Commons Sitting of 5 March 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. COBBETT, a List of the Names of all the Justices of the Peace in England, Wales, and Scotland.—On the Motion of Mr. C. Ross, various Accounts of the Receipt and Expenditure of his Majesty's Navy.
Election Committee. That on Petersfield reported that JOHN SHAW LEFEVRE, Esq. was not duly elected, and that HYLTON JOLIFFE, Esq. was duly elected.—Return amended accordingly.

PETITIONS.
Lord Ashley rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Labour of Children in Factories, of which he had given notice.
Lord Althorpsaid, that considering the
200
state of the business of the House, he wished to suggest, that all other business should be postponed, that they might immediately proceed to the Adjourned Debate.
Lord Ashleyanswered that he had no wish whatever to appear discourteous to the Government, but he trusted, that the House would consider the situation in which he was placed.
The Speaker having announced the suggestion of Lord Althorp,
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he had several petitions to present against the coercive Bill for Ireland, and according to the present arrangements, that Bill would be passed before he could present these petitions.
Mr. O'Connellsuggested, that on meeting on the next day to receive petitions, none should be presented but those which related to the Coercive Bill.
Lord Althorpwould make no objection to the suggestion on the understanding which had taken place last Session, that petitions should be presented, but no speeches made upon them.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to call the attention of the House to the practice of Gentlemen putting down their names on the list for their turn to present petitions. In the list there were duplicate names, and in some instances triple ones; if these Gentlemen, whenever their turns came, according to the way the present list was made out, presented petitions, they would exclude other Members from that privilege, which had been the effect since the new arrangements had been made. The hon. Member submitted, that the better and more regular rule would be, that whenever a Gentleman presented a number of petitions, he should immediately strike his name out, and insert it again at the bottom of the list. By this means hon. Gentlemen would have ample opportunity of presenting those petitions intrusted to them.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that during the days in which the new arrangement had been carried into effect, but sixty-four petitions had been disposed of. There were now above 300 names on the Speaker's list, and proceeding as they had done, all the petitions now down on that list could not be presented in six weeks.
Colonel Daviesremarked, that such must be the consequence, if Members would not exercise a proper degree of discre-

201
tionary self-control, and refrain from speaking on the subject of every petition, when that subject must, in one shape or another, come before the House as a legitimate question for debate. If Gentlemen, on presenting petitions, would make long speeches, and by these speeches get up a debate, what could be expected, and what regulation could be adopted to counteract the evil? There had not been a petition presented upon which there had not been a long debate. He would, as an instance, call the attention of the House to what took place only on Friday last. The hon. member for Hull caused a long debate upon a petition for the better observance of the Sabbath, and another upon the Emancipation of the Jews, which caused a long speech from the hon. member for Oldham. Mr. Cobbett was always speaking about the rights of the people; but if the time of the House were to be taken up by such unnecessary proceedings, there would be no other business done at all. The hon. Member hoped, that the hon. Member would, for the future refrain from making long speeches on the presentation of petitions, and preserve them till an opportunity occurred when the question they referred to should come before the House. There were now 320 names on the Speaker's List. They increased at the rate of forty, and diminished at that of seven per day; and if they were to go on thus, he saw no end to their labours, nor any chance of all the petitions being presented.
Mr. Rigby Wasonwas of opinion, that the petitions of the people, expressive of their sentiments, could never be heard or known in that House, unless Members would resolve not uselessly to express their own, but, to confine their observations to some statement of fact, impugning the petition, or defending it if impugned by others.
Mr. Cobbettdenied, that he had made speeches on Friday last. He had certainly made observations that were naturally suggested by the petitions then presented. He could suggest a remedy for the evil now complained of, and one that would satisfy the people. It was this, that all the petitions should be read at length, and Members make no speeches at all; and that all which they thought fit to receive should be printed. The people wanted to hear their own sentiments—not those of the Members. This would
202
do away with the Select Committee, of which the people were properly jealous. If his suggestions were not adopted, he must continue to make speeches.
Mr. Littletonthought some resolution should be passed, limiting the right of every hon. Member in speaking on the presentation of a petition to an exposition of the facts it stated.
Mr. Robert Palmerthought it would not be possible strictly to adhere to that plan.
Mr. Littletonpresented the Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions.
The Speakerobserved, that as the House would meet early to-morrow, and he should be punctual, and as a great body of the Members had heard what had just passed, it would be in their power to show what might be done as to facilitating the business of the House in presenting petitions. That would be much better than the further discussion of the subject now.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND)—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Lefroymoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. He then addressed the House in support of the measure. He would compress his observations into the narrowest compass possible, but he must, in the first instance, advert to the attack which, on the preceding night, had been made upon the character of a learned Judge, who stood as high in the esteem of all men of worth and consideration in Ireland as it was possible for any man on the Bench. It had been said by the hon. member for Drogheda, from whom that attack proceeded, that the eminent person in question had sacrificed a principle for the sake of an antithesis; and it was asserted, that he had done that at a time when he was engaged in the solemn duty of charging a Grand Jury. Were he (Mr. Lefroy) to sit silent, and listen to such a charge, he should be unworthy of the acquaintance of that learned Judge, which he had had the happiness of enjoying now for nearly thirty years, the greater part of which he was on the Bench. He should also be unworthy of the place which be held in his profession, if he omitted to assure the House that the charge was altogether groundless. A more constitutional, humane, and upright Judge,

203
there did not exist. Neither did there live a man possessing a nicer or more delicate sense of honour, and few there were more distinguished than he was for all the attainments which impart a grace to social intercourse, or enhance the services of a high public functionary? How far the hon. Member, who had made the attack might set a value on such qualities it was not for him to conjecture, but when the House was informed that the learned Judge referred to was the first to pronounce an opinion upon the question, how far passive resistance was an offence, they might find some clue to the spirit in which the charge was made. He should now more particularly apply himself to the Order of the Day, and he should set out with saying, that he could not entertain such a question without the greatest reluctance, and under nothing less than a sense of the most urgent necessity. It was impossible, indeed, that any hon. Member should not deplore the necessity for passing such a measure, and tremble for the precedent about to be established; but so persuaded was he of the absolute necessity for the present measure, that he could not do such violence to his conscience as to refuse his support to it, though, on all other subjects, he had been a determined opponent of Government. It was important, that the Bill should be placed on distinct grounds of absolute necessity. It was important, that the evidence on which it rested should be beyond the possibility of suspicion. The grounds upon which it was justified were, the nature and extent of crime in Ireland, and the inefficiency of the ordinary laws to repress that crime. With respect to the extent of crime, little doubt could be entertained. It was clearly made out, that there existed at present, in Ireland, an extent of crime unparalleled in the history of even that country. With respect to the nature of the crime, an important distinction was observable between the present crimes, and those which existed at former periods. The existing confederacy had for its object not merely to commit offences, but to baffle and defeat the law for the punishment of crime. In the nature of that conspiracy, he found a proof of the necessity of the present measure; for the Common Law was calculated only to repress crimes of an open and known character, and could not reach such an evil as this. An argument against this measure was
204
attempted to be founded upon the fact, that the Judges, at some of the Assizes in Ireland, had declared that, in the particular districts to which their attention had been directed, in the execution of their duties, crime had decreased; but this Bill did not proceed on the supposition, that the whole of Ireland was infected by crime. The preamble said, that in certain parts of Ireland a confederacy existed against life, property, and law, and though it might be confined to particular districts—it had a direct tendency to demoralize the whole population. It might be useful to call the attention of the House to the number of commissions which bad been issued in Ireland during the last year; and to compare the state of crime, at present, with what it was when the first of those Commissions was issued. The House would then be furnished with a criterion for judging whether the ordinary laws were sufficient for the repression of crime. The first Special Commission was opened at the Spring Assizes in 1832. Mr. Baron Smith presided; and his address to the Grand Jury had been described to the House by the right hon. member for Tamworth. The result of that Commission was, that there were five persons convicted, capitally, whose punishment was commuted to transportation; and twenty-six others were sentenced to transportation. Did that exercise of the power of the law restore peace and tranquillity to the country? In the course of two months afterwards, the Government issued another Special Commission, at which Chief Justice Bushe presided; and in his address to the Grand Jury, he stated, that a systematical course of insurrectionary outrage prevailed; and that, within the short period of two months since the former Com-mission had ceased to exercise its powers, no less than 300 offences of every description, from murder downwards, had been committed within the district assigned to it. The learned Judge added, that the plunder of arms was indefatigably carried on; that crops were laid waste, pasture lands ploughed up, witnesses intimidated; Jurors ordered, on pain of death, not to discharge their duty; illegal oaths administered on compulsion; and that vengeance was denounced against all who dared to resist the mandates of the conspirators. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had been accused of giving an exaggerated picture of the condition of that

205
country; but he had said nothing equal to the Representation made by the learned Chief Justice on that occasion. Did this second Commission have the effect of restoring peace and tranquillity? No; the country continued to progress in evil; and a third Special Commission was issued at the Summer Assizes in July, being the third Special Commission within the short space of five months! At these Assizes a remarkable case occurred. Some persons were put upon their trial for the murder of fourteen policemen, who were killed, in open day, in the presence of several thousand people. After two or three ineffectual attempts to procure convictions, the Government was obliged to consent to the discharge of all the prisoners; and those dreadful murders were unatoned. Did this conduct, on the part of the Jury and the Crown, produce a beneficial effect? Within one week, the murder of Mr. Marum took place in open day, in the presence of his workmen. From that period, until December 1832, the Returns proved, that the amount of crime was three-fold what it was in March preceding. How was it possible, then, to contend, that the ordinary operation of the law was sufficient to repress crime in Ireland. What weight was there in the argument of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, that because, on a former occasion, three out of four Special Commissions succeeded in effecting the objects for which they were issued, they alone should be resorted to as a remedy on the present occasion? He contended, that there was something in the nature of the present conspiracy, which rendered the state of Ireland different from what it had ever been on any former occasion. On former occasions. Special Commissions had succeeded; they had now failed. Under these circumstances, something that went beyond the powers necessary to the ordinary administration of justice was required. When the Constitution was assailed by extraordinary conspiracies, he would resort to extraordinary measures, in order to preserve it. He had traced the progress of crime to December last. Had matters mended since? No; on the contrary, they had heard from the right hon. Secretary, and the noble Lord, the member for Nottingham (Lord Duncannon), facts stated, which proved an enormous increase of crime down to the present moment. It
206
was true, that the hon. member for Drogheda, informed the House, that, at some of the present Assizes, the Judges had congratulated the Grand Juries on the small amount of crime in the calendar; but that was at places removed from the scene of conspiracy. At the nearest point to this scene, it was stated, on the authority of the learned Judge, whose character he had this evening vindicated, that the tranquillity was temporary and fallacious. At Down, Mr. Baron Smith said, Its mock tranquillity seemed produced by the prostration of the law; the non-resistance of the well-disposed, and triumphant ascendant of vulgar and lawless power, which was only not in savage action, because it appeared already to have won the day. Thus, by a sort of practical paradox, the lightness of its calendar showed the state of your county to be alarming. I am aware, that it has, still more recently, and very suddenly, assumed the appearance of tranquillity of a somewhat different nature; but can a change so instantaneouse be traced to causes justifying rational exultation? Can the latter calm be less treacherous or delusive than the first? May it not have in part arisen from a certain completeness of organization—a perfection of seditious discipline, which can render implicit and prompt obedience to epistolary edicts, aided by universal and influential subsidiary efforts to enforce them? May not the arrival of a stipendiary Magistrate, the addition to the police, nay, the speech and measures with which the Parliamentary Session has been opened, have contributed to produce a calm less triumphant, but more insidious, than the first? A spirit that lurks, and merely waits its opportunity for effectual mischief is not laid. A quiet, originating in terror and in craft, would seem to have succeeded one which had its more insolent and haughty source in unencountered strength and successful intimidation. But even the former domineering and despotic stillness, which has, with a suddenness so suspicious, given way to a different calm, was not uninterrupted. By occasional outrages it evinced, that savage ferocity was but suspended, and these outrages were characterised by a system, and uniformly pointed in a direction, which showed them to be results of consistent plans, and of a factious confederation.

207
If individuals of the humbler class were the chief objects of such aggression, yet I have learned, from something more authentic than mere rumour, that for this the gentry were in some degree indebted to their own precautions—that their dwellings were, in too many instances, transformed to redoubts, which their garrisons would scarcely venture to issue from unarmed. This is a state of things which cannot last. Either the law, or something stronger than the law, must put it down, or it will prostrate the fair fabric of our laws and Constitution. The learned Baron added: The stern code which is said to be impending I have seen described as the enslavement of our country. If permanently established, it would be truly so described; but, considered as a transient system, it may, on the contrary, if duly administered, be our liberation. It may rescue from insecurity the now precarious lives and properties of the loyal and well-conducted. It may liberate from manacles, insult and aggression, the fettered, the violated, and derided law. It may rescue a maniac multitude from the destructive frenzy into which it has been goaded. It may do so by an application of indispensable and salutary coercion.' No wonder that these opinions had excited, in certain quarters, a desire to bring the learned judge who expressed them into disrepute with the House and the country; but the House would not be insensible of the value of such testimony; to which may be added that of another learned Judge, of equally splendid talents and experience. Chief. Justice Bushe stated, at one of the Special Commissions, that although he deprecated the idea of resorting to measures which went beyond the Constitution, as long as it was possible to avoid it, yet the time might come when it would be necessary to have recourse to such measures for the protection of the innocent, and as the only means of quelling the rebellion. Thus, the opinion of two of the ablest Judges in Ireland, founded on the facts before them, was in favour of the measure recommended by the Government. Testimony more worthy to be relied upon could not be obtained, and the House ought to be satisfied with it. He might add that his conviction of the necessity of the Bill was strengthened by what he had observed in Ireland during the last three or four months. The last
208
murder of which he heard, before he left Ireland, arose out of a confederacy of the description to which he had before adverted; and was discovered in a most providential manner. A farm, which had been occupied by several tenants for many years, without any rent being paid, was at length taken by a tenant, contrary to an insurrectionary notice. This man was waylaid—pursued into his house—and murdered in the presence of his family. The gun by which he was killed burst on being discharged, and shattered the finger of one of the murderers. This man went to a public dispensary to have his hand dressed; and the nature of the wound having excited suspicion in the mind of the attendant-surgeon, he caused inquiry to be made, which led to the apprehension of the parties engaged in that murderous outrage. The extent of the evil must be admitted; the insufficiency of the ordinary law to check this evil was proved; yet hon. Gentlemen opposed the Bill, and stated that it was uncalled for. It had been said that this measure went far beyond the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee of last year on the state of Ireland. He admitted that to be the case; but Gentlemen should recollect that the remedy proposed by that Committee was of a permanent character. It was one thing to make a permanent inroad on the Constitution; and another merely to suspend, for a time, a portion of it. The Committee recommended a permanent change; and therefore trenched as little as possible on the Constitution. At the end of July, when the Committee made its Report, Special Commissions had just been sent to the disturbed districts, and great hopes were entertained that they would put a stop to these disturbances—these hopes had been disappointed. The measures proposed by the Committee rested upon different grounds and reasons from those on which Parliament were now called on to legislate. Since the time of making that Report, crime had increased in Ireland three or four fold. Six months had elapsed and the issue of the Commissions had shown that all the hopes then entertained were delusive. The expectation that these outrages would be stopped by the ordinary process of law, had been disappointed. The next objection to the Bill was, that the new tribunal was a military tribunal. But let him ask, who had led the opposi-

209
tion to this tribunal—and who, had supported that objection? Why, the hon. member for Dublin—who had put it out of the power of the Government to resort to any other tribunal. Had not the hon. and learned Member repeatedly told the House, that the Judges of the land had lost the public confidence? The hon. and learned Member particularly dwelt on that in the celebrated speech which he delivered at the beginning of the Session. He was constantly stating that the Magistrates were the oppressors of the people, and were not fit instruments for the administration of the law. Since, therefore, he attacked the Judges—since he was constantly and systematically disparaging the ordinary tribunals of justice, the hon. and learned Member, and those who acted with him, ought not to complain that the Government had resorted to a new, though objectionable tribunal. The objections of the hon. and learned Member were at once met by reminding the House of the allegations he had indulged in respecting all the ordinary tribunals. When he made these observations, he begged the House would not suppose, for one moment, that he concurred in the imputations thrown upon the Judges and magistrates of Ireland. It was unnecessary to say one word in defence of their high character—it was needless for him to go into a vindication of those learned persons, or to enter upon the defence of the magistracy of Ireland, as it must be obvious that the vague and general charges that had been stated were utterly without foundation. He was not sorry that the Judges and Magistrates were to be delivered from the invidious duty of carrying the provisions of this Act into effect, particularly as much unfounded calumny and many imputations had been thrown upon the magistrates with respect to the Insurrection Act. He would go the length of saying that a charge never had been brought home against the Magistrates for a misadministration of that law. He thought it was greatly to be regretted that a good understanding did not prevail between the Magistrates and the Irish Government, and he hoped that this unfortunate state of things would shortly be put an end to. It was impossible that the state of Ireland ever could bear any analogy to the state of this happy country, unless a good understanding prevailed between the magistrates and the Government. It had unfortunately happened—
210
and in saying this he did not wish to impute any blame to the Magistrates, or to cast any imputations on the Government: that, for the last two or three years, the magistrates had been exposed to the grossest abuse, and no steps had been taken to vindicate them. He feared even that the conduct of Government, in neglecting to adopt strong measures to put a stop to the outrages which had so long prevailed, had led to a feeling of distrust and dissatisfaction on the part of the Magistrates. He rejoiced that his Majesty's Ministers had, at last, thought it necessary to put the law in force for the protection of the lives and property of the King's peaceful subjects, and he trusted that this would be followed by such measures as would tend to ensure future tranquillity. He was sure when Government zealously set to work to do this, that the Magistrates of Ireland would give any assistance to restore that unhappy country to the state in which all who had its interest really at heart, must desire to see it. The next objection against this measure, to which he wished to advert was, that it was a perfectly useless Bill for the purpose of aiding the Administration of the law, as regarded that point upon which the great difficulty appeared now to exist in the dispensation of justice. It had been urged that this Bill would not supply witnesses; and it had been asked, how could proceedings be carried on before Courts-martial without witnesses any more than before the ordinary tribunals? It was perfectly true that witnesses were necessary in either case; but let him remind the House, that the failure of justice had more frequently arisen from witnesses being tampered with or intimidated, between the arrest of the prisoner and the time of his trial, than from the difficulty of finding witnesses. Any one who had had any experience of the administration of the law in Ireland, was aware that it was difficult to secure the same testimony from the witness at the trial, as he had given in his deposition before the Magistrate. It was by no means an uncommon practice in important cases to keep the witnesses in gaol, that they might neither be tampered with nor intimidated. But notwithstanding this precaution, repeated cases occurred of witnesses upon the trials, retracting every syllable of the information they had given when the prisoner was arrested. In such cases there could be

211
no direct intimidation or tampering; but the witnesses were operated upon, in consequence of their friends and relatives, without the walls of the prison, being exposed to menaces. Notwithstanding care might be taken to prevent a witness being made acquainted with the threats to which his friends had been so exposed, his fears would operate upon him; or he might receive some intimation of the fact; and he went back from his previous evidence. He had known many instances of undoubted offenders escaping punishment by such means. Of course, in cases where several weeks or months elapse between the arrest and the trial of an offender, opportunity was afforded of tampering with or intimidating witnesses. if, therefore, the offenders were brought to trial soon after their arrest, this defect in the administration of justice would be obviated. It must be obvious, that in this respect the Bill would afford an advantage over the ordinary form of proceeding, as only a short time would intervene between the committal and trial. Another objection urged against this Bill was, that it took away the right of petitioning. Those hon. Gentlemen who made that objection, must misunderstand, or be entirely ignorant of the provisions of the measure, to give it that character. It would not prevent the exercise of the right of petitioning, but it would prevent the assembling of large multitudes of people for the ostensible purpose of petitioning. It would not prevent individuals from drawing up petitions, which might be signed by any number of persons. It was absurd to call it a "gagging Bill;" as persons would still have opportunities of making their grievances known to the House, although they would be prevented from assembling in large numbers for that purpose. Another objection that had been urged was, that the Bill would afford facilities to enforce the payment of tithes. Several hon. Members, on both sides of the House said nay—among them, one Member connected with the Government—that they would not give their support to this Bill if they thought that it was in any measure calculated to assist the collection of tithes. He thought that the right hon. Secretary had put the measure on its proper footing as regarded the collection of tithes. He admitted, that the noble Lord, from the observations which he made on this point, excited great distrust
212
in the minds of several hon. Members, who otherwise would have been disposed to give their support to this Bill. When he heard the noble Lord state that it was to have no reference to the collection of tithes—that, in fact, it was not to be used to protect the clergy in the peaceable possession of their property—he hesitated whether or not he should support it. The right hon. Secretary, however, removed all objection when he observed that it was not intended that this measure should give the clergy an additional civil remedy to those already in existence for enforcing the payment of tithes; but that, if in the collection of tithes—or if, in the collection of rent, outrages were committed coming within the principle of the Bill, the persons so offending would undoubtedly be liable to punishment, under its provisions, in the same manner as if they had offended against the law upon other occasions. He was perfectly satisfied with this explanation, but anything short of that would have given rise to great discontent. He regretted that a doubt should remain upon the subject after the explicit statement of the right hon. Secretary. He had fairly answered some of the objections urged against this Bill; but before he sat down he would advert to the observation made respecting English ingratitude and Irish grievances. It was said, that it was the deepest possible ingratitude, on the part of the people of England, to support such a measure, considering the countenance and assistance which they received from those who called themselves the "Irish Members," in passing the Reform Bill. He would venture to say, that, however much the people of England were excited in favour of Reform, if they had been apprized of the price at which the Irish Members expected to be paid for their support of that measure, they would rather have abandoned the Reform Bill altogether than have paid it. If the people of England had known that a license for agitation and immunity for outrage were the compensations they were expected to pay, they would have dispensed with the assistance of the Irish Members, as they had too much regard to national liberty to be parties to any such bargain. But they had been told that Ireland had many grievances to complain of, which ought to be redressed before measures of coercion were resorted to. It had been observed, that Ireland had been misgoverned for

213
centuries. He admitted that Ireland had been misgoverned; but he did not agree in the view taken of the subject by those who made the charge. In fact, the charge of misgovernment made by those persons, was, after all, mere cant. The charge was not preferred for the purpose of casting an imputation on this Government or that. It was made against all English Governments indiscriminately, and was preferred with a view of bringing English rule and authority into contempt. It was remarkable that the men who cast the imputation were those who had always been in the habit of misleading the people of Ireland, and exciting them by agitation to crime and blood. There had been at different times, at least of late years, some political nostrum which became the fashion of the day for keeping Ireland quite. The Roman Catholic Relief Bill was long considered as the remedy. The House was told over and over again, if you do but pass that bill, Ireland will be in a state of perfect peace and tranquillity. Well, that measure was tried, and what became of the promises—the plighted faith of those who sought for it—the hopes of its early friends and its late converts? All flung to the winds, and the state of Ireland, so far from becoming more tranquil, had been progressing in evil ever since. An ingenious solution had been attempted. It was said the measure had been delayed too long; but let it be recollected that the English Roman Catholics obtained emancipation at the same time—the English dissenters also were relieved from their disabilities at no earlier period—and how came it to pass that they had not separated themselves from their fellow-subjects, and commenced mourning over by-gone grievances, or raking up the ashes of extinguished oppression? The truth was, that there was a party in Ireland whose object was not merely a redress of grievances, fancied or real, but whose object was the separation of the two countries; and while that spirit prevailed in Ireland, encouraged as it was by spiritual agitators, who had mixed with the political agitators, that country never could have rest. Part of the system adopted by these separatists, and which they advocated as a means to an end, was the destruction of the Church Establishment—that Establishment which was the great key-stone of the arch which connected the two countries. The present was not the first time
214
that similar means were recommended to procure a similar result. In proof of this, he (Mr. Lefroy) would refer the House to the memoirs of Theobald Wolfe Tone. He states that, "As to royalty and aristocracy, they were both odious in Ireland, to that degree that I apprehended much more a general massacre of the gentry and a distribution of the entire of their property, than the establishment of any form of government that would perpetuate their influence," Again he says, that "the influence of England was the radical vice of our government, and that Ireland would never be either free, prosperous, or happy, until she was independent, and that independence was unattained whilst the connexion with England existed." Again he says, "the universal question throughout the country is, where do we begin? Do we refuse hearth-money or tithes first?" Wolfe Tone and his confederates were defeated in that attempt. The attack on tithes lay over until after the Relief Bill, and was not revived until revived in conjunction with the Repeal question. We find, contemporaneously with that agitation, a work published by Dr. Doyle, in which he states that the people of Ireland never acquiesced in the payment of tithes, and that he hoped to see the whole nation joined in one confederacy for the extinction of tithes—and in which he expressed the hope that their hatred of tithes would be as lasting as their love of justice. When we find such recommendations acted upon, in conjunction with a cry for a Repeal of the Union, is it not too obvious as in the days of Tone, that the extinction of tithes is set forward as a means to an end, and is now again resumed as a means to the same end? He would, therefore, warn Gentlemen how they gave way to the cry for the abolition of tithes—their doing so would be sure to extinguish that which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland declared to be the bond of connexion between the two countries, namely, the Established Church. He could not but hear with regret, the hon. member for St. Albans, (Mr. Warde) promise last night, that if the hon. and learned member for Dublin would lay aside his phantom of the Repeal of the Union, that he would yield to him the Established Church, the extinction of tithes, or any thing else he might think beneficial for his country. He would say, with great respect for that hon. Member, that he had better get rid of his own phantom, for the

215
connexion of the countries could not outlive the extinction of the Established Church. That the tithes had not been the cause of the crimes which now disgrace Ireland must be apparent, from the fact that the disturbances commenced in parishes where the Tithe-composition Act was in force, and where the acreable charge did not exceed 1s. 1d, per acre. Mr. Costello, in his evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, distinctly proved, that the persons who were tried at Kilkenny were well able to pay their tithes, but refused to do so in pursuance of the confederacy entered into to prevent them. Having stated the grounds upon which he felt bound to support the measure, and having answered some of the objections urged against the Bill, he should conclude with this one observation, namely—that if his Majesty's Government had thought it necessary to introduce the measure, and had not introduced it, they would not have done their duty to their Sovereign or the State, but having made up their minds to the necessity of the measure, they would be wanting in duty to themselves and to the country if they allowed it to be frittered away.
Mr. Ruthvendsaid, that seeing the state of impatience in which the House was, he would not address them at any extraordinary length. He must complain, however, of the manner in which a mea-sure of such importance to Ireland was hurried through the House. He admitted the outrages committed by the Whitefeet, but thought that it was not by totally annihilating the Constitution, they should endeavour to repress those injuries. He complained of the manner in which the Irish Magistrates performed their duties, and attributed many of the evils of which the people had to complain to that cause. As an instance of their neglect of duty, he stated that, out of 9,000 persons committed for trial in one year in Ireland, only 5,000 had been convicted; and he would ask the House, if Magistrates could be said to do their duty who committed 4,000 innocent persons to prison. He must condemn the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, for the greater part of it had nothing to do with the question before the House. He contended that it was monstrous to think of afflicting Ireland with so tyrannical a measure as that before the House. What were the statements that had been made?
216
They were drawn from interested sources. But let the House refer to the convictions for the last seven years, and they would find that they had not materially increased. He admitted that there had been some dreadful cases quoted, but, again, the information was drawn from polluted sources. There was the case of Mr. Houston. It was true that that gentleman was murdered; but it was also true that the tale was told to the Government by those who had no right to make any such communication, and ought to be ashamed of having done so. But were there no cases to be quoted on the other side? Oh, yes, many. The hon. Member then stated a number of circumstances tending to show the oppression of the clergy. He called the attention of the House to the case of a widow, who had, he said, been barbarously used by a clergyman named Dwyer. There had been a distraint on the widow's property for tithes: and after a time there was a second, and then the poor woman, under advice, attempted to protect herself, and adopted legal proceedings against her persecutor. He would read to the House a conversation between this widow and the clergyman, and to it he begged the attention of the House. If hon. Members would not hear him, he would move the adjournment.—[Go on, go on]. Mr. Dwyer met the widow, and he said, [The hon. Member here used words which are unfit for publication, and which excited a general expression of disgust in the House.] Mr. Dwyer afterwards sent for the widow and the bailiff, and when she went to the place appointed, Colonel Dwyer, the brother of the clergyman, and a Magistrate, and a Mr. Lambert, an agent, were present. The bailiff was thrown into a room, and the widow was shamefully treated. Mr. Dwyer said to her [The words employed by the hon. Member were again such as cannot be repeated.]—
Colonel Percevalrose to order. He could not sit silent and hear a most respectable clergyman so spoken of he had had the honour of Mr. Dwyer's intimate acquaintance for twenty years, and he knew him to be a most respectable Gentleman. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman would bring forward charges against a clergyman couched in such gross language, in that informal manner. He (Colonel Perceval) thought, if the charges were founded in truth, it would have been more regular to inform the House before

217
he made them. At all events, he was sure that it could be no gratification to hear such gross language as that read by the hon. member. He did not know whether he was right in thus calling the hon. Member to order, but he conceived that it would be more agreeable to the House if he did not go further with it in that desultory manner.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he had no wish to be disorderly. He had ventured upon no tirade. He had merely stated facts, and he had a perfect right to do so without giving any notice to any party. Nor would he be led from his course. The reverend gentleman said to the poor widow, "You"—
The Speakerrose and said, that though the hon. Member was only stating facts, yet in stating facts, it was always necessary to use parliamentary language. No language could be orderly in a quotation which would be disorderly if spoken. The passage read by the hon. Member was certainly of that nature, and, therefore, he must request the hon. Member not to read any more of the offensive passages.
Mr. Ruthvenwould not say one word more upon the subject which could be considered out of order. He did not think, however, that it was disorderly to state that Mr. Dwyer, the clergyman, was fined 10 l. by the Assistant-Barrister for his conduct to the widow. He believed that Special Commissions would have all the good effects anticipated from this Bill. They had been found to answer formerly in Clare and Galway, which counties were reduced by them to a state of perfect tranquillity. And the Judges who had been on those Commissions were fully of opinion that they had the effect of tranquillizing the country. He was of opinion that this measure would drive Ireland to resist to the death. He was not one of those who wished for the Repeal of the Union without discussion. He wished to have it calmly argued, and to decide according to the issue of that argument. Ireland asked only for justice—for nothing beyond the advantages which were held out to her in the Union. Hitherto this justice had been withheld; he implored the House no longer to delay it; for as Baron Smith had said in his charge to the Jury—there was a point beyond which resistance would become a duty. There was a great outcry about the Unions in Ireland: the honourable House seemed to
218
forget that there were Unions in England, and the member for Birmingham could tell them what sort of Unions these were. His Majesty's Ministers, too, well knew what these Unions were. For it was these Unions alone which had kept them in office, and carried the Reform Bill. Yes; when the Ministers began to be aware of certain little tremulous flutterings in their hearts as to whether they should be able to remain in office, and as to what was to be done, then it was that they had been triumphantly carried through every difficulty by the people—by the Political Unions of England, ["No, no!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were now very loud in their vociferations of no, no!—they had changed their note lately; there was a motion for the suppression of these Political Unions, set down in the list for the 6th of May. But would this Motion ever be brought forward? No. There was another Motion set down for the same day, for the Abolition of Sinecures. How would those hon. Members vote on this question? He would not at present go through his objections to the different provisions of the Bill. With regard to the powers which were proposed to be given to the Courts-martial, he desired to say a few words. Great merit was assumed by the framers of the Bill for not arming those tribunals with the punishment of flogging; but had they prohibited them from other tortures of the same character? He remembered a case in which a Court-martial ordered a culprit to be punished with "bitting," or, in other words, making the unfortunate man wear a horse's bridle for so many hours. This case of tyranny occurred in the regiment of Sir Watkins Wynn
Sir Watkins Wynnstarted up, and amidst uproar and laughter, denied, as we understood, that his regiment had ever been in Ireland.
Mr. Ruthven: Yes, it was; I saw it; it was in the county of Down. I can bring the most incontestible evidence of the truth of what I say.
The Speakersuggested that as the hon. Baronet whose name had been mentioned had so unhesitatingly denied the circumstance, it would be more in order in Mr. Ruthven not to persevere.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that he had indisputable proof of the correctness of his statements.
The Speakersaid, that he was sure no Gentleman in the House but would see that the manner, the topic, and the perseverance of the hon. Member were all disorderly.
Mr. Ruthvenapologised. He had not conceived that the endeavour to substantiate statements was disorderly. What he had said with respect to personal observation referred to the presence of Sir W. Wynn's regiment in Ireland, not to the affair of the bridle. However, without mentioning names, he would say, that this dreadful punishment, worse than any other, could be proved. He did not say, that such a case had occurred in England; but he could fully prove it had occurred in Ireland—though he had forgotten, nothing could be too bad for the rebel Irish. He begged leave to cite an opinion expressed by Mr. Stanley in 1824, in which he himself (Mr. Ruthven) fully concurred, nor could conceive how an alteration of opinion had been brought about in that right hon. Secretary, and other Gentlemen on that side of the House. The opinion of the right hon. Gentleman at the period mentioned, was "that the worst affliction under which Ireland laboured, was the entire ignorance of those who legislated for her, of the real evils she was suffering under." It was, therefore, incumbent upon Ireland to let these evils be fully known to those legislators. But the real question before the House was not a mere question about Ireland, but a question of English liberty—of the British Constitution—of general reform; it was to see whether the present Reform Ministry were to tyrannize worse than any Tory Ministry had ever done. Including police and the military, in 145 barracks and twenty forts nearly 30,000 men were found necessary to keep the peace but very indifferently in Ireland. This force had been found inefficient for its object by the Government but notwithstanding the enormous expense of this great body of troops, and the constabulary force already in existence in Ireland, the English people were to be called upon to raise additional taxes to support a further importation of soldiery into that country. Certainly the Irish ought to be very grateful to the English for distributing their guineas so liberally amongst them; never were they more in request there. He would not detain the House much longer. He would only quote some passages from a speech of Lord Althorp's in 1824, to
220
show how that noble Lord had been spoilt by the company he had got into; for in his (Mr. Ruthven's) opinion never had any man set out with a more kind and benevolent feeling towards Ireland; and he had the highest respect for that noble Lord's character. The paragraphs stated the opinion of the noble Lord, that the mischief was, that while the evils of the Union were clear and undoubted, the advantages were entirely dependent upon the good sense and good feeling of the Administration.' He would call upon that noble Lord, if he had not changed this opinion, to show the excellence of the present Administration by the extent of the advantages it would bestow upon Ireland. The noble Lord on that occasion had also alluded to the enormous expense incurred by the machinery of the Insurrection Acts and the Commissions in Ireland, and had declared his opinion that there was such a contamination in arbitrary measures—that if they were enforced in one part of the State, they would have an equal influence over the other portion. Let the noble Lord bear this in mind, and not act in direct opposition to these his declared opinions.
Lord Achesonsaid, that as an Irishman he could not but deeply lament the necessity which existed for such a measure as that before the House; for he admitted that stern necessity alone could justify it. It was not, he assured the House, without serious consideration that he had made up his mind as to the vote he should give on this occasion. He had done all that he could to see if he could conscientiously oppose it, but the more he reflected on it the more convinced was he that it was necessary, not merely to restore tranquillity but for the security of person and property in Ireland. He regretted the necessity he was under of supporting it, and the more so as he was aware that an hon. friend of his, the hon. member for Armagh, had yesterday presented a petition from that town against it. The petition was signed by many of his (Lord Acheson's) warmest friends. This he lamented, for he was sure they had been misled on the subject by the want of accurate information as to its nature and object. But, be that as it might, the question was one of too great importance for him to allow himself to be influenced on it by any interested considerations. He was sorry he was not present when the petition was presented,

