The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-11 00:00:00

TRH EUNI______,AJOIVI3OI4I, _ SATUaDAY- BYEINING, fiEtii4IVAXA ii, lAA

to give the Lion. Member a satisfactory and definite
answer.

PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. AGLIONBY, pursuant to notice, asked the
President of the Board of Trade whether it was the
intention of the Government to propose any measure
for carrying into effect the recommendations of the
Select Committee on Private Bills of last session, and
for enabling towns, or parishes, or districts, to adopt
the provisions of the general Consolidation Acts,
without coming to Parliament by Bill for that
purpose.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, with regard to the
Consolidation Acts, he had to state that a Bill was in
preparation for consolidating the two Acts ; but with
regard to the latter portion of the Hon. Member's
question, he doubted whether it was expedient to in-
troduce any Bill for the purpose the Hon. Member
had in view. With regard to the recommendations
of the Committee generally, he could only say
that the repert had but recently come
into his hands, and he could assure the
Hon. Member they should have his best attention, and
the best measure should be adopted for carrying
them out.

Mr. GOULBOURN wished to know if the Right
Hon. Gentleman had any objection to lay upon the
table a return of the expenses which were incurred
last year on account of private Bills.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he had not the least
objection.
ROME AND ENGLAND.

Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to ask the Noble Lord
the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there was
any truth in the report, that a convention had been
signed in Rome by the Earl of Minto, Lord Privy
Seal, on the part of her Majesty, with any authority
of the see of Rome ? He understood that
the Noble Lord to whom he referred had
been for some time in Rome, and as it had
been publicly stated that he had gone thither
for the purpose of entering into negotiations with the
see of Rome, he wished to give him an opportunity
of denying it, as he (Sir R. Inglis) believed the state-
ment untrue. Was the Noble Lord's colleague, the
Keeper of the Privy Seal, in Rome with the authority
of the Government?

Lord PALMERSTON was glad to have an early
opportunity of replying to the question. It was well
known that for some time Lord Minto, who held
the Privy Seal, had been in Rome. That
Noble Lord was not in Rome in any official capacity.
—(llear, hear)—he had received no instructions to
enter into negotiations with the Court of Rome,
nor had he been sent thither as the organ of the
British Government. The statement, therefore,
to which the Right Honourable Baronet referred
was utterly destitute of foundation.—(Hear.) It
was unnecessary for him to say, that so long as
doubts were entertained as to the legality of diplo-
matic relations with the see of Rome her Majesty's
Government had too much respect for the law to do
anything which could by any possibility infringe it.
The misunderstanding chiefly arose from the mis-
construction put upon the word "communion."
This country was not in " communion " with
the Court of Rome. Until the doubt which
existed with respect to the term was removed by the
House, he was authorised to state that no step would
be taken with respect to any diplomatic relations be-
tween the Court of Rome and this country.

mander-in-thief in this country, and the Home
Secretary, were of a strictly confidential nature, and
he should be acting most improperly if he answered
any question upon the subject of their opinion as to
necessity of proclaiming martial law in Ireland.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

On reading the order of the day for going into
Committee of Supply.
Mr. E WART wished to know from the Chancel-
lor: of the Exchequer whether it would be in the
power of the Government to take any general
view of their whole system of taxation, for
the object of simplifying and reforming it,
in the present session of Parliament. The
subject was one which excited a considerable
interest throughout the country, and be should there-
fore be happy to hear from the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer something of the plan to which he had
alluded in the last session of Parliament.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was not aware of having alluded to any plan last ses-
sion, or having held out any expectation on
the subject referred to by the Honourable
Member. While the Honourable Member pro-
posed to bring the subject of taxation under the view
of the House, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
stated that in the present state of the country it
would be necessary to renew the income-tax, or
at all events to deal with that question. It was ex-
ceedingly inconvenient, and not very advantageous
to any one, that he should answer questions
with respect to the intentions of the Government
with regard to measures which it would be his duty
to propose in the beginning of the spring. Govern-
ment usually reserved its determination on these
subjects, and then announced their intentions when
they were prepared to do so, in order to prevent any
undue expectation or disappointment.
Mr. HUME—Can the Right Hon. Gentleman give
the House any idea when the Budget will be brought
forward ?—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—
In reply to that question, I can only give a general
answer, that it will be brought forward after the
recess.—(Cheers and laughter.)
THE CASE OF THE REV. DR. RYAN.

Mr. MONSELL said that, although he was aware
that it was not strictly in order to allude to anything
which had occurred in a former debate, he hoped the
House would excuse him if he alluded to a charge
which had been brought against the Right Rev. Dr.
Ryan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, last
night by the Hon. Member for Bridport. That Hon.
Member had said that Dr. Ryan came under the
"description of an accessory before the fact, for he
was the instigator of crime," that crime being
murder. He (Mr. Monsell) was not going to speak
at random about that Right Rev. Prelate, but he
was about to state what he knew personally, and
which was believed by all classes in the country to
which he belonged. Dr. Ryan had distinguished
himself by his active endeavours to support the law—
(Hear, hear)—and had subjected himself to much
obloquy on account of the peaceable and tranquil
course he had thought it his duty to pursue. The
accusation against him was founded on some words
contained in a charge delivered by him at a confirma-
tion held in his diocese, in which he referred to the
misdeeds of many among the upper classes. He (Mr.
Monsell) had not got the charge with him, but fortu-
nately in another place Lord Farnham had quoted
from it, and spoke in the highest terms of Dr. Ryan,
and of the spirit in which that charge was uttered. It
was most unjust, therefore, to take some words from
the charge on which to found an accusation of such
magnitude, for it would appear that he only referred
to the misdeeds of one class, and not to those of the
others ; whereas no one ever spoke more strongly than
he did against those crimes which he was accused of
being accessory to. He (Mr. Monsell) had stated
his opinion, and he would appeal to the Noble Lord
the Member for Falkirk, to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the President of the Board Trade, and to the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamp-
ton shire, who lived near Dr. Ryan, to bear their tes-
timony to his character ; and he hoped that would
be some reparation to that Right Rev. Prelate's feel-
ings after the wanton attack which had been made
upon him.
The Earl of LINCOLN said, after what had been
stated by the Honourable Member for Limerick, the
near neighbour of Dr. Ryan, it was almost unneces-
sary for him to add a word; but he had no hesitation
in:responding to the appeal which had been made to
'him. He had not the honour of Dr. Ryan's acquain-
tance, but during his shore connexion with Ireland
the character of that prelate had been more than once
brought under his notice. There was great distress
in Limerick and Clare, and there were several occa-
sions in which he had heard of Dr. Ryan, and he
could state his belief that there was no individual
whose character stood higher.—(Hear.) He had
heard but one opinion of him from persons of all po-
litical tenets, parties, and creeds, and he was stated to
be exemplary in every respect. So far from his being
likely to be subject to a charge of being accessory to
any crime whatever, he (Lord Lincoln) believed that
he had studiously devoted himself to the duties of his
sacred calling, and al ways stood aloof from political
parties, and invariably advocated the preservation of
peace and order.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. L ABOLT HERE, after the appeal which had
been made to him, would say a few words, although
he felt it to be unnecessary after what had been said
by the Noble Lord and the Hon. Member for Lime-
rick. He (Mr. Labouchere) was absent from the
House when the Hon. Member for Bridport used the
words in question, but if he had been present, although
he was not personally acquainten with Dr. Ryan,
he knew enough of him to have indu7ed him imme-
diately to rise, and bear testimony to the excellence
of his conduct and character. While he (Mr. La-
bouchere) was in Ireland he had had opportunities of
knowing the character of Dr. Ryan. He knew that
he had studiously avoided taking any part in poli-
tics, that he had always upheld peace and order, and
that he was incapable of instigating any one to crime.
They had heard much in these debates of the conduct
of the Roman Catholic clergy, and of language used
by them. He (Mr. Labouchere) condemned that lan-
guage as criminal and dangerous in any one, and more
especially in a minister of religion. All such ex-
amples of the misconduct of the Roman Catholic
clergy were published in the newspapers and pro-
mulgated. He did not regret that it should be so, or
the reprobation which it met with ; but he did regret
that the House and the country did not know the
conduct of hundreds of the Roman Catholic clergy—
(Hear, hear)—who were exposing themselves to
obloquy, and losing their popularity with their flocks,
because they exhorted them to obedience to the law.
If the whole truth were known, it would appear that
the country owed a large debt to the Roman Catholic
clergy ; and he hoped the House and the country
would not run away with the idea that, as a class,
they were chargeable with the obloquy which had
partly fallen on those who had used the language
which had been adverted to in these debates. The
lion. Member for Bridport must be quite ignorant of
the character of Dr. Ryan, or he never would have
used the expressions which he did, and accused him
of being the promoter of misconduct.—(Hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD said it gave him great satis-
faction and pleasure to bear his testimony to the
worth and excellence of so good a man as Dr. Ryan.
—(Hear, hear.) He had an advantage over the
Noble Lord (Lincoln), and the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Labouchere), for he was personally ac-
quainted with him. He had witnessed his conduct
in circumstances of political excitement, of difficulty,
of disease, and of famine, and he would truly say
that his conduct was that of a real Christian. He
(Mr. Stafford) could not find the charge from which
the extract in question had been taken, but if he
could have found it he would have read it to the
House, for nothing could be better as an exposition
of the duties of a Christian.—(Hear, hear.) He
hoped, if the Hon. Baronet the Member for Mary-
lebone had that charge, he would read it.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said it was painful to him
to be accused of wantonly making an unjust charge
against any gentleman, and more especially a minis-
ter of any church. He could only say that after
what had been said by the Hon. Member for
Limerick, and those other Hon. Members who had
borne testimony to the character of Dr. Ryan, he
could not doubt but that gentleman had been hur-
riedly led into using the expression which he had
quoted, and which, as some Hon. Members were not
present when he quoted it, he would again read, in
order to explain the grounds on which he accused
Dr. Ryan, not of instigating to crime, but of using
language calculated to excite to its commission.
What he quoted was as follows :—"The higher
classes were forgetful of their Christian obligations ;
they treated the poor like cattle ; they were cold
and callous to the voice of humanity, dead to all
feelings of compassion, untouched by the cries of fa-
mine, the wailings of hunger, the lamentations of
women and children, and the terrible condition of the
poor men ; they exercised over their victims a system
of heartless cruelty, calculated to bring down ven-
geance from heaven upon them." Dr. Ryan might
be an excellent man, but still, as a Member of that
House, he (Mr. Cochrane) maintained that this was
not language such as a minister should utter.

