The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-29 00:00:00

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE BILL.

Mr. GOULBURN said as there was a great deal of bu-
siness before the house next Wednesday, which was the day
appointed for the second reading of the Dissenters' Mar-
riage Bill, he wished to ask the noble lord (Althorp)when
that bill would be read a second time ?

Lord ALTHORP was inaudible in his reply.
REPEAL OF THE UNION.

Lord COLE presented a petition from the county Fer-
managh against the repeal of the union, and praying for
the adoption of some constitutional means to put down
agitation in Ireland. (A laugh.)
Mr. EMERSON TENNANT presented three peti-
tions against the repeal of the Union, from Antrim, most
respectably signed, and by Roman Catholics.
Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR presented a petition, in
favour of the repeal of the union, from the countyWicklow.
KILMAINHAM GAOL.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition against the abolition
of Kilmainham Gaol. (Hear, hear, from some of the
Irish members.)
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The original motion of the hon. member for Dublin,
and the amendment thereto being put from the chair,
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN rose. He felt fully sensible
that many in that house would consider it presumptuous
in him, after the many able and eloquent speeches
delivered on the motion then before the house, to
address them. He also acknowledged his own in-
feriority, but a sense of that duty he had to dis-
charge to those who sent him there, prompted him
to express his sentiments upon that subject, and he
confidently hoped for the indulgence of the house while
he proceeded to deliver his opinions briefly. (Hear.) He
(Mr. C.) had imagined that the nature of the resolutions
which had been submitted to the house by his hon. friend
the member for Dublin,•would have precluded any per-
sonality from the present discussion, when a mere inquiry
was sought for. (" Hear, hear," from the Irish members. )
So far as he (Mr. Callaghan) had been able to collect the
sense of that house, he believed that the opposition to indi-
viduals was the great cause of the opposition that had been
given to the question of repeal. He complained that the
right hon. the Secretary for the Treasury, who had so
often conducted the debates of the house with such good
temper, should have indulged in invective, and sanctioned
others in their abuse of the hon. member for Dublin. The
hon. member for Aberdeen had thought proper on a former
occasion to abuse Mr. O'Connell when he was not a
member of that house, because he had given offence to
Mr. Hume. (Order.) The house would recollect the
observations of the right hon. the Secretary of the
Treasury upon that occasion, from which he (Mr. Cal-
laghan) would read an extract, and he saw no reason
because the right hon. Secretary had changed his situation,
that he should now indulge in attacks which he had then
so strongly disapproved. He (Mr. C.) thought that
every attempt made in that house to vilify the leaders of
the popular party in Ireland was injurious to the interests
of the country. (Hear and laughter.) [The hon. mem-
ber then proceeded to read an extract of a speech of the
right hon. Secretary, in which he condemned the indiscri-
minate abuse which had been thrown upon Mr. O'Connell
and his friends.) With all due respect for the right hon.
Secretary, he should have avoided abusing the principal
agitator of the repeal of the union, for the reasons given by
himself upon a former occasion. He (Mr. C.) could
easily guess the motives for dwelling upon the de-
merits of the hon. and learned member for Dublin—it
was for the purpose of mixing up the other friends of that
measure with him, and attributing to all of them the same
motives. He (Mr. Callaghan) disclaimed such motives ;
was influenced merely by the wishes of his constituents,
and no individual could influence him in the dis-
charge of his public duty. (Hear, hear, hear.) He was
not an agitator of the question of repeal, but he defended
that question to the best of his ability, and he now came
forward to advocate it, because, in the opinion of Isis con-
stituents, that was the proper time to bring it forward.
The question of repeal was of recent growth, and bad
must have been the acts of the Government, and lamen-
table must have been the state of the country when,
after the lapse of thirty years, the question should have
been agitated so furiously in Ireland. (Hear, hear. )
He would confine himself to the period almost immediately
preceding the union, and at that time Ireland was pros-
perous certainly ; but he was not one to say that it
was more prosperous then it was now. (Hear, hear. )
He would not shut his eyes to certain improvements
that had been effected in Ireland since the union, but those
improvements he would not admit to have been the result
of the union. It was impossible but that improvements
must have been made, had the union of the countries not
na
nc rde, a
andse (I
for taken place. The population then was four millions—it
was now more, and that increase of population alone
consumption
aisulmtphteio great
ea otf
improvements
be found to be sufficient to account for the
imporovrteemdengtsootdhsat ihnatao
takes
n-
place in it. If, therefore, it had had the fostering
care of a legislature
of
its own during the period that had
elapsed since the uni • on, no one could say that great bene-
fits would not ha
ve resulted to it which it had never yet ex-
perienced, He
collod not see any benefits that had resulted
from the union.
by it—no export of new trade had been given to Ireland
whatever had beeanny new article into it—no provision
of anything from this made for the importing into it
before. Great benefits had which it had not enjoyed
union—benefits of commerce
been promised to it by the
that by the union Ireland c,ewespecially. It had been said
skill, labour, and industry ofould have the benefit of the
England. The hon.
then went on to say that, although statements member
made by the right hon. secretary fr.
S. Rice)
had been
the improved condition of Ireland, he had documentstoshow
show an entirely opposite state of affairs,
es
el to
re-
garded the town (l/ork) which he had the honour to taso rpresent. ( The hon member then enumerated various of trade and manufacturewbich had fallen off maus-
terially in the town of Cork since the period of the Union. )
It had been said that it was only the rabble and worthless
members of society who called for and agitated the repeal
of the legislative union. Such was not the case. It might
be very true that the majority of the proprietors of the land
were against the repeal, but the intelligence of the cities
and general population was decidedly in its favour. One
very great inconvenience incurred by the distance of the
real Government from the people of Ireland was manifest
particularly in the business connected with the Boards of
Excise, Customs, &c. It was difficult, nay next to impos-
sible, to get justice done to appellants at such a distance
from the seat of complaint. he (Mr. Callaghan) had had
frequent occasion to communicate with the Government
officers here in cases of this kind, and, although he must
acknowledge that be had always been treated with civility
and attention, the grievances which it had been his busi-
ness to represent had not always been relieved. (Hear,
hear.) If these offices were to be re-established in Dub-
lin again these causes of complaints and disaffection to the
Government would be at once removed. Another corn-

