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

rival population of Ireland. For proof that in the north of
Ireland the disposition to repeal w as increasing, he need
only appeal to the cazi,l:.l- .91,1 d:SeaSS:ollate speech of the
hon. baronet who ;sa-, for I.cndonclerry. That
showed how little th-- pool 1,.; itna,gincti 1 government to
have done for them, :aid if the disposition to which he had
alluded had not spread further through the country, it was
owing to the by-gone contentions of Ireland, which pre-
vented its different parties from coalescing and amalgama-
ting together. The government then had only this course
to pursue. Ile did not want them to countenance one
party more than another, but he had hoped that in the
course of this discussion, they would have opened some of
their views for the amelioration and relief of Ireland; that
they would have developed some project of relief for the
admitted misery of his country ; that they would have
held forth some legitimate hope to be fulfilled at no re-
mote period; that they would have indulged the press-
ing expectation of the people, that they would buy up
from agitation, if you please—for he cared not how they
stigmatised him—from discontent, if you like it better,
that on which it feeds and battens, the neglect of Ireland
and the total want of measures to amend and improve its
condition. (Hear, hear, from the repealers.) He had pro-
mised to condense his matter in reply, and he would there-
fore dwell no longer upon this topic. This discussion had
proved, both by the silence of the government as to pro-
mised amelioration, and by their futile attempts to show
the good which they had already effected, the weakness of
the administration and the hopelessness of their doing any-
thing effectual for the benefit of Ireland. A great deal of
the debate had been taken up in personal attacks upon him-
self. He appealed to the house whether, in bringing for-
ward this question, he had either said or done anything to
provoke such attacks. It would be in the recollection of
the house that in his speech of the unfortunate length of
five hours he had not used one word of a personal nature.
Yet he had been assailed ; and the worst of that was that
it compelled him, reluctant as he was at all times to speak
of himself, to say a few words in his own vindication. The
first individual who assailed him was the hon. member for
Belfast. Now, was there ever anything so indiscreet done
by any government as wag done by this government
in selecting that hon. member as the seconder of their
amendment ? (Hear, hear, hear.) If he had desired
to lessen the authority due to the propositions of go-
vernment, if he had desired not to give to their argu-
ments the full weight which reasoning deserved, he would
have suggested to the hon. Secretary of the Treasury to
take as his friend a fiery furious Jiartisan, to pronounce
invectives against the religion of the tnajority of Irishmen,
and to taunt their representatives, men at least as good as
himself, with being mere political adventurers. Was the
Government aware that the hon. member had, in a vio-
lently conservative speech, denounced the corporation com-
mission as an inquisition, and had assailed one of the com-
missioners with as little candour as veracity ? There was
no man who had promulgated such republican principles as
the hon. member, on the Reform Bill, on a pampered pre-
lacy, and on the dangers of an hereditary insolent aristo-
cracy ; and yet this was the man who was selected by the
Government to be the seconder of their amendment—this
was the man who was welcomed with enthusiastic cheers
in assailing him.- He would not retaliate ; but he could
jiist imagine—nay, he could well conceive frantic republi-
canism dwindling into mean, obsequious, and subservient
dandyism. (Hear, hear, from the repealers.) He could
conceive it foolish and frantic in the first instance, servile,
sycophantic, and frivolous in the second, and calumnious
and contemptible in both. ( Cheers from the same quar-
ter.) He could, he repeated, conceive such things ; and
what was more, he could conceive that this person, who
was to second the proposition of Government, and to
expound all the good which they had conferred upon
Ireland, should be the opponent of the commission
for corporate inquiry. But he had been assailed in
more than one quarter, and he would endeavour
to get rid of his assailants as fast as he could.
It had been said, that he had stated that there
should be a bounty of 25 per cent. as a protection for
Irish manufactures. He did not know that such senti-
ments had ever been attributed to him. The hon. mem-
ber must have met them somewhere where he was not.
