The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

.In promising to describe our own impression of
the speeches delivered by Lord Althorp and Mr.
• Stanley, on Wednesday evening,- .in support ()fettle
Irish coercive Bill, we .reckoned on undertaking a
more diffieuult task than, upon further examination,
we find it. -However copious the detail. pre-
sented by those two Ministers, the outline of each
of their speeches is extremely simple, and may he
characterized in a few short lines. Lord Althorp
affirmed the necessity for some strong measure of
coercion, grounded on an unvarnished statement of
the last less outreoes by which Ireland has long been
oppressed, and of the circumstances which proved,
to the Noble Lord's belief, a connexion in the na-
ture of cause and effect between agitation and out-
race. His Lordship then proceeded to vindicate
the fitness of the present measure as a restraint
upon both tho-e evils. Mr. Stanley traversed the
same wide field, with a great display of skill, power,
and effieiency, in so far as concerned the horrib!e
state of Ireland. He traced the crimes of the
miserable peasantry, with no hesitating hand, to
the machinations of more criminal. and, far more
artful abettors; and inveighed with stern indig-
nation ageisst the baseness which, after working
up the multitude to fury against the law., and all
who seek protection under them, would save itself
from sharing the risk and punishment of its own
credulous dupes by a mock admonition " to beware
of doing anything unlawful !" Nothing, indeed,
could he more masterly arid triumphant than Mr.
Stanley's development of the whole character of
the agitation system, in its connection with the pre.
valence of barbaroue and brutal crimes ; nor was
there ever a more striking contrast exhibited than
between the scornful spirit of the Irish Secretary's
attack upon the agitators, and the confused and
mortified attempt at explanation which was wrung
from one of them by the deafening outcries of the
House. indeed, if it were to be wished that Hon.
Members had so far repressed their natural feelings
of resentment and disgust at the apparent prevaricae
eons by which a certain charge of violating the free-
d ,m of Parliament was, albeit somewhat nnsuccess-
frilly, register]. ft is not wise to interrupt
an enemy 111 a bad, and otherwise, fruitless de-
fence; but with regard to the merits of the present
Bill, as a cure for the evils which it claims to re-
medy. or as corresponding with the species or de-
gree of the necessity on which it is justified by
Al•nistere, Lord Althorp, and what is more Mr.
Stanley, left the matter exactly where they found it.
Neither the Noble Lord nor the Secretary for Ire-
land said one rational word in answer to the ob-
jections which have been made to the courtsmartial
and domiciliary-visit clauses of this harsh measure.
We admit that a case of necessity has been made
out—we did so from the first—for strengthening the
hands of lawful authority in Ireland by some addi-
tional measure. We do riot deny that nothing can
be more absurd or more disgraceful to the cause of
"free discussion" than to confound that high and in-
estimable right of British subjects with sham discus-
sions, held for no seeming purpose but to subvert
all government, and to endanger the life and property
of every honest man in the kingdom. The agitation
manoeuvres, leading directly to crime, though as-
suming falsely the veneral attributes of constitutional
discussion for redress of grievances, ought to be
put down, or they must dissolve society, but
let them be put down by recognised law.
But what of courtsmartial ? Barristers, it ap-
pears, are unfit to form courts for the trial of offences
under the new Bill, because they are persons who
may look for promotion to the Government I And
are military men, we pray, so much more inde-
pendent in that respect than lawyers? Is there no
desire for promotion in military breasts—and at
whose hands does an officer look for his advance-
ment ? But to employ the judges might be incon-
venient to the despatch of ordinary legal business,
and a had precedent, forsooth ! And what sort of
precedent is a military court for the trial of criminal
offences ? Not inconvenient, to be sure, not at all
so to the officers it may be a resource against the
crime of idleness. To the poor devils ignorantly
or stupidly convicted of being twenty yards from
home after nightfall, there may be some trifling
inconvenience in eternal banishment from their
wives, parents, and children : but what- signifies
that ?—lnconvenient i For the forcible house-entry
power, we have yet seen no shadow of justification,
either in necessity or reason: but we must resume
the subject to-morrow.—Times.
The debate on the Suppression of Disturbance in
Ireiend Bill is not yet concluded, and we may
ventnre to say that the country will be wearied
with the discussion before it arrives at its termina-
tion, unless; it should call into action talent of a
superior order to that of the men who last night, we
avi:l not say cur iged the attention, but occupied the
time, of the House of Commons. Mr. Shed, it is
true, proved himself quite a match for the best of
the Ministerial orators, arid Mr. Macaulay proved
himself quite a match for Mr. Shell ; while Mr.
%lr. Fergus O'Connor, Mr. Carew, Major
Beaucierk, Mr. Clay, Mr. Leonard, Lord Ebrington,
arid same other Members with names as yet un-
known to fame, severally did their best in support
of their respective opinions ; but yet the discussion
was, it must be confessed, poor, meagre, shallow,
and unsatisfactory, in comparison with the dullest
arid most ineffectual debate that ever took place in
the unreformed Ruliament upon any, even the
most unimportant and uninteresting, subject. It
is evident enough, however, from the discus-
elm), so far as it has proceeded, unworthy as it has
been of the importance of the occasion, that our
present Ministers are equally incapable of devising
a good measure and of defending a bad one
The principle of their Bill is incontesrible, under-
standing it to include merely the necessity of rein-
forcing the power of the executive Government in
Inland for the purpose of restoring and maintaining
the dominion of the law. To this extent, notwith-
etanding their deplorable incapacity in Council and
in debate, Ministers must prevail, for to this extent
they are sure of the support of a party with respect
So which it can no longer be deemed flattery to say
that: it comprehend' all the Statesmen in the coun-
try. But, having upheld the principles of the Bill
to this ex,crrt, it will be the duty of the Conserva-
tive party to .substitute for its present provisions
others of a nature et least rational, sober, moderate,
anti prudent enough neither to require nor admit of
so monstrous a defence as that which has been the
leading topic of the Ministerial advocates—the de-
fence, that, having found it necessary to depart from
the ordinary practice and the established principles
of the Constitution, the wider the deviation the
better.—Morning Post.
The debate on the Irish Local Disturbances' Sup-
pression Bill is once more adjourned. Throughout
Wednesday night and last night, positions were ad-
vanced, of which the application ought not to he
confined to the present measure. Mr. Stanley, in
order to prove that military tribunals would answer
better than civil, observed—" If a strong oppdsition

