Lords Sitting of 1 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Glasgow Lottery. Petitions presented. By the Earl of Wicklow, from Clonard, against the Irish Church Commission.—By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Parochial Schoolmasters of Kelso, for an increased Stipend.—By the same, and by the Marquesses of DOWNSHIRE and BRISTOL, Earle VERULAM, BROWNLOW, WICKLOW, HOWE, WARWICK, TANKERVILLE, and Falmouth, Lords ROLLE, FARNHAM, and KENYON, by the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Bishops of CARLISLE and EXETER, from a great Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church of England and Ireland, against the Claims of the Dissenters, against the Separation of Church and State.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from a Dissenting Congregation at Salisbury, for Relief to the Dissenters.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MORNING POST.
Lord Wynfordhad a Petition to present from Thomas Bittleston, who was brought to their Bar yesterday, to answer for a breach of the privileges of that House. It was then understood that, upon a proper application being made to their Lordships by that individual, they would be disposed to extend to him that mercy which it was the custom of their Lordships to evince towards every individual who showed, that he was sensible of the error of his conduct in giving their Lordships offence. He had such a petition to present couched in terms the most respectful, and expressive of his regret for the violation of their privileges of which he had been guilty. The noble and learned Lord read the petition, and moved that Thomas Bittleston be called to the Bar, reprimanded, and discharged.
Earl Greydid not wish to act with un-

1007
necessary harshness, but he thought the Motion of the noble and learned Lord was not in exact accordance with the precedent established in the case of a libel upon a noble Lord opposite (Lord Limerick), and it was understood that that precedent was to be followed in this case. Upon that occasion, he believed, the individual was not discharged upon the day upon which his petition was presented, but on the following day. The noble Earl read from the minutes the entry in the case of Mr. Lawson's petition for his discharge from the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod: "It was moved and carried after debate that this petition be taken into consideration to-morrow, and that the Lords be summoned." The proper course, therefore, for the noble and learned Lord would be to move that the petition of Mr. Bittleston be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Lord Wynford acquiesced, and moved accordingly.
Question carried.
The Duke of Cumberlandbegged to state, that he perfectly agreed with his noble and learned friend in the course he had taken. He admitted unequivocally that the article which had occasioned their Lordships' displeasure was a libel upon the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, but, at the same time, he must say, that it would, in his opinion, be unjust and cruel in their Lordships to punish Mr. Bittleston more severely than they had punished the other person for a libel on a lay Lord. He might be wrong; but he could not consider that the Lord Chancellor was to be considered in a case of this kind as anything more than any other Peer. He maintained, that if the character of any other Member of that House had been similarly attacked, that Member would have an equal right to complain, and to an equal measure of punishment upon the offender, as the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should not be discharging his duty to their Lordships if he passed over the remarks of the illustrious Duke without observation. He felt himself called on to place his opinion most decidedly against the opinion of the illustrious Duke. He would not be deterred by any motives of personal delicacy—he would not be prevented by any feeling with reference to himself, from stating his opinion, and he believed that it was also
1008
the opinion of every impartial person in that House and in the country, that the present was an offence tending directly to impede the administration of justice—an offence which, if allowed to be passed over as a matter of course, that House would no longer be a Court of Justice. Very soon, indeed, would their Lordships in that case cease to administer justice in the last resort. Was it to be endured, that those who assisted their Lordships in deciding cases of the greatest difficulty, decisions at which every one of their Lordships had a right to give his opinion, but in arriving at which the law Lords were most able to lend effectual assistance —and God forbid that he should ever see the day when lay Lords should transact all the judicial business of that House without the assistance of law Lords—was it to be endured that the conduct of those who thus assisted their Lordships should be grossly libelled and misrepresented, while little or no notice was to be taken of the offence? In the present instance, it was not a common offence that had been committed—it was not a mere attack upon an individual Peer, but an attack made upon a legal functionary with respect to the discharge of his legal duties. What was the charge? A charge of forgery—a charge of fabricating a fraudulent entry. And who was the individual charged? The first Law Officer under the Crown—the first Officer in their Lordships' House—yes, the Speaker of their Lordships' House—he it was, who was charged with fabricating one of their Lordships' records for a personal and most unworthy purpose. This, assuredly, was very different from a charge brought against an individual Peer in his private capacity. But what he chiefly rose to notice was the allusion made to the extent of punishment by the illustrious Duke. The illustrious Duke said, that there should be no greater degree of punishment awarded in this than in a former case—that it would be cruel and unjust to punish this individual more than another person had been punished. The illustrious Duke seemed to think because Mr. Lawson had only undergone one or two days' imprisonment, that, therefore, any breach of their Lordships' privileges ought to be visited with punishment merely to that extent. Was that, then, to be the actual amount of punishment in all cases? [The Duke of Cumberland: No, no.] If the illustri-