221
as he understood that, in answer to the remark of an hon. friend of his, that it had recently been necessary to increase the constabulary force in that part of the country, it was stated by the hon. member for Drogheda that that increase had been caused by apprehended disturbances, in consequence of the introduction of this Bill. He did not know where the hon. Member had his information, but he would advise him to tell his correspondent to give him a little more correct information in future. He could state that no disturbances had taken place, or were expected, in consequence of the introduction of this Bill,—that, on the contrary, it was anxiously looked for by the great mass of the people of property and intelligence in that part of the country. It had been said, that the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Lambeth was useless. He admitted that it was so for any good purpose, but there were objects for which, no doubt, in the opinions of some, it was considered useful. It might be considered useful to wait, in order to see what might be the effect of delusive influence exercised amongst the people of England with respect to the Bill. It might be also desirable, by some, to wait to see the effect which the approaching Assizes might produce; but he thought that the Bill should not depend upon that result, whatever it might be. In the late charge of Sir William Smith to the Grand Jury of the county of Louth that learned Judge had truly said, that the sort of mock tranquillity which they saw around them might be owing to the prostration of the law, and to the feeling that one party had triumphed over it. Temporary tranquillity would be to him by no means an assurance of permanent tranquillity. With the learned Judge he had just referred to he held the somewhat paradoxical opinion, as it might seem, that the lightness of the calendar would be a proof of the very dangerous state of the country. The sudden absence of crime he should be inclined to attribute to an awful perfection in the system of combined disorganization. He wished to say a few words, for the purpose of effacing an impression which appeared to exist; that the operations of this Bill would extend indiscriminately to the whole of Ire-land. This was most erroneous. Had this been the case—had the operation of the Bill tended to implicate the innocent in the punishment of the guilty—it should
222
never have had his support; but his firm opposition. On the contrary, it would tend to relieve the many who now laboured under that worst of slavery—the slavery of intimidation—from their bonds, and would restore them to the full enjoyment of the benefits of the Constitution; and this was his reason for supporting it. Some of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, indeed, had appeared to arrogate to themselves the representation of all Ireland. He could tell them that their opinions were by no means those of all Ireland. The present measure was, he admitted, arbitrary and tyrannical; but he wished to ask what tyrranny could equal that of prescribing the opinions and conduct of other men, of making loyal men disloyal, and of forcing them, for their own security, to violate those laws which, in their hearts, they were disposed to respect and obey? He supported the Bill because he was not disposed to give protection to the guilty, to encourage those who violated the laws, and acted cruelly and tyrannically towards other men, and because he was anxious to protect those who were loyal, peaceable, and obedient. He did not approve of all the details of the Bill, but he would not then state his objections. He would only say, that though he did not think so badly of Courts-martial as many people, yet, as there was a prejudice against them, he should wish the clause establishing those courts not to be adopted. He did not wish to render the measure unnecessarily severe. If any substitute for those courts could be found, he should be glad to support it; but if no such substitute were proposed, he should feel himself bound, however reluctantly, to give his support even to that part of the Bill. However the Bill itself would not remedy the grievances of Ireland; and he hoped that the Ministers would persevere in that course of remedying the grievances of that country upon which they had entered. Agitation, it should be remembered, was the effect, not the cause, of many of the evils of Ireland; and he wished to see the causes of agitation removed. The people laboured under too many grievances to be at rest; and Ireland, until the causes of agitation were removed, never would be tranquil.
Sir Charles Cooterose, out of a sense of duty to his country and constituents, to defend the Magistrates and the Gentry of Queen's County, from the attacks which

223
had been made on them. He could take upon him to say, that those Magistrates had done their duty. Thirty-seven of them, with the rest of the gentry, had come forward, and agreed to resolutions for an armed association for the protection of the peace; but their efforts were vain, because they could not persuade the farmers to join them. The gentry, therefore, were not to blame for the state of the Queen's County, He must admit, that some attempts had been made to intimidate Jurors, and he would tell the House of one case. A man who served on a Jury in 1829, had then employed some mowers to cut down his grass, but they refused to do it; others refused; he could not get it cut, and there it remained on the ground till October. His horse fell into a drain, and he could not get a labourer to assist him to get the animal out, which remained there and died. He had been a member of the Committee which sat last year to inquire into the state of Queen's County. He had attended every sitting of the Committee, and approved of its Report. He knew that the Special Commission had done good, and that subsequent to that, the condition of the county was improved, and therefore he approved of that part of the Report. But three weeks after his return to his own county, while he was on a visit to his brother, a gentleman of the name of Anderson was dogged and fired at as he was getting over a style. He was shot through the lungs. He was then attacked with swords, and cut and hacked, and kicked, and much disfigured. He was almost cut to pieces, and the only question he asked, when he expected to (lie, the only thing he wished to know was, how he had given any offence. Three days afterwards, another man was shot. Nobody could go abroad without arms, and those gentlemen who kept up large establishments took their servants and their arms with them, even to Church, to protect them. This was the state of the county soon after the Parliament was prorogued. The hon. and learned member for Dublin said, some few nights ago, that Queen's County was now tranquil. He wished it was, but he had letters in his pocket which contradicted that assertion. One was from a Magistrate who resided in a well-peopled part of the county, where the inhabitants had more employment than in any other part of it, and less excuse, therefore, for committing outrages and
224
crimes. He wrote: Crime has increased much since your departure from the county, particularly in this neighbourhood. On Tuesday last, four armed men came to a quarry in this demesne, where I had six men at work; they placed them on their knees, and with pistols to their breasts, swore them not to work at the slate-houses, which they said they understood I was building for Protestant tenants. They then proceeded to the houses of several of my labourers and tenants, and beat some of them most severely, giving them similar orders not to work. This occurred between the hours of four and five o'clock; but such is the state of intimidation, no person would venture to inform me what was going forward, and the men in the quarry, although within sight of the house, would not venture to disobey the order they got to remain in it for an hour after the departure of the party. Since these outrages, the stone-cutters I had employed, have received threatening letters, ordering them to work for me no longer, and I cannot now get a mason who will venture into my employment, so must send to Dublin, or some distance, to procure them, and at this moment I am obliged to keep six armed men to protect by day—and to have constant patrols of police by night—those labourers who have not yet been threatened, and who continue to work for me. Had I dispossessed tenants from this land, on which I am building comfortable slated houses, I should not be surprised at what has occurred; but the land has been part of this demesne, and in possession of the proprietors of this estate for the last seventy years. You are aware of the number of resident landlords in this neighbourhood, and the very large number of labourers employed by them, and its former quiet and peaceable state. But things are now sadly changed, and no gentleman ventures to remain unarmed by day or night. I had yesterday to investigate six cases of outrages committed on Sunday in the noon-day by armed parties, but it is useless to look for information, intimidation is so general.' Under these circumstances, continued the hon. Member, he felt happy to give his support to the Bill. The Committee he had alluded to, had recommended a less severe measure; and if

225
that recommendation had then been acted upon, it might have been sufficient. But the country was now placed under different circumstances, and different measures were necessary. Since then, the Volunteers had been formed. Some hon. Members had been returned, he believed, by agitation; and they might find it necessary to keep agitation alive. Wishing, for his part, to live in Ireland, but wishing to live in safely, and to enjoy his property in security, and knowing, that security, both of property and life, depended on passing the Bill, he should give it his support.
Mr. Dauntdid not mean to detain the House long; but his duty to his country and his constituents would not permit him to suffer that atrocious Bill to pass without protesting against it. Ministers, he declared, had made out no case against Ireland to justify putting her out of the pale of the Constitution. They had, indeed, strung together a long list of outrages—they had weaved them into something like a combination, and they said, let us have Martial-law to put them down. They had raked together all the New gate Calendars of Ireland, and by them they thought to frighten the House of Commons into suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, The right hon. Secretary might as well have read the Gaol Deliveries and Police Reports and Records of the Old Bailey, and have proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and establish Martial-law in England. The right hon. Gentleman had recited a ballad most pathetically to influence the passions of the House: to have made the thing complete, instead of reciting it, he should have sung it. The right hon. Baronet, too, had horrified the House by the detail of a murder which took place fourteen years ago; but that showed what great difficulties they met with in justifying this atrocious Bill, when they were obliged to ransack the records of crime fourteen years back. If they were fond of looking back to find pretexts for cruel laws, might they not find them in English history? The right hon. Baronet had only to carry back his researches, and he might find a justification for applying Martial-law to England in the murder of Thomas à Becket. He did not know what Ministers wanted; but if they had sought to devise a plan to put down anti-tithe agitation, they could not have found a better than
226
this Bill. The tithes were the evil of Ireland. He put it to the English Gentlemen to make the case of Ireland their own. If it were, would not excitement prevail in England? How would they like that a Roman Catholic priesthood should lord it over England? How would they like to pay tithes to such a priesthood? He put it to them, honestly and sincerely, to answer honestly and sincerely, and on a plain principle of justice. They would, he believed, refuse, and justly refuse, because, where no value is given, nothing ought to be paid. There was another circumstance to which he would allude, which had been already alluded to by the noble Lord, the member for Donegal—that was, that much of the agitation concerning tithes was caused by the promise of the right hon. Secretary, that tithes should be extinguished. The right hon. Secretary was no doubt sick of that promise, he had been reminded so often of it—nevertheless he would take care to remind him of it till it was fulfilled. Rather than vote for that Bill, he would lay that head [touching his head] upon the block—[Laughter]. They might laugh. That laughter showed him that Ireland could not look for sympathy in that House. There was one feature in the Bill which demanded their best attention. He alluded to the taking away of the right of petitioning Parliament, except by permission of the Viceroy. The learned member for the University of Dublin told the House that this was not its tendency, because, though the people were prohibited from meeting to petition, they still could petition individually. Thus, if the hon. Member's numerous constituency, consisting of 4,000 or 5,000, felt interested on any public question, and wished to petition the Legislature through the medium of the hon. Member, instead of one petition signed by 4,000 or 5,000 individuals, he would have 4,000 or 5,000 petitions to present, unless they were hawked from door to door for signatures, which would scarcely diminish the inconvenience. He contended that this clause amounted to taking away the right to petition, from the practical obstacles it created. It taught Ireland a useful lesson. Last Session, the right hon. Secretary said, he would read Ireland a lesson: this was not strange; it was the period for giving lessons, for the schoolmaster was abroad; but who ever expected to see him start up in the shape of the

227
right hon. Secretary? The lesson taught Ireland was, that since she was not to petition that House, it was not to that House she must look for legislation—it was not from that House she must hope for sympathy. It was (deaf to her cries—it would not even hear her prayer; she could not expect parental legislation, except from a domestic legislature. He appealed to the Commons of England—not to their passions, but their judgment. He asked them, was liberty the birthright of an Irish subject, or was he a political machine, on which tyrants might try, with impunity, their experiments for crushing freedom all over the empire? Were the crimes of Ireland, arising in a great measure, from poverty and destitution, to be exclusively marked out for this sanguinary vengeance? In the course of this debate, the House had been reminded of the burnings of Bristol—of Nottingham Castle—of the attacks of reckless and infuriate English mobs on life and property—of Swing, the Captain Rock of England, and his fearful orgies,—it had been asked, why Ministers did not come down to this House and demand the enactment of coercive laws for this more favoured country? The question was as yet unanswered. Just Heaven! what a universal cry of indignant execration would have burst forth from one end of the kingdom to the other, against the Minister, who, prancing on the tiptoe of official insolence, should have dared to threaten the high-spirited people of England with a measure of such mingled tyranny and insult? And that cry would be found irresistible. The united voice of an indignant people had often hurled an oppressive Ministry from their bad eminence. The people of England—the free, the powerful people, were with the Irish. They had nobly sympathized with them; and their united efforts would, he trusted, be triumphant. The Government, indeed, and a faction, were opposed to the Irish people, and prevented the complete union of the two nations. Ireland, he was afraid, was never to be completely united to England, sharing liberties and privileges like a part of the Empire. This Bill did not look like it. He would remind them, that men owed allegiance in return for good government, and that coercion and misgovernment did not merit allegiance. An hon. Member had, on a former evening, compared Ireland to a ship which had struck on a rock. That
228
might be just; but the conduct of the Ministers reminded him of the Irish pilot, who ran a ship upon the rock. Paddy was asked by an American Captain, that had arrived off one of the Irish ports, if he knew all the rocks and shoals of the harbour? Faith, and I do, said Pat, every one of them. The Captain accordingly gave him the ship in charge, which soon after ran bump upon a rock. Hurra! said Paddy, did I not tell you I knew all the rocks, and there is one of them? The Ministers were blindly running the ship upon the rocks. He was sure that the question of Repeal would acquire irresistible strength by this measure. It would be wiser to relieve the distresses of Ireland. Absenteeism was a great curse to Ireland. It drained her of capital, and, preventing the growth of manufactures and of trade, threw her whole population on the land for support. From that resulted the surplus of population, which required other measures of relief than Martial-law. He should not do his duty to his country if he did not, to the utmost of his power, oppose the Bill.
Mr. O'Connell: I only wish to remind Gentlemen that the question will be put on the amendment. The question on which the House will decide is, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the question: that is, whether the Bill shall now be read a first time or not. A good deal of speaking might have been spared by remembering that a good many observations have been made, which did not go to decide the question whether the Bill shall now be read a first time. I am bound to say, that the amendment is extremely well calculated to elicit the real nature of the measure, which goes to destroy the Constitution of Ireland, and to which it is most certainly felt, that one fortnight's delay would be fatal. With these preliminary observations, I shall proceed to call the attention of the House to the real question it has to decide. The Legislature is now to decide if this sort of law shall be applied to both parts of the British empire. It is one which relates to the mode of governing Ireland. Are we now to follow the former precedents of the British Government? Are we to continue the old system, or are we to make Ireland a part of the British empire? What is implied in the consideration of the question—has Ireland ever benefited by the connexion with England? What

229
benefit has Ireland ever derived from the connexion? If she were totally separated, could she be worse off? It has been assumed by all who have spoken, that she could not. Poverty, distress, want, and crime, prevail. How can she be worse? and these things are stated and admitted on both sides. I ask you what has England done for Ireland? Nothing. If you ask what crimes England has committed, the black catalogue is most abundant. Let us take up any period of history, and we shall find acts of the most atrocious cruelty—of the deepest treachery—of the most wanton guilt that ever stained the annals of any country. I formerly specified the leading-characteristics of each century, but, what did I get, but to be sneered at? Have I not been taunted because I alluded to the oppressions of the Henrys, the Edwards, the Elizabeths? But what was my reason for adopting that line of argument? Because you practise the very enormities of their day, and disguise them under no more than the flimsy cloak of a different name. I will dwell but shortly on this part of the subject, and merely to illustrate my views. Every Irishman then found within the pale, was executed as a traitor and an enemy. What does the memorial addressed by Captain Lee to the British Government soon after this period state? I will read an extract to the House:—when notable traitors who had been in arms against your Majesty's Government, at length, of their own accord, offered ample securities for their good behaviour, promised to perform great services, and to surrender at the assizes and sessions, if promise of pardon were given them; and when they had so surrendered themselves, yet secret Commissions were issued to the Sheriffs of shires, and these men—some of them were accordingly killed, and others escaped. These latter men did, however, submit to the law, upon which they were tried and acquitted. This was the spirit—the treacherous, cruel, and faithless spirit with which the Irish were then treated. The Government never dreamed of legislating honestly for the people. It preferred the party of the pale at first, but, when a religion, which was not the religion of the people, was introduced, it attempted to form a new party, still in opposition to the nation. When did this system end? Up to 1800 it had not ceased. To prove that, I will read a
230
passage from a writer whose name shall presently be mentioned. He said, the uniform conduct of the British Government towards Ireland had been a continued violation of all law, a total subversion of the usages of civilized nations. Had there been a war with a foreign country, the inhabitants would have retained their possessions and properties, and even, in a conquered province, those would be respected. But the British Government squandered the power and wealth of the nation on three sets of English adventurers, and the common title of property became confiscation, These are the words of Lord Chancellor Fitzgibbon in 1800; he was then, indeed, promising halcyon days to Ireland; but the system of confiscation, rapine, injustice, and blood, remained, notwithstanding his professions. What are you now legislating for? To repair injustice, bind up the wounds of the country, and communicate to it the blessings of the British Constitution? Oh! no. You give this Act of Parliament; you heal all evils and discontents with it; and have the effrontery to propose it in the face of the British Constitution. But why do I taunt you with the crimes of others, where there is so much matter for your individual accusation? In those periods there were great men. It will not do the hon. Gentleman opposite any discredit to be compared with Raleigh or Essex; but the greatest men at certain periods, may be guilty of acts of atrocity and cruelty, and it may happen that little men may envy them that unfortunate distinction. I stand up to defend my country from the fatal legislation that would turn loose upon her every bad passion of the human heart, and give one man the power of dragging at his pleasure, every inhabitant into a dungeon. This is the question. I ask the first Reformed Parliament, would they wish to protect freedom in England? Will they not do the same in Ireland?—for surely if there has been some national exaggeration, it ought not to be scanned with too jealous an eye, and some allowance ought to be made for a people standing on the brink of a dungeon—not because they have committed any crime, but because somebody chooses to put them there. It will be said to me that the Act is not before the House. But, have we not been "talking about it and about it?" Has it not passed the other