plaint which he had to allege was that, contrary to a stipu-
lation in the act of union itself, by which it was provided
that custom duties were only to be imposed upon articles
imported into English ports, it was now the practice, upon
articles of distillery particularly, to impose a duty, upon ex-
portation of the articles, not only upon the quantity im-
ported into England, but upon the whole supply exported.
The hon. member concluded by observing that the act of
union had been obtained by foul means, which would not
have been binding in a contract between individuals, and
therefore could not be more morally binding in the present
case; and that he should continue to advocate its repeal
whenever an opportunity should be offered.
Mr. Sergeant PERRIIN rose. It struck him on a
careful survey of the arguments on the side of the motion
of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that it would
be impolitic to repeal the Union, and that policy and jus-
tice to the Irish people required that the continued system
of agitation should be suppressed. It was plain to any
one who heard the speech of the hon. and learned member
for Dublin, and watched the course of the debate, that Ire-
land could not obtain her independence but by violence,
and that her independence through repeal meant separa-
tion. (Hear.) He (Mr. Sergeant P.) would here con-
jure his countrymen who, allowed themselves to be led
away by the seductive cry for repeal and national indepen-
dence to weigh well the consequences of that measure,
which was separation ; to consider first the true condition
of the country, and see whether there were not other and
more presssing claims on their legislative solicitude than
the abstract fantasy of repeal. Were there no poor to be
sustained? Was there no violence to be arrested—no se-
dition to be checked ? (Cheers.) Let them, he conjured
them to do it, give up useless agitation, and improve the
country. What good did agitation produce? Why, it
continued that fever of the public mind that infected the
whole country. While agitation lasted there would rest
on the great mass of the community in Ireland a plague-
spot and source of contamination that would spread from
north to south, from rich to poor, and infect the entire
country with the leprosy of disaffection. (Cheers.) If se-
paration took place, and repeal meant separation, who
could tell what form of Government would be established,
so complex were composed, so adverse were the separate
interests to be engaged in the question, and so conflicting
were the professed opinions of the leaders, who seemed to
agree in nothing but in separation, however much they
might cloak their designs under the mask of independence
and a separate Legislature? (Loud cheers.) Did
the act of union rest on the legislative enactment of
1800, or was it not rather based on the concurrence of the
people, yielding to and sanctioning its provisions ? (Hear. )
If there were an outcry against the union since its first
enactment there might be some reason for questioning its
popularity ; but when the people for nearly thirty years
acquiesced in the measure without a murmur, and when
the present outcry amongst a certain class was factitiously
and factiously excited, it was too much to say that the
public will was opposed to it. (Hear.) But it was not
the people alone that sanctioned the measure. The hon.
and learned member for Dublin himself sanctioned it, and
so late as 1828 too, when the hon. member made his first
speech in that house to defend his right to sit there as the
representative for Clare. What did he rest his argument
on ? Why on the act of union. He contended that un-
der the act of union, which, be it recollected, he did not
then designate as an usurpation (Hear, hear), he had a
right to sit as the representative of the people under the
protection of that sacred act of the union, an act that,
while it bound the two countries in an indissoluble bond of
amity and equal laws and equal protection (Cheers), gave
to every citizen of the state freely elected by the denizens
of that state an irrefragable right to take his place in the
councils of the nation. (Hear, hear.) It surely could not
be maintained that the constituents of the hon. member
at that time did not recognise the act of union, when
he himself stood on that act. He (Mr. Perrin) could
not see how the boasted independence of the Parliament of
1782 could prevent the compromise of 1800. Ile would
rest the whole case on this simple point—Was not the in-
corporation of the two Parliaments a free act of the Irish
Parliament ? Did not the people acquiesce in it for nearly
thirty years ? Did not the imperial legislature enact mea-
sures, such as Catholic emancipation and the reform bill,
that the Irish Parliament would shrink from ? The hon.
gentleman stated that the success of the reform bill was
due to the support of the Irish members. It was true that
the question of reform was much indebted to the Irish
members. But what did that show ? That there was a
fund of policy and justice in a great portion of the Irish
people, that, recognising the justice and expediency of such
a measure, sent forward their organs to support such
a measure. The hon. gentleman said that the union was
injurious to Ireland ; but at the same time he failed in
giving proofs of it. He said that distress prevailed—that
there was a fall of prices. Well, in some things they
might ; but did it then follow that because prices fell in
some instances the whole trade of the country must have
fallen off on that account? He (Sergeant Perrin) denied
that there was a reduction—a general reduction he would
say ; and that was the best way of putting the case. Par-
tial reduction there might have been in some cases,
but isolated instances did not warrant a general ac-
cusation or general deductions. (Hear, hear, hear.) Those
reductions that the hon. and learned member for. Dublin
dwelt on resulted from the increased intercourse between
the Irish and the British ports. Goods used to be stored
in the Irish ports before the union. It was not so now.
In Belfast, Newry, he believed Cork, and other sea-
port towns, merchandize was not stored but lodged,
and at once shipped off. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now,
with respect to the linen trade, he would say that there
was a greater expenditure now-than before the union.
The whole country had no cause of complaint. The
union was not fairly tried ; it had never been completed
till 1829, till the completion of Catholic emancipation.
And was it not too much to expect a measure of three or
four years to be hurried into legislative debate on such a
short trial ? What, then, was the cause of the agitation
thpaetopPlea.rliaff
mofenthtims iamdeionto?
theW hjusy,t the
claita.rmsd
yofeothneceslsrioisnh
emancipation had been carried long ago, without much
recrimination, the Catholics of Ireland would have been
peaceful, and the Protestants quiet. Of the union he would
say " Esto perpetua." '
Mr. FINN observed that the last speech, coming from
an avowed friend of the Irish people, was one of the most
and extraordinary he ever heard, and yet he would maintain
that the Irish Parliament was " in durance vile
in-
competent." (Laughter.) The maxim sic volo sic jubeo
was that adopted by the opponents of repeal ; they did not
look for arguments. The right hon. secretary was not an
Irishman but a West Briton. [Here the bon. member
recapitulated at great length the arguments advanced
during the previous part of the debate on the subject of
the alleged injustice of England to Ireland. ] The hon.
member then quoted at some length from the report of a
committee of that house on the state of Ireland, asserting
that the condition of Dublin, and of Ireland, had greatly
deteriorated since the union. That report was signed by
the present member for Cambridge, as chairman of the
committee. The right hon. gentleman was not then se-
cretary to the treasury, nor was he a West Briton, but
plainly and simply an Irish gentleman. But the right hon.
gentleman, since he had sat on the treasury bench, had
abjured his old opinions, and laboured strenuously indeed
to cultivate the favour of his new countrymen. The right
hon. baronet the member for Tamworth had warned them
that, to repeal the union, would be to lower England into a
second-rate power. That might be true enough, but for
his own part the consideration weighed little with him, for
he was a mere Irishman. He was no West Briton, and if
a repeal of the union would mitigate the sufferings,
and alleviate the condition of his unfortunate coun-
trymen, that would be enough for him to wish for the
measure, even although England should no longer be a
first-rate power. He had never encouraged anti-tithe
meetings, but in the county to which he belonged there
had been large meetings of that description, and they had
been harangued, almost in the name of Government, to
make such a demonstration as would give the Government
strength in its endeavours to destroy the system. Meet-
ings of tens of thousands had been told, if not by the agents
of Government, by those who spoke in their name, that
tithes were to be extinguished ; and the people, for the
most part, seriously believed, that in acting as they had
done, they had consulted the Wishes of the Ministers. And
how had they been treated ? They had been deluded and
betrayed. Happy would it have been for many of his con-
stituents if the Government had honestly spoken out its
meaning, and not have corresponded with those who had
led to resistance. With all their faults, the Tories would
not have acted so base and deceitful a part. They would
at once have told the people, tithes must be maintained.
The present Government, however, had all the merit of
exciting and betraying. The speech of the hon. member
for Cambridge had been much commended, hut he would
venture to predict that it would lay the foundation of more
petitions in favour of repeal than anything which had yet
occurred in parliament.
O'CONNOR DON felt bound to state that he was
under no pledge whatever with respect to his conduct on
this question. He stated that because the hon. member for
Cambridge had insinuated that all those who supported the
througigreatest to t
cursesth the
motion acted as mere puppets, and were not at liberty to
exercise their own judgment with respect to it. From the
e union.
reasoning on rel Hean
ofd h.ad
the greatest
of his earliest reminiscences he had been strongly op-
posedrerhearegardeddate
stformedm eni t
ota sfh
atothnee opinionovfrtib
when it was passed, and he was not now prepared to prove
an apostate to the faith theyhad inculcated, although
even
they themselves had deserted
their doctrines. (Hear.) He
could not indeed understand how
ow hon. members in that
house could stigmatize Irishmen as disloyal and adverse to
English connexion, merely
principle which had been. most eaisethey advocated the very
forcibly upheld by the pre-
sent Chancellor for Ireland and the present Prime Minis-
ter. (Cheers.) The hon. member quoted the address from
the county of Roscommon against the passing of the mea-
sure for the union, and said that upon the
same grounds he
now called for its repeal. The I
rish parliament had no
authority to agree to the union.
The regency question,
and the Portuguese commercial question had b ferred
to in order to show that with two been re
separate parliaments the
empire could not continue • but the ablest of those who
had discussed the union when it was formed had put aside
those arguments as worthless; and he could not now con-
sent to their being revived as cogent by the very men, or
on their behalf, who had, when Off the Treasury' benches,