He was not aware that he had ever entertained them. If
he had it must have been many years ago, for he was cer-
tain that he had preached sound doctrines upon that sub-
ject for the last two or three years. He had said that there
might be an unnatural state of society, in which, from the
operation of unnatural causes, a small protecting duty
might be necessary ; but he had also said that it was a
problem difficult of solution to find it so small as not to
entice capital into that particular branch of manufacture
to the injury of others. The hon. Secretary for the Trea-
sury had supposed him to say, and undoubtedly he did say,
that it was necessary for the prosperity of Ireland that
those who were proprietors of land in Ireland should not
be proprietors of land elsewhere. (" Hear, hear," from
the Ministerial benches.) He would not seek to btain a
vote except upon conviction ; and he was convinced that
they would never get rid of the evils of Ireland so long as
the proprietor of an estate in Ireland was allowed to be the
proprietor of an estate elsewhere. That might be an unpa-
latable doctrine in that house, butit was his conviction, and
he would not shrink from expressing it. He was not fa-
vourable to the imposition of a tax upon absentees. That
doctrine he had exploded. The Irish parliament had
tried it for two centuries and a half, and had never
been able to render it effectual. There was only one
topic more of a personal kind on which he had any wish to
offer a remark. An lion. member had been very facetious
upon a speech which he (Mr. O'Connell) was supposed to
have made at Kildare. Now, he denied ever having
made such a speech ; that which he had said was not re-
ported ; indeed there was 'no reporter there. After stating
what he did not say, it was scarcely worth while to state
what he actually did say, but it was this, " that five or six
persons should go up some fine morning to their represen-
tatives, to use an Irish phrase, with short sticks, and
should return the same night." Another most serious
charge had been imputed to him in friendship. It was
said that his acts tended to separation, and from that an
inference had been drawn as to his disposition. Now, he
did not object to any man's canvassing his acts and show-
ing their tendency to promote a separation between the
two countries. On the contrary, he courted and invited
inquiry, for if it could be proved to him that such was the
tendency of his acts, he would alter his conduct altogether.
But if any man charged the disposition directly upon him
as a fact, then he would say that it was a disposition of a
traitorous tendency (Hear, hear), and he would designate
it in the most unqualified terms as a falsehood. (Hear.)
He had now done with his preliminary observations, and
would proceed to the question as it had been debated. He
made no apology—for he did not think it necessary—for
having introduced into his opening speech a long discussion
upon the right of the Irish nation to an independent legis-
lature in 1782. In another place, and under another admi-
nistration, a minister of the crown had spoken of Ireland as a
portion of the British dominions by the right of conquest.
Ile thought that that topic might be pressed into the
debate!' He had therefore anticipated it, and, as it ap-
peared, had anticipated it successfully. No claim had
on this occasion been erected upon that point, and the pro-
priety of continuing the union had been argued upon the
merits of the Act of Union itself. Ay the Act of Union,
therefore, the argument must stand or fall, and the house
was therefore disembarrassed of several other points. He
had then insisted upon the incompetence of the Irish par-
liament to create a new legislature, and he was convinced
that he was right in that part of his argument, by the
vain attempts which had been made by two able persons
to prove that he was wrong,—he meant the hon. and
learned members for Kirkcudbright and Monaghan. They
had quoted the authority of Locke, and had referred to
what had occurred at the revolution. They had shown
that the Convention Parliament had done—what? As-
sumed the power of appointing a King ? No. Altered the
form of the Legislature ? No ;—but that it had declared
that the throne was vacant, and that the natural heir must
succeed. The daughter of the reigning Monarch, in con-
sequence, succeeded, for the abdication of the King was
complete. That case, therefore, could not be in compe-
tition with that on which he had taken his stand. The
hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright had im-
peached his authority in calling Mr. Burke and Mr.
Saurin partisans, while the hon. and learned member for
Monaghan had given the house what he conceived to be
a special demurrer, and had insisted that the house was
estopped by it. He only mentioned this to show the futility
goifiteilintahleate. arguments which had been used by the able men
who had met him upon the subject. Their arguments and
applause,: hisro,n wouldthebe
.weighed by the shrewd and intelligent people of
triumph
mthx. ; hadbut the
le
tbneostt
r4oifiniit:ttehrseyexwpoeuetldtohoabvtae
ianlert
made on their
however,
however great it might be, or fromthe
authorize the pesEieri:ont Aritkeed, which followed the speeches
nation to the British Tarl'iq
question. There was nothing to
f Ireland to dispose of the Irish
any thing to authorize the British any more than there was
parliament to dispose of
the British nation to any othletrisohntlielet::if the globe.
detain
(Hear, hear, from the repealers.)
