Star.
London, England, 1831-04-01 00:00:00

MR. O'CONNELL AND THE IRISH BILLS.

In a letter, the first of a series, to the people of Ireland,
from Mr. O'Connell, in the Dublin Morning Register, of
Tuesdav last, he thus describes the Vestry Bill, the new
Sub-letting Bill, and the Reform of Parliament Bill. The
Vestry Bill is the first.
This Bill has been brought into the House of Commons
by Mr. Stanley. It purports to be an amendment of the
former Acts, and so it is in particulars of little, very little,
comps. ative importance. But in other respects it is a con-
siderable and cruel aggravation of the oppression which the
Catholics suffer under the present statute.
In the first place, this Bill recognises—sanctions—and
acts upon the odious and almost insufferable principle, that
the Protestant Dissenters of every clans, and the Catholics,
are to be taxed to build, repair, reconstruct, and beautify all
the churches and chapels of ease of the Protestants of .he
Establishment. This is a principle which must be abandoned,
or nothing will be done for the country. It is, indeed, too
bad that the poorest people in the world of one religion,
should be taxed, ceased, and fleeced, to build and repair
churches and chapels for the richest but least populous esta-
blishment in the world.

In the second place, the new Bill recognizes, sanctions.
and acts upon the unjust as well as unconstitutional prin-
ciple of taxation without representation—that principle
which lost America to Great Britain. This Bill allows the
few Protestants in any parish—or in a parish perhaps ten,
twenty, or thirty miles off—to dip their hands in the pockets
of the remote or neighbouring, but always unoffending and
unprotected Catholics.
In the third place, this new Bill introduces a new aggra-
vat:on of the oppressive principles which I have thus deve-
loped. It actually adds insult to that most palpable injury.
Under the present system, the Catholics, although they
could not rote in the Special Vestries, could at least
protect their properties by the force of remonstrance, en-
treaty, and argument. They had the advantage also of
knowing their friends amongst the Protestant voters from
their enemies. There was some moral protection, though
no legal protection in all this. Well, out comes this new
Bill, fostered and full-fledged, by this friendly, oh ! most
friendly, Irish Administration, and it takes away this pour
protection—it takes away this miserable consolation—and it
actually turns the Catholics out of the Special Vestries, and
leaves the Protestants free from the annoyance of remon-
strance, argument, or even inspection.
What think you of that, people of Ireland ? Catholics,
Presbyterians, Seceders, Calvinists, Independents, Quakers,
what think you of such a bill ?
The men who introduce measures of such a description as
this may be surrAnded by flatterers and steeped to the lips
in adulation. They may canvass for flattery, and flatter
themselves when every other resource fails, but alas ! for
poor Ireland, which is under their management, and double
woe on the heartless readiness which exists to cheer on
every exhibition of power, when exercised over my wretched
native land—but patience is our duty.
The people of Ireland may rely on it that I will divide the
house on the principle, as well as on the details, of this in-
sulting " amendment."
The second evil is the new subletting act, and I heartily
rejoice that it is in my power to bestow some, and not in-
considerable commendation on this measure.

The first section totally repeals the abominable subletting
I act. So far so good. Why not stop there ? Why not be
content with listening to the tears, the prayers, the entrea-
ties of the poor people of Ireland ? Why mix up any of the
•ld poison with the measure of healing utility ? Why not !
But need I ask such a question ? Or if I ask it, have I
rot my answer in looking at vanity, which is blind arro-
gance, which is insulting, and here and-there individuals who
would, perhaps, envy Polignac, all but his failure ? If such
individuals there be, let them console themselves with know-
ing that this bill does not terminate with repealing the old
subletting act.
No; it goes on and institutes a new subletting act. One
certainly of less injustice, and one totally free from any
imputation of the crime of retrospective effect.
This new subletting act is, therefore, free from any direct
injustice. it is honest, but it is harsh and unnecessary. It
is a boon as far as it goes, but it is ungracious. It is also
foolish—very foolish indeed, in the government, to gratify
the aristocracy by any such enactment; but let us he

grateful to that government for annihilating the unjustprin-
ciple of the former bill.

There is one ludicrous portion of the new Subletting Act
which must not pass unnoticed ; it is this : after absolutely
repealing the old act in the first section, it takes up in the
last section the dead act, and revives it and makes it per-
petual as to all leases executed between June, 1826, and the
pu.sing of the new act—thus having a species of " pinch of
time, as to which the old Subletting Act, with all its horrors,
is to be immortal. This, I suppose, is done lest the people
of Ile:and, who are of a most forgiving, kindly, and
oblivio a disposition, should forget the horrors of the old act
altogether.
I will endeavour, all that one individual can, to confine the
new act to the repeal of the old.

I now ask those who are so clamorous about preserving
the Legislative Union, these two questions :
First—Why, if the two countries be united in effect,
there should be one law between landlord and tenant in
England, and another law between► landlord and tenant in
Ireland—and the Irish law much more favourable to the
landlord, and much more oppressive on the tenant, than the
English law ? Answer me that.
Secondly— Why, if there really be an union, there
should be one law for building Protestant churches in Eng-
land, where the people are principally Protestants and fre-
quent and use the churches, and another law for building
Protestant churches iu Ireland, where the people are princi-
pally Catholics, and never see any part of those churches
except the outside—why should Catholic parishioners buihi,
at their expense, Protestant churches in Ireland, while Pro-
testant parishioners do not build, at their expense, Catholic
churches in England ? 1 want au answer to that.

This letter has grown on me , that I have not :space or
time to detail the other and the greatest measure of the thee
—the Reform Bill.

I postpone, until the next pest, my commentary on the
Reform Bill. But 1 must here congratulate the people of
Ireland, Protestants and Catlicii,.s, on its introduction. I
joyfully anticipate its passing into a law. It will be a great
town —a n .tional benefit, of mighty and permanent ad-
vantage.
We owe gratitude, support, and admiration, to those aho
introduced it. There are m. ny and many details in which
it is defective , but in principle and in spirit it is a majestic
measure of amelioration, and should he hailed with joy by
every lover of the liberty, peace, and prosperity of mankind.
His Royal Highness Prince Coburg, and his Grace the
Duke of Devonshire, have each made a donation of 100.
in aid of the fund raising for the famishing population of
Ireland. _

THE LAT& SIR MAN A:SEH M ASSEII LOPES.—This
baronet, whose de:ease has just taken place, was of Jewish
extraction, and a native of Jamaica, where he was born in
1755. He assumed the name of Lopes, sad was created .a
baronet during Mr. Pitt's premiership, in 1805, with re-
mainder to his nephew, Ralph France, Esq. who succeeds
Sir Newish in his tide and vast estates in the western
counties.

i