The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-19 00:00:00

his strong repugnance to continuing in the situation which he
had the honour of occupying.—( Hear.) Why he remained,
it was not necessary to state. That it had not been of his own
seeking, Heaven knew ; and whether it was prudent to desire
him to remain, he would leave it to the House to judge; but
he felt he should not have done justice to his own character,
had he not declared in the strongest possible manner his re-
luctance to remain in office. Having said thus much, he hoped
it would not offend the Noble Lord's feelings; nor the feelings
of any other party, if he spoke boldly and uncompromisinE,rly,
his opinions on the question before them. His Right Hon.
Friend, with the excellence of memory for which he was re-
markable, had adverted to a declaration made by him early
in the session. He was aware that be had made such a decla-
ration ; and he stated then what he was ready to state now, that
he did think the moral effect resulting from political agitation in
Ireland was most pernicious, and tended, if not to create, in
some measure to--he did not like to use the word sane-
tion"—but at least not to discountenance, these outrages.

But because he entertained this opinion, it 'by no means 'fol-
lowed that he would, therefore, feel the certainty that these
powers against meetings of a certain description, to put down
which those powers were, on the passing of the Act, imme-
diately and successfully applied, were necessary under existing
circumstances in Ircland.—( Hear.) He was not of that
opinion. There were two descriptions of meetings. It was
not in the contemplation of the law passed last Session to put
down meetings legally convened for legal purposes—holding
out no dangerous combinations, threatening no existing institu-
tions, the peace and order of society, or the connection be-
tween the two countries. Before this Act was passed, there
were two descriptions of illegal combinations—the Irish
Volunteers, and the National Trades' Unions—both highly
dangerous in their character—both holding central meetings
in Dublin, communicating with similar combinations in the
provinces, and thus enabling those individuals who would rule
the central meetings to direct the excited energies of the
whole of a discontented population to any object which they
might have in view. These combinations were altogether put
an end to, and from that time to the present no attempt had
been made to revive them.—( Hear, from Sir R. Peel.) He
understood the cheer of his Right Hon. Friend. No doubt
his Right Hon. Friend thought it was impossible to re-orga-
nize them, on account of this Coercion Bill.—( Hear, hear. )
Surely, then, if this argument were good for 1834, it would
be good for 1835 and 1836. They had now had fifteen
months' experience since these meetings were dissolved.
They had no occasion to increase these powers in that Act ;
and surely that was good reason for abandoning them, in the
full expectation that their revival would not again be ren-
dered necessary, the Government pledging itself, if it should
find itself disappointed, instantly to call Parliament together,
and ask a renewal of this law for two years. He certainly
could not deny that on the 15th of April Lord Wellesley re-
commended the unqualified renewal of these powers ; but an
interval of two months having elapsed, it appeared to him to
be his duty to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant again
to the subject. He submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, in
general terms, much the same arguments as he had addressed
to the House to-night ; and he said that he retained his opi-
nion that they would find great difficulty in carrying on the
business of the country during the remainder of the session, if
the retention of those clauses were insisted upon. In thus
expressing his fair and candid opinion, he was not aware that
he had taken any course inconsistent with his duty, his cha-
racter for (the remainder of the sentence was drowned
in loud cheers)—but he deeply regretted, that in taking that
step he had not previously consulted the matured judgment of
his Noble Friend then at the head of the Government ; but
not at that time feeling any certainty that the Lord Lieutenant
would agree with him, he did not sufficiently feel the import-
ance of making such a communication. He felt bound, how-
ever, to observe, that the precocious letter of Lord Wellesley,
and the evidence of Sir John Conroy, related to agricultural
disturbances principally, and were not specifically directed to
the class of disturbances which it was the object of this Bill to
put down. It was not his intention to have addressed the
House at such length ; he would not further trespass on them.