the house long on the next topic—the means by not
ch
union was produced, for the corruption, the Iribe
the horrible immorality then practised were too notorious,
and and too generally admitted„ to require any comment. A;
j to the fomenting of the rebellion, one of the means for
bringing. about the union, upon that point he had been per_
fectly triumphant. " But why," said the right hon. baro-
net, " should Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh excite a re-
bellion in Ireland at a time when there was a mutiny at the
j Nore ?" Did not that mutiny break out suddenly and un-
-1 expectedly, and, if so, what had its existence to do with
the fnomightEnglish h
ae Ministry
did
not foresee theo!
con-
jectured the outbreak of the rebellion. Could the union
therii utrienl7,lltihOn4h tThheey
have been ever carried but for the rebellion
committee
an-
swer could be given to the report of the secret
7. What
of the Irish House of Commons, from which it appeared
•• that a person holding the rank of colonel of the United
Irishmen, had given to the Government monthly reports of
their secret meetings from March, 1797 ? It was clear
from this that Government were cognizant of the plot, and
had it in their power to put it down. But the right hon.
gentleman said " there were traitorous materials in Ire-
land ;" undoubtedly there were, otherwise there could
pot have been a rebellion (Hear, hear) ; but those mate-
fials were not of a formidable nature. They existed
to a certain extent in Leinster and Ulster, and pro-
alma twco skirmishes, in me cif which load O'Neill was

killed, but the only really formidable occurrence took place
in Wexford. These matters were encouraged, not re-
pressed, and the union was brought about by fomenting
the rebellion till it exploded. He now came to those points
which, by the consent of everybody, the house had mainly
to discuss in deciding on the present question. It was said
" it was no matter how the union was brought about,—the
questions were how has it worked, and what would be the
consequences of its repeal ?" The advocates of repeal
stated that from 1782 to 1800 there was the strongest
historical evidence of the prosperity of Ireland, and of the
advantage of a domestic legislature. This had been con-
tested by the hon. Secretary of the Treasury, and his at-
tempted contradiction was received with applause. What
would be the effect of that applause when the debate
reached Ireland ? What, but to convince the people of the
entire ignorance of a British parliament with respect to
the affairs of Ireland? The growing prosperity of Ireland
between 1782 and 1800 was a fact too notorious to the in-
habitants of that country to be set aside by arguments or
arithmetical calculations. Then came the question—what
had been the state of Ireland since ? Had Ireland bene-
fited by the union? Those who said that she had, were
bound to show that Ireland would not have arrived at her
present state but for the union—that elements did not
exist between 1782 and 1800 to carry her to her present
condition, or even further. But he did not admit the
prosperity of Ireland as represented by the hon. Se-
cretary. If there were not misery, distress, and
destitution consequent upon the union, the Irish people
would not press for its repeal. But if there did
exist such misery, distress, and destitution, and their
existence was notorious, of what importance were the hon.
gentleman's columns of figures ? (Hear.) Talking of
figures, the hon. member for Belfast dealt in arithmetical
statements and returns which had no foundation in official
or authentic documents—they originated in the fancy of a
pamphlet-writer whom he should not even name. True,
the hon. secretary had brought forward official returns,—
documents for obtaining which he had peculiar facilities ,•
but of what value were those documents, if destitution and
poverty prevailed in Ireland ? (Hear.) The honourable
member for Paisley had fleshed his maiden sword in an
attack on the repealers, in which it was but fair to admit
the hon. member had displayed equal talent and courtesy ;
although unfortunately blaming personality in the outset,
he had himself fallen into personality previous to the con-
clusion of his speech. He thanked the hon. member,
however, for one admission : the hon. member said,
" What signify calculations when opposed to appalling
facts ?" A second Daniel come to judgment ! (Hear,
and laughter.) Exactly so. What signified arithmetical
calculations when opposed to facts ? and what facts had the
house heard stated upon the subject? Did not the hon.
