The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-18 00:00:00

TH E SUN,

a waste of time and paper therefore to petition. They
were satisfied that it was the result of a foregone con-
elusion, end they knew that Whigs and Tories always
coalet,ced when Ireland was to be sacrificed to the, princi-
ple of centralisation. In May, 1844, the Hon. Member
for Montrose tried the experiment again; and now the
Prime Minister adopted the Hon. Member's plan, end
in May, 1850. brought it f,rward. On the last occasion
of Ore Hon. Member for Montrose's motion, Mr. Goul-
burn, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a speech
which was one of the " curiosities of literature "against
the motion. He also voted against it. So did the Noble
Lord at the head cf the Government; so did the Right
Hon. Memher fur Tamwortb. Where were the Right
Hon. Gentlemen at that moment? Where was Mr.
Goulburn? Were they absent lest they should embar-
rass the Prime Minister? Was their absence the re-
sult of a foregone conclusion? But though absent from
the House their opinions still lived in" Hansard," and he
would read a few extracts from them for the House.
He might be told that they changed as they did on the
corn-laws—(Hear, hear)—and that there was no more
rascally principle than consistency. It might be so, and
his ownview was that it sometimes meant a perseverance
in error. Mr. Flume had argued the question on the
ground of economy; but Mr. Goulburn said that the
proposition was derogatory to the character of Ireland,
and fatal to the best interests of that country.
Sir Robert Peel said also the rebellions of 1798
and 1803 proved the necessity of a superior direc-
tion to the vigilance of the executive. Richard Martin,
the late Member for Galway, who had himself voted fur

the union, said it was positively understood at that
period that there should he a permanent Lord-Lieute-
nant always resident in Ireland ; and in 1844 Lord J.
Russell said that such a change would be unsatisfactory
to the people of Ireland, and that having had to consider
the question on a previous occasion he had come to the
conclusion that it was not expedient at that time to
carry that project into effec`.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord
John Russell.) The Noble Lord had said, in the course
of his observations that night, that the Lord-Lieutenant
had pacified Ireland, that Ireland was now perfectly
tranquil, and that the state of that country was quite
satisfactory ; but was not that a reason for retaining
rather than abolishing the office ? The Honourable
Members for Cork and Middlesex had quoted the his-
tory of the Lord-Lieutenants of Ireland—but to what
purpose ? Was it not a waste of time and trouble to
refer to Strafford and his successors an the present
question ? The Honourable Member for Middlesex
had the advantage, however, of having graduated at the
Castle of Dublin ; he had spent four years of his mili-
tary life within its walls. The House was told that the
Castle should be abolished because it was a jobbing es-
tablishment ; but the Government of this country had
already taken good care that there should be no more
jobbing there, for they had removed the Boards of Cus-
toms and Excise, and the head administration of
the Post-office to London, so that even a letter carrier
could not get appointed except through St. Martin's-le-
Grand, nor a distiller recover a wrongfully-seized pun-
cheon of spirits except through the board in Broad-
street. It was asked—Why wish a Lord-Lieutenant?
Is not Ireland an integral portion of the British empire?
It was; but that was all it was. And if it was not bet-
ter treated than it had been, and than it was now pro-
osed to be treated, far better would it be that it were
1111 integral portion of the Russian empire. Ireland was
deprived of her Parliament in 1800, and consigned to
poverty as well as loaded with debt. The national
debt of that country at the union was not more than
thirty millions, which would have since been paid off if
Ireland was left to her own resources. In 1826, how-
ever, the two Exchequers were amalgamated, and the in-
cumbrances of England divided with Ireland; and Ire-
land was saddled with 130 millions of the public debt.
That was what this country paid for being an integral
portion of the British empire.—(Hear, hear.) If Ire-
land had not been dragged into a war, with which
England alone had no concern, she would have been now
free from debt, and her people would not be taunted
with being beggars at the doors of the British Parlia-
ment. In 1826, also, the currency of the two countries
was assimilated, and Ireland by that single Act robbed
of one-twelfth of her circulating medium, amounting
in round numbers to a million of money.