Sir li. HALL said that what had been read by the
Hon. Member for Bridport was part of the charge de-
livered by Dr. Ryan. He (Sir B. Hall) had in-
tended to address the House last night, and answer
the charge which had been made against Dr. Ryan.
He thought it is duty to do so, because on the first
night of the session he said that he hoped that the
Roman Catholic hierarchy would impress on the
minds of part of the priesthood and on the lower
classes what was their duty to their country and the
laws. He had iatended last night to have read
tfiorhset charge
night of
of P
ther Ryan
session.
ssion was
T a h
another part of the charge delivered by Dr. Ryan, as
the part read by the Hon. Member for Bridport.
T
very different thing
a speech which he (Sir B. Hall) had quoted on the
The ikon. Baronet then

read a portion of the charge in question, which was
to the following effect :—" While viewing the state
of the upper classes we must not forget the middle
and the lower classes. Complaints were made by '
tenants against their landlords, and their misfortunes
were attributed to them, but were the tenants
what they ought to be ? While consulting their
own happiness, did they take into consideration that
of the landlords? Where not the tenants knavish and
apathetic, and apt to think the land belonged to them-
selves alone ? If the land was cultivated by indus-
trious tenants and generous landlordsit would produce
four times as much as it did. It was said there was
no sympathy for the people ; but thousands sympa-
thised with them—the bishops, the priests, the Legis-
lature sympathised with them. The Legislature had
created laws for their assistance, and had passed a
poor-law—the most important law which had been
passed for a hundred years—a law which he had
always wished to see enacted. But so long as murder
and disregard of the laws of God and man continued,
their best friends must blush for them."—(Hear.)
Viscount MORPETH did not wish to prolong this
discussion, but he thought it due to Dr. Ryan to
state that though he was never personally acquainted
with him, he had testimony borne to the conciliatory
character of his conduct, and that he had always
devoted himself to his functions as a Christian bishop ;
and Bishop Jebb, the Protestant Bishop of Limerick,
in his correspondence, bore his testimony to the fact
of the Roman Catholic Bishop having proved a zealous
coadjutor in all Christian duties.
Sir J. WALSH thought this might have been a
hasty expression by Dr. Ryan, but it was an unfor-
tunate one in the present state of Ireland. It was
important to the character of the priesthood that they
should in the strongest and mo=t public manner dis-
avow the expressions used by some of their body,
which, rightly reported, were deeply criminal, and
which urged their flocks to be guilty of assassination.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the Honourable
Baronet had attacked the Roman Catholic clergy on
mere report. There was no proof of the accusations
which had been made against them, and he lectured
them in a manner which the bishops and clergy were
not likely much to regard. He (Mr. J. O'Connell)
could bear his humble testimony to the conduct of
his Lordship, Dr. Ryan, and it would be the more
weighty because his Lordship had always kept free
from political parties. He was loved and respected
by all who knew him, and he was the last person he
should have expected to have been attacked. Another
prelate had been spoken of by the Hon. Member for
Bridport—Dr. M'Hale. He was attacked simply
because he had congratulated the people on
the unexampled patience with which they
had borne the calamity which had befallen
them.—(Hear, hear.) Would any one deny that
that was the case ? The Noble Lord (the Member
for Marylebone) had said last night that all the mur-
derers went to the priests and obtained absolution,
the fact being that they were wretches who had been
long out of the pale of the Church; and it was rather
too bad to have it said that with such persons the
priests profaned one of the most solemn sacraments
of the Church.

