Sitting of 18 March 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BYNG, from St. Luke's Chelsea, for the Abolition of the House and Window Tax; from St. James's, Westminster; St. Michael's, Highgate; from Hornsey, Ealing, and other Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath: and to the same effect, by Mr. EDWARD BULLER, from Tutbury and Howden; by Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from Fakenham and Watton; by Mr. STRUTT, from Derby; by Mr. HODGSON, from certain Teachers of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; by Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, from Dollar, Dunfermline, the Shoemakers of London, and from the Presbytery of Haddington, and other Places; by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Bartholomew-the-Great; by Mr. J. B. CARTER, from Bedford; and by Mr. BETHKLI., from Draypool and Howden.—By Mr. E. BELLEK, from Tutbury; and by Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from Gratwich,—against the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR, from several Places in Cork,—against the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill, for the Abolition of Tithes, and for the Abolition of Tolls at Markets and Fairs; from Rossmore, for the Revision of the Grand Jury Laws; and from Kilgalan, for the Repeal of the Union.—By Colonel BUTLER, from Powerstown,—against the Coercive Bill; and from Callan, and Lisdownes, for the Repeal of the Union, and the Abolition of Tithes,—By Mr. SULLIVAN, from St. John's, Kilkenny, and other Places; and by Mr. MARSHALL, from the Political Union, Leeds,—against the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. MARK PHILIPS, from Manchester, for Liberating Robert Taylor, against the Monopoly of the King's Printer, and in favour of the Factories Bill.—By Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from Portsmouth, for the Repeal of the Duties on Soap, and for the Repeal of the Disabilities on the Jews.—By Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTONE, from the Inhabitants of Kirk newtown and Cupar, against Church Patronage (Scotland).—By Mr. MARSHALI, from Leeds, for the Removal of the Restrictions on the Trade with the Brazils.—By Mr. FIELDEN, from Oldham, for the Abolition of Slavery; and from Todmorden, for the Abolition of Tithes and the Corn Laws.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Mr. Byng having presented a petition from the Baptists of South Street Chapel for the immediate Abolition of Slavery,
Mr. Fowell Buxtonwished to know, whether, in consequence of the understanding that had taken place the other day, he was now to bring up all his petitions on the subject of slavery, as he had a great number.
Sir Andrew Agnewobserved, that the first petition which had been presented by the hon. Member was for the observance of the Sabbath. He submitted to the House, whether, under the understanding alluded to, all petitions on that subject ought not to be presented first?
The Speakerconsidered that the course pursued by the hon. member for Middlesex was extremely fair. For his own part, he was not aware of the understanding alluded to by the hon. Member, for presenting no petitions but those which related to the observance of the Sabbath.
Sir Andrew Agnewcertainly understood that when the first petition on any subject was presented, every hon Member who had similar petitions was to lay them on the Table of the House.
The Speakerobserved, that, unfortunately for the statements of the hon. Baronet, the first petition presented by the hon. member for Middlesex was not for the observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. Wilksconsidered it would be utterly impossible for the House to comply with the request of the hon. Baronet to receive exclusively petitions of one particular description. He had twenty or thirty petitions on different subjects to present, and if the course suggested by the hon. Baronet were to be adopted, he should be under the necessity of attending day after day, perhaps for months, before he should be enabled to present all his petitions. He thought the House could not do better than to take its old course of receiving: petitions on all subjects.
Mr. Hodgsonconcurred entirely with the statements that had been made by the hon. member for Boston, though be had certainly understood that the arrangement mentioned by the hon. Baronet was to take effect.
Mr. Lambsaid, that whatever course the House thought proper to pursue would meet with his approbation. He must, however, frankly state, that he left the House the other day with impressions very different from those of the hon. Baronet opposite. He certainly did not consider that any understanding had been come to on the presentation of a series of petitions on a particular subject; but even if such an understanding had been come to, he begged to remind the hon. Baronet that the petition which was first presented by the hon. member for Middlesex related to the Assessed Taxes. He thought the House could not do better than follow the old course of receiving petitions upon different subjects.
The Speakertrusted that hon. Members would not occupy the whole of the morning upon a discussion which could end in nothing. He certainly was not aware of

725
the understanding alluded to by the hon. Baronet. All that he understood was, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), upon a question being put, stated that he had no objection to any course being pursued which was acceptable to the House; but the discussion of the question at the present moment would only be attended with waste of time.
The subject was dropped.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS—PETITION.
Mr. Mark Phillipspresented a Petition from the Jews residing in and near Manchester for the removal of the disabilities under which they laboured, and praying that they might be enabled to enjoy the same rights and privileges as their Christian fellow-subjects. Also one from the inhabitants of Manchester, very numerously signed, to the same effect.
Colonel Williamshad been requested to support the prayer of these petitions, which he did most cordially; he hoped the question would be soon brought before the House, and finally disposed of in the liberal manner which was now expected by the country.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he could not sit and hear any hon. Member state that the Jews had a right to the privileges that were now demanded for them, without asking the House whether it was prepared to do away with the law of the land as laid down by the greatest authorities—whether, in fact, it was prepared to pass a law that would abolish Christianity in England? It was stated that the Jews were peaceable men, but it was well known that that peacefulness of conduct was assumed for a particular motive, to which he would not further allude at that time. He called upon hon. Members not to be led away by this cry of liberality, nor to allow those who daily blasphemed Christ to have all the privileges which had been secured to Christians in this Christian country.

DUTIES ON SOAP.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a Petition from the Dealers of Soap in the neighbourhood of London, signed by upwards of 600 persons complaining of the interruption to their trade by the heavy duties which were placed upon that article, and which rendered it impossible for them to compete with the foreigner in that article. The duty on the soap made use of by the lower
726
and middle classes was 120 per cent., while that consumed by the rich did not pay more than fifty per cent. He therefore hoped it would be repealed.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, the hon. Alderman had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to repeal this tax. Whether that noble Lord would do so he did not know, but this he knew, that the House was able to prevent him having this tax any longer, and to his mind the way to teach the noble Lord how to do without the tax, was not to let him have it. Here was another instance, added to the many he had brought forward the other day, where the poor were taxed in a much greater degree than the rich. Even in the common article of soap, which might be made for twopence-halfpenny a-pound, the poor were made to pay seven-pence or eightpence for it. The poor were made to pay 120 per cent., while the rich only paid fifty. Another article he would mention was paper; why the commonest paper in which the people wrapped their tobacco or sold their sugar paid a duty per lb. equal to the finest gold-edged paper. He should like to know the motive for all this. The noble Lord had ascribed to him on a previous occasion bad motives. For his part he judged of motives by acts; and who could doubt that the partial tax on soap was for the purpose of oppressing the poor, and relieving the rich?
Mr. Lambstated, that Lord Althorp was at present engaged in a most important Committee, which was the reason why his noble friend was not in the House. In the mean time, however, if it was agreeable to the hon. Member to make short speeches, he hoped the House would not take the assertions for granted, until the person who was most competent had an opportunity of answering them.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it was quite clear, when soap was charged with a duty of 28 s. per cwt., that the poorer classes, who used the common soap, paid much more duty than the higher classes, who used a more expensive soap. The duty should be repealed altogether or so altered as to make it an ad valorem duty.
Petition laid on the Table.

ABSENTEES—TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a Petition from certain persons in the Borough of Southwark, against the Irish Coercive Bill. He

727
begged to state, that on a former occasion, in giving his opinion on that subject, he had been misunderstood, in reference to a Company belonging to the city of London which had land in Ireland. He did not allude to the Merchant Tailors' Company, which had no land in its own possession in Ireland, but to the Fishmongers' Company, to which he himself belonged. That Company had only had their land ten years, during which time they had laid out 70,000 l. upon it. The people who lived on it were comfortable and happy, and the only complaint they had to make was against the tithe system.
Colonel Butlerpresented a Petition from Kilkenny, against the present Tithe system. The petitioners were of opinion, that if the Government took the Church property into its own hands, it would be possible to exonerate the people from payment of tithes he agreed with them in opinion, and in order to convince the House of the real value of Church property, he would read the particulars of a document which he had carefully gone over. In a parish of the diocese of Ossory, in the county of Kilkenny, not far from where he resided, there was a portion of land, amounting to 407 acres, two roods, and thirty perches, belonging to the Bishop, for which the occupying and ostensible tenants paid a rent of 658 l. 5s. 0¼d., being an average of about 32 s. an acre. The Bishop of the diocese received from this land, of which he was the head landlord, a rent of only 2s. 6d. per acre, and 1s. 3d. by way of renewal fine, making together 3s. 9d. per acre, or one-eighth, as near as might be of the actual rent paid for the land. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) when he had spoken about the Bishops not getting above one sixth of the actual value of the land, instead of saying he would take means to enable them to get their full value, and thus support the clergy entirely out of the Church lands, and remit tithes, talked of the vested rights of the tenants and proposed to allow them to perpetuate those rights on the payment of six-years-and-a-half purchase of the rent, they paid a proposition which he must call perpetuating the plunder of the Church. The noble Lord seemed to think that these tenants had a right to take advantage of the situation in which they stood with respect to the Bishops, but he contended that they had no more right to do so, than the peasant who wished to perpetuate his
728
lease under the Rockite system. He had also a Petition to present from Lisdowny against the tithes and praying for a Repeal of the Union.
Mr. Finndid not want the hon. Alderman behind him to apprise him that a wealthy company having land in Derry was on good terms with its tenantry. It received 84,000 l. in rent, and in the course of the year, had expended 70,000 l. in improvements, and received of course the blessings which were bestowed on landowners residing on their own property. But Ireland, in general, could not in any way be compared to that condition of things. He knew of a nobleman who was in the receipt of about 20,000 l. a-year from Ireland, and 20,000 l. from England, and he ventured to assert, that that nobleman did not expend 200 l. a year in Ireland. Was it to be wondered at, then, that there should be discontent among the poor tenantry of Ireland? Five millions of money were sent from Ireland to this country every year, and nothing could have been more injurious to Ireland than the system of absenteeism which had so long prevailed. The gentry withdrew from their country—their moral influence was also withdrawn—the employment which a residence there would give to the poor was likewise withdrawn, and everything contributed to distress the already afflicted people of Ireland. In the other House of Parliament it had been stated, as a ground for the necessity of the coercive measure, that Juries in Ireland could not be found to do their duty. One of the petitions presented from Kilkenny had falsified the statement in the most decisive manner, because it stated, that no less than seventy convictions had taken place in Kilkenny itself. He would venture to assert, that instead of no convictions taking place, in the present state of the minds of Jurors, persons would be too easily convicted. He recollected a case in which, by his own exertions, he had saved an innocent person from punishment, after that person had been convicted, because he had felt satisfied in his own mind that that person was innocent, and he was able afterwards to prove to the satisfaction of the Government, that the verdict was wrong. There were also the circumstances concerning the murder of the Mara's, and the execution of the six men who were supposed to have committed the murder, a circumstance which was not to be forgotten. It was shown to demon-

729
stration that no less than five of those individuals who had had been executed, were perfectly innocent of the crime imputed to them. The five real murderers were subsequently discovered, but could not be convicted for want of sufficient evidence, it was true that English and Scotch gentlemen did not know how justice was administered in Ireland. It was true that its administration had been a mockery, but not a mockery in the sense in which Ministers had described it. In Ireland the Administration of justice was a mockery, because the poor were not able to defend themselves, and were compelled to submit to the vexations of the rich and influential.
Petition laid on the Table.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. Marshallpresented a petition from Leeds, signed by 18,800 persons, praying for the Abolition of Slavery. He considered the present petition was a proof that the interest that had been taken by the people of Yorkshire in the abolition of slavery had not in the least diminished.
Lord Morpeth, in rising to support the prayer of the petition, observed, that it might be considered obtrusive on the part of Members for counties to come forward to support the prayer of a petition from boroughs in that county; but he considered that if, at any time, the Member for a county was justified in coming forward for this purpose, it was on the presentation of a petition from the most important town in the West Riding of Yorkshire—a community that had been more prominent in their opposition to negro slavery than any other part of the British empire.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that how far members for counties might be justified in supporting the prayer of petitions coming from the boroughs in the county they represented was, in his opinion, a question that had much better not be discussed, for every Member had a right do on that point as he liked. With respect to the matter of the petition, his constituents wished as much as any set of men could do that negro slavery should be abolished, but they had expressed their desire, and he thought it was reasonable before that abolition took place, to know whether the Negroes were fed worse or clothed worse than his constituents were. His (Mr. Cobbett's) opinion was, and he knew something of the matter, that they were
730
both fed and clothed a great deal better than the working people in England, Ireland, and Scotland. He should like that some Member, when the Bill should be brought before the House, should submit some statement which would show the comparative modes of treatment in the two cases. He was aware of the zeal of many Members, and that some bad cases had been produced merely to suit their particular views. He was confident that many Members had been much misled on the subject. For his own part, he had told his constituents that he would vote for the Bill, merely to please them; but if the House went into an examination of the mode of treating negroes in the West Indies, and the mode of treating the poor people of England, Ireland, and Scotland, he was sure that it would be found that the letter were by far the worse off.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonesaid, he was in the Committee appointed last year, and he was of an entirely different opinion from the hon. Member.
Petition laid on the Table.

BOROUGH OF HERTFORD.
Mr. Bernalthe Chairman of the Hertford Election Committee, stated that he had given notice of his intention of moving that the special Report of the Hertford Committee desiring that a Message might be sent to the House of Lords, to request their Lordships' leave for the attendance of the Marquess of Salisbury, and the production of certain of his leases of property in the borough, be taken into consideration that night. He had now to inform the House that the further consideration of this subject was rendered unnecessary, in consequence of a letter addressed to him that day by the Marquess of Salisbury, and which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The letter was dated "The House of Lords," and was to the following purport. "Sir—Understanding that it will suit the convenience of the Committee to see the agreements entered into with some of my cottage tenants, and as some difficulty may arise in the way of obtaining them by motion in the House of Commons, I beg to enclose one, which I have in town, for the information of the Committee. They are all of a similar form, and I shall have no objection to submit to your inspection those specified in the votes of the House of Commons. But some delay will

731
necessarily occur before this can be done, as they are at present in the country." Mr. Bernal said, he was sure that the House, after hearing that letter, would be of opinion that it was unnecessary for him to proceed with the Motion; and he should therefore propose that it be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCESS (IRELAND)—COMMITTEE.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day, for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. Cobbettrose, and said, that as he had not had an opportunity during the debate on the Bill to express his sentiments on it, he should take advantage of the present opportunity. He was sorry to think that the Bill had been engendered in the heart of an Englishman, and brought into that House by the hands of an Englishman, but he should deem himself unworthy of existence if he did not stand up and declare the horror he felt at the introduction of such a measure. He had been lately looking into—though, indeed, it was not necessary for him to look into—for he well remembered the deeds of Pitt, and Sidmouth, and Perceval, and Castlereagh, but the present measure had an infamous pre-eminence over all the deeds of all those men. In the first place, under this Bill military tribunals were to supersede the ordinary Courts of Justice. They had heard a great deal of Whitefeet and Blackfeet, and midnight outrages, and murders; but when he looked into the Bill, he found that the military tribunals were not confined to the trial of the Whitefeet and Blackfeet. Those red-coat tribunals were to decide in cases of libel, without the intervention of a Judge or a Jury. The Whitefeet, and the midnight robbers and assassins, were not the writers of libels? This part of the Bill, therefore, could not be intended for the Whitefeet, and the midnight robbers and assassins. Comparing this Bill with others to which it bore any resemblance, he found in it one very remarkable omission. The Members of that House Were not protected. It had always hitherto been usual to insert a clause, stating that if any Member of that House was charged or suspected of having committed any of the offences
732
against which the Bill was directed, its provisions should not be applied to him until the pleasure of that House was first taken. No such clause, however, appeared in the present Bill, and any Member of that House who happened to be in Ireland either by accident or design, might, at the will of the Lord Lieutenant, be seized and tried before one of those red-coat tribunals, and transported the next day. Any one of the Irish Members of Parliament, who stood up in that House for his country, and spoke against this Bill, was liable upon his return to that country, to be condemned and sent off to Botany Bay before the House could hear of his arrest. And would they allow this? Was the House sunk so low as that? Would it suffer that any Member of that House might be transported at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with a red-coat tribunal, every Member of which the Government might dismiss at its discretion. This was a new power to invest a Government with. They were obliged to come to a Reformed Parliament for that power. The unreformed Parliament—the Parliament of the boroughmongers, their nominees as it was called, never did anything like that. He had always said, that to a military Government this country (as well as Ireland) must come, unless the Government reduced the pressure of taxation. It was impossible to carry on the Government as at present, without a military force. The taxes could not otherwise be levied; Judges and Juries must be dismissed wholly and entirely, in order to carry on a system so partial, so oppressive, so villainously unjust. Therefore he warned the House, and he warned the people of England, against the scourge which his Majesty's Government was preparing for them. It was nonsense to say, that this was only a temporary measure. Ministers meant that it should be permanent—the settled mode of governing the country; and they meant to introduce the same into England as speedily as possible. He said, the other evening, and the assertion was well, as the argument had been left unanswered—that he believed the Government had the project in contemplation to begin to govern England, as Ireland has been long governed. He believed that they had it in contemplation to establish, first, police stations in all the towns and villages of the kingdom; second, to supplant these by a more direct

