HC Deb 01 May 1846 vol 85 cc1352-406

The Adjourned Debate on the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill was resumed.


said, that something more than legislation was required for Ireland. They might remove some of the evils that pressed upon that country, but the panacea for Ireland was to be found in the example and good conduct of the landlords. He hoped the Government would withdraw the measure. He expressed his thanks to Government for the desire they had evinced to relieve the distress of the Irish people by affording employment to those who required it. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the claims of the town of Sligo to at least a fair proportion of the promised benefaction, for he regretted to say that the greatest distress prevailed in that place. The hon. and gallant Members for Armagh and Donegal, not content with attributing the evils which had befallen Ireland to the existence of the Repeal Association, had thought fit to stigmatize the great mass of their fellow countrymen as factious and seditious. He indignantly repudiated the imputation; and he begged to say, that the loyalty and devotion to their Sovereign of the members of that Association equalled, if it did not exceed, that of the hon. Gentlemen to whom he referred.


said, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had presented to the House a very horrid picture of the state of Ireland, which he had no doubt had produced an impression upon the minds of any persons of the absolute necessity of such a measure as that now under consideration. The right hon. Baronet drew a strong contrast between the state of crime in Ireland in 1843 and during the last year, and asked whether—if crime had so materially increased in the space of two years—some measure should not be adopted for its repression. Now, if during those two years the Government had done nothing to check crime in Ireland, the necessity of such a measure as the present might have been admitted; but if they looked to the Statute-book and in the records of Parliament, they would see that since 1843 the Government in this country and in Ireland had not been idle in adopting measures with the professed object of meeting this evil. In 1843, they dismissed from the commission of the peace all magistrates who countetenanced the Repeal movement. About twenty-two of those gentlemen were dismissed by one letter from the Lord Chancellor; thirty or forty others immediately threw up their commissions; and several who had not before been Repealers joined the Repeal Association. The Government next introduced in this House that most ridiculous of all measures—the Arms Bill, which was professedly designed to put down outrage and agrarian insurrection. By that measure, however, the same facilities were given to the ill-disposed as to the well-affected for obtaining arms and gunpowder. Previously to the passing of that Act, no person could possess a quantity of gunpowder exceeding 1 lb. without license from a justice of the peace; but now, any person holding a license to keep arms, might, upon that certificate, obtain any quantity of gunpowder he chose. The next step taken by the Government was to issue the Clontarf proclamation, and they then proceeded to arrest the leaders of the Repeal agitation. They commenced what was called a monster prosecution; and the leaders of the movement were detained in custody till they were released by the decision of the other House of Parliament. Now, what was the effect of those measures? By the dismissals from the commission of the peace, the Government added numbers and strength to the ranks of Repeal; and they removed from the magistracy those gentlemen in whom the people had the greatest confidence. By the Arms Act they placed in the hands of the peasantry of Ireland, under the first registry, no less than 90,000 stand of arms. Could they be surprised, then, after these measures had failed to secure their intended results, that the people of Ireland should entertain strong contempt for the power of a Government which had been unsuccessful in its legislation, and imbecile in the administration of the law? They believed that those who had failed hitherto would fail in future, and were not exactly the men to be entrusted with extraordinary powers. For what purpose did they ask for those powers? To remedy mischiefs they had themselves created. They had miserably bungled all their former measures, and they now wanted an opportunity of still further displaying their incompetence. Their failures were not confined to their hostility, but extended even to their attempts at conciliation. They carried the Catholic Bequests Bill to facilitate the charities of Catholics in Ireland; but this was done at the very moment when the Courts of Equity had declared the Irish Catholics free to exercise their charity by bequests and donations as they pleased, and when, therefore, the power professed to be given them by the Act had already been confirmed to them by the Judges. The Government next established what had been called godless Colleges, and gave a grant to the Catholic College of Maynooth; and if that grant had been given at an earlier period, it might have prevented much of the ill feeling which had been excited in Ireland. But it had been suggested, and it was believed, that that grant was not prompted by any regard for Ireland, but by the threatening indications of a storm in the Western horizon. All this afforded an ample justification to Irish Members in resisting this Bill in the first stage with the same firmness that they would oppose it in its last stage. They would forego no opportunity and relax no exertion to defeat it. True it was that the Members for Ireland had allowed the Peace Preservation Bill of 1835 to pass into a law; but the rulers of the State were very different men then and now. It had also been much modified in its clauses; and though the Government of the day had that engine in their hands for four or five years, not a single prosecution was instituted under it in any county in Ireland. It was not that measure which caused the pacification of Ireland, but that pacification was attributable to the fulfilment of the promises held out by the Government. And yet the right hon. Baronet told them that the peace of Ireland between 1835 and 1841 was maintained by a law which had never been put in force! The Whigs, while in power, did their duty to both countries, and produced peace and tranquillity in Ireland; but they were perpetually denounced in the House by those whose return to power produced increasing outrages from the moment it took place. But this Bill never could quiet that state of things. Even the Government officials denied its use; and only the other day a stipendiary magistrate remarked to him (Mr. M. O'Connell), "I cannot think what they mean by locking people up in the night; scarcely a single outrage has been committed by night since the beginning of this insurrection—of this agrarian disturbance." If the Government passed a law to prohibit men from ever stirring from home at all, perhaps they might obtain what they sought; unless, indeed, their object was, that the gentry might now travel by night, the people being locked up. He was not there to deny that outrage existed, and still less that it had increased of late years; but he knew its causes too well to imagine that this measure could ever stop it. He had seen Clare in a worse state than any county was now in; he remembered it when every gentleman's house was a garrison, and you were regularly challenged if you went to the door; they had loopholes for musketry, and the cattle were driven in from the fields. The cause was the want of potato ground, the same as in many parts now; and that continued for three or four years, till he (Mr. M. O'Connell), with the hon. Member for Cork and Mr. Steele, under the sanction of the authorities, the Marquess of Anglesey being Lord Lieutenant, went among the people to arrange that lenity and kindness should be shown them instead of severity; and in that one night 500 stand of arms were given up. Clare then became as tranquil as Middlesex. Only forty-five individuals had kept that county in a state of insurrection for these years. One of them said frankly, "The fault was all with the gentry; if they had come together at first, and shown a little courage, and endeavoured to put down the fomenters of these disturbances, there would have been an end to all this in three months; it was through their cowardice that we have got on." In the counties lately disturbed, if the gentry had shown front, instead of calling for Coercion Bills, these outrages would have been put down, and peace restored long since. But, believing this measure improper and inefficient, he should continue his opposition to it by every means in his power, pertinacious though it might be called.


hoped there would now be an end to the doubts of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) with regard to the statements made as to crime, since the hon. Member for Tralee had admitted that it had increased, and had described the state of Ireland in one remarkable and emphatic word—"insurrection," such as there was in Clare some years ago. [Mr. M. O'CONNELL: I said agrarian insurrection.] Agrarian insurrection, then, prevailed in Ireland. [Mr. M. O'CONNELL: In some districts.] Of course, it was not the whole of Ireland that was spoken of, neither did the Bill apply to the whole of Ireland. Did not that clearly justify the grant of the augmented powers required by the Government? It was easy to complain of non-resident gentry; but how could they be expected to reside where their lives were not safe? Take the case of Mr. Clarke, who was murdered on his own property in broad daylight, in the midst of the people he employed. Take Lord Orkney's case. Lord Orkney had estates in Tipperary and in Queen's County, and he went to reside upon his estate in the former county. He had not been there many days before his table was covered with threatening letters; not a very good way of inducing an English Peer to remain a resident in Ireland, for, in spite of the opinion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he must say that threatening notices were no very agreeable missives. Lord Orkney informed one of his tenants who had not paid his rent that he must remove from a large farm, which he had not sufficient capital to cultivate with advantage, to a smaller one; that he would forgive him all arrears of rent; and that he would give him a sum of money to transfer him from the one farm to the other. The man informed him that he would certainly take his revenge for such a proceeding. Lord Orkney having had such a reception in Tipperary, proceeded to Queen's County. Previous to his arrival there his steward had been fired at in the broad daylight by parties whom he could perfectly identify, but he would not, because it would not be safe to do so. The parties finding that they were safe from the accusation of the steward, went in the broad daylight to his house, seized his unfortunate servant, who had, unhappily for himself, been the witness of the attack upon his master, placed him on his knees in the presence of twenty persons (from not one of whom evidence could afterwards be extracted, such was the power of that reign of terror), told him to say his prayers, for that his days were numbered, and shot him in the broad noon-day, in the front of Lord Orkney's house; and when that nobleman returned from his morning's excursion amongst his tenantry, whom he had been endeavouring to serve, he found the ground in front of his house red with the blood of his servant. Yet that was a state of things which the Irish Members stated that the people of England ought to tolerate. It was a state of things which they wished to see unredressed. ["No, no!"] At any rate, knowing that the ordinary laws were inefficient to repress the evil, they refused their support to any measure introduced in aid of the ordinary laws of the country. In the county of Meath Mr. Fowler, a resident landlord, discharging all the duties of a landlord, had been denounced, and his life had been threatened; but an address which had upon that occasion been presented to him by his tenantry, showed that they had no sympathy with the perpetrators of the outrage. In Westmeath they had had the case of Sir Francis Hopkins. But he would not trouble the House further with details of individual cases. The returns from the inspectors of police in Westmeath showed that during the last six months there had been no less than 197 cases of outrage. It was said, that they arose from the landlords' severity to their tenants. He had analysed those cases, however, and he had found that thirteen were attacks upon gentlemen; thirty-five were attacks relating to what might be termed "the rights of property;" thirty-eight were attacks which were connected with land, it was true, but they were directed altogether against farmers and cottiers, and had nothing at all to do with the rights of property; and thirty-eight others were attacks against labourers, and had no connexion even with land. Among the causes returned, so far as ascertained, he found such as these:—"because he told stories to his employer"—" because he drove an opposition car"—"because he had been prosecuting for theft"—and another "for fraud"—"because he had set up a baker's shop." The secret of this state of things was stated to him by a gentleman who had long served the late Mr. Drummond confidentially, and was more than any one acquainted with his views; when he asked him to explain this chronic disorder prevailing from time to time, these eruptions of discontent; that gentleman, giving also Mr. Drummond's judgment, said, that it really was the establishment on a small scale of a provincial reign of terror in the hands of a few individuals, not necessitous, not in distress, very often opulent farmers, but who wished to govern and tyrannize over the neighbourhood, and to execute their own will, and carry out their own law, the law of revenge, by crime, in defiance of the law of the land. He believed that, in order to put down this state of society, and subvert the rule of these village Marats and Dantons, there must be a suspension of the Habeas Corpus, or some equally strong measure, to enable them to take these persons out of the bosom of that society which they disturbed by their crimes, and to impose upon them such imprisonment as would deter others from the commission of similar crimes. The present state of matters was the more aggravated, because these parties were not goaded by want, but were actuated only by the desire of punishing those who chose to contravene their laws and their will. It was clear, then, that if the law was not sufficient to put down these crimes, the law must be strengthened, so that the terrors of that law might be made to prevail over the terrors which midnight conspirators spread around them. They ought, he contended, to grapple with this state of things; and the only practical question was, would they sufficiently grapple with it by means of the provisions of this Bill? Would they effectually do so by preventing parties from leaving their houses after night? He did not mean to say that preventing persons leaving their homes at night, and holding meetings to concoct crime, would be altogether ineffective for attaining the object desired; but he feared that the result would be, that those persons who met during the night henceforth would meet during the day. He found that a great number of the most atrocious crimes—that of the murder of Mr. Clarke and others—were committed in broad daylight, and yet no persons were seized. What was to prevent these malefactors from holding their meetings during the day, and then concocting their crimes, and carrying them into effect? In such a case, the only effect produced would be a transference from one hour to another of the plan and the commission of the crime; and he was afraid that still crime would continue to overmaster the law. But, in addition to preventing night meetings, the Bill offered increased rewards for the production of evidence. This was an expedient which he was afraid would turn out to be utterly useless. Rewards would not induce parties to become witnesses in cases of prosecution. Look at their Hue and Cry—at the placards offering rewards in every direction, and ask themselves what effect these had already produced in Ireland? Did they think that the mere increase of those rewards would induce persons to offer themselves as witnesses? The idea was altogether absurd. Would a man who knew his life was in danger, if he gave evidence in a case of outrage, be led to do so simply because 50l. was offered him to do so? Life was more valuable than gold. Offer what they would, till they gave safety to the witness, all else would be ineffectual. He must say, therefore, that if he held out the idea that he looked forward to this Bill as likely to be satisfactory and efficient towards pacifying Ireland, he should not be giving an opinion consistent with his honest conviction. He held that it was not a Bill adequate to the object proposed; but perhaps he might be asked what remedy he had to offer? Now, it was not the duty of an independent Member of Parliament to offer remedies for grave national evils. That was the duty of the Executive Government. He thought Government had clearly established a case for interference, and had proved that it was absolutely necessary to give to law an ascendancy over the ascendancy of terror, which was but too surely produced by these fearful and unseen tribunals. The hon. Member for Rochdale had last January accurately described the state of Ireland, when he said that there was complete social disorganization—that the resources of the country were lying waste—that industry was paralysed; that both life and property were insecure—murders of the most barbarous character being perpetrated at noon-day. The hon. Member had some months ago given this independent testimony as to the state of Ireland, and it completely bore out the case of Her Majesty's Government. There was then a proved necessity for the interference of the Legislature; and the only question was, had a right remedy been offered? He would certainly not interpose his vote to prevent the remedy prescribed by Government from being tried—he should not vote against the Bill; he thought the remedy proposed would do something; but at the same time he must say that he did not conceive it to be adequate to the evil, and he therefore threw upon the Government the responsibility of the course they were now taking. He doubted whether the peace and security, which they expected, would be secured for Ireland by this Bill. He well remembered the wearisome discussions they had on the Arms Bill, and how, while he and his Friends supported the Government, they could not help feeling that that Bill was not an adequate measure; and so it turned out. If, however, the present Bill had been a measure likely to remove the evils of Ireland, likely to abolish those calamities which the right hon. Baronet and the House so much deplored, then indeed it would be a measure entitled to their most energetic support—then, indeed, it would be worthy of the most protracted conflict. Most happy should he be if he could be convinced that it was at all adequate to the extent of the evil; but it was, and he thought it would be found to be, a crippled, halting, imperfect measure. If, indeed, the Ministry thought this Bill would pacify Ireland, then was their course altogether inexplicable. They brought it into the House of Lords in the early part of the Session, and as a permanent measure, under the impression, no doubt, that it would do permanent good to Ireland; but, pressed by the half-whispered suggestions of some noble Lord across the Table, they instantly curtailed their measure, and made it to last for not more than three years. Now, was there a man in that House who would tell him, that if Ireland was now in the disturbed state it was described to be in, and known to be in, three years would cure it of those evils? If they said it was impossible to believe this, then would Her Majesty's Ministers throw on their successors the misfortune of another Parliamentary battle to carry that which they believed to be necessary for the peace of Ireland. Or if, after the expiration of three years, they were still in power, were they to slip out of this measure for Ireland, and let it drop, on the vain plea that the state of Ireland was then sufficiently peaceful? If they now grappled with the evil, however, and met it in such a way as to relieve the people of Ireland from the hands of those men who were known to be the disturbers of her peace, then would the measure of Government be worthy of his support. But if they were throwing into that House such a measure as could only produce dissension in Ireland, and a contest in that House for no purpose, he could only regard it as one of the many proofs of the timidity and weakness of the Government. If the measures relating to Ireland were to be coercive, then they ought to be strong enough to put down those who were now overmastering law and justice; but to make their blow so feeble that these desperate characters cared not for its infliction, was not giving assistance to justice: it was giving a premium to crime—it was giving advantage to the criminal, and all the disadvantage to the law. He would believe that Ireland was incapable of being governed when he saw it tried to be governed on a system of wise, calm, deliberate, yet firm policy—not, as was now the case, governed by hot fits and cold fits: now a cold ague-fit of timid concession, to try to please certain disturbing leaders in Ireland; and then a hot fit, in the proposal of an Arms Bill or a Coercion Bill. He should have hope for the good order of Ireland when he saw the English Government equal to the emergency; but he was afraid they were proving in this case, as in that of the Arms Bill, that their remedy was not adequate to the evil, and that therefore they were only about to give to the disturbing parties in Ireland all the advantage of increased power.