was made to the Insurrection Act as harsh and

odious, surely the evils would be aggravated by re-
ferring offenders for trial to the local Alegistrates,

who were open to so ninny objections, who-wet e so
generally accused of deciding with a view to gratify
their private ends, of consulting- their individual
interests alone, and, in short, of constant malati.
ministration in their office. Whether such charges
were true or not was not for him to say, but Me
evil caused by so general an impression was nearly
equal to any mischief that could result from. Me
reality. * * It was not necessary for him to
repel the charge. brought against military tribunals
by the HOD. Member for the City of London--a
charge wholly without foundation, and contradicted by
all who had experience on vie subject. That Hon.
Member asserted, that military tribunals were in
general harsh and oppressive ; but the accusation
was negatived by the people of Ireland themselves.
How often had not some Hon. Gentlemen, when
they wished to cry down the police, declared that
the People looked to the presence of the army as a
control and beneficial superintendence over the po-
lice r--(Cheers.) How often had they not asserted

that the peasantry looked up to the soldier as a
friend, and the officer as a protector.?—(Cheers.)
Had it no been said that the retired officers were
favourite Magistrates ?"'\ But if the gently of the
country are so unfit for aciing, when the country is
in a disturbed state, on account of the general belief
in their partiality and their interestedness, do not
the same qualities unfit them at all times for the
posse4sion of authority ? Partial and interested
men are as little fitted to preserve tranquillity as to
restore it when lost. In admitting that the Magi-
stracy, of Ireland are naturally opposed to the people,
Mr. Stanley', admits that it is the duty of Govern-
merit to select impartial mon for Magistrates, and
not men who exercise authority for the furtherance
of their own ends. Mr. Macaulay took up the same
line of argument—
_ _