733
military force; and third, to erect the red-coat tribunals for the trial of offenders, and of all matters of dispute. Tyranny always came by slow degrees; and nothing could tend more to illustrate that fact than the history of the police in this country. When the establishment of a police force was first proposed, Englishmen were shocked at the idea. The name was completely new among us; but coupled with the history of France, it carried with it fearful notions of tyranny and despotism. The noble Lord opposite doubtless remembered well, how stoutly the noble Earl, now the First Lord of the Treasury, and Mr. Sheridan, and some others, who pretended to have a regard for the liberties of Englishmen, and who, at that time professed, as it were, an inbred hate of every thing bearing the remotest semblance of military Government, fought against the introduction of the police system into this country. They made a noble stand upon that occasion; but, all that they could obtain in relaxation of the original proposition was, that police officers should not vote at elections, and that they should be eligible to sit in Parliament. So we continued for some time with a police office in Bow-street, a couple of police Magistrates, and a few police officers. That was not so very insufferable: but at length the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, came forward and said: "I think that owing to the improvement of the age, we want something a little more regular in the form of our police." This led to the introduction of a police with blue coats, red waistcoats, blue pantaloons, and ash sticks in their hands. These gentry walked about and showed themselves with wonderful pride; but no sooner were they established than he had said "This is the first step—we shall soon have them in half uniform." His saying proved to be true, for, behold we had now a police with numbered collars and embroidered cuffs—a body of men as regular as any in the King's service, as fit for domestic war as the red-coats were for foreign war. The right hon. Baronet, however, left his police unarmed; that last improvement of the age was reserved for the present Government; and now we had the gratification of seeing the police with swords on thighs, and pistols in their belts. "What did they want with swords and pistols if they were not going to war? But the improvement of the age
734
proceeded, and we should by-and-by, see them with carbines and bayonets, as regularly armed as the police of any of the French sovereigns, from the days of Hugh Capet to the present hour. Besides, the system was spreading. Formerly it was confined to London, but Ministers had been smuggling it into the great towns; and before long there would be a regular police force established in every village. Nothing in the world would prevent that—nothing in the world could successfully obstruct this march of tyranny, but that right of resistance which the people may use against acts of oppression. How the noble Lord and his colleagues could reflect upon the past—how they could look upon the history of their country, and then contemplate the present state of things, and the designs which they had in view, he for one was at an utter loss to imagine. All foreign writers had agreed, that the highest excellence of a wise government—that which distinguished England above all the countries of the world was, that it was governed by the sheriffs wand and the constable's staff. "The latter," said one of them," even though it be a decrepit old man who wields it, is ever found sufficient to exact the most implicit obedience of the laws. This is the highest test of a good government and of a happy people—this is the beauty of England, of its laws, its Constitution, and its community." How the noble Lord, therefore, could reconcile to the integrity of his mind the course which he and his colleagues were pursuing, was a matter of the utmost astonishment to him. He conjured the noble Lord, as a member of the Government, to take heed, lest, by his proceedings, he prevented the hope of ever again seeing the people of England willing to yield to the un-backed authority of the constable's staff. He, and those who thought and spoke as he did, were accused of harbouring wishes to destroy the Constitution. The fact was not so. His desire was, to restore it to its former brightness. He wished to see England as happy as she was when he was born; and the principle he went upon was, not to leave her in a worse condition than he found her. But he feared he should not succeed in his object. Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England," laid it down that the main principle upon which those laws were based, was the prevention of the Executive from forming a body too dis-

735
tinet from the people; and, therefore, that it ought to be selected from the people, as in the Roman republic; but the main object which the Constitution seemed to be directed towards now, was to make the Executive as distinct from the people as possible—in fact, if it must be said, to make it an instrument of tyranny over them. The same authority to which he had referred, said also, that the army ought to be composed only of the real subjects of the King of Great Britain, not of Hanoverians; that they ought to be enlisted for a limited time; that the soldiers ought to be encouraged to mix with the people; that they ought to have no separate camp, no barracks, no inland fortresses;—and Blackstone said, also, that it would better accord with the principles of the Constitution, if the soldiery were so enlisted and discharged, as to keep up a general and constant change throughout the army, so that all the people should serve by turns. The people had only to read Blackstone to be made sensible of the full extent of their present degradation. To be sure, some of the commentators upon that Judge differed considerably from his explanation of the law; Mr. Christian, for instance, who said that barracks were good for the soldiery. He would not trouble the House with any further remarks upon this topic, but would proceed to inquire what the next step would be after this Bill was passed; he believed it would be the introduction of military tribunals into England. These tribunals, to be sure, at present were only collaterally introduced. They were introduced into Ireland; but he thought it his duty to resist their introduction as much as if they were about to be introduced into England. Every man loved his country—every man had a peculiar liking to that part of the country in which he was born. He also felt this love; he was affectionately attached to the spot of his birth-place—the western district of the county of Surrey; yet so help him God, he would as soon see the introduction of military tribunals into that part of the country as into Ireland; because nothing could be baser or viler than, when a Government demanded extraordinary powers, to demand it for one place alone, and that a weak or distant one, and not for the whole kingdom. When this power was introduced into the districts of Ireland, it would be soon introduced into those of
736
England. Why, if the slightest disturbance appeared in Cornwall or Kent, they would immediately have recourse to the same measures, and extend them all over England. If the people consented to this monstrous precedent, they would shortly see armed stations in every hole and corner of England. He might be asked, perhaps, whether he believed that the nobility and gentry of England—the country gentlemen of England—whether they, who had such a stake in the country, would ever give their consent to the introduction of such a measure into England? He believed that they would; that they would even like it. He thought they would find it very convenient to have a police-station in their several villages, to serve as gamekeepers, and the instruments of a little parochial tyranny. That was his real belief; and, therefore, he would recommend the people of England to look well to the progress of this measure; they should use every means in their power to prevent the consummation of tyranny. For his own part, he had seen no information to warrant the assertion, that the ordinary laws were not sufficient for the present state of Ireland. At one Assizes he saw that seventy persons were convicted, or ran a chance of being so; but the framers of the present Bill represented Ireland as in such a state that the ordinary laws could not be enforced. The truth was, some counties were disturbed, but Ministers wanted to make the whole country alike, for their own particular purposes. In circumstances somewhat similar, how did Washington act? When the country he governed, within 200 miles of the State of Pennsylvania, was in a state of commotion to put down the excise laws, what did he do? Did he demand a suspension of the Habeas Corpus? Did he ask for Courts-martial? No; he told; the disaffected to obey the laws, or he would use military force to compel them. Not that of a standing army, but a force composed of freemen and citizens. The discontented did not obey the first order, and in less than ten days Washington had an army of 10,000 volunteers, accoutred at their own expense, to enable him to enforce obedience to the laws. The commotion was soon quelled; one culprit was condemned, and the others pardoned. What was the consequence of such conduct? Why, the most ready obedience to the laws was restored. Why did not, the present rulers of the country act in

737
that way towards Ireland, instead of introducing military courts, the officers of which depended for their daily bread upon Government, and who had the power of transportation for life? His great objection to the Bill was, that it was clearly a declaration of the establishment of a military Government, not only in Ireland but in England. Let any legal resistance break out in any county of England, and then in another, and not only those comities, but the whole of the kingdom would be subjected to Martial Law. This might happen before long, and it was his firm conviction that Ministers contemplated such an end, and that they would come to it, if the Bill were suffered to pass that House. However, he felt satisfied that their unworthy and base scheme would not succeed. The people of England had too much good sense—they needed no precedent of resistance—they were taught by nature to resist such an Act as the present, and to prevent it from ever becoming a precedent for their posterity to be enslaved by. The right hon. Secretary on the Bench opposite, would not deny, that there was such a right as the right of resistance. How could he, after what he said the other night about the American revolution? How could he, when he reflected that the present reigning family were placed upon the Throne by this very right? He might also recollect, that after the Restoration, Charles 2nd had an act passed, in the fourteenth year of his reign, by which, under no circumstance, and in no case, the subject had a right to resist the King. But by the first of William 3rd this act was repealed, and consequently, the law was left as it was before, allowing that, in some cases, the subject had a right to resist the King—nay, that in some cases he might take up arms in furtherance of that resistance. The case that justified such resistance was, when the main principles of the Constitution were attacked by any portion of the Government. Then a right to resist with arms was permitted. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland and the hon. member for Leeds, had emphatically stated to the House, that the Americans had a right to resist their King; that their revolution was a glorious one, and that those who aided in it were heroes, whose deeds deserved to be loudly applauded. Very well, what made them resist? Why they resisted because the King "attempted"—
738
mark the word attempted—to take away Trial by Jury. That was one cause of their resistance, and it was allowed that they made it on lawful grounds. In the next place, they resisted because there were mock trials of the English soldiery, who committed murder and yet were acquitted. Whether these last sorts of trials were now destined to be used towards the soldiers employed in Ireland he knew not. Another ground of American resistance was, that the King "affected" to make military power superior to civil power. This was not a charge that could be literally brought against the present Ministers; they had not only affected to do it, but they had done it. These three causes had been deemed sufficient to justify the American revolution. Now, what were the causes which were deemed sufficient to justify the resistance of our ancestors to James 2nd? They were these:—He had superseded, in some instances, the Trial by Jury, and he had kept up a military force without the consent of Parliament. Unfortunate James—had he lived in our times, he would have had no difficulty in obtaining the consent of Parliament to that or any other measure he might have proposed. All the crimes which England committed against the liberties of America, and which James 2nd committed against the liberties of England, were committed by this Bill against the liberties of Ireland—and in the name of common sense, what for? They were about to cover the face of the country with armies, and for what purpose? To put down those who resisted the payment of tithes. This was clear to everybody that made the slightest inquiry into the matter. A great deal had been said about poor parsons, as if there was one in every parish of Ireland. Pity the poor Irish parsons indeed! Why there was not one of them who was poor. In Ireland there were twenty-two Bishops, and, therefore, twenty-two dioceses; there were 3,436 parishes, according to the returns made when the Duke of Bedford, the father of the noble Lord opposite, was Lord Lieutenant, and there were only 501 resident parsons in that number of parishes. Now, how could these parsons be poor? But the fact was, that people did not know how Church matters stood. They did not know that Bishops, who might be termed a species of overseers, had seldom more than half-a-dozen parsons to oversee and look

739
after; and there was another thing they did not know—that all Church property, at least the great mass of it, belonged to the aristocracy. That property was now in danger, by the present resistance to tithes; and it was to put down this resistance that the present Bill was about to be passed. Why did not the framers of this Bill call it one to protect the collection of tithes, and not one for the protection of the rights of property? The former was its proper title. Eighteen out of the present twenty-two Irish Bishops belonged to noble families, or had been the tutors of the scions of nobility, and the greater proportion of Irish Church property belonged to about forty families of the aristocracy. That was a sufficient proof that the Church was the property of the nobility. "Their's is the Gospel, and their's the Law." That was what they were fighting for with arms, both military and ecclesiastical. They opposed all Church Reform, and opposed it violently; and no wonder. Did ever anybody see a fowl snatched out of the jaws of a fox without the old fellow being in a great rage? This was the reason they were in such a rage at present, and why they were so willing to fight. They were inclined to fight, not for the Gospel, but for the good things of this world. "Why, in this very Ireland, there were about 250 parishes held in propria. My Lord Shannon held seven, and the Duke of Devonshire twenty, and so on; so that in point of fact, there was little or no bonâ fide Church property in Ireland. That property had little more to do with religion than the waves of the sea, and the sharks that live therein. The whole of that property, which was originally intended to uphold religion, and to support the poor, was now in the hands of the aristocracy, and to wrest it from their gripe would require efforts that had not been yet made in that House, but which he hoped would be begun by the resistance given to the present Bill in its passing through the House. To show that all the blame laid not with the aristocracy, he would quote a late writer, did he not fear to weary the House. The writer he meant to quote was not one of his party; he was an ally of the noble Lord opposite, and one whose testimony the noble Lord could not doubt, as he was a member of the Church. As the noble Lord, in bringing forward his measure of Irish Church Reform had recourse to rooting and raking up old
740
documents for his purposes; so he would find, that no small portion of the clergy had recourse to similar means, and that they were ready to contend that it was not the clergy that kept back this property from the uses it was destined for, but the aristocracy. The great tithes of twenty parishes held by the Duke of Devonshire was a specimen, and a case in point. The clergy were not half so much to blame as the aristocracy. They were, moreover, at present placed in rather a pitiful plight—they were placed between two fires—the one from the people, and the other from the aristocracy. The aristocracy were about to throw the clergy overboard, and the property they were now about to take from them, they would take very good care to give to themselves. As a proof of this, he would refer to the book of the Prebendary of Durham and Rector of Northallerton, the reverend Mr. Townsend, in which he plainly accuses the grasping aristocracy of a wish to seize on now all that the Reformation left untouched of Church property. The reverend gentleman accused them of this, and said that they were proving themselves the true successors of their plundering forefathers. How could the noble Lord opposite answer this accusation? The reverend gentleman who made this accusation, had drawn up a bill of his own, since he considered the noble Lord's Bill one for the spoliation of the Church; and though that bill was not exactly such a one as he would propose, still he preferred it to the noble Lord's, as it had something equitable on the face of it. He did not know whether it was a recommendation that it had among its advocates many of the fire-shovelled gentlemen. The reverend gentleman proposed a plan to reduce pluralities; he was speaking of England, and not of much-abused Ireland. He would read this plan for the abolition of English pluralities [Question]. What he was about to read was to the question. [The hon. Member proceeded to read some passages from the proposed plan, but cries of "question" made it impossible to catch the sense of what he was reading.] He maintained that he was strictly speaking to the question, because he was about to show whence might arise the right of resistance to the proposed measure, and because he was about to show, that this Bill would lead to worse than the plunder perpetrated at the Reformation, and worse than anything James 2nd had done, or

741
anything George 3rd was accused of doing towards the Americans. What right had Government to expect that the people of England would not resist the injustice about to be done to the people of Ireland, when they were sure that that injustice would soon, as a gangrene, spread over the body, extend itself to England, for they felt convinced that the present Ministers could not carry on their system; of government in any other way. He had, very frequently, called them tyrants, and; their measures tyrannical. Now, if it could be proved that they were tyrants, every body would allow that there was a right to resist them. If it could be proved that they were tyrants, there would be as; good a right to resist them, as Moses had in destroying the task-master, or as Jehu had in ordering Jezebel to be thrown out of the window, and give her blood to dogs to lick. What tyrants always wanted was, to seize on the fruits of other men's labour, and to get their money. When the labourer let the tyrant do that, the tyrant did not want to eat his flesh or destroy him, no more than the farmer wanted to destroy the horse that ploughed his fields. This was a proper definition of the word tyrant. Let all men know what tyrants were, and remain slaves, if, when able to resist them, they did not do so. With that last sentence he would conclude. Yet since hon. Gentlemen expressed so much satisfaction at his being about to conclude, he would go on a little longer. If it were impossible to resist a large standing army and a large body of police, created to watch every movement of the body, as long as there was no paper money, as long as the Government paid in gold, the people would be more than a match for them. Why, even the very Saving Banks would be more than a match for them. But a bank restriction might be introduced, such as that the hon. member for South Durham recommended for the Dublin bank a night or two ago. But that would not do either—that would not answer the purpose of, Government. To be sure, by an Order in Council, they might make paper a legal tender, and, by so doing, rob the Saving Banks; but it would be of no use, for their filthy rags had lost their power, and would not even be taken in payment for those bayonets and bullets that might be served out to the people. He did not accuse the present Ministers of being tyrants by nature—they were only tyrants half by nature and;
742
the rest by necessity. [Question] "Who's that "said the hon. Member "callsquestion? I'll make it a very long question for him if he don't mind." The Government appeared to him to be endeavouring to excite the resentment of the country, by doing that which would necessarily be considered wrong. He thought it right to lay that statement—a statement of the true facts of the case—before the House and the country, and he would allow the country from that to judge of the propriety of the measure. He called on the people to exert themselves against the passing of that measure. He called on the people of England to make common cause with the people of Ireland in resisting it. He conjured the people of England to think of their own safety by taking measures for the defeat of an Act which was to enslave their fellow-subjects of Ireland.
Question again put, that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodwished to take that opportunity to give notice, that he would move "That all further proceedings in the Irish Disturbance Bill be suspended till the measures relating to the Reform of the Church of Ireland, and the other measures for the amelioration of that country, have passed into laws. The day would never come when the Irish Disturbance Bill, as it at present stood, could pass into a law. His Majesty's Ministers said, that they would resign if it were rejected. He would much regret that such should be the consequence of the rejection of that measure; but even with that threat before him, he could not consent to deliver over the Irish nation to the dominion of the military. Did his Majesty's Ministers mean first to bring the country to a state of resistance in consequence of their measures, and then to resign in favour of their predecessors? He had another Amendment to more, which he would take an opportunity of doing-while the Bill was in Committee—namely, "that all the power granted to the Government by that act be limited to the counties composing the province of Leinster." The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had said, that the disturbances were confined exclusively to the province of Leinster, with very little exception. He therefore, as a friend to the integrity of the kingdom, and an enemy to the Repeal of the Union, thought it most desirable not to exasperate, the people of Ireland by

