The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-08 00:00:00

tude of the people of Ireland ? As nobody else will answer
-the question, I will—l will tell you what he did. First, he
was serviceable to the Catholics, or would have been if he
could, in preventing the L.gislative Union in 1799 ; he
was their friend—he deprecated that measure, and to ik all
possible pains to decry it, and to put the people of Ireland
out of conceit with it. He was, however, the friend of
the Catholics in 1807 ; that was his great exploit ; and
let us see then, the extent of his generosity. Now you
shall have a true picture of what a Whig is—of what he
is.—(Cheers and laughter.) Remember, Ido not hatch
this term for use; it was employed by the Member for
Leeds, who said that a IVhig Ministry had done so much
for the Catholics of Ireland Now, the Whigs were in
power in 1806, and continued so until 1807, and they had
always been in the habit of making use of the Roman Ca-
tholics, and putting them forward as a stalking-horse, be-
hind which they were to slip into office ; yet they would
have been content to have sat warm in their places
from 1806 to February 1807, without troubling them-
selves with emancip ition, as many were old enough to
remember, if they could have done so. But the Roman
Catholics reminded them, and worked them pretty con-
stantly with telling them "how we served you at
your need--how we badgered your opponents—how
we cried you up and cried them down, and now you must
do something for us." Accordingly, at last, the Whigs
brought in the Roman Catholic Bill. It was not the
work of the Right Hon. Bironet (Sir R. Peel), or of the
Duke of Wellington, but of the Whigs—the disinterested,
the generous, the magnanimous Whigs. What was done?
I wish I had here the two Bills that I might compare them ;
but the Bill of 1807, as compared with the Bill of 1829,
was what a pea is to a walnut. It gave the Roman Catholics
scarcely anything worth accepting, and even that was
limited by securities ; it was nothing more nor less than
a stupid measure--stupid enough for King George the
Third to throw it out, and its framers after it.—(Laugh-
ter.) I hate insincerity worse than I hate downright
brazen wickedness.—(Cheers and laughter.) I recollect
the transactions of that time so well. The Whigs brought
in the Bill,eand after they had brought it in, they did not
seem very willing to push it along, but Parliament com-
pelled them to push it. It was read a first and second
time, and everybody thought it would be carried and all
over in a month. But somebody or other advised George
the Third to put a stop to it. He told the Whigs that it
should not pass, and what did the Minister who brought
it in ?—Would I not rather go to plough and dig again,
than consent to do what he did ? The very Minister who
proposed the Bill in a flowery speech, enforced its abso-
lute necessity—only thirteen days afterwards withdrew it,
and this House had the baseness to permit him. He went
out of office to be sure : he could hardly stay in his place
after being so degraded ; hut be would have staid if he
could : he wanted to stick to his place—and this was no
other than Lord Grey himself. The House may know
that there is such a thing as a Council•book, and there
the Whigs entered that they hoped they should still be
permitted to mention to his Majesty any thing conducive
to the good of the country. " Ha, ha !" (said the King)
" what, what ! cannot I get these fellows out ?"—(Hear,
hear, hear.) He told them plainly, that unless they
would sign their names in the Council-book to a de-
claration that they would never mention Catholic Eman-
cipation again as long as they lived, be would not trust
them. The Whigs well knew the consequence of
signing it ; they thought it better to walk out than to re-
main with such a document against them. They were
therefore turned out, to the infinite satisfaction of both Ca-
tholics and Protestants, from one end of the kingdom to
the other. So much for the gratitude due to the Whigs.
(Here Mr. Cobbett paused, and a cry of " Question,
question, ' was raised.) One word upon the subject of
the Church. I am for totally and entirely abrogating,
annulling, rendering prostrate, and of no effect, the Pro-
testant Hierarchy in Ireland. Nobody can misunderstand
toe, I trust.--(Cheers.) I do not say so because I shall
gain anything by its abolition, or by its continuance. I

