HC Deb 21 July 1834 vol 25 cc286-97

Lord Althorp moved, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill, be read.

Mr. Poulett Scrope

said, he would not trouble the House with any observations on the present occasion, if any hon. Gentleman during preceding debates had happened to take the same view of the subject with himself; but, as this had not been the case, and feeling, as he did, that Parliament ought not to legislate for the suppression of local disturbances in Ireland, without fully inquiring into the peculiar state of society in that country, which created those disturbances, he should beg to offer a few words. It had been said, that agrarian outrage was intimately connected with political agitation; but when it was considered, that the character of the outrages had been the same for the last fifty or sixty years, he thought, the more correct conclusion would be, that they proceeded from want of sufficient work, of sufficient wages, and sufficient protection to the Irish peasant. The insurrectionary spirit which prevailed now, did not differ from that which had prevailed for the last sixty years. It sprung front the same feeling, and was signalized by the same outrages. The offences of the present day were exactly like the White Boy offences immediately after 1750. The Reports made by Committees of the House confirmed his view. He would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1832, which stated, that the chief cause of disturbance in Ireland was the removal of tenants from their farms. He added, by the way, that he could not agree in the eulogium that had been pronounced upon that Report, for he saw, in every line of it, the finger of the Irish landlord. He believed that the real cause of the agrarian disturbances of Ireland was to be found in the competition of a starving peasantry for the possession of land, through which alone they could be certain of obtaining the means to support existence. The hon. Member quoted the Report of the Committee at considerable length, to show, that all these disturbances had originated in struggles for the possession of land. The hon. Member also quoted a letter from Dr. M'Hale, in which there was a melancholy account of the number of families which had been ejected in a district with which he was familiarly acquainted; and further, to show the frequency, he cited the statement of Mr. M'Guise of 174 families being ejected, from the Report of a Committee in 1831. In Ireland they had no Poor-laws, few manufactures, and not sufficient agricultural employment for the population; the possession of land accordingly was essential to the existence of the Irish peasant. He complained that the law of Ireland, which was always too severe, had given additional facilities of late to the ejection of tenants. In proof of this position he cited the authority of Dr. Doyle, and he maintained that the object of Whitefeet combinations was similar in practical effect to that of combinations in general—it was to protect the many against the tyranny of the few. A noble Lord had lately said, that no Government which did not grant protection to its subjects was entitled to their allegiance. Now, he asked if the Irish peasant was protected? No; he was neither protected against ejectment nor starvation, which was the consequence of ejectment. He was not protected against the mission of an absentee landlord, which practically amounted to a mandate of death, to the unhappy tenant, the landlord by his wholesale murders, taking away life, by taking the only means by which it could be supported. It was therefore because the peasantry were left without protection that they combined against the law, and shewed no more scruple at shedding blood in open day, than did the soldier in the hour of battle. They looked upon such acts as the sentences of the self-appointed tribunals to which their allegiance was due. Let the noble Lord fancy himself for one moment in the condition of an ejected tenant—let him divest himself of the recollection of the happy home and the unnumbered comforts and luxuries with which he was surrounded, and, above all, the sense of freedom, giving a zest to them,—let him fancy himself in the situation of an Irish cottier tenant, who having striven assiduously to support himself by cultivating the few acres of ground which he had been fortunate enough to obtain possession of, at length, fell into arrear in the payment of his rent. His landlord came down with a distress warrant, seized his furniture, and his crops in the ground, and served a process of ejectment on him—he could not resist, for the law gave a cheap and summary power of ejectment. He would remind the House of the heart-rending picture given by Dr. Doyle of the condition of the ejected tenantry in Ireland, who resorted to hovels in the outskirts of towns, and there awaited in famine the diseases which want engendered. Dr. Doyle said that they died in a little time; and he spoke of a case in which thirty families were crowded into one small cabin in the neighbourhood in which he resided, and of which at the end of twelve months only ten were left! But did they all die? No; the feeble and impatient sunk under the weight of the oppression; but the able and energetic men, were not so easily got rid of—they survived, and became desperate and active members of the Whitefeet combination. The miseries which they had suffered induced others to combine together and form tribunals, which, by inspiring terror, prevented ejectments. That system was effectual, —it protected the peasantry, and would continue in force—more or less occasionally lulled by Coercion Acts—until the law of the land superseded these tribunals by providing for the tenant. Could that statement be contradicted? Could it be denied, that the Whitefoot system was a real and practical check on the ejectment system? If this were the cause of the disturbances which had so long continued to prevail through Ireland, it was in vain to hope to put them down by Acts of this description. Would more coercion, further Insurrectionary Acts, and more unconstitutional powers effect that object? No; they had been tried, and had failed. There was one simple means of putting an end to these disturbances,—do justice to the Irish tenant—give that protection to his life which was lavished on the property of the landlord, and he ventured to declare that further outrages would not be heard of in Ireland. How was that to be done? In the way in which it was done in England. Who could be ignorant that the state of England, before the passing of the Poor-laws was the same as that now existing in Ireland—that the condition of the two countries might be described in the same words, and that the statements made by Hollinshed and others before the passing of that law, were equally applicable now to Ireland? Robbery, insurrection, murder, and outrages of violence were then common; in the county of Somerset alone, there were sixty executions in one year, and in the whole of England no less than 2,000. The measure applied by the Legislature to remedy this evil completely succeeded; why should not the same success ensue from passing a similar measure for Ireland? Was not such a measure called for, not merely in justice to the population of Ireland, but in justice to the population of England? Did not all classes in England suffer from the want of Poor-laws in Ireland, paying a large proportion of their Poor-rates for the maintenance of the Irish poor? Look at the condition of the farmer in England; after having paid a high rate of wages, and a large amount of Poor-rates, he was met in his own markets by persons who paid no Poor-rate, and the produce of whose land paid merely the labour expended on it, at the rate of only 4d. or 6d. a-day. The operation of the Poor-laws effectually prevented the English landlord from exacting as the Irish landlord did such a sum for land as would leave the tenant merely a bare subsistence; so that, when an unfavourable season came he was compelled to feed upon the weeds of the earth and the sea to avoid actual starvation. He could not reconcile it to his conscience, to vote for a measure for coercing the peasantry of Ireland, without making some attempt to ameliorate their condition. He felt it to be his duty, therefore, holding the opinions which he did, to submit a Resolution to the House, which propounded in moderate language what might be considered a truism, though it had never been acted on in Irish legislation. The Resolution was as follows; and he moved it as an Amendment to the original Motion:—"That in order to secure life and property in Ireland, to remove all pretext for criminal outrages, and to give effect to whatever measures of severity may be enacted for their suppression, it is expedient that the population of that country be assured of the means of supporting life by peaceful and honest industry; and this House will, at the earliest opportunity, turn its attention to some measure for securing this desirable end."

Mr. Feargus O'Connor

had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, and he could not do so without, as an Irish member, returning his thanks for the very able manner in which the hon. Member had brought the subject forward. Indeed, he was astonished how the hon. Member, in so short a time, had amassed such a heap of conclusive evidence. The hon. Member had shown—he had at least asserted—and he (Mr. O'Connor) coincided in the assertion—that the outrages which existed in Ireland arose, in a great measure, from the competition for land. The statement of his hon. friend was fully borne out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the master of the Mint) (Mr. Abercrombie) in a very able speech which he made the other evening upon the State of Ireland; and he now asked that right hon. Gentleman could he refuse to agree to the Amendment? In Ireland, the most disgraceful means were frequently resorted to in ejecting the tenants from their farms; and the landlord was frequently actuated by the most disgraceful motive. When a tenant became possessed of a farm, if he, by the expenditure of labour and capital improved it, that moment the landlord fixed upon it a jealous eye; and the result generally was, that the occupier was turned out, that the landlord might obtain an additional fine, the price of the tenant's improvement. Ireland had nothing to look to but agriculture; and it was not, therefore, to be wondered at, if outrage was so generally and so intimately connected with it. No doubt, after the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech, proposing, as it did, specifically to pledge the House to relief, no doubt the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take refuge behind the Commission at present in Ireland. But as yet there was no Report from that Commission; and was it too much to give, at least, a promise of relief, to a people three-fourths of whom were in poverty while this commission was slowly wandering over the country? He could himself say, that he had seen one hundred families turned out, as his hon. friend had described, houseless upon the world. If that House could not be influenced by any feeling of humanity, he would appeal to their interests, to grant to Ireland a measure of relief such as that contemplated by his hon. friend. The hon. member for Oldham, when this question was formerly under discussion, showed distinctly that England, where a good system of Poor-laws existed, was comparatively prosperous; that Scotland, with a worse system, was better off than Ireland; and that the last country was wretched, because it had no system of Poor-laws at all. English landlords could not act like their brethren in Ireland. They did not drive their tenants out of their farms to make way for others, who would give them a few pounds more. And why did they not do so? Because they knew, that if they impoverished their tenantry, the burthen of supporting them must fall upon them by means of the poor-rate. The wise and humane system of Poor-laws which existed in England made it the interest of the landlords to maintain the population around them in a happy and comfortable state. The public institutions of England, from Greenwich Hospital to the meanest almshouse, were based no less on policy than humanity.

Mr. Littleton

said, that as the Amendment had been submitted without any notice, he should not, he thought, be acting fairly towards the House if he were to enter into any discussion respecting it. He regretted that any language had been used which might by possibility be construed into an extenuation of the dreadful atrocities which unhappily were committed in Ireland. The hon. Member argued as if the Whiteboy parties were generally composed of ejected tenants; but, as far as his (Mr. Littleton's) knowledge extended, that description of persons had very little to do with them; in fact, they were for the most part formed of farmers' servants. He once more protested against the course which the hon. Member had pursued in bringing such an important subject before the House prematurely. The Commissioners were prosecuting their inquiries in Ireland, and their Report would be prepared before the next Session.

Mr. William Roche

Sir, not having had an opportunity of expressing my sentiments on this Bill during its introductory debate, and apprehensive of not being able to stay in town to the conclusion of its progress, permit me to offer a few remarks, considering it, as I do, a measure upon which my constituents and country are entitled to the opinion of their Representatives. I very much coincide in a great portion of what has fallen from the hon. member for Stroud, and from my hon. friend the member for Cork, who have just preceded me, I mean as regards employment and protection for the poor in Ireland; but before I apply myself to that interesting branch of the subject, I shall take the liberty of troubling the House with a few observations on the original and present character of the Bill now before us. When, a short time back, it was expected down from the other House of Parliament, I was amongst those who characterized it, in its then most obnoxious shape, as an unjustifiable and unwarrantable infraction of one of the most essential principles of the Constitution, and one of the most beneficial privileges of the people, "that of freely discussing and meeting to discuss the tenor and tendency of public measures and affairs"—a privilege, Sir, that combines, in a land of freedom, various indispensable advantages, constituting as it does a powerful safeguard of our public rights, exercising a salutary control over the conduct of our public men, affording a valuable opportunity for ascertaining public opinion on passing events, and not unfrequently of thereby correcting our own; and finally presenting a most useful outlet or safety-valve to the fervour of public feeling in moments of public anxiety. These, Sir, are advantages and safeguards which nothing short of the direst necessity would justify the slightest interference with. Sir, I then also designated it as indicating a peculiar and uncalled for disregard of the liberties and feelings of the people of Ireland, because I was of opinion that, under the same circumstances, no such restraint would be interposed to public discussion or complaint in this country—utterly uncalled for, Sir, I assert; for whatever cause or causes may be supposed to have existed when this Bill was originated in the last year, not the slightest has existed or occurred since, not even the shadow of a shade to call for or justify such restraint on public discussion, and it would now, therefore, be justly considered a purely gratuitous assumption of wanton and arbitrary power. Indeed, Sir, you would be as much warranted in extending this restriction on discussion over the whole of the country as continuing it for the next year, for you would be equally legislating not on facts, but upon bare possibilities or anticipations, imitating, I may say, the "master," who is stated to have punished his servants not because they were then transgressing, but lest, perchance, they might futurely do so. But, Sir, as regards the other branch of the subject—agrarian outrages— I shall say, that whatever means be indispensably necessary and discreetly adviseable to suppress outrage and more especially nocturnal outrage, I would not be disposed to withhold, and I would be so disposed as much, or rather vastly more, for the sake and protection of the humble, but honest, peaceable, and industrious, who are so much more exposed to the violence and envy of the vicious of their own class, than the higher orders who necessarily possess various and superior means of prevention and defence. Residing, Sir, as I do in a city, I experience the comfort of retiring to rest with the