The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-14 00:00:00

by the experience of every man—borne out by the report
on their table—borne nut by the declaration of the Lord
Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland. That re-
cital which be had read was falsifying the statements made
by the judges of the land. He defied any one to show
him an instance where the special commission had not
produced the effect which he had stated. He should
move, that after the words " that the preamble be post-
poned," there be added these words " the same containing
an untrue recital."
Mr. CORBETT said the preamble of every Bi'l ought
to be strictly true. He recollected a Bill with which he
was connected having been brought before the Lords.
The first thine their Lordships did was to inquire whether
the preamble of the Bill was true. He proved that it was
not true, or rather he threw it on the opposite party to
show that it was true. This could not be done, and
their Lo! dships proceeded ne further in the business. He
had examined the preamble of this Bill, and in his opinion
every word contained in it was false. Would a Reformed
Parliament, as it was called (and sometimes, he believed,
in jest), proceed to take away the liberties of Ireland—to
dispense with the functions of judges and juries in that
country, without any proof of the necessity of such a
measure? He trusted that they would not do so. He
should heartily second the amendment, and he hoped that
the Hon. nod Learned Gentleman would divide the House
on the question, and carry his point.
Mr. CHAPMAN opposed the amendment. He had
sufficient confidence in his Majesty's Minister to indulge
in the hope that they would nut pass the Bill without some
qualifications.
Mr. O'DWYER condemned the preamble as untrue.
He appealed to all acquainted with Ireland to say whether
a conspiracy against the rights of property prevailed there?
They would, he was confident, declare that rents were
never better paid than at present. Had tithes been spoken
of, the case would have been different. He admitted that
diet e was in Ireland a fixed, settled, detertoined resolution
(which he heartily applauded) not to pay tithes. There
was another part of that preamble to which he objected.
It spoke of " meetings and assemblies inconsistent with
the public peace and safety." Now, he would aver that
the meetings here a luded to as being held in Ireland were
not contrary to the public peace and tranquillity. The
effect of this Bill would be to put down in Ireland that
system which had saved the country from a sanguinary re-
volution—lie meant the right to petition for a redress of
grievances.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON should vote against the amend.
ment. There was, however, one part of the Bill to which
he was opposed. He did not approve of giving over any
portion of his Majesty's subjects to a military tribunal.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the preamble set forth that
" the laws now in force in Leland are inadequate to the
prompt and effectual suppression of disturbance.'' But
if the report to which he had referred were true, if the
statement of the Chief Justice were correct, then there
was no ground for the preamble, nor for the Bill. He
had not been contradicted in his statement, and he defied
any man to contradict him.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR would support the amendment,
on the ground taken by the Hon. and Learned Member
ftr Dublin—namely, that there was no foundation for the
recital. He, as a barrister, had opportunities of seeing
many criminal cases, and he never knew any want of
witnesses or of jurors.
Mr. STANLEY would read one sentence from the
preamble of the Bill, and a short passage from the re port
of the Committee on the State of Ireland, and having
done so, lie should leave it to the House to determine how
far the assertion of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin, that the preamble was negatived by the report,
could he considered to be borne out by the facts of the case.