1009
ous Duke did not say so, he had misunderstood the illustrious Duke, and sure he was that a large body of their Lordships had misunderstood the illustrious Duke also. He believed the illustrious Duke had said, that it would be unjust to give this man more punishment than had been inflicted on the individual who had been brought before their Lordships some time since. Now, upon that point all he should say was, that every case must be taken on its own individual merits—it must be judged by its own peculiar circumstances. And he did not by any means say, or intend to say, that though he should concur to-morrow in the Motion for liberating this individual (and be it remembered he had made a Motion of the same kind last night, and if he could have had his will that person should not have been taken into custody at all) — but when his noble and learned friend made his Motion, and when that Motion was supported by him, he did not mean thereby to say, that he should not consider it fit and proper to refuse his concurrence to a similar proceeding hereafter, if another case came before their Lordships, because, as he had before said, every case must stand on its own especial grounds.
The Duke of Cumberlandshould not have addressed a single word to their Lordships if he had been aware that the question of adjournment till to-morrow had been carried. He did not mean to recall anything he had stated. He did not deny the power of that House to deal with offenders against its privileges as it pleased. God forbid he should deny their power; and if he had been so understood, he begged distinctly to disclaim any such intention. What he meant to say was this:—That as the Lord Chancellor had so often told them that in that House he was no more than any other Peer, he thought that no distinction should be made between a libel upon the noble and learned Lord and any other Member of the House. All he asked of their Lordships was, that they should adopt the words of the noble and learned Lord himself, and treat him in this case just as they would treat any other Member of the House. If in this he were wrong, he was sorry for it; but he could not retract an opinion conscientiously entertained. He did not mean to defend the libel upon the noble and learned Lord; but he would maintain, that when the individual wrote
1010
the libel in question, he really thought that their Lordships' minutes had been falsified.
The Lord Chancellorwas afraid the illustrious Duke had misunderstood him. He had not intended to say that an attack upon the Chancellor was a greater offence than an attack upon any other Peer; but that an attack upon him in his judicial capacity was an offence of a graver nature than an attack upon the individual character of any Peer. He would suppose his Royal Highness, or any other Member of the House, had been attending a case judicially brought before them, and a newspaper were to impute to his Royal Highness, in the part he had performed, corrupt motives, or that he had falsified the entry on their Lordships' minutes. That would be a parallel case, and in such a case his Royal Highness would have been as grossly libelled as he had been. This was his meaning, and the only distinction he had intended to draw.
Earl Greyexpressed his regret at the discussion which had arisen, and that he should prolong it by a single word. He could not, however, allow to pass unnoticed the observation, that this was a case merely of personal libel, and that an attack upon the Lord Chancellor should be regarded in the same light as an attack upon any other Peer. He did not find fault with the noble and illustrious Duke for stating the opinion he entertained; but for himself he must protest against that opinion in the strongest manner. He could not but express his astonishment at such a doctrine. He was willing that the present offence should be visited with the most mitigated punishment; but if be were to refer to former cases of similar offence, he should be able to show how much more severely that House had visited breaches of its privileges of a nature much less grave than the present. In the year 1798 a case was made against the Morning Chronicle for a purely political libel upon that House, one which in the present day would be thought very innocent. What was the sentence of the House upon that occasion? "It was ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, that the said James Perry, for the said offence, do pay a fine to his Majesty of 50 l., and that he be sent a prisoner to Newgate for the space of three months, and until he shall have paid the said fine." With this precedent of the punishment inflicted by the House for an

1011
offence of a much less aggravated nature, he thought no one with justice could say, that the punishment of the petitioner was one of undue severity.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND.)
Earl Greyassured their Lordships, that he had never, upon any occasion, felt more regret than on finding himself under the necessity of proposing to their Lordships the renewal of the Coercion Act. It was an Act which was justified only in a case of the best authenticated and most cruel necessity; but when that necessity was made to appear, he should be unworthy of being a Member of their Lordships' House, and still more of holding a seat in his Majesty's Councils, if he hesitated to recommend the renewal of that measure, when he believed it necessary for the maintenance of the public peace in Ireland, and even the safety and security of his Majesty's Crown. In the last Session of Parliament it had fallen to his lot to propose to their Lordships the Act which he now had to move that they should renew. It would be painful for him to repeat the statements which he had then made to show the unsettled and disturbed situation of Ireland at that time, and which, in the opinion of his Majesty's Government, justified them in passing the measure. He might, however, mention, that such was their Lordships' opinion of the state of Ireland, that they unanimously agreed as to the necessity of the measure; and in the other House of Parliament, a great majority of the Representatives of the people were of the same opinion. Indeed, so decisive was the majority in that House, that on every division which took place on the different clauses of the Bill, the majority was as four to one in favour of the measure. This being the case at the period of passing the measure, in rising to propose the renewal of this severe Act, the first thing that would be expected from him was, to show in what manner the Act, while in operation, had been found to work; and if their Lordships were satisfied that it had worked beneficially for the peace of Ireland, then it would become his duty to show, that the state of that country still continued such as to require a renewal of the measure; that the spirit of insubordination existing there, was such as to require additional powers to be given for the sup-
1012
port of the Government, and that the ordinary powers of the law were no longer sufficient to preserve the public peace. Wishing to trouble their Lordships as short a time as he possibly could in introducing this measure, he should proceed at once to show, in the first place, what measures had been taken by the Government under the Act; in the second place, to point out the manner in which the powers given under the Act had been applied; and, lastly, to show what the state of Ireland was at the present moment. Under the provisions of the Act, four districts of the county of Kilkenny had been proclaimed on the 6th of April, 1833. The second place where it was brought into operation was in the King's County. Four baronies in that county were proclaimed on the 14th of April, 1834. It was next brought into operation in the county of Westmeath, where four baronies were proclaimed on the 4th of May, 1834. And lastly, the baronies of Longford and Leitrim, in the county of Galway were proclaimed, in consequence of an unanimous application of the Magistrates of the disturbed districts, on the 26th of May, 1834. These were the only four districts in which it had been found necessary, by the Government of Ireland, to bring the Act into operation. He felt, that it was only an act of justice towards the noble Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland, as well as towards the Government itself to say, that they had shown, in exercising the extraordinary powers given to them by this Act, great forbearance and moderation, mixed with great firmness. They had never applied it but in cases where the application of it was clearly and undoubtedly necessary; and where it was found necessary, from the state of the districts to which he had alluded, that it should be applied, it was done in a manner as little severe as possible. As he had stated, the Act was first brought into operation in the county of Kilkenny, on the 6th of April, 1833. He had before him a statement of the crimes in that district from the 1st of April, 1832, to the 1st of April, 1833; and also from the 1st of April, 1833, to he 1st of April, 1834. In the former of these periods—that was, from the 1st of April, 1832, to the 1st of April, 1833— the outrages committed amounted to 1,590. That was previous to the Act coming into operation. The county was

1013
proclaimed on the 6th of April, 1833, by the Privy Council, and the provisions of the Act came into operation on the 10th. In the period from the 4th of April, 1833, to the 1st of April, 1834, which was after it came into operation, the number of outrages amounted only to 331, which was a diminution of 1,259, as compared to the former period. This showed the salutary effects of the Act in that district, and must be satisfactory to their Lordships. This account was given by Mr. Green, a resident Magistrate in Kilkenny, in a letter to Lord Wellesley, dated April 19, 1834. Mr. Green said, in his letter, that he is of opinion, "that notwithstanding this diminution of the amount of crime, the operation of the Act cannot be safely suspended; and that, were the Act to expire, the winter would be one of continued outrage." In a subsequent communication from Mr. Green, dated May 13, 1834, and written by him in answer to certain queries addressed to him by the Government, he says, that "agitation had not been attempted in the county or city since the proclamation;" and he added, that "the provisions of the Bill had been exercised without imposing the slightest restraint or hardship on the people by day or night, when pursuing their honest and ordinary calling;" and he added, that "his orders on this head had been strictly obeyed." This must also be highly satisfactory to their Lordships to hear. The same intelligent gentleman, in a subsequent letter, dated the 4th of June, 1833, and addressed to Sir William Gossett, stated, that "only one person was in confinement on the 4th of June, under the Coercion Act, but that the greatest anxiety prevailed among all classes, as the time for the expiring of the Act drew near, to have it renewed." This showed, in the first place, that the Act had been applied in districts where it was required; secondly, that it had had a salutary effect; thirdly, that the manner in which the extraordinary powers given by it were employed, was lenient; and, lastly, that the people in the districts where it was applied, depended on a renewal of the Act for safety. Mr. Green added, in another letter to Sir William Gossett, date June 15, 1834, when speaking of the effect of the Act as to expense; —"Notwithstanding the proclamation of the county, the constabulary force of the county has been diminished by two chief
1014
constables, and sixty peace-preservation police; that of the city, by ten policemen; being a saving of expense to the amount of 1,480 l." The next of the proclaimed districts, was King's County. In it, five baronies were proclaimed on the 14th of April last. During the month of March preceding, the number of crimes reported amounted to seventy-three; twenty-three being for attacks on houses, fourteen for illegal meetings, ten for appearing in arms, and seven for administering unlawful oaths. Of these crimes, fifty-four were of an insurrectionary character. During the month of April, the total amount of crimes reported was eight, four being previous to the proclamation. Thus, in the month of March, the total amount of general crime was seventy-three; while, in April, it was only eight, being a diminution in the month subsequent to the proclamation, of sixty-five; and the amount of crime of an insurrectionary character was, in the month of March fifty-four, and in the month of April only eight, being a diminution of forty-six. This showed both the necessity of applying the Act in this district, and the salutary effect which ensued from it. He was sorry, however, to say, that the diminution in the amount of crime did not continue; for he found in May there was a general increase of crime, from eight, the number in the preceding month, to twenty-nine. But of these, only five offences were of a political character, From this it appeared, that the amount of general crime in March was seventy-three, while, in May, it was twenty-nine, being a diminution of forty-four; and the amount of crimes of a political nature in the former period was fifty-four; while, in the latter period it was only five, being a diminution of forty-nine. Then, with regard to the baronies which were proclaimed in the county of Westmeath. It appeared, that they were proclaimed on the 4th of May. The crimes reported during the month of April preceding were twenty-one, while the amount during the month of May, when it was a proclaimed district, was only three, being a diminution of nineteen. The last of the proclaimed districts were the baronies of Longford and Leitrim, in the county of Galway. They were proclaimed in consequence of the unanimous resolution of twenty-three Magistrates, on the 26th of May, 1834; and it appeared, that from the 1st of April to the 25th

1015
of May, twenty-two outrages were committed in those baronies, some of them of a very serious nature. But no account had been received since the proclamation, the month not being yet completed. He was unwilling to take up so much of their Lordships' attention by reading these statements, but it was necessary, that their Lordships and the public should be satisfied of the necessity of renewing this Act, and he therefore claimed their indulgence. He would read a statement of the state of Ireland which he had extracted from papers which he had his Majesty's commands to lay on their Lordships' Table. The noble Earl read the following statements:—

STATE OF IRELAND DURING THE MONTH OF MAY, 1834.
Showing the total number of crimes, of every description, committed during that period; also distinguishing those of a political or insurrectionary character; and showing the increase or decrease as compared with the preceding month and the corresponding month of last year.

Province of Leinster.

Crimes of every description—

Committed in April, 1834

302

May, 1834

325

Increase in May,

23

Committed, in May, 1833

265

May, 1834

325

Increase in 1834

60

Crimes of an insurrectionary nature—

Committed in April, 1834

169

May, 1834

117

Decrease in May

52

Committed in May, 1833

143

May, 1834

117

Decrease in 1834

26

The principal decrease since the month of April being in — Attacks on Houses (decrease)

15

Burnings, &c.

14

Illegal Notices

27

Decrease under these three heads

56

The counties of Carlow, Louth, and Wexford, appear almost quite free from crimes of an insurrectionary character. Two cases only being reported during the month of May in the two first, and three in the last; all of a trifling nature.
In Kilkenny (proclaimed), there appears a decrease of crime of every description, from fifty in the month of May, 1833, to thirty-six in the month of April, 1834; and thirty-one in May, 1834. Of these, forty-three are reported in May, 1833, as being of a political character; twenty-six in April, 1834; and only thirteen in May, 1834; being a decrease
1016
in crimes of this nature of thirty, since the corresponding month of last year.
In King's County, political offences had decreased from fifteen committed in May, 1833, to five committed in May, 1834. Five baronies of this county are proclaimed.
In Westmeath, the decrease in the number of political crimes since the proclamation of three baronies, on the 5th May last, is very great. The number of such offences reported in April being forty-four; in May (of which five were committed prior to the proclamation), 19; being a decrease on the month of 25.
Queen's County appears in the worst state; there being an increase both of crime in general, and those of a political character. Of the latter, twenty-three are reported in May, 1833; twenty-nine in April, 1834; thirty-four in May, 1834; showing an increase of five in the month, and eleven on the same month of the previous year. Sir S. Harvey thinks (June 7th, 1834), that the provisions of the Act would be usefully extended to this country.

Province of Munster.*

Crimes of every description—

Committed in April, 1834

162

May, 1834

171

Increase in May

9

Committed in May, 1833

54

May, 1834

171

Increase in 1834

117

The principal increase being in assaults and larcenies.

