rickshaugh. At Kilkenny, persons summoned as jurors were called three times, and, on pain of fines of from 10% to 50%.; and it was not till the third call, when the fine of 50%. would have been imposed, that a jury could be impanelled. A gentleman wrote to the government in January, 1833, that he could not attend the next assizes; that he cared not what fine was imposed; he knew what the consequence would be, if he did; that, whatever might be the guilt of the prisoner, he dared not find him guilty. That was the state of things in Kilkenny, and in many parts of the province of Leinster, and yet it was said there was no violence or obstruction of the ordinary course of the law.

Passing to the nature and character of the remedy, Mr. Stanley combated the opinion of Mr. Grote, that military tribunals were not the proper bodies to be employed. It was true, that the committee of last year had recommended a tribunal, consisting of the magistrates of the neighbourhood, sitting at quarter sessions, and having power to sit by adjournment, from time to time, till tranquillity was restored. But if there was anything which, more than another, was objected to and opposed at former periods, it was the proposition to confide the administration of such a law to the local magistracy; and this he well knew, that it had been over and over again asserted, that it would be a most objectionable thing to confide the execution of such a law to the hands of the local resident magistracy. They had been accused-he was far from saying that they had been rightly accused-of perverting the objects of such a law to their own purposes -to their own private ends. It

did not signify whether these charges were well-founded or not; it would be still no less an evil that such an impression should generally prevail, and that, after the necessity for the law in question had been removed, and its execution had ceased, such feelings should be engendered amongst the peasantry towards the resident magistracy, and that they should look upon them as persons who had perverted a law, which was absolutely and indispensably required for the re-establishment of the public peace, to their own private ends, for the purpose of oppressing and tyrannizing over them. Again, however desirable it might be that criminal offences should be tried before a civil judge, yet he saw infinite danger in constituting the tribunal of barristers proposed, substituted for that which was to be established under this bill. However well disposed they would be to do their duty, they would be open to the suspicion of seeking to please the government in their decisions, and they would be the more especially exposed to the popular suspicion, owing to the fact that a great many of the members of the Irish bar entertained a political bias (and he did not blame them for doing so) opposed to that of the people at large. Such a barrister would be at once suspected of going against the popular party, and, however pure and just his decisions might be, they would lose that weight and that influence which it was most important that they should possess, and the imputation of political partiality would be attached to everything that he did. would say, that, if they were to depart from the ordinary law of the land, that departure should be

He

so broad, should be so marked, that there would be no possibility of mistaking it. They should not, as it were, slide out of the constitution, and, by an easy transition, render their departure from it almost imperceptible, so that it would be made available as a precedent upon some future occa

sion.

The debate was continued on the 28th of February, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th of March; the Irish members threatening to have recourse to repeated motions of adjournment, if any attempt was made to close the discussion in a manner which they might think premature. The opposition was made up of those members who thought that the bill ought to be resisted altogether, as well as of those who thought that at least the delay involved in the amendment should be conceded. Messrs. Sheil, O'Connor, Grattan, Baldwin, Barron, O'Dwyer, Ruthven, among the Irish representatives, and Messrs. Romilly and Harvey, majors Beauclerk and Fancourt, among the English members, contended, that no necessity for the bill had been made out to any extent, much less to the effect of utterly destroying the constitution over the whole of Ireland; that the "predial agitation" as it was called, had no connection with political agitation, and did not in itself require any measure like this to put it down; that the true cause of these disturbances was the refusal of ministers to abolish tithes, and the true object of it to prevent all expression of public sentiment in Ireland against their faithlessness and misgovernment. The bill was unnecessary, for all authentic evidence was against either its necessity or its efficacy.