was resolved to give to the measure now under consideration his most determined opposition. He was present when the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department introduced the Bill, and he had listened with the profoundest attention to the statement of the right hon. Baronet; but he could not bring himself to believe that a good case had been made out for the Government. He had heard with the deepest regret the catalogue of dark deeds alleged to have been committed in Ireland, and on which the Government relied, as affording a justifiable pretext for the introduction of this obnoxious and unconstitutional measure. No man in that House could possibly feel deeper horror at the frequency of crime in Ireland than did he; but he very much deplored that, instead of a penal enactment, some measure had not been introduced of a remedial nature, by which the cause of these frightful crimes might be removed, or even mitigated. Every one who knew anything of Ireland must be aware that the worst descriptions of crimes in that country were occasioned by the deadly strife between landlords and tenants, the former being anxious to retain the rights of property, forgetful of its duties, and the latter being engaged in a desperate scramble for existence. He freely admitted that it was vain to expect prosperity or contentment in Ireland as long as these outrages continued; but it was quite as absurd to suppose that these outrages would cease while the sufferings of the people remained unmitigated and their wrongs unredressed. The present Bill would not only be wholly inoperative of good, but it would be really productive of the most disastrous consequences. If it became law in twelve months from the present time, instead of five counties being disturbed, fifteen counties would be in a state of anarchy and disorder. The frequency of crimes, instead of being quelled, would be increased, and the tenure of life and property would be rendered more precarious than ever. He would take the liberty of submitting to the consideration of the House a few instances out of hundreds which he could cite, did time permit, of heartlessness and cruelty of Irish landlords; but in so doing he assured the House that nothing could be more remote from his intention than a desire to palliate murder, or to mitigate the severity of the punishment which it merited. If the House, however, would have patience with him, he would take occasion to narrate to them one or two instances of Irish landlords, which he was inclined to believe would come with a strange effect upon the English ears. He would commence with one which had recently occurred in one of the richest and most fertile counties in Ireland, the county Meath. Certain tenantry in that country had been evicted from their holdings in a district adjacent to the town of Kells. Amongst the persons thus turned houseless on the world, was one man named Brady. He owed not one farthing of rent, and could not believe that his landlord could be capable of acting so harshly as to eject him from his holding, until the bailiffs actually came in and demanded possession of the House. In vain did Brady remonstrate—in vain did his wife implore. He was driven out of his house with his wife and large family, amongst whom were four daughters. They were all ejected forcibly by the bailiffs; their wretched little articles of furniture were flung after them; and as night was approaching, they found themselves left to the mercy of the world, which was a polite phrase for helpless beggary. For nine days and nine nights this unhappy man and his family lay in a ditch by the road side, without other covering than the sky. Finding his situation at length intolerable, he retired on the morning of the tenth day to a churchyard in the vicinity of his former dwelling; and it was a fact which did not admit of a doubt, as it could be attested by the evidence of hundreds, that he dug a hole in the narrow patch of ground, between two tombstones, in which he contrived to shelter—to pit would be a more proper phrase—himself, his wife, and his daughters. The structure which he erected might, perhaps, be called by some a hut; but it was entered by a descent, and was, in fact, nothing better than a grave. He had not long sojourned in this pestilential abode, when his lurking place was discovered by the police, who cited him to appear before a bench of magistrates at petty sessions, on a charge of creating a nuisance in a public graveyard; and it was before this tribunal that this unhappy man's condition was for the first time investigated and made public. He was examined on oath before the magistrates, and he swore, what was well known to all the neighbours, that for nine days and nine nights he was lying in a ditch by the road side, and that it was not until the tenth day that he had sought refuge in the churchyard. The award of the magistrates was, that he should remain undisturbed in his luxurious retreat, until the poor-house at Kells was ready for his reception. The farmers of the neighbourhood, however, now offered Brady employment, and he resolutely refused to go to the poor-house, declaring that he would rather remain where he was and earn an honest livelihood with the farmers, than quarter himself and his family on public charity. This extraordinary spectacle, however, of human misery and degradation not being calculated to reflect much honour on the gentry of the neighbourhood, they concerted means for having him removed as a public nuisance; and at the last quarter-sessions but one a stipendiary magistrate having succeeded, with the aid of the police, in discovering the owner of that particular plot of ground in the churchyard to which Brady had retired, it was resolved that the retreat of the wretched outcast should be invaded. The man who owned the burial place between the two tombstones, and whose name was Newman, was prevailed upon, against his inclination, to serve Brady with a notice of ejectment; and the stipendiary magistrate joyfully announced in open court, that at the ensuing quarter-sessions, the obnoxious spectacle of Brady's living grave should be removed. It pleased Providence, however, that before the appointed time Newman caught a fever. He died, and was buried side by side with the living occupants of the same ghostly tenement. Hon. Members might say that it was not fair to give those isolated cases of cruelty; but he could assure the House that this case was only one of many hundreds which he could cite if time permitted. It might perhaps be in the recollection of some present that a series of letters were some time ago written by a Catholic clergyman, named Davern, charging a certain noble Lord, who now filled a high situation in the Government, with having evicted from one district alone, in the county of Tipperary, in the year 1843, no less than 143 families. This clergyman gave the names of the heads of these families, and described the state of the misery to which the evicted persons had been reduced in such vivid colours, but with such painful truthfulness, as to cause a great sensation through the country. Indeed, so strong a feeling was excited, that the noble Lord thought himself bound to institute law proceedings, not against the reverend author of the letters, who was willing to undertake all the responsibility, and who announced himself to substantiate his charges, but against the proprietor of a provincial paper, in whose journal the letter appeared. A rule nisi was obtained as a matter of course. Affidavits were filed in reply, proving on oath every allegation that had been set forth in the letters. It was not for him to say whether the statements were or were not true; but this, at all events, was certain, that the noble Lord never, from that day to this, applied to have the conditional order made absolute; and the consequence was, that the prosecution had fallen to the ground without any apology on the part of the defendant, and without any denial of the allegations contained in his newspaper. He would leave the House to draw its own conclusions from these facts. How, he asked, could tranquillity or good order be effected in a country where it was left in the power of one individual to depopulate an entire district? for in a rural place the chasing away of 700 human beings, like crows out of a corn field, amounted to an almost total depopulation.—The hon. Member having mentioned several other cases of inhuman conduct on the part of landowners in Ireland, expressed his regret that the Government had not introduced some measure to remedy these prime evils; and concluded by denouncing the Bill now under consideration as a measure which, while it was wholly inoperative of good, could not fail to be productive of serious evil, by endangering the liberty of innocent men, and affording additional facilities for the exercise of the barbarous clearance system.