consciousness, as far as regards external outrage, that I am protected from harm or disturbance, and that comfort and consciousness I would be anxious to procure, as far as practicable, for rural as well as municipal districts. Indeed, in this respect, I would be glad to see some proper plan devised calculated to enable the well-disposed to maintain, or co-operate in maintaining, the peace of their respective neighbourhoods, for, Sir, by calling the well-disposed to our aid and uniting all those interested in tranquillity, the vicious would soon discover, that they miscalculated in preferring turbulence to tranquillity, or mischief to industry. Tranquillity and prosperity are ever associated together, at least prosperity cannot exist without tranquillity, and the protection of person, property, and industry, constitutes the very elementary principles of civilised society. With these sentiments, Sir, I would be far very far from conceiving and co-operating, as I have so often done, with my hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, were I not convinced that he was as anxious or rather more truly anxious, than the loudest declaimers for the tranquillity, the perfect, the permanent tranquillity of Ireland, a wish, I know, to be interwoven with every sentiment of his soul and every effort of his powerful understanding. But, Sir, he would endeavour to obtain that blessing, not through the exasperating and transitory impressions of fear and coercion, but through the more lasting and useful influences of kindness, justice, and consequent contentment. Sir, these sentiments must be the result of pure and unbiassed conviction, for I never asked nor never had occasion to ask, my hon. friend for any favour either personal or political. But, Sir, all our endeavours and devices must fail of their full effect unless we reach the root of the evil, unless we take away all just grounds of complaint, unless we correct the many causes of widespread poverty, want of employment, and consequent misery which pervades Ireland. Until then, Sir, we ourselves will be the primary offenders, nor can we expect that the poorer classes will escape the mischiefs of idleness and want, until we substitute in their stead the means and inducements of honest and steady occupation. As regards Poor-laws, Sir, or call them by any less obnoxious name, I fear that without some judicious system of that kind we shall not be enabled to extend to the mass of the people comprehensive or permanent protection, for I do not see how else we can counteract the evils of absenteeism, or back rents, or those desolating clearances of estates which, whether they have occurred to a greater or lesser extent, have been productive of deplorable consequences. What, Sir, I mean by "Poor-laws," is employment for those that are able to work, and protection to those that are incapacitated from doing so. Scarcely any one, Sir, is more to be pitied than the poor man who is able and to earn his bread, and yet, without any fault of his own, cannot obtain opportunity. I therefore trust, Sir, that this subject will be taken up in the next Session, at all events, with due spirit and maturely. Sir, I shall conclude by entreating that, when you legislate for Ireland, you reflect whether you would under similar circumstances legislate in the same tone and tendency for England, and that if you desire to reconcile Ireland to British connexion, you will grant her a full and cordial share of British freedom.

Mr. Thomas Attwood

said, no honest man could oppose the Motion. The want of labour was the cause of the miseries of Ireland. If men had no assurance of being relieved by labour they should not be bound by the laws of the land. He was opposed to the Coercion Bill, and he was sure that the noble Lord opposite also disliked it; if he did not, then he had not the same heart in his body that he had twenty years ago. The Coercion Bill did not check predial outrage: it was as bad as ever. There was no use in passing such a Bill. He read of a horrible case of predial outrage which occurred the other day. Thirty men were killed and drowned in the presence of the soldiers and police. He also read of three persons, while in the hands of the police, having been rescued and killed. [Mr. O'Connell: The report was not true.] He was glad to hear it. If the noble Lord opposed the present Motion, he should hope to see him before long reduced to the same pinching poverty as the poor. When the people asked for bread, the Government gave them a stone and a serpent.