Mr. REYNOLDS complained of the attack which
had been made on Dr. Ryan, when it appeared that
all he had been guilty of was a statement of facts de-
scribing the neglect of the lower orders by the higher
in his diocese. Allusion had been made by the Hon.
Member for Marylebone to the speech of Dr. Laffan,
at a meeting at Cashel. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not
justify the expressions that Rev. Gentleman was re-
ported to have used; he condemned them, and re-
gretted that they had been used, and assuming that
the report had been furnished to the Hon. Member
by an Irish correspondent, he was prepared to exone-
rate him from the sin of garbling it. He did not
charge the Hon. Member with suppressing any facts,
but he had referred to the speech delivered on the
occasion in question by the Very Rev. Mr. Laffan,
and he had found that the Hon. Member had not
given the Rev. Gentleman credit for the expressions
which immediately followed the objectionable passage
which had been quoted. With the permission of the
House, he (Mr. Reynolds) would read an extract.
The Rev. Mr. Laffan said, " Did he stand there in
defence of murder ? God forbid. He had ever preached
as far as his humble intellect directed, and
with all the sincerity and energy with which
his soul was animated, that the blood of man cried
to heaven for vengeance, and that sooner or later
the murderer would come to his own destruction;
that if he avoided the consequences of his crime in
this world (as was almost impossible), assuredly, on
passing the frontiers of eternity, the Lord of all
justice would deal to him that eternal judgment
which they were told awaited the murderer." Now,
admitting that the expressions used in the early part
of the speech ought not to have been used, he (Mr.
Reynolds) thought he was justified in stating that the
Hon. Member for Marylebone ought, in common
justice, to have given the rev. speaker credit for the
expressions which followed. At the same time, he
(Mr. Reynolds) was of opinion that no man, whether
dressed in the garb of a clergyman or any other
costume, ought to use expressions to the peo-
' ple that could by possibility be miscon-
strued.—(Hear.) If the clergy of any sect or deno-
mination of Christians had been so virulently attacked
as had been the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland,
he should feel it his duty to stand up in their defence.
He had heard the Roman Catholic clergy much im-
peached in that House, and he regretted to add, that
those who had brought charges against them had
failed to give them credit for those deds of peace and
order that they were known to have performed. Let
him remind the House that the present Lord-Lieu-
tenant of Ireland had instructed his secretary to
convey a special vote of thanks to the Right Rev. Dr.
Kennedy, Roman Catholic Bishop of Killaloe, for his
exertions, and those of his clergy, to preserve and
maintain the peace. In the county of Limerick,
within the last six weeks, a disorderly and lawless
mob of 1,500 persons, in the broad daylight, attacked
the workhouse, put the guardians of the poor in fear
of their lives, seized the cattle and corn of the gentry,
and carried away their booty into the mountains.
Three Roman Catholic clergymen followed them, and
succeeded in getting all the cattle and corn restored,
and by their preaching had since restored that part of
peace.—(Hear, hear.)
was then read, and the
pdeaayker do now leave the chair,"
qt hueTesChtoieollnonrtd7Trthooaftpettrhhfeeeest
having been put,
Sill IL VERNER rose and addressed the House,
but in so low a tone as to be scarcely audible in the
gallery. The Hon. Baronet was understood to say
that however much he was rejoiced that her Majesty's
Government had thought it right even at this late
period to propose any measure calculated to relieve
the well-disposed and peaceable portion of the popu-
lation, and to preserve life and property in Ireland,
still he could not avoid expressing his regret that all
the remonstrances which had long since been made
on the subject of the growing evils of Ireland should
have remained till now unnoticed. Early in the
present year he had raised his voice in an endeavour
to convince the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government, and those acting with him, of the
inevitable consequences which would ensue if
those remonstrances were neglected. At the
same time he had moved for returns which,
though granted, had not been made, which would
have shown that arms had been eagerly pur-
chased in Ireland by men from whom they ought to
have been withheld, and the truth of his anticipations
on the withdrawal of the Arms Bill in 1846, had
been fully borne out by the events which had fol-
lowed. By the abandonment of that measure by the
Government in 1846, permission to possess arms had
been given at a most unseasonable time. At that
period the bad and evil-disposed were demanding
maintenance and support from the landlords and
farmers. The two parties were at issue, and this had
been the period chosen by the Government for the
establishment, in Ireland, of free-trade in arms.—
()ear, hear.)
On the 10th of August, 1846, the
Arms Bill came in for a second reading, and on that
occasion the Noble Lord said, " The question is,
whether all persons whatever in Ireland should be
at perfect liberty to have any arms they please,
to introduce any quantity of gunpowder they
please into the country, and to sell that gun-
powder and those arms in the interior, on the
coast, and in
all parts of Ireland. If you gave an
entire license to the people to have what they choose,
my belief is that you will be giving encouragement
to outrage, and that there will be more offences
against life than if you allowed this Bill to continue.
I have no doubt that the throwing out of this Bill
would encourage many of those malefactors in Ire-
land who go about selling themselves to commit
murder." Such were the opinions expressed by the
Noble Lord on that occasion, and the second reading
of the Bill was carried by a majority of 33 in a
House composed of 79 Members. On the following
Monday,
however, the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government came down and announced the abandon-
ment of the Bill, but "assured the. House that the
Government were still determined at all events that
security to life and property in Ir eland should not be
diminished." Connected with 'this proceeding there
was a circumstance which had at the time created great
alarm in Ireland. A gentleman • now no more, but for-
merly of great power and influer Ice in Ireland, for whose
memory he should not utter a wv rd of disrespect (the lute
Mr. O'Connell), announced tat a repeal meeting in
Dublin the withdrawal of the Arms Bill, on the very
same day that the announcoment was made in this
House by her Majesty's Gov ernment. The connexion
between Conciliation Hall :ind Downing-street was
held to bode no good to Ireland, and the result was
that the moment was seized. upon by the people to
arm themselves. And what had been the conse-
quences ? Why the Right Hon. Baronet on intro-
ducing the present Bill detailed a long catalogue of
crime, and on concluding his speech admitted that in
every case he had detailed the crime had been com-
mitted by means of fire arms. Nothing could pal-
liate murder, and yet the attel npt to do so had been

made in the course of the discussion on the present
Bill. Murders had been committed, and the widows
and orphans of those whose lives had been sacrificed
cried aloud to the Noble Lord, not for vengeance,
but for that protection which had been denied to their
husbands and fathers. On these grounds he should
give his support to the Bill now on the table.

- Mr. ANSTEY was desirous, before the Speaker
left the chair, to express his sentiments on the subject
before the House, and to justify the vote he had already
given. It seemed to him that the measure was based
upon two equally false assumptions ; first, that the
people of Ireland could not safely be entrusted to pre-
serve the peace of Ireland ; and, secondly, that the
Castle authorities in Dublin, or of the Treasury here,
might safely he trusted with an unlimited discretion
over the property and liberties of the Irish people.
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had signally
failed in establishing these two propositions; though
he had succeeded in proving that all former systems
of governing Ireland had failed. This failure was
attributable to the gradual withdrawal of the gentle-
men and yeomanry of Ireland from the care of the
public peace, which had been entrusted to paid officials.
The measure before the House was a step further in
the same bad direction. A few years ago the district
he represented, and other districts of Ireland, were
attached to the cause of order ; they had a direct pecu-
niary interest in keeping down disturbance; but, by the
consolidation of all the magisterial jurisdictions in
Ireland in the vice-regal authority—by the system
of mulcting the whole community instead of the par-
ticular district for the costs of disturbance—by creat-
ing a standing army, in the shape of a constabulary
force, at the direction of the Lord-Lieutenant—there
had been engendered the indisposition to act in the
repression of crime, of which so much complaint had
been made. Well might such a system fall ; and it
was most astonishing that the Right Hon. Baronet
should propose to remedy this failure by an extension
and augmentation of the same vicious system. He
(Mr. Anstey) yielded to no one in his abhorrence of
the crimes that had been perpetrated in Ireland ; but
he must object to this Bill, believing that it would be
wholly ineffectual for the repression of such crimes,
and that it would engender a state of things scarcely
less objectionable than that which it proposed to re-
medy. It went to withdraw the whole magisterial
authority of Ireland, and to vest in the Lord-Lieute-
nant a jurisdiction of an entirely different character.
Even were Lord Clarendon an angel of light, the
proprietary might be doubted of investing him,
or rather the Right Honourable the Home Secretary
—for, after all, the matter would rest with him—
with powers so vast and extensive. He had lis-
tened in vain for any fact from an Irish Member, tend-
ing to show the necessity of this measure. True,
there was the disposition to carry arms; but was not
this accounted for by the way in which the tenantry
and peasantry had been treated? Had the Bill pro-
posed to allow the use of fire-arms to none but those
who paid rates and taxes he might have consented to
go into the Committee; but it actually prohibited the
bearing of arms, in proclaimed districts, to all but
those contained in some few specified exceptions.
This was not only unconstitutional, but a reflection on
the loyalty and good-feeling of all classes, gentlemen,
magistracy, and the people at large. Even the right
of licensing to hear or possess arms was taken away
from the local magistracy. The Bill not only took
away the means of self-defence, but imposed a lasting
and indelible stigma on all classes. Irish Members
were told, " You must either accept this measure,
or propose a better in its place." He denied the
obligation ; he denied the necessity for any
such measure; for all the evils had arisen
from a departure from the ordinary course of law,
whereby gross injustice had been inflicted on Eng-
land and Scotland, through the calls made on the
consolidated fund. Let Government go back to the
ancient principle of laying the burden of crime on
the district, whether a county, a barony, or a town-
land; let them he made answerable for the support of
the families of persons who were assassinated ;
let the local administrators of justice, the grand juries,
be armed with full powers of defence ; and let the
system of rural municipalities, which the late Sove-
reign proposed for England, but whose application
was intercepted by the Melbourne Ministry, be esta-
blished in Ireland. The best effects would follow,
agrarian disturbances would be removed, and the
people at large would hare a direct interest in the
preservation of order. If a division took place on
this stage, he should vote against the Bill going into
Committee; he had offered it no factious opposition,
having given way on many points; and he felt that a
resort to all the means of opposition which the forms
of the House supplied could only be justified in very
extraordinary cases, of which he did not conceive
this to be one.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. SCROPE rebutted the implied charge
against himself of inconsistency, in having opposed
the last coercion Bill, on account of the widely
different circumstances in which Ireland was now
placed. Former Governments had not only ignored,
but denied, the real causes of Irish discontent ;
agitation had been assigned as the cause ; but it
was now pretty generally admitted that the inse-
curity of tenant-right lay at the root of all these
evils. The Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, in opposing the last coercion Bill, had declared
his opinion that ejectment from land was the great
source of the distress of Ireland ; and, acting on this
belief, the Noble Lord had passed what might be
called the great charter of Ireland—the poor-law.
This was the first of a great series of measures
which Government evidently contemplated for the re-
dressing of Irish grievances ; and no doubt a measure
for improving the relations of landlord and tenant
would form one of the number. The Govern-
ment had evidently arrived at a right conclusion
as to the cause of the evils ; but he much doubted
whether the public at large were so well informed
on the subject. The outrages had been represented
as temporary and local; but this was not true, or
only partially so, for they were outbreaks of a long-
existing and deeply-seated malady.—(Hear, hear.)
One main reason why disturbances had been more
frequent and serious in the south and west, than in
the north of Ireland, was the fact that in the latter
tenant-right was almost generally recognised—in the
former not at all. In Tipperary, for instance, there
had been more clearances and less recognition of
tenant-right than perhaps in any other county of
Ireland. In support of this statement, the Hon. Gen-
tleman read some extracts from the evidence given
before Lord Devon's Commission expressive of the
opinion that the want of tenant-right was the great
grievance. He trusted that the danger of absolute
starvation was at an end, now that Ireland possessed
a poor-law ; and thus one great source of discon-
tent and disturbance would be -withdrawn. Lock
at the state of the occupying tenant who had de-
pended so greatly on the potato—how was he to pay
his rent in arrear, or the rent of this year? It was
estimated that sixteen millions had been lost by the
failure of the potato crop in 1846--a sum equal to the
entire rental of Ireland. He thought the charges
against the priests had been greatly exaggerated ; but
they were not the only persons who o had used repre-
hensible language. Lord Fitzwilliam had said in a
pamphlet which he had recently published, that the
great evil of Ireland was that there were 7,000,000
of cottiers occupying small portions of land—an evil
which the State must at once proceed to remove—
that was, to destroy the only means of subsistence of
7,000,000 of people.---(Hear, hear.) Such language
was enough to alarm the people, and make them
desperate. The great evil in his (Mr. Scrope's) esti-
mation was, in not putting it within the power of the
peasantry of Ireland to improve the land ; and the
remedy was, to give that security of tenure which
would enable them to do so, and place more at the
disposal of the peasantry the means of improving the
waste lands of Ireland.-: (Hear, hear.) The most
distressed district in that country might be made
to maintain its population if such means were
adopted. In Glentees, for instance, with a popula-
tion of 47.000 to a rental of 16,0001., there was
waste land enough, as proved before a Committee of
the other House last session, to maintain all the po-
pulation if it were cultivated ; and in Mayo the
quantity of arable land might be absolutely doubled
if all the waste land were taken into cultivation.
Nothing more was wanted to remedy the miserable
condition of the peasantry of Ireland and prevent
agrarian outrages than the removal of the evils
which he had pointed out. He did not oppose the
Bill before the House; he only wished to press on
the Government mid the Legislature the necessity of
taking vigorous, permanent, and thorough measures
for entirely putting an end to the crimes which all
must deplore.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCULLY defended the Irish priests, and de-
clared his conviction that the Bill would fail in its
object. He must admit with horror that many mur-
ders were perpetrated in some parts of Ireland, but
thought the ordinary law would have been sufficient
for the repression of crime if it had been put in force.
In that part of Tipperary which he represented,
there were 350 prisoners in the gaol of Clonmel, and
10 of them were charged with murder. These cul-
prits would have to wait until February or March
before they could be tried—why, then, was not a
special commission issued ?—(Hear, hear.) Before
the Government applied for extraordinary, they
should have tried the ordinary powers of the law.
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman
then read some portions of the evidence taken before
Lord Devon's Commission, in order to show that
two-thirds of the outrages in Tipperary arose from
the system of letting the land, and the great number
of ejectments. They should, therefore, first find out
the causes of crime, and then apply the proper
remedies for the evils which produced it —(Hear,
hear.) So long as the present law of landlord and
tenant was left unaltered there would not be perfect
peace in Ireland. The two great evils of Ireland
were want of capital and want of employment. He
admitted that the habit of allowing unemployed and
poor persons to bear arms was likely to be abused.
He would not, therefore, be opposed to refusing a

license for carrying IMAM Ha die but think It right
that those who were innocent should be obliged to
pray the expenses of the constabulary who were sent
into the disturbed districts. They ought to be
cautious before they gave the large powers con-
tained in the Bill to the Lord-Lieutenant. Above
all, he thought that the liberal Members of that
House should pause before they consented to give
such powers to any one. He was not opposed to the
clause respecting the bearing of arms, but would resist
the other clauses. He would not, however, oppose the
motion for going into Committee.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'FLAHERTY did not think that this Bill
would reach the evils of Ireland, which were of too
deep a nature to be cured by a measure like the
present.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that if time were given
for the expression of public opinion in this country
against the abrogation of the constitution, it would be
sufficient of itself to stop the further progress of the
Bill. It was because the Bill was a violation of the
constitution that he had so much opposed the measure,
and because the Government had not produced any
remedial measures. He thought the ordinary law, if
properly and efficiently executed, would be sufficient
to put an end to crime in Ireland. He would ask
them, therefore, not to arm the 'landlords of
Ireland with such a terrible engine as this Bill would
put into their hands. He would give his determined
resistance to every clause in the Bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS said, he did not intend to
give any factious opposition to this Bill. He
opposed the measure on constitutional grounds, and
because he thought it would be perfectly useless
to effect the object it professed to have in view.
There had been already enacted thirty coercion Bills
against Ireland, and that fact alone was enough to
prove that a measure of this kind would be ineffectual.
He believed it was admitted that there was generally
less crime in 1847 in Ireland than in previous years.
There were nineteen murders and attempts at mur-
ders, but of these no less than eleven were directed
against farmers. As a body, he could not say much
in favour of the landlords of Ireland, though there
were many most excellent men amongst them. But
they were not exclusively the oppressors. He be-
lieved that there was greater oppression exercised by
the men in frieze coats upon these who were under
them than perhaps by any others.—(Hear, hear.)
He was disposed to place the greatest confidence in
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and in the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland; but he
would not place in the hands of any man the un-
constitutional powers which this Bill would give
them. The Honourable Gentleman then referred
to the outbreaks in Wales, and reminded the
House that the constitution was not suspended in
order to suppress them. Why, he asked, did not
the Government try the effect of the ordinary law
and issue special commissions ? One of the effects of
the measure would be to encourage the spy system,
and those who were acquainted with Ireland must be
aware that if informers could not find guilty persons
they would bring accusations against the innocent to
fill their pockets. The fate of the present Bill he
knew to be inevitable, and that it would pass in all its
integrity; but he felt that it would not disarm the
marauder and murderer, while it would disarm the
best preserver of the public peace—the farmer. He
would have no objection to vote for a Bill to enact
that no man in Ireland should be permitted to keep
arms unless he were rated to the relief of the poor.
He saw no benefit in entrusting arms to men who had
no dwellings. But he would go still farther, and
enact that no man should be permitted to carry those
arms beyond the precincts of his own farm or pro-
perty unless licensed to kill game. He would also
make it criminal for any but a privileged person to
carry arms at night. Indeed, he considered that her
Majesty's Government had been guilty of great neglect
in not applying a legal remedy before now to the pos-
session of arms, and that if they had done so, many
of the crimes they had heard of would not have been
committed.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary of State for the Home Department
referred in his statement to the attack in Wales upon
Dr. Bowring, and insinuated that the course pursued
on that occasion by the people, whereby the offenders
were so speedily brought to justice, was not such a
course as would have been pursued in Ireland
under similar circumstances, but that the offenders,
on the contrary, would be secreted and protected.
Now he (Mr. Reynolds) could mention a parallel
case. Mr. Prim, a paymaster under the Board of
Works, was travelling in Kilkenny on a jaunting car,
when attacked by highway robbers, with whom he
exchanged shots, but by whom he was eventually
robbed and murdered. The authorities went imme-
diately in pursuit of the murderers, and owing to the
aid given them by the people, soon arrested them, and
they were convicted and executed. He could mention
several such cases in Ireland. He had himself travelled
through all parts of Ireland, it being known at the
time that he had large sums of money with him,
and he was never once molested. That showed
that the crimes of Ireland were exclusively agrarian,
and being so were attributable to the misgovernment
of the landlords. He was sorry to see in that House
so strong a disposition to screen the landlord and
malign the people of Ireland, whereas, if the cases
were fairly considered, the crimes of the people
could be traced in a great degree to the conduct of
the landlords. He would offer no factious opposi-
tion to the Bill. If it were a good Bill, the sooner
it passed the better.—(Hear, hear.) It it were a bad
Bill, the sooner it passed, the sooner would his pro-
phecy as to its inetlctive character fulfilled.

