The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-19 00:00:00

several baronies, had been proclaimed ; and it 'had' not been
pretended that the Government had misapplied the powers
of the Act in so doing. As the tranquillity of that unfor-
tunate country was not restored, and as Government was re-
sponsible for the preservation of the lives and property of the
inhabitants, it was evident that measures of severity were still
requisite. He thought that the House would do well, on a
future occasion, to consider the suggestion in the report of
1832, for passing some permanent measure which might se-
cure both person and property in Ireland, and which should
be as consonant as possible with the principles of the constitu-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) This would be a much wiser course than
the periodical introduction of temporary measures of severity
which tended to excite much ill feeling and discord. He did
not wish to enter into a discussion on the effects of agitation
upon the minds of the people ; but he certainly felt that the
use of strong language to the populace was calculated to in-
flame them to acts of violence. In reference, however,
to that point, he for one, thought that, under all
the circumstances of the case, they were in a condition
which justified them in making the experiment whether they
could not safely govern Ireland without having recourse to the
arbitrary powers for suppressing and preventing meetings. As
the Government undertook the responsibility of carrying on
the Government without these clauses, he trusted that those
who possessed great power over the people of Ireland would
not forget the responsibility imposed on them by the country,
and the necessity of exercising that power in a wise and con-
ciliatory manner. Should the Government he compelled here-
after to call for the enactment of the provisions now omitted,
it would be recollected that the Government had not shown a
want of confidence in the people of Ireland, and that the whole
responsibility rested on those who abused the indulgence of the
Government and the Parliament.—(Much cheering.)
Colonel PE RCE VAL regretted that the Bill had not been
proposed without any modifications, for nineteen out of twenty
of the intelligent inhabitants of Ireland considered its re-enact-
ment essential to the protection of life and property. But
Ministers succumbed to an Hon. and Learned Member, who,
it appeared, was their right hand. The Gallant Colonel, after
denying that Lord Westmeath or Lord Mountsandford had
acted with cruelty towards their tenants, concluded by calling
on Ministers to act a straightforward and manly course instead
of temporizing, for the purpose of delaying the storm a little
longer. Notwithstanding their coalition with the Hon. and
Learned Member, who he understood had agreed to put an end
to agitation for the time, the storm would come at last upon
them like a great extinguisher, and the sooner, the better.—
( Laughter. _ _ _

Mr: O'CONNELL said he had made his statements rela-
tive to the Noble Lords on the authority of a newspaper.
Mr. SPRING RICE said, that if _they had resolved to
act upon the principles of the Gallant Colonel, they would
have been lauded for their impartiality ; but now that they
had determined to conduct the Government of Ireland without
reference to party principles, the opposite course was pur-
sued. The Right Hon. Gentleman denied the charges which
had been made against Lord Mountsandford, and said that
they were refuted in a rival newspaper, which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) might have seen. The
Right Hon. Secretary then contended, at great length, that a
sufficient case had been made out to justify the House in
passing the Bill. With reference to what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, he begged to remind him of
what took place in the year 1822. In the February of that
year, at the time of the formation of the Wellesley Govern-
ment, and when the Right Hon. Member for the University
of Cambridge was Chief Secretary for Ireland, two Bills were
introduced into that House. One was intended to put down
political agitation, and the other to put down what was called
prmdial disturbance. One was the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, and the other was the Insurrection Act. These
bills were founded upon papers then laid upon the table of
the House, and he acted with regard to them precisely as he
intended to act now.—( Hear, hdar.) To the Insurrection
Act, which was intended to give protection to life and pro-
perty, by putting down prwdial agitation, he assented reluct-
antly ; but still he-did assent to it. To the other Bill, the
political Bill, that for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, he
refused his assent. The Legislature, however, passed both ;
but what happened on the Ist of August on the same year
when they expired ? Why, that the Government abandoned
the act which related to political agitation, but renewed the
Insurrection Act. He did not complain of! this ; but if it was
proper in the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite and his
friends then to make this kind of distinction, it was rather
strange that they should now turn round upon the present Go-
vernment to reproach it for following their example ; for the
severance of the parts of the Coercion Bill amounted to no
more.—( Hear, hear.) It had been truly stated, that after the
declaration of the Irish Government had become known, it
would have been impossible to carry the Courtmartial clauses
in that House ; but supposing it had been possible, what, he
must ask, would have been the effect of carrying them under such
circumstances? He moved the amendment to the motion of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin for the repeal of the
Union, and had the honour of being supported by a large majority
of that House ; but he would put it to the Hon. and Learned
Member, he would put it to the House and to the country,
to say whether a stronger argument could have been desired
by the Hon. and Learned Member than the being able to say
that the objectionable clauses of this Bill had been disapproved
of by the Irish Government, but that an English House of
Commons and an English Cabinet had forced them upon a re-
luctant Irish Administration ?—( Hear.) He would take
another opportunity of putting the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man in possession of the particular facts to which he had
alluded, and if he should satisfy the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, as he did not doubt he should be able to do, he should
leave it to his candour to acknowledge it. He was reminded
that it had been said by the Hon. and Gallant Member (Col.
Perceval) that his Majesty's Ministers had come -to an under-
standing with the Hon. Gentleman opposite. Certainly when
his Right Hon. Friend said that whilst the Government was
prepared to do without these clauses, it knew perfectly well
that others were also responsible for the tranquillity of the
country, he used terms not without significance ; but if the
Hon. and Gallant Member thought they proved the existence
of such an understanding as he described, the meaning he
attached to them was very different from that which, Tightly
construed, they properly bore. It might be relied upon that
the Hon. and Learned Member and his friends would not
dragoon them out of measures they thought beneficial, by
threatening them with the kind of understanding alluded to.—
( Hear, hear.) His Majesty's Government would not be
frightened from doing that which would be popular in Ireland,
by the dread of such an understanding being imputed to them.
They would do their duty to Ireland • and if it met the appro-
bation of different parties in that House, so much the better.
They took it as incident to a proper measure, and it would be
as great cowardice to shrink from the supposed approval of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, as it would be to
shrink from his opposition. He had not shrunk from his op-
position, and he should not shrink from receiving support to a
measure good in itself, let it come from what quarter it might.
Mr. D. RONAYNE opposed the bill, as he had the autho-
rity of the Judges of the Assize in Ireland for saying that the
ordinary law of the land was sufficient to maintain the peace
of the country.
Mr. CO BB ETT would vote against the bill, and put up
his prayers that its only effect might be to injure those who
brought it in.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion l4O
Against it
Majority --97
Lord A LTHORP accordingly presented the bill, which
was read a first time, and appointed to be read a second time
on Monday next.
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES ACT AMENDMENT
(IRELAND) BILL.

This Bill went through a Committee 7to be reported on
Monday next, and bill to be printed.

LANCASTER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BILL.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, re-
port farther considered ; the bill to be read a third time on
Monday next.
TRADING COMPANIES BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the order of the
day for the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. P. M. STEWART hoped it would be postponed. He
had no objection to the principle of the first clause, enabling
companies to sue and be sued by one of their number ; but he
objected to the last clause, which went to set up rights in the
Bank of England which the House had thrice this session ne-
gatived by large majorities.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. O'Connell
thought the Bill might be safely read a second time now, as it
would be competent to the Hon. Member for Lancaster to
oppose the last clause in committee.
Mr. ATT WO OD should oppose the Bill as tending to en-
courage the junction of capital in Joint Stock Companies' to
the discouragement of private traders. The issue of joint
stock shares up to 1800 had been held to be nuisances, and he
thought justly.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Tuesday next.