member for Londonderry agree with the member for Cork,
—in fact, did not every Irish member, with the exception
of the member for Belfast, who deserved to stand, and did
stand alone,—did not all talk of the poverty and distress
which existed in Ireland? Was it not admitted, that in a
country, for its size, the most fertile in the world ; in a
country producing a superfluity of subsistence for its in-
habitants, human creatures were constantly perishing for
want, and periodical famines formed part of the history of
the land? Oh, little did the house know that, in part at
least, agitation for repeal had been produced not by reli-
gious zeal or differences, but by actual want. This desti-
tution had been going on increasing in the capital, as well
as throughout the country ; yet, to his infinite surprise,
he had seen in the newspapers the hon. secretary's state-
ments of the prosperity of Dublin. (Hear and laughter,
from the repealers.) The hon, `gentleman should not
have insulted the starvation and misery of Dublin, by talk-
ing of its prosperity. (Hear, hear.) Such was the state
of Ireland. Ought that to be its condition ? The union
was to have produced incalculable benefits. Among other
advantages, it was to give Ireland British laws—to take
away insurrection acts and martial law. What was the
fact ? Thirty-three years had elapsed since the union, dur-
ing twenty years of which period the Irish people had been
depMved of the benefits of the law and the constitution.
The union had given slavery to Ireland, and the last slavery
was the worst--it still existed. Four baronies had beenlately
proclaimed in the King's County under the Coercion Bill.
Agitation (said the hon. gentleman) tended to produce
poverty, and then he somewhat inconsistently quoted docu-
ments which proved the existence of great poverty and dis-
tress in 1779, before agitation was heard of. The hon. gentle-
man, whose speech was full of tables of exports and im-
ports, well knew how they were made up : he was aware
that no oath being now required as to the cargo of vessels,
the statements of what they contained were generally as
fanciful as any thing in a romance—statements made to
satisfy the revenue officers as soon as possible, and which
had no relation to the actual cargo. But passing by this
fact, which showed, however, that the hon. gentleman's
tables were not to be relied on, the hon. gentleman admit-
ted that up to 1825, Parliament did nothing legislatively
for Ireland. Notwithstanding this, however, the hon.
gentleman talked a great deal of increasing prosperity, and
spoke of the orient morning commencing in 1800, and in-
creasing in warmth and enlightenment till the present mo-
ment. How would the hon. gentleman's poetry appear—
for such was his description—when it met the eyes of
Irishmen in their darkness and misery, who would read it
as an insult upon their distress? (Hear.) The gallant
officer opposite frankly admitted the poverty of Ireland,
and, as he had before said, the hon. gentleman stated that
up to 1825, Parliament had done nothing for Ireland.
Since then you had given us Catholic emancipation; but
how ?—after twenty-nine years of an embittered struggle.
The noble lord was totally misinformed about Irish history.
The Irish Parliament passed four emancipatory laws
down to 1793, the last of them being that which con-
ferred the elective franchise on Roman Catholics. If
the Irish Parliament had continued to sit, complete
emancipation would have been speedily effected, because
persons would have been returned by the Roman
Catholic voters who would have brought about that object.
Indeed, the principal argument made use of to induce the
Protestants to support the legislative union was, that the
Irish Parliament would grant Catholic emancipation. The
union gave us 29 years of agitation before we could obtain
that boon. Did gentlemen think this was the first time he
had been assailed as the promoter of agitation? For 25
years he had been constantly traduced by the writers of
pamphlets, and six times a-week by the Dublin newspa-
pers. He had been an agitator then, he was one now.
