The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-18 00:00:00

IRELAND

Mr. V. SCULLY wished to know if it was the in-
tention of the Government to codify the statutes exist-
ing in Ireland ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that that
would be included in the general measure proposed by
the Government.
THE AFFAIR AT SIX-MILE BRIDGE.

Mr. NAPIER rose to move, pursuant to notice, for
copies of paper relating to the riot at Six-mile bridge, in
July last ; and said that as great misapprehension pre-
vailed on the subject, and as his own conduct, as Attorney-
General in the matter, had been not to say unfairly but
mistakenly misrepresented on a recent occasion, in another
place, he would take this opportunity of laying all the
facts before the house ; and he did not doubt that, as the
interests and character of justice in Ireland were involved,
he should obtain the indulgence of the house while he
trespassed for some time upon their patience. The right
hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded to enter into a
close and detailed narrative of those facts with which the
public are already familar, connected with the actual fracas
between the military and the mob, at the Six-mile bridge.
Continuing the history, he justified the advice he had
given, that the soldiers who had been committed should be
liberated on bail on the ground that it was necessary to
fix a crime upon each individual soldier, inasmuch as the
law distinguished between unlawful assemblies and lawful
bodies in the discharge of their duty, holding each member
of the unlawful assembly responsible for the collective
acts, but holding the member of the lawful body respon-
sible only for his own acts, if those acts were in excess of
the law, and in this case he had not found sufficient evi-
dence to individualise th. alleged offence. Immediately
after bail had been accepted, a newspaper in Ireland pub-
lished an account, or rather a partial account, of the
transactions in question, and of the inquest : and in this
newspaper the regiment was charged with being guilty of
deliberate murder, this charge being made pending the
inquest, and before the subsequent expected trial. This
newspaper also threw out imputations affecting the cha-
racter of the regiment—its courage and conduct. The
Duke of Wellington saw this newspaper, and being ever
alive to everything affecting the honour of the army—
(cheers)—he immediately wrote to him (Mr. Napier), in-
I timating that he thought that the libel would be a fit sub-
ject for prosecution by the Crown, with a view to the pro-
tection of the soldier. In consequence, he (Mr. Napier)
applied for further information to the two officers who had
been in charge of the soldiers during the riot ; and their
depositions were submitted in a very full shape. (The
right hon. and learned gentleman read these depositions,
which were elaborate justifications of the conduct of the
soldiers, their firing on the people being represented as a
merely defensive act.) He appealed to every man of right
feeling whether after these sworn informations he could
have come to any other conclusion than he did, that these
officers and soldiers should receive constitutional protec-
tion, and that steps should be taken to bring the prime
movers of this riot to condign punishment. A great deal
had been said with reference to the exact rights and duties
of the soldiers on occasions of this kind. *He apprehended
that the duty of a soldier in a case of this kind was not
different from that of any other person. A soldier -was
under the order of his superior officer, but the order
of his officer was not of itself a sufficient justifica-
tion. But in this case the soldiers were deprived
of their officer, and the corporal, the next in
command, was struck down senseless. Now he
(Mr. Napier) believed upon his conscience that the
Men had done no more than their duty, and that as
British soldiers they ought to have had the support of the
laws afforded to them. (Loud cheers.) Yet those men
were paraded in the dock as felons, and an impression was
created by the speech of the Attorney-General himself that
they were murderers, or at least, aggravated manslayers ;
and that they had only escaped because the law officer
could not get at the man who had fired the fatal shots.
(Hear, hear.) His late learned colleague (Mr. Whiteside)
had been asked to go down to defend the soldiers, for they
had had no means of defence provided for them by the Go-
vernment ; and he had felt some delicacy in doing so,
having himself been a law officer of the Crown, and the
Attorney-General being about to go down to prosecute.
His learned friend had consulted him (Mr. Napier) upon
the point, and his answer was " Surely, you ought to go.
