The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

! far when they attacked the prerogatives of the Crown, in
such a way as had rarely or ever been done, by challeng-
ing every juror from whom an impartial verdict might he
expected. When the jury were etnpannelled, the prosecu-
tors thought that Roman Catholics were more likely to
give a verdict according to their wishes than Protestants,
and in consequence nine of the former, and three of the
latter persuasion, were sworn in. The party vets ac-
quitted, and as he was in fact blameless, he certainly
admitted that it showed an improved state of feeling. He
had very strong hopes that this Biil would not be required
to be put in force in any single instance ; but this did not
argue at all against its necessity. But he would beg their
Lordships to consider the description of crime to which
it was still applicatle—that almost every ease which
could possibly arise, connected with the intimidation
of witnesses, or the attempt to turn public u nctionaries
from their duties, was compassed by it. All these
offences were met by its provisions. Though founded on
the Proclamation Act of 1829, it went much further,
and was far more comprehensive in its nature; for it
gave the Lord Lieutenant the means, when the ordinary
powers could not reach offenders, of directly attacking and
putting an end to outrage. It gave great facilities for
letting the common law take effect either in the district
where it was in force, or in any other part of the country.
What had been the state of Ireland for the last twelve
months? Net merely bad the ill-disposed been rioting
in every kind of 1 iwlessness, but they compelled others to
join in their train—the well-disposed, who were anxious
to fulfil their duties, to pay their rents, to be peaceable,
loyal, and good subjects, had been in many instences
forced into a reluctant concert with them. It was to
put an end to this state of things that the Bill had been
brought in. Without stating that all the alterations
were absolute improvements in the Bill, he would still
say that it was a good and a necessary one ; that it was
sufficient for its purpose; that it would preserve peace,
insure order, and protect life ; and he therefore put it to
their Lordships whether, under such circumstances, they
would do anything to defeat or impair it?
Lord WYNFORD said, if he believed that there was
such a happy change in the constitution of society in
Ireland as to justify these changes in the Bill, he should
feel it his duty to oppose every amendment, and in order
to its !ejection, because lie would never wantonly consent
to the violation of the established constitution of the
country. But lie did not think there was any change of
a salutary nature, or that they might congratulate them-
selves upon. He would beg to state that the averment of
the Noble Lord, that it was exceedingly doubtful if the
Bill were ever put in force, in consequence of the amend-
ment in the sate of the country, was to him a source of
uneasiness. If a Noble Lord in another place had been
correctly reported, be had described this supposed amend-
ment as the very circumstance which was of the most
alarming character. And in that opinion be (Lord Wyn-
ford) most certainly agreed; for it was a calm of a de-
lusive and portentous character, and only showed the lin,
mense and unwholesome control which certain individuals
could exercise over their fellow-countrymen. It was evi-
dent there were persons of influence sufficient to suppress
their angry passions, and almost on the instant to make
them quiescent and apparently obedient to the law, but
who, when it suited their purpose, could bring
them forward in most formidable array—a thing
which he denounced as wholly inconsistent with the
peace and good government of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) But, in reference to this boasted improvement,
he would beg to ask whether the case of the Rev. Mr.
Doyle, which had been published in the papers of that
morning, had been read by their Lordships, and whether
it showed any features which should induce their Lord.
ships to consent to this amendment of the first clause?
That Rev. Gentleman had been indicted far publishing se-
ditious libels and attending illegal meetings, and the second
count, fur being present, applied to the part now under
consideration. This Rev. Gentleman, who talked of
getting rid of all tithes, who attacked the aristocracy in
every way, he should have thought would have been con-
victed ; but atter four hours' deliberation he had been
acquitted. Now he considered that unlawful assemblies,
in the present temper of Ireland, were, of all things in the
world, her greatest curse, and ought, above all things, to
be vigorously met and resolutely put down. How could
the fidelity of the preamble be maintained under these al-
terations ? What aid it complain of ? Why, that there
were unlawful assemblies which afflicted and disturbed the
country. Then, lie contended, that these unlawful and
tumultuous asse blages were the worst part of the
grievances of Ireland, and ought not to have been
withdrawn fiom the jurisdiction of the courtsmattial.
If they wanted evidence of the injurious tendency of
these meetings, let tilt m look to the last eighteen months,
ever since another individual of the name of Doyle had
written a certain letter, w. ich had produced dissension
and dis:urhance, as surely as thunder followed lightning.
These offences were the foundation of all others—they
were the parents of all the outrage and all the intimida-
tion which had lately prevailed ; and if tiny could not be
tried by the ordinary course of the law—as the Noble
Premier had at first stated, and which had not since been
contradicted—they ought to he assigned tor decision to die
courtsmartial. These meetings were all for political pur-
poses, and all in their consequences contributed to the dis-
ruption of society. If these were not to be attacked,
punished, and put down, it was a mere mockery to pass
this Bill—let them come to some understanding at once
and reject it. He should oppose to the utmost any attempt
to d s:roy the church of Ireland, because he was bound to
protect his Sovereign, and his Sovereign was bound to
protect that church. Now any attempts to injure or dt-
stray that, or to intimidate its ministers, were political
offences, and the Eine, as parens patrice, was bound
to take every measure to defend it, and their
Lordships, as the great supporters of the throne,
were called upon to assist him in maintaining order
and enforcing justice. If they could not do this by the
ordinary law they were bound to go beyond it, no !natter for
what offence. They ought, then, after the statement of the
Noble Earl at the head of the Government, to decide on
these political offences at once. If they withdrew them
from the ceurtsmartial clause, the Bill was merely a bit
of waste paper. It was folly to talk of murders and ma-
raudings only being subject to them. They could not re-
animate the murdered body—they could not restore vigour
to the limb when the mortal blow had been given by the
midnight assassin; but they could prevent those tumul-
tuous meetings which first gave birth to such enormities,
which engendered such atrocities, which excited such evil
and such horrid passions, and they ought to do so. He
was satisfied that the Bill, as sent down from them, was
a necessary, a just, and an efficient one, wholly equal to
its end. It was not so now. He had a high respect for
the other House; but be had also a proper respect for
that House to which he bad the honour to belong ; and
he therefore called upon their Lordships to respect those
privileges, and not give way on the present occasiou, by
agreeing to amendments which were at once unwise and
uncalled for.

