The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1835.

This was no exaggerated picture. The question of the
forfeiture of estates was already openly discussed, and was
brought more prominently before the public than it had ever
yet been in the whole history of Ireland." Noble Lords
might deceive themselves, but he had done nothing more
than state what was the impression on the minds of a great
portion of the people of Ireland. He would ask if there
had not been a palpable influence exercised upon the Noble
Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government by Mr.
O'Connell as regarded Ireland ? He would tell the Noble
Viscount that there had been.—(Opposition cheers.) This
was his conscientious belief, and it was this which had in-
duced him to state so much to their Lordships as he had
done. Some very severe animadversions had been made on
some Members of their Lordships' House by Mr. O'Connell
in another place. It happened to him (the Marquis of Lon-
donderry) to be well acquainted with a certain event that had
occurred in Ireland between a relation of his own and the
Hon. Member for Dublin. He was perfectly aware that as
that Hon. Member had taken his line, any measure of the
nature to which he (the Noble Marquis) alluded was unne-
cessary to be pressed upon him. If the Honourable Member
for Dublin had clothed himself with the garb of a miserable
impunity, and had placed himself in a situation which all
others who ranked in society as gentlemen were sepa-
rated from, those who came under the lash of his
animadversions must bear it as they may, and must let it pass
as the idle wind which they regard not. The Hon. Member
for Dublin not only attacked the living, but those who were
gone equally fell under the wanton lash of that person. He
(the Noble Marquis) did not allude to what had been said of
a lamented relative of his own, but the other day Mr. Alex-
ander's name was most wantonly brought forward by Mr.
O'Connell. If that Hon. Gentleman, when using that great
magical word Reform, would endeavour to reform himself a
little, it would not only be more beneficial to Ireland, but
he (the Noble Marquis) should respect him much more as a
fellow-countryman. The Noble Marquis concluded by pre-
senting the petition.
Viscount MELBOURNE : My Lords, the- observations
which have been made by the Noble Earl will not render it
necessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any great
' length. From the beginning of the Noble Lord's speech,
was in hopes of being able to bear testimony to the great
prudence and discretion which he manifested, but in the con-
clusion of it he relapsed into his usual strain—( Ministerial
cheers)—and certainly indulged in language not characterized by
that wisdom which marked the commencement of it. I appre-
hend that the petition is the expression of the sentiments of
the people by whom it was voted, at the time at which—(hear)
—and in the circumstances under which it was voted—
(loud cheering)—and that undoubtedly it should have been
presented to the persons to whom it was addressed
that body, at least at the first convenient opportunity after
it had been so agreed upon by that meeting. Now, my Lords,

when was this petition- adopted? It was agreed upon on the

31st of last October, and the Noble Lord presents it now on
the 2d day of June, at a period at least of three months after
your Lordships have been sitting.—( Hear.) Now I beg leave
to say, that in other hands than those of the Noble MarqUi,i,
and at other times—( Hear, hear)--a petition of this sort might
be made subservient to party views and party projects.—( Hear. )
It might be kept in the pocket of the individual to whom it
was committed, during the time that a Ministry was in power
to whom it was not suited to present it ; and it might Le
brought forward again, and that with great pomp and ostenta-
tion, at a moment when other Ministers were in power, upon
whom it might be thought more effectually to operate--( Hear,
hear). But the Noble Lord said, that he did not think it
worth while to present it to your Lordships at an earlier period.
Why, whose petition is it, pray ?—( Loud cheers.) Is it the
petition of the Noble Lord, I ask, or is it that of the meeting
from which it purports to come ?—(Renewed cheers.) Was
the Noble Lord given a discretionary power to present it,
or to detain it, according to his pleasure ?—( Hear, hear,
hear.) Who gave him, I should like to know, any con-
trol or command over the presentation of that petition what-
soever ? Was it not his duty, then, to be directed by th,=.t.

meeting what to do ? My Lords, as soon as that meeting wa;
dispersed it was gone—it was. functus officio; and it could not
afterwards change the direction already given as to the thin:
of its presentation. Whatever private intimation the Noble
Lord might have had, he had no right to do otherwise than
full the directions given by that meeting. We do not know
now, my Lords, that this petition, under the present altered
circumstances of the Government and the country, is expres-
sive of the real opinions of the persons who originally agreed
to it.—(Great cheering.) We may presume that it is so ;
but I say we do not know that that is their opinion
upon the present occasion. Why, then, I own I should
have been much better satisfied if the Noble Lord had
persevered in the prudent course he has followed for the
last three months, and had abstained from presenting the
petition at all to this House ; for it does compel me to
do -what I otherwise should not have done, namely, to go
a little into the circumstances connected with the getting up
of that petition. Undoubtedly the meeting at which the peti-
tion was adopted was viewed with great anxiety by the Go-
vernment of that day. It was a meeting in pursuance of a re-,
quisition signed by the Lord-Lieutenant of the county and n
great number of noblemen and magistrates who were charged
to preserve the public peace, calling an exclusive meeting of
Protestants.—( Great cheering.) Now, I do not wish to us.•
any language of bitterness and asperity, but I do put it to
Noble Lords on the other side of the House, whether it was
consistent with the duty of those Noble Lords, considering
the station they held, and the responsibility with which they
were charged—l put it more particularly to the Noble Earl
who so lately brought a strong charge against the Irish Go-
vernment respecting the late procession in Dublin, on the
ground that it was exclusively a Roman Catholic assembly--
whether it was wise or prudent, under the circumstances, for
persons in such a station to call a meeting of that kind, and
in that part of the country ?—( Hear, hear.) Consider, toy
Lords, if this example had been followed—( Loud cheers from
the Ministerial benches)—consider if, in those parts of the
country where the Roman Catholic religion prevailed, exclu-
sive meetings of Roman Catholics had been called ; consi-
der, my Lords—and I appeal more particularly to those
are so anxious not to divide that country into two distinct
classes—what a source of discord and animosity that must
shortly have been.—( Loud cheering.) But I beg leave
to observe to your Lordships that that example was not fol-
lowed—(loud cheers)—by the Roman Catholics—(renewed
cheers)—and as it has not been adopted, I have nothing more
to do than to express my strong opinion of the imprudence of
the Noble Lords who were the promoters of that most dan-
gerous example. This meeting was called against the then
existing Government, and against the strong and decided opi-
nion of the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—a nobleman who
has to-night received the highest meed of praise—the tribute
of admiration of the Noble Lord opposite—and whose opinion
I much wish had had the same weight with the Noble Lord on
that occasion which it appears to possess at present. In all
the praise which has been given to my Noble Friend I cor-
dially concur. It is no more than, nor even so much as he de-
serves. I only object a little to the time at which it has been
given.--(Ministerial cheers.) I wish it had been bestowed at
a period when it might have been of some service, and when it
might have tended to support his Government—if, indeed, it
could have given any support to one of his high and eminent
character. Ido not, I confess, admire that practice which
delays all praise to public men until it is no longer of any ser-
vice—(cheers and laughter)—and I beg leave to observe, that
a little earnest support to a man when in office, is worth a
hundred speeches of eulogy when he has retired from
it.—( Renewed cheers and loud laughter.) My Lords,
the Noble Lord has, in the end of his speech, adverted to
the present Government, both in this country and in Ireland,
and has very frequently mentioned the name of an Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, a Member of the other House of
Parliament. I remember the time when the Noble Earl
(the Earl of Roden) told us that, by the frequent mention
of the name of that Hon. Gentleman in this House, we gave
him a power and influence in the country which he would
not otherwise possess, and I always thought there was great
weight in that observation. But that admonition seems to
have been entirely forgotten by the Noble Lords opposite for
we now rarely hear anything else from them but the name
of that Hon. and Learned Gentleman. I can only deny most
decidedly the truth of the statements which have been made
by the Noble Marquis.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the
speeches and letters which have been read, it is rather for Mr.
O'Connell himself, than for me, to reconcile how he can give
support to his Majesty's Government consistently with those
letters and speeches.—( Hear, hear.) It is not a matter, at
least, on which I am called upon to speak. With respect to
the legal appointments in Ireland having been influenced by
Mr. O'Connell, I at once utterly and entirely deny it; more
especially with regard to the appointment of the Attorney and
Solicitor-General, whom the Noble Lord has particularly men-
tioned, do I give this denial ; for it so happens, that at the
very period when Mr. O'Connell was writing and publishing
these letters, the present Solicitor-General had his appoint-
ment, and every body knows that at that time we were ex-
tremely anxious, if we could have compassed it, to have had
Mr. Sergeant Perrin in the situation which he at present
holds. They were both designated then, as they are now, by
their ranks and talents, both in Parliament and in their profes-
sion ; and I utterly deny that they were in any respect the no-
minees cf Mr. O'Connell, as I utterly deny all the other im-
putations that have been cast upon us by the Noble Lord.—
(Great cheering.)
-

The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE did not regret calling the
meeting at which this petition bad been agreed to. He
thought it was necessary to make a stand in support of the
Protestant institutions of Ireland, as being essential to main-
tain the connection between the two countries. He never saw
so large and respectable a meeting, and yet not a single breach
of the peace occurred either at the meeting or on its disper-
sion. He admitted that the Roman Catholics offered no in-
terruption to the assembly.
Lord DUNCANNON thought that the forbearance from
all riot on the part of the meeting was owing more to the dis-
cipline to which they were subjected, than to the disposition of
the people themselves. This meeting was as much under the
direction of a particular body, as the meeting of which they
had lately heard so much in the City of Dublin : and the re-
sult was also exactly the same, there being no breach of the
peace on either occasion. Much of this was certainly owing
to the forbearance of the Roman Catholics.
The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that at the
time the meeting in the county of Down was convened, a
cessation of the payment of tithes had pl.acc i T-C -
land ; the clergy were suffering the utmost extremity, and
Parliament was prorogued. Under these circumstances his
Noble Friend (the Marquis of Downshire) convened the meet.
ing, in order to express their adhesion to the Protestant
Establishment, and their desire that the sufferings of tl:c
clergy should cease. He did not in general approve of tLe
Lord Lieutenant or the Custos Rotulorum attending such meet-
ings, but under the circumstances he would say it was lauda-
ble on the part of his Noble Friend to put himself at the
head of the people to enable them to express their wish that

some measure should be adopted for the protection of the Pro- I
t: stant religion in Ireland. The forbearance of the Roman
Catholics had been alluded to ; but, in his opinion, they had
as-great an interest as the Protestants themselves in support-
ing the Established religion of the country.
,p Earl FIT ZWILL lAM said, that if the object of the meet-
ing was such as the Noble Duke had stated it to be, then
the Noble Duke's speech had read a pretty wholesome lesson
to a considerable number of their Lordships, to whom it was
owing that the clergy of Ireland, at the time the meeting took
place—(Loud Ministerial Cheers)—were suffering in the
manner just described ; because if a certain Bill had been
passed last session, those persons would not have been in a si-
tuation to call for the sympathies of the people.
The Duke of WELLINGTON explained.
Lord FARNHAM said if the Bill, as originally introduced
by the Noble Lord (Hatherton) in the other House, had been
brought up to their Lordships, it would have been passed ;
but by the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill was totally
altered; and, instead of being calculated to afford relief to
the clergy, it would have been to them a Bill of Pains and
Penalties.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that the reason why
he voted against that Bill was, that he mistrusted the feelings
of the individuals who supported it.
Lord HATHERTON assured the Noble Lord (Farnham)
that he was completely in error in supposing the Bill of last
session was altered at the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell. The
Bill would no doubt have passed both Houses of Parliament;,
but he was bound to state that he believed it would have been
universally resisted by the people of Ireland, and that the Go-
vernment never could have enforced an arrangement founded
upon it. Those connected with the landed interest in Ire-
land declared that they could never agree to the money
being vested in the land. The Government, therefore,
abandoned that principle ; but the suggestions proceeded from
the Irish Members generally, although Mr. O'Connell was de-
puted by those gentlemen to express their sentiments to the
House. But he (Lord Hatherton) asserted, because he knew
it to be the truth, that Mr O'Connell was net the individual
at whose suggestion the alterations were made.—( Hear.)
With reference to the immediate subject of the petition, he
car:alnly should have been exceedingly sorry if the matter had
been disposed of without his having had an opportunity of en-
tering his protest against the principle upon which the meet-
ing whence the petition emanated was got up. Such a meet-
ing was, he believed, entirely without precedent or parallel in
the history of Ireland. He did not know that it was neces-
sary for him to say more upon that occasion: except that it
was only with the greatest possible difficulty that the Irish
Government prevented other places from following the baneful
example of Cavan and Down.—( Hear. )
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY could not hear with-
out remark, from a Noble Lord who had filled one of the
highest and most responsible situations in the Government of
Ireland, language which he (the Archbishop of Canterbury)
had never before heard uttered within the walls of that House.
The Noble Lord had spoken of the Church of England in Ire-
land as a sectarian Church. Such language he believed had
never before been heard in that House, and he could not help
thinkinvhat it was as unconstitutional in itself as it was unusual
for their Lordships to hear.—( Hear. )

The Earl FITZWILLIAM trusted that the Most Rev.
Prelate would allow him (Earl Fitzwilliam) to send him back
to his Latin grammar and Latin dictionary. What was the
meaning of the word sect ? Whence was it derived ? and in
what sense ought it to be regarded ? In the strict and literal
sense of the word, was not the Church of England as much a
sect as the Roman Catholic Church as the Baptist Congre-
gation ? as the Presbyterian Church ? as the Unitarian Con-
gregation ? He begged leave to tell the Most Rev. Prelate
learned and reverend as he might be—(cries of " Spoke ")--
that if he meant to say—(renewed cries of " Spoke.") Ha
could tell those Noble Lords that interrupted him, that he
had a right to speak, and he would speak.—( Cries of
Order.")
The Earl of WICKLOW rose to order.

Lord H ATHERTON, in explanation, admitted he had
used the phrase of which the Most Reverend Prelate com-
plained, but certainly had not used it in the sense in .xhich the
Most Reverend Prelate seemed to regard it.
_ _ _

Earl FITZWILLIAM again rose; and having explained
what he conceived to be the Inc:v.-ling of the word sect, de-
clared that, in his opinion, the Church of England was just as
much a sect in this country as the Roman Catholic, the Uni-
tarian, the Baptist, or any other branch or denomination into
which Christians were divided.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY admitted that what
the Noble Earl said was etymologically true. Grammatically
'and etymologically every branch of Christians was a sect, but
the Church of England was not a sect in the eye of our law,
nor was it ever so characterized in common parlance. If the
Noble Lord went back to etymology, he might just as well
say, looking at the Greek derivative of the word " hierarchy,"
that the Church of England was a heresy. But the term
sect, in its usual theological acceptation, was, in his opinion,
properly applied to a body or class of persons who divided or
separated themselves from that which was acknowledged to be
a Church. But when the Noble Earl talked of Unitarians
not being a sect, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) should
be glad to be informed when they were ever regarded in any
other light ?—( Hear.)
The Earl of RODEN defended the character of the Pro-
testant meeting held in Ulster on the 30th of October last.

Noble Lords were entirely mistaken when they supposed that
that meeting was attended by only one class or one sect of the
Protestant community of the North of Ireland. The occasion
Vsat gave rise to the great, glorious, and constitutional meeting
held in Ulster in October last, was an anxiety on the part of
the Protestants in Ireland to preserve the Protestant religion
in that country, and to hand down to their children that secu-
rity of life and property which had been handed down to them.
This anxiety on the part of the Protestants of Irekind was na-
turally excited by the Bill introduced into Parliament last
year, and by which it was proposed to transfer the surplus re-
venues of the Established Church, and to apply them to Ro-
man Catholic purposes. After dwelling at some length upon
the distinction which existed between such meetings as that to
which he had referred and the more A Orange meet-
ings, the Noble Earl went on to say that it would be his care
to prevent, to the utmost in his power, any meeting or proces-
sion in Ireland on the 12th of July next. Meetings of that
descriptions he felt to be illegal, and should therefore oppose
them. The Noble Lord opposite had compared the procession
of which Lord Mulgrave was the idol with the Protestant
meeting which took place in the county of Dowv, and de-
clared that the one was as illegal as the other; but the Noble
Lord forgot that the legality or illegality of a procession or
meeting depended on the display of banners. Banners were
exhibited in the Dublin procession, but banners were not ex-
hibited at the Down meeting. Upon that point, therefore,
the Noble Lord had not a leg to stand upon. The Noble Earl,
in conclusion, solemnly warned the House against the machi-
nations of that party which, though it appeared not upon the
stage, though it was seduously and carefully concealed behind
the scenes, was in fact the real governor of Ireland, and
whose object he believed to be the dismemberment of the em-
pire, and the destruction of Protestant property, Protestant
life, and Protestant religion in Ireland.
The Earl of HADDDINGTON did not rise to prolong
the discussion. Ho wished to advert to one point only.—
Previous to leaving Ireland, on the very last public opportu-
nity that was afforded to him of addressing his fellow country-
men in that country, he (the Earl of Haddington) ventured to
offer his sincere advice to the Protestant part of the commu-
nity, not to allow any thing to tempt them to violate the law.
Considering the situation he had lately held in Ireland, he
thought he was still bound to offer to the Protestants of that
country the same advice at the present moment ; and he
begged to join the Noble Marquis in the appeal the Noble
Marquis had made to the Noble Earl (Roden), and he did so
with the greater pleasure, because he was led to hope from
what had fallen from the Noble Earl, that he would exercise
his powerful influence to prevent any of those manifestations of
party feeling and party spirit which hitherto had been attended
with such baneful consequences in Ireland.
The Barl of GOSFORD could state, upon the most un-
questionable authority, that a great many of the most respect-
able and most influential Protestants of Ireland were: strongly
opposed to such meetings. as those which had recently taken
place in Ireland, and which were so strongly defended by the
Noble Earl (Roden.) He knew from persons resident in that
part of the country, that every possible compulsion was used to
drive persons to those meetings.
The Marquis of DOWN SHIRE denied that any compul-
sion had been used on his part.
The Earl of GO SFORD had received his information from
a quarter on which he placed the utmost reliance. He had,
however, alluded to no one in particular.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY shortly replied.
The petition was then laid on the table.
ISLINGTON MARKET BILL.

On the question that the order of the day for the second
reading of this Bill be now read,
Lord BROUGHAM rose to present a petition in favour of
this Bill from the several Inns of Court. This petition, he
said, was worthy of notice, inasmuch as that it was signed by a
Right Rev. Prelate, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice Chan.
cellor, the Solicitor-General, about half-a-dozen King's Coun-
sel, all the Masters in Chancery, a great number of Barristers,
and a long list of most respectable Solicitors. He had also to
present another petition from an equally most respectable class
of men, graziers and farmers occupying a vast deal of land in
the county of Gloucester, against the Bill.—To lie on the
table.
The order of the day was then read.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, in moving the second read-
ing of the Bill, merely referred to the impression that had
gone abroad that the tolls of the Islington Market would be
higher than those of Smithfield. That was not the fact.
The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the second reading of
the Bill, and read an extract from a letter of Earl Spencer to
him, in which he expressed it as his opinion that both the pro-
ducer and consumer of the meat sent to the metropolis would
be benefited by the rejection of the Bill.
Lord SUF'FIELD had every respect for the Noble Earl
whose letter had been read, both as a statesman and a farmer,
but that Noble Earl had been misled by artful misrepresenta-
tions, and every Noble Lord was competent to judge of whe-
ther Smithfield was or was not the nuisance and monopoly it
was represented to be by thousands of petitioners.
Lord AL VANLEY opposed the Bill, and moved that it
'-- read a second time that day six months.
The Marquis of SL.:I7,P= A.," hoped it would be read a
second time without further opposition.
Lord WODEHOUSE was understood to speak ag.....hist the
Bill, but was not distinctly heard.
Lord SEGRAVE supported the Bill.
The question on the original motion and amendment having
been put, the House divided, when there appeared in favour of
the Second Reading, and against the Amendment, 30; con-
tra I.—Majority, 29.
_ _

The Bill was-then committed for Thursday se'nnight.

Lord KENYON presented a petition against the Bill, as
was understood.
',Adjourned at half-past eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. JVNR 2.

In consequence of the Ballots appointed to take place to-
day, the gallery was not opened till half-past four o'clock.
LIMERICK CITY ELECTION.

The order for considering the petition of Hughes Russell
and others, complaining of the Limerick City Election, was
read and discharged.
NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. P. HOWARD moved that this Bill be read a third
time.

Sir A. AGNE W rose to move the insertion of a clause to
prevent travelling on the rail-road on the Sabbath.—(Cries
of "Ohl oh 1") If the House would not allow him to proceed,
he would move as an amendment that the Bill be read a
third time that day six months.—( Cries of" Oh, and Divide.")
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place,
the Hon. Baronet having withdrawn his amendment.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
LIMERICK ROADS BILL.
Mr. D. ROCHE brought up the Report of the Committee
upon this Bill, which was laid on the table.