, without regretting this discussion, did regret that it had interfered with the progress of the Corn Bill, because that was an Irish as well as an English measure; but he considered that the Irish Members were not so much to blame as had been said for the delay, as they had only acted on the defensive, and the Government had on one or two occasions allowed the House to be counted out. After this evening, however, and the division they were about to come to, he trusted that the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Stockport would be cordially responded to by every Irish Member, of the necessity of struggling against the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) and his 242 followers. It should be remembered that the Irish Members were occupied on an object which they trusted might lead to the same results as those which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) expected from the Corn Bill, viz., to improve the condition of those who labour, and give comfort and enjoyment to millions. Intimately as this country, by the opening of railroads, and the application of the powers of steam, was connected with Ireland, the English people could not be blind to the fact, that whatever tended to increase the misery of Ireland must produce some corresponding effect here, and that whatever contributed to the prosperity of Ireland tended to enlarge the market for the manufactures of England. He opposed the Bill, first, because he thought it ineffectual for its objects, and, secondly, because it was accompanied by no remedial measures; in fact, by no measures of that kind, either express or implied. A noble Lord in another place had said (he believed) that the rights of property were positive, but that the duties of humanity were of imperfect obligation, or something to that effect. That, perhaps, might be so; but what he complained of the Government was, that they had not taken any means for reconciling these conflicting interests; they had done nothing to render the rights of property consistent with the claims of humanity. This they ought to have done before bringing in this Bill. With respect to the state of crime in Ireland, it was not so much the murder, as the sympathy with the murderer, that was the real symptom of the diseased state of society in Ireland. But would this Bill tend to remove that symptom? He contended that it would not. There was the case the other day of Mr. Brew, the agent of Mr. Vandeleur, who was shot at Kilrush, in the county of Clare. In the middle of the day the attempt was made upon him. The assassin walked away. Not a hand was raised to arrest him; not a person interfered to prevent his escape. He asked was this a state of things in which the Bill would effect any change? The right hon. Baronet had rested the defence of the measure on three grounds: first, the state of crime in Ireland; second, the inefficiency of the existing law; third, the efficiency of the provisions of the Bill. The first, he (Mr. Bellew) admitted; but with regard to the second, the right hon. Baronet stated, in proof of his position, as an instance, that before special commissions it was necessary to have not only the man accused, but the witnesses who might convict. But would this Bill supply the remedy for this? The hon. Member who had spoken last but one had dwelt upon the sending of threatening notices, and the difficulty of getting witnesses to come forward. But it was clear the Bill would not alter either of those evils. Then with regard to the probable success of the measure, he had not seen the least reason to suppose that anything in it would have the effect of destroying sympathy with crime, or the combinations which he admitted were formed in support of criminals. Before a Committee of the House some years ago the parish priest of Mary-borough had given evidence that even then outrage was not confined to those who were ejected from their holdings, but that others joined them, thinking that by doing so they would have a better chance of keeping themselves on the land. That cause of crime would evidently not be affected by this Bill. If it was asked why, he answered, owing to the state of the population of Ireland. There was this great difference between Ireland and this country, that there seventh-eighths of the whole inhabitants, instead of one-half only, as was the case here, were rural population. Then the holdings were much smaller among those who had land than was the case in this country. 44,000 out of 66,000 holdings in the county of Mayo were under four acres; and from the last census it appeared that 68 per cent of the occupiers of land conducted their agriculture without skill, capital, or knowledge, and were devoid of means, living in cabins, and in great distress. A Catholic priest named Lyons had given evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons that he had seen labourers getting in the harvest on wages of 4d. a-day, and that he knew of 300 families who had not a single blanket among them, and that he knew it was a common thing for a large family to go to bed by turns, for want of clothes. He added that the cabins near him were only holes dug in the earth covered with sods, and affording little or no protection against the rain. Let them consider the misery caused by the clearance system. No fewer than 150,000 ejectment processes had been served within the last five years in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman then read, with much rapidity, a number of documents, showing that this system had been continued in various counties in Ireland from the year 1830 to the present time; and then went on to say that, by the concurrent evidence of agents and all parties acquainted with the subject, land was at the bottom of all outrages that took place in Ireland. This was a state of things which might well humble the pride of England. Her empire extended to every quarter of the globe; her ships covered every sea, and brought home the abundance of the earth; but there was a spot near her shores groaning under evils which could not be remedied by such measures as the present. During a debate on the Slave Trade, arising on a Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) two years ago, the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) speaking of the island of Cuba, said he hoped the people and the Government of Spain would act to that country from motives; that they would feel the great responsibility cast upon them as its governors; that the eyes of the world were upon them; but that if such higher considerations did not prevail, he warned the Government and people of Spain that the condition of Cuba was one of great peril, and that the negroes there were suffering under evils which made death light in their eyes. Would to God that the right hon. Baronet would act upon those ideas with respect to the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland! Those relations, he was satisfied, could not long remain in their pre-sent state. One of the very effects of this Bill would be to exasperate those relations; for was it possible to disbelieve that hundreds of landlords, who were now prevented only by fear, would, after the passing of this Bill, and under its shelter, join in the system of ejectments? They heard much about interference with rights of property; but it was in evidence that tenants had been known to have established an interest in the land by means of improvements equal in value to ten years' purchase. Was not ejecting such a tenant an interference with the rights of property? The tenant-right had grown up in spite of the law; and, if something were not done to ameliorate the present state of those relations, there would grow up a law in conflict with the written law, which might lead to very objectionable results. But then there was a difficulty in interfering. He answered, life was in the other scale, and no great acts were ever effected without difficulty; and to contend with and overcome this difficulty was a task worthy of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and worthy of this country, which, if it had one trait of character more marked out than another, it was this, that it was always found to persevere until it had successfully carried out that which it once perceived was its duty to perform. But he conceived that the right hon. Baronet was in an especial manner bound to perform this task; for he thought that the Irish landlords had very just grounds of complaint against the right hon. Baronet for issuing the Landlord and Tenant Commission, and then leaving Ireland for so long to suppose that something was to be done in consequence of it. What with the doctrines of the hon. and learned Member for Cork about fixity of tenure, and the conduct of the Government with respect to Ireland, he thought the landlords of that country had been of late placed in an infinitely worse condition than they ever were in before. No such complaint held good against the late Government. They frankly said, when asked, that they would not issue a Commission. But then the right hon. Baronet alleged that something was promised to be done in the Queen's Speech. The same, however, was the case last year; and at that time the Marquess of Normanby stated his distrust of such a Commission, and Lord J. Russell said that although there was no doubt that great hardship had been inflicted by the landlords of Ireland, still he saw no means of meeting an evil so widely spread, and that had prevailed so long. Then Mr. Charteris, who had seconded the Address, and who was praised by the right hon. Baronet for the ability, and especially for the discretion with which he had spoken, said that no one could deny the Government credit for having grappled with the question of land tenure in Ireland, which lay at the root of all the evils of that country, and that he hoped they would be able to devise some means of putting an end to those evils. Under these circumstances, therefore, calculated as they were to raise expectations, he thought the right hon. Baronet was the last man who ought to call upon the landlords of Ireland to do that which they were entitled to think the Government had taken into its own hands. Having two years ago issued the Land Commission, the right hon. Baronet was bound to have passed some of the numerous measures which had been recommended by the Commission. Not that he (Mr. Bellew) thought that any of those measures would have gone to the root of the evil; but the right hon. Baronet might have brought forward a measure for facilitating the sale of landed property, as recommended by the Commission, and also a measure for taking the stamps off leases. [Sir J. GRAHAM: That has been done.] He was not aware of that. Then they ought to have brought forward the measure with regard to Waste Lands. That was recommended by the Commission; but it was especially incumbent on the Government to attend to the recommendation of the Commission with respect to facilitating the sale of lands, for that might be brought to some practical result. Taunts had been thrown out against the Irish Members for having supported a measure similar to this in 1835. But it ought to remembered that in doing so they supported the Bill of a Government who had done something to serve their country; not that he meant to say the present Government had done nothing for it; for he thought their College Bill, for instance, an excellent measure, though somewhat unpopular with certain parties in Ireland at present; but what he meant to say was, that the Government whose Bill they supported in 1835 had done much more for Ireland than the present Government. That Government endeavoured to arrange that question, which was above all other questions in importance except the Landlord and Tenant question—he meant the Church question; and the party now in office prevented them. They endeavoured to pass a Registration Bill, and were similarly thwarted. They endeavoured, by their appointments to the Bench, to give the assurance, not merely that they would do justice, but to give the people every reason to expect it. A measure of coercion, therefore, passed in such circumstances, was very different from a similar measure passed at present. In conclusion, he begged to say that he would be as anxious as any Member in the House to support this Bill, if he believed it would be effective for the purposes in view, and were accompanied by other measures; but as no remedial measures were promised, and he believed no good result would come out of this measure, he should feel it to be his painful duty to give it his most decided opposition.


was reluctant to trespass on the attention of the House at that period of the debate, and upon a subject on which all argument was exhausted; but, as it appeared to be the opinion that he ought to offer some observations, he would not shrink from his duty. He regretted the unusual course that had been taken of opposing the first reading of a Bill sent down from the House of Lords; but he had never, on that account, considered that any blame or censure was attributable to the Irish Members. They were animated by local interests, and national feelings, and entertaining very strong impressions as to the inexpediency of the measure, they naturally felt an earnest desire to express their sentiments—to record their hostility to a Bill of which they disapproved, at the earliest period. But, after the very full discussion the measure had now received, both as to its principle and its details, he trusted the future stages of its progress, supposing the House decided in favour of the first reading, would not be met with any unfair or improper obstruction; and that those threats which had been held out by the hon. Member for Limerick, of embarrassing legislation upon this subject by all the means which the usages of Parliament allowed, would not be carried into effect. In addressing himself to the question before the House, he would, as closely as he could, confine himself to the prominent and leading points of the various objections which had been urged on the other side. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London, at a very early period of the debate, found fault with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) for having omitted in his speech, on introducing the measure, the important connexion of the remedy with the evil—of the disease with the cure; and this complaint had since been repeated by various other hon. Members, but by none more pointedly than the hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda (Sir W. Somerville). To the noble Lord, he (the Attorney General) should have thought it would be sufficient to answer, "You in 1833 brought in a measure of coercion for Ireland. You admit that was a measure of much greater severity than this. And undoubtedly it was so; for by it the ordinary tribunals of the country were silenced, and the disturbed districts were delivered over to martial law, and all offenders were to be tried by courts martial. That Act having been renewed at its approaching expiration for another year—in 1835—you having, it is to be presumed, then had experience of the efficacy of the measure, introduced another Bill in that year, not so strong and stringent in its provisions as its predecessor, it is true; but a Bill which contained that very provision which is now made your grand point of objection—the provision for confining persons within their own houses in the proclaimed districts between sunset and sunrise. You must have considered at that time, that the remedy was adapted to the evil; therefore any such explanation as that you demand from us would be to you at all events superfluous." As an answer to the noble Lord, this would have been complete. But to the same objection urged by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville), who had on all occasions of addressing the House exhibited great mildness and forbearance, he admitted the answer would not be applicable. The hon. Baronet had said, "You confine men within their houses at night, but that will not prevent noonday murders." He wished he knew any legislation that would have such an effect. But every man who was careless of his own life, had the life of every other person in his power; and where there prevailed a sympathy for the criminal, he would, in proportion, be daring and determined in carrying out his guilty purpose; and no hour of the day would prevent the perpetration of crime. But he had reason to believe—as had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—that many of these crimes were planned and proposed at the nocturnal meetings which took place; and that under objects which appeared innocent in themselves, occasion and opportunity was given for parties to combine together for the commission of outrages such as had been described. But as to the further suggestion of his hon. Friend, that this Bill would not accomplish all that was necessary for putting down crime—that the remedy was not sufficiently efficacious, because it was not sufficiently stringent and powerful, he would just inquire for a moment what was the nature of the measure which his hon. Friend proposed to substitute. For though he had said, and correctly, that he was not bound to explain his plan to the Government, he had given a slight outline of the course he would recommend them to adopt. If he understood his hon. Friend right, he would at once suppress those dangerous combinations which were the great evil to be guarded against, by seizing and imprisoning those who were the prime movers in these disturbances. But his hon. Friend himself had given many instances of murders and outrages perpetrated at noon-day, and in the presence of twenty or thirty persons, and had told the House that such was the system of terror prevailing, that no person could be induced to come forward and give evidence against the murderer. How then would his hon. Friend accomplish his object? His hon. Friend then said that this measure would drive people from combining by night to combining by day, and that its effect would be merely to transplant the evil, not suppress it. He differed entirely from his hon. Friend in this respect. It was one part of this measure that the police force should be increased in the proclaimed districts; and although that force might be powerless in preventing meetings at night, and therefore it was necessary to provide against these combinations by some other means, it was to be hoped that, during the day, such increased police force would have the effect of stopping the source of those outrages which all admitted to exist. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) objected to what he called the indiscriminate character of the measure—that is, its confounding the innocent with the guilty. Upon this point he would refer the noble Lord to his own Bill, as a precedent for the course the Government were now taking. The noble Lord had not, however, confined himself to this general objection, but had been kind enough to refer them to a pattern of the legislation he would suggest—and this was the measure known as the "Black Act" in the reign of George I. The noble Lord considered it better, instead of adopting the Coercion Bill proposed by the Government, to take some such means of distinguishing offenders from innocent persons as were adopted in that Act. Now, in the first place, there was only a small and limited number of the offences which were made penal by reason of that particular character being given to them, to which the noble Lord had adverted; the greater number were independent of any such disguise or other peculiar circumstances as by that Act was necessary to stamp the character of the offence or the offender. And the noble Lord should consider also, that that was a measure of punishment and not of prevention. When persons went about disguised to commit an offence, that circumstance made the offence more atrocious; but in a measure of prevention, to say that no man should be arrested unless there was something about him to show that he was intending to commit a crime, would be to make the Act powerless and nugatory. To be a measure of prevention at all, it must be indiscriminate, otherwise it would give to those who were really offenders the means of eluding its provisions. There appeared to be a general feeling that the statement of his right hon. Friend was not exaggerated. That statement had been confirmed and corroborated by every document which had been laid on the Table. In reading those details, nothing struck one more forcibly than the frightful state of enormity in which particular districts in Ireland were at this moment placed. Persons in the discharge of their lawful public duties, in the quiet pursuit of their private interests, or in the enjoyment of domestic repose and tranquillity, and not aware of having committed any offence against any one, found themselves exposed to the sentence of death, which was only made known to them by its speedy execution. The existence of this frightful state of things was admitted. The Government came to the House and asked for increased powers, in order to put it down; and the reply was, "You ask for that which is unconstitutional." But unconstitutional in what sense? Was it unconstitutional for the Legislature to strengthen the arm of the Executive under such circumstances, to enable them to meet the evil? Was it unconstitutional for it to endeavour to extend to those disturbed districts those blessings which could only be enjoyed under a state of tranquillity and safety? He admitted that this Bill would impose some restraint upon liberty; but did not all laws, more or less, restrain the natural liberty of man? Was it any answer to the appeal of the Executive to Parliament for increased powers to say, "You seek to impose a restraint upon liberty," as if liberty, in the proper sense of the word, could exist in those districts to which alone this measure would apply? For what was liberty, after all? There was no freedom of action in the disturbed districts of Ireland. No man could act upon his own view, either of his public duty or his private interest. In the counties where these outrages prevailed, nothing that could be properly termed liberty now existed, and under the system of terror which prevailed, all freedom of action was withdrawn. But then it was said, the measure would confound the innocent with the guilty. This appeared to him to be a confusion of ideas. He could understand when an offence had been committed by a few persons, and for the purpose of punishing them the country was laid under an interdict—he could understand that in such case the innocent might be involved with the guilty. But this measure was preventive and precautionary—not for punishment. It was to keep men innocent, or at all events to prevent their guilty intentions breaking out into guilty acts. And though it might occasion some inconvenience in the districts proclaimed, he could not believe that the orderly and well-disposed would object to a measure calculated to ensure tranquillity and protect their property, and their existence. There was another objection to the provisions of this Bill, which the hon. and learned Member for Cork urged in his very temperate speech. That objection was, the giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to tax at his pleasure the whole of the inhabitants of a disturbed district, and so to make persons who were orderly and well-disposed, pay for the acts of those of a different character. Now, the hon. and learned Member had himself admitted that he was aware that was a principle which had pervaded our law from the earliest period. The hon. and learned Member said, he admitted that during the earliest times persons of small districts were rendered answerable for the good behaviour of all within that district. He would not confine the observation to that remote period, but would carry the House through later periods of legislation, and would show that, so far from this proposition being a violation of principle at all, it was in strict accordance with principles which had prevailed, and had been acted upon from the earliest period of English legislation down to the present time. In the reigns of Edward I. and Edward III., the inhabitants of the hundred were made answerable for every robbery committed in their district; and they were bound either to produce the malefactor himself or pay the value of the stolen goods to the person who had been robbed. This Act was continued through the reign of Elizabeth in the Statute of Hue and Cry, by which if an offender escaped it was provided, that if the inhabitants of a neighbouring hundred did not commence a fresh pursuit, they were to be liable to pay the moiety of the value of the property stolen. Again, in the very Act referred to by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, as one which might be taken as a pattern for legislation upon this subject—in the Black Act which was introduced in consequence of the prevalence of particular offences, there was a similar provision for indemnifying sufferers from offences, by laying the burden of indemnification upon the hundred. In 1827 and 1828 the same principle also prevailed; and it must not be supposed that these laws had remained upon the Statute-book a mere dead letter, for, very recently indeed, it might be in the recollection of the House, that a noble Duke had recovered from the hundred a large sum for the destruction of Nottingham Castle; and, even in the course of last year, when a person who had been acquitted of a serious charge against the opinion of the people of the neighbourhood where he resided, whose exasperation burst out into outrage against his property, he was enabled to recover full satisfaction and indemnification from the hundred for the loss that he had sustained. He thought it important that he should, in replying to the objection of the hon. and learned Member, show to the House that the Government were not proposing any new principle applicable to Ireland only, but that it was a principle which had been adopted and carried out in England from the earliest period. Surely there was no material difference between a tax for prevention, and a penalty for neglect, except that the former was rather the milder of the two. Now, it had been objected by some hon. Members opposite that this measure operated as a stigma upon their country. He was sure his right hon. Friend, in introducing the Bill, took very great care to distinguish between the disturbed and the peaceable parts of Ireland; and he directed attention only to ten counties, but more particularly to five of those ten. He also guarded himself as much as he possibly could against its being supposed that he was casting any imputation upon the general character of the people of Ireland. They all knew, however, how often an unfair mode of reasoning was adopted, and how prone they all were from particular to jump to general conclusions. He would ask hon. Members connected with Ireland whether, if those outrages which had been described were permitted to continue, there would not be some apprehension of that mode of reasoning being adopted, which would have the effect of casting that stigma upon their country which they so much deprecated at present? He, therefore, entreated them to join with the Government in supporting the measure which he firmly believed would have the effect of repressing those outrages. He called upon them to assist the Government in removing this foul blot from the fair face of their country. But the main objection which remained to be noticed was one made by most hon. Members who had addressed the House against the Bill: they objected to the introduction of this measure of coercion alone, and urged that it ought to be accompanied with remedial measures. He begged to remind those hon. Members that remedial measures had been introduced by the Government; and although those measures had not had all the beneficial effects which might have been anticipated, nor had been followed by all the gratitude that might have been expected, they were still an earnest of the good feelings of the Government towards Ireland. It was, however, clear that, with regard to any remedial measures which might be proposed, their operation and effect must be slow and gradual; but could any blessing be enjoyed whilst life was insecure? Here was an evil urgent and imminent; and if the Government were to introduce any of the measures which had been contemplated, how, he would ask, could they be enjoyed by those who were daily eating their meals in fear, with the blade of death hanging over their heads by a single thread? The Government had, with extreme reluctance, introduced this measure for the suppression of outrages, which were admitted on all hands to exist to an alarming extent; for it was impossible for them to sit with their arms folded, and allow the present state of things to exist, without endeavouring to interpose a check. The House must recollect there was a most serious responsibility upon the Government, and they found it was absolutely necessary to introduce such a measure as the present, because they were not of the same opinion as many hon. Members who had addressed the House, that all former Coercion Bills which had been passed were inefficacious. They could hardly believe that any Government, or that successive Governments, would feel a pleasure in introducing such measures of severity, unless they had proved to have been attended with a beneficial effect. The hon. and learned Member for Cork had himself admitted that Bills of this description had produced a temporary lull: what was that but admitting that for a time they had been efficacious in suppressing outrages? The conclusion then naturally was this (although it was one which he should be reluctant to draw), that it was necessary in order to the permanent suppression of crime, that the Coercion Bill should be made permanent. The measure had been proposed after the most careful deliberation, with every good and kind feeling towards Ireland. It was impossible to anticipate what might be the success of any measure; but he must again say it had been proposed with the feelings he had described, under the sense of a serious and deep responsibility of the duty which, as a Government, they were called upon to perform; and he trusted it would have the effect of producing that tranquillity in Ireland without which it was impossible to expect prosperity; and that it would prepare the soil for those seeds of happiness which the Government were prepared to scatter over the land with a liberal spirit, and which he hoped would grow to vigour and maturity.


