Sitting of 11 February 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Colonel DAVIES, Salaries of the various Government Offices at the Cape of Good Hope, and all other Crown Colonies.—On the Motion of Mr. PRYMR, an Account of all Duties, other than Dock Duties, imposed by Act of Parliament, levied by Corporations on goods Imported into, or Exported from any Ports of the United Kingdom.
Petitions presented. By Sir MICHAEL SHAW STEWART, from Kilbarchan and Paisley; by Mr. CHAPMAN, from Whitby; by Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from Comrie, Nenthom, and Kirkinner; and by Lord MORPETH, from Long Preston,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. HUME, from Bervies, for a Repeal of the Soap Duty.—By Mr. OWEN, from Milford; and by Lord MORPETH, from Long Preston,—for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Shoemakers of Dublin, for a Repeal of the Legislative Union.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from four Places in Ireland; and by Mr. DOBBIN, from Armagh,—for the Abolition of Tithes.

AFFIRMATIONS.
Mr. C. W. Wynnpresented the Report of the Committee appointed to examine into the cases respecting the taking of the affirmation by Quakers instead of oaths. In presenting the Report he must state, that the Committee had met with a single case of a scruple to take an oath in the House of

477
Commons, and two cases in a Court of Law, which had been decided in favour of the Quaker. The Report would be printed, and would be in the hands of Members on Wednesday morning. The Committee had given no opinion with respect to the law on the subject, as they were not required to do so. But on Thursday, he should move that the Affirmation of Mr. Pease be received instead of the usual oaths. He wished it, however, to be understood, that this was only his own individual opinion; and that he was acting expressly from his own suggestion, and not in obedience to any resolution of the Committee.
Report laid on the Table.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE KING'S SPEECH—REPORT.
Lord Ormelie appeared at the Bar with the Report on the Address.
On the Question that the Report be brought up, being put,
Mr. Langdaleobserved, that though he might be considered irregular in the observations which he was about to make, in commenting upon observations which had been made in a former debate, he could not, in justice to himself, and in justice to his constituents, avoid entering his protest against the interpretation which the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington) had put upon the oath which was taken by the Roman Catholic Members. As he was himself of that profession, he felt, that it was of the utmost importance that the meaning of that oath should be perfectly understood and that it should be known, what it did not mean. There could be no question of more urgency to Members who were situated as he was. It was a question which had already arisen more than once. It must be very disagreeable to any Roman Catholic Member if he could be told, before giving his vote on a subject, that he had taken an oath which prevented him from voting in a particular way. On any other occasion he might have been willing to defer the consideration of the subject, but he was decidedly of opinion that an immediate understanding ought to be come to. It was hard that Catholic Members should be told that they could not enter into any discussion respecting the temporalities of the Irish Church without violating the oath which they had taken on entering Parliament. He
478
was persuaded there was nothing in the character of a Roman Catholic that would justify any Member of that House in insinuating that he did not pay attention to his oath. He was himself a Catholic, but out of a constituency of a 1,000 there was only one Catholic in the borough he had the honour to represent. It was important, therefore, particularly to him, that he should not be placed in a false position, and that it should not be thought a Catholic could not vote as independently upon all questions as a Protestant. When he said all questions, he meant questions of property, for, unless Catholics could vote upon the question of the temporalities of the Church, they could not vote upon questions relating to corporations. He would no more enter into the alteration of corporate property than of the Church property. His oath was equally obligatory in both instances. What he was exceedingly anxious to ascertain was this: if any Member supposed that a Catholic could not give the same opinion as a Protestant, he ought to rise and profess that opinion. He should like to know the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who cheered a remark made by an hon. and learned Member, whether, in their opinion, a Catholic stood in a different situation from a Protestant Member. He would go somewhat further than this. His Majesty's Ministers, in the exercise of their discretion, had advised the King to recommend to the House a consideration of the temporalities of the Church; and the noble Lord had given notice of a motion which was to come on to-morrow. Did a Roman Catholic stand in any respect in a different situation from his Majesty's Ministers? The oath taken by Ministers was: "I do swear never to exercise any privilege to which I am entitled, in order to disturb or weaken the Protestant Government in the United Kingdom." The oath of the Catholic was: "I do solemnly and sincerely, and in the presence of God, profess, "testify, and declare, on the true faith of a Christian, that I will never exercise any power to injure or weaken the Protestant Church, as by law established." Was there any difference between the oath of the Minister and the oath of the Roman Catholic? If he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side right, he meant to say that a Roman Catholic had no right to interfere with the temporalities of the Church—

479
that every slight interference with the property of the Church would be said to go to the destruction of the Church. If the hon. Member said, that he (Mr. Langdale) was, by his oath, prevented from interfering with the temporalities of the Church—the temporalities being under discussion—then he should withdraw. He would rather take that course than be reminded that he had no right to interfere with the Church. It would be for the benefit of all parties that this matter should be set at rest one way or the other, that no Member should in future run the risk of being taunted. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, had certainly declared that, touching the temporalities of the Church, and destroying the Church, was the same thing. Now, what was the destruction of the Church? Ministers and their friends would be loth to say, that a Reform of the Church went to its destruction; and the right hon. member for Tamworth and his friends would, perhaps, be inclined to say, that a very slight interference with the property of the Church went to its destruction. He did not think there was any distinction to be drawn between what the hon. and learned Member had said, with respect to the destruction of the temporalities of the Church, and the destruction in part. If he were to be told that he was not to go into the discussion of this question, following his own opinion, but remembering that he had taken an oath which prevented him from discussing it, he ought not to be in Parliament. It would be greatly to the satisfaction of the Catholic Members in that House, and he thought to every Member in the House, to have this question set at rest.
An Hon. Membersaid, that as long as the oath was taken, he certainly did consider the Catholic Members of the House differently situated from other Members, quoad the Church. As the hon. Member had challenged those Members who entertained such an opinion to state it, he thought it right to do so.
Mr. Warddeclared, that if he thought he, as a Catholic Member, was differently situated to any others in the House, he would resign his seat at once. He considered himself quite as competent to enter upon the discussion of the affairs of the Church as any Member in the House.
Mr. Humethought, it would be more
480
satisfactory if his Majesty's Ministers would take the present opportunity to explain what their sentiments were with regard to the doctrine laid down the other night by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), in respect to the nature of the oath taken by Catholic Members of that House concerning the Established Church. At all events, the law officers of the Crown should say, what their opinion on the subject was. He had been asked this very day whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to support such a doctrine? It was so entirely destructive of the legislatorial powers of Catholic Members with regard to the Established Church, that, though he had no difficulty in expressing his opinion on the point, an opinion in which he believed that he was joined by most sensible men who gave it any consideration, yet it did appear to him very desirable, seeing that such a doctrine had been so emphatically laid down by the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, that his Majesty's Ministers should at once declare what their sentiments were upon the subject.
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to had no more right to state the opinion he had given, except as his own opinion, than the hon. Gentleman had to state what was the opinion of that House. Ministers had no business to give any interpretation of the oath, nor ought they to be called upon for their opinion. It was of course open to any member of the Government, or of the House, to state his opinion on the point in the course of the debate, and to argue the question if it occurred to him. He thought the hon. member for Middlesex was not justified in asking such a question.
Mr. Humesaid, he did not ask, that the noble Lord should give his opinion, but he asked for that of the law officers of the Crown. For himself, he was perfectly indifferent, as he had quite made up his mind upon the question. Still, as a doubt existed in the minds of some hon. Members, the opinions of the law officers of the Crown should be given.
Colonel Davieshoped, that the hon. member for Middlesex did not mean to give such an immense power to the law officers of the Crown. The only constitutional way was to take the sense of the House upon the question.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he would not allow any man to dictate to him what his belief was to be. If he had taken the oath in a sense in which the House did not understand it, he ought not to be one of its Members; for if he considered the oath to be different to the construction which he put upon it, he would not have taken it at all. He was aware that an oath ought to be taken in the sense of the person administering it, if the words would at all bear out that sense. When, therefore, he had, as a Catholic, suffered twenty years in consequence of his respect for an oath, he could not bear to hear it said, that he had taken an oath equivocally, much less that he was one of those who held an oath lightly; and he thought, that if he had been guilty of any unpleasantness the other evening, when an insinuation was thrown out that any Catholic Member voting for any alteration in the Church Establishment was doing so in violation of the oath he had taken, such unpleasantness was not altogether inexcusable. The interpretation which he put upon the language of the oath was this—that the Roman Catholics were bound, as were the Protestants also, to support the Church Establishment so long as it continued to be the law. But, as a legislator, he considered it perfectly competent in him to make any proposition for, or to be any party in, altering these laws. That was his understanding of the construction of the oath; and if it was not that of those who administered it, he would not stay there to be taunted as one who would lightly profess the name of God, believing, as he did, that he must answer for his conduct in eternity. He meant to oppose the bringing up of the Report. It was painful to him to de-lain the House upon this subject, which had for such a length of time occupied their attention. But it was his duty—a duty which he performed most reluctantly. He believed that none of his hon. friends from Ireland, who had already taken part in the debate, intended now to Address the House upon this subject unless personally attacked. He was contending for constitutional freedom, and he felt that the acts contemplated by Government were so opposed to that freedom, that if he could only delay them for a single day, he was doing that for his country of which he was most proud—it was an act for which he would lay down his life if necessary. Considering, indeed, the present
482
state of Ireland, and the avowed intentions of Ministers towards that country, he thought it his duty to contend the ground, inch by inch, and oppose their measures, however hopelessly, at every stage. He should oppose the Report of the Address being brought up, because that Address was stigmatized by its brutality and sanguinary disposition towards Ireland; and whatever might be the result, he should at least have the satisfaction of knowing that he had struggled to the last against it. He was taunted as wanting in gratitude to his Majesty's Ministers, who, it was said, had placed him where he was. It was net the case. It was true, even proverbially, that a woman ought not to be grateful at the expense of her honour—a man of his integrity—or a legislator of his country's liberty. It was not his Majesty's Ministers who had placed him there, but the people of Ireland. His Majesty's Ministers, indeed, had sometimes contributed towards it, but they had also sometimes retarded it. He did not take his statement of the transactions of 1806 and 1807 from his hon. friend near him (Mr. Cobbett), but he would say, that there was scarcely a man of them who had not, once at least, accepted office on the footing of throwing the question of Catholic Emancipation overboard. Even Mr. Canning, it was well known, consented to such a stipulation. He threw back the charge of ingratitude. The Ministers had forgotten the gratitude due to him and the Irish Members. They had forgotten that, but for the conduct of the Irish Members, they would never have gained the Reform Bill itself. When that Bill was in danger, though he had been persecuted by them, he forgot his persecutions—the Irish Members forgot, for a moment, the wrongs of Ireland: and when the majority of the English and Scotch Members were against the second reading of the Bill, the Irish Members turned the scale, preserved Ministers in their places, and the Reform Bill from destruction. And yet they talked to him of ingratitude. Again, when the Parliament was dissolved, in consequence of the success of General Gascoyne's motion, which was insidiously directed against Ireland, what did the Irish then do? Despite the despotic exertions of the landlords—at the expense of many a suffering father, and many a brokenhearted mother—they sent to the British Parliament a phalanx of sixty-five

483
Irish Reformers, ready to give them the most unequivocal support in carrying through the Reform Bill. Oh, he was glad that they had thus ventured to upbraid him with ingratitude, that he might fling these recollections in their teeth, and bid them think on what Ireland had done for them, and then blush for their own conduct towards Ireland. And this was the reception which complaints of Ireland were to meet with from the first Reformed Parliament. He well recollected having been often told, previous to the emancipation of the Catholics, by a friend of his now connected with the Government, that it would be most absurd for them (the Catholics) to do that which they had often proposed to do—namely, to postpone their demands for emancipation, and to join with the Reformers of England in calling for Parliamentary Reform; for (added his friend) of this you may be sure, that an English Reformed Parliament would never grant you emancipation." He did not believe his friend then—indeed, he laughed at the supposition; but was he of the same opinion now? Certainly not. He was convinced that if emancipation had been delayed to the present day, it would not be carried by this Parliament; and he grounded that opinion on the fact, that nine-tenths of the English people, whom the present Parliament was considered to represent, had petitioned against emancipation. He therefore threw back the taunt of ingratitude upon those who had reproached him with it. He threw back upon them the taunt of ingratitude. Did Ireland ever deny help when England claimed it at her hands? The flag of England never braved the storm of battle, but Irish arms were there to uphold it; and of all the brave hearts by whom it had been surrounded, none were more numerous than those whose first pulsation was in his native land. His countrymen felt warmly towards the English people, but, alas! no attempt was made to take advantage of this sentiment—no attempt to conciliate them—no promise of redress for those wrongs of which they so bitterly complained. What a glorious opportunity was afforded to the Ministers of manifesting in the Speech from the Throne their firm determination of bringing forward remedial and healing measures for Ireland. They might have immortalized themselves, had they done this, and won the love and gratitude of
484
his countrymen for ever. But no—and the Reformed Parliament, which ought to have been animated by similar feelings—that Parliament, too, joined in the universal shout of exultation at hearing the mode in which his country was proposed to be treated by one of those who bad made that country what it was. Yes, instead of soothing Ireland, they had resolved to exasperate her—they had resolved upon restriction, coercion, and taking away the law. They were told, that they must have a strong Government—and that a Government must be feared before it could be loved. Whose doctrine was this—whose example did the Government propose to follow? It had been tried by Robespierre—it had been tried by Marat—it had been tried by men who had surrounded every tree of liberty with 1,000 heads; they had said, that fear must precede love—but that such a doctrine should have been propounded by a British Minister—that a principle so atrocious should have been asserted in a Reformed House of Commons, was a stretch of despotic daring which exceeded even his expectations. If he was surrounded by English Reformers, and if by some chance English Reformers were not unrepresented in that House, he would ask whether they would favour the principle of Robespierre, of being feared before they could be loved; or whether the Government should not adopt measures of conciliation and justice before they employed the machinery of terror? What sort of a King's Speech, he would ask, had been presented to a first Reformed Parliament? There was a pretty little commentary made on the affairs of Belgium and Holland—a note talked about as having passed between Don Miguel and Don Pedro—a few sentences composed upon the Charters of the East-India Company and the Bank of England; but why had not Ministers condescended to notice the distresses of the people of England? Why had they not noticed the oppressive load of taxation under which they groaned? And then, when they had done this, they might have cast their eyes across the channel, and taken a view of seven millions of people, degraded and placed in a situation of the deepest distress—a people whom it was not for him to praise, but whom he could not cease to love. If they could not relieve, they might have commiserated. Ought not Ministers to soothe instead of endeavouring

485
to intimidate them, and making themselves execrated by that nation? Did they mean to say, that they would make themselves feared in Ireland? He would tell them to their face they never would. This was not language which ought to have been adopted towards that gallant and fearless nation. It was brutal language—they should have used other terms. Even if they had wanted coercion, Ministers ought not to have come down on the very first day of the meeting of a Reformed Parliament with threatening language—they should have allowed at any rate four days to pass—they ought to have taken the opportunity of setting themselves right with the people of England, before they had resorted to such daring language in respect of unhappy Ireland. Ireland had received much lip service from the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the other side of the House; but there was nothing that his countrymen were more dissatisfied with than that species of political hypocrisy, that talked of love and regard for Ireland, while it made a compliment of granting liberty to the people of that distressed and unhappy country. Would any man in England permit his Majesty's Ministers to talk of allowing them liberty as a favour? A great mistake had been made regarding the agitation which now existed in Ireland. There existed in Ireland a predial or agricultural war, and a political war. Nothing could be more different than these two wars. They were different in their effects—different in their causes—and required different remedies; and yet they were too frequently confounded. He begged to assure the hon. member for Knaresborough (Mr. Richards), that he was mistaken in the story which he related to the House a few evenings back. He had made strict inquiries, and he found that instead of the wages of the labourers being limited to 3s. a-week, he assured him that, in many remote counties, the wages did not exceed 2s. per week. Agricultural agitation existed quite independently of politics. What were the political disturbances in Ireland which required these new powers? He was perfectly ready to admit the existence of numerous predial crimes there; but those were totally ignorant of the real state of Ireland, and received the wholesale assertions of his Majesty's Ministers with much too great facility, who confounded those predial crimes with offences of another
486
description. An hon. Member had asserted, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had declared that disturbances had been increasing in Ireland ever since the present Ministers came into office. He had never said any such thing. What he had said was, that they had increased since the Speech made by the King at the close of the last Parliament, in which vigorous measures were alluded to, and since the strong measures which had been adopted with respect to tithes. But what was the present state of Ireland with regard to disturbances? There were no disturbances in the county of Cork. The two last Assizes for that county had been maiden Assizes. There had been five tithe meetings in that county, and not a single assault had been committed at any of them. By a letter which he had received that morning, he understood that there were no disturbances whatever in that county, and that not one Whiteboy was out in it. Yet the number of inhabitants in that county exceeded 700,000. In the county of Kerry, with a population of 260,000, though eight months had elapsed since the last assizes there, there were only eleven prisoners confined in the county gaol, and of those five were in prison charged with rape; for in consequence of the non-existence of Poor-laws in Ireland, it was not an uncommon thing for females who had become pregnant, and who if in this country, would have had the means of applying to the parish for support for their offspring—it was not an uncommon thing for such females in Ireland to swear a rape against their seducers with the prospect of forcing them to marry them. In the city of Limerick the third city in Ireland, and with a large agricultural population in its suburbs, there were only eleven prisoners confined in gaol. The county of Clare was now perfectly quiet; he believed that Galway was quiet too, and so were Sligo and Roscommon. The county of Mayo was said to be disturbed, and additional powers were, it was said, to be asked for with respect to that county If he (Mr. O'Connell) should hear them asked for, his blood would boil with indignation. He knew that there had been some recent slaughters by the police in that county. One of them was occasioned by the Marquess of Sligo's endeavouring to prevent the people from collecting the sea-rack on the coast. It had been their custom from time immemorial so to collect it, and, at

