The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-13 00:00:00

sere was
one point more on which he had a feai remarks to make.
He meant the question of the repeal of the Union.
He would not suppose that those who agitated that ques-
tien were really in earnest.—(Cheers.)lt had been well re-
marked that in former timesßelgium was the prize-fighting
ground for Europe. If the Union were repealed, Ireland
would take the place of Belgium. When Russia, France,
America, or any other country, had a mind to aim a dag-
ger at the heart of the British empire, Ireland would be
the point at which the dagger would be aimed. There
were two words which described the conduct that must he
pursued towards Ireland—concession and coercion. He
was no advocate for the use of bayonets; although at the
same time be was aware that Government must do their
duty. The Coercive Bill had unquestionably done great
good in the county from which he came. Looking at the
state of Ireland generally, they ought to correct what
ought to be corrected—to concede what ought to be c tn-
ceded, and then, and only then, they could expect to have
peace in that country.
Mr. BARRON entered into the history of Ireland for
the last seventy years, to show that almost all the atroci-
ties which had been committed in that country had pro-
ceeded from the collection of tithes. Until they extermi-
nated the existing system, until they put an end to tithes
in every shape, they would labour in vain for the benefit
of Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman cite I a variety of Acts
of Parliament, from the period of the invasion by Henry
the Second, to prove that the clergy of Ireland were re-
quired to exercise hospitality, and to instruct the people.
He recommended the example which had been set by Scot-
land, as well as by several Catholic countries, of abolishing
tithes. While tithes existed in Ireland, there could be no
communion of feeling between the Protestants and the
great mass of the Irish people. The present system en-
gendered hatred to the English name. It was necessary
to employ a military force of 30,000 men in Ireland,
chiefly to support a system contrary to the feelings, the
habits, and the wishes of the people. Was it wise thus to
act in direct hostility to the prejudices of a whole
nation ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON was of opinion that,
after what had fallen from the Noble Lord, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Wexford should have been withdrawn. At the same
time, it must not be denied that the most outrageous ex-
cesses had been committed under the Coercive Bill. For
that Bill he never would have voted, if he, for one moment,
bad thought of the purpose to which it would have been
turned.— (Cheers.) Those who had thus perverted it,
ought to be more than reprimanded for their conduct;
dismissal from office was required—punishment was called
for.—(Hear, heir.) He trusted he should never again
see an instance of the military being employed in matters
of a purely civil character.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN said the real question was,
would Government dismiss at once from office the Attorney-
General or any other individual who had authorized those
shameful proceedings ? It was easy for the Noble Lord the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say he was not cognizant
of them; but what was the use of a Lord-Lieutenant if
he dared to disobey the orders of his superiors? He
ought to be made to ohey,or be at once dismissed.—(Hear.)
Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR said Ministers had vio-
lated their pledges,, and he believed in his heart that the
Hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Stanley) knew that
the object of the Bill was the collection of tithes.—(Hear,
hear.) It was absurd to say Government did not sanction
the employment of troops in those matters. He never
had confidence in the Government—he had none now—
and he would not have any till they redeemed some of the
pledges they had given to this country and to Ireland.
Mr. CHAPMAN (Westmeath) said the object of the
amendment was not to censure Government, but to punish
those who had presumed to violate their orders. He did
not want the underlings, who were obliged to do what
would be agreeable to their superiors—he did not want
them punished—but he wanted to see the principals
themselves called to account ; and be trusted that the
House would assist in effecting that object, and that his
Hon. Friend would not be induced, by any consideration,
to give up the motion which he had brought forward.
Mr. N. FITZSIMON made some observations, which
were, to the most part, inaudible in the gallery. He
was understood to say that he thought a case had been
clearly made out, and that he should give his support to
the motion of the Hon. Member for Wexford. He could
not but express his surprise at the speech of the Hon.
Member for Kirkcudbright, whose observations all tended
one way, though his vote would be given another.
Mr. STANLEY—I had hopgd, Sir, that I should
not again have to address the Hotise, upon a subject on
which I have so often before been compelled to weary
their attention ; but I find myself obliged to make some
observations, in answer to remarks that have fallen from
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. I must begin by expressing
my regret that the plan which it was the intention of my
Noble Friend this evening to have proposed, should not
have been heard before the attacks that have been made
bad been directed against the Government--Attacks for not
redeeming a pledge they had given in a most distinct and
solemn manner. There is some ingenuity in the manner
in which the amendment has been framed by the Hon.
Member for Wexford, and in which he bas contrived
that two questions, perfectly distinct from each other,
should yet be mixed up, so that the facts which appear to
be stated in the last part of the amendment should seem
to bear on the pledge referred to in the first. The first
pert of the resolution declared that it is the opinion of this
House,that the pledge given by the Ministers has not been

