The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-16 00:00:00

IRISH DISTURBANCES BILL.

The order of the day was then read, and the House re-
solved into a Committee upon this Bill, Mr. BERNAL in
the chair.

Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move an addition to the first
clause. As that clause at present stood, it empowered
the Lord-Lieutenant, by his order, to suppress any meeting
he thought fit, by that means rendering it an unlawful
meeting, and placing those who attended it under conside-
rable embarrassments, and subjecting them to imprison-
ment. He did not intend to argue the clause ; but he
wished it to be explicitly understood, that what he
hid stated was the effect of the clause, and he
wished now to take the sense of the House upon
excepting from the operation of that clause one par-
ticular description of meetings—those which met
for the bona fide and exclusive purpose of petitioning
apinst actual existing grievances ; and the addition to the
cl ,u,e which he would propose was this, " Provided
always that it shall not be lawful for any Lord-Lieute-
nant or Chief Secretary of Ireland, by any such order to
prohibit or suppress any meeting to be held for the
bona fide purpose of agreeing in a peaceable
manner to the presentation of a petition to the
King or either House of Parliament for the redress of any
grievance, either in Church or State." Before the House
decided upon the present despotic clause, he wished to
take its opinitni upon the addition he had proposed. If
any person was charged with having got up an
illegal meeting the lioneurable Member did not
intend that he should have the benefit of the
addition which be propeaed to the clause, unless be could
satisfy both the Covet and the Jury that the meeting was
a bona fide one, that it was not a meeting for the pre-
tence of remedying a grievance, bur for the bona
fide purpose of remedying a real existing evil.—
(Hear.) He wished to have it ascertained by the House
whether his Majesty's Ministers would throw a meeting of
that sort into the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant, or Chief
Secretary Of Ireland. He wished to know whether the

Lord ALTHORP said the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man was mistaken if he supposed that he (Lord Althorp)
would not at once say that the object of this clause was to
give to the Lord-Lieutenant an arbitrary power. The
intention of it was to give him power to prohibit and sup-
press any meeting which he might consider dangerous to
the public peace. The Hon. Gentleman wished his amend-
ment to be introduced at the end of the clause, hut if
such were allowed, the only effect of it would be to render
e whole clause nearly nugatory. A meeting might be
held under the pretence of petitioning for the removal of
a grievance ; that meeting might be a mere pretence to
cover some ulterior proceeding. Now the effect of the
Hon. and Learned Member's amendment would be to
tape away from the Lord Lieutenant that power which
it was proposed to give him by the eause—
the power of suppressing such a meeting.
How was any one to know the intention with
which a meeting might be held ? How was any
one to say that the avowed intention of the meet-
ing was the real and bona fide one—(Hear)—whe-
ther they really met for the purpose of petitioning for
the removal of a grievance? Who was to decide whether
the subject was really a grievance or not ? The only effect
of the addition to the clause would be to prevent the Lord-
Lieutenant s .ppressing any meeting at aii, for whatever
purpose it might be held The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber had not entered into the discussion of the whole
clause, neither would be (Lord Althorp) proceed further
than to say that the proposed addition went entirely to
vitiate the whole clause. lie intended to meet any objec-
tions to the clause entirely on their own grounds, and
would-at once avow ti at it was a most despotic clause, but
rendered absolutely necessary by the state of that unfortu-
nate country.
Mr. O'CONNELL was not answered at all. What !
was it to be said that there should be no complaint?
Was the pone resource even of complaining to be taken
away ? The Lord Lieutenant would still have it
in his power to issue his order, and the party
who might be sued for having held the meeting, must
prove to a jury that the meeting was held for the real
bona fide purpose of petitioning for a redress of grievances,
and that it was really a grievance up- n which they met to
consult. Would the House grant the Government so corn
plete a despotism, because they sought it, as not even to
allow the existence of a meeting perfectly peaceable, entirely
exclusive, and complaining of an actual grievance? Good
Heavens! in what country were they ? Would they not al-
low men to petition for the redress of actu a abominable
grievance—against, perhaps, the tyranny, the misconduct,
and despotism, exercised under this Act—against the gross
instances of pet version of its powers, arising from personal
hatred? Let him suppose that the same abuses should
take place wit% regard to this Act as had
taken place with regard to the Insurrection Act,
which notoriously hid been pervei tea to gratify avarice
and lust. Yes, in the speech attributed to Lord Clon-
curry in the House of Lords, it was stated that the in-
surrection Act had been ex rcieed to gratify avarice and
ust.—( Hear ) Now this Act went infinitely farther
than the Insurrection Act; and would it be said that
a petitioning ag 'lust the pet version of the powers of this
Act, perfectly bo,a fide should, by a Lord Lieutenant's
proclamation, be converted into a misdemeanor, pianist,.
able by courtsmartial ?
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN protested against the ab-
solute despotism wlitch, under the terms of this provision,
would be given to the Lord-Lieutenant. There was a meet-
ing in the diocese of Derry, the otner tlay, of the clergy to
protest against this Bill, and the Lord -Lieutenant might have
I suppressed it under the pretext of being unlawful.—
( Hear, heir.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving
an amendment, to the effect, as we understood, that no
proclamation should take place for the suppression of auy
association, assembly, or body of persons assembled in a
peaceable manner, with the bona fide purpose of petition-
Mg against grievances, without notice signed by 20
householders.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the amendment
pi-spew(' by the Hon. and Learned Member f it Dublin was
inconsistent with the spirit of the clause.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) Who was to determine what was a bona fide
grievance? The Hon. Member said .4 A Jo,y," but this
was inconsistent with the spirit of the clause.—(Hear.)
It they had to refer it to ascertain what were, in fact,
real grievances, who could say what were and what
ere not real grievances ?--(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Some called the want of poor laws a real grievance, others
the tithe system, and others again, absenteeism. The clause
to which the Hots. Member for Dublin objected was
similar to a clause for suppressing meetings in the Act
passed in the year 1829 ; and if the amendment were
allowed to be introduced, that clause would be wholly
inoperative. With respect to the meetings referred to
by the Hon. and Learned Member, he (the Solicitor-
General) was of opinion that if the Lord-Lieutenant
dared to suppress such meetings, he would be guilty of a
misdemeanor. The power contained in the clause was
to be given to the Lord-Lieutenant, in whom a confidence
would be imposed that he would not use it improperly.
At:. O'DWYER, in reference to the assertion that the
Lord Lieutenant would be guilty of a misdemeanor in
suppressing certain meetings, said there was a clause in
the Bill which protected him in case of his indis-
cretion, or of any error committed by him..—(Hear.)
The clause was one totally destructive of constitutional
liberty. " You stretch us on the rack," to use the
language of Junius, " and then you cruelly deprive
us of the power of complaining." He hoped,
for the character of the country, and for the
character of a Reformed Parliament, to which the country
looked for pretectien, that the clause would not pass.
Mr. G. YOUNG said, that although he admitted an
unlimited power ought to be given, yet if any limitation
whatever could be imposed on that power—(Hear)--
reserving that most sacred of rights, petitioning,
it was the bounded duty of his Majesty's Ministers to
accede to it, unless they could show that the effect of that
would be to neutralise the clause.