487
all events, their right to do so should not have been tried in the manner that it had been in this instance. It was by the agent of the proprietor, who sat on the bench as Magistrate, that it was decided that the people in so doing had come under the Wilful Trespass Act, and it was he who sent out the police with summonses against the people the result of which was, that the unfortunate man was shot. It had been said that Trial by Jury had failed in Ireland. He would defy them to point out a single instance in which it had failed in Ireland, where the poor man or the peasant was the object of prosecution. He was glad to see the hon. member for Mayo take his seat. He would now say, in his hearing, that if there were no other reason for his opposing the granting of extraordinary powers with regard to the county of Mayo, it would be the conduct of the magistracy and gentry in that part of the country. It should never be forgotten that at the time of the French invasion, when the French troops landed at Killala, those who ran away, and who left the British troops to repel the invaders, were the local militia, with the local magistracy at their head, and yet, afterwards, when extraordinary political powers were intrusted to them, none were so inveterate in exercising them against the people. They might send German troops to Ireland—and he had heard a report to that effect—they might with foreign mercenaries, endeavour to crush the liberties of that country; but he would tell them that they would not succeed. The learned Member proceeded to contend that Ireland was not in such a state as to justify the granting of the powers demanded by his Majesty's Ministers; and in support of his statement, he read a letter which he had received within the last few days from a Magistrate in Ireland, in which the writer said that his part of the country had been comparatively quiet during the last fortnight; but, the writer said, he was sorry to add, at the same time, that while so many persons were in want of employment, it was impossible to expect happiness or tranquillity in that country. All parties agreed as to the necessity of putting an end to the existing disturbances; the only difference was, as to the means. There were two questions which ought to be well considered—first, if there was any necessity for further powers? Secondly, what would be the effect of
488
further powers, if they were given? To be able satisfactorily to answer those questions, the present state of the law should be inquired into. By the law, as it at present stood, there was not a single crime which a White boy insurgent could possibly commit, for which he might not be punished. Whether he raised his hand against a dwelling house, opened a door, or solicited arms in aid of the disturbances, he was equally amenable to the law. Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman ask for more than the law, which was already adequate to the object? It was rather ludicrous to find the right hon. Secretary, who, last year, thinking that the powers thus afforded by the Irish law had too much of exaggerated severity about them, brought in a bill to mitigate that severity, now asking for powers beyond that law which he last year was of opinion ought to be mitigated in its severity. Last year the right hon. Secretary, at the suggestion of the able Crown Solicitor for Ireland, was for mitigating the severity of that law which he now seemed to think was not severe enough. The right hon. Secretary now avowed a principle with regard to Government—the principle, that it must be feared to be loved—which had been only known before in the reign of Robespierre, in France; but he (Mr. O'Connell) would remind the right hon. Secretary and his colleagues, that that reign had been a short one. When Lord Anglesey was in the county of Clare, he said that he would not call upon the people to give up their arms until the gentry should do something for their relief; 11 l. per acre was at that time paid in Clare by the poor for their land. The declaration of Lord Anglesey was a humane one, but it was not a wise one. It was true that eleven policemen were afterwards murdered in that county, but the murderers of the whole eleven were brought to justice, and the informer who informed against them was now walking that county unmolested. Several also who had taken part in the disturbances in that county were transported, and the result was, that the county of Clare became perfectly quiet. The existing powers of the law were exercised with vigour, justice was vindicated, and the tranquillity of Clare was restored. That county had sent them two Members to the last Parliament, who voted on every division in favour of the Reform Bill, and the return which they were now about to give to the

489
people of Clare was to deprive them of the benefits of the British Constitution. He would repeat again, that more powers were not wanted by the Government to repress outrage and disturbance in Ireland; all that was required for the purpose was the due and vigorous exercise of the existing powers afforded by the existing law. In the Queen's County, during the course of the year, they had a Special Commission, by which several prisoners were convicted and transported. There was no keeping back of witnesses there; there was no manifestation on the part of Juries of a disinclination to do their duty. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a case by a reference to what had taken place in Kilkenny. Now, every one of the White feet brought to trial there had been convicted; so much for witnesses keeping back, and for Juries not doing their duty. He would admit that, in the Carrickshaugh affair, in which eleven or twelve policemen had been killed in an open battle with the country people, a conviction had not taken place, but that was no reason why Trial by Jury should be taken from the people of Ireland; and he would just explain why it was so. He defended the first prisoner that was put upon his trial for that affair. There was + no attempt to justify the transaction itself, as it was unjustifiable, but the whole question turned upon the identity of the prisoner. He was identified as one of the murderers by three out of four policemen, who swore that he was engaged in the battle. But then upon their own acknowledgment, they had never seen the man until they saw him, as they alleged, in the heat of the battle, and they so contradicted each other in their accounts of the whole transaction, that it was impossible to rely upon their testimony where a man's life was at stake. Then, for the defence, he (Mr. O'Connell) amongst other witnesses, produced a witness of the better class in life, who swore that the prisoner was employed by him on the very day, and at the very hour, that this transaction occurred, in thatching a house for him. The Jury, after much consideration, acquitted the prisoner. Did that case furnish any reason for taking away Trial by Jury in Ireland, for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act there, and for depriving Ireland of the benefits of the Constitution? The foreman of the very Jury that was selected for the trial of those prisoners was chal-
490
lenged by him (Mr. O'Connell,) when on the panel, for being an outrageous partisan, and the Clerk of the Crown and the Attorney for the Crown having been sworn to try the challenge, found that he was a partial man, so he was accordingly set aside; but after the panel had been exhausted, the Crown put him and four others who had been set aside upon the Jury. He had been taunted with resistance to the laws in Ireland, and it had been said, that Jurors and witnesses were intimidated, and durst not come forward; but where had there been any want of Jurors—where had there been any want of witnesses? There were no Jurors wanted in any of the counties, and as for witnesses, the only deficiency that he was aware of was on the part of the Government themselves. The fact was, they had no witnesses to be intimidated; they had not the testimony to convict offenders, and yet they cried out for the enforcement of the laws to punish those who intimidated. They wanted witnesses. Yes, he believed them. It was testimony that they wanted, and they cared not how they procured it. Why not destroy the Irish by wholesale? Why not surround them in a valley, and render that valley another Glenco? Why not treat them as some years ago they treated 120,000 of their countrymen, whom they got together for expatriation; 80,000 of whom they shipped to the West Indies, of which 80,000 only 60,000 reached the West Indies; and of which 60,000, in two years only 250 survived, the rest having died of starvation? And yet he was convinced that the right hon. Baronet near him was a much better Minister for Ireland than the present right hon. Chief Secretary. The right hon. Baronet was a philosophical statesman—he did not confound things which were a century distinct—he would hesitate to recommend unconstitutional measures. The right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley) had taunted him with the disturbances of Ireland, and with the atrocities with which they had been accompanied. The case of the reverend Mr. Ferguson, a Caiholic clergyman, who was inhumanly massacred, had been referred to. That gentleman carried the question of the composition of tithes, by the aid of the Irish peasantry, against the landlords, and he had a long struggle for it before he could accomplish it. He (Mr. O'Connell) was counsel for him on the occasion of an appeal to the

491
higher tribunal: the opponents were rich and powerful, but the victory was gained; the clergyman was assassinated, but the hon. Recorder of Dublin was mistaken as to by whom he was assassinated: his enemies were not the peasantry of Ireland. Then the case of Hewson was referred to. That was a "robbery" murder, not a massacre; the individual had quarrelled with a private servant of his household, who murdered him. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not mean to say that there was no crime in Ireland; on the contrary, he admitted its existence to the greatest extent; but were Ministers taking the best mode of abating it? Were they doing their best to allay the inflamed feelings of the peasantry by consulting their wishes or even their prejudices? No; they were desirous of affronting the Catholic Clergy; and he could tell the House, that if there was one mode more certain than another to perpetuate the disturbances and consequently the miseries of Ireland, it was to put a slight and an insult upon the only body who could hold a check on the vengeance of the people. To insult the Roman Catholic Clergy was to outrage the feelings of the whole people of Ireland. But the truth was, that Ministers did not want their measures of coercion for the good of Ireland—they wanted them for another purpose. When he (Mr. O'Connell, saw them attempting to confound the political with the agricultural agitation of Ireland, he was convinced what was the real purpose for which those powers were required. He could not but admire the bonhomie of the noble Lord, who spoke of the good intentions of his Majesty's Government. Did the noble Lord recollect the Spanish proverb, which said that "Hell was paved with good intentions?" Had there been a petition presented from Ireland, complaining of distress or of wrongs, that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not find some miserable excuse for its not being printed? He (Mr. O'Connell) and his colleagues, the Representatives of Ireland, had been taunted for not having brought forward the question of the Repeal of the Union; it had been looked upon as a sign of cowardice, and as a proof that they had abandoned the project, to accomplish which they had been returned to Parliament. Did the hon. Members who had thus amused themselves suppose that this hanging-back was because they (the
492
Representatives of Ireland,) had not arguments to support the call for a Repeal of the Union? They were mistaken if they did. But he would ask the House of what use the bringing forward of that question, or rather of the arguments in support of it, would have been when the very mention of the subject as one of debate was interdicted by the Address against which he was now protesting. To show, however, that the question had not been abandoned from weakness of argument, he would say a few words to the House on the subject of this Repeal of the Union. The Union itself was but an Act of Parliament, and the repeal of it would but be an Act of the Legislature also. So far the question came under the cognizance of that House. If the question came before them as one of dismemberment, he would be as averse to it as any hon. Member could be, for no man could be a more ardent lover of his country, and advocate of her welfare, than he was; but he need hardly repeat, that he did not look upon the repeal as a measure of dismemberment. An hon. Member, somewhat too philosophical in his reasoning, had declared, in speaking the other evening on this subject, that there could not be two Parliaments—that there could not be two legislative bodies, and one Executive; but he (Mr. O'Connell) appealed to facts, and declared that, with some exceptions, the Parliament of Ireland had practically refuted the hon. Member's reasoning. That Parliament had been charged with rottenness, but had it ever been more rotten than the English Parliament, even than the Parliament which had last sat in that House? The object of the Ministers in the Address was to put down the discussion of the important question of a Repeal of the Union, and their conduct had been of a piece throughout their political life. Who enacted the penal laws? Who prepared the Insurrection Act? The Whigs. When, and when only was the venerated name of Grattan called into question? When he joined with the Whigs in that same Insurrection Act. But to return to the charge of the keeping back of the question of Repeal, He (Mr. O'Connell) had been told by an hon. Member that he had suffered judgment to go by default; but what was the fact? He had commenced the agitation of the Repeal question in 1801, and had advocated it in every place, and at every meeting since that period He continued

493
until he was offered emancipation; but he refused emancipation unless it was to be followed by a Repeal of the Union. The right hon. member for Tamworth had asked, why he did not bring forward the question last year. He had no doubt the right hon. Baronet would have been well pleased had he adopted that course, and he should have been as much lauded as the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) whose seat he now occupied, had been lauded on another occasion, when he pursued a course somewhat similar. The excitement in Ireland had continued until the question of Reform began to be agitated in England. He had then been promised a sufficient Bill for Ireland, and a redress of grievances; and on this, much against his own judgment, he consented that agitation should cease. Accordingly, he used what influence he possessed with his countrymen—and he possessed none which did not appeal to their good sense and good feelings—and agitation was given up. Scotland had a good Reform Bill extended to her; but what was vouchsafed to Ireland? A miserable, insulting, paltry, degrading measure, one that was dastardly and mean, and told the people in what ignominy and contempt they were held by their rulers. The question of the Repeal of the Union was abandoned, or rather left to slumber until the sitting of the Reformed Parliament, in the expectation, as it would appear, of justice being, by its efforts, done to Ireland. He would, however, tell the House for himself, that he never, for his own part, placed reliance on the promises that were made: he never did really think that justice would be done. The end had fully justified his forebodings, for he had come over from Ireland with the list of her grievances; he had declared them aloud to that House, and he had been met by the clause in the Address which called for the means to add to those grievances immeasurably. Had the Ministers and that House listened to the earnest petitions of Ireland for redress? If they had redressed her grievances, he need not tell the House how they would have been requited by the feelings of the people of Ireland, nor how they would have stood before that country. They would have fixed the waverers, and have confirmed the loyal. But as it was, he (Mr. O'Connell) knew not to what extent the feelings of those people would carry them. When he heard the Speech from the
494
Throne, he nearly lost his senses, but he was determined not to be shaken or to be turned from his purpose. Not one of his forebodings—not one of his expectations had been denied by that Speech. If they called changing the form in which tithes were to be paid enough to satisfy the nation—if the Church was to be kept up in the same state, with the same staff and the same emoluments—it was but a repetition of the miserable joke of "Joe Miller" about the soldier and the drummer. What did he care—what did it matter—whether they flogged high or flogged low, if they flogged the people of Ireland at all? He had stated the grievances of Ireland, and called for redress. Redress was denied, and the Repeal of the Union was looked to There were many men in Ireland—rational, thinking men—who had not hitherto joined in the cry, who, after reading this Speech, would do so. Were the people of Ireland so degraded that they would attend to no reasoning—that argument must have no weight—but that they must be checked and put down by the witchcraft of unconstitutional warfare? The right hon. Secretary called upon the repealers for their arguments much after the fashion of the beggar in Gil Blas, who asked for alms by the roadside with his gun elevated. The right hon. Secretary had his gun of coercion in the Address, and then asked the Repealers for the arguments which were to draw down the fire from it. He thought much might be said in favour of the Repeal, and though he would not enter at length into his own opinions, he would state to the House the opinions which some eminent men had delivered respecting the Union:—'I cannot forget, said one, the unprincipled means by which the Union is promoted. The measure tends to degrade the country, by saying that it is unworthy to govern itself. It is the denial of the rights of nations to a great country, from jealousy of her prosperity.' Who said this? It was no mean authority. It was a Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. He would next prove, by the highest authority, that there was no legal right to establish the Union:—'You may make the Union binding in law, but you cannot render it obligatory in conscience. Obedience may be enforced as long as England continues powerful, and during the same time resistance will be a question of prudence.' Who said that? No less

495
a man than Mr. Saurin, who was for twenty-five years, Attorney General for Ireland. I deny, said another great man, the competency of Parliament to effect this Union. I warn you, that if you pass an Act for that purpose, no man in Ireland will be bound to obey it. I make this assertion deliberately; and I call upon any man who hears me to take down my words. Yourselves you may extinguish, but the Parliament you cannot. It is enthroned in the hearts of the people, and is as immortal as the island in which it exists. It is as vain for us to think that we can destroy the Legislature of Ireland, as it is for the frantic maniac, who destroys his body, to imagine that he can extinguish his eternal soul.' Who said that? A man who was afterwards Attorney General, and who is now Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Let hon. Members not imagine that the Union was not a subject which rankled in the breast of Irishmen. The Union was brought about by the foulest means ever employed in political jobbing; and he would read to the House a few short sentences in support of this assertion. The basest corruption was resorted to to produce it. All the worst passions of the human breast were set in motion; all the worst acts were employed to bring it about.' This was the language of Chief Justice Bushe. He hoped he had now established his proposition by the extracts which he had read. But he was told it was impossible that the Union could be repealed, because another regency question might arise. What weight was there in this objection? Was not the regency question a new one? There was a King insane, his successor of full age; the Minister opposed the claims of the latter, and the opposition supported them. It was possible that the Irish Parliament might have taken a different view of the question from the English Parliament; but what great embarrassment and danger would have arisen from that? The King de facto of England would necessarily have been the King of Ireland. He had merely alluded to this point in order to show the miserable grounds on which it was attempted to obtain a triumph over him. Some financial details were introduced into the discussion of last week, and the hon. member for Knaresborough had given the House some admirable specimens of vulgar arithmetic in comparing
496
the Irish imports in 1800 and 1825, with the view of giving the balance in favour of the latter year. If he (Mr. O'Connell) wished to enter into this subject at the present moment, he could show the hon. Member that the difference in the official value, between the two periods, amounted to ninety per cent. He could prove that the imports of Ireland were greater in 1800 than in 1827, whilst those of England were much greater in the latter period than in the former. Take, for instance, six articles—namely, tea, tobacco, rum, brandy, wine, and sugar. In 1790, the value of these articles imported into England amounted to 37,000,000 l.; in 1800, to 47,000,000 l.; and in 1827, to 71,000,000 l.; exhibiting a regular progressive increase. The value of the same articles imported into Ireland in 1790 amounted to 7,000,000 l.; in 1800, under her own Parliament, it was 12,000,000 l.; exhibiting an increase of one-third, whilst in the case of England during the corresponding period the increase was not one-fourth; in 1827 the importations fell back to 9,000,000 l. If he were wrong in his facts, he hoped hon. Members would show that he was. He would yield to argument, but not to brutal force. If the law be infringed in the prosecution of the question of Repeal, let that infringement be punished, but let no attempts be made to suppress discussion. He would refer to another point on which injustice had been done to Ireland. According to the Treaty of the Union, Ireland was to pay only 67,000,000 l. of the debt. Three years of domestic peace, under a domestic Legislature, would have enabled her to pay off that sum. In 1817, however, the Imperial Parliament passed an Act which repealed the protection that Ireland had derived from the Articles of the Union with respect to the debt, and all the land and industry of Ireland was mortgaged for the payment of the national debt. And why did they do so? Because they had the power. And what was their justification? Oh, it was irresistible. They were right—parceque les plus forts, ont toujours raison. Therefore, when the present Government spoke of coercing Ireland, there was something in it which might be directed to the sympathies of Englishmen. Their pockets might be touched, a quarter in which they were particularly sensitive; he spoke this in no disrespectful mood towards the English

497
character, which might proudly compete with that of any other nation, but he submitted that what he stated was a fact which could not be controverted. Well, assuming this as a fact, all he wanted was, to be allowed to argue this same question with the people of England. Were they to be coerced because they talked of their own affairs—because they sought for means to bettor their own condition, and save that of other people from getting worse? Who, in Scotland, lowered the condition of her people, by working almost for nothing? The wretch flung from Ireland. Who filled the factories all over England, and reduced the already too low rate of wages? The outcast of Ireland. Who made the Poor-rates so burthensome? The Irish; not casually, but he confessed it, designedly. Who brought such misery and ruin on the agricultural labourer? The forlorn Irishman coming even from the wilds of Connaught, a distance of 500 or 600 miles, and slaving for that which an English labourer would turn from with disgust. This was extending, day after day, to town after town, as it were reproaching England with her injustice to Ireland. What Gentleman would introduce a plan for getting rid of this growing curse? There was no remedy but a Repeal of the Union, or, as some persons thought, the enactment of Poor-laws. And when he ventured to express an opinion on this subject, he had been taken to task by the noble Lord (Lord Ebrington). Now, the noble Lord was the last man in the House from whom he should have expected such an attack. And when he heard him reproach him, he (Mr. O'Connell) felt convinced of the absolute necessity of a local legislature. The hon. Gentleman opposite contended, that Ireland must be devoted to Poor-laws; but, for the sake of the rich, he resisted them. A Poor-law in Ireland would be a sort of Agrarian Law. It would be a confiscation of property to every rich man. This system of plunder might, indeed, enable the poor to exist for a couple of years; but what was to follow? There was no need of a reply. When, therefore, he said he resisted Poor-laws for the sake of the rich, he did so really for the sake of the poor, for the safety of the State, for the maintenance of civil society. Aye, but they were not going to give Ireland their own system of Poor-laws; the system was to be changed—to be improved. Yes, but
498
would they first take the trouble to improve their own Poor-laws? They knew right well that they could not be improved. In Ireland, he repeated, they might, by confiscating the property of the rich, maintain the poor for a year or two. Let them, therefore, throw Ireland their admirable Poor-laws; but let them expect first the destruction of the capital of the rich, and the employment of the poor; next, a regular servile war; and, lastly, the ruin of Ireland. And, touching agitation—they deprecated agitation—they detested it—they fulminated proclamations, and instituted prosecution after prosecution to put it down. Were they so blind as not to see that agitation would increase a hundred-fold after the passing of the Poor-laws for Ireland? And what had the Government gained by those proclamations and persecutions from which they promised to refrain? In a letter of my Lord Anglesey's, dated November, 1830, that noble Lord declared he would govern by no such means. In January, 1831, he used them. Lord Anglesey possessed, no doubt, all that chivalry which was the glory of a British soldier. All men gave him credit for it; and, at the same time, all men knew that, according to the high code of military honour, the word of a soldier was as binding as the oath of a civilian. And yet mark the facts. Lord Anglesey had solemnly promised—Lord Anglesey had deliberately broken that promise! He might attempt to equivocate out of the trammels of this charge; but if he did so, the attempt would be regarded in the same light as if it occurred in the case of a civilian. It would be treated with contempt. The noble Lord, too, had prosecuted the Press with unexampled fury. For one instance, there was the ease of the Waterford Chronicle. Not only was the proprietor imprisoned, but the wretched mechanic who printed the paper. Now he would give them a warning. Let them attend to what he said—for he meant it, and he would give them the advantage of a warning. If they assailed the Press, there should be a run for gold. He gave them that notice. He denied that he had ever hitherto recommended such a course, though the contrary had been asserted—but let them assail the Press, and a run should commence on the Bank. The maxim on which the Government seemed to go was, that the country was to be ruined for its good.

