The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-28 00:00:00

and able discussion which this measure has undergone in this
preliminary state of its progress—as I would fain hope that we
are now drawing towards the close of this preliminary debate,
I am unwilling to postpone to a more distant period the perform-
ance of that duty which I feel to be incumbent upon me. Sir,
I wish in the first place to explain to the House what were
the motives of her Majesty's Government in proposing that
the first stage of this Bill should be interposed to :he progress
of another Bill of the deepest importance, in my opinion, to
the welfare of this country.—(Cheers.) Sir, I assure the
House that it was not from any countenance ef an adherence
to a mere usage that we felt it to be our duty to propose the
first reading of this Bill. What were the circumstances under
which this Bill or this subject generally was brought under
the consideration of both Houses of Parliament? On the first
day of the session in a speech from the throne, the first practical
measure which her M tjesty recommended to our consideration
was the measure for the purpose of giving, if possible, increased
security to life and property In Ireland. —( Hear, hear.) Her
Majesty recommended to the consideration of Parliament three
or four measures of great importance, the first of which was
the calling of the attention of Parliament to the state of Ire-
land, and particularly with respect to the frequency of the
crime of murder, and the necessity of taking some precautions
to prevent the frequent recurrence of that crime. What was
the answer returned by this House to that speech ? There
was an assurance on the part of the House not that it would
adopt any measure proposed by the Government, but there
was an assurance that this House was deeply impressed with
the importance of the object, and that this House would take
into its consideration any measures which had for their object
the prevention of these evils. The Bill was brought into the
other House of Parliament, and it met with very little opposi-
tion in that House. The Irish Peers, connected by
political sentiment with many of the Honourable Gentlemen,
felt convinced of the necessity of this or of some
such measure, and gave their support to it. I believe that
there was no opposition to the principle of the Bill—no oppe-
sition, at least, bearing the usual characteristics of an opposition.
The Bill was sent down to this House. It has been, indeed,
uniformly I believe the invariable practice in respect to a mea-
sure undertaken by the Government—in a measure of this im-
portance—in a measure recommended to the consideration of
Parliament on the first day of the session from the Throne—it
has been an invariable usage that any measure brought to this
House from the House of Lords—a measure introduced by the
Government into this House—to give that measure a first
1-Ton=e of Lords—each Member of that branch
of ty. Legbassure....h a a right to lay a Bill en the table of the
u r, waster of course, to that Bill a first reading
is give re No such usage prevails here ; but it is in respect
to measures of this description, brought in by Government,
recommended from the Throne, and passed by the other
branch of the Legislature, it has been the invariable practice
to treat the measure in such a manner, and to show such
unwillingness to oppose its introduction that the preliminary
stage—the first reading—is allowed. Now lam not denying
Hon Gentlemen opposite the perfect right to oppose that first
reading. lam not implying that they have unduly exercised
any privilege which they possess by calling the attention of the
House to the general state of Ireland. I am only considering the
question whether or no her Majesty'sGoverment would have been
justified in the present instance in departing from the course
heretofore adopted by Parliament, to ask the House to permit
this Bill to lie upon the table of the House without the slightest
opposition. Sir, Ido not admit the House of Lords would
have any right to ask us to give any measures of theirs a first
reading.—( hear, hear.) It was in deference to the House of
Lords that we took this course, but of this we felt deeply con-
vinced, that if we do permit this Bill as recommended
by the Throne, as passed by the House of Lords, to lie upon
the table without notice, that the representatives of Ireland
'would have accused us, and justly accused us, of offering an
insult to that House.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill has been pro-
posed, certainly, to suspend the ordinary operation of the law.
Opposition cheers.) Let us look at the character of it,
and the more you insist upon the unconstitutional character of
tie Bill, the more you establish the necessity that a Bill of
this kind should be introduced by her Majesty's Government.
It gives a power to the Lord-Lieutenant to deprive the subject
of the liberty which, under all ordinary circumstances, he is
entitled to enjoy. And in the consideration of the especial
application of this Bill to one part of her Majesty's
dominion, would it have been right of the Ministers
in a matter of such immense importance to have
shown such a total disregard to the principles of
that liberty that is proposed to be taken away by this Bill ?
I admit that this measure does aim at depriving the subjects of
her Majesty in Ireland of some portion of their liberty, but had
we propossd a measure of this sort in a different manner to
that which we have, we should have been doing a great injus-
tice towards Ireland, and we should show an indifference to
that liberty which we so much value. Sir, I think I need
hardly refer to that dangerous surmise which I heard thrown
out, that her Majesty's Government had become indifferent to
the progress of the Corn Bill, and that they had interposed this
discussion, or rather this first reading of the Coercion Bill,
with the view of defeating that measure.—(Hear.) But—
Mr. B. HAWES—I did not say so.
Sir R. PEEL—No, I know the Hon. Gentleman did not
say so. but I know that some Hon. Gentleman in the course of
this discussion said, not that they themselves thought of, but
that it was a veneral impression out of doors.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir, I think it is not necessary to re-avow the perfect sincerity
of my convictions on this measure —( Hear, hear.) It is suffi-
cient for me now to state that, from the discussion on this sub-
ject and from the lapse of time which has now intervened, I
am the more strongly convinced of the necessity of that mea-
sure—( Cheers)—and that it is our wish and object to proceed
with that measure.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I will not deny that
even during this debate my opinions upon that subject have
undergone a change ; but it is this change—that the restriction
which I first believed to be unjust, I now believe to be perni-
cious—(Cheers)—and that I am only the more determined to
pursue the course I then adopted; and in answer to those injurious
suspicions I think it is enough to say I shall be,perfectly pre-
pared—l am prepared to maintain the justice and perfect sin-
cerity of my course.—(Cheers.) In pursuance of an antique
usage, the f rst reading of this Bill was, on the grounds that I
have stared, proposed by her Majesty's Government, conceiving
that the measure ought not to be delayed for a single day. Sir,
I proceed to the consideration of those reasons which have
induced her Majesty's Government, with great pain and with
sincere confidence, to propose this measure with respect to
Ireland.—(Cheers.) Sir, the Honourable Gentleman the
Member for the city of Cork, who spoke in the course of this
evening, and who made a speech as remarkable for its
ability as it was distinguished, for the brevity with which he
made the observations—(Cheers)—the Hon. Gentleman
did me the favour to express his belief that I have no other
dispositions than kindness towards Ireland, but he thought I
was overruled by some Member of the Cabinet against my
convictions. I assure the Hon. Gentleman that he does me
but justice in expressing his belief that I have the sincerest in-
terest for the welfare and peace of that part of her Majesty's
dominions. He does me injustice in stating that he believes
that lam overruled by some Member of the Cabinet. If I did
not believe that the imperative necessity that required
the proposal of some such measure as this for the pur-
pose of giving protection to life, for the purpose of preventing
social disorganization, and the frequency of crime in Ireland, I
shoutd not have been a party to theproposition of this measure.
Sir, I was struck by an observation of one Hon. Gentleman, a
representative of Ireland, anti the Member for Drogheda (Sir
Wm. Somerville), with respect to the grounds on which this
Bill was proposed, that, in proposing this measure,
we were bound to establish facts. He maintains that we have
(ailed to show the necessity of this measure. He said that we
were bound to show that all the ordinary resources of the law
had been exercised—that we had done all we could with the
instruments which the institutions of the country placed in our
hands—that we were bound to show that the law was not suf-
ficient for the purpose of preventing these crimes, and that the
particular measure which we proposed was not likely to be effec-
tual for its object. • Ido think that we are bound to esta-
blish our arguments as far as our proof is available—our argu-
ment, as far as reason is concerned ; we are bound to
bring these three or four facts to the Honourable Gentleman.
We are bound to prove that there is at the present
moment a ft equency of crime, I speak particularly of the crime
of assassination, or climes affecting the public peace. I think
we are bound to prove that Ireland is in an unusual position at
this moment. We are bound to prove that we have exercised
all the means which the ordinary law places at our disposal.—
( Hear, hear.) We are bound to establish an argument on the
probability that the measure proposed will conduce to the end
in view.—(Cries of ‘‘ Hear, hear," from the Opposition.)
Now, Sir, the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last has contested
the facts—(Hear, hear)—which were introduced by my Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the purposeof
crimeshnwing
that there was at the present period an increase o
n
Ireland, such an increase as justify us in proposing thisma .
sure.—( Hear, hear.) I don't think that it is necessary merelye-
to show the increase of crime to justify this measure. Our
consideration must be directed to the character of the crime.
Your consideration must include the possibility of removing
that crime by punishment. You must regard, in the first
instance the impunity which exists. You must regard the
nature of these crimes and the increase which arises from its
impunity—(Cheers)—before you come to the conclusion that
• a law of this nature is unjustifia_hle._ Well, now, let us first
Gentlemantake the statements of the Hon. who preceded me,
with respect to the frequency of crime. I do not know
whether crime has increased in the manner stated, but I will
refer the House to the frequbency of cwrhii m _ oef
orlate,
I speak of all crime, whether it e thoat
thine
res: h lif the
ure ot crime,
public tranquillity is injured. I speak f p
and I will now compare they ear 1843 with the year 1b45. We
were most unwilling to apply to the House for any extraordi-
nary powers. Let us Mite a comparision and show the diffe-
rence ; and I will read a document.
Mr. H A WES— VVhat document is that?
Sir R. PEEL—The document before us. I think the Hon.
Gentleman referred to the years 1842 ard 1843, and I will
read from the document, which 1 believe has been pub-
lished and previded by the police of Ireland. and has
been very recently laid on the table of the House.
I will take the crimes of homicide, conspiracy to murder, as-
saults upon the police and magistrates, alzgravated assaults, de-
mand or robbery of arms, administering unlawful oaths, sendit g
threatening notices, attacking houses, firing dwelling-houses.
Those crimes which may exist in any country, such as rob-
bery, stealing cattle and other things, which may not be con•
sidered as indications of the character of the country—l leave
them out of the question altogether. I will only take those
crimes, the frequency of which is characteristic of a disturbed
state of society. I will then read to you a statement of these
crimes, they are taken from a report of the constabulary force
in Ireland. Ido not know whether it is the same as that to
which the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred.
I think it must be the same.
Mr. HAWES—It is the same.
Sir R. PEEL —Well, then, we will take the two years, 1843
and 1845. There were in the year 1843 1845
Homicides
Omsptraet•es to murder
...
Assaults upon 3 ... 8
police and magistrates
Aggravated assaults
Demanding and robbery of fire-arms
41
h 41901
551252434
Administering unlawful oaths
Sending threatening notices
The Hon. Member whosp
at any spoke
940 ... 1941
ke last seemed disposed to treat,
I will not say lightly, but '
rate he seems to consider
the offence of issuing threatening
rialzamaos. , an increase
ea Heoafr
f, r
ohme a
9r ,4'
0' f
tr
oo m 1
91.1414 r .
should hardly enter the ac notices
to be one which
here is, howeveerount.—
A great number of them
may' be.
fabrications.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—With all deference to the opinions
of the Hon. Member, I think that the increase from 940 to
1,944 is a very serious matter. A threatening notice inflicts
ow to disturb the
no bodily harm. It is sufficient,
however,
peace of those who may receive them. I apprehend that few
know the amount of misery inflicted by thesei notices. Parties
t
who receive these notices are aware of
firs
qufaecott,lythfoaltlowthse
execution of the sentence of vengeance too
It may be possible, and I believe it is true, that there may be
instances where these notices have been fabricated. I make
every induction on that account; still the increase in that
offence, couP
:fd with the increase in other offences to which
I have referred, is to me a strong proof of a diseased
state of society.—(Hear, hear.) Now, let us take the
ether crime—that of attacking houses. In 1843 there
were 215 ;in 1845, 483. We will now take the stati -
tics of the crime of firing dwelling •houses. There were 87
cases of this class in the year 1843, and in the year 1845 there
were 130. Now take the nature of these offences, and the
rapid inorease in crimes committed under the head of these
offences. and surely I have given an answer to the Honourable
Members who attempted to show that crime was less frequent
in 1845 than any previous year. So much then for the
frequency of crime. There is no language I can use more
emphatic upon the subject of these crimes, than the language
used by the opponents of this meitsuro. The Hon. Member,

speaking of the nature and quality of crime committed •in
Ireland, says thaf.he viewed them with horror as indications that
the national character of Ireland was undergoing a change.
Ha stated that heretofore there had been, on the part of
the Irish, a respect to age, and respect for sex,
and that helplessness of age, and the character of
the sex had always been sufficient to protect the wrong
and guide the weak.—( Hear, hear.) What said the Hon.
Gentleman upon the question of these atrocities? I fear he
said that there is a great change coming over the character of
the Irish people. I see that there is no securi, yin age or sex
against the most shameful attacks. These crimes were a black
stain upon a character which has stood so high in that chival-
rous spirit which has distinguished the Irish nation for so long
a time. I will take the words of the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny. I took them down at the time: he said, "I am over-
whelmed with disgust and shame at the hideous crimes which
have been committed in some parts of Ireland. lam
over-
whelmed with disgust and shame and indescribable sorrow at
Are
these crimes," and yet these crimes remain unpunished.
tot bs e
tah fill h
hpassivee and
the Honourable
t n
awteroeieHazaamreaahslueresmetmo
Member of
thatthe
not those used by the advocates
I have quoted, are
as to the effect of crime
country with disgust and shame? Thesewoorfdsthewuhiicilh,
but the words used by the opponents., .
'me. They are not, how-
ever,the character of any nation by its en
rde
in
judging of the
upon the national character. 1 admit that it is unfair to judge
from their nature to be disHrengna d
Member then proceeded
character of the country. The
threeafte
rbtrho
the
death two of whom had ora
stationed at their house
e rma bulled er
period,nf
death of the elder one, two policemen
to read some particulars respectingreantsbide
within a few yards of his own house, only reason as
and the
to protect them. The third one was at length shot when
signed for this murder was, that he had taken possession of an
acre of land adjoining his farm. lf, said the Right Hon.
Baronet, you exact allegiance from such persons as these. I
do not think that we should be fulfilling the duties of a Go-
vernment, if we did not afford them protection to pro-
perty.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet
then referred to the ca,e of the murders of
Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Hegin. He also referred to the case of
a mining company, who, on the 26th of November last, re-
ceived a great number of threatening notices, in consequence
of which the Directors issued a notice, stating that the works
should be suspended, as they did not wish to expose to danger
the lives of the workmen employed by them, who had also
received threatening notices. The Right Hon. Baronet next
proceeded to read the names and occupations of the first
twenty which appeared in the report of persons murdered,
amounting to 147, between the Ist of February, 1843, and the
Ist of February, 1845. From that statement it appeared
that a great number of persons murdered were farmers and
farmer's wives. Is it not, then, said the Right Hon. Baronet,
our duty to afford additional protection to these pasties? The
gentleman, or the large farmer can protect themselves in their
own houses, but these poorer persons require some additional
protection. The Hon. Member for Drogheda said that the
onus was upon us to establish the necessity of this measure. I
have attempted to show the frequency of the crime, the cha-
racter, nature, and qualities of these crimes, the injurious
effects upon the character of the country, frequent instances of
complete impunity with which these crimes were committed,
and the fear of giving evidence to magistrates or Courts of
Justice, the danger there is that crime will become conta-
gious, and spread throughout other districts, I do think I have
made out a strong case in the character and frequency of the
crimes, to do at least no more than this—to consider whether
any effectual remedy can be adopted to prevent this state of
things.—( Hear, hear.) With reference to the second ques-
tion, have we exhausted the existing law ? There is an increase
in the police force in Ireland amounting to not less than 10,000.
I have not heard it stated by any Hon. Member in the course of
the debate, that the police force have been improperly dis-
tributed. Ido not think that any addition to the police force
would be of any advantage, nor do I think that
that force has been applied in any manner as
to require any explanation from the Government
But you say that we have not issued a sufficient number of
special commissions for the trial of each offence. Why a
special commission is a very inefficacious instrument for the
prevention of crime ; there is no use in it unless you are pre-
pared to convict by evidence unimpeachable. But the exist-
ence of crime is no proof that a special commission should
issue. It is not wise to risk a trial upon imperfect evidence,
It is not wise to exhibit the inefficacy of the law. It is not
wise to demonstrate the frequency of crime without demon-
strating al'o that it shall meet with sure and certain punish-
ment ; and unless you can prove the double effect, the fre-
queney of crime, and the probability of conviction, you do not
demonstrate the use of a special commission. It is no
consideration of expense which has deterred the Govern-
ment from resorting to frequent special commissions, and
therefore I do not see in one single instance the Government
can be made fairly chargeable with not having used every in-
strument which the occasion and the law placed at their dis-
posal, for the purpose of bringing a termination to the fright-
ful catalogue of crimes which exist in I eland. And that was
the second point on which explanation was demanded, and now
we come to the third.—( Hear, hear.) What is the probabi-
lity that this particular measure will be efficacious in its pur-
pose ? It is a bad thing to show indifference towards constitu-
tional right when it can be avoided, and the question is—can
you show that this as ill not be a superfluous enactment, for, it
it is, it is of no avail to put it on the statute book ?—( Hear,
hear.) Well, I think I can show that there are urgent reasons
for its adoption. Why, what do I find? I find that, in the
yeai 1835, you have adopted the very principle of this Bill,
and what course shall a Government, responsible for the peace
and security of the country, pursue, when it finds, in 1835,
the representatives of a country, who are best acquainted with
its wants, consented, without remonstrance, to a measure, the
principle of which was the same as this ? There are differences,
I admit.— (Hear, hear.)
An Host. MEMBER—There were differences.
Sir R. PEEL—Oh, yes ; I admit them.—(Hear, hear.)
Well, then, come let us discuss them. I find an increase of
crime, and we do propose that the Lord-Lieutenant shall be
empowered to apply this law, and to compel the inhabitants in
those districts where crime has been frequent, to keep their
homes from sunset to sunrise. But you consented to a law
which was the same in 1835, the law which you passed being
an amendmeut on a former enactment ; and that law did en-
able the Lord-Lieutenant to say, on a requisition of the grand
jury to the inhabitants of a district, that they should keep
their homes from sunset to sunrise, making it a misdemeanour
to disobey ; the onus of proving innocence being thrown upon
tree accused. Surely your conduct then is not a ground for
rejecting the present measure. Well, I will ail,o you credit
for being uninfluenced by any change in the persons of the
Government. When we find the representatives in Ireland
in 1835 consenting to a law, the principle of which is
identical with the one we now propose, what are
we to do, what are we to suppose? Why, the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Lambeth, in boasting of the effect of a former
Government, and the diminishment of crime, forgot that during
the whole of that period you had enforced this very enactment.
In that case the grand jury had the power of making a pre-
sentment before the district was proclaimed; but we thought
that if we again proposed the same provision, it would be one
of the grounds of your objection, and that you would say that
it would be a new instrument in the hands of the landlords to
carry on the clearance system. Why, is it not better, then, if
that is your opinion of Irish landlords, to throw en the Exe-
cutive Government the entire responsibility of calling this
measure into action? Which course is more likely to maintain
an amicable relation between the gentry of Ireland and
their poorer tenants—which course is more likely
to give weight to the decision of the magistrates ?
We thought to place the power and the responsibility in the
hands of the Government was a great improvement. But
you will have an opportunity of proposing additional securi-
ties. I myself have the strongest impressions that it is in-
finitely better that the calling this Act into operation shall
rest exclusively with the Executive. Well, this measure
which you framed in 15.35, you continued on the statute-
book for a period of five years—
Mr. HA W ES—lt was not enforced.
Sir R. PEEL—And do we say that it shall come into ope-
ration ?—( Hear, hear.) We seek the same power, not ne-
cessarily that it should be exercised. But you argue now
that the existence of this power will exasperate the people of
Ireland. Why did it not do so in 1835, when, if I recollect
rightly, the.e was not even a division on the question of its
adoption?
Mr. W, S. O'BRIEN--Yes I divided the House.
Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Gentleman divided the House on
the question that the Bill, instead of having a duration of five
years, should be limited to two.—( Hear, hear.) What was
the result? Four divided with the Hon. Member. You per-
mitted it to pass in 1835, and permitted it to endure for five
years without a motion for its erasure from the statute-book.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN—I made one for its removal.
Sir R. PEEL—And how many divided with you? Two.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member endeavoured to remove this
di:graceful statute, this blot on your legislative enactments, and
only two Members were found to support him. Now, were not
the Government justified in the course which they pursued?
Nor do I see how we can be charged with wishing to inflict injury
aawsicsleol
nutnrisoteb
not be
w bthoei c bet
hat
called
measuredy hina vtoe aopfpnperrroaavt
iepodenr
nn
bdlunStf3stthh.
raeteL eby tye
aurisat hope,dthoriat.
dormant
or insult upon Ireland, when, in 1846, we have taken
s
enemy, it will repress all tou rage and violence. Let us en-
tertain sanguine hopes that the knowledge that this law exists
will b e efficacious in futureand I should rejoice if we should
be able to dispense with it in a less period. If it be true that
there are frequent murders committed in any district, if it be
provided that the family
e of the murdered man shall have pro-
vision made for them it net have m y
a tax being levied on the vicinage,
e a great effect in checking these evils? I think
that we have heard that strangers committed these murders,
but lam afraid in somethat__ strangers are harboured.
Well, if you tax the district you
you will give a great security to
the inhabitants, as strangers will not be encouraged when they
I know that they will be made to pay if outrages are committed.
1 admit the evil of scarcity to be so intolerable—so impossible
to meet by any appeal to benevolence—as to impose the neces-
sity of considering whether or not something could be done for
the purpose of alleviating it. Let us not consider the matter
too hastily, and at once come to a conclusion that the principle
of the English law, namely, the right to relief is applicable to
the state of Ireland. A comprehensive review of the whole
case must be taken, the position of those who would have to
bear that burden must be taken into aceount, and how little
superior they are in society to those who would receive the
benefit of that relief. While, therefore, I admit the pressing
nature of the care, I would be unwilling, after the discussion
the modified poor-law • Ireland, after
that has taken place on
the difference of opinion that has been expressed
ld
I w pause before by the gentle-
menl
who took part in that debate,
com-
mitted myself to the opinion that the English poor-law should
be established in that country. I uphold as strongly as any
min the
man, that in no country is it more
necessllr to
Ireland ; but, thougainta
for h such
great principles of property than in
is my firm opinion, it is impossible any one to consider
at h
without a feeling of emotion the evictions
th
place there. I find it impossible, however, to app l y a remedyave taken
to control the power of the landlords. Even if the Bill
brought in by the Hon. Member for Rochdale were passed
into a law, and if it were enacted that the tenant should re-
ceive full compensation for the improvements which he had
made, that power would curb the landlord in such a manner
•
as would disable him from proceeding against a pauper-
u must ex-
Yo
tenantry who were making no improvements. h
e
cuse me, then, if I think that you rely too much for t
amelioration of your social condition upon the Executive Go
•
vernment.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) You rely too much
upon the Government passing laws to effect what yourselves
should accomplish.—(Cheers.) My firm belief is that you
yourselves have it in your power to apply a remedy. I speak
to absentees as well as the resident landlords. By pursuing a
course adapted to meet the requirements of the
disorganised state of society which prevails, you
would be able to effect more than could ever be done by legisla-
tion. This would do all that any Government could accom-
plish.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Is it true that a gentleman
in 1838 has purchased from 18,000 to 20,000 acres of land, in
one of the wildest parts of Ireland, and said to himself on taking
this property, I will act towards my tenants as a landlord should
act. I will do my duty to them, and will persevere in my
attempts to improve their condition—is it true that he has suc-
ceeded ?—("liear, hear," from Col. Conolly. ) Is it true that in
dealing with this misery, by his
perseverance, by his deference
at first to the ignorance and •
preju d• ices of the people, by the
kindly feeling with which he treated them, a
been effected which has astonished all who have revolutionconsidered
a!,5
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Has not his property beent •
im-
proved?—(Hear, hear.) Has not his rental improved?—
d?
( Hear, hear.) My Hon. Friend (Colonel con
says it is all true.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) This
shows
y)
that though much may be done by legislation, the foundation
must be laid by a combination of the landlords resident :rind
Absentee... byfollowing the example of Lord George Hill, in

endeavouring to improve the condition of the country. These
complaints of the relationship existing between landlords and
tenants are not now made for the first time. Dr. Madden, a
writer on the state of Ireland, 1737, and who was on intimate
terms with the then Lord Chesterfield, gives the followingiadvice
to the proprietors and landlords of Ireland. (The Right, Hon.
where he describes the tenants' houses as hut
and as it were a temporary residence, and ad-
visesbird's nests,
Baronet here quoted several passages from Dr.sMaandddemnasdewohrkke,
i tion given of re and a
the good still
amore
edks
itnodblyuifledeblientgterwihthoutsheseantednabnytst)lh.—isi(mHeeaanrs,
teghhink if the
hear.)
.v)taht cultivate landlords
s
delscar p
er
lwtuhji
which hundred
myy ebaer s
oat!
ool,p a
taendd
from I f
legislation,
rn o not
su n od ne
enwettrohsyuiellsd
underconsider whatwhich
thatm e measures
country
labours,e] e best
applicable
ottofo
mlthreoaeltatwoc.toadhus.
cilfaalntedhuleolyartde:dould act towards their tenantry as is done in this
country, if they would enter into a noble combination for the
purpose of diffusing the greatest amount of good among the
people, if they would endeavour to procure accurate informa-
tion as to the means best adapted to effect that glorious result—
if they would follow the example of Lord George Hill, and
endeavour to cultivate a more kindly feeling and relation-
ship with their tenantry the consequence would
be that outrage would be put an end to, that peace
would pervade the most disturbed districts, that
industry would be stimulated and more confidence
in the law established, than will ever be the result of any mea-
sures of legislative enactment. By recognising the principles
of moral feeling and benevolent sentiments in their dealings
with their tenantry, more good will be effected than will ever
result from the operation of laws. I hope I have said
nothing in the remarks I have made, to embitter the feel-
ing with which this debate has been conducted.—( Hear, hear.)
All that I have to find fault with is, that being anxious for dis-
cussion on this measure, they have not proceeded with that
discussion without introducing matter foreign to it. They
ought, I think, to have proceeded with the debate; they
ought not to have delayed it for two days, by introducing, as
I think they have done, many Irish questions, which have had
no other effect than to cause delay to many other measures of
great importance to this country. Ido hope, that having oc-
cupied so much time upon this question, and having done
their duty to their country, they will now allow this question
to be read a first time. Ido not question the steps they have
taken, but I do think that they may now without injury to
their principles. having discharged what they felt to be their
duty, permit the sense of the House to be taken on the Bill at
this preliminary stage.—(Cheers. )
' Mr. WYSE would assure the House that he felt with the
Right Hon. Baronet, that much time had been occupied with
this debate. The question of the corn-laws had been delayed
by the introduction of that measure before the House. He
could not agree with tl-e Right Hon. Baronet that the Go-
vernment was entirely free from the blame which attached to
the delay complained of in the debate on this question. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had attempted to throw the blame of
that delay on his (Mr. Wyse's) side of the House. It was
for him to have seen what course should have been pursued
with regard to the measures occupying the attention of the
country. It was for the Government to choose what measure
was the most important—the one before the House, or the
corn-law measure—for immediate consideration. Having made
a selection, they had no right to complain of the opposition met
with.—( Hear.) He could not see what discourtesy would be
shown to the other House by delaying this Bill, and giving pre-
cedence to one of greater importance to the country at largo.