Lord H OW I C K should exceedingly regret to throw any
difficulty in the way of the Noble Lord ( Althorp) who sat
below him, whose Government he was not less anxious to sup-
port than when he had the honour of being an official secre-
tary ; but he still thought that, in what had just passed, there
were some points which required further elucidation. If he
committed any error, he trusted the House would bear with
him. He stood in a most difficult situation. He had been
unable to consult any one individual. With those of his
friends who remained connected with Government, delicacy
forbade his communicating or asking advice ; whilst still less
would he ask the advice which he most valued, because he
knew that the individual with whom he was most nearly con-
nected, and whose reputation, if anything, would throw a
cloud over it, which he did not think was the case—( Loud
cheers) he knew that individual would, out of delicacy,
have declined to speak of anything that might have affected
others. But he thought that in these matters delicacy might
be pushed too far.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") What he
remarked in the speech of his Right Hon. Friend who
had just sat down was this—he acknowledged the force of the
arguments which he had urged against those clauses, and
admitted that he had placed it in a point which rendered the
expediency of retaining them doubtful. But if his Right
Hon. Friend entertained these opinions--if he thought these
clauses unnecessary under existing circumstances, why did he
not bring that opinion under the notice of the head of the Go-
vernment prior to the 2:id June ? It had been stated by Lord
Grey in the House of Lords, aryl it had not been denied, that
shortly antecedent to that period, the question of the renewal
of the Coercion Bill was formally brought before the Cabinet.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, from his official situation, must
have known that it was to be so brought forward. Why did he
not get some member of the Cabinet to state his objections to
these clauses? But no—it was stated by his Noble Friend
below him, that the Cabinet came to the unanimous vote that
it should be renewed in the shape in which it stood, minus the
Courtmartial clause. On that decision, Lord Grey gave in-
structions to the Attorney-General, and the Bill was prepared.
What happened next? On the 23d June, his Lordship re-
ceived a letter from Lord Wellesley, directly at variance with
the whole tenour of his former correspondence, public and
private, with the Irish Government. Up to the moment
when Lord Grey broke the seal of that letter, he had not
the most distant guess or suspicion that his Right Honour-
able Friend was unfavourable to these clauses. Did his
Right Honourable Friend see the effect of this conduct
upon the Cabinet? Did he see, that in taking credit to
himself for popular views, and for an abhorrence of un-
constitutional measures, he was in effect, though not, perhaps,
by direct implication, throwing a censure on those who took a
different view of the case? He did not wish to enter further
into this subject ; but having perceived, on the part of many
Members of that House, a considerable disposition to throw
discredit on one with whom he was dearly connected.—(Loud
cries of " No, no.") He was sure such was not the feeling
of his Hon. Friends near him; but was not some such feeling
displayed when they were asked for three cheers for those who
had stood up for the people in the Cabinet ? just as though
those who had taken an opposite course had desired to trample
upon the people. He wished to put to his Right Hon. Friend
one simple question, and in asking it he should state that he
had studiously abstained from seeking any conference with
Lord Grey which might fetter him in any observations he
might think it right to make, and that he knew nothing under
the seal of secrecy which he should violate by asking this Ties-
tion. He would ask his Right Hon. Friend if, when this com-
munication took place which induced Lord Wellesley to change
his opinion, he made the communication simply by himself?
Was he the only person who suggested that alteration of opi-
nion, or did the suggestion take place in concert with others,
and unknown to the person at the head of the Government ?
He thought that, for the honour of all public men, this ques-
tion ought to be answered.
Mr. LITTLETON thought the Noble Lord was not mo-
rally entitled to put to him that question. It was not because
he had committed one indiscretion that he was, therefore, to
commit another.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He submitted that
he could not fairly be called on to answer such a question.—
( Cheers.) As to the delay in ,the expression of his opinion,
he understood the Cabinet to have made up their minds to re-
new the Bill as it was, except the Courtmartial clause.. He
did not feel himself justified in expressing his opinion till he
had ascertained whether the Lord Lieutenant had retained his
sentiments. And, indeed, his opinion of the non-necessity of
those clauses was not fixed till he came to make up the pa-
pers for Parliament, when he saw at once that they could not
sustain the application. On this he communicated with the
Lord Lieutenant, and had his answer been unfavourable, the
public would have heard nothing about it.
