H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

Ireland. This amendment however, though supported by the government, was negatived by a majority of 11. The numbers being for the original motion 206, against it 195. In the discussion that arose upon this amendment, lord Stanley was again subjected to most intemperate attacks chiefly on the part of Irish members who charged the noble lord with being actuated by no motives but those of hostility to Ireland.

On the question that the first clause be read. Mr. Warburton moved that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again -but on a division this motion was negatived by a majority of 93.

A scene of great confusion and uproar followed in consequence of Mr. O'Connell who was interrupted in the midst of violent in vective against the bill saying, "This is a bill to trample on the rights of the people of Ireland. If you were ten times as beastly in your uproar and bellowing, I should still feel it my duty to interpose to prevent this injustice."

Sir Stratford Canning immediately called upon the chairman (Mr. Freshfield) and said, “I demand a retractation of the extremely offensive expression which the hon. member has just used. The term which I mean is that of 'beastly.""

An angry discussion followed, which ended by the chairman and lord John Russell saying, that they thought enough had been said in explanation of the expressions used by Mr. O'Connell in consequence of the disorderly interruptions he had received from the other side of the house.

Sir B. Hall who had throughout opposed lord Stanley's bill, declared, that he would be no

party to an attempt to offer a fac tious opposition to the measure which statement drew down upon the hon. member an attack from Mr. O'Connell, who said, there might be a factious opposition and there might also be a factious acquiescence. The house afterwards resumed. When the house on the 19th of June resolved itself into a committee on the bill. Lord Morpeth moved, that in the first clause words should be added the effect of which would be to prevent any investigation of claims to vote which various circumstances during the past eight years might have vitiated. This was opposed by lord Stanley, but was carried in a division by a majority of 7:-the numbers being:-Ayes 296: Noes 289. The most determined opposition being made to the further progress of the bill by long and tedious discussions which consumed day after day-and by instructions being moved by Mr. O'Connell utterly at variance with the object which lord Stanley had in view, which was simply to purify the registration without em. barrassing the bill by any question about the franchise. Lord Stanley at last on the 6th of July rose and moved, that the order for the committee on his bill should be discharged, and sine die. The noble lord gave a short history of the progress of his bill. The bill he said, was read a second time on the 25th of March, and from circumstances over which he had no control, the committee stood over until after the Easter recess. On the 18th of April, the discussion on going into committee commenced, and lasted three days. Ten divisions had taken place upon the bill, and on five of those divisions the whole power of the

government was directed to throw it out; of those ten divisions the government only succeeded in one -nine being in favour of the bill which to the present moment remained untouched. In the remaining nine divisions the bill stood the test and remained untouched. If the bill had encountered an opposition rather unusual, he must say, and he said it with feelings of gratitude, that it had been supported with a degree of cordiality and enthusiasm unprecedented in the history of any country. He knew no occasion on which 300 gentlemen without a single defaulter for three successive weeks recorded their support of a measure brought forward by an individual against the declared determination of opposition by any government whatsoever. But there was the consideration of time. In five days they had passed five clauses out of a bill which contained forty-six, and if the remaining clauses took a like time, it was absolutely impossible that the bill could pass in the present session. He could not anticipate either, that the opposition to the bill would be relaxed, or the enmity to it diminished. If he abstained from pressing this bill in the present session, he would distinctly state, that profiting by the experience of this session, and knowing the opposition he was likely to encounter, he should bring forward this measure at so early a period of next session, that he trusted the act would be brought into operation at no later a period than that which he had proposed for the measure in this session. He should therefore move the order of the day for going into committee on this bill for the purpose of its being discharged,

Lord John Russell said, that it was not the intention of the government to proceed that session with the rights of voting bill, nor with the treating and bribery bill.

Sir R. Peel: "I presume then that the English registration bill will also be postponed ?"

Lord John Russell "Yes."

Sir R. Peel; And the same I suppose with regard to the Irish registration bill, [No. 2 proposed after the introduction of lord Stanley's bill by the solicitor-general for Ireland], so that we shall have got rid of these five bills at once.

