CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.
Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever. The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on, however, were for the most part identical with those which had for a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact: namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.
Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations. The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only. By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency. The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making trial of their strength on a division.
The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make provisions for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned. On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand, by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—“Can he pretend to carry on the government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man’s history, and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?” On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment. Mr. Shiel followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in 1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to Manchester? Mr. O’Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and forty-two.
Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O’Connell; and opposed by Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.
The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the 13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them, he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law. Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this, that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore, no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke’s command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end. On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.
Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.