That also was what she paid for being an integral
portion of the British empire. The next year the pro-
tecting duties between the countries were repealed. The
ten per cent. protection on the linen trade was with-
drawn, and that branch of occupation was swamped at
once by English calicoes. The woollen manufacture
followed. But still Ireland had the consolation of being
an integral portion of the British empire! The Noble
Lord said it was inconvenient to have the Executive of
Ireland so distant as Dublin from the seat of Govern-
ment, but surely the Irish Secretary would have to hold
oral communication with other persons on the subject of
Irish affairs, and, after all, did it not amount to the same
thing in reality? He (Mr. Reynolds) doubted very much
whether there were better men of business in London

than in Dublin • at all events, he knew that they never
meddled with Irish affairs that they did not mismanage
them. He could prefer a bill of indictment against the
Government in England, with as many counts as
would make it reach from that House to Westminster

Abbey, if be had time , but he would mention one item—
that of savings banks. What ha l been done in respect
of these institutions in Ireland? They had passed an Act
establishing savings banks all over the United Kingdom,
and then they passed another law relieving the trudees
from all personal liability.—(Question.) It was the
question. They insisted on managing their affairs in
Downing-street. They insisted on having the custody
of the money, and what had they done as to manage-
ment? Government were informed in 1821 that one
bank was insolvent, and instead of telling the depositors
of the fact, they kept the bank going on for 20 years,
and entailed a loss of 60,0001. on the depositors. This
was a specimen of British management of Irish affairs.
—(Hear.) He was told that if the office of Lord-Lieu-
tenant were abolished everything would go on smart
smooth in London. He believed it would only be trans-
ferring the scene of jobbing from Dublin to Downing-
street. Mr. Stephenson was the great benefactor of
Ireland. He had invented a tube—suppose that tube
broke one fine morning, why all he should say was,
may the Lord have mercy on a country that depended
for its security on a metal tube.—(oh.) It was a sub-
ject too serious for him to joke upon—(Laughter)—and
yet it had been made a joke of that night. The Hon.
Member for Montrose had cracked sundry jokes on the
subject, and had caused much merriment in the House,
and from that he inferred the House really treated the
measure as a joke. If the measure was carried, he be-
lieved his Hon. Colleague would have to resign his seat,
for he was going against the opinions of those who sent
him into that House, or turn Repealer. He had been
asked, wby have a chief governor for Ireland when
Scotland had no governor? The eases were not paral-
lel. In the case of Scotland, it was taking a small popu-
lation and a very poor country into partnership with a
rich country. But in the case of Ireland you took a
country with a large population and filled with all the
elements of wealth. It was said the inhabitants of Dub-
lin were idle, but he believed the Dublin inhabitants
would bear a comparison with the citizens of Cork. It
they abolished tee office of Lord-Lieutenant he would
make them a present of the Privy Council. But the
Noble Lerd said the poor-laws should be maintained.
With respect to the visits of her Majesty, he hosed they
would be frequent; but would the Noble Lord put that
in the Bill ? He paused for an answer.—(Laughter.)
He might be told that it would be trammelling her Ma-
jesty, as it might not always be convenient to go. But
then, he said, Ist her Majesty send her excuse, and it
would be received kindly. He believed the Noble
Lord meant well to Ireland, but he was badly advised.
=(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord was inflicting this
wound on the country at a period of unparalleled dis-
tress. There had been a period of famine, and half the
population had been lost by forced emigration. While
the best and hardiest of her sons were sent to the swamps
of America, only the helpless and the feeble were left to
till the Irish soil. Where was the difference between
this state of things and that which existed in the time of
Lord Mountjoy ? Then, again, Scotland had her own
religion, and he rejoiced at it. But in Ireland they had
forced a religion down the throats of the Irish people.
They had reversed the system with respect to Ireland,
and then they were told they had no reason to be dis-
contented. Nothing would do until they had abolished the
temporalities of the Church.—(Hear, and cheers.) He
had given notice to Irish Members to this effect :—lf the
people of Ireland had a voice in the election of Members,
Irish Members would not vote in favour of the question. If
the people were polled nine- tenths of the population, male
and female, would be found to vote against it. Those
Honourable Members who supported the Bill were loudly
cheered; he was not cheered—he was glad of it. He
hoped the House would hear him in solemn and sepul-
chral silence.—(Laughter.) If he were a Republican,
he would go down on his knees and say a pater and ave
for the Noble Lord for bringing in this Bill.—
(Laughter.) They might as well call a collision be-
tween a wheelbarrow and en omnibus an earthquake as
to call the affair at Ballingarry a rebellion.—(Laughter.)