mu times entirely aDollBtled.
Thi
_ _ ,

fulfilled; and then comes the end of the amendment, in
which it is stated that the employment of the military and
the police force in the service of civil process, and in the
levying of tithes, is highly unconstitutional, and ought to
he discontinuA. The Right Hon. Gentleman read the
whole of the amendment. He continued—let us see how
the charge thus brought forward is made out. The Hon.
Member for Kildare has stated a Dumber of cases in which,
as be alleges, the military and the police have been em-
ployed under the provisions of the Coercive Bill to col-
hot tithes ; and it would appear, from the speech of the
H. Gentleman, that, in his opinion, for the purpose of
such a collection of tithes, the Coercive Bill was passed.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) I ask Hen. Gentlemen, b,fore
coming to any decision on the subject, to separate the two
questioas that have thus been mixed up together, and to
recollect, that in that part to which reference has been
made, the Coercive Bill has not been put in operation at
all—( Hear, hear, hear)—so that it is impossible that the
Government could have there violated any pledge they
had given that the Act should not be used fir the purpose
of the collection of tithes.—(Load cheers.) NVe owed,
Sir, most distinctly, upon the introduction of this
Bill, that the Bill would have a tendency to
make the law more respected in Ireland—that that
would be the effect of the mere passing of the Act—and
that it would put into the hands of Government the
power of making die law- more respected--and that that
was the reason which induced us to apply to Parliament
for it. In that respect it might have been possible that
the existence of the Act might facilitate the collection of
tithes ; but I distinctly deny that it has been used for such
a liurpose.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman makes
his charge broadly enough, but there is not one instance
in which date, time, and place are given in support of the
charge, except in the single case of Sergeant Shaw, who,
appearing to have acted in violation of his duty, and of
the distinctly expressef wishes, and even the commands
of the Government—(Hear, hear)—has made use of this
Act as a pretext for the employment of the ml;tary and
police in the collection of tidies. I think that the Magi-
strate s came in Lis case to a lenient sentence—(Hear)—
Lilt so far as the expiession of opinion went—lnd the
Hon. Gentlemen say they do not want the underlings
punished—(Hear)—as far as opinion went, that opinion
has been expressed, and all that is now wanted, is to be
known by whose authority Shaw acted. I state then

distinctly, that he did not act by the authority of the Go-
vernment. —( Cheei s ) My Noble Friend has disavowed
it, and here is the sentence of the Magistrates, declaring
that Shaw acted contrary to the meaning of the law, and
contrary to the intention of the Government; that they
reprehended him, and that if it was not for his ex-
cellent character, they should call for his dismissal.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) They gn further, and the y
Fay the Bench wish it to be understood that the Coercive
Bill is not to be used for the collec•ion of tithes.—
(Cheers.) This man, therefore, distinctly transgressed
his duty ; he has gone beyond tie power of the law ; and
making every allowance far the provocations which that
body of men have sustained, it would but have been fair
to state the whole of the case and say, that when the
matter was brought before the Magistrates, they did give
this sentence, and did affix to it the declaration of their
own opinion.—(Hear, hear.) That is the only case
which the lion. Gentleman has stated in proof of his
charge.-0 cry of " No, there are 57 others.") I say,
Sir, that that is the only case in which he has ben able to
specify date, time, and place.—(Hear, hear.) I am in a
situation to explain that particular case from papers I have
just had put into my bands, for I had no previous know-
ledge of tl.e case ; and with reference to the general charge
made by the Lion. Gentleman, I am prepared to answer,
that if he will substantiate the charge—if he shows the
cases in which the Coercive Act has been improperly
made use of .the Government will not only disavow what
has been done, but will be ready to visit with the conse-
quences of that transaction the men who have been guilty
6f taking part in it.--(Cheers.) But again, I say, do not
let us nrii up the question of the Coercive Bill with the