Mr. O'CONNELL expressed his willingness to yield to
the modification of his amendment which bad been pro-
posed. That which be requ red the Huuse should guard
against was allowed by the Solicitor-General, if done, to
be an impeachable act ; and yet it was now intendtd to
give that power to the Lord Lieutenant with impunity.
He would be quite content to withdraw his amendment
in favour of that of the Hon. Aiember for Aleatb, pro•
vided the following words were added to it Tbat

Mr. O'CONNELL explained. He did not think he could
be suspected of any intention to sanction such a power.
Mr. TENNYSON said, that though he bad been tour-
t-en years in Parliament he had never witnessed such ex-
traordinary exhibitions in the House as had taken place in
the course of the discussion on this Bill. The House, in
fact, seemed determined to lose its character with the
p °pie --(Hear.) The personalities which had been in-
,ulged in were disgraceful—he more particularly adverted
to the conduct of the Members on his side of the
House (the Ministerial) ; for the gentlemen on the other
side of the House had almost invariably reflected the
highest credit on themselves by the forbearing and cour-
teous manner in which they had carried on the discussion.
—(A laugh on the Ministerial side ; Hear, hear ; Ques-
tion.) With respect to the amendment, he should most
decidedly support it; for be entirely deprecated the clause
on which it was founded. The clause was certainly the
same as one which he had advocated in the Proclama-
tion Act passed in 1829 ; but he had supported that
because be considered it directed against the Catholic
Associations, not against meetings for petitioning or
other legitimate objects, which he thought might be
the effect of the clause now in question. He protested
against any infringement on the right of petitioning,
and had no difficulty in foreseeing that the power of
this clause might be perverted to th it infringement ;
and be was decidedly of opinion that the thus driving
a people to secret meetings, which would inevitably be the
result, would produce the worst consequences. He should
support the amendment, because he thought it would be fur
the security of the crown.
Mr. STANLEY denied that this clause could or would
be perverted to any such unconstitutional objects as an
infringement on the right of petitioning, by preventing
legitimate meetings. He was quite astonished at the
Hon. Gentleman's offering any opposition on these grounds
to a clause precisely the same, even in the wording of it,
to the one so strongly supported by him on a former oc-
casion, and front the operation of which not a single in-
stance had occurred of the infringement of the Constitu-
tion, which he now seemed to apprehend. Thus, since
no such consequence had arisen from the former operatiim
of the clause, it did not appear to him to require any
great stretch of logical reason to calculate the effects from
the clause now. It was necessary to make the Lord-
Lieutenant the judge of what were bona fide legitimate
meetings, and what were meetings fur illegal purposes.
If he had not this discretionary power. to give which was
the intent of the clause, the law could have no effect.
Any man acquainted with Ireland, understood how easy
it was to convene a meeting as a bona fide meeting to
petition, and turn it to seditious purposes, passing resolu-
tions at it which might set all Ireland in a flame. The
object of this clause was not to punish violations of the
law, but to prevent them.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the right of petitioning was
sacred ; as to what the Right Hon. Secretory had said
about no meetings for legitimate petitions having been in-
terfered with under the power of the former clause, the
reason was, that no one had ever attempted to get up a
petition at that time; there was good care taken to pre-
vent any such a thing being attempted.
Mr. STANLEY replied.
The Committee then divided on the amendment, when
there apt eared.

