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

compliance with demands which we had not the foresight— '
or rather, perhaps, the power to concede." Were ever
words more prophetic than these? (Cheer:.) The hon.
Secretary for Ireland had promised to vindicate the law in
Ireland, but how had he effected it ? Why, by making his
Majesty the general tithe collector in Ireland (Cheers) by
setting aside the ordinary course of justice ; and notwith-
standing the assistance of soldiery, police, and constabulary,
in an attempt to do what was impossible with a whole
nation resisting, they collected 12,000/. at an expense of
25,000/. Was not the government compelled to retract
every measure it proposed ; and what was the result ?
; After pronouncing tithes extinct—after the triumphant
promise of vindicating the law—the government called for
new power in the Coercion Bill to put down the disturb-
ances to which their own act gave rise. (Cheers.) The
hon. gentleman then proceeded to read another extract
from the Marquis of Anglesea's letter.—" I know that the
times have passed when the will of the minister could de-
termine the acts of the legislature ; still I cannot refrain
from urging on the attention of my colleagues the claims of
I this suffering and too-long neglected country, to a partici-
' pation in the benefit of that enlightened policy which has
already conferred so much benefit on other parts of the
empire.
(Signed) " ANGLESEA.
" Phcenix Park, Oct. 9, 1832."
(Hear.) Surely, if the statement were correct, and he
thought it was, the imperial parliament had neglected the
just demands of Ireland. How, then, he should like to
know, could hon. members, who admitted this fact, con-
sent to an address, worded in the way proposed by the
right hon. gentleman? The course of proceeding which
he suggested was a most singular one. In his opinion, it
was unconstitutional as well as unusual. He had never
been able to find one single instance in which that house
interfered by address in order to put a stop to inquiry.
(Hear.) If parliament had, as the address declared, done
all that could be done for Ireland, that country would be
in a very different state to that in which it now was.
Why, when the right hon. gentleman talked of the increase
in her exports and imports, he forgot that the population
of the country had doubled, and that on that account alone
a large increase was to be expected. But the real question,
after all, was not what was the amount of exports or of im-
ports, but what was the comparative comfort of the mass
of the people before and since the union. (Hear, hear. )
Whilst on this subject he would call the attention of the
house to a debate that occurred on the 24th June, 1823,
when Sir Henry Parnell delivered a speech which, putting
aside the statistical details, most completely corresponded
with the tone of his lordship's sentiments :—" Another
way of judging of the state of disturbance in Ireland is by
referring to the Statute Book : from this it appears as
follows :

Years.
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1796 to 1802 6
That Martial Law was in force from 1803 to 1805 2
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1807 to 1810 3
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1814 to 1818 4
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1822 to 1823 1

