wards Ireland, and of indifference to the sufferings of the people of that country; and had stated a long catalogue of grievances, some of which ministers had already announced their intention of remedying; but with the question of the dissolution of the union, with respect to which an opportunity offered of obtaining the test of public opinion, by means of the representatives of England, ay, and of the representatives of Ireland, with that question he had not ventured to grapple in the legislature of the united kingdom, although he had told the people of Ireland that they should have a parliament in College-green by

next June.

In respect to the necessity of some stronger measure than the usual administration of the law, Mr. Stanley said, the record of the crimes perpetrated in Ireland would almost surpass belief. He would enumerate a few of the principal crimes which had been committed in Kilkenny and Queen's County during the last 12 months. In Kilkenny alone during that period there had been 32 murders and attempts at murder; 34 burnings of houses; 519 burglaries; 36 houghings of cattle; and 178 as saults of such a nature as to be attended with danger of the loss of life. In Queen's County during the same period, the number of murders was still greater,-namely, 60; of burglaries and nightly attacks on houses, there had been 626; of malicious injuries to property, 115; and of serious assaults on individuals, 209. This list, formidable as it was, contained only the crimes of which notice had been given to the police, which, in fact, constituted but a small por

tion of the offences really committed. For the perpetrators of the crimes which he had enumerated, rewards had been offered to the amount of 1,200l., of which rewards two only had as yet been paid. So complete was the system of organization established by the midnight murderers and disturbers of the public peace, that their victims dared not complain. They knew the individuals who attacked their thatched cabins; but submitted to the despotic commands imposed upon them, because they knew that the means of death were in the hands of those whom he could denominate only as actual insurgents. Was this a state in which it could be said, that the law afforded adequate protection to the people? to the people? He had been willing to try the unaided power of the law; the experiment had been tried; and it had proved to demonstration that the law was inadequate. Knowing the jealousies and discord which would naturally be engendered by going beyond the law, he wished, if possible, to avoid being driven to the necessity of calling for extraordinary powers; but he could not now do otherwise. Mr. O'Connell himself had described the population as prepared to enter into a servile war. If, however, parliament were to be called upon to remedy grievances under the terror of a servile war-under the threat of injury to life and property-under the menace of anarchy, to be modified only by the despotism of some selfstyled liberators-if these were the circumstances under which the parliament was called upon to act, there was no occasion for them to deliberate; all that they had to do was, to crouch before

the danger which was threatened. Were the grievances complained of the result of the union only? Were they the work of yesterday, and inflicted by the English parliament? Those evils were many of them inflicted by the Irish parliament, except so far as the domestic parliament was corrupted by English money, and compelled to yield a servile obedience to the commands of England, under the fancied name of an independent legislature.

But the House had been told there was another panacea,-viz., continued agitation. Now, could the member for Dublin put his hand on his breast and say, that he had not given his ignorant countrymen advice which led them to transgress the law, whilst he cautiously told them to avoid going beyond it? Would parliament suffer these poor people to be led into acts of outrage, which fell on those who were deceived, not on the deceivers? Was the law to be braved, and the government bearded, merely because the ignorant people were cautioned to seek their end by "legal means" onl"? -not, forsooth, to violate the law by refusing to pay the tithes which the law imposed, but merely to offer the payment a passive resistance. Was the public peace to be endangered and disturbed by meetings of thousands, ay, tens of thousands of an infuriated, and grossly deluded populace,-meetings which were encouraged to attend sales, not to take any part themselves as purchasers, but to mark who dared to be purchasers? Were such things to be in a civilized land— in an integral part of an empire in which the law was not a dead letter? or could such proceedings have any other effect than to goad VOL. LXXV.

