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

TILE SUN) IiON 1)0N, TUESDA iEVPN G, APRIL 28, 1846.

Some Honourable Members named as rt. reinedy en
extensive system of out-deer eelier ; but if the
Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, and those who supported
him were asked to assist in passing such a measuro they would
say, no. They were even opposed to the. present needified `eel' s-
tem of poor-laws in that country. ThiS of tenure, and a
tax on absentee lendlotels Teel, Sillotner panacea, while other
Hon. Members yeanteel a measure for remedying the defects of
the law fe; regulating landlords and tenstets. Where ~ticl~
neio4oerxeirsottnedetv. even atm:,okbritte;
of relief thet ask likelY tei supported. For himself he would
difficultitiversitY
eele, if cry improvement in the poor.law was proposed, he
hoped the absentee landlords would be taxed.—,( Hear, heir„)
foofropthi
But the Hon. Members who represveted talr!ed
medial measures—thy.dit! het trite what those measures
were eshieb. irse're Coineeli.'ed calculated to do justice to the people
Caiiitry ? But as long as the representatives from Ire-
land confined their observations to repeetitt, and Oiteretiiig
the complaints calculated tti &elite the, p•essienis Of the Irish
people, tliey must not be se.fpeN.o th'er, nentevei Wete
represented by, thefC6oe.ef Peiglatid, and it they were con-
eide,eect le be indifferent to the calamities of their
detintrymen.
, •
Colonel VERNER said that theughje „evies very ear), tn.
blame the landlords of Ireler%_d f 4. siafe of
society neisetetlei reel rd, yet he could prove that they
eeee'y were psif!ectly innocent of this crime, for he could prove,
on undoubted authority, that there was an extensive organiea-
lion on foot, which had exists el for ferey, ye4S, to eiqeerisi-
nate the Proteetantee.ased effects separation between Ense-
Iptde.ed !rtle.':i.—(Clies of " No, no ") He could prove it.
Fie conld refer to sentences delivered by Hon. Members re-
presenting counties in Ireland in that fouse ewhieh, wonld
amply justify the people out of the .peu?,e 'tseeOn•it,
feelings of resenetreeeet. th'e 111 Mber for Cork had ad-
tnitetcl ghat Mkt courtier had increased, and that all the
mCishres of Government seemed to give an increased impetus
to crime. Now, what would he have done if ifie wielied to
put down this state of things, in Ireland He *dell put
down agitation ated...agita'tei.4. Hes Would put down all secret
ssecieetiet liits.adie they were in a primary degree the cause of
~„..
every evil. He would put an end to all concession—(Bear,
hear, and Oh, oh)—and conciliatiene-e-(RenetWed cries of
" Oh, oh.") (The•Hoet. teed Ctil/antMember read quotations
from the KestiefedZ, to show that the concessions made to be-
little, were not productive of any improvement in the social
state of Ireland.) He would refer to a petition from the Re-
peal Wardens of Wexford, which heel been lA-infer! with the
votes, and in that,petftieft i!..:04111; the House would find
ahundett, etictisnae to support the view he took on this qtrs.
Ite did not think it would be necessary for him to say
one word more upon the subject.
Mr. HAWES said that he .could net•;,iegrte With litany of
the opinions, advanced by ti.3.,e inn. Member (Mr. H. Baillie),
who hied s i eii thit evening, and still less could he concur in
the opinions of the Hen. and Gallant Member who had last
spoken, that the best way to put down agitation in Ireland was
by the passing of strong measures. He should have thought
that the party to which the Hon. and Gallant Member be-
longed had had enotigh of strong measures.—( Hear, hear. )
Etc distinely maintained that Government had not made out the
case for this Bill, and upon this declaration he would take his
stand. Had crime increased in Ireland of late? Most as-
suredly not; and if the House would bear with him for a
while, he would convince them of this. Now, the Right Hon.
Baronet the fletsretary for the Home Department had laid a
Pape; upon the table of the House, showing the number of
criminal offenders committed for trial in 1845, and this paper
showed a considerable decrease as compared with former years ;
indeed, it exhibited a decrease of 43 per cent., and this decrease
extended itself to all classes of crime, and as regarded the
crime of murder, there had been a decrease of 28 per cent.
Now, there was nothing in this to show a necessity for a
Coercion Bill. But he might be told that it was true crime
had decreased in Ireland generally; but that in particular
counties it had increased.--(Hear, hear.) And this Bill was
only intended to give power to proclaim particular counties, and
in this way it might be said that a case was made out for the
Bill. But how stood the fact? He would take the counties
mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet, and see whether the
returns exhibited this increase. If the House would take the
trouble to look at the returns, they would find that the follow-
ing were the results, so far as detailed murders were concerned :
Years, Tipperary. Roscommon. Letrim. Clare. Total.
1841 22 4 1 4 31
1842 10 8 2 52 72
1843 18 0 11 0 29
1844 21 10 2 3 36
1845 30 0 1 4 35
So that, as regarded the particular crime of murder in these
alleged disturbed counties, they could find no justification for
a measure of this description. Since this return, however, was
made, another had been produced, which was called for by the
Hon. Member for Liskeard, and which contained a return made
by the police of offences committed in Ireland during the years
1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845 ; but he believed nothing would be
found in this return to justify the passing of a Coercion Bill.—
( Hear, hear.) The return gave the number of outrages com-
mitted which had come to the knowledge of the police, under
the three great heads, namely, offences against the person,
against property, and against the public peace ; and from this
return he gathered the following results :
Years. Person. Property. Peace.
1842 1411 2190 2187
1843 1442 2201 2315
1844 1700 2321 2282
1845 1608 2216 4161
There was a branch of offences, in respect of which he ad-
mitted the return exhibited an increase. The crime of send-
ing threatening notices had increased in Ireland of late
and in the following ratio :—ln 1842 the number was 1,216 ;
in 1843, 1,212; in 1844, 13,332; and in 1845, 2,645; but
Ministers could not for a moment contend that this was a justi-
fication for the passing of their Bill.—( Hear, hear.) It
might be said that undetected crime in Ireland had increased,
but he found, on looking to the returns, that the committals
of 1845 bore an equal proportion to the committals of 1844.
He wanted to know, then, upon what grounds this Bill was to
be justified? Since the Union, seventeen blots of this cha-
racter had dropped upon the statute-book ; but in no instance
had they accomplished the end for which they were intended.
They had, however, the example of a Government who tried
the experiment of governing Ireland with a Coercion Bill ; and
the result, he was happ) to say—and the House and the
country must be happy—to find that the result was most suc-
cessful. It was only necessary to refer to the Administration
of Lord Norrnanby to find evidence sufficiently conclusive of
this, and in the report of the Lords' Committee on the state of
Ireland, they had the testimony of individuals of known experi-
ence and ability in Ireland, who declared that during that Admi-
nistration crime diminished, and the country flourished to an
amazing extent. And all this was attributed to,the improvements
introduced into the administration of justice. Now, he thought
he had sufficiently shown that the returns of crime in Ireland
did not justify the passing of this coercive measure; while, on
the other hand, he had directed the attention of the House to a
period when Ireland was governed without a Coercion Bill,
and yet peace and tranquillity prevailed, and crime diminished.
They ought, then, to be guided by this experience, and not to
resort to strong and vigorous measures unless they were justi-
fied by circumstances of the most aggravating description.
Those circumstances did not exist at the present moment, and
he could see no reason for the passing of this Bill, unless it
were to inerease the discontent which already existed in the
sister country. In July, 1814, the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of her Majesty's Government introduced a Bill of a
similar description, but it failed then; ar.d he thought the
experience which they had had in the interval was sufficient to
convince them that coercive measuresseldom or never met with
success. There was nothing to justify this Bill, either in
the outward appearance of the country, or in the documentary
evidence which came from Ireland. The measure, or rather a
similar measure, was opposed in 1814 by Mr. Warner, and that
great and good man, Sir Samuel Romilly, who declared that
measures of this description never allayed excitement, or pro-
duced respect for the laws; and it was in emulation of those
bygone philanthropists that he now, to the utmost of his humble
ability, opposed this unjust and unnecessary measure. He was
determined to join the Irish Members in their determined op-
position to this Bill—(Hear, hear)—and he condeivetttliarhe
should be perfectly justified in so doing. This measure was
brought down from the Lords with a full knowledge of its ten-
dency, and though the Right Hon. Gentleman had withdrawn
the declaration which he had made when he introduced it, he
(Mr. Hawes) still could not help thinking that had this Bill
met with an unanimous reception, it would have produced a
great moral effect upon the people of Ireland—(Hear, hear)—
and that, on the contrary, the measure had lost all its virtues,
if it had any in the eyes of the people, in consequence of the jus-
tifiably determined opposition with which it had been met—
( Hear, hear.) He firmly believed that it was a useless and
unnecessary Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Its moral effect had gone.
All the popular representatives of Ireland had denied the accu-
racy of the statements made by the members of the Govern-
ment in support of this measure, and they had also unani-
mously told the House that it would be perfectly useless.—
( Hear.) And from the number of threatening notices which
had been sent since its introduction, he firmly believed that
that assurance of the Irish representatives was grounded on
facts. It would, therefore, be useless for the House to perse-
vere with it.—( Hear, hear.) He could hope that the Mem-
bers of the Government would not think it inconsistent with
their duty, under the present circumstances, to withdraw their
ill-timed measure.—( Hear, hear.) Its object had decidedly
failed ; and he therefore ventured to hope that the Government
would not deem it inconsistent with the suggestions contained
in the eloquent and able speech that had been delivered in the
course of that evening by an Hon. Member (Mr. M'Carthy)
as to the withdrawal of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Hawes) would call upon the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
head of the Government to look at the difficulties of Ireland,
and he need not add to the difficulties of England also, in con-
sequence of the delay of the Corn Bill; and he thought that he
would see the adviseableness of not pressing the Coercion Bill
upon the Members of the Legislature. He would ask him se-
riously to consider whether it would be inconsistent with his
public duty to cease pressing this measure upon the attention of
the House of Commons, for it would most assuredly be opposed
stage by stage—(Cheers)—clause by clause—(Cheers)—and
line by line.--(Continued cheering.) If he knew anything of
the Members who sat upon either side of the House, they
otbpaptosiittiwoneetlod tbheisa
pmr en adseunrte
step. ( Conhetehres.
would not shrink from steadily persisting in their determined
p)artHoef
thweouGldovsearyntntheennt
to withdraw it.---( Hear, hear.) The state of crime in Ireland
did not justify it, and he did most sincerely h
hope and trust
that the House would oppose it in every stage. 'I he Hon. and
gallant Member (Captain Osborne) had- said that he had reme-
dies to propose as soon as this measure was passed, and he (Mr.
Hawes) had already alluded to them in
marks. It appeared that one great remedy proposed by the
Hon. and Gallant Member was the suppression of all political
or party associations in Ireland. But there were great ques-
tions which would have to be duly weighed before a measure of
that sort received the sanction of the Legislature. He maintained
that the question of the waste lands of Ireland was of more im-
portance to her peace and prosperity than the carrying
of such a measure as had been proposed by the Hon. and
Gallant Member.—(Cheers.) There were many minor
measures, including no less than eight, ten, or twelve, laid
before
down Lord Devon's Commission, and which, he be-
lieved,would be eminently practical as well as acceptable to
the Irish people.— (Hear, hear.) They were calculated to
no doubt that
confer great benefits upon Ireland, and he had
if they were carried
out the peace and happiness of the people
of that country would be the result. He believed, moreover,
that the people of England would not much longer sanction
the present injustice to Ireland.—(Cheers.) The English
people were not ignorant of the present heavy taxation to which
they were subjected for maintaining the present police and mili-
tary force in Ireland. The Hon. Member concluded by re-
peatin.- his hope that her Majesty's Government would with-
draw the present harsh and unnecessary measure, and proceed
at once to the proposal of some remedial measures, which would
have for their tendency the real interests and prosperity of the
Irish people.—( Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL—Sir, whether or no her Majesty's Govern-
menthis
would obtain more popularity by persevering in t
measure, or by abandoning it, is hardly a consideration which
ought to lead a Government responsible for maintaining the
peace of the country.—( Ministerial cheers.) It may be true
that more popularity might be gained by a willing acquiescence
in the proposal of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Hawes), but
that popularity would be gained at a costly sacrifice, for it
would be a sacrifice of those who are responsible for main-
taining the public peace.—(Ministerial cheers.) It would
also be at the sacrifice of increased injury to life and property
in Ireland.—(Cheers.) I should think I was wanting in due
respect to the people of that country to which this measure
refers, and to the importance of the subject, if I permitted
the remarks of the Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down
to pass without some observations on my part. And as I
would hope, after what has been said during the full

are, preliminaryll owd ra
Isytiant
ge
too!'
witasrdPamthreeCl—ose si aiid
progress—as
wouldthiabl'S discussion' which this measure has undergone in this
ary debate,
m. I a unwilliess to seStpO:_ri.e mere dist4nt peSied the perfdien-
ai.ce ot that duty which I feel to be incumbent upon me. Sir,
pi.f;:iiintoihope that we
o
I wish in the first place to explain to the House what were
the motives of her Majesty's Government in ,prceposing that
the first atm" cf this
,ehoi.ild interpesed tts she progress
of another 'Bill Of te deepest importance, in my opinion, to
ses - •f
irsre eof !pis 'country.—(Cheers.) Sir, I assure the
...oSs:e Veal; it s'ss,s 617 ces..4 nteOasse;* Sc an adherence
to a mere usage that we felt it to be our duty to propose the
first reading of this .11. What were the circumstances under
.ishiCh this ,Bill 13
ill Or this subject generally was brotight under
cf both flcesies cif Prirliitsteet t .On the first
day of the session in a speech from the throne, the first practical
measure which her Alijesty recornMended to our consideration
. .
Majesty ecommendedte,the consideration of. I die hea.. Her
%via i4.leaOri for the eurpOieof,gieing, if ipessible,_increased
seevrity to
.life and property ln Irelanu—s 1
r fottertleaitires Of Str'eat irripontinee, the efwhieb was
the canine. of the attention ot isarhament Stes of Ire-
land, and particularly with respect Parliament three
te the frequency of the
cocirfleg m,urder, :mid the necessity of taking some precautions
to tire'eerit the fre,itient seetirririee of t 1454;
the answer returned by this House to that speech ? here
was an assurance on the part of the House not, thatsit would
adopt any ,meaa,ure, proposed by the .Government, shut. there
was an assurance that thin fioeso waS decf,he imeresserl 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
,yras,hrought,inte the
other House of Parliament, and it tenet with,yery, little
,opposi-
tlen in that 1-I.`tlP',.). The Irish Peers, ssonnettel by
political sentiment wiih many of the Honourable Gentlemen,
felt convinced of the necessity of this or of some
such measure, and gave their_ suppert, to . it. I, believe that
there was no oppositiorn to the principle of the hill—no,siepes
sition, at le,st, Yearinet the ',tinsel "2.liar cte riitt e ti!ttrt o'sspif.s.tiote.
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 Government7-in a Measure of this,im-
portanee-,in.a .measitSre re'
emituiendedt to he e6ruidritic'l of
Parl!areesst on the first day of the session from the
,1.-neocie—it
has been an invariable usage that any reeasure brought to this
House from the House of Lords-,-a measure, introdueed by the
:Douse—to into this ouse—to islve that measure a first
readifigs The House of Loieli—each Member of that branch
of the Legislature—has a right to lay. a Bill on the table of the
House, and, as a matter of course, to that Bill a first reading
is given. No such usage Prevails here ; but it is in respect
to measures of thit desisriPtion, brought in by Government,
reSkimtnended 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 it's introditetion that the PrCliminary
stage.-:=-the Arst reading—is allowed. Now lam not denying
Hon Gentlemen opposite the perfect right to oppose that first
reading. tam 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 CtinSideribg 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 th;s measure does aim at depriving the subjects of
her Majesty in Ireland of some portion of their liberty, but had
we proposed 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 general 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 impolitic, I now believe to be un-
just—(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 stated, 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, 1
should 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, and 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
failed 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 frequency of crime, I speak particularly of the crime
of assassination, or crimes affecting the public peace. I think
we are hound 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 purpose of showing
that there was at the present period an increase of crime in
Ireland, such an increase as justify us in proposing this mea-
sure.—( Hear, hear.) I don't think that it is necessary merely
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 unjustifiable. Well, now, let us first
take the statements of the Hon. Gentleman 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 frequency of crime of late.
