HC Deb 21 July 1834 vol 25 cc303-23

Lord Althorp moved the second reading of the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.

Mr. O'Connell

felt it necessary to state to the House the situation in which this Bill was introduced to the House. The second reading of this Bill was now proposed to them under circumstances perfectly unintelligible, without a reference to the Act of last year. In that Act there were certain objectionable clauses. In the Bill now before them some objectionable clauses were omitted, but they had no specific information as to which were to be retained. As the Bill at present stood, an unlimited license was to be given to the soldiery, because no proceedings could be taken at law for any violence or outrage they might commit without the authority of the Attorney General. There was an almost equal protection extended to those Magistrates who might interfere with the liberty of the subject. This was the measure of last year. What, he would ask, was the nature of the measure now before the House? What was the intention of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) opposite? Did he mean to leave these clauses in the Bill, which he had found it necessary to introduce? If such were the intention of the noble Lord he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the subject. By the proposed Bill it was to be enacted, that no meeting should take place for political purposes; that was to say, for instance, with a view to presenting a petition for a redress of grievances without giving ten days' notice, and having, at the end of that period, the signature of the Lord-lieutenant, or his Secretary, sanctioning such meeting. If the noble Lord would only leave out the necessity of the signature of the Lord-lieutenant, or his deputy, he would not object to the ten days' notice. He must, however, oppose the eleventh clause as it stood, which prevented the meeting for the purpose of presenting petitions to that House for the redress of political grievances. It was cruel—it was arbitrary in the extreme. He would say, that nothing had, during that Session, been done for Ireland—save, perhaps, the Tithe Bill—nothing else had been done for his unhappy country. Here, then, were the Irish Members and the Irish people grateful, and for what? Why, grateful that an English Government were willing to pass certain coercive measures without some few clauses of useless severity. Well, they were grateful for that—they were grateful for anything. But did it never enter the minds of Ministers that this Irish Coercion Bill had been proved to be of all others the least effective? When they passed the Irish Insurrection Act there was for a time a lull, a period of repose; when they passed the Algerine Act, again there was a lull; but with respect to this Coercion Bill, it had been found to be totally ineffectual. This, however, would not do; there existed a wretched faction—a Tory, an Orange faction—ready to pounce upon and hunt down the remaining liberties of Ireland. They stood upon the present occasion; they volunteered their services for the depression, the degradation of Ireland. They went out of their way for the purpose. But why was it to be thus? Why was it that the people of Ireland were to be the only persecuted people in the United Empire? For a long period had Ireland been left without remedy or redress of her many grievances. No measure, that was to say no effective measure, had been introduced into Ireland, save the Coercion Bill, or some such oppressive measure. Oh, what a misery it was for unhappy Ireland to be cursed with a party so prejudiced that they were anxious to inflict every injury on their country. And why? Merely, he would say, from an abstract love of mischief. And how was it that such a state of things was endeavoured to be forced upon them? It was because the party, the rank Tory party, who recommended such a course, felt that while they were doing so they were relieved from all responsibility. But thank God that party was gone from the Councils of the Crown—from the Government of the country—never, never, he trusted, to return. He cared not what had been urged by the supporters of this Bill, and would deny altogether that there was anything in the documents on the Table which warranted its introduction. He denied that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made out any case in justification of it. He would go further and say, that the only ground for the measure was made out by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. That right hon. Gentleman had put the question on a footing in which he (Mr. O'Connell), to a certain extent, concurred. He put it not upon the letter of the Marquess of Wellesley; but he had asked whether any man connected with Ireland could have witnessed the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, or have even read the statements contained in the report of 1832, without a desire to repress the outrages therein described. Upon that ground he went with the right hon. Secretary. It could not be denied that his statement was true. But it was an equally true statement, that during the last sixty years there had only existed the Whiteboy Act, and that without effect. He wished he could induce hon. Members