Mr. F. O'C ONN OR expressed his surprise that the fight
Hon. Gentleman would not answer the question. He was
sure that if he could have conscientiously denied the imputation
thrown out, he would have done so. The slight pretexts on
which the Bill was proposed were quite laughable. Nothing
was ever done by the Legislature for the benefit of Ireland. It
was contended by some that the Reform Bill had benefitted
Ireland ; but he called upon any man who knew Ireland to look
at all the classes of the population of that country, and to tell
him how the condition of any one of those classes had been
bettered by reform. Before they coerced the people of Ireland
would it not be just—would it not be wise, to give the
people of that country something, to which, after that
coercion had ceased, they might return with pleasure ?
But would it be a temporary coercion ? It was clear that
the late Cabinet had meditated a measure of great severity
against Ireland, and its headless trunk might yet coerce Ire-
land permanently, as had been threatened by the Noble Lord.
The Coercion Bill, even if suspended, would henceforward
always be kept as a rod of tyranny over the heads of the pea-
santry of Ireland by their landlords. He well remembered the
tyranny that had been occasioned in Ireland in 1825, by the
Duke of York's speech on emancipation ; which speech had
been printed in gold, framed, and hung over the mantel-piece
of every Orange landlord in the country, by whom it was re-
ferred to for the purpose of keeping down the peasantry.
Sent to that House as he (Mr. O'Connor) was, by the largest
"county in Ireland, he would never consent that the principles
of the constitution should be destroyed in the persons of the
peasantry of Ireland. He knew not what precise course the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin would adopt with res-
pect to this measure ; but he trusted that, if the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman did not oppose it altogether, he would
endeavour in the Committee to get rid of some of the harsh-
ness of its provisions. For himself (Mr. O'Connor), he would
oppose the bill that night, if he walked out of the House alone,
for he could never consent to coerce a starving population.
He must say that Government had no more his confidence now
than they had before they were remodelled.
Mr. BARRON considered the proposed Bill to be a pro-
tective measure against those lawless ruffians, who, having
neither character nor property to lose, attacked the lives and
property of all the respectable classes of society in Ireland.
Such being his opinion of the measure, it was unnecessary for
him to add, that he thought it was one which every honest
man ought to support. ( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) • He

could easily understand why the measure was not palateablc to
the Right Hon. Gentleman near him, who had once been Chief
Secretary for Ireland. That Right Hon. Gentleman wished
for something more arbitrary. His disposition had been evinced
by the mad acts which had nearly produced rebellion in Ire-
land ; and it was not unnatural that his disappointed ambition
should not relish such a measure as the present. He (Mr.
Barron), however, was confident that the measure would give
great satisfaction to the people of Ireland. At the same
time he must declare; that he would have given the Bill his
strongest opposition, if it had been brought forward in that
House in the shape in which it had been introduced into the
House of Lords. The conduct of his Majesty's present Go-
vernment with respect to the measure, had been perfectly jus-
tifiable and laudable. Indeed, it was impossible that they could
think of bringing the measure forward in the same shape ; for
it was evident that as soon as it became known in Ireland that
the Lord Lieutenant and five Members of the Cabinet were op-
posed to the severer provisions ofithe Bill, it would have been im-
practicable to carry those provisions into effect. He trusted that
from the present time a milder and a better mode of governing
Ireland would be resorted to than that which had been hitherto
practised. All measures of severity had totally failed in go-
verning that country. Was it not time to have recourse to a
new system—to a system founded upon affection, honesty, and
common sense ? Was it not time to try to govern Ireland
like England? That he was persuaded would be the only
way to render the people of Ireland attached to the Govern-
ment. The Irish were a high-minded, a talented, and a brave
people; they were determined to he free, and God forbid that
they should ever show themselves to be unworthy of the free-
dom which they sought. He repeated that he should give his
support to the present Bill, but only as a temporary measure,
passed for the purpose of putting down temporary disturb-
ances. He hoped that before the next session of Parliament
his Majesty's Government would be prepared, not with one,
two, or three, but with a long series of measures, for the im-
provement of the condition of Ireland ; for it would be found
that a long series of measures would be indispensably neces-
sary to remove the existing- and varied causes of discontent.
He agreed to the Bill, because he wished to protect lives and
property, now in danger ; but he did not agree to it for the
purpose of supporting a system in Ireland which must be
totally eradicated before that country could be placed in a
condition in which it ought to be.