743
making an Act general as to them, on I account of the disturbances in one district. That was his reason for giving notice of the Amendment.
The House went into a Committee on the Irish Disturbances' Bill.
The Chairman read the fourth Clause. "And be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, with the advice of his Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland, at any time after the passing of this Act, and from time to time during the continuance thereof, as occasion may require, to issue his or their proclamation declaring any county, county of a city, or county of a town, in Ireland, or any portion thereof respectively, to be in such a state of disturbance and insubordination as to require the application of the provisions of this Act; and such county, county of a city, or county of a town, or any portion thereof respectively, shall be deemed, and taken to be a proclaimed district within the meaning of this Act."
Mr. Lambertwished to learn from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the remedial measure relative to the clergy and their rights which his Majesty's Ministers had stated they had in preparation? At the same time he must announce his intention to move an Amendment to the effect, that "that Bill should not be made use of for the purpose of enforcing the payment of tithes in Ireland."
Lord Althorpsaid, it would be unnecessary for the hon. Member to propose such an Amendment, because his Majesty's Ministers had in contemplation to propose a measure, which while it would reserve the rights of the clergy, and secure to them what fairly belonged to them, would relieve the government of Ireland from the necessity of enforcing the measure passed during last Session for the commutation of tithes. He hoped that the proposition was one which would secure to the clergy their rights, and he was sure it would save the people from any unnecessary prosecution for arrears which might be due by them.
Mr. O'Connellhoped as that was the case, that the noble Lord would consent to the suspension of the enforcement of the payment of tithes by means of the police, for the present. Collisions were happening frequently, he might say every day, between the people and the police.
744
Even that very day he had got an account of an unfortunate transaction which had happened in the county of Cork. The miserable people had attacked a party of police who were employed to levy tithes, and the police found it necessary to fire, when three or four of the people were killed. That was in a parish where he knew that there were not thirty Protestants. He hoped that the noble Lord would consent to his suggestion. There was another matter of which the people complained; that the police when they got payment of tithes from the people, refused to give them an acknowledgment for the money. Even in Roscommon—a county which was quite quiet, the police when they levied tithes, refused to give any vouchers.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was impossible for the Government to suspend the laws for the enforcement of tithes.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he did not mean to press the noble Lord to put an end to tithes. But the present system of enforcing them was so oppressive to the people, so destructive of human life, so harassing to the peasantry, so ruinous in its consequences, as regarded the Government, and so contrary to every just feeling, and to the dictates of religion, that he put it to the noble Lord whether the payment ought to be enforced while those measures were in progress? If the noble Lord were to suspend the enforcement of tithes, he (Mr. O'Connell) was sure that he would have the most respectable majority with him, in support of that measure, that he ever had since he went into office. Was the noble Lord aware of the state of misery of the Irish people? This was the period of the year when they suffered more than at any other period. The last crop was exhausted, and they had nothing for their support till the next crop came in; and the misery and want to which they were subjected, was incomprehensible to any person who had not seen it. If the noble Lord would accede to his suggestion, he was sure that it would in a great measure allay the ferment which the passing of the measure then before the Committee would necessarily produce in Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the hon. and learned Member must be aware that it was impossible for the Government to accede to his proposition. He did not know what the hon. and learned Member

745
meant by saying that the police levied tithes in Ireland. There were two ways in which the police were employed in connexion with the collection of tithes. One was, where they were employed to protect the clergy in the levying of their tithes; and the other, where they collected the arrears of tithes by order of the Government, in those districts where money was advanced by the Government on the tithes, as voted by Parliament during last Session. But he could say, that none were employed on the part of Government to collect tithes, who were not of the respectable classes, and who had not distinguished themselves by their forbearing conduct in suppressing the disturbances. He denied that Government had proceeded against any person in arrear who could have any difficulty in paying his arrears, or who had fallen into arrears from real poverty. They only proceeded against those who opposed payment from a systematic resistance to just demands. He could not say in what manner the clergy enforced their claims, but he again asserted that the Government enforced payment from those only who were able to pay. He (Mr. Stanley) thought that the hon. and learned member for Dublin was incorrect in his information, when he stated that the police refused to give receipts to those who paid them money.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was always anxious to avoid making inaccurate statements, and he did not think, that the information on which he made that one was erroneous. When the police acted in the enforcement of tithes, the people, without drawing the nice distinction drawn by the right hon. Secretary, considered that they did so by the orders of Government, and indeed that their acts were the acts of the Government. In Roscommon, none but the police were employed to levy tithes. And as to the refusal of the police to give vouchers, which was doubted by the right hon. Secretary, he (Mr. O'Connell) was sure that information might be got in London to corroborate it. There were many instances in which people offered to pay their arrears, if they could get vouchers, but vouchers were refused. He was sure that the senior member for Roscommon, if he were in the House, could confirm what he said.
Mr. Denis O'Connorsaid, that the hon. and learned Member was right in his statement. He (Mr. O'Connor) was aware
746
of several instances in the quarter of the country with which he was acquainted, where the people were ready to pay, and had offered to pay if they could get vouchers.
Mr. Frenchdenied that such was the universal practice. He could say that the tithes in one of the largest parishes in that part of the country, were not one-fortieth part of the rent, and were collected without difficulty.
An Hon. Membersaid, that the general impression in Ireland was, that the Bill was merely intended for the enforcement of tithes.
Mr. Lambertstated, that since the Bill had passed the House of Lords, he had received many letters from Ireland, in which it was stated, that if they did not think it was intended for the purpose of aiding the clergy in the enforcement of the tithes, they should have little objection to it. A provision therefore, such as he proposed, would recommend the Bill to the people of Ireland.
Mr. James Talbotwould not have voted for the first and second reading of the Bill if he had not been under the impression that it was not meant to enforce the payment of tithes. With regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Tralee on a former evening, that he (Mr. Talbot) had been a member of the Political Union, he denied that he had ever become so with his knowledge or consent.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellbegged leave to read a letter which he had received from Mr. John Joseph Murphy, of Dublin which would show the House what that gentleman's version of the story was. The hon. Member then read the letter, in which it was stated that Mr. Talbot accompanied the writer and Mr. French to the meeting of the Trades' Union. While there, Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Talbot to allow him (Mr. M.) to put him into nomination. Mr. Talbot answered, "Not now." Mr. Murphy then proposed that he should be put in nomination at the next meeting; to which Mr. Talbot did not object but assented. And accordingly he was proposed, and made a member. A few days afterwards Mr. French received a letter from Mr. Talbot, who by that time had gone to Athlone, in which he stated that he feared it might do him an injury with his constituents if it were known that he was a member of the Union, and begging of Mr. French to get his name withdrawn.

747
From all this it would be seen that Mr. Talbot was aware that he was made a member, and that he consented to be put in nomination.
Mr. Talbotsaid, that the version given by the hon. member for Tralee was very different from what he had formerly heard from Mr. French. He (Mr. Talbot) was not ashamed of having attended the meeting of the Union. He went there merely from curiosity, just as he had once gone to the Rotunda to hear the hon. Member lecture on the state of the Church.
Lord Althorpreminded the hon. Member that this discussion was wholly irrelevant.
Mr. Henry Grattanwished to know in what part of the Bill his hon. friend (Mr. Lambert) proposed to introduce his amendment. The right hon. Secretary said that none had been proceeded against except those who were able to pay. He knew, however, that the Attorney General had incurred expenses to the amount of 20 l. for the recovery of a few shillings of tithe. He thought it would be better that the enforcement of the payment of arrears should lie over for three months.
Mr. Shawthought there should be no misunderstanding on this subject, and hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would explicitly state whether or not he meant to convey, that the established clergy of Ireland were to be treated as outlaws? Whether or not they alone were to be denied the protection of whatever laws might be in force for the security of person, property, and life in Ireland? He did not ask more for them than for any other class of his majesty's subjects—but it would be the most cruel injustice if they were to receive less merely because they were the most defenceless and oppressed class of persons in the United Kingdom at that moment.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if outrages were committed, they should be punished because they were outrages, not because they had reference to tithe.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the addition a powers were merely for the enforcement of tithes. It was a tithe bill from beginning to end.
Mr. Finnthought that his Majesty': Ministers should avow what the real object of the Bill was. If they said one thing and meant another, the consequence would be most injurious. The right hon. Secretary had talked of extinguishing
748
tithes, but he had only enforced the collection of them, and the consequence of that was, that blood had flowed in torrents.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the noble Lord opposite denied that the intention of the Bill was to enforce tithes. He did not mean to say, that the intention of the Government was, that as soon as a decree was given against a man for tithes, that decree should be delivered over to the soldiers to be put in force. But though the Ministers did not go so far as that, they went further than they pretended. There was in this Act a distinct reference to an Act of Parliament which referred exclusively to tithes. The Act 27th Geo. 3rd, related exclusively to tithes, and it was embodied in the Bill then before them. There was a series of enactments in that Act, which related not to property in general, but exclusively to tithes. That the noble Lord could not, and did not deny. Then it was pretended, that the Bill then under their consideration did not relate to tithes, but to property in general; but still that Bill referred to, and embodied, another Statute which referred exclusively to tithes. The only difference was, that the last Bill was severer than the former. It was as if they had culled out all the Irish statutes. [An Hon. Member said the Act to which he had referred was the Whiteboy Act.] No; it was not the Whiteboy Act. The White-boy Act was the 15th and 16th of George 3rd. He thought it a pity that some of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Solicitor General, for instance, should not be present, to set the House right when they I were at a loss about statutes. What he; charged the Government with was this—that they passed a measure, as a general measure, the last clause of which must be; intended by them for the peculiar and; specific protection of one class of individuals. That was his allegation. Did the Bill not refer to the Act 27th Geo. 3rd? It did.—[Mr. Stanley here rose to make; some observation, when Mr. Sheil exclaimed, "Now, don't be angry!"]—Did the Bill refer to the eleventh clause of that Act? It did. Did not that Act refer to tithes? It did. Did not, therefore, an Act, which embodied the whole; of the provisions of that section of the 27th George 3rd, refer to tithes? And was it not intended for the protection of the clergy? He did not ask the Ministers not to deceive them; but he asked them

749
not to deceive themselves, by imagining that the Irish could believe, that a bill which embodied the whole provisions of an Act which referred entirely to tithes, was not intended for the protection of the clergy alone, and to enable them to enforce the payment of those tithes.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the clause referred to by the hon. Member was, "such persons as shall by force, threat, or other unlawful means." ["Hear, hear," from Mr. Shiel.] He would not say to the hon. and learned Member "Don't be angry," but he would express a hope as the hon. Member had had his turn, that he would allow him to have his. The Act to which reference had been made, was passed for the purpose of putting down the Whiteboy system in Ireland. It was ordinarily known by the name of the Whiteboy Act, and was intimately connected with what was called in that country" the Whiteboy code." The present Bill, in embodying that Act, only placed tithes on the same footing as other property. It gave the property of the clergyman only the same protection as it afforded to other kinds of property in Ireland. It was an Act not for the collection of tithes, but for giving security to property, and it would be gross injustice and folly if, in reciting this Act, the Government had excluded the sections which afforded protection to tithes, whether the property of the clergy or of the laity. Parliament had not as yet thought proper to take the tithes out of the hands of the clergy; until the property was so taken from them, they were entitled to its possession as fully as any person was to any other species of property. It was impossible not to see that this Bill would be applicable to the protection of property in tithes; but if Parliament had left out those provisions, there would have been no such thing as collecting tithes at all in the disturbed districts. The hon. Member had said, that its object was, to assist in the collection of tithes alone; but that was an unjust conclusion, for tithes were only included because it would be a gross absurdity and a gross injustice if tithes were the only kind of property not entitled to protection under that Bill.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that the Act which had been referred to, and which appeared to be followed in the Bill then before the House, looked to tithe property almost exclusively. It legislated for
750
tithes far more than it legislated for bona fide landed property. He denied that the 27th George 3rd was a Whiteboy Act. It inflicted penalties on those whoattempted to prevent the collection of tithes or dues, or who endeavoured to defraud the clergy of tithes or dues. The powers granted in that section of the Act which had been quoted were, by this Bill, given to a Court-martial of five or seven officers. He, therefore, said emphatically, that this was a tithe Bill—a bill for collecting tithes by the aid of Courts-martial. Any man who refused to pay tithes might be considered by such a tribunal as having committed an act of fraud; by this Bill he might be visited with transportation—under the other, imprisonment or whipping awaited him. This measure, he repeated, was emphatically a Bill for tithes.
Lord Althorpdenied, that the interpretation of the learned Gentleman with reference to the 27th George 3rd was correct. If the hon. Member would read the particular clause, he would find that it was directed against" any unlawful combination to prevent the collection of tithes, or any forcible obstruction to the clergyman, or any violence used towards him in collecting tithes." The only point in which tithes came within the purview of the clause was, where an illegal conspiracy was entered into for the purpose of preventing the payment of tithes. The construction of the hon. Member was not to be found in the common sense of the clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the construction was not his alone, but that of the Judges of the land. Mr. Barrington, who was for seventeen years Crown solicitor on the Munster circuit, said, that the Act contemplated every "unlawful obstruction; "but the Judges declared "that any obstruction was unlawful." Such was the construction put by these learned persons on the statute; and that construction would, of course, be acted on by the field-officers in future. He repeated that this was a measure for the collection of tithes, and would be so construed and acted on in Ireland. The Courts-martial would be useless if it were not so. It would be a dead letter unless the power contemplated by the Act referred to were admitted; and, if it were allowed, he feared it would lead to the shedding of much blood.
The Chairman recalled the attention of the Committee to the question before it,

751
which was, that the fourth clause, as he had already read it, should stand part of the Bill.
Sir Richard Keanewould move as an amendment, to insert the words in the first part of the clause to the effect, that in all cases where it was deemed necessary to apply for the proclamation of any county of a city or county of a town, the Lord-lieutenant of the county and at least six Magistrates, should certify that the insubordination of the district called for the putting in force the provisions of the Act.
Lord Althorpsaid, this proposition, if agreed to, would only have the effect of dividing the responsibility, which he wished to remain as it was originally settled by the Bill.
Mr. O'Connellagreed with the noble Lord, and added, looking to the way in which the Magistracy of Ireland was constituted, that the proposition was calculated to make the Bill a great deal worse than it was.
Sir Richard Keanedefended the conduct of the Magistracy of that part of the country which he represented. There were four of those Magistrates then about him; and he would say, speaking of them generally, that a body of men more anxious lo do their duty never existed.
Mr. James Grattanwas of opinion that some alteration in the clause was desirable. Whether that of the hon. member for Waterford was or was not the best to be adopted he would not say. He thought, however, that the Lord-lieutenant ought not to act until full and sufficient information was laid before him. The county might, for instance, be called together, and from such a meeting a call on the Lord-lieutenant, if it were necessary, might emanate.
Mr. Barronthought it would be advisable that the opinion of the Lord-lieutenant of any county should be taken before it was proclaimed. Having been personally alluded to on a former occasion, he must say, that he had procured an application to have an additional stipendiary Magistrate and the refusal to appoint one, reached him on the same day as the account of the murder of Mr. Leonard. He would never admit that the existing laws were not sufficient to punish crime, if they were promptly administered. In the case of the recent murder of Mr. Leonard, no less than thirty individuals were apprehended,
752
and were now in gaol, charged with that offence. Was there, then, any deficiency, either with reference to witnesses or to Jurors? He was convinced that there was not. In the case to which he had just alluded, 500 men went out voluntarily as constables, and apprehended those men without the assistance of the police.
Mr. James Grattanagain expressed his conviction that it would be necessary, before the Lord-lieutenant proclaimed a county, that the necessity of such a step should be clearly demonstrated to him. A district should not be proclaimed on the mere will or caprice of the Lord-lieutenant.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Sheildemanded what necessity existed for extending this measure to any county of a city, or county of a town, in Ireland? Was it necessary with reference to Dublin, to Cork, to Kilkenny, to Londonderry? Why extend it to parts of Ireland where the most perfect tranquillity prevailed?
Mr. William Rochewas of opinion, that it would be advisable to convene the county at large, and to take the sense of those assembled, before the Lord-lieutenant proclaimed it to be in a disturbed state.
Mr. Stanleycould see no reason, if the country at large were disturbed, and if there was an agricultural district of many miles square in the centre of the country, for excepting it from the operation of the Act merely because that central district happened to be under city jurisdiction.
Mr. Finnwould quote the case of the city of Kilkenny, which remained perfectly tranquil at a time when the county was disturbed, and had been proclaimed by the Marquess Wellesley; the county of the city, however, remaining unproclaimed.
Mr. Stanleythanked the hon. Gentleman for reminding him and the House, that it was the Marquess of Wellesley, and not the Legislature, which exempted the district in question from the operation of the Act. Might not the Marquess of Anglesey act in the same manner as the Marquess of Wellesley? The Legislature had left it in that case to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, and why not in this?
Mr. O'Cornellsaid, it did not follow because one Lord Lieutenant was considerate and humane, that another would