discarded them. (Hear.) He was sorry that personality
had been introduced into the discussion. For the exces-
sive bad taste displayed by the hon. member for Belfast he
felt only pity. ( Hear, hear, hear.) He supported the
motion, but did he not do so, he could not support the
amendment for it paneg,yrised the conduct pursued towards
Ireland.
Sir R. BATESON denied most explicitly that Ireland,
as a body, wished the motion to be successful. In Ulster,
the province in which he lived, the great bulk of the re-
spectability, the intelligence, and the property were de-
cidedly adverse to a repeal of the union, which they consi-
dered as nothing short of a separation between the
countries. An hon. member had said that he looked to
see all of the 105 members voting for the repeal of the
union, and that then it must be carried. If, however, its
success waited till then, it was indeed far off—it would
never arrive. (Hear.) After the splendid and masterly
speech of the right hon. baronet the member for Tam-
worth, it would be presumption in him to attempt to
argue the subject. It was exhausted. But there were
one or two observations he was anxious to make. Instead
of all Ireland being in favour of the motion, there was but
one person of property in all Ulster, Mr. Sharman Craw-
ford, who had declared himself in favour of repeal. A
year ago he (Sir Robert Bateson) had stated in that
house that not one man in a hundred in Ireland was
favourable to repeal ; but he must now confess that the
case was altered. In the south of Ireland the shout was
for repeal, and in the north the people felt themselves to
be ill-used. He trusted that there would be an over-
whelming majority against the motion ; and that those
hon. members who had mooted it would turn their atten-
tion from agitation to producing tranquillity, good-will,
and union. Let them do so, and he had no doubt trade
would flourish and Ireland be happy. The south of Ire-
land had a finer climate than the north, and it only re-
quired tranquillity to become even more prosperous.
(Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he suggested to those hon.
members who were opposed to the motion and represented
constituencies in Ireland, that they could not in his ap-
prehension offer to English members a stronger argument
in support of the motion than by pressing upon the house
long speeches. (A laugh, and " Hear.")
Mr. LEFROY said it had been contended that the Irish
Parliament had not been authorised to make the bargain
upon which the union was founded; that, in fact, in mak-
ing that bargain the Irish Parliament had been guilty of a
gross breach of trust. Now, even if that were true, it
would be a much greater breach of trust for the present
Parliament to repeal the union. It had been expressly
stipulated that the two countries should for ever be repre-
sented in one and the same Parliament ; and another of
the stipulations was, that the established church should be
maintained. Now, one of the grounds upon which repeal
was contended for was, that it would lead to the destruc-
tion of the established church. It was said in support of
that view, that Scotland had an established church, in ac-
cordance with the sentiments of the majority of her popu-
lation, and that therefore Ireland ought not to have the
present established church. It should be remembered,
however, that the reformed religion had been established
by the Irish Parliament ; and that, therefore, the Impe-
rial Parliament was bound by its own contract to sup-
portit. It was true that the established religion was
not the religion of the numeral majority; but if that
argument was sufficient to invalidate an act of Parlia-
ment, what became of the right by which many of
the present advocates for repeal entered that house ?
It was pretty well known, he believed, that the nume-
ral majority, both in England and Scotland, were ad-
verse to the Catholic Relief Bill. He said not that, how-
ever, with a view of prejudicing the operation of that
bill, but to show the character of the argument founded
upon mere numbers. The Catholic Relief Act was the
law of the land, and instead of finding fault with it he
would express an earnest hope that the empire would never
have to regret its passing. He could not, however, but
believe that, had it been foreseen that it was to lead to a
demand for the repeal of the union and the destruction of
the established church, its fate would have been other than
what it had been. He therefore contended, that neither
in the conduct of the Irish parliament, nor in the passing
of the Catholic Relief Bill, could be found any argument
in favour of the repeal of the union. With the exception
of the hon. member for Roscommon, all the Irish mem-
bers in favour of repeal were pledged before elected to sup-
port it. (Mr. Finn denied that he had given any pledge.
None was asked from him. His sentiments were known. )
At all events those hon. members were so circumstanced,
that it was known how they would vote on the question
before they left the hustings, and therefore he contended
they were not at liberty to use their judgment after dis-
cussion. There was but one other point he wished to touch
upon, and that was the state of the question in Ireland. It
had been said by the advocates for repeal, that they were
eight millions. That was a grossly exaggerated statement.
But he would not deny that he believed that a numerical
majority of the Roman catholics of Ireland were in favour
of the motion. On the other hand, the great bulk of the
property, the whole of the clergy, and the great bulk of the
protestant population, were adverse to everything of the
kind. He, should give his decided opposition to the motion
of the hon. and learned member for Dublin.