There was a precedent for delay on a measure emanating in
the other House. He would beg to call the attention of the
House to the year 1833, when a Bill for the same object as
the present was sent down to that House. It was treated in the
very same manner. It was matter of surprise, that while the
world was looking at the great measure of the Government
with regard to our commercial iuterosts, that the interests of
the sister country should be so neglected. He agreed with the
Right Hon. Baronet that there might arise times when a sus-
pension of part of the constitutional laws would be necessary.
He was not so ignorant as not to know that the first thing to
be done, to render society what it ought to be, was to render
life and property safe. But the Right Hon. Baronet had
not read any report which proved the necessity of such a
measure as that before the House.—( Niar, hear.)
( The Hon.'Member then proceeded to read extracts from a re-
turn he held in his hand, by which it appeared, that in the
year 1842 the number of homicides committed in Ireland was
106, while in the year 1845 it amounted to 139.) Now, con-
sidering the great amount of distress that existed in the coun-
try at both these periods, he would say that that state of
things did not exhibit such an enormous excess of crime as
would justify such a suspension of the law as this Bill
amounted to. He found, by the same returns, that crime of
less magnitude—such as aggravated assault—amounted, in
1842, to 249, while in 1845 they were only 237. He should
certainly admit that there was one class of difference—namely,
the robbery of arms, which did appear to have been on the in-
crease, for in 1842 the number of that crime amounted to 160,
while in 1845 it amounted to 551 ; but he should here remark,
that he did think that such a state of things had been prophe-
sied upon the introduction of the Arms Bill, when gentlemen
made a parade of the amount of arms they possessed. But in re-
gard to crimes of a less aggravated character, it would be found
that there had been a great diminution, such as resistance to
the police, and the operation of legal processes, for he found
that in the year 1845 they had considerably decreased, as com-
pared with the year 1842, as had also such crimes as were
called offences against property, cattle stealing, &c.,
greatly diminished. He was, no doubt, compelled to admit
that there had been an increase in the number of another class
of offences—that which came under the head of threatening
letters ; but many of them might have been forged, and under
no circumstances were such documents indicative of a wide-
spread conspiracy against life. But all these crimes were in-
dicative of the peculiarly unhappy state of the people of Ireland.
Now let him compare the state of crime in that country with
the state of crime in this. He joined in the re-
probation of these crimes as cordially as did any other
Member of the House, and he was ready to admit that they
indicated a departure from the general chivalric character of
the Irish people ; but the way to prevent this state of things
was by adopting such a course of policy as would make the
people sympathize with the law and be ready to act with the
police of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Such was the case in
this country and in all other well ordered countries,and why should
it not be so in Ireland ? Now he saw no disposition on the part
of the Government to attempt to deal with this question as it
ought to be dealt with. He would beg of the House to re-
member that on former occasions, when Coercion Bills were in-
troduced, Committee after Committee were appointed to in-
quire Into the cause of crime in Ireland, but what was the
result ? The Coercion Bills were passed but the re-
ports of the Committees were allowed to remain inoperative.
He would beg the House to remember the many
crimes which were committed in Ireland, which were the
result of the tithe system. In other times Coercion Bills
were passed, but it was not until the tithes had been done away
with that the Bill had become operative. The Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite had stated that this was no new state of
things. No doubt in former times crime also existed in Ire-
land. Crime caused by the change of religion, and the inva.
sion of Cromwell, but more than all, to the operation of the
penal code. Ireland contained 8,000,000 of inhabitants,
7,000,000 of whom depended upon agriculture for subsistance,
while the vast amount of manufactures in England and Scot-
land bore no proportion whatever to those in Ireland, for in
fact in the latter country there were none. He should also say
that there was no justification in his mind for the conduct of
some landlords, whoexercised a power over their property con-
trary to divine intention; but then the Legislature gave him
that power, and, therefore the Legislature should regulate it.