Mr. O'Connell

could not let the Motion pass without saying a very few words. He would, however, trouble the House for only a very few minutes, especially as he should feel it his duty to address it at some length on the question, that the Bill be read a second time, in respect of the clauses which he thought ought to be omitted. He was anxious to see the present Amendment withdrawn, and the more so because it had taken the House unawares, and embraced a great principle which required the most deliberate discussion. He was really astonished at the ignorance displayed by some hon. Members as to the state of Ireland. His hon. friend (the member for Birmingham) had spoken of a lamentable feud lately fought in Kerry, and had treated that as resulting from agitation. It had nothing to do with agitation or predial disturbance. The parties fought for no other reason than that they had different names and liked fighting. It was a deplorable state of things; it could be removed only by a general amelioration of the condition of the country. He must say, too, that he regretted deeply that the language used by some hon. Members might be deemed palliative of the offence of White-boyism. That was most unfortunate. He had ever been most cautious to avoid utter- ing a syllable which could have such an effect. He had been engaged in the defence of more men accused of White-boyism than perhaps any other Counsel; and yet he had never, to the least extent, defended one on the plea that for the offence there could be any excuse. The fact was, that the crime injured the class guilty of it more than any other. For a time it injured and distressed the landlord; but it likewise injured the humble peasant, and ultimately it brought upon him greatly-increased sufferings and oppressions. The county of Clare had been a prey for a year and a half to that description of insurgents. There were nine murders, and only one of the parties murdered was a gentleman, all the rest of the victims being of the same class as the murderers. Again, there were twenty-seven resident clergymen, and only one of those clergymen suffered any personal injury. And that case was worthy of notice. The son of that clergyman collected tithes in the name of his father, and, putting them in his own pocket, the father demanded repayment. The injured tenants struck the father eight or ten blows, and compelled him to furnish receipts to those who had paid their tithes.

Colonel Evans

expressed his astonishment at the cursory way in which the subject involved in the Amendment had been treated by the Secretary for Ireland. It was perfectly true, that no formal notice of bringing it forward had been given, but the House had a right to expect that a gentleman filling the position held by the right hon. Gentleman would at all times be prepared to go a little more into a matter so deeply interesting to Ireland. He felt grateful to the hon. member for Stroud for calling the attention of the House specifically to the subject, and he thought that some pledge should be given by the Government that it should receive particular notice and be fully inquired into.

Lord Althorp

said, undoubtedly the question involved in the present Motion was one of the greatest possible importance; and therefore in ordinary circumstances it would require very full and ample discussion. But there were two reasons why it should not be now entertained. In the first place, the House had been taken by surprise, as had already been noticed; and in the second place, so far from the subject not being under the consideration of Government, an inquiry had already been instituted, and when the result came before the House, they would be much more able satisfactorily to discuss the question. This was a subject, hon. Gentlemen must be aware, on which those who were avowedly most friendly to Ireland, most materially differed in opinion. It was not, to be sure, a mere question of inquiry; but it was most desirable to have the real state of the Irish population fairly ascertained and submitted to them, before they could judge whether the adoption of Poor-laws would have the effect of benefiting them, or whether it would have the directly reverse effect. No doubt the Irish population were in a state of very great distress, and it was the imperative duty of the Legislature to adopt every means in their power which they thought could have the effect of alleviating or removing their distress; but until the report on the state of the poor had been presented, it would be premature to discuss the general question. The hon. member for Birmingham had insisted that every man in Ireland was legally entitled to, and should have support. He (Lord Althorp) was only anxious to know how that most desirable object could be attained. But he had expected, when the hon. Member had said that every man in Ireland had a right to bread, that the hon. Member would have added, that every man had also a right to "paper."

Mr. Poulett Scrope

stated, in reply, that he had been prevented from giving notice of his intention to submit his Motion on Friday last; but if the House thought it would be more convenient, he was ready to withdraw it at present, and move a Resolution to the same effect on the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hume

suggested, that the public time might be economized by taking at once the sense of the House upon the question.

The House then divided on the Amendment—Ayes 34; Noes 89: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.
Attwood, T. Fielden, J.
Blake, M. J. Gronow, Captain
Brocklehurst, J. Hodges, T. L.
O'Connell, D. Hughes, H.
O'Connell, M. Irton, S.
O'Connell, J. Kennedy, J.
O'Conor, Don Lynch, J.
Dillwyn, L. Miles, w.
Newark, Lord Scholefield, J.
Nagle, Sir R. Stewart, E.
O'Dwyer, A. C. Sullivan, R.
Richards, J. Vigors, N. A.
Roe, J. Young, G. F.
Roche, W. Walker, C. A.
Ronayne, D.
Ruthven, E. S. TELLERS.
Ruthven, E. O'Connor, F.
Sinclair, G. Scrope, P.