The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-04 00:00:00

with, and that the condition of Ireland, the ohjeet to which
the attention of Parliament was peculiarly directed, would
have formed the subject of enquiry in a Committee of the
whole House. Nothing of this sort, my Lords, has been
done, and I am afraid that your Lordships will get no fur-
ther information upon the subject than that which has been
given by the Noble Duke. The Noble Lord then continued
he did not expect to be able to say any thing to induce
some of their Lordships to depart from the course which
they seemed determined to adopt, though he should sue-
treed in convincing them that the course was fraught with
difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers of all sorts to
the Constitution. But what was the plea upon which they
were called upon to pass this measure. The influence of
the Catholic Association was talked of—its terrors magni-
fied' Far his part, he should be disingenuous indeed,
to withhold from Ministers the praise of sincerity. He
had himself been a member of administration, but he never
affixed distrust to the motives of his colleagues who differed
in opinion from him.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was but fair to
say, that he believed no set of men could be influenced
by greater regard for the Constitution of this country than
his Majesty's present Ministers were.--(Hear.)—lt did
not follow, however, that he was of necessity to take
for granted that all their measures were of the most judici-
ous kind. Quite the contrary, respect was one thing, con-
fidence another—but a blind and indiscrimirotting re-
liance upon the infallibility of any set of men, was a de-
gree of self-denial to which he could not pretend. What
then wax hie opinion of the present measure? Did he
think that under the present conjuncture of affairs in Ire-
land nothing ought to be done ? Certainly not. He agreed
that that country was, and had ever been, in a condition
to require the closest attention of the Members of Govern-
ment, and no man was lest; disposed than he to withhold
a remedy, when a proper remedy was pointed out._
But whence came this organization—whence this diselem-
berment of the parts of the body social and politic ? Were
its cause to be found in the misconduct of administrations,
the errors of Government—the abuses of law? No, the
evils of Ireland were a laxity of rule, a too great mode-
ration in authority—a connivance at the proceedings o
agitators and disturbers. The Catholic Association was
the fruitful parent of all these evils—to that fertile
source were all the grievances to be traced. He would ask,
for it really was necessary to ask—what was the Catholic
Association.—what were its attributes--what its character?
Was this the Association which had been already de-
nounced as the disturber of the public peace in Ireland—as
the proscribed of the peaceful citizens of that country,
of the King's Ministers, and of the two Houses of
Parliament?—(Hear.) Was it decent, then, to adduce
the existence of such a body as an argument in the discus-
sion of any great question? Their Lordships had been
solemnly told, in the Speech from the Throne, in a former
Session, that this Association was dangerous to the public
peace—that it was at variance with the Constitution.
Was it not upon these grounds, and these only, that
the Bill for its suppression was asked—that it was
passed ? The evils of Ireland were then traced to this
cause, and the suggestion was, that by removing the cause
you destroy the effect. Why not do the same now? In
what respect had things altered in Ireland, that
the same prescription for the malady, (which had
not changed its character) might not be effectual ?
But they were told that things had changed—that
it was no longer safe to put down the Association, as an
integral measure. Nay, it was said, that so affectionate
was the House of Commons become of this favourite
body, that it would never consent to its suppression by
law, unless some other measure, by way of indemni-
fication, was made congenial with that extinguish-
ment. What, then, were we conic to that pan, that conces-
sion was the only basis of our legislation? Were we in future
to rays no law, without first throwing a sop to the people
of Ireland, in order that they would be pleased to con-
descend to submit to our Imperial legislation ? This was
the language used by some of the supporters of this
measure--others thought that it was not enough for the re-
turn, which they affected to say was paid for it—others,
that require no terms. Ought the forty-shilling freeholders
of Ireland to be disfranchised. To the first he should say,
that ha was unwilling to believe that the House of Com-
mons would so stultify itself, as having a few years ago
pissed a Bill for the suppression of the Catholic Associa-
tion, and thereby acknowledged the principle, it would
now refuse to adopt the sasne measure. To the others,
that this was in fact no price at all—because, looking at
all the vari.me circumstances under which the Catholic
Government got the elective franehise, it would be seen
that it was not contemplated by the Legislature to give
them that extent of political rights which they had since
used and abused ; what a Noble Earl had said upon a
former occasion in his place, was unhappily but too true,
that the use which the Catholic freeholders had made of
the boon of 1795, was a good sample of the manner in
which they would hereafter prevent any further con-
cessions which might be made to them--namely, to the
advancement of their political power, and the overthrow
of the Church and Constitution. The predictions which
had been made of the effect of that measure, while it
was under discussion in the Irish Parliament, was
soon after fearfully realized by the result.----( Hear,
hear, hear.)—lt was then said, however, that the effect
of the measure would be to cause a splitting of freehold*
—a minute subdivision of property by the landlords—au
ultimate encouragement to early and improvident mar-
riages, and in fact to every thing which would tend to
foster idleness and improvidence.—(Hear.)—Had these
predictions been belied—had they not been fulfilled to the
letter in the state of Ireland ? The most eminent men
of that day—the Lord Ciare—and the then Speaker of
the Irish House of Commons, Mr. Foster, were amongst
the great opponents of this measure. They deprecated in the
strongest terms the power which had been given to theCatho -
lie freeholders. He was of opinion that the measure to which
he confessed he brought his mind with reluctance to agree,
was justified by the circumstances and by the evidence
which was offered to Parliament some years ago. He
(Lord gidmouth) should not therefore oppose the
measure for the raising the Elective Franchise, as
teactieeeeed with the others, and so far from throwing
obettcles in its way he should give it his warmest support.
But he must be understood as not including in that pledge
of support the other measures by which that Bill was ac
companied. What, then, was to be done? Were we to
r 5 main as we were, or make a change, cost what it might ?
This question lead hegn asked in the other House, but to this
he had not received any eetisfectery answer. What the
Right Hon Gent. (Mr. Peel) was unable to ea4ve, he
(Lord S.) would offer to explain. Better, far better, he
sheuld say, remain as we are, than make unworthy sacrifices.
(Chee;;;,---If we had a chance of continuing to remain as we
are, the way to aec9rieplish that was not to recede, not to
give fresh power to our enemies. 8y7..t admit that some-
thing must be done—did it follow that this was ei.aetly
the etei; which we ought to take? Was this a remedy for
the admitted eviis of Ireland—was it not a confusion
of terms to call it so? It had .ot 3_ symptom of a
reenedrielmeaaere. The evils of Ireland were long seren:::-
td to be payeety, igmrance, and bigotry.—(lfear.)
tl.4"hich of these would Catholo_ emapcipaiion remove ?
Rid the people—the poor benighted peopte-,of tire tram-
els of priesteraft : that was the true and statesmanlike
Gurnane ,erirai cipation. These evils were, it was now
allowed, of very luitg sta:dipg. In the language of an
enlightened writer, these eviis were pa v,;..1-17, depression,
want of education, the relaxation of industry, the want
of e#coucgement—the want of proper protection for the
poor, want of --,-,t-pathy in the landlords— the
distress arising' from the necessity f paying tithes
to _ll Church, whilst they had their 6wn clergy
.
Lo
aumT,0re.7....,.048 Out of proportion to their means--=H
watart,t. the necessa,riefi of ii(e, alit abase all, a distrust in
pt justice.--( Cheers. e—ieetnoee Otero
gthreouant ionfistr
n complaint then,:make it the landlord's interest to
aatend to the wants of his tenantry, cheek rapine, pre-
vent violence, seed put an end to misrule. These
were the first duties of a gibe, considerate, and
I beneficent Legislature. The next, to give the people edu-