on deluded victims till they expiated their own crimes, and the still greater, though unpunishable, crimes of others, by their blood? He denied that the government could justly be charged with what Mr. O'Connell had called "a systematic slighting of the Catholics" quoad promoting them to places of trust and power. Since the accession of the present administration, two serjeants-at-law had been appointed. The one of them, Mr. Perrin, was a Protestant, but of decidedly liberal principles, and the other was a Catholic gentleman of great eminence in his profession. During the same period, only two King's counsel had been appointed, and both of them were Catholics. Two assistant-barristers had been appointed, one of whom was a Catholic. Eleven clerks of the crown had been appointed, and four out of the last five of them were Catholics. One cursitor, a Catholic; one master in chancery, a Protestant, but a liberal man. Did these legal promotions indicate a systematic slighting, on the part of the Irish government, of the claims of Catholic candidates for legal promotion? But it was said, there were no Catholic gentlemen high sheriffs-only one in the whole country-though several were eminently entitled by birth, property and character. But was this any fault of the government? In Ireland, as well as in England, the executive had no part whatever in the selection of gentlemen for the office of high sheriff. Its functions were exclusively limited to the pricking or selecting one name out of three sent up to them from each county. If, therefore, no Catholic gentlemen's names were sent up to the Irish government among the selections for the office of high [C]

sheriff, surely the blame did not lie with it. With respect to the selection of juries, it was true that, in some instances, jurymen had been set aside on the part of the crown; but was this power exercised only by the crown? What had Mr. O'Connell himself done, in conducting the prosecution against Sir G. Bingham? On that occasion the crown had exercised its power of challenge by excluding nine Catholics and three Protestants; but this was done solely because those persons were themselves involved in a case implying a violation of the very law, the as-erting of which, on the part of Sir G. Bingham, had led to the prosecution. But how did Mr. O'Connell act as prosecuting counsel? Why, he set aside not less than 17 persons, and actually had the case referred to the decision of 11 Catholics. Indeed, to such an extreme had he pushed this power of setting aside jurymen, that Mr. Justice Moore, who tried the case, and who was a man of undoubted impartiality, exclaimed "This is an abuse of the power of setting aside jurymen in cases of crown prosecutions to which I have seen no parallel since I occupied a seat on the bench." And yet, in the teeth of this fact, Mr. O'Connell had the hardihood to accuse the government with abusing the power of setting aside jurymen.

The House had been told, too, that there was the authority of Mr. Barrington-an unquestionable one, he was free to admit that the law, as it stood, provided a punishment for all those insurrectionary offences which disfigured the social state of Ireland. But that was not the question. The question was, could the law be enforced? Was it not, in point of

fact, a dead letter, inasmuch as no reliance could be placed on the moral courage of juries? Was it not a notorious fact, that it was almost impossible to find a jury in Ireland, who dared to convict for an offence connected with popular associations? If juries did attend, and honestly discharge their duty, did they not do so under the threats of popular vengeance: their persons marked; their houses, perhaps, burned; and their crops destroyed; though they were only obeying the solemn obligation of an oath? On the other hand, were there not, unfortunately, too many instances, where jurymen condescended to attend more to the applause of the populace than to their duty, and who, for having given a verdict in favour of a popular delinquent, had their crops reaped for them by the alternately intimidating and approving multitude? Was, therefore, the existing law sufficient, when it was notorious that no jury could be found to convict the midmight incendiary or murderer; and, even if there was a jury, no witness who dared to afford the necessary evidence for the jury to act upon, though the guilt of the culprit were as manifest as the sun at noon-day? It was hopeless to attempt to remedy grievances, unless the majesty of the law was, in the first instance, asserted. A government, to be loved, must first be feared; and no government could be said to be feared, unless it possessed the means of protecting the property and lives of the King's subjects.

Colonel Davies, on the other hand, considered Mr. Stanley's speech an insult to the country, and as only proving how totally unfit that gentleman was for an office which afforded so many op

portunities of endangering the peace of the empire. He was as much opposed as any man in the House to the repeal of the union; but, unless justice were dealt out to Ireland by measures of relief being proposed, he would vote against the coercive policy which ministers contemplated. Mr. Roebuck, too, the new member returned by the new constituency of Bath, declared, that, with every disposition to give the present go vernment his best support, he would not join them in what must produce a civil war in Ireland. He assured ministers, that there was a very deep and bitter feeling of suspicion in the popular mind from one end of the kingdom to the other. In Ireland, there was Whiteboyism; in England, that quiet determined spirit of resistance, which last year had refused to pay rates and taxes, was still awake. With that spirit ministers did not sympathize; they knew nothing of it; but if they did not take care, they would find the people rise up in such terrible array, that they would not know where to turn. -Lord Althorp, admitting that it was the duty of the House to remove from the people of Ireland every just grievance, and declaring that it was the intention of minis ters to remove every one which they possibly could, asked if it was not a grievance that, in Ireland, life and property were not secure that murder, burglary, and arson, should exist in every part of that country? And since it was their duty to remove other grievances, ought they not to remove this grievance also? It was impossible they could apply themselves to remove the grievances of Ireland sincerely, if they left out of consideration grievances such as