499
The Government was to be feared first before it could be loved. Were they quite sure of this? Were they sure their measures would have the effect of inducing Ireland to fear? Did not they know that there were Irishmen in all quarters of the world, awaiting the calm and happier hour which might permit them to return to their native country; and would not the baleful words of the right hon. Secretary, be borne wide as the winds to them wherever they might be? Were they so secure, he would ask, of trampling Ireland under foot? Would English reformers sanction the Robespierrian atrocities which they meditated? Besides, were they quite tranquil and free from care at home? Had they no starving manufacturers, no unemployed labourers—no unquiet spirits in England? He bade them pause, and consider well before they commenced their system of coercion upon Ireland. Would the Government put forth a proclamation of war, and slaughter, and devastation, against the people of Ireland? Were their passions to be roused, and their terrors to be excited for the safety of wives, and daughters, brothers, sons, and husbands, and all their nearest and dearest kindred? There were 100,000 Irish persons in the city of London itself. He was able to prove it. He menaced not—he merely stated facts [laughter]. He believed, after all, that it was a menace in spite of him. He had detained the House at considerable length. He did not regret it, because it was one day more of liberty for Ireland. He had only to say that there had never been an instance of so deep ingratitude, as that of the reformers of England in becoming the persecutors of the reformers of Ireland.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that in rising to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, he acknowledged he felt himself in a difficult situation. He felt so, because he knew he was not able to meet the eloquence and power of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but this he would say of himself that he did not yield to any one whatever in the respect and attachment he felt to his country. He should not attempt to go into the question of personal attacks, but he should follow step by step the hon. and learned Gentleman in the statements which he had made upon the question of the Union itself. He thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for those statements—he thanked him for thus at last coming-
500
forward and endeavouring to prove, in the proper place, before the Legislature of the United Kingdom, that the Union of the two kingdoms had been productive of evil to Ireland. In discussing this question with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should not touch one point with reference to the interests of England, for on the part of England there had not been a suggestion of a wish for the Repeal. It was, therefore, unnecessary to go into any argument to show how the interests of England were affected by the proposed Repeal, and he should, consequently confine himself to the question as it related to Ireland. He would beg first to say a few words in defence of the party to which he had always been attached, and of the Government of which he had the honour to be a member. He had fondly hoped that the terms Catholic and Protestant would never have been heard in that House again as terms of invidious distinction; and in the very first Session, when Catholics were admitted to seats within those walls, he had called an hon. Gentleman, no longer a Member of that House (General Grosvenor) to order, because, in reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, he had styled him the Catholic member for Clare. Unfortunately, however, the House was but too much accustomed to hear that distinction. He did not apply this observation to the hon. and learned Gentleman more particularly than to other hon. Members, perhaps at both sides of the House—
"Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim."
But when the hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Whigs, could be forget the conduct of that party in the political history of his country? He would not put the conduct of that party against a measure proposed by them, and ask the hon. and learned Member to vote for the measure, if he disapproved of it, merely because it was proposed by that party; but then, on the other hand, it surely might be conceded, that a man could object to a particular measure of theirs, without taking that opportunity of indulging in vituperation against the whole party. Who had been members of that party? Was not Mr. Molyneux one of the Whigs of Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman thought they were wrong in claiming Mr. Grattan as one of their number—their claim, however, was well founded and to his name they might

501
add those of many others. What was the conduct of Mr. Grattan? Why he would at any time lend his support to the measures of his opponents, if he thought those measures would prove beneficial to Ireland; and in examining them, in order to make up his mind, he would lay aside all considerations of the party of the men from whom they emanated. This fact was proved by an extract which he should read from a speech of Mr. Grattan's delivered in 1808 or 1809. He should read some few words from that speech, and then allow the Gentlemen on the other side, who might have been led astray for the moment, by the bold assertions of hon. Members, to form their own judgment Upon the man, who, by the admission of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, was one than whom a truer friend of political liberty, or a more steady defender of popular rights, never existed. The words were these: "Sooner than run the risk of losing the Constitution altogether, he would take upon himself his full share in common with his Majesty's Ministers, (these Ministers were his political opponents, the Tories), of the responsibility that was attached to the measure." Was not that judging of a measure by its real merits, and giving his support to it, if it were good, without any party considerations as to who were the men that proposed it? When the hon. and learned member for Dublin bolted out big assertions about murder, and slaughter, and devastation; assertions which he wished not only to produce their effect in that House, but to send out with all the weight that his name could give to them to the 100,000 whom he had described as within hearing, to whom he suggested that the announcement of the resolution of the Government would bring tidings of death to their sons, their fathers, and their mothers—when he did this, did he think he was imitating the conduct of Mr. Grattan? How was it that the hon. and learned Member pretended to know, and ventured to impugn the intentions of Government? What right had he to do so? Let the hon. and learned Member make his case good when the Bill came into the House, and he should be ready to meet that case? What right had the hon. and learned Member to attribute to them a desire for war and destruction, when those imputations could at least as fairly be cast upon him as by him on any among
502
the Ministry? The hon. and learned Member had attacked all the Whigs, therefore he had attacked Lord Charlemont and Mr. Grattan ["No," from Mr. O'Connell]; he had attacked them, for he had attacked, without discrimination, the party to which they belonged. There were in that House descendants of those illustrious men: there were within hearing men who bore their great and honoured names, and who could tell them to what party these patriots did belong. What was it they had done for Ireland? Had they not given her a Constitution in 1780? And what was it that the party to which they belonged had done for Ireland? Who was it that first submitted the Question of Catholic Emancipation to discussion? Charles James Fox. And who was it but the party which he led that had maintained the interests of Ireland, when those who now represented her interests were, by the state of the law, prevented from sitting in that House. If he asked, who had done the greatest service to Ireland—who, since the Union, had laboured incessantly for her benefit—where was the man. Whig or Tory, that would deny it was the venerable, the honest, the consistent Sir John Newport? Always at his post, and always anxious to promote the advantage of Ireland ["No," from Mr. O'Connell. The hon. and learned Member dissented, and the reason probably was, that in these very walls, when he was about to close his parliamentary career, he left to his countrymen the warning, that if they were led astray by delusions, practised upon them to seek for the Repeal of the Union, they would be seeking for the Repeal of a measure from which had flowed to them the highest advantages, and would be forfeiting all the benefits which he and others had so anxiously laboured to obtain for them, and all their hopes of political improvement must terminate for ever. The right hon. Baronet had concluded his political life with that warning; and perhaps the dissent of the hon. and learned Member opposite, and his shake of the head might be easily accounted for by the weight which he had felt belonged to an opinion coming from such a quarter. There was one authority which, with respect to this argument about the conduct and character of the Whigs, he should like to mention, and he called the particular attention of the House, who had heard

503
an account of the dements of the present Ministry, to that authority. The statement he was about to quote was made on the 22nd of June, 1831. The speaker from whom he should quote, said; The Ministers should have his disinterested support, as he thought them entitled to the support of every independent Member, for they had manifested not only an intention of Reforming abuses, but they had practically set about the good work.'* On the 10th of May, 1832, when the present Ministry were about to retire from office, a debate came on in which the same speaker said, that The Ministry have retired from office, but they have done so with their characters pure and unsullied, and they have done so with the public confidence in them undiminished. Soon, Sir, I hope to see them returning again to power—to power which they have endeavoured to exercise for the good of the people, and which I hope they will be enabled to wield much more efficiently and effectually than they have yet been able to do, for the permanent and full accomplishment of the desires, the wishes, and the just demands, of a great, an enlightened, and a brave people.† He must trouble the House with another quotation from a speech delivered on May 14th by the same person. He then said, speaking of the resignation of the Ministry: Whoever could replace us in the situation in which we were a week ago would be a most bountiful benefactor to his country. The spirit of Revolution was abroad; and if it were allowed to pass a certain stage, it would be difficult to check it. Like the pestilence with which the country had lately been visited, if it were not arrested at an early stage, cure might be impossible. At present there was still hope that means might be found to heal the body politic. Let but a little time elapse, and he would be a bold man who would predict the event. Hundreds of thousands and millions of persons depended for their subsistence on the regular working of society; on receiving wages; on being employed. Let but the present state of things continue for a few days, and they must either starve, or do mischief. Let but a single week elapse, and Revolution, and the utter destruction of the beautiful fabric around
*Hansard (third series) ix. p. 249.
†Ibid, xii. p.848.
504
us might be the consequence. And if this danger existed in England, was there no other part of the empire in danger? Did the House think that a change of Administration, which would give power in Ireland to those who did not possess it at present, might not be productive of frightful events, especially if that change were accompanied by disturbances in this country?'* That was the evidence to which he now applied himself in answer to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he did it with the more confidence, because he read the statements from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He (Mr. Spring Rice) thought that upon the principle of mathematics these two quantities destroyed each other, and they had no right perhaps, at least they had no disposition, to forget the praise and retort the vituperation. Did the hon. Member not know, when he spoke of the neglect of Ireland, that a single measure introduced during the disputed progress of the Reform Bill was not capable of being satisfactorily discussed; but though that was the fact with one question, was there not one of importance that had been actually carried? Was the question of education nothing? How numerous had been the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman on that subject? The present Government alone had ventured to grapple with it, and had produced a measure which had met even with the assent of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was indeed opposed by others. That they should say, the Ministry were wrong, was natural; but that the conduct of the Ministry should now be unsparingly, and without limit, attacked by those who through them had obtained that which they had asked for during many years, was to him matter of extreme surprise. But were there no other measures? He thought there were; and that brought him to a particular point. The hon. and learned Member had dealt with financial statements. He (Mr. Spring Rice) should like to know what was the tax of all others, the repeal of which was advocated by the friends of Ireland? It was the Coal tax. The Coal-tax had been mentioned in all the petitions on the subject of the taxes in Ireland; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman looked through the Journals of the House of
*Hansard (third series) xii. p. 973.

505
Commons, he would see that within the last three years the petitions had especially applied themselves to this tax. He should now take a view of the financial state of the country before and after the Union. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken as if Ireland had been prosperous before the Union, and had decayed since; as if she had had before the Union a careful, prudent, a kind Legislature, but had since had a careless, unkind, and partial Legislature. Before the Union the financial condition of Ireland stood thus. The details must necessarily be dull, but they were important. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following statement:—

Years.

Income.

Expenditure.

£.

£.

1791

1,190,684

1,153,710

1792

1,172,332

1,159,796

1793

1,107,.940

1,096,899

1794

1,067,004

1,.345,917

1795

1,355,181

2,276,469

1796

1,376,980

2,569,091

1797

1,527,628

2,705,313

1798

1,645,714

3,556,887

1799

1,861,471

4,984,269

1800

2,684,261

5,893,323

£.

At the period of the Union, the total net and permanent Income payable into the Exchequer, was

1,860,792

The interest of the Debt and Charge

1,395,753

The balance to meet the Public Expenditure, Civil and Military

465,039

in 1791, the income was 1,190,000 l.; the expense during the same time, was 1,153,000 l. Ten years afterwards her expenses had increased in the ratio of nearly double her income; for, at that time, her income was 2,684,000 l., and her expenditure 5,893,000 l. As a practical test of the whole, he had stated, that, taking the interest of the debt, and the charges for Ireland at the time of the Union, they left no greater surplus than 4,600,000 l. to meet the expenses of the whole civil, military, and political Government of Ireland. That was the starting point. Was it possible for any one to say that such a surplus was sufficient for such a purpose? Perhaps there were some reasoners who thought that Ireland might be permitted to retain all her income, and that England ought to bear the expense of all these charges. That would be like Sir Boyle Roche's description of an Irish bargain, where all the mutuality was on
506
one side. He came then to the period of the consolidation of the Exchequer. At the time the balance of the debt was struck, the interest and charges of the permanent debt of Ireland amounted to 5,908,891 l. To meet those charges was an income of 5,752,861 l.; so that the country had nothing to do but to live, as some individuals among them were said to live, upon the deficiency of their income. Neither the state of things before the Union, nor when there was a separate Treasury, was such as to be calculated to induce any one who considered it to wish to return to it. At the time of the Union there were taxes on carriages, on horses, on servants, and there was a tax on what he would appeal to the speeches of Grattan for a description of, and to the recollection of those who had seen it collected, for an estimate of its misery—he meant the tax on hearths and on windows. These were not the creatures of an Imperial Parliament. Were they imposed by England on Ireland? No. It was a separate Legislature which had imposed them, and it was a British Legislature that had freed Ireland from the burthens. The separate Parliament had imposed difficulties upon the exportation of Irish produce. At that time there were Corn-laws between England and Ireland, as strict as they now were between England and the Continent. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think, that the establishment of a free intercourse between the two countries could take place without benefit to Ireland? Was there any man who would not admit that it must be an advantage to the empire? That free intercourse had been the concession of the Imperial Parliament, as the contrary system had been the creature of the separate Legislature. He knew it had been said, that the amount of exports only proved the poverty of the land. How could that be? The export represented labour—the produce was grown by the peasantry, who did not work without being paid for it. Was not the measure of these exports the direct measure of the increased demand for labour; which after all, was the thing most wanted in Ireland? But to return to the taxes. Did hon. Gentlemen know the amount of taxes which England had paid in this most unexampled and unjust proportion, and from all of which Ireland had been exempted? England had paid—

507

£.

Tax on property and income from 1801

152,258,710

Produce of land and assessed taxes from 1823, when those taxes were repealed in Ireland

50,120,425

Beer

82,483,583

Soap

24,934,544

Candles

10,294,980

Printed Cottons

13,549,609

Making a total of separate taxation on Great Britain of

333,741,861

to contribute to which she had never called on Ireland. He did not argue against his country in stating these things; but he was not the worse Irishman for wishing to do full justice to England. He knew that it would have been unwise and unjust in England to have imposed these taxes on Ireland; but when he was told that England had utterly disregarded the interests of Ireland, he must honestly state what he knew to the contrary. Whatever might be said as to the question of exports, the same observation would probably not be made with regard to imports; and if they found an increased consumption of the necessaries of life, they were justified in saying that improvement had taken place in the condition of the people. The imports and exports of Ireland, then were as follows:—

Years.

Imports.

Exports.

£.

£

1777

2,762,298

3,183,972

1783

3,043,021

3,077,446

1793

4,164,985

5,125,984

1800

4,299,493

4,015,976

1810

6,535,068

5,270,471

1820

6,008,273

6,291,275

1826

7,491,890

8,454,918

In 1827, the account was defective, because the trade of Ireland having been freed from Custom-house regulations, so far as regarded this country, there were no entries of goods imported from England, and consequently no documents could be furnished. Well, but then he knew it was said that the blanket and stuff trade had been destroyed, and the people of Ireland had been told that that was one of the consequences of the Union. Ireland imported the materials of her manufactures, and he would show how the wool importation had gone on. The following was an account of the importation:—
508

Average of three years.

Woollen yarn.

Cotton yarn.

Cotton wool.

lb.

lb.

lb.

1777

857

8,883

428,960

1783

841

5,405

362,432

1793

1,860

276,302

1,694,336

1800

1,880

558,396

1,256,192

1811

465,057

972,036

4,686,752

1820

608,452

1,279,374

2,873,862

1826

632,750

2,510,303

4,368,656

He wished his hon. friend, the member for Bolton, were there to hear this statement, and see how he could treat it—he who had discovered that the only alarming evil which Ireland ought especially to take care to shun was the getting rich. She must not have too much capital. His hon. friend had now come in; but he should not be tempted by that circumstance to do more than make this passing observation on his very capital Speech. From the statement he had just made, it was evident that Ireland could do something in manufactures. But on that point he was encountered by another very great authority, the hon. member for Oldham, whose argument was, that in proportion as there was a consumption of raw produce for the purpose of manufactures, in that very proportion was misery increased. He was afraid, if that doctrine was true, that he should give some coiour to the opinion about the increased misery of Ireland, by showing an increased consumption of the raw materials of manufactures. During the same time, the importation of cotton wool had increased, as he had already observed, from 428,000 lbs. to 4,368,000 lbs.; all of which was to be manufactured by Irish labour, that would not have been employed if the absurd system of protecting duties existing before the Union had been continued, and which would no doubt be again called for if that Union was repealed. It might perhaps be said, that the improvement which had taken place in the cotton, and woollen manufactures had taken place at the expense of the linen trade, which was the staple manufacture of Ireland. That, however, was not the case. Nothing was more common at the present moment than to raise a cry that a particular branch of the trade was declining, when, in fact, there was only a diminution of profit. The table which he would now read would prove that there had been no decline of

509
the linen trade in Ireland, whilst, at the same time, there was a manifest improvement in the cotton trade:—

Period.

Linen Yards Exported.

Yards Exported Cotton.