You would never have appeared as prosecutor, for we never
inentetitndlededtot°tphreospercoutte -
protection nnofththe
esolaldwiers
asareanu
yjotsht
ears
mmeutnc.l4
e
c(Chourseeer.)Hi matterss tlook earned,
tdh e
he could have adduced. They were thus put in a much
vantage of his learn ed friend'sfriace
statement,
enudsedd egr
a deprived
und the t owi
evidence on
fgttohe
a hd
themwor se;
and
theyposition
nowif the
to
labour bills h had
nn
dbeere nt
hfeoiunin against
s
which had been cast upon them, and which they had had
no opportunity afforded them of removing. All this time
the two Roman Catholic priests and the other parties had
been discharged from their recognizances, and they had
actually been brought—one of them from the very gaol—
as witnesses against these British soldiers. (Cheers.) The
results of the case bad been most disastrous to the magis-
trate who had been concerned in the affair. He was
obliged to have policemen living in his house ,- his family
were kept in a state of perpetual alarm • and he was him-
self unable to attend any fair or market, or to discharge
the duties of a country gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Mr.

Justice Patteson had well observed, that if this case had
occurred in England, the Crown would have defended the
soldiers, and would have left the proceedings against them
to be taken by, private parties. (Cheers.) But the lesson
held up to the people of Ireland was, that while the mili-
tary were amenable to the laws, there were certain persons
who were amenable to no law whatever. (Cheers.) They
were creating difficulties in Ireland, with which they had
not the courage to grapple. They were not straightfor-
ward enough. While they held out equality in civil pri-
vileges, they ought to enforce equality of liability. (Cheers.)
It was said that the names of M`Grath and the priests had
been put in the indictment, and that there ought not to be
a cross-indictment against them. But he would again re-
peat the question—Why was M‘Grath's name put there ?
(Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Napier) appeared in this case
with great regret ; and he should be sorry to have it
thought that he had been incited by anything like personal
motives. If he had stated it somewhat warmly, it was
because he felt warmly respecting it ; but he thought he
had submitted it to the house fairly and impartially.
(Cheers.) It was one that demanded strict inquiry. If
they expected soldiers to discharge their duties, they must
see them supported by the laws, of which it was an old
and sound maxim, that where parties had special duties to
perform, they had a claim upon those laws for special pro-
tection and support. (Hear, hear.) As these men had not
had an opportunity of vindicating themselves before a jury,
he hoped that they would set themselves right before the
house and the country. (Cheers.) What was wanted for
Ireland was, that elections should be free, that the soldiers
should be supported in their duties, and that every man,
be he priest or who he might, that should presume to offend
against the law, should be brought before the bar of public
justice, and made amenable to the laws he had set at
nought. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. FITZGERALD had listened for nearly two hours
to the right honourable and learned gentleman, but he had
utterly failed to discover the object of his statement, un-
less it was to glorify himself, to make a charge against her
Majesty's Government, or to impugn the conduct of the
right hon. gentleman who had succeeded him in office.
He gave the right hon. gentleman credit for great nisi
pries dexterity in his statement of the case, for great art,
but for little candour. He perfectly agreed with him that
the laws ought to be administered with perfect impar-
tiality, and without respect of persons ; but he had no
idea of an Attorney-General showing himself from the
very first in the light of a partisan. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman had described the force which had
been used at the late election ; but there was one kind to
which he had not alluded—the influence and coercion
which were unhappily made use of by the landlords of
Ireland. (Cheers.) He denied that the voters had in-,
tended to vote in the manner the right hon. gentleman had
represented. Had they been free to follow the dictates of
their own consciences, they would have voted in a manner
just the reverse. (Hear, hear.) There was a large class
of possessors of property, who exercised their legal rights
in such a manner that if their tenants did not vote as they
pleased, it would cost them their homes, and render desti-
tute their families. (Hear, hear.) These sad occurrences
had taken place in the county of Clare, and in connection
with that county the name of Sindey Godolphin Osborne
would speak volumes. (Cheers.) Never had a case been
more misrepresented. The voters resided on an estate,
over which a person named King was the agent. On the
Sunday night before the election he had driven them, like
a flock of sheep, to Limerick. This was made known to
the liberals, and Dr. O'Brien, when examined before the
coroner's inquest, had stated that he went to them at the
Temperance-hall, and asked them if they had any objection
to the liberal candidates ? Their answer was that they had
not, but that they were at the mercy of their landlords.