231
House?—has it not received the sanction of" the present Government?—has it not come warm to us from the praises of those mighty lawyers and statesmen who are distinguished through the world by the steadiness of their affection for freedom, and their undeviating regard for the great interests of humanity?—does it not, in short, come stamped with the approbation of the "hereditary wisdom" of the nation? I will not detain the House by proving how inconsistent the present conduct of some of those individuals is with their former declarations; that may be of some consequence to themselves—it may be desirable for them to show to foreign states, and the world, that they hold the same place in principle and public estimation, that they formerly held, and are still the advocates of liberty—but I care not in what words they wrap their purposes, while they violate the substance of freedom, nor shall I stoop to expose the fallacy. Let them proceed to apply to their consciences the balm of self-gratulation, and hide their inconsistency from themselves. I will proceed to explain to the House the nature and operation of this precious—this humane—this protecting Act. In the first place, it really takes away protection from innocence; it renounces all the safeguards placed by the Constitution, when it abolishes Trial by Jury. Did your ancestors establish Trial by Jury to enable guilt to triumph? Did they not, on the contrary, institute it lest one innocent man, as far as human precautions could go, should perish? All this security for innocence is totally swept away by the Act. The first feature then is, that it takes away the protection of the innocent—Trial by jury. I wish that I possessed the eloquence of the hon. member for Leeds, without his inconsistency—that I might trace the venerable antiquity of Trial by Jury, and prove that it is antecedent to prerogative and privilege alike. But the task is unnecessary. Have not writers upon the theory of the British Constitution justly declared that the King's civil list was voted—the taxes raised—the army and navy maintained—and both Houses of Parliament assembled—for no other purpose than that twelve men in the Jury-box, with a Judge to preside over them, should be allowed perfect liberty to adjudicate upon questions of life and property? The Constitution, therefore, is at an end, for this Act utterly annihilates Trial
232
by Jury. I can never believe, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp), so long the representative of the popular nobility, and the little of confidence and regard between them and the people—whose unaffected simplicity of heart and manners endears him to all, while it sheds agrace even upon his high dignity of rank—I will never believe that he has consented to this assassination of the Constitution. The next evil of the Bill is, that it takes away the right of personal freedom. If this Act pass, I assert that personal freedom in Ireland is at an end. Considering the excessive looseness of the framing of the Act, it might be a question with some Gentlemen how far its provisions went in this respect; but with me it is no question. However, supposing that there should arise a question on the subject, on a nice comparison of the various provisions of the Act, oh, what a competent tribunal has been selected to decide the matter! Military officers were well qualified to deal with legal niceties. From the moment this Act passes, no man in Ireland will dare to offend a powerful neighbour without having occasion to tremble at the probable consequences; no woman in Ireland—but I will not follow up the subject. Let me call the attention of the House to another fact. It is a sufficient answer to an application for a habeas corpus to show the return under this Act. Its next great feature is, that it takes away the right of complaint. If two men in any part of Ireland talk together of their misfortunes, that will be a meeting under the Act, and the Lord Lieutenant will be able to seize and imprison them. What right of complaint can there be when it is so fettered and manacled? A man may, to be sure, complain to himself—that will be no offence; but what is the use of complaint unless you can pour it into the ear of another? But if you attempt that, you will be at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant. The Bill, then, takes away the Trial by Jury, personal freedom, the right of complaint; it does more—it annihilates the liberty of the Press. Let me see the person who dare to speak out the truth in a newspaper. If, for instance, a writer should touch on the question of tithes, by the Whiteboy Act, any publication tending to excite a combination or conspiracy against the collection of tithes subjects the writer to prosecution for a transportable felony or a serious misdemeanour. But by this Act

233
there is left no room for interference. The appearance of a newspaper in a disturbed district is conclusive evidence of its publication there. Are you not acquainted with the case of the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, in which it was solemnly decided that dropping a letter into the post-office at Derby was evidence of its publication there? But this Act left no room for construction, because the appearance of the paper was proof of its publication. The next evil feature of the Bill is, that it takes away the right of petition—that right which has always ranked next in importance to Trial by Jury. Why had the English people superseded one family, and placed another on the Throne? Was it not to secure the Trial by Jury and right of petition? Why are we assembled here? Why has a Reformed Parliament been called into existence with so much toil and difficulty? Was it not because the former Parliament were supposed not to listen to the prayers, and from a corrupt regard to their own individual interest, to neglect the petitions of the people? This Reformed Parliament then is constituted to attend to the petitions of the people—will its first Act be to annihilate the very right to petition? No doubt, if meetings are held to laud the character and demeanour of young officers, to hold them up as miracles of discretion, justice, patience, or for any other purpose pleasing to the Lord Lieutenant and the authorities, permission will readily be granted for such; but woe to the man who presumes to ask for redress of grievances. What absurdity, to give the very man whose conduct is most liable to become the subject of complaint a right to quash all complaint! Well then, this Bill destroys Trial by Jury—personal freedom—the right of complaint—the liberty of the press, and the right of petition; all this is done by it. I hope that every Gentleman, as he wishes to be able to clear his conduct before his constituents, will weigh this fearful catalogue. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) shakes his head; but I repeat it, and defy contradiction, that no meeting can be held in Ireland without the permission of the Lord Lieutenant. Petition! Why, what mode remains to a man but to get up his petition in a coffee-house, to hawk it about from street to street, and beg for signatures? But, Reformers of England, how do you petition with effect? Is it in that manner?
234
Is it not your first object to get a public meeting, to collect and declare the general opinion? As soon as a petition is presented, what is the first question asked in this House?—Is it numerously signed? But some one gets up and says, "that may be, but it is a hole-and-corner petition." Another bad feature in the Bill is, that it expressly cuts off the power of actual discussion and deliberation—it does not prohibit a meeting, because the professed object is something different from the real—that poor defence it has not; its open declaration is, that it was designed to prevent meetings for the bonâ fide object of real petition and complaint. Woe to the man who should ask leave to hold a meeting, the objects of which were not approved by the Lord Lieutenant! I have now briefly touched on the general features of the Bill; it has been a tedious, irksome, unpleasant duty; but I was bound to make the Reformed Parliament aware of what law it is they are about to pass. In the first place, then, the language of this cruel, ensnaring Act, is exceedingly loose; I never met any so utterly untechnical and indefinite in its phraseology. From the high opinion I entertain of the profound knowledge and legal accuracy of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General), I feel a perfect conviction—though, I admit, grounded on nothing more than that opinion—that the hon. and learned Gentleman never saw this Bill. I do not know; but if he has seen it, I confess my astonishment. The looseness of the language is surprising; in the 14th section it is directed that "every person charged with any of the offences hereinafter mentioned or referred to, may be, and such persons shall be, summarily tried by Courts-martial." Any of the offences hereinafter mentioned! What a specification in so dangerous a statute! The same vagueness prevails in the 17th section; but I come to the 27th, which takes away personal liberty, by which any persons may be arrested, committed, or detained in custody, and the sole return to a writ of habeas corpus is, that the act was done under the Bill. This section further empowers the prisoner to be confined where so ever his gaoler or keeper pleases. What I the man is not to be imprisoned in the King's jails, where Sheriffs, Magistrates, responsible officers, may see him. He may be flung into the black-hole of a barrack, or into its filth-hole. [A laugh.]

235
You smile; but can you deny the fact? He might have protection if confined in an ordinary jail. The Sheriff is a responsible officer; the man's relations would have access to him; but by this inhuman and tyrannical Bill, any place in Ireland which anyone delegated by authority chooses, may be the jail of the victim of private malice or of Government vengeance. Can I be blamed if my temper does not always exhibit perfect equanimity, when such laws are to be enacted for Ireland? But is it possible that a Reformed Parliament will grant the power of dragging a man from his home, to be imprisoned wherever and however his jailor pleases? Surely this provision, this admirable clause, can proceed from no other than a distinguished equity lawyer, whoso whole life has been devoted to those ennobling studies that purify and soften the heart, and who has equally cultivated the means of discriminating guilt from innocence, and securing the latter from oppression. Some mighty genius was certainly required; for no ordinary intellect could have invented such a section. An hon. Member said, he would prefer living in Algiers to living in Kilkenny. But this Bill comes from no other meridian than that of Algiers. There are such prisons as I have mentioned in Algiers; in England they were never before heard of. If it be necessary to have a severe bill enforced, what mischief would it do if common jails were employed? How does this clause tend to put down crime? The present law gives the power of removing a prisoner from one jail to another. Is not that sufficient, without giving a military subaltern the power of imprisoning a man where he chooses? And mark the terms of the Act: Any person authorised under this Bill, whether justice, constable, peace-officer, all commissioned officers in command of any portion of his Majesty's troops, or any person whom the Lord Lieutenant may think fit to empower, can exercise this terrible right, and confine the prisoner where so ever he pleases. This Bill is the great triumph of the Tories over the Whigs. When did the former bring in such a measure? When did they dream of it? I bore a political enmity once to the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam-worth; at one time it deepened into personal hatred; but I was wrong, and I acknowledged it in person. In my political animosity, also, I begin to see cause
236
for regret, when such—I will not say diabolical measures—for words are wasted on them—are introduced by the Whigs. But if such a bill had been brought in by the Tories, what flaming orations would not the present Ministers deliver against it—how they would protest against imprisoning the meanest of the King's subjects. They would declare themselves the protectors of the people; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the honest dignity of his nature, would have been openly and fearlessly arrayed against the oppressive law. I hope, then, that some things I hear are true, and that there is to be no coalition between such discordant materials. One circumstance I shall notice is an admirable specimen of legislation. The Dublin Gazette—of which it is said, if you wish to conceal anything advertise it in The Dublin Gazette—is to be evidence that a district has been proclaimed. The people are charged with publishing illegal notices, and this, I suppose, is to correct their taste in that respect. Now, when the Reform Bill was to be put into execution, it was necessary to post notices on the church and chapel of the parish; but The Dublin Gazette is sufficient when the district is to be put under martial law. If the Act was not to be consistent in all its parts, what harm would there be in giving the same notice? To come to the question of Courts-martial, I think they will be found ineffectual for their purposes. The army I have no wish to disparage—a braver body of men I know never existed—the officers also can claim no merit which I am not ready to concede to them; some are men of superior minds, some of plain capacities, and others are not distinguished for any shining talents; but good, bad, and indifferent, take them altogether, they are the worst judges in the world. The case of Somerville supplies evidence enough on that point. In the course of my professional duties, I have met three or four cases in which paymasters were involved, and I saw that the major's party pulled one way and the colonel's party another [No, no!]. I say, Yes, yes! Am I to mince the matter—to fritter away my case, when I speak of facts, which I have myself witnessed? [Name, name.] I will not mention individual names; but I repeat that officers are not fit to be judges of the land. I say that the gallant Officer himself has not been fitted by the course of his education

237
for discharging their duties, and that he has not acquired that delicate discrimination of the motives and characters of witnesses or prosecutors, which is necessary to a Judge. I cannot adequately express my contempt for Courts-martial as tribunals to try the people. Well, then, five or nine ensigns or lieutenants, with one field officer are to form the Court, and the presence of this field officer is the first guarantee of impartiality. There is another precaution, to be sure—the subalterns are to be twenty-one years of age; but on the other hand, they must be two years in the army, in order to learn that obedience is the first virtue of a soldier. The Reformed Parliament turns the Judge out of the Box—the Judge who had studied human nature for years, by experience had learned to distinguish the clashing diversities of guilt and innocence, and to pour the drop of mercy into the prisoner's scale, when it is wavered in doubt. His viginti annorum lucubrationes are thrown aside as useless, and he himself is removed to make way for the field officer. If a British subject commits an offence, he is tried by twelve Jurors, and he may object to any twenty-one on the panel if he only dislikes their countenances; but let an Irishman utter a word against any of the four ensigns! They are to decide the case; they were ordered to come, and they are there; their business is to obey orders, and the prisoner must be content with them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) triumphs—he may well do so. Ireland is his domain; he rules her with uncontrolled power. Woe to the man that will dare to sneer or smile at him. Three ensigns may, under his Bill, convict any man; but has Ireland had no experience of Courts-martial? All their acts certainly were not wicked, but dreadful atrocities were committed by them, the most prominent of which stared out and caught public attention—still only the grossest were remembered. Need I allude to the notorious case of Grady, who refusing, or, as he said, unable to identify a prisoner, of whose person he had, on a former occasion given a description, was instantly led out and whipped for this offence? He was called on a second time—a second time he declared his inability, and a second time he was flogged. He was called on a third time, a third time he refused, and a third time he was flogged. Has the House not also heard of Sir Edward Cros-
238
bie's case? I have mentioned to the House already the case of that unfortunate gentleman, who was tried in 1798, before a Court-martial, at which a major of dragoons, a field officer of rank, presided, and has any one ventured to contradict my statement with regard to it? Since I referred to that case, I have received a letter from the son of Sir Edward Crosbie, and I am sure the House will, in justice to the writer, as well as in justice to the memory of his respected father, suffer me to read to it a passage from that letter. The writer, after expressing his thanks to me for having brought the case before the House, enclosed to me a letter, written by a nephew of his father, in the year 1826, which I shall, with the permission of the House, now read to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the following extract from a letter, addressed by the Rev. Archibald Douglas, to Edward Crosbie, Esq., and dated Glebe-house, Kilculien, August 1, 1826:—I am glad to communicate a fact which came to my knowledge but a few days ago, and which gives decided confirmation of the generally received generally received opinion of your lamented father's innocence; indeed, there can be but one opinion on the murder of your father. Mr. Dundas, who lives near me, was, in the rebellion of 1798, aide-de-camp to his father, General Dundas, who had the command-in-chief in Ireland. When the report of the Court-martial was laid before him, he saw at one glance that the conviction of Sir Edward Crosbie was against justice and truth, unsupported by any evidence; he instantly sent off an express to stop proceedings, and even to release my uncle; but the general who commanded at Carlow anticipated the reprieve he knew must come, and had my dear uncle executed at torch-light, about twenty minutes before the dragoons arrived. Shall I now be called upon, as I have been called upon, to name a Court-martial that had grossly abused the powers confided to it? I have stated the in stances of two that have done so, and if that will not satisfy the House, that such tribunals are liable, under such circumstances, to be perverted into engines of tyranny and oppression, I will, for its satisfaction, mention a third case, that occurred during the disturbances in 1798. That case was this:—In one of the southern counties there was au attorney, who had partly inherited,

239
and, in the course of his practice, partly acquired considerable landed property; part of this property was subject to a judgment debt to a lady—not an uncommon mode at that time amongst Roman Catholics of providing for their families. The lady had three sons—one of them living as a country gentleman, another at college, and the third at school. The attorney was what was denominated a loyal Magistrate of 1798. This attorney caused her three sons to be arrested, and thrown into jail. The attorney then wrote to the mother, who, it seemed, had commenced proceedings for recovery of the judgment, to inform her that unless she immediately released the debt, her three sons should be hanged in Limerick! If the right hon. Secretary would ask the Cursitor of the Court of Chancery, he would inform him that the lady was his own mother, that she was thrown into prison, that he also suffered a long imprisonment, during which he was treated with much cruelty, and manacled with irons sixty-eight pounds in weight. The Court-martial, however, did not take place. From day to day the mother was threatened, but her affection for her son was strong, and her firmness was equal to her affection. She inflexibly refused to yield her rights. I feel great respect for that mother; few would act like her; she was not tried by the Court-martial, but was brought up to the Assizes and discharged by proclamation, but the following day she was sent back to gaol. Thus you have these features in the Bill—the Habeas Corpus is suspended, offenders may be imprisoned in any place that may be thought proper—all meetings are put an end to—Courts-martial are universally instituted; for let not the right hon. Gentleman tell me that they are not universal. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has denied that this Bill rendered the jurisdiction of Courts-martial universal, but I will maintain that it does. There is one section that seems to qualify the power, but there is another, and an antecedent section, that appears to render it universal, and I beg as a lawyer to tell the right hon. Gentleman that a particular affirmative does not diminish the force of a general precedent affirmative. One of the clauses empowers the Lord Lieutenant to send persons charged with offences under this Act to trial before Courts-martial, and the House will find that by the seventeenth section of the Act
240
there is no limit placed upon the exercise of that power thus intrusted to the Lord Lieutenant. The fourteenth section of the Act runs in these words;—"And be it further enacted, that the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, or other person duly authorised by him or them, is and are hereby empowered to order that every person charged with any of the offences hereinafter mentioned or referred to may be, and such persons shall be, summarily tried by and before such Court-martial; and the sentence of such Court-martial, when duly confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, or by any officer by him or them authorised to convene such Court-martial, and to confirm the sentences of such Court-martial, shall be carried into execution, and shall have the like effect as if the trial of such offences had been had before, and the sentences had been passed by any court of oyer and terminer, or general gaol delivery, or sessions of the peace." Now, here comes the question that I wish to raise. If the seventeenth section do not specifically define, as it does not, the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, I will affirm, that, under the fourteenth section, which I have just read, any one may be sent by the Lord Lieutenant to be tried before a Court-martial for anything, or for any offence which he might have committed in any place, and which the Lord Lieutenant might consider to be a matter that should be adjudicated before such a tribunal. [Mr. stanley asked, across the Table, if Mr. O'Connell had read the tenth section?] I have read the tenth section as attentively as the fourteenth. The tenth section certainly does not describe the places whore Courts-martial shall be held, and I am ready to admit, that under that section Courts-martial must be held for the trial of offences within the proclaimed districts, but then the fourteenth section empowers the Lord Lieutenant to send any persons for any offences, no matter in what district committed, before such Courts-martial for trial; and then comes the seventeenth section, in which it is enacted that persons shall be sent for trial before such Courts-martial for offences, whether the offences so charged, having been committed subsequent to the passing of the Act, shall or shall not have been committed before the issuing of any proclamation under this Act. Here, therefore, is a

241
clause with a manifest ex post facto operation, and this is one of my great complaints against the Bill. From the moment of the passing of this Act, in a district which, perhaps, is now perfectly tranquil, but which the Lord Lieutenant may proclaim six months hence, individuals will be liable to be dragged before a Court-martial, and made to answer for offences alleged to have occurred six months before. I shall not detain the House longer upon this portion of the Bill: but I cannot avoid referring, for a few moments, to the fifteenth and sixteenth sections of the Act. Under those sections (the objects of which are, perhaps, not very indistinct) there is not a single man in England who may not be carried before those Courts-martial in Ireland; under those clauses every single individual in this House, and out of this House—perhaps it might not be a stretch of the imagination to suppose that only one individual was looked for—may be summoned before those Courts-martial in Ireland. For let it be observed, that this Bill is not limited to Ireland; it contains not the usual clause that it "shall be in force in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; "it has no such words in it, and, therefore, I do affirm that under the sixteenth section those Courts-martial could summon by warrant any one in the British dominions to attend them, and under that section any man in England might be dragged over as a witness to attend those Courts-martial in Ireland, and when they had him there they might try him for what they pleased. Oh! there is another feature, which I must not forget. It is for the first time declared in the history of legislation, except in the instance of offences under the excise and the revenue laws, that where a man is charged by an indictment, he is not to be considered innocent till he has been proved guilty. I ask how it is such a change is now contemplated? How is it that the first Reformed Parliament can propose to take away this safeguard? Even the Insurrection Act, or the Arms Act, was not equal to this. Under these Acts no man was to be convicted unless it could be proved that he had a guilty knowledge of the possession of arms; but under the present Act, all that is necessary to prove is, that a man has arms in his house, and he must be convicted unless he can do that which is most difficult to prove, that he was ignorant of
242
their being in his possession; so that were they hidden for that purpose by an enemy, the probability is, that the man must be convicted. As to signals also, this Act is most remarkable—all signals by smoke are declared illegal. The Bill indeed is as ludicrous as it is atrocious. It is as great a compound of absurdity and atrocity as ever was perpetrated by a Whig Government. What poor man was there whose chimney did not send up daily a signal of smoke, if he had anything to cook for his family's dinner? But here was the absurdity of the Act, that a party of the police may see the smoke rising from a poor man's cabin on a hill, which they may fancy to be a signal, and three months after will call on him to take his trial before a Court-martial, and call on him to disprove the fact that the smoke is a signal, taking it for granted that it is a signal, unless that fact can be disproved. Reformers of England I hope will look to this Bill. You talk about confidence in the Government; and you say that you will pass the Bill on account of your confidence; but I hope you said, that not being aware of what this Bill really is; and I hope, now that you are aware of it, you will feel that it is a Bill which ought not to pass this House. It is a Bill which places innocence in the situation of guilt; which gives the Government the power of throwing us into secret dungeons; which takes away all ability of resistance, and suppresses the power of complaint. I fear I weary the House in describing the Bill, but I feel it to be my duty to do so. And this is the composition to which the noble Lord opposite is about to lend his name; this is the Act which is to have his sanction! I ask you whether this Act is to be taken as a proof of the Union between England and Ireland? It is, indeed, just such a union as that which some of the tyrants of old instituted between a dead body, and a living man, though it not unfrequently happened that the putrescency of the dead body destroyed the life of the other. I beseech the reformers of England to consider this, and also to consider, how it is likely to affect England itself. Let but this Act once take place in Ireland, and let a successful court manoeuvre or intrigue, throw the power of the state into the hands of some of the present administration, and of some who do not belong to it, and with such an Act in operation in Ireland, schedule A will

