§ Earl Grey moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Disturbances Suppression (Ireland Bill.)
§ The Earl of Durham
said, he should occupy their Lordships' attention for a very few moments while he expressed his opinion with reference to this measure, and he was the more anxious to do so, because, when the Bill was introduced last Session, he had not had an opportunity to deliver his sentiments with respect to it. He felt that if he were to remain 1119 totally silent on this occasion, it might be supposed that he was favourable to the whole measure, which was not the fact. It was with deep regret, that he felt himself obliged to dissent from part of the enactments of the Bill. He alluded to that portion of it which related to public meetings. The Bill would have commanded his approbation if the clause had been withdrawn which authorized an interference with public meetings in Ireland. He admitted that it was proper to arm the Government of Ireland with strong powers, and no man would more readily consent than he would, to place such powers in the hands of the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government, or of his right hon. friend who filled the office of chief Secretary; but, much as he confided in them, he could not consent to do that which this Bill proposed. He would not consent to arm the noble Lord or his right hon. friend with powers which, while they were contrary to the Constitution, were, as he thought, quite unnecessary. He was willing to give to the Government of Ireland all the powers that were necessary for the suppression of violence and outrage, but beyond that he would not go. He did not think that he should be doing his duty, if he did not shortly state his opinion on the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor
could not allow the opportunity afforded by the short address of his noble friend to escape without adding his testimony to that of his noble friend at the head of his Majesty's Government as to the continued necessity which existed for adopting this measure. He did not think, that he should discharge his duty well, and faithfully, and manfully, to their Lordships, to his Sovereign, and to the country, if he shrunk from bearing his testimony to the continuance of that necessity. It was not for him then to enter into the circumstances on which the measure was originally founded. It was unnecessary for him to go minutely into the subject, after the admirable statement of his noble friend when he introduced the Bill, after the clear and comprehensive view which his noble friend on that occasion took of the state of Ireland, which would be most flourishing but for the causes which his noble friend had pointed out. His noble friend's whole address was distinguished by a truly constitutional tone; and his argument was, he thought, sufficient to 1120 convince anybody, even though he had not made up his mind previously on the facts, as he must say he had done, that this measure was absolutely necessary. This, however, he would say, and he could bear testimony to the feelings of his noble friend, as his noble friend would he was sure bear testimony to his feelings, that, as the measure was originally wrung from Ministers by the hard necessity of the case, so had the continuance of it even for the limited period of a year, been again wrung from them with redoubled reluctance, overpowering those strong constitutional feelings which were the main springs of their political conduct, and even the vital principles of their political existence. It was only from a sense of that overruling necessity that he was prevailed upon to suffer any considerable portion of this Bill to continue in force; but when the necessity existed, he felt that he had no more a choice between suffering it to continue, or allowing it to expire after the experience of a year and a-half, than he had to adopt or to reject it when it was first brought forward. His noble friend who had recently addressed their Lordships, had, in a manner the most perfectly fair, the most temperate, and the most candid towards his Majesty's Government, stated his reluctant dissent from part of the provisions of this Bill. This had the effect of turning his attention towards the distinction which his noble friend had, not unnaturally, drawn. To that point his noble friend at the head of his Majesty's Government, had adverted the other night, and had given, he thought, a very satisfactory explanation. But, when he saw that those outrages existed in Ireland which made this a measure of necessity (and the admission of his noble friend went so far), when such a state of things prevailed as called upon them to suspend the Constitution—for he could not deny that this measure did infringe on the rights of the people in Ireland—he could not deny that it was a most grievous infraction of those rights—still, when he saw things in such a situation as to require and to justify (if not required, the Act could not be justified) this infraction of the rights of those people, then he must ask himself this question—" If I am bound to suspend to this extent those rights, as regards what are called predial outrages and popular commotions—have I any right to draw the line, and take that distinction 1121 for which my noble friend has contended, and exempt from the provisions of the measures those parties who may organize the resistance which the Bill is to put an end to? Shall I say I will put down disturbance in the country, but should dangerous meetings take place in towns, I will not meddle with them? I will bear with the whole weight of my loins on the peasant, but I will not lay the weight of my little finger on those who, whether right or wrong, from principle or otherwise, actuated by levity or by enthusiasm, wish, year after year, foolishly and mischievously to make local agitation general, and on temporary grievances, build up a great scheme of national disunion." In what he was saying, he did not mean to attack any set of persons. He wished to put the most charitable construction on the course which was taken by some parties. He was anxious not to give offence to any one; he wished to avoid all misconception and misconstruction. He could, however, only judge of the intentions of the parties by their political conduct. Could he, then, when he saw, that their conduct, and the course which their opinions led them to take, had a tendency to increase incitement—had a tendency to nourish, propagate, and generalize the flame of local agitation—could he stop short, when he proposed to commit an infraction on the Constitution, and not seek a remedy for this evil? If he saw things in the light which he had described, must he not address his attention to the cause of excitement, as well as to the parties excited? He hoped to Cod that they would all live to see Ireland in such a state as would render the further continuance of measures of this nature no longer necessary. He now, with the greatest reluctance, agreed to the shortest possible continuance of this measure—namely, for twelve months. But he looked forward with confidence to the future, and he sincerely hoped and trusted that this would be the last time when such a measure would be found necessary. Under the circumstances of the case, he could not, however, help feeling that it was not fit, or fair, or consistent, to draw that line of distinction which his noble friend had drawn between the infraction of public rights connected with public meetings, assembled to discuss public matters, and what his noble and learned friend seemed to think of less importance—namely, the 1122 domestic rights of subjects, which were affected by the other part of the Bill, though not touched upon by that against which his noble friend had expressed his opposition. There was, he admitted, a most direct and violent infraction of those private rights, but to that his noble friend did not object. He knew, that all the King's subjects had a right to meet—had a right to address Parliament—had a right to address the Crown—had a right to put forward their grievances—had a right to assemble and to discuss the subject matter of those grievances, and the measures of the Government and the Legislature generally. He knew all this, and God forbid that he should deny, or that he should doubt, the existence of such rights. They were the sacred, the imprescriptible rights of the people; but was it less a right that a man might be out after sunset? Was it less a right that he should be enabled to go about his business as he listed, so that he broke no law, so that he infringed no statute? But what said this Bill? Why, it said (and to that his noble friend gave his consent) that a man should not, unless he could show special reasons for it, leave his threshold after sunset, that he should not go about his business according to his own convenience. Such was the provision of this renewed law—a law to which those subject to it must be slaves, but which had become necessary in consequence of the situation of the country. Parliament was last Session placed in this cruel dilemma, either to suspend the rights of the people for a season, or to declare that the Government of the country could not repay allegiance with protection. The doctrine which he had formerly laid down in that House was, that allegiance and protection were co-equal; and that, when a Government could no longer give protection, it no longer had a right to exact allegiance. To give protection to the well-disposed, the Bill was necessary, and, in committing an infraction on the rights of the least worthy, they insured their obedience by ensuring the protection of the most worthy. He admitted, that it was an infraction of popular rights when power was given to prevent, or to put an end to, public meetings; but he utterly denied, that it was a greater infraction of the constitutional rights of the people, than was to be found in the sunset part of this Bill, which interfered with the common rights of every individual, These were the 1123 grounds which prevented him from drawing that line of distinction which his noble friend had pointed out. If he suspended one species of right (and he hoped and believed, that he consented to that suspension for the last time) he felt, that it was equally necessary to suspend the other. Yes, he deemed it necessary to apply a legislative enactment to the exciting cause, as well as to the mischief which that excitement produced. Unhappily, circumstances had placed them in the dilemma which he had described. It was evidently necessary that some general measure should be adopted with respect to Ireland—a moderate but a permanent measure—for they could not continue to proceed on the principle of temporary legislation. How was the Legislature situated with reference to a temporary measure of this kind? Why, if during the next seven or eight months agitation and violence to any extent prevailed, those whose interests were affected would come and tell the Legislature, that under exiting circumstances the Bill could not be dropped; but if, on the other hand, no agitation, no excitation, was manifested during that time, then the argument would be, that they must continue the measure, because the prevailing quietness was owing to the Bill. Here was the great difficulty of the case, and he therefore thus put their Lordships on their guard with reference to it. They must direct their minds to some mitigated but general measure to preserve the peace of that part of the empire. He stated this confidently, because it was evident that measures of this nature could not be carried on year after year for ever; there must be an end to them sooner or later. Temporary expedients must ultimately give way to a general plan of legislation. To proceed year after year with measures that were only tolerated on account of the necessity of the case, which were only borne with because nothing else could be done at the moment, was neither beneficial to the people nor creditable to the Government. It was not acting like a wise or a prudent Legislature to go on in this way. He had thus stated to the best of his power the reasons which prevented him from agreeing in the objection which his noble friend had taken against this measure. He was as anxious as his noble friend to preserve the liberty of the subject, and, while he supported the present 1124 Bill, he was as desirous as his noble friend could possibly be, that such measures of dire necessity should never, for even one moment, outlive the continuance of that necessity.