(Hear, hear.) Again, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) denied that the
requisition to the magistrates was founded upon any in-
formation. When the force was brought to the Tempe-
rance-hall, the voters had been released, and the object
was to imprison them again. One of the witnesses said
toat Mr. Delmege gave him directions to get the voters in
and keep them in. (Hear, hear.) Was that freedom of
election ? (Cheers.) This was the gentleman whom Mr.
'Napier thought entitled to the highest praise for his con-
duct ; he directed his agent to imprison the voters in an
omnibus or van, and to keep them there. (Hear, hear.)
There had been such things as partisan law-officers in Ire-
land. The law_ was differently administered there, in
many respects, to what it was in England. One difference
was that the Attorney-General was the public prosecutor
in all cases of importance. He noticed this, because it
had been represented that the present Atttorney-General
going down to conduct this prosecution was something out
the ordinary course. (Hear, hear.) This was by no
means the case. Another great difference between Ire-
land and this country was the employment of the military
at elections. (Hear, hear.) In this country their in-
terference was most jealously excluded, with a wise regard
to freedom, and by an act of the 8 George 11., their pre-
sence at elections was forbidden. On the occasion of one
election in Westminster about a century ago, where there
was much rioting, thehigh bailiff had called in the military
for which he had been rebuked by a resolution of that
house, and compelled to attend the house on his knees to
hear the admonition of the Speaker. (Hear, hear.) In the
recent calamity, the first unfortunate step was the autho-
rity given to the soldiers to load, when in Limerick. While
there, Captain Eager, the military commandment, knocked
at a door, which was the wrong one, and on its not being
opened, offered to Mr. Delmege, the magistrate, to blow it
in. He afterwards knocked at the right door, and it was
opened by an old woman. The hon. and learned gentle-
man then read copious extracts from the evidence as to
what passed on the way from Limerick to Six-mile Bridge,
one of the witnesses deposed to hearing Mr. Delmege say
to a Limerick man, "You have had your election, and wo
will have ours, or we will have blood for it." (Hear,
hear.) This witness was wholly uncontradicted. Tierney,
the driver of the omnibus which conveyed the soldiers,
heard one of them say he hoped they would have some pro-
vocation, so that they might discharge their muskets, and
not have to draw their charge. (Hear, hear.) Up to the
arrival of the military at Six-mile Bridge, everything had
been most peaceable. Mr. Wilson himself, an old military
officer, had prevailed en the people to go and deposit their
sticks at the police-office. It was said that there was a
premeditated design on their part to attack the military.
The contrary was as clear as light. In addition to the
comparatively large military force sent from Limerick,
there were in this little village of Six-mile Bridge a most
formidable body of the constabulary, who were more
effective than any troops in preserving the peace. He
did not deny that after the troops arrived there was rioting
and stone-throwing, but he contended there was not that
amount of provocation which justified the soldiers in taking
life. (Hear, hear.) He contended that nothing but abso-
lute peril could justify any persons
.in taking the life of
others. Seven persons there met an untimely death, and
that was not a circumstance to be slightly treated. The
right hon. and leaned gentleman (Mr. Napier) might gain
a party triumph by his motion, but he had neglected his
duty in not giving every facility to a full inquiry. He
relied only on the evidence of the two officers who were
most interested, and of Captain Eager it might be observed
that he was in this position—either his men fired unne-
cessarily, or, the necessity having arisen, he neglected to
give the order. (Hear, hear.) The learned gentleman
had spoken of the office of coroner as a public nuisance,
but he surely forgot that the coroner was an officer of
the highest antiquity, and existed long before an attor-
ney-general was heard of. (Hear, hear.) It was admited
that a soldier was a citizen, and had the same right
to defend himself from attack, but the moment
that attack ceased to be dangerous, he ought
to desist from the use of deadly weapons. Such had not
been the case here, as was clear from the evidence of Mr.
Wilson, who stated that he saw one soldier fire, charge,
and fire again, and that three soldiers charged and stabbed
an unarmed young man, who was running away. (Hear,
hear.) He deposed that the conduct of the military was
" unsoldierlike and inhuman." In the main street, where
there was no rioting whatever, the soldiers had rushed in,
and fired upon unoffending people. In front of the Court-
house, four persons were killed, in a narrower space than
the width of that house, and within ten yards of an over-
whelming force of the constabulary, amply sufficient to
preserve the peace, besides a detachment of the 14th Regi-
ment. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the Rev. Mr.