Ayes
Noes 246
Majority against the Amendment...-161
Upon our re-eutering thegallery, Mr. LYNCH was mov-

Mr. C. FERGUSSON made an observation which was
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. PEASE considered it his duty, as a loyal subject,
to uphold the welfare of his King and country. He would
support the clause, because it did not, as had been said,
take away the right of petition. T=o or three persons
might frame the petition, anti then procure the signatures
of every individual in the town or district. lie firmly
believed that his Majesty's Ministers had no disposition
to invade the liberties of the subject. —( Hear, bear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether, if a person
went to a prohibited meeting, which was afterwards
ordered to disperse, and be should obey the order, would
he be guilty under the Act?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that a person at-
tending a prohibited meeting would Ise, by that Act, guilty
of a crime; and should he refuse to disperse on the requi-
sition of a magistrate, he would he guilty of a second crime.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought still that the illegality was
constituted by the refusal to disperse. In his opinion, the
real object of the clause was to put down the Hon. Mem-
ber for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell). To such legislation be
was opposed. The Bill, besides, would be inoperative ;
for the Hon. Member for Dublin might describe a meeting
that never existed ; he might thus diff .se his views, and
do all the mischief through the country that was appre-
hended by some persons from him.
Mr. AGLIONBY spoke from under the gallery, and
was understood to say that the ohjections of the Hon.
Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr.C. Fergusson) were, in his
opinion, fatal to the clause. The Hon. Member made
some other observattons, the purport of which could not
be ascertained
Mr. COBBETT rose to declare that be should vote
against the clause, as he would against the entire lbw,
however amended or altered. He resisted it because its
direct tendency was to take from the Irish people the right
to petition—(Hear, hear)—and because it was a stepping-
stone to the introduction of a similar measure into Eng-
land.—(Cries of" Hear, hear," and "No, no.") Everything
would be done to narrow it and destroy it by degrees.—
(Nc, no.) But he would on this, as on all occasions,
endeavour to do justice to his Majesty's servants: if they
attacked the right, it was because they could not maintain
their system without destroying it. They had two courses
before them..-redress of grievances, or deprivation of
right. The former they were resolved not to grant, and,
consequently, they were compelled to attack the rights of
the people. Though, therefore, they might become
tyrants, it was from necessity; and the question would
be, whether the nation would submit to their system.
The Member for South Duthite (Mr. Pease) deserved
the thanks of the country for basing let out so much of
the real state of the case. The reasons be had given
were perfectly understood, the whole matter was quite
plain to him (Mr. Cotibett); and to show his gratitude
to the Hon. Member fur the service he had rendered,
though without intending it, he would tell him an Ame-
tican story.—(Laughter, mingled with tries of " Ques-
tion," and " No, no.") During that war, which he
(Mr. Cobbett) should always consider a rtbellion—
though the lion. Secretary for Ireland, and the Hon.
Member for Leeds, pronounced it a glorious revolution—
two men, lovers of peace—(A laugh)—who would not
engage in war—no! not fur the whole world—men who
would not touch a hair on the head of a human being
but who were persons of exceeding loyalty. offered, final
their extreme attachment to the King and I:is (,overn-
meta, to conduct the British army into the American
camp—(Laughter)—but that Wa.hingttm, who was so
Gentlemen, seized those loyal
persons and
Lanced thew on the highest tree in the
country.—(Laughter.)
Mr. crcoNNELL had heard of sash a thing u passive
.
much praised 'by Hon.

