The Marquess of Westmeath
said, that it had been his intention, nearly at the close of the last Session, to have brought these Motions under the consideration of the House which he now proposed to bring forward; but as the noble Earl at the head of the Irish Government did not at that time attend in his place, he thought it fitting to postpone, to a time when he might be expected to attend, the observations he should make, and the Motion with which he intended to conclude. The various circumstances connected with the transactions to which he intended to call the attention of their Lordships appeared to him to be fully sufficient to justify him in bringing forward a Motion; but if any additional considerations of that nature could be required, they might be found in the fact, that he had signed a petition relating to it. Considering it then the most fair and manly course to bring the subject forward when the noble Earl was present in their Lordships' House, to explain and defend his own conduct; and considering it also only fair to avow himself at the outset to be on principle an uncompromising opponent of the noble Earl's Government in Ireland, he should go on to make such statements and observations as the case seemed to require, in doing which he begged to say that he spoke not only his own sentiments, but those of a considerable portion of the more enlightened and intelligent inhabitants of Ireland. Proceeding then to the task which a sense of duty had impelled him to undertake, he entered upon it with diminished reluctance when he brought to mind the challenge which, on a recent occasion, the noble Earl had thrown out to the Members of their Lordships' House, calling on any of them who had thought proper to bring forward such charges as they might see right, and that he was there to answer them. In so vindicating himself, the noble Earl would have to do this—he would have to show good grounds for disdaining all the rules and maxims by which the conduct of all chief governors of Ireland had been guided 1864 for centuries past. The noble Earl had imagined grievances which did not exist, and had gone about redressing them. In the fulness of his mercy and clemency, he had sacrificed the peace, comfort, and happiness of the respectable and industrious inhabitants of Ireland. At all times he felt disposed to pay to the noble Earl the respect due to his station, but were he to enter the Castle of Dublin, he should feel that he exposed himself to political contamination. Nothing should induce him to enter the vice-regal palace until after it had been purified by the exit of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had introduced an individual to the viceregal residence who had been convicted of a serious offence against the laws, though he had never been punished—a man who had reviled in the grossest terms members of the Sovereign's family; who had by his chicanery frittered away the boasted securities which it was said the Reform Act had created, basing three-fourths of the representation of Ireland upon fraud and perjury. The noble Earl might appear to be amused, but that was no answer to his statements. He would defy any man to disprove what he said. He did not scruple to affirm, that as long as that individual had a head on his shoulders, the traitors of 1798 must be looked upon as murdered men. He defied any man to prove the contrary, and holding these opinions he would never shrink from an opportunity of expressing them. He should never be deterred from honestly and openly expressing his opinions. That individual had upon all occasions used his influence to promote, not loyalty, but a qualified obedience to the Sovereign. It was well known that within these few days he had put forth his manifesto, declaring the mode in which the allegiance of the Irish people was to be regulated, that mode being neither more nor less than his dictation. Having thus prefaced the observations with which he meant to trouble their Lordships he should now proceed with the facts of the case. During the administration of the Marquess of Anglesey, Sir Richard Nagle had attended an anti-tithe meeting in the county of Westmeath. He received instructions from the Government to inquire from the hon. Baronet his reasons for such conduct. From the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who then filled the same office, he also received similar instructions, bearing 1865 chiefly upon his fitness to be continued in the commission of the peace. From the reasons which the hon. Baronet assigned it was not thought that he was a fit or proper person to hold the commission of the peace, and the hon. Baronet was removed accordingly, he having received from the Government instructions to intimate to the hon. Baronet that the Government did not think he ought any longer to hold such an office. In consequence of this he was thought by a majority of the electors of Westmeath a suitable representative for them in Parliament, and he was chosen a Member for that county at the next election. At the close of the next Session of Parliament a letter was addressed to him by Mr. Drummond, calling on him to restore Sir Richard Nagle to the Commission of the Peace. He did not think that any sufficient reasons for such a step were given in Mr. Drummond's letter, and it appeared to him that the reasons for the hon. Baronet's removal continued still to operate. Soon after that he heard by accident that Sir Richard Nagle's name was restored to the Commission of the Peace, but he had received no intimation from the Government on the subject. It was rendered clear soon afterwards that the purpose of this restoration to the Commission of the Peace was with a view to the further honour of being advanced to the lieutenancy of the county. He then thought it necessary to address a remonstrance to the Government, and the noble Earl's secretary replied to him, intimating plainly that with respect to Sir Richard Nagle, he must obey; the matters were no longer the same; that the status in quo of the county had been materially changed. In what had the change consisted? The hon. Baronet had become a Member of Parliament and a supporter of the Administration. He need not remind the House, that such a course of proceeding was towards him, the Lord-lieutenant of the county, most uncourteous. He was, in the first instance, made the vehicle of a most ungracious communication; he had endeavoured to perform the duty with as little pain to the party principally concerned as possible, and after the lapse of a very short time, he was in the most unceremonious way possible called upon to undo all that he had done. Let the House only look at the effect which this was calculated to produce in Ireland—it 1866 had the effect of placing the priests and their party over the head of the representative of the Sovereign in Ireland. It was now for the noble Earl to justify this. Soon afterwards, he received letters from Sir R. Nagle and Mr. Chapman, recommending that a Mr. Sheil should be included in the commission of the peace; he showed, from the map of the county, that those gentlemen could not be judges of the fitness of Mr. Sheil, and he conceived also, that on the face of the letter which he wrote in reply, reasons sufficient were stated for not appointing Mr. Sheil, altogether apart from any considerations connected with Mr. Sheil's character as an agitator. Now, with respect to stipendiary magistrates, he must urge it as an objection to the Government of the noble Earl, that he placed the administration of the law in the hands of men, as stipendiary magistrates, who had not shown themselves very well qualified for the exercise of the duties of that office. As an instance, he would mention the case of Mr. Lawrence Cruene Smith, who had often taken the chair in the treasonable association. Another name, which had been returned in the list laid before the other House, was that of Mr. N. French, a son-in-law of Mr. O'Connell, and also a member of the association. With these two names, he would leave that part of the case and come to another, on which, though it had been discussed on more than one occasion in that House, he could not avoid saying a few words—he meant the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. When this subject was before their Lordships on Monday, he understood the noble Earl to say, that the number of pardons in severe cases (by which he understood cases of murder or capital felonies) were very few, and in cases of transportation for life only four or five. At all events, the noble Earl would admit that he had described the number of cases as not very great. Now, he would read from the official return the number of pardons of all kinds given by the noble Earl, and the offences for which they had been convicted. There were twenty-seven under sentence of death who had been discharged; of three of these, the day of execution had been fixed. [The Earl of Mulgrave: No.] He was perfectly certain of having seen the circumstance in the returns. The cases were two of murder, and one of conspiracy to murder. 1867 With the case of conspiracy to murder he was well acquainted, for it happened in the county which he knew well. It was the case of John Lynch, who had suffered two years' imprisonment. Of the twenty-seven under sentence of death, three were for highway robbery, ten for abduction, six for rape, for robbery four, and for a malicious assault one. The two for murder, he had already mentioned. For not one of these had any bail been taken on their discharge, except the man for the malicious assault, for whom a peace-bail had been taken of 100l. from the party himself, and two sureties in 30l. each. There had also been discharged thirty-three persons under sentence of transportation for life, and from these bail was required from only two; one in 10l. him-self, and two in 5l. each, and the other had an undertaking given by his father, that he would enlist in the service of the East-India Company. This was a monstrous compliment to the East-India Company, and certainly a strange mode of giving bail. Two were discharged under sentence of transportation for fourteen years, no bail given. Sixty-three were discharged who were under sentence for seven years. Of these bail was taken from only four. One of the parties was for perjury, and when their Lordships considered the consequences to which perjury might lead in Ireland, they would agree that it was not a fit case in which to extend the mercy of the Crown. For other and minor offences, the numbers discharged were 960, making in all 1,086 cases, and out of these bail was taken in only forty-one cases. The two cases of murder to which he had alluded were, first, that of Thomas Collins for murder, in the county of Galway, discharged on the 13th of September, 1835, by a written order from the Lord-lieutenant,—no bail taken.
The Earl of Mulgrave
The order was made on the recommendation of Judge Burton, who had tried the case.
The Marquess of Westmeath
said, he was glad to hear that, which he considered satisfactory as far as the discharge was concerned, but why had not bail been required of the party in such a case? The other case of murder in which the party, the day for whose execution had been fixed had been discharged, was that of Patrick Hickey, convicted in the city of Limerick. He was discharged by order 1868 of the Lord-Lieutenant, but no bail was required of him. Out of the 960 cases five had been convicted of perjury, sixteen for manslaughter in the county of Kerry, and amongst others, but on what grounds he could not say, were three who had been convicted for keeping brothels. Out of the depots, thirty-four had been discharged for causes assigned, and out of the Essex hulk without cause assigned. Of these latter one had been sentenced to death, two to transportation for life, and eight to transportation for seven years. He had selected those instances in the conduct of the noble Earl, and he must say, that if the Government allowed that misjudging Earl to return to Ireland as the head of the Government there, they would be seriously tampering with the peace and good order of society there, and the security of those who were no party men in that country. He would now come to the appointment of sheriffs. In the Westmeath list, the names of three Protestants were passed over, and a fourth not on the Judge's list, and who was not a Protestant, was selected as sheriff. Now, he did not wish to be understood as having any objections to Roman Catholics on account of their religion. There were many amongst that body who were most respectable, and whom he should be glad to find take their proper station in society; but he objected to the choice of men who were distinguished for nothing more than their connexion with agitation. In the county of Clare, the Government had passed over Mr. Edward Fitzgerald and Mr. Gore, who were Protestants, and came to a fourth, who was an advocate for the repeal of the Union and other questions of agitation. In Carlow, two in the list who were willing to serve had been passed over to come at a third, who it was known would serve the Government at the then approaching general election, and Mr. Keogh was fixed upon. One of the first things which Mr. Sheriff Keogh did was to name, at the recommendation of the Attorney-General for Ireland, as his assessor, a Mr. Welsh, who was a member of the association; but this was not stated to Mr. Banbury, the Conservative candidate, or to any of his friends, who, had they known the circumstance, would certainly have opposed such a man as assessor. The fact was, the man was the Attorney-General's devil—that was, the noter of his briefs, and of course he was 1869 deeply in his confidence. He mentioned these facts to show the means resorted to to influence the representation in Ireland. In fact, he would rather see Ireland without representatives, and to trust to the honour of the British Parliament to do Ireland justice, than to have a set of representatives whose returns were so influenced as they were at present. Mr. Sheriff Keogh had appointed as his sub-sheriff a Mr. Fitzgerald, who was a member of the association, and was the secretary to the Carlow Liberal Club. All this was stated in the Report of the Committee. At the election, the sub-sheriff and assessor allowed two votes tendered for the Liberal candidates, which had been part of thirty-six struck off by the Committee, and for which the Speaker's warrant had been sent to strike them off the clerk of the peace's books. They had been objected to as having been so struck off, and as being without qualification by certificate or affidavit, yet they were admitted. Another voter for the Liberal candidate had been admitted, though he had not been registered six months. In another case, a voter who had a good vote was refused because of a slight informality in the name of the barony, and the man was not allowed to fall back on his affidavit. All these partialities were traceable to the partial conduct of the noble Earl at the head of the Government in the selection of partial sheriffs, and if the system were allowed to continue, there would be no security in the country for the due administration of Government. Soon after the elections alluded to, there were 325 Protestants and 295 Catholics on the panel. There were riots took place about that time, and several Catholics were indicted, but before the trial came on the panel had been altered so as to leave only ten Protestants on it, and he had it on good authority that one Roman Catholic was on the Jury on the trial of his brother. And when some of those parties were acquitted and discharged, Chief Justice Doherty said it was one of the most extraordinary proceedings he had ever witnessed. He could assure their Lordships, that the peaceable inhabitants of Ireland were alarmed at the prospect of the noble Earl's return to Ireland as head of the Government. In taking the course he now did, he could assure their Lordships that he had no other motive but a desire to discharge what he considered his duty 1870 —and nothing but his going back to Ireland to reside made him unwilling that the noble Earl should again be placed at the head of the Government. He would conclude, by submitting his motion for the production of the correspondence between the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland and the Marquess of Westmeath, relative to the removal of Sir Richard Nagle, bart, from the lieutenancy of the county of Westmeath and his re-appointment thereto; also of the correspondence (if any) with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Marquess of Westmeath, relative to Sir Richard Nagle's removal and restoration to the commission of the peace for the county of Westmeath, and to the appointment of—Sheil, esq., to the commission of the peace for the said county."
