The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-01 00:00:00

ing)—why not be manly enough to enact at once, that no
rich man should dare to do what the poor man was afraid
to venture On—why not do away with the Sunday drive in
the Regent's Park—why not shut up Hyde Park—why
notdo away with the loitering in Rotten-row ;or say that
there should be no carriage-drive in the Circle, as there
should be no cab in the street? (Cheering.) Why not do
this, and then he (Mr. O'Connell) would give him (Sir
Andrew) credit, which he did not now, for sincerity, as
the people would give him credit for a manly and straight-
forward determination to act justly by all ? (Cheers.) He
begged leave to say, that in these matters there could not
be too much prudence : no man could possibly be too cau-
tious in imposing his own religious sentiments and opinions
upon others. (Hear, hear.) He said that this bill was op-
posed to the genius and to the principles of Christianity ;
and if he were called upon to show it, he would say that
litigation—that domestic slavery—that private informa-
tions—that the calling in of the police magistrate—that
unequal legislation—that the secret oath (that curse and
bane of society) (Cheers)—that by these things more vice
was entailed on society than by all the practices which this
bill was intended to put down. (Loud cheers.) And yet he
voilld pray the hon. baronet to consider how many persons
by the working of this bill would be placed in the predica-
ment which he had described. Let him not think this was
a time, or this a House of Parliament, to pass a bill for co-
ercive piety (Cheers)—to originate a sort of legislative god-
liness (Hear), or act of parliament holiness. (Hear.) He
could not think so ; and he hoped such attempts would
ever be met, as they had been that night, and ought to be,
with argument on the one hand, and contempt and ridi-
cule on the other. (Hear.) It had been the exclamation
of one, during the guilty days of the French rovolution '
when standing on the guillotine, " Oh, Liberty ! -what
crimes have been committed in thy name !", and-with equal
7;n truth it might be said, "Oh Religion ! 'at criminality
has not thy cloak covered !" For He.-4.ven's take, let them
avoid such courses as these, and :et thtin vie one with an-
other in friendship and good feeling, in exalting the moral
sense of the country ; et them not imagine that the
power of an act of parl':aurent could avail if the dictates of
God himself shoal?. be disregarded, or that their puny
efforts would 'acceed where his mighty agencies had failed.
(Cheers.) He would tell them that, instead of making
religl:m respectable, they would make it odious in the eyes
of the people ; and that if he (Mr. O'Connell) had any
hope or any wish to sink the character of that reformed
house in the eyes of the enlightened among the community
—if he wished to gratify his malignity by such a triumph
(which God forbid !)—he could not take a more certain
course to effect so unworthy an object, than by persuading
them to accede to the principle of sucha bill. But he called
upon the house immediately to reject it. (Hear.)
An How. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
said it was because he was a Christian, and because he
wished to advance the genuine principles of Christianity,
that he was opposed both to the principle and the details
of this bill ; and he had come down on purpose to vote
against it ; and, in case the Scotch bill on the same sub-
ject, which stood next on the paper, should be brought
forward, of moving its instant rejection.
Mr. F. SHAW said that, seeing the house was so anxious
for a division, he was merely anxious to observe, that the
speech of the hon. and learned member for Dublin was
throughout an argument against any legislation whatever
on the subject.
Sir ANDREW AGNEW briefly replied; after which
the gallery was cleared for a division, and there appeared—

For the amendment l6l
Against it
The bill was therefore lost by a majority of 36
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers.