The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDA Y, JULY 22, 1834.

applications had been made by the Hon. Member for Colches-
ter, and he of course was under the impression that they were
made in his own behalf. Upon inquiry, however, he found
that that Hon. and Learned Member had made great exer-
tions in support of the reform Member for the county of Essex,
and no doubt these applications were made on that Hon. Mem-
ber's behalf.
Mr. C. W. W. WYNN said it was quite clear from the
report of the Committee that the Right Hon. Secretary of the
Treasury had paid over a certain sum of money for electioneer-
ing- purposes. But whether that was or was not public money,
was matter for inquiry. He gave the fullest credit to the
statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but in justice to the
Committee, in justice to the House, and in justice to the
country, the inquiry could not stop where it now rested.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that there was no motion on the
subject before the House.
Mr. WA SON said it was well known that the public money
had been expended for electioneering purposes.—( Cries of
" No, no.") Gentlemen might cry " No, no," but he still
maintained that such was the fact : the thing was as notorious
as the sun at noon day, and he would appeal to Hon. Members,
both on the right and left side of the House, in support of the
fact. Whatever might be the decision to which the House
came upon this question—namely, that the secret service mo-
ney be done away with entirely, or else properly applied, in-
stead of being given to Hon. Members to go down and get
returned for boroughs, to the representation of which they
otherwise had no title.
Sir H. HARDINGE said he had no wish to prolong the
discussion, but having filled two or three situations of a public
description, he hoped he might be permitted to say a few
words. He would declare then, upon his honour, that he
never knew any instance in which the public money had been
so given. He was inclined to place the most implicit con-
fidence in the Right Hon. the Secretary to the Treasury, and
he was sure that if the question were referred to a Committee
of Privileges (a course which he, if in the place of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, would most desire), it would be found that
the House would not be competent to enter into a farther dis-
cussion on the subject.
Mr. BARING said it was necessary, if the House wished
to preserve its own respect—if it wished to preserve the re-
spect of the country, that the matter under discussion should
be made a subject of inquiry; because no invasion of the rights
ald privileges of the people ought to take place without the
fullest investigation. This was a question which ought not to
be lightly passed over; it involved the most important privi-
leges, alike of that House and of the people. It was for the
House to institute an inquiry, and then to determine whether
any and what measure ought to be adopted upon it. The
question for the second reading of the Irish Coercion Bill was
now before the House ; but that more immediately under con-
sideration was the report of the Committee. He would say,
that no step could be taken by the House, until the paper was
p:inted. He had heard that paper cursorily read, and he
would say that he was not aware that the name of the Right
Han. Secretary of the Treasury was once mentioned in that
paper. It was, indeed, stated that a most respectable gentle-
man, connected with the Treasury, had paid over a certain
sum of money for electioneering purposes. True it was, that
no gentleman of greater respectability, of higher character,
than his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Coventry could
be found in the country.—( Hear, hear.) But yet, having
received the report of the Committee, they were bound to
print it, otherwise they would depart from a course quite usual
with the house. He felt that the paper ought to be printed,
and it would then be for the consideration of the House whe-
ther any, and what ulterior measure ought to be resorted to.
Lord AL THORP said he understood the Hon. Member
(Mr. Buller) to say, not that the paper ought not to be
p toted, but that it would be found unnecessary to found any
r.her measure upon it.
Mr. BULLER explained.
The question AS to the second reading of the Coercion
(Ireland) Bill being put from the chair.
Mr. O'CONNELL felt it necessary to state to the House
the situation in which this Bill was introduced to the House.
The second reading of this Bill was now proposed to them
under circumstances perfectly unintelligible, without a refe-
r:nce to the Act of last year. In that Act there were certain
objectionable clauses. In the Bill now-before them some ob-
jectionable clauses were omitted, but they had no specific in-
formation as to which were to be retained. As the Bill at
present stood an unlimited license was to be given to the sol-
diery, because no proceedings could be taken at law for any
violence or outrage they might commit without the authority
of the Attorney-General. That was almost equal to a pro-
tection extended to those Magistrates who might interfere with
the liberty of the subject. This was the measure of last year.
What, he would ask, was the nature of the measure now before
the House? What was the intention of the Noble Lord (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) opposite? Did he mean to leave
these clauses in the Bill, which he had found it necessary to in-
troduce? If such was the intention of the Noble Lord he
(Mr. O'Connell) should feel it his duty to take the sense of
the House upon the subject. By the proposed Bill It was to
be enacted that no meeting should take place for political pur-
poses ; that was to say, for instance, with a view to presenting
a petition for a redress of grievances without giving ten days'
notice, and having, at the end of that period, the signature of
the Lord Lieutenant, or his Secretary, sanctioning such meet-
ing. Now, he would tell the Noble Lord (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) that if he would only leave out the necessity
of the signature of the Lord Lieutenant, or his deputy, he
(Mr. O'Connell) would not object to the ten days' notice. He
must, however, oppose the eleventh clause as it stood, which
prevented the meeting for the purpose of presenting petitions
to that House for the redress of political grievances. It was
cruel—it was severe in the extreme. He would say that
nothing had, during that Session, been dane for Ireland—
save, perhaps, the Tithe Bill—nothing else had been done for
his unhappy country. Here, then, were the Irish Members
and the Irish people grateful, and for what ? Why, grateful
that an English Government were willing to pass certain
oa udl
db thereeouno t
foundCheers.)whenrespectineffectual.passedCoercionßill,againlull
er,
but wasa;
there existed a wretched faction—a Tory, an Orange faction—
ready .to pounce upon and hunt down the remaining liberties
of Ireland. They stood upon the present occasion ; they vo-
lunteered their services for the depression, the degradation of
Ireland. They went out of their way for the purpose. But
why was it to be thus ? Why was it that the people of Ireland
were to be the only persecuted people in the United Empire ?
For a long period bad Ireland been left without remedy or re-
dress of her many grievances. No measure, that was to say,
no effective measure, had been introduced in Ireland, save the
Coercion Bill, or some such oppressive measure. Oh, what
a misery it was for unhappy Ireland to be cursed with a party
so prejudiced that they were anxious to inflict every injury on
their country. And why ? Merely, he would say, from an
abstract love of mischief. And how was it that such a state of
things was endeavoured to be forced upon them ? It was be-
cause the party, the rank Tory party, who recommended such
a course, felt that while they were doing so, they were re-
lieved from 411 responsibility.—( Hear, hear.) But, thank
God, that party was gone from the Councils of the Crown_
from the Government of the country, he trusted, never, never,
to return.—(Hear, hear.) He cared not what had been
urged by the supporters of this Bill, and would deny al-
together that there was anything on the face of the
documents on the table which warranted its introduc-
tion. He denied that the Noble Lord (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) had made out any case in justifica-
tion of it.—( Hear, hear.) He would go further, and say
that the only ground for the measure was made out by the
Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Rice).
That Right Hon. Gentleman had put the question on a
footing in which he (Mr. O'Connell) to a certain extent con-
curred. He put it not upon the letter of the Marquis of Wel-
lesley, but he had asked whether any man connected with
Ireland could have witnessed the agrarian disturbances in Ire-
land, or have even read the statements contained in the report
of 1832, without a desire to repress the outrages therein de-
scribed. Upon that ground he went with the Right Hon. Se-
cretary. It could not be denied that his statement was true.
But it was an equally true statement, that during the last 60
years there had only existed the Whiteboy Act, and that with-
out effect. -He wished he could induce Hon. Members repre-
senting English constituents, to read the report of 1832. If
they would only take the trouble to do so, they would find the
evidence of Mr. Barrington (a gentleman of whom the Right
Hon. Secretary for the Colonies could, if questioned on the
subject, give a most satisfactory account). That gentleman
stated that he had had for a number of years the most ample
means of judging of the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, and
he was in a situation to prove that they arose not from any poli-
tical feeling, but altogether out of local circumstances. He
would take an instance mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Bar-
rington. Lord Stradbroke had, upon a particular occasion,
thought proper to turn from his estate some sixty or eighty
persons, and to let the whole of the land to a single tenant.