1777

20,140,770

—

1783

18,652,424

—

1790

34,191,754

—

1800

36,112,369

9,147

1810

40,751,887

77,496

1820

48,265,711

503,392

1826

51,947,413

7,793,879

The hon. and learned member for Dublin, and the hon. member for Oldham, should see these documents, if they wished; or should have them laid on the Table, if either of the hon. Members moved for them. That which he had stated was not vague declamation, but plain truth; for his aim was to convince and not to mislead. Under a system of free trade, Ireland had become a manufacturing and exporting country. There were certain branches of manufacture more advantageous to one country than to another. In one, hand-labour was cheaper; in the other, fuel being plentiful, labour was performed by steam; and, what was still more interesting, a manufacture of which the earlier stages could be best done in Ireland, could be best completed in England; and that led to the principle that the interests of the countries were not two, but one. The article that was begun at Belfast was completed at Manchester; and if he could show that the interest of both was bound up in the same object in some measure, he obtained a pledge for the peace and repose of the two countries. Were they to break asunder these bands of union—were they to say, that Belfast must no longer begin, nor Manchester finish, but that each must do that which would be better performed by the other—that each were to be actuated by hostile interests, and not to pursue a common good—and that all this was to be the result of the weak endeavour to work out a local salvation by the operation of petty and mistaken principles? Repeal the Union indeed! When that was said to Mr. Canning, his answer properly was: "Repeal the Union? Restore the Heptarchy!" And truly the one was not a more impracticable absurdity than the other. England, even in her most barbarous times, never committed such mistakes. When the men of Kent, led
510
by a leader whom he would not name, for fear of giving offence, advanced upon London, they and their leaders never dreamt of raising the standard of Hen-gist and of Horsa. Let us, therefore, at least not surpass the absurdities of the Kentish rebels. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, that the interests and the comforts of the people of Ireland had retrograded since the Union, in consequence of the taxation which had been levied upon the necessaries of life. He denied the truth of that supposition. Undoubtedly, the taxes which had been levied upon manufactured articles of consumption had led to a diminished sale; the progression had not been so rapid as it otherwise would have been; but, in the articles of tea, sugar, coals, and tobacco, upon which the comforts of the poor depended, there had been a most material increase of consumption, although the tax upon each article, with the exception of coals, had been very considerably increased since the period of the Union. If he proved this fact, he should completely refute the argument of the hon. Gentleman. To begin, then, with the article of sugar, the consumption of which, in his apprehension, though it might not so appear to others, was more indicative than any other which he could select of the real condition of the country. In 1777 an average was taken of the preceding year, and that average was found to yield but an annual import of 212,000 cwt.; while, at the present time, it would be found that the average import was 342,000 cwt. This advance, be it observed, had taken place in the very face of an increasing taxation. He was sustained by similar facts with regard to the article of tea. In the year 1777, the importation of tea was 808,000 lbs., while the average of the present time was 3,887,995 lbs. He was aware that this mode of treating the subject could not but prove extremely dry and uninteresting to the House, but it was the only mode of grappling with it by which he could present his own views in the fairest and the strongest light. Hon. Gentlemen had said, and might continue to say, that Ireland was not a coal country. That might or might not make for the argument; but the quantity actually consumed was very material. In the three years ending 1777, the quantity of coal imported amounted to but 330,000 tons; and in

511
the year 1783, being the first year of Irish independence, the consumption was 227,000. It was rather stationary between that time and the Union. From the year 1800, then, to the present time, the consumption had gone on gradually increasing. The average of the three years, ending 1832, yielded a consumption of 851,000 tons; and the single year of 1831 had to itself a consumption of 940,000 tons. He was aware that hon. Members might tell him that the consumption of tea and sugar proved nothing with regard to the actual condition of the poor and degraded peasantry of Ireland; but it was to the last degree unstatesmanlike to assume that the condition of the lower classes was not advancing, when the state of the middle and higher classes was in a state of evident progression. But there was one article of consumption which was essentially a favourite of the people. That article could have no consumption whatever, unless created by the lower classes of the Irish peasantry. He found that the advance of that article was as follows. The right hon. Member read the following table:—

Periods.

Home Spirits.

Triennial Periods.

Home Spirits.

Gallons.

Gallons.

1782

2,076,855

1s.2d.

1790

2,599,576

1783

1,771,513

1800

4,140,428

1784

1,436,502

1810

3,666,329

1820

3,849,298

1792

3,520,082

1s.2d.

1826

6,645,276

1793

3,436,440

1830

9,137,015

1794

3,936,355

Two Years

1832

8,857,605

This then was the consumption of whiskey. The advocates of Repeal had throughout the few arguments which the House had heard from them on the subject, taken for granted that England had done nothing for Ireland, and had shown an unfriendly, and even hostile spirit towards that country. He believed there was not an impartial and intelligent man in the country who would not be willing to admit, that England had done a great deal for Ireland. He admitted that it was the duty of England so to act; but it did not therefore follow, that Ireland should shut her eyes to the fact. At the period of the Unions a contract was entered into between the two legislatures to pay a sum of 63,000 l. for a period of six years, these payments to be
512
derived from votes of the Imperial Parliament, and handed over for the purposes arranged under that agreement. These sums were to be devoted to the advancement of charity, literature, and manufactures in Ireland. This sum of 63,000 l. was estimated according to an average taken on the six years antecedent to the Union. This sum, in twenty years, amounted to 1,465,000 l. He would ask the House whether the Imperial Parliament had or had not performed its contract? If the Imperial Parliament had violated its pledge, the advocates of Union might very consistently call out, "Repeal!" But what was the fact? The Imperial Parliament had, instead of confining itself to 1,465,000 l., actually voted for those purposes in Ireland no less than 6,979,000 l. The account stood thus:—

£

Sums voted before the Union, for encouragement of manufactures, charity, and schools

73,277

To this the Legislature stood pledged for twenty years—such grants would have been

1,465,540

The amount granted by the Imperial Parliament has been

6,979,000

Thus the excess granted by Parliament since the Union is

5,513,460

But that was not all; and mark, that such was the disposition of this traduced Imperial Parliament to promote, as far as it was in the power of a Legislature, the social improvement of Ireland, that even the hon. member for Middlesex, who was the economist of the public money all over the world, did not seriously oppose those grants. The following sums, then, were expended in public works in Ireland since the Union, either by loan, gift, or otherwise, in addition to the large sums which he had just quoted:

£.

s.

d.

Loans from Consolidated fund—roads, harbours, boards of health, bridges, relief and employment of poor, &c.

6,432,105

3

10½

Repayments

2,532,790

15

1¼

Balance

3,899,314

8

9¼

of which no less a sum than 564,000 l. 0s. 2d. was for public works and employment of the poor. There was another item connected with this outlay of the public money well worth notice—he meant the expense to the public consequent upon the Cholera visitation. In England but 12,072 l. of the public money was thus employed; in Ireland, the cost to the public was not less than 164,324 l.; a fact

513
which, in itself, spoke volumes as to the indisposition of the Government towards relieving the wants of Ireland as compared with England. The sums, then, expended on Ireland since the Union stood thus:—

£

Charitable and literary institutions

4,225,750

Encouragement of agriculture and manufactures

4,340,421

Public works and employment of poor

3,072,160

£8,638,331

Cholera expenses in England

£12,072

in Ireland

£164,324

But even that was not all. They all recollected the public works (Ireland) Bill of last Session, which the learned Gentleman prophesied would be of no practical use whatever—that it was, in truth, a mere delusion. But what was the fact? He was happy to say, that not less than 819,451 l. 1s. 9d. had been applied in the internal improvement of Ireland, and furnishing employment to its poor. In illustration of this statement Mr. Rice read the following document:—

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE KING'S SPEECH—REPORT.

  PUBLIC WORKS.
  Memorandum Respecting the Proceeding sunder the Public Works' Act, 1 and 2 William 4th. c. 33.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  Loans for works carrying on under special Acts of Parliament—bridges, docks, harbours, canals, and roads

  167,949

  19

  2

  Loans to companies and individuals—quarries, mines, drainage

  11,800

  0

  0

  £179,749

  19

  2

  Loans on security of countyrates

  36,812

  18

  9

  Grants—piers and roads

  9,700

  3

  0

  General Abstract.

  Loans—Applications received and sanctioned

  216,562

  17

  11

  Loans—recommended and before the Treasury

  750

  0

  0

  Loans—not fully concluded, but under consideration

  297,866

  19

  6

  Loans—applications rejected

  273,773

  7

  4

  £788,953

  4

  9

  Grants—Applications received and sanctioned

  9,700

  3

  0

  ——under consideration

  14,657

  0

  0

  ——rejected

  6,140

  14

  0

  £819,451

  14

  9

  Before he sat down, he begged to say
  514
  that there were two points on which he was anxious not to be mistaken and misrepresented—not in that House, for there he could defend and explain himself—but out of doors, where he might have a less dispassionate set of commentators to deal with. It might be said, in the first place, that he had quoted these facts, which so irrefragably proved that much had been done for Ireland, by the Imperial Legislature since the Union, with a view to thereby deny the existence of extreme poverty in that country. He meant no such conclusion. In common with every man at all acquainted with the real state of the working classes in Ireland, he could but lament their destitute condition. But was that destitute condition the product of the Union? Would the repeal of that Union remedy it? He confidently answered both questions in the negative. If they consulted the journals of the Irish Parliament—if they believed (he statements of the generations which had gone before them, they would learn that distress was a too common occurrence among the Irish artizans and labourers. They would also learn another very important fact—that the apparent prosperity of some local manufactures in Ireland was an entirely forced prosperity, contrary to every sound principle of political economy—the exclusive result of bounties and protecting duties. The next misconception he wished to guard against was, that it might be said that, having thus shown how much the Imperial Parliament had done for Ireland, he meant it to be inferred it was to stop there and do no more. He meant no such thing; all that he meant was, to deny, by the evidence of incontrovertible facts, that there existed any difference or want of affectionate sympathy on the part of the Parliament or people of England towards their Irish brethren. He should be the last man in the world to utter a word to diminish the sympathy, and kindness, and good feeling of the people of England towards the Irish. He warned the advocates of Repeal to beware how they stopped those sources of benevolence which the people of Ireland had hitherto enjoyed at the hands of the British nation. He warned those Gentlemen to beware, for, to use a metaphor powerfully turned to account by a distinguished countrymen of theirs, they might go about sowing dragons' teeth—but, if they succeeded, those seeds

  515
  might spring up armed men. They might for a season go abroad scattering hatred and ill-will, but if they grew up into Revolution, they would themselves be the first victims. Four years ago, when he attempted to force the learned Gentleman into a discussion of the question of Repeal (the learned Gentleman must recollect that he told him that if he was sincere in his declarations it was far more manly, as well as becoming him as a legislator, to discuss that question calmly on its real merits, on the floor of that House, than to vaguely declaim about it to the hurlers of Tipperary),—he told the learned Gentleman what he would then emphatically repeat—namely, that the question of a Repeal of the Union was a question of separation of England from Ireland—that the question of separation meant the destruction of the British monarchy in Ireland, and the setting up in its stead a republic of the worst kind, of which moreover its founders would be the very first victims. Of course, as soon as the hon. and learned Member, and the 104 others were installed as the new House of Commons for Ireland, they would set about forming a new Constitution; and it had been generally said, if not avowed, that one of the first measures of the Irish Parliament would be to impose a tax of seventy-five per cent on absentees. But did it never strike anybody, that in that stormy society, some one might possibly be found just to hint or whisper that the King of England himself was an absentee? He was satisfied that the Repeal of the Union could only end in separation, and separation in ruin. The hon. and learned Member had contended again, that strong measures would lead to civil war; but the object of Ministers was not to excite commotion, but to strengthen the law—to avert, not to provoke the threatened evil. The right hon. Member, concluded by saying that he dealt not with the motives of those who advocated the Repeal of the Union, but with the tendency of their actions; and, so dealing with them "God defend us,' "he said, "from the consequences of their proceedings," convinced, as he was, that if those Gentlemen succeeded, ruin would fall not only on Ireland but on the whole empire.
  Mr. Cobbett: Having been in some measure called upon by the hon. Member who has just sat down, I shall trouble the House with a few observations, and
  516
  I promise not to trespass long upon its attention. With regard to the question of the dissolution of the Union, and the consequences to which it may lead, upon those matters I offer no opinion. I have never thought of the subject sufficiently to warrant my giving an opinion upon it; but the right hon. Member (Mr. Rice) seems to think that I was in error in the principles I put forth the other night in answer to the hon. member for Knares-borough (Mr. Richards). It was not of principles I spoke. I made use of no arguments. I offered no opinions—they were facts that I stated. I said, in answer to his observation relative to the increase of trade in Ireland, that all which he stated, might be very true, and still the people be in great misery; aye, and in greater misery in proportion to the increase of trade. I mentioned, from certain information, one of these days to be laid before a Committee of this House, to be proposed by my hon. Colleague, that in proportion as the cotton trade of Manchester increased, in that proportion the profits of the master manufacturer declined, and the misery of the workman augmented. But there were doctrines advanced, and principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman, which I must take this opportunity of contesting. He laid it down as a principle, that because the exports of Ireland had increased, and because those exports were produced by Irish labour—because they represented Irish labour—that, therefore, it was a proof of the prosperity and of the increasing prosperity of Ireland. Push that argument home, and you will find it exactly suits the Negroes of Jamaica. What! did ever any one hear that the happiness of the Negroes increased in proportion to the increase of the demand for sugar? On the contrary, all who have ever advocated the abolition of Negro slavery have constantly asserted that, in proportion to the demand for labour was the lash inflicted. I appeal to the books and publications on the subject; and I remember a passage in one of them to this effect: "The price of sugar has been announced to be so and so; dreadful orders have therefore been issued; the hours of labour are to be so many more, and the lash is to be called into additional activity." There was little exaggeration, perhaps, in what fell from Mr. Cropper, of Liverpool, not long ago, when he said that there was no prospect of abolition as long as Parliament

  517
  did not interfere: that, in proportion to the increased demand for cotton was the increased infliction of the lash to quicken the labour of the Negro. But, upon this point, I will not fatigue the House with details. The great evil of Ireland is, that her produce is all sent out of her land. You may talk as long as you please about the benefits of her exports. I remember the late Primate of Ireland living for twenty years in the parish of Fulham; during the whole of that time, he was receiving his immense revenues from Ireland. He died worth 300,000 l. in personal property; having been a younger son without hereditary estates. Where did it all come from? Why, from Ireland, to be sure-Ireland, poor Ireland, had enabled this Archbishop to leave behind him 300,000 l. besides what he annually spent. When people talk of the faults of Ministers I do not mean to say that they have not done all that was possible to ameliorate the lot of Ireland. They have always done it; and why should they not? It is their duty. It is the interest of Ministers to keep Ireland tranquil, and to avoid all causes of disturbance. But that country can never be in a good state where grants from the Treasury are wanted to put industry in motion. And this is the history of Ireland—the whole of her produce and riches has been always drawn away. I was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) exclaim the other night—" Ah! tell me this—have we imposed a Corn-law upon Ireland?" Gentleman, I take it, would hardly impose Corn-laws upon themselves. The land is theirs—the produce is theirs; the profit of the Church was theirs; and all is drawn away hither. They would be a strange sort of gentlemen, with less sagacity than I give them credit for, if they imposed Corn-laws upon Ireland. No, no; they lay Corn-laws upon a country where they have no land, where tithes and Church property are not theirs—there they impose Corn-laws, and pretty heavy ones, too. Another thing has been urged. It is said that England has paid such a mass of taxes, while Ireland has only paid so much. It is very shallow to put it in that way; if the produce of Ireland comes to England, the taxes of Ireland are paid in England. That is the real cause of the existing misery: the Irish do not gain the fruits of their labour—it comes here; here it is expended, and here it is
  518
  taxed: therefore it is not more fair to estimate the amount of taxes of Ireland, than to estimate the amount of taxes of Jamaica, when we know that the owners of estates in Jamaica are resident here, and are taxed here. There is very little difference in the two cases.
  Mr. Robinsonremarked, that the head and front of the offending of Ministers against the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) was, that they had inserted a paragraph in the King's Speech declaring a determination to support the Union; and no attempt to conciliate him would have the slightest effect as long as they stood in the way of his favourite project. He strongly objected to the line of conduct pursued by a certain portion of the House during the last week; it was calculated to impede public business, to sow distrust, and to lead the Irish to believe that there was a want of sympathy for their sufferings among the English Representatives. Why, in the face of the majority against him, did the learned Gentleman persevere in scattering the seeds of national discord among a generous but too confident people. No doubt the hon. member for Dublin had been bitterly disappointed by the result of the division the other night; his forty votes had caused him no little vexation, and the renewal to-night of the course pursued last week made it almost seem as if the object of the Irish Members was to disgust the English Members, and to drive them to a dissolution of the Union, in order to avoid the infliction of Hibernian oratory. Was it not monstrous for him to tell his countrymen, that it was in vain for them to seek for justice at the hands of Englishmen, and that the only remedy was a Repeal of the Union? Why so obstinately persevere in threatening every measure of relief not emanating from himself? Why, on no occasion, co-operate with Ministers in promoting the tranquillity, and thence the prosperity, of his native country? He was no partisan of the Ministers; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that they at least meant to do well for Ireland. Surely with such Ministers, and, still more, with a Parliament the complete representative of the public mind of England, it was not too much to wait till they had heard what their measures of relief were. Should those measures not prove as remedial as it was fair to expect they would be, then let the

  519
  learned Gentleman and his supporters come forward with their complaints and remedies, assured that they would not meet a deaf ear in a Reformed Parliament. He bad voted for the Address the other evening; he did not thereby pledge himself to support the coercive measures indicated in it. He would not support any coercive measures which did not go hand-in-hand with measures remedial of the grievances of Ireland. He was confident that, in saying that, he spoke the sentiments of very many of those who had voted against the learned Gentleman's Amendment. He agreed that the paragraph in the King's Speech, so much commented upon, might have been better worded; more might have been said about redress, and less about coercion; but, in voting for the Address, he did not consider himself at all pledged to support any measure of vigour that might be introduced. The Irish were a generous and a confiding people, and he believed that they would wait with patience for the remedy of their grievances, if the hon. and learned member for Dublin would but take half the pains to allay that he did to excite.
  Mr. Richardssaid, that he had heard so many references made, in the course of the debate, to what had fallen from him on the first night's discussion on the Address, that he hoped he might be permitted to make a few observations in explanation. He could assure those Irish Members who had found fault with what fell from him, that his observations on Ireland were dictated by the utmost sincerity. He was anxious to support the Government in any measures which he should think calculated to prevent that fatal measure—the dissolution of the Legislative Union; but he did not think himself pledged, by his vote on the Address, to support any coercive measures which Ministers might think it their duty to propose. Before he voted for such measures he should certainly give them a full and impartial consideration. Notwithstanding all that was said of the misgovernment of Ireland, he was convinced that the country was improving; and if the system of agitation which prevailed was put an end to it would improve much more. The hon. member for Oldham had thought proper to find fault with some of his observations. He said, they were; now too old to talk, as if they had no light from experience. He hoped he
  520
  was not quite so old as the hon. member for Oldham, but he could assure the hon. Member, that he had not shut out the light of experience. The hon. Member said, that his (Mr. Richards's) panacea for Ireland was Poor-laws, and though he was not now going to inflict a speech on the House on that subject, he might be allowed to say that he did recommend Poor-laws. But then came one of those pretty sophisms which might do very well in the hon. member for Oldham's Political Register, but which would not do in that House. The hon. Member said, that he charged Ministers with omitting to notice the distress which prevailed in England, whilst he recommended Poor-laws for Ireland, forgetting that there were Poor-laws in England, and that, despite of those laws, there was great distress. That there was much distress in England, was unfortunately too true; but that distress was owing to the bill introduced by the right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) for altering the currency, and not to the Poor-laws. He had incidentally noticed the increase in the exports of Ireland, and the reply of the hon. member for Oldham was, that if exports were a sign of prosperity, the population of the West-India colonies were most prosperous. The hon. Member had reasoned as if Jamaica and Ireland were in the same condition—omitting all notice of the main distinction, that in Ireland, labour was free, while, in Jamaica, it was performed by slaves. Consequently, an increased demand for the produce of the West Indies was attended with increased sufferings on the part of the Negroes, both of labour and punishment, but in Ireland, with the increased demand for labour began an increase of wages and of the fund destined to pay labour. To return to Ireland, one great disadvantage under which that country laboured was the reluctance which capitalists felt to lending money upon the security of property in that country. In one case he knew six per cent to have been refused by a capitalist, though well secured on an Irish estate, and when declining to lend on those terms in Ireland, that capitalist expressed his willingness to lend on English security at four per cent. If Poor-laws were introduced, and the country tranquillized, such distinctions would no longer be made by capitalists, and the trade of Ireland must increase.
  Mr. John Brownesaid, that as he and