am no parson to receive tithes—and no Quaker to refuse
for conscience' sake to pay them ; but I know that the
putting down of that Hierarchy is necessary to the hap-
piness, peace, safety, and renown of Ireland.—(Cheers.)
It can be endured no longer with security to the kingdom,
or to the King's throne ; therefore, as a loyal subject to
the King, and a faithful representative of the people,
• I declare my opinion against it. Look at the history of
the Church, and in it you read all the great ctlawities of
the country. This Church has created the national debt ;
it was incurred for the sake of the Church. It was the
cause of the detestable, execrable, and accursed Septen-
nial Bill ; to uphold it the ruinous French war was un-
dertaken ; in short, to maintain it, as is proved by deeds
and Acts of Parliament, one King was brought to the
block and another driven from the throne. What it is
destined next to effect I leave gentlemen to determine !
but I cannot sit down without expressing my gratitude
to the House for the great attention I have received.
Mr. FINN protested warmly against the abolition of
the trial by Jury in Ireland, which was intended to stifle
public discussion. Hon. Members, when they talked of
a repeal of the Union, seemed to regard it as a matter
wholly visionary. He remembered a conversation which
he had with a friend a short time before he left Ireland, in
the course of which that gentleman said to him, how
could his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member far Dub-
lin, expect that, in bringing forward a motion for the
repeal of the Union, he should find one man in that
House to second him? How did the fact now stand ?
Were there not at the present moment as many as forty
or fifty decided Repeaters in the House ? And was it not
equally true that there were six-and-twenty more who
were pledged to that measure conditionally—who stood
pledged, that if Government did not in the present Ses-
sion—nay, very speedily—bring forward some measure
calculated to redress the grievances of which the Irish
people had just reason to complain, they would cordially
support any proposition having that object in view? It
that was a state of things to be regretted, the Hon. and
Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite had but to thank them-
selves for it ; and perhaps, in an unusual degree, their
thanks were due to the Right Hon. Gentleman who
filled the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord
Lieutenant—a gentleman who, from his position
in the Government, had often many ungracious
things to do ; but, it so happened, possessed a singular
facility of doing them in the most ungracious manner—
and
he had also eminently succeeded in rending himself
unpopular with both parties. But it was not matters of
such small importance which had made the cry of repeal
resound from one end of the island to the other, and
which had placed the Government in this inconvenient
position. If they sought to satisfy Ireland, they must
have announced their readiness to touch the Church, and
that announcement must instantly lead to their being op-
posed by 150 Tories within those walls. They had, how-
ever, made the announcement, but neither the announce-
ment itself, nor the other communications with which it
was accompanied, would satisfy the people of Ireland, or
stifle for a moment the cry of repeal. But in meeting
that cry, how did Hon. Gentlemen on the other side act ?
They confined themselves to taunting his Hun. and
Learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, with not having
brought the question under the consideration of the
House, or of giving a notice upon the subject. lie could
tell th-m the reason why the question of repeal had not
vet been brought forward. They had been told that a
'Reformed House of Commons would redress the wrongs
of Ireland, and put an end to the system according to
which the great body of the people paid a million a year
for the maintenance of a Church from which they derived
no advantage. While upon tr.e subject of the Church, he
could not help adverting to the fact that so large a pro-
portion of the good things of that establishment had fallen
into the hands of the present head of his Majesty's Govern-
ment; or, rather, he should say, had been placed at his
disposal ; for example, it had so happened that 20,0001. a
year in the Irish Church had fallen to the lot of the Premier's
brother-in•lacv, the Bishop of Derry. The relatives of the
Noble Earl certainly did appear to entertain a great affection
for office ; and, as it would seem, to manifest upon all occa-
sions a most happy and peculiar aptitude for the public
service. True, it might be that they were all, to a man,
eminently qualified for the posts they occupied; but was
it to maintain officers so largely paid and sinecurists so
richly endowed, that the Irish peasant was to be robbed
of the miserable pittance by which little more than life
was sustained ? It was in such a state of things as this
that the Executive Government called for fresh powers,
and for an accession of strength. Did any man, who
possessed the slightest acquaintance with Ireland, suppose
that any additional power was wanted by the Executive
for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the law
against the poor ? No ; the object was but too apparent ;
the object of all these additional powers was nothing more
or less than to enable the Executive authority to accom-
plish that which the persons now intrusted with that
authority most earnestly desired, namely—to put down the
agitators. As the pretext for effecting that project, they
referred to the disorders of which Ireland was now un-

happily the scene. He could tell the House that those
disorders would never cease so long as the police force in
that country was constituted according to the present
model—so long as the members of it were, Catholics as
one, and Protestants as three.

Mr. STANLEY—I beg the Hon. Member's pardon—
he has been misinformed—such is not the fact.

Mr. FINN resumed. The authority upon which be
made that statement was Returns laid before the House.
Mr. STANLEY—When ?

Mr. FINN—In 18'25.—(Loud there from the Minis-

terial Benches.) lie had made the statement from that
which he considered to be authentic documents, and he
should have been very happy to refer them to more recent
information, if any later returns bad been made. He
could not, however ; but it could not be disputed that the
police force in Ireland was composed of materials selected
in anything but an impartial spirit; and they could never
hope to subdue the spit it of discontent in that country so
long as that system remained unchanged ; neither could
an improved condition of the people of Ireland be ex-
pected so long as 5,000,0001. of the substance of the
suffering but most industrious peasantry were wrung from
their hard earnings, in order that absentees might reside
where they pleased, and live in luxury and profusion. Indis-
putably the people of Ireland would never rest contented, so
long as the absentee system prevailed; and it was equally true
that a native Legislature would not pass a single session
without imposing a heavy absentee tax of 25 per cent.,
or 50, if it were necessary, for the purpose of bringing
home those who were wasting the produce of laborious
industry in foreign land.. The Hon. Gentleman then re-
turned to the subject of the police, censuring in strong
terms the principle upon which they were selected, and
contending that the country would never be at peace so
long as that force was selected on account of sectarian con-
siderations; for, as matters now stood, the police had a
direct interest in promoting discontent and sowing divi-
sion. To gentlemen acquainted with Ireland it must be
well known that the Magistrates contrived to make the
police force a very convenient mode of providing for their
natural son., and it was, therefore, no matter of surprise
that the great body of the people of Ireland should place
no confidence in a body so constituted, and should declare
their determination never to rest contented until that sys-
tem was thoroughly reformed. It was a grievous error
to suppose that the Irish people viewed or could be
induced to submit to such a state of things.—(Hear.)
A distinguished individual had said of the Irish, that
they were a people whom it was perfectly easy to le id with
a silken thread, but that chains of adamant could not
bind them. The Hon. Member for Leeds had talked of
not suffering the Member for Dublin to become more than
a British subject, but be could tell that Hon. Member
that he (Mr. F.) could never be induced to think less or
lower than the Hon. Member for Leeds—he owed alle-
giance to none but the King upon the throne ; and if he
found the House and the other branch of the Parliament
fail in the duty which they owed to the Irish people, his
submission to their authority should cease. He never
should forget the memorable declaration made by Mr.
Foster, that in agreeing to the Union the Irish represen-
tatives, upon all questions affecting Irish interests, placed
themselves in the disadvantageous position one hundred
against five hundred, and that they might be sure that in
all such cases the weakest must go to the wall. They
were now in the most imminent danger of a civil war,
and the Government of this country would have to con-
tend against fearful odds. The people might be poor,
but then let it be remembered that they had nothing to
lose. There was great wealth in England, let them not
put these possessions in jeopardy : in facing the Irish
people they were facing a tremendous population, and
they had better pause before they advanced too far to
retreat.