753
be. It was for the Legislature to prescribe, and not to trust.
Mr. Henry Grattanprotested against the clause, as establishing a perpetual dictator in Ireland. It was a premium for agitation. It gave the dictator power to proclaim any district, and it would enable agitators to procure any district to be proclaimed, and would thus give such agitators a power over every individual in it. As they had brought in such a Bill, why did they not define the powers it conferred? They ought not to give such latitude to any man, whether he were a Lord-lieutenant or Secretary, as was conferred by the fourth clause. The Secretary or the law officers might easily find cause, in what they called the demoralization of the people, for proclaiming any district, whether there were any real disturbance in it or not. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgot Nobber? After passing this clause, it would be better for the Irish Gentlemen to vacate their seats and go home. The Government knew nothing of the state of Ireland; and he knew the right hon. Secretary too well to be deluded or deceived by him. He was sure that the whole Bill, and the whole conduct of the Government betrayed the grossest ignorance as to the state of Ireland. If the right hon. Secretary had applied himself to the business of his office, he might have put down disturbance. Yes, if he had done his duty, there might have been an end to outrage. But he knew what the right hon. Secretary was about: he was sending his lancers and his dragoons to collect tithe-pigs and tithe-pence, and he knew nothing of the disturbances till they had got to a great height. There never was an individual went to Ireland with such powers to do good as the right hon. Secretary, and there never was an individual who had done so little good. The right hon. Secretary now found that every one of his measures was a complete failure; he found that his Tithe Bill could not be enforced; that it was good for nothing; and he called upon that House to suspend the liberties of Ireland, and place that country under a perpetual dictatorship. If they would try Ireland once more—if they would spare her this additional curse, and withdraw the right hon. Secretary and his Bill for the forcible collection of tithes, the disturbances would cease, and peace and tranquillity would be restored to the country. He conjured them to pause—
754
to suspend this clause till after the other clauses were gone through, when some form of words might be found which would render it more definite and less obnoxious. The right hon. Secretary had declared, that he had the best intentions towards Ireland; he believed the right hon. Secretary; but, with those best intentions, he was, unfortunately, always doing wrong. Let them suspend the clause, like the sword of Damocles, over the head of the Bill till the end, when some hon. Member, more prudent than himself, for he was not capable of it, might suggest to the right hon. Secretary how it might be made less mischievous than at present.
Colonel Percevalobjected to making any distinction between the jurisdiction of counties of cities and other districts, and supported the clause.
Mr. O'Connellwould, at the proper time, move to exempt the jurisdiction of the county of the city of Dublin from the operation of this clause.
Mr. David Rochewould take the same course as to Limerick.
Mr. Lynchwould move a similar Amendment as to Galway.
Mr. O'Dwyercontended, that the power given by this clause was of itself calculated to throw the whole country into confusion, and to create general disturbance. Why should malignant Magistrates, or perverse Lord-lieutenants, have a power given them to work mischief at their pleasure.
Mr. Baldwinwould seriously ask the Government if it meant to extend this clause to the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and other towns? Would the Government prevent the inhabitants of such cities from going about their business, and compel them to remain at home after dark? Why, it would prevent them from transacting their ordinary affairs. If any man were to plan a measure to restrain liberty, destroy the interests of industry, and ruin the property and revenue of a country, he could not plan a more effectual measure than this, if it were to be extended to cities.
Mr. Lalorreferred to six cases which had happened in the Queen's County, in which men had been distrained on for tithes who did not hold one acre of land each. He knew that personally; and yet the right hon. Secretary had said, that nobody had been distrained on for tithes except such as were well able to pay. The

755
assertions of the right hon. Secretary showed that he knew very little about Ireland, and very little of what was done there in his name, and, as it was said, by his orders.
Mr. Lambertrose to move an Amendment to the end of the clause. He had given his assent to the second reading of the Bill because of the outrages and agitation which existed, and which must be put an end to. He had seen nothing lately to make him form a different opinion. On the contrary, he had lately read a letter from one of the agitators, which had been published in a journal in the county with which he was connected, which called on the people of Wexford to wreak their vengeance on his hon. colleague and his children for the vote he had given in that House. He must still support the Bill; but he hoped it would be so modified as only to suppress outrage and put down the system of agitation. If it were so modified, he should give it his support on the third reading. As the Bill now stood, it was difficult not to conceive it to apply to the collection of tithes. He knew that, in many instances, tithes had been levied with kindness and with forbearance; but there were other instances, and he had seen some, in which they were levied with the utmost seventy. The Bill of 1832, which had transferred the rights of the tithe owners and the odium of collecting tithes to the Government—the Bill for forcibly collecting tithes of last Session had, as was foretold at the time, signally failed, though Government had used all its means and exerted all its powers in endeavouring to enforce it. The police, though contrary to the Act creating that force, had been employed to collect tithes, or, at least, to protect those who were employed in collecting and valuing tithes. The Army, too, had been brought out for the same purpose, and that, he must say, was a most perilous experiment. In one case, when the soldiers had been employed to enforce the collection of tithes from a poor man's potato-field, they had been unwilling to perform the duty; and the sergeant of the party at length exclaimed, "Comrades! we won't bear this any longer; let us club among ourselves and buy the tithe off, rather than enforce the payment." The Bill had increased the danger of the country, and had greatly extended the disappointment of the people. The consequences had been most injurious to the general peace and tranquillity. He
756
had in his possession a petition which described these effects, and which said, that there were many persons who were but too willing to profit by the discontent of the people. There were some clergymen, also, who were not averse from profiting by this compulsory Tithe Bill to create disturbance. The poverty and distress of the people made them the ready victims of those who liked agitation. The Bill, during the short time it had been acted on, had driven thousands of peaceable men from their homes and into exile; and made men guilty of outrage, who, if allowed to remain in quietness cultivating their own fields, would have been loyal and peaceable subjects. For a time the operation of the Act had been suspended—the war had been stayed—but the campaign had been again begun.
"The war which for a space did fail,
Now, trebly thundering, swells the gale,
And 'Stanley' is the cry!"
The right hon. Gentleman was heir to a great name—noble blood flowed in his veins—and he hoped that the generous, the chivalrous feelings which belonged to high birth and noble descent, would induce the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the appeal which he made. He hoped, that the right hon. Gentleman would willingly consent to what he asked in the name of his unfortunate country. He hoped, that the concession would be given freely, and not as if it were extorted by menace. He hoped, that if it were freely given, it would gratify the people. He believed, that the Amendment he meant to propose would tranquillize the country. It would not, indeed, render the measure palatable to the people; it was not palatable to himself, except as it was absolutely necessary to suppress agitation and outrage. He had received letters from several persons in the county he represented, who stated, that some measure of this kind was most necessary. Many other persons were of the same way of thinking, who did not dare to avow their sentiments. At the same time they wished for some modification of the Bill; and, above all, they wished that it should not be applied to enforce the collection of tithes. He wished that the Bill should bear that upon its face—he wished that the promise already given by the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) should form part of the Bill; and it was to carry that promise into effect that be would propose his

757
Amendment. The hon. Member concluded by proposing to add to the end of the clause a proviso to the effect—" Provided always, and be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the Lord-lieutenant, or any Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland to apply the provisions of this Act to any county or district merely because the tithes are not paid in that county or district; nor shall this Act be at any time applied, in any manner whatever, to the levying of tithes, or to enforce the payment thereof."
Mr. Warburtonsupported the proviso, and observed, that after the promise made by the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) on a former night, to the effect that this Act was not to be applied to the levying or enforcing the payment of tithes, he could not conceive what objection could by any possibility be offered by the noble Lord or his colleagues to the present Motion. If, however, such a proviso were rejected, and the Bill were to be allowed to apply to the 11th section of the Act of the 27th George 3rd, the present could only be called "an Act for the collection of Tithes." The 11th section of the 27lh George 3rd, provided that "if any person or persons should by force or threats, or other unlawful means, prevent any clergyman or lay impropriator, or any person employed by such clergyman or lay impropriator, from viewing, valuing, setting, or selling any tithes to which said clergyman or lay impropriator was lawfully entitled, then that such person or persons should be held to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to punishment by fine or imprisonment." Now, there was one species of offence which it might be contended that the provisions of the Bill could be fairly and legitimately applied to redress—he meant personal acts of violence towards clergymen, firing their houses, &c.; for such offences persons might be punished under this Act; but let it not be applied to any case that could be met by civil process. If an Amendment were not introduced which drew a distinction between crimes of violence and an opposition to tithes unaccompanied by such offences, the mere presence of a party at a tithe sale with a view to discountenance the tithe system might be brought under the 27th George 3rd. He considered the noble Lord as being bound in honour, after what he had said on a former evening, to put some limitation on the en-
758
forcement of the powers of the law as enjoined by the 17th clause of this Bill, which directly referred to the 27th George 3rd, chap. 15. If the noble Lord refused to make such limitation, he, for one, should consider it a direct breach of promise on the part of the noble Lord.
Lord Althorpsaid, that to the whole of the first part of the Amendment of the hon. member for the county of Wexford, he did not entertain the slightest objection; he alluded to that part of the proviso which enacted that it should not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to apply the powers conferred by this Act to any county or district merely in consequence of non-payment of tithes. With respect to the other part of the hon. Member's Amendment, the doubt, he felt, was as to the misinterpretation it might be liable to. He thought that that part of the Amendment of his hon. friend would be liable to be so interpreted as to do away entirely with the 11th clause of the 27th George 3rd. He did not agree with his hon. friend opposite in the construction which he put upon that clause. It appeared to him that it only applied to anything done in the way of forcible resistance or obstruction to the collection or valuation of tithes, and it surely would not be denied, if violence was offered to a person in the performance of a legal Act which he had a right to do, and a forcible obstruction was raised against him, that he should be protected against the effects of violence and outrage. That was the object of the 11th clause of the 27th George 3rd. It referred to a forcible obstruction in the execution of legal rights, and it did not refer to any measures against the payment of tithes, for which a remedy could be obtained by civil bill process. He was ready to say, as he had said before, that if, by any possibility, the Bill could be applied, in the plain common sense of the words, to the enforcement of the collection of tithes, he would be most ready to agree to any provision that would prevent its being so employed. But the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman was entirely unnecessary, for it was intended by Government, as he (Lord Althorp) had already stated, to propose a plan to the House which would render it quite impossible that this Bill could be applied to the collecting of tithes. The plan which would be proposed by Government would be one

759
whereby the arrears of tithes would be got rid of, the only thing to which this Bill, during the time that it was likely to last, could by possibility be applied. He felt this objection to the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, that the effecting of it would be to do away with all offences resulting from resistance and combination, by force and violence to the collection of tithes—those offences to which the 11th clause of the 27th George 3rd, solely applied—and he was sure that the Committee would agree with him in feeling that it would be, therefore, a dangerous alteration to introduce into the Bill. He had asked his hon. friend, in a private conversation on this subject, whether he could adduce any case where, under this 11th clause of the 27th George 3rd, any individual had been committed for a misdemeanor for refusing the payment of tithes. His hon. friend acknowledged that he was not able to bring forward such a case, but he said, that it was impossible to know what interpretation the Judges of the land might yet put upon this Act of Parliament. Now, when, after the lapse of forty-six years, his hon. friend was unable to point out an instance in which that clause had been applied so as to make it a misdemeanor to refuse the payment of tithes, where that refusal was not accompanied by the fact of the individual in question being engaged in an unlawful conspiracy and combination to resist that payment generally, surely the House might assume that it would not and could not be so applied in future. He was sure that the Committee would agree with him that the measure should be applied to prevent illegal combinations against every species of property, and it was not intended, he repeated, to be applied to the levying of tithes, but it was to be applied to any violence and outrage which might be offered in resisting the levying of tithes. It was proper that the Bill should apply to every description of outrages in any disturbed district whenever it was placed under the operation of the Bill. He begged distinctly to state, that he should have no objection to the Amendment if it merely went to this extent, and was so understood as to prevent the Lord-lieutenant from applying the Bill to any district because tithes were not paid in it; but from fear of the misconstruction and misinterpretation which the introduction of such an amendment as
760
that proposed by the hon. Gentleman into the Act might occasion, he felt it his duty to object to it, for it was obvious that one effect of such an Amendment might be, that riots and misdemeanors committed in opposing and resisting the enforcement of the payment of tithes might be considered as excepted from the operation of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to regard all outrages against property in the same light, and to punish them accordingly. He did not feel any objection, as he had already said, to the first part of his hon. friend's Amendment; but upon the grounds which he had mentioned, he should object to the second portion of it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it appeared that the noble Lord would not object to the first part of the Amendment, because the first part of it, without the second, would be totally inoperative. He certainly had not known a case where a mere refusal to pay tithes was made a punishable offence under the 27th George 3rd; but suppose a case to occur where a refusal o pay had been given—where a distress had been in consequence issued, and where the answer to the bailiff who came to execute it was, "You shall not take my cow,"—would not the refusal in that case to pay tithes be construed under this Act to be a misdemeanor? He contended that it was absurd to say that this Act would not be applied to the levying of tithes, when they would leave the 27th of George 3rd to be interpreted by such learned sages as the members of a Court-martial.
Mr. Lefroyobserved, that no civil remedy was in any respect afforded by the 27th of George 3rd. It was merely intended to apply to criminal offences and outrages against property; and that being the case, he would beg to know whether, as long as tithes existed, their possessors should not enjoy the protection of the law, as well as other individuals. Were the clergy to be outlawed, and was their property to be left exposed to violence and outrage? The effect of the introduction of such a saving clause into the Bill would be to encourage the peasantry of Ireland to resist the payment of tithes by illegal combinations and acts of violence and outrage. They were all aware that an unfortunate misinterpretation had been already put by the people in Ireland upon the words "extinction of tithes" which had been employed in that House, and he

761
would therefore implore the noble Lord to resist the introduction of a proviso that was liable to similar misconstruction.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, it would perhaps be better to postpone the consideration of such an Amendment as that now before the Committee until they had come to the Court-martial clause. It should be remembered that the 27th George 3rd gave, amongst other things, the power of punishing for any conspiracy to defraud the clergy of their tithes. Now, it did appear to him that the members of a Court-martial should not be constituted Judges to try what was a conspiracy to defraud the clergy.
Mr. Warburtonwould put this simple question to the noble Lord. Would not an agreement to purchase in the lots at a distress sale for tithes be construed and interpreted by the law authorities in Ireland into a conspiracy against the payment of tithes? If that was the case, what became of the allegation of the noble Lord that this Bill would not be applied to the collection of tithes? The fact was, that all Ireland was in a conspiracy to resist the payment of tithes, and if any Irishman should do anything to defraud a clergyman of his tithes, it might be construed into a conspiracy, and might bring him within the provisions of this Act. There should be an express provision, expunging from this Bill the operation of the 11th clause of the 27th George 3rd.
Mr. Finchsaid, that he perfectly concurred in the distinction which had been drawn by the noble Lord (Lord Althorp). The Bill should not be made use of for the purpose of enforcing the collection of tithes; but then the possessors of tithes should be protected like other individuals, and their lives and properties should be secure against violence and outrage. It would seem from the discussions upon that, as upon former evenings, that though tithes were protected by the law, they were to be considered as contrary to equity and justice. It would seem, from the statement of the hon. member for Wexford, as if the opposition to tithes in Ireland had arisen from the distresses of the poor; but if the hon. Member would refer to the evidence given before a Committee of that House, he would see that Dr. Doyle boasted that he was the first person in Ireland to raise an opposition there to the payment of tithes.
Mr. Prymesaid, that if the clergy were
762
specially excepted from this Act, they would still have all the power which the law afforded them to enforce the payment of their property, and to put down offences against it. They were all aware what different opinions existed, even amongst the best lawyers, as to the interpretation of what was a conspiracy, and yet they were about to commit its interpretation to the Members of a Court-martial. The Committee should either adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wexford, or they should omit expressly from the Act the 11th clause of the 27th George 3rd, which would leave the clergy in as good a situation as the landlords, or any other possessors of property, were at present.
Mr. Shawsaid, there had been much useless discussion about 27th George 3rd, for independently of it a conspiracy to defraud was a common law misdemeanor—although to omit allusion to it in the 17th clause of the present Act would be to point out the clergy as a proscribed class. He (Mr. Shaw) protested altogether against the Amendment of the hon. member for Wexford, as to inserting in that clause that the Lord-lieutenant could not proclaim a district merely because tithe was not paid—it would be a downright absurdity in legislation, when the preceding words stated that nothing but outrage and insubordination could justify him in proclaiming it; but then it would be more than absurd—for it would serve to cast an insult on the clergy, and to point out their property as less deserving of protection in case of outrage than that of any other portion of the community. The hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) indeed would, in his tender mercy, allow the lives of the clergy to be protected, provided they would remain in their houses—but was not this a cruel mockery of the sufferings of men to whom on an average nearly three years' income was due, and who, for aught that hon. Member cared, might stay within, the bare walls of their houses, and die there of starvation? He would read one passage from the sworn evidence of Captain Vignolles, given within the last few days before a Coroner's Inquest, to prove the species of attack the clergy would be subject to in the exercise of their legal and just rights, if not protected by the law. Captain Vignolles swore that the most violent assault was made upon the persons engaged in the

