CRIME AND OUTRAGE ACT (IRELAND) CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 12 August 1850)

§ MR. G. THOMPSON
rose to move, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. He did so, because no case had been made out for the continuance of this unconstitutional Act, and because he believed that, far from tranquillising Ireland, it would arm the people with a strong argument to be used against the Government, especially as there was no measure either now before the House or already passed, which went to the root of the grievances that this Bill was proposed to 1020 deal with. So far as the Bill depended upon the votes of Irish Members, he admitted it was carried, for on the last division, out of thirty-three Irish Members in the House, eighteen voted for the Bill, and only fifteen against it. If Irish Members would only join with his party in voting, for their common country such measures as circumstances required, more English Members would vote with the Members for Ireland on ameliorative measures for that country. But at no time, when his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose brought forward his measure for improving the representation, did more than seventeen Irish Members vote with him. He thought, however, it would be better if both sides would now bury in oblivion their mutual neglect, and unite for the future in supporting measures that would be for the benefit of both islands. When the late lamented statesman, Sir Robert Peel, determined to remove the corn laws, he, with a high sense of honour, resigned his appointment as Prime Minister, and advised Her Majesty to call to her counsels the noble Lord now at the head of the Government. But from some reasons the noble Lord was unable to form a Government, and he could assure the noble Lord it was a most fortunate circumstance he could not; for he (Mr. G. Thompson) had never heard the two individuals compared together without its being admitted on all hands that, in point of sagacity and decision, of wisdom to conceive, of firmness to carry out, and of Parliamentary elequence to expound his plans, public confidence was reposed, not in the noble Lord, but in the lamented statesman, whom the noble Lord, by an unnatural combination with his political enemies, drove from power, and, to the misfortune of the country, had ever since continued to hold office on sufferance. At that time there could be no doubt that in many parts of Ireland the people were in a disorganised state, and crime and outrage were alarmingly frequent. A Bill to repress such a state of things was brought in by Sir Robert Peel's Government, and passed the House of Lords without any objection. But when it was brought into this House, what was the conduct of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury bench? If they were right then, they were clearly wrong now. If they were right now, then the annals of political strife in this country presented no parallel to the conduct pursued by the present Government with a 1021 view to unseat their political opponents and obtain power for themselves. When the Bill was brought forward for a first reading, the noble Lord and his friends stayed away, hoping that the then Government would be delivered into the hands of the Philistines—the Protection party, headed by the late Lord George Bentinck. On the second reading the compact between the Whigs and the Protection party was completed, and the Bill was opposed by every Member of the Cabinet and holder of office in the present House, and the then existing Government was overthrown. Now, if there was any Member on the Treasury bench who valued his character for consistency and integrity, he was bound to get up and explain how it was, that he thought a coercive measure unnecessary in 1846, and that a more severe measure was necessary in 1850. The reason why the Bill was opposed at that time was, that remedial measures ought to precede measures of coercion. When the noble Lord came into office he struggled on for sixteen months without attempting measures of coercion, but things got worse, and remedial measures the noble Lord had none. Indeed he (Mr. G. Thompson) would maintain that BO long as that incubus, the Church of Ireland, existed as an exclusive and dominant Church in the midst of seven millions of people who dissented from its doctrines, all other measures would be in vain. In 1847, the noble Lord was reduced to the abject and humiliating condition of proposing to the House substantially the same measure which he had rejected when brought in by the preceding Government. He admitted that the Government made Out a strong case, and with overwhelming majorities they obtained their measure, having distinctly promised that remedial measures should be almost immediately brought in. That measure was now about to expire, and the present Bill had been brought in to continue it. Had they made out a case for its continuance? He found by the returns that 618 outrages had been reported to have been committed during the last six months of 1849, and 726 during the first six months of 1850. But they were informed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, that the increase of outrages in 1845 over 1844, was 1,975. The number committed altogether in the year ending June, 1849, was 1,665; and in the year ending June, 1850, 1,452, being 213 less. Now, was this a case warranting the House of Commons to renew 1022 this Coercive Act? And he asked whether, if this had been the state of things in 1847, would the noble Lord have then proposed a coercive measure? or if there had been no coercive measure now in existence, whether he would now propose it? In either case he thought the noble Lord would frankly answer no; and if he would not do it under such circumstances, why did he propose it now? He did not mean to say that this measure, if passed, would be one of great practical oppression. He believed that the noble Lord who had charge of the interests of the country in Dublin, would not call the Act into operation without the clearest evidence that it was necessary; but he maintained that its existence would do no good, that it would tend to irritate the popular mind, and in that way to injure the cause of good government. While, therefore, he had no sympathy with those who were driven by poverty to commit crime; yet feeling the measure was unnecessary and exasperating, he would move that it be read a third time that day three months. He was as anxious as the Members of Her Majesty's Government were to see that country tranquillised; but as he could not see in this measure any tendency to produce that tranquillity, and as he thought it was an exasperating measure, and an insult to the country, he should resist it.