243
be revived, and you will have 105 members for Ireland ready to back any ministry, however corrupt or despotic. Ministerial machines might soon be pat in motion, and Ministers might have just as good an un-reformed Parliament as you had before. At all events, if they have not, it will not be from want of power or inclination, but from want of dexterity. I ask on what evidence you are about to pass this measure? Such a Bill as this ought to be grounded upon the most irrefragable, complete, and absolute evidence of its necessity. It is not sufficient to talk about confidence. We must not consent to sec the Constitution abolished, without the strictest, most irresistible evidence of necessity. This evidence cannot be obtained without a painful, deliberate investigation and inquiry. It is not sufficient to prove that there are crimes; we all admit that crimes exist. It is not sufficient to say, that crimes must be put down; we all admit that crimes ought to be put down. But is it necessary, in order to do this, to annihilate the Constitution? Every body admits the necessity of putting-down crime; but in order to do this, must we put down the Constitution? I shall notice bat very briefly the observations of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side during the course of this debate. I shall refer to the speech of the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, to the speech of the hon. and gallant General, of the hon. and gallant naval Captain, of the hon. and learned Baronet, of the hon. and learned member for St. Albans, the noble Lord, the member for Nottingham, the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, the only argument that I could collect from him in favour of this Bill, and the only reason why he would support it, was, because he was friendly to Ireland. If this be the case, all I can say, and I say it with great sincerity, and unaffectedly: "May God preserve us from our friends." As to the hon. and gallant General, he did not do much more than describe several conversations which he had with the peasantry in Clare, and the north of Ireland; and he also bore testimony to the hospitality with which he was received. All I can do in return is to present my compliments for the manner in which he has
244
thought proper to evince his gratitude. The gallant naval Officer stated, that he had disported himself by hunting in the county of Kilkenny, and he also spoke in warm terms of the Irish hospitality—I must say, that I do not think he makes us a very good return. He seems to have allowed his apprehension to prevail so far as to lead him to utter calumnies against the people of Ireland. ["No," from Captain Berkeley.] I say yes. [No.] I say yes—and I tell the gallant Captain I can prove it. It seems that, from some apprehensions—I do not use the word in an offensive sense—the gallant Captain went about armed. He stated, that he followed the example of the gentry. [Captain Berkeley: I did not.] I beg pardon of the gallant Captain. I certainly so understood him, but it appears I am mistaken. The hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Grey) favoured us with a dissertation upon agitation, and his reasons for supporting the Bill, and, amongst other things, he commented upon some observations of my hon. and learned friend, the member for Tipperary. I think the hon. and learned Baronet induces me to become a most incurable Repealer—for when I find a Gentleman of his great talents, legislating in such utter ignorance of the state of Ireland, I cannot but feel more strongly than ever the necessity for a domestic Legislature. The history of agitation which he gave betrayed the most complete ignorance of the subject. But what I was more particularly surprised at, was his ignorance upon a subject more peculiarly connected with his own profession. To a remark respecting the trial of capital felonies by Special Commissions, he answered as though it was said they should be tried by Special Juries. It would cause much amusement in Ireland to hear of capital felonies being tried by Special Juries. The hon. and learned Baronet also said, that Repeal of the Union was brought in as soon as the Reform Bill came into this House, in order to meet it. There never was a greater mistake—there never was greater proof of ignorance in point of fact. Repeal of the Union was agitated in 1830, when the Tories were in power, and they issued proclamations to put it down. It was agitated in 1831, when the Whigs were in power, before they brought in the Reform Bill, and they also issued proclamations against it. It

245
had been the subject of agitation from the year 1810 to the year 1817, and its postponement was publicly avowed. Indeed, I myself publicly avowed, that the question would be postponed till we had gained an equality of civil rights in Ireland. Instead of its being brought up to meet the Reform Bill, it was, in point of fact, suspended by the Reform Bill; and I have little doubt that it would have been totally given up when the Irish Reform Bill was brought in, had that Bill been equal to the English Reform Bill—had its provisions been framed in a spirit of fairness and equality—so far, therefore, as the hon. and learned Baronet is about to legislate on a supposition of the accuracy of the facts which he stated, he is about to legislate under an erroneous impression. The hon. member for St. Albans declared, that his support of the Bill was founded on the intimidation that prevailed in Ireland; and in proof of that intimidation, referred to the case of the trial of the murderers of the rev. Mr. Going. I wish very much that an inquiry could be instituted into the trial of that case, as I am sure I could prove that no intimidation did exist, and that a very exaggerated and erroneous impression has gone forth to the world on this subject. The murder of Mr. Going took place about ten years ago, and I assert, without fear of contradiction, that his son-in-law was not a material witness, and that he was not absent through intimidation. What would' have been the conduct of the Solicitor General, or of those who attended to prosecute on behalf of the Crown, if he had been a material witness; more especially if threats were used to prevent his attendance? Why, they would have caused the trial to be postponed, and have detained the prisoners, or, at least, placed them under strict rule. The hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed. The son-in-law was not a material evidence, and three or four witnesses were produced. The case was a doubtful case; the Judge expressed doubts; the Jury gave the prisoners the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted them; the Judge approved of the verdict; and nothing ever happened to any of the witnesses who came forward to give evidence against the prisoners. I have great respect for the talents of the hon. member for St. Albans; and when I see a man like him legislating for Ireland under
246
such ignorance of her real state, it adds another circumstance to strengthen the conviction of the necessity of Repeal. I trust, however, that the mistake into which he has been led will not be suffered to operate to the injury of Ireland, but that he will review his opinion, and not take part against Ireland, at least, without previous investigation. As to the noble Lord, the member for Nottingham, who came forward with much of that diffidence which is frequently to be found united with an excellent character, and a mind not altogether unconscious of its own powers, he certainly made a very important statement respecting the state of crime in the county of Carlow, He said, there had been 400 crimes in that county within the last two months; but he did not take into consideration that all the assaults which had happened at two contested elections, which were contested with peculiar animosity, were included in that list; and I do not doubt that at least 250 cases of that description are included in the 400. And what was the proof which he brought forward to show that the Sheriff could not obtain a sufficient number of Jurors through the intimidation practised—that he was obliged to furnish them with an escort? No; but that he had raised the fine on absence from 20 l. to 50 l. I do not see the hon. member for Leeds in his place ["Hear,"from Mr. Macaulay]. I am glad to see that the hon. Member is present. He said, that he had read many speeches of mine which induced him to vote for this measure. I defy him to produce any authentic production of mine possessing the character that he has attributed to those speeches. He might have read speeches at-attributed to me in newspapers, but he has read incorrect reports of them. I will tell that hon. Member where to find my speeches. He will find them given in the Dublin Morning Register, in the Pilot, and Freeman's Journal, with sufficient accuracy as to the sentiments, without giving the exact phraseology in which those sentiments were delivered. Very probably the hon. Member has read the reports of my speeches in a Government print, and I will just give him a proof of the accuracy of such an authority in Ireland. There is a paper recently established by the Government in Dublin. Connected with that paper there is an individual who informed against me at the period I was prosecuted under the Administration of the Marquess

247
Wellesley, and with whom I have not exchanged a word since. An inaccurate report of a speech of mine having been published in that paper, the indivdual in question, who was one of the reporters of the paper, rose in my presence in a public meeting, and declared that he would not be responsible for the report as it had been altered by the editor after he gave it in. Such was the conduct of a newspaper in the pay of the Irish Government. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to read misstatements as to Ireland, let him look to the Edinburgh Review. He will there find calumnies enough in relation to Ireland. There never was a composition containing more falsehood. Let him refer to one article in particular, on the subject of elections in Ireland, and I will undertake to prove it to be full of calumnious assertions and falsehoods on the popular party in Ireland. I will, however, dismiss much of incidental observation and remark, and come at once to the consideration of the measure immediately before the House. The first thing that is said of it is, that it is so unconstitutional—so foreign from every principle of that Constitution which has been so long our boast—so utterly destructive of every principle of civil liberty, as to find particular favour in the eyes of its framers. This, they say, constitutes its great merit, as there is no danger of its ever being brought into a precedent. Ridiculous assertion. It is as a precedent that its greatest danger consists. The Courts-martial have already formed a precedent for it—and it in turn will form a precedent for future invasions of the Constitution. Hereafter when a Minister brings forward an unconstitutional measure, and when he shall be opposed by those who may call themselves Whigs, he will refer to this measure with triumph, and will say, "you gave five Judges only; I give nine, and they must be unanimous. I send my prisoners to the common gaols: you to some private and secret dungeon." And when he falls short of you in the slightest degree, instead of blushing for his infraction of the Constitution, he will feel himself entitled to boast of his liberality in bringing forward a measure less arbitrary and despotic than yours. Oh, how I fancy I hear the cheers which will ring from those benches, when he shall taunt the minority with this measure. This Bill goes to the very furthest limits
248
of unconstitutionality, and leave a wide bound within which to range. I know that I am wearisome to the House, and what is worse, I have only begun. You have two things to establish the necessity of this Bill as applied to predial agitation, and the necessity of coercion as applied to political agitation. In order to do this, you must first pursue an investigation as to the causes of predial agitation. No man can legislate for the removal of this evil without perfectly understanding the cause. I did expect the right hon. Baronet who supported this measure, would have given us some statesmanlike dissertation on the causes of this agitation. It was his duty to have done so. He did not, however, think proper to enter into this subject. It has been admitted by some Members that tithes are one of the causes. The right hon. Gentleman denied this; but the noble Lord, the member for Nottingham, who is well acquainted with the state of Ireland, said that Ireland would never be tranquillized until the system of tithes should be put an end to. The Vestry Cess and Grand Jury Cess the rack-rents and the conduct of the landlords have also borne their part. But, if these are some of the causes of predial agitation, in what manner does this Act provide a remedy? It gives more power into the hands of the clergy; and do you think they will not use it? It gives more power to the collectors of Cess of various kinds, and gives more power to the landlords; it gives them more dominion over their tenants. The right hon. Baronet spoke of a parliament of landlords and referred to the improbability of landlords entering heartily into a reform of those abuses. But the right hon. Baronet himself has done much, no doubt unintentionally, to increase the distress of Ireland—I mean by the change of the currency. I know that many a family has been ruined by that change—a change which has increased their rent and their burthens, but diminished the value of their commodities, and driven them from comfort to distress, and from distress to the commission of these very crimes which this law is to put down. I have often deliberated whether it was not my duty to use my influence for the purpose of driving the Government to a bank restriction, and to a cheaper currency. I have not done so yet. But I am quite convinced that much of the distress which exists cannot possibly be alleviated without a cheaper

249
currency. My hon. colleague has rather unceremoniously introduced the name of the reverend Mr. Dwyer; that man was proved to be a persecutor and an extortioner. A poor widow obtained a decree against him for exacting too much tithe; she went with a bailiff to enforce the decree, and point out the tithe, and he actually took advantage of an Act passed for very different purposes, summoned her before a bench of Magistrates, who fined her 2l. under the Wilful Trespass Act, though she was merely seeking to enforce a legal decree. This is a fact which is supported by a letter that I have seen from Mr. Staunton Lambert, late member of this House for the county of Galway, and a most respectable gentleman. It is the duty of Ministers to show, before bringing forward a bill for authorising unconstitutional measures, that all legal means of remedying the evils of which they complained have been exhausted. It is also their duty to show that there exists no other constitutional means not going beyond the law which they have not exerted. On this ground, too, I shall be able to show that there exists no necessity for having recourse to the present coercive measures. If his Majesty's Ministers, after having used all legal and constitutional means, had applied for any such measures, there is not a single man who would not have been ready to support them. The House would have voted them unanimously. Now some such measures were suggested by the committee on the Queen's County; and they must have known of their existence and of their efficacy. This is why I arraign them; this is why I accuse them; because they know that there exist effectual means and because they do not use those means which they have ready; for here is the evidence before the committee of last year. My accusation is, that they have not used the means which have been tried before, and tried successfully. They have never tried Special Commissions in Ireland in any instance in which they have not been successful. They have tried them also successfully in England. The report stated that the Special Commission in the Queen's County had been eminently successful for the time. His Majesty's Ministers ought not, therefore, to have recourse to such steps as they now propose, unless they have already tried, without success, those means which have been found successful both in England and Ireland. If we are
250
to be suffocated—if the liberty of Ireland is to be trampled upon—if we are to be taunted as the protectors of crime—let then the reformers in the House require the Ministers to show that they have tried all the means which have been suggested in the Report; for whose is this Report? Though the right hon. Secretary, who was a member of that Committee, did not attend—I also was a member, and was able to attend only one day—the right hon. Secretary must at least have read the Report. He had the power of exercising his judgment with respect to it. If he had objected to any parts of the Report, would Sir Henry Parnell have made such a Report without carefully listening to his suggestions? The Committee tell this House that the Queen's County was quieted by a Special Commission, and give as their authority the evidence of the Lord Chief Justice, which states that such has always been the case in Ireland, and that of Mr. Barrington, for seventeen years Crown Solicitor on the Munster circuit, the largest in Ireland—a more intelligent, more honourable, man, or one more entitled to credit in point of integrity, does not exist among those whom I now address, or one more entitled to the character of a gentleman, and there is none his superior for trustworthiness. I implore the House to hear, before it proceed, the testimony of this man—that Special Commissions whenever they have been tried, have succeeded. That was the case in Cork, Kerry, Limerick, and last of all in Clare. With what face then, can the Ministers pretend that they have not already sufficient powers, When with these powers such as they are, they have succeeded in quieting that county at a time when it was in a state of actual rebellion—at a time when the peasantry were actually in possession of the county, when they dug up the potatoes, took possession of the tolls on every turnpike-road in the county, committed murder in the open day, and were, in short, in military possession of the county. I wish the Reformers in this House to weigh dispassionately the evidence and Report upon the subject, before they venture to give their sanction to the suspension of constitutional law in Ireland. It is proved, that Special Commissions have produced their effect in England and Ireland; and in the name of justice—in the name of the Constitution (and then you may sneer)—in the name of liberty, I summon you, Re-

251
formers to call on Ministers to retrace their steps, and tell them they ought not to presume to ask for unconstitutional powers, until they prove that there exist no Constitutional means adequate to the occasion. I differ from the opinions of my hon. friend, the member for the University of Dublin, with respect to the Assizes. The Assizes have civil business to perform. The Special Commissions have nothing to look to but the object for which they were sent—the putting a stop to the outrages in the disturbed districts. It has been triumphantly shown that Special Commissions never were unsuccessful. I can prove that by various extracts from the Report and evidence on the Queen's County, they all show that Ministers already possess adequate means for the suppression of disturbance. If a case such as that which I have now made out had been addressed to an impartial Jury (I mean nothing offensive), I should be stopped in my evidence, and the Jury would have hurled the plaintiff out of Court. But the Ministers take care not to have recourse to these constitutional methods, because they would not then have it in their power to treat the nation as they please. You have heard by their own confession, that they had these means; but they have thought this act preferable, because by using constitutional means, they would have destroyed the grounds which they had for claiming such measures as the present, and would have disturbed their progress to the authority and despotism of this measure. That despotism and that authority which they now claim would not have existed if they at first had recourse to the constitutional expedient of Special Commissions, I utterly deny that any evidence whatever has been adduced to show the necessity of ulterior measures. The noble Lord and the right hon. Secretary, have made, it is true, some particular statements. They have mentioned a threatening notice against Parson Dwyer, and I do not know how many Parson Dwyers may be in that red box. The right hon. Secretary told us of a number of Lord-lieutenants who had written to him on the disturbed state of their respective portions of Ireland, and urging the adoption of measures of coercion; but he did not mention the names of those Lieutenants; so that with respect to us who are called upon to legislate according to their evidence, their evidence is entirely anony-
252
mous. I will tell you a little of the history of some of these illegal notices. In the county of Wicklow, a number of these notices were sent to ladies and their husbands. Among others one was addressed to the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—he would not call him one of the young Hannibals, but the vicar of Bray, for he was the vicar of Bray. He possessed something of his fathers shrewdness, and observed, I think I know that hand. He sets to work, and traced it to a Protestant, a poor Orangeman, who was soliciting a place in the police. Thus the reverend Mr. Plunkett served to show a little of the nature of these notices. It always happens, that when the number of these notices is great in any district, that district is considered disturbed, and the number of the police is in consequence increased. It is, therefore, the interest of all who are desirous, and have any hopes of being so employed, to make the number of such notices as great as possible. The ground for the adoption of these measures is agrarian crimes; but I have stated, that during the last twenty years, Special Commissions have repeatedly put a stop to that sort of disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the murders which had been committed, and mentioned the base assassination of the reverend Mr. Houston, and he seemed to think that it originated in a private quarrel, in which all were drunk, and that this was a palliation of the murder. I cannot agree with him; the act was equally atrocious, whether it was the fruit of a private quarrel or of the system of tithes. Who would consider it otherwise? I have thus said enough to prove, that the House ought to be satisfied that there exists a necessity for having recourse to unconstitutional measures, and should proceed only on the evidence of the necessity. But now I will take up the other side, and demonstrate that this measure is not necessary, on the evidence of Members on the other side itself. I am sorry to be obliged by my duty, at this late hour of the night to trespass on the patience of the House. I will demonstrate, on their own showing, that the passing of this Bill is not necessary. First, the disturbance is merely local, and confined to particular districts. There is no disturbance in Ulster or even in Munster, nor is it universal in Leinster. I deny the existence of any in the county Louth. Then, it is alleged that there exists a deceitful