- After a few words from Colonel ACTON in
support of the Bill, the House went in Committee.
On clause 1, .
Air. J. O'CONNELL moved to substitute the
words "for the prevention of crime and outrage," the
words "for the punishment and prevention of crime
and outrage in certaiu districts." His object was to
limit the operation of the Bill to districts that were
disturbed.

Mr. R. M. FOX feared very much that the clause
would extend crime, instead of checking it, by
driving ill-disposed persons from proclaimed into un-
proclaimed districts, which their conduct would have
a tendency to disturb.
Sir G. GREY said the object of this clause was to
give the Bill a general application, in order that the
Lord-Lieutenant might apply it to any part of Ire-
land in which crime and outrage occurred. The
alteration of the words would do no good, and it might
do harm.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR had said at first that this Bill
was only " a wedge," and the Right Hon. Baronet's
statement proved the truth of his position. It now
appeared that the Bill was to have a general and not
a local application.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY—Where threatening letters were
sent in a district, or where conspiracies were shown
to exist, the Lord-Lieutenant might find it necessary
to declare it disturbed. All he wanted was not to
limit the discretion of the Lord-Lieutenant.
Colonel DUN NE agreed with the Hon. Member
for Longford (Mr. Fox). He could not see why the
arms, in a district declared to be disturbed, should
not be handed over a hedge into a district not declared
to be disturbed, and where they would be safe from
seizure.