Thanking the House fbr the patience with which they
had heard him, if he had any influence with the Noble
Lord he would implore him to withdraw the Bill for the
present, and to give the Irish people time to recover
from their prostration. It was not the time to attack
them when they were weak. He believed the Noble
Lord would regret to the latest moment of his life that
in this case be had listened to the advice of the Hon.
Member for Montrose. Instead of abolishing the office
of Lord-Lieutenant, he thought it would be more ad-
visable to bestow larger powers on him, to strengthen
his hands, so that he might exercise his position and
powers for the benefit of the Irish people.—(Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said the motion before the House
was for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the aboli-
tion of the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and the
appointment of a fourth Secretary of State. He had
been surprised that during the interesting and prolonged
discussion that had taken place no observations had
been made upon the second object of the Bill. It was
unnecessary for him to refer at any length to the first
object of the proposed measure, because the subject had
received a great deal of attention from Honourable
Members connected with the sister kingdom, who were
well qualified to give an opinion upon it. He would
have been prepared, so far as his vote was concerned, to
have deferred to the feelings of the Irish Members with
respect to the office of Lord-Lieutenant—(Hear)—but
he regretted to say that upon this, as on every occasion,
nothing was mores difficult to ascertain than what was
the feeling of the Irish Members. II he had been an Irish
Member himself, b e confessed that he would not have he-
sitated as to the J.lllO of conduct he should take. He
thought that, as a measure merely of high policy, it
would at all tittles have been very doubtful whether
the course now proposed by the Government with re-
gard to this office should be adopted; but he consi-
dered that at the present moment it was unnecessarily
unhappy.—(Hear.) He could not pretend.
.to say
that he had given any deep consideration to this ques-
tion; but he had an idea from what he had heard that
there were great political and economical reasons for the
abolition of the office, and until he heard the speech of
the First Lord of the Wreasary hs had supposed that to

bo the case.—(Hear, hear.) That impression, however,
had been removed by the Noble Lord's address. It ap-
peared to him that no one could more successfully have
demolished the proposition presented to the House than
the Noble Lord had himself done.—(A. laugh.) The
Noble Lord said that great political considerations influ-
enced him in proposing to abolish the Lord-Lieutenancy
of Ireland. " Ireland," said the Noble Lord, "is ex-
tremely tranquil, particularly well governed by an indi-
vidual who fills the office of Lord-Lieutenant, and who
is universally acknowledged to be one of the most skil-
ful governors who have occupied that post; and there-
fore I mean to remove the individual and to abolish the
office."—(Laughter.) That was the great political rea-
son assigned by the Noble Lord, who then proceeded to
give some moral reasons for the course he proposed to
take. The Noble Lord said that the expenditure of pri-
vate families iu Ireland was much more considerable than
was desirable in a moral sense; that they spent a groat
deal of money in going to Dublin to pay their court;
and he therefore proposed that in future they should not
go to Dublin to pay their court, but that they should
come to London.—(A. laugh.) That was the moral and
economical reason. The Noble Lord gave a third reason,
which was neither a political nor moral reason, but a
loyal reason. The Noble Lord said that nothing could
be more gratifying to her Majesty than her visit
to Ireland last year, and that nothing could
be more remarkable than the loyalty of her gejesty's
subjects in that country, and therefore the Noble Lord
said, " I will put an end to all the circumstances and
causes of this satisfactory conclusion, and because her
Majesty was gratified and the leople were loyal, I will
take care that when the Queen visits Ireland again she
shall not visit it under the same circumstances."—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord had been most ably supported
by several Hon. Gentleman who had followed him. The
Hon. Member for Cork had called attention to the Lord
Deputies of the time of the Plantagenets, and had formed
an argument from their conduct against the possible
conduct of Lords-Lieutenant in the present day. The
Hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Deputies were
strangers to Ireland, that they were of a different race
from the people, and that there was no sympathy be-
tween them and the great mass of the population. But
the Plantagenet Kings of England were of a different
race from the people, and possibly there could be no
great community of feeling between them and the na-
tion ; yet every one knew that the reigns of the Plan-
tagenet Kings, although they were foreigners, were ex-
tremely conducive to the glory and prosperity of this