resistance amongst loyal men, and thee were many friend
to the King and his Government who refused to pa'
tithes.—(Cheers.) They were very loyal subjects, but
they refused to pay tithes. Why should not others art in
the same manner? In fact, the moment he saw the Hon.
Member for South Durham, he prophesied that he would
be aeo❑ in the middle of the Treasury Bench, and the
prophecy was likely to be accomplished.—(A lane!.) He
would now state the nature of the first clause, which was
utterly misunderstood. Would it be believed that no
promulgation of the Lord. Lieutenant's older to suppress
a meeting was necessary?—(Signs of dissent from the
Members on the Treasury Bench.) He repeated it, that
too promulgation was necessary, and defied any man to
point nut a word in the Statute requiring it. He defied
any ►awyer to show that the order might not he verbal—by
word of mouth—in short in any mode the Lord Lieute-
nant might please to utter it.—(No, nn, no, from the
Treasury Benches.) He again defied any person to con-
tradict him.
Mr. STANLEY certainly thought it necessary to ob-
serve, that, during the absence of the Hon. Meinher, a
clause bad been proposed, rendering the promulgation of
the order necessary.
Mr. 0 CONNELL—And yet I am contradicted when
speaking of the contents of the Bi•l in my hand ! The
Al-mber then appealed to the Chairman, and asked
whether it was not then impossible to introduce anything
tore the clause?
The CHAIRMAN was understood to signify his assent.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Yet this Bill had not come sud-
denly open the House. It had been prepared by the first
equity Judge of the land—had received the sanction of the
other House and of his M ojesty's Ministers. Let them
observe the nature of the first clause: the order suppres.
sine a meeting might he verbil—it might be issued while
the meeting was actually holding. No promulgation of
it was necessary— no notic, of the illegality of the meet-
ing was required; and yet, under such circumstances,
two Magistrates were to de Side whom they should send to
prison for two months. This was the nature of a criminal
offence in Leland.—(Cheers.) By virtue of an order•,
delivered in any manner the Lord-Lieutenant pleased, and
at any time, a man attending a meeting in the remotest
part of the kingdom might be imprisoned by a Magistrate
fur two months. The lion, Member for South Durham
said the right of petition was not extinguished in Ireland :
to be sure, if they licked the hand that struck them—
(Cheers)—if they crouched submissively before injury and
insult, and praised those who dealt out scorn and
!strong, they would be allowed to petition—(Hear, hear)
a.•'iut if they acted a free and manly part, they would
be declared criminals by an order issued behind their
backs, and without notice.—(Cheering.) Again, suppose
a meeting prohibited ; any continuations of it by the same
persons or any part of them became illegal under the Bill;
to) that should any fancied similarity ever appear between
the words or acts of a meeting and one formerly prohibited,
or should some persons, no matter how few, who had been
present at the former, attend at the latter, a packed jury
would be easily found to declare it a continuation of the
prohibited meeting. In fact, there was no meeting in
Ireland that was not at the absolute control of the Lord-
Lieutenant. But even the mode of petition suggested
by the Member for South Durham was not free ; he spoke
of two or three persons assembling to frame a petition,
but two persons constituted a meeting, and therefore came
under the grasp of the Bill —(No, no ; and loud spry-
ton s of effence and disapprobation from the Treasury
benches.) No, no! he asserted the direct opposite.—
(The same symptoms of offence again became general.)
He was glad to see this conduct. He arraigned
such despotic conduct in the presence of the British
nation.—(Continued cries of disapprobation; among
these was conspicuous a peculiar noise, of which sonic
section may be formed by pronouncing the following word
e—Awastweaw-aw-acv.) He (Mr. O'Connell) would still
sots-eel, that two persons constituted a meeting; nay more
----that two persons would constitute part of a prohibited
Association, and should they meet, it would, to all legal
intents and purposes, under the Bill, be a meeting of
that Asseciation; his Majesty's Government appeared
to ply too little attention to the opinions of the
people. They should remember that when they were
thrown nut of office, tie Irish and English people
forced their continuance there. By their subsequent
acts, however, they had totally lost the confidence of the
Irish people, and he thought they were fist losing the
confidence of the English people too.—(No, no, and
Hear.) At all events he was sure of this, that they de-
served to lose it ; and the very men whom they were
dragging through the mire of despotism with them, would
be the first to blame their conduct when the feeling of the
people displayed itself. The clause declared that meet-
ings should he prevented on the order of the Lord Lieu-
tenant. Now he should like to know what was the
meaning of order?" How was it to be exprea-ed ? Io
whet manner was it to lie tirade known ? Ede knew