Crimes of an insurrectionary character.—

Committed in April, 1834

56

May, 1834

28

Decrease in May

28

Committed in May, 1833

27

May, 1834

28

Increase in 1834

1

The principal decrease in crimes of this nature since April, is in assaults, attacks upon houses, and burnings, and attempts at ditto.
The county Cork appears quite quiet; no case of an insurrectionary nature being reported during the month. In April, there were seventeen in the county and city. Of the fifty-seven crimes of other descriptions reported from the county and city during the mouth, few appear of a serious nature.
Kerry is also described as in a most satisfactory state; only twenty-eight crimes being reported, and, of these, only one being of a political character.
Limerick and Waterford show a diminution of one-half in the number of political offences since April.
Tipperary is in much the same state as it has
A great part of the apparent increase of crime in this province, in the year, 1834, proceeds from the fact, that the county of the city of Cork has been brought, for the first time, under the constabulary system, and is, for the first time, inserted in the Inspector's report.

1017
been in for the last year, the number and nature of the political offences varying little. The scene of them is described as changing: some baronies, which were disturbed, having become tranquil; and in others, which were quiet, crimes having become more frequent.

Province if Connaught.

Crimes of every description—

Committed in April, 1834

556

May, 1834

618

Increase in May

62

Committed in May, 1833

534

May, 1834

618

Increase in 1834

84

Crimes of a political nature—

Committed in April, 1834

105

May, 1834

100

Decrease in May

5

Committed in May, 1833

72

May, 1834

100

Increase in 1834

28

Leitrim, Mayo, and Clare, with the exception of two baronies, arc described as being in a tranquil state.
Galway is described as being considerably disturbed, and the crimes of a political nature though showing a decrease of twenty-five since April, are more numerous than in any other county in Ireland, forty-three being reported during the month of May. No great change in this county since last year.
Both Roscommon and Sligo show an increase in the month of May in the former county, crimes of a political nature having increased from ten in the month of April, to fourteen in the month of May, and in the latter from fourteen to twenty-nine; both counties also exhibiting a considerable increase in crimes of tins description over the corresponding month of last year.

Province of Ulster.

Crimes of every description—

Committed in April, 1834

430

May, 1834

488

Increase in May

58

Committed in May, 1833

252

May, 1834

488

Increase in 1834

236

Of this increase, one-half consists of cases of assault, unconnected with Ribandism.

Crimes of a political nature—

Committed in April, 1834

66

May, 1834

60

Decrease in May

6

Committed in May, 1833

33

May, 1834

60

Increase in 1834

27

Attacks upon houses form the principal item of increase since last year.
The counties of Antrim, Down, Tyrone, Londonderry, and Fermanagh appear quite tranquil; in the three former no political outrages being reported during the month of May, and in the two last only three.
Donegal and Armagh are in an improving
1018
state, insurrectionary offences having decreased since April; in the former from twenty-four to eight, in the latter from sixteen to three.
Monaghan alone shows an increase in these crimes, the number in April sixteen, in May twenty-four; the increase being in attacks upon houses.
Assault and larcenies form the chief items of the great increase in crimes of every description since last year.
General statement of political and insurrectionary offences during the months of May, 1833 and 1834—

1833

1834

Deer.

Incr.

Province of Leinster

143

117

26

0

Munster

27

28

0

1

Connaught

72

100

0

28

Ulster

33

60

0

27

Total Ireland

275

305

30

The total amount of crimes reported officially in Ireland, from the 1st of January, to the 31st of May, 1834—

Ulster

2,083

Leinster

1,866

Connaught

3,038

Munster

882

7,869

Of these 3,296 are cases of assault, unconnected with Ribandism.
Those reported of an insurrectionary, &c., character, amount to, in

Ulster

300

Leinster

963

Connaught

478

Munster

212

1,953

In Ulster little more than one-seventh, in Connaught less than one-seventh; in Munster one-quarter appear differences of an insurrectionary character, while in Leinster upwards of one-half are of that nature.
By a comparison with the reports for the corresponding period in the last year, it appears that in the first five months of the present year, there has, in the provinces of Ulster, Connaught, and Munster, been an increase of crime on the aggregate, and in the province of Leinster a decrease to the following extent, viz.

Increase.

Decrease.