Mr. CLAY thought that the papers on the table afforded
ample justification for the Bill, deprived of the clauses which
were formerly annexed to it ; but he could not see in those
papers the slightest justification for those clauses. Those
papers afforded no proof of political disaffection, but they
afforded ample proof of the distress of the population. He
had sought in vain in them for evidence of any connexion
between agrarian disturbance and political disaffection. He
congratulated the House on the return to power of a Govern-
ment which, professing liberal feelirgs and opinions, was en-
titled to their support. As to the changes that had taken
place in a few of the individuals of that Government, he did
not think that that House or the public had , much to do with
them. They ought to look only at the measures which were
pursued. Indeed, the day had almost gone by when indivi-
duals could add to the strength of Government. That was
now a weak Government which attacked the popular will and
intelligence ; that was now a strong Government which ac-
corded with the popular will and intelligence. He trusted that
the present Government would avail themselves of alit* ad-
vantages which Parliamentary Reform afforded them for car-
rying a temperate and conciliatory, but a firm spirit of reform
into all the various departments of the public service.
O'C ONNOR DON could not support the Bill in its present
shape. If it did not undergo the modifications in the Com-
mittee to which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
had adverted, he must undoubtedly vote against it. He con-
gratulated them, however, on the different tone which pre-
vailed in the House on this Bill, in comparison with that which
existed on the introduction of the Coercion Bill of last Session.

Mr. H. BUL WE R could not refuse his approbation to
the greatest part of the Bill then before the House. It was
highly gratifying to find that a measure having the same ten-
dency as the Bill of last year, could still be moderated in so
material a degree. Though he admitted that great distress
prevailed in some parts of Ireland, still he must beg to assert
that such distress furnished no reasen whateverlwhy they should
not protect property.—( Hear. )
Mr. RUTHVEN said, that modified as the Bill was, he
must still vote against it, as it authorized a material interfe-
rence with the rights of the people, by debarring them in cer-
tain cases of the power of petitioning the King and Parliament.
He must express hie surprise at what had been asserted by
gentlemen on the ministerial benches as to the favourable view
which was taken of the Coercion Bill in Ireland. He was
satisfied, if such opinions had been expressed, they came from
individuals having the passport of the Solicitor-General and
the police, and not from the really independent gentry of the
country. He must, however, express his great delight at the
course which Ministers professed themselves anxious to pursue
in Ireland, assuring them that in granting justice to his coun-
trymen, they would be certain of a grateful return.
Mr. CHRISTMAS was understood to oppose the Bill on
the ground of the omission of the three clauses, when the same
necessity of coercion which existed last year prevailed at the
present period.
Mr. SHE IL said he was not aware that in the part of Ire-
land with which the Hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Bar-
ron) was connected, and in which he justly exercised a consi-
derable influence, the peasantry were particularly solicitous to
have the locks turned on their hovels, or a power given to the
Government to suppress the public voice. But the real ques-
tion before the House was this, had the Noble Lord the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, or had he not, made out a case to jus-
tify the House in passing the Bill then under consideration ?
He (Mr. Sheil) answered that the Noble Lord had not made
out such a case—that he had not brought forward sufficient
evidence to induce the House to consent to another violation of
the constitution of the country. Was the measure a violation
of the constitution ? The Noble Lord must answer with him
(Mr. Shiel) that it was. But it seemed that Ministers had
been wrong in their first views with respect to the Bill—by
their subsequent conduct they admitted this, for they gave up
one Bill for the purpose of introducing another. If they had
been wrong in supporting the whole Bill, might they not be
also wrong in supporting a portion of it? Should they not,
after such changes, doubt their own judgments ? Last year
they had marshalled their forces—summoned all their friends—
expended all their eloquence in demonstrating the utter impos-
sibility of carrying on the Government of Ireland, and main-
taining anything like tranquillity without drum-head justice—
they had condemned all those who denounced such a provision
—and yet they now found, after all, that they were in the
wrong. Again he asked, ought they not to doubt their own
judgment ? In the year 1830, when Ministers came into office,
and when nocturnal fires were blazing throughout the country,
what would have been thought of them if they had brought in
a Coercion Bill like the one before them, on the evidence of
whom?