763
distress—and when he requested the infuriated people to desist, their answer was—" they had O'Connell's orders; that they had driven better men than ever he and his police were out of the country, and they would drive them too." He asked no favour for the clergy under that Bill, but he demanded their right for them, namely, equal advantage and protection from the laws with every other class of his Majesty's subjects; and he would divide the Committee before he would suffer any words to be introduced into the clause, either casting a slur on that most injured body, or pointing by inference at their property as the legitimate subject of spoliation.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that however, the hon. Gentleman who had proposed this Amendment and himself might differ as to the details of the Bill, they were agreed as to the one great object—namely, the necessity of giving security to property, and restoring the peace of the country; and he was sure that the hon. Gentleman would do him (Mr. Stanley) and his colleagues the justice to believe that they were as equally anxious as he was, though perhaps they proposed to travel by somewhat different ways, to arrive at the same result. He should have wished that the hon. Member had postponed the introduction of this Amendment until they came to the consideration of the Court-martial clause, as had been suggested by his hon. friend the member for Kirkcudbright, for the discussion of this Amendment involved the question, merely whether certain offences should be tried by one tribunal or by another. However, as the question had come under discussion, it was proper that the Committee should at once come to an understanding upon it. He entirely agreed with his noble friend beside him, that it was by no means the intention or the wish of the Government to apply this Act to enforce the levying of tithes, any more than the levying; of rents. He felt, at the same time, that it was of the utmost importance that the Act should make no distinction between criminal offences committed against the rights of the clergy, and those committed against the rights of the laity. The 27th George 3rd seemed to be pointed entirely against a particular description of offences, and the 11th clause of that Act was more especially framed against two species of offences—the one a general conspiracy or combination, and
764
the other a forcible resistance to legal rights, coming under the class of violence and outrage, accompanied with conspiracy. Now, one object of the present Bill was to give the protection which the 27th of George 3rd gave to the rights of clergymen against violence and threats; and he would wish to introduce words to show that the enactment was not directed against offences which did not come fairly under the class of violence and outrage. If the hon. member for Wexford would be satisfied with that, probably he would now consent to withdraw his Amendment, or at all events if he would but consent to postpone it he, would, when they came to the 17th clause, propose the introduction of the proviso which he had mentioned, and which he had just drawn up, for the purpose of reading to the Committee. He thought that that was dealing fairly with the Committee, and with the hon. Gentleman; and he was sure that the hon. Gentleman would himself see, that the proviso which he proposed to introduce would do away with the necessity of his Amendment. He wished to give the same protection to clerical as to lay property; and while he desired by this Act to afford the clergy no assistance in the enforcement of their civil rights, he was anxious to protect them against violence and threats, the more especially as he believed that their property was more subject than that of any others to such attacks at the present moment. The following was the provision which he had drawn up, to be inserted at the end of the 17th clause, and he hoped that, it would satisfy the hon. member for Wexford, and induce him to withdraw his Amendment—" Provided always that nothing hereinafter contained shall authorize or enable any such Court-martial to try any persons charged under the aforesaid Act with any conspiracy or combination unaccompanied by violence or threats."
Mr. James Grattanhoped that both Amendments would be withdrawn, for they would be perfectly useless. He was ready to believe that Ministers did not intend to apply this Bill to enforce the collection of the tithes; but it was impossible that it could be otherwise employed. The very disturbances which it was to repress—the disturbances in Kilkenny and Carlow, and other counties—had arisen out of the tithe system. He agreed with the hon. member for Kirkcudbright that the interpretation

765
and administration of the law in reference to the combinations against tithes should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Courts-martial.
Mr. Sheilasked what the hon. member for Wexford could expect by acceding to the proposal made to him by the right hon. Secretary? He could assure the hon. member for Wexford, that he was about to enter into a compact in which the right hon. Secretary would not be found to agree. It was urged that there ought to be a specific clause on the subject, and the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed desirous to put the question out of doubt.
Mr. Stanleythought the hon. and learned Member ought to take care, and be a little more correct in his allusions to what had taken place. What his noble friend near him had stated was, that he had no objection to that part of the amendment which went to prevent the introduction of this Bill by the Lord Lieutenant into any county, merely because of tithes not being paid; but he objected to the latter part of the Amendment, which bore a different construction.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the right hon. Secretary had explained for the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Altkorprepeated that his only objection was to the latter part of the Amendment, which said, "nor shall it be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Governor, to enforce the provisions of this Bill for the payment or collection of tithes."
Mr. Sheilwas right in the construction he had put upon what had fallen from the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord was willing to agree to one-half the Amendment, which would, in fact, render it of no use at all. The noble Lord would agree to that half of it which by itself would be altogether inept. He would submit to the hon. Member opposite, and to the House, that the Amendment proposed b? the right hon. Secretary was by no means conclusive upon the subject. The 11th section of the 27th of George 3rd, would not be excluded from operation by the adoption of a clause to that effect. The present Ministers had acted differently from all the previous introducers of Insurrection Acts. On former occasions it was usual, in passing such an Act, to embody in it all such clauses of previous acts as were
766
meant to be preserved. But the present Ministry had pursued a different course. They said no; all the power of the 27th of George 3rd, must be preserved and given to this Bill. He would call upon the hon. member for Wexford not to be led astray by the recommendations of his Majesty's Ministers. He would caution him not to give way, unless the powers of the 27th of George 3rd, were to be altogether removed from this Bill. The hon. Member for Wexford had spoken three or four times upon this Bill, and all who knew him knew that he was most competent to do so. But on the previous occasions of his speaking upon it, he had been received with acclamation by Ministers, because he happened to be on their side of the question. Did they cheer him now that he was opposed to them? Was it only when he agreed with them that they extended to him the meed of their applause and approbation?
Mr. Perrinsaid, he felt reluctantly compelled to support the amendment proposed by his hon. friend the member for Wexford, whose only object, he was sure, was to have the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) embodied in the Bill. He was quite sure, and all who knew his hon. friend must feel satisfied, that his hon. friend the member for Wexford, never countenanced or supported violence or outrage. His hon. and learned friend, one of the Representatives for the University of Dublin, had objected to that part of the Amendment which spoke of the resistance to the collection of tithes by force and violence as tending to throw a slur upon the Clergy; but he could assure the hon. and learned Member that his hon. friend near him had no such intention.
Mr. Lambertwished only to say, that he was by no means anxious to put himself forward in making unnecessary alterations in the Bill; and in what he did propose he was actuated by the best intentions.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had no objection to the first part of the Amendment, but he trusted that his hon. friend would allow the second part to stand over till they came to the 17th clause of the Bill.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that there seemed to be a mistake about the 27th of George 3rd. That Act comprehended both confederacies and the combinations respecting tithes, and he did not think that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman

767
would meet the objections which had been made to the present clause.
The Question was put on the first part of the hon. member for Wexford's amendment, and the Gallery was cleared.
During the exclusion of strangers, the following debate took place.
Mr. Shawproposed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, to move the substance of the Amendment that he should move at the end of the 17th clause, comprehending all civil processes, without specifying tithe.
Sir Robert Peelcalled the attention of the Committee to the words of the clause then under consideration; which required a "district to be in a state of disturbance and insubordination" before the Lord Lieutenant could apply to it the provisions of the Act; and then called upon the Committee to say whether it was not a manifest absurdity to add to that clause that the Lord Lieutenant should not proclaim the district merely because tithe was not paid within it. Did it mean that if cess or rent or any other payment was withheld, except that of tithe, that the Lord Lieutenant was to proclaim the district? The right hon. Baronet called upon the Solicitor General to say whether such would not be the natural inference, and whether such an amendment was not ridiculous and absurd.
The Solicitor Generalcertainly considered the Lord Lieutenant could not proclaim a district as the clause originally stood, merely because tithe was not paid, and that the Amendment would certainly encumber the clause, and might give rise to the inference suggested by the right hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly, in his opinion, the clause would stand much better without the Amendment.
Mr. Wynnurged upon his Majesty's Ministers the absurdity of dividing in favour of a clause which the Solicitor General declared would be injurious to the Bill.
Mr. Shawcalled upon the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley) to state his views of the effect of the Amendment, as he (Mr. Stanley) had himself submitted to the Committee an amendment, which he (Mr. Shaw) understood was to be substituted for that now put from the Chair.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that certainly his opinion was that the clause would be better without the Amendment, and that the Government agreed to it merely in de-
768
ference to the opinion of one hon. Gentleman.
The Committee divided on Mr. Lambert's Amendment: Ayes 284; Noes 81—Majority 203.
On the Question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.
Mr. O'Connellexpressed an earnest wish, that such an addition should be made to the clause as would give the public the means of ascertaining whether it was wise or expedient that any district proclaimed under the Act should be brought within its operation. He wished that it should be imperative upon the Lord Lieutenant to give public notice in the newspapers on the subject; and further, that the Lord Lieutenant should, with respect to any proclaimed district, be bound to lay before Parliament, if sitting, an account of all felonies within two or three months, at the selection of the Government, committed within such district. To effect this object he moved as a proviso that the Lord Lieutenant be required to lay before Parliament, or to publish in The Dublin Gazette if Parliament be not sitting at the time, an account of all felonies and crimes committed within any proclaimed district.
Lord Althorpobjected to the Amendment, because he thought it both invidious and unnecessary—invidious, because it proceeded upon the suspicion that the Lord Lieutenant would improperly exercise the powers intrusted to him by the Bill; and unnecessary, because it would be in the power of any Gentleman, if he thought fit, to move for the production of such a return as the hon. and learned Member described.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn this Amendment after the last part of the last clause had been agreed to, he would probably have added a sentence, calling on the Lord Lieutenant to declare that he had not proclaimed a county for non-payment or refusal of payment of rent, county cess, or parochial rates. This was rendered necessary by the construction of the last clause, which declared that the Lord Lieutenant should not proclaim a county "merely for non-payment of tithes." As he was not to make proclamation for such a reason "merely," it followed of course by implication that he might do so for other causes. The hon. and learned Gentleman must certainly mean to impose

769
on the Lord Lieutenant the same restriction with regard to rent and county cess as that now imposed on him with regard to tithes, and the Amendment should be altered accordingly.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if he were in the vein for pleasantry, he should certainly adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but he was not—the matter was too serious for him. He had certainly voted for the last amendment, which he must admit was as nonsensical as any he had ever supported. His fear was, that the "tithe non-payment "exemption would be got over by some other pretext being alleged as to the ground of proclamation. It was to guard against such a pretence that he had moved, and would persist in, his Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment; Ayes 77; Noes 235—Majority 158.
Mr. O'Dwyermoved the following Amendment to the Clause—: "Provided always that nothing in this Act shall be taken to empower the Lord Lieutenant, or any other authority, to declare the county of the city of Dublin in a state of disturbance or insubordination, or to require the application of the provisions of this Act."—The Committee again divided: Ayes 36; Noes 251.—Majority 215.
Clause agreed to and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The fifth Clause, declaring that "The Lord Lieutenant's proclamation shall warn the inhabitants to abstain from seditious and other unlawful assemblies, and to continue in their houses between sunset and sunrise," was agreed to.
The sixth Clause which enacts "That every county, county of a city, county of a town, or part thereof respectively, so proclaimed, shall be considered to all intents and purposes as a proclaimed district within this Act, from the day on which such proclamation shall be published within such proclaimed district, by affixing a copy thereof on some public place within the same district," was read.
Mr. Barronthought that there was not sufficient time given by this clause to the inhabitants of a proclaimed district to know that it was proclaimed. Two days, at least, ought to be allowed for that purpose.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he had no objection to insert after the words "from the day" the words "after that;" so that the
770
district would not be considered as a proclaimed district till the second day after that proclamation was issued.
The Amendment agreed to.
Mr. O'Connellwas not satisfied with this Amendment, for he recollected, that the county of Cork was one district, and its opposite extremes were 150 miles apart from each other. Again, the county of Tipperary was very extensive; and yet, by this clause, a proclamation made at Carrick-upon-Suir was to be considered as a sufficient notice to the people at Senagh, eighty miles distant, that the county was proclaimed. He contended that the proclamation should be posted upon the doors of every Protestant Church and Catholic Chapel within the district. Anything so monstrous as this clause was never yet fabricated.
The Solicitor Generalwas of opinion that the notice given in this clause was sufficient. When a fact so important as the proclamation of a disturbed district took place in one part of the county, would it not be communicated with all the speed of horses to every other part of the county?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he should have no objection to alter the last paragraph of this clause in the following manner—"by affixing a copy thereof on some public place, in each barony, within the same district."
An Hon. Memberproposed that a copy should be affixed on each police station in each barony.
Mr. Stanleyobjected to this alteration as it would increase the difficulty of obtaining a conviction. In some baronies there were nine or ten police stations, and unless it could be proved, that copies had been affixed on the whole number of police stations no conviction could be had under the Act.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that that difficulty might be obviated by employing one police officer to affix all the different copies to the different police stations.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the last amendment proposed by the right hon. Secretary would render the clause inoperative in many places. He knew of many counties of towns in which there was not a single barony.
Mr. Stanley'sAmendment was agreed to, and the Clause as amended directed to stand part of the Bill.
The seventh Clause was read which

771
enacts, that "when any such proclamation shall have been issued, all justices, constables, peace-officers, and others to whom the execution of the process of law may properly belong, and also all commissioned officers commanding his Majesty's forces in Ireland, or any part thereof, and such other persons as such Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governor or Governors of Ireland shall think fit to authorize in that behalf, shall, and each of them is hereby; required and enjoined to take the most vigorous and effectual measures for suppressing insurrectionary and other disturbances and outrages in any part of Ireland, which may be specified in such proclamation respectively, and to search for, arrest, and detain for trial under this Act, every person who shall be charged with any offence which by the provisions of this Act may be cognizable by or before any court hereinafter empowered and authorized to try such offence."
Mr. Stanleyproposed to omit the words "and such other persons as such Lord Lieutenant, or other chief Governor, or Governors, of Ireland, shall think fit to authorize in that behalf." The intention of Government was, to limit the power given by this clause to a particular class of public officers, and not to give to the Lord Lieutenant the power of appointing any persons to execute the Act, save those specifically named here.
Mr. O'Connellthought that, besides the words proposed by the right hon. Secretary to be omitted, the words "and also all commissioned officers commanding his Majesty's forces in Ireland, or any part thereof," should be erased from the clause. The words which he wished to strike out were not strict enough to exclude officers in yeomanry corps. The clause, as it now stood, included yeomanry officers, and those persons were authorized "to Search for, arrest, and detain for trial, under this Act, every person who shall be charged with any offence under it."
An Hon. Membersaid, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin's objection might be got rid of by letting the clause run—" officers commanding his Majesty's forces of the line in Ireland."
Mr. O'Connellobjected to giving this power to military officers at all. He thought that no man should have power "to search for, arrest, and detain for trial" any person "who should be charged with any offence" under this Act, unless he was
772
a magistrate, or a person acting under the warrant of a magistrate. He wanted to exclude military officers altogether from the clause; for he objected to give any man who, within twenty-four hours afterwards, might, in the ordinary course of his duty, be on his voyage to the most remote settlement in India, the tremendous power of arresting and detaining another, it might be, upon his mere caprice. Against the justice, the constable, and the peace officer, if they grossly misconducted themselves, some redress might be obtained by the sufferer, as they were at home and on the spot; but how was redress to be obtained against an officer who might be thousands of leagues away from Ireland? He moved the omission of the words which he had already mentioned.
The Solicitor Generalwas surprised that the hon. and learned Member should object to give that power to officers of the Army which he was not unwilling to trust to police officers and constables.
Mr. O'Connellwas old enough to recollect the time when commissioned officers had the power to arrest in Ireland, and he was sorry to say, that they had used that power too often for the purpose of promoting the most immoral lust and debauchery. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the Army to know whether our officers had greatly improved in morality since that period. If they had not, this power ought not to be granted to them.
Mr. Sheilobserved by this clause the; same officer might first arrest a man upon; a charge, and then try him for it after-wards. He was proceeding to condemn this arrangement, when he was interrupted by,
Mr. Stanley, who said, that a short explanation which he was about to make would obviate the objection of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, and would render his further argument on this point at least unnecessary. In the Courts-martial clause it was the intention of Government, in compliance with the suggestions of some hon. Members, who thought that the Army ought not to be brought unnecessarily into collision with the people, to introduce an amendment incapacitating officers who were in military service in the proclaimed districts from sitting as members on a Court-martial for the trial of offenders. After the alteration should be made in that clause, enacting