The Earl of Mulgrave
observed, that the motion had been shown to him on Thursday. He was asked if he objected to that motion. He replied that he did not object to it, but that he thought it was at all events right that duo notice should have been given of it. The noble Marquess upon this did give his notice; but it was without any communication with him as to the time that the motion would be made, or without affording him an opportunity for writing for the information that the noble Marquess required. But what notice had he of the nature of the noble Lord's motion, and the manner in which it was to be introduced? He appealed to the can dour of every noble Lord who heard him if he could possibly have anticipated the course which the noble Marquess had thought proper to adopt upon this occasion? Was he to write for information upon the numerous topics to which the noble Marquess had referred? Was he now to be called upon to reply to them without the slightest notice being given to him—without the least intimation that they were to be alluded to—without the possibility of referring to various papers connected with them? And was he to be called upon to do this because the noble Marquess bad thought proper, in moving for a correspondence upon two particular points, to enter into the many subjects he had alluded to, and because the noble Lord upon such an occasion had delivered one of the most unparalleled pieces of oratory that he believed had ever been addressed to that House? One part of the noble Marquess's observations was addressed to the proceedings of the Carlow 1871 Committee, into the nature of which he should not enter: the noble Marquess had even quoted something from the proceedings of that Committee. Now, what connexion had he with the Carlow Committee? Surely their Lordships might well ask, how could he possibly conceive that such a topic could be introduced upon such a motion? But then the noble Marquess had alluded to many other topics, and he should now, as far as he could do so without the documents, apply himself to those topics, and give the best explanation that, under the circumstances, it was in his power to give. He should first allude to what the noble Lord had said of his return to the Government of Ireland; and without troubling himself very much as to the anxiety the noble Marquess seemed to labour under, as to his returning to Ireland, he should only say that it was one consolation to him, under the direful denunciation pronounced against him by the noble Marquess, that he had combined his presence in Ireland with the satisfaction of the people. The noble Marquess seemed to labour under a great apprehension of the representation of the Irish people; and he even had declared that he wished to God that they could get rid of representation in that country. In such company as the noble Marquess had been pleased to place him he could assure the noble Lord that he was happy to be the object of his censure. There was one portion of the documents which the noble Marquess had moved for, that he could more appropriately have called for at another time than the present: he could have called for them in the presence of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Plunket), who had been there for a considerable portion of the early part of the Session, and who would have been most ready to have given him an answer as to the whole of that which regarded the case of Mr. Sheil. He should not trespass upon their Lordships with that, although he could go into the whole of the case of Mr. Sheil. He rested with the most perfect confidence upon the judgment and discretion of his noble and learned Friend, and especially when he decided that cases were made out for interfering, without the consent of the lieutenants of counties, in the appointment of magistrates worthy of the popular confidence. He avowed, and he was prepared to defend, the establishment of a Government enjoying the popular 1872 confidence in the due and proper administration of the laws. The noble Lord had, however, made a charge against him the accuracy of which he disclaimed. The noble Marquess stated, that he had set himself up in opposition to all former viceroys. He disclaimed that he had, upon any occasion, ever done so; on the contrary, he had upon most occasions acted in that very way which he believed would have been adopted by either of his two noble Friends who had held the Government of that country for a long time, with such advantage to it, and with such credit to themselves. As to Sir Richard Nagle, the best proof of the propriety of the time which had been adopted with regard to that gentleman was, that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland who sanctioned his restoration, was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland at that very time when under other circumstances, he thought that it was proper to have him removed from the deputy-lieutenancy of the county, and also from the commission of the peace. But why did the noble Marquess now bring this matter forward thirteen months after the thing had passed? He did not exactly recollect the terms of the letter written upon the occasion; but, as far as he could remember it, he believed the terms of the letter to the noble Marquess were nearly these—that it was expedient that Sir Richard Nagle should be restored to the commission of the peace, and also to the deputy-lieutenancy. As to Sir Richard Nagle himself, every one who knew him must be convinced that there could not be a more valuable character; one who was beloved and respected by all who knew him, and one, too, of the best of magistrates in his neighbourhood. The cause of the removal of Sir Richard Nagle was, that he had attended an anti-tithe meeting. Upon that occasion he had taken the chair; there was no political expression of his upon the subject beyond this; but he was removed from the commission of the peace for having presided at that meeting. It was to be remembered that Sir Richard Nagle was not at that time the member for the county, and no other opportunity had been afforded him of explaining his political conduct. Sir Richard Nagle had, however, since that time an opportunity of testifying what his political conduct was with regard to the question of tithes; and he had shown it in his readiness to accede to that arrange- 1873 ment which had been sanctioned by a majority of the House of Commons. Not only had Sir Richard Nagle done this, but he had also done something more. Some men changed their opinions, others only changed the mode of expressing them. Perhaps the noble Marquess was not aware of that. Now, the opinion of Sir R. Nagle, and that of a majority of the Irish people, was against the present arrangement of the tithe question. But Sir Richard Nagle, and the people, too, had learned the advantage of having the law upon their side, and would no longer set themselves up in defiance of the law, and the consequence was, that their Lordships heard now of such meetings being held in that country with men of the weight and importance of Sir Richard Nagle presiding over them. But there was, moreover, this fact to be stated with regard to the change in Sir Richard Nagle's position, and he was sure it would be considered as rather an important one by the noble Marquess himself, and those who took the same ground that he did with respect to the tithe question. Sir It. Nagle, from having presided over a meeting, the effect of which it was supposed was to offer opposition to the payment of tithes—to offer opposition to the law as it then existed—had paid his tithes. This had happened since, and, as example was better than precept, he had paid his tithes. Sir R. Nagle's conduct was, in the one view, only constructively encouraging the opposition to tithes; while, in the other, he had taken the positive step of paying them. With regard, then, to Sir Richard Nagle, he did not think it necessary to say anything more. When the circumstances that had occurred with respect to Sir R. Nagle took place, it so happened that he was engaged in the public service thousands of miles from Ireland, and he knew nothing of the case except through the usual channels of information. But he felt convinced that his noble and learned Friend had taken a clear and distinct view of the question upon both occasions—that Lord Plunket had taken into due consideration the propriety of the removal from