253
tranquillity. In Dublin county and in Dublin city, there is no disturbance. In King's County, in the county Longford, in Drogheda, and other counties, the people are tranquil. In Meath, several persons were convicted lately of assaulting the police, the persons who so assaulted them being drunk at the time; when the chief of the police observed, that as the people of Meath behaved so peaceably, he thought it would be best for the police to forgive them. Only a small portion of Ireland is actually disturbed—only a population of about 500,000 out of 8,000,000. And is that trifling portion of disturbers to afford sufficient reason for outlawing all the rest? The disturbance is nothing to what it has been in former times: in 1824, it reached to sixteen counties. I would ask the member for the Tower Hamlets, if the Union between England and Ireland be really complete, whether it would be equally just to extend the same measure to England and Wales on account of these partial disturbances? Well, if the extent of the disturbances is small, let the House see what are the grounds the measure is placed upon. In the first place, witnesses, it is said, have been intimidated. Has there been a single witness injured? The answer is, not one. That has been the answer of the noble Lord himself.
Lord Althorpwas understood to deny that statement, and observed, that he had referred to Queen's County.
Mr. O'Connell: All I can say is, I have taken down the noble Lord's words, and that he stated, when reading from a document, that "no witness had been injured." But it was said they had been intimidated; but the House has not heard the name of a single witness who has been injured. Witnesses allege that they have been threatened, for they have a deep interest, as it is the invariable practice in the case of such threats being used, to remove the witness from the abode of wretchedness to a place where he can live in plenty. One instance has been brought forward by the right hon. Baronet, which occurred nineteen years ago, of two witnesses, husband and wife, of the name of Delain. The barony of Collaugh was much disturbed, and these persons came forward as witnesses on a Crown prosecution. I defended the prisoners. The husband, Delain, gave a very good, and a very consistent account of what he wished the Jury to believe to have been the na-
254
ture of the transaction in question. But his wife, on being subjected to cross-examination, and not having heard her husband's testimony, betrayed the whole plan, although she agreed perfectly with her husband's evidence on all those points which they had settled between them. Baron George said: "Mr. O'Connell, here's a capital indictment. You need not take up the time of the Court with it, for no Jury could convict in such a case." What was my astonishment when I was informed that the prisoners had, notwithstanding this, been condemned? The Whiteboy Act gives the power of trying an offence of this nature either as a misdemeanour or a transportable felony. The same facts had been laid as a misdemeanour, and the four prisoners suffered the full severity upon this conviction. Delain and his wife returned to the country. They were assassinated. The husband and wife were both assassinated; but the child, whom the mother had held as a protection, was taken away and kindly treated. What grounds does that afford for having recourse to any unconstitutional methods? Eight men were executed for that crime. One innocent man was executed, who was proved to have had no other connexion with the murder than that he had walked for a short distance along with the murderers before the commission of the act. He had served in the navy, and was returning home. He left them to go to his own home. If Juries commit these mistakes with all their inclination to do justice, and Judges are anxious to assist the prisoner by every means in their power, what can be expected from the tribunals which it is now proposed to set up, consisting of five military officers, of whom three are to decide the sentence of the criminal to transportation—to the horrible passage by sea, and to the removal from their friends and families. It is evident, therefore, that there is a sufficient protection in the already existing laws for the safety of the subject. Mr. Barrington, who has directed his attention to the point for seventeen years, asserts, in his evidence, that these crimes uniformly arose from local causes. But I will now drop the subject of witnesses. The next point to which I have to allude is one from which I cannot be shaken. It is that with respect to Juries. The assertion that Jurors have been injured for the purpose of intimidating" others, is most

255
unfounded. Nothing can be a greater calumny. The crime which has been alluded to was committed many years ago, and the party was no Juror. It was on account of his conduct under the Insurrection Act that he had become obnoxious. If his conduct as a Juror had been the objectionable part of his conduct, when acting in that capacity at the Special Commission, the August preceding, the parties to whom he had become obnoxious had opportunities of effecting their purpose before the time of the murder. As to the subject of the injury done to Jurors, we have heard a story of a horse belonging to one of them dying in a ditch; and are these old women's tales—these foolish stories, to be considered sufficient to cause the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, of the Trial by Jury, and of constitutional liberty I Am I in an English assembly? Can I believe that it is an English House of Commons, which is willing, for one moment, to entertain the idea of doing away with constitutional liberty in Ireland? Am I not sure to stand triumphantly in its defence? If it can be believed that Ireland can ever be enslaved, or that she will ever crouch to any despot, let them send for the Dey of Algiers, who is disengaged. I thank the member for Leeds for the suggestion. I will give all up that I have said, if it can be shown that I am incorrect in these assertions. Do you think that this forbearance with respect to Jurors was accidental? Listen to the evidence of Mr. Barrington, on the point of the discrimination which the peasantry exercise in these matters. He distinctly states, that he knew no instance of hostility to Jurors on the part of the people. This is the evidence of a man who, for seventeen years, had the best opportunities of judging on the subject, and the business of whose life, during that long period of it, had been to attend to these things. At the same time his evidence had certainly proved that persons acting under the Insurrection Act had frequently been attacked and suffered injury; but there was not the slightest hostility against Jurors. English reformers, this is the evidence of a man in the confidence of his Majesty's Government. If he be not so, why do they not dismiss him? Why, because all Ireland would laugh them to scorn? He is possessed of that honour and integrity which is deserving of confidence. I do not say so because I boast
256
of the honour of his friendship, but because he is known to me and to the public of Ireland in general as an intelligent and upright man. Think, reformers, think for a moment of the extensive and atrocious measure, and see whether it be fitting that this should be the first act of the first Session of the Reformed Parliament—that Parliament which contains the men who struggled through good report and through evil report—who struggled against hope in the cause of freedom—is it fitting that that Parliament should open with such a measure as this? It depends on the spirit of the patriarchs of Reform to prevent the people of Ireland from being fettered by Ministers, on the ground of foolish, false, and I would say lying (if it were not too undignified a word) calumnies. Because Jurors dare not, it is alleged, do justice in consequence of intimidation, it is proposed to abolish trial by Jury. It has been argued against a domestic Parliament, that although, indeed, it would restore the absentees, yet they would never equal the generous Noblemen and Gentlemen of England. Here is the occasion to show their noble-mindedness and generosity—here it is. I will not believe, I cannot credit, that this will ever become law—that they will refuse to yield to argument—that they will allow it to be supposed they have no inclination to redress the evils of Ireland—they will let injustice swelter at the hearts of Irishmen. Think not that they are not an intelligent—that they are not a shrewd people. Think you that they will not see that the law possesses the means of redressing wrongs or crimes committed by law, and that your measures are therefore uncalled for? Think you that they will not remember that yon have not had special commissions, and, therefore, are not called upon to destroy the Constitution? Think you that they will not recollect that you have no right to pretend that Jurors cannot act from intimidation? You cannot say, that justice cannot procure convictions; for the Attorney General himself has stated, that in thirty-nine prosecutions which he instituted, he procured thirty-eight convictions. I defy them to show an instance of failure in obtaining a conviction where that was at all warranted. As to witnesses, it is known that sixty of those who appeared for the Crown were fed and well-clothed in a barrack in Dublin, one of whom, having stated he had gone into a

257
shop to purchase something, declared, on his cross-examination, that he did not know who furnished him with the money. The Carrickshaugh trials (nobody could doubt that these were murders) were said to afford an instance of Jurors being intimidated. I defended one of the prisoners on that occasion. The matter is of so much importance, that I cannot omit this opportunity of mentioning the grounds on which I did so. I defended the prisoner, not because I considered the act not to be murder, but because there was a doubt about his identity. The first Crown witness did not identify him. In that case I can speak, from my own knowledge, that no intimidation took place; and the Jury, who acquitted the man, consisted of seven Protestants and five Catholics. I can state a number of other cases, to show that Juries have not been intimidated. John Ryan was put upon his trial on the 5th of July; thirty-five of the Jurymen were challenged by the Government. The trial came on; a beggar-boy was put forward, dressed, not as a beggar-boy, but in such a style that he looked like a little gentleman from Merrion-square. He was interrogated as to the nature of an oath, and found to be so ignorant that he was put down. A man named Ross was indicted; he was proved to be a kind-hearted man, and one quite incapable of committing such an offence as that which was charged against him. He was acquitted, though 132 Jurors had been put by on the part of the Crown, forty-five of whom were Protestant Gentlemen. Ross was again indicted, and again acquitted. Was either of these an improper acquittal? Is there a Gentleman now present who will say, that any one of them was? At the end of the Assizes one Juror was excused, on the ground that his wife had dreamed that something would happen if he attended. There is no pretence for saying that there had been a failure of justice in the Carrickshaugh case. You do not show that any of the witnesses had been injured, nor any of the Jurors—nor that there has been a failure of justice. Why, then, do you claim these extraordinary powers? Instead of looking to special commissions, which would quiet the country, what have you been doing since August last? What, but enforcing your new Tithe Act, going from parish to parish with horse, foot, and artillery, to collect tithes, and turning the Lord Lieutenant
258
of the country into a tithe-proctor-general. You say you have not fabricated these insurrections, nor the evidence of them. I believe you are incapable of doing it; but if it was your intention to fabricate evidence, you could not have acted more completely for such a purpose than you have done. You want to get up a case to put his Majesty's subjects in Ireland at your disposal; and what do you do? You avoid the means of putting down the disturbances, and at the same time you stimulate us in what you know is our most sensitive point. That is what you have done—without the intention, perhaps, of exciting us; but seeing what you have done, are you surprised at the result? You may well be surprised, that it is not worse titan it is. You have done your best to make it worse. You have done all that it was possible to do. I should like to know, when you talk of these murders by the people, how many of the people have been shot by the police in this tithe campaign; I know that the number is extraordinarily great. It was great in Mayo. I should like to have the accounts from Mayo. It was great in the Queen's County. Many have been shot in Kilkenny—many in Waterford—and in Cork multitudes! Four of the last verdicts I knew of before I left Ireland were against police or marines for wilful murder. To show the system of provocation with regard to tithes, I will state the case of Wallstown. There is a statute of 7th George 3rd, c. 21, by which the people are enabled to serve notices on the clergyman, that they will set out his tithes by a particular day, in order that he may come and draw them off; and that statute makes it necessary for them to leave the tithes on the land, secured and protected as long-as they leave their own crop on the ground. A trick was resorted to by the people. They did preserve the tithes as long as their own crop was on the ground; but they availed themselves of the absence of the clergyman; they kept off his tithe proctors, and having removed their own crops, they destroyed the tithes. The clergyman had his remedy under the 27th of George 3rd, which makes it a penal offence to obstruct a clergyman or impropriator from valuing and setting out any tithes to which he may be entitled; but, not content with that, he would insist upon going upon the land whilst the crops were growing, which no lawyer would pretend

259
to deny was a trespass. Outrages were the consequence. Dr. Fitzgerald, a physician, who had been turned into a stipendiary Magistrate, hearing that the people had attacked Archdeacon Cotton's men, applied to the Castle for advice about calling out the military. The case was laid before the Crown lawyers, and their opinion was, that the question was so doubtful, that they would not authorise him to employ the police to protect the valuators under the circumstances I have here stated. This is the evidence of Mr. Fitzgerald before a Committee of the House of Lords, given on the 18th January, 1832. He stated, that the tiling occurred in August, 1831. Notwithstanding that opinion of the Crown lawyers, the Irish Government sent horse, foot, and artillery. Since August last, while you have avoided Special Commissions, you have employed the police and military, and at Wallstown no less than four persons were shot. Are you surprised at insurrections after this? Let me be answered on this, and I shall be able to reply. I have been of necessity longer than I anticipated in making these observations; and yet I have not gone through a part of the case which most interests myself, though I would do so, if I could feel an interest stronger in what relates to myself than in what concerns my country. I care not for personal attacks. If I had not the consolation of knowing that my intentions are pure and disinterested, and that I am anxious only for peace, good order, and freedom—if I had not the comfort of my own feelings in this respect—if my conscience did not approve, not of every expression, perhaps, but of my motives—if I did not feel that my motives are only the warmest wishes for the increase of human happiness and liberty, wherever the slave is oppressed, or the oppressor can be found—if I had not these things to console me, I might feel the attacks that have been made upon me; but having them, I care not for the taunts of those who
"See all things clear
With fifteen hundred pounds a-year;"
and who might see otherwise with a different income, or if that income was taken away. But, Sir, the wrongs of my country have been mixed up with attacks on me. Why not banish me for a year and a half? I tell you what, I will consent to it. You shall banish me; but do not thus oppress ray country. What is this
260
Reformed Parliament, the representative of the great and generous people of England—what is it doing? Disguise it as you will, you are legislating against a single individual. I really pity you. You do this because my name is made to rhyme with a line of a miserable ballad. Oh, it was excellent wit—it was superabundant cause of merriment. You may delude yourselves with this, but you will not delude the sensible people of Ireland or of England. They will see, that this atrocious Bill of Pains and Penalties is passed against me. There are many men existing who think I am one who say—that if you cannot do without such a measure, you ought to abdicate. If you cannot govern Ireland without it, it is most necessary that you should abdicate. The advantage of England calls for your abdication. What will become of your National Debt and its interest, if you oppress us till you drive us into a servile war? Do you think you can preserve Ireland in the teeth of this injustice? You come for these measures; you do not tell us of what effect they will be after you get them. I have shown you that stillness may be produced by the Special Commissions. If I advise you, it will be said I threaten; if I prophesy, I shall be taunted with provoking what I prophesy. Such is the miserable: condition I am in, that I cannot tell I you of your danger without having it said that I am creating that danger. I abandon giving you advice—I know what is its value—but I avoid giving it. I will say nothing more of the consequences of this measure—of what will be its effect—for take notice you must, that it is not sufficient for you to have shown what you have yet shown, in order to put down the Constitution. If the Special Commissions are to be at an end—if murder is still going on—still you are not warranted in trampling on the Constitution; you must show, that by doing so you can cure the evil. You must not pass such a measure merely to gratify your own idleness, to enable yourselves to sleep in your beds of down. You must show, that what you propose is a cure for the evils you have been talking of. You cannot show it. The measure may produce temporary tranquillity, but it will be followed by greater rancour; there will be a greater cause for rancour. Now, poverty struggling to maintain a miserable existence—then, both judgment and reason entering into the

261
contest, and fortifying the despair of distress. Labour in Ireland has, at present, no certainty of hire, nor any reward. It does not get a bounty of 6d., no, nor 2d. a-day, out of land producing 4l. an acre on green lands, and sometimes 8l. an acre for potato lands; and yet this is all that the miserable wretch who cultivates them has to subsist on. These are the evils;—and then the tithes! Did not one noble Lord tell yon, that unless you abolished tithes this measure would not be sufficient? There is not an individual of more honour or honesty in this kingdom than the noble Lord, the member for Nottingham. I know that he is opposed to opinions that I hold to be most true; but he is so conscientiously—he is a man of high mind; he is a member, too, of the Government; and what does he say? That you must abolish tithes. The right hon. Gentleman does not agree with those opinions; he would flog not high but low. The noble Lord tells him, that until you change the destination of tithes, till you take them from a supernumerary and unnecessary clergy, you gain nothing. What will your Bill do without this? It will make the breach more wide; it will make men cry out for justice, and make the old exclaim, that manly vigour is gone, and the country is no longer able to vindicate its rights. Do not deal with us thus—for your own sakes I would impress it on you—it is for your own benefit that I give this advice. What were the grievances of America when she left you? You had not dared to trample on her as you have trampled on Ireland: yet you did enough to make the Americans separate themselves;—you spurned their petitions—you taunted their messenger, Franklin. I will not venture to compare myself with him. You accused him of being the forger of a letter, which was as genuine as the heart of the man was true. You sent him from your House with insult; and what was the result? There was no party in that country, as in Ireland, clinging to some measure of despotism, and supporting you in it, with a view to ruin your character, and to give itself strength; and so, the people being-united, they successfully resisted you. But, do you think you have a party in Ireland which will assist you in your undertaking? By whom, I ask you, will you execute this measure? By the Orange party?—by that Magistracy which every Ministry has promised to reform and
262
to correct?—by that Magistracy whom the right hon. Gentleman instructed Lord Manners to revise, and who would have been reformed, but that, by the influence of some member of the Government, the bad men were restored again to power? This is the effect of the evidence of General Burke—they are, in fact, the instruments named in this Bill—they will be the agents, the hosts, the entertainers, of those who are to execute this offspring of the spirit of their party. Lord Cloncurry—what does he say of them? He says, he has known the debtor Magistrate transport his creditor. That is the administration of justice in Ireland. I have not heard it—it is no vain rumour—I have known it; I have known, too, of the admirer of female beauty transporting the father or the brother of the female! These are not the only instances of abuses under the Insurrection Act. Are these the men to whom you will again give such power?—is that the intention of this Reformed Parliament? If you do not give them the power, but suppress the Orange lodges, as you will suppress the Political Unions—if, in truth, you act impartially, Ireland will be against you to a man. You must bring them to your bosoms, or this will be the consequence. I know that others know it—one especially, whom, though he differs from me in opinion, I respect most sincerely for his honesty and for his talents. If you will not rule by them, they will not act with you. You may execute your measure, and what will it produce? The tranquillity of the grave—a deathlike silence, and a dreary repose; but not peace—not quiet—not confidence. You may bury ashes, but they will not burn again: you may sow dragon's teeth—take care they do not rise armed men. I say that, in the first place, you have not made out a sufficient case to justify you in calling for this measure. In the second, you have not shown that this is the proper remedy for the evils of which you complain. In the third, you have given nothing like legal evidence for the measure. In the fourth, you have not shown, that one witness or one Juror has been injured since the Special Commission in the Queen's County. As to the danger to the witnesses, the county of Clare was quieted by two Special Commissions. Witnesses were examined before the Judges—where are those witnesses? In thatched cottages in the very district itself. One of them, on

