HL Deb 01 July 1834 vol 24 cc1011-5
Earl Grey

assured 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- 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 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 constables, and sixty peace-preservation police; that of the city, by ten policemen; being a saving of expense to the amount of 1,480l." 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 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:—