773
that no officer under the rank of Captain should sit on these Courts-martial, it was the intention of Government to add these words—" who shall within one month have been in regular military service within the district." It was also the intention of Government to send officers of high rank to serve on these Courts-martial. It might be right to add, that for the sake of giving them information, there would be added to them officers of rank who had served in Ireland.
Mr. Sheil: The explanation just made took away the objection which he had been about to urge, and showed the benefit of the protracted resistance which the Irish Members had made to this Bill. The Ministers were coming forward every hour with fresh mitigations and modifications of it, and he hoped to see it mitigated and modified much further than it was at present. The words of the clause were—"Every person who shall be charged with any offence." He thought they should be "who shall be charged on oath with any offence." He thought that all the executive part of this Bill should be performed by the police, and not by the soldiery. That was calculated to prevent the Army from being brought into collision with the people.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he had no objection to limit this power to officers of the line, as it was supposed the words would include yeomanry.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 40; Noes 205:—Majority 165.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, as the clause was important, he hoped that the Chairman might then report progress.
Mr. Divettobjected to the Committee reporting progress at so early an hour. The debate upon this question had commenced on the first reading—it had been followed up on the second reading—it had been continued in the Committee on every clause, to the interruption of all other business—and it ought not to be thus easily adjourned night after night. An effort should be made to make a positive progress with it. In justice to the country—in justice to the suffering people of Ireland—to the other great questions of public interest, on which the minds of the people were anxiously bent—this system of delay should be strenuously resisted. He must suggest, that if greater progress were not made, they could not, in justice
774
to their constituents, claim the usual recess at Easter.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. member for Exeter had made a most unfounded attack on the opponents of the Bill. The first part of the opposition of that evening, which had occupied many hours, he had discountenanced as much as any man; and now when he and his countrymen, who were to suffer by that Bill—that Bill which even its supporters termed arbitrary despotic, and cruel—when they were battling to obtain some little modification of its harshness and its tyranny, they were to be reproached in this manner! It was cruel in the extreme to throw out these taunts. If the public time were unnecessarily occupied, who was to blame? Why, nobody but the Ministers who introduced such an atrocious measure. There were two great principles of the Bill—the right of search, and the power of arrest and detention without evidence and without oath—which he felt it his duty to combat to the utmost. They were powers of a monstrous character, and such as ought never to be heard of in that House.
Mr. Divettsaid, he had not made an unfounded accusation. He did not say that it was unnecessary to discuss the Bill, but that it was not right they should report progress at so early an hour. No one regretted the necessity for the Bill more than he did; but having once made up their minds to that necessity, and that the Bill ought to pass, he thought they should sit there till a later hour, that they might afford time hereafter for the other business of the country.
Sir John Sebright, though he did not wish to make any personal allusions, could not, how-over, help observing that the attention of the House from the commencement of the Session had been almost entirely engrossed by Irish questions. He would second the recommendation of the hon. Member who spoke last, which he advised Ministers to act upon with firmness. Not a day, he continued, passed without his receiving complaints from his constituents and others respecting the want of firmness shown by Ministers in yielding points of the kind then under consideration. By such weakness it was that the public time was wasted.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he was perfectly convinced that at that hour it was not fitting to order the Chairman to report

775
progress. He should therefore resist the Motion.
Mr. PhilipHoward said, that he had been in the House the whole of the evening and he must say, that to the best of his observation the hon. and learned member for Dublin had confined himself to the question before the House. He thought, however, it would be better to come to some compromise upon the present occasion. Perhaps the hon. Member, and those who acted with him, would consent to sit for half an hour longer. No good, he was sure, could result from prolonging a discussion which was carried on in such an angry spirit.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that if the House sat at that hour to discuss that most important clause, it would be a sorry discussion indeed. There were many parts of the clause of a most extraordinary character, and would require the calmest and most serious deliberation.
The Committee went on discussing the seventh clause, which, with verbal amendments was agreed to, as was the eighth clause.
House resumed, Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Exchequer Bills; and Transfer of Aids.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, Lord STUART DE ROTHSAY, the Earl of ROSERY, the Bishop of LINCOLN, Lord DACRE, Lord KENYON, Lord WESTERN, the Duke of CLEVELAND, the Earl of GOSFORD, Lord SUFFTELD, the Earl of RODEN, the Bishop of LITCHFIELD, the Bishop of BRISTOL, Earl GREY, and the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from a great variety of Places, and very numerous,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath, and for the Abolition of Slavery.—By the Bishop of LINCOLN, from Rushall, for the Repeal of the Beer Act.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Lord Suffieldpresented a Petition from the Bankers, Merchants, Shipowners, and Inhabitants of Liverpool, praying for a mitigation of the severity of our Criminal Code, and that Capital Punishments might no longer be inflicted for Offences against Property. His Lordship observed, that in this petition, strong reasons were given in support of its prayer—reasons, which he must say, appeared to him well founded. The petitioners prayed for a mitigation of the severity of the law, on the ground that severity occasioned an insecurity of property, chiefly generated by a repugnance to prosecute capitally for offences of that nature. He believed, besides, that many, if not all the petitioners, felt religious scruples on this subject. It was not his purpose to solicit their Lordships to act upon these scruples, but he claimed attention to the petition on that account, and presumed to urge the existence of such feel-
700
ings, conscientiously entertained, as a strong reason in itself for the mitigation of the severity of the law. The petitioners stated, in the first instance, that they deplored the severity of the Criminal Law, which they thought was not authorized by Divine Revelation, they alluded to it as repugnant to reason and humanity, and gave that as the cause why in the present age it could not be uniformly enforced, in consequence of which, uncertainty of punishment existed, offences were multiplied, and insecurity of property ensued. He most cordially supported the prayer of the petition.
To lie on the Table.

DISTURBANCES IN THE COUNTY OF MAYO.
Lord Teynhamsaid, he held in his hand certain Returns relative to the placing of the Barony of Gallen, in the County of Mayo, under the Peace Preservation Act. It was not necessary for the purpose of bringing before their Lordships the subject of which he had given notice, that he should read their contents, but he must refer to them. The first was the copy of the Proclamation of the Lords Justices, declaring that Barony in a state of disturbance, and requiring that it should be declared under the operation of the Peace Preservation Act. The second was a copy of the Memorial of the Magistrates to the Lords Justices in consequence thereof. The third was the Counter-Declaration of Sir William Brabazon, and some of the principal land-owners of the county, together with a List of the Constables in the County. The fourth was a Return of the Number of the Committals from the Barony in the years 1830, 1831, and 1832. This last document showed most clearly that the list of committals last year was inferior to what it had been in past years, both in the number and the nature of the crimes charged. Indeed but for the offence of illegal distillery, there would have been but three committals from the Barony. He wished to call the particular attention of their Lord-ships to the statement he was now about to make. He did not wish unnecessarily to occupy their time, but he did feel that this was a subject of particular importance, especially at this moment, when they were about to confer upon the Government powers such as had never before been demanded—powers that would, in fact, annihilate the Constitution by placing

701
the whole people under military law. When they were about to do this, it was absolutely necessary that they should know how similar powers had on former occasions been exercised. The Peace Preservation Act, as it was called, was the only one now in operation for placing strong and almost unlimited powers in the hands of the Magistrates. By that Act, as their Lordships were aware, the Magistrates were empowered to send for police from distant parts of the country. Their Lordships were also acquainted with the feelings of the people of that country respecting the police, and they must be aware that the introduction of strange troops of them from distant parts of the country was not likely to allay any agitation that might previously have existed. That observation would convince their Lordships, that the Act which gave this power was of great extent and of equal severity. With regard to the county of Mayo, there were, perhaps, few counties that had for years past enjoyed such uninterrupted quiet, or paid such strict obedience to the laws. The noble Marquess behind him could not and would not deny that to be the fact. The disturbances had been few, and but a very small number of persons had been transported. It was not his wish to impeach the conduct of the noble Marquess, but he must touch on the recent election, which had produced many of those unpleasant circumstances to which he was about to call their attention. A few years past a strong political feeling had been excited in every part of Ireland, and the people of the county of Mayo sharing these feelings, determined to return an independent Member, who should truly represent their interests and wishes in Parliament. That feeling had been increased lately, and had been displayed in a manner stronger than ever before since the passing of the Reform Bill. No where was that measure hailed with greater delight than in Mayo, which had hitherto been subject to a similar influence to that which predominated in Old Sarum. There were many circumstances which rendered it difficult to get a proper person to represent the county. Some deliberations took place, and finally the freeholders called upon his friend and relative, Sir William Brabazon, to come forward. Sir William, animated by similar feelings to those which made his ancestor the glory of Ireland,
702
did so, and came forward, as he said, determined to do his duty to the freeholders, to use his utmost efforts to get their wrongs redressed, and to support their views in voting for the Repeal of the Union. Upon that important question he would give no opinion; but certainly a strong feeling existed on the subject in Ireland, and he knew no reason why discussion on that subject should be suppressed more than on any other. It came plainly with in the bounds of rational political inquiry. That, under the influence of this feeling, Sir William Brabazon was the candidate whom the people, if left to a free choice, would have selected, was clear, from the fact, that out of 1,300 votes, he had been able to obtain 600, out of which 500 were plumpers. Elections of that kind, in which the voice of the people was opposed to the ruling powers of the country, could not pass off without some degree of excitement. Advantage was taken of that excitement to introduce an army of police with their loaded muskets. What was the consequence? If noble Lords would read an account of the inquests upon the men killed in the county of Mayo by the police, they must be of opinion, that there had been a lamentable disregard of human life, and that no rational reason could be given for the death of hardly any one of the persons who had been shot by the police. The people were sacrificed to the excited feelings consequent on an election for political power. Notwithstanding this, on their part there had been no injuries committed, either on persons or property. The people of Mayo had a great respect for Sir William Brabazon, and it was no wonder that the inhabitants of Gallen in particular, should think highly of the hon. Baronet; for he was a most worthy landlord, he was constantly resident among them, and on this occasion had come forward at their call to represent their interests. The noble Marquess near him put his name at the head of the list of those who applied to the Government to place the barony under the Peace Preservation Act. That such an application was unnecessary, he could prove by the opinion of Sir Anthony Hart, one of the ablest and most honest men that had ever presided over the Chancery of Ireland, and he could prove in like manner, that the noble Marquess had been deceived by those who had given him information on these matters. He regretted that the

703
noble Lord, who was at present the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, had not, in this point, followed the footsteps of his predecessor, for that eminent lawyer had always been opposed to granting these extraordinary powers. It had been stated in another place, that the agitation at the election was not at an end; but if agitation did prevail, it was the agitation of freemen, whose voice, was not to be overpowered by influence or intimidation; they would have men of their choice, and not men who were forced on them. After the Proclamation of the Magistrates had been issued, a meeting of the Magistrates of the county was called by the noble Marquess. Among them there were only three Magistrates of the barony of Gallen, and they objected to the barony being placed under the operation of the Peace Preservation Act. They said, they saw no reason for such a proceeding: and that, too, was the opinion of the parish priests—a body of men than whom none knew better the state of their parishioners. The majority of the Magistrates supported the proposition for placing the Barony under the operation of the Act. Immediately afterwards, there was a large assembly of persons, and a Resolution was passed, declaring that no disturbance had taken place, and that the course proposed was an infliction upon them which they did not deserve. They sent a memorial to that effect, which was most numerously signed, and among the rest by all the parish priests of the district. The Lords Justices did not answer that memorial for some time. At last they sent word, that they saw no cause to alter their determination. Sir William Brabazon then sent in a memorial, with other Magistrates, denying that disturbances existed, and declaring that there was no necessity for putting the barony under the Peace Preservation Act; but the Lords Justices did not think proper even to peruse the memorial. He believed that no country in Europe laboured under such unhappy inflictions as Ireland. The gendarmerie of France were not to be compared, in point of cruelty and oppression, to the police of Ireland. The gendarmerie were not armed so destructively, and they never used their arms but in cases of the most absolute necessity. They were not like the Irish police, roaming about the country, like roaring lions, seeking whom they might devour. Such a system of tyranny as that which existed in Ireland
704
was worthy of the Dey of Algiers. The origin, too, of the political agitation now existing in that county was worthy of notice. It all arose from the enforcement of the payment of tithes. The memorial of the Grand Jury, in the year 1830, proved that fact most decisively. On that subject, on which Irishmen seemed to be unanimous, it was not to be wondered at that there should be agitation. The county of Mayo, however, though it might be excited a little, was quite free from disturbances. There was no predial agitation in the county, no attacks on houses, lives, and property. There was, he admitted, agitation, on account of tithes which had existed at least since 1830, when the Grand Jury of the county of Mayo implored the Irish government to do something towards allaying the angry feelings of a Catholic population consequent upon its being compelled to pay tithes for a Protestant Church. It was impossible to read the memorials in his hand, without being satisfied that the state of this barony had been grossly exaggerated; and he should, under these circumstances, feel himself bound to move their Lordships to agree to the presentation of an Address to his Majesty, for the purpose of investigating the facts of the case. He hoped their Lordships would agree to this, as their Lordships' House was considered the last resort of the Subject when oppressed by grievances. It was impossible to read the contents of the memorial he had referred to without feeling convinced of the necessity of inquiry. He trusted his Motion would not be resisted. The times, he assured their Lordships, were altered, and the feelings of the subject were not what they used to be. The case, in fact, resolved itself into this:—whether or no an inquiry should take place when the people preferred complaints of grievances to that House. The subject of complaint was not one that concerned the people of the barony of Gallen, or even of Ireland, alone, but it concerned the whole people of the United Kingdom. Let it be considered that great and extraordinary powers were about to be placed in the hands of Government. Did it not, then, behove; their Lordships to inquire whether any necessity existed for the stretch of power, which even under the existing law, had taken place? Did it not behove them to inquire whether, as the people asserted, the conduct of those in authority had

