The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-05 00:00:00

- -

tance at which these jurymen lived prom the assize,
been stated as an excuse for their nen-attendance._::

tiethen might give such dredenCe as they thought
excuse; but what 'would they. say .to the statement a
Majesty's ministers had received fidin good authorirrii
ly, that it was not expeCted that any jurors would °I
summons to attend the next assizes at Kilkeuilf,
much for the intimidation of jurors. He would 1107
to say a few words upon the intimidation of witne.r;
had already infornaled the houiie that many witi'eti
to quit the Queen's county on accoau
having given evidence before the special commissi°,
noble lord here read a long list of cases in which be,
witnesses had been intimidated, but in so indistiv
of voice that his words were only half heard in the'
The next point which he was called on to establish /
this bill was the meastire which ought to be adopted t(
the place and to remedy the defects of the ordinarY?,
*as afraid that ft would be necessary for him to
description of the main provisions of the bill, in order
how they applied to the grievances of which he coMPIt6I,
how they were calculated to protect the loyal and the
posed. He admitted that the most severe and °hiei!
part of the bill was that part of itwhich did away with
ny jury; and yet this was absolutely necessary to Pre,
terror of jurymen from saving criminals from cops'
cases where the evidence indisputably warranted a cot
A great many suggestions to get rid of this clause
made by persons who, though they admitted the tied
some new coercive measure, objected to the trial of an:

arrested under this bill witliouCthe intervention of a l

admitted that a military tribunal, as compared with a
bunal like that of a jury in criminal cases, was not a
to be defended in ordinary times; but he had heardm
suggestions proposed instead of this military tribune",
every one of those suggestions a military tribunal 04
opinion, preferable. It had been suggested that a juatro
size might be sent round the country to try these dist
the public peace without the assistance of a jury. No'el
it:appeared that the habituating the people to this nes!;
trial by a judge without the intervention of a jury would z
unconstitutional, and, as a precedent on the statute-boos
detrimental than the mode of trial suggested in the pres 6.
Another proposition was, that instead of a judge of ag"'
risters of a certain standing, appointed by the Crow%
try the prisoners without the intervention of a jury. Hell
that this proposition was even still more objectiontl
that of appointing a judge to act without the assis
jury. He thought that the proposal to give the eloi
power of appointing ds judges barristers, who might
decisions the stepping-stone to future promotion, was I°,
worse than the proposal to give it the power of appoint
judges, who were beyond the hope of promotion, to tb
ment-chair of, these new tribunals. He admitted that
bill there must be an unconstitutional exercise of VI
the government attempted, in a measure of this kind,
such a middle course as would accustom men to look at
out dislike and without disgust, they would inflict a go
chief upon the country, for they would leave it in the P
others to bring in such a measure more easily when the
sity for it was less urgent than at present, and when
measures might be adopted without injury. The
of this bill, which referred to Whitefeet outrages, was u
of it which was intended to prevent signals from beillf
and to punish those who made signals to warn the neil
hood that the police were moving. The provisions of I
on this point were adopted from those of the law for the I
tion of smuggling. These provisions were undoubtedly
as they compelled the accused party to prove a negative, 1
that he did not make the signals for a malicious or sedite
pose. They had, however, been adopted in the custol
therefore could not be blamed as an unconstitutional inn°
Another part, and indeed the only part of the bill which
extend to the whole of Ireland,—for the provisions Yib
had just been describing were only to extend to those Y
Ireland where outrages were actually going on, and 111/
district was proclaimed,—was nothing but a renewal of I
ditious Meetings Act. This part of it would extend to tla
of Ireland. It had been argued on the other side that th
no connection between the political agitation and the I
disturbances of Ireland. Some hon. gentlemen had eve
so far as to say, that the existence of political agitation
land was the means of preventing these outrages I'lloo,
committed. If gentlemen making the most violent and 0
matory speeches, agitating the country by fanciful stat°
of grievances which did not exist, and by exaggerated,
ments of grievances which did exist, thought that they co
lay the excitement which they thus created, by ending
speeches with cobweb pretences about their love of social,'
and their desire to have the King's peace preserved inr
—if gentlemen thought that they could thus easily soo
feelings which they had thus industriously irritated, the
little of human nature, and must be blind to the march
man passions, and ignorant of the accumulating force'
stricted resentment. The hon. and learned member for $
had repeatedly asserted that political agitation would put
these disturbances, and" had more than once insinuated'
was in his power to put them down. He should be sorry
lieve that of any man, and he would do the hon. and 0
member for Dublin the justice to say that he (Lord Altholl
•not believe it of him. He believed that if the hon. member fa
lin had possessed that power, he would long since have ese
it, for the benefit of the country which he professed to love s(
He then proceeded to contend, that the existence of s,
body as the Volunteers of Ireland was most objectionahl
unconstitutional. As they were to be made use of as aOl
engine, might they not be used as a means of infiuenco
vote of hon. members in that house ? When gentlemen
•
lected that appeals had already been made to these assoel
of volunteers, denouncing individual members of Parliani
deserters from the cause of their country (hear, hear,)
must surely see that never was there any institution
more imperatively required the careful superintendence °
house. The house would undoubtedly hear many declaral
upon the value of liberty which no man in that house /
venture to contradict; but was it a state of liberty which
land was then enjoying? Was it not rather a state of tell(
and despotism, and even anarchy, utterly imcompatible
true liberty? Liberty was not a mere name, its benefits',
palpable and tangible, and were seen in the protection wa
gave to life, and in the security which it conferred upon
petty. After some further observations, the noble lord
eluded by moving that the bill be read a third time.
Mr. TENNYSON had listened to the noble lord's state
without being at all convinced of the justice and policy 11,
,1
measure founded upon it. Had ministers given the ora
provisions of the law a fair trial before they proposed the e
vagant and fearful experiment of the present bill? Thor
not—though evidently bound to do so before they caned:
Parliament to • deprive a whole nation of the benefits o',
and constitutional liberty. (Hear.) Why not, he rep°
give the ordinary tribunals a fair trial, before adopting
extfaordinary measures as the abolition of trial by Jul
martial law ? What were the tender mercies which a el.
martial held out which would prevail over the fears of IP
evidence before a civil jurisdiction ? Was it the tender
of committing a witness who refused_to give-such answers $
court-martial might feel disposed to receive—that is to se,
he'refused to give evidence, saying that "he had no evide°
give,"—to prison for three months ? He would propoS
amendment on the noble lord's motion. He could asset'
noble lord that in doing so he had no feeling of hostilit:
wards him, or the government collectively, to indulge;
object was solely to induce the noble lord to pause ere fie
milted himself, the government, and, as it might be, t4setl
irrecoverably, in reference to a measure which no honest
could consider without alarm and regret. The right
gentleman concluded with moving, as an amendment, tha
bill be read a first time on that day fortnight.
Mr. Bo mull. was wholly opposed to the noble lord's ine°,
He conceived that it would aggravate the ills it was intend'
remedy; besides that, it would fail in attaining the
'outrage-suppressing-end contemplated by its framers.
hon. gentleman concluded a speech of considerable fore'
saying, that the surest way to prevent immoderate desires'
formed, and unjust demands enforced, was to grantii
season the moderate requests of justice.
Sir Jousi BYNG supported the motion of the noble lord,
said that the first duty of the government was to give the•ll
able and well-disposed protection. If that were not atio
how could allegiance be exacted.
Mr. GROTE said, that in supporting' the amendment 01
right hon. member for Lambelle he did so not from any
Way to the government, but to the measure itself, which
noble lord himself had declared to be arbitrary and despot'
Captain BERKELEY supported the motion, and depre°
the arts made use of to agitate Ireland.
Mr. FINN, as one of the agitators, wished to make a
observations. The whole cause of all the proceedings wash
traced to the government itself; and their after-vengeance
to be accounted for by the fact, that the people had, in sel'
them, elected honestmen, and not those whom they justly l°l
upon, as the bitter enemies of the country. The 111
wished to have nothing to do with those who now eel
Orangemen, and then paid their court to Catholics—who 111
time praised the loyalty of the yeomanry, and then excla
against their violence ;to answer their own purposes—to se.
their own, tenure of office. All the efforts that might 01,
erted to deprive the people 'of Ireland of their just rightsj
fail, Government might have recourse to gagging it