
lieve it? Why, the assertion was destroyed by its
utter absurdity. No rational human being, he was sure,
was in existence, who would not scorn such a suggestion.
The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, as an instance
of disgraceful conduct, thought proper to quote his Hon.
and Noble Friend, Lord Roden, a nobleman who was ,
treated with the highest respect and approbation by all
classes. What was the substance of the speech quoted by l
the Noble Lord opposite ? Why it was a suggestion that 1
the loyal
resist the insurrection and hostility of tlist party in leselavd,
people et Ireland would, in case of necessity,