This gave rise to feelings of discontent and re-
venge—and the consequence was that the unfortunate
man who took the land, was found murdered in his bed.—
( Hear, hear.) He next came to the statements made
by that gentleman relative to the management on the estates
of Lord Courtney, a nobleman with reference to whom a kind
of delicacy was used to which the management of his estates
did not in any way entitle him. Upon his estates there were,
from various causes, considerable arrears of rent. An agent
came and bought up these arrears, and immediately com-
menced proceeding for the recovery of the back rents. This
gave rise to feelings of discontent, and to disturbances of
a most serious nature. This they had from the evidence
of Mr. Barrington, a most honest and faithworthy witness.—
( Hear, hear.) That gentleman went on to say, that from all
his experience he had been unable to discover the existence of
any, even the slightest, connection between these disturbances
and' matters of a political nature. It was indeed stated that
there was one conspiracy, that of Doneraile, which bore a
political character ; but let it be understood that that was
a conspiracy of the Magistrates against the people, and
that, of the four persons there prosecuted, three were now
living comfortably at their homes, while the fourth was in New
South Wales, where he certainly ought never to have been
sent. Much had been said upon this subject, and he knew—
he well knew the quarter from which certain statements
contained in the proclamations and other official documents
came. He had heard the Right Hon. Secretary for Ire-
land declare in that House that the Irish Attorney-General
was a most liberal and upright man. He concurred with the
Right Honourable Secretary in thinking the Irish Attorney-
General a most honourable man, but he was bound at the same
time to say that a more rank partisan, a more undisguised, a
more unmitigated opponent of liberal principles did not exist
in that country. What had been the conduct of that Hon. and

Learned Gentleman? When the Marquis of Anglesea was
canvassing and using his interest in favour of Mr. Perrin, the
Attorney-General, it was true, voted in his favour, but neither
his family or those with whom he had influence did so ; they
voted the other way.—( Hear, hear.) It was enough for him
to say upon this difficult and delicate question that he could
not countenance the charge of political agitation urged in
support of this Bill. They were told as a justification of this
measure of the outrages which took place in Ireland, in a com-
munication made from the Irish Government, on the 18th of
April ; but he defied any man to show to him that these out-
rages were in any way connected with political feeling.
They had heard too the statements of Lord Oxmantown,
asserting that the agitations and disturbances in Ireland
were of a political nature. This he denied ; he felt con-
vinced that such statements were without foundation, and if
he (Mr. O'Connell) could, in the course of the next Ses-
sion, obtain the appointment of a Committee, he would under-
' take to prove that fact, and show that the Noble Lord was as
much mistaken as ever he was in his life.—( Hear and laughter. )
They had heard a great deal about political agitation—now,
what was the meaning of the word ? If he understood it, it
meant the discussion of a real or imaginary grievance. Would
it not, he would ask, be difficult to show that any grievance of
which Ireland complained was imaginary ? If this, then, were
so, who was there hardy enough to say that the Irish people
had not an undoubted right to petition that House for a redress
of the grievances under which they suffered ? Let any man then
show to him any imaginary grievance of which the people of
Ireland complained. He defied any Member of that House to
do it. Unfortunately their grievances were too deeply rooted,
too sorely felt, to be cured by any thing short of the most ef-
fectual remedies.—( Hear, hear.) What was the course pur-
sued towards the city of Kilkenny ? The county was proclaimed
though the city was known to be perfectly tranquil; but it was
found that it would be convenient to quarter their troops
in the city, and therefore they proclaimed the city too.—
( Hear, hear, hear, and a laugh.) Was it not the prin-
ciple of the British Constitution—was it not the essence
of the Government of this country that every subject
of the realm should have the means of petitioning Par-
liament for a redress of the grievances under which he la-
boured ? Without further detaining the House, he would ad-
vert to the proceedings which had taken place against Mr.
