Lords Sitting of 22 February 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord DINORBEN, from four Places in Wales; by the Earl of RODEN, from six Places in Ireland; by the Karl of ORFORD, from Market Harborough and Farndon; by Lord SDFFIKLD, from Thetford and Perth; and by a Right Reverend PRELATE, from Bassingham,—for the Abolition of Slavery—By the Marquess of CHOLMONDELY, from Falkingham; and by Lord SALTOUN, from Dores, Inverness,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of RODEN, from Leslie (Scotland), against the existing System of Church Patronage,

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Earl Grey moved the third reading of the Bill for the Suppression of Disturbances in Ireland
Lord Teynhamsaid, that though he was aware that his feeble opposition would avail little, however humble might be his powers, he could not refrain from embracing this last opportunity of raising his voice against a measure which appeared to him to be one of the most violent invasions of the Constitution ever perpetrated on unhappy Ireland, and one which was likely to be attended with the most prejudicial consequences to both countries. No man was more anxious than himself for the continuance of the Union between England and Ireland; no man was more anxious to see all disturbances cease, and the question of repeal set at rest. But did the noble Earl believe that this Bill could possibly have such an effect? What other effect could it possibly have than that of adding to the irritation which already existed there, and of increasing that spirit of resistance which had already proved itself so powerful, and which was spreading so widely. Instead of seeking to conciliate the Irish—instead of trying to gain their affections, the noble Earl's Bill would tend to alienate them more and more from the English nation, and make them still more desirous of repeal, and even of separation, than they were at present. He most deeply deplored this measure—he most deeply deplored that it should have been even brought forward by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, because he was convinced that noble Earl was one of the most honest Ministers this country ever had; but he feared that he was acting under some strange delusion

1091
or infatuation—God knew what; and he feared he would hereafter have occasion to repent it. If the noble Earl had only read, with the same attention which he had bestowed upon them, the returns which were laid upon their Lordships' Table that day, he would be perfectly convinced that the state of Ireland had, for some time past, been progressively improving. The principal causes of disturbance in that country were tithes and Church-cess, and he thanked God that his Majesty's Government had lately introduced into the other House a bill by which these sources of dissatisfaction were likely to be done away with. He called the attention of their Lordships for a moment to the effect which this Bill must produce upon the army. How would the numerous brave soldiers of Ireland feel at this treatment of their countrymen? What would be their sensations when called upon to carry martial law into that country? No officer of the British army ought ever to be placed in such a situation as to be called upon to preside at a court-martial to try his fellow-subjects for offences not usually cognizable by military law. He regretted, however, to see the apathy with which their Lordships regarded the progress of such measures; and feeling, as he did, assured that the eloquence even of a Chatham would avail little against the settled determination—he must apologize for intruding upon them the opinions of an individual so humble as himself. But he could not avoid warning their Lordships of the consequences that were likely to ensue, and he prayed them not to despise the power and the strength of Ireland to effect a separation, but to remember that America, with a smaller population—with infinitely less resources than Ireland at present possessed—no sooner became finally assured that her grievances would not be redressed, than she at once declared her independence, and maintained it, in defiance of all the force which England could direct against her. This was a fatal measure—a measure which he must deeply deplore. It was hurried in a most indecent manner, and without due forethought and deliberation. It yet remained to be shown, that the means already at the command of the law were not sufficient to put down outrage. No documents had been laid before them—no Committee formed—no evidence taken. On former occasions, when the Constitution was suspended, some steps of this kind were generally adopted, but in this instance, that precedent had not been
1092
followed. Nay, his Majesty's Ministers could not even point to one single petition on their Lordships Table, praying the House for its interference and protection against these much talked of outrages. What was the case made out by the noble Earl? Why, that there had been a collision between the populace and the police; but was it not notorious that there were constant collisions between poachers and gamekeepers in England? Would any one say, that the constitutional law in England should be suspended, because there had been a collision between the smugglers and the preventive men in Kent? In many of those battles, upwards of 400 people had been engaged, and would any one say that was not as much a civil war as that which was now said to rage in Ireland? He knew that it was almost useless to speak against this Bill, supported as it was, but he nevertheless felt it to be his duty to raise his voice against a measure, the consequence of which he so much dreaded. If they turned to history, they would find that violent and arbitrary measures had never succeeded in obtaining their object. There was one omission in the Bill, to which he would particularly call the attention of the House. No provision was made in the event of a dissolution of Parliament, as to what the powers of the Lord Lieutenant should be. Was he to have the power of suppressing the voice of electors? Was he by proclamation, to stop contested elections, and make the electors vote, like slaves, for whomsoever he pleased? Another point he thought their Lordships ought to consider before they left the House, was the manner in which, under the other Act before the House, a person might be conveyed from one prison to another, and at length be entirely lost sight of by his friends. He called upon the Ministers—he called upon their Lordships—to pause whilst there was yet time, and hesitate before they consummated a measure so fraught with evil consequences—not merely to Ireland, but also to this country.
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, that after the observations which had fallen from the noble Baron opposite, be felt that it would be but respectful to his Majesty's Ministers, that instead of giving them a silent vote upon this occasion, he should express his opinion. After the able exposition of the subject from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), a few nights back, he thought no man who had any proper consideration of political subjects, could

