NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE defeat of the Irish Repealers was as signal and decisive as their leader had himself anticipated and foretold. All the English and Scotch Members present, and even a majority of the Irish Represen- tatives, voted an address to the King, declaratory of their firm resolve to preserve inviolate the Legislative Union of the two countries. The House divided on Tuesday, after a six nights' debate ; and only 38 Members were found to vote with Mr. O'CoNNELL, against 523.
t,;
Mr. HUME proposed an amendment, which he afterwards withdrew, intended to pledge the House to abate the nuisance of a Protestant Church Establishment for a Popish people, and to remove other causes of just complaint. This amendment also stated the undeniable fact, that the beneficial results expected to arise from the Union had not been realized, in consequence of the error of Parliament in delaying or refusing the redress of substantial grievances. Lord ALTIIORP, while he opposed this amendment, acknowledged in distinct terms, that the conduct of the United Legislature in regard to Ireland bad sometimes been faulty; and he denied that the language of the address conveyed, or was intended to convey, a contrary impression. This declaration from the Ministerial leader was certainly called for, as the address is not sufficiently explicit on the point.
It would be tiresome and unprofitable to recur at length to the argu- ments adduced on either side in this debate. But one or two observa- tions seem to be called for. We trust that the statements of Irish prosperity, so confidently made by Mr. SPRING RICE, will not lull Members of Parliament into the pleasant delusion, that the system under which Ireland has been governed since the Union has not been so bad after all. We have seen too much of official returns, and know too well how they are got up, to place full reliance on the statements they contain. They are almost always prepared for the purpose of support- ing the one-sided views of the person who intends to quote them; not to give a true account of facts, still less to convey a correct impression of the real state of the country. Making full allowance, however, for the exaggeration, and even misrepresentation, which probably might be found to lurk in Mr. SPRING RICE'S tables, we think it unquestionable, that Ireland has been improving of late years, in spite of misgovern- ment. But it is equally plain, that unless the principles contained in Mr. HUME'S amendment are acted upon, her future progress will be slow, and the discontent of her population will be fearfully augmented. Every person, on reading the debate, must be struck with the utter failure of the Repealers in their attempt to prove that the existing dis- tress in Ireland is owing to the Union, or that a repeal of the Union would have any material influence in removing that distress. On the other hand, Mr. SPRING RICE and his supporters rather assumed than proved that the onward progress of Ireland was owing to the Union. These were the two weak points in the arguments on both sides. But then, the Government and the Anti-Repealers had this material ad- vantage—they could prove that, owing to some cause, whatever that might be, Ireland was, apparently, more prosperous now than in 1797 ; and it was easy and natural for them to fix upon the Union as the real parent of that improvement of which perhaps it was only the forerunner. The patience and temper of the House of Commons during this most wearisome debate were, generally speaking, admirable. The subject was also handled by Earl GREY, when the address was sent up to the Peers for their concurrence, with a dignified yet an earnest pro- priety. The Chancellor, unfortunately, did something to mar the good effect which might have been produced in Ireland by the tone of for- bearance which prevailed throughout the discussion, by an uncalled-for attack on O'CONNELL. He degraded a question of great national im- portance into a low personal squabble.
The Lords concurred unanimously in the address. It was presented by deputations from both Houses on Thursday to the King; whose answer was, of course, a mere echo of the sentiments it contained. Thus the Repeal question is disposed of for the present.
Sir ANDREW AGNEW has failed in his unjustifiable attempt to impose pharisaical and unchristian fetters on the innocent recreations of the middle and huinbler classes of his fellow subjects. His Sabbath Ob- servance Bill was thrown out on Wednesday (after a good deal of manceuvering by some members of the minority to prevent the meeting of a sufficient number to form a House), by a vote of 161 to 125. Many voted for the second reading, however, who had no intention of support- ing the clauses in Committee; which, we have no doubt, are particu-
rly prized by the author of the bill. In this debate, Mr. O'C,oNaritt.r.
distinguished himself by an impressive speech, delivered in his very best manner, and repeatedly cheered by the House. Mr. EDWARD BULWER took a philosophical and enlarged view of the subject ; and Mr. POTTER gave, from his own experience; some plain statements of the hardships to which they are exposed who toil in close warehouses every day in the week except Sunday, which must have told on the feelings of his audience more powerfully than any artifice of oratory. The itch for legislating on this subject is not yet appeased. Mr. BAINES and Mr. FLEETWOOD have both given notice of measures to effect the ostensible purposes of Sir ANDREW'S rejected bill. It is
safe to prophesy that they will do much mischief and little good. As Mr. O'CoNNELL remarked, they cannot inoculate the nation with legis-
lative holiness—with Act of Parliament piety. Mr. BAINES has made
an unfortunate debut as a legislator. It will require more experience than we believe him to be possessed of to steer clear of the difficulties by which he will be met in an attempt to frame an unobjectionable Sabbath-bill. All breaches of the peace, drunkenness, and open im- morality, are punishable by existing laws. Beyond this it is not competent for lawmakers to go : the rest must be left to individual conscience.