Burke, the parish priest, was the cause of the rioting. Ho
had the pleasure of knowing that rev, gentleman, and the
late Secretary for the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford) knew him
also, and were the hon. gentleman present he might safely
appeal to him whether Mr. Burke's conduct was not always
characterised by peace, absence from political interference,
and obedience to the laws ? He admitted that rev. gentle-
man forgot himself on the occasion referred to, and that he
made use of language nebefitting his sacred calling. (Cheers
from the opposition.) But no one regretted that circum-
stance more than did Mr. Burke himself. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned gentleman then read an account
to
fiFvr
eyetr,hfifire
theetthey
iQerx
except
of the rioting at Oldham, where the troops were called
out and dispersed the crowd, but where " the military used
only the flats of their swords. (Hear, hear.) That was
moderation and discipline, and the cavalry who acted in
that manner deserved commendation. At the West Glou-
cestershire election there were also great tumults, and the
Riot Act was read three times. At Sixmile-bridge the
Riot Act was never read at all. The hon. and learned
gentleman then proceeded to discuss the law of the matter,
and contended that although soldiers did not lose their
rights as citizens, yet they acquired no greater rights and
were subject to the same liabilities. It was not necessary
in discussing this question to consider whether the soldiers
acted under the orders of their officers, for no order was
given ; but he was of opinion that a soldier was not justi-
fied in acting on the orders of an officer unless those orders
were legal. Soldiers might, as any other citizens might,
use weapons in their defence, and take life in their defence,
but only by the same right as was enjoyed by any ordinary
individual. Though a soldier, like any other person, might
aid in suppressing a riot, yet he could not legally take hu-
man life in suppressing a riot, unless his own life was'in
peril. The hon. and learned gentleman then quoted the
opinion of Lord Mansfield, as expressed on the occasion of
the Gordon riots, to the effect " that persons assisting in
the suppression of a riot (meaning the military) could only
be considered as private individuals, acting according to
law; and if they exceeded the law, they were liable to be
grand jury of Clare,
punished." Judge l'erriit had adopted that reasoning in
olitipyr
oi
nn couldhe the
(hlrav
stating the case of the soldiers at Sixmile-bridge to the
question
ti andon thereb
be
and went further, saying that if they
justifiable, but it must be shown by evidence that their
investigated
.e defencelib ietezno of
vat :add:
onlyr
agreed,l lives, ehs
theirtbhuetthfie homicide would be
must be evidence that such was their danger. In that
wteellretnhoetpe, the,ople werethat aift ltehaesttgurooilptsy
were
ferme acnasuleadugohntetro.
was, whether their lives were in danger • and
ufiereenNv'soreuigiaa b regulations it was as laid down that officers
by the order of their officer, and he was
e effectual; that the troops were not
nthoatlotnhg:r firinge necessary,
to cease the instant that it was
not to give that order until directed by the magistrate ;
whether the magistrates ordered
it to cease or not,' and that the soldiers were not to fire
on persons separate and apart from the crowd. There
was not one of those regulations that the soldiers at
Six-mile-bridge did not violate. This was the case which
the right hon. gentleman had thought proper to bring be-
fore the house with some object of his own. It was no
doubt a case for investigation, but he (Mr. Fitzgerald)
would never consent to an investigation unless it was ex-
tended to all concerned. But the right hon. gentleman
had taken a very singular course, for he had moved for
documents which were open to any, and might be got for
the asking. When those documents were in the hands of
members, the right hon. gentleman should proceed to make
some direct motion. But, doubtless, his object was, by
means of this motion, to make an assault on the Govern-
ment, and endeavour to set his own conduct in a favourable
contrast with that of the present Attorney-General for Ire-
land. This was one of those calamitous cases, which the
sooner it was begun to be forgotten the better. In his
(Mr. Fitzgerald's) judgment, the course taken by the pre-
sent Attorney-General for Ireland was wise and judicious,
while he did not entertain the same opinion with regard to
the course which had preciously been adopted. The right
hon. gentleman, in bringing this motion before the house,
had made a singular selection of a subject which was to
occupy the attention of the house on the evening of the
day dedicated to the patron saint of Ireland ; and instead
of permitting members to meet around the social board in
honour of an institution which was intended to promote