;sr. C. FERGUSSON said the hon. and learned
member for Dublin might say that the union ought never
to have taken place, but the fact was that it did take place,
and therefore the terms ought not to be violated, and the
contract ought to be held indissoluble. In his opinion the
legislature had a right to do everything for the people
which the people could do for themselves, if they could
assemble as a whole ; and as they never could do this,
their rights and powers devolved upon their representatives.
.The lion. and learned member for Dublin had said that
the union had been brought about by corruption, and by
the means of civil war and rebellion. The latter part of
the assertion had never been established ; and with respect
to the bribery and corruption, this did not, in his opinion,
vitiate the contract. It was notorious that the union
with Scotland had been brought about by similar means ;
and, indeed; so gross and palpable had been the bribery
in the case of the union with Scotland, that the identical
bribes given and received were recorded, from the bribe
of 1,100/. paid to the Earl of Marchmont to that of
71. ss. paid to Lord Banff for their respective votes. Had
he been living at the time of the Scotch union he would
have opposed it to the utmost extreme ; but after such
a time had elapsed, and seeing the benefits which
his country had derived from it, he would not on any ac-
count dissolve it. There was a full disposition in that
house to do ample justice to Ireland, and he thought that
the accusations brought against the house by Irish mem-
bers upon this account were unwarranted. But now that
catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform had been
granted to Ireland upon the faith of the union being un-
disturbed, it was preposterous to talk of dissolving the
union. It was not to be supposed that Ireland could govern
herself. The experiment had been tried from 1782 to
1800, and had utterly failed. (The hon. and learned
member went into several details in order to show the in-
conveniences that would arise from having two inde-
pendent legislatures.) He believed that Ireland would be
a by far greater loser than England by a dissolution of the
union. He believed that the repeal of the union would be
the death-warrant of the glory and
_prosperity of the
country.
Mr. RONAYNE said, the hon. member for Belfast
had attacked his hon. and learned friend the member for
tothe
no,ftetnbautsewdeagreaiint4uutht efhurona. aenertenarnvuewd
Dublin. He (Mr. Ronayne) could only say, with respect
registered in heaven he believed that such insults would
not be heaped upon him.' (Cries of " Oh, oh.") He
would now advert to the effect which the union had pro-
duced upon Ireland in a financial point of view, and leave
hon. gentlemen to determine whether in honour and con-
science they could decide that his unfortunate country had
been benefitted by that event. In 1792 the Irish revenue
memberia fgouragu bs
amounted to 1,100,000/., and in 1799 to 3,000,000/. and
upwards, showing an increase in seven years prior to the
union of nearly 2,000,000/, But what result did the thirty-
four years that had passed since the union exhibit ?
Did the increase that had taken place since leave any propor-
tion to the improvement that had occurred before the period
to which he alluded ? It was incontrovertible that it did not.
The revenue of the last year was only 3,800,0001., and
therefore he had a right to assert that, instead of the union
having been an advantage, it was an injury to Ireland.
(, Hear," from the repeal members.) A distinguished
countryman of his had justly observed that it was impos-
sible to arrive at anything like the truth as to the profit
and loss of a nation from statements a this kind ; and,
therefore, he (hlr. Ronayne) could not receive the evi-
dence
npul
Oiseeunucp
op
mtboharretda or
contrary,
soehoneni
tus
productrrhgyihhee ne as a seaA
only
d rnu.
lcaiyotwnoef
of the figures which the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
)
d
nadtsca.sy,ti,unitnbeiceelgtprhoouadotgfu
thought
thratdehtul
Ireland
hefscieilm.
betweea the revenue of 1799 and that in 1834 should lead
to the very opposite conclusion. (" Hear, hear," from the
repeal members.) But with respect to the fallacy of state-
ments such as the right hon. gentleman had used, what did
the distinguished individual to whom he had just referred
say ? Why, he said that, " ip his mind the man who
trusted to such shallow pretexts ought to wander through
the world like a Jew divested of either a home or a coun-
try." (" Hear, hear," from the repeal members.) It
should not be forgotten, that when the separation from the
mother country was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin
the proposition was treated with contempt. The right
hon. gentleman had not dealt fairly with the house. He
had spoken of the corruption of the Irish Pgliarnent and
the jobbing carried on by but he hid altogether forgot-
ten to notice the fact dig a. system of jobbing had been
carried on in the Imperial Parliament since the union as
gross as any that could be adduced from the annals of
either the Irish or any other Parliament. (Hear.)
What ! had the right honourable gentleman forgot-
ten the job for building storehouses, the Rideas.
Canal job, the marten() tower building job, the, job for
erecting batteries at the Cove of cork; on Which millions
had been spent, and the hundred's of thousands that had
been lavished on the chtirch building job? (" Hear, hear_,"
from the 'repeal members.) They might coerce tb,7..
people as much as they pleased, but still they would be
unable to stifle their demand for justice. The payment of
tithes might, it was true, be enforced 'by the bayonets of
an English army, but in no other 'Way could this burden,
some tax be collected ;- for of this he was certain, that the
Irish rope would not pay it if they couldrenibly helf