Lord EBRINGTON said, when he looked at the
words of the speech with reference to the state of Ire-
land, and when he saw the distinct declaration made on
the subject of the Irish Church, he could not deny to
that address his moat cordial support. He perfectly well
remembered that he had, in the last Parliament, given
notice that if some one else did not bring forward a mo-
tion on the subject of the Irish Church, he should himself
feel it to be his duty to take such a step. It happened,
however, that the matter was now in the hands of the
Government, and he felt that he should be acting most
improperly did he attempt to forestall them in the good
work which they had undertaken. He begged the House
particularly to hear in mind that the King's Government
did not call upon the House to adopt measures of coercion,
without, at the same time, calling upon them to pass
measures of conciliation. He then proceeded to reply to
the complaints of Hon. Members that sufficient atten-

um was not paid to the affairs of Ireland, oh.
serving, that they seemed to forget that more time
had been spent in that House upon Ireland than upon
any other subject. He knew of no laws by which
the evils entailed by a redundancy of population could he
remedied ; nor did he know of any that could prevent not
only English but Irish gentlemen from absenting them-
selves from their estates, and residing wherever they
pleased. He wished that a means of prevention could
be found, for he considered their absence from their
estates one of the chief causes of the evils and misery
under which Ireland laboured. Perhaps one of the best
remedies for Ireland that could be devised would be, to
impose a maximum of rent, thereby benefiting the poor
by limiting the high price of land ; for as long as the
present high rentals remained, the evils would continue
which were so justly complained of. The great question
was, to apply a remedy to these evils ; and he wished that
those gentlemen who were so loud in their clamours,
and so obstinate in their opposition to the coercive powers
demanded by Ministers, had pointed out some specific
measure or measures that would preclude the necessity of
requiring such powers. The Hon. Member for Water-
ford might give testimony that comparative tranquillity
prevailed in Ireland, yet the assertion of the Hon. Member
was not borne out by fact. Did not that Hon. Member
also state, that he was served with several menacing no-
tices, one of which threatened him with terrible conse-
quences, unless he dismissed his steward, and the only reason
given for requiring that dismissal was that the steward
was a Seotchman. When such tyrannical notices
were served—when such dismissals were exacted—when
such outrages and infraction of all law were perpetrated—
could any body in bis senses say that coercive measures
were not peremptorily called for ? The House were told
by Hon. Members opposite, that the sole cause of Irish
grievances was a denial of justice. This was on the face
of it mere assertion, for he had listened with the greatest
attention to what those who made the assertion had to
say i❑ support and proof of it, and yet he had not heard
them point out any specific acts of denial of justice. Were
they prepared to prove that a repeal of the Union would
be an effective remedy ? He would be glad to hear their
proofs ; they had adduced none as yet. For himself, he
had expressed his opinion thereupon, and did not by any
means consider that the Union was the cause of the
grievances complained of, and that its repeal would do
away with them. Nay, more, he would state in the most
solemn manner, that, great as his feelings of horror were,
at even the semblance of a civil war, yet, if he had a
choice to make, between civil war and a dismemberment of
the empire—for repeal meant nothing more—he would
adopt the painful alternative, and honestly declare, that
be would prefer the horrors of civil war.—(Hear, hear.)
Repeal of the Legislative Union, he repeated and main-
tained, was a virtual dismemberment of the empire, in-
volving the absolute ruin of Ireland, in the first instance,
and the degradation of England in the second. The Hon.
Gentleman who had last addressed the House, intimated
that something very like civil war would arise out of the
conduct pursued by Government towards his country.
Mr. FINN" begged to correct the Noble Lord. He
did not intend to convey any such meaning as that
attributed to him by the Noble Lord. He only con-
ceived that a possible case might arise, the consequences
of which would amount to the evil of insurrection.

Lord EBRINGTON would conclude by expressing
how much he was rejoiced that his Majesty's advisers had
put into his Majesty's mouth a declaration by which the
House was pledged to one great and important point—that
of maintaining inviolable, at all risks, the tini,in that
existed between the two countries.