IMPORTATION OF FLOUR INTO IRELAND. On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere moved the second reading of the importation of flour into Ireland bill. Mr. E. Tennent at considerable length opposed the bill, on the ground that it would be injurious to the milling interest in Ireland. He said, that down to a very recent period, Ireland was almost entirely destitute of a home manufacture of flour, but was totally dependent upon England-but in the year 1783, a law prohibiting the importation of foreign flour was for the first time introduced. This prohibition had since then been repeatedly recognised, and the consequence was, that although at the period of the union there was scarcely such a thing as a flour mill to be found in Ireland; it appeared by a return in 1835, that there was no less a number than 1882 corn and flour mills then registered in that country; and that Ireland which at the time of the union was an importing country, exported to England in 1835, 1,984,480 cwt., and subsequent returns shewed the present report to be upwards of 2,000,000 cwt. Various circumstances (which

The

were detailed by the hon. member), gave a decided preference to the importation of flour over that of wheat-and if it was asked, how it came, if it was so advantageous to import flour instead of importing wheat, that England imported every year so many quarters of foreign corn and hardly any quantity of foreign flour in comparison, the answer was, that England derived her supply of that article from the very source which it was attempted to destroy -from the mills of Ireland. trade in flour in Ireland, was of equal if not greater value than the linen trade. The hon. member contended, that it was incorrect to say, that the millers alone were interested in this measure; the farmer and landowner were equally assailed by it. He saw in it not merely the immediate injury of the miller by the depreciation of his heavy stock in hand, but the permanent depreciation of his property embarked and invested in building and machinery. He moved, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Labouchere said, that he was prepared to rest his support of this bill on two principles: in the first place, that the alteration of the law could not have any practical effect whatever under ordinary circumstances, and that so far from doing harm to any interest in Ireland, it in reality would have no operation at all. The idea that Ireland was to be deluged with foreign corn was an absurdity. But if circumstances should arise, under which foreign flour would go there paying the same duty as it would pay in England, then it ought to be allowed to go. The quality of the corn of last harvest in Ireland was extremely VOL. LXXXII.

inferior, and it was right that there should be obtained a supply of other than Irish flour; namely, flour of a finer description to mix with the Irish flour.

Lord John Russell in support of the bill said, that it rested for its support on the general principle, that there should be no restriction or prohibition without strong reasons. Mere restriction or prohibition for its own sake either imposed or kept up was wanton, useless, and mischievous in legislation, and it was nothing to him in its favour whether it was legislation of a year since or sixty.

The house divided, and the bill was carried by a majority of 52 The numbers being, Ayes 154; Noes 102.

POOR-LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND).] In the house of lords, on the 13th of April, the marquess of Westmeath rose to move pursuant to notice for a select committee to enquire into certain elections of poor-law guardians in Ireland. The noble lord rested his motion. on the grounds that Roman catholic priests had, in many cases, improperly interfered with these elections, and on one occasion, the returning officer (a Mr. Charles O'Connell) had harangued the people after mass, telling them to vote for the men whom the priests desired them to vote for. Threefourths of these elections had been made objects of contest through the influence of the priests against the wishes of the landed proprie

tors.

The marquess of Normanby opposed the motion, and accused the noble marquess of coming forward with a case which was weak and frivolous. Several of the cases of the election of guardians were at that moment under the considera

[K]

tion of the law courts in Ireland, and he trusted that their lordships would not be induced to interpose their authority, and interfere with the courts of law. With regard to Mr. O'Connell, the poor-law commissioners did censure him, and most properly, for having addressed the voters at the election of guardians. He earnestly implored their lordships to give this motion a direct negative.

The duke of Wellington complained that in the amendment act to the Irish poor-law bill which had been introduced by her majesty's ministers in the last session, advantage had been taken of his absence to insert a clause on the third reading which provided, that all persons who were liable to pay the poor-rates, should be entitled to vote for the poor-law guardians. He confessed, that he looked at this amendment with a good deal of suspicion, because it altered the complexion of the original measure. That was one ground on which he should vote for the committee proposed by the noble marquess. He should, however, suggest the con venience of postponing the debate in order that time might be given to enquire if there were any papers which might be produced.