the commission of the peace in the one case, as he had to restore the same person to the commission of the peace under altered circumstances. Very many topics had been introduced by the noble Marquess in a rambling way in his address, and some statements were made 1874 upon the authority of the noble Marquess himself. The noble Marquess had afforded him no opportunity of procuring papers necessary to answer his statements; but it so happened that he had one communication with respect to that noble Marquess which he had accidentally found amongst his papers. This document referred to a statement made in the course of one of the noble Marquess's exhibitions—to one that he had made in the early part of the Session; and he meant to read it for the purpose of showing that no credit was to be attached to the authority of the noble Marquess—that nothing was to be taken upon the assertion of the noble Marquess as to his information of a fact. The noble Marquess had, with reference to his discharging prisoners from gaol, said, that "when he (the Earl of Mulgrave) had visited the gaol of Mullingar in the county of Westmeath, the gaoler was in a state of transition from sanity to madness, and the proof of this was, that the day following he had to be put into a strait-waistcoat; and yet it was upon the recommendation of that man that nineteen prisoners were let out of gaol." Now, what would their Lordships think, when they found that in the whole of that statement there was not one fact? The man was not in a state of transition from sanity to madness; the man had not to be put into a strait-waistcoat the next day, and it was not on the recommendation of that man that nineteen prisoners had been discharged. What was his astonishment some days after this statement had been made, and when he returned to Ireland, to receive a letter at the Castle signed by this very gaoler! He owned that he distrusted the evidence of his eyes—he could not credit it—he could not believe that a Peer of Parliament, trusting to the implicit reliance that should be placed upon his solemn assertion—he could not believe that a person so situated would lightly bring forward grave charges—that he would not only do this, but state that which was directly the very reverse of the fact; and this, too, connected with his own county, and with which he had an official connexion.—he could not believe that very noble Lord would venture to make such charges without having very good grounds for them. Yet what more was there connected with the case of the man thus assailed? In looking over the returns to 1875 that House the name of the person was still to be found. But their Lordships would be surprised when he referred to a letter he had received upon this subject. The writer of it was the hon. and rev. Henry Browne, the rector of Mullingar, and the inspector of the prison. With respect to the high character of that clergyman he could venture to refer to the noble Marquess himself, and even he must be bound to say of the rev. Henry Browne, that never was there a better country clergyman nor a more respectable man. His answer was to this effect—"With reference to the governor of Mullingar prison, during his knowledge in connexion with that prison for nine years, he had never known one more alive to the duties of his situation, or more efficient in the discharge of them. Upon his Excellency's visit to the prison every thing had been arranged with the most minute care. A few days after he was attacked by fever, and upon the Saturday he was, in the usual course of the disease, delirious. But upon the 22d August (the day his Excellency visited the prison) he was competent not only to conduct the affairs of the prison, but to assist him (the writer) in recommending and pointing out on that day the prisoners entitled to his Excellency's notice." Where, then, was the gaoler that was in a state of transition from sanity to madness? Their Lordships perceived that no strait-waistcoat had to be put upon him the next day; nor was it upon his recommendation, but upon that of the hon. and reverend Henry Browne, that he had discharged a few prisoners confined for minor offences, and near the expiration of their sentences. Mr. Browne added, that he was happy to be able to state that he had it in his power to quiet the injured feelings of a highly meritorious and valuable officer. Now, he must say that it was not fair, it was not becoming, it was not proper in the noble Marquess thus to come forward, and, whatever might be the station of the person, wantonly prefer a charge against him—against a person, too, holding an office in the chief town of the county over which he presided; and, this too, for the purpose of making an unfounded accusation against the head of the Government under whom he held a commission. He told the noble Lord that he did not envy him his feelings; he told him more, that the mere assertion of the noble Lord would 1876 henceforward not be sufficient for him; and when the noble Lord rose in his place, he would not say that he did not believe him, but that it would not be enough for the noble Lord, in his place in Parliament, to tell them what he had fancied to have heard, or what he believed he was told. He assured the noble Lord he should distrust his authority; and even in any official reports coming from the noble Lord he would require some further confirmation of them—something more than his assertion; for the noble Lord had proved himself to be too credulous in believing, and too careless in asserting. He had now to refer to the returns of the prisoners liberated. The noble Lord had put into the return, skilfully enough, not only all the persons that had been discharged by him upon the recommendation of the inspectors, but also all the persons discharged upon the recommendation of the Judges, upon medical certificates and for other reasons. It was difficult in a return of 1,300 cases to catch at a particular name; but luckily there was a case in Galway of which he could from recollection venture to say this—that he saw Judge Burton with respect to that case, he saw the man when he was in Galway. The case was a very curious one, and with the particulars of it he should not trouble their Lordships. The verdict of the jury was murder, and although the judge said, from considering all the circumstances, he was not inclined to set it aside, yet the case was one for the extension of mercy. Had the noble Lord given him notice that he meant to make this a charge against the Irish Government he should have been prepared to meet it. He had said that he wished to hear of my charges that could be made against him. To be sure he did; but then he wished to be met fairly—he wished it to be done not in a manner that would put it out of the power of the human intellect to apply itself to the subject. He had certainly a right to complain of the conduct pursued upon this occasion. No one could have possibly supposed that the Noble Marquess, in moving for papers as to the appointment of two persons to the commission—no one but the noble Marquess himself could have supposed that he was therefore entitled to go into every subject he could possibly think of, or that the noble Marquess was entitled, therefore, to call on 1877 him to tax his recollection as to the cases of 1,300 persons—some liberated upon reference being made to the assistant-barristers, others upon the recommendation of the judges, more upon medical certificates, but to all of which he had given the most anxious care and the most deliberate attention, as it was his duty to do, in all cases. There was, for instance, the case of Hickey. He supposed that had occurred after the spring assizes, and when the number of prisoners were large, and some of them convicted of very grave offences. He had an indistinct recollection that Hickey had been recommended by Mr. Sergeant Green for the exercise of mercy. This was his recollection, but he was not positive as to the fact. He believed that Hickey was recommended upon the ground of insanity. The noble Marquess had gone through a great number of cases—of murders, of aggravated assaults, of persons improperly liberated. He repeated, then, what he stated upon a former occasion, that none charged with grave offences, with serious offences—that no such persons had been liberated except upon medical certificates, and in most cases except after reference to the authorities