Ulster

603

Leinster

1306

Connaught

200

Munster

424

1,227

Making a decrease on the whole of

79

To make the case clear to their Lordships he would state the opinion of the authorities in Ireland, the best qualified to form an opinion as to the renewal of the Act. He had a letter in his hand addressed by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland

1019
to the Secretary of State, dated 18th of April. His Excellency stated, that he enclosed the replies of the inspectors-general of the provinces to queries addressed to them in regard to the renewal of the Coercion Act, and that from them it would be seen that they were unanimously in favour of its being renewed. He added, that it was almost superfluous to say, that he approved of the opinions stated by them, and that he anxiously desired to see the Act renewed. The queries addressed to the Inspectors General were simply: 1st, Whether there was any necessity for the renewal of the Coercion Act? and 2ndly, Whether in their opinion any alteration was required in it? The answer of the Inspector General of the province of Ulster was to the effect, that that province had, previous to the Coercion Act, been unsettled and lawless, that the greatest advantage had been derived from the Act, and more especially from that clause which prevented nocturnal meetings, which he thought had done more to restore tranquillity than any other part of the Bill. The next answer was from Mr. Warburton, the Inspector General of Connaught, who stated, that his opinion was, that the Act should unquestionably be renewed; that it was to nocturnal meetings that most of the disturbances were to be attributed, and that the part of the Act which prevented them was the best in it. He was satisfied, that if the county of Kilkenny had not been proclaimed, the disturbances which had been so prevalent in it would have been spread over all the neighbouring counties, where they could not have been so easily repressed. He thought that the Act ought to be renewed, and that it required no amendment. The next answer was from the Inspector General of Munster, who stated, that from the moment of the introduction of the Bill into Parliament, it was of good in that province, from the moral influence which it had over the people. While the well-affected acquired confidence and security from it, the turbulent were overawed and disheartened; and he thought that Ireland would be in a much worse state if it were not renewed. The next document to which he would refer was a statement made by Inspector General Harvey. He said,. 'The Baronies of Garrycastle, Eglish Ballybrit, and Ballobay, are under the nightly dominion of an illegal anti-social union or
1020
combination, in which his Majesty's peaceable subjects are exposed to acts of violence, robbery, savage threats, personal injury, reckless cruelty, and inhumanity, such as are unknown in moral civilized countries, and which it is obviously impossible for the authorities effectually to suppress, without being armed with powers which, in countries where the law is habitually respected, might be deemed an infringement of the liberty of the peaceable subject, but which are here indispensably required for the purpose of maintaining him in the possession of that liberty, and of affording him that protection in his person and his property, which all who submit to the laws have an undoubted right to require from the government by which they were administered. It is for these objects that I respectfully solicit for the civil authorities within the baronies in question the temporary possession of those powers, which can only be conferred upon them by the Bill passed in April, 1833. By the exercise of these powers alone, in the present state of certain parts of this district, can the Government, in my opinion, effectually afford to his Majesty's peaceable subjects that protection which they have a right to claim, or restrain and punish the authors of those excesses by which social order is disturbed, and law and authority set at defiance.' He had now described the general state of Ireland, and the particular state of those districts which had been proclaimed, with the opinions of the magistrates and other authorities in the four provinces of Ireland, as to the necessity of renewing the Act of 1833. When he considered what was the nature of the statements which he had made, he thought he might anticipate their Lordships' unanimous concurrence in the opinion which had been given by various officers, that the renewal of this Act was absolutely necessary, and that, in fact, the powers which it afforded could not be dispensed with. It would be a question, however, whether they might safely withdraw any part of the extraordinary and severe powers of this Act. He deeply lamented the necessity of applying to their Lordships and to Parliament to grant powers of this nature, but it could not be said that those powers were disproportioned to the extent of the evils which afflicted Ireland, and which were so alarming at