What was agitation ? In what did it consist ? In speak-
ing for a redress of grievances. You destroyed agitation
when you redressed those grievances, in like manner as you
put an end to agitation when you made tardy concessions
to the Roman Catholics. He did not think that Parlia-
ment could now put an end to agitation. Their delay had
created and
..continued differences and dissensions between
the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland, of which the em-
pire had reaped the bitter fruits. You demurred us for
29 years ; and here, now, continued the hon. and learned
gentleman, I arraign your legislative union, on the ground
of its having been followed by 29 years of misery and dis-
sension. However, you yielded emancipation at length,
when the universal Irish nation rose to break their chains,
and those who had been lukewarm or apostates during the
struggle followed our triumphant chariot-wheels into
the centre of the British constitution.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") That crime and folly of unwise delay you had
committed, and your tardy repentance was the
only redeeming point of imperial legislation since 1825, up
to which time, according to the hon. gentleman himself,
nothing had been done for Ireland. The hon. member
for Paisley said that the Scotch had received a miserable
reform bill, but that the Irish was better. Now, look at
the fact. The Scotch, with 2,000,000 of inhabitants and
45 representatives, got eight additional members ; while
the Irish, with 8,000,000 of inhabitants and 100 represen-
tatives, got only an increase of five, one of whom was for
the university. Which was better off, Ireland or Scot-
land ? Why did he speak of population ? Because it was
according to that principle that representation was given in
England. The Reform Bill was a proof of the injustice
done to Ireland. If Scotland got eight additional members,
we should have got twenty; and why did we not? Simply
because we were Irish. You extended the elective fran-
chise in England. You left the 40s. freeholders untouched,
and you gave four or five new franchises in England. In
like manner you gave Scotland a new and effective fran-
chise ; you were bountiful to Scotland and England, but
you had the presumption to insult Ireland by your in-
justice. (Oh, oh.) He did not speak of the present
parliament ; it was the boroughmongers' parliament that
gave Ireland her Reform Bill • but the present parliament
had also been bountiful to Ireland in its way ; you gave us
the Coercion Bill. (Hear, and laughter from the repealers. )
The hon. secretary talked of the prosperity of Ireland ;
lie did not know whether the hon. gentleman had been lately
in Limerick, but he would ask whether Limerick was
prosperous? The hon. and learned gentleman had spoken
of new streets and squares, and true it was there was a new
square in Limerick, of which, however, the only tenant
was a statue of the hon. gentleman. (Laughter.) Not
a single house in Rice-square was occupied • the hon. gen-
tleman was its only inhabitant. (Reneweelaughter.) No
doubt a man might make a handsome fortune by exhibiting
the hon. gentleman's statue, the showman holding the hon.
gentleman's speech in his hand and crying, " Walk in and
see the wonderful West Briton in Rice-square." (Laugh-
ter.) On the second reading of the Reform Bill, there
was a majority of Scotch and English members against
the measure, but the majority of Irish members in favour
wasof
extended
siete
e:iipuxrrotleenerp one.
J.
.n rated, and the bill was read a second time.
The hon. member for Paisley forgot the bounty which
ldmedel.mitshobeScroc:otlorarnamdteoinnragetlfiherainra: aat:te,ohriciceohfomfbiumgrhgathnybreetfhopirnimT.eg
wanted, but he kept snug in his pocket the
mpared, but would not be produced 'till too late to carry it
give
niidvt oen
to,htaeven effect
v country
don
uu
nrmi
tnergy mention
ho, elf
sentiment,a
thepi
rr e
as
measure;bne nud tt session.
he
said, The
however,hon .
meus hie sermo—this was not his (Mr.
itmhpatartoifal
tiadniiehionni's.tramtieomnbeorf
if we wished to reconcile Ireland to the union, we must
justice. Non that
0' Connell's )
for Monaghan. Yet, notwithstanding this candid ad-
mission, that there was not one single consolatory word
uttered in the course of a debate of six nights' duration,
nor could the hon. member for Middlesex wrinc, from
the house or the government any promise in favour of
Ireland. That was the way to disarm him by doing
justice to Ireland, not by pitiful and paltry newspaper pro-
secutions. (Hear.) But this was all that Ireland had
gained by 34 years o union, lie appealed ti) all the

worth and integrity and talent which surrounded him,
and there was much : here was a gentleman high in the
confidence of the Crown—high in the ranks of his pro-
fession, of stainless and unspotted integrity—an instrument
chosen by the minister for the accomplishment of a great
and important measure of reform ;—here was this indivi-
dual openly telling you that the union could not be fixed
and consolidated because there existed a radical want of a
fair, impartial, and equal administration of justice in Ire-
land. (Hear.) The poor and distressed Irish would hear
of your figures of speech and arithmetic, of your great
and brilliant speeches against repeal, and how you cheered
and glorified them, how the hon. secretary and the right
hon. baronet led the van, and how the gentlemen in the
rear with the hon. member for Carlisle brought up the
awkward squad ( A faint laugh from the repealers)
they would hear of all this, and of the full and formidable
phalanx which was congregated to-night, but would it
satisfy Ireland, or put an end to agitation ?—far from it.