representing English constituents, to read the report of 1832. If they would only take the trouble to do so, they would find the evidence of Mr. Barrington (a gentleman of whom the right hon. (the Secretary for the Colonies) could, if questioned on the subject, give a most satisfactory account). That gentleman stated, that he had had for a number of years the most ample means of judging of the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, and he was in a situation to prove, that they arose not from any political feeling, but altogether out of local circumstances. He would take an instance mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Barrington. Lord Stradbroke had, upon a particular occasion, thought proper to turn from his estate some sixty or eighty persons, and to let the whole of the land to a single tenant. This gave rise to feelings of discontent and revenge, and the consequence was, that the unfortunate man who took the land was found murdered in his bed. He next came to the statements made by that gentleman relative to the management on the estates of Lord Courtney, a nobleman with reference to whom a kind of delicacy was used to which the management of his estates did not in any way entitle him. Upon his estates there were, from various causes, considerable arrears of rent. An agent carne and bought up these arrears, and immediately commenced proceedings for the recovery of the back rents. This gave rise to feelings of discontent, and to disturbances of a most serious nature. This they had from the evidence of Mr. Barrington, a most honest and faithworthy witness. That gentleman went on to say, that from all his experience he had been unable to discover the existence of any, even the slightest, connexion between these disturbances and matters of a political nature. It was, indeed, stated, that there was one conspiracy, that of Doneraile, which bore a political character; but let it be understood, that that was a conspiracy of the Magistrates against the people, and that, of the four persons there prosecuted three were now living comfortably at their homes, while the fourth was in New South Wales, where he certainly ought never to have been sent. Much had been said upon this subject, and he knew—he well knew—the quarter from which certain statements contained in the proclamations and other official documents came. He bad heard the right hon. Secretary for Ireland declare in that House, that the Irish Attorney General was a most liberal and upright man. He concurred with the right hon. Secretary in thinking the Irish Attorney General a most honourable man; but he was bound at the same time to say, that a more rank partisan, a more undisguised a more unmitigated, opponent of liberal principles did not exist in that country. What had been the conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman? When the Marquess of Anglesea was canvassing and using his interest in favour of Mr. Perrin, the Attorney General, it was true, voted in his favour, but neither his family or those with whom lie had influence, did so; they voted the other way. It was enough for him to say, upon this difficult and delicate question that he could not countenance the charge of political agitation urged in support of this Bill, They were told as a justification of this measure, of the outrages which took place in Ireland, in a communication made from the Irish Government, on the 18th of April; but he defied any man to show to him that these outrages were in any way connected with political feeling. They had heard, indeed, the statements of Lord Oxmantown, asserting that the agitations and disturbances in Ireland were of a political nature. This he denied; he felt convinced, that such statements were without foundation, and if he (Mr. O'Connell) could, in the course of the next Session, obtain the appointment of a Committee, he would undertake to prove that fact, and show that the noble Lord was as much mistaken as ever he was in his life. They had heard a great deal about political agitation—now, what was the meaning of the word? If he understood it, it meant the discussion of a real or imaginary grievance. Would it not, he would ask, be difficult to show that any grievance of which Ireland complained was imaginary? If this, then, were so, who was there hardy enough to say, that the Irish people had not an undoubted right to petition that House for a redress of the grievances under which they suffered? Let any man then show to him any imaginary grievance of which the people of Ireland complained. He defied any Member of that House to do it. Unfortunately their grievances were too deeply rooted, too sorely felt, to be cured by anything short of the most effectual remedies, What was the course pursued towards the city of Kilkenny? The county was proclaimed, though the city was known to be perfectly tranquil; but it was found that it would be convenient to quarter their troops in the city, and therefore they proclaimed the city too. Was it not the principle of the British Constitution—was it not the essence of the Government of this country, that every subject of the realm should have the means of petitioning Parliament for a redress of the grievances under which he laboured? Without further detaining the House, he would advert to the proceedings which had taken place against Mr. Barrett, who published a letter written by him (Mr. O'Connell) to the Irish people in his paper. The learned Judge, who tried that case, made it matter of aggravation on the part of Mr. Barrett, that he had reprobated the Algerine Act. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not quarrel with the power claimed by Government of declaring portions of counties or parishes to be brought within the meaning of this Act, because, by doing so, they took the responsibility of this proclamation upon themselves. But if hon. Members would only look to the evidence given by Mr. Barrington, page 21, they would find that there existed under the Whiteboy Act sufficient power to repress or punish any attempt at seducing the people into sedition, or leading them to disaffection by public meetings. This Act made any attempt at leading the people to disaffection a transportable felony. He would ask the noble Lord then whether this was not, of itself, a sufficient power to be vested in the hands of Ministers? If they feared public meetings, the Whiteboy Act enabled the Government to transport any person found holding out inducements to disaffection and outrage. Why then was it necessary, in addition to the ten days' notice of a public meeting, to have the Lord-lieutenant's signature, or that of his Secretary, before such meeting could be legally held? He would not object to the ten days' notice if the noble Lord would consent to give up the necessity of such signature to render legal such a meeting. Now, he would take a case; last year it was found, that there were no more than seven or eight cases of felony in Dublin to be tried during three months in a population of 300,000 persons. Now, supposing that city even to be proclaimed by this Bill, would it be fair or just that its inhabitants should be prevented from the power of petitioning Parliament for redress of the grievances under which they laboured? What county in Ireland had presented a greater number of petitions against tithes than the county of Wexford? Every town and every parish in that county had petitioned. Petitions had been carried about from house to house for signatures, and what was the result? That Baron Foster, in his charge to the Grand Jury, congratulated them on the happy aspect which that great county presented; and stated that the calendar was the lightest that he had ever met with in his judicial career, there being only seven cases for trial, cut of a population of 245,000 persons. Here it appeared, that although there was great political agitation, yet there was little outrage. On the contrary, in the years 1821 and 1822, when, in consequence of the King's visit to Ireland, and other circumstances, there were no political meetings, the agrarian disturbances were at a greater height than had ever been known. What was the reason, that when political agitation was considerable, agrarian disturbances were diminished? Because a hope of redress was generated by the former which tranquillized the people. There were parts of the Bill under consideration of which he approved. He approved of that part which had been called for by the Catholic clergy, and which provided that no man in a disturbed district should be allowed to go from his house at night without being able to assign a sufficient reason for his absence. No man knew better than he did how many cases of seduction, with acts of violence, were produced by these midnight absences. The provision, therefore, was a protection; and he was quite ready to embody it permanently in the Whiteboy code; but it was a calumny to say, that by so doing, he should take anything from the just liberty of the people. It was an injury to no man to prevent him from going out to commit outrages which deserved punishment. While he said this, he must repudiate the false calumny, that there existed any connexion between these predial disturbances and political agitation. The latter was the just and natural result of the neglect which had been shown of the interests of Ireland. He would now inquire what had been done by that House for Ireland? No measure had passed that House in favour of Ireland, save the stingy and unsatisfactory Reform Bill, a Bill doubly unsatisfactory when it was compared with what had been done in the way of Reform both in England and in Scotland. That Bill left the registration defective, as was exemplified before the Election Committee for the county of Monaghan. Nothing in the shape of redress was given to Ireland. He had, he thought, shown that these clauses were unnecessary, and if he could get an assurance from his Majesty's Government that they would not prejudge these clauses in the Committee, he would not divide the House upon the second reading of this Bill. But if that assurance were not given, he would certainly divide the House upon this Motion. He thanked the Government for the sacrifice they had made; and it afforded him no small pleasure that the right hon. member for Cambridge had stood by the rights of his fellow-countrymen. Again he repeated, that unless he obtained some assurance from the Government as to the objectionable clauses, he would certainly divide the House upon the second reading of the Bill.