presiding at the trials. As to this matter, the discharging of prisoners, he believed that it was impossible for the power of language to have gone further for the purpose of misrepresentation than in that case. Much it ought to be remembered depended upon peculiar circumstances, and they could only judge of the propriety of the discharge by looking to the peculiar circumstances in each case. He had to say, that of the whole of the prisoners discharged upon the recommendation of the inspectors—of all those there were but nineteen recommitted, and those were for two or three minor offences, such as throwing stones, &c. With regard to the hon. and rev. Mr. Browne, he wished to make one remark. Even the noble Marquess himself had assented to the character that he had given of that hon. and rev. gentleman. He hoped that he might be permitted to take that opportunity of saying, not only was the hon. and rev. Mr. Browne as deserving a man as an inspector of the gaol and a Protestant minister, but so also were all the Protestant ministers who were inspectors of gaols. He never in his life saw a set of men conduct themselves in a more exemplary manner, or with greater pro- 1878 priety of feeling, than those gentlemen did in their arduous duties. it seemed to him, that being the ministers of an establishment of which the actual professors were few, and being not confined to the care of a flock, they seemed to take delight in labouring for the common fold of Christianity. He had not only received from Mr. Browne, but also from other gentlemen similarly situated, letters upon that point which had been so much complained of, and from them he was in possession of papers in which they, as inspectors of prisons, bore testimony to the excellent effect produced by the discharge of prisoners under the limitations that he had placed it. Thosegentlemen declared that they found it not only useful to themselves, as giving them a control over the prisons that they had charge of, but also as affecting the tranquillity of the surrounding country. There were, it was to be remembered, peculiar circumstances connected with Ireland that rendered it possible that what was expedient to do there might not be applicable to the settled state of England. The noble Marquess had stated, as to some of the persons discharged, that they had been convicted of the crime of perjury. Now, in the whole of the oration of the noble Marquess, there was only one point in which he concurred with him, and that was in his denunciation of the horrible crime of perjury. Luckily his opinion upon this subject was recorded. It would be found in a communication with Baron Pennefather. In one of the minutes he had made, he had declared that he saw the necessity of suppressing the crime of perjury; he had so stated his opinion; nor was there any one instance in which a person convicted of the crime of perjury had been discharged, except under special circumstances, which did not at all affect the crime itself. The noble Marquess had read him a lesson upon the impropriety of discharging persons convicted of such a crime, as if he had discharged them without consulting those by whom they had been tried. He had done exactly the reverse, and he had proved that he was anything but indifferent to the commission of a crime which he agreed with the noble Marquess in thinking struck at the well-being of society. The noble Marquess had then stated, that many had been discharged without giving bail. What was the object in requiring bail? It was to prevent the same person from re-committing 1879 the same offence, or from placing himself in the same situation. That to discharge without giving bail had not been capriciously exercised was shown by the fact that, within the last two years, of all that had been discharged from prison, only nineteen had been recommitted. The noble Lord really could not expect him to go into all the details with regard to the appointment of Mr. Keogh as sheriff for Carlow. Three names had been given in, and the choice was left to the Executive, and in that instance he had not departed from the rule. In 1816, Sir Robert Peel had made an alteration that the sheriff should return to the judges three names, and that the lists should be afterwards referred to the Executive. Nothing that the right hon. Baronet had done reflected more honour on him than that. It had been for the public convenience, and, except under special circumstances, he should not depart from that rule. As to the other part of the noble Lord's charges, their Lordships must excuse his answering them now, as he had not the necessary papers to refer to. He could, however, say, with regard to the appointment of Mr. Sheil, that the Lord Chancellor had consulted him verbally on the subject, and Mr. Sheil was appointed in consequence of what he had said, he was willing to take the responsibility upon himself He had not a distinct recollection of these matters without the papers, but as this was perhaps the last opportunity he should have of speaking on the subject during this Session, he was anxious to correct at once some of the statements of the noble Lord. There was one thing which he wished to impress on the minds of their Lordships—the advantage of the local prosecuting county solicitors. That, in consequence of this, disturbances in Ireland had not been so frequent, and faction fights had ceased. The noble Lord had indeed denied this, and had said, that great riots had taken place in Tipperary. He had, however, received information that such an assertion was not borne out by fact. At one of the fairs there certainly had been some disturbance, but no loss of life had taken place. With reference to the number of persons in Clonmel gaol—about 1,500—it did appear a great number, but much would depend on the comparison with other times; and it must be remembered, moreover, that the new system which he had been advocating had 1880 only just come into operation, and therefore, more persons were confined there; but he thought that, notwithstanding this, the county of Tipperary was in a far more peaceable state than it had hitherto been. He appealed to the good sense and candour of the noble Lord, but it was not necessary to appeal to that, as the present state of Tipperary clearly showed, that the appeal which he (Lord Mulgrave) had made to the popular feeling in Ireland had not been without its tranquillising effects in that country. If it had not done so, where did the blame rest? Why, with the noble Lords who had made the requisition to him to suspend the constitution, and had not followed up his neglect to comply with that requisition by any further proceedings. Not only, however, did he thoroughly believe that the state of Tipperary was much improved, but he knew it to be so. However much he regretted the indications of feeling which still prevailed—however much he regretted the state of that unfortunate country, still he was convinced that the condition of Ireland was never one of greater tranquillity than it was at present. The returns of offences made for the month of June last, was one-sixth less than that for the month of May, and making every allowance for eases of common assault, which were not returned now as they were formerly, he felt warranted in stating, that the offences committed in June last were only half the number of the offences committed in June, 1836. In corroboration of this he could cite the representations of the grand jury of the county of Louth, praying that the police force might be reduced, in consequence of the tranquillity of the country, which they expected would continue. A further corroboration was to be found in the support of the resident gentry, Protestant as well as Catholic, by the support of the landed proprietors, and by the peers of Ireland—an array such as had never been gathered together in support of any Government. This, too, was in support of a Government which the noble Lord said was detested by the peaceable portion of the community. He had no fear for the result of this discussion. He believed the habits of the people of Ireland were settling; he would not say that they were settled, and he hoped that the tranquillity which now prevailed in that country would long continue. Among the well-wishers of that fine country, none could be more 1881 sincere in their aspirations for its welfare, or more zealous for its interests, than himself.
