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

apA:v.,
4

• ',.1.
,`,

„ ,

POOR LAWS.

had the honour to represent (Clare), praying for a repeal
of the Union.

Mr. WILKS begged to ask the noble lord (Althorp), as
tho Poor Laws Amendment Bill was one of great importance
to the country, whether his Majesty's government had
adopted any means for circulating copies of the bill through
the different parishes of England and Wales ?
Lord ALTHORP said that no particular means had
been adopted for circulating copies of the bill beyond the
means that were usually resorted to.
Mr. WILKS gave notice that to-morrow he should
move that printed copies of the bill be sent to every parish
in England and Wales.
The SPEAKER said before the hon. gentleman gave
his notice, he would beg to apprise him that four copies
had been sent to every Petty Sessions throughout the
country. He did not know whether that would answer
the hon. member's purpose or not, but he believed they
had been sent to the amount of 700.
Mr. WILKS then withdrew his motion; at the same
time giving notice that he would postpone his bill relative
to friendly societies to the 14th of May.
Mr. LYNCH presented a petition from the county of
Galway, praying for a repeal of the union.
Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from Leeds, for
the better observance of the Sabbath.

Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from the Dissenters
of Derby, praying relief.
Colonel VERNER presented a petition, signed by seve-
ral thousands of the Protestant inhabitants of Armagh,
against a repeal of the union.
CHURCH PATRONAGE.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE presented petitions from se-
veral places in Scotland against the present system of
church patronage. ' Having a number of petitions to pre-
sent for the better observance of the Sabbath, he trusted,
that if the question came on to-morrow evening he and the
other hon. members who had petitions to present on that
subject, would be afforded an opportunity of doing so.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from an indi-
vidual named Morgan Fouls, praying that he may be ex-
empted from furnishing a report of the profits he derives
from the superintendence of a lighthouse.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The SPEAKER rose andput the question to the house,
whether it was intended to go on with the motions for that
evening, or to resume the adjourned debate.
Lord ALTHORP was understood to say, that it was
his wish that the adjourned debate should be resumed,
in the hope that it might terminate that evening.
THE GENERAL POST-OFFICE.