Barrett, who published his letter to the Irish people in his
paper. The Learned Judge who tried that case made it mat-
ter of aggravation on the part of Mr. Barrett, that he had
reprobated the Algerine Act. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not
quarrel with the power claimed by Government of decla-
ring portions of counties or parishes to be brought within the
meaning of this Act, because by doing so they took the re-
sponsibility of this proclamation upon themselves. But if
Hon. Members would only look to the evidence given by Mr.
Barrington, page 21, they would find that there existed under
the Whiteboy Act sufficient power to repress or punish any
attempt at seducing or leading to disaffection the people at
public meetings. This Act made any attempt at leading the
people to disaffection a transportable felony. He would ask
the Noble Lord then whether this was not, of itself, a suf-
ficient power to be vested in the hands of Ministers ? If they
feared public meetings, the Whiteboy Act enabled the Go-
vernment to transport any person found holding out induce-
ments to disaffection and outrage. Why then was it neces-
sary, in addition to the ten days' notice of a public meeting, to
have the Lord Lieutenant's signature, or that of his Secretary,
before such meeting could be legally held? He would not
object to the ten days' notice if the Noble Lord would con-
sent to give up the necessity of such signature to render
legal such a meeting. Now he would take a case ; last
year it was found that there were no more than seven
or eight cases of felony in Dublin to be tried during three
months in a population of 300,000 persons. Now, supposing
that city even to be proclaimed by this Bill, would it be fair or
just that its inhabitants should be prevented from the power of
petitioning Parliament for redress of the grievances under
which they laboured? He would say then, that, looking to
the power of the law under the Whiteboy Act, and consider-
ing how totally removed the agrarian disturbances were from
political feelings or agitation, there would be no pretext what-
ever for the continuance of:the clauses to which he had so
strong and so justifiable an objection. The Hon. and Learned
Member went on to observe, that for a certain period of time
those counties had the greatest number of prmdial depreda-
tions in which there had been nothing like political agitation ;
and that, on the contrary, where political agitation had most
prevailed, there had been no depredations of the kind, and this
he accounted for by imagining that the people so long as hope
was held out to them by political agitation, abstained from crime,
and it was only when they were driven to despair that the fell pas-
sion of revenge was excited. He admitted that some portions of
this Bill were necessary for Ireland ; but whilst he did so he felt
called upon to repudiate and cast from him the foul and false
calumny that would connect the disturbances of Ireland with
political feelings or opinions. He would now inquire what
had been done by that House for Ireland ? No measure had
passed that House in favour of Ireland, save the stingy and
unsatisfactory Reform Bill, a Bill doubly unsatisfactory when
it was compared with what had been done in the way of re-
form both in England and Scotland.—( Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") The Hon. and Learned Member here referred to
the defective state of the registration of voters in Ireland, as
exemplified before the Election Committee for the county of
Monaghan. Nothing in the shape of redress was offered to
Ireland. He had, he thought, shown that these clauses were
unnecessary, and if he could get an assurance from his Ma-
jesty's Government that they would not prejudge these clauses
in the Committees, he would not divide the House upon the
second reading of this Bill. But if that assurance were not
given, he would certainly divide the House upon this motion.
He thanked the Government for the sacrifice they had made ;
and it afforded him no small pleasure that the Right Hon.