; it. (A laugh.) They would pay tithes only on the prin-
ciple that a man delivered up his purse to banditti,
namely, *beause he was constrained to surrender up his
rights by superior force. (" Hear," from the repeal mem-
bers.) The hon. member fn. Belfast was one of those
who went out to light under the La2itter3 of Lord Byron for
the liberties of Greece ; but v, ;set a revolution must his
political opinions have undergone s nce the period his
letters from the lEgean were written! The Noble Poet
had, however, in his Jima furnished them with the ho-
nourable member's description. Of him it might with
truth be said—
" He was a man who had seen many changes,
And always changed as true as any needle,
His polar star being one that rather ranges,
And not the fixed. He knew the way to wheedle :
Thus usually, when he was asked to sing,
He gave the different nations something national ;
'Twas all the same to him, ' God save the King,'
Or Caira,' according to the fashion all."
He (Mr. Ronayne) must warn the house against yielding
to the insidious attempt made by the government to ob-
tain their sanction to every act, good or bad, which had
, passed the Imperial Parliament from the time of the union
down to the present hour. They were told by the right
hon. Secretary,for the Treasury that they ought not to be
satisfied with merely negativing the motion, but that they
should go farther ; that was, that they should express their
approval of the policy which had been pursued towards
Ireland during the last 34 years. But what was the opi-
nion which the Marquis of Anglesea had expressed with
respect to that policy ? In a communication which that
distinguished individual addressed to the government on
this side of the water, what did he say ? His words were,
" That unless timely concessions were made to the people
of Ireland, the evil that would ensue from it would be that
the government would soon possess no party in that coun-
try but the King's troops.' (" Hear, hear," from the
repeal members.) This was the declaration which Lord
Anglesey made in 1832, in a letter, dated the 19th of Oc-
tober, and bearing his own signature ; and yet the right
hon. gentleman (the Secretary of the Treasury), on the
part of the government, called upon that house to sanction
the resolutions which he had proposed, knowing, that in
doing so they would be expressing their approval of mea-
sures which Lord Anglesea considered, if not actually bad,
at least, insufficient, for the purpose of preserving tranquil-
lity in Ireland. It was not in their power to extinguish
the love of liberty which distinguished the Irish people.
They might for a time suffer oppression; but the indepen-
dence which belonged to them would finally restore them
to the condition of freemen:—
" Is Erin's pride, then, gone for ever,
Quenched with the fires in Methra's caves ?
No, she has hearts that never, never,
Will stoop to be the Moslem's slaves,
Whilst Heaven has light
Or earth has graves."