would state to the House that he and those who acted with him were as anxious to put down those outrages and to suppress that spirit of insubordination which prevailed in certain parts of Ireland, as were the hon. Members who had addressed the House on the Ministerial side. No country should be allowed to get on which tolerated such crime; and if it were permitted to continue it would drive every landlord out of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had inquired, were they to fold their arms and remain passive, while such a state of things continued? But he complained that the Government had remained too long with "folded arms," as for six months they were in possession of the facts connected with three-fourths of all the outrages that had now been advanced as the reason why that measure was required, without saying one word against them. On the 9th of August last, the Government had a statement before them of three-fourths of all the outrages that had now been mentioned to the House, and they remained with folded arms; and not satisfied with that, they had actually, in a Speech from the Throne at that time, told the hon. Members of that House that, on returning to their several counties, they would find nothing but loyalty and contentment. He would read for them the exact words; they were as follows:— I feel assured that you will promote and confirm, by your influence and example, that spirit of loyalty and contentment which you will find generally prevalent throughout the country. The Government had thus deceived the Members of that House. With the knowledge of three-fourths of all these outrages, they remained passive; but when they got the additional fourth, their energies rose to blood heat. He could tell the House how it was that these disturbances had increased: it was because they had not compelled the landlords of Ireland to do their duty. He knew three counties in Ireland better than the others, and he would tell them something of them. He would mention a circumstance connected with Longford: a number of armed men from an adjoining county entered Longford, and attacked several houses at night in search of arms: did the landlords remain passive? No; a few of them got together, put themselves at the head of some of their tenantry, and drove those disturbers of the public peace out of the country back into Leitrim, and from that time to the present they had not been troubled with another act of disturbance: that, he said, was the proper manner for landlords to suppress outrages. But there was another reason why they had no disturbances in Longford, and that was because they had no ejectments of tenantry there. He wished to make an observation or two in reference to a matter in which his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) was concerned, and he regretted that he did not see the hon. Members; the free-trade advocates in their places, as he considered that they had treated the Irish Members badly. The Members for Ireland had been charged with interfering with the Corn Bill; in fact, they had been charged with interfering to prevent its farther progress—a charge which he totally denied. His hon. Friend (Mr. Smith O'Brien) had been charged with entering into a compact with the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, because he made a proposition that had been originally started at a meeting held in Dublin, in October last, when the Duke of Leinster occupied the chair. At that meeting a memorial had been adopted, which was presented to the Lord Lieutenant, in which three things were asked from the Government. First, that they would permit the temporary importation of foreign corn; second, that they would not permit the exportation of Irish grain; and third, that they would put a stop to all distillation for the time being. In the same month (October) a Cabinet Council was held, and then the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government stated, that he was prepared to undertake the responsibility of opening the ports. On the 4th of November another Cabinet Council was held, when the right hon. Baronet stated that his position was changed; but he did not state that his mind or sentiments were changed on the subject of the Corn Laws; therefore, he (Mr. Grattan) wished to say that he considered, under the circumstances he had mentioned, it was most unfair to bring such a charge against Irish Members, on account of his hon. Friend having made a proposition of the nature he had stated. He begged to say that the Bill was not brought in by Irish Members; but they found it there, and deemed it their duty, and still deemed it their duty, to offer opposition to its further progress. He was quite willing to render every assistance in his power to put an end to the disturbances in Ireland without resorting to the strong measures contained in that Bill — he considered that its provisions would prove wholly inoperative. The House should know that an Irish sheriff was a fine gentleman, who sat at home at his fireside, and did not do any thing in discharge of the duties of the office—the acting sheriff was generally an attorney, with a quill behind his ear, an ejectment in one pocket, and a bill of costs in another; and that was the sort of person they had to perform all the duties. Then the magistrates of Ireland, although they were so numerous, were nearly useless; for if they only exerted themselves as they ought in their respective districts, they could put an end to the disturbances. Would the House believe that in one county alone there were no less than 174 magistrates, and thirty-two deputy-lieutenants? And ought not these persons to be willing to travel about from five o'clock in the morning until six at night, to save their own characters and preserve the public peace? The First Minister of the Crown had gone back to the state of Ireland in 1837; but what was then the condition of Ireland? He held in his hand a letter written by Lord Donoughmore to the late Mr. Grattan—and here he would deny the assertion made by Lord Monteagle, that the Insurrection Act and the Arms Act of 1807, were more stringent than the present Bill. Lord Donoughmore said, that to possess themselves of arms was the first object of the disturbers of the peace. To prevent the intrusion of labourers from distant places, and to prevent the letting of land to any but the old tenants, were the whole objects of the confederacy. In the prosecution of their system of terror, great violence was offered to persons and property. Men were mangled (said the noble Lord), but the offenders escaped, except in those instances where spies earned a miserable subsistence by bringing offenders to justice. This description was true of the present period; for spies and informers were misleading the Government now. Lord Donoughmore went on to say, that "he had acted in every capacity but that of hangman." That noble Lord was not above the discharge of his duty. He did not ask for the Arms Bill, but sat in ditches at night to apprehend offenders. But he was uninjured by the peasantry, for he was a kind landlord; and such men were in no danger in Ireland. Colonel Chabot and his lady lived at Thomastown in a house without a shutter, without the least apprehension; but he did not let his land at 8l. 8s. per acre, and give his labourers 9d. or 10d. per day. The Government Bill calling them assassins and murderers was a falsehood. The Irish were not a nation of murderers and assassins. There were only five counties disturbed; these contained a great number of baronies, but only a small portion of them was disturbed. There were only 5 counties out of 32, and only 15 baronies out of 219, in which the present Bill could possibly be alleged to be necessary. Send out horses, scour the country, hang those that talked of fear. The present Bill would make the people of Ireland all women, and would indeed change the national character. Did the reports of Committees and Commissioners recommend the present Bill? No; not one witness examined before Lord Devon's Commission recommended such a Bill. Serjeant Howley, at the quarter-sessions of the town of Tipperary, on the 21st of April last, said— I do believe that a large amount of the present violence and outrage is traceable to the low condition of the people. Their employment is precarious and uncertain; their food is the lowest in the scale of nutriment; they are ill-clothed; their houses are scarcely worthy of the name, and, such being the condition of the people, how can you expect them to be orderly and tranquil? The lowest animals are restless and unquiet when suffering under physical privation, and man is not exempt from this law. No civilization will hold him in restraint under such circumstances. He (Mr. Grattan) wished Mr. Serjeant Howley was Prime Minister of State, and as there would soon be a vacancy, and the right hon. Baronet's recommendation had been asked for, he hoped he would recommend Serjeant Howley as a fit successor. The evidence of the witnesses examined before Lord Devon's Commission all went to prove that the present Bill would produce no better results than at present existed—that if the peasantry were employed, they would not be disturbers, but tranquil and content. The public money voted by the Government was being very tardily made available for the relief of the present distress; and in the meanwhile numbers of evictions were taking place, and the people were wandering about without homes to go to. Government was making the lives of the resident gentry intolerable. It had removed the pride of their Parliament, had driven away the resident landlords and their manufactures, and had in short eviscerated, gutted, and dismembered the country. So far from there having been an increase of crime in Ireland, there had been within the last six or seven years a decrease of 10,000 in the number of crimes committed in that country. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had painted the state of the country in colours so gloomy and horrible, that he must be called the Salvator Rosa of the Treasury bench, except that his pictures had all the horror of that great painter without any of his grandeur. Let not the sword hang over his peaceable county and his peaceable tenantry because his neighbour might happen to be an absentee landlord, who would not do his duty. He could not help remarking, that the miscellaneous offences were put down in a fine lump; but even these had decreased from 6,199 in 1844 to 4,769 in 1845. He entreated hon. Members not to vote against their own Papers, and to hold the sword over his innocent country, because some noble Lord, who did not manage his property as he ought, requested them to do so. He should be unworthy of a seat in that House if he did not entreat them not to act on the misinformation which had been palmed off upon them. Let them only look at the number of bills ignored in Ireland of late years. In one year there were no less than 3,538 bills ignored by grand juries, and 2,098, in which there was no prosecution. Could that have happened in England? ["Hear, hear!"] Why, taking the ignored bills and the no prosecutions, there were, in 1844, no less than 5,638 persons, and, in 1845, no less than 4,569 persons, unjustly charged and committed in Ireland! And, yet with such a fact as this before them, the Government were asking for this curfew law upon the strength of returns showing the number of individuals accused by the police. The fact was that they were misled, misinformed, and misguided. Party feeling and personal malice were mixed up with the movements of the authorities in every barony in Ireland. They gave false reports to the authorities at Dublin, and the authorities in Dublin misguided the Ministers of the Crown in England. Why, what a dreadful state of things was disclosed by the very documents on which they sought to pass this Bill? Spies and informers had been alluded to, and they had heard of 1,400 threatening notices having been served in a single district. How many of those were written by the police? He had some statements before him disclosing the iniquity of the system which the police put into operation. In one case a policeman's wife had obtained a reward of 10l. for giving evidence against a man who was convicted of sending a threatening notice. As soon as this reward was paid, numerous other threatening notices were sent, and other rewards of course were offered. It happened that there was a quarrel among the police about their wives. Only a certain number of the dear creatures were allowed at one time in the barracks, and the consequence was a quarrel as to who should have the right of entry. An investigation ensued, and in the course of the investigation it came out that the police themselves had sent the threatening notices! And yet it was because notices of this sort had been sent, that they were asked to pass this Bill into a law! He would give them another case. In the county Longford a policeman arrested a man with a ribbon document in his pocket. It happened that at the time he was arrested a Mrs. Gouldsberry was present. Mrs. Gouldsberry came forward at the trial. Luckily she was of the right faith. The Protestant jury and Protestant magistrates believed her. And what did she depose? Why that she saw the policeman put the document in the prisoner's pocket! The prisoner was discharged, but not until after a tedious imprisonment. Yet these were the sort of spies with which the country was covered, and these were the wretches whom this Bill was meant to foster and increase. He held the documents relating to these cases in his hands, and the right hon. Baronet might inspect them if he pleased. He would quote four or five other cases of a similar nature, but he would not weary the House. By and by the Irish gentleman would be obliged to tap the tapestry of their room before they sat down to dinner, lest there should be a spy or informer concealed there. In his own county of Meath, a man was taken up for the murder of Tinney, and was sent to gaol; and whilst there the spy and informer was transported. In another place, an officer of the Government, Inspector Flint, had declared that a police-constable was said to be going through England as an excuse for his absence, when he was swearing in Ribandmen. In Clare, a man was arrested for having a cartridge of gunpowder in his house; he was committed. The evidence against him was a policeman and a soldier of the 25th Regiment. The policeman swore to the finding of the powder, and so did the soldier who accompanied him; but the latter, upon his cross-examination, admitted that he saw the policeman clandestinely throw the cartridge of powder into the poor man's house through the window. These crimes, then, appeared to be more numerous than they really were. A session had just been held at Kells, at which there were eighty cases, but all were discharged except three, who had been found guilty of stealing potatoes the week before the last. One process-server, who was a notorious Orangeman, was arrested and committed to gaol for instigating another man to join in a conspiracy to murder John O'Reilly. That was the way in which these crimes were brought about; they were done under and with the knowledge of the police. He would pass over the Adare case; but let them not forget the case of policemen Parker, Ogle, and Brophy, in Tyrone. It was proved, that entertaining some enmity against a poor woman, these three fellows hid firearms in her haystack, and then made arrests on the charge; but the plot was discovered, and the fellows were dismissed. He would turn to another case, that of a poor man named Macloughlin, whom a fellow named Brophy attempted to ruin. White's evidence was— I met Brophy, and he said, 'Can you get up a case for me against Macloughlin? Oh (said Brophy), if you can get a Ribbon document so as to connect him with the Ribbon party, it will be just as good. If you do the business well, I have done so much that I will be able to get a good pension for you from Government.' This document was written, and after the signature what (said the hon. Member) were the words appended to it? "By the authority of the Rev. A. S.;" a Roman Catholic clergyman in the district, whom these villains wished to implicate. The document, as concerted, was put into the pocket of the unsuspecting Macloughlin at a card party, and he was arrested and committed on the charge. The late Lord Cloncurry related a case in a letter lately published in the newspapers, from which it appeared that upon one of those trumped-up charges, an honest poor man, named Kenny, was committed by the magistrates. The case upon which he was committed was of a flimsy nature—so much so, that when laid before Lord Wellesley (then Lord Lieutenant), he said the committal was contrary to law, and ordered the magistrates to reconsider their decision; but the reply the magistrates made was—"In these times we must all agree," and refused to alter their decision; but Lord and Lady Ponsonby, feeling the injustice of the case, went to the Castle, and obtained by favour that which was denied to justice, the poor man's discharge. If they were to endure such a law, they had better go back to a primitive state, and let the strongest prevail. This Bill was most impolitic—it took away their character, and deprived them of all courage. His countrymen revolted at the idea of being called assassins; yet the right hon. Baronet had placarded them as such throughout the country, and had so published them in every quarter of the globe. It had been attempted to coax and cajole them into consenting to this Bill: one party had called upon them to vote for it, not to stop the Corn Bill; and the hon. Member for Pontefract had described it only as a measure of police. That hon. Member belonged, he believed, to the New England party; but he very much preferred the party of Old England, and the constitutional doctrines of Old England, to any New England coercion. Reference had been made to the Act of 1764; but Mr. Young had declared that Act to be only fit for such a State as Barbary. The right hon. Baronet the other night gave wholesome advice to Irish country Gentlemen, when he told them not to be always running to the Executive, but to go home and mix more with their tenants. He expatiated on the inhumanity of turning them adrift upon the world without a shelter or a refuge; and in using that language he was only discharging a debt, and paying a deserved tribute to the memory of a departed friend; for he only recorded in language more beautiful, perhaps, but not more expressive, the sentiment that "property had its duties as well as its rights." The right hon. Baronet had taken the garland from the brow of his departed friend; and he hoped he might wear it long. What was the condition of Ireland with respect to absentees? He would suppress the names; but in one county there was 30,000l. taken away without a resident landlord; in another, 80,000l.; in another, 25,000l.; in another, 13,000l.; in another, 6,000l., belonging to a noble Duke; and when he asked the agent for a subscription, he was asked, in return, whether there were any Roman Catholics to be relieved, because, if there were, he would not subscribe. Why, when such a state of things prevailed, how could tenants be happy, or landlords secure? The hon. Member then touched upon the State Trials, saying they left a very deep, and by no means grateful feeling in the minds of the peasantry. Placards were frequently to be seen in the cottages of the peasantry, containing these words, "Shaw, who stole the jury list?" but whether they meant that as a fact, or as interrogatory, he could not say. The history of their country showed the folly of oppression. They tried to serve America as they now tried to coerce Ireland, and what was the consequence? Those armies which were sent over were captured; 150 millions were added to the debt; and then those armies returned to England to read lessons to mankind of the folly and the insolence of Great Britain. It was true that Ireland had formerly obtained her independence; but she was approached by men who advanced with a bribe in one hand, with a penal code in the other, and with the cat and triangles behind their back; and this way they goaded the people into rebellion. They now had a Ministry who doled out alms to them with one hand, and with the other attempted to impose upon them penalties, under the guise of protection. It was true this country had become a great and powerful country; but it was by the aid and assistance of the very men whom they had the cruelty and hardheartedness to brand as murderers and assassins, which, from his soul, he denied. He trusted they would learn a lesson from heathen practice. When a Roman general achieved a triumph, it was the custom to place beside him, in the chariot, a slave, to remind him that victory and glory were mutable things. England was enjoying her triumph; but Ireland was that slave; she was the spectre that was at once the founder and the victim of her glories; she was now at the bar of England, and awaited her adjudication.


