The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-11 00:00:00

TUESDAY

the argument told equally well in favour of Dublin, anti
there was no ground therefore in that argument for
withdrawing the Lord-Lieutenant.—(Hear, hear.) As
to economy, on which ground the Honourable Member
for Montrose had formerly supported this measure, he
did not think the Bill would be at all efficacious; on the
contrary, he thought the balance would be on the other
side, and at all event& until they could show a clear and
decided gain in this respect,. he should support, the con-
tinued expenditure in Ireland of the small sum now re-
quired for the support of this office, a sum small in itself,
but useful in the present state of that country.—(Hear.)
Colonel DUNNE thought that Irish Members had
little encouragement from the Government, either in this
debate, or in the last debate on an Irish question, to draw
tighter the bonds of union between the two countries.—
(Hear. ht ar.) On the last occasion they left the -Secre-
tary for Ireland alone on the Treasury bench, and to-
night the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
merely lifted his hat and proposed the second reading of
a measure to remove the last vestige of internal govern-
ment from Ireland, trusting no doubt to the majority at
his back, feeling too much contempt for Irish Members
even to argue the question. But he felt it his duty, not-
withstanding this contumely, to enter his protest against
this Bill. During the last 50 years England had in-
creased in wealth, power, population, and prosperity,
much of which was owing to Irish blood and industry,
while, during that period, Ireland had retrogressed.
Previous to the union there were two Houses of Parlia-
ment in Dublin. For their removal there bad been no
equivalent given. 202 Peers then lived in Dublin, there
were at present not two, and the result was seen in a
fact the other day, where large and expensive house'',
on which there was a mortgage of 20,0001., were sold
for 5,0001. This showed how Dublin must suffer by
the continued policy of withdrawing all internal govern-
ment and government establishments from Ireland. The
debt and taxes of Ireland had largely increased during
the last half century; but though that had been to some
extent compensated by the increase of agriculture and
population, it had recently been destroyed by the free-
trade measures, which, however advantageous they might
have been to this country, had been ruinous to Ireland
—(Hear, hestr_)7tand she had no manufactures. In 1824
there was a Cennmisslon issued, which seemed to carry
out the spirit enome papers be had recently seen, en-
titled " How to check the Prosperity of Ireland." That
Commission proposed the removal of the revenue depart-
ment. That had been done. They recommended the
removal of the Lord-Lieutenant. That was now pro-
posed to be done. They further proposed that the ad-
ministration both of the ecclesiastical and law establish-
ments should be entrusted to Englishmen. They pro-
posed the consolidation:of all departments. The Noble
Lord said there was no intention to remove the law
courts. But, looking at the fact that so many of
the recommendations of that Commission had
already been carried out, and others were pro-
posed, he warned his countrymen that whatever
Government might be in office, that was the policy
steadily- pursued towards Ireland. But it was said
that it would prevent corruption in the Administration.
Well, he would like to know if Irishmen were not as
likely to be corrupted in Downing-street as in Dublin.
—(Hear, hear.) Then it was said that the deficiency of
information on the part of the Lord-Lietenant was an
argument for the abolition of the office. Well, would
not the secretary in Downing-street be equally ignorant
equally dependent, on the information of Irishmen.—
(Hear, hear.) The oily difference was that being at a
distance, ho would not have the same chance of compare
ing and checking the statements made to him. He
really thought these arguments refuted theinselves, and
at all events did not justify such a measure as
this. He did not think there was anything in respect to
the government of Ireland that warranted the executive
being removed from that country to this. The Honour-
able and Gallant Member defended the
theyeloyalotuygohft, atthe
Irish people, and contended that if they were to do away
with the " mock royalty " of Ireland,
least, to give the Irish an assurance that either the
Sovereign should appear there occasionally, or that the
Parliament should assemble periodically in that country.
—(Hear, hear.) He contended that the appointment of
a fourth secretary would be more expensive than the
continuance of the Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland,
while the withdrawal of that officer of the Go-
vernment would destroy Dublin, and, as a conse-
quence, many portions of the country near to Dublin
would also suffer materially. Absenteeism had done
much to injure Ireland, and this Bill would increase that
absenteeism. He would give the Bill every opposition in
his power.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask what was the question
before the House ? It was proposed by the Bill now
before the House to remove the Lord-Lieutenant. Was
that course a desirable one to follow ? He would sup-
pose Ireland to be a county side by Ode with another
county in this country. In that case you would have
that county regulating its affairs as its adjoining county.
But what did a Lord-Lieutenant do for Ireland ? He
asked this question,
of that
not with
country,reg a b
rd tou the
withregard
he former policy
of the Governmentto
the feelings of the people of this country ; and he con-
tended that there was no hostile feelings on the part of
the people of England towards Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
He admitted that the Parliament of England did destroy
the manufactures of Ireland, but was the Parliament of
this country now like that of William ? or even like
that of George the Third, or even of George the
Fourth ?—(Hear.) He asked any Member to point out
his finger to any one Act of Parliament—except one—
that was hostile to the people of Ireland. He denied
that the alteration of the corn-laws was intended to
injure Ireland. It became necessary under the
circumstances of the case, and the old system
was not beneficial to the people of Ireland. The
argument used by Hon. Gentlemen was, the Lord-Lieu-
tenants wore needy men, and that Ireland, under this
system of " mock royalty," had retrograded. Why, he
should have thought that these were the strongest pos-
sible rt asons against the continuance of the Lord-Lieu-
tenant in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Why, had not the
office of the Lord-Lieutenant been the very focus of in-
trigue? Was not the Lord-Lieutenant playing one game
and the Secretary fur Ireland another?—(Hear, hear,
and Oh, oh.) This would not be the case it' a fourth
secretary were appointed, who would be acting under
the responsibility of his office, and under the eye of the
people. It was said that the Dublin shopkeepers would
suffer by the removal of the Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland.
Admitting the fact, was that a reason why we should not
make the people of Ireland and England one, and the
union of the two countries what it ought to be, but what
it really had not been up to the present time, a union of
the interests of the two countries.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONOLLY contended that the Lord-Lieutenancy
of Ireland was not necessary for the welfare of Ireland.
On the contrary, the abolition of that office would cement
the union between the two countries.