The hon. and gallant officer, who understood political
economy almost as well as he understood fighting, but did
not love it half so well, had read part of a letter, in which
he (Mr. O'Connell) proposed to take away from any new
legislature in Ireland the power of making laws against
the rights of conscience. Now, that was not an invention
of his own—he could not claim the merit:of it, having
only copied it from the United States. (So we
understood the learned gentleman, who was occasionally
indistinctly heard in the gallery in consequence of
his dropping his voice at the close of a sentence. )
With respect to the present discussion, nothing
could be better tempered. He did -not know whe-
ther he had succeeded.in effecting any change in the senti-
ments of the house towards him, but certainly the house
had acted so as to alter his feelings towards it. (Hear. )
The manner of the discussion and the topics raised in the
cou'ise of it could only do good. If the argument of his op-
ponents were sound and good, it would be duly weighed
and appreciated by his fellow-countrymen, a shrewd and
intelligent race ; bnt the extraordinary and overwhelming
majority which might be arrayed against the motion would
weigh quite the other way, and produce a feeling of irrita-
tion instead of carrying conviction along with it. He could
have wished, therefore, that the hon. gentleman had not
resorted to a call of the house on this occasion, but had
contented himself with one of the ordinary majorities.
The way to oppose a repeal of the union was not by im-
mense majorities, or by reviling the repealers and suggest-
ing improper motives as the grounds of their proceeding,
but by fair argument. He had been unsparingly censured
because, having given twenty-five years to the cause of his
country, he was now paid by his countrymen for his ser-
vices. He gloried in that censure, and was prouder of that
salary from his country than he could be of the greatest
gift which the -highest monarch in the world could bestow.
(Hear, from the repealers.) He would not, and did not,
(.0 any act which he considered derogatory to him, and was
not to be frightened or shamed by what might be said on
the subject. (Hear.) The autocrat Nicholas, forsooth,
would honour the man on whom he conferred his
bounty, but the people of Ireland, he supposed, must be
taken to degrade the man on whom they bestowed theirs.
(" Hear, hear," from the Repealers.) Ministers would
have a majority against him ; he called on them to follow
up their triumphant majority by measures of justice and
conciliation, especially now that they had it in their power
to provide amply for every protestant clergyman in Ireland,
whether he had duties to perform or not—to provide for
all such individuals and their families, without having re-
course to the vicious system of tithes,—now, when they
might go further and provide amply for the spiritual wants
of the Protestants of Ireland, but without establishing a
sinecure church,—now, when they were told that a fair,
equal, and impartial administration of justice was wanting
in Ireland. . Let not the Imperial Parliament, at this im-
portant juncture, stop him with imperfect reforms in the
church and the law—do not offer a little paltry special jury
bill, which might benefit the rich, but could not be of any
advantage to the poor—a bill which only afforded justice to
the man who could afford to give 12 guineas for its impar-
tial administration--do not this, but construct a system of
fair and equal jury laws, and render it operative throughout
the country ; purify the waters of justice, convert them
from a stagnant and noisome pool into a living and salutary
stream, dispersing happiness and security through every
part of the land. Do this and more—follow up your this
night's victory as you ought : if not, the misfortune will be
ours--the crime be yours ! (Cheers from the Repealers.)
The house then divided—
For Mr. Rice's amendment.... 523
For Mr. O'Connell's motion 3B
-
Majority against the Repeal of 485
the Uni0n......

On our readmission to the gallery we found—
Mr. II UME on his legs moving the amendment of which
he had already given notice. The declaration contained
in the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman was not
sufficient. It would not give satisfaction to the people of
Ireland. They were bound to do justice to Ireland, and
they were bound to declare their determination to do so.
He submitted that, in presenting an address to the crown
expressive of their determination to preserve inviolate the
legislative union, they should state explicitly the grounds
on which they adopted such an address—they should state
that the failure of the union as a measure of good, as far
as Ireland was concerned, had hitherto arisen from the
benefits of it not being properly and justly extended to that
country, and they should pledge themselves to redress the
grievances of which Ireland had at present so much reason
to complain. It appeared to him absolutely necessary, and
that was the great object of his amendment, that the house
should pledge itself solemnly to redress without delay the
many evils which now afflicted Ireland. He regarded the
Irish Church Establishment as one of the greatest evils of
Ireland—an evil so great, that until it was remedied, it
would be vain to look for peace or happiness in that coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) They should pledge themselves to
correct the abominations of that establishment. (Hear,
hear," from the Irish members, and cries of " Oh, oh !"