Out of a period of 27 years, these laws were in force for... 16
But in addition to these two acts, others of a similar un-
constitutional kind have been passed within the same
period. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended from
1797 to 1802 ; again from 1803 to 1806 ; and again in
1822. The Arms Act, allowing domiciliary visits, and
prohibiting the use of arms, was in force from 1796 to
1801, and has been in force from 1807 to the present time,
and now forms a standing law of the country. The Peace
Preservation Act, by which a regular gendarmerie was
appointed, has been in force from 1814 to the present time.
Taking together the periods of disturbance, as before
mentioned, with the periods for which the Martial Law
and Insurrection Acts have been in force, we obtain the
following table of actually existing disturbances in Ireland :
Period. Years,
1. From 1792 to 1802
2. 1803 to 1805
a 1807 to 1810
4. 1811 to 1818
5. 1819 to 1823
—264
" That is, out of a period of the last 31 years, no less than
26 years have been years of actual insurrection and dis-
turbance. The following conclusions may be drawn from
this case of Ireland as to the means taken for suppressing
disturbances. First, that as often as any disturbance has
appeared, since 1795, it has been immediately followed by
some new law of a severe and coercive character. Se-
condly, that a regular system has thus grown up, and been
constantly acted upon, of dealing with discontent and dis-
turbance with severe and coercive measures. Thirdly,
that this system has completely failed ; for, in the place of
discontent and disturbance being diminished, great as they
were in 1795, they arc still greater at the present moment."
There was no subject of which the Irish complained more
than the state of the church. (Hear.) Let honourable
members endeavour to conceal the fact from themselves as
they pleased, it was impossible not to come to the conclu-
sion that this was the case; it was impossible not to admit,
then, that the compulsory payment of tithes was the cause
of almost every disturbance that had taken place in Ireland.
He contended government had not dealt fairly and frankly
with Ireland. Their course of policy should have been
more manly ; they should have fairly met the grievances
of Ireland, and not have endeavoured to keep up, for tem-
porary purposes, an overgrown church establishment. Let
the house only refer to the speech of the right hon. secre-
,heanirdrihtaetiwonas psruo crleu dth e
yi nm lursetl acno dm
ei in co
tohnes ecqouneenhes
_e
toafrytitohnest
sion that whatever might now be the inclination, the Im-
perial Parliament had hitherto neglected their duty to-
wards Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Why should not Ireland
be treated like an integral part of the empire? Why should
Ireland be governed like a province of England? Why
should a colonial establishment be kept up, there? Why
should Ireland be managed by a viceroy, with a delegated
establishment? The machinery of government in Ireland
was alone of such a nature, as to create those factions and
heart-burnings for which, unfortunately, that country was
too well distinguished. Coercion had been the constant
cry. It was in vain that they called on Parliament to try
the effect of a different system. (Hear, hear.) Had
this system been altered? Had not force, also, been the
order of the day, since the present ministers came into
office ? He believed there was now a greater force in Ire-
land, than had ever been kept there before or since the
union. (Hear.) The hon. and learned member for the
University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy) had said that, in his
opinion, the more powerful the church the better for the
country. (Hear, hear.) He thought, however, the hon.
gentleman would find few members in that house who
would agree with him in opinion. For his own part, it
was impossible that he could agree to the address, though
the right hon. gentleman had stated that it was so worded
that every member of that vilified Imperial Parliament
would readily give his sanction to its amendment. As far
as the original motion of his hon. and learned friend was
concerned, if it had not been for his speech, he should
have felt no hesitation in voting for the words of his mo-
tion. But his speech was so clearly a speech in favour of
repeal, that he felt he could not vote for the committee, lest
by so doing he should be held to countenance that mea-
sure. (Cheers.) He thought they were bound first of all
to try a little longer what this Parliament would do for Ire-
land, before they encouraged the agitation of this ques-
tion. Therefore, thus, he did not say, as many gentlemen
said, that nothing could ever induce him to become a re-
pealer ; he was at present its opponent. But if he should
find that justice was continued to be denied to the people
of Ireland—if they could not obtain their rights, then he
thought the question was one that ought fairly and pro-
perly to be agitated. The hon. member concluded by
reading his proposed amendment—
'. That the present state of Ireland is afflicting to its inha-
bitants and dangerous to the wellbeing of the United Kingdom ;
and although some salutary laws affecting the Iris:i people have
been passed by the Imperial Parliament, yet we deeply regret
that the beneficial results anticipated from the legislative union
have not been realized. The failure may, however, be attri-
buted to the error of Parliament, in refusing or delaying the re-
dress of substantial grievances, and not applying more exten-
sively those remedial measures, chiefly as regards the established
church of Ireland, which a liberal and benignant policy would
dictate.
our
causes
the' iTe
n aot
vw.
owfi
application of such measures of improvement and reform, both
direct besto f andust complaint,earliest
o to
in church and state, as, by doing justice, will best promote the
alllinow existing
peace and contentment of the people of Ireland ; and by thus.se.
full
curing 1
itsb e nper
ntcoi
itjltehze
aßnrdi t
give
o ands tdi
ittui
ot
sitnrcernegasuel
their at tt
ha
ce hmmtehnet
and prosperity to the , mplre."
Lord Althorp and Mr. Shaw rose together, amidst loud
cries for each, but Mr. Shaw giving way—
Lord ALTHORP proceeded ; he said that he almost
felt some apology was due to the house for rising to address
them at this stage of the debate, but he feared that he
should be considered as not performing his duty unless he
stated briefly the grounds of his opposition to the motion of
the hon. and learned member. The question appeared to
him to be so entirely exhausted, that he thought it would
not be possible for him to advance anything new. He
should, therefore, only trouble the house with some few ob-
servations on what had passed in the course of the debate.
The hon. gentleman who had just sat down had stated,
that half the speeches against the motion were occupied by
attacks on the hon. and learned gentleman. He cer-
tainly admitted that much of the debate consisted of such
attacks. (Hear.) But, on the other hand, a great deal
more than half the speeches on the other side were filled
with quotations from the speech made by his right hon.
friend in 1823. (Hear, hear.) There had, indeed, been
more of reading in this debate than in any other that he
ever remembered. Many attacks had been made upon his
hon. friend for inconsistency. But he could not admit
that because a man opposed the enactment of a union 34
years ago, he was guilty of inconsistency in now opposing
its repeal. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might have been
said by Lord Grey in 1799, in the heat of debate, on a
question so exciting as that question was at the time (and,
though young, he well remembered hearing the very speech
that had been quoted from)—whatever might then have
been said by Lord Grey could not fairly be applied to the
connection between England and Ireland, as now existing.
Nor could his then opposition to the union be held in the
slightest degree inconsistent with his present opposition to
its repeal. His right hon. friend (Mr. S. Rice) was more
hardly used still. He was attacked for the alleged inconsistency
between his opinions now and in 1822. Where, he should
like to know, was the inconsistency ? In the quotation
brought forward, his right hon.,friend complained, that the
window tax and hearth tax still existed in Ireland, and
that Catholic emancipation was still refused. Wliy, every