Mr. GROGAN said that thii debate-was unequalled
in the annals of Parliament. When it was considered that
the object of the Bill was to abolish an office which bad
continued for several centuries, the Government had not
condescended to advance a single argument in support
of it on the present occasion. He could not conceive,
notwitstanding anything that bad been said to the con-
trary, what inconvenience could arise from the re-esta-
blishment of a practice which had been resorted to in
pressing emergencies, of continuing the office of Lord-
Lieutenant, with a chief secretary, to be a responsible
member of the Cabinet, having a seat in Parliament.
Since the connexion of Ireland with England she had
been strictly an agricultural country, she had her mar-
kets in foreign countries and in the colonies, and for one
interest that had been benefited, there were several that
had been injured. Now, the Noble Lord proposed
to withdraw the Lord-Lieutenant, and he used a falla-
cious argument to recommend it to Parliament, viz.,
that the people of Ireland would not be drawn away
from their usual avocation to attend a mock court.
The effect of his motion, however, was to draw
the landed gentry from -Ireland to London, to in-
crease the amount of absenteeism which had been the
bane of Ireland, and to give further effect to the system
of centralization, which the Government put in force on
all occasions. It aimed directly at the withdrawal from
the home trick, of Ireland of the patronage which was
on the spot to suppert it, and that without returning to it
the smallest compensation, direct or indirect. Having
heard, therefore, no new argument from any member of
the Government in support of this measure, and Ireland
having been much injured in her agricultural interest by
'their recent legislation, he thought there was not the
slightest inducement hold out to them to accede to the
proposition of the Noble Lord.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that when the principle
and chief. details of a measure had been explained, in
moving for leave to bring it before the House iu the form
of a Bill, the practice was, at the second reading, to wait
to hear any objections which might be urged against' it.
He had listened, but in vain, to hear any valid objection
to the Bill which was now under discussion. Those
which had been stated in the debate were not in effect
directed against the measure, bat, whether good or bad,
thealm themopstaarllilaomfent
of the tweereUndiirteced
tedagainat legislation by
Kingdom, and went not
to maintain the office of Lord-Lieutenant, but to repeal
it altogether. As to the repeal of the corn-laws, it was
a subject independent altogether of that of the Lord-
Lieutenant; and,.upon the whole, the arguments against
the measure put those who used them not in the
position of opposers of, or objectors to the Bill,
but of repealers of the legislative union. The mischie-
vous character attributed to their legislation and to the
policy of William 111. were matters which he should be
willing to investigate in their proper places. The ques-
tion now was, however, as to the maintenance or aboli-
tion of the office of Lord-Lieutenant. The objection'
that the local governments were maintained in India
and in Canada would not apply in the case of Ireland,
for obvious reasons. He could conceive that it would be
useful to keep a local government in Ireland when the
means of communication with it were less perfect than at
present; but now that our advances in engineering bad
almost annihilated time and space, there could be no ob-
stacle in the way
of uniting Ireland with the same sys-
tem of administration as England itself was subjected to.
For local purposes he conceived the change a vast im-
provement, beCause landed proprietors would now spend
their money on their estates, instead of going to spend it
at Dublin. It had been proposed that there should be a
general Secretary of State for the United Kingdom, but
he should be able to show in Committee that there were
so many statutes relating exclusively to Ireland, as to
render a Secretary for Ireland indispensable. In con-
clusion, he had only to state that this subject had been
under consideration ever since Lord Clarendon went to
Ireland, and in August last be (Lord J. Russell)
wrote to him, stating that as the famine of 1847 and
the peril of 1848 had passed away, they might then
be able to introduce this measure. Lord Clarendon
arrived at the same conclusion, and this measure was
brought in with his full sanction and concurrence.
Mr. C. ANSTEY rose amidst loud calls for a division,
and moved that the debate be adjourned.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he could not agree
tcean adhurnment,)• as there were various opportunities-
of discussing the measure upon its different stages.
Mr. SCULLY supported an adjournment.
hies r FRENCH-said that there Were persons whew

t