1021
the time when he first called on their Lordships to adopt this measure. The question would now be whether the Act should be renewed in its present state, or whether any part of those powers should be dispensed with. He could assure their Lordships that this question had been examined with the most anxious attention by his Majesty's Government, with a view of relaxing in some measure the severity of those powers, and he was happy to say, that they had come to the conclusion, confirmed by the opinions of the Lord-lieutenant and other official authorities of Ireland, and also by a communication with some of the most efficient Magistrates in the country, that a part of this Act might be dispensed with. He alluded to that part which gave the Lord-lieutenant the power of subjecting offences committed under the Act in certain places to trial by Court-martial. Their Lordships would recollect that it was stated last Session, that that power was of an extraordinary nature, and that, although it was then expedient to enact it, yet it should not be continued for a longer period than the state of Ireland absolutely required. That part of the Act called forth the greatest opposition, and was considered the most objectionable; and it was, therefore, with great satisfaction, that he proposed to their Lordships the omission of the Court-martial clauses in the act of which he was about to move the renewal. He had stated to their Lordships, that they had sufficient grounds, and the opinions of the best authorities, for the conclusion to which they had come; and their Lordships had heard statements which he thought justified that conclusion. But he would trouble them with another document, a letter written by Lord Oxman-town, on the 9th of April, 1834; and in mentioning that nobleman's name, he could not refrain from observing that the greatest praise was due to him for the excellent manner in which he discharged his magisterial duties, and for his judicious exercise of those powers, which he had not shrunk from recommending, under circumstances of great difficulty and danger. The noble Lord, after giving, in the letter to which he had referred, an account of the state of the districts which had been proclaimed, proceeded as follows:—"Under all the circumstances which I have stated, the measure which
1022
I feel it to be my duty to recommend Government to adopt is, to proclaim the barony of Garrycastle under the 3rd William 4th, without delay, and to direct that the misdemeanors thus created should be tried by the ordinary tribunals of the country." As to the power of the Quarter Sessions to try such offences, he had great satisfaction in stating, that the Government had taken the opinions of the Attorney General of Ireland, and the Attorney General of England, who gave it as their distinct opinions, that the Quarter Sessions had such power to try ordinary cases. There were other parts of this letter extremely worth reading, particularly one part, which showed the effect of the proclamations in preventing the spread of offences to districts which lay beyond the bounds of the county to which the proclamation applied; but as he had already trespassed longer than he ought upon their Lordships' attention, he did not think it necessary to quote any more. He had great satisfaction, however, in thus showing, that when he proposed a relaxation of the severity of the law, as it related to trials by Courts-martial, he was proposing a relaxation which was justified by circumstances, and which would not in any degree diminish or impair the general efficiency of the measure. With the single exception he had mentioned, namely, that part of the Act which subjected offences to be tried by Courts-martial, it was his intention to present to their Lordships a Bill which he hoped they would read a first time that night—to renew the Act of last Session, with all its other provisions. Those provisions might be classed under three heads. The first were those that protected property, and went to the preventing of those meetings which might assume a dangerous character, and which it was known were conducted in such a manner as to be injurious to the public peace. The powers for that purpose were contained in the three first clauses of the Act, commonly known as the Proclamation Act, which was passed in 1829, and which it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to renew, but which expired in consequence of the sudden dissolution of Parliament. The next head in which the provisions of the Bill were divided consisted of those which related to nocturnal meetings and acts of spoliation and violence; for the effectual control and prevention of which,

1023
as was proved by the four districts of Ireland to which the Act had been applied, the powers given by this Bill would be sufficient. He thought he had stated enough to convince their Lordships of the expediency of intrusting the Government with these powers; and, with respect to the provisions included under the first head which had been mentioned by him, it seemed to him that, no difficulty could be experienced in proving the necessity of their re-enactment; for if it were necessary to put down with the strong hand of the law those combinations and excesses which assumed an insurrectionary and almost revolutionary character, surely it was no less indispensable to meet by legislative enactments the causes by which those combinations and excesses were produced. He knew, that a distinction was made between predial outrage and political agitation. He was not ignorant, that it had been contended that the one had no connection with the other; and that, in fact, there existed between them a total distinction. The existence of any such distinction he could not admit: nor did he believe, that any man who had attended to the state of Ireland, and who had watched with an impartial, calm, and philosophical eye the general workings of human nature, could come to the conclusion that a perpetual system of agitation and excitement could be pursued; that the passions of the people could be inflamed, their prejudices courted; that they could be continually reproached as slaves submitting to an oppressive and unjust tyranny, which they ought to oppose—it was impossible, he repeated, for any one to suppose that these political harangues, as they were called, could be addressed to the people without stirring up among them a general spirit of resistance to the constituted authorities, and of disobedience to the laws, which broke out in excesses, such as had been witnessed in Ireland, and which it was the object of the measure he recommended their Lordships to re-enact, to prevent. These excesses might not have been intended by those who, by pursuing a system of agitation, had been the authors of them. They might have exceeded the limits within which those persons desired to see them confined; but they ought to know that having once excited the passions of the people, it was impossible for them to answer for the result. He therefore
1024
thought, that it was not the part of a wise legislature, or of a just and humane man, to enact severe laws against such crimes as had unfortunately been witnessed in Ireland, and to neglect taking measures which might in a great degree meet the causes which had produced them. It was true the powers of the Act, in this respect, had not been exercised since it was passed, except in two cases of proclamation on the 10th and 17th of April, 1834—the first against the association of the National Political Trades' Union; and the second against the Association of the Irish Volunteers. It was true, also, that meetings had taken place, and subjects had been discussed, of which their Lordships must disapprove, and particularly one subject which, above all, had been pronounced by Parliament as of a most injurious and fatal tendency—he meant, the Repeal of the Union. Meetings for this purpose had been held, and petitions had issued from them—which was a proof, at least, that the Government did not wish to interfere except in cases of actual necessity. They had let such meetings assemble under the ordinary powers of the Constitution, and suffered them to take their course, so long as they did not assume the character of a formidable combination, threatening the peace of the country. But, although the possession of these extraordinary powers had not induced the Lord-lieutenant to prevent those meetings, which had different purposes in view from those of the associations, which were the objects of the Proclamations of the 10th and 17th of April, he would ask their Lordships whether, looking at the state of Ireland, they would think it safe to suffer such proceedings to be continued? and if not, whether they did not consider it their duty to arm the Government with these extraordinary powers? He asked whether it would be safe to leave the Government unprovided with the means of checking the proceedings of a central association in Dublin, sitting as a Parliament, with all the forms of a Parliament, directing other associations connected with it throughout all parts of the country, and enjoining a general organization for the avowed and undisguised purpose of carrying into effect measures which must be subversive of the security of the country, and destructive of all peace, order, and law? He could not think, that their Lordships would answer in the affirmative