Mr. GROGAN also thought the remarks of the
Member for Longford deserved consideration. If the
Bill passed as it stood, an ill disposed person passing
from Kilkenny, which was proclaimed, into Wex-
ford, which was not, might bring down on the peace-
able people of the latter county all the pains and the
penalties of this Act of Parliament.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that bearing in mind that
these boundaries of counties were merely imaginary
lines, it was most unjust to subject the people within
such lines to penalties for offences committed by per-
sons living out of them.
Mr. FRENCH thought that on the contrary the
tendency of the limit of penalty would have the good
effects of giving the people of a particular district a
peculiar interest in arresting an offender.—(Divide.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he should press his
amendment, but
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL begged him to withdraw
it. If a Bill of this kind was to be passed at all, the
less they fettered the powers of the Lord-Lieutenant
the better.
Mr. MUNTZ had felt some difficulty in voting
upon this Bill, becaause, although he could not re-
fuse a Bill of this sort, under the peculiar circum-
stances, yet he was bound to look with jealousy on all
these infringements on the liberty of the subject. On
the suject of the present amendment he must, however,
say, that he thought the powers it gave ought to be as
limited as possible.
The Committee divided—
For the amendment 4
Against it •• ... .. 203
Majority .. —199
Mr. F. O'CONNOR moved the insertion of the
words " On the representation of the magistrates of
the district."

Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment, which was
then withdrawn and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 were, after a short discussion, agreed
to.

On Manse 8, relating to the levying of the cess,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL proposed an amendment, to
the effect that the new cess should be divided between
the owner and the occupier.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that if the Legislature
made the whole burden fall upon the landlord, there
would not be a single crime in Ireland.—(Laughter.)
Sir G. GRE Y said that the object of fixing the
occupier with an immediate burden was to supply an
additional motive for the prevention of outrage.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL ultimately withdrew his
amendment, and the clause was agreed to.
Clause 9 was agreed to without discussion.
On clause 10, relating to the delivering of arms to
the civil authorities,
Mr. F. O'CONNOR protested against this clause
as altogether unfair and unconstitutional, and dared
the Government to pass it.

Mims' iti.Wbeli thought the 0:411 040 Vali
altogether misapplied.—(Hear, hear.) A eonstltu.
tional Government might do anything which was
sanctioned by the representatives of the people.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses
11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, after a short discussion, with
verbal amendments.
On clause 16, which empowers police-officers to
require persons to join in the pursuit of offenders,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL submitted that the power
should be restricted to county inspectors or sub-
inspectors.
The persons called out were required to
do their utmost in pursuing the offenders; but
who was to judge whether they did their utmost
Sir G. GREY said that the limitation proposed
would entirely destroy the effect of the clause. It
was meant to enable a police-officer to call in assist-
ance, in order to prevent the escape of an offender;
if the officer was required first to consult his superior
officer and obtain his authority, the opportunity
would be lost. As to whether the parties called in
did their utmost to render assistance, the jury, by
whom the case was tried, and not the police officer,
would have to be the judge of that.
Mr. O'CONNOR said, the duty imposed by this
clause was already an obligation at common law ; but
he thougist the punishment, in case of refusal, ought
to be mitigated to six months' imprisonment, without
hard labour. A period of two years' imprisonment,
with hard labour, though at the option of the judge,
would excite a strong sympathy for the offenders.
Sir G. GREY defended the clause as it stood, on
the ground that the discretion of the bench would
prevent too severe a punishment being inflicted.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL did not think the clause
would be productive of much good. In England the
people aided in enforcing the law, because they bed
an interest in doing so, and believed the law to be
their friend.—(Hear, hear.) The enforcement of the
penalties under this clause, he feared, would have en
opposite effect from what was intended.
Mr. O'CONNOR moved the substitution of " siz
months" for " two years."
Mr. AGLIONBY did not think two years impri-
sonment an excessive punishment for screening mut"
derers. The clause would operate as an inducement
to parties to give up offenders when they were in their
power.
The amendment was negatived without a divisions
and the clause was then agreed to.

On clause 17,
Mr. O'CONNOR said this clause was the sting °f
the Bill. It proposed to preserve the 1 and i Wib'
IV., c. 44, and 15 and 16 Geo. 111., c. 31 (the White'
boy Acts), with the exception of such parte of those
Acts as were repealed. The effect of this would be,
that parties guilty of minor cffences would be sen'
tencel to a heavier punishment—seven years' trans'
portation—than those who screened the murderers.
Some conversation ensued; ultimately,
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said he thought inne, ,r..
good would he done by prompt punishment than "J
severer punishments after long delays had been
allowed to intervene. The plan of speedy punish"
ments was found most effectual during the disturb"
ances in Clare; and if speedy punishments were 5°
effectual, speedy convictions might be supposed to be
effectual also.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY expressed his concurrence in the
view expressed by the Hon. Member for Kerry, an
Mr. F. O'Connor gave way.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to.
Mr. BAINES moved the insertion of a clause, ba
which accessories after the fact might be tried on
punished, although the principals might not hays
been convicted or taken.
Colonel SIBTHORI' thought it was quite as 11e;
cessary to punish the accessory before and after the
fact as to punish the principal. He condemned ti‘e
Bill, however, as a milk and water, and even, if "
might be permitted to say so, a cowardly mea-
sure.—(Laughter.)
The clause was then read, and, as was understood,
agreed to, and the House resumed; the report to 13*
received this day.
The House, at One o'clock, adjourned until noon
this day.