The preamble stated, that—" whereas the laws now in
force in Ireland have been found inadequate to the prompt
and effectual suppression of the said mischiefs." This alle-
gation was said to contain a statement which was at va-
riance with fact, and the report of the Committee; and it
was asserted that the laws were adequate to the " prompt
and effectual suppression of the mischiefs," including not
only " outrages against persons and property," but " dan-
gerous associations," which, be it remembered, never
formed part of the inquiry undertaken by the Commit-
tee; therefore their report could not negative that por-
tion of the preamble, even though it should be found to be
at variance with the rest—a thing he utterly denied. The
Committee state in their report " that although it is quite
true, as has been stated by the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench, in his charge to the grand jury of the Qaeen's
County, that the ordinary and regular laws have been found
sufficient to put down the various Whiteboy associations
which have from time to time existed, it is equally true
that in every instance every association has made itself
complete masters of the county where it bas been formed,
and committed all kinds of crimes and enormities with
impunity, for a considerable period before the enforcement
of the powers of the law has produced a remedy." Could
it be said, after this, that the report negatived the allega-
tion " that the liws now in force had been found inade-
quate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the mis-
chiefs?" But the report proceeded—" In point of fact,
although the law has, in general, proved sufficiently strong
and effectual for the ultimate suppression of Wbitehoy
associations, it has not been effectual in affording protec-
tion to the public against being exposed to the crimes and
atrocities of those conspiracies for a considerable period
previous to their being completely repressed." Would
any man tell trim, after thie, that the report negatived the
preamble in its statement, that " the existing laws were
not adequate to the prompt and effectual" (those were the
two emphatic words) " prompt and effectual suppression of
the mischiefs?"—(Cheers.) No: it could not be pre-
tended that they were. If the Committee thought the
existing law adequate for the suppression of the mischief,
why did they recommend the Legislature to streugthen its
lowers?—(Hear.) If it was then necessary to arm the
Government with additional strength, it was now et

mere necessary to do so. Thus, instead of the preamble
being conirailicred, it was fully borne out and strengthened
by the authority quoted by the Hon. and Learned Member
fur Dublin.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME was of opinion that the report did contra-
dict the preamble. Who w:is to blame if those unlawful
associations gained strength ?—the Magistrates and Go-
vernment, who were remiss in not putting them down
immediately. Did the Committee recommend such an
atrocious measure as this? No ; they suggested the utility
of special commissions. With rig.rd to the question be-
foie the House, it related to the postponement of the
preamble (which was the usual practice), in order to
snake it correspond, at a future peliod, with the causes
who li should be agreed on in Committee. He submitted
to his Le o net! Friend that the present was not the time
to affirm or contradict the all. gations of the preamble, and
that lie would do well to withdraw his amendment, and
allow the preamble to be postponed with a view to pro-
ceed to the clauses which must ultimately govern the
preamble.
Mr. O'CONNELL was willing, in conformity with the
recommendation or his Hon. Friend the Member for Mid-
dlesex, to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. H. GRATTAN asked the Right lion. Secretary
to say, fairly and explicitly, whether it was meant to
collect titles by means of this Bill ?—(Hear.)
Mr. STANLEY said it was not the intention of Go.
vernment to make this Act in any way available for the
enforcement of any civil process, whether for the recovery
of rent or tithes.—(Hear.) He had also stated that the
mere opposition to the payment of tithes would not alone
bff.rd a reason for the introduction of this Act into any
particular district, but that in cases where it had been in-
troduced the property of the clergy had as much right to
be protected by it as the property of any other individuals,
and that protection would he afforded by this Act.
Mr. J. GRATTAN had no doubt, after this explana-
tion, that the Act was to be applied to the collection of
tithes. lie maintained that there was no "conspiracy
against the rights of property," with the exception of
tithe property ; and asked the Right Hon. Secretary, to
state what he considered to be the other rights of pro-
perty that were invaded in Ireland ? What did the Right
Hon. Gentleman mean by rights of property ? Against
tithes, be repeated, there did exist a conspiracy, and if
the Right lion. Secretary would introduce the word
" tithes" into the preamble, lie (Mr. Grattan) would
support that part of it, but he never could be brought to
affirm that " property" generally was attacked. Let the
House understand the preamble as being (exclusive of
its application to public meetings) solely directed against
canspiraties in opposition to tithes, and against nothing else.
Mr. STANLEY—The Hon. Gentleman asked him
" what he considered to be the rights of property ?" Ile
was perfectly prepared to answer the Hon. Gentleman.
He considered it to be a right of property that a man
should be allowed to let his own land to whom he pleased.