The House would be abandoning its duty if it proceeded to pass the bill on anonymous and ex-parte information communicated to the Irish government for to the House they were anonymous.-Sir Hussey Vivian, the commander of the forces in Ireland, when examined before the committee of last year, said, "The combination is directed against tithes at present, and if you could satisfactorily arrange the tithe question, you would, I should hope, have Ireland pretty quiet. I think it is in other respects as quiet as it was twenty years ago. Get rid of the first cause of excitement, and you will tranquillize Ireland in spite of agitation." Yet the government complained of a special commission having failed in the Queen's County, while it was ensuring its failure, if it did fail, by enacting bad laws, and refusing all good ones. It was stated in the evidence of Mr. Barrington, the Crown solicitor, that the ordinary law is quite adequate to every purpose; and the chief justice's address crowns the whole, in which he expresses his conviction that the actual law will meet every purpose. The Attorney-General too, threw in his attestation to the firmness of the juries, and declared, that a conviction had taken place in thirty-eight cases out of thirtynine. The government had admitted, in this very debate, that not a single juror had been injured, and that every jury but one did its duty. Was this a reason for abolishing all juries? But the Carrickshaugh jury did perform its duty. Who, that was not present, could venture to say it did not? Who could judge of a witness without seeing him undergo the scrutiny of cross-examination? A

look, a quiver, a faltering of the utterance, might decide a jury. The first Carrickshaugh trial was during the winter of 1832. The committee on the state of Ireland reported in August. Not one word was said of the unfairness of the jury. There were trials for combination against tithes in Dublin, Clonmel, Kerry, Cork, and in every one case convictions were obtained. Summon the gentry of the country; fine them if they do not attend, with an exemplary intimation of their duty, and they will not fail to throng the ordinary tribunals of the county. Provide your witnesses with due protection; let them emigrate, if needful, and you will have nothing to dread. The proposers of the bill had given only one side of the case. When they harrowed up the feelings of the House by reciting such murders as those of Marum, Potts, and Gregory, they carefully kept out of sight the provocations which led to these atrocities. If they had read the evidence given before the committee, they would have found it to contain the gross acts of tyranny which had been perpetrated on the peasantry during the last three years, and which had at last goaded them on to the perpetration of these lamentable outrages. The witnesses stated, that Mr. Gregory had got possession of the property of these poor people; that he had not given them the benefit of the equity of redemption for six months, to which they were entitled; but that he had left them with their wives and families to die in the streets. He had not performed common acts of justice to them, and Mr. Hovenden said, that he had not even paid them the wages which he owed them for their labour. Was it, then, to be

It was

wondered at that these uneducated men-uneducated, owing to your own bad laws-should follow the example of injustice and oppression which you had set them? They had heard of the torture to which your aristocracy had subjected their ancestors; was it surprising that in their turn they had practised your inhumanity? proved that Mr. Hoskins, the agent to Lord Courtenay's estate, whose son was murdered in the county of Limerick, had been most oppressive in his conduct to the tenantry of that estate. The same account was given of the agent to Lord Stradbroke; and of Mr. Gregory it was said, that there never had been a worse man. In these instances a sense of personal injury would account for the outrages that had been perpetrated; but of all these, the secretary for Ireland had taken no notice. He went to the outrages committed by some lawless ruffians, and with these he would wish to mix up the great mass of the people of Ireland, who were wholly innocent. And why put the whole of Ireland under the provisions of this monstrous bill, when, even on the showing of government, only a few districts could require its application? Galway, Clare, Limerick, for instance, were admitted to be tranquil; why, then, should they suffer for the misdeeds of Kilkenny, Carlow, or the Queen's County? Or why extend the bill to a city like Dublin? The government, not satisfied with establishing courtsmartial amidst the scenes of outrage and of horror, erected them in the capital, where they had juries at their command, and not very stubborn judges, and where a conviction was as easy as an accusation.

Cities were included in

order to strangle complaint, and tread every spark of liberty out. Were these outrages committed in the streets of the Irish metropolis? 'Were assassinations perpetrated in its recesses? Was no house secure from burglarious ruffianism? Had there not been outrages to as great an extent committed in England? Had not the gaols of the western counties been crowded with thousands, accused of most violent outrages? Had not Not tingham and Bristol been the scene of the most lawless devastations? And had the government resorted to the same sort of coercive measures as the present? No. And why? Because the system of outrage was local and partial. Why then not apply the same principle to Ireland? If insurrection existed, strengthen the hands of government to put it down; but let them not have the power of putting the whole country out of the pale of the law, for the outrages of com. paratively a few. To secure the unjust and ruinous policy of the government regarding tithes, was at the bottom of the whole. Ministers, indeed, declared, that they did not mean to employ it for the collection of tithe; but it embodied the clause of the act of George III, by which combination against tithes, or obstructing a clergyman in their collection by unlawful means, was made a crime; and all offences against the proposed act were to be tried by courts-martial. The army was already employed in collecting tithes, and was now to be employed to adjudicate upon them. The act was thus to have the effect of extorting an abominable impost by means of martial law, and the officer of the army, who had been impeded on one day in levying tithes, was to try the

