Carlisle Patriot 18 May 1844 Parliament - House of Commons (2)

Parliament - House of Commons (2)

Carlisle Patriot - 18 May 1844

I M P E R I A L P A R L I A M E N T . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HOUSE OF COMMONS. - THURSDAY, MAY 9. [continued] THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND. Mr. HUME moved that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to consider whether it would not be for the advantage of Ireland and to the interest of the United Kingdom, to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The hon. gentleman repeated many of the arguments which he has, on former occasions, used in support of the abrogation of the office. Captain BERNAL seconded the motion, contending that the cry for the repeal of the Union was, in great measure, to be attributed to the existence of the lord lieutenancy, which was always regarded as a partisan rallying point. Lord ELIOT said that there was a tacit understanding at the time of the Union, that the seat of government should remain in Dublin, and intimated that there would be great difficulty in transferring all the duties of the Irish government to a fourth secretary of state in England. He believed the people of Ireland would regard the abolition of the office with the greatest dissatisfaction. Lord J. RUSSELL said the propriety of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant had been considered by the late government, and it was decided that it was not advisable to do so. He was, however, of opinion that the plan of governing Ireland by a separate establishment was not the most eligible, and there was not, he thought, much difficulty in assimilating the government of Ireland to that of Scotland. It was, however, a matter for the consideration of the executive, and he would not, therefore, support the motion. Mr. SHAW hoped, however anomalous the office of Lord Lieutenant might be, that Mr. HUME would not commit members by pressing his motion to a division. After some remarks from Mr. BELLEW, Sir Robert PEEL expressed a hope that the motion would not be supported by any hon. member unless he were prepared for an immediate abolition of the office, for its authority would be paralysed if such a vote was carried. Though he was not prepared to say that the office should be permanently maintained, yet he saw great difficulty in transfering its duties to a second Home Secretary in England, to transact the affairs of Ireland. The two Home Secretaries would be likely to come into frequent collision. Besides all the inconvenience attending the abolition of the office, it would almost give a claim for compensation to the inhabitants of Dublin. After some observations from Mr. T. BROWNE, Mr. HUME withdrew his motion. Mr. BUTLER moved for a copy of an opinion given to the corporation of Limerick by Lord Chief-Justice PENNEFATHER when at the bar, in which he was alledged to have advised, about twenty-five years ago, the suppression of a charter of James II. Lord ELIOT opposed the motion on the ground that the opinion in question was a private opinion given by Counsel to his clients. After some conversation, the motion was negatived without a division. Lord ELIOT obtained leave to bring in the following bills: - Bill to continue, until the 31st July, 1845, and to the end of the then session of parliament, expiring Turnpike Acts (Ireland); bill to continue, for five years, Unlawful Oaths Act (Ireland), 3 and 3 Vic. c. 74; bill to continue, for five years, Assaults Act (Ireland), 2 and 3 Vic. c. 77. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the Savings Bank Bill was read a second time. The house adjourned at half-past nine.

 

< Prev		Next >