(Hear, hear.) He considered it to be a right of property
tout a marl should be permitted to take land from whom
he pleased.—(Hear.) It was a right of property to cul-
tivate land as a man pleased.—(Hear.) It was a right
of property that a man should be maintained in the safe
and secure enjoyment of his dwelling and his land, with-
out being exposed to the incursions of nightly marauders
and murders, terrifying the peaceable inhabitants, burn-
ing their houses over their heads, dragging them from
their beds, murdering them at their doors, and parading
the roads and highways by night and by day in the com-
mission of every atrocity.—(Loud cheering.) Rights of
property ! Had the Hon. Gentlenaan read the accounts
recently received of a murder committed within these few
drys ? A Roman Catholic gentleman had been brutally

massacred in the noon day in the county of Kilkenny, on
the borders of Waterford, near the residence of the Mem-
ber for the city of Waterford—that Hon. Member who
denied the existence of disturbance in his part of the
country. This unfortunate gentleman, who was described
to be a moat inoffensive man, was met on the high road
by a party of ruffians, between twelve and one o'clock in
the day, in the county mentioned. (A Member said that
the murder took place near New Ross, in the county of
Waterford.) It mattered not as to the precise spot; be
believed the transaction happened at a place on the borders
of Kilkenny, Waterford, and Tipperary, but, be repeated,
the circumstance was not material. Suffice it to say the
murder was committed on the high road. in the noon day,
on an inoffensive, liberal, and indulgent landlord, without
intormation or assistance being rendered by any. This
gent:einan was brutally massacred, and after hi• death his
head was so be sten with stones that his features could not
be distinguished ; and the gig in which he travelled was
suspended by the side of the road, as a sign and intimation
of the scene of blood to all who passed by. What was
this gentleman's offence? He had ventured to eject a
tenant two years ago, and was about to put in a distr tint
for rent on t' e following day; but on all hands it seemed
to be admitted that he was a harmless and inoffensive
man, and a good landlord. Was this an interference
with the rights of property? Let it he observed that the
act for which this unfortunate gentleman had been btu.
tally murdered was a simple enforcement of rent, with-
out any features of oppression or harshness—it was no
case of tithes. The act interfered with the right of every
man to the peaceable possession of the highway. " Here
is a murder openly committed in mid d ry, with no cause
of provocation except the enforcement of a legal right.
Tell me, after this, that with the exception of tithes,
there exists no conspiracy against the rights of property
—(Loud cheers)—and that murders and outrages such
as this may be put down by the ordinary powers of the
law." (The narrative of this murder produced a very
powerful impression on both sides of the House, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks elicited loud
and protracted cheers.)
Mr. SHEIL said that be, and those by whom he was
surrounded, fully concurred in the sentiments, feelings,
and opinions, manifested by the Right Hon. Gentleman
upon this subject ; and no doubt there was in this case an
invasion of the rights of property, if the causes that led 'o
the murder had been rightly stated. But did the fact,
striking as it was, bear out the preamble, in so far as
related to a failure in the administration of justice under
the ordinary powers of the law ? The murderers might
yet be convicted without resorting to extraordinary expe-
dients. Passing from this point, he called on the Noble
Lord to introduce his promised clause for preventing the
application of the Bill to any case of collection of tithes.
—(Hear.) He complained that the Right Hon. Secre-
tary only adopted such a portion of the report as he
thought suitable to his purpose, at the same time that be
introduced a measure never contemplated by the Com-
mittee. He took the liberty, with great respect, of ask-
ing the Right Hon. Secretary whether, as far as a Judg-
ment could yet he formed from the result of the assizes
now taking place, he conceived that justice had or had
not been fairly and fearlessly administered ?—(Cheers.)
Lord ALTHORP said that a good deal of confusion
had been produced by the different subjects and questions
introduced to the notice of the House on this occasion.
WWII respect to the answers of his Right Hon. Friend to
the Member for Wicklow, his Right Hon. Friend did not
mean to apply the case quoted to the particular part of
the preamble referred to by the Learned Member for Tip.
perary. The Hon. Member for Wicklow had asked his
Right Hon. Friend for some proof of a conspiracy or
attack against rights of property other than those involved
in a resistance to tithes; and in reply to the demand,
his Right Hon. Friend stated a case of murder which had
no connexion with tithes, but which did involve an attack
upon another description of property. Doubtless the
preamble was not founded on this case, which had hap-
pened since the framing of the Act, but Minist rs did
found the preamble on the general state of the country,
—murder being referred to among other crimes,—
and this recent instance of murder showed that
the state of the country remained the same as
it was when the Bill was framed ; consequently,
that the provisions then called for were still necessary.