§ The Duke of Wellington
entirely approved of the Bill, the necessity for which was clearly proved by the correspondence which had just been laid on their Lordships' Table. To show that necessity, he begged leave to read au extract from a letter addressed to his Majesty's Government by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. The noble Lord there stated: 'These disturbances have been, in every instance, excited and inflamed by the agitation of the combined projects for the abolition of tithes, and the destruction of the Union with Great Britain. I cannot employ words of sufficient strength to express my solicitude, that his Majesty's Government should fix the deepest attention on the intimate connexion, marked by the strongest characters, in all these transactions, between the system of agitation, and its inevitable consequence—the system of combination, leading to violence and outrage. They are, inseparably, cause and effect; nor can I (after the most attentive consideration of the dreadful scenes passing under my view) by any effort of my understanding, separate one from the other in that unbroken chain of indissoluble connexion.' Speaking of the opinion of the Magistrates, the Lord-lieutenant said:— 'Your Lordship will observe, that their opinion is unanimously and powerfully given in favour of the renewal of that Act. It is superfluous for me to add my entire approbation of the opinions which they have expressed, and my most anxious desire that the Act may be renewed.' He might say, too, that it was superfluous for him to add anything to the strong opinion thus expressed in favour of the measure. All he should say was, that the Bill had his entire and most heart-felt approbation.
The Earl of Limerick
said, he should feel himself to be a bad Member of that House, were he to shrink from the expression of his opinion on the present occasion. The measure then before their Lordships was, in his opinion, necessary for the salvation of that unfortunate country to which it had reference, which ought to be, and would be, one of the most thriving and hippy countries in Europe, but for 1125 the machinations of designing men. He more particularly supported this Bill because it contained the provision to which the noble Earl opposite objected; he supported it, because it was calculated to prevent these political meetings, and that violence of expression which bad wrought so much mischief in Ireland. But for that provision it would be looked upon as a dead letter—as the futile production of some weak temporizing Minister, who held out a show of protection, while he struck out of the Bill all that was necessary to render it efficient. What was it that the noble Earl objected to? Why, to that portion of the Bill which provided for putting down meetings that were calculated to excite the people to outrage and violence. He would not particularize the persons who appeared at those meetings; it would be invidious to do so; but he might be allowed to describe them. They were men of desperate ambition, and of strong passions, who came forward for the purpose of agitating that unhappy country, and of extracting from the hard earnings of poverty, of collecting from wretches who scarcely possessed the means of existence, money for themselves, and who also came forward for the purpose of securing that which was the most captivating object to all mankind—the power of domination. "Agitate, agitate, agitate!" were words of grievous importance; they were the direst legacy which any statesman had ever bequeathed to his country, and they had filled that country with convulsion from one end of it to the other. He complained, too, of the situation in which the Government of Ireland had placed the true, the gallant, and the loyal population of that country. Speaking of their governors, they would say, "There is nothing but trickery here, everything done by them is underhand; those who ought to be the guardians of the flock are the first to commence negotiations with the wolves, who are ready to devour it, It was fearful to think what might be the result of such negotiations, in a country brimful of fear and prejudice, and torn to pieces by religious dissensions. He was unfortunately old enough to remember the scenes of 1798; and if the Protestants could not look to the Government those scenes might be renewed. The Government, however, would now feel it a matter of great difficulty to tranquillize the Protestants of Ireland, and to 1126 breathe into their bosoms anything like confidence. He was glad to find, that Ministers had left out the Court-martial clauses; that was proper enough; but he thought, that the House would be unjust to itself and to the country, if they did not promptly pass this Bill for renewing the other clauses of the Act of last year.
The Earl of Mulgrave
could not, he said, vote in favour of the present Bill, without stating briefly the reasons which induced him to do so, as the Bill was opposed to all the principles on which he had hitherto been accustomed to act. The confidence which he placed in the noble Earl at the head of the Government, who, in the whole course of his long political life had never belied any of his public professions, induced him to consent to the renewal of an act which that noble Earl had declared to be necessary to the tranquillity and security of Ireland. It was with great pain, that he had come to this decision. In the year 1819, he had opposed the passing of similar measures of coercion when it was proposed to apply them to England, though, by so doing, he had differed with some of his nearest and dearest relatives. As a peer of Parliament, he never would allow, that that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland should be treated in a manner different from the other portions of the King's dominions. He wished to throw out a suggestion respecting this Bill, though, if it were not adopted, he should not propose it as an Amendment. He wished, that the renewal of the Bill should be continued only till a short period after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament.
confirmed the assertion of the noble Earl opposite, that the Juries who, at the late Assizes, had tried offences of an insurrectionary character had discharged their duty manfully and honestly. He was therefore inclined to think, that the Court-martial clauses were no longer necessary, and that the repeal of them would reconcile to this Bill many persons in Ireland who were at present opposed to it. He had sufficient confidence in the noble Earl opposite to believe, that he would exercise the powers with which it invested the Ministers, with justice and mercy, and also with due vigilance. He wished that he could say, that all the proceedings of the Irish Government, especially during the last few days, had met 1127 with his approbation; but the noble Earl (Limerick) had adverted to rumours which he had also heard, and on which he must be permitted to make a remark or two. He could not help reprobating in the strongest terms that species of negotiation which had recently been going on with the agitators of Ireland; and nothing would give him greater pleasure than to hear the noble Earl at the head of the Government assert, that he knew nothing of it. He was quite sure, that the noble Earl had not originated those negotiations; and he hoped that they had originated in the indiscretion of an individual Minister rather than in a wish to conciliate those by truckling who were the cause of all the mischief, and who were seeking the subversion of order and property in Ireland. He knew, that neither the Protestants nor the Catholics of that country were favourable to the Repeal of the Union; they were tormented on that subject by the agitators; all that they wished was a restoration of tranquillity, which was so necessary to the prosperity and well-doing of Ireland.
§ Earl Grey
said, the observations of the noble Lords who had preceded him, placed him under the necessity of saying a few words; but, before he addressed himself to the topics more particularly adverted to by the noble Baron who had just sat down, he wished to advert to the general circumstances which had been introduced into the debate. And first, he must express the deep pain which he felt whenever any subject of difference arose between himself and his noble friend and relation (the Earl of Durham). He was sure, that his noble relation acted from none but honourable and conscientious motives, and that he was anxious to discharge his public duties in the way most beneficial to the interests of his country. He was sure, that every sentiment which his noble relative uttered sprung from a pure and enlightened love of liberty, which sometimes led him to shut his eyes against the immediate consequences of freedom, but which was unconnected with motives of any kind, save those of the most unblemished honour. It was therefore with pain that he dissented upon any occasion from his noble relative; but so total and absolute was his dissent from his noble relative on the present occasion, that if he could not have proposed the renewal of this Bill with the clauses which 1128 it contained respecting public meetings, he would not have proposed it at all. If those clauses had been omitted, the omission in his opinion would have been both impolitic and cruel; for could any one dissent from the paragraph of that letter which had just been read by the noble Duke? Was it the part of a wise man to legislate against the effect, and to neglect the cause—to legislate against the victims of delusion, but to let those escape scot-free, who, from whatever motive, had of late years pursued a course of agitation in Ireland? He had felt from the beginning, that these things—the cause and the effect—ought not to be separated. If it were necessary to arm Government with great power to put down that insubordination and violence in Ireland which had too often terminated in bloodshed, surely it was necessary to legislate against that which caused the outrages, which rendered that great power necessary. The Bill, then, to be effectual, must contain the clauses to which his noble relative objected. At the time when the Bill was first passed, there were two associations in Dublin, one called the National Association, being a political and Trades' Union, and the other called the Association of Irish Volunteers—a name which was revived for purposes he need not mention. The first operation of the Coercion Act was directed against the town and county of Kilkenny; the next was against those two associations, which were put down by the proclamations of the 10th and 17th of April. The right of discussion, and the right of petition, he was the last man in the world to question. He would endeavour at all times to maintain