Sir 11. PEEL afterwards addressed tie House, and said,
that as this was the third night of debate on the address
to the speech from the Throne, and as it may at least be
presumed, that the discussion was then approaching to a
termination, he was unwilling that it should end before
he made a few observations on it. The speech from the
Throne adverted to many topics, e.:id wisely and prudently,
according to ancient and est.:Wished usage, refrained from
entering minutely into the measures it proposed for the
consideration of the House. The framers of the speech
had acted sagely in not imitating the example of American
Presidents, and detailing specifically their intentions. He
did not say this because he thought that full information
should not be given in the King's speech on all and every
thing that Government projected. but rather because he
was of opinion that a speech from the Throne could not
reasonably give such full and accurate details on any great
measures as to satisfy the House and the nation of their ex-
pediency and sufficiency. However, there might be an evil in
giving minute details of projected measures in the King's
speed', as that wonid partly tend to fetter their deliberations,
and bind them to support measures specifically defined in a
document emanating from so high a quarter. The King's
speech should not go further than to indicate the general in-
tentions of the Government, and leave it to the Legislative
to pronounce whether those intentions were founded in
wisdom or not. lie had said that the speech embraced
divers topics, but as it was important to appproach as
possible practical measures, be would confine
speedily as
his remarks to a few only of those topics. He would do
so, moreover, as it was of consequence that as little time
as possible should be used in debate--( Hear) —and, as
that being a reformed Parliament, the people expected
something more and something better from it than
lengthened aad unprofitable harangues.—( Hear, hear.)
Fle would, therefore, without further preface, advert to
those topics 0 the speech which called for an express and