  521
  his family had been grossly traduced by the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell), it could not be wondered at if he made some observations on the conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman. Putting aside personal considerations, however, he thought the time had arrived when every Irishman who had proper feelings of loyalty toward his King, and affection to his country, was bound to come boldly forward and declare his sentiments. The hon. member for Dublin had charged a respected relative of his (Mr. John Browne's) with cowardice—a charge which came very ill from the hon. and learned Gentleman. If any person in that House made a vow, under the most solemn circumstances, to pursue a certain course in life, he ought to have associated that vow with another, to speak charitably of all men. If the vow had been so accompanied, he (Mr. Browne) should honour it. If there was any man in that House having great power, and using that power in setting on an infatuated, reckless, and thoughtless people to acts of outrage and insubordination—if such a man urged on the people to attend tithe meetings, but skulked away from sharing the responsibility of attendance himself, such a man was one he would call a coward, and such a man ought to consider well how far the name was applicable to himself before he sought to affix it to others. It was peculiarly painful to him to make those observations, but his feelings had really been hurt by an attack made upon him in the tenderest point. He had been taunted, too, in another place, and charged with wanting courage, by a man who seemed to have come to the determination to insult every man, but not to give reparation to any. He was proud to say, that he stood in that House the representative of the county of Mayo, but he had not come in at the nod or beck of any man. He stood at his post, and refused to bow down to the Juggernaut of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member spoke, in a former night's debate, of the atrocities of the police, and referred to a murder committed in the county of Mayo. The hon. and learned Member's version of the transaction was, that the police, going round, met some women singing, and fired amongst them, and that, in that way, the public were butchered. He (Mr. Browne) had that day received some account of the transaction referred to, and it appeared
  522
  that the butchery which the police was charged with was an act of self-defence.
  Mr. O'Connellsaid, that all he had stated was, that lives had been lost.
  Mr. John Browneproceeded. The verdict on the coroner's inquest was, "That the deceased, John M'Grath, had come to his death by a gun-shot wound, inflicted by Constable Webb, in defence of the lives of himself and his party." That was the verdict of the Coroner's Jury; but if it had been otherwise, it would not have been decisive of the merits of the case. Under certain circumstances Trial by Jury was a mockery. Jurors were told that if they gave any verdict but one, their lives would be endangered. Some extraordinary measures were necessary, therefore, to meet the exigencies of the case. In introducing such measures the Government should have his support; and he wished distinctly to declare that, in his opinion, no measure more fatal and more wanton could be agitated than the question of the Repeal of the Union.
  Mr. Morgan O'Connelldid not mean to add any tiling to the general arguments used by other hon. members for Ireland, on the subject of the Address; he could not agree with those, however, who assumed that Ministers did not intend to resort to coercive and sanguinary measures. So long as Ministers refused to explain their intentions, he should take it for granted that they meant to introduce violent coercive measures. Much was said of the disturbed state of the country; he begged, however, to remind the House that Ireland was in a much more disturbed state a year and a half ago, than it was at present, and that the disturbances at that period had been suppressed by the regular course of law, without resorting to extraordinary measures. Nothing was now complained of but nocturnal outrages, whilst it was notorious that, at the period he alluded to, outrages were committed in the open day. The fact and the truth was, that the coercive measures proposed were not intended to be directed so much against the outrages and disturbances of the country as against the agitation of a Repeal of the Union. Much had been said of the heat displayed by the Irish Members, but those who charged them with warmth sometimes fell into the same fault themselves, and, amongst those, he might reckon the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, who had made

  523
  some unwarrantable assertions. His remarks, however, were directed against a body of men whose characters stood too high in the grateful estimation of their countrymen to suffer by such aspersions. The hon. and learned member for the University drew a very affecting picture of the sufferings of the Irish Protestant Clergy; but they were not the only sufferers under the tithe system. He (Mr. Morgan O'Connell) had seen the milch cow distrained for tithe, though the dry beasts, as they were called in that country, were offered to the person who distrained instead. Though worth twenty times the amount distrained for, however, the agent of the clergyman refused to take the dry beast, and took the milch cow which supplied the poor man and his family with milk. It was very well to talk of life and property, but the life and property of a single peasant ought to be as dear to that House as the life and property of the richest or greatest. He charged the noble Lord who moved the Address with having been the first to commence personalities in that House, and in the attack which he volunteered on the agitators he had assailed a body of men to whose exertions in furthering the cause of Reform last year the reformers of England, aye, and of Scotland too, might be grateful for the success of that measure. He had assailed men whose characters stood far too high in the grateful consideration of their countrymen to be in the slightest degree affected by anything which might fall from the noble Lord; and with regard to what had fallen from the hon. member for Mayo, he should only remark that the hon. Member would never have used such language to the hon. and learned member for Dublin, if he did not know that he stood upon safe ground in so doing. With respect to the word "coward" which the hon. Member had used, he would say, that no charge of flying from the field of battle was ever made against any individual of the hon. and learned member for Dublin's family, and that the language of the hon. member for Mayo was perfectly unwarrantable.
  An Hon. Memberrecommended an honest but energetic administration of the law in Ireland. That part of the empire was in danger arising from agitation—and he, therefore, would support Ministers in their efforts to obtain extraordinary powers for the coercion of Ireland.
  Mr. David Rochesaid, that the Irish people were as peaceable as any other portion of his Majesty's subjects. For the last twenty years he had lived in the heart of the county of Limerick, and never knew that county more tranquil than at the present time. The existing laws were sufficient to repress all disturbances in Ireland, as was proved by the late application of them to the counties of Mayo and Clare. But, said the right hon. Secretary opposite, crime has increased within the last six months. Let him prove it, and make out his case. The right hon. Secretary mentioned the occurrence of 400 or 500 atrocities, but he did not say whether the majority of them were perpetrated during the first or second of the last two years. He did not show the increase of crime within the last six months over the first six months of the second last year. Until he did, he could make out no case as to an increase of crime.
  Mr. John O'Connellprotested, in the name of his constituency, against the attempt which Government was making to trample upon the rights and liberties of the people of Ireland. He protested, in the most solemn manner, against such an attempt, and he called upon the Representatives of the English people not to sanction it by their votes.
  The Speaker: The Question now is, that the Report be brought up and read.
  Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that he had an Amendment to move, which he should have done in the early part of the evening had he not forgotten it. He wished now to be allowed to read it.
  The Speaker: The time is not yet arrived. If you were formerly too late, you are now too soon. It will be necessary for you to wait until you come to some words of the Report you object to. Then will be the time for your Amendment.
  Mr. Cobbettrose to move an Amendment.
  The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will state what part of the Report he means to move should be omitted.
  Mr. Cobbett: Other hon. Members may intercept the reading of the Report where they please, and move that such or such parts be omitted; for my own part, I object to every tittle of the Report after the words "Most Gracious Majesty." The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) complains that much time has been lost

  525
  in discussing the Address, and that the waste of such time is disrespectful to his Majesty. So far the noble Lord is right, and I agree with him; and hope, moreover, that this will be the last night so uselessly wasted. But I beg now to inform the noble Lord, that the fault lies with him, and his colleagues if they had followed the ancient practices of the House, they would have no reason to complain of loss of time, or of disrespect towards his Majesty. The ancient practice was, that the Speech from the Throne should be read to the House, after which a short Vote of Thanks was passed to his Majesty. Then the House appointed a day for taking the Speech into consideration, in order to be fully able to discuss the Address. I think such a practice not only very convenient to the House, but also vastly more respectful towards his Majesty. No man upon such a subject is able to speak sensibly, and to the purpose, without time for preparation. It was said, of the "heaven-born Pitt," that he could speak a King's Speech offhand. I suppose it was because he was "heaven born," that he could do so, yet I doubt if he was ever expected to be able to answer a King's Speech off-hand; it being well known to every one, that it requires ten times as much time to answer such a document, as it does to write it. At a later period, less time was required to be able to speak upon the Address; for many hon. Members used to hear it read the day before it was made public, in the Cock-pit, and consequently could go home and sleep upon it. The Speech was written by the King's Ministers; it was put into the King's mouth by the Minister; the mover of the Address received his instructions from the same source; and the Address to his Majesty, in answer to the Speech, was written by his Majesty's servants: so that the matter was very summary. The hon. member for Worcester complains, that we have heard nothing in the course of this Debate regarding the state of England, and that the whole of the talk has been about Ireland; if the hon. Member and the people of Worcester had a dungeon staring them in the face, he would ask more time to consider the matter than the one day which, it was said, should be sufficient for the purpose. I feel that I am not in danger of a dungeon at present, but I remember what took place on for-
  526
  mer occasions, and I am confident that any steps which are taken towards Ireland may be preparatory to similar measures towards England. But leaving England out of the question, I should be the basest of human beings if I did not come forward to oppose those uncommon powers called for by the Ministers, to put into dungeons any Irishman who dares defend his country. They say that they do not wish to oppress Ireland, or, if possible, not to put into execution those extraordinary powers; but still they do not tell us what they intend to do. They have been challenged to do this. They have been told that they intend dungeons; and they dare not deny it. Let them say, that they will not propose dungeons, and I stop at once, as far as relates to Ireland. My sincere opinion is, that this proposition of obtaining extraordinary powers arose solely out of the result of the Irish elections. I verily believe that the sole reason is the return of those Gentlemen who are such favourites with the Irish nation. Why, then, do Ministers not tell us what they mean to do in Ireland? Why do they not inform those patriotic Gentlemen, who have come forward to defend their country against tyranny and oppression, what are the measures they mean to adopt? They want the power of silencing those Gentlemen, and other patriotic individuals, by having it in their option to put them into dungeons. Silence or a dungeon is their only choice, and I shall never agree that such power be put in their hands. The Speech speaks of the prosperity of this country, but so far is that from being a true state of the situation of the country, that, perhaps, at this very time, there are from five to six millions of the inhabitants of this part of the kingdom suffering the greatest wretchedness from want of food, of clothing, and the most common necessaries of life. A statement has been made by the hon. member for Leeds regarding the prosperous situation of that community; but I can mention a district where there are 40,000 persons, out of a population of 175,000, who have not more than from 2d. to 2½d. per day to live on. The district to which I allude, is that of Huddersfield, in Yorkshire. These persons have a right to know what Government mean to do—they have a right to expect some recommendation, at least, on the part of the Ministers, of measures for their relief,

  527
  [The House at this period showed symptoms of impatience, and several Members on the Ministerial benches called "Question," on which Mr. Cobbett turned to the Speaker, and said:] I appeal to you, Sir, if I have not a right to be heard: please to be so good as to keep order. [Laughter.] You'll not silence me, that I'll assure you. You may rely on it, if you do not hear me, I shall adjourn the House. I was quite prepared for this, and am not to be put down by it. The people, I say, expected that some measures should be proposed by Ministers for their relief; instead of which they ask for the power of throwing the people into dungeons. [Great confusion.] If I be not heard, I shall move an adjournment. I will not spare you one word. You shall hear every word that I have to say. The people expected that the Ministers should recommend some measures for their relief: they expected them to recommend that those who receive the earnings of the people, and do nothing for them, should be deprived of their unjust emoluments; but do you find any such recommendation in the Speech? No, the people have no such consolation. They find measures recommended in all respects harsh and oppressive, and destitute of all feeling for their wretched situation. This they complain of, and they have a right to complain. Now, I have an Amendment to move to the Address, which I shall read; and when I have read it, I shall then give the reasons which induce me to think it a proper address to his Majesty:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, express to your Majesty our humble thanks for your Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne.
  "We thank your Majesty for the information which your Majesty has been graciously pleased to communicate to us relative to those proceedings which your Majesty, in virtue of your constitutional and just prerogative, has caused to be adopted with regard to Portugal, Belgium, and Holland; and, being perfectly assured that every act of your Majesty with regard to those countries will proceed from that anxious solicitude which your Majesty has constantly evinced, to promote the interests of your dutiful people, and to maintain the honour of the
  528
  kingdom, we give your Majesty our assurance, that we shall receive with the greatest respect, and shall bestow our best and most sedulous attention upon, those various papers relating to the affairs of Holland and Belgium which your Majesty has been graciously pleased to intimate, that your Majesty has given directions to be laid before us.
  "We assure your Majesty, that, with regard to the Charters of the Bank of England and the East-India Company, we shall enter with care and diligence on a revision of those establishments; and that the best of our endeavours will be employed to arrive at such a decision as shall be best calculated to secure real and solid public credit, as well as to promote the general prosperity and power of your Majesty's kingdom.
  "Well knowing, and most acutely feeling, the sorrowful effects of the present mode of maintaining the clergy of the Established Church, both in England and Ireland, we are peculiarly grateful to your Majesty for having suggested to us the making of very great and extensive alterations with regard to the temporalities of that Church; and it is with particular earnestness that we beg your Majesty to be assured, that we shall enter upon the task with all the patience, all the diligence, and all the absence of passion, and of prejudice, which the interesting and momentous subject so imperiously demands; and that we confidently hope, that the result of our consultations will tend to the good of the Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of your Majesty and your kingdom; and that this most important matter will be so ordered and settled by our endeavours, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established amongst us for all generations.
  "While we humbly present to your Majesty our most grateful thanks for having been graciously pleased to assure us that your Majesty has directed the Estimates for the service of the ensuing year to be framed with the most anxious attention to economy, and while we assure your Majesty that nothing shall be wanting on our part to reward habits of industry, and promote good order amongst the labouring classes of the community, our bounden duty to our constituents, as well as to your Majesty, compels us to express to your Majesty our deep regret

  529
  that your Majesty should not have been advised graciously to suggest to us to consider of the means of lightening the numerous and heavy burthens which are a discouragement to that industry, and which so cruelly oppress those meritorious and suffering classes; and we assure your Majesty, that we will, with all diligence and zeal, proceed to an investigation of the causes which have produced those burthens and their consequent sufferings, and to the adoption of measures which shall, in our judgment, be calculated to produce effectual and permanent relief.
  "Most sincerely do we participate with your Majesty in that pain which your Majesty's paternal solicitude for the welfare of your people has induced your Majesty graciously to express with regard to the disturbances in Ireland; and we assure your Majesty that we shall be ready, at all times, to adopt any constitutional measures that may be necessary for controlling and punishing the disturbers of the public peace, and for preserving and strengthening those ties which connect the two countries in indissoluble bonds of loyalty to your Majesty; deeming, as we do, a separation of the two countries to be fraught with destruction to the peace, security, and welfare of your Majesty's dominions; and, convinced as we are, that nothing but unjust and cruel treatment of our fellow-subjects of Ireland can ever induce any portion of them to desire such separation, we most solemnly assure your Majesty, that we will never give our sanction to their being treated with injustice and cruelty, and that we will, with the smallest possible delay, proceed to the consideration of means of redressing those manifold grievances under which they have so long been suffering, and which are, we are firmly convinced, the real cause of the present unhappy disturbances."
  Now, Sir, I think this is a proper Address, and I am determined to take the sense of the House upon it, and to see who is for it, and who against it; but that division shall not take place till I have had time to explain my reasons for proposing it. I am sorry to take up so much of the time of the House, but I think it a duty I owe to my country to state fully my reasons for proposing this Amendment. I can, however, easily foresee in what manner it will be received, and what will be the result of the vote upon it, especially as it is evident that the two
  530
  factions of Whigs and Tories have united against the people. I early foresaw that it would be so. From Brading in the Isle of Wight, to Dumfermline on the north of the Firth of Forth, and before 200 audiences, every where have I said, that these two factions would unite, unless the Ministers proposed something for the good of the people; and now, finding that they have no such intentions, and that they are resolved to do nothing for the relief of the people, they have united; this is quite natural to them; for they know that it is impossible for them to keep down the people but in conjunction with each other. It is well known to every student of politics, that when opposing parties unite, the consequence to the people has always been a new series of oppressions. This maxim has been verified by uniform experience; and the truth it teaches is sanctioned by the observations and by the principles laid down by that great teacher of the principles of liberty, the hon. member for Westminster, at the time when he was a candidate for the county of Middlesex, in the year 1806, just after an unprincipled junction took place between the Whigs and a detachment of the Pittites. He, upon that occasion, in a letter to the people of Middlesex, under his own hand, and with his own name at the bottom of it, said (and the words ought never to be forgotten, I thanked him for them then, and, at the end of twenty-six years, I am happy to see him in his place, that I may thank him for them again)—the hon. Member then said in the beginning of an address to the people of Middlesex signed Sir Francis Burdett in the month of October, 1806:—"Whenever the leaders of contending parties and factions in a State unite, the history of the world bears evidence, that it never is in favour, but always at the expense, of the people; whose renewed and augmented pillage pays the price of the scandalous reconciliation." [Calls of Question and Order—coughing.]
  Mr. Kinlochsaid, that he must signify his determination to adjourn the House, if quiet and good order were not restored.
  The Speakerrose, and said, that he would exert all the authority in his power to keep order. If the hon. Members had been longer Members of that House, they would not have been so sensible to any occasional interruptions with which they might meet in the course of the Debate. He could say, that he had never, in the whole course

  531
  of his parliamentary experience, seen a five days' debate to which there was such constant attention given, or in which the speakers met with so little interruption as in the course of the late debate on the Address.
  Mr. Cobbettresumed. I have a very sacred duty to perform, and if the House be determined not to hear me to-night, I will certainly bring it forward to-morrow; and if the House will not hear me to-morrow, I will then bring it forward the day after. The statement I have to make, I am determined to make, and that without any considerable interruption. I was proceeding to show, that when two factions joined, it is always in order to oppress the people. I can remember the coalition between Pitt and three or four of the principal leaders of the Whigs—the faithful Whigs. I can remember four of these scandalous reconciliations: the first was, when a detachment of the Whigs joined the heaven-born Pitt, in 1793: that produced the war against the republicans of France, and has finally added 600,000,000 l. to that debt under which we are now groaning. The second scandalous reconciliation was that which took place in 1806, when a detachment of the Pittites formed a junction with the Whigs. The price which the people paid for that scandalous reconciliation was monstrous indeed. The first act of the coalesced faction was to enable the Auditor of the Exchequer to hold his sinecure while he was First Lord of the Treasury; the second was, to bring new bands of Hanoverian troops into England and Ireland, to be paid for by this insulted people; the next was, to raise the income-tax (which the Whigs, when out of office, had called a highwayman's trap) from six and a quarter to ten per cent; and the rest of the time that this Ministry lasted was occupied in cramming themselves and friends with pensions, sinecures, and all sorts of emoluments derived from the public money. When Canning became Prime Minister, what did the faithful Whigs do then? A detachment of them joined him; and the short duration of his life only prevented a more general junction. There was time, however, for the Marquess of Lansdown, and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spring Rice), actually to join him, and that hand which we must all yield to only prevented the rest from trooping in at his heels. And what was the price of this scandalous reconciliation? Why an open abandon-
  532
  ment of the Catholics; a distinct and expressed abandonment of their cause; and an explicit declaration that it should not be brought forward during the life of the King,(George 4th); a distinct declaration against the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and a determination not to suffer any of the remaining Six Acts to be repealed; and a violent attack upon the hon. member for Middlesex, who was then member for Aberdeen, because he proposed the repeal of one of the most odious of those odious Acts, which now, again, the Whigs keep in force to their utmost rigour. What is to be the whole amount of the price which we are to pay for the present scandalous reconciliation We do not yet know. The first price is, in all appearance, dungeons to be provided for those Irish Gentlemen who have so nobly defended their country; the second item is, the upholding of the present system of taxation to its full extent; for we are pretty explicitly told, that no tax of any sort is to be taken off, not even the tax upon knowledge, as it is called: and as to the house-tax, the window-tax, the malt and hop-taxes, or anything of the sort, I should not wonder if dungeons were to be proposed for those who contend for the necessity of the repeal of any of them. These are to form the price of the present scandalous reconciliation. Every pension, every sinecure, every grant, every retired allowance, is to remain; the industrious part of the people are still to toil for these swarms of idlers. The Ministers foresaw that they could not uphold this system without the aid of their former opponents, and, therefore, being determined to uphold this system, in which they and their opponents are equally interested, they have resorted to this scandalous reconciliation. I have said before, that it was unfeeling to the last degree, in the Ministers not to recommend to their master the saying of something to console the suffering people. I have said before, that in a district in the West Riding of Yorkshire, of which Huddersfield makes a part, there are 40,000 persons, each of whom is living upon 2½d. a-day. This is the case throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire. But, it is general, as will appear from the situation of the town of Leicester. I yesterday received a copy of a report concerning the town which I will read to the House. The hon. Member then accordingly read, the following paper:—