The Attorney General

said, that feeling satisfied the Bill, as now brought forward, was approved of by the general sense of the House, and that it would he carried by a great majority, he did not think that he was called upon to occupy the attention of the House more than a few seconds. The scheme on which the Bill was drawn was this:—So much of the Act of the last Session as was not repealed by the present Bill, was to continue in force for one year longer. But those parts which were repealed were the clauses which had formerly been most strongly denounced in Parliament, and which were looked upon by the country as the most arbitrary and most oppressive. All those portions of the Act which gave the Lord-lieutenant the power of forbidding any meeting which he might consider to be dangerous, ceased, and lie now was only vested with the power of suppressing a meeting which, after it had assembled, assumed an illegal character or resorted to acts which were adverse to the laws, and inimical to the peace of society. In districts which were proclaimed, meetings could not and ought not to be held, without the previous sanction and authority of the Lord-lieutenant. But there were many clauses repealed, as the Courts-martial and other clauses, which were of a harsh and forbidding character. These, which on a former occasion had met with a very serious resistance, were now entirely repealed; and all civil offences were to be adjudicated by the natural and constitutional tribunals of the country. With regard to the two clauses which had been so strongly objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his opinion, they ought not to be removed—if these did not remain, then would the act be of little or no effect for the objects contemplated by its framers. The hon. and learned Gentleman had himself suggested a clause, which required that in a proclaimed district every householder must give an account of his lodgers, and that in the dead of night they must answer, if called upon—a clause that certainly made the Bill much more efficient for the maintenance of the public tranquillity. But without these clauses the Bill would be of no avail; the powers vested in the Lord-lieutenant would come to nought. With regard to the 28th section, he would take the liberty of saying, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely misconstrued it. He had supposed, that if a soldier or a constable should commit any offence, he could not be tried except by a Court-martial, or by warrant of the Attorney General. But this was only when he was bonâ fide acting in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Bill. If any such person were to assault a man when not acting under the powers conferred by this Bill, an action of law would lie against him; he might be indicted, or made the subject of any process, civil or criminal. But it was not thought right that a soldier or constable should be liable for any inadvertence he might commit under the Act. To take away this protection from the soldiers, would only promote suits to the advantage of pettyfogging attornies. Under these circumstances, he trusted that even in the Committee the two clauses would be considered indispensable. It was only on the plea of necessity that the Bill had been brought forward.