Colonel TORRENS was willing to admit that absentee-
ism was an evil of great magnitude, but then lie denied
that repealing the union was the proper remedy to be ap-
plied for its removal. It was said that one of the results
of repealing the union would be the imposition of a tax
on absentees. This he denied ; but, even admitting that
such would be the case, what would be the result ? Why,
that England would prohibit the influx, of Irish poor into
this country. Even repealing the union would not prevent
"the exportation of Irish provisions. Landlords would,
notwithstanding, spend their rents in the purchase of Eng-
lish and Foreign manufactures, and, unless a prohibitory
duty were imposed, what advantage would be obtained by
acceding to the desire of the hon. and learned member for
Dublin ? None; on the contrary, the result of a prohibi-
tory duty such as he had described could have no other
effect than that of increasing the poverty and theanisery
which he regretted to say existed at present, and he there-
fore hoped the people of Ireland would reflect upon the
consequences before they urged the repeal question further.
Sir H. VIVIAN rose to address the house amidst cries
of " Question, question," and " Bar, bar." When w e
heard the hon. and gallant member, he said, that the inte-
rests of England and Ireland were completely interwoven
with each other, and as such he could not consent to the
motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He
(Sir H. Vivian) believed, that the right hon. member for
Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had put this question upon its
right principles. (Hear, hear.) And he further believed
that those principles were unanswered and unanswerable.
Some allusion had been made to the Coercion Bill in the
course of this debate, but as far as his knowledge of Ire-
land went, it was absolutely necessary for the preserve ion
of the peace of that country. He had himself visited the
hovels in Ireland ; he regretted that his duty compelled him to
do so, for he never met so fine a country in a greater state of
wretchedness'and misery, although neither the one nor the
other could be fairly attributed to the legislative union. He
knew Ireland well, he respected its people, he admired the
country, and he had no doubt it would be highly prosperous
that capital would flow into it, if it were not for the continual
agitation which was there excited. Again, the emigration
from Ireland was alluded to, as being produced by the
Union, but how stood the fact? Why, from 1725, per-
haps, the amount of emigration from Ireland was 90,000,
from England 40,000, and from Scotland 20,000, but
what he should like to know was, why should the legisla-
tive union be blamed for the emigration? (Hear, hear.)
Why was emigration necessary, why did not capital flow
into Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) The ready answer was, the
unnecessary agitation which prevailed there. ( Hear, hear. )
The hon. member for Cork was treading upon tender
ground, when he said the evils which afflicted Ireland were
attributable to the Union. The agitation which was en-
couraged in Ireland prevented the employment of capital,
and also a fair remunerating price for labour. The injuries in-
flicted upon Ireland were mainly attributable to party spirit,
that party spirit begetting agitation—and it would be quite
evident that while party spirit and agitation prevailed, nei-
ther peace nor prosperity could prevail in that country.
(Hear, hear.) He was an advocate for free discussion
upon this and every other question. He was of opinion
that every one should be permitted the free expression of
his opinions;so long as they were not inimical to the general
interests of the State ; but he never could be induced to
Support the question of repeal, inasmuch as he thought it
would lead to a dismemberment of the empire. He thought
that the Imperial • Parliament was fully competent to
decree upon this question, and to their decision he was sa-
tisfied to leave it, satisfied as he was that they would act
with justice and humanity. (Hear, hear.) Allusion had
been made to tithes in Ireland, and he, for one, would say
that he was in favour of their abolition ; but he would not
thence be an advocate for the spoliation of property
which would follow upon the repeal of the union. (Hear,
hear.) Then again it was said " Have an absentee
tax ;" now, even if that were possible, it would be no
means of investing capital in Ireland. He had a consi-
derable acquaintance with that country, both in a political
and a military sense, and he was firmly convinced that the
repeal of the union would be a serious injury to the inte-
rests of both countries. Much had been said about the
separation of Belgium and Holland—much had been said
about Sweden and Denmark, and Norway, and many ether
places ; but all these things had no reference whatsoever
to the relative positions of England and Ireland. (Hear,
hear.) The interests of both countries were interwoven
with each other—their prosperity was bound up together ;
and as he was ...so persuaded after much experience and
much consideration, he would feel it his duty to vote
against the motion of the hon. and learned member for
Dublin. (Hear, hear. )
Dr. BALDWIN denied that the restoration of the Irish
local legislature would involve any alienation cif the rights
of the Crown, and said that if he believed the repeal of the
union would lead to a separation of the two countries, lie
would not support it. The reason why he supported repeal
was, that the United Parliament had failed to legislate for
the interests of Ireland, and to provide for her wants. The
hon. member went into an argument in support of these
positions, but was generally inaudible in the gallery. Ile
denied thA the general agitation and discontent of Ireland,
and all the crimes and outrages which were committed by
her population, could be attributed tq the agitation of one
man. He admitted that his hop, and learned friend the
member for Dublin made wild speeches sometimes (Hear,
and a laugh), but it was absurd to attribute the state of
Ireland to such causes. He asserted this upon his know-
ledge of the people of Ireland, with whom he was better
acquainted than the gallant officer who p. °ceded him iu
the debate. The hon. member proceeded to give illustra-
tions
of the misgovernment and unfair treatment to which
Ireland had been subject since the union. This state of
things could not continue. Eight millions of Irishmen
would not submit to such treatment. (Hear, hear.) They
would watch for an opportunity to free themselves from it.
(Hear, hear.) Let not the Government imagine__( Re-
iterated cheers here drowned the hon.. member's voice. )
The spirit of Grattan still lived in the son ; though not
equal in talents, equal in ;cal, (Hear, hear.) There was
the hon. member for Cork too, if they would measure him
by any of their anti-repealers, they would find him as mus-
cedar and vigorous as the best of them. (Hear, and laugh-
ter.) But it was in vain to appeal by logical deduction.
(Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland were resolute and
united upon this subject; they would have a Governmenteither with the consent of that house or against it,
Mr. PRYAIE rose amidst loud 'and, continued cries of
" Adjourn," -AtiLlsio.n had particularly
been made to the: means by which the union had been ob-
tained. NOW,:fox his own part, he did not see, even if the
M-o`i.ei.by which that Act had been passed had been much
more flagrant than had been represented, that it at all be .1.7 a
upon the question now before the house. The qaestion
was not, whether Ireland had been well qr.4l:governed,
but whether she was still to be preserved as part of the
United Kingdom. - The evils which absenteeism had
caused had been ine,cii commented upon, but those evils
themselves resulted from, or at least were increased lv the
dry agitation which was kept up by certain males in Ire- •
land upon this question of repeal. was not the absen-
teeism of individuals, but the ab.sende of manufactures athmils
capital, that affected the prosperity 'of Ireland, and in that
respect eho could never. improve until tranquillity and
security oil'ered ari inducement for the investment of capital.
11k.- MULLINS moved the adiournment of the debate
till
stir o-7. ciorroßw4(t4itilis: y4)lo,vfa thewhichwsaseeoagrude.erdeing of ta:
SUPERANNUATIONS BILL.
1411'
fel a
which,'lA i`opeervationi from Mr, IiUME; was agreed to.