—(
Hear, hear.) He had stated before, and he now stated
again, that it was not the intention of Ministers to use the
Bill for the collection of tithes ; but if gentlemen supposed
him to have said (what be never did say) that this Bill was
not to be used to prevent outrages and crimes committed
or produced by resistance to tithes (as well as to repress
crime and outrage in general), they were very much snis-
taken.—(Cbeers from both sides of the House.) The
Bill was for the protection of the peaceable, and the sup-
pression of crime, and if crime were produced by re-
sistance to tithes, that, as well as every other species of
crime, must be put down.—( Hear.) With respect to the
assizes now in progress, if he were not misinformed,
though there might have been some convictions fur offences
described in the Bill at the assizes, the outrages were still
going on, and it could not he affirmed that the assizes had
been success'ul in the repression of crime.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the question raised was,
whether the Bill wa, not, in truth end in fact, a Tithe Bill,
though it embraced some other objects ? Ile was of
opinion that it was a Tithe Bill. What had all the meetings
referred to in the preamble, and which it was sought by
this Bid to repress—what had they been held for if not
for the abolition of tithes?
Mr. SHAW confirmed the statement of the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) respecting the late atro-
cious murder in the county of Waterford, and read a
letter which he had received that tley from a respectable
gentleman residing in the neighbourhood where the out-
rage had been perpetratr d. The writer stated, that the
mode in which the ruffians committed the murder mani-
festly proved that they were certain that no witnesses
would date to come forward against them hereafter, should
they be apprehended. The murder was perpetrated on
the very property of the unfortunate gentleman who was
thrir victim, in a valley surrounded by a thickly inha-
bited district, on the high road to Waterford, and not two
miles from the town of New Rose, at 2 o'clock in the
slay, and while all the people of the neighbourhood were
at work in the adjoining fields. It was under these
circumstances, obviously conscious of certain impunity,
that these wretches battered out the brains of
this unfortunate gentleman ; and did not such a
fact, he would ask, go strongly to show that Ireland
was at present in such a state of anarchy and in-
subordination, that it was absolutely necessary to
give additional powers to the Government for the purpose
of putting down such outrageous proceedings?—(General
cries of " Hear, hear," and cries of " No, no," from
several of the Irish Members.) The House was not now
called upon to put down the law in Ireland by passing this
measure. The law was actually put down there and laid
prostrate by those ruffians—by those perpetrators of every
species of outrage and crime; and the question now was,
not whether the House should put down the law, but
whether it should raise it up, vindicate its powers, and
crush its daring and hitherto unpunished violators.—
(Hear.) In proof of the disturbed state of the country,
the Hon Member read an extract from a charge recently
delivered by Baron Smith to the Grand Jury of the
county of Armagh, and he then proceeded to say, that
though it was alleged by the advocates of the measure

that a calm now prevailed in some of the formerly most
disturbed districts in Ireland, it was a treacherous calm,
and such as should not induce the House to pause in its
present course. They should not mistake the hollow
sounds of peace for its real and proper establishment. A
pretty peace it was that such a pacificator as Mr. Steele
id been sent forth eo preach !—(A laugh.) The
Hon. Member here read a passage from a recent article in
the Dl,blin Pilot, in which it was stated that the efforts
of " Tom Steele" to re-establish tranquillity in Kilkenny
had been attended with the most marvellous success—
that a few days since he had, at their own desire, paid a
visit to the prisoners confined for Whitefoot offences in
the Kilkenny gaol, anti that they premised to have all
their arms given up, and to do all that O'Connell wished
them to do to restore peace and tranquillity i❑ . that
county.—(Hear, hear.) Was he (Mr. Shaw), he would
ask, and the other peaceably disposed inhabitants of Ire•
land, to be indebted to the efforts of this seditious maniac,
and a parcel of felons confined in Kilkenny gaol, for the
re-establishment of peace and good order in their unfor-
tunate country ?—(Loud cries of " Heir, hear.") Why,
such a state of things was infinitely worse than an open
state of war. He, for one, would not be indebted for
the preservation of his life and property to the breath of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. If the Hon.
Gentleman could give them peace he surely could destroy
it—he was at least as powerful to do evil as to do good,
and he (Mr. Shaw), for one, would never consent that
tee peace of Ireland should be dependent upon his man-
d ites.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL very much doubted whether it was
becoming on the part of a Judge of the land to pursue
the course which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was
now pursuing. In the first place, he called a gentleman
who was under prosecution by the Government, and whose
trial would probably take place upon the very day that
the report of this debate would arrive in Dublin—he
called that gentleman a "seditious maniac." Was it a
far-fetched conclusion to suppose that such an invective
might have its influence upon the Jury that would have
to try that gentleman? In the next place, the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman thought proper to cast the mint