  533
  To the Wealthy and Humane Inhabitants of the Town and County of Leicester.
  The frame work-knitters' Committee have selected the following cases of distress, in Leicester, out of a vast number of others of a similar description,' that the public may at once perceive the indispensable necessity of coming forward to assist in raising the wretched frame work-knitters from their degradation and misery. They invite the wealthy classes to visit their miserable habitations, to inquire into the truth of this statement; and they indulge the hope that nothing further will be wanted to induce their kind sympathy and support. The Committee are anxious not to have auy control over the funds, but to place them in the hands of gentlemen, who will see that they are properly appropriated to the object for which they are solicited. A meeting of subscribers will be called, to take under their charge the kind contributions of the public.
  Signed, on behalf of the Committee,
  THOMAS WRIGHT, Chairman.
  Leicester, January 17th, 1833.
  Case 1st.—William Carter, journeyman framework-knitter, lives in Lewitt's-yard, Oxford-street; his average hours of labour are seventeen hours a-day, and his earnings are 9s. per week, first hand; and, of course, subject to the following deductions: frame-rent. 1s. 3d.; winding, 4d.; candles, 9d.; needles, 3d.; master's charge on work, 3d.; coals for shop, 3d.; seaming, 10½d.; leaving 5s. 0½d. to pay house-rent, fuel, soap for washing, and to provide food and clothing. This man has a wife and five children; the whole of the children and parents sleep in the same apartment, and have neither bed, sheet, nor blanket.
  Case 2nd.—Thomas Phillips, Lewitt's-yard, master framework-knitter, earns 6s. 9d. per week, subject to the following deductions:—viz., frame-rent, 1s.; coals for shop, 3d.; winding, 4d.; candles, 9d.; needles, 3d.; seaming, 10 d.—leaving 3s. 4d. net earnings; which, added to the 2s. which is earning by his wife, makes 5s. 4d. to pay house-rent, fuel, soap, and provide food and clothing. He bas two children, and the family are extremely wretched, and destitute of necessaries.
  Case 3rd.—John Hastings, Lewitt's-yard, earns 8s. per week, first hand, subject to deduction for frame, &c.; amounting to 3s. 3d.; leaving 4s. 9d. clear earnings. He has four small children, extremely destitute of necessary clothing and bedding.
  Case 4th.—Thomas Hastings, Lewitt's-yard, earns 6s. per week, first hand; and being far advanced in years, is compelled to work eighteen hours per day; and when frame rent, seaming, and other charges are deducted, there is only 3s. clear, to pay house-rent, and to provide coals, soap, food, and clothing.
  Case 5th.—Joseph Greenwood, Causeway-lane, earns 7s. per week, first hand, subject to
  534
  deduction of frame-rent, seaming, &c. as in the other cases; leaving 4s. clear earnings to support a wife and five children—the oldest eight years of age; the youngest at the breast. They have neither blanket nor sheet for the use of the parents, and only one blanket and straw for the children. When visited, they were destitute of every article of subsistence.
  Now, the Ministers either know of this distress, or they do not. If they do not, they are too ignorant or too lazy to be intrusted with public authority; if they do, they are the most unfeeling and barbarous of mankind to put a Speech into the mouth of the King, which, by fair implication, accuses the people of laziness, and which threatens to punish them if they be not quiet and patiently submit to the existence of all the pensions and sinecures, and the rest of the means by which their earnings are taken from them and distributed. And, am I told, that these pensions and sinecures are not a burthen to be complained of? Let us see: the sinecure of Lord Granville alone amounts annually to the wages of 1,084 of these industrious and meritorious persons: the pensions to the Herries family, which they have been receiving for years, amount annually to the wages of 271 of these industrious persons. The right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty, when out of office, had the goodness to prove to us, that there were 113 members of the Privy Council (exclusive of the royal family and the Bishops) who received the sum of 650,000 l. a-year, equal to the wages of 163,220 of these oppressed and laborious persons, who, to console them under their labours and their sufferings, have been informed that the carved work to one single Palace gateway cost as much as the amount of the wages of 9,000 of them for one whole year. Those who thus fatten on the toil of the people may well laugh; they may well, in the words of the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, resolve to uphold this system to the death. That right hon. Gentleman ought to recollect, however, that the words which his taste has induced him to select, and the conduct which he proposes to imitate, were the words of St. Paul, not after he became a Christian, but while he was a blaspheming Jew, persecuting the Christians. He denied, the hon. Member continued, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin had begun the attack upon Ministers. Their own mover of the Address had attacked

  535
  that hon. and learned Member. He had accused him of fomenting civil discord for the purpose of obtaining the Repeal of the Union. He (Mr. Cobbett) thought, that as the hon. mover of the Address was dressed in uniform, and were a sword, he should have handed over the Address on the point of his sword to the hon. and learned member for Dublin. Having said that of the mover, he would refer to the seconder of the Address, who had, a year before, assisted at a public meeting at Leeds, at which Resolutions were agreed to, that the Church property in Ireland should be resumed by the Government, and now that hon. Member came to the House, and seconded an Address which called on them to give to the Government the power of throwing the advocates of the freedom of Ireland into dungeons. He could not repeat the word "dungeon" too often. He could not conceive why the members of his Majesty's Government should have such an aversion for the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He did not understand the great spite they bore him. He (Mr. Cobbett) differed from that hon. and learned Member on some points—he differed from him especially on the subject of the Poor-laws in Ireland, but he did not consider that a ground of quarrel. In his opinion it could be for no other reason, but merely because that hon. and learned Member was beloved by the people of Ireland, and because great confidence was placed in him by a large portion of the people of that country. They seemed to wish to destroy that hon. and learned Member; but he could tell them, that if they were able to destroy him to-morrow, they would only be the more heartily detested in Ireland. They were detested because they hated the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and the more they hated him the more they would be detested. The warfare they had denounced against the repealers of the Union in Ireland strongly reminded him of the story of the French king and the Swiss Cantons. It was recorded, that some difference existed between these powers. The ministers of the king represented that the Swiss were in the right. Oh, then," said the king, "I will make war against them, because they are in the right." This was precisely the sort of answer made by the Ministers to the repealers of the Union. The want of capital was, undoubtedly, the chief cause of
  536
  the misery that prevailed in Ireland; but how was it possible that capital could accumulate, when it was notorious, that the country was yearly drained for the support of absentee landlords? In the fable of the lion and the fox, all the footsteps went towards the lion's den—none went from it. So it was with Ireland. All the rent went in one direction—all out of the country; and when once out, never returned. What the remedy to be applied was, he had not as yet considered, and therefore could not take upon himself to say; but of one thing he was sure—namely, that it was not dungeons. In 1817, the use of dungeons did not succeed in crushing the question of Parliamentary Reform; and so, in 1833, it would fail in crushing the question of Repeal. To shake a halter, and rattle the keys of a dungeon in the face of a people claiming only to be heard in support of their opinions, would never be endured, and could only expose the Ministry, who might be fools enough to attempt such an unconstitutional proceeding, to the odium and contempt of the nation. Whilst they were talking of a Repeal of the Union, it was but right to go back a little into history, and see what was said of that Union, at the time it was formed, by some of those who were now in power, and who represented the advocates of its Repeal as traitors. Earl Grey's recorded opinions were stated the other night; but there remained to be noticed those of another man, of considerable importance in Ireland, not less worthy of being rescued from oblivion. If there ever was anything shameful on earth—if there ever was anything to make a man blush—if there ever was anything to induce a man to wish to hide his head from the light of day—it was what the man to whom he was alluding, formerly said, as contrasted with what he was now doing. This man, after saying all sorts of things in opposition to the Union (such as, that it never could be law—that the people never would obey it)—added! For my own part I will resist it to the last gasp of my existence—to the last drop of my blood—and when I feel the hour of my dissolution approaching, I will like the father of Hannibal, take my children to the altar, and swear them to eternal hostility against the invaders of their country's freedom." Again, he said; "I shall be proud to send my name down on the roll with those who have resisted the ene-

  537
  mies of their country;" and again he declared "that he should bear in his heart the consciousness of having performed his duty, and when his death approached, he should not be haunted with the thought of having basely sold or meanly abandoned the liberties of his native land." Now, "where was the man who held this language?" Was he in England; or was he in Ireland? Was he in the ranks of the Ministerialists opposite, or was he in the ranks of the repealers around him? He is in Ireland. But what is he there? Is he Lord Chancellor? Yes! This old Hannibal (Hannibal, indeed!) is actually Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Yes: the very man who was to have the management of the dungeons in which the hon. Member was to be thrust, only for asking—in a peaceable and constitutional manner—through this House, for the Repeal of that very Act which this Lord Chancellor himself declared, at its passing, to be a violation of the Constitution—which he said he would oppose to the last hour of his life; and against which and its framers he was to swear all his children to eternal hostility.—Well, but what has become of all the young Hannibals?—He should like, if any body could tell him, to know if they had been sworn?—He had them all in a paper before him; every Hannibal of them.—Here Mr. Cobbett read and commented on the following paper:—First comes

  £

  Lord Plunkett, as Lord Chancellor of Ireland with a yearly income of

  8,000

  Then come his sons

  The Hon. and Reverend Thomas Plunkett, as Dean of Down, in the gift of the Crown, consisting of a union of six parishes, the tithes and glebe of which amounted, in 1831, to

  2,863

  There's a capacious soul for you! There's a shepherd for you! Nothing less than six flocks could content him. It was worthy of observation, too, that this plurality was granted by Ministers precisely at the time (in 1831) that the Ecclesiastical Commission was sitting in the Council Chamber of Dublin Castle, and when they had signed the Report that it ought to be dissolved on the first avoidance. Next come

  £

  The Hon. John Plunkett, as Assistant Barrister of the County of Meath

  600

  As Crown Prosecutor on the Munster Circuit

  800

  As Couusel to the Police

  300

  1,700

  For this Gentleman, business will be made out of the coercive measures.

  £

  The Hon. David Plunkett, as Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas and Examiner

  1,500

  Besides his patronage, not brought into calculation, as follows:—

  Three clerks, at 500 l.

  1,500

  Two assistants, 500 l.

  1,000

  One other assistant

  200

  One Clerk of Pleadings

  400

  Other clerks

  1,000

  £.4,100

  The Hon. Patrick Plunkett, as Secretary to the Bankrupt Commission

  900

  As Purse Bearer to the Chancellor

  800

  As Counsel to the Chief Remembrancer

  300

  As Crown Prosecutor to the Leinster Circuit

  900

  2,900

  The Hon. William Plunkett, Incumbent of the living of Bray, County of Wick-low, with a house and twenty-four acres of land, the tithes of which amount to

  470

  The Hon. Robert Plunkett, a living in England, value unascertained.

  So the Hannibals were coming here, to practise their peculiar kind of warfare against "the invaders of their country's freedom." How they were to be dealt with will by-and-by be seen. He next came to the nephews of old Hannibal, the father of these half-Hannibals, the first on the list was:—

  £

  W. M'Causland, Secretary to the Chancellor (appointed to this situation when under twenty years of age)

  2,000

  James M'Causland, as Secretary to the Funds of Erasmus Smith's Schools

  500

  As Solicitor to the Hibernian Schools

  100

  As Solicitor to the Benchers of the King's Inns

  200

  As one of the Law Agents of Charitable Donations

  500

  1,300

  HIS BHOTHERS-IN-LAW.
  The Reverend Oliver M'Causland, Rector of Tanlaghtfinlagan, County of Londonderry, with a house and glebe of 191 acres, and tithes amounting, as under the Composition Act, to

  1,000

  William M'Causland, as Law Agent to the Board of Charitable Donations

  1,500

  This put him in mind of the story in Gil Blas, of a man who became suddenly rich as soon as he was appointed a guardian of the interests of the poor. Here were no less than ten distinct Hannibals, who, independent of the emoluments received by Judge Bushe and his family, to whom, doubtless, would be consigned the care of the dungeon" in Ireland as soon as

  539
  Ministers obtained fresh powers—here were ten different Hannibals, all of whom were to go to the altar, and swear eternal hostility to that very measure for desiring to repeal which the hon. and learned Member was characterized as a traitor—who divided amongst themselves 22,233 l. of the public money. He thought he had exhibited to the House a pretty picture of apostacy; but there was something more in this matter than mere apostacy; persecution was sure to follow apostacy. Apostates were all persecutors. Men became apostates for the sake of plunder; and turned persecutors because they knew they could not keep their plunder unless they destroyed those with whom they had been accustomed to co-operate, and whose resentment they were fully aware they had excited by their perfidy. The nation was, he believed, in the hands of gorged apostates, who became ferocious in proportion to the peculations they enjoyed. It was the duty of every honest man to pray that the nation might speedily be delivered from them; and it would not be in the power of any one long to delay that deliverance. Affairs were in a condition vastly like this in the time of Charles 1st. To prove it he would read a paragraph from the History of the Long Parliament, by T. May, relative to the famous apostacy of Wentworth:—' The Lord Wentworth,' said May (' afterwards created Earle of Strafford for his service of that kind) was then labouring to oppresse Ireland, of which he was deputy; and to begin that worke in a conquered kingdome, which was intended to be afterward wrought by degrees in England: And, indeed, he had gone very farre and was very pros-' perous in those waies of tyranny, al-' though very much to the endamaging and setting-backe that newly-established kingdome.' Things were then and now in the hands of gorged apostates and recorded plunderers. Still, unless the people came to the aid of their faithful Representatives—unless they exerted themselves for the purpose of obtaining that relief which was absolutely necessary—no redress of their grievances would be obtained. The Reform of Parliament would turn out to be of no use. They might be told they had got Reform, and what more did they want? Reform was of no use unless this House did its duty; unless it looked to the complaints which were made to it; unless it resolved to put a stop to
  540
  the system of plundering which had so long prevailed in the country. "Ah! say you (continued the hon. Member), but they have got 100,000 soldiers in Ireland; but these 100,000 soldiers will not protect the paper money, on which an attack is threatened to be made. If, in May last, the run upon the banks had continued for forty-eight hours longer, they would have been completely knocked up. If the least insurrection takes place, away goes the paper money, as you would blow off the down of the dandelion." He had now laid before the House the address which he thought that it should return in answer to the King's Speech. He had given his opinion as to the gorged apostates now in power—he had given his opinion as to the manner in which the people were plundered by them, and how the money of the people was thrown away upon these aristocratical robbers, at the very time that the people were famishing. He should divide the House upon his Amendment, and the House might vote upon it as it pleased.
  Mr. John Fieldenseconded the Amendment. A great deal had been said, he observed, on the subject of increasing production and increasing consumption in the country; and, however anomalous it might appear, or, however strange, it was not more strange than true, that the distress among the labouring part of the community had gone on increasing with the increase of production and consumption. Since he had been elected in January last, as the Representative of the borough of Oldham, he had taken great pains to inform himself on the subject of the distresses of the people. He had caused a survey and examination to be made by respectable persons, who had personally visited the cottages of the poor, for the purpose of ascertaining their real condition. In the borough of Oldham, which he had the honour to represent, and where he did not expect to find so much distress, out of a population of 50,000, which the borough contained, there were upwards of 8,000, whose average income per head, for food and clothing, did not amount to 2½d. a-day each. Of these 8,000 and upwards, 1,100 were out of employment. He had obtained surveys of thirty other townships, and the Returns showed that, out of a population of 159,000, 41,000 and upwards, more than one-fourth of the whole population, had not more than 2d. a head

  541
  a-day, for food and clothing. In these distressed townships, these people were employed in the manufacture of silk, of woollen, and of cotton. Of the 159,000 and upwards, in these thirty townships, little more than 1,000 were out of employment; the rest were in full work. He and his partners were extensively engaged in the spinning and manufacturing of cotton; and, of his own knowledge, he could state that the Returns relative to those employed in that branch of manufactures were, in the main, correct, and substantially true. He could not vote for the Address, because he was afraid that, if coercive measures were conceded for putting down the people in Ireland, instead of redressing their grievances, the same additional power would be asked for to coerce the people of England, if their grievances were not immediately redressed. The expectations of the people had been raised, and they were looking to this Reformed House for relief from their burthens, and an alleviation of their sufferings; and, if disappointment should ensue, he trembled for what might follow. He implored the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make inquiry into the truth of these statements; nay, he challenged inquiry. He would hand over his books containing these Returns to the noble Lord, which would direct him to the cottages of every one of these families where the distress might be found. Considerable sums of money had been voted by former Parliaments for the purposes of making inquiry and investigation into matters of much less importance than this; and he trusted that an inquiry would be instiuted for the purpose of acertaining the real condition of the labouring classes. The Thursday before he came to town, he met Captain Wood, the unsuccessful candidate for Huddersfield, Mr. William Stocks, and another of that town, who informed him that, in 1829, Mr. Stocks had examined into the state of distress in that district, and that, at that period, out of 29,000, there were 13,000, who had not an average of 2½d. a-day for subsistence; and who assured him (Mr. Fielden) that now, in the division of Upper Aggbrigg, containing a population of 103,000, he believed that there' were 40,000 persons that had not more than twopence a-day each for subsistence. He had intended to go into further statements on the subject of this
  542
  distress; but, at this late hour, he would not occupy the time of the House, as opportunities would be afforded him hereafter of doing so. He should therefore sit down, after seconding the Amendment of his hon colleague.
  The Amendment having been put from the Chair,
  Mr. Wardsaid, that he would not have uttered a word upon this occasion had not the hon. member for Oldham said, that he would divide the House, if it were only to show the people of England who were their friends and who were their enemies. Now, he should vote against the Amendment; and yet he fancied himself to be quite as true a friend to the people of England as the hon. Member himself. It was not by vague declamations, that the sufferings of the people of England were to be relieved; it was not by the desultory efforts of individuals that their distresses were to be alleviated; but it was by combining the efforts of individuals, and by intrusting the direction of them all to an Administration entitled to confidence, that any beneficial result was to be attained. He was not acquainted with any member of the Administration; but if he were asked why he thought the Administration entitled to confidence, he would reply: "Because they have accomplished for us the work of Reform." He could not forget, though many Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten, that the Reform which they granted to us went far beyond the expectations of the country; and he was not prepared on that, the fifth day of the Session, to declare that the hopes of the people of England were defeated, in consequence of the machinery of the Reform Bill being found incompetent to direct the machinery of Government. He should vote for the Original Address; but he must avow a determination to support any measure which was likely to relieve the sufferings of the people of Ireland. He thought that the hon. and learned member for Dublin had entirely mistaken the sentiments of that House; he believed that whenever that hon. and learned Member brought forward any measure, applying a remedy to any specific grievance in Ireland, the British Parliament would gladly support him in carrying it into effect. But from the moment that hon. Gentlemen saw agitation systematically carried on—from the moment that they saw grounds for suspecting that