realm.---(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Cork also
complained of the practical inutility of the present sys-
tem, contending that so long as a Lord-Lieutenant was
maintained in Ireland no spirit of self-reliance would be
excited among the Irish people, because in any difficulty
they could communicate with the Lord-Lieutenant and
obtain his advice. But if, as had been suggested, the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland was invested with some of
the duties of the Lord-Lieutenant, might not the people
communicate with him by every post ; and how, then,
would the spirit of self-reliance be developed more suc-
cessfully by a Lord Chancellor than by a Lord-Lieute-
nant? The Hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne),
in a very able speech, had supported the motion be-
fore the House on the assumption that the
Government of Ireland, under the viceregal sys-
tem, had been a government of corruption and mis-
rule. He (Mr. Disraeli) could, however, refer to
periods in the history of this country at which he
could make out as good a case against the Parliament
and the Government as the Hon. Gentleman could
establish against the authorities of Dublin Castle. He
(Mr. Disraeli) might refer to old stories about back-
stairs influence—(A laugh)—which, for so long a period,
and in so unconstitutional a manner, influenced the
Administration, even in comparatively recent periods;
but would this bear legitimately and fairly upon the
question before them? They knew that the institutions
of a country took their character from the spirit of the
age in which they flourished, and, no doubt, the Castle
of Dublin had been the seat of as much corruption as
the spirit of the country would bear.—(A laugh.) The
public spirit of Ireland, however, had greatly improved
since that time; and, as they could not now have the
illegitimate influences he had referred to acting upon
the Government of England, so they might possibly
have a Lord-Lieutenant governing Ireland with as much
purity and as little corruption as any one could desire.
If statements published in newspapers against the con-
duct of a court were to be received as evidence of its
character, he might remind the House that even our own
Court—the purest in the world—had not been free from
libels ; and, before the accession of our present
Sovereign, how disgraceful had been the libels upon
Majesty itself, which yet did not for a moment shake the
loyalty of the people. He (Mr. Disraeli) would not vote
against the motion for leave to introduce this Bill, be-
cause he thought it would be an act of discourtesy to
any Minister; but he wished, before he sat down, to say
a few words upon the second object of the measure.
That object was of extreme importance. It might or
might not be necessary and politic to abolish the office
of Lord-Lieutenant, but it was perfectly consistent to
accede to the abolition of that office, and yet not to ac-
cedeeto the proposition for appointing a fourth Secretary
of State. He hoped the House would see how im-
portant it was, in discussing this question, to separate
these two points. It was only within a recent period,
comparatively speaking, that a third Secretary of State
had been appointed in this country, and that Secretary
had had a province allotted to him the duties of
which, by the legislation now passing through that
House, and by the principles of gorernment that
appeared to be very popular in the House, would pro-
bably be very materially diminished—he alluded to the
Colonial Secretary. Night after night they were told
the colonies ought to govern themselves; and the result
of such a policy would be that the duties of the Colonial
Secretary must be proportionately decreased. The third
Secretary of State was a comparative novelty in our ad-
ministrative system, and yet Parliament was now crudely
and suddenly called upon to appoint a fourth Secretary
of State. This would give rise to an immense increase
of patronage. Sir William Wyndham said of Secretaries
of State, "These great officers never appear except with
an equipage of clerks."—(Hear.) When the appoint-
ment of a third Secretary of State was proposed consi-
derable objection was made to the measure, which, it
was argued by the advocates of the proposal, would not
add materially, if at all, to the expenditure of the coun-
try. What had been the result? The annual expense
iu the office of the third Secretary of State now amounted
to nearly 80,0001. per annum; and they were asked
to consent to the appointment of a fourth Secretary,
without any member of the Cabinet appearing to have
a clear conception of what his duties were to be.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord had given
them no very clear information upon that point. All he
had told them was, that the Lord-Lieutenant had to fulfil
a great many duties which the new Secretary of State
would not be required to discharge.—(" Hear," and a
laugh.) He (Mr. Disraeli) could not agree to the ap-
pointment of a fourth Secretary, with his equipage of
clerks, unless they had much more precise and satisfac-
tory information on the subject from the Government.