what an order was in a Court if Justiee. There it was
a rule of Court, and the record of it was fair hfully pre
served. A military order was entered on the orderly
book ; but what the order o• the Lord Lieutenant was to
be he knew not, except it was Iris single tiat given in
any wools in which he might choose to convey his mean
ing. The nature of the power given to the Lord.Lieu-
ti nant was to enable him to declare what meetings were
iilegtl. The clause enabled him to prevent any meeting
dangerous to the public peace or safety, or inconsisten
with the due administration of the law. Now, did Hon.
Members imagine that the Lord-Lieutenant would confine
the exercise of his power to such meetings ?—(Yes. ) Then
he would say that it dd not require that Act to emit&
the Lord Lieutenant to do so. He had that power al-
ready. All such meetings were clearly illegal, and all ille-
gal meetings mieht be put down by common law. In
support of this view he referred to the opinion of Lord
Redesdale, who opposed the Bill of 1829 directed against
the Catholic Associ 'lion, and entered a protest against
it on that very ground Lord Eldon had also expressed a
similar opinion. Why, then, should they give that Magis-
trate the power of putting down other meetings? Why
should they give him the power of suppressing innocent
meetings?—(Hear.) This was what the people of Ireland
had to apprein rid. Even all charitable meetings might he
suppr. rood. The fate of 2,500 of phans might depend upon
it. It was said that polit.cs were discussed at these mee
ings. They generally wt re ; but it was requisite that some
excit ng topics should tie alluded to, in order to induce
people to be present. Toe red object, however, of the
Bill was to put down agitation for repeal of the Union
jest was to put driven the Volunteers and all associa-
tions of the people. It had been said that the Volunteer
Association was an illegal one ; but the blatant that could
be pros', d it should be given up. The number of Mem-
bers was very limited ; but it was said that it was intended
to be more widely spread. It was so, and one of its main
objects was to form a sort of domestic association in the
disturbed districts, to put down Whitefeet outrages. If
their object was to put down the agitation for the repeal
of the Union, this Act might enable them to accomplish
their purpose; but would they, by so doing, put don n the
desire for that repeal ?—(Hear, hear.) If it was the de-
sire of the House to put down the de.ire for repeal, was
it by exhibiting such a striking difference between the
treatment of England and Ireland that they t xpected to
uhtain their end ? Was it by a sort of Irish reciprocity—
all on one side? Was it by giving liberty to England and
despotism to Ireland ? The Irish were a shrewd, observant
people ; and what, be asked, must be the result of this ?
He would venture to prophesy that fur one Rep, aler mow,
this Bill would create one hundred.—(Hear.) 'Cutler
these circumstances, he objected to this clause.
Mr. STANLEY complained of the unfair manner in
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had opposed the
clause. As to the objection respecting the mode of giving
the order by the Lord Lieutenant, he had carefully kept
out of sight the distinct pledge given by the Government
that such order should ❑ot be verbal.—(Hear.) His oh-
aervatioo with respect to two persons constituting a meet-
ing savoured very strongly of special pleading.—(Hear.)
Such a circumstance was by no means either the spirit
or intention of the Act which applied to meetings dan-
gerous to the public peace, or to the proper administration
of justice. The Bill did not oppose itself to charitable
meetings. But if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman made
use of those charitable meetings merely as a pretext—if
he introduced fierce political discussions on exciting t pies
.--then he would say it was right to provide in the Bill
against such an evasion.—(Cheers.) But on behalf of
himself arid his colleagues, he repudiated the charge of
endeavouring to put down any charitable associations.—
(Hear.) Another of the Ilion. and Learned Gentleman's

arguments was founded on the assumption that the law, as
it at present stood, wascapable of putting down all illegal
meetings. But he would ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man whether the Volunteer Association was illegal ? If it was
illegal, they could doubtless put it down. But if not—he
wou d ask was it safe—was it not dangerous to the public
safety, and to the then administration of the laws, and
ought it not to be suppressed ?—(Cheers.) Much had
been said as to infringiag on the right of the subject to
petition. Now nothing could be further from the wish
of his Majesty's Government than to put down the ex-
pression of the opinion of the people, when that opinion
was peaceably expressed.—(Hear.) But he must confess
that he did not feel that greet respect for the petitions
apinst the Bill with which the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman Lad threatened to inundate them, when he con,i_

dered the manner in which they bad been obtained---L-1:1;-
cular letters had been sent all over Ireland by the Velun-

leers, with several forma of petition, requesting active