  543
  there was a mixture of private with public views—from the moment anything like a factious disposition assumed the garb of patriotism—from that moment, the hon. and learned Member must not reckon upon the support of any independent man in that House. Upon the redress of grievances the hon. and learned Member would find every independent English Member ready to co-operate with him; but as to the Repeal of the Union, the sense of the House was decidedly against him; indeed he never heard of any measure so self-destructive as this proposition, to divide the Imperial Legislature into two distinct and separate legislatures.
  Mr. Thomas Attwoodspoke to the following effect: No man can be more grateful than I am for the benefits which we have derived from the present Administration; but the events which took place before we carried the great objects for which we had long contended, ought to prove a warning never again to lead the people into similar circumstances. In my conscience, I believe that we are now proceeding in a course of error. We are met here as a Reformed Parliament for the first time in our history. Why did we reform the Parliament? For two reasons—first, to relieve the people from the insupportable distress under which they labour; secondly, to restore and confirm the liberties of the people. What then must have been my surprise on hearing the Speech from the Throne, that the first measure recommended to this House by his Majesty's Ministers, is a measure to restrain the liberty of the subject, and perhaps, establish arbitrary power in Ireland. I do not know what the words mean unless they mean a suspension of the Constitution. I believe that the honourable men who conduct the Government of the country, would be merciful, lenient and mild in the administration of tyrannic power; but I will never consent that my constituents, and, constitutionally speaking, I consider the Irish as my constituents, or at least that I am bound to legislate for them as such. I will never consent that any portion of the inhabitants of the British empire shall be delivered over to the despotic power of any set of men, however pure, benevolent, wise, or upright. Nothing but the very last necessity shall ever induce me to give my consent to such a measure. Another object of the Reform of the Parliament has
  544
  been altogether overlooked—the distress of the people—the long-suffering, miserable people. What will be the feeling of the people of England if this House agree to an Address which does not contain one word about their unbearable sufferings? Now, I have an Amendment which I wish to propose. It is very short. It is at once suaviter in modo, et fortiter in re. As it is so short an Amendment, I hope the noble Lord, who is so celebrated for his candour and true patriotism, will see reason to consent to it. I will read it at the proper time, but, in the interim, hope the House will excuse me if I make one or two remarks—I shall not trouble them with more—on the Speech from the Throne and the Address. There was one expression in that Speech which struck terror into my heart, and which I fear will strike terror and indignation into the hearts of the people of England. The expression to which I allude is that which calls upon us, by all practicable means, to promote habits of industry and good order amongst the labouring classes of the people of England. Why, have we not, on the Table of this House, or elsewhere, a Bill to prevent them from working themselves to death? Is not this an industrious, meritorious people—and is an insinuation to go forth, that this people want stimulants to industry? Are not thousands of men going from town to town, and place to place, begging for employment; and then, too, we are called upon to preserve good order among them. Have they not, I ask, already proved that they are orderly—with what good order have they not conducted themselves? I have seen 200,000 of them assemble together in times of great excitement, as peaceably as lambs, and I have seen them also return as peaceably as lambs, without committing any, the slightest insult or outrage to any man. Many of those men were earning only 3s. or 4s. a-week, as has been already stated by the hon. member for Oldham; many had, perhaps, walked twenty miles to attend that meeting, and afterwards went home as peaceably as lambs. And is good order to be recommended to these orderly, patient, long-suffering men? Such an expression is more than unnecessary, and I think it can do no good. I wish to say just one word upon another subject—I refer to unhappy Ireland. It is said that agitation does all the mischief in Ireland. I firmly believe that agitation has nothings

  545
  to do with it. It is extreme poverty and misery which has made agitation, and not agitation the misery and poverty. I deprecate the application of force. It is a wrong remedy, and will not have any other effect than that of exasperating the Irish nation. Poverty—stinging, grinding poverty—is the cause of the discontent that exists in Ireland; and the more poverty is coerced the more it will increase. Poverty has already made them madmen; by coercion you may make them devils. I deprecate, therefore, the application of unconstitutional power to coerce the unhappy, miserable people, who are marked out for its objects. Every man who listened to the speeches of the hon. member for Leeds, and the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, must feel, that both those hon. Members led the House considerably astray from the real question in discussion before it. The hon. member for Leeds has made a very eloquent harangue against the Repeal of the Union; but I do not understand that question to be now under the consideration of this House. The real question is this—Will the Representatives of the people intrust tyrannic power in the hands of the Government? I am no friend to the Repeal of the Union. I wish to try what a Reforming House of Commons will do to relieve the distresses and ameliorate the condition of Ireland. And I trust that this House will not be found wanting in the application of efficient remedies to those evils by which she is afflicted. In that case I am no friend to the Repeal of the Union; but if I find that this House wants either the power or the will to apply these remedies, then I shall declare myself a friend to Repeal. I hope, therefore, that you will regard the people of Ireland with a more indulgent eye, and at least show a wish to adopt a conciliatory course. The hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin complained that the Irish were guilty of horrible crimes. If he had endeavoured to prove to us that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would put down crime, then, indeed, he might have induced us to consider the subject. But I feel assured that neither the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, nor the sending over militia regiments—neither cannon balls, nor bayonets—will have any effect in putting down crime and outrage in Ireland. Guilt is the child of misery, and until misery is relieved, guilt will continue
  546
  to increase. I beg to remind the House of what took place at the dangerous period of 1776—I beg to remind you of what took place at that dangerous period when the complaints of America were brought before this House. America had one real grievance—Ireland has now a hundred. The strength of the Irish discontents is ten times greater than ever existed in America in 1776. The danger of outraging such a people is now very great, and I hope you will pause before you approve of coercion, and that you will shrink from exasperating a people whom the sufferings of many years have made to burn with fierce and indignant passion. The state of the English mind also is, in my opinion, not in a condition to justify extreme measures against Ireland; and if extreme measures be resorted to, not only will the people of England not support the Government, but I am not certain to what extent they may not carry their resistance. Let the House remember that the very elements of society are in a state of disunion—the hearts of the working men are dislocated in their bosoms; and it would be throwing a firebrand into a magazine of gunpowder to send a tyrannic commission into Ireland. I warn the noble Lord of the consequences of such a proceeding. I do it with great respect, and solely from a desire of preventing insurrection; and should the House consider it its duty to grant the required powers, I entreat his Majesty's Ministers on no account to use those powers, unless some terrible and overwhelming emergency should arise. The wishes of the people of England ought to be in some degree considered. I trust you will not go too far. Let me remind you of what took place in 1798. We were then told that the state of things required strong measures; but the measures which may be adapted to one state of society are often very ill suited to another. The state of society in Ireland—the state of society in England—and the state of society in Europe, was then very different to what it is now. Measures may be right at one time and not at another. What has since transpired on the Continent of Europe has given new lessons to the world. I call on you, as statesmen, to bear those lessons in remembrance. If, unhappily, you should be led to adopt coercive measures in Ireland, and the Irish people resist, remember they are no longer an

  547
  undisciplined mob. You cannot mow them down with your artillery as you did at Vinegar Hill. Upwards of 100 towns would be converted into fortresses in a few hours. You must now sacrifice armies to put down an insurrection in Ireland, though some years ago a few regiments would have sufficed. I shall not address you further on this subject; but it is my most earnest wish to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the too probable consequences of the course which his Majesty's Ministers seem determined to adopt. It has been said, that the Government must be feared before it can be loved. If Ministers hope for quiet in Ireland—if they wish for the love of the people of that country, they must first do away with misgovernment. Surely the way to command love is not by sending the destroying angel forth over that land. It has been said by Burke, that England never sent out the angel of peace, but the destroying angel was sent with her. In this instance his Majesty's Ministers are about to send forth the destroying angel—but no angel of peace is to accompany her footsteps. They open the Pandora's box and let out a flood of evils on unhappy Ireland, whilst even hope is not found behind. I recommend this to your most serious consideration. Remember, also, that Ireland is not capable of being reduced to a state of fear. Despair knows no fear; a nation goaded to madness by long suffering, laughs to scorn the bayonet and the cannon. Give them something to lose—something to make life desirable, and then it is possible to make them fear. Under present circumstances, then, I urge you rather to soothe than to exasperate such a nation. I have heard the Irish people accused of idleness and indifference to duties. No remark is more unjust. I have known these upright and valuable men walk hundreds of miles, and cross the sea, to labour hard in England. They exhibit enterprise, industry, and economy—a most remarkable combination of remarkable qualities. They save their earnings during the summer, in order to carry them back to their families. A nation thus enterprising, frugal, and industrious, ought never to be accused of any kind of idleness or unwillingness to work. It is the duty of this House to place labour in their hands. It should inquire into the cause that has for one hundred years past denied them the opportunity of labouring
  548
  in their own country—that has, as it were, broken their right hand, and deprived them of its use. It should be ascertained why it was, that whilst they had the power of obtaining by the labour of their hands, more of the comforts of life than they or their families could consume, they had no opportunity of using to advantage the powers and disposition which nature had bestowed upon them. One remark more—only one remark, on the foreign subjects of the Address. I wish that his Majesty's Ministers, instead of exhibiting their courage in Ireland, had turned their vengeance on the tyrant of Russia. Why have they not used one single word of commiseration towards unhappy, heroic Poland? I assure them, that if they do not think of it, the people of England will think of it. His Majesty's Ministers seem to forget that such a nation as Poland was ever heard of; but I trust this House will not; and I am sure the people of England will never consent that such a nation as Poland shall remain in its present miserable condition. I will trouble the House with one other point. His Majesty's Ministers appear to have found friendship where they expected hostility, and hostility where they expected friendship. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, has given them his support. I am not surprised at it—but I am surprised how they could imagine that he or any of his party would ever become their friends. He has fallen from his high and palmy state for neglecting the wrongs of the English people, and shutting his ears to their prayers for relief; and the object probably next his heart is to see those disgraced who have been the occasion of his fall—to see them identify themselves with those very principles which have led him to destruction. I am surprised that the Ministers have not acted on the principle of timeo Dawaos. Whatever measures that right hon. Baronet supported, ought at least to have excited their suspicion, and have made them pause, lest they should be acting contrary to their honour and their welfare. There is one other remark that I wish to make—only one. I wish his Majesty's Ministers would learn to distinguish their friends from their enemies. They know that the aristocracy are against them—that four-fifths of the gentry, the whole of the clergy, three-fourths of all the professions are opposed to them, and that their only real support is in the good opinion of the

  549
  people. To the honest and industrious people they should look for strength and popularity; and their conduct in disregarding the distresses of that people, and in acting in a manner far from consonant with their wishes, excites both my surprise and regret. If the noble Lord thinks it not inconsistent with his duty, I hope that he will consent to the adoption of a very short Amendment—an Amendment which will carry balm into the wounded hearts of thousands of the industrious people of England and Ireland, which will light up their bosoms with joyous hope, without compromising that justice which Ministers appear determined to uphold. I shall not vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. member for Oldham, but I feel that I cannot support this Address.
  Mr. Hume, amidst loud cries of "question! question!" divide! divide!" was understood to say, that however much he might regret and feel himself bound to oppose the system of coercion which his Majesty's Ministers seemed determined to pursue towards Ireland, yet that the House had already once divided on that question, and the Amendment before them was substantially the same. He hoped the present Amendment would not be pressed to a division, having already divided with his hon. friend the member for Lambeth, and he thought himself not called upon to support this Amendment as nothing had occurred in the course of the debate which in the slightest degree altered his opinion.
  The House divided on Mr. Cobbett's Amendment: Ayes 23; Noes 323—Majority 300.
  Mr. Thomas Attwoodproposed an Amendment—namely, in the last paragraph but three, to leave out from the words, by all practicable means," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert the words, "such improvements in the condition of the agricultural and manufacturing classes of the community as alone can permanently support the habits of industry and good order prevailing among them."
  The Speaker having put the question,
  Lord Althorpsaid, that the original words did not imply any tendency towards disorder or idleness in the labouring classes, not even though legislative remedies should prove ineffectual to remove their distress. He would, therefore, support them, as in reality less liable to be construed in an offensive sense to the people
  550
  than those proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Thomas Attwoodthen proposed, another Amendment, as follows:—That, in the third line of the last paragraph, after the word disappointed,' and before the words, and we shall be ready to adopt such measures of salutary precaution,' the following words be inserted: As soon as we shall have adopted the necessary measures for redressing the wrongs and relieving the distress of the Irish people, if such measures should prove ineffectual in putting down the disturbances in Ireland, and in giving peace and contentment to that unhappy country.'"
  Amendment negatived.
  Report on the Address agreed to.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Lord Teynhampresented a Petition from a parish in the county of Mayo, praying their Lordships to relieve them of the burthens which they laboured under with respect to tithes, and to consider how the property of the Church of Ireland might be converted into a purpose both useful and national. The noble Lord, in presenting the petition, observed it was one of very great importance. It was signed by upwards of 1,700 inhabitants of the parish, almost all of whom were tenants of the noble Marquess who was Lord lieutenant of the county it was got up without "agitation," or any means that could be deemed improper, and was couched in such feeling terms, that their Lordships could not refuse it their attention. They complained of the imposition of tithes for the benefit of men from whom they derived no advantage, and with whom they could have no concern. They were themselves without a place of worship; their only temple was the canopy of the skies; and all their light was derived from the windows of heaven. In conclusion, they prayed that the Church property in Ireland might be turned to some useful and national purpose. Extraordinary powers might be granted, and suspensions of the Constitution; but such acts never could—nothing but justice could—bring back the people to the ways of peace and obedience to the law. If a traveller visited Ireland, the first object that would strike him was the number of churches; but his first question would be, where are the congregations to enjoy all this spiritual comfort?" He would see one party lording it like conquerors over the property and lives of others, and it would soon become a fixed conviction of his mind, that until this imposition was removed, there would be no peace, no harmony for the country. He had always felt the greatest confidence in the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government, and he trusted that his expectations would not be defeated, and that a liberal measure would be brought

463
forward, as he was confident that the measure talked of for the commutation of tithes would be completely inefficient. It was morally impossible to carry it into effect. In conclusion he expressed his deep regret that a burthen which pressed so heavily on agriculture in England and Ireland was not removed.
Petition to lie on the Table.

DISTURBANCES IN MAYO.
Lord Teynhamfelt much regret that he was obliged, in compliance with his duty, to allude to his noble friend, the Marquess of Sligo, and question the propriety of his conduct. He meant to bring before the House, before his Majesty's Ministers, and before the great bar of the nation, from which, in the last resort, justice must be expected, a question of great importance—the power exercised of subjecting the barony of Gallen to the Peace-preservation Act. He had been requested by numerous inhabitants of that barony to lend his humble aid in procuring them redress. He had reduced the facts to writing, in order to avoid the possibility of being carried away, and giving offence to the noble Marquess. Their Lordships were aware that the Lords Justices of Ireland had placed under the Peace-preservation Act, Gallen, a barony in Mayo, of which county his noble friend was Lord-lieutenant. This step had been resorted to without any communication having been made to the resident Magistrates, without any demand on their part of such an interference, and without the sanction of the landed proprietors. The noble Marquess had merely given notice to the county Magistrates, that they ought to take the state of the barony into consideration. Accordingly, sixty Magistrates assembled at Castlebar on the twenty-second of last month, in a private house, and deliberated with closed doors—a custom which he hoped would not long continue a fashion in England or Ireland. These gentlemen were, of course, unacquainted with the localities of the barony of Gallen—they knew nothing about it, and were obliged to take such information as the noble Marquess supplied. That was the ground on which they formed their opinions. Now he was instructed to say, that many persons offered to give testimony on oath, and prove that there were no disturbances to warrant such a visitation, and especially on the eve of a contested election. The election was the real cause of the whole proceeding. Reform
464
in England was carried to get rid of nomination boroughs, and to deprive landed proprietors of the power of sending their nominees into Parliament. But the noble Marquess, as soon as he got to Ireland, said: Oh, the principles of Reform don't apply here; the county of Mayo is my Old Sarum; and any one coming here to take my power from me is an enemy, a disturber of the public peace—is, in fact, one of O'Connell's gang." Who was it that came forward to contest the representation of the county of Mayo? Sir William Brabazon, a gentleman of ancient family, of great influence and property in the county, a descendant of the man who secured Ireland for this country. Their Lordships might read in the Records of that House, that the Lord Treasurer Brabazon, in the time of Henry the 8th, came forward to settle the liberties of the country, by passing the Act of Supremacy and on the occasion now referred to Sir William Brabazon came forward to uphold the rights of Irishmen. But he would proceed no further in his eulogy of that gentleman, because his worthiness to be the representative of Mayo, and the anxiety of all classes in that county to be represented by him, were equally well known. He hoped, however, that the freedom of election would be soon as secure in Ireland as England. Who was the gentleman opposed to Sir William Brabazon? A person certainly of respectability, but of no property, without even votes, whose sole claim was, that he was the relative of the noble Marquess. At the election, acts were perpetrated of such a nature that it was astonishing Government could, after these deeds, expect that law would be obeyed in Ireland. Two men were murdered on Christmas-day for looking at the High Sheriff. Notwithstanding the laughter of some noble Lords, he must re-assert the accuracy of his statement. Another murder had been committed by the police without even the censure of a Magistrate; and in these cases the verdict returned was—"Justifiable homicide." The noble Earl now at the head of the Ministry stated, in the year 1799, in the House of Commons, as he found the words reported in Hansard's Parliamentary History. 'What I most heartily wish for said the noble Earl, is Union between the two countries. By Union, I mean something more than a mere word—a Union, not of Parliaments, but of hearts, affections, and interests—' a Union of vigour, of ardour, and zeal