wretched peasantry the next for an offence in which his own feelings were deeply engaged. But, forsooth, all this was intended for the protection of the Irish people, and was desired for this purpose. But it would at least be proper, before paying so high a price for safety, to know how far the persons, who were to be protected, liked the proposed system. It was professed, that the bill was intended for the protection of the orderly people of Ireland. Admitting this to be the fact, was it not right that they should know whether those orderly people did not consider the remedy worse than the disease?-whether they did not think that this was too high a price for the protection offered? Might they not think, that the authorized breaking open of houses by the police was just as bad as the unauthorized breaking open of houses by midnight assailants? Let the Whitefeet be put down; but let not the constitution be put down along with them. This bill would only multiply and aggravate the causes of discontent. If it passed into a law, allegiance would thenceforth become, in the Irish people, not a sentiment of duty, but a mere consideration of expediency.

The necessity and efficacy of the bill were maintained by Mr. Macaulay, Lord John Russell, and other English members, and by Messrs. Carew, Tennant, Lefroy, lord Castlereagh, lord Acheson, Sir R. Bateson, and Sir C. Coote among the Irish members. They contended, that not only were the existing outrages such as to require extraordinary measures, contrary to the constitution, and that when this necessity for overstepping the constitution once ex

isted, it was safer to err on the side of vigour, than to run the risk of a measure both unconstitutional and ineffectual; but that it likewise was proved, that this predial agitation, as it was mildly denominated by the repealers, was closely connected with the political agitation. The principle of both was intimidation. The Whitefeet threatened, and put their own threat into execution; the political agitators also held out their threats, and, in doing so, usurped a power which no subject had a right to. There was an active and a passive resistance to the law. That the active was unlawful, no man would pretend to deny the passive resistance that which directed or recommended men not to deal with those of certain political opinions -not to buy from or sell to them, -was equally so. But there were other modes of intimidation. What were those district courts which were recommended, and to which men were told to refer their differences? What were those but so many sources of intimidation, by which those who should refuse to conform to them were to be held up to the public? What was that unarmed body, which might be armed? Were not all these so many means of intimidation? They had heard of declarations against the Whitefeet, of disavowals of their acts; no doubt most, if not all, of their acts were such as no man had yet the hardihood to defend. But was there no use in keeping up excitement, amongst that class?-Was not such excitement of advantage to those who drew from it a lucrative trade? But why declaim so strongly against the predial agitation by the Whitefeet and others, when they who so declaimed kept up an

my

;

agitation, of a different kind as to the means it was true, but much alike in the tendency? Suppose one of those Whitefeet brought before an association of agitators of a different kind, and asked to account for his conduct, what would be his natural answer? You," he would say, "agitate, so do I; you pursue one course, I another you intimidate, so do I; but though the execution of threats is more immediate, it is not more certain than that of yours in the result. You speak of your unarmed volunteers, so have I mine; mostly unarmed; but I have my arms under lock and key, to be delivered for use as occasion may require. I have as much right to act against the law in my way as you have in yours." What was the difference between this active and passive resistance? It was true that the active resister of the law was exposed to greater personal risk, from which the cunning of the passive resister might screen him. In this respect the difference between them was great, but, in a moral point of view, were they not both the same? It was in evidence before the committee on the state of Ireland, that in many places where agitation prevailed, the Whitefeet were the same persons who attended the tithe meetings. They were ready to accept of agitation for one purposenamely, to get rid of the tithe system-but they were also prepared to remedy their own grievances, which went beyond the tithe system, and extended, in many cases, to the ejection of persons from lands which they thought that other parties were better entitled to hold. In the month of December last, there had been scarcely one case of outrage com