§ MR. MOORE
said, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had passed a strong invective on Irish Members and a warm eulogium on himself, and had contrasted the indifference and apathy of Irish Members with the activity and zeal and diligence of himself and his friends. But if Irish Members were indifferent to the reforms contemplated by the hon. Member for Montrose, he would remind the House that only three English Members had voted against the renewal of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He received the support of the hon. Member, however, with gratitude, though it would be more welcome if accompanied with less of self-laudation. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL
said, that twenty Irish Members had voted for the 1023 Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose—not seventeen, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had stated; and if as many English Members in proportion had voted for the Motion, it would have had a much stronger chance of being carried. He would oppose the Bill now before the House; but he must in common fairness say that this Bill was not the same as was proposed in 1846—it was the mildest coercive measure that had ever been proposed, and for that reason he believed it had been the most effective in its results.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he did not expect that one of the first votes he would be called upon to give on his re-entering the House would be against a Coercion Bill for Ireland. When the Coercion Bill was introduced in 1846, the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated that it was time that the policy of governing Ireland by standing armies and Coercion Bills should cease, and that a spirit of conciliation and remedial measures should be substituted. On that occasion the House supported the noble Lord, and threw out the Bill by a considerable majority. And now, at the end of four years, Ireland was left entirely as she was; nothing had been done to remedy her grievances, and she was still governed by standing armies and Coercive Acts. Still, if he thought a single murder would be prevented by the passing of this Act, he would be the last man to oppose it, degrading as it was to Ireland. But what did these crimes proceed from? It was the hand of the oppressed against the oppressor. They heard much of these crimes, but there were other crimes as atrocious of which they heard nothing. Look at the evictions which were so frequently taking place, by which hundreds of families were exposed to starvation: was that a condition of things that ought to exist? The noble Lord had the power, by making a proper relation between landlord and tenant, to stay the hand of the assassin, and stop the effusion of blood in Ireland. He had seen the condition of the serfs in the worst parts of Russia; he had seen the several tribes of the North American Indians; and he declared that the condition of the Irish, and the state of their dwellings, were worse than anything he had seen in either of these places. And yet in the United States of America, where all men were equal, and where parties flocked from all the nations of the earth to improve their 1024 condition, he found the Irish successfully competing with the English, the Scotch, the Germans, the French, and the Dutch. The only reason, then, why they were so wretched at home was misgovernment; and the noble Lord would be much better employed in removing that misgovernment, than in passing additional coercion laws, of which they had had too many already.

§ SIR A. ARMSTRONG
had voted with great reluctance for the introduction of the Bill, and for its continuance for one year. He was not now about to impeach the good taste or the good sense of Members who wished to make Irish landlords the victims of English misrule; the only harm he wished those Members was, that they had estates in Ireland, and were obliged to reside upon them. The crude, inapplicable, and vicious legislation of Parliament for that country compelled the people to make laws for themselves, which they scrupulously enforced, whilst they set many of the laws of Parliament at defiance. What Ireland required was commerce and manufactures to afford remunerative employment to the people, and a home market for its agricultural produce. It was the duty of statesmen to open up the sources of industry and beneficial employment for the people. "The good shepherd would lead his flock." Were the Government prepared with some great and comprehensive measure for placing remunerative employment within the reach of the Irish people? Were they prepared to do battle with the cotton millionaires and the merchant princes of England for a fair share of the commerce and manufactures of the united kingdom for Ireland? Were they prepared to contend against the tyranny of overwhelming capital? Ireland ought to be placed in a state of perfect civil, religious, political, commercial, and manufacturing equality with England. Let the Government charter for a limited term a company of cotton spinners and a company of woolstaplers for each of the three Irish provinces that had no manufactures deserving the name. Let a Royal dockyard be established for building ships for Her Majesty's Navy. Let Ireland have a fair number of representatives in that House. Let the anomaly of the Protestant Church Establishment be abated. With measures like these, the foundation of Ireland's prosperity would be laid, and there would he no need for Coercion Bills.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Arkwright, G.	Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Hogg, Sir J. W.
Bailey, J.	Hornby, J.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Howard, Lord E.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Hudson, G.
Bellew, R. M.	Lacy, H. C.
Berkeley, Adm.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Bernal, R.	Lewis, G. C.
Blackall, S. W.	Locke, J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Lockhart, A. E.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Broadley, H.	Matheson, Col.
Brotherton, J.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Chatterton, Col.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Craig, Sir W. G.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Cubitt, W.	Paget, Lord C.
Dickson, S.	Parker, J.
Dodd, G.	Romilly, Sir J.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Russell, Lord J.
Duncan, G.	Sandars, G.
Dundas, Adm.	Seymour, Lord
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Dunne, Col.	Sibthorp, Col.
Ebrington, Visct.	Smythe, hon. G.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Somerville,rt.hon.SirW.
Forster, M.	Stafford, A.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Stanford J. F.
Fuller, A. E.	Stuart, H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Thornely, T.
Grey, R. W.	Townshend, Capt.
Gwyn, H.	Vane, Lord H.
Halsey, T. P.	Verner, Sir W.
Hamilton, G. A.	Vivian, J. E.
Harris, R.	Wall, C. B.
Hawes, B.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Headlam, T. E.	TELLERS.
Heathcote, G. J.	Hayter, W. G.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.	Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.
Bright, J.	Roche, E. B.
Cobden, R.	Scholefield, W.
Corbally, M. E.	Scully, F.
Fox, R. M.	Sidney, Ald.
Greene, J.	Stuart, Lord D.
Hall, Sir B.	Thompson, Col.
Higgins, G. G. O.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Hume, J.	Willcox, B. M.
Keating, R.	Williams, W.
O'Brien, Sir T.	TELLERS.
O'Connell, M. J.	Moore, G. H.
Pechell, Sir G. B.	Thompson, G.