said, unhappily he knew from experience that the infusion of capital did not always prevent riot and disturbance in Ireland. He had expended large sums of money in slate quarrying in Tipperary, and had afforded employment to a great number of persons; but many crimes of a very serious nature had been committed in the district. In one case, a man of high character, who had been steward for sixteen years, was shot at and missed. He might mention that this individual was a Roman Catholic, and he did so to show that these outrages had no connexion with religion or politics. Two or three days afterwards this steward was again shot at and wounded in the side and back; he was confined to his bed for six months; his assailant was captured, tried convicted, and sentenced to death. While this unfortunate steward was suffering from his wounds, his wife was met at the door of the chapel by a man, who said to her, "You need not trouble yourself about your husband's recovery; we have subscribed the money for his death, and he's a dead man." He believed that this Bill would be of essential service, and every person in the neighbourhood considered that this was just the kind of measure required to insure the tranquillity of the country. He had recently received a letter stating that in the same district informations had been sworn against no less than thirty-five men for conspiracies to murder. He believed that one great means of tranquillizing Ireland would be the extermination of a lawless band of assassins which existed in that part of the country. These men were known to the police; and if they were exterminated, the prosperity of Ireland, which had been progressively increasing for the last eight years, would be greatly promoted. He considered that the magistrates or the police ought to have efficient power to exterminate these marauding bands of assassins. He had been told that for one bottle of whisky men could be procured in Ireland to shoot him at any time. ["Oh!"] He could only say that the hon. Member who dissented knew the magistrate who had given him this information. He did not believe that the provisions of this Bill, which required the inhabitants of disturbed districts to remain within their houses after sunset, would be any hardship upon the honest and industrious part of the population. He considered that permanent tranquillity could not be restored in Ireland till all agitation was repressed. He wished to state to the House, that although during the last five years more than 10,000l. per annum had been expended in wages for the improvement of these slate quarries, and he had done all in his power to ameliorate the condition and promote the comfort of his tenants and workmen, at great pecuniary loss, the most atrocious crimes were still perpetrated in the district; and he believed it was only by the firm and energetic interference of Government for the protection of life and property, that these outrages could be prevented. He considered that the abolition of the system of middlemen, and the promotion of extensive railway communication, would go far to tranquillize Ireland. He had watched most narrowly the conduct of the Government towards that country, and he must say he thought the policy they had adopted had been most statesmanlike. He considered that the course they pursued throughout the State Trials entitled them to the greatest respect. He would conclude with a quotation which he might apply to Her Majesty's Government:— Though deep, yet clear; though gentle, yet not dull; Strong without rage;— and I don't (said the hon. Gentleman) allude to the vacancies in the Cabinet when I add— —"without o'erflowing, full.


felt desirous briefly to state the reasons which would influence him in voting as he should; and he would follow the propositions of the Amendment before the House, which alleged, first, that the system of outrage in Ireland would be aggravated, not removed, by this Bill; and, secondly, that it was the duty of Parliament to adopt measures to eradicate the causes of these crimes, instead of laws like this. It was not his intention to deny the existence, or the extent, or the enormity of crime in some parts of Ireland: life and property in those, districts were insecure; but this Bill would not repress it. Measures for the improvement of the condition of the people should have preceded measures of punishment, or at least should have been announced by the Government. This Bill would not remove starvation, or the want of employment and wages—the causes of murmurs and outrages. As for the notion of reading the Bill a first time in order to show respect to the House of Lords, he did not know when any Bills for the amelioration of the condition of the people had come from the House of Lords. No doubt, there was a complete disorganization of the social condition of the people in many parts of Ireland; they had no confidence in the higher orders of proprietors, but were completely estranged from them, and associated together to redress their own grievances. But this had arisen from a long course of misgovernment. The measures passed had been for the benefit of the upper class, not for that of the mass of the people. Such was Catholic Emancipation itself, with the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, and a host of minor measures. The Irish Poor Law, again, was never likely to be satisfactory; allowing no external relief, and giving to the people in that poorer country but a tenth of the sum raised for the same purposes for England. Then there were the clearances, placing the people at the mercy of the landlords; and when men found they were left to starve and die, they would naturally resort to any means to supply their wants or redress their grievances. There was a conversation with a peasant near Cashel, who had been ejected from his farm, reported by the Poor Law Inquiry Commissioners, which would show any one who took the trouble to refer to it, to what a system of disorder all this had gradually led. There was a time in England when the country was in the same situation as that in which Ireland now was; but the Legislature in the fifteenth century compelled the landlords to subsist the population out of the land. [The hon. Member here read the preamble of several Acts in the reign of Elizabeth, showing the destitute and demoralized condition of the peasantry of this country.] That was the condition of England, as recited in the Statutes passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which led to the passing of the Poor Law, containing a provision that the people should be employed and fed. If the recommendations of the various commissions which had made reports to the House had been attended to, there would have been no necessity for such a law as that now under discussion. He did not blame the Government, he blamed the Legislature more than the Government. He felt that the representatives of Ireland had not given due support and assistance to the Government. The Irish Members should, if the Government did not, have brought forward good Bills. Measures should have been urged upon them by the voice of the country; and the Government should have been aided in the preparation of measures for the benefit of Ireland. With respect to the particular Bill now before the House, its leading principle was to compel the people to remain in their houses from a certain hour. He agreed with those who thought the measure would not effect its object, of keeping people at home; and he did not see how it would prevent murders from being committed. There were laws now in force which were sufficient for the purpose, if put in execution. He had voted against the former Coercion Bill, and divided the House upon it; he might, therefore, vote against this Bill without being charged with inconsistency. He objected to a law which prevented a man from going out of his house. It was worse than the curfew law of England; for it had all its severity, with additions which made it still more barbarous. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.


