The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-30 00:00:00

laughter was occasioned by the number of hon. members
who rose simultaneously for the purpose of addressing the
house. At least a dozen presented themselves, the greater
number being members for Irish constituencies. The
SrEAKER called on _

Colonel VERNER, who, to show that the Protestants
in Ireland were not in favour of a repeal of the union,
adverted to a petition he had that day presented to the
house from the place he had the honour to represent. This
petition was signed by some thousands of persons, who
were entitled, by their respectability, to the favourable
consideration of the house. If ever the time came when
an independent legislature was established in Ireland, it
followed as unavoidable that there would be an independent
executive. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had
invited the Protestants of Ireland to join the Roman Ca-
tholics in their efforts to obtain the repeal, but he believed
that the hon. and learned gentleman might just as well
have exercised his powers to " call spirits from the vasty
deep." The government, in making its choice between
parties in Ireland, had better look to the rich and powerful
body which had always manifested a desire to adhere to
British connection, than to that which, under the guise of
repeal, sought for separation, which would be assuredly
followed up by an inquiry into, and a resumption of what
was called the confiscated and forfeited estates. Should
the government have the misfortune of losing the con-
' fidence of the former party, it would alienate from it.;
support the best and most steadfast friends that ever stood
by any cause. Already had that party begun to calculate
on the conduct of the present government, and its probable
results. Already did they begin to think that England
granted all her favours to those who hated them, and con-
temptuously denied to them any protection. Notwith-
standing these complaints, this body still remained faithful,
still attached to the British connection, and it would be
unwise to trifle with their feelings.
Mr. HUME said, that they had gone away from the
question ; and he could not do better than commence by
asking what it was which was properly before the house ?
for hitherto they had been fighting with the wind rather
than treating of the question. Here the hon. member re-
peated the terms of Mr. O'Connell's motion, and asked
was there one word in it about repeal? (A laugh.) He
would repeat, there was not one word. He admitted that
the hon. and learned gentleman who introduced the mo-
tion to the house had it in his contemplation to insure the
discussion of the question • but he (Mr. Hume) would ask
those who had merely read the motion of the hon. and
learned member for Dublin, whether the amendment and
address by which it was proposed to be met were applica-
ble? It appeared to him that they were playing at a game
of cross purposes. (Oh, oh.) The question for the house
to consider was, what would be the probable consequence
of continuing the legislative union. On this point the
whole inquiry hinged. There was no one more convinced
of the advantages of maintaining the union than he ; nor
did he believe that the hon. and learned member for Dub-
lin would have advocated the measure of repeal, if he had
any hope of good and availing measures of relief for his
country from a British Government. What was the object
of the union, and what would be its effect should it be car-
ried into execution? should be the questions for the house.
Its object was to do away with anarchy and confusion ;
had it been successful ? He would not offer his own reply
to this question, but he would let the actions of the legis-
lature and the extraordinary powers required by. the Go-
vernmentm onyofmstands gvofr
no therm entr.e(p
HI y
e. r
.T)h ens ee wweornel
ds unffio
tc ifeonl
follow
testi-
mony sht ii-s
hon. friend (Mr. O'Connell) through the ancient records
of Ireland, which, though interesting enough in an histori-
cal point of view, were still unconnected with the question
befo T
before the house.
hon.
and learned member There had
mbeeenrfor
Dublinexaggeration
on
insisted
isitobsoth
sides.d
that nothing had been done for Ireland since the union ;
whilst the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury insisted
that all had been done which could be done. (No, no,
from the Ministerial Benches.) No, no. The hon.
member had said so, and had spent half an hour in reciting
the good acts of the Imperial Parliament towards Ireland.
In reply to this part of the right hon. gentleman's speech,
he would quote from another made by Mr. Spring Rice,
on the motion for passing the Insurrection Act, on the 7th
of February, 1832 :—Mr. S. Rice said " the house hail
been confidently told by the noble marquis that the re-
enactment of the insurrection law, with the passing of the
Habeas Corpus Act, would serve effectually to put down
the present disturbances in Ireland. But how could the
noble lord rely so much upon the efficacy of laws which,
having been already tried, had proved totally ineffectual to
the restoration of tranquillity in Ireland. They had been
ineffectual, because within the long periodthat had elapsed
since the union was carried, no inquiry had been instituted
—no attempt had been made to ascertain or to remedy the
real and general grievances of Ireland." Here was an ad-
mission, that from the period of the union up to 1822, no
attempt had been made to remedy the real grievances of
Ireland. These words he himself heard uttered by the
right hon. secretary in that house ; and it was now too
hard to have it from the same authority, that the Imperial
Parliament did all in its power to further the interests of
Ireland, whilst this sentence stood in Contradiction to
the assertion. (No, no.) No, no ! Why, the words of the
address proposed by the right hon. Secretary were these
—" That both on general and special grounds, that union
had been hitherto eminently conducive to the interests of
Ireland ; and that they (the imperial parliament) had
enacted, and still had under contemplation, various mea-
sures for the good of that country." How did this agree
with the assertion, that " no attempt had been made to
remedy the real and general grievances of Ireland?" (Loud
cheers from the Irish members.) If in the address a given
time had been stated for the benefits conferred, it might be
in some sort intelligible. As far as the present debate had
proceeded, one half of it had been personal to the member
for Dublin, and wherever the word agitator was used, it
was echoed by cheers. (Hear, hear.) Did the house be-
lieve that the influence of the hon. and learned gentleman
had no grounds ? It was founded on the wrongs of his
country (Cheers from the Irish members) ; and it was not
to be wondered at, when goaded beyond the bounds which
patience could no longer endure—by wrongs which the
gentlemen on the opposite benches had on former occa-
sions so forcibly and frequently depicted. Was it, he asked,
to be wondered at, that the firm advocate of Ireland should
possess influence with his countrymen? He would again
quote to the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury the
way in which Mr. Spring Rice accounted for agitation.
