The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-20 00:00:00

could produce tranquillity in Ireland. If the payment
of the Catholic priesthood should be proposed as part of
a great plan for tranquillising Ireland—if it
were conjoined with a measure for the extension
of the franchise, both municipal and Parliamentary,
then he would be prepared to sacrifice his preconceived
opinions, and to support such a measure. But if it were
proposed as a measure by itself, and separated from any
proposition for ameliorating the condition of the Irish
people, he should give it all the opposition in his power.
—(Hear.) He should prefer seeing the voluntary system
established in Ireland. He should wish to see the whole
of the Irish Church vested in the hands of Commis-
sioners, and devoted to the providing of moral and re-
ligious instruction for the whole community.—(Hear.)
That principle may not find favour in this House, but
it had grown up with the growth of the country. It
had gradually made its way among the nation, and if
they wished that the State should receive effective and
pure religion, the best way of acccomplishing that
was, by leaving religion alone. The history of dissent
in this country fully proved that the voluntary princi-
ple, if properly worked, would be fully sufficient to im-
part religious instruction. The Hon. Gentleman went
on to show how dissent was established in this country,
and said that the State was a pernicious ally of any reli-
gion. Many eminent men bad held this'opinion, that the
difference between Catholicism and Protestantism was,
that the one sought the aid of the State to uphold it,
while the other relied on its own independent priest-
hood. As he said before, he would support the payment
of the Catholic clergy in Ireland as a part and parcel of
a general plan for the tranquilisation of that country,
but he still should maintain that it would be desirable,
and he should desire a reversion to the voluntary prin-
ciple. It was a mistake to think that the prosecution
against Mr. O'Connell would deprive him of the sym-
pathy of the people of Ireland. It was an unjust and un-
worthy course to adopt, and was inadequate to attain its end
for it would only add to Mr. O'Connell's strength in
Ireland, and multiply the number of his friends. He
did not consider him to have had a fair trial.—(Cheers.)
Under such circumstances the verdict which had been
obtained would have no moral effect. It had been said
that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State
for the Home Department made out a good case, with
regard to the striking off the jury, but he (Mr. Hawes)
took a higher objection, and he did not see why men
should be pronounced unfit to deliver a fair verdict,
because they spoke out their political opinions on
the subject of the repeal of the union.--(Hear, hear.)
Would they apply such a doctrine in this country. If at
the time of the Reform Bill a Reformer had committed
an offence, would it be alleged that there could not be a
fair and just trial of those *ho were in favour of Re-
form were on his jury, or that they could not give a
verdict according to the evidence. He had no faith that
the present Cabinet would do justice to Ireland. What
confidence could be placed in men who sat together in
the same Cabinet, and who changed their opinions and
politics. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
State for the Home Department said, that as
an abstract principle, he had no objection to the pay-
ment of the Roman Catholic clergy. That was a ques-
tion which had been before discussed in that House, and
on that occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman, the First Lord
or the Treasury, said that the payment of the Catholic
clergy was contrary to the principles of the Revolution,
and they might as well get rid of the Thirty nine
Articles. That would be an answer to the Right
Hon. Gentleman by a member of the same Cabinet.
But take the ease of education : there was no stronger
opponent of the Board of Privy Council than the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Heme
Department. He was now going to increase the grant
to Maynooth, but who had used stronger language
on the subject than a Noble Duke in the other
House ? The Duke of Wellington declared that
it was opposed to Christianity, and that it
ought not to be permitted to continue. What faith
could he place in the declamations of Right Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, when lie found opinions so strong ex-
prossed by another Member of the Cabinet? Promises
had been made before under somewhat similar circum-
stances.—(Hear, h6r.) He would venture to call
the attention of the House to the promises
given by Mr. Pitt, and he was not aware
that this position of Mr. Pitt's declaration had yet been
brought under the attention of the House. In April
1800, on the proposal of the union, Mr. Pitt said that if
they wished to accomplish the great work they had
undertaken, they must look at this important subject in
a large and comprehensive point of view ; they must
consider it as a measure of great national policy—the
object of which was to prevent a separation between to o
countries whose connexion was as necessary for the
safety of one as for the prosperity of the other,—they
must regard it as a measure the object of which was to
give the sister kingdom full participation in the com-
merce and constitution of this country—to unite the
affections and resources of two powerful nations, and to
place under one direction the whole force of the empire.
Now he asked Hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, in
point of fact, the union had dissipated jealousy bet Neen
the two countries. He would ask the Right Honourable
Baronet whether he was not prevented from carrying
into effect the union ? Her Majesty's Ministers
might be inclined to act, perhaps, in a spirit of impar-
tiality ; but there were Gentlemen on that side of the
House who were wedded to their own notions, who were
determined to abide by their own projudices ; who had
learnt nothing and forgotten nothing in the ten years
during which they had been out of office, and who
were resolved to constrain the Right Honourable
Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), not only to refuse all that
was fair and reasonable, but all which was necessary for
the interest and integrity of the two conntries. There
was one man who, at the time when the union was
proposed, protested against it in terms most emphatic,
not to say most prophetic • and his words might instruct
that party which made Ireland the nursery of sedition.
It was two clear, from the examples he had given, and
from the authorities he had referred to, that from the
first there had been but a nominal union between
the two nations. The party which bad chiefly
governed this country for the last forty years
had kept its position by creating divisions in the
empire ; and it was determined to try for the continu-
ance of its power by the same means which, in the long
run, must be alike ruinous to the governor and the
governed. All the nobler objects of government, all the
hopes and aspiratiods to render a population more
happy, more moral, and more prosperous, must be post-
poned—and all for the fancied !good and safety of the
church. All the old evils of Ireland were to find fresh
nourishment, to receive permanency and strength, be-
cause of this church.—(Hear, hear.) The time had
arrived then religious liberty was struggling with
religious intolerance, justice with injustice ; and
though the contest might be a severe one, he had
no fear for the result. It was said, and with perfect
truth, that the eyes of all Europe were fixed upon Ire-
land at the present moment. No man who glanced over
the foreign newspapers could do so without observing
how all minds seemed to be turned upon that country.
It was but natural to expect that the jea-
slous of foreign nations, in regard to this country
would be excited into livelier action when they saw the
lwaenakd.neAssndcresad
sad
dteoubgy our
htto ownbe
ourmiosg enwonverrenflmectitonosf,
that
t-
should the time of struggle ever come with them, were
we to be doomed to fall, it would not be from the vigour
and power of our foes, as from that innate weakness we
brought upon ourselves in this petiy paltry struggle to
maintain the Irish Church.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON said, that Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite must be sadly at a loss for arguments
against the Government, when they were obliged to
speak as the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
did, of the elevation of two Right Rev. Prelates to the
Bench. The Hon. Gentleman also seemed tc say, that
being a repealer was sufficient to disqualify a person
from serving on a jury ; but, if the Hon. Gen-
tleman had read the papers, he would see that
that excuse was made by persons who wished not to
serve on juries, but that the Judges had set the matter
right. The object of the prosecutions was not to put
down the agitation for repeal, but to repress the manner
in which it was agitated. There had been much misre-
presentation about the omission of twenty-four names
from the jury list.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that
upwards of sixty names were omitted, when, in truth,
only twenty-four were, by accident, and that acci-
dent was attributable to a Roman Catholic officer.