The Earl of Roden
regretted that the noble Lord who had last spoken should have been betrayed into expressions which he was sure he could never have intended to utter, for the noble Earl had spoken of the rhapsodical speech of the noble Marquess who had introduced this subject, which, he conceived, was not language suited to that House. What were the circumstances of the case? Sir Richard Nagle, a magistrate in Ireland, filled the chair at a meeting, the object of which was resistance to the law. He was put out of the commission of the peace, and again restored to it by the Lord Chancellor, on his becoming a Member of the other House of Parliament. He confessed, that whatever the objects or the intentions of the noble Lord or the Lord Chancellor were in restoring Sir Richard Nagle to the commission of the peace, and he said nothing against the purity of their motives, the appointment of Sir Richard Nagle was highly unconstitutional, and manifested and marked in the strongest degree what had been the conduct, the uniform conduct, of his Majesty's Government in Ireland, with reference to the individuals who agreed with them in their political views. He was unwilling to state any thing that he was not prepared to give a reason for, and he would instance the case of Colonel Blacker, in the county of Armagh.
The Earl of Radnor
rose to order. The noble Marquess had given a notice to move for some particular papers, and the noble Earl most irregularly referred to other matters to which that notice did not at all relate.
The Earl of Roden
was strictly in order. He was referring to the case of Sir Richard Nagle, and comparing it to the conduct of His Majesty's Government towards Colonel Blacker. The noble Earl, who had interrupted him, might laugh and sneer, but he could not forget that Colonel Blacker was dismissed from the commission of the peace because he had attended an Orange meeting—a loyal meeting—a meeting, the object of which was to support the laws of the country, and maintain the prerogative of the Crown. There was after his dismissal an investigation to ascertain whether he had attended that meeting, and it was proved that, so far 1882 from attending it, he did every thing in his power to prevent its being held. In fact, the only thing that was alleged and proved against him was, that Mrs. Blacker wore an orange lily. Colonel Blacker had applied to be re-instated, but his application had been refused. Sir Richard Nagle, on the contrary, had been restored to the commission, and, therefore, he was warranted in saying, that his Majesty's Government had been guilty of gross partiality. With regard to the present condition of the country, he denied that it was in a state of tranquillity. It could not be said that a country was tranquil, when it appeared by the Gazette that out of the 290 proclamations issued during the past year by the Lord-lieutenant, seventy-one had reference to murder. Between the 7th of February and the 16th of the same month eleven actual murders had been committed. Surely a country where such events as these happened could not be called tranquil. The condition in which the Irish clergy were placed was in itself a sufficient proof that the country was not tranquil. They could obtain no money for their subsistence, and the insurance offices refused to continue their insurances, on the ground of the insecurity of a clergyman's life. The noble Earl talked of the tranquillity of Ireland, but how was that tranquillity preserved? The law was not put in force, tithes were not paid, and the clergy were starving; the country might be tranquil enough for the noble Earl, seated in Dublin Castle, surrounded by all the comforts and luxuries that were at his command, but if the noble Earl would visit the Houses of the poor starving clergy, and witness their miseries and sufferings, he would be of a different opinion, and would not tell their Lordships this cock-and-bull story, for it was neither more nor less, about the tranquillity of Ireland. The system of partiality followed by the Government had been extended to small as well as to great matters but in all that the Government had done he must say, that the choice of Members of the association had proved most injurious to the execution of justice in Ireland, not that these individuals had been guilty of anything since their appointment to office, but the very circumstance of their being selected from the association had produced this effect, that association having for its object the repeal of the legislative union, provided such and such things did not take place, 1883 and also the destruction of the Protestant Church, and the establishment of the voluntary system in its stead. The noble Earl read a proclamation bearing the signature of Lord Morpeth, and which related to certain outrages that had been committed in the part of Ireland in which he lived. It was not his wish to defend any persons who committed outrages, but he thought that he had reason to complain of the wording of this proclamation. It offered a reward of 100 guineas for the discovery of the armed parties "who had attacked seven houses belonging to Roman Catholics in the parish of Killaman." Now he objected to the statement that the houses belonged to Roman Catholics. The object of those words was to make it appear to the country that it was the Protestant people of Ireland who had committed those outrages, and the effect of them had been to make the Roman Catholics of the south of Ireland the inveterate and determined foes of the few Protestants who were scattered among them.—[Lord Holland.—What is the date of that proclamation?] November 4, 1835. It appeared to him that her Majesty's Government ought to administer justice without fear or favour; but a proclamation like that which he had just read to their lordships proved that such was not the animus by which the present Government of Ireland was influenced. He held in his hand another proclamation, dated March, 1837, in which expressions equally objectionable were inserted. The preamble commenced by stating that, "whereas a number of individuals sworn to belong to the Orange lodge, No. 115, had committed such and such offences." Now, how was it that Government had so far forgotten the functions which it ought to exercise as to insert in one of its proclamations that individuals belonged to such and such a party? Did the noble Earl ever insert in any of his proclamations that such and such an individual had recently belonged either to the riband or to any other association? If he had not, then the expressions which he had quoted afforded another proof of the partiality of the noble Earl, and of his desire to show that the Protestant population embarked as eagerly as the Roman Catholic population in the commission of crime. In both of the cases which he had quoted, it was quite unnecessary for the noble Earl to enter such expressions in his proclamation. One word with respect to 1884 the observations which he had made on the language said to have been used at a dinner by an individual unfortunately too notorious in Ireland.