That gentleman on a former night said, " It had been
observed by Lord Bacon, that to allay sedition you must
expel the matter of it;' but he (Mr. Rice) was sorry to
say that no measures were taken to expel the matter of
sedition in Ireland." (Loud cheers from the Irish mem-
bers.) It was thus the member for Dublin had been made
an agitator by the government, which took no measures
to expel the matter of agitation ; and they added to his
power as an agitator by the personalities in which they
indulged. Even the very emancipation bill had a clause
personal to him. (Loud and continued cheers. )
Was Ireland used fairly, or acted equally by in the
Reform Bill ? (" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell. )Pre-
viously to that measure 240,000 persons were deprived of
their right in the elective franchise, and were afterwards
denied an equality with the people of England. (Hear.)
On no occasion were the people of Ireland treated as on an
equality with the people of this country. In support of
this opinion he had the assertion of an hon. baronet at the
fp,otheriororuecn nsudesi
untst
present
rd:heenyxj t
uothco
extent
that
a itnetttglthamtagett hni:hvmossedneeevadcei house (Sir Francis Burdett), who, in
1822, asked, " Was it to be tolerated that Ireland should
m-
the
know nothing of this country but through bloodshed and
the gibbet?" (Loud cheers from the Irish members. )
He (Mr. Hume) was not an advocate of repeal. He did
not think it would improve the condition of Ireland. On
the contrary, he was of opinion it would add to her evils.
(Cheers.) In the, proposed address, it was incumbent that
the existing evils of Ireland should have been stated, that
their existence should be deplored, and remedial measures
proposed. It should have solved the question whether the
happy consequence looked to from the union had ensued.
It decidedly had not, for in continuing the church esta-
blishment, as it at present existed in Ireland, they were
aggravating the evils which existed in that country. He
would read to the house a document illustrative of these
evils. It was a letter written by the Marquis of Anglesea
to Earl Grey in October, 1832, as follows :—" First and
foremost in importance, and in its immediate pressure, is
the question of a reform in the Protestant Church of Ire-
land. This establishment, which at all times far exceeded
the religious wants of the Protestant congregations, has
hitherto been upheld by the State, mainly on the ground
that it served the temporal use of consolidating the connec-
tion of the two countries." What an admission ; how worthy
an object for a church to effect. " But this service it no
longer performs. Instead of strengthening the connexion,
it weakens it. Any Government henceforth pledged to
maintain that establishment as it now exists, must be
wide-spread eenviepne:cr
nttro splendourhuoi
brought into constant and permanent collision with public
opinion, and the prejudices and passions of the Irish peo-
ple." Could any government (the hon. member here
asked) pledge itself to support an establishment thus de-
scribed? Could any ministry, except a Tory one (A
laugh) be its advocate? He then continued the letter--
However attached myself to the doctrines of the Protes-
tant church, and however anxious to discountenance any
violent changes in its temporal condition, it is impossible
for me not to sce that the prevailing resistance to its legal
s
may eventually place at the disposal of the state a national
s
fund, to be applied to necessary national purposes." Here
oanbonumebentntntis
clergy
etylcnyrrneai
:ysra:yegbnalfdmoeyync tredwPthtrhi
hetoeseioattveffhtoenfaditeaor a
strh
et
oatii
liwscho mindss
insteadniei
er
fee-simple
snogept
establishment
mbrj aletuei
respect
eihn
ieficlaeetrespdi
nos-
htafrb o oriyorni
arrived
eadt
andhe
ots .hde:esi nprt erbdi , tee
dl hn,
lt
ohal
advantage
vdf
thenia
gh
etasi
ttwasoheb
clausese,
dooemriNp•eoc from
Illedto tfhe funds.
eel,is the
general Su c h I have
and
, unchangeable
opreluctantlyopinion
of the Irish people upon this subject ; and I am
equally impressed with the apprehension that un-
less the parliament takes the lead in the work of now
inevitable innovation, the recent confederacy against tithes
will prove to have been only the first of a series of de-
plorable struggles between the government and the national
antipathies—that every day during which those struggles
are protracted the government will find itself less in a
, condition of imposing its own terms—and that, sooner or
later, the gual result mug be, an V Atintekt and aricligniAecl