The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-04 00:00:00

THE IRISH DISTURBANCES BILL.

DIVISION for the ADJOURNMENT of the

DEB A TE on FRIDAY EVENING.

The reasons for that division do not appear to have been un-
derstood by our contemporaries. The debate on the two pre-
ceding evenings had been adjourned at twelve o'clock, or soon
after, and Mr. Ruthven rose at the same hour on Friday, to move
an adjournment to Monday; but Lord Althorp, and the House
generally, objected to the adjournment, and pressed for a conti-
nuance of the debate to obtain a division on the first reading
that night. An appeal was made to the Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer by Mr. Hume, that as English Members had chiefly
occupied the time during the three days, and that only four
Members from Ireland had been able to deliver their sentiments
against a measure of so much importance to the liberties of Ire-
land, whether it was possible to come to a division that night ?
Mr. Stanley, Mr. Macaulay, Sir George Grey, and other Mem-
bers, had made personal attacks of no ordinary nature against
Mr. O'Connell, and had made statements of occurrences, as
facts, which are mainly denied, in support of the Bill, and it
would scarcely be fair to refuse to Mr. O'Connell and other
Irish Members the opportunity of answering these allegations.
It is to be recollected that there are fifty popular Irish Members
representing very numerous constituencies, and that it would
be a reflection against them to admit a Bill to be introduced
without stating their opinions against it, when that Bill is to
deprive their country of all its civil rights.

It is curious to observe how different the same men act. Sir
Robert Inglis, whose party detained the House of Commons a
week in debate before they would admit the first reading of the
Reform Bill, declared that he heard with pleasure the speeches
of Mr. Stanley and Sir Robert Peel for taking away the liberties
of Ireland ; but with pain the speeches of Mr. Sheil and the
other Irish Members, who defended their country ; and he was,
therefore, unwilling to have the time of the House taken up so
long on Irish matters—the Irish Members did not introduce, or
call for the Bill, and it would be worthy the authors of so atro-
cious a measure as the present, which deprives the people of
Ireland of their liberties, and even of the consolation of meeting
to petition Parliament for redress of their wrongs, if Mr. Stan-
ley and the Reformed Parliament shall also determine that the
Representatives of Ireland shall not be heard in Parliament
against the Bill. We submit, when only four Irish Members
had spoken—when Mr. O'Connell had not been heard in his
defence against the personal attacks upon him—whether it was
unreasonable to request that the debate should be adjourned;
and it will appear strange to the people of Great Britain, and
much more so to the people of Ireland, to learn that there were
466 Members in the new Parliament who objected to Mr. O'Con-
nell and his countrymen being heard against a Bill, that in one
fell swoop will suspend the Habeas Corpus—take away the right
of Jury—proclaim martial law and trial by courtsmartial, and
deprive the people of Ireland of the power of petitioning Parlia-
meiA, at the will and discretion of Mr. Stanley. We live in
strange times, and w.th the change of principles and opinions,
ws are also to have a denial of fair discussion. Such proceed-
ings will not be long tolerated by the people of England.