1093
question the necessity of the Crown being invested with fresh powers to carry the law into effect. He thought, too, that those who took upon themselves the responsibility of passing such a measure, ought to have been left to frame it as they pleased, and he almost wished that it could have passed without any alteration. He thought the thanks of all classes of the community, but more especially of the poor deluded people of Ireland themselves, were due to his Majesty's Ministers for the firm and decided manner in which they had brought this subject forward. For his own part, he gave them his sincere thanks, and he hoped he might be permittted to give them also in the name of all those, his colleagues, with whom he had acted during the late reigns—in the name of the noble Marquess, and the noble Earl near him—in the names of Lord Sidmouth and of the Earl of Liverpool—in the names of the Duke of Portland and Mr. Pitt—who, when placed in circumstances of the like nature, had also stepped forward and fearlessly done their duty, by asking for powers beyond the law. Those men to whom he referred, had sometimes not escaped the censure of noble Lords opposite, but they had now made ample amends, for they had added to and embraced every thing in that measure which could justify them in the course they had deemed it expedient to pursue. There was no doubt that a heavy responsibility rested upon the noble Earl and his colleagues, for having, in a time of public peace, brought Ireland into such a condition as the noble Earl had described. Whatever charges, however, might be brought against the noble Earl, the present was certainly not the time to investigate them. The question now was, whether they should restore Ireland to peace—whether they should restore that country to his Majesty's dominion. To effect this object he certainly should vote for the third reading of the Bill, and he hoped that all classes would unite in favour of so desirable a measure.
The Bill, with verbal Amendments, read a third time and passed.

CHANGE OF VENUE (IRELAND) BILL.
Earl Greysaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill for the better administration of impartial justice in Ireland, which he had last night presented to their Lordships, and the object of which was to change the venue in certain cases in Ireland. This Bill rested upon the same
1094
grounds as that which had been just passed—namely, the disturbed state of Ireland, and the inadequacy of the law in its present state to provide for the security and good government of Ireland. He should not, therefore, detain their Lordships by a repetition of the various circumstances which he brought before them on introducing the Bill which had just passed. All measures of this kind depended upon the necessity of the case: and he should most readily agree with the noble Lord near him, who had spoken so fervently against these measures—that nothing could be more monstrous than such a proposition, if it were not justified by extreme and urgent necessity, and on that ground it was, and that ground only, that he rested his defence. If any man, looking to the state of Ireland, should think that the security of his Majesty's loyal subjects could be provided for, after the evidence already given, without additional powers of this nature, then he was certainly quite right to oppose them. On the contrary, those who thought these powers necessary, consented to exceed the law, only to prevent the subversion of all law—they supported this merely as a temporary measure, arising from an urgent and lamentable necessity. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Westmorland), he accepted his support with thankfulness, but he would not be moved by something very much like a taunt to recur to past transactions; he would merely observe, that circumstances might exist which would make a noble Lord unwilling at one time to agree to such a measure as that just passed, whilst at another he might feel, that the necessity for resorting to strong measures had arisen. There was no sentiment which he had expressed at any period of his political life which he did not still retain, and he must assure their Lordships that he had never executed a more painful duty than that which was imposed upon him by the necessity arising out of the state of Ireland to take strong measures for the preservation of peace. This Bill arose out of the same causes as the Bill for the Suppression of Disturbances in Ireland. It was a melancholy fact, that there existed in Ireland a system of intimidation which impeded the execution of all law, which prevented Juries from giving honest verdicts, prosecutors from coming forward to prosecute, and witnesses from declaring the troth. Under circumstances of this kind, it was now proposed to their Lordships that, whenever