263
whose evidence five men were convicted, lives in such a cottage in a dreary part of the country. He has resided there ever since. A Catholic clergyman wrote to inform me of the fact, in order that I might state it to the Government, to let them know where the man was, and to persuade him not to tempt his fate. He was an informer; on his evidence five men have been executed on charges of murder. If any man can be supposed to be in danger from giving evidence, that man is. If the precaution to protect witnesses be not superfluous, protect him. If it be, this measure is not wanted; but because I suggest the possibility that such precaution would be advisable in his case, I am met with a taunt and a laugh. The man has resided there for two years. I show you that your witnesses are safe; that no Juryman has been injured; that Special Commissions have not been resorted to; and having shown this, I say that I have established the non-existence of any necessity for this measure. I say that till you have tried constitutional, you have no right to introduce unconstitutional measures, and that this House ought not to adopt them till then. I know it is said, that if the powers thus given be abused, the Ministers will be responsible to a Reformed Parliament. But who will complain here or elsewhere? You stop all complaint—you stop even petitioning, and that in the most efficacious way—and then you mock us with scorn, and talk of responsibility. I now come to another part of the subject. You say, that this measure is necessary against predial and political agitation. Mow do you show the connexion between them? Has there been any direct allegation of their connexion? Is not the offence already provided for by a punishment of transportation for life? If that be not enough, you have the general law of Conspiracy to meet every case. When there were public meetings, which you deemed improper, at the end of last year, you put them down by those Acts; you prosecuted, and you never failed of a conviction. But I deny, with the most indignant scorn, that political agitation is in the slightest degree connected with predial agitation. You cannot deny us inquiry on this point. Separate, in Committee, this measure into two Bills, and let us have an inquiry. Let us not be tried on scraps of newspapers, containing, one of them at least, a gross falsehood—
264
that which attributed to me the creating of Arbitration Courts, and holding up to the hatred of the public those who would not attend them. The fact is, that political agitation is calculated to stop predial agitation. This is proved by the fact, that as political agitation has been extended, predial agitation has diminished. The Catholic Association was established in 1824; and in that year it was, that Sir Thomas Lambert circulated at his own expense, 30,000 copies in the South of Ireland, of an address written by me to tranquillize the country. Let us see what the effect of establishing the Catholic Association was. The number of persons charged with treasonable offences was, in 1823, 106; 1824, one; 1825, one; 1826, one; 1827, none; 1828, none; 1829, none; and the greater number of these years were "years of political agitation." Offences with violence have decreased, as political agitation spread. There were accused of seditious practices,—in 1822, 499; 1823, 424; 1824, 121; 1825, seventeen; 1827, four; and whereas, for robbing of arms, in the year 1822, sixty-four men were arraigned; in 1828, the number came down to seven. I here show you six years of the greatest agitation; during which predial crimes have gradually decreased in Ireland, Here, then, can you say that predial and political agitation are concurrent? What do I ask for upon these facts? Nothing but inquiry. All I say is, hold! do not give us a gagging Bill; do not deprive us of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Trial by Jury; do not condemn us unheard. We are not White-feet; and do not carry on our attacks by night, but by day. Why cannot you put us down by day, then? You have the Libel Law, and may proceed against the papers which publish our speeches. What have we done that you should deprive us of the rights of Englishmen—without inquiry? You may insinuate—you may allege—you may say, that peace is recommended by us, but that we promote disturbance. If that be the case, you can prove it, and it is an indictable offence for which you may punish us. You cannot contend that you have not the power to convict us, for one of our complaints is, that you can, and do, pack Juries. You packed a Jury to try me; and might do so to try any other man. When the Jury, by which I was tried, was selected, you put off from it Alderman M'Kenna, whom

265
you afterwards made a Baronet; you also put off the Chairman of the Bank of Ireland, and others, who, it was thought, would only act fairly, till you succeeded in obtaining a Jury known to be violently against me;—for although I have many friends, I have some enemies in Dublin. You can do all this again; and you have no pretence, therefore, for saying that you cannot enforce the law. You tell us, that a multitude of crimes are committed in Ireland, and the circumstance was much insisted upon by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth. I beg the House will for one moment lend me its attention, whilst I make an observation upon the powerful speech delivered by that right hon. Gentleman—a speech which, perhaps, better answered the purpose of its deliverer than any he ever before delivered in this House. Alluding to the period of the year 1798, he instanced a case of the seizure of an individual in Ireland at that time, upon whose person were found several copies of an Address to the United Irishmen, exhorting them to peace and sobriety, to refrain from all kinds of violence, and to be patient and submissive; but with all this apparent desire to encourage order and the authority of the law, a Serjeant's Oath, and a Return of the number of United Irishmen in several towns were also found upon him. The right hon. Baronet inferred from that fact that others might now be doing the same [hear, hear]. Let those who cheer listen, and learn how the case stands. What was the peace of the United Irishmen? They suggested military discipline; their peace, among themselves, was military discipline—the discipline of the regiment—of the camp: they were not to get drunk; they were not to commit themselves with strangers; they were to be orderly and keep the peace; but prepare for the field: the Serjeant's Oath was one part of it. Their organization was military. What Commander of a regiment is there, quartered in Dublin, who does not issue his orders to the troops under him, not to go into public houses, to make no enemies, to avoid all suspicious persons, to shun disturbances, and to conduct themselves peaceably to all men. This is the "discipline of the camp;" it was that of the United Irishmen. But what are our engines of action? Public and open proclamations of grievances, sufferings, and misery; complaints that, in the richest
266
land in the world, the people are starving; that the Church wallows in wealth, while they want sustenance;—that the Magistracy is tyrannical—that Juries are packed—that the Corporations are narrow monopolists, bigoted and exclusive;—in a word, that everything is for the enemies of the people, nothing for the people themselves. These grievances have been super induced by the Landlords' Law. This House has passed five Acts of Parliament increasing the power of the landlord over the tenant, who may now be turned out of his farm and ruined for something less than 7s. 6d; whereas, formerly, the legal process cost 15 l. or 16 l.;—a cheap mode of killing off the superabundant tenants by parliamentary authority. I defy any one to show that I have stated one grievance of Ireland that did notexist, orexaggerated any one actually existing. I repeat the challenge. Show me that I have done so, and then turn your parliamentary powers against me, if the ordinary law is not strong enough. But until you show me, that I have done one or the other, what care I for your charges? The noble Lord entered, the other night into a calculation of the number of offences committed in Ireland. He went through a period of thirteen months, and gave us an account of thirteen or fourteen murders which had been committed in that time. The right hon. Baronet who spoke subsequently to him, by some strange multiplication, increased the number to 116 murders; as much blood, he observed, as was shed at the battle off St. Vincent. [Mr. Stanley: Sixty-six actual murders, and 133 cases of attempt to kill]. The noble Lord certainly did not say thirteen; but he went through that number of individual cases one by one. That is not, however, what I complain of. I ask why are we to adopt this hop-step-and-jump statement? How know I that it is correct? Where are the cases—where is the return of them? Ought not we to have something tangible? Or shall we remain in doubt? The question is, to take away the Constitution. Let me suppose the noble Lord to be right in taking 1,500 as the number of crimes of all kinds committed in Ireland within the last three months. What is the state of crime in England? The noble Lord's catalogue includes threatening notices and serious assaults, and the total amount is, he says, 1,500. I beg the House to

267
bear with me, while entering into this calculation. How many of that number were assaults, I know not—I care not—it is no matter: but all the assaults are included in it. Several of them were not of a common nature—not cases of the mere lifting up of a finger, but cases in which an actual blow was given. What, however, was the state of crime in the year 1822? There were 738 actual committals for treasonable offences, seditious practices, robberies of arms, assembling armed by night, and robbing the mail. Add to these offences many for which the perpetrators were not committed to trial, and you will have at least 7,380 for the total number in that year, considerably more in proportion than the number stated by the noble Lord to have occurred in the last thirteen months. Again, in the year 1823, the number of committals was 629, which would give 6,290 for the offences in that period. Let me now turn to England. In the year 1831, the capital offences of the highest nature, not including assaults, amounted to 19,646, and in the year following, to 21,000, or 5000 each quarter. Now, the population of England is 12,000,000, that of Ireland is only 8,000,000. [Mr. Stanley: The statement was confined to the province of Leinster]. It is the province of Leinster alone, to which that calculation applies. How know I the correctness of the fact? Would not a Court-martial require some more evidence to decide upon than this? How know I, that in that catalogue there are not repetitions, many of them regarding the same offence? How know I what faith is to be placed in those who made the returns? How do I know who the accusers are? Take the rest of the offences throughout Ireland—they are not 500 for the other three provinces for the same period. Take the case in the strongest way against me, and they will not amount to more than the number of higher offences, only, in England and Wales. In the county of Kerry there are eleven prisoners; in the western division of the county of Cork, there are only ten. Is a country to be outlawed on such a statement as this? Above all, upon this miserable calumny, are we to trample down every right that is dear to freemen—even the right to complain? We were told by the right hon. Baronet, that agitation has subsisted in Ireland concurrently with these crimes. The fact is, agitation commenced in the
268
month of October; it increased in November, though not rising to any serious height. The elections then intervened, and engaged everybody's attention; and in a fortnight or three weeks we were all here. Agitation has had no time to hold out hope to the people. The right hon. Gentleman assailed Mr. Steele, and read a passage from a speech of that Gentleman, in which there was certainly a good deal of ribaldry, and for which (I do not hesitate to say) the Government were right in putting him on his trial. That trial he must abide; and, if the Jury think that he used the expressions with an intention derogatory to his allegiance in any way, they will convict him; but, if they believe that he used them in order to obtain the confidence of the people, whereby he might be enabled to promote peace—which will be his only defence—though if the Jury should be of the same opinion as hon. Gentlemen here, they will convict him, and he will be punished; otherwise they must be bound to acquit him. I will only say, with reference to that Gentleman, that they mistake him much, who judge of him from those passages of his speech. He is, it is true, an enthusiast, and a generous enthusiast; but he is, also, a man of science, and an excellent scholar. He has made many scientific discoveries; he has improved the diving-bell.; and when a tunnel was projected, under the bed of the Mersey at Liverpool, he was the means of preventing many of the citizens from embarking in a ruinous speculation. I will not speak of the chivalrous manner in which he risked his person, and ventured much of his fortune in the cause of Spanish liberty; but there does not exist a creature of more true humanity of disposition, though mixed with a strain of occasional wildness, than my friend Mr. Steele. I do assure Gentlemen who laugh at Mr. Steele, that if they had the pleasure of his acquaintance, they would very soon learn to estimate him highly. While Gentlemen might lament his failings, they would unquestionably esteem his manliness, his kindness, and his many good qualities. I am aware that he now appears before the House in a situation which renders him liable to be misunderstood. But I know him well; and if other Gentlemen knew him as well, they would esteem him as warmly as I do. But what has he done? I will here mention

269
a remarkable fact to the House, illustrative of his character. In one of the late en-counters in the county of Kilkenny, between some Whitefeet and a party of police, one of the former was shot, and died of his wounds. Mr. Steele attended the inquest, and made a speech to the man's relations, pointing out to them, in very strong characters, the folly and misery, as well as the criminality, of their conduct. But what I more particularly wish to bring to the attention of the House is, the funeral proceedings on this occasion. The place appointed for the interment of the body was a mountain-pass. At that spot he had the body laid out; he stopped the weeping and wailing of the friends of the deceased, and then harangued the people in an address—in which, after pointing out the disastrous consequences of their improper behaviour, he said, that he thought it his duty to offer his tribute of just praise to Major Brown (of the police), whose humanity and benevolence rendered him the object of the blessings of the surrounding country. Now, who was this Major Brown? The very man by whose hand the deceased had fallen; at least, who commanded the party from whom that individual received his death-wound. Such was the conduct of Mr. Steele. See what the Irish peasant suffers without the least reproach! The body of the dead man was there—his wife, children, and friends were there; and upon that occasion the very individual by whose hands he had fallen received a tribute of praise for his humanity and kindness from this agitator. I do not think this incident can be an uninteresting one to the House, and therefore I have narrated it. I turn now, however, to another subject, and am drawing to a close. I have omitted many topics, but I will now go to the more direct attack made on me personally by the right hon. Secretary, who, the other evening, read a letter of mine to the House. It is my habit to put my name to everything that I send to a newspaper; and if the matter be indictable, I afford the Government an opportunity of prosecuting, not only the proprietors of the paper, but myself. What was the passage which the right hon. Secretary read? It was that in which I stated that the member for Athlone had voted against Ireland, and I appealed to the people to know whether they approved of his conduct. I also made use of similar language with respect to
270
the members for Limerick. The right hon. Secretary said, that I was wrong in having done so; and he was cheered. I assert that I was right, and perfectly constitutional. I have a right to appeal to the public against the vote which any man gives in this House. I say, that that is a constitutional principle. I have no right to impute motives, and there was no motive imputed in the case in question. I have no right to say, that there was a dishonest intention in the party voting—that he was looking for a place for himself or for a relative; but I do assert it, here, that every human being, governed by laws, has a right to complain of the votes of the framers of those laws. There was an attempt made by this House to suppress the publication of the lists of divisions. [No, no.] There was. I appeal to my hon. friend, the member for Middlesex. The publication was complained of in the year 1822; and the House put it down. But the lists are now published. You are the servants of the public, not of any particular place. When elected by any one constituency, you represent the whole United Kingdom; and so every man has a right to know your vote and canvass it. No man has a right to impute motives to you; but I claim a right of stating my opinion as to the mischief which I think any vote of yours may create: and that right I will exercise, until you put it down by some Gagging Bill. I am willing; that the same privilege should be exercised by any one else with regard to my own vote. I have now wearied the House. I have not exhausted the subject, nor have I exhausted the deep interest I feel in it. I say, that as far as political agitation is concerned, there is no such case made out, that any dispassionate man, putting his hand to his heart, can say, there is evidence to connect it with predial insurrection. Upon inquiring into the subject, facts to the contrary stare you in the face. Is not Ireland in distress? Is she not in want, and suffering grievances? The noble Lord, the member for Armagh, exclaims that relief must be given; and you promise relief. Oh, yes! If we pass this Bill, you will give us a measure of Church relief. But are you sure of passing that measure of relief in another House? It has little immediate practical benefit, besides the abolition of Church-cess. But to secure it, why not adopt the wise Motion

271
of my hon. friend, and keep your hands over this measure until you have steered the other over the rocks and quicksands in another place? I am not entering into any compromise. I say, that Ireland requires relief, and I ask how do you propose to afford it her? You will not apply any part of the rich revenues of the Church to the relief of the poor. What is to become of them? You can give them nothing; and the only thing I can offer them is hope—the hope of a domestic Legislature. You may think that a delusive hope. How are you to show it to be such? By anticipating me—by evincing that you are a protecting Legislature—that you are a kind and paternal Legislature. Oh! instead of that, you turn away the look of kindliness;—you turn away all benefits, and leave the grinding evils. You leave the rack-renting absentees—yon leave every misery and grievance untouched—for bread you give them a stone—you raise the scorpion rod of despotic authority over them—and say, that "you must be feared before you can be loved." I deny it. Sir—I deny that you have made out a case—I deny that you have shown that predial insurrection has anything to do with political agitation;—I deny the right upon which you found this coercion—I deny that witnesses have been injured—lately, at least, to any public knowledge. If they have, I utterly deny that any Juror has been injured, during the whole period of this political agitation. Predial agitation subsisted for forty years before political agitation commenced. Having thus demonstrated that this mea-sure is by no means necessary, shall I trust the despotic power it confers to hands which I think ought to have no power at all—to statesmen, who mingle miserable personal feelings with their political conduct? I call upon you, if you would conciliate Ireland—if you would preserve that connexion which I desire you to recollect has never yet conferred a single blessing upon that country—that she knows nothing of you but by distress, forfeitures, and confiscations—that you have never visited her but in anger—that the sword of desolation has often swept over her, as when Cromwell sent his eighty thousands to perish—that you have burthened her with grinding penal laws, despite of the faith of treaties, and in violation of every compact—and that you have neglected to fulfil the pro-
272
mises you dealt out to her. You have, it is true, granted Catholic Emancipation; but nine-and-twenty years after it was promised, and five-and-twenty years after the Parliament of Ireland must, of necessity, have done so. We know you, as yet, but in our sufferings and in our wrongs; and you are now kind enough to give us as a boon this Act, which deprives us of the Trial by Jury, and substitutes Courts-martial—which deprives us of the Habeas Corpus Act, and in a word, imposes on a person the necessity of proving himself innocent. That Act you give us, and you tell us it will put down the agitation of the Repeal of the Union. I tell you, that until you do us justice, you can never expect to attain your object. The present generation may perish. Your Robespierrian measures may destroy the existing population; but the indignant soul of Ireland you can never annihilate. There was a time when a ray of hope dawned upon that country. It was when the present Parliament first assembled. We saw this Reformed House of Commons congregated. We knew that every man here had a constituency—we knew that the people of England were represented here—we knew that the public voice not only would influence your decisions, but command your votes—we hoped that you would afford us a redress of our grievances;—and you give us—an Act of despotism!
Mr. Cobbett: I move the adjournment of the debate. We have heard a great deal from the other side of the House of midnight murders and assassinations. If this Bill pass, it will be the murder of the Constitution. If we must murder it, at least let us murder it by daylight.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was clearly understood last night, as far as such a matter could be made one of arrangement, that the House were to sit, however late, and endeavour to finish the discussion to-night. How was it possible that his Majesty's Ministers could conduct the business of the country, if after such an understanding, the debate were to be again adjourned? He should certainly say, that after the long discussion, and after the speech of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, the sense of the House might be advantageously taken at once. But he had no right to stand in the way of any hon. Gentleman who wished to address the House; and he and his friends were quite ready to perform their part of the under-