705
caused the evils complained of in Ireland before their Lordships armed those accused of misconduct with still greater powers. His opinions on the expediency of arming Government with extraordinary powers were well known. He thought the existing law, if properly administered, was quite sufficient for every purpose of protection; but if that were not the case, the remedial measures ought certainly to have preceded the coercive. If his view of the case, he repeated, were not correct, his Motion would of course fall to the ground; but if it were found to be just, his Majesty's Ministers, if just to themselves and to the people of Ireland, ought to support it. He would proceed to show by various documents, that the state of the barony was not such as to warrant its being placed under the Peace Preservation Act. The first document he would read, was a memorial from the gentry, clergy, and inhabitants of the barony. It was as follows:—
At a meeting of the gentry, clergy, freeholders, and other inhabitants of the barony of Gallen, held at the Courthouse, Swinford, on Tuesday, January 29th, 1833, the following resolutions were adopted.
Resolved—that we cannot but view with the utmost surprise, a resolution adopted by certain Magistrates at a meeting held in Castlebar, on the 22nd instant, that this barony should be placed under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act.
That, not with standing the excitement consequent on a hard contested election, this barony has never been more peaceable, nor more submissive to the laws than at present, and that we consider that resolution of the Magistrates a foul libel on the character of a loyal and peaceable people.
That we cannot but view such a resolution, emanating as it did from the Marquess of Sligo who was so deeply interested in the issue of the late election, and supported by Magistrates appointed by him, and totally ignorant of the real state of the barony, a vindictive proceeding for the independence and spirit evinced by our freeholders at the late election, and that we memorial the Lord-lieutenant or Lords Justices on this subject.
That the memorial now read be adopted, and immediately forwarded to the Lords Justices.
That this meeting, at its rising, do adjourn to this day week, in order to receive their Lordships' reply, and to judge of the necessity of adopting any other measures for the object of the present meeting.
That, viewing with the utmost contempt and scorn the impotent attempt that is now being
706
made to crush the spirit of independence that now exists among us, we will, by our peaceable conduct and submission to the laws, defeat the malice of our enemies, who, it would seem, are anxious to goad us into acts of insubordination; but that we will redouble our exertions constitutionally to relieve ourselves from the many burthens that now oppress us, and that we will not cease, by every means in our power, to procure the independence of our native country.
That the removal of the military from their usual barracks in this barony to Gallina, is the strongest proof of our peaceable and orderly conduct.
To the Right Honourable and Honourable Lords Justices of Ireland: the memorial of the undersigned gentry, clergy, freeholders, and others, inhabitants of the barony of Gallen, county Mayo:
Most humbly sheweth,
That your memorialists have learned with the utmost surprise, that, at a meeting of Magistrates held in Castlebar, in this county, on the 22nd instant, it was resolved to place this barony under the Peace Preservation Act; thereby adding to the taxation, and increasing those burthens which already press so heavily on the people.
That your memorialists beg leave most humbly to submit to your Lordships, that no case could be possibly made out to call for this extraordinary addition to the present civil force in this barony, as your memorialists are prepared to prove that this barony (peaceable even in the worst periods of public disturbance) was never so free from anything even like party spirit, as at the present moment; that rioting at fairs very seldom occurs; that no obstruction (except in a very few isolated instances, totally unconnected with politics and divested of the slightest appearance of insurrectionary movements) has been ever offered to the officers of law or justice; that your memorialists do not know that any nightly meetings have been held, or illegal oaths tendered, or, in fact, any overt act of insubordination to the laws committed, to warrant this call on the rigour of the Executive.
That your memorialists most respectfully beg leave to state, that they fear very much that this barony has been selected for punishment, more from a spirit of vindictiveness for the conduct of its freeholders at the late election for this county, than from any just wish to uphold the laws, or from the necessity of repressing outrage; as your memorialists most humbly submit that the former have not been infringed, and that the existing civil force is fully adequate for every purpose of protection.
In support of these allegations your memorialists beg to submit the following proofs:
1st. That, with the exception of three, not one of the assembled Magistrates, amounting to eighty and upwards, reside in this barony;

707
that not only were those who voted for the infliction of this Act, personally unacquainted with the state of the barony, but that they refused to admit into their deliberations the testimony of many clergymen and gentlemen who were anxious to afford them information on oath, and that your memorialists have reason to think that many written communications, which might have influenced their decisions in a different way, were withheld from them, and that those resident Magistrates who, from their local knowledge, could best testify to the peaceful state of our population, were opposed to the introduction of the Act.
2nd. That other baronies in this county, Burrishoole and Carra, where a very great number of these Magistrates reside, where disturbances of the most serious nature have taken place, where murders were committed under the very eye of the Lord-lieutenant, and where several lives have been lost in conflict between the people and the constituted authorities—circumstances that never occur in this barony—but where the freeholders did not exhibit the same spirit at the late election, as in ours, have not been visited with even an equal hand. We do not state this with any view to hold up these baronies as deserving a similar punishment, but merely to show that we have been most partially, most unjustly, and, we would say, most vindictively treated.
3rd. The strongest proof your memorialists can give of the state of profound peace and good order prevailing here, is the simple fact, that the presence of a military party, stationed in this barony, for more than half a century, has been deemed so unnecessary, that an order for their removal to a different district, where there services were required, was issued on the very day these Magistrates declared we required an extraordinary civil force, and that since the removal of the military not a single outrage has been committed to call for the interference of the few police remaining among us.
Relying on these facts, and trusting to the justice and humanity of your Lordships, that you will not, unknowingly, be made parties to any vindictive proceedings against us, we most humbly entreat, that, previous to adding to our distresses by the additional taxation this Act will impose on us, you will direct an investigation to be held by some officer of the Government who may be unconnected with the politics of this county, and your memorialists feel confident, that they will be able to satisfy your Lordships that in no part of the kingdom are the inhabitants more loyal, more peaceable, more submissive to the laws, and less deserving to be visited with any penalties, than the people of this barony.
His Lordship also read the affidavits of Mr. Ellar, and another Magistrate, dated 26th February,1833, showing the peaceful state of that barony; and the affidavits of a re-
708
spectable Catholic priest of the dstrict, of a Mr. Cooke, Catholic rector of another parish, who deposed, that his parishioners were all peaceable and orderly men; and of a physician who also stated, that he went about it all hours; and of the parish priest of Foxford. He would also read the affidavits of a Lieutenant of the Yeomanry Corps, and of a publican, which adverted to the case of the horse formerly mentioned by the nble Marquess.
Lord Wynfordrose to order. His Lordship submitted, that the noble Baron was greatly out of order in attempting to support his case by affidavits. They had been all illegally taken; and every noble Lord must be aware how improper it was in any individual invested by his Majesty with authority to have anything to do with such documents. Besides this objection, such testimonials were undesirable in other points of view. He well rernembered one of the best lawyers that had ever sat upon the Bench (Mr. Justice Lawrence) reprimanding an attorney in severe terms for taking such affidavits, for the deponent was never induced to alter his tone afterwards—he felt himself bound down by his previous act.
The Marquess of Sligofully agreed with the noble Lord in his objection, but would entreat him, in the present instance, to waive it. His character had been assailed in a way that would really he quite destructive, if he were not to have the opportunity of meeting, as he was anxious to do, every charge that could possibly be brought against him.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, one of these documents actually contained the report of a speech said to have been delivered in the House of Lords.
Lord Teynhamdid not mean to read that part.
The Marquess of Sligo: Read it—go on—go on.
Lord Teynhamadmitted there might be a slight departure from Order in reading the affidavits; but he did not know of any other mode except by an inquiry at the Bar of the House, by which to establish his case. If the noble Lord objected—
The Marquess of Sligo: It's nothing to rne—I deny the facts altogether.
Lord Teynhamwould then read the affidavit which applied to the case of the horse, which his Lordship did. It stated, that the person who swore the affidavit had

709
read in the newspapers an account of the Marquess of Sligo's description, and that the noble Marquess's description was not founded in fact. His Lordship said, the story of the abduction of the woman was false, as he could prove by affidavit. [Viscount Strangford: Pray read that.] The noble Lord accordingly read the affidavit, which was from the young lady's brother-in-law, and stated, that she was not carried away in the day-time, but was secretly conveyed away in the night by two persons, one of whom was in love with her. She was eventually brought back by a servant who was despatched after her. The noble Lord said, that it must be evident, from all that he had said, that the subject of his Motion was one of deep importance, and one which imperatively demanded inquiry the object of which would be, to ascertain whether or no there were sufficient reasons for placing the barony under the peace Preservation Act? He should, therefore, move, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to direct the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to appoint proper and efficient persons to inquire into the facts in consequence of which the barony of Gallen was placed under the Peace Preservation Act.
The Marquess of Sligosaid, that, when he came down to the House, he was in expectation that he should hear something to answer. He was, however, agreeably disappointed. He had, indeed, heard a long and desultory story of armed men going about like roaring lions, but he had actually heard nothing emanating immediately from the noble Lord which could move him to a reply. There were certainly one or two points in the memorial which would require some observations from him, and which would oblige him in turn to read some documents, in order that he might more completely defend himself from the base calumnies which had been levelled against him. He had been accused of having recommended the application of the Peace Preservation Act to the barony of Gallen. In reply to that accusation he would say, that the sixtieth part alone of that recommendation fell to his share, for he was only one of the sixty Magistrates by whose advice that step was taken. In the next place, the necessity for this occurred long before any ground of hostility existed between himself and Sir William Brabazon.
710
On the 20th of October, 1832, he had written to Sir William Gossett the following letter:—'As soon as Mr. Bulfin is well enough to proceed there (Gallen), I will request him to do so, and to call out the Foxford party of military to protect the tithe-viewers, and try if he is able to effect his purpose thereby. If that district is not thereby pacified, it will be necessary to call for the Peace Preservation Act; and I have caused it to be notified, in that district, that such is my intention. The result, I hope, will be, that the view will be allowed to proceed peaceably.' A day or two before he wrote that letter, he had met a Magistrate of the barony of Gallen, and told him of the danger which, he thought, would arise if the Magistrates persisted in declining to act with promptitude. He pressed upon this gentleman's attention the necessity of calling on his brother Magistrates to act, and left him, in the hope that something might be done. Nothing was done, however, and "on the 24th of October, he again wrote to Sir William Gossett: 'I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and beg to state, in the most distinct terms, that I think the residence of a stipendiary Magistrate in Gallen absolutely necessary. In my opinion, unless an immediate change takes place in its condition, from the exertions of a stipendiary Magistrate, it will be my duty to recommend the adoption of the Peace Preservation Act in that district.' On the 26th of October, he sat as chairman of the Petty Session at Westport, when a tithe question came on, and he then called attention to the subject, and informed the people that his duty would compel him to advise the application of the Act, if the disturbances did not speedily cease. He could not help thinking, that this circumstance must have been known to the noble Baron, and if it was, it was extremely unhandsome to allude to his political hostility to Sir William Brabazon as having influenced him in advising the application of the Act. He would, as his first evidence, read a letter which had been addressed to the noble Lord (Lord Teynham) by a gentleman in the county of Mayo, which letter contained a corroboration of the view taken by him. The noble Marquess read the letter as follows:—
My Lord,—As the public prints announce

711
your intention to press for a re-hearing upon the state of the barony of Gallen, in the county of Mayo, I think it but fair to inform you, that subsequent to the late discussion on that subject I wrote to a private friend, not unknown, I believe, to your Lordship, who possesses peculiar means of furnishing an accurate account of that district; and I deeply regret being obliged to add, that he assured me that the Marquess of Sligo's statement was "perfectly correct." These were his precise words.
Your Lordship will recollect that in the latter end of last November, or early in December, we met casually, at Whitehall; when you told me you were just then come from the Home-office, where you had called on and seen Lord Melbourne, in consequence of a letter you had received that morning from Gallen, slating the barony to be greatly disturbed,—that several persons had been killed in an affray about tithes claimed by Dean Gore and Mr. Bourke, and that the peasantry were violently excited, and, as your Lordship termed it, "all up," to the amount of several thousands. I was happy to learn, shortly after from other quarters, that the representation made to your Lordship was much exaggerated; but you will naturally feel that if I were compelled to name an authority in support of Lord Sligo's most painful and evidently reluctant statement, I must, of course, quote Lord Teynham as such authority.
Be assured, my Lord, that if I could be persuaded that these Parliamentary exposures and collisions affected only the distinguished individuals whose names are introduced, I should not interfere in this manner, as they are all well able to take care of themselves; but when I know, as I do, that they are most grievously injurious to the character and interests of my native country, and particularly to its peasantry, without producing any one beneficial public result, I feel assured that your Lordship will not refuse to be informed or reminded of any circumstances that might tend to induce the reconsideration of a course of proceeding leading to such consequences.
As I have referred so directly to Lord Sligo's name, I consider myself bound to place a copy of this note in his Lordship's hands.
I have the honour to be, my Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient servant. Right Hon. Lord Teynham.
Indeed, continued the noble Marquess not a post left Ireland but it brought him letters couched in a similar strain; and he could produce affidavits without number, did he not know too well the means by which such documents were to be obtained. He would next read an extract from a letter from the chief constable of police of Gallen, dated the 25th of February, 1833, for the purpose of showing the state of disorganization in which the barony then was—
712
About the beginning of last November (I think the first week of that month) Mr. Walter, J. Bourke, a magistrate, possessing a good deal of property in the barony of Gallen, and a large tithe impropriator, wrote to me to request I would attend him at his lodge at Straid, as it was his intention to bring his tenants before him, and examine them on their oaths as to the system of outrage which then prevailed in that district; and he stated that he thought we might be enabled to get some useful information; at least, that from it I might be able to form a pretty accurate idea of the state of that country. I accordingly attended Mr. Bourke, and about sixty of his tenants came before him by his desire, each of whom he examined separately on his oath. With the exception of about eight or ten, who Mr. Bourke informed me were men of excellent character, and therefore, I supposed, were not considered trustworthy by those people, they each and severally acknowledged, on their oaths, they had been sworn by large parties of men, who came to their houses at night, and compelled them to swear. The substance of what they were sworn to, they said, was, that they were not to pay any tithes, and they were to give every opposition and resistance in their power to the payment of them by others; and that they were to be ready to turn out at a moment's warning. They declared, that to the best of their belief, with very few exceptions, every man of the lower ranks of life in that barony was sworn to the same thing. They acknowledged they had attended nightly meetings, but declared they had been compelled to do so. They did not deny but that they knew some of the persons who attended those meetings, but said they were sure they were compelled to do so,—at least many of them; but they declared they would suffer death rather than divulge the name of any person implicated in those proceedings, as they very well knew the forfeiture of their lives, and the destruction of their little properties, would be the inevitable consequence of their doing so. I remained two nights at Mr. Bourke's lodge; each night I could distinctly hear horns sounding in different parts of the country, no doubt for the purpose of collecting the peasantry for the object of carrying on those acts of outrage.
Another communication which had been forwarded to him, and which he begged to read, was the following:—
Swinford, 14th November, 1832.
My Lord,—Referring to my letter of yesterday's date, I have the honour to state that I proceeded this morning with a detachment of the 27th regiment, consisting of 110 rank and file, under the command of Captain Fulton, and a party of police, consisting of thirty-five men, to protect the tithe-viewers of Mr. Bourke and the reverend Mr. O'Rorke. The tithe-viewers commenced their business at about eleven o'clock, from the main road a

713
little beyond Mr. Deane's house, and proceeded up the mountain in the direction of Balla. Horns were sounded from all the hills. We met, however, with little obstruction until we came to the village of Coursewood, in front of which an immense mob had assembled, armed with stones, pitchforks, and scythes. I immediately ordered the military to form in line; read the Riot Act, and advanced up the hill to the village, and halted within a few yards of the mob; and again read the Riot Act, and begged of them to disperse; which was answered by horrid imprecations against the tithe-proctors; and a demand that they should be given up, accompanied with a defiance to his Majesty's troops to advance.
I immediately ordered the troops to move forward with fixed bayonets, and dislodge the rioters assembled in the haggard, which was done without any loss of life, and the business of the view proceeded.
The detachment then formed in column, and made a detour through the mountains, for the purpose of keeping on the high grounds, and to enable the proctors to view the haggard from right to left. We halted for that purpose between the villages of Dorrycor and Runduff. At about half-past one o'clock, horn sounding and yells then commenced on every side; the mob bore down upon us from the hill in every direction, and closed upon the column, uttering violent imprecations against the proctors. I desired the rear-rank of the rear-division to face about and disperse those people to a distance, when the troops were assaulted by a volley of stones, in returning to the column.
Considering the determination of the mob, and that further forbearance would have amounted to criminality on my part, I directed Captain Fulton to fire one round from the rear, and outward flank of the column upon the rioters, who immediately fled in all directions: this had the desired effect, and the detachment moved on in the performance of the remaining duty of the day, without further molestation.
I have not yet ascertained what execution the fire of the troops did, but conclude, from the number assembled, several must have Fallen.
The detachment rests to day, and proceeds on the same duty to-morrow, about three miles from the town.
I have, &c,
(Signed) SYLO JONES,
Chief Magistrate.
The Marquess of Sligo, &c.
The noble Baron wished an inquiry to be instituted into the state of Gallen; but an inquiry had already taken place in consequence of the memorial on their Lordships Table, from certain inhabitants of that barony. A detailed report was sent to Sir W. Gossett of the state of the barony, and a list of the outrages which had
714
occurred there from the 1st of October to that period. That list he held in his hand, and it would prove to their Lordships the truth of every one of those statements which he had made on a former occasion. They are classed under these heads,—murder, assaults on magistrates, open resistance of military and police, burglary and robbery, housebreaking, administration of illegal oaths, riot and manslaughter, attacks on parties of revenue police, illegal assembling, burnings, abduction, and rape, &c. He would first, however, read some other documents to the House, and would begin with a letter from the lieutenant of the revenue police stationed at Foxford, in that barony, accompanying the report to which he had just referred. It was as follows:—
In reply to your letter, calling on me to inform you of the different outrages committed in the barony of Gallen, county of Mayo, against the revenue police, prior to the proclamation of that district, and particularly of the several occasions in which I was resisted during the time I was stationed there,
I have to state for your information, that towards the close of the summer there evidently appeared a disposition throughout my district, of a wish that the country people were most anxious to quarrel with me, and seemed to seek every method to provoke, and in all but actually assaulting us.
I saw and carefully watched over the particular places where this feeling showed itself, and drew a line the most guarded, so that nothing possible could be laid to my conduct, or that I had harassed the people or exasperated their feelings.
The parish of Bohola, the parish of Straid, and part of Killover were the principal, where I first observed the growing discontent of the people, and their hostile feelings to everything of a government nature.
On the 15th of December last was the most serious conflict I had with the people, at a place called Shanaway, parish of Bohola, midway between Bohola and Keilthormack. The process-server had been told by the people of the village of Shanaway, if we dared to go that road we should never go it again, and not to attempt it, as they were lying daily in wait for us.
This appeared to me rather too formidable, and too intimidating; and accordingly I marched my party on the high road, intending to still hunt Shanaway, and into Keilthor-mock.
I had not left Bohola half a quarter of a mile when immediately horns were sounded, coupled with the most horrid and murderous threats, yells, screeches, whistling, throwing stones, and gathering in innumerable numbers,