- He had formerly said, that he had been informed that Mr. O'Connell had said at a public dinner at Carlow, "Men of Carlow, are you ready? I am one of the last men in the world to recommend the shedding of blood; but we have tried every other means, and we have no course left us now but the shedding of blood. I say that blood must be shed to prevent more blood from being shed, for, should your enemies get into power, they will undoubtedly shed your blood." He had been told, that Mr. Vignolles, an officer of high rank in the police, and two officers holding commissions in her Majesty's army, were present when those words were used. He wished to ask the noble Earl whether his Government had ever received from Mr. Vignolles any statement of the circumstances under which that speech had been made, and, if his Government had received such a statement, whether he meant to institute a prosecution against the individual who had used in public such seditious, such exciting, such dangerous language? He waited with impatience for an answer to this question, for he recollected that shortly after that speech was made the man who had made it was publicly entertained by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in her Majesty's Castle of Dublin. It was not for him to quarrel with the noble Earl respecting the individuals he might think proper to invite to his own house as Earl Mulgrave, but he had a right to remark upon the individuals whom he thought proper to invite to her Majesty's Castle of Dublin as Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He should be most happy to see the noble Earl in his private capacity at his (the Earl of Roden's) house, but not in his public character as Lord-lieutenant. For the private character of the noble Earl he felt great and unfeigned respect; but from his public conduct he must altogether withhold his approbation. No man could regret more than he did the feeling manifested towards the noble Earl by the resident gentry of Ireland. No one could lament more than he did the wretched attendance at the noble Earl's levees, and the scanty appearance of rank and talent in a place where all that was noble, and all that was educated, and all that was useful in Ireland, had formerly congregated 1885 to do homage to the Lord-lieutenant. He agreed, however, with the resident gentry of Ireland in thinking that where that individual had entrance there was no want or wish for their presence. Another topic on which he wished to say a word was, the comparison between the National Association and the Orange Association of Ireland. He lamented that when the latter Association was put down at the request of the friends of order and religion all associations of a political character had not been simultaneously abandoned. Notwithstanding the forbearance—he might almost say the criminal forbearance—of the Orangemen—notwithstanding their frequent exhibitions of themselves in the character of good and loyal subjects, her Majesty's Government had suffered an association to exist in Dublin which met for no other purpose than to beard the Orangemen for the conduct which they had pursued, and to brand them as rebels, and to stigmatize them with the basest calumnies that could be imputed to man. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the country saw the Orangemen proceeding quietly in their course under the law, and not transgressing it; and although a proclamation had been issued against the customary processions of the 12th of July, a proclamation which was likely to raise such processions from their ashes, he did not expect that any processions would take place. If the noble Earl had confided in the loyalty of the Orangemen, he was quite certain that nothing more would have been heard of these annual processions. He did not know what the object of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland might be in the course which he had adopted; but this he could tell him, that it had affected deeply all the loyal people of Ireland, and had made many persons unwilling to assist the noble Earl in his endeavours to tranquillise the country. In the complaints which he had made against the Government of the noble Earl, he did not mean to complain of his having promoted many Roman Catholics to office. As the Emancipation Bill of 1829 was now passed into a law—a measure which he deemed fatal at the time it was passed, and which from every day's experience he had brought himself to consider as destructive to the best interests of the monarchy, he did not object to seeing Roman Catholics placed in office. It was, however, with mingled feelings of hatred and disgust that he saw 1886 Roman Catholic agitators fostered by the noble Earl, and put into offices which ought to be held by loyal and peaceful subjects. He had great respect for many Roman Catholics, but as to the o man Catholic religion, he had sworn at their Lordships' table that he detested and abhorred it. He loved the Roman Catholics as men. He had lived among them all his life, and had done all he could to promote their peace and welfare. He hoped that the noble Earl, in his future government of Ireland would turn over a new leaf, and that he would consider what was due to the numbers and respectability of the Protestant gentry of that country. He hoped that the noble Earl would no longer mark his preference for one sect of Christians over another, but that he would show by his actions that his object was to carry on the government of Ireland with fairness and impartiality towards all parties.
The Earl of Glengall
denied, that the number of the faction fights in Tipperary had diminished in any thing like the ratio stated by Mr. Howley; and in proof of his position, he read a paper containing the number of committals to the gaol of Tipperary in the years 1835 and 1836 respectively. From this comparison, it appeared, that in 1835, there were committed for affrays, 762; in 1836, 1,233:—for assaults, in 1885, 1,436; and in 1.836, 2,152:—for rescue, in 1835, 401; in 1836, 567:—for grievous assaults or bodily harm, in 1835, 338; in 1836, 859:—for forcible possession, in 1835, 107; in 1836, 262:—and for larceny, in 1835, 262; and in 1836, 336. From this statement, it appeared, that the grand total of committals in 1835, was 3,395; and in 1836, was 5,412. He made this statement upon the authority of returns made to the other House of Parliament. He next informed their Lordships of the convictions which had followed from these committals at the assizes and sessions at Clonmel. The convictions in 1835, were 407; and in 1836, 842:—for assaults, in 1835, 105; and in 1836, 306:—and for bodily harm, in 1835, 16; and in 1836, 69. He made that statement upon the authority of returns taken from the county books, and published by order of the other House of Parliament. He would not make any further observations on the facts which he had just stated to their Lordships, save they showed, that, in 1836, Ireland was not in that state of tranquillity which had 1887 been predicated by Mr. Howley. The tithes, too, of late years, had not been collected by the ancient process of the law, but by an Exchequer process. If the Government should think fit to enforce the payment of them by distraint, what would become of all this boasted tranquillity? Again, if the country were in that state of tranquillity, how came it to pass that twenty-three new stipendiary magistrates had recently been added to the police force of Ireland? It was true, that they increased the patronage of the Minister, but they diminished the revenue of the country by a loss of 12,000l. He would not enter into the statement that nineteen out of these twenty-three magistrates had never been in the police before. He must complain of the mischief done in Ireland by the constant employment of pacificators, who were a set of middlemen and bankrupts. He was a private friend of the Earl of Mulgrave, but he had not visited the Castle of Dublin during the later periods of his Lord-lieutenancy. He would not hesitate to declare, that the main reason was that horrid and ferocious speech which a guest of the noble Earl had made at Carlow, in January last, upon the death of the kind and excellent Kavanagh, the undoubted descendant of the ancient kings of Ireland. How did the peasantry of Carlow act after that brutal speech? That man had told them to disgrace the grave of Kavanagh. Had they done so? At the last election, they would not vote for their landlord; but they determined that they would not vote against him. So disgusted were they with that speech, that though they did not vote at the previous election for their landlord, they did vote at the next ensuing election for his successor and heir, Mr. Bunbury. He concluded by repeating, that his reason for not attending the levees at the castle was, that he knew that Mr. O'Connell was received at them.
