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

E, EN:NG EDI I' ft

:Dublin, who had always been accustomed to use the moat
violent Isnguage.—( Hear, hear ) NOL7 the Government
boasted dten that they had' -" preserved tke national
peace." Yes, but he maintained it had been almost at the
expense of the national honour. On two separate occasions
the British _ flag had .breit- iniurted,' with no adequLte
satisfaction • As to the Frerub,in4ult, the apology was
'Very insufficient—it was merely that it was not known that
the vessel was a ship of war.
Lord PALMERSTON—No, an English vessel.
.

Mr. MACL EAN said he was not aware of that, and
he went on to accuse the Government of apathy in regard
to tht French occupation of Algiers. He then alluded to
the rupture with Persia, which he said had been produced
by Russian intrigue. Ruasia, he said, had steadily pur-
sued the aggressive system against England. The system
began by Peter the Great had been followed by Alexander
and Nicholas_-the aim was alike, to exclude British com-
merce and lower the national honour whenever they could.
The Honourable Member then proceeded to condemn
the policy of the present Government with regard to
the recent operations in Persia and India, and contended
that they had been made the dupes of the intrigur,s of the
the Russian Government in both these cases.—(The noise
in the body of the House, mingled with occasional cl,4es of
" Divide," prevented our catching more than a few de-
tached words occasionally, but we understood the above to
be the line of argument pursued by the Hon. Gentleman.)
The Hon. and Learned Member in conclusion observed
that he felt convinced that the motion would be carried by
an overwhelming majority.
. .