these. As to measures of relief, ministers were determined to apply the best remedies the case admitted of; but it would be recollected that the grievances of Ireland were of too long standing to admit of a remedy at once; that if they passed any measure which the most sanguine person could suggest, they would not at once remedy discontent and disturbance. Then, if they saw Ireland in the condition in which it was described in the King's speech, and in the speech of Mr. O'Connell which had exceeded the description in the King's speech, no remedy could have the immediate effect of calming discontent, for it was impossible to suppose any remedy could act like a miracle.

The debate was adjourned, and continued by adjournment, on the 6th, 7th, and 8th of February. The general strain of the argument coincided with that which has already been given, and the discussion, in fact, was merely an anticipation of the more detailed discussion which afterwards took place when the contemplated legislative measure was brought in. The opposition to the Address was conducted principally by Irish members, although they received likewise the support of Mr. Hume, Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Bulwer, and Mr. Tennyson. Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, warned ministers that, although there were expressions in the Speech which enabled him to vote with them, they would do well to consider carefully how their majority would be composed.-Mr. Bulwer told them more plainly, that the independent members-the 300 new members, allied to no old party, and attached to the superstition of no Whig names-could

not, night after night, hear the facts of grievance stated by the Irish members, and receiving no answer but demands for soldiery, without dropping off in some defections from the ministerial majority. The Irish members had generously helped them in their struggle for reform; and he would not consent, that the first reformed parliament should repay that assistance with a discharge of musketry, or a repeal of Trial by Jury. Where two means existed of removing an evil, redress and force, it was despotic to have recourse at once to the latter, when the former could be applied. He objected, too, to that part of the Address which pledged the House to support the union. He believed, that a repeal of that union would be more injurious to Ireland than even to England. It could be a resource only of necessity, not of reason; but he objected to the principle of pledging a deliberative assembly to reject a great and solemn question without any previous inquiry. He was opposed, moreover, to that part of the Address which related to Ireland, because it pledged the House to support the policy of the present Irish secretary, to which he objected on the experience of two years, during which the secretary, with all his high station and commanding talent, had done nothing for the peace of Ireland, and everything for her danger-had offended all parties, and incensed all sects-had embroiled himself with the people, and now stood opposed to all the people's representatives. Mr. Tennyson, though he had no doubt of the good intentions of ministers, could not approve of their conduct in pressing the House to adopt the Address,

and he thought that some soothing expressions towards Ireland should have been introduced into the speech. But neither could he support the amendment of Mr. O'Connell, and therefore proposed a new amendment which he trusted would serve the same purpose, while it would be more likely to receive the support of many who might refuse to go so far as the member for Dublin. It was to the effect, That the house should declare its readiness to sanction such measures for restoring social order in Ireland, as might appear, on mature deliberation and inquiry, necessary, and to intrust his Majesty's official servants with additional power for that purpose, and to employ its best energies to the putting an end to the disturbances which affect that country; declaring, also, that, while that House would give a willing and earnest attention to the complaints and petitions of the Irish people, with a view to promoting an efficient remedy, it was prepared to resist, by every means in its power, all lawless attempts to effect a repeal of the legislative union between the two countries.

Mr. Macaulay, (destined shortly afterwards to exchange the stormy scenes of the reformed senate for the more tranquil and profitable abodes of Indian legislation), followed Mr. Stanley in taunting Mr. O'Connell with not having ventured to bring the question of repeal fairly before the House. What was meant by the watchword of repeal of the legislative union between Britain and Ireland? If those who used it meant a complete separation, or a kind of Hibernian republic, their conduct was comprehensible and consistent. But if, as they as