unqualified opinion. He was aware, and he did not hesi-
tate to confess it, of the altered position in which he stood.
He recollected that on former occasions it was his good
fortune to be backed by large majorities ; it also had fallen
to his lot to be supported only by small ones. No matter
how small the number that shared his opinions, he felt
confident that they would be respected by that House ;
and if he put forth others that might seem to differ from
former ones, he also felt confident that they would not be
attributed to a desire to conciliate the favour of any party.
Every particle he uttered would be conscientiously his own,
and he expected that all that party animosity was extin-
guished which would not readily acquiesce in affording him
a patient hearing. There were three subjects in his Majesty's
speech upon which he felt himself called upon to express
his opinions. Those were reform of the Church, the tran-
quillity of Ireland, and the maintenance of the Legislative
Union. To then exclusively he felt himself bound to advert.
With respect to the first of these subjects—the Church—
his Majesty's speech called their particular attention to it,
and stated that its revenues would permit of a more equi-
table distribution. Though it should be the intention of
Government to establish that Church on a more solid
basis, and though they should bring forward measures
from which it might be inferred that they meant to uphold
its rights and privileges, be would examine those measures,
and hear them minutely discussed, before he would give
them unqualified approbation. Whatever might be the
motives of Ministers in bringing forward measures that
they thought necessary for the security of the Church, it
was his determination to maintain its rights and privileges
upon the highest of all considerations—that of true reli-
gion.—(Cheers.) With respect to Ireland, he admitted
that parts of the King's speech were vague and undefined,
and not easy to be understood. He alluded to the words
"separate consideration," as applied to the Irish Church.
He did not clearly understand them, and knew not
whether they meant that the peculiarities of the Irish
Church required something like a distinct consideration.
But as they stood, they might bear a different and dan-
gerous construction, and be interpreted as though they
meant disassociation of the interests of the Churches. Per-
haps the words alluded to tithes, for upon them there
might be separate consideration. He begged the House
to reflect upon those words, and to especially bear in
mind, that the Church of Ireland was the same with the
English Church, and could nut, consequently, as a whole,
require a separate consideration. He hoped that by
those words were not meant, that the property of the
Irish Church should be meddled with. He trusted that
the Right Honourable Secretary for Ireland, who was
so frequently taunted for his aristocratical bearing,
but which taunts were more to be attributed to his great
talents as a debater than to anything else, he hoped, he
repeated, that the Right Hen. Gentleman was fully aware
of the ruin he was about to cause if he contemplated
touching or disturbing, in any way, the property of the
Irish Church.—(llear, bear.) He remembered that last
Session the Right Hon. Gentleman had given in a report
with respect to Church property in Ireland, which pro-
perty still remained the same, and be hoped that the Right
Hon. Gentleman would never consent that that property,
should he applied to flay other purposes than to ecclesias-
tical ones, and to the exclusive use of the Established
Church.—(Hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) That property,
nobody could contest, belonged to the Church, and had
been its prescriptive and undoubted right during three
centuries ; and if now it was touched, there would be an
end to the security of all property, whether private or
public. He now approached the most afflicting subject
of all—he alluded to the measures required fur repressing
disorder and anarchy in Ireland. They were asked, in the
King's speech, to consent to such extraordinary measures
as would tend to repress confusion and secure property
and life. Speaking upon this subject, he trusted that
he might lay claim to impartiality, fur he had never
been known to taunt his Majesty's Ministers with slow-
ness in adopting measures of coercion towards Ireland. He
had been once obliged himself to adopt snch measures,
and though he experienced great opposition in so doing,
he met with greater when he thought it expedient to have
those measures repealed. The being obliged to have re-
course to extraordinary measures was an evil, but it was
the duty of a legislator to weigh and consider which evil
was the least, and to choose that—(Hear, hear)—
and he, upon mature consideration, deemed that there
was less evil in interfering efficaciously, and with a
strong hand, with the affairs of Ireland, than to
forpractised a
moment
in
countenanceap-
pear theugh abominable
Englishman,out-
rages
that h at
o
country.
he felt not the slightest unkind feeling towards the Irish
people, nor ought he ; be had lived among them and re-
pea
r
re-
ceived at their hands that generous treatment for which
they were proverbial. He considered himself in many re-
spects as intimately connected with them, and for that
reason he would act towards them like a true friend, and,
instead of flattering them, point out the means that would
he most salutary. When he spoke of the Irish people, he
did not meats to pay them such a bad compliment as to
suppose that the mass of them required to be coerced.
No ; it was only that portion who were mentioned with
execration by one and all of the Irish Members, and who
not only attacked and barricaded the mansions of the rich,
but applied the torch to the cabins of the poor. It was
to protect the Irish people that extraordinary powers were
demanded, and more particularly to protect the humbler
classes, since it was they who suffered most from the ty-
ranny exercised by the wretches who set all law at de-
fiance. Those who paid obedience to the laws of their
country were punished for so doing, and the Legislature
ought at least, in return for their allegiance, to afford
them the amplest protection. The House was called
upon to frame a law by which those who were loyal
might be protected. When midnight minder and hourly
assassination awaited the loyal subject, it was time that
every protection should be granted him. He was surprised
at the inconsistency of the Hon. Gentlemen, who in the
same breath blamed Ministers for wishing to afford pro-
tection to the peaceable and well-inclined, and deprecated
the crimes of which they might be said to be eye-wit-
nesses. That those crimes prevailed to a most frightful
extent might be gathered from the hourly reports re-
ceived from Ireland. They were as various as extensive,
and assumed every possible shape. If there were but a
few solitary instances of crime, he then would think it
better not to have recourse to strong measures ; but when
the frequency of crime was most notorious, the severity
of the law should be stretched to the utmost. Could any
body expect that human beings were to be permitted to
live under unmitigated tyranny Assuredly not; and
if the testimony of several Hon. Members of the
sister country was confirmed, there was a case made
out to suspend those laws, which were intended to
secure individual freedom to all, but which, when abused,
ought to he withdrawn. For himself, he would go
farther than the mere suspension of those laws, and pro-
vide a remedy for the evils complained of, by a new act
of legislation. Ile would now approach the most im-
portant question of all—the repeal of the Legislative
Union—and would admit, that upon that point he was
resolved, as he hoped was the great majority of that
House, to support his Majesty's Government in main-
taining intact that Union. That Union was based upon
a fundamental law, anti the question now was, whether
that law should be abrogated. The Union of England
and Ireland was the law and contract between the two
nations. That contract was made by the people them-
selves, through their representatives in Parliament. It
was the law under whiCia they now sat in that House as
the representatives or both countries, and to legislate for
them. He thought that the time was now come, when
Parliament was imperatively called upon to take early
steps to have the question of the repeal of the Union
brought before them, and finally to decide upon it.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Dublin was called
upon to draw up a series of resolutions, to show that
the future prospects of Ireland under a continuance of
the Union was one of injustice and misrule, and that
in the event of the repeal of the Legislative Union,
?
that that country would he benefited by the measure.
Vas the Hon. Member not bound to show a case
against England, as to her future conduct to Ireland, and
that Ireland should be able to go on without the assistance
0l England,
motion
hsmeheoar
made
bt
yh
But
uh te repealwh
Member a oft thelvas f Unionobject bli en
od?fetteitem
wi determined
upon. pre-
sent
that a Committee should be formed of the whole House—
that the Speaker should leave the chair, and Mr. Bernal
assume that seat; and when they had formed that Com-
mittee of the whole House, what nearer were they to a
decision on the question than they were at present ? Why,
they were in the whole House already, and what then had
they to gain by the proposed amendment? Nothing but
this—that every Member would again have an opportunity
of making a speech.—(Loud cheering.) And be there-
fore appealed to the House whether there was anything to
gain in regard to deliberation on the question ? This he
was, however, sure of, that whatever disposition there
might be in the Committee to exercise deliberation on the
subject, there would, at all events, he every disposition to
abound in speeches.—(Cheers and laughter.) He there-
forelesenet tohfatthite uq•ouuesldtiobnritnigianthtehmeyolnveersete;pannedarleier
could, on no account, assent to the motion, because
tthhheoe didugs ti
ttnlit nt
rested with the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin to show that they were to gain by it.—(Hear,
hear.) It had been said that it was the wish in that
House to fetter discussion on the affairs of Ireland ; but,
so far was that from being the case, that he should be
glad that the question of Ireland was now brought be-
tore them. But why did not those who had been for two