would vote for the Bill, but with reluctance. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Collett) that a large portion of the population in Ireland was completely under the influence of "factions;" and he believed that, if the individuals directing those factions could be seized and imprisoned, a vast deal of good would be done towards securing peace and good order. It was altogether impossible, considering the state of society in that country, that landlords could reside on their property, or, if they did, that they could act in an independent manner. That this was the case he knew from the experience of his brother, Lord Orkney. The family had not been unpopular; they had given no cause of offence; they had done much to improve the condition and to add to the comforts of the people; and his grandfather, it was well known in the neighbourhood, had embarked a very large capital in the linen trade of Ireland, and had for a very long time demanded no rent whatever from his tenants. When Lord Orkney for the first time visited his property in the Queen's County, he resided at the house of his agent; while there the agent was fired at, and afterwards one of the servants was murdered. Lord Orkney had never visited the property which he possessed in the county of Tipperary, without having been threatened. He had done a very great service and shown most extraordinary kindness to one of his tenants on that property; and yet that very man had complained of his treatment, and had said that he would "settle accounts" with his landlord on the first opportunity; and, as the mode of settling accounts in Ireland was a very peculiar one, it could not be wondered at that the settling day was put off by the landlord. Was it therefore, he would ask, possible that a landlord would voluntarily live in Ireland? He (Captain Fitzmaurice) was very willing to admit all that was reported relative to the natural advantages of Ireland. He had visited all the countries of Europe, and he could confidently say that in none of them had he found a finer or a richer soil than that of Ireland. Irishmen were fond of exhorting their countrymen to be "great, glorious, and free," and he most heartily joined in that exhortation; but he would, first of all, recommend a freedom from crime, and that they should seek to be glorious by their industry, instead of wasting their resources in a factious opposition to a Government which wished them well. He had heard it repeatedly stated that the English Members were careless about Ireland. Now, last year many of the English Members perilled their seats by endeavouring to carry out measures for promoting the education of Ireland; and while they were thus perilling their seats, how very few of the Members from the sister kingdom were in their places to support those educational measures! He trusted they would not hear again of the English Members "being indisposed to benefit Ireland. As an individual, he was truly anxious to do all that lay in his power to promote the good of that country.


said, as had been affirmed before by Irish Members, that it was too true that crime existed in Ireland to too great an extent, and that he deplored its existence equally with those hon. Members who had spoken before him. But his objection was that this Bill would not meet these crimes. He had no doubt that what the hon. and gallant Member who sat down said was quite true; and he had no doubt that the noble Lord, his brother, had the best possible feeling towards Ireland and the human race in general. But he was an absentee, and the better he was in character, the greater injustice it was to Ireland that he was absent. In the course of this discussion, the Irish Members did not confine themselves merely to the impropriety of what he should call the paltry and miserable Coercion Bill, but they brought before the House every grievance under which Ireland laboured. There had arisen in the House, and in the minds of the public out of the House, the conviction that no matter how they may differ as regarded remedies, the condition of Ireland and her people was a blot and a stain on the British character. In his intercourse with hon. Members on both sides, both inside and outside of that House, he found that there had been one universal admission, that, in point of fact, it lay in the people of England and in their representatives in that House to do something to relieve the misery and the destitution of the people of Ireland. He thought that that was a good result, and that it was one which it was well worth their while to spend six weeks in discovering. Everybody admitted that the state of Ireland wanted a remedy, but nobody proposed any particular one. The national party in Ireland said that they were prepared to provide their own remedy; but on the English Government lay the responsibility, if they were disinclined, to carry these remedies into effect. He must say, with all due deference to the right hon. Baronet, that he listened to his speech the other night with a great feeling of despondency for Ireland. He never was so strongly impressed with the notion that he was puzzled with the great difficulty he had to encounter. His first speech was made in vindication of the introduction of the Coercion Bill; but he did not think that either the right hon. Baronet, or any Member who supported him, made out a case for its necessity. The right hon. Gentleman made out, however, from his quotation of figures, a strong case for the national party in Ireland. It was his object to prove that, within the last few years, crime had increased in Ireland, and therefore it was his interest to choose a year which was remarkable for paucity of crime to compare with the year 1845. But what year did he pick out? The year 1843, the year which was called the Repeal year, the year in which a noble Duke in another place said that Ireland belonged to England only by military possession. The national party had the people with them; and no Government could govern a country safely and well unless they had got on their side, and on the side of the law, the majority of the people. The right hon. Baronet opposite had referred to the cases of the Hogans and the O'Heas, as proofs of the necessity for passing a Coercion Bill; but they constituted no grounds for it, inasmuch as the police who guarded the Hogans could not prevent the murder from being committed; and there were now lying in Limerick gaol men charged with the brutal and disgusting attack upon the O'Heas, who, but for a blunder committed by the sheriff of the county, would have been tried for the crime. The national party of Ireland were prepared to tell the right hon. Baronet that he never should pass his Coercion Bill, unless he brought forward, at the same time with it, some measures for remedying the evils which prevailed in their country. The question of who was to govern Ireland was one which could not but suggest itself to him on the present occasion. He hoped the people of England would settle that question out of doors, as they had done another momentous question. He hoped they would not permit Ireland to be governed by coercion any longer. Ireland had been reduced by the oppressions she had endured to the lowest pitch of civilization of any country in Europe. Her grievances had created agitators; and he was not afraid to declare himself one of them, nor did he hesitate to say that he would continue to be an agitator, in a small degree, until the oppressions of Ireland had ceased. Who, he again asked, was in future to govern Ireland? The right hon. Baronet opposite had brought forward his Coercion Bill, as exemplifying his method and system of government. The noble Lord the loader of the Whig party had declared his intention to vote for that Bill. The noble Lord the leader of the protection party, opposite, had signified that he also should bring his supporters to the vote in favour of the measure. The hon. Member for Evesham shook his head in denial of his assertion; but the division would show who voted for it; and the lists of that division should be circulated throughout his country, in order that the Irish people might know who were their foes. There was another question which had been mooted during the present debate, and which he felt it to be his duty not to avoid alluding to. It had been said that an hon. Friend of his, who ought to have been present, but who was in durance vile elsewhere, had entered into a coalition with the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. It was impossible that he could have gone into coalition with men who sanctioned the introduction of coercion into Ireland. The people of England, even, would not believe it possible that the hon. Member for Limerick, and those who acted with him, would do so. But if the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) would undertake to carry out those measures which he had promised for the benefit of Ireland, no doubt he would have the support of the Irish Members. Why had not the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government brought forward, concurrently with this Coercion Bill, some measure that would relieve the intense misery which he admitted to exist in Ireland? He would ask the right hon. Baronet seriously and solemnly was this misery to go on increasing? and had he no remedy to apply, beyond a stale and plausible piece of advice to the Irish landlords? He wished not to impute motives to the right hon. Baronet; but a man who had taken upon himself the awful responsibility of being Prime Minister of this great Empire, ought to be above this sort of child's play. The landlords of Ireland had refused to listen to advice many years ago; they must be taught their duty in some other way than by tendering to them advice. Was the dreadful work of ejectment to go on? and if it went on, who could answer for the peace, welfare, and good government of Ireland? This advice to the Irish landlords might be all very well for the speech of the president of a provincial agricultural meeting; but it was not the speech which a statesman ought to make in that House. Everybody in the House admitted something was wanted; but nobody had yet said what Ireland really required. She required what any other country required—to be governed by her own people. To keep Ireland, she must be given substantially to the Irish; the government of the country must be given to Irishmen, who alone could understand and feel for their country, and who knew her many defects and wants. The most difficult thing about governing Ireland was the difficulty of knowing her case. Many men born and bred in Ireland, had lived and died without knowing it; and he had never yet met an Englishman, however talented and well-informed upon other matters, who really understood her case. He had met with many who were sincerely anxious (for which he thanked them) to soothe Ireland; but they really did not know how to set about it, and therefore it was of no use. A kind of dismal howl was just now raised by the press on this subject; both Whig and Tory papers were exclaiming—"What on earth is to be done for Ireland?" And, the other day, he had read in a paper of nondescript politics, the Spectator, a remark that, notwithstanding the glorious victory we had gained in India, no victory could be achieved in Ireland; the Irish question was the great difficulty. This allusion might have suggested the inquiry, how had the victories in India been achieved? Undoubtedly, by the employment of the native troops. Let the system be tried in Ireland, and by the use of the same means there, a victory as fruitful and as glorious as that on the banks of the Sutlej, and more peaceful more lasting, and tending more to our eternal credit and honour, awaited us on the banks of the Liffey.


felt bound to state the reasons that would induce him to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cork. He did not believe that the party below the gangway opposite would give any support to the Irish Members in opposition to this Bill, although he begged to thank the noble Lord the Member for Lynn for saying that the opinions of Irish Members should be attended to in all matters regarding Ireland. If, however, the noble Lord and his Friends voted for the rejection of this Bill on the first reading, they would have some reason to be thankful to them. He thought that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had recently shown such a disposition towards Ireland, that, if any measures for the good of that country were suggested, no personal feeling or party principles would make him hesitate to adopt them, and that he would act, with regard to them, as he did with respect to the great question of free trade. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to bring forward measures for the good of Ireland; but his power was not so great as his will. The right hon. Baronet had now on opportunity of giving employment to a large number of people in Ireland, which he (Captain Layard) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would avail himself of. He alluded to the Irish railways, which were not only important, as affording employment, but also in a commercial and military point of view. If the right hon. Baronet and his Government would lend a portion of the money for five years, on a guarantee of 3½ per cent, he would enable the system to be carried out. He trusted this suggestion would not be neglected. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn, who had been private secretary to Mr. Canning, had said that he had often heard that eminent statesman declare, that the prosperity of the English Government depended upon its Poor Law. There was now an opportunity of obtaining a Poor Law for Ireland. That, he firmly believed, would be the way to settle that country. He called upon the landlords of Ireland to avail themselves of this opportunity. Every man had a right to be maintained on the land on which it had pleased Providence to place him; and if the Irish landlords did not act upon the rules which followed from that principle, he recommended them to look at the Gentlemen below the gangway. Four years ago they were offered a protecting duty of 8s., and they laughed the offer to scorn. If any one would offer them an 8s. duty now, they would all of them bow down to that golden idol. ["Question!"] That was the question. The Gentlemen below the gangway had lost a golden opportunity; and he held them up as an example to the landlords of Ireland that they might not do the same. It was absolutely necessary that something should be done to amend the law of landlord and tenant. It was also, in his opinion, most important for Ireland that its waste lands should be brought into cultivation. No one had a right to speak of over-population in that country, until its waste lands were reclaimed. With regard to the Bill itself, he could not support it. With the exception of the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Donegal, not a single Member had addressed the House who had not found fault with the Bill, even though intending to vote for it. For his own part, he thought it a bad Bill in every respect, and therefore he should give it his decided opposition.


would merely state the reasons for his vote, in order that his conduct might not be misinterpreted on a future occasion. Connected as he was in friendship and in blood with those who had been the object of attack, he should certainly vote for the first reading of the Bill, though he considered it inefficient for the purposes intended. The evils which afflicted Ireland were of two kinds—evils of commission, and evils of omission. The evils of commission were the perpetration of murder at noon-day; and the evils of omission arose out of the neglect to punish the crimes committed. He did not think that the Bill would prevent either of these. The object of the Bill was to prevent meetings at night; but the murderer who walked at noon-day, and attacked his victim with deliberate aim, and then walked off, having done the bloody deed, was left unscathed. He could not be brought to trial, or, if brought to trial, from the system of intimidation that prevailed, he could not be convicted; and yet there was no clause in the Bill to bring those offenders to justice. The great omission in the Bill was the want of a stringent clause against the mid-day murderer. From what he had heard in Ireland, and from persons who represented a great body of the Irish people, this was a measure which would cause great irritation in the minds of the people of that country; and what had produced a great effect on his mind with reference to it was this, that irritation would be caused by a measure that did not go to the root of the evils that had produced it. Notwithstanding those views, it was his intention to vote for the measure in the present stage; and he trusted Her Majesty's Government, with the tact which they always exhibited, would correct those parts of the measure that caused irritation to his worthy countrymen opposite, and take some means to strike at the root of crimes which were awful to contemplate. It might be possible, by the introduction of a provision, to change the venue from the localities where the crimes were committed, to the metropolis; or by the introduction of some other provision in Committee, to make the Bill more stringent, and at the same time to make it less irritating by not insisting upon those clauses that confined the peasant to his peaceful home at night. For the peasant who was peaceful would be as much confined to his home by this Bill, as the peasant who at present went abroad. He did not mean to say that every peasant was peaceful; but he said that this Bill confounded the innocent with the guilty. Having stated thus much, he should not detain the House much longer; but before resuming his seat he should make a remark upon an observation that fell from the hon. Member for Cashel. The hon. Member had said that a clergyman of the Established Church had placed some gunpowder in the house of a peasant, and sent a policeman there to find it. He heard that there was some suspicion of the kind suggested at the time, but he never heard that the allegation had been proved. It was his (Major Beresford's) intention to vote for the first reading of the Bill. He trusted it would be in his power to vote for it in the subsequent stages. He knew there were other persons who coincided with him in the views he had expressed with reference to this Bill.