The propriety of giving the principal Ministers of the Crown official seats in Parliament, was discussed on Thursday. Sir ROBERT HERON
moved for leave to bring in a bill which should do away with the neces-
sity of a Member's vacating his seat when appointed to an office under the Crown. Mr. EDWARD BULWER proposed that the leading mem- bers of the Government should ex officio be entitled to speak and ex- plain their measures to the House, though not to vote unless elected by some constituencies. Both propositions were received with disfavour by the House, and withdrawn by their authors.
This question is not generally understood. Many suppose, that to give Ministers seats in Parliament in virtue of their offices, would tend
to confer an undue power upon the Executive. Dr. LUSIIINGTON said, that Mr. BULWER'S speech was that of a high Tory in the worst of Tory times. The learned Doctor showed his ignorance by the obser- vation. The effect of such a measure as Mr. BULWER'S would be, to deprive the aristocracy of a part of their present monopoly of office, and to introduce men of business into the service of the State. At present,
however capable a man may be of serving his country in any depart- ment, he is precluded from so doing, unless possessed of influence, of a peculiar kind, to obtain a seat in Parliament. Now, it is notorious, that many of the ablest men in the country have no opportunity of get- ting into Parliament, for want of wealth, or high and powerful con- nexion, or by reason of their inaptitude to canvass and conciliate large constituencies. From some of the objections, it might be supposed
that Mr. BULWER'S scheme went to deprive the House of Commons of its power to reject Ministerial propositions, and to enable the King to retain an odious Minister in spite of the Representatives of
the People ; whereas the authority of both King and Parliament would remain just what they are at present, while the convenience of both would be promoted. It is true, that the working of the Con- stitution would be more nearly assimilated to its theory, by removing an improper fetter upon the exercise of what is allowed to be a part of the King's prerogative—the right of selecting his own servants. But the substantial control of Parliament would not even in the slightest degree be lessened.
The Peers have begun to do their work on the bills for reforining the constituencies of Liverpool and Warwick. The whole mass of evi-
dence is to be gone through aaain, in order to satisfy the delicate con- sciences of their Lordships. °This will be productive of vast additional expense and trouble to the advocates of the bills. We trust, however, that they will not be disheartened, but will deprive the Peers of even the least pretence to reject the measures of purification. Last night, the subject of Irish grievances again occupied nearly the whole time of the House of Commons. Mr. LITTLETON moved the
second reading of the Tithe Bill ; which was vehemently opposed by those disinterested persons, the Irish landlords. As we have before remarked, the principal value of this measure consists in the means it
affords of preserving the tithe fund for future appropriation. At pre- sent, the Church has the whole benefit of it; but it is reasonable to ex- pect that a considerable portion will, in a short time, be applied to pur- poses of general utility. It must be admitted, that the operation of the bill will be hard upon some parties ; especially those who, like Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, will be compelled to pay a considerable sum in lien of tithes on land which they purchased or inherited virtually tithe-free. This is unjust.
In consequence of the time the further discussion on this bill is likely to consume, Lord ALTHORP has been forced to defer the second read- ing of his Poor-Laws Amendment Bill from Monday to Friday next. In the mean time, selfishness and prejudice are brawling against the measure through all their organs.
Ministers have been much annoyed by the production of a letter, written in October 1832, by the Marquis or ANGLESEA to Earl GREY,
on the subject of Irish grievances. It would seem that some person,
who was in the secret of the letter, has betrayed confidence. No one is especially pointed at ; but Earl GREY hinted last night, when ques- tioned on the subject, that the traitor lurks in Dublin Castle. It is of little consequence to the .public how the contents of the letter became known ; but it is quite right they should be aware of the fact, that, eighteen months ago, the Head of the Irish Government insisted upon the necessity of much more comprehensive and effectual measures of reform, than the Whig Cabinet would sanction, or attempt to execute.
ff•r:ltpt,