them; but he would also endeavour, in the present state of Ireland, to protect the people of Ireland against their abuse. To show their Lordships what the conduct of Government had been upon this point, he would appeal to the recollection of those noble Lords who had been attentive to the events of the last year. Many meetings had been held during that time with which the Government had not interfered; but it was a very different thing to allow these meetings when isolated and distinct, and to leave the executive Government without the power of acting against central and simultaneous meetings, distributing their mischievous instructions throughout the country, and keeping up that agitation which caused in the first instance, and 1129 continued in the next, the predial disturbances of Ireland. Did any man suppose, that if the act of last Session had not been passed, the meetings for the Repeal of the Union would not have continued, or that, if they had continued, the spirit of disorder and outrage would not have extended itself to other parts of Ireland? Had that been the case, the Irish Government would have been compelled at a later period to apply the severe powers of this Act all over Ireland. That consideration might, perhaps, teach those who were so anxious to protect the liberties of the people, that the mitigation which they desired might perhaps lead to the necessity of enacting severer measures to prevent the increase of the evils which now prevailed. These were the principles on which the Government had acted, and on which it was still prepared to act; and he could assure the noble Earl who had just returned from a distant Government, where his services had been so eminently useful, and who had expressed in such favourable terms his confidence in the Ministers, that nothing but a conviction of its positive necessity could have induced him to propose the renewal of the Coercion Act. With all due deference to his noble friend, he thought that the 1st of August, 1835, was the shortest period to which the continuance of the Bill ought to be limited; for if their Lordships were called upon to consider the propriety of renewing it immediately after their meeting in the next Session of Parliament, they might have to consider it under circumstances preventing that calm consideration which its importance required. Having said thus much, it was impossible for him not to allude to what had been said by some noble Lords respecting certain negotiations which they supposed had recently taken place. All he could say of those negotiations; if, indeed, any negotiations had taken place (which he did not believe) was this—that any negotiations, any communications which took place, were totally unknown to him. if he had been applied to on the subject, he should not only have expressed his disapprobation of them, but should have used every exertion in his power to prevent them. It was a principle of his to hold no communication with persons who sought for their own purposes to injure the country; he never had held any communication with such persons; and he never would, and he 1130 had no knowledge whatever of anything of the kind which might have passed. There was no trickery, at any rate, on his part. For if ever there had been a direct proceeding, it was in regard to this Bill. From the beginning, he had felt the necessity of enacting these laws, and he would now declare again, that without these clauses regulating public meetings, he would not have proposed the present law. It was not necessary, he thought, for him to say anything more. He assured their Lordships, that he proposed this Bill with reluctance; but he still proposed it under a sense of duty to which, if he had not yielded, he should be most unworthy of the situation which he then filled.
The Earl of Wicklow
could not resist the opportunity of saying, that what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and from the noble Lord on the Woolsack, was a source of deep gratification to him. It was material, that within twenty-four hours after the unstatesmanlike declaration made elsewhere, a disavowal of it should be given by the noble Earl opposite, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It was with great satisfaction that he had heard those noble Lords declare, that they would not allow this Bill to pass unless it contained the clauses for the better regulation of public meetings. There was no man to whom he would trust the powers of this Bill more readily than to the noble Marquess now at the head of the Irish Government, but he wished that the noble Marquess had better Ministers; and he hoped that the Session would not pass away without his having, at least, one better Minister.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it was always with pleasure that he received credit for his actions from so respectable a Member of their Lordships' House as the noble Earl who had just spoken; but he could not consent to receive that credit at the expense of a right hon. friend of his in another House, whom the noble Earl seemed to suppose—why, he knew not—that his noble friend had thrown overboard. He did not believe that anything like a negotiation had taken place between his right hon. friend and the party to whom allusion had been so pointedly made. There might have been communications unknown to the Government on the subject of the Coercion Bill be- 1131 tween his right hon. friend and that party, as there had been between himself and a noble Lord whom he did not then see in his place. He had discussed with that noble Lord, in private, upon the Woolsack the operation of the Coercion Bill, and before he had seen the papers, he had told that noble Lord that he wished the clauses respecting Courts-martial and Public Meetings struck out of the Bill; but when he found the facts to be such as they appeared to be in the papers, read by his noble friend the other evening, he had formed the opinion which he had that night frankly expressed to their Lordships.