" He ceuld not (he said) refrain from giving it as his
opinion, that the alteration recommended by the Hon. and
Learned M.,mber who spike last (Mr. Shed) was the most
objectionable proposition of all. He proposed that offenders
should be tried by Juries composed of the aristocracy and
gentry of the country ; and, in doing he stood a10e..-,
for no other Hon. Member of the House had made such a
proposition--(Hear.) Such a proposition was noting
less than proposing that offenders should be tried by a
Protestant magistracy, against whom they were told the
Irish peassntry felt the deepest and most rooted antipathy.
—(Nn, no, from the Iris!' Members ) He spoke with
confidence when he said that such antipathy existed, and
that it would be most dangerous to intrust the Irish gen-
try with the power the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
wished to see delegated to them. Giving them such
powers would be fatal to the pacification of Ireland, and
would for ever preclude the application of beneficial mea-
sures to that country." '
Thus, then, the Irish Gentry are to be shelfed ;
for if it would be dangerous arid fatal .to the pacifi-
cation of Ireland to intrust power to them, it would
be equally dangerous to hHsard the pacification, when
it has been effected, by intrusting power to them.
.Let us hope that the system of making parties judges
in their own causes will be departed from,and that
just and impartial men will be set over the people.
The Bill will be carried by a large majority ; and
we are not sure that such a measure of severity, for
the execution of which Ministers are responsible,
would be improved by the substitution of Judges or
Barristers for ofticerA. It may be true that the offi-
cers will not be free-from the influence of the gentry,
the men whose hospitality they will enjoy, but
still the officers will be Englishmen and Scotchmen,
and generally more free from partiality than natives.
Upon the whole we should prefer officers. Our regret
is not so much that the measure is severe, as that
we fear its severity is to be a substitute for justice
to the people. The Government, by shrinking from
poor laws confess that they have not the courage to
do justice to the people. All that they propose to do
is mere tinkering. When the law arid the people of
a country are against each other, as was well ob-
served by Mr. Clay, there is a prima facie case
against the law. Bat us we yesterday observed,
the Government is leagued with the Squirearchy
against the unfortunate people. They feel for land-
lords—they feel for sinecure persons ; but for starv-
ing peasants they have not yet learned to feel.—
Morning- Chronicle.

Nothing can be less satisfactory or less states-
manlike than Mr. Stanley's avowal of the inability
of Government to make up its mind on the impor-
tant subject of the application of a system of poor-
laws to Ireland; for what does the Right Hon. Se-
cretary, in effect, say, but that, because there is a
difference of opinion upon the subject among the
representatives of Ireland, therefore the Government
is unable to decide ? Who, then, is to decide ? or
is Mr. Stanley prepared to lay down and stand by
any thing so preposterous as that no public measure
is to be brought forward in Parliament upon which
all men are not agreed ? The very difference of
opinion, on the contrary, shows the necessity of
there being a commanding mind somewhere, capable
of dividing the Gordian knot. No wonder that
Ireland is in its present unsettled state if those to
whom its destinies are confided, instead of them-
selves suggesting the remedy, declare their inten-
tion of waiting till all men are agreed as to what
they ought to be. Such solemn trifling as this was
baldly ever heard of on a subject of great public
interest ; and the sooner Lord Grey's Government
disabuses itself of such a state of indecision, the
sooner will it possess that general confi,lence, the
want of which must ever impede the progress and
effect of the very best intentions.—Morn, Herald.

`'ICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEB. 27.