of Counties ? No. Of the Judges of the land? No. Of
Of the magistracy? No. Of the Lord Lieutenants
the Grand Jurors ? No,—but the evidence of
policemen—of men whose testimony should at all times be
taken with caution—who drew their livelihood from the
Government on which they were ever impressing the ne-
cessity of maintaining their own authority.—( Hear, hear. )
Then as to the imperfections of the existing Bill. They had
extended its provisions over the county and city of Kilkenny ;
and when the people had applied for permission to hold a pub-
plic meeting to express their opinions on the tithe question, the
Castle of Dublin had refused the request. And did they mean
this power still to be given ? Did they mean to allow the Lord
Lieutenant the power of suppressing a meeting in districts
which had been proclaimed 1 Why, this was an easy way, in-
deed of gagging public opinion. Let it be but rumoured that
a public meeting was to be held in such and such a
place, and all the Lord Lieutenant had to do to hinder unplea-
sant truths from coming to the ears of the Government, was to
proclaim the district ; and when applied to for permission to
hold the meeting, to refuse it, as he had done in the instance
of Kilkenny. Without even giving a reason, the Lord Lieu-
tenant could do, by these indirect and unworthy means,
that which he would blush to do by a direct course.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) Therefore, he (Mr. Sheil) submitted
two propositions—that there was no evidence to justify
the Bill ; and the Lord Lieutenant was armed with a
power insidiously to do that which openly and directly he
would shrink from dointr. Why, the Government had ad-
mitted the grievances of Ireland ; the Noble Lord the Pay-
master of the Forces (Lord John Russell) had himself de-
clared there could be no greater injustice than that under
which the Catholics of Ireland laboured in having to maintain
in enormous wealth, a church in whose doctrines they did not
believe. Now what he ( Mr. Sheil) required them to do, was
to redress first; and if obedience to the law did not follow,
then to coerce. A pretty strong hint had been thrown out in
the other House by the Noble Viscount at the head of the
Government, of his intention, at whatever season, of summon-
ing Parliament, should the state of Ireland require that fur-
ther powers should be vested in the Government. Now this
was in fact a threat. But if the Noble Viscount was prepared
to take this step, why not let the present Bill stand over, and
if the necessity arose, call Parliament together ? Prandial dis-
-1 turbance did not now exist to any great extent. Let them
try over till next Session ; if the necessity arose in the inter-
' mediate space, then let them be called together to legislate
for the emergency. If this held good in the one case, why
not in the other ? Ministers themselves acknowledged that
juries did their duty; and if this Was the case, why not allow
the law of the land to take its course ? Why suspend the
course of the constitution? The present Administration were
adopting the old policy which they themselves had so often
reprobated. He felt it his bounden duty to vote against the
Bill in the first stage. He knew that there would be a large
majority against him, but he trusted he should receive general
support in his endeavours to modify the Bill in Committee.
Mr. A I3E RCR OMB Y said that the speech of the Hon.
Member for Tipperary appeared to have been delivered by
him in the character of a lawyer rather than that of a legisla-
tor. With respect to the change of opinion which took place
in the mind of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that was con-
fined to the three clauses which it was not now proposed
to continue. With regard to the other provisions of the Bill,
the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant remained unchanged ;
and it was entirely the argument of a lawyer, when it was at-
tempted to show that because there had been one change of
opinion, it was not unlikely that another might take place.
He (Mr. Abercromby) considered it very remarkable, that the
Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Sheil) had seriously ventured at that
late stage of the discussion, to argue that no case had been
made out to justify the proposal of the Bill before the House.
He asked the House whether such a case had not been clearly
proved ? In the first place, he would refer to the report upon
the state of Ireland, which was presented to the House in
1832, and which report had been mentioned with so much re-
spect by several Hon. Members. He was prepared to main-
tain, in concurrence with the Hon. Gentleman who presented
that report, that there did exist h most lawless spirit in Ire-
land ; and that it was likely to continue, because it arose out
of the tae of society in that country. Whole counties, and ,