273
standing of yesterday evening, and listen to any further arguments that might be advanced on the subject.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he had no wish to be obstinate. He was not present when the sort of engagement was made to which the noble Lord had alluded; but if the seconder of his Motion acquiesced in his withdrawing it, he had no objection to withdraw it.
The Seconder having intimated his acquiescence, the Motion for adjourning the debate was withdrawn.
Lord Althorpthen rose to reply: he assured the House that he should detain them only for a few minutes; that he should use his best endeavours to make himself heard; but he begged to suggest, that repeated demands for silence was not the most effectual mode of obtaining it. One of the first topics to which he should endeavour to address himself, was one on which he felt no small solicitude—which arose from an anxiety to remove a suspicion that appeared to be entertained of his not being so favourable to the adoption of the present measure, and therefore not so cordial in recommending it as the other members of his Majesty's Government. He could assure the House, that, however much he might regret the necessity for such a proceeding—and none regretted more deeply than he did the condition of society which made such a step indispensable—none more sincerely deplored the extent of severity which had become unavoidable—but at the same time seeing that necessity, and admitting its pressure, none more heartily or cordially united with the other members of the King's Government in framing the measure which circumstances demanded; and, in laying it before Parliament, no one could more sincerely or earnestly urge its adoption. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, in giving an account of the state of Leland, and in describing the number, the extent, and the atrocity of the outrages committed by the native Irish in the time of Queen Elizabeth, appeared to him to be doing nothing more than detailing an amount of crime and of suffering about equal to that which was inflicted by the lawless insurgents who now wielded au almost despotic power in Ireland—a power which rendered life and property insecure to a degree of which past history afforded scarcely a similar instance, even in Ireland, it was not
274
to be disputed that the state of things in Ireland was such, that no man dared to give an opinion adverse to the views of the dominant party—that no man ventured to utter a sentiment that might by possibility be thought opposed to anything which the lawless miscreants who ruled in some parts of Ireland adopted as the principles of their assumed government. Was such a state of things to be met by mild and gentle measures, or was it not, on the contrary, to be encountered by that which, he was willing to admit, bore the character of a despotic measure? He felt, that in dealing with a question of that nature, involving as it did so many details, and coming to it at the end of so long a debate, he could not proceed through all the details, still less could he take up the several topics in anything like a regular order; and, therefore, it only remained for him to notice them as they presented themselves to his mind, confining himself to those which appeared of the most importance. It had been said, that illegal notices had been served by persons who desired to get into the police, and those Members who had not paid much attention to the affairs of Ireland might imagine that the service of illegal notices was a matter of no such very great importance; but it was a very great mistake to suppose that they were matters of such trifling moment, or that any person, even suspected of such an offence, could, for a moment, hope to be employed upon the police establishment. The service of illegal notices was, in Ireland, a very serious matter; and, as must be in the recollection of many hon. Members, notices were served upon Mr. Houston three months before the threatened murder was committed. It was true that, in introducing the measure, he admitted that no actual violence had been offered to Jurymen; but how did that alter the nature of the question? Though they had not actually suffered by direct violence, it was well known that they had been intimidated, and that one gentleman had been obliged to sleep with pistols under his pillow for fear of some outrage being committed on him, because he had not attended on some trial where the insurgent party calculated on the acquittal of a criminal. He did not, however, trust to solitary cases of that kind—he trusted to the general reports from the disturbed districts, given as the best authority; and, above all, to the charges of

275
the Judges. There had already been a good deal of quotation from the charges of the learned Judges who had presided at the several Special Commissions; but what said the Chief Justice at the Special Commission for the Queen's County?—That whole classes were proscribed, that the humblest individual who served the most common process of the law was treated as a felon; that the witness who gave testimony, from whatever motives, was treated as a common informer of the most degraded and worthless class; and that, when unprotected by actual military force, they were made the objects of the most brutal and cruel tortures to which human nature could be subjected. Jurors were scarcely in a better situation; and in such a state of things, the House were called upon to respect the principles of the British Constitution, and not to aim at the introduction of any powers beyond the ordinary operation of the laws. The hon. member for Meath had charged the Gentlemen of that county with great neglect, in not coming forward to resist the outrages committed in that part of the country; but he trusted that the House would bear in mind, that things had arrived at such a pass, that no interference on their part could arrest the progress of crime. It had been made a matter of reproach against the present Government, that they were not prepared to propose the introduction of poor-laws in Ireland; certainly the King's Government entertained no wish to introduce into Ireland the system of Poor-laws which had been established in England. Many persons, of the highest authority, had expressed a strong conviction that the introduction into Ireland, of any system of Poor-laws, could not but be attended with the worst effects; and worst of all, the introduction of the English system. Was there any one in that House who recommended the introduction of the English system of Poor-laws? There certainly had been no decision on the part of his Majesty's Government against the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland; but, at the same time, there had been no decision in favour of any measure of that nature. They certainly had not decided that such a measure would be improper; but they had quite made up their minds that the English system would not do. He had received great complaints from various Members for the mode in which he had introduced the Bill; but
276
these complaints came all from those opposed to the measure. His speech on the occasion had been contrasted with that of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland. Now he was willing to admit, that he was sincere in the view which he took of the question; but, he was afraid that, if his sincerity was to be judged of by the excellence of his speeches, he should indeed be left in a sad plight. From the supposed coincidence between their views and those of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, and, upon that supposed coincidence, were founded various reports of a coalition with the right hon. Baronet and his friends. Now he trusted that it was hardly necessary for him to say, that for such a report there was not the slightest foundation; and he was sure that no one who attended to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, but must see that there existed a very considerable difference between that right hon. Baronet and the Government of the King. The hon. member for Coventry had complained of him and his colleagues, for saying, that they would stake their situations and the permanency of the Government upon the result of the present measure; but his noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, had fairly replied to that, by saying, that they would be utterly disgraced if they demanded such a measure without the highest degree of necessity; and that, having demanded it, they would falsify their own assertions by abandoning it. He fully agreed with those hon. Members who thought that, in a Reformed House of Commons, it did not become them to assume that they had lost the confidence of the Legislature on every occasion on which they might be left in a minority. The present was not a struggle between two parties, but an anxious effort, on the part of the House, to adopt the course which the necessities of the country required. There had not been the slightest attempt at dictation on the part of the Ministers; but, supposing it were otherwise, had they not been outdone by their opponents, who said to them, you shall carry on the Government according to our views, but you shall, though without power, be answerable for the result? It had been matter of objection against the Bill, that it did not afford a sufficient remedy for the evils of Ireland. He admitted it did not, but it would go to remedy one of the evils—that of the extreme insecurity which

277
rendered life and property almost of no value there; and as to further and other remedies, he trusted the House would do him the justice to believe, that there existed as sincere a desire on the part of his Majesty's Government, as on that of any of their opponents, to remedy as many as possible of the evils which afflicted that unhappy country. At that late hour he should not trouble the House with any further observations.
The House divided: Ayes 466; Noes 89—Majority 377.
Bill read a first time.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J.

Brodie, W. B.

Acheson, Viscount

Brougham, W.

Adam, Admiral C.

Brougham, J.

Adams, E. H.

Browne, J.

Agnew, Sir A.

Browne D.

Althorp, Viscount

Bruce, Lord E.

Anson, Sir G.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Anson, Hon. G.

Buller, J. W.

Arbuthnot, General

Buller, E.

Ashley, Lord

Bulteel, J. C.

Ashley, Hon. H.

Burdett, Sir F.

Astley, Sir Jacob

Burrell, Sir C.

Astley, Sir John

Burton, H.

Atherley, A.

Buxton, F. F.

Baillie, J. E.

Byng, G.

Baillie, Colonel J.

Byng, Sir J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Cal craft, J. H.

Balfour, J.

Callander, J. H.

Bankes, W. J.

Calley, T.

Bannerman, A.

Calvert, N.

Baring, H. B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Baring, W. B.

Carew, R. S.

Baring, A.

Carter, J. B.

Baring, F. T.

Cartwright, W. R.

Barnard, E. G.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Barnett, C. J.

Cavendish, Hon. CC.

Bateson, Sir F.

Cavendish, Lord

Beaumont, T. W.

Cavendish, Hon. Colonel H. F.

Belfast, Earl of

Bell, M.

Cayley, Sir G.

Benctt, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Chaplin, Colonel T.

Berkeley, Capl. MF.

Chapman, A.

Berkeley, Hon. C. F.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Berkeley, Hn. G. C. F.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Bernal, R.

Chetwynd, Capt. W. F.

Bernard, Hon. W. S.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Bethell, R.

Chichester, Lord A.

Bewes, T.

Childers, J. W.

Biddulph, R. B.

Christmas, W.

Biddulph, R.

Clayton, Col. W. R.

Bish, T.

Clements, Viscount

Blackstone, W. S.

Clive, E. B.

Blake, Sir F.

Clive, Hon. R. H.

Blaney, Hon. Capt. C.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Bolling, W.

Codrington, Sir E.

Briggs, R.

Cole, Lord

Brigstrick, W. P.

Collier, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

278

Conolly, Col. E. M.

Gaskell, J. M.

Cookes, T. H.

Gisborne, T.

Corry, Hon. H.

Gladstone, T.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Cotes, J.

Glynue, Sir S. R.

Crawley, S.

Gordon, R.

Crompton, J. S.

Gore, M.

Curteis, H. B.

Goring, H. D.

Curteis, E. B.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Graham, Rt Hon. Sir J.

Dalrymple, Sir J. H.

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Dare, R. W. H.

Greene, T. G.

Darlington, Earl of

Greville, Hon. Sir C.

Dashwood, G. H.

Grey, Hon. Colonel

Davenport, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Davies, Colonel.

Grimston, Viscount

Dawson, E.

Gronow, Capt. R. H.

Denison, J. E.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Denison, W. J.

Halford, H.

Dick, Q.

Hall, B.

Divett, E.

Halse, J.

Dobbs, C. R.

Hallyburton, Hn. D. G.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Handley, W. F.

Duffeld, T.

Handley, B.

Dugdale, W. S.

Handley, H.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Dundas, Capt. T. W.

Hanmer, Colonel H.

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Harcourt, G. V.

Dunlop, Capt. J.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Dykes, F. L.

Harland, W. C.

Eastnor, Viscount

Hawes, B.

Ebrington, Viscount

Hawkins, J. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Hay, Colonel A. L.

Ellice, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Elliott, Hon. Capt, G.

Heathcote, G. J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Heathcote, J.

Etwall, R.

Henniker, Lord

Evans, G.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Evans, W.

Heron, Sir R.

Ewart, W.

Herries, Right Hon. J. C.

Ewing, J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Hill, Lord A.

Fellowes, H.

Hill, Lord M.

Fellowes, Hon. N.

Hill, Sir R.

Fenton, J.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Ferguson, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Hodgson, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. C.

Hope, Hon. Sir A.

Fergusson, Capt. G.

Hornby, E. G.

Fergusson, R. C.

Horne, Sir W.

Fielden, W.

Hoskins, K.

Finch, G.

Hotham, Lord

Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.

Houldsworth, T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Howard, P. H.

Fleming, Hon. A. C.

Howard, R.

Foley, J. H.

Howard, F. G.

Foley, E. T.

Howick, Viscount

Foley, Hon. T. H.

Hoy, B.

Folkes, Sir W.

Hudson, T.

Fordwich, Viscount

Hyett, W. H.

Forester, Hon. G.

Ingestre, Viscount

Forster, C. S.

Ingham, R.

Fort, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Fox, S. L.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Fox, Lieut.-Col.

Jermyn, Earl of

Frankland, Sir R.

Jerningham, Hon. H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Johnston, A.

279

Johnstone, Sir J. V. B.

Mostyn, Hn. E. M L.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Murray, J. A.

Jollyffe, Colonel

Neale, Admiral Sir H. B.

Jones, Captain T.

Keane, Sir R.

Neeld, J.

Kennedy, T. F.

Nicholl, J.

Kepple, Hon. G.

Noel, Sir G.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Norres, Lord

Kerry, Earl of

North, F.

Key, Sir J.

O'Callaghan, Hon. C.

King, E. B.

O'Grady, Hon. Col. S.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Oliphant, L.

Knox, J.

Ord, W. H.

Labouchere, H.

Ormelie, Earl of

Lamb, Hon. G.

Ossulston, Lord

Lambton, H.

Oswald, R. A.

Lamont, Captain N.

Oswald, J.

Langdale, Hon. C.

Owen, Sir J.

Langston, J. H.

Owen, H.

Lee, J. L. H.

Oxmantown, Lord

Leech, J.

Paget, Sir C.

Lefevre, C. S.

Paget, F.

Lefroy, Dr. T.

Palmer, C. F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Palmer, R.

Lennard, T. B.

Palmerston, Lord

Lennard, Sir T. B.

Parker, J.

Lennox, Lord W.

Parker, Sir H.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Patten, J. W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Pechell, Sir S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Peel, Sir R.

Littleton, E. J.

Peel, Colonel J.

Loch, J.

Pelham, Hon. C.

Locke, W.

Pendarves, E. W.

Lopes, Sir R.

Pepys, C. C.

Lumley, Viscount

Perceval, Colonel

Lushington, Dr. S.

Peter, W.

Lyall, G.

Petre, Hon. E.

Lygon, H. B.

Philipps, Sir R.

Maberly, Col. W. L.

Philips, Sir G.

Macaulay, T. B.

Philips, M.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Phillipps, C. M.

Macleod, R.

Phillpotts, J.

Madocks, J.

Pigot, R.

Mahon, Viscount

Pinney, W.

Mandeville, Viscount

Plumptre, J. P.

Mangles, J.

Ponsonby, Hon. W.

Manners, Lord R.

Potter, R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Poulter, J.

Marjoribanks, C.

Powell, Col. W. E.

Marryat, J.

Price, Sir R.

Marshall, J.

Pringle, R.

Marsland, T.

Pryme, G.

Martin, J.

Pugh, D.

Martin, J.

Ramsbottom, J.

Martin, T. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Maxwell, H.

Ricardo, D.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Rickford, W.

Maxwell, J.

Rider, T.

Maxwell, J. W.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Methuen, P.

Robarts, A.

Meynell, Captain H.

Robinson, G.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Rolfe, R. M.

Mills, J.

Romilly, J.

Molyneux, Lord

Romilly, E.

Moreton, Hon. A. G.

Rooper, J. B.

Moreton, Hn. H. G. F.

Ross, Captain H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Ross, C.

280

Rotch, B.

Tooke, W.

Rumbold, C E.

Townley, R. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Tracy, C. A.

Russell, Lord

Traill, G.

Russell, Lord C. F.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Russell, W. C.

Trevor, Hon. G. R.

Russell, C.

Trowbribge, Sir E. T.

Ryle, J.

Turner, W.

Sandon, Viscount

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Sandford, E. A.

Tyrell, C.

Scott, J. W.

Vaughan, Sir R.

Seale, J. H.

Verner, Colonel W.

Sebright, Sir J.

Verney, Sir H.

Sharp, General M.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Shaw, F.

Vernon, G. H.

Shawe, R. N.

Villiers, Viscount

Sheppard, T.

Vincent, Sir F.

Simeon, Sir R.

Vivian, J. H.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Walker, R.

Slaney, R. A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Smith, J. A.

Walter, J.

Smith, J.

Ward, H. G.

Smith, R. V.

Waterpark, Lord

Smith, Hon. R. S.

Watkins, J. L.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wason, R.

Spencer, Hn. Capt. F.

Watson, Hon. R.

Spry, S. T.

Wedgwood, J.

Stacey, E.

Welby, G.

Stanley, Right Hon. E. G.

Wemyss, Captain

White, S.

Stanley, Hon. H. T.

Whitbread, W. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Whitmore, W. W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Whitmore, T. C.

Staveley, J. K.

Wilbraham, G.

Stawell, Colonel

Williams, W. A.

Steuart, R.

Williams, T. P.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Williams, R.

Stewart, E.

Williamson, Sir H.

Stewart, Sir H.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Stewart, P. M.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Stewart, J.

Windham, W. H.

Stormont, Viscount

Winnington, Sir T.

Strickland, G.

Wood, G. W.

Strutt, E.

Wood, Colonel T.

Stuart, Lord D. C.

Wood, C.

Stuart, W.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Wyndham, W.

Talbot, W. H. F.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Talbot, J.

Wynn, Hon. C. W.

Talmash, A. G.

Yorke, Captain C. P.

Tennant, J. E.

Young, J.

Thicknesse, R.

Young, G. F.

Thompson, P. B.

Thomson, C. P.

TELLERS.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Duncannon, Viscount

Todd, J.

Rice, Hon. S.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H.

Butler, Hon. P.

Attwood, T.

Blackney, W.

Baldwin, Mr.

Blandford, Marquess

Barron, H. W.

Bowes, J.

Barry, G. S.

Briscoe, J. I.

Bayntun, Captain

Brotherton, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Buckingham, J. S.

Bellew, R. M.

Buller, C.

Bulwer, H. L.

Chapman, M. L.

281

Cobbett, W.

Nagle, Sir R.

Cornish, J.

O'Connell, D.

Daunt, T. O.

O'Connell, M.

Dobbin, L.

O'Connell, C.

Don, O'Conor

O'Connell, Morgan

Ellis, W.

O'Connell, J.

Faithful, G.

O'Connor, F.

Fancourt, Major

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Fielden, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Finn, W. F.

Palmer, General

Fitzgerald, T.

Parrott, Jasper

Fiztsimon, C.

Richards, J.

Fitzsimon, N.

Rippon, C.

French, F.

Roche, W.

Fryer, R.

Roche, D.

Galwey, J. M.

Roe, J.

Gaskell, D.

Roebuck, J. A.

Gillon, W. D.

Ronayne, D.

Grattan, J.

Rorke, J. H.

Grattan, H.

Ruthven, E.

Grote, G.

Ruthven, E. S.

Gully, J.

Scholefield, J.

Harvey, D. W.

Sheil, R. L.

Hume, J.

Sullivan, R.

Hutt, W.

Talbot, J. H.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Tayleure, W.

James, W.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Kemp, T.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Kinloch, G.

Vigors, N. A.

Lalor, P.

Walker, C. A.

Lambert, H.

Wallace, R.

Langton, Colonel G.

Warburton, H.

Lister, E. C.

Wigney, I. N.

Lynch, A. H.

Wilks, J.

M'Laughlin, L.

TELLERS.

Macnamara, Major

Bulwer, E. L.

Moles worth. Sir W.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Paired off.

Morrison, J.

Torrens, Colonel R.

Sinclair, G.

Wood, Alderman