years agitating the country with the question at the
repeal, not now to bring forward a motion on the subject.
—(Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) He begged to as-
sure the Honourable and Learned Member, that nothing
was further from his wish than to set over this point by
appealing to the passions of the Members ; he wished step
by step to examine the arguments to be brought forward
on the subject. He thought that Parliament was the
proper place to take it into consideration ; and he
begged to ask why it was not brought forward last session ?
Was it on account of the Reform question ? Was it for
fear of agitating Parliamerdt? It could not be on that
account; for the Honourable and Learned Member had
agitated the whole country on the subject; he had ap-
pealed to the people by all the means most likely to arouse
them—by their love of country—by their religion—and
by the almost forgotten times when they had a Parlia-
ie
mient(siinr
R.
Peel)ublin had certainly .
("
No,
tain nI
which purported to be his, in which he was made to say,
that he hoped to see the day when the Irish Parliament
cni se fernom a reportAlr. °
of'C am snpeeelic. h)
would be sitting in its ancient seat. Now, he com-
plained, that when the Honourable and Learned Member
comes before them, he not only made no motion on the
subject, but while he spoke on almost every other
grievance of Ireland, he not only omitted to mention this,
but, when called upon, most studiously avoided it. Was
the Reform Bill the cause that it was not brought be-
fore the House last Session ? No, for that did not pre-
vent the Honourable Member from bringing forward forty
other motions. Had the Hon. Member moved that one
night should be set apart for the discussion of the subject,
he (Sir R. Peel) would most cordially have joined him in
that request. The Hon. Member might then have moved
a resolution, to the effect that the Legislative Union be.
tween England and Ireland was founded neither in justice
nor policy, and that it should, therefore, be repealed; and
if the Hon. Member had applied to him (Sir R. Peel), he
would most willingly have assisted him in drawing up the
resolutions. Perhaps the Hon. and Learned Member
might have objected to his assistance, that be was inimical
to the repeal of the Union. But why not argue the question
at least ? He could assure the Hon. and Learned Member
that he (Sir Robert Peel) would not support the continu-
ance of the Legislative Union, merely because he found it in
existence, though that might be an inducement to prevent
his wishing for a change without good cause. The question
now was, not whether there had been misgovernment in
Ireland—there might be truth in the assertion that that
country bad grievances to complain of—but the question
now was, whether there was a disposition on the part of
the British Parliament to do justice to that country? That
was the only question to which they had to look ; and he
hoped that in considering it they would not recur to those
grievances, which were now past, and should be forgotten.
He hoped that for the time they would merge all questions
connected may with the past, and that they would
look forward to the future, and see if now there was
not every disposition to do justice to Ireland without
having recourse to such a measure. For his own part,
he said candidly, that if he were satisfied that a
repeal of the Union would improve the social state of
the people of Ireland, he would not only not offer any
obstructions to that measure, but he would give his assist-
ance to have it carried ; but so far was lie from being sa-
tisfied that the condition of Ireland would be improved,
that he felt assured it would tend to the ruin of both
countries. He admitted that there had been a great deal
of misgovernment in Ireland, but that very fact of misgo-
vernment, so far front assisting the Hon. and Learned
Member in his argument in favour of the repeal, had a
direct tendency to the contrary. The misgovernment of
Ireland was owing to the fact of her having a separate
Parliament, which was not, in reality, an independent
Legislature ; and it was to the corruption of this species
of Legislature that evils were to be attributed. For if
Ireland had a separate Parliament, the Government of this
country would always have a desire to obtain an influence
over its proceedings, and the result would be the same
misgovernment of which Ireland now complains. They
said that England had no desire to do justice to Ireland.
He would ask what interest England had to do otherwise ?
Was it the interest of England that Ireland should be mis-
governed ? Was it the interest of England that Ireland
should have a bad system of Grand Jurors? No, the
reverse must be the case. What, then, could be the cause
that England should wish not to do Ireland justice ? It
must be either financial or commercial. It was not by
angry discussion that they could arrive at the truth, but
by calm argument and information ; and he would beg to
suggest that, as legislators, their first duty, in approach.
ing that discussion, should be to obtain documents throw.
ing light on the subject, as the groundwork on which
their future proceedings should be based. The first do-
cument which he would suggest was an account of the
most pressing taxes in Ireland ; 2d, an account of taxes
imposed on the people of England, which are not imposed
on the people of Ireland ; 3d, an account of taxes im-
posed on the people of Ireland, which are not imposed
on the people of England—(Hear, hear); and 4th, an
account of the restrictions put upon the commerce and
manufactures of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) If these were
called for, and it appeared that injustice was done to Ire-
land, the Hon. and Learned Member might depend upon
it that that House would suspend its ordinary legislative
proceedings in order to redress them. He (Sir Robert
Peel) could conceive no other injustice that England could
wish to Ireland, but either of a financial or a commercial
nature. And if on looking into the question it were
proved that such injustice were done, he would, for
one, be ready to give his assistance to relieve it. But
the Irish called to have 50 per cent. taken off the taxes
on Irish produce, and to impose 50 per cent. of a tax
upon the property of Irish absentees. Did the Irish
think that the King of England would ever consent
that English subjects should thus be spoliated of their
rights and property?—(Great cheering.) It would be the
grossest injustice and oppression, and would only be a pre-
liminary to total confiscation ; and the next act of an in-
dependent Legislature which could enact such a measure
would be to declare itself independent of the Crown, and
in favour of Republicanism.—(Cheers.) Then certain
persons complained that the Irish manufacturers were not
protected from the manufacturers of England, and stated
that as a grievance and injustice. Was not that the very
question which caused the present collision between the
States of America? And what would the advocates of
free trade say to such a proposal ?—(Hear, hear.) And
would England sit still and see English soap, and Eng-
lish manufacturers excluded from Ireland, while Irish
manufactures were to be admitted freely into England ?
Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself consider it
sound policy ? The great evil of such a system would
be the angry collision between the inhabitants of the two
countries, and the feelings of asperity it would create.
The mere amount of the duties would be an inferior evil.
On these grounds it was his perfect conviction, that it was
not only the wish, but the paramount interest of England
to do justice to Ireland. It was the duty of England to
maintain peace with Ireland, but it was so, not by interest
only, but by inclination. He would ask if the course
followed by England regarding its poor laws was a proof
of its hostility to Ireland? The English had poor laws
in order to support the poor of their own country, which
fell heavily upon them, but did they show a disposition
not to assist the casual poor of Ireland when they cane
among them?—(Hear, hear, hear.) No. There never
could be a greater disposition shown to assist the
poor stranger than had been shown in the English
parishes ; and so far had that feeling gone, that they
scrupled to relieve themselves front the burden when the\
might have done so front a feeling that they might appeal
to do so in order to get rid of the additional burden which
those strangers brought upon them. On these grounds
he trusted, be would not say that civil war would be
avoided, because he hoped that the force of reason would
prevent that ; but the Irish people would yield in favour
of the law of the land. He thought at all events that the
time was come when the Government ought to take up
the question, and to say whether or not they intended to
maintain the integrity of the kingdom. He thought, too,
that it was important that the House should express its
determination to stand by the Crown. There was no
other part of the subjects embraced in his Majesty's
speech from which he dissented; in those parts regarding
the foreign policy of his Majesty's Government, there
appeared nothing to which he would not give a ready
assent ; but he thought it extraordinary, that after three
nights' debate not one word should have been said regard-
ing our foreign policy ; but after the long discussion they
had already heard, he could not hope to be heard with pa.
tience at any length upon it. He was, therefore, perfectly
ready to postpone any observations he might have wished to
make to a future occasion. It was seldom that he agreed
with the Hot!. Member for Middlesex in opinion ; but there
was one remark regarding Portugal, in which he entirely
coincided. His Majesty, in Pais speech, "laments the conti-
nuance of tbecivil war in Portugal, which has for some months
existed between the Pr inces of the House of Braganza. From
the commencement of thin contest, I have abstair.,l from
all interference, except such as has been required for the
preservation of British subjects. But you may rest as
sured I shall not fail to avail myself of any opportunity
that may be offered me to assist in restoring peace to a
country with which the interests of my dominions are so
intimately connected." He (Sir R. Peel) was exceedingly
glad to hear those sentiments from his Majesty, but he
was considerably surprised to hear them, considering that
the war in Portugal never would have existed without
the sanction of his Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not mean to say that there was any positive breach