hoped that his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, would not condescend to give any further answer to the speeches which had that evening been made against him, without notice, and upon a subject with which they had no natural connexion. If his noble Friend should not be inclined to follow his advice, then he would warn their Lordships against proceeding further in the course upon which they had recently entered, and which was quite un- 1888 paralleled in the history of disorder. He had observed, on a former occasion, that of all the places of discussion which he had attended, both within and without the walls of Parliament, the House of Lords was that in which he had seen the greatest irregularity practised. But he thought, that on the present occasion, the House of Lords had exceeded all its former ill-doings, and that it had, if possible, surpassed itself. First of all, they had seen a noble Marquess come forward to explain the reasons why he moved for certain papers relative to the appointment and removal of two individuals from the magistracy. They had seen him rise and make a speech of attack on the noble Earl, founded on every individual act of his administration during his government of two years and a-half in Ireland, including, no doubt, the appointment and removal of those two magistrates, and entering on every topic of abuse, slander, and calumny, which ever had been urged against him since his first arrival in Ireland, entering into all manner of details, raking up every charge, rumour, and report that had ever been advanced against him, every word of which he had no doubt but the noble Marquess perfectly believed. He begged it to be understood, that when he used the words "slander and calumny," he was not applying them to the noble Marquess, but to those who had furnished him with his instructions. He would here remind their Lordships, that the gravest of all the charges preferred against his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, was that of releasing from prison an individual who was lying there, ordered for death, under sentence of the judges. That charge was disposed of for ever—for it turned out that all that was done was done at the recommendation of the learned judge who tried the man, and who, on reconsideration, was of opinion that the conviction was wrong, and could not stand. [The Marquess of Westmeath: The noble and learned Baron is quite wrong.] He was not wrong, and would quote the words of the noble Marquess himself, to prove that he was right. The noble Marquess, in one of his speeches, had candidly admitted that he was glad to find that he was mistaken, and that no man could rejoice more than he did at finding that the charge was false, and had been satisfactorily rebutted; and yet the noble Marquess, after a 1889 speech which would have justified, if true, a vote of censure upon his noble Friend, had concluded,—oh, lame and impotent conclusion!—by simply moving for the production of certain papers! In reply to the noble Marquess, his noble Friend had entered, unprepared as he was for such an attack, into a full and ample, and satisfactory defence of his own conduct. The speech of the noble Earl who followed his noble Friend was, if possible, still more extraordinary than that of the noble Marquess himself. The noble Earl said, "You have answered the speech of the noble Marquess, but you have not answered my speech of March last,"—of which he then produced to their Lordships many full and copious notes.
The Earl of Roden
had not produced any notes of the speech to which the noble and learned Lord had just alluded.
fancied that he had seen the noble Earl take out of his pocket a small fasciculus of notes, and he imagined that they might be notes of the noble Earl's speech, to which he had formerly listened with great attention. Greatly as he deplored the opinions of the noble Earl, greatly as he doubted their wisdom and propriety, there was no man in existence to whom he would more readily give credit for the honesty with which he both spoke and acted. The charge which the noble Earl had made against his noble Friend, resolved itself into this:—"Why have you not answered my speech of March last? I'll show you what I said last March, and answer that if you can." Now, it really turned out that the bulk of the charges preferred against his noble Friend by the noble Earl, and by the noble Lord who followed him in the debate, had been answered by anticipation in the speech of his noble Friend. Those two noble Lords said, "You have shown us how tranquil the country is at present by specific acts of yours. We will show you what your tranquillity was in the years 1835 and 1836, when you first came into office." To this statement his noble Friend had, by anticipation, given a satisfactory answer, by pointing, not to the state of crime in 1835 and 1836, but to the state of crime in 1837, when tranquillity was re-established throughout Ireland. But, said the noble Earl, twenty-three additional stipendiary magistrates have been appointed, and at a cost of 12,000l. per 1890 annum; to that he would retort, that it was because his noble Friend had tempered justice with mercy—because he had mingled precaution with lenity—because he had displayed that vigour which fit proclamations and due augmentations of force indicated, that those appointments had been made. Then, again, with regard to the different line of conduct pursued towards Sir Richard Nagle, and that observed towards Colonel Blacker, one of whom had been restored to office after dismissal, and one of whom had not yet been restored, he thought that that case proved nothing; he suggested, therefore, that the House should return to such matters as would show, that there was some connexion between the things on the notice-book and the things noticed in the House. He thought that their Lordships had travelled far enough over this wide field of irregularity, into which his noble and learned Friend might say, that he also had entered, although, as he had not begun it, the offence in him was the less grave.
§ The Duke of Wellington
said, that nothing was more painful than the irregularity of such debates; it appeared, however, that the gentleman who had been once removed had been replaced, and so far the charge remained uncontradicted. With reference to the peace of Ireland, he could not but recollect the speech from the Throne in August 1836, when their Lordships had been assured that Ireland was in a state of tranquillity; he could not but think that statements of the noble Earl opposite had been the foundation of that assertion; and yet the state of crime now was double what it had been in 1833. He thought at the time that the statement was erroneous, and in the last discussion he had read the charge of Baron Foster, at the last assizes, to the grand jury of Tipperary, a county, which, if not the worst, at least afforded the measure of crime in Ireland. That learned judge said, that there were 930 persons in confinement since the previous assizes. Considering, therefore, that the last assizes occurred in April, he could not think that Ireland had proved to be tranquil, though he should be glad if returns could show that she had been.
§ The Marquess of Lansdowne
would not follow the example of noble Lords opposite, and thereby expose himself to the just censure of his noble and learned 1891 Friend, by bringing in extraneous matters. The noble Duke referred to a speech from the Throne, in which allusion was made to the tranquil state of Ireland. This speech the noble Duke should recollect was founded on documents which were prepared months before the statements referred to by his noble Friend, and the then state of the country completely bore out the declaration in his Majesty's speech. The noