The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-15 00:00:00

The time of the House of Commons on Tuesday was
almost exclusively devoted to the debate on the ques-
tion of Ireland, which was commenced by Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, who rose, pursuant to notice, to move
for a Committee of the whole House to consider the
state of that country. His Lordship's speech, as in-
deed was to have been expected from him, was re-
plete with strong common sense, without the slightest
attempt at lofty or impassioned eloquence ; and its
object was to show that Ireland has never yet been
allowed to participate in the benefits promised her by
the Act of Union ; and that the equality which the
Tories are constantly insisting that she possesses with
England, has up to the present moment been nominal
rather than real. The Whigs during their
period of authority made every effort in their
power to ameliorate tine con tion of the sister
country, and in some legrek vere successful, but
they were hampered ami thew •ted by the Tories,
and were in consequence unaole to carry out their
remedial schemes to the extent they could have de-
sired. "In 1841," added the Noble Lord, "the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite had Ireland delivered over
to him in a state of political tranquillity. Ido not

wish to exaggerate; I do not say those evils which
had been accumulating for a century had been dis-
pelled by five or six years of just administration ; but
I do say that the temper of the people had improved
—that there was a greater confidence in the adminis-

tration of the law—and that if that confidence had
been fully confirmed we should have expected from it

the most sensible increase in material wealth." In re-
ference to the state of the sister country at the present
moment, Lord JOHN RUSSELL emphatically re-
marked—" Facts clearly establish that Ireland is
only occupied, and not governed, by those who now
hold the reins of power. In England the govern-
, ment of the country is, as it should be, a matter of
opinion ; but the government of Ireland is notori-
ously a government of force." Sir JAMES GRAHAM
did not attempt to controvert this statement—indeed
how should he I)—but contented himself with observ-
ing----" most certainly we do occupy Ireland by a
military force, when a demonstration is made clearly
showing an intention to wrest that country from
' her MAJESTY by a military force." This is very shal-
low isophistry—in fact, it is a virtual begging of the
ques'ti'on. Who ha# ever exhibited an intention of
wresting Ireland from her MAJESTY ? Is it Mr.
OVOI iNELL ? Why, he has always denounced in the
stropc est possible terms the idea of a separation from
the CrDwn ! Indeed, he has explicitly stated—not
once, but a hundred times—that his great object in
seekimg a domestic Parliament is to consolidate,
rathe ir than weaken, the union between the two
coun tees, and to establish it on a broader, safer,
and more enduring basis than that on which
it !law stands. Then, how preposterous in
Sir JAMES GRAHAM to allude to the " mi-
litary. force" intentions of the Repealers ; when
he n'iu st know that, following the example of their
chief, they all, to a man, repudiate the bare idea
of ha vtng recourse to military force ! The Right
Hon. 13 aronet had far better have held his tongue
on thee embarrassing subject of " military force,"
than iv we justified its adoption by such misinter-
pretatii mi and downright perversions of fact as this.
In notil.cing the question of the striking the Ca-
tholic !jurors off the panel, Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
to dos him justice, was much more suc-
cessful; and certainly placed the matter in
a far leas obnoxious light than that in which we have
till now regarded it. He closed a heavy and, on the
whole, unsatisfactory speech by stating that it was
the intention of Government to propose a considerable
addition to the vote for national education in Ire-
land ; an extension of the county franchise ; and
an alter ation in that of the cities and towns.
This is a beginning—though a very tame
and men gre one—of the great task of Irish
improlen cent, and as such we receive it with
thanks; but more—much more must be done—and
this in a far bolder and nobler spirit—ere Ireland can
be said to be placed on a footing of perfect equality
with Eng ;land. A creditor to whom a heavy debt is
owing, a tough he is of course ready to receive any
instalmen it, no matter how small, has still abundant
cause for complaint. if, instead of getting a half or
even a third, he is put off with a twentieth part of his
demand..

Among the alterations which Government intend
, making it ► the new Poor-law Bill, Sir JAMES GRA-
HAM stated that he proposed to relieve it of the whole
weight oe its connexion with the question of bas-
tardy, and to place the mother of a bastard child
and her illegitimate offspring as a destitute widow
and child, the latter having been born in wedlock.
In commenting upon this just and humane provision
—hunrine certainly when compared with the clause
as it originally stood—the Post observes:—" What-
ever the Right Hon. Secretary may intend, we think
that respect for the destitute widow and child might
have prevented him from saying that the mother of a
bastard chill and her illegitimate offspring should be
held by :the law to stand exactly in the same
position.." There is a very prudish, lady's-
maid sort, of spirit in this remark, and the
sense of morality that suggested it—however
it may gratify • the nice, ultra-rigid sticklers
for convientional respectability seems to us
to be at b 4 st but equivocal. What possible injury is
done to the " destitute widow and child" by the mo-
ther of a. 'bastard son or daughter and her illegiti-
mate offspring being placed in a little better position
than they!have been placed in by the stringent new
poor-law-for the last ten years and upwards ?- Are
the morals of society outraged by such tardy hu-

inanity on the part of the Legislature ? Cannot virtue
be satisfied with its own immaculate conduct without
insisting that vice shall be placed without the pale of
redemption, and never be allowed the slightest op-
portunity of retrieving itself? We do not find this
doctrine enforced in the New Testament, or that our
SAviouit vi sited the erring woman with the severest
pains and penalties, out of consideration to the vir-
tuous sensibilities of the widows of Judaea. No, he
regarded her, despite her frailty, as a human being
still deserving the kindness and clemency of her fel-
low-creatures, his divine nature teaching him that to
press on female vice with disproportionate severity is
to pay lout a poor and doubtful homage to female

virtue. It, ameliorating, in some degree, the con-
dition of the mother of an illegitimate child,
Sir JA:KES, GRAHAM has increased her chances
of refornaat ion, and has thereby strengthened, in-
stead of -weakening, the sacred interests of morality.
With respect to the Right Hon. Baronet's proposal

to limit the time of application against a putative

father to forty days from the birth of a child, we
agree with the Post that such a proposition is as un-

just as it is absurd. The time should be consider-
ably extended, for the mother's confinement may
happen—nal uncommon case—to have been a danger-
ous and pi, Aracted one; the fortieth day may still
find her lyv 1g on the bed of sickness, unable to stir
hand or fo of ; and because her sufferings have been
thus severwand tedious, is she, therefore, to lose all the
benefit of a n application against the seducer who has
brought ha r into such a condition ? The proposi-
tion is not c inly cruel, but it is partial and one-sided,
for it gives a chance to the strong and healthy fe-
male of ob taining something like a compensation
from the nu n who has wronged her, while it effec-
tually close 3 the door of relief on the weak, the
sickly,'
and. the delicate. The time of application
must be vix ry considerably extended; otherwise, in
many.t will wholly fail of a cases 4 eserving of the most clement consideration,
good effect. We agree also
with our CQ ntemporary in his remark—" We cannot

said to be about 600,0001. a-year, we have
an aggregate loss, through the use of a
metallic currency, between the beginning of
1836 and the end of 1843, of no less a sum than
7,600,0001. A loss wrung out of the very hearts
and sinews of the people—a loss which has, not once
only, but again and again, reduced the pittance of
the poor, and made the hearth which was almost de-
solate before, look bare indeed ! When will linen
open their eyes, to see the sophistry of deluding
suppositions, and the injustice that may be
imposed by the following of groundless notions?
We hope our readers, at least, will not put
implicit credence in the representation that gold is
always safe. We have a few more facts to show that
if no loss could be sustained through its use, the
mere amount of a gold currency must always be so
inadequate for the purposes of trade, that whilst re-
tained as the main representative of value, though
the country may be rich, the people must of necessity
be poor.