For his own part, he did not see why Ireland should not
be placed under the control of the Secretary of State for
the Home Department. Scotland was under the Home
Secretary; so was Wales. As there was so much anxiety
that there should be a similarity between the two coun-
tries, why should not Ireland also be placed under the
Home Secretary ?—(Hear, hear.) It might be necessary
for the administration of the office that he should have
greater subordinate assistance; let him have it; hut let us
hesitate and inquire before agreeing to the appointment
of a fourth Secretary of State and a great increase
of patronage, when it was very doubtful whether
there was sufficient work for the existing three—when
we were taking the administration of the colonies out of
the hands of the Colonial Secretary.—(Hear, hear.) The
ever-to-be-lamented Lord G. Bentinck, who was always
very jealous of the increase of patronage, and who
thought that a Whig Administration had a peculiar
talent for multiplying offices—(Hear, hear)—once said
—and the statement was never contradicted, and the ac-
curacy of his statements could seldom be impugned—
(Hear, hear)—that the Irish famine was in one sense a
godsend, for it had given the Whig Government 16,500
places.—(Hear, hear.) The House had now proposed to
it what might not be very objectionable—he (Mr.
Disraeli) would give no decided opinion that night—but
it was at least a somewhat fantastical reform. No one
doubted that Ireland might be as well governed as it
had been—much better, in his opinion—without this
operation—(Hear)—yet, under this shadow .and colour,
there was to be appointed another officer of State of the
highest class and the greatest salary, whose appoint-
ment must lead to an equipage of clerks, whose united
salaries would probably in the first year quintuple that
of their chief.—(Hear.) But he knew it was in vain in
that House to expect to make any successful appeal. In
a House of financial reformers economy was a subject
that was never considered.—(" Hear," from the Opposi-
tion.) In good days—in the days of that good man
whose words he had quoted, Sir W. Wyndham or Mr.
Pulteney, if a Minister bad brought forward a Bill like
this,a place Bill might have been brought forward in
answer, and perhaps carried. In old days, if the Go-
vernment was increasing places, and in a manner scarcely
to excite public attention proposing to constitute an
office which, if it followed the precedent of the last Se-
cretaryship of State, would entail upon the country
probably an increased expenditure of not less than
100,000 L a year, those who called attention to the fact
might have had some chance of sympathy out of doors,
and success within; but in a liberal age it was impossi-
ble.—(Hear, hear.) In the present day, if one were to
establish a case, however urgent, and her Majesty's
Ministers were to appeal to those gentlemen who always
opposed them, except when they were in danger, there
would not be the slightest chance of carrying .a motion.
—(Hear, hear.) Why, the House had just listened to
their earnest supporter, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who
came there in his paraphernalia—(Laughter)—to add
weight and importance to the great authority he lent to
the Government; and he said, that if ho had time he
really would impeach the Government; that they ought
to be called over the coals on the savings banks question;
L
hut the
ord Mayor of Dublin, if their existence was at
stake, would immediately rote for them.—(Hear.) But
what was the real state of the country ? Her Majesty's
Ministers themselves, who took a favourable view of it,
said that the country was not ruined, but only the middle
classes. Was not that enough to make Parliament pause
before appointing a most expensive, and, as far as any
data had been placed before it, unnecessary officer, with
a very great and necessarily increasing establishment?
On that (the Opposition) side of the House, they knew
that, as tar as their constituents were concerned, they
were not justified in acceding to ail' proposition the ob-
ject of which was to increase public expenditure.—
(Hear, hoar.) That great portion, .the greatest portion
of the ruined middle class, which they represented,
could not look upon the institution of a new office like
this without very considerable alarm.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") Ministers might say that there would not be
any great increase of expenditure, that an expensive
office was being abolished and the funds transferred to
the payment of the new officers; but, though the Noble
Lord bad not opened the subject with remarkable frank-
ness—firanknosa had not that night been the forte of the