He had not seen as yet in any of these measures, that any-
thing beneficial was to be done for Ireland, and would they
allow all Europe to aee that under the present state of things
nothing ,vas to be done for that country ? The Right
Hon. Baronet had admitted that with respect to its internal
state that Ireland was now in the same position as she was in
1736. She had been kept in a state of poverty and depression,
and was labouring under evils which had arisen during the
ascendancy of England, and now when she was unequal to
stand on her own resources, he thought that some measures
of atonement and reparation were due to her. When the
union between the countries was spoken of, ought it
not to convey an idea of sympathy and good feeling,
and should they not give them aid and assistance? There
was a great difference between the amounts of wages given in
the two countries, and in Ireland alone the amount of wages
varied very much. The Irish labourer could not gain more
than 2s. 6d. per week, while the English labourer could gain
10s. per week. There was, as he had said, a similar difference
pin a
rtthe
amount
theam ou
no
tf
given wages in v
Is .
dipdear rnioodtuasyp
communicationa r
exceedts of Ireland,or4 d. for in one
while
h il
ebis
want
tr poafrt sa it
prwoapser T hbaet t
waereons e
thfriosmcouthne-
try and the various parts of Ireland, and it would be a
ltmwo,:rueufnelbir,eieya.rtteitmo
Inte,,hhd
therefor
ro
etlr hhoet
sec
mubo
eunbldedaer
j 1 t
wo
beneficial measure if Government could establish that com-
o
w
ld
he
r
ihteliyoghnraoosttukhhneeiddnegfoofoorbnrysturdiyeeth.classistancelaboured,
nnai
(dB"
the effect of it would be felt by the increased excise, the in-
creased customs, and, above all, in the increased prosperity of
the country. No such measures hive accompanied this
coercion measure—no remedy had been provided for the
grievances of the people. If any coercion law was
necessary, still he would object to this law, for it would not
meet the crimes enumerated by the Right Hon. Baronet.
It would not prevent daylight assassination or sending threat-
ening notices by post. Such an end could not be attained by
shutting up the peasant during the night, nor was that course
likely to establish a more kindly feeling between the upper and
the middle classes ; and least of all, would it be likely to give
the people a confidence of the law by placing them on a more
secure relation with reference to their landlords. The Right
Han. Baronet would see that Ireland had come to such a posi-
tion that she could no longer receive such measures as this,
and he hoped that the Right Honourable Baronet would be
convinced that any momentary interruption which this
Bill had given to the proceedings of the House,
did not proceed from any wish for unnecessary delay, but from
the anxiety of each Irish Member to declare before the
House and the country his feeling on the Bill. He did not
apprehend the outbreak of any violent eruption in Ireland, but
there was ample room for conciliatory measures, to anticipate
such an evil from the disorganised and diseased state of tne
people in that country. There could not be a nobler effort of
a minister than to relieve a country from the state in which
Ireand was at present placed. The Minister who did that
would acquire a fame which would never die.
Colonel CONOLLY said that he had been directed by the
grand jury of the county of Donegal,
They looked with horror
on the state of things at present ex-
isting in Ireland. The
duty, magistrates of Donegal had done their
and had called on the county Members to support this
measure as necessary to the security and well-being of the
country. They hoped by this measure ofthe
most to suppress some
most atrocious and degrading •
crimes that ever disgraced any
nation in the world. Hon. Gentlemen opposite deplored those
crimes, and yet they resisted every effort to stop them. This
measure was called for by all the peaceably disposed inhabitants
of Ireland. The lower orders in that country had long suffered
from a system of menace. This Bill was called an interfe-
rence with the liberties of the subject, but there was very little
liberty in Ireland at present. The people could not carry on
their trade ; and, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the
Government should come forward with some strong measure.
The system of interference with landlords and tenants was ex-
tensively carried out. The threatening letters referred to were
as nothing compared to the acts of vengeance wreaked on
houses, cattle and persons. This was a state of things not to
be endured. In supporting the Bill, he did so in obedience to
his constituents, as they considered it absolutely necessary. In
the amendment which had been proposed, it was
stated that the measure did not go to the root of
the evil. He agreed in that sentiment, and he believed they
would never go to the root of the evil while they tolerated the
factious and seditious assembly that meets in Dublin. A great
deal of the discord that existed in Ireland was attributable to
the machinations of this seditious body. He knew of a case in
which an elector had his ears cut off because he voted against
a repeal candidate. Such was the spirit that prevailed in many
parts
of Ireland. He did not agree in calling this a Coercion
Bill, but it was, as its title stated, a Bill for the protection of
life and property ; and had the Government failed in bringing
I. It was a
it forward, they would have been highly ermineand to secure
t
measurer to protect the innocent, punish the guil y,
the well-being of society generally.
Mr. RICH deprecated the supporters of the Bill, charging
Hon. Members on that side of the House with being indiffe-
rent to the existence of crime in Ireland, because they opposed
the Rill. He was convinced that Hon. Members on that side
entertained the strongest feelings of horror against the crimes
referred to, and only differed from those who supported the
Bill as to the mode of putting them down. He considered the
Right lion. Baronet, and those who acted with him in support.