1095
the necessity arose, the trial should be removed from the county where the offence had taken place, and that the cause should be tried either in the adjoining county, or in the city and county of the city of Dublin. The history of Ireland unfortunately furnished them with many precedents for a bill like this. The 11th and 12th George 3rd, in 1772, referred to all the Acts upon the subject, and there were several Acts during the reigns of George 2nd, and George 3rd. It was singular that at that time precisely the same species of offences were enumerated as the reasons for those acts as now prevailed, namely, attacking houses for arms, the infliction of severe bodily punishment upon those who resisted the daring violations of the law, the threats to compel the relinquishment of leases, and above all, the offences arising out of tithes. In the sixth section of the Act, the intimidation of Jurors, and the consequent increase of outrages, arising from a hope of impunity from that circumstance, was referred to as rendering necessary the change of the venue. In that Act, the venue could be only changed to Dublin, whereas, in the Bill before the House, it might be changed if practicable to the adjoining county. Another improvement in this Bill upon the former enactment was, that the venue could only be changed by the Court of King's Bench at the instance of the Attorney General, whilst for the security of the subject, a further power was given that it might be done at the instance of the party accused. He did not anticipate much difficulty in passing this Bill. With respect to its duration, it was limited to the same period as that which had just passed their Lordships' House. These being the principal provisions of the measure he would not trouble the House any further; but begged to conclude by moving that it be now read a second time.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that there was no one sentence of the noble Earl's speech which he heard with so much pain as that the duration of this measure would be limited to the same period as that which had just passed their Lordships' House. He did not think the noble Earl could confer a greater benefit upon the country than by making that Bill permanent. He had hoped that the noble Earl would have consulted the Law-officers of the Crown in Ireland, as to the propriety of extending the duration of the Bill. He trusted, however, that he would consider his suggestion, otherwise he (the Earl of Wicklow)
1096
would move in the Committee that its duration should be extended to five years.
Earl Greyentertained little doubt that it might be advantageously extended for a longer period, although at present he thought it would be better to limit its duration to the period he had named, and to bring it under the consideration of the House next Session, by which time they would have the experience of its operation.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not rise to offer any opinion upon the duration of the Bill, but merely to offer an observation on a point that appeared to be agreed to by both sides of the House. Both sides seemed to wish that this restrictive measure should be removed as soon as the necessity for its existence should cease. Upon this point he begged to call the attention of the House to the observations of a man who was generally considered as one of the wisest of men. He meant Lord Bacon, who said; and certain it is, that nothing destroyeth authority so much as the unequal and untimely interchange of power pressed too far, and relaxed too much. He firmly believed, that as much injury was done to Ireland by taking off coercive measures too soon, as by imposing them too late. That country had been reduced to its present state by the policy or weakness on the part of successive Governments, a weakness excusable perhaps, as it arose from a desire not to alter the forms of the Constitution without an urgent necessity, and to return to it as soon as the necessity which justified the departure had ceased. He traced, in the conduct of all previous Governments, and he saw in the conduct of the present Ministers, on this occasion, this fatal consequence, that Ireland had been, and he feared would still be, placed in a state of alternation between permitted and unpunished lawlessness, and crime punished severely and unexpectedly. When such was the course of the Legislature, it tended much to destroy the respect that should be entertained for the laws, by giving to them the character of vindictiveness; and the people were consequently instigated to look upon their violation as no crime, and instigated to do what they pleased when an opportunity was afforded them. He was satisfied that this view of the case was correct, and that much of the lawlessness that existed in Ireland, and much of the demoralization in that country, flowed from this

1097
cause—that the course of justice was not equal—that lawlessness was permitted for a length of time; and when, at last, it was punished, it was punished with a severity which appeared to the criminals without justification, when they reflected upon their previous impunity.
Lord Wynfordwas of opinion that it would be highly beneficial if a permanent measure was introduced into England and Ireland, giving the power to Judges to change the venue to the adjoining county, in any case they thought fit. Some means ought also to be adopted, in order to prevent the public money from being wasted in the shape of costs of witnesses, &c. Witnesses were very fond of jaunts; and the notion of going to Dublin, might be a great inducement to many to come forward. When witnesses were brought from a great distance—from Cork to Dublin, for instance—the expense was very great. At the same time, every opportunity should be given to prisoners to prove their innocence, and they should have all facilities of bringing witnesses, &c., but the public should not be imposed on.
Earl Greysaid, there was already a clause in the Bill which secured to the prisoner the fullest opportunity of bringing forward his witnesses, and at the same time allowed all reasonable expenses. Although he did not wish at present to extend the duration of the Bill, it was merely because he was desirous that time should be given for consideration, and that they might have some experience of its operation.
The Lord Chancellorsaw no objection to making a small part of the Bill permanent, that, namely, which changed the venue to the adjoining county. He fully concurred in the observations that had been made by the noble Baron respecting the evils that resulted from frequent changes in those laws which involve the dearest interests of the country. Undoubtedly all sudden relaxations on the one hand, and strict, rigorous provisions on the other, were equally to be avoided. But the present Bill, from its very outset and origin, proceeded on the fact that the absolute necessity of the case compelled its enactment. It should, therefore, be as short in its existence as was consistent with that necessity. When the moment should arrive that it would be possible to rescind it, the whole country would feel pleasure, but to none would its repeal be more gratifying than to his Majesty's Ministers, who on their responsibility had introduced the measure,
1098
though not until forced by a painful sad, and afflicting necessity. No one acquainted with the opinions and principles which they had maintained individually, as well as a body, and which it had been their pride to advocate, could doubt that they were most averse to the present Bill—most afflicted by the necessity that demanded it, and that they were anxious the day should arrive when that necessity would no longer exist. As to the duration of the Bill, that must be the subject of discussion in the next Session of Parliament.
Bill read a second time.