MARRIAGEII
hßelrLeLad.
this
cay
I Lord ADLITSHSEONRPTERmoSved'
• s'x months.—Agreed to.
Mr. HUME hoped ministers would declare what further
steps they intended pursuing respecting this bill. It had
been postponed for six months, and the people, it was pre-
sumed, would not be content with such an arrangement.
Lord ALTHORP said the government must be par-
. Boned for not expressing an opinion until it was known
what were the precise terms of the motion about to be in-
t oduced by the hon. member for Southwark.
LEITH HARBOUR.
Colt

tonel L. HAY having applied to have the standing
orders dispensed with, in order to bring in the bill, the
usual course not having been complied with,
Mr. ABERCROMBIE protested against suet a pro-
position as that contended for by the hon. member who
had just spoken. The bill in question would be most in-
jurious to the interests of the council of Edinburgh, and
therefore he would directly an4at once oppose it.
Colonel HAY replied.
The house then divided, when the numbers appeared
to be—

Ayes
Noes

26
Majority
The bill was consequently postponed till next sessions.
Mr. WALTER presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Old Windsor, against the assessed taxes ; also a
petition from Mr. W. lvery, praying for an alteration of
the law of patents, stating that he is the inventor of an
apparatus showing the comparative value of fluids, but is
prevented from taking out a patent by the expense. Also
a petition from the Wesleyan methodists of Boxford, She&
ford, Thetcham, and Peasemore, in favour of the bill for
the better observance of the Sabbath.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
Cie house adjourned at two o'clock.

TAILORS' UNION.

The following is the circular from the Secretary to
the master tailors :

" 25, Little Queen-street, April 25.
" Sir,—By direction of the Friendly Society of
Operative Tailors, I have to acquaint you that, in
order to stay the ruinous effects which a destructive
commercial competition has so long been inflicting
upon them, they have resolved to introduce certain
new regulations of labour into the trade, which regu-
lations they intend should commence from Monday
next; and I beg herewith to enclose you a copy of
them. As the demands there specified are of so rea-
sonable a nature, and as moreover they are unques-
tionably calculated for the ultimate benefit of employ-
ers as well as the employed, the society confidently
hope that you will accede to them, and that hence-
forward a mutual confidence may be sustained between
masters and men, and that their interests may be no
longer separated and opposed to each other. It only
remains for me to add that your workmen, members
cf this society, will cease to be employed by you shou d
you decline to act upon the new regulations ; and fur-
ther, I think it right to apprise you, that in that case
they will no longer consider it necessary to support
your interest, but will immediately enter the arrange-
ments prepared by the society for the employment of
such members for the benefit of the society.
"' I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
•
"JOHN BROWNE,
" Secretary to the Grand Lodge of
Operative Tailors."

" REGULATION.

" No brother shall be allowed to work more than
ten hours per day, from the third Monday in the
month of April to the last Saturday in the month of
July ; nor more than eight hours per day the remain-
ing eight months of the year; and for such labour the
remuneration shall be 6s. per day fer the ten hours'
labour, which is to be performed between the hours of
seven in the morning and six in the evening; and ss.
per day for the eight hours' labour, to be performed
between the hours of eight in the morning and five in
the evening, out of which time, in either case, he
shall leave his employer's premises one hour for re-
freshment. Nor shall any brother work for an em-
ployer anywhere but on his (the employer's) premises,
which shall be healthy and convenient, or on any other
terms than by the day or hour ; and no brother shall
be allowed to solicit employment, or to work for less
than the regular wages, within four miles of Covent-
arden."