f neutrality on the part of his Majesty's Government,
but he meant to say, that poi--; of thii country had
not laid open to one of th, R ioces of the House of Bra-

gauze, the civil war which now existed in Portugal wouiil
never have taken place. If Don Pedro bad not been sc-!;_
tually assisted by France and counterbalanced by Britair,
he wou'dlnot now have had a footing in Portugal. He never
could cease to blame his Majesty's Government for having
thrown open the ports and arsenals of Great Britain to
equip him for that invasion. He thought they were
bound to adhere to that neutrality which they professed
to maintain. But how, they will say, was that to be
done ? He would tell them. By enforcing the public
and municipal laws—by recalling all the British sub-
, jects in the service both of Don Miguel and Don
Pedro. That was what they should do, and so he had ar.
gued last session. And he alluded to :t now only to show that
Don Miguel, though he had passed through more severe
trials than any Prince in Europe, and bail met with the
greatest misfortunes—hie kingdom invaded—hish tit ch.'
taken possession of by an invading force, and his fleets tr.
ried away, was not deserted by one of the people. Did that
not show whet, perhaps, some persons would call the infa-
tuation of the people of Portugal, in preferring Don Miguel
to Don Pedro? According to the Whig principle, that
the choice of the people is to be respected, surely, by this
time, the choice of the people of Portugal had been suffi-
ciently evinced. And, be thought, that seeing that choke
bad continued for five years steadily in his favour, it wt
the duty of England to recognise him as King of Por-
tugal. With respect to the affairs of Belgium and Hol-
land, he (Sir Robert Peel) had the strongest feeling of the
injustice done to Holland; and a strong conviction, that
Engl Ind, instead of advocating the cause of Holland—as
it should have done to so old and faithful an ally—acted
as a party against that country. But there was another
question connected with that question, which bore upon
our Constitution, and on which he wished to make
some remarks. For the last three months an embargo
had been laid on all Dutch ships and property in our
ports, and orders issued to our navy to detain by
f Tee all trading vessels belonging to Holland. He
(Sir Robert Peel) doubted much whether this act
was not inconsistent with public law, or whether the
Government were justified, either as respected their own
subjects or those of Holland, in detaining the ships but
when in contemplation of actual war. He wished to
know by what authority the King ordered the detention
of these vessels. If injuries bad been done by the Dutch
to British subjects, and redress had been refused them, he
admitted that there would be grounds fur the proceeding ;
but he maintained, that where the seizures were not made
by way of reprisals, such an act was not in corvormity
to public law nor to usage. Perhaps his Majesty's Go-
vernment thought, that because this was a great and
powerful nation, and had to contend with but a small one,
it might set aside the doctrines of public law. Witheut
detailing the authorities who had written on this subject,
lie would merely beg to call their attention to the words
of one writer on the subject, whose authority had boon
generally allowed. He alluded to Vattel who said that a
Prince, " to grant reprisals against a nation is favour of
foreigners, is to set himself up for a Judge between that
nation and those foreigners, which no Sovereign has
a right to do." Vattel proceeds. " Now what right
have we to judge whether the complaint of a stranger
against an independent State is just, if lie has really been
denied justice ? If it be objected that we may espouse
the quarrel of another State in a war that appears to us
to be just to give it succours, and even join with it ; the
case is different. In grinting succours against a nation,
we do not stop its effects, or its men, who are with us
under the public faith, and in declaring war we suffer it
to withdraw its subjects and effects." There were no
cases in which reprisals might he made when there has
been no declaration of war. But there was no war what-
ever with Holland, nor any contemplation of hostility to-
wards her.—(Cheers.) Why then had an embargo but
sister" for the last three months upon her ships—the shies
of a friend, even an ally? The Noble Lord (Palmerston)
indeed declared, that to say a war existed with Holland
proceeded from a mere wandering of the braie, a dream of
tne imagination; that the whole affair was no more than a
civil ejectment.—(Laughter.) If the attack on Antwerp,
the 22 days' siege was not a war, upon what principle hail
the embargo been imposed? Upon what principle did it
still continue? There was, he presumed, no other An-
twerp to be besieged. But he (Sir It. Peel) denied that
the Ministry could be justified, or sanctioned by the public
law of nations, in seizing upon the Dutch ships. It was
indifferent what engagements might have been formed with
France or Belgium. They could confer no right to per-
petrate an injustice upon another State. Indeed it was rather
a heavy aggravation of the original wrong, that such con-
duct should be grounded on the existing state of relations