could not avoid accompanying his vote this night in favour of the continuance of the Coercion Bill, with a few observations, supplicating the Legislature to take more especially under its protection the helpless condition of the labouring population of Ireland. Without some improvement in their condition he could not share the anticipations of the learned Lord on the Woolsack, that this may be the last time that they shall have to suspend the Constitution in order to put down predial disturbances in that country. No, year after year, and generation after generation, in the future, as in the past, their Lordships would have to enact Insurrection Bills and Coercion Bills, unless the condition of the country people were ameliorated by some strong measures of protection and succour. At present they were in extreme destitution; he spoke of the ejected tenantry of that country, whose whole dependence for subsistence (save mendicity) was upon the land which many of them were no longer suffered to occupy. He agreed with the learned Lord, in his axiom in defence of this Bill, "that allegiance and protection were reciprocal duties," and, therefore, the Government was bound to protect the lives and properties of the people from agrarian outrage or invasion. But while he agreed in that, he implored their Lordships to rule alike for the low as for the high, for the peasant as for the Peer—to protect the life of the ejected and resourceless cottier tenant, as well as the property of his landlord. In truth, nothing under the present state of the law could be more anomalous than was the condition of millions of human beings in Ireland. It was anomalous as it regarded the labourers of England, Wales, or Scotland; they 1132 hart a defence and shield in the Poor-laws—laws which, from gross maladministration only, had lately been subject to much animadversion, but which had, nevertheless, for centuries, in all the increasing grandeur of this great empire, stood by the country people of England as their best friend and protector. But this shield was denied to the Irishman; he was abandoned to his fate and all its casualties. Again, the state of the Irish peasant was anomalous with reference to the whole of Christendom. In all other countries the people had either some compulsory relief to trust to, as in Protestant Holland, Switzerland, North America, and Sweden, or rich monastic foundations and institutions as asylums to fly to in Catholic France before the Revolution, and Spain and Portugal, and Austria, and Italy, their revenues being in a great measure the patrimony of the poor, even to a degree that had been a subject of complaint with some writers. But even this was not all—once more the Irishman's case was anomalous as a member of the civilized world. The common lot of all other labouring men was this:—They shared in the distribution of their countrymen's wealth, by administering to his wants. In this way the rich and poor were linked together, and the funds of the one were commensurate with the property of the other. But this source was dried up, or in a great measure diverted out of its natural course and channel by absenteeism—existing to a degree in Ireland that was nowhere else to be seen. He would not enter on another subject, namely, that of the transition from a cottier state to one of consolidating farms; that likewise was anomalous, but this topic would lead him too far. All and every one of these anomalies pressed down the Irish labourer; and while this state of things continued, agitation would always be a fearful and tremendous engine. But, as it was said of that great mechanical power, the steam-engine, that one bushel of coal was equal to the power of twenty men; so of this moral engine, agitation, he might say (if he might be allowed the expression), that one bushel of misery was equal to the power of twenty agitators. Let their Lordships combine all the energies of this powerful empire to deprive the agitators of fuel, and they would put an end to them, and might throw aside Coercion Bills. He would read a few lines from 1133 the history of our own country, at the period which succeeded the suppression of the monasteries, and accompanying what was then termed the engrossing of farms—the transition system. Strype, in his Annals said:—" There were (speaking of Queen Elizabeth's reign) at least 300 or 400 able-bodied vagabonds in every county, who lived by thefts and rapine, and who sometimes met in troops to the number of sixty, and committed spoil on the inhabitants; the Magistrates were awed by the association and threats of the confederates from executing justice on the offenders;" and Hollingshead, in his description of England, says:—" In Elizabeth's time rogues were trussed up apace, and that there was not a year commonly wherein 300 or 400 of them were not devoured and eaten up by the gallows." "But," said the noble Lord, "we set the people to work, by the 43rd of this Queen, and the country was tranquillized."
The Marquess of Westmeath
thanked the noble Earl at the head of the Government for the consolation his speech was calculated to give to the peaceable population of Ireland. He was glad to learn that the noble Earl was not disposed to sanction those transactions which had been alluded to in the course of the debate, and he did trust, that the right hon. Gentleman connected with the Irish Government would not again enter into a confidential communication with the wily individual with whom he had lately carried on an intercourse. He should certainly wish the right hon. Gentleman to treat that individual civilly; he would not have the right hon. Gentleman shut the door in his face, but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not again send for that individual to consult him on the state of public affairs.
§ Bill read a second time.