Mr. Lefroy

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had taken great pains to satisfy the hon. and learned member for Dublin, why certain parts of the Bill were maintained, and he (Mr. Lefroy) hoped some reason would be given why his Majesty's Ministers omitted other parts of the measure. He did not rise for the purpose of pressing upon the Government the more coercive parts of the Bill, which had been omitted, but he felt intitled to call upon them to state why they now omitted certain clauses which they had introduced into the Bill in another place? When he said he did not rise to press any unnecessary measure of coercion upon the Government, he hoped he had sufficiently guarded against the misconception and misconstruction into which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had fallen on the night when he (Mr. Lefroy) had last the honour of addressing the House upon the subject. On that occasion he had, as explicitly as he did now, disclaimed urging upon the Government, upon his own judgment, any additional measure of coercion: but he did then, as now, claim, on behalf of the peaceable portion of the inhabitants of Ireland, some satisfactory reason why those parts of the measure which were proclaimed by his Majesty's Government to be necessary, and which were particularly recommended by the Lord Chancellor in another place as being absolutely essential for the preservation of the peace in Ireland, should now be abandoned? The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, said, that he would be satisfied with so much of the measure as was called for by the Roman Catholic clergy and the Roman Catholic farmers. He would ask were there no other persons in Ireland worthy of protection. He should like to know why the feelings of the landed proprietors of Ireland—why the feelings of the Protestant clergy and the Protestant gentry of Ireland were not as worthy of being consulted as those of the Roman Catholic clergy and farmers. His Majesty's Government were bound to pass a measure that would ensure protection to all classes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for the sacrifice they had made in omitting certain clauses of the Bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman might well feel grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for conceding to him what they refused to concede to the merits of the case. Government brought in a measure with certain clauses to which the hon. and learned Gentleman strongly objected —these clauses had been withdrawn without any valid reason having been assigned. To what other motive, he would ask, could such conduct be ascribed but a concession to the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was alleged, it was true, that there were other reasons for the change which had taken place in the minds of his Majesty's Ministers, and a great deal had been said of a public-private correspondence between the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Of that correspondence, which had never seen the light, he would only say— De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. Another reason was given for the change, namely, the impossibility of carrying the measure through this House after the disclosures that had been made. But see what had passed in this House upon the subject. On the 7th of July, after the House was aware of all that had passed between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned member for Dublin, a vote was taken by which this House pledged itself to the measure then on the Table of the other House of Parliament. On the occasion of the papers being laid upon the Table of the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, moved that they be referred to a Select Committee, upon the very ground that the Bill as introduced into the other House contained all the clauses, except those for Courts-martial. Government resisted the Motion, and they then expressed their determination of abiding by the measure as introduced into the House of Lords. The House divided upon the subject, and it was perfectly understood that in voting upon the question, hon. Members were voting whether or no they would maintain the whole Bill. The numbers who divided with the Government were—175 to 72. Thus, on that occasion, the House pledged itself, and Ministers had a majority in favour of the Bill of more than two to one—therefore, their stating that they could not carry the measure was a mere pretence. What! this House which had come to the vote it did on the Russian loan question—a vote which was described by an hon. Member who joined in it as voting black was white —not to support Ministers in carrying the Coercion Bill. What! the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) who was the person so to characterise that vote—he who had taken such pains to lure back into office the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made the noble Lord change his unchangeable purpose. What! that hon. Member and his friends not support his Majesty's Government, if they had thought fit to hold consistently to their own first measure? Parliament and the country had a right then to know the truth, why the measure had been cut down in the way it now appeared before the House. He did not urge this as a cause for the reinsertion of the clauses, but he did think that Parliament and the country had as good a right to be satisfied with respect to the cause of the change that had taken place, as the hon. and learned member for Dublin. When he recollected the course too that had been taken, and its tendency to degrade another branch of the Legislature, he could not but deplore the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. They, in the first place, pressed the measure in the full plenitude of its coercive power upon the other House; and when they had induced the Peers to carry it through most of its stages, then they withdrew it. It was now to be sent back to them curtailed of what was then represented to be its most important clauses, and the other House was to be called upon to pass it, and in doing so they must either degrade themselves, or, by refusing to do so, be brought into collision with that House. When he (Mr. Lefroy) considered these circumstances, he must say, that his Majesty's Government, in the course they had taken, had not dealt with Ireland, with Parliament, and he would add, with their own characters, in the way they ought to have done, The hon. and learned member for Dublin had alluded to the Reform Bill, and stated, that the mode of registration had tended to produce the most mischievous effects; and he alluded to what had occurred in the Longford committee, and what was now taking place in the Monaghan committee in support of his allegation. He could take upon himself to say, that the evil did not originate in the mode of registration, but in that undue spiritual dominion over the lower orders in Ireland, which was powerful enough to induce persons to come forward to register votes who had no real qualification. He could state of his own knowledge in the Longford case, that so strongly impressed were the committee with the fact of this influence having been used, so as to infringe on the freedom of election, that it was matter of discussion in the Committee whether a Special Report should not be presented to the House on the subject. He regretted exceedingly the consequences that must result in Ireland from the conduct pursued, on the present occasion, by his Majesty's Ministers. That conduct was calculated to exhibit the hon. and learned member for Dublin, as having in effect the Government of Ireland in his hands. His Majesty's Ministers had placed themselves in such a position, that they could only be looked upon as pensioners upon his bounty for their daily bread. It was for him to say, whether he would abstain from agitation —and how long: but the moment he set about agitating again, Government would be obliged either to come to Parliament and ask for strong measures, and thereby forfeit his support, or by succumbing to him retain their places. As, however, it was open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to renew agitation at his own discretion, his Majesty's Ministers could only be looked upon as tenants at will to the hon. Gentleman for the peace and security of Ireland. But he must again disclaim any wish to force on the Government what they now rejected. He used these arguments merely to show the extraordinary part which the Government was acting, and the deep responsibility they were taking upon themselves, in submitting to Parliament a measure short of that which was at first proposed, and which was represented by themselves as necessary to maintain the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. It was not his intention to oppose the second reacting of the Bill, or move the reinsertion of the clauses in committee, but should leave Ministers to bear the full responsibility of the course they were pursuing.