said: Sir, I rise to address you under feelings of some embarrassment. I beg that the Ministers, whom I have seen, notwithstanding the greatest toil, and still greater care of office, so assiduously attending to this debate, will believe that nothing but an imperative sense of duty would induce me to add to the speeches that have been inflicted upon them. And, Sir, when I see the temper of the House, and know the state of the country, especially of that part of it my own, unhappy Ireland, the House may be assured that I shall not detain it from soon going to a consideration of the Corn Law question. And, Sir, upon this point, in passing, I wish to be permitted to allude to the somewhat remarkable conversation which lately took place between the noble Member for Lynn and an hon. Friend of mine, not in his place, of whose services I am sorry to say his country is deprived. The noble Lord appeared to indulge a hope that, by some cross or manœuvre, the Irish Members might be induced to aid him and his 240 Gentlemen in defeating the proposition of the Government. However shrewd a calculator of chances the noble Lord may be, I think in this case he reckons without his host, and that the hon. Member for Stockport need be under no alarm. For my own part, I can now reflect with pleasure that the very first vote I ever gave was in the last Parliament, in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. I always looked at this question, not only as one of policy and justice—as is now admitted by the Prime Minister—but to some extent as a religious question; that we were endeavouring by human means impiously to frustrate the beneficent designs of Providence. Therefore, Sir, it is not likely that I, at all events, will be found in the noble Lord's ranks; nor do I think that any jockeyship, or party trick in this House, can now prevent the accomplishment of that on which an enlightened and energetic people have resolved. But, although I shall claim your attention but for a short time, I cannot admit that we are to be bound to silence, or that we are to be debarred, if we wish it, from a full exposition of our views upon a measure so important, merely because the Minister has somewhat awkwardly and inopportunely introduced it. Neither, Sir, will I admit that it is just to object to us that we are taking a wrong, though an unusual course, in thus debating the first reading of this Bill. True it is, that when a Bill comes down to us from the Upper House, it is usually read a first time sub silentio. But why is this? Is it not because of a Parliamentary fiction that we have the face to say that we have no knowledge of a Bill till it comes to us from our own printing press? Up to that time we were in ignorance—Parliamentary, of course—although it is notorious that from the vigilance and industry of others, we know at breakfast time that which transpires in "another place," and in all the world besides; but, Sir, in this case there is no Parliamentary fiction; a precedent—which I hope will never be departed from—has been properly followed. Daylight has come upon the Bill. Here it is from our own printer, and we cannot now plead even Parliamentary ignorance of it. And now, Sir, that we do legally know this Bill, I think, as guardians of the liberty of the subject, the House of Commons would abdicate an essential function—would be a subservient body indeed, were it from motive of politeness silently to acquiesce even in the first reading of such a Bill, unless the necessity—the overwhelming necessity for it was proved. Sir, I think the Minister has failed to prove this necessity, and moreover he has failed to prove that the Bill will provide a remedy—will repress the outrage which we so much deplore; and, Sir, I cannot but remember that no less an authority than the learned Recorder of Dublin has told you that the present law had not been yet fairly and efficiently tried. Sir, I admit that a responsibility attends the course of him who obstructs a measure thus brought forward by a responsible Minister. I know that motives will be misconstrued, and imputations ingeniously cast upon him; but hard as these may be to bear, great as may be the responsibility, I shall not shrink from the course which my judgment tells me is the right one. Sir, I say that this Bill is at variance with the spirit of the times, and that it is framed in ignorance of the present temper of Ireland. Be its author a law officer of the Crown, or be he one who has filled the office of Secretary for Ireland, I say he has not mixed with the Irish people—he is unacquainted with their feelings. Sir, I object to this Bill, because I believe that it will create consequences worse than the evil it inadequately attempts to cure; I object to it, because it will not put down noon-day outrage; I object to it, because it will increase the alienation which exists between class and class—because it will poison future social relations, and will leave behind it long enduring traces of soreness and hatred against all concerned in the execution of this law; and which must lead to future discontent, and may possibly induce to future vengeance. Sir, I object also to this Bill, because by bribes and rewards you demoralize a people—you encourage vice thereby when it is your duty to foster virtue. You thus weaken the authority of the law, by casting suspicion upon evidence, and reflect discredit upon Government. And, Sir, while one-half of the rural population and nearly one-third of the civic population—as by your census of 1841—are living in that which is a cabin, consisting but of a single room—that room, perhaps, full of pestilence and wet, and filth, and horror—I say, I cannot vote for a Bill which makes it penal to leave such an abode. The Bill in its operation necessarily makes a distinction between rich and poor—it necessarily punishes innocent, and does not insure the punishment and control of guilty men. This Bill, I am convinced, Sir, will be ineffectual for its professed object; and remember, if you pass it, it will be in defiance of the deliberate opinion of the large majority of the Irish representatives. You will have set at nought their opinion, and violated the principle of representative Government. Sir, ought we not, as legislators, to ask ourselves, why is it that a "Protection of Life" Bill is necessary? In our time we have seen a succession of such measures. May we not then fairly admit that they are failures, and that we ought rather to apply ourselves to the cause which makes these Bills, as you think, necessary? Oh, believe me, Sir, the Irish are not by nature assassins—they are a kind and warm-hearted people, But there is a deep, a wide spread, an overwhelming cause. The poor, depend upon it, like peace and quiet as well as the rich. Comfort is a great pacificator. I think it is the great and wise Sully who tells us—"La populace ne se soulève jamais par envie d'attaquer, mais par impatience de souffrir." Impatience of suffering! there it is! It is this which binds the peasantry of Ireland together in a common cause, which obliges great sacrifices, great risks, which brings desolation to their own hearths, and all this is undertaken with a devotion which in another case would be designated heroism. Let the House listen to the evidence given before the Poor Law Commission on the state of the cabins in Ulster:— There are a great many little huts built along the borders of bogs, without chimney or window, scarcely ten feet square. In some of these you may find a number of wretched human beings collected; very often a widow and her orphans living on the bounty of her neighbours." "Nothing can exceed the wretched condition of the commoner description of labourers' cabins; with little or no light but what is admitted by the door, and no air whatever when the door is shut but by the chimney, with the inside of the thatch completely black with smoke, often rotten with age and wet, bending under the frail and mended poles which can scarcely support it, these wretched hovels would not in any other country be considered sufficient to shelter cattle." "Fuel sometimes so scarce they have to burn the straw which forms their beds to boil their potatoes. A labourer said— I have often been obliged to go to bed without my supper for want of fuel to boil it." "About one-third of the population who are of age to attend divine service are prevented by the want of clothes. The wife and girls have one shawl between them, and take it in turns to go to chapel. Many have no cloaks, and borrow when they want to go out; the children, generally, all but naked. The use of shoes and stockings is decreasing every day among the women and children; but the men must have shoes to dig with, though they are generally very bad and old. Families subsisting on the new crop of potatoes: Commissioners touchingly describe the case of a family under the above circumstances:— A man, his wife, and four young children were subsisting at the rate of one-third of the usual allowance upon their new crop of potatoes, which were not so large as walnuts. The woman looked wretchedly ill; said she had not been well for weeks. When the assistant-commissioner entered the cabin, this woman was sitting on a stool, her head leaning on her hand; her fixed and vacant stare exhibiting every sign of mental and bodily stupor, and her clothes and personal appearance that of complete destitution. Around her, on the floor, sat three children, in rags, half naked. And what with this group, the bare walls of the cabin, and the dirty and neglected state of the land around it, a more complete picture of misery and desolation could hardly be imagined. This is the evidence of the right rev. Dr. Doyle:— What is the state of the lower orders of the people in your diocese?—I can safely state to the Committee that the extent and intensity of their distress is greater than any language can describe; and that I think the lives of many hundreds of them are very often shortened by this great distress. Describing the state in which some of the peasantry exist, he says:— Thus he drags out an existence which it were better were terminated in any way than to be continued in the manner it is. Impatience of suffering! You cannot judge of what you cannot estimate. How can you estimate the impatience of such suffering as that of the Irish? It has no parallel. How can you judge of it? You are— Reared in comfort's lap, Is it for you to measure passion's force, Or misery's temptation? Sir, I have said that the framer of this Bill is not acquainted with the feeling of the people of Ireland; and as an instance of that deep, and wide-spread, and overwhelming cause to which I have alluded, I trust the House will permit me to refer to a somewhat remarkable conversation a friend of mine lately had with a farmer in the north of Ireland. My friend was arguing upon the injustice to proprietors and the folly of tenant-right, trying to make a distinction between it and compensation for improvement. He admitted the difference, but said— We can't act on that. Not one landlord in fifty would give us compensation, but they will give us what they are afraid to refuse, which is tenant-right, and that we will hold in the north. My father and I have spent 500l. on our place—don't you think when the lease is out the landlord would laugh at us if we asked for compensation: but he must give us tenant's right." My friend said, "But, if he did not?" "Well, then," said the man, "I suppose I'd shoot him." "You surely don't mean that?" "I do," said the man, "and you would do the same." My friend said something to him about his wife and children. "Well," he said, "I love my wife and children as well as any man; the smallest child in my house can make a fool of me, but I'd go out as cheerful to be hanged, with them standing under the drop, as ever I went to my prayers, for I'd feel I had given my life towards vindicating the cause of God's poor. You quality (he said) can't understand it—there's no law for us in these matters. You landlords have made the laws, and you have made them all for yourselves. The laws are useless to us—we cannot benefit by them—they are made for them, and against us, and there is nothing left to us but to make rules for ourselves—there is nothing left to us but what we can do for ourselves, and I am sure God is with us. He proceeded to speak of Seery's case, and remarked that Sir F. Hopkins had given him 30l. for his thirty acres. Thanks to tenant-right (he said), here the very least would have been claimed and got for thirty acres would have been 300l. Now, Sir, although no extent of injustice or misery inflicted will justify or palliate a deed of blood — God forbid that you should think I seek to do so! — it will account to us for such acts. I adduce this to you as a proof of feeling. If this is an instance of the feeling which actuates an educated and comparatively wealthy man, what must be the feeling of the toiling and miserable portion of the community? Is it safe to disregard it? Will this Bill eradicate it? Will it even soothe it? If it will not, I ask you to read the moderate Amendment of the learned Member for the county Cork. I am sure you cannot gainsay it. I call upon you, then, from motives of sound and conservative policy, rather to record to-night your votes for this Amendment than for an ineffectual Bill of an exasperating and unconstitutional nature. I call upon you to pause before you, the representatives of England, sanction a measure which has furnished a foreign Power an excuse for a similar invasion of liberty, although the foreign Minister can boast that his Bill contains in it nothing so atrocious as the shutting the Portuguese in their houses.


, who spoke amidst many interruptions, was understood to say that he was always anxious to give a reason for the line of conduct which he was about to adopt, especially on a matter of such great importance as the present. The question before the House was, whether they would or would not permit to be read for the first time "a Bill for the better Preservation of Life and Property in Ireland." He would not oppose the present Motion, but he could not support the Bill. He regretted that the Bill was so wholly inoperative, so weak, and so unlikely to be productive of any useful purpose, that he could not give it his sanction. His great reason for opposing it was, that it seemed to him Her Majesty's Ministers exhibited so much vacillation, and so much cowardice, that he could not put faith in any proposition emanating from such a source. They had heard upon a former occasion of Her Majesty's Government vindicating the majesty of the law; but it had become subsequently known how far they had dared to vindicate the majesty of the law. They, upon the occasion he referred to, imprisoned an hon. and learned Member of that House, and made a show of keeping him in prison; but they considered second thoughts best, and soon released him. Don't let hon. Members tell him that the Prime Mininister was not privy to the release of that hon. and learned Gentleman; but the fact was, he had not the courage to come forward, and say, "I did it;" but he threw it on the Upper House, and said that they had done it. ["Divide!"] Hon. Members might call "Divide!"—but he assured them they would have to wait till he had finished. Ministers were afraid to announce that the liberation of the hon. and learned Member had been of their doing; and they were afraid even now to propose the present Bill until they had made overtures to the hon. and learned Member, and concocted what they were pleased to call an "understanding between parties." It was upon the ground that he had not a particle of confidence in the courage of the present Treasury Bench that he could not sanction measures emanating from such a set of men. He believed the hon. Gentlemen who occupied that bench would truckle to anything that would enable them to keep their seats, or secure their own aggrandizement. If a Bill had been brought in giving ten times greater power, he would have given it his sanction; but he believed the present Bill would do no good to Ireland. In fact, he considered it a mere flash in the pan—emanating from a Government wholly incompetent to effect anything great or useful. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded amid loud cries for a division, by repeating that he would not oppose the present Motion, but that he could not support the Bill.