715
armed with scythes, fire-arms, and other offensive weapons.
I halted my party, consisting only of eleven men, and primed, and loaded, and endeavoured to proceed on my duty, but in so short a time such immense numbers were collected, that I found it impossible to think of doing my duty, or of leaving the high road, and kept my party in close column—the only chance of protecting ourselves.
Having a perfect knowledge of the country, I knew where to press for a position equal to give my men a commanding one, and proceeded to the bridge of Killaden, under which runs a deep river; I was here determined to have engaged with them, as I had been struck twice seriously with stones from behind a wall on the hill, but so determined were they to injure and overcome us, that about 600 yards on my right and left they waded the river in order to head me and cut off my retreat.
There was this day an immense tithe meeting near Keilthormock, and had I fired on them then, that meeting, being in my front, would have been alarmed, and then indeed I was for ever overcome.
I still continued my line of march, and the people were still gathering in my rear; the road was covered with them, and they had taken off their coats, while on my right and left there was a dark moving mass, screeching, and yelling, and saying "they would go home in our clothes."
I had but one more commanding position to make for, and that was distant three miles, when a man ran down and asked to speak to me. He begged of us for God's sake to take shelter in his master's house (Mr. Taaffe, of Killadan) as we would be murdered that day, the immense anti-tithe meeting being in my front, and they would assist in our destruction. I answered and said, while I have a round of ammunition, I shall fight, and only give up our arms with our lives, and also requested, if he had any influence, to tell those misguided people to return to their homes, else I should be obliged in my own defence to fire on them and make many a widow and many orphans.
This man returned to them, but they heeded him not. I still continued to gain ground, yet fearing, in this trying situation, I should not reach the position I wanted, and their right wing, thinking I would make for Keilthormock, turned oft to head me. I saw their movement, and just as I came to the cross roads, wheeled to my left to gain the eminence which offered. Their left wing thought then to reach the position before me by making for it, and I had gained it scarcely a minute when they attempted to rush in. I halted and fired then upon them about forty rounds, when many were wounded, and one lay stretched along the wall where he fell.
This attack was made in one of the severest showers of hail and rain, and a very high wind, and they hoped that our firelocks would have burned priming from the severity of the day.
716
It may be necessary also to state that the distance they harassed us this day was five long miles, through cold, wet, and storm.
There has been a particular feature in this attack which has corroborated a threat long held out to us, that we should not think to pass this winter as quietly as we had the last.
Previous to the attack made on the 15th of December, there were several attempts made to entrap me and my party by a plan of giving us many false informations; and one particularly, a few nights before the attack, I was brought to a place called the woods, about three miles to the left of the town of Keilthormock, and had we taken the road laid down for us, that night, we were to have been murdered, and our arms taken from us. However, by my changing my route I reached the place, having to cross a river, and well suited for their purpose. Yet, providentially, I escaped by the movement through another road. This information had been given me by a person the morning after, and it so placed me on my guard from that hour not to attempt to proceed at night.
From the disturbed state of Bohola parish, and from all the circumstances of which I was aware, I found it impossible to attempt to perform my duty with so small a force, and wrote accordingly to the hon. the Commissioners of Excise for a reinforcement, or to be removed to Foxford, as the detachment of the 27th regiment was quartered there; the Bohola, or Shanaway people having threatened to come down at night to Swinford, and surprise us in our lodgings, and deprive us of the arms and ammunition—a thing which could easily be effected, by men being scattered through the town, not having a barrack.
Accordingly I was ordered to be removed to Foxford; and being there a short, time, I was anxious to let the country settle into a little quietude before I went on to perform my usual duty, it being most seriously excited by the election, and the disappointed hopes of the return of their favourite candidate. The first day I went out it was merely an experiment in order to come to the knowledge of the people's feelings, and for my own guidance afterwards. I simply marched my men about two miles at the Foxford side of Drummin-wood, and the people about that place seemed tranquil. I returned, and on my return I was informed had I gone towards Ballylahin I should have been attacked, the people being lying in wait for us behind some cover, where it was impossible for me to see them till I was actually surrounded.
I regretted the intelligence much, as I did hope the country would become tranquil, but it otherwise proved the contrary, and I delayed going to the side of Ballylahin, and stayed till the 16th of January, and reached a place called Tavaran, parish of Straid, when shortly before that we observed an immense number of people on a hill. We still proceeded on the high-road, and did not leave it,

717
and marched quietly along, having with us for our guide and assistance Sergeant M'Coy and his two constables, of the constabulary.
The people continued to gather, and, at last, horns were sounded, and yelling, and screeching, precisely as at Bohola. The numbers increased, and I asked Sergeant M'Coy to give me a strong position, if he knew it, as I was a stranger to that part of the country. The people came very close upon us, when I found it necessary to prime and load, in order that we should not be surprised. How ever, we could not do duty, or leave the high road, from the numbers that were gathering; nor was I qualified to fire on those misguided people, because they did not throw a stone, or break the law, except by collecting in immense numbers, and produced, naturally, of course, that intimidation which actually prevented and intcirupted me in my duty by threats of hostile intentions, which I should not excite. My duty then being over, and standing only in the defence of our lives, the arms, and the ammunition, those misguided people did every thing to provoke, and try me to begin the affray; but I felt, from the responsibility in trusted to me, nothing should for a moment make me lake a hasty step which afterwards would but bring me to the bar of my country, where I should be tried for my life.
I asked Sergeant M'Coy, could we possibly get another way to Foxford, not to be obliged to march through the parts of the country we had already, as they were still gathering in our rear, and it was quite impossible to meet such a force. He answered if we could get a boat at this side of the Moy we could get over to Clongee, which is within two miles or less of Foxford; if not, we should be obliged to retrace our steps and march five miles back.
We proceeded to the river, and fortuately obtained the boat and got over safe; but had we not, as hundreds had been collected armed with scythes, bayonets, reaping-hooks, pikes, and fire-arms, and had got themselves half drunk, in order to increase their desperation—had we not obtained the boat, that force was making fast on us, and I have no doubt, from the inequality of numbers, our lives would have been sacrificed, and our arms and ammunition fallen into their power. I have been informed on the spot, and by my sergeant, that only for the great anti-tithe meeting which was held that day in Bohola, only for the people being away, it would have been impossible to have escaped; yet the population appealed to me very little decreased by the meeting, for, in order to show how quick and perfect their signals are, Tavarane is about six miles from Bohola, and numbers, in less than an hour, left Bohola to come and assist in our destruction.
From the state of that part, then, of the country I found it impossible to remain even with safety in the town of Foxford, and I wrote to the Government to state that the
718
27th Regiment detached there was to be removed to Ballina, and not replaced by a civil or military force, and having received the best possible information that when the troops left Foxford my men were to be surprised at night in their lodgings, and the arms and ammunition taken from them, and knowing the correctness of the information, I felt it my duty to protect not only our lives, but the arms and the ammunition intrusted to me, and accordingly I marched to Ballina with the detachment, and which movement the hon. the Commissioners of Excise have been pleased to approve highly of.
There were many minor attacks made which I did not think it necessary to herein state, and have only given you two of the most serious and rebellious outrages I have encountered while performing duty in the parishes of Bohola and Straid, but at any time I can certify that those two parishes particularly have been much disturbed and dreadfully excited these many months.
I do conceive, from what I know, that the anti-tithe meetings have been the principal means of laying the germ of disturbance in the barony of Gallen; and that feeling having gained such rapid strength by the excitement of the election and the electioneering agents, the misguided people still foster the idea that they will yet be able to get the country into their own hands. Hoping the above information will answer the intention sought for, or if I can at any time be able to afford you the least assistance in any material inquiry, I shall feel most happy to do so. I am, Sir, &c.
My Lord—I have the honour to report, that in furtherance of the duty in which I am at present engaged, I proceeded this morning with a party of police and a detachment of the 27th Regiment from this town to the parish of Bohola, where I was reinforced by a detachment of sixty rank and file of the same regiment from Castlebar.
I was met at Barley-hill by Mr. Walter Bourke, in his carriage, and his tithe-proctors, and those of the reverend John O'Rourke. The detachment marched on to near Mr. Dean's house, when we commenced the duty of the day, leaving Mr. Bourke on the road with a small party of mounted and dismounted mea for his protection. Several villages were immediately viewed, and we returned to the high road, leading from Swinford to Castlebar, when I was informed that Mr. Bourke had been obliged, from the great assemblage of persons pressing upon him, and the menacing language made use of by them, to take refuge in Mr. Dean's house. I lost no time in detaching an officer and twenty men of the 27th regiment to his protection. By this time large assemblages of people had taken place on all the hills as far as we could see, amounting in the whole to some thousands, and sounding of horns commenced in every direction, and at this time some few shots were heard. I lost no time in concentrating

719
the police and troops, and in the helpless and exposed situation in which Mr. Bourke was placed, I considered it advisable to detach another portion of the troops to Mr. Dean, and sent a message by his nephew, to request he would immediately get into his carriage and join the main body. The gestures and menaces of the mob, consisting of about 500 men, nearest to where we stood on the road, was most violent, and from all I could learn, their principal object of attack was Mr. Bourke and his proctors; from the very feeble state that gentleman was in, I considered it an imperative duty not to leave him, and remained for some time endeavouring to persuade him to return in the direction of Ballyvarry, which he at last consented to do. Seeing him away under a sufficient escort of police, I immediately proceeded with the duty, and, having moved the troops and police to a hill nearest the most violent assemblage of people, I ordered the detachment to prime and load, and then read the Riot Act. I then addressed the people, warning them of their danger and the situation in which they stood, and proceeded to view the other villages, and then returned to the main road, sending home the reinforcement to Castlebar, and returning with the detachment to Swinford. To-morrow morning I shall commence duty near the same spot, on a mountain in the direction of Balla.
Mr. Wright, chief constable, asserts, that at one of the villages several persons appeared with pikes and scythes, and showed every disposition to attack him and the proctors under his care.
In conclusion, I have nothing to add, but that the greatest for bearance and good conduct has been manifested on the part of the troops and police; and I sincerely trust that we shall be enabled to close this most important and arduous duty without having occasion to resort to the use of our arms.
I beg your Lordship will have the goodness to excuse the length of this detailed report, and that you will be pleased to forward it to Government.
I have the honour to be, &c.
He would then proceed to read to their Lordships the calendar of the prisoners for trial at the ensuing Assizes for Mayo, which the noble Marquess did as follows:—

Murder

23

Rape and abduction

19

Assault and robbery

24

Housebreaking and administering oaths

19

Appearing in arms

5

Arson

4

Forgery

3

Concealing the birth of her infant

1

Larceny

18

Uttering base coin

3

Total for trial at the Assizes

110

For trial at Sessions

15

Debtors

15

Vagrants

7

Lunatics

43

199

Prisoners under former rules

106

Total

305

It had been stated, that the application of the Peace Preservation Act to the barony had taken place without the consent, and contrary to the wishes, of those most interested in its welfare. But he held in his hand another document, which showed that two-thirds of the actual proprietors of land in the barony concurred in the propriety of calling upon the Government to proclaim the barony. In fact, sixteen of them were actually present themselves, or by their agents and immediate connexions, when the resolution was adopted, and the sentiments of eleven others, comprising two-thirds of the whole property of the barony, were known by other means to have been favourable to it. The noble Baron had asserted, that the committals from the barony of Gallen were fewer than those of 1830, which had been included also in the return on their Lordships' Table. Such was not the fact. In 1830 there were twenty-four committals from Gallen, while, in the present year, there had been twenty-nine, though there had not been the full number of sessions held. When the Magistrates were inattentive to their duty, could it be imagined, that the people would respect them? From the 27th of September, 1832, to 31st of January, 1833, but one Petty Session was held at Foxford, although frequent applications were made by the poor people. The remarks of the noble Baron had not been confined to the barony of Gallen. He was accused of having misrepresented the state of Mayo generally; whether he had or not, their Lordships would be able to form an idea when he stated that, by the official Report of the last month's occurrences, it appeared, that 255 outrages had occurred in the month of February—of which fourteen were burglaries and arms-taking, and seventeen malicious destruction of property. How was it possible to contend, that, in such a state of things, the ordinary law was sufficient for the protection of the peaceable and well-disposed part of the community? He should be wasting the time of their Lordships to endeavour further to refute such a proposition. If the noble Lord could

721
bring forward any case, he was prepared to answer it; and he fell assured, that he should do so to the satisfaction of their Lordships. He felt grateful to their Lordships for having listened to him with so much patience; and would conclude by expressing a hope that the noble Baron himself would acquit him of having been actuated, in any thing he had done, by any other desire than that of performing his duty to the best of his judgment and ability.
Lord Plunkettobserved, that it would be quite unnecessary for him to say anything in addition to the satisfactory refutation by his noble friend of the noble Lord's charges, and he should, therefore, not have risen, had not the noble Lord imputed to him (Lord Plunkett) a capital offence, for which it appeared he deserved to lose his head, as the great Lord Strafford had done. He would, therefore, plead before their Lordships on this capital indictment. This act, this single act, was, it seems, his having signed the proclamation for placing the Barony of Gallen within the operation of the Peace Preservation Act. But, when he stated to their Lordships that he had received from sixty Magistrates of the county a representation of the necessity of the measure, he thought they would allow that he could take no other course than that which he had adopted. It appeared, however, that three Magistrates declared that they had no reason to know that the Barony was in a state of insubordination. It was certainly not extraordinary that they had no reason to know it, as it appeared that they were absent. On this point he thought the noble Lord had been rather abstinent in his censure upon him (Lord Plunkett) for he should certainly find it more difficult to vindicate himself from the charge of not having removed those three Magistrates from the Commission than from the charge which the noble Lord had been pleased to bring forward against him. The noble Lord had said, that the Barony of Gallen was in a state of perfect tranquillity. In answer to that assertion, their Lordships had heard the documents read by his noble friend, which proved not only the existence of great outrages in the Barony, but of mobs who compelled the soldiers and the police to put themselves in military array, and to fire in their own defence. As to freedom, it was idle to talk
722
of freedom, it was profanation to talk of freedom, in such a state of things. Those who urged the people of Ireland on to the acts of extravagance and violence which they had committed were the real tyrants of that unfortunate kingdom. The noble Lord had said, that the ordinary exercise of the law would have been sufficient to put down the disturbances. So thinking, he was surprised that the noble Lord had not resisted the Bill, as some called it, for coercing; but as he considered it for protecting the people of Ireland. In furtherance, as it was to be presumed, of the noble Lord's object, to make the existing law sufficient for the necessities of the case, the noble Lord had endeavoured to cast odium on the police of Ireland. In every large body of persons, there must be some obnoxious to censure; but he would take upon himself to say, that, generally speaking, the police of Ireland was a most valuable body of men. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, and notwithstanding the fact that the lives of the military, as well as the police, had been perilled by the mob, still the noble Lord was of opinion, that in a civilised country the police was a most unconstitutional force, and that their staves ought to be taken from them. To disarm the police was the way in which the noble Lord would proceed to tranquillise Ireland. He would not have trespassed so long on their Lordships, but that he wished to avoid the fate of his great predecessor (Lord Strafford). It was evidently against so insignificant a person as himself (Lord Plunkett) that the noble Lord's Motion was directed; for the address proposed was not to pray that the Lord Lieutenant should be instructed to inquire into the state of the Barony of Gallen, but that he should be required to specify what were the grounds on which the Peace Preservation Act had been extended to that Barony.
The Marquess of Westmeathwas afraid that the noble Lord had been led astray by false information. He had no particular information as to the state of Mayo, but he could say, that the police of Ireland were a most deserving body of men. Except on particular occasions, they were uniformly employed in the counties of which they were the natives, and were considered by all the respectable part of the population as their friends and protectors.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that the noble

723
Marquess had given such a satisfactory explanation that he could no longer doubt that, the affidavits he had received were erroneous. Under that impression he should beg leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.