Great stress had been laid upon this point of the txc:u:
sion of Roman Catholics, but he would give them an ex-
planation of the principle cause why the Catholics were
not more prominent. The more respectable and upper
classes of that persuasion were so disgusted at the agita-
tors preaching vengeauce against the Saxon, instead of
peace and good will to all men, that they were glad to re-
tire into private life. And no one could wonder at this,
after the accusations which had been made, even in this
House, against the twelve honest men, and the calum-

flies which had been heaped upon them 13},the-iiOn.
and Learned Sergeant the Member for Cork, who called
them a good Protestant jury, ready to convict, and
ready to immolate their foe—
Mr. Sergeant MURP.EIY—No, no; I never used the
word "immolate."

Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON--The Honourable ar.d
Learned Gentleman at all events stated that there was

no justice to be expected from this jury.—(Hear, hear.s
During this debate he had heard much of the readiness
with wnich the Irish nation would receive a foreign foe,
but he would tell Honourable Gentlemen foreign foes
were not so ready to take advantage of this nation.
He then alluded to the vituperative abuse which Mr.
O'Connell was in the habit of heaping on Louis Phi-
lippe, and to the talk of raising an Irish brigade,
and then denied that the Government in Ireland

was wholly one of force and not one of opi-
nion. It would be impossible with such a military
force to hold 8,000,0000 of inhabitants in such subjec-
jection. He, therefore, shought this was a most calum-
nious and unwarrantable insult, to charge the whole
nation with being disaffected to the Rueen, and desirous of
throwing off her authority, and dismembering the empire.
It had been said that order and peace had prevailed in
Ireland ; there was no doubt that this was owing to the
preaching of the Right Hon. and learned Member for

Cork. But he preached peace and at the same time
levied an army—he preached loyalty, and at the same time
attempted to alienate her Majesty's army from her.
If the Government had not interfered, the loyal inhabi-
tants of Ireland would have armed themselves in self-

defence, and opposed force to force. One side of the
House attempted to monopolise all feeling and sympathy
for Ireland, as if Hon. Members on this (the Ministerial)
side of the House were utterly callous to the
grievances and wishes of Ireland, but he could tell Hon.
Gentlemen' opposite, that there was an earnest desire
among Members of the Conservative party to redress
the real grievances of that country, and to improve her
condition. It was said that the Honourable Gentleman
the Member for Cork exercised an all powerfulinfluence
over the people of Ireland ; and the same was said of the
Roman Catholic priesthood; if so, they were considerable,
for all those disgraceful offences were the result of
agitation and excitement. But the fact was, neither the
Honourable Gentleman nor the Catholic priesthood