, who also spoke amidst many interruptions said, he could not permit the observations of the hon. Member for Armagh, with respect to a question asked the other night by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord George Bentinck), to pass unnoticed. That hon. Gentleman had said with a great deal of pomposity, that there had been same collusion between the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, and the Hon. Gentlemen the Member for Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien). Now, let them calmly consider what were the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member for Limerick gave notice by letter to the noble Lord the Member for Lynn that it was his intention to ask him a question. He believed that the letter contained the substance of the remarks the hon. Gentleman afterwards made; but the pith of it was whether the noble Lord would support or not a particular Motion were it brought before the House. The noble Lord returned a candid and deliberate reply, and at once stated that he could not on that occasion concur with the hon. Gentleman's request. His present purpose in rising was to deny that any collusion had taken place between those two hon. Members. With respect to the particular question before the House, they had on the one hand a state of crime and destitution unparalleled in any other country—they had the murderer walking abroad in the noon-day—they beheld his person secured and sheltered by parties almost participators in the murder, who refused to afford assistance to arrest him. Could such a state of things be tolerated in any civilized land? He would give his support to the Government measure, were there provisions in the Bill stronger than those that had been introduced. He alluded particularly to the shifting of the venue—a proceeding which he considered almost indispensable, when they bore in mind the intimidation that was exercised towards jurors and witnesses. A clause of this kind, he hoped, would be introduced into the Bill when it came before them in Committee. His noble Friend the Member for Lynn had given the most distinct and explicit answer to the hon. Member for Limerick; and that answer was, that he and the party who held opinions coinciding with his, were prepared to vote for any measure that they really believed would give immediate relief to the people of Ireland. He (Viscount Ingestre) again repeated, on the part of his noble Friend and those who voted with him, that they were prepared to vote for whatever measure of relief in their opinion might be deemed necessary to alleviate the distress in Ireland; but in so doing they begged to give expression to their opinion that the measures most requisite for that country were measures for the employment of the people. They believed that the representatives of the people were bound to make grants of public money to employ the poor on national works, and so enable them to procure that food which was daily exported for the use of another country.


Mr. Speaker, that I may be within the forms of the House, I move the adjournment of this debate, in order that I may be enabled—["No, no!" "Divide!"]


It is against the rules of the House for any hon. Member who has once spoken, either to move the adjournment of the House, or to speak again upon the same subject.


moved the adjournment of the debate.


seconded the Motion.


again rose, and said: Sir, it has been charged against the agricultural party, whom I feel honoured in serving—["Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]—that an honourable individual—["Hear, hear!" and confusion.] It has been, I say, Sir, charged against an entire party that they have been guilty of making a foul compact; and it is, Sir, my duty to them, my duty to this House and to the country, to set them right upon the subject, and to put the House in possession of the facts. ["No, no!" "Hear, hear!"and cheers.] I am quite sure that the House will bear with me while I do so, and while I declare, which I now most emphatically do, that there has not been a compact of any description between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick and myself. I have sent home for the correspondence, and I hope it will arrive before I sit down. It has been charged against us that we have been concerned in a plot; and the plainest answer to the insinuation, and that which will convince the country in the most satisfactory manner, is to read the correspondence which has taken place between myself and the hon. Member on the subject. It has been stated, Sir, by a Minister of the Crown—it has been deliberately stated by a Cabinet Minister, not, it is true, occupying a seat in this House—but by the Secretary for Ireland on the hustings, that it is a fact that such a compact has been made. Sir, it is an assertion without any foundation. The hon. Member for Limerick addressed a letter to me on Sunday week last, and it appears fortunate that I happened to receive it in the presence of a witness. That witness was one of your own party—an eminent member of the Bar—a Queen's Counsel, and a gentleman whom I hope one day to see a brilliant ornament of this House—I allude to Mr. Martin. The hon. and learned gentleman was present; and when I received that letter I opened it and read it and read it aloud in his presence, without having first read it to myself. The hon. Member for Limerick asked me the question which he reiterated in this House, and I said I was in no position to answer for those who sat round me, until I should have had an opportunity of consulting them. This I did on Friday; and it was twenty minutes to five that evening before the discussion ended, upon which it was settled what answer I should give, and before five o'clock I was down at this House, and gave the hon. Gentleman the answer which will be in the recollection of the House. And there, Sir, is all the plot and all the compact that has been entered into; and it is only just to that hon. Gentleman, who is not himself here to state it, to add that in the letter he distinctly stated he had written it to me without any previous concert with any individual of the Irish party. Where, then, is this far-famed alliance, of which you seek to make so much, and which is not only made a handle of here, but which a Cabinet Minister has condescended to make use of, and to describe as a fact, on the hustings at Falkirk?


withdrew his Motion for an adjournment, and the House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 274: Noes 125; Majority 149.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bailey, J., jun.
Acland, T. D. Baillie, Col.
A'Court, Capt. Baillie, H. J.
Acton, Col. Baillie, W.
Ainsworth, P. Baldwin, B.
Alexander, N. Balfour, J. M.
Alford, Visct. Bankes, G.
Antrobus, E. Barkly, H.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Baring, rt. hon. F. T.
Archdall, Capt. M. Baring, T.
Arkwright, G. Baring, rt. hon. W. B.
Austen, Col. Barrington, Visct.
Bagot, hon. W. Baskerville, T. B. M.
Bateson, T. Filmer, Sir E.
Becket, W. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Benbow, J. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Bennet, P. Flower, Sir J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Floyer, J.
Bentinck, Lord H. Forbes, W.
Beresford, Maj. Forester, hon. G. C. W.
Blackburne, J. I. Forman, T. S.
Bodkin, W. H. Fox, C. R.
Boldero, H. G. Fox, S. L.
Borthwick, P. Frewen, C. H.
Botfield, B. Fuller, A. E.
Bowles, Adm. Gardner, J. D.
Boyd, J. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Bramston, T. W. Gladstone, Capt.
Brisco, M. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Broadley, H. Godson, R.
Broadwood, H. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Brooke, Lord Gore, M.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Gore, W. O.
Browne, hon. W. Gore, W. R. O.
Brownrigg, J. S. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bruce, Lord E. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Buckley, E. Granby, Marq. of
Buller, Sir J. Y. Greene, T.
Campbell, Sir H. Gregory, W. H.
Cardwell, E. Grimsditch, T.
Carew, W. H. P. Grogan, E.
Carnegie, hon. Capt. Guest, Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Hall, Col.
Chelsea, Visct. Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Halsey, T. P.
Cholmondeley, hon. H. Hamilton, J. H.
Christopher, R. A. Hamilton, G. A.
Chute, W. L. W. Hamilton, W. J.
Clayton, R. R. Hamilton, Lord C.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Hanmer, Sir J.
Clifton, J. T. Harcourt, G. G.
Clive, Visct. Harris, hon. Capt.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hayes, Sir E.
Cockburn, rt. hon. Sir G. Heathcote, Sir W.
Collett, W. R. Henley, J. W.
Compton, H. C. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Conolly, Col. Hervey, Lord A.
Coote, Sir C. H. Hodgson, F.
Copeland, Ald. Hodgson, R.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Hogg, J. W.
Courtenay, Lord Holmes, hon. W. A.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Hope, Sir J.
Cripps, W. Hope, A.
Damer, hon. Col. Hope, G. W.
Davis, D. A. Hornby, J.
Deedes, W. Hotham, Lord
Denison, J. E. Houldsworth, T.
Denison, E. B. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Dickinson, F. H. Howard, hon. E. G. G.
Dodd, G. Howard, Sir R.
Douglas, Sir H. Hudson, G.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Hughes, W. B.
Douglas, J. D. S. Hussey, T.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Ingestre, Visct.
Dugdale, W. S. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Duncannon, Visct. James, Sir W. C.
Duncombe, hon. A. Jermyn, Earl
Duncombe, hon. O. Johnstone, Sir J.
East, J. B. Johnstone, H.
Eastnor, Visct. Jones, Capt.
Egerton, W. T. Kelly, Sir F.
Egerton, Sir P. Kemble, H.
Emlyn, Visct. Knightly, Sir C.
Entwisle, W. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Lambton, H.
Fielden, W. Lascelles, E.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Lawson, A. Russell, J. D. W.
Lefroy, A. Rutherfurd, A.
Legh, G. C. Sanderson, R.
Lemon, Sir C. Sandon, Visct.
Lindsay, hon. Capt. Scott, hon. F.
Lockhart, W. Seymer, H. K.
Lowther, Sir J. H. Seymour, Lord
Lyall, G. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Mackenzie, T. Shelburne, Earl of
Mackinnon, W. A. Shirley, E. J.
M'Neill, D. Smith, A.
Mahon, Visct. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Manners, Lord C. S. Smythe, hon. G.
Martin, C. W. Somerset, Lord G.
Masterman, J. Somerton, Visct.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Meynell, Capt. Spooner, R.
Mildmay, H. St. J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Miles, P. W. S. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Miles, W. Stuart, H.
Milnes, R. M. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Morgan, O. Taylor, E.
Morpeth, Visct. Thesiger, Sir F.
Munday, E. M. Thompson, Ald.
Neeld, J. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Neville, R. Tollemache, J.
Newry, Visct. Tomline, G.
Norreys, Lord Tower, C.
Northland, Visct. Trench, Sir F. W.
Ossulston, Lord Trollope, Sir J.
Pakington, J. S. Trotter, J.
Palmer, R. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Palmerston, Visct. Verner, Col.
Patten, J. W. Vernon, G. H.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Villiers, Visct.
Peel, J. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Pennant, hon. Col. Waddington, H. S.
Plumptre, J. P. Walpole, S. H.
Polhill, F. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Powell, Col. Wellesley, Lord C.
Rashleigh, W. Winnington, Sir T.
Reid, Sir J. R. Wodehouse, E.
Reid, Col. Wood, C.
Repton, G. W. J. Wood, Col.
Rice, E. R. Wood, Col. T.
Richards, R. Worcester, Marq. of
Rolleston, Col. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Round, C. G. Wrightson, W. B.
Round, J.
Rumbold, C. E. TELLERS.
Russell, Lord J. Young, J.
Russell, C. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Browne, R. D.
Aldam, W. Busfeild, W.
Archbold, R. Butler, hon. Col.
Armstrong, Sir A. Butler, P. S.
Baine, W. Carew, hon. R. S.
Bannerman, A. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
Barnard, E. G. Chapman, B.
Barron, Sir H. W. Christie, W. D.
Bell, J. Cobden, R.
Bellew, R. M. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Collett, J.
Blake, M. J. Collins, W.
Blewitt, R. J. Corbally, M. E.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Crawford, W. S.
Bowes, J. Curteis, H. B.
Bowring, Dr. Dalrymple, Capt.
Bridgeman, H. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Bright, J. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Brotherton, J. Duff, J.
Duke, Sir J. O'Connell, D.
Duncan, Visct. O'Connell, M.
Duncan, G. O'Connell, J.
Duncombe, T. O'Conor Don
Escott, B. Ogle, S. C. H.
Esmonde, Sir T. Paget, Col.
Evans, Sir De L. Pattison, J.
Ewart, W. Pechell, Capt.
Fielden, J. Philips, M.
Fitzgerald, R. A. Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Plumridge, Capt.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Powell, C.
Forster, M. Power, J.
Gore, hon. R. Protheroe, E.
Granger, T. C. Rawdon, Col.
Grattan, H. Ricardo, J. L.
Hall, Sir B. Rich, H.
Hatton, Capt. V. Roebuck, J. A.
Hawes, B. Romilly, J.
Hay, Sir A. L. Ross, D. R.
Heneage, E. Russell, Lord E.
Hindley, C. Scrope, G. P.
Hollond, R. Somers, J. P.
Horsman, E. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Humphery, Ald. Strickland, Sir G.
Kelly, J. Strutt, E.
Langston, J. H. Tancred, H. W.
Layard, Capt. Thornely, T.
Macnamara, Maj. Trelawny, J. S.
M'Carthy, A. Turner, E.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Villiers, hon. C.
Marjoribanks, S. Wakley, T.
Marshall, W. Wall, C. B.
Marsland, H. Warburton, H.
Milton, Visct. Ward, H. G.
Mitchell, T. A. Watson, W. H.
Moffatt, G. Wawn, J. T.
Molesworth, Sir W. Williams, W.
Morris, D. Worsley, Lord
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Wyse, T.
Napier, Sir C. Yorke, H. R.
Norreys, Sir J. D. TELLERS.
O'Brien, J. Roche, E. B.
O'Brien, T. O'Connell, M. J.

Main question agreed to. Bill read a first time.