I speak of all crime, whether it be that in which life or the
public tranquillity is injured. I speak of the pressure of crime,
and I will now compare the year 1843 with the year 1845. We
ware most unwilling to apply to the House for any extraordi-
nary powers. Let us take a comparision and show the diffe-
rence ; and I will read a document.
Mr. HAWES— What document is that ?
Sir R. PEEL—The document before us. I think the Hon.
Gentleman referred to the years 1842 and 1843, and I will
read from the document, which I believe has been pub-
lished and provided 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 magisirates, aggravated assaults, de-
ytufrobreede
mand or robbery of arrns,administering unlawful oaths, sending
threatening notices, attacking houses, firing dwelling-houses.
cattle and other things, which may not be con-
sidered as indications of the character I country —I leave
Those crimes which may exist in any country,. such as rob-
bery,them out of the question altogether. will only take those
read to you a
state of society. I will then
ot statement of these
crimes, they are
it is
in Ireland. Ido not know whether_ the same as that to
which the lion. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred.
crimes, the frequency of
I think it must be the same.
Mr. HAWES--It is the same.
1184 PEEL —Well, then, we will take the two
offrowmhaichreipsorctharfacthe
and . There were in the year 1843 years, 1843
1845
Homicides
Conspiracies to murder
Assaults upon police and magistrates AQ
,70
Aggravated assaults
544
Demanding and robbery of fire-arms 119
551
Administering unlawful oaths
51 ••• 223
Sending threatening notices ••• 940 1944
The Hon. Member who spoke last seed disposed
I will not say lightly, but at any em
rate he seems to treat,
te
the offence of issuing threatening notices to be consider
should hardly enter the account.—(" —ear, hear," from which
Hawes.) There is, however, an increase of from 940 Air.
to 1,944.
An HON. MEMBER—A great number of them may be
fabrications.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—With all deference to the
of the Hon. Member, I think that the increase from
mop9inions
1,944 is a very serious matter. A threatening notice inflicts4te
no bodily harm. It is sufficient, however, to disturb the
those who may receive them.l
end
peace ofapprehend that few
know the amount of misery inflicted by these notices. Parties
who receive these notices are aware of this fact, that the
execution of the sentence of vengeance too frequently f 11
It may be possible, and I believe it is true, that o ows,
there may be
instances where these notices have been fabricated. I make
every deduction on that account; still the increase in that
offence, coupled 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
other crime—that of attacking houses. In 1843 there
were 2 ,
15 • in 1845, 483. We will now take the
tics of the crime of firing dwelling -houses
There were 87
of this class in the year 1943, and in the year 1845
cases there
were 130. Now take the nature of these offences, and the
rapid increase in crimes committed under the head of these
offences. and surely I have given an answer to the Honourable
Members who attempteo show that rime was less frequent
in 1845 than any previ d tous 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
wed by the opponents of this measure. The }lon. Member,

,• ' •
sPezl,--i”g of the nature and quality of crime col witted in
Ireland, says that 116 vied them ci•th horror as indieations that
the national character of Ireland r,ndergoing a change.
Ha stated that lieretofdre there had been, oh the part of
the Irish, a rer:iect to age, and respect for Pa,
and that helplessness of age, nr.,l. the Character of
the sea had always been sufficient to protect the wrong
and #,uide the vieak.-4 Hear, hear:) What said the lion.
Gentle-man upon the question ^ th.qe atrocities? I fear he
said that there is a
.great change coming over' if aracter of
stain upon aincl:atrt 78e re iwdhl which tiheakL. t et;see'
thelfish people. I see that there is no securi.y in age or ,'fc:4
rous spirit which has distinguished the Irish nation f;;!:
crimes
ticne. j will take the words of the Hon. Member for Kil-
h'ia}i in w
thater hi blackvai
a
eLuy. I ti theini down at the time: he said, "I am over-
whelmed with disguit and etth.t.ft.e at the hideous crimes which
have been committed in some parts of Ireland; lam over-
country
these crinieg,"
,pet these crimes remain unpunished. Atli
d!eitit and dime The,,e -Words Oliltll
Ic6hagntligtedi.'ft:et
upon tae atrocities ;:s]hie-h fill the Ho-noiirabie ri/tr:'±her of that
the character of any
I have quoted, are not those Used the adVodates of the nil!
"1 .tI)P vi;(5116 r:^,,,nerits, as to the e".47.t.tt of crime
natirm by its crir;:. The 4 era u9r„
Character of the.
0.., Viler; a Inikthai ;,` is unfair to judge=
;ear:I:do;
epiadretriccunlea,rst:t!peoiziitc:
cimtri..„The lion._ Almern“bneirtithe-fninpiigroc'e.'ehded
the
thers; two of whom had f aconsiderante
ever,fcontheir nat.urcto be disregarded, in. udg
Pre t;
f.
etnh''stationed at their house
,tpig:er:t
for
;lit hi es m,IT
murderh
was,
a :pile,
I:
taatrfeiii
his .fifil:mh7se;f,oinsciaidth:hoenißy
ir:n,atsonn:
a fe,7 Vat:3s his • • ength shot
when
Ctallegiance from such persons as these. I
do not thinkdhat wit should be fulfilling the duties of a Go-
acreof
Baronet,
yound adjoiningea
vernient, if re 'tql net. i ord ,tkern tnrote,ctiqn to pro-
perty.—( Hear, hear.) Tile Right
.110.totie1
then referred to the ca e of the murders Ct
Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Hegin. He also referred to the case of
a mining .(iunpariy,.who,, On Ill.!! 2tith of November last, re-
ceived gr3it ritqnfier of
,th,re4ening notices; in tz,tneluence
of which the Directors iss-4ed ^ ti4tice; 4iting„tbit the works
should be suspended, as they did not wi!ii tq qanger
the liieS of the workmen employed; by,them, who narl est,
received threatning nOti%Jea. The . Right Hon. Baronet next
proceeded to read the names and occui-,-ati.f.ms of the first
twenty, which appeared in the report of persons murderttl,
amcnnticig to 147; between the Ist of February, 1843, and the
Ist of February, 1846. Froin that Statement it appeared
that a great number of persons murdered wei:e fthners and
farmer's wives. Is it not, then, said the Right Hon. Baronet,
our duty to afford additional protection to these parties? The
gentleinah, dr tub hires.e fal:rner ban protect themselves in their
own houses, hut these poorer persons requiiT soille 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 at
complete impunity with *hid,: these crimes were committed,
and the fear of giiing evidence to rnagiattatea et COitrts of
Justice, the danger there is that crime will become conta-
gious, and spread throtighoiit other districts; I do think I have
made out a strong case in the character and freqtreney 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
sines.—( 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 also that it shall meet with sure and certain punish-
ment; and unless you can prove the double effect, the fre-
quency 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 L 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, if
it is, it is of ne 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
year 1835, you have adopted the very principle of this Bill,
and what course slid': 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 HoN. 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 frem 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
tne accused. Surely your conduct then is not a ground for
rejecting the present measure. Well, I will give 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 an 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
yhtrfitwW:
rent exclusively
deetghwshl
calling
i,En gyx strongestoeactuhtei
sovi
nmeAt.
enrtue
vsdni
eto
nottphhetaihrst
aetiimto
statute-
book measure
ssshuianrlel
eiy ovxlyeful
bettercogl t
uhuhh myselfawset
vfi
viet
Governmentaeio weight
framed
yhhpnheti
that
dawt
ove peetitt
pnoihi
ttoehhr
leteti
e;h
powereo decision spni
proposing
onr
pthe ° of
gest
improvement.ph
oen
s additionalimagistratesb lity
ssecuri-
ties.
uB ther ui ?-t
o
11,
for a period of five years—
Mr. HAM ES—lt was not enforced.
Sir R. PEEL—Aud 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 It. 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
disgraceful 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
is
vegeue
gentle-
men s
tti
lhoene.
or insult upon Ireland, when, in 1846, we have taken
a course which they have approved in 1835. Let us hope, in
assenting to this measure for a period of three years, this law
will not be called into operation, but that by its dormant
energy, it will repress all outrage and violence. Let us en-
tertain sanguine hopes that the knowledge that this law exists
will be efficacious in future, and 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 of the murdered man shall have pro-
vision made for them by a tax being levied on the vicinage,
will it net have a great effect in checking these evils? I
Well, if you tax the district you will give a great security to
bthuattl wail have.
afraid
i d heardin tasomet
the inhabitants, as strangers will not be encouraged when they
acT.:ensget"har amtrinanitgteedra these
ehamrbucTudreerds:
know that they will be made to pay if outrages are committed.
I 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
wouldafter
bt
by receive
hedeei
bear that burden must be taken into account, and how little
expressedho
benefit of that relief. While, therefore, I admit the pressing
superior
fr theyetnheee arecoaf
s,
opinionei,n I wo u
thatl societyd t ohb be unwilling,those
beenose
that has taken place on the modified poor-law in Ireland, after
naturethe diff oe
men who took part in that debate, I would pause before I com-
mitted myself to the opinion that the English poor-law should
be established in that country. I uphold as strongly as any
man, that in no country is it more neeess,ry to maintain the
great principles of property than in Ireland ; but, though such
is my firm opinion, it is impossible for any one to consider
without a feeling of emotion the evictions that have taken
place there. I find it impossible, however, to apply a remedy
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-
tenantry who were making no improvements. You must ex-
cuse me, then, if I think that you rely too much for the
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 landlordshould
act. I will do my duty to them, and will persevere in my
suc-
ceeded ?—("Hear, hear,"from Col. Conolly.) b it true that in
attempts to improve their rendition—is it true that he has sue.-
dealing with this misery, by his perseverance, by his de
brent deference
at first to the ignorance and prejudices of the people, y
has
kindly feeling with which he treated them, a revolution.
not his property been im-
proved?—(Hear, (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Has
his
rental proved ?—( Hear, hear.) Has not.
the foundation
improved?—
(Hear, hear.) My Hoe. Friend
cheers.) This shows
been effected which has astonished all
dwho(hcaovleoncoenl sidcoernedol.iiyta:
says it is all true.—(Hear, hear, l
must be laid by a combination o
of Lord George Hill, in
absentee—. byfollowing the example
the landlords resident and
that though much may be done byl

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 followingladvice
to thvreprietors and landlords of Ireland. (The Right Hon.
Baronet, here quoted several passages from Dr. 'Madden's work,
where he describes the tenants' houses as huts, and made like
bird's nests, and as it were a temporary residence, and ad-
vises the landlords to build better houses, and by this means
cultivate a more kindly feeling with their tenants).—(Hear,
heat'. 'I This was the description given of Ireland a
hundred year! sista, and I fear is one which is still
aplicable to that cotintry. lam not undervaluing- the good
hs.Vels nray be, anticipated from legislation, but I think if the
Iceitt
landlords of n
would consider what measures were best
tl
calculated to meet tag OD under which that country labours,
eir tenantry as is done in this
if they would act towards
country, if they would enter into a ria^ble combination for the
,
God among the
:
piirpoSe" of diffusing the greatest amount or
people, if they 404(1d e.sleaeour to procure accurate .'.lforina-
tion as to the means beet tidaPtisl to effe9t that glorious result
if they would follow the example of feSSrl George Hill, and
ends-Teethe to eul'ivate a more kindly feeling sn' reteiians,
ship with their tenantry the consequence Woftld
he that outrage would be put an end to, that peace
would pervade the most disturbed districts, that
would be stimulated and more confidence
in tieS 'essi eatins!ishecl, than will ever be the result of any mea-
sures of legisiat:fl, enactment. By recognising the principles
of moral feeling and benevolent sentiments in their dealings
i-;:1-!`!11“4,' t4nantry, more ge6.4 Will be effected than will ever
result from tai reeee,atiop of laws. I hope I have said
nothing in the remarks beim made, to embitter the feel.
igg with which this debate has beer attleeted.—( Hear, hear.)
l ii that / haye to find fault with is, that Anxious for dis-
mission On iitessastre,, they have not preiceej°4l With that
discussion without Intl-Ode-silt mAtter foreign to it. They
ought, I think, to have proceeded 'Slit!! the debate; they
oughtpet to have delayed it for two days, b.,' Pstreducing, as
thin'e hole ;lone, many Irish questions, - which hate had
no other effect thail ..;!rYst, delay to many other measures of
great importance to this country. I. few hope, that having oc-
cupied so much time upon this question, (rid hevin done
tries: duty tut
.their country, they will now allow 'Mist Aession
to, be read allaSt erne, Ido not question the steps they n'.li'fa
taken, but I do think that they may now without injury, to
their pSintiples, having discharged *het they felt to be their
duty, permit the se::_'" of the House to be taken on the Bill at
this
,preliminary stage.—(Chimera.
Mr. 7.rYS'E. would assure the Hotist that he felt with the
Right Hon. Barone:, !het winch time had been teseupied with
this .debate. The question ot t!se corn-laws had been delayed
by t:1:s introduction of that measure ne!s're the House. He
could not agree the Right Hon. Baronet that the Go-
vernment was entirely free !tesi the blame which attached to
the delay complained of in the dehata as't this question. The
!let Hen. Gentleman had attempted to thrts;e;t the blame of
that delay on hid (Mr. Wyse's) side of the House. It was
for him to have seen viiat 'otarse should have been pursued
with regard to the measures oceiips;?nss, the attention of the
ceentry. It was for the Government to cndesa !siva measure
Was the Most important—the one befnre the House, or the
corn-lacy measure—far immediate consideration. Having mane
a eelection, they had no right to complain of the opposition met
with.—( `t He could not see what disereirtesy would be
shown to the other House by delaying this Bill, and giving pre-
cedence to one of greater importance to the country at large.
There was d pteeedeot for delay on a measure emanating in
the other House. flei vfoiald beg to call the attention of the
House to the year 1833, when a 13;11 for the same object as
the present was sent down to that House. It was treated in the
very ame itz`..,:i.ner..; It was matter of surprise, that whilesthe
world was looking at the greet measure of the Govertathent
with regard to our commercial iuterestss that the interests of
the sister country should be so neglected. Flo *greed with the
Right Hon. Baronet that there might arise times wien A sus-
pension of part of the constitutional laws would be necessaq.
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 Hougc.—( Hear, hear. )
( The Hon.'Member then proceeded to read extracts from a re-
turn he held in his hand, by which it appeared, thst in the
year 1842 the number of homicides committed in Ireland rrAz
106, while in the year 1845 it amounted to 139. ) Plow, con-
sidering the great amount of distreas that existed in the eseisn-
try et 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 stispentien of the law as this Bill
amounted to. He found, by the saute returns, that crime of
less magnitude—such as aggravated assault—amnented, 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 5.5 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 riot 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 inn.
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 subsistence,
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, who exercised 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 see 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 VMS 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 gaits more
than 2s. 6d. per week, while the English labourer could gain
10s. per week. There was, as he had said, a similar difference
in the amount of wages in various parts of Ireland, for in one
part the amount given did not exceed 83. or 44 , while its
other parts it was ls. per day. That arose from the
want of a proper communication between this coun-
try and the various parts of Ireland, and it would be a
beneficial measure if Government could establish that com-
munication, for they could lose nothing by it. If they did
lose by V there would be a just ground for declining to in-
terfere. The Irish Members only asked for such assistance as
would remedy the evils under which the country laboured, and
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 have 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 Bight Hon. Baronet.
It would not prevent daylight assassination or sending threat-
ening notices by post. Such an end could not be attained by
shutting np 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
Hon. 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 Irishi
feeling
to declare before the
y h
House and the country his on the Bill. He did not
apprehend the outbreak of any violent.l eruption in Ireland, but
n
there was ample room foriatory measures, to anticipate
such an evil from the disorganisedeon and diseased state of tae
people in that country. There could not be a nobler effort of
a minister than to relieve a country from the state in which
Ire'and 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, to support the measure.
They looked with horror on the state of things at present ex-
' isting in Ireland. The magistrates of Donegal had done their
duty, 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 to suppress some of the
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 prevailedninrclnony
parts of Ireland. He did not agree in calling this
this a Coercion
of
Bill, but it was, as its title stated, a Bill for t
life and property; and had the Government failed in
It
triwngas aing
it forward, they would have been highly criminal.
measure to protect the innocent, punish the guilty, and to secure
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 Bill. 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 ;axle of putting them down. He considered the f
Bight Hon. Baronet, and those who acted with him in support- C