Member for Cambridge had stood by the rights of his fellow-
countrymen. Again he repeated, that unless he obtained some
assurance from the Government as to the objectionable clauses,
he would certainly divide the House upon the second reading
of the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, as he was of opi-
nion that a large majority of this House would support this Bill
in its present shape, he would not occupy much of their atten-
tion. It was merely his duty on this occasion to state the
scheme of the present Bill, which was to continue so much of
the late 13ill as was not repealed by the present Bill. He
considered,the 11th and 28th clauses to be absolutely neces-
sary, for it was highly important in the present state of Ire-
land that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of pro-
hibiting public meetings, where such meetings would be likely
to create disturbance or a breach of the peace. But beyond
that the Lord Lieutenant would have no power upon this sub-
ject. It was true that no meeting could take place unless no-
tice were first given to the Lord Lieutenant, or the Sheriff,
or Lord Lieutenant of the county ; but then the courtsmartial
clause was altogether repealed. If the two clauses objected
to by the Hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell) were not allowed to
remain, the Bill would be completely inefficient. If the
Lord Lieutenant exceeded his duty he would be liable to
impeachment. It was provided by this Bill, with the appro-
bation of the Hon. and Learned Member, that in proclaimed
districts no man should be out of his house after sun-set, or
before sun-rise ; and it is further provided, that inquiry
could be made by the police at all hours as to the persons
who resided in them. With regard to the 28th section, he con-
sidered it was misconstrued by the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin ; it did not relieve either soldiers or police from
an indictment at common law, if they were proved to be guilty
of any improper conduct. But when they acted bona
fide in
the discharge of their duty, then, and then only, were they to
be protected. The only persons who could profit by this
clause would be pettifogging attorneys, who should not be
encouraged.
Mr. LE FRO Y said he did not rise to oppose the second
reading of the Bill, but to call upon the Government to state
why it was that they had changed their opinions so suddenly
upon the severer clauses of this Bill, as it was originally intro-
duced ? He would not insist upon the necessity of re-enacting
these clauses ; but he called upon the Government to explain
to the House why they were omitted ? He should like to know
were there no persons in Ireland to be protected except Irish
priests and Irish farmers ? He thought the object of the Bill
was to protect all classes, and not to be applied exclusively to
the Catholics. He regretted extremely that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin had the Government of Ireland
in his hands, for the Government might depend upon it that
they would be pensioners upon the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man for their daily bread. In fact, they must either yield to
him here, or submit to his agitation in Ireland. The Govern-
ment, at present, were only tenants-at-will to the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin. It was not his purpose to op-
pose the second reading of this Bill, but he felt it to be his duty
to make these few observations.
Mr. RONA YNE said that this Bill was a mass of incon-
gruous nonsense. This Bill reminded him of an anecdote of
Pope, who said when he was irritated, " God mend me ;" and
the answer given to him was, " that it would be more easy to
make ten other men than to mend him." That would forcibly
apply to this Bill ; it would be easier to frame ten new Acts
than to mend this one. He objected to this Bill as despotic in
its tendency—and he would conclude by moving that this Bill
be read a second time this day six months.
The SPE AKER—Who seconds the motion ?
Mr. RUTH NT N said he would cheerfully second it. This
Bill was unjust and tyrannical—it was not necessary—no rea-
son had been given for its enactment, and, therefore, he would
oppose the Bill.

Mr. T. ATT W 0 OD wished sincerely that this Bill would be
withdrawn, as he was sure it would be beneficial to Ireland.
He told the Noble Lord opposite that the " lock of hair"
would destroy the weakness of the Government, and he was
afraid that he had yielded to Tory advisers. He denied that
political agitation had produced crime, for he could say of his
own knowledge that during his agitation in 1832, at Birmingham,
the very thieves and pickpockets had forsaken their occupation.
The poor creatures could not get wages, or pay their rent, and
you gave them this atrocious Bill as a means of enabling them
to pay their rents. The evidence was a proof that all the
prwdial agitation in Ireland originated in poverty. Govern-
ment knew it, and if they wished to put an end to it, they
must put an end to poverty. He thought it his duty most
cordially to support the amendment of the Hon. Member below.
Mr. WALKER said that it was monstrous that because
persons had committed political offences they should not be
amenable to the law of the land.

Mr. H. GRATTAN did not think that this Bill would be
a remedy or cure the disease. By any Bill so strong as this
you must stop any evil, but he denied that you could cure it.
Mr. CALLAGHAN approved of the omission of some of
the clauses, and regretted that some were still to be retained.
The House then divided—
For the second reading
Against it 25
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time.
On our return to the gallery we found
Lord DUDLEY STUART inquiring whether Ministers
intended to put off the Registration Bill; and if so, whether