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 28.,

(Sittings at Nisi Prim in the Exel?Niter Chamber before
Mr. Baron GATRNEy.)
RAPHAEL V. MORISON.
This was an action for damages by reason of an
alleged nuisance. The plaintiff is a cowkeeper, in
an extensive way of business, residing in the New-
road. The defendant is the celebrated " Morison's
Pills" manufacturer, of which of late years so much
has been seen and heard; and the nuisance com-
plained of was the noise made and the effects of the
jarring/upon the plaintiff's house of the enormous
pestle/and mortar of the defendant. Plaintiff's house
is next door to that of the defendant, and it was given
in evidence that the fire irons were thrown down, anti
plates and dishes in the kitchen of defendant broken,
by the shaking caused by the pestle.
Among the witnesses for the defendant was a sur-.
voyor, who proved that the party wall to the plaintiff's
house was not of the proper thickness, and that if it
were, the nuisance complained of 'would not be per—
ceptible.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff:-,
Damages One Shilling.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,ArRIL 28.

The Count de Wuits, styled in his schedule as
Ccesar Adam Marcus de Welts, Count de Wuits,
came up to be discharged.
The Count was before the Court the latter end of
March, when his case was adjourned to amend his sche-
dule and to re-advertise. It appeared in the course of
an investigation, which lasted several hours, that the
Count, married a lady of fortune, named Gwynne, of
Gwynne Abbey, in Wales, in 1828, at the Brithlt
Embassy at Paris. The Count travelled with his lady
for two years on the Continent, and in May last came
to this country. The total amount of the debts and
liabilities of the count was about 10,0001. He had re-
ceived consideration for only 1,5001., which debts
were due to foreign and English creditors. The
,debts due to the latter creditors were 500/. He had
given up four horses and other property for the benefit
rof his creditors. The complaint of Mr. Hoadly was
founded on his own evidence, and that of his clerks-
The Count had represented to him that he bad
certain property in Wales, but that he should not '„
in the receipt of his rents for some months. He kought
a phaeton of Mr. Hoadly, for which he gavc, a bill of
exchange for 170 guineas at six months, ',aid gave him
two references, with which he was satisfied. The
which increased his debt by 20/..,
Count subsequently hired a cabrie'.et of Mr. Hoadly,
besides the 170 gui-
twhaast admittedhe
hadp,
by Hoadly, in cross-exa-
ileel; the Count in prison, and
heaiada proposedtin to hi
'1 to omit his name from the sche-
dule, and pay 1::im his demand after his discharge from
inns.lt'
Prison. lie. (Mr. Hoadly) said he was not aware that
it was imperative on the insolvent to set forth every
debt in his schedule. He had erred from. ignorance.
The learned CHIEF-COMMISSIONER wished it to be
widely circulated that insolvents were bound to put in
all their debts, and not to leave out ally creditor under
could not in an
any circumstances • and that Mr. Hoadly's
individualopposition
poiut of view be sustained.
The Count had been Lobbed by a servant named
Jones, whom he prc.ocuted, and who was convicted.
The Count purchased a britschka of Messrs. Houlditch
for 240/., which he returned the following day anti
was charged 100/. It further appeared that the Nun-
toss had an income of about 800/. a year, over which
the Count had no control. A long inquiry was in-
stitutcd as to the disposal of some plate and what pro-
perty had been given up. The Count had given up
four horses and other property which had been sold by
the brokers of the Court, and the money paid into
Court for the benefit Othe creditors.
The Coutt'r 13/4W/1-lately adjourned the case for the
pro:Jucti% c an inventory, the production of certain
~,,,ikne4s, and the payment of 10/. into Court, in con-
sideration of a diamond ring which the Count gave
away to a lady a fevlt; Alva before he went to prison.

ts.LES OF A VOYA,OER.---The second Re-
ties of these admirable talei consist of eight original
stories, which are narrated an beard a vessel ice-bound
in the dreary Arctic Ocean, and during her subsequent
return home. The marvellous scenery of Greenland,
the perils and pursuits of mariners who approach its
'coasts, and the phenomena which frer4aently occur in
those fearful regions, are subjects of the highest inte-
rest. The author, who is said tca be a friend of Captain
Scoresby, has often been a -voyager in the scenes which
he so forcibly delineatc,s.. These new tales form the
May number of Naval and Military Library of
Entertainmer;., publis4ing monthly, at only 45. per
volumc bound,

HAMBURG, APRIL 22, 1834.
HEINE, BROTHERS, in Hamburg, Con-
tractors for the GREAT LOTTERY, drawn
and published by Authority of the Government, and gua-
ranteed by the Honourable Board of Treasury of Ham-
burg, beg to inform the Public that the Sixty-third Lot-
tery will be drawn on the sth, 7th, 12th, and 14th May ;
llth, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 23d, 25th, and 26th June next.
Tickets are now on sale at 140 Marks Banco, or Ten
Guineas ; and the cost of Tickets left in the Wheel be-
tween the 14th May and 11th June will be 200 Marks
Banco, or 151. Those desirous to purchase at 101. 10s.
are requested to direct their orders by first mail to the said
Heine Brothers, in Hamburg, who beg to observe that no
orders but for whole Tickets can meet with attention.
The largest Prize of the four first days is 60,000 Marks,
and the largest Prize of the eight last days is 150,000
Marks. Every Ticket drawn on the four first days, if not
coming up a Prize of net 131. 10s., or above, will be
entitled to Two Tickets Gratis for the last eight days.