465
for the general welfare of the British Empire. It is this species of Union, and this only, that can tend to increase the real strength of the empire, and give it security against any danger'*. Such were the words of the noble Earl; and more than thirty years had passed away since the Union had taken place—with what result, unfortunately, the present state of Ireland too painfully demonstrated. He (Lord Teynham) challenged any one to assert that hitherto it had not been a Union of power, of weakness, and oppression of every description. For nearly thirty years the great boon—emancipation—demanded by justice and religion, as well as the interest of the country, had been withheld. Reverting again to the immediate subject before the House, he could state, that he was assured by respectable persons in Gallen, that there had been no riots, nor one murder committed, to justify the infliction of the Peace-preservation Act. And why should this barony be put out of the King's peace more than Erris? Why had the proceedings been put under a bushel? Why had the noble Lord removed the quarter sessions from Tuam to Ballina, without a single reason being assigned for it? In that part of Ireland there was a large number of great fairs. Could it conduce to peace, to have policemen, with loaded arms, walking through the assembled multitudes? At the late election for Kent, the supporters of Sir William Cosway declared, that their champion would remove the Quarter Sessions from Canterbury to Ashford. But if a parallel for the slighter unconstitutional threat was to be found in an English election, there was none for the tremendous power placed in the hands of the Irish police. Was it credible that any persons could expect peace or order if such acts as had been detailed were permitted to pass with impunity? If the perpetrators of those homicides, as they were called in Ireland, had been brought to trial in England, they would certainly have been found guilty of murder. And were the Irish to be hunted down as out of the pale of humanity? The present subject deeply concerned the peace of Ireland, and the proceedings of that House were looked to with intense interest, as decisive proofs whether England was willing to render justice to Ireland. There would be no necessity for unconstitutional powers, if justice were done. It
*Vol. xxxiv. p.337.
466
was useless to attempt to conquer a people who gave their hearts to resistance. It was not his intention to indulge in praise of the gallant general who commanded the army in Ireland, or of the noble Lord who was at its head in this country but it was a strong fact, that the troops were withdrawn from Gallen about the time that it was put under the Peace-preservation Act. The noble Lord concluded by moving for "A copy of the proclamation of the Lords Justices of Ireland, declaring the barony of Gallen, in the county of Mayo, in a state of disturbance, and requiring an additional force under the Peace-preservation Act. Copy of the memorial of the Magistrates, Catholic clergy, and freeholders of the barony, to the Lords Justices thereon. Copy of a memorial thereon, from Sir William Brabazon, bart., and T. D. Ellard, esq., a Magistrate of the county, presented January 26, 1833. A list of the chief constables of the county of Mayo, serving on the 1st of July, 1832; noticing those who have been since dismissed, their names and occupations, and the parish and barony of the persons nominated in their stead. A return of the number of committals by the Magistrates of the barony of Gallen, and of the convictions at the petty sessions holden at Swinford and Fozford, in that barony, during the years 1830, 1831, and 1832. And also, the number of persons now in confinement, or under trial, for offences committed in that barony, and the nature of such offences, since the 1st of July, 1832."
The Question was put.
The Marquess of Sligosaid, it was impossible for him to know whether or not his Majesty's Government would consent to the production of the papers required by the noble Lord; as far as his own feelings were concerned, he had not the slightest objection to their production, but the contrary. He must, however, claim their Lord-ships' attention for a few moments, whilst he rebutted the attack made on him by the noble Lord. If the Lord Chancellor of Ireland were present, or if the Secretary for Ireland had a seat in that House, they could inform their Lordships that the barony of Gallen had been a cause of great uneasiness to him as Lord lieutenant of the County of Mayo during the last two years. It contained a very small number of local Magistrates, and the difficulty of things was enhanced by persons whose station entitled them to act as Magistrates refusing the office. Notwithstanding, till a recent period Gallen did not constitute a

467
decided exception to the general peaceable condition of the county. His character having been impugned by the noble Lord who dealt in direct impeachments—not insinuations—against his honour and motives, and had brought distinct charges, the House would allow him to show that the barony of Gallen was in such a state of disturbance as to demand the application of the Peace-preservation Act, and their Lordships would also bear with him whilst he explained the causes of so lamentable a condition of things. At the same time, it was due to himself to say that, expecting no accusation of this nature, he did not bring over a single document on the subject; but from his recollection of the number of outrages that had occurred, he would mention some, although aware that he must omit many. On the 1st of September, a contest took place concerning the possession of a house at Derryhath between brothers named M' Loughlin, and the matter created such a degree of animosity and excitement that the police and military had to take possession of the House in dispute to prevent bloodshed. Shortly afterwards the haggard of a gentleman, whose son had been the agent of one of the disputants, was destroyed by fire. Subsequently to this event Mr. Burton, one of the most extensive tithe-owners in the neighbourhood, came to inform him that he could not obtain a single shilling of his tithes, and he sent his two proctors to confirm the statement on oath. Meantime the violence and disturbances had excited the attention of the Inspectors-general of Police, and thirty policemen and a sub-Inspector were sent to assist in the collection of tithes. Shortly afterwards a letter came from the Inspector, stating that 1,200 persons had marched into the town and to the chapel in regular military array, and that at the chapel they were addressed by the hon. baronet mentioned by the noble Lord. The hon. baronet, on being questioned on the subject, stated to him (the Marquess of Sligo) that the numbers of the people had been greatly exaggerated, and that all they wanted was to hear his opinion about tithes, having heard which they went away. But he had been told in other quarters, that the hon. Baronet addressed the people from the pulpit of the chapel, and asked them to withdraw, under apparent feelings of alarm. The Inspector of Police informed him that it was impossible to do anything in the collection of tithes. He had sent to the Magistrates, requesting them to evince
468
more activity in their exertions with regard to tithes, but apprehending that they would not comply with the suggestion, he applied to Government, and Mr. Jones, an English gentleman, was sent down as a stipendiary Magistrate. After Mr. Jones had been in the county a few days, he found that the force at his disposal was insufficient, and he wrote to him (the Marquess of Sligo), stating, that it was as much as all their lives were worth to remain. Under these circumstances, application was made to Lieutenant-Colonel Hare, commanding the 27th Regiment, who with his usual promptitude sent another company to the assistance of Mr. Jones. Forty police, and 110 or 120 military, went out, not to seize, but to view tithes, and experienced such resistance, that, in order to save their own lives, they were compelled to fire on the people. No notice was taken of this occurrence in the repeal newspapers. Did not the facts to which he had alluded afford a sufficient explanation and proof of the necessity of proclaiming that district? A memorial had been sent to the Home Secretary (thus passing over the Irish Government) against the proclamation of the barony of Gallen. Was that the proper course? He wrote to four resident Magistrates, blaming them for not coming forward or affording the slightest assistance on the occasion; and he had received a species of round-robin communication from three of them absolutely refusing to act at all in tithe cases. Immediately after the events narrated Mr. Jones left Gallen, and the troops went to their quarters. He had, afterwards, received a letter from the chief constable of police, stating that numerous parties, amounting to from 300 to 400, were going about by night, swearing in men, and that the police were obliged to hide themselves. The election then came on; he would not discuss it; but he would state that there were 260 police and three troops of the 10th Hussars in the town, and that so great was the excitement they were unable to keep the peace. This was the period when, according to the noble Lord, two men "were killed for looking at the Sheriff." What was the fact? The people attacked the Sheriff because he voted for the opposite party; they attacked that party and its voters. He had had a letter from the chief constable, stating the outrages that were committed—the burning of a store of turf—the levelling of three houses belonging to Mr. George Moore. Further, as a person named Clark was returning from Ballina,

469
he was taken off his horse and cruelly beaten; but this was not sufficient—the barbarians who assailed him literally impaled the horse, driving a stake through his breast. This occurred in the tranquil barony of Gallen. A party of revenue police went out in performance of their duty; they were pursued by a body of several hundred people, and, doubtless, would have been sacrificed had not Mr. Moore (a gentleman already mentioned) taken, them over a river in his boat. A few days afterwards a mounted policeman had a fall from his horse, and in the fall his pistol went off and wounded him; he called out to some men who were near the spot for assistance; they came, and seeing him unable to defend himself, began to pelt him with stones. The man, who possessed great courage and coolness, managed to get on his horse, and fire four or five shots at his assailants, after which he got off. A collector of rents was warned off, and told to bring his coffin with him next time: he took shelter in the police barracks, and was privately conveyed out of the reach of the people. What was the fact? That people would rather go twelve miles round than pass through this peaceable barony. About this time he learned from a Magistrate that the daughter of a shopkeeper of Smithford had been carried off in the noon day, and not a creature ventured to interfere for the poor girl's protection. He had a letter from a Magistrate, stating that bands of men, with white handkerchiefs round their hats, and hay-bands about their waists, were going about swearing the people to pay neither tithes, taxes, nor rents, and beating all who objected. A policeman had seen a dozen anvils in the road which had been taken from the smiths' forges, and the owners were not allowed to take them away till they had sworn an oath not to shoe the horses of any persons who had voted against Sir W. Brabazon. In consequence of these circumstances, he considered it his duty to apply to the Government for additional assistance to put an end to such a state of things, but the reply being that no more force could be spared, the next thing was to call a meeting of Magistrates to consider the state of the barony. The meeting was advertised for a considerable time, and it was therefore competent for all who felt an interest in the matter, either one way or the other, to attend. Of all the Magistrates present, only one gentleman opposed the proclaiming of the district. It was only
470
fair to say, that two other Magistrates belonging to the barony did not come into the room; one of them had signed the round-robin he had already mentioned; but some time after, when the matter had been determined on, these two Magistrates came in; all they begged for was the delay of a week, to see whether the people would not return to their allegiance, thus making an implied admission of the reality of the disturbance. The vote for proclaiming the barony had been carried at once. There were two Lords-lieutenant of counties, eleven Deputy-lieutenants, and forty other Magistrates present. The noble Marquess proceeded to read letters from various individuals resident in the county, expressive of approbation of the barony being proclaimed. A Magistrate wrote, stating that "he was happy to know that Gallen had been put under the Peace-preservation Act," adding: Thank God, we shall now have a chance for our lives." A Catholic gentleman spoke of agitators from Gallen going through other baronies, and preaching up exclusive dealing," and of persons being waylaid and beaten in open day." The noble Lord was mistaken in saying, that he (the Marquess of Sligo) had put the barony under the Peace-preservation Ac—he was only one of sixty Magistrates who had determined on the measure. He knew nothing as to the removal of the Quarter Sessions; he had never heard of the circumstance before that night.
Lord Teynham: It appears on the papers moved for.
The Marquess of Sligo: Then it is my fault that I was not aware of it. Had the noble Lord read the evidence taken at the inquests of which he spoke?
Lord Teynhamsaid he had.
The Marquess of Sligoregretted (hat having done so, the noble Lord came to a different conclusion from the Juries, their verdict being, in every case, justifiable homicide. He would then refer to the papers for which the noble Lord had moved. The noble Lord's first application was for a copy of the Lords Justices proclamation, declaring Gallen to be in a state of disturbance—he believed the noble Lord had the proclamation in his hands; however, he might wish to obtain it in an authoritative form, and there could be no objection to that. The next thing the noble Lord asked for was, a copy of the memorial of certain Magistrates to the Lords Justices upon their proclamation.

471
Now this was the address of the three recusant Magistrates who had sent him the round robin, and of one other, and perhaps their Lordships would not attach much importance to that document. The third paper recalled him to the subject; and he might observe that Mayo had providentially been one of the quietest counties in Ireland for a long period. There had been nothing like disturbance, if he excepted a short period in 1829, when the Magistrates rallied against the disturbers, and beat them out of the county, without an appeal to the Peace-preservation Act, although Galway, Sligo, and Roscommon were proclaimed. As a proof of the comparative tranquillity of these counties, he would mention, that Roscommon had a force of 650 police, and 258,000 inhabitants—being one policeman to every 390 inhabitants; in Galway the number of police was 825 to 380,000 inhabitants—being one to every 460; and in Mayo, there were 198 policemen to 367,000 inhabitants—being about one to every 1,900. The comparative smallness of the force showed the ease with which peace had been preserved in Mayo. No disturbance in fact took place there till the intimidation for election purposes began. The hon. Baronet whom the noble Lord had alluded to (Sir William Brabazon) started for the county on the repeal principle; the people became excited, and the face of things was then completely altered. Their Lordships had heard before now of such a thing as a black list, but in this case, at the bottom of one of the hon. Baronet's placards, notice was given that after the election the names of those who voted "against their country "should be printed "in red," for what view and with what object he left it to their Lordships to determine. On the 10th of November an address was voted at a meeting (Sir William Brabazon in the chair), suggesting the plan of exclusive dealing, urging an extinction of tithes, and a Repeal of the Union between England and Ireland. In this address the fair sex was brought into efficient play, and "mothers, wives, and daughters, married and unmarried," ware entreated to exercise their great and uncontested influence in behalf of repeal, and exclusive dealing, as a means of accomplishing that end. Lists were promised "at the close of the election," of the free-holders and their mode of voting. Perhaps
472
it was excusable to resort to such expedients, (most certainly, however, he should not have adopted them) during the excitement of an election contest, but to persist in that line of policy after the question of the election had been decided, and at a time when no immediate purpose was to be gained by it, would be held less deserving of pardon. However, the address was published again on the 9th of January, with the promised list of freeholders and their mode of voting. Not content with that, instructions were given, apparently with the authority of J. D. Ellard, the chairman, who had also signed the memorial moved for, as to the office and duty of "parochial constables," who were directed to call the attention of the people to the scheme of exclusive dealing. This, he contended, was extending election excitement beyond its just limits, and protracting it at a time when no election purpose could be gained by it; it was culpable for this reason, that it continued the excitement unnecessarily, and held up those who had voted according to the dictates of their conscience as marks for contumely and injury. The object of the noble Baron in moving for a return of the sixty Magistrates who acted at the petty sessions of Castlebar might be supposed by their Lordships to mean nothing; but it was with a view to show that they had been got together by him (the Marquess of Sligo), and that their decision had been influenced by the partial information which he had laid before them. With reference to the remarks which had fallen from the noble Baron as regarded the quarter sessions, and with reference to the return moved for of the number of committals at the sessions, he must say, that he could not have the least objection to that return; but if unattended by explanations, it would certainly give an appearance of less crime than actually existed. Nothing was better known in Ireland than that a small number of assaults showed that the country was in a state of disturbance; for that was a proof that the different parties had put aside their private feuds, and were united for one common object. All the evidence too in these cases was on one side. The intimidation that was exercised prevented the people from appearing at the courts to prosecute, and then those who intimidated them objected to them that they did not come forward. As to the

473
appointment of the coroner, with regard to which the noble Baron had withdrawn his Motion, he begged to observe that the Gentleman who now discharged the duties of that important office was a man of most respectable character, of good sense, and of sound understanding. He knew no man who bore a higher character, and he fell confident that any inquiry which might be instituted into the conduct of that individual would lead to results highly creditable and honourable to himself. He hoped he had left no point alluded to by the noble Baron unnoticed; he, however, begged to ask the noble Baron, on what grounds it was that the noble Baron presented himself as the champion of liberal principles? He was anxious to know what claim he had to that title, and to inquire how far he had proved himself the friend of the people? What obligations did Ireland owe to the noble Lord more than to him, and could the noble Lord produce any flattering testimonial of having contributed to her happiness, and to relieve her distresses such as he possessed? He was unwillingly forced to speak of himself before their Lordships. There was no insult which he had been spared—there was no obloquy which had not been heaped upon him for having done his duty; but he had never been provoked to utter one word of retort, or in his own defence, till he had been assailed before their Lordships. It had been said by an eminent character in the other House, that if the people were not protected, it could not be expected that they would be obedient, and, therefore it was, that he thought it his duty, above all things, to protect the peaceable people. In conclusion, the noble Marquess thanked their Lordships for the attention with which they had heard him.
Lord Templemorefelt it due to the noble Marquess who had just sat down to state, that such were the reports as to the situation of the Barony of Gallen forwarded to the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, that that gallant officer had felt himself called upon to direct him (Lord Templemore) to order a troop of the 10th regiment to proceed by forced marches from Longford to Mayo. It was also due to the noble Marquess to state, that in his (Lord Templemore's) opinion) judging from the extensive correspondence which had taken place with reference
474
to this subject, and from other circumstances, the measure adopted by the noble Marquess for the preservation of the peace and tranquillity of the least disturbed county in Ireland, had been highly commendable. He must bear testimony to the forbearance which the noble Marquess had shown, to the anxiety he had evinced, to save the county of Mayo from the burthen of an additional police force, and also to the accuracy of the statement which had just been made by the noble Marquess to their Lordships.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that notwithstanding the grounds on which the noble Baron had based his motion, he (Viscount Melbourne) should offer no opposition to the production of the documents for which the noble Baron had moved; but it was impossible for him, in agreeing to the production, not to guard himself against its being supposed that he gave the slightest countenance to the statements and assertions made by the noble Baron. It was natural, nay, unavoidable, that his noble friend behind him (the Marquess of Sligo), attacked and condemned as he had been, should have gone at length into the statement which their Lordships had just now heard; and the clear and distinct manner in which the noble Marquess had made that statement, and vindicated himself from the charge which had been brought against him, had not only attracted the attention of their Lordships, but convinced them that his conduct needed no other justification. He felt satisfied that their Lordships, bearing in mind the Speech from the Throne, would not consider it proper that he should now enter into the discussion of the question as to the state of Ireland, as it must so shortly be brought before them in a different form. He might, however, be allowed to bear his testimony as to the admirable conduct of the noble Marquess, and also to state that, from the information he possessed, and from the correspondence which had ensued between the noble Marquess and the Home-Office he felt certain that the noble Marquess had discharged his important duties not only with zeal, diligence, and activity, but with a feeling of tenderness and regard to the interests of the people, and without having recourse to any unnecessary measure of harshness or severity.
The Marquess of Clanricardehad heard several of the observations of the noble

475
Baron with much regret. For himself he must say, that he had never seen a policeman walking through the county, without regretting that such a force existed; but he had never heard any reasonable man say, that the police force had not behaved well, and that it was not necessary for the protection of life and property in Ireland. He could safely and satisfactorily state, that the conduct of that force had been most exemplary. It was not to be denied that human nature might, by the force of events, be sometimes rash, but, on the whole, the conduct of the Irish police force had been most correct. If the noble Baron had read the evidence which had been adduced upon the inquiries following the event to which he had alluded, instead of relying upon his instructions (as the noble Baron had been pleased to call them, which, by the bye, was a new word introduced into their Lordships' debates), of those whose feelings he represented, he would have found that the man who fell had actually thrown two stones before the shot was fired which proved fatal to him, and was actually stooping to pick up another stone, when he was killed. Connected as he was with the noble Marquess, he did not feel it necessary to make any remarks upon the great services of that noble individual during the period at which the Ribandmen disturbed the country. The exertions of the noble Marquess were well known on that occasion, and he thought that the noble Baron ought to have been provided with better information and a few more proofs before he had brought forward the Motion which he had made. True it was, that the hon. Baronet to whom allusion had been made (Sir William Brabazon) had been a Magistrate for the county of Mayo, and the best proof of the manner in which he had discharged the duties of that appointment was his removal from that station. The charges laid before their Lordships were only supported by two Magistrates, and one of them had been guilty of a dereliction of his duty. It was no wonder that the people of Ireland looked with such distrust upon those who were placed in authority over them, when influential persons, who ought to know better, took so much pains to convince them that those authorities were guilty of such gross partiality and ill-conduct as they had been charged with.
Lord Teynhamthought he was justified
476
by circumstances in bringing the subject before their Lordships; and though he had been met by taunts, he had only discharged his duty. He felt satisfied that if the documents for which he had moved were laid upon the Table, their Lordships would feel that investigation was necessary. He could almost rely on one document alone—namely, the memorial which had been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, bearing the signatures of a numerous body of most respectable persons, and which was itself a proof that the barony of Gallen was not in such a state as had been asserted. He had no intention in bringing the subject forward to hurt the feelings of the noble Marquess, but he had only discharged his duty, and he felt satisfied, that by the information which these documents would afford, their Lordships would be of opinion that investigation was called for.
Viscount Lortonhad no doubt that the noble Marquess, the Lord-lieutenant for the county of Mayo, had discharged his duty in a most efficient and exemplary manner, and he also conceived that the noble Baron (Lord Teynham) had been erroneous in his statement with regard to the police force of Ireland, whose conduct, he could say, had been generally most exemplary and correct.
Motion agreed to.