The marquess of Westmeath, in consequence of the suggestion of the noble duke, said he would postpone his motion till further information was laid on the table. If he did not receive a more satisfactory answer than had been given that evening, he would proceed with this motion after the Easter recess.

On the next night the marquess of Westmeath moved for copies of any correspondence on the records of the poor-law commissioners, ou the necessity of the provisions of

act 2 and 3 Vict. c. 1, to amend the Irish poor-law of 1 and 2 Vict. c. 56, particularly respecting the 5th section.

The motion after a short discussion was agreed to.

Afterwards on the 3rd of July, the marquess of Westmeath moved for a select committee in the same terms as he had done previously on the 13th of April; but upon the recommendation of the duke of Wellington to withdraw his motion in consequence of the advanced period of the Session, he consented to do so. The noble duke in the course of his speech, said the intentions of parliament had not been carried into effect. The grossest abuse had certainly taken place at some of the elections of guardians--but then the poor-law commissioners had not done their duty in bringing the circumstances under their cognizance and recording them. In point of fact, therefore, their lordships could not take cognizance of them.

The motion of the noble marquess was then withdrawn.

GRANT TO MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.] On the 23rd of June, Mr. Plumptre brought forward a motion to the effect, that after the grant for the current year no further payment of public money be made to Maynooth college. His principal objection to this college of Maynooth was, that instead of its professors and members being the aiders and abettors of religion, good order, and submission to the laws of the land, they were ever found to be the leaders and promoters of disorder. Another objection was founded on the works that were introduced there, which were destructive of the best principles of morality. The grant in effect went to support a religion

that was at once idolatrous and unsocial.

Lord Morpeth in opposing the motion said, that the house had no more right to inquire into the nature of the books used at Maynooth than any Roman catholic member would have to come forward and object to the books which were used or to the education that was pursued at either of the universities of Oxford or Cambridge. No complaint had been made to the government of any neglect or abuse, or departure from the original intention of the institution. The only complaint that had reached the government was of the utter inadequacy of the funds allotted to the college. The hon. member (Mr. Plumptre) had brought forward the cases of the contests for poor-law guardians, and although he complained of the logic and casuistry of the doctrines at Maynooth, the hon. member himself exhibited rather loose logic and some casuistry, when he referred the proceedings at the election of poor-law guardians to the education at Maynooth, and the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

Sir Robert Inglis supported the motion and said, he conceived that the nation was not bound to hold itself to any christian obligations except such as called for the support of its church, and that church was at variance with the college of Maynooth.

Mr. Sheil made an eloquent speech against the motion, and in allusion to Mr. Plumptre said, "I will not follow him through the snares of his theology-I leave the member for Kent to rush in where angels fear to tread." While he preaches, I practise the precepts of christianity, and listen to his vi

tuperation with the forbearance and the patience which ought to be produced by the spirit of christian commiseration. He is accounted by his associates as sincere. I own, that in listening to him, I am inclined to exclaim with Bassanio

"Thou almost tempt'st me to forswear my faith,

And hold opinion with Pythagoras,"

Sir Robert Peel briefly opposed the motion and said, that he did not think that sufficient grounds had been made out for violating an implied understanding upon which parliament had acted for thirty years. The college of Maynooth had been established by a parliament exclusively protestant, as an instrument to induce a disposition favourable to the established church, and to discourage the Jacobin doctrines which a foreign education was calculated to engender in those who were educated for the Roman catholic priesthood of Ireland. He did not mean to say that there had been any contract entered into, nor that there existed such a contract as ought to prevent the interference of the legislature, if the grant should be perverted to evil purposes. A misappropriation of the grant would form a very proper subject of enquiry, and if it were proved the question might be submitted to the house, whether on that ground the vote ought not to be discontinued. But nothing but full proof of abuse would render it wise in the house of commons to enter into a pledge as to the future with respect to this grant.

The house afterwards divided, when the motion was negatived by a majority of 79: Ayes 42; Noes

121.

« TrướcTiếp tục »