Mr. O'C 0 NNE E L th" en rose and addressed the House.
He said, Sir, it is not my intention to trouble the House
with any reply to the able speech made by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who has jest down. I have not had
the good fortune—but that was not his fault—to hear him
throughout, and, therefore, I must leave in unbroken force
whatever arguments he has adduced in favour of the other
side of the House, and must also leave the Ministry to pro-
tect themselves from the arguments he has adduced against
them.--( Hear.) I solemnly assure the House that I feel.
it to be an imperative duty to address them ; -and I am
sorry to say that there is matter upon this subject which
would alm-st compel me to trespass at greater length
than I should be willing or at all disposed to do. Ido
not think this debate is likely to raise this House in the
opinion of the public, or in the estnnation of Europe, for
the subject has not bees treated as a great rational
question, but as being reduced to what I may call a paltry
controversy between one party in this Muse and another.
Sir, I look upon this as a most momentous question, for
we have to decide how this great empire is to be governed.
—( Hear, hear.) We have to decide how twenty-four
millions of purple are to be governed, and how perhaps a
hundred thousand millions of subjects are to be governed
who are dependent upon our control. How has this sub-
ject been discussed ? Why Hon. Members have dealt
most liberally in abuse of me, because I happened to have
the honour of dining with the Lord Lieutenant. Is it
right or is it fair, that a question of this importance
should be discussed in this manner? I leave Hon.
Members to reconcile such conduct, and wish them joy of
it. I have been the subject matter of many attacks. I
have been called a Repealer. I was so; and I would ask has
anything happened in this debate to strengthen me
in that opinion.? Did you hear the speech of the Hon.
Member for Durham ?—( Hear, hear.) He spoke of
Parliament—not of the Parliament of a united people. No,
be spoke of English majorities and Irish majorities.
If this kingdom be a united kingdom, why, I would ask, is
there to ba any distinction between England and Ireland?
The Government have been taunted with having offered
me, a Repealer, the situation of Chief Baron of the Ex-
chequer in Ireland. If that be a fault in the Ministry,
they have at least this redeeming quality that, at the time
they made the offer I had laid aside the repeal agitation,
in the hopes that the House of Commons would have done
justice to Ireland. I refused that offer—l don't think it is
an example that is likely to be followed on the other side
—I refused—l am sorry to speak of myself, but I refused
it upon two grounds,—first, because I could not trust m -
self to accept an office in which I was afraid I should
fall into a partiality either towards one or the other,
either I should do injustice by favouring those who agree
with me, or that I might commit the much more common
injustice of doing injustice to them by favouring my
opponents, lest I should be accused of injustice
by favouring them.—( Hear ) I felt that if I entertained
such opinions, that I should not be fit to deal
out justice, and on that ground I refused the appointment.
I have seen some men talk long and loud—l have seen
others violent in their politics, and truculent in their
language—for no other purpose than to force themselves
into notice, and by that means obtain a judgeship. That,
however, is not my case.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet opposite did me the honour to notice me particularly,
and with that candour for which he is so eminent.
(Laughter.) He charged me with comparing myself with
Papineau, and then he said that Papineau was a fugitive
traitor, who bad fled from his country, not daring to
stand his trial, when he was charged with . one of
the highest • crimes known to the law, high treason.
Did not the Right. Honourable Baronet, by that
insinuate that when I compared myself to Papineau, that I'
was like him? but he forgot to read the remainder of the
passage, in which I did compare myself to Papineau.--
( Cheers.) I said that we, each of us, had considerable
popular influence, but that he had the advantage of me, be-
cause ho had a majority in his favour of the House
of Representatives; but I said he was a. traitor to the
people as well as to the Crown, because, instead of using
the moral means in his power, ho resorted to physical
force.—(Great cheering.) I succeeded, and he failed, for
the very reason I have-given yora, that I looked to nothing
but moral means, while he attempted physical force.
But I have said more than enough of myself, and I now
ask the House—this debate having lasted so long—
W hat are the principles of Government hid down by the
gentleman opposite? Their case is this—turn the present
Ministry out, and let us in.—(Laughter.) But there is
more in the machinery of this motion than want of coal-
denee. If you declare a want of confidence in the present
Ministry, who are the men that ought to replace them ?
Why, the Right Baronet, and those who sit along
with him Ot the Other side of the House. Upon what,
I would ask, have they laid their foundation for governing
the country ?—( Hear.) I have heard of attacks upon
the Ministry, but I have not heard any distinct enuncia-
tion upon what principle they mean to govern the country:
should they obtain the reins of government.—( Hear.)
have not heard what they mean to do in England, or, last
of all, what they mean to do for. Ireland.—( Hear, hear.)
What are your principles ? You say there is dissatisfac-
tion in the manufacturing classes—you say that dissatis-
faction is spreading in every town in the kingdom. You
heard horrible accounts from the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham; he talked of armed Chartists—he talked 0'
weapons of destructive character—he talked of an English
conspiracy for assassination, and he told you that
nine or ten victims, were marked out for it. We
have heard of the riot at Bradford—wo have heard of
the outbreak in Sheffield, and the rebellion in Wales. If such
be the situation of England, if it be what you have de-
scribed, nave you at the present moment no-panacea for
those evils ?—( Hear, hear.) Do you think that the
people have no grievances ? If such be the case, will Yo°
redress them ? You have talked for three or four nights,
but not a single Member has spoken of redressing the
grievances of the people. When the outbreak shows itself,
should you be the Ministers of the country, bow do yo';
purpose to act for its benefit ? Will you turn Thorogooa
out of gaol, and take away those obnoxious taxes, the
Church-rates? Will you prevent the gaols of the country
being filled by persons who may commit the enormous'
crime that he has done ?—(Cheers ) Will you do that
No, you dare not do it ; for the very moment 1
do so your party would be broken up.-4 Hear, be 'o
How do you stand upon this. subject? Why, when t f
Government proposerfea plan for altering the revenues °
the Church, and doing away' with Church-rates, by
•
ploying the surplus revenue in their stead, you successfali
resisted them, and you left the grievance of Chureb-rates
festering in the country—that country which you say is bc;
a state of disaffection. Nay, more, the Hon. Baronet, "..
doubt, chuckles at the number of petitions that have been
presented in favour of Church extension. What does thi!l
mean ? --Why, nothing more than a requisition for pa°e
,
money. You cannot bave Church extension without
money.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") ';
that one of your cures for the grievances of the people'
( Hear, hear)—if you give money for ChUrch extension ht,
England, you must .do so fereScotland, and then would
ask in what situation would you be with regard to Ire-
land?—( Hear, hear.) I am doing you good with your,
own party in taunting you on this subject. —( Hear, helve;
Well, if 3 ou are not settled upon that, you are determined
upon the Corn-laws. In the present state of the country,
the working classes disaffected, you tell them there is p
probability of an alteration in the Corn-laws. you take
your stand, and tell the suffering manufacturer that 3a
will never relax the present scale of duties. You raft;
round the landowner ; you are not wise, in my opinion,
doing so; and I would recommend Members of the
House who are disposed to place confidence in you,
to pause till they are fully convinced that you are
the persons who can cure the evils under which the
people are .labouring.—( Hear, hear.) We have the
great First, doings
dbhiyana
dud entwlhnaaeenrnredhosaef
ostdfthei
the middle
mocoorinod
odtmfll
eti thisCorn-lawclasses,
da at
yitvoewuqs
h,uhiccweshatbiroirceoo:.:
solutions, deprecating the Corn-laws, were unanimously
e
cwaarsried attendedW
ud
sdd the
mt
ehie adeec nnl
heardl propriety or(aai p
declamation
yrd?wd,
_eohyshl
o(ceotuhatihf r
heet)thei
a_hraere,yrda eonghamfdpu:
aeept
rashi
.atonei
)uhoo
:uner?hdT?o
readinesswaa DOrkg Ihdu,
em:
wyith
drlhkutt
anh,
not
hagh- know
adtr
hear
whichyh
toaoot f t
resists
Throne and Constitution from these men ! the &act
; 5
exists from the eternal barriers which you place aga'n d
the repeal of the Corn laws. —(Hear, hear, "",
Cheers.) There was a third meeting, at Manchester 00
Tuesday last, which was attended ey upwards of MI,
persons, and the speeches that were made by the opereVoti
that attended would not disgrace the benches
this House. I will read one that 'was made ,b fi
an operative of the name of Gicideon, and vylls,
I must say reflects the greatest credit on him. do
said in his speech at that meeting, " I, too, say that
not consider a repeal of the Corn-laws as a final rness°,4
of Reform. It is desirable that there should be al a';i9
other reforms, and I advocate a repeal of the Corr-leci'd
a step to obtaining them. I do not ask the aristocrat.,
for a law making bread cheap, but I do ask for the rll
moval of a law making bread dear. The aristocracy teed
us, that to repeal this law would infringe on their vet,.
interests; but I ask them to repeal the law whieht"at
fringes on my vested interests. The aristocracy sae, "tee
if you repeal the Corn-law you will interfere with eO.
vested interests that theysnoLb;dlaanwvasdaet.err:i,mydn,natonihaeir patrimonial estat:/e.
infringes
yerd a
e re
eas pw ella rt,estate—thehgoonauftat
mgh peeyr
ievo:etii.:l
oe
it's!
tdrif
obi,
ugresdhtfsrttr
lords'
woenf:dwe
traetheisoilesenessßecobogrobutribelinieanarnttyidyit
man, who has not yet joined the Chartists, on the quo' d-
d the Corn.law—that is the language in which 11.' " o
en
dresses himself to the sympathies of his fellow- wot
on the question of the Corn.law. He calls it the lords' Law, Law, the Robbery Law ; and 3ou say to thes°,era-
ple, stand off, we will not discuss the question of the 'thou
-tares with you—we will-not alter the Coi'n-larrs"'