The Earl of WICKLOW said that when on a former
occasion he had heard the Noble Earl enforcing the ne-
cessity of the Bill with that eloquence which so peculiarly
distinguished him, when they were called upon to pass
the Bill without inquiry, but merely on the assurance of
Ministers that it was necesvary, he little expected to find
that Noble Eirl coming down to that House and propos-
ing such alterations. It proved that the Noble Earl was
either ignorant of the true state of Ireland, or that events
had occurred which rendered a less severe Bill sufficient.
He could not look upon it now as otherwise than inefficient
and worthlesF.

Lord Viscount MELBOURNE maintained that the
Bid still gave abundant power to the Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland to put down illegal meetings. The meetings, the
proceedings at which, in the Biil as it originally stood,
were to be brought within the purview of courtsmartial,
were only meetings in proclaimed districts. Now it was
well known that the principal body aimed at by the Bill
was the volunteers. Now meetings of the volunteers were
very rarely held in these proclaimed districts, so that the
efficiency of this Bill was not diminished as regarded them.
It was true that an improvement had manifested itself in
the state of Ireland, and that juries had lately dune their
duty ; and he agreed with the Noble Earl, that one cause
of that improvement was the encouragement given to the
well-disposed by the introduction of the Bill into Parlia-
ment. He could not admit that that House at all com-
promised its dign ty by agreeing to amendments which
proceeded from the other House. All that their Lord-
ships ought to do was to consider whether those amend.
ments were right or not, and, if right, to agree to them.
The Duke of WELLINGTON complained that the
provisions of the Bill were now inconsistent with the
preamble. If, however, his Majesty's Ministers conceived
that the measure, in its present form, was sufficient for
the purpose. in view, he, for one, would not, wisa them to
ca ry it one iota further.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, that even if
the amendments exposed the framers of the Bill to the
charge of inconsistency, yet, if those amendments ,w; re
thought right, they ought to be adopted. if there was
one thing of which he was mere confident than another,
it was this, that if their Lordships passed the Bill as it
stood, they would hear no more of those assemblies which
all parties agreed were destructive of the peace and pros-
perity of Ireland.
Lord WYNFORD, the Marquis of LArtsnowNr, and the
Earl of ELDON severally explained.
Earl RODEN was not one of those who were at all
disinclined to disagree with the amendments made in the