between this country and France. He relied upon the
public law of nations. Holland had done England nu
injury ; there was no war, no feeling of hostility; and
the embargo was, therefore, according to the principles of
international law, perfectly unjustifiable.—(Cheers.) By
what just exercise of the prerogative were the King's
subjects debarred from trading with Holland ? He would
admit it was said that this was necessary for the preeervae
lion of peace; but was not necessity proverbially said to
be " the tyrant's plea ?" And if such a mode of argu-
ment were once recognised, law and justice would soon
come to be superseded. For the last three months, cum-
mercial intercourse between this country and Holland was,
cut off. Now, be remembered the arguments urged by
Hon. Gentlemen opposite against the Alien Act. Aczord-
ing to them, it was no less than a violation of Magna
Charta, which guaranteed free intercourse with foreign
nations. They denied that any alien, whether friend
or enemy, could be sent out of this country. He
might further refer to Blackstone, who was quoted in
order to show how prominent this right of inter-
course stood amongst the principal privileges. Mona
tesquieu, also, insisted on the right of strangers
to remain. All these authorities had formerly
been quoted in support of principles which were
now utterly violated. Was the embargo to continue for
three months more ? He was not aware that any an-
nouncement had been made of its termination ; but he re•
peated, that the King had no power to interdict all trade
with a nation between which and this country not only
friendship existed, but treaties of alliance. It had been
asserted, that the King was entitled to use coercion towards
Holland ; but he (Sir R. Peel) denied that his Majesty
was invested with any such power. In courts of law, to
he sure, such a proposition might perhaps be maintained,
as in the case of the embargo; but as to constitutional
prerogative, which was the light in which he viewed the
question, to say it warranted such an exercise of power
when there had been no hostility, was contrary to coneotou
sense, usage, and the Constitution.—(Cheers froth the Op,
position.) There was nothing in the address which pledged
him to an approval of the foreign policy of Ministers, but
be had been anxious to deliver his opinions on such an
important question. He would now conclude—indeed, he
feared he had already worn out the patience of the House.
(No, no ) The address, and every part of it met with
his full concurrence. Upon any minor points it was
useless to remark at such times--upon, he might say,
the first day of the session, and on an occasion on which
perfect unanimity was necessary, or what was next to it,
an overwhelming preponderance of opinian.—(Hear.)
It was his duty to support the Crown thus circumstanced,
and the support he gave was dictated by principles per-
fectly independent and disinterested. He had no othev
views than to preserve law, order, property, and morality;
In the counts he pursued that night, WO to he found ha
indication of the course he meant to take on every other
occasion.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was not one
adopted, as some might imagine, to recover office. Be.
tween office and him a wide gulph existed. He had no
desire to return to place. It was his wish to be able to
say that he reposed an increased confidence in the presana
Ministers ; but that was not the case ; he felt no dieposi-
tion to place additional trust in them ; his cower, theme
fore, was determined solely by public considerations, with-
out one view of personal advantage.—(Hear, hear.) The
great change that had recently taken place in the consti-
tution of the House, he from the very beginning declared
—and he repeated the opinion now, but without intending
the slightest disrespect to others—while it altered the
Constitution, and disturbed every existing principle, would
produce wild hopes and expectations. Then the House
was divided into two great parties ; it was natural and
right they sheuld employ the tactics best calculated to Oct
them in power. He gave them credit lor perfect eenfidernas
in the soundness of their principles, and wail not blame
them for using the means most likely to bring them into
operation. In estimating the consequences of the great
change, he differed entirely from them ; but when he sa,v
them exhibit a determination to preserve property, and
establish order (though in a qualified degree), casting
aside all party views, he felt it his duty to support the
Government, especially in such times as the present.—
Cheers.) This he conceived an obligation of paramount
importance—not from any confidence he placed in it, but
because it was necessary to throw whatever little weight
pie possessed into that side of the vessel upon which she
seemed most in danger of being upset—the preponderance
if opposite political opinions.—(Cueers.) There as a
tendency to look with suspicion upon every este!) nent,
end to consider it as requiring e
In fact the.
present state of things was a grievance
re abated even by its very continued existence. ex-
pectations were now formed, which in three months
lrnt,i which
would burst and show the general delusion that had pre-
vailed. Men would come to think as he (Sir H. Peel)