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

THE SUN,

The question was by whose authority was that large
additional expenditure incurred ? He thought the
Committee moved for by his Hon. Friend the Member
tie‘Montrose ought to have papers, plans-, and-estimates
laid before it, and a statement of the expense incurred
by the alterations and modifications that had taken
place. It was also most desirable to know what the
amount required to complete the new House would be.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
the House would consent to wait until the report, which
he had promised, should be laid before it. Although
the estimate was originally 700,000/,, yet it should be
recollected that there was much extra accommodation
subsequently ordered which of course involved consider.
able additional expense.
Sir H. PEEL said that after the practical experience
which they had had of four or five days' sitting in the
new House they should appoint such a Committee as
would consider whether any improvement could be made
both in respect to the increased accommodation of Mem-
bers in the body of the House and to the hearing proper-
ties of the building; and if so, what the cost of such
improvements was likely to be. It was idle to appoint
a Committee to inquire into the architectural character
of the edifice.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Hume's amendment ... 55
Against it ... 85

Majority against the amendment —3O
The report was then agreed to.
LORD-LIEUTENANCY ABOLITION (IRELAND)
BILL.
Upon the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN moved that it be reesd a
second time that day six months. He argued that this
office was the appointment of the people of Ireland, and
not of that House, and therefore that House had no right
to abolish it. The people of Ireland had a right to the
office by treaty. They had a right to their own officers
just as much as this country had to its officers. National
faith he considered was at stake in this question. This
Bill was founded upon no other principle than this, that
might made right. The Noble Lord (Russell) had actu-
ally no supporters of this measure in Ireland. There
was no approval manifested. They were downcast and
maddened. He had been told in reference to this Bill,
that it would make the people rebels. The next thing
would be, that the Government would remove the courts
of law. The duties of the Lord-Lieutenant were now so
onerous, that he could not discharge them, and
could it be expected that these duties would be
properly discharged in Downing-street. The most
objectionable part of this measure was the tendency
it would have to tempt Irish gentlemen to leave
their country. Lord Wellesley's opinion was that if
they went on with measures having that tendency, that
Ireland would be reduced to be governed either by the
military or the mob. He then referred to the opinion of
Lord Clarendon relative to the character of the Irish
people, which went to show that during the late insur-
rection the general feeling of the Irish people was ad-
verse to such 'revolutions; and, moreover, he believed
that the system of agitation would be decried by the
people of the country, as they thought that such tended
to waste their energies, and to re-create discontent and
disagreement between the gentry and the peasantry.—
(Hear, hear.) And he should add, that he feared that
the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy would tend to
make more rebels than loyal subjects is that country, as
it had been well expressed on his own part by an Hon.
Member of the House, who voted against him (Mr. Grat-
tan) a few nights ago, and in that opinion he fully con-
curred. Again, by one of the clauses of the Bill the
power of proclamation was to be transferred to her Most
Gracious Majesty, which act he believed would bring
her into contempt in the eyes of the people of Ireland,
and this he should very much deplore. Have not that
people been eternally ground down by proclamations,
and was not this strongly exemplified in the proclama-
tions against the Catholic Association and against many
of the meetings that were convened by the late Mr.
O'Connell for the repeal of the union? He thought that
the visit of her Majesty to the coasts of Ireland would
have more power and effect on the minds of that people
than all the proclamations that had been or could be
issued, as her Majesty during such visits would sympa-
thise with the ragged distress of her Irish subjects,
and use every exertion to relieve and remedy their wants.
He would next refer to the parsimony and stringency
exercised against the apostle of temperance (Father
Mathew) now in America, who would not be al-
lowed 50/. to carry out his ameliorating plan of peace
and comfort, until the people, as lovers of virtue,
supported his cause. Next, he wished to know,
would there be a possibility of reprieving an innocent
man when condemned to death (as happened in the
case of what is designated the Doneraile conspiracy,
the injustice of which sentence was discovered
by Mr. O'Connell, much to his glory for saying an in-
nocent man), if the Lord-Lieutenant be removed; for
the day appointed by the judge for the criminal's exe-
cution might arrive before a return of his reprieve could
arrive from her Majesty in London, or Osborne House;
whereas, the Lord-Lieutenant, residing in Dublin, could
anticipate his execution. He considered that the policy
of the Government towards the Irish people would ulti-
mately tend to the injury of this country, and also to the
government of this country, for, on the one hand, go-
vernment educated that people which must at a future
day prove that that people understood the wrongs they
were labouring under, while on the other hand the flower
and strength of Ireland were daily emigrating from
every coast in that country to America—there to
strengthen and augment a power that might prove at
some future period a most dangerous foe. He adverted to
the determination of the Americans to send 70,000 men
in support of the Irish people on a very recent occasion,
which serves as a strong proof that the feeling and sym-
pathy of the Americans is much in favour of the Irish
and against the English Government.—(Hear, hear.)
He should next refer to the sufferings of the poor
curates of the Catholic Church, who were so distressed
that he saw a placard on the walls of Dublin, purporting
that a charity sermon was to be preached in their behalf.
This he contended was another feature of the system of
bad government towards Ireland, and hoped that the
House would not allow the baneful measure to be aided
to the thousands that have been already passed. He be-
lieved that the refusal of restoring Lords and Commons
to Ireland tended not only to a separation, but to fatal
war between the two countries. His breast was pained
to see in Ireland Catholic clergymen frequently in a con-
dition of starvation, while the Protestant clergy were
rioting in ease and luxury. He implored tho Govern-
ment not to take away that office until they resolved in
restoring something else. He appealed to their spirit
of humanity and justice, and, in conclusion, begged leave
to move, as an amendineet, that the Bill be read a second
tune that day six months.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON was sure there must be an
identification of legislation and government with this
country or Ireland would be ruined; for it was quite im-
possible that, with a different system of laws,
.English
Members, having already so much to do for their own
constituents, could bestow any atttention on the affairs
of Ireland, or bring to bear upon that country the great
good sense for which Englishmen were so distinguished.
—(Hear, hear.) The principle of administering the
law, and conducting the Government, must bo the same
in both countries, before Ireland would cease to be the
English difficulty. But the principle of centralizition
seemed to be the policy now adopted, and that principle
ran through the number of Irish Bills now before the
House. In ono of them, the Petty Sessions Court Bill,
power was first given to the Lord-Lieutenant to declare
where sessions should be held; then a similar power was
given to the magistrates; and next, the petty sessions
clerks were to keep books containing the proceedings of
the court, with the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant
also.—(A laugh.) The New Medical Charities Bill
created a board, by the members of which the
duties of medical officers were to be defined,
and that board had the moat unconstitutional powers
given to tax the people to any extent they pleased. He
also objected to the preference always given to English-
men over Irishmen in every public department, and the
House would no doubt be surprised to learn that of 22
Protestant bishops in their colonies at that moment, not
one of them was an Irishman. And that was not a fair
distribution of the patronage which the Government had
at their disposal; and that given the entire subject his
most careful and serious consideration, he felt it to
be his duty to record his vote against the second read-
ing of the Bill.

Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL observed that the
only justification for bringing in this Bill was, that the
office of Lord-Lieutenant bad been abused in former
times, and continued to be an abuse to the present time.
He contended, however, that that argument, if carried to
its full extent, would go to abolish the Crown itself, for
there had been many and serious abuses committed by
Sovereigns who sat on the English Throne. For his
own part, he never knew an instance that they were not
told, on the opening of every Parliament, that all former
legislation was carried on on a bad principle. The only
free gift Ireland ever received was the corn law, a mea-
sure for which he thanked heaven ho never gave a vote,
but on the contrary offered it every resistance in his
power. They were going in England to separate the
judicial from the ministerial functions of the Lord
Chancellor ; but what did they propose to do with
the Lord Chancellor in Ireland? Under the present
Bill, that functionary was to preside over the Privy
Council, and to carry its decisions into effect, and how
could he do that, when his time was daily engaged in
the Court of Chancery? There was this difference be-
tween Scotland and Ireland, they had a larger revenue
in Ireland, derived from the land and the industry of
the country, applied to the support of a church which
was alien to the people. That was not the case in
Scotland. There was no parallel between the two
countries, therefore, in this important respect, and no
reasons for doing away with the Lord-Lieutenant. But,
besides this, since the union with Scotland it had been
governed by Scotahmen. They never sent a spend-
thrift, an adventurer, or a prodigal there. Scotsmen
governed themselves. But it was different with Ire-
land; the people of that country had no power in ap-
pointing their Lord-Lieutenant. The abuse of a thing
formed, however, no ground against its use. Give the
Irish the power of having a voice in that appointment
with due reference to the knowledge possessed by
them of Ireland, and the result would be not
only beneficial to Ireland, but to this country.
The office of Lord-Lieutenant had been most
powerful in keeping the empire intact. Take the
case of Lord Chesterfield, for instance. It was by his
tact, courtesy, and kindness, that the Roman Catholics
of Ireland were prevented from joining the Roman Ca-
tholics of Scotland at the time of the rising in favour of
Charles Edward. Ho had not himself come much in
contact with those who had held that office, but ho must
impress on them that they were dealing not with an
office, but with a policy.—(Hear, hear.) They were
dealing a blow which must be followed by others, lead-
ing to the ultimate separation of the two countries.—.
(Hear, hear.) The circumstances of Ireland required
peculiarly a resident, power representing sovereignty.
But the Irish Members, were told there was now quick
communication between Downing-street and Ireland, so
that speedy communication could be held between the
new Irish seoretvy Arid the home Government, Rttt