ADDRESS—REPORT. (Hansard, 27 January 1841)

§ Sir R. H. Inglis

was anxious to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a remarkable omission in her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, as also in the speeches of the Ministers of the Crown who spoke in the course of the debate last night. It had been complained of last night, that no mention had been made of France in the Speech from the Throne; but the omission to which he was now about to allude was of a matter nearer home, and of much deeper interest to this country. He believed, that every 118 Member present would anticipate that he wished to refer distinctly to the repeal question in Ireland. He wished that her Majesty's Ministers had advised her Majesty to express an opinion on that subject. But even if any consideration could have induced them to have passed it over in the Speech from the Throne, no such consideration could have justified them, as he thought, in maintaining that studied silence on the matter which they had maintained during the night. It was true, that it could not be expected that the Speech from the Throne could comprehend every subject of general interest on which Parliament might have to decide in the course of the Session. But he would ask any Minister of the Crown, or any Member of the House, to state any one subject of greater importance to the tranquillity and safety of the empire, than that agitation with regard to the Union which now prevailed among the whole community in Ireland. Was the subject looked upon as too inconsiderable, or as having no direct bearing on the tranquillity of the empire? The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, whom he did not then see in his place, would hardly agree with Ministers in saying that the subject on which he had almost staked his political existence was one of minor importance. Either the Ministry would credit the hon. and learned Member or they would not. If they were inclined to believe that hon. and learned Member and a near connection of his who had been engaged in the work of agitation, 50,000 men had assembled on one occassion, 100,000 on another, 200,000 in Cork, and 300,000 in Kilkenny, taking part in the proceedings. He would ask the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether, if those statements were correct, it were fit that the subject should have been passed over unnoticed by her Majesty's Ministers in the Speech they recommended her Majesty to address to the House? Or was it considered, on the other hand, that the question did not involve the peace and tranquillity of the empire? Why, her Majesty's representative in Ireland seemed to think that the mere agitation of the questtion involved the tranquillity of the second city of that country, and he had accordingly despatched troops thither, in order to enable the civil authorities to maintain the public peace when the matter came under discussion. There was also another question which he wished to put to 119 her Majesty's Ministers. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had distinctly stated, that the repeal question was now a vital one, and that every man must either be a Conservative or Repealer. He would ask the noble Lord whether he would accept that alternative—he would ask him whether he were content with it? And then he would ask the noble Lord was he a Conservative or was he a Repealer? The time was come, said the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, when every man must make his election. Had the noble Lord made his choice—was he a Conservative or a Repealer? Or, if the noble Lord did not accept that alternative, and did not confide in the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, would he express that want of confidence before the House? Were Ministers prepared to take their stand upon this question? There could be no mortal doubt they were. He was confident they would not hold the situations which they now held, unless they were determined to stand or fall by the question of the union. Then why not say so? They should either have stated so in the Queen's Speech or in their personal addresses to the House in the course of the debate. A few words from them, and especially from the leader of that House, last, night, would have been very satisfactory to the people, and he believed to every individual in that House, except, perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He would not advert to those points in the Speech on which sufficient discussion took place last night, farther than to say that he entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), with respect to the omission of the name of France—an omission which, he thought, might have been supplied, without any loss to our national dignity, and with great advantage to the feeling and peace of the country.

§ Lord John Russell

said, that he certainly had not thought it necessary to make any statement to the House respecting the agitated question of the repeal of the union. He conceived, that his opinions upon this subject were sufficiently well known; and his noble Friend, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had recently expressed himself on the subject in a manner which might be taken to convey the declared opinion of her Majesty's Government. With respect to the policy of advising her Majesty to make a declara- 120 tion on the subject, he conceived that the propriety of doing so depended upon whether or not such a declaration would be advantageous and expedient; and certainly in time of formidable agitation on the subject, it might be expedient to advise the Crown to make such a declaration, but at other times he thought that such a declaration would rather add importance to the cry at the moment, and lead to such agitation being too frequently repeated, which he thought it was highly expedient to avoid. Upon these considerations, therefore, he had not thought it right to recommend her Majesty to make any allusion to this subject in her Speech from the Throne on the present occasion. His hon. Friend had asked him a rather singular question upon the authority of a position stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—namely, that all men were either Conservatives or Repealers, a statement which the hon. Baronet appeared to consider to be conclusive. It might be so to the hon. Baronet, who might put implicit faith in any dictum of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin if he pleased: but all he could say was, that he was not prepared to follow his example, and therefore he held himself free on the present occasion from declaring himself either a Conservative or a Repealer. But he would now put a question to his hon. Friend, in return, respecting the movement of certain troops to Belfast, which were so moved in consequence of a threat or announcement which had been held out by certain persons, that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin made his proposed journey to Belfast there would be a violent resistance to his progress, and that a riot and breach of the peace would in all probability be the result. Now, he begged to ask the hon. Baronet if he could inform him whether these threats were made by Conservatives or Repealers? If by Repealers, he should not have thought they would have made so violent an opposition to the hon. Member for Dublin; but if by Conservatives, it seemed to him to be a very odd exhibition of Conservative principles—a very odd way of preserving; the peace. Perhaps his hon. Friend would favour him with a definition of his views on this subject.