Mr. WALLACE gave notice that, on the 6th of June,
he would move for a commission to inquire into the regula-
tions of the General Post-office.
KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL.
Mr. A. C. O'DWYER begged to ask the right hon.
Secretary at War whether the correspondence that took
place on the subject of abolishing Kilmainham Hospital
might be produced?
Mr. ELLICE had no objection to the proposal of the
hon. gentleman, but wished for a few days to produce the
correspondence.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW, Mr. O'DwvEit' and
Mr. ELLICE, it was agreed that Tuesday the 6th of May
be fixed for that purpose.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the order of the day being read for resuming the ad-
journed debate,
Mr. MULLINS rose and said it was with deep regret
that he found himself under the necessity of support-
ing the hon. and learned gentleman's motion. He
had considered the question in all its bearings, and he
felt bound to say that the right honourable Secretary
opposite in the luminous speech he had made, had signally
failed in that part which related to a description of the
benefits derivedby Ireland from the union. To demonstrate
that part of his speech the righthon. Secretary had adverted to
the bonus on the Irish fisheries, but that could not fairly
be considered in any way a case in point. ( Hear.}
The right honourable Secretary's opinions had
wonderfully changed within a short period, be-
cause he no doubt would recollect a speech he made in the
year 1827, in which he inquired what had been done by the
legislature for Ireland ; and that he stated on that occa-
sion that not one remedial measure had been passed to meet
the evils and the exigencies which were acknowledged on
all hands to exist. Still he could come forward the other
evening, and declare that great advantages had been de-
rived by Ireland from the union, and that various acts
had been passed for its benefit. Great caution ought,
therefore, to be observed in placing credit on statements
coming from the right hon. gentleman who could make
declarations so widely at variance with each other.
The right hon. Secretary for the Treasury had called upon
them to support the resolutions he proposed, when he ad-
mitted that Ireland was suffering under the severest
evils. The right hon. Secretary said that they ought
to be content with emancipation, but what did the right
hon. gentleman say in 1826 ? Why, that emancipation
was only a means of obtaining other beneficial measures.
Whether the repeal of the union would be productive of
good or bad consequences, an inquiry was the simplest mode
of ascertaining. Why then did they refuse an inquiry ?
He cautioned the English members how they would lend
their sanction to the amendment of the right hon. Secre-
tary. It was a dangerous one, and the precedent might be
made use of against themselves. There was nothing in his
(Mr. Mullins') opinion that could be considered objec-
tionable in the amendment which he would have the ho-
nour to propose, and he trusted that it would receive the
general support of the house. He feared he was wearing the
patience of the house, but he would not trespass
much further upon their time. Corrupt as the Irish Par-
liament undoubtedly was, it had been of more service to
Ireland than the united parliament had been.
Mr. JEPHSON said that the hon. member who had
just sat down had expressed his conviction that the nume-
rical majority of the people of Ireland were for repeal ; but
he had not ventured to say that a majority of the men of
intelligence and property were for the measure. Those
who were for repeal almost exclusively belonged to the
lower classes. If the one hundred and five members re-
turned to that house from Ireland were all returned by the
intelligent wealthy classes of society there, and if they
unanimously concurred in demanding the repeal of the
union, then he would at once admit that no minister would
have a right to refuse repeal. (Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion had been argued affirmatively by the ablest men in
Ireland ; but what had they made of it ? He thought they
must, by this time, see that it was a most ill-advised step
to bring the question forward. Were they, he would ask,
satisfied with the position in which their argument now
stood ? (Cries of " Yes, yes !" from Mr. O'Connell, Mr.
Sheil, and other repeaters.) Hon. gentlemen opposite
answered in the affirmative; but he (Mr. Jephson) might be
permitted to say, that he entertained very great doubts
whether they were so. The question for the house to con-
sider was, whether it was best for the empire to have two
separate and distinct parliaments, or only one ? which was
just as if one would ask whether a body would be better
with two heads or only one. The demand for repeal had
only been within the last few years. There had not been
a word said on the subject before ; and what led to it was
the settlement of Catholic emancipation. (Hear, hear. )
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL had drawn his first
breath in agitation. (Loud laughter.) Whatever the
landlords of Ireland might say about repeal, the Govern-
ment would find that all the intelligence of the country was
in favour of the measure. He denied that the union had
been advantageous to Ireland. In 1800, the total number
of operatives employed in Dublin was 61,076 ; the total
number of operatives in employ in that city in the present
year was only 14,145, of whom only 10,000 were in con-
stant employ. ( Hear hear.) In 1800 there were 168
master carpenters, who employed 2,251 men ; in the pre-
sent year there were only 103 master carpenters, who em-
ployed only 900. The hon. member gave several other
details, which showed a similar disproportion. In Kilkenny,
he said (as we understood), there was but one extensive
blanket-maker, who employed about 160 persons. The
hon. member wholly denied the advantages of union to
Ireland, and expressed his firm support of the motion.
Mr. PETER was decidedly opposed to any such propo-
sition as that brought forward by the hon. and learned
member for Dublin. He denied the statement that Ireland
had not benefited by the union, or that the interests of that
country had been neglected by England.
3lr. CHRISTMAS would refer to the long agitation
of the Roman Catholic question as one of the great causes
of the effect there was so much reason to deplore. He did
' not say no right existed to agitate that question ; on the
contrary, he admitted the right, and would even declare
his conviction of the propriety of prosecuting it ( Hear,
hear); but the practical effect was to keep Ireland in a
state which prevented the introduction into that country of
British capital. Another of the causes of the present state
of affairs was, he believed, the granting of suffrages to the
Catholic freeholders. There being no poor laws in Ireland
to impose on the landlords the obligation of providing for
the poor, those individuals had been more careless than
they would otherwise have been as regarded the increase of
the population. What, he begged to ask, were the benefits
that they were to derive from a repeal of the union ?
Even the hon. gentlemen who were the supporters of this
measure, were divided as to the advantages which, accord-
ing to their views, would be its results. The hon. and
learned member for Cork (Dr. Baldwin) and the hon. and
learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) promised
certain commercial benefits, but one was in favour of
protecting duties, and the other was the advocate of free
trade. It was quite possible, then, that a Parliament
established in Ireland might adopt the principle of
prohibition, which could not fail to have a most mis-
chievous effect on both countries. One of the arguments
urged with great force in favour of the repeal of the union
was, that it would lead to the return of the absentees to
Ireland, but he found that there had always been absentees.
Even in 1782 a correspondence took place between Lord
North and the Duke of Devonshire, on the subject of
absenteeism. The hon. gentlemen who had preceded
him in their opposition to the repeal of the union, declared
that their principal reason for rejecting the measure was
their conviction that it would lead to a separation of the
two countries, but he went further than that; he would
assert that the repeal would be ipso facto a separation.
The present state of opinion in Ireland, influenced as it
was by a long course of agitation, was, in his opinion,
another argument against the change recommended.
The 11911, Wailer haying resumed his seat, mach