Mr. Ronayne

declared, that there was no man on earth who could make this measure bearable; it was a complete mass of incongruities. It reminded him of an anecdote told of Pope the poet, who, in his fits of irritation, was apt to use the expression, "God mend me!" Being once much provoked at some clothes that were ill made for him, he vented his spleen against the delinquent artist by exclaiming, "God mend me! Can't you make a better coat than this?" "Mend you, indeed," replied the man, looking archly in his face, "it would be easier to make two new ones than to mend you!" On the same principle, he would say, that it would be easier to make ten fresh Bills than to mend this. He objected, among other things, to the evidence on which Ministers had framed this Bill, but yet, from that very evidence, lie would show, that their Bill was quite unnecessary. Major Miller, the Inspector of Police in the county of Waterford, had stated, that for the last month prior to his writing that Report, there had been a great decrease of crime within that county, notwithstanding the political excitement of an election at Dungarvan. But he was surprised that Government was more disposed to rely on the evidence of stipendiary Magistrates than on the opinions of the Judges of the land, unpaid Magistrates, and country gentlemen, when they premeditated this act of despotism. He would refer Ministers to the charge of Baron Smith last year, and to the opinion of Sir John Harvey, the Inspector-General of Leinster, respecting the state of the county of Wexford, that it was as free from crime and agitation as any part of the empire. The evidence also of a highly respectable Magistrate in the county of Meath stated that, for the last twenty years, he had never found the laws better supported than at the present moment, and that the existing laws were quite sufficient for the protection of property. The charge of Mr. Baron Pennefather to the Grand Jury at Ennis established the same facts. For his part, he was rather suprised that the hon. and learned member for Dublin should have directed his hostility so peculiarly against the 11th and 28th clauses, for he thought there were many others fully as objectionable. Any one, he was sure, who had a regard for the constitution of his country, would not give his assent to this measure —an Act which allowed those who apprehended persons under its provisions, to confine them in any part of Ireland they pleased; so that the poor creature might be shut up in any dungeon, in any bastile, far away from his friends, and left without any opportunity of communicating with them. Would any Gentleman say, that the state of Ireland required so arbitrary a measure as this? Another clause forbade the lighting of a bush, or a bonfire, blowing a horn, firing a gun, or making a smoke. Now was not this most unjust and most absurd? He was unwilling any longer to occupy the attention of the House; but feeling, as he did, that the ordinary powers of the law were quite sufficient for the professed purposes of the Bill, he could not approve of any portion of it, and he should, therefore, move that the Bill be react a second time that day six months.

Mr. Ruthven

said, he would cheerfully second it. This Bill was unjust and tyrannical—it was not necessary—no reason had been given for its enactment, and, therefore, he would oppose the Bill. The House had no sufficient information upon this subject, and without some acts of kindness, Ireland had no reason to be grateful to his Majesty's Government. Ireland should be treated as England, or else justice would not be done to each impartially. However, on the present occasion he would not further trouble the House.

Mr. Thomas Attwood

wished the House to throw the Bill out entirely. He was sure it would be most beneficial to Ireland that they should do so, for not one drop more of human blood would be shed by its suspension, and perhaps many drops would be saved. Now, the Government was gaining great credit by adopting the advice of calm and rational men, ameliorating the harsher clauses of the Bill, and why should they not follow the advice of men of peace altogether, and give up the whole Bill. He had told them last year that, by their measures towards Ireland, they were cutting the lock of hair which constituted the strength and greatness of this vast empire. And now he would tell his Majesty's Ministers, that they were deluded by the Tories, who only wished to destroy them. They talked of agitation—why he knew some little of that trade—he knew what agitation was. Yes, he had been an agitator himself, and he had done much good by it. Yes; in 1832, when he agitated to the utmost of his power, there was not a single case of depredation in Birmingham—the very thieves and pickpockets, and vagabonds left off their occupations to follow him. The evidence they had before them proved, that the outrages, of which they heard so much, had no connexion with political agitation, but were the result of grinding and bitter misery. Let the House turn to page 54 of the documents laid upon the Table, which he had opened by accident, and they would find one of the first statements of the outrages to run thus:—'The habitations of John Horan, 'Keran Horan, and John Coghlan, all of Isker, in the parish of Clonfert, were attacked by three men (one of whom was armed with a short gun and another with a pistol), who forced open and entered the several habitations, obliging the inmates to go on their knees, and swearing them not to work for Mr. Finney for less than 8d. per day with their diet, or 1s. without it, which Mr. Finney complied with." Surely it could not be said that, compelling a man not to work for less than 8d. per day had anything to do with political agitation. The next case he should read was of a different nature, but was equally unconnected with politics:—'A large number of men collected 'on the lands of Claremadden, said to be about 200 or 300, and drove off stock seized for rent and arrears of rent; the police patroles from Killimore and Kiltoriner pursued the stock, a greater part of which they brought back and gave up in charge to the drivers, but were obliged to retreat from a large mob; and on next night they were again taken, some of which were only recovered, and sent to Ballinasloe to be disposed of. The next two cases were also upon the face of them the offspring of extreme misery:— Mary Goode (of no certain place of residence) arrested by the police for aban- doning a female infant child, committed for trial. Several head of cattle, the property of the Marquess of Clanricarde, were driven from off the island of Innisgall, on the river Shannon, supposed to be by persons who formerly held those lands, and were ejected for non-payment of rent. Had a mothers abandonment of her child anything to do with political agitation? What was the next case?— "The habitation of Martin Coen, of Eyre- court, was entered on this night by two men, one of whom told him that, unless he sent a release for John Larkin and Patrick Lally, now in Galway gaol, he might prepare his coffin, for that he would be murdered; long since it would have happened to him were it not for his orphan brothers and sisters. This he was apprized of, and told, that if there were no persons to murder him but his neigh bours, they would do it. He might, he supposed, go on quoting case after case, but he would only read one more. The habitation of Richard Finney, on the land of Isker, in the parish of Clonfert, was entered by three men, one armed with a short gun, the other two with a pistol each, who demanded arms, and, on being told that he had none, one of them threatened his wife, and said he had, and would not leave the house. They then ordered him to put away a servant boy, which he promised to do, and to restore the grass he had taken from his labourers cows. They then desired a trunk and box to he opened, but made no search.' It was clear that all this was the result of poverty, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that it was. If, then, they desired to put down predial agitation, they must attack what they knew to be its cause.