1025
to this question. He could not think but that they would see it was necessary the Government should be provided with power to check in time an association which must be dangerous to the public peace; and, from the statements he had made, he hoped he might say, with some degree of confidence on the part of Government, that, if their Lordships intrusted these powers to their hands, their Lordships had a security in their former conduct that it would not be abused. It was not necessary to detain their Lordships much longer; and he hoped that, after what he had stated as to the general condition of Ireland, and as to the effect of this law, where it had been carried into execution, with respect to insurrectionary offences, and that important branch of it which went to prevent political meetings, he might venture to solicit, that the Bill might meet with favour in their Lordships' eyes, so far as that it might be read a first time to-night. There remained only one point to which it was necessary for him to revert, and that was the time for which the law should be renewed. He wished he could judge that, within any very short or given period, the state of Ireland was likely to be such as to remove the necessity of these or similar powers, to strengthen the hands of the Government against the offences contemplated by this Bill. But although he could not hold out such an expectation, yet he certainly thought that, in a case of this nature, when great and extraordinary powers were given to the Government, it should be for a limited and short time, so as to give to the country a security that they must, of necessity, be brought under the revision of Parliament, which should be enabled to examine in what manner those powers had been exercised, so as to form a deliberate judgment as to the necessity of resorting again to any similar measures, according to circumstances. He should, therefore, with this view, propose the extension of this Act only to the 1st of August, 1835, being an additional year from the time when it would expire, and he trusted their Lordships would feel that, while his Majesty's Government were endeavouring to provide against those dangers which called for extraordinary enactments, at the same time they were not inattentive to the principles of the Constitution, but were desirous of bringing the subject under the attention of Parlia-
1026
ment at this early period, not only to enable them to consider of the necessity of renewing it, but also to examine into the conduct of those who had carried it into effect. He had detained their Lordships longer than he could have wished, but he was anxious that the conduct of his Majesty's Government and the nature of the measure should be thoroughly explained, particularly as to the point in which this Bill differed from the Act of last Session. The noble Earl concluded by moving, "that the Bill be read a first time."
The Earl of Wicklowcould not withhold his humble meed of approbation from the speech of the noble Earl, not only on account of the clear and satisfactory manner in which the noble Earl had brought the subject before their Lordships, but also for the honest and manly course which he had taken when he thought it his duty again to come forward and perform what must be to him a most disagreeable and painful task. He fully concurred in the Motion of the noble Earl, but he would beg to remind the noble Lord, that the reason given on a former occasion for creating Courts-martial, was the inefficiency of the Juries of the country. If his Majesty's Government had received any information which led them to believe, that the Juries were now prepared to perform their duty in a manner in which they were not able last year to discharge it, he regretted that the noble Earl had not taken an opportunity of stating it.
Earl Greyhad intended, but had forgotten to do so. He had certainly stated that, in the opinion of competent persons, the quarter sessions would be the proper tribunal to investigate offences under the Bill; and he could add, that recent trials had shown, that Juries were not now deterred from doing their duty.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the Bill in its mitigated shape must give satisfaction. He would beg leave to observe, however, that it was last year accompanied by a Bill for the change of venue, and when he urged that the latter Bill should he continued for five years, the answer of the noble Earl was, that it would be better it should be enacted only for the same time as the Coercion Bill, and that it should be open for Parliament again to consider it. He hoped the noble Earl had turned his attention to this point.

1027
There was one more subject upon which be wished to say a word. It had been trumpeted forth by all the declaimers upon the ills of Ireland, that there was one only cure for the disturbances of that country —namely, the tithes, and that, if that cause were taken away, there would be no occasion for Coercion Bills, nor soldiers to enforce them. Now, it appeared from the noble Earl's statement, that the disturbances had not materially decreased, except where the Bill was in force, and yet the tithes had not, during the whole time, been collected, or demanded in Ireland. This proved that tithes were not the cause of the disturbances.
The Bill was read a first time.