from other parts of the house.) That establishment, as it
existed at present in Ireland, was an abomination. He
thought that it would be rather bad on the part of a re-
formed Parliament to shut its eyes to such a fact. Con-
ceiving, therefore, as he did, that the expressions contained
in the address moved by the hon. gentleman were inade-
quatecircumstances ofthecase,e
iewouldlre the
hon. ,
member
instead
ert tfhe
moved i t
the,
th
following amendment..
e amendment which he had already
read to the house.
honL.orgdenAtlLemTanHO, RheP
msaiadde, tthhai
st
aa
ms feanr d a sm
ehnet uo nn derth set too do t 10-1
ne
of his hon. friend, because he conceived that the effect of
the words contained in the address proposed by his hon.
friend was to express a general approbation of the past
conduct of former parliaments and of former governments
with respect to Ireland. (Hear.) Now, he was ready to
admit, that if the address proposed by his hon. friend did
so express a general approbation of the conduct that had
been formerly pursued towards Ireland, there were many
members, amongst whom he (Lord Althorp) would be in-
eluded, that could not vote for it. (Hear, hear.) But it
did not express, it was not intended to express, any such
opinion, and the plain sense of the words contained in the
proposed address at once refuted such an idea. He (Lord
Althorp) felt therefore perfectly prepared to vote for the
address proposed by his hon. friend. That address stated,
as the amendment proposed by the hon. member stated,
that various beneficial measures had been passed for Ire-
land,—it also stated, as did the amendment proposed by
the hon. member, that it would be the duty of the house
to apply its attention to the removal of all just causes of
complaint, animdprtoovetmheenptr.omlottiownasofplaailnl wt-helelr-ecfoonrsei,clered
re that
the address proposed by his hon. friend anticipated the
main points of the amendment proposed now by the hon.
member, and those who would vote for the resolution
moved by the hon. member, would not object to the ad-
dress proposed by his hon. friend. The only difference
between them was, that the resolution moved by the hon.
member contained more debateable matter, while it did
not affirm a single principle that was not affirmed: in the
address proposed by his hon. friend. (Cries of " Divide,
divide.")
Mr. F. O'CONNOR observed, that as the noble lord
had admitted that there was so little difference between the
address and the resolution, he could not see why the noble
lord should not vote for the resolution.
Mr. FINN said that he, for one, would certainly object
to the amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex. He
attributed the evils which Ireland had suffered since the
union to the union itself. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that his hon. friend the mem-
beasereafmhoree 1:(
dlAimidrd le.
neAts,egxsi
oewni
nohugyl t
wouldhn aott pitr eh(siesi
dfoohnr
oai
obliged
de
diavffii striomo ,
that
ta se ag inwahtihincashtt
his
was affirmed in the address moved by the hon. Secretary
for the Treasury—namely, the necessity of the continuance
of the legislative union between the two countries. If his
hon. friend had proposed his resolution in the place of the
two last clauses of the address moved by the hon. gentle-
Man, then lie (Mr. Aglionby) would have supported it,
but as it was, if it went to a division he must vote against it.
Mr. HUME said that if by any interpretation of his
amendment, an intention could be possibly attributed to
him of having proposed anything that would favour a
separation of Ireland from this country, he should most
undoubtedly consider it his duty to withdraw it. He had
no objection, under the circumstances, to withdraw his
amendment,
The SPEAKER suggested to the hon. member, that
purposevihiosuidony
alme would be probably better answered by allow-
ing the resolution to be negatived, as it would then appear
on the Journals, whereas, if he should withdraw it, he
thus give an opportunity to ether members to
propose
Mr. HUME said he would withdraw his amendment,
as he did not wish to deprive the hon. member for Kerry
of the opportunity of moving the amendment of which he
had given notice.
Mr. MULLINS, after a few observations, which, owing
to the noise in the house, were not distinctly heard in the
gallery,. moved the following amendment
That it is the opinion cf this house that an address to hi{
Majesty, having for its object the suppression of airy qUetion
consistent with the principles of the free constitu tam of the Bri-
ti,h.emp,re, without a pr,evious ingnirylnto, and report upon its
merits, by a comnuttee of this house, would furnish a precedent
highly prejudicial to the interests of any portion of his -Majesty's
subjects reVeVlftilly seeking for redreqs of grievances; and at Va.