Mr. Charles A. Walker

entreated Ministers to follow up the good work they had begun. He hoped they would accede to the request of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and strike out those clauses objected to by him; in so doing he could see no difficulty whatsoever, they would merely be carrying into effect their own principles, and declared intentions; they had already an- nounced, that they only intended to retain so much of the late Bill as related to the suppression of agrarian outrage, and that they would expunge those clauses which related to Courts-martial, and political meetings. Now, that portion of the Act which gave indemnity to the military and police for any act they might commit within a proclaimed district, and declared, that they should not be amenable for misconduct to the ordinary Courts of law, but should be tried by Courts-martial alone, ought to be considered as appertaining to the expunged Courts-martial clauses, and ought not to be retained. It was most monstrous, that any man, no matter whether military, or policeman, should have the privilege of committing a gross outrage, or injury on any of his Majesty's innocent subjects who might be unfortunate enough to dwell within a proclaimed district, and that the injured man should be thus deprived of all redress. The English Attorney General had just attempted to defend this protection which was given to the wrong doer, by saying, that otherwise any soldier, or policeman, for every trifling or supposed offence, would be pounced down on by some pettifogging attorney, and although only one farthing damages should be given, yet he would be ruined by the weight of the costs; but was that any reason that every gross outrage by such persons was to go unpunished, and that the innocent victim was to go wholly without redress? But the argument of the Attorney General with respect to heavy costs falling on the soldier, or policeman, in case of only a farthing damages being given, or that he should appear to the court justified in his conduct, could not hold a moment as regarded such trials in Ireland, because those costs would be paid by the public, as Government had repeatedly, in prosecutions against the police, even where to his own knowledge the police were greatly in fault, paid their costs and expenses out of the public purse. Then, again, the Attorney General stated in defence for retaining the prohibition to hold meetings for the purpose of petition, without leave within proclaimed districts, that no district would be proclaimed by the Lord-lieutenant unless it was in a state of disturbance. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know, that such was contrary to the fact? did he not know that districts might, and actually had been pro- claimed under this Act, which were in themselves perfectly peaceable, and for no other cause but their contiguity to other districts which were disturbed? For instance, when the members for the King's county and Westmeath complained to this House, that peaceable baronies had been put under the operation of the Coercion Bill, the Secretary for Ireland explained, that the reason was, their contiguity to other and disturbed baronies, and that unless such adjoining peaceable barony had been proclaimed, its peaceable inhabitants would have been unprotected, and be exposed to the inroads of offenders who would take refuge in it from the disturbed districts. He did not complain of the Government for having so acted; on the contrary, he thought the explanation was satisfactory, and was to be considered in some measure protection to the peaceable and well-disposed in that peaceable barony; but was that a reason, that because it might become necessary to give protection to the peaceable and well-disposed, it must be accompanied by robbing the peaceable and well-disposed of one of their most valuable constitutional privileges—the free right to meet for the purpose of petitioning Parliament? And let the House recollect, that the meetings here prohibited were merely meetings for the purpose of petition. How could it be alleged by the Government, that any danger could arise from such meeting, when they considered it perfectly safe to hold any other political meeting whatsoever, even although the Lord-lieutenant might consider such a meeting dangerous to the public peace; and had very properly expunged the clauses which went to prohibit such meetings. He hoped the Government would reconsider this, and would see, that the restriction on meetings for the purpose of petition within proclaimed districts, as proposed by the learned member for Dublin, would be quite sufficient for every useful purpose—namely, that any such meeting might be held without interruption, after due notice to the legal authorities. This would enable Government to take every precaution against any breach of the peace, but would at the same time leave the subject the full exercise of his right to petition Parliament. It had been said, that any meeting might be held in a proclaimed district, provided it were convened by the Lord-lieutenant of the coun- ty, or the sheriff. To say that this gave any advantage to the people was pure delusion, for this Government had, in many instances appointed, as Lord-lieutenants of counties, men who were Tories, and the bitter enemies not only of the present Government, but of the constitutional liberties of the people, and many of the sheriffs were of the same party. Those men being of anti-popular politics, and viewing in a different light what the people considered as grievances, it was absurd to suppose such functionaries would aid the people to hold meetings for petitioning for redress of them; but even if those functionaries should call a meeting in a proclaimed district, the act prohibited the attendance of any person except a 20l. freeholder or upwards. Surely it could not be the intention of Government to continue a provision, which made it penal for any one under the rank of a 20l. freeholder to attend at a legally convened meeting. He was sorry to say, that the state of society was such in some parts of Ireland, arising from centuries of misgovernment, and the continued delay to redress her grievances, that some temporary extra measure was necessary to put down agrarian disturbances, and to protect the poor man and the farmer from the whitefeet outrages; he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Dublin in his view, that such a measure was protective to the lower classes, and would prevent crime; but he could not agree in what the member for the College of Dublin had said, that this only went to protect the Catholics, while it left the Protestant gentry and clergy without any protection; on the contrary, it protected every class and religion alike; but it was more immediately beneficial, no doubt, to the lower classes, because on them had the cruelty of the Whitefeet been most frequently exercised. The member for the University of Dublin had likewise, as was his custom, found fault with the Government for only renewing that portion of the Bill which had been recommended and approved of by the Catholic bishops and clergy. The hon. and learned Member had also attributed the growth and continuance of outrage to the spiritual influence of the Catholic priesthood; but it would have been well for Ireland, and well for England and the Government, had the advice of that body been more frequently attended to; and he was happy to see, that Ministers were at length beginning to find out, that the best preservers of the peace, of propriety and good order in Ireland, were the Catholic priesthood. He felt very thankful to the present Ministry for having expunged so much of the late Act, but while any portion of the objectionable principle remained, he should, although reluctantly, vote against them.

Mr. Henry Grattan

agreed, that parts of this Bill were necessary, but other parts of it were mischievous. He did not deny, that it would stop the disease, but certainly it would not cure it. The evil was deep-seated; it was in the distress of the country, in the want of employment, and in the great population and distress of the people. Surely it was not surprising that there should be discontent and disturbance in a country where the great mass of the people were in a state of such extreme wretchedness. The hon. Member read letters from the county of Mayo, stating an instance of extreme persecution of tenants, and also a letter from the county of Monaghan, stating an instance where a number of people were most cruelly persecuted, because they would not send their children to a Bible school. Surely, under these circumstances, it was easy to see who were the real agitators. Were they not those who persecuted and oppressed the people? The hon. Member mentioned another instance, when 700 persons were by wholesale turned out upon the world. He did not think, that this Bill would effect the object which he had as much at heart as any one—the tranquillization of Ireland. A great number of the disturbances in Ireland arose out of tithe cases; and if the Government wanted peace in the land, they ought to protect as well as coerce the people. He could not support those clauses of the Bill which had been objected to. They ought to keep the absentees of Ireland at home; and instead of making that country a source of weakness, they ought to endeavour to make it a source of greatness to the empire.

Mr. Callaghan

felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for the removal of the clauses of the Bill of last year, which were most decidedly hostile to constitutional liberty; but there were still provisions in the measure before them which would be deservedly unpopular in Ireland. He had in vain looked through the evidence for any justification of them. The only grounds on which they rested, were the Reports of stipendiary Magistrates and Constables, which were certainly not sufficient to rest a measure of this kind upon.

The House divided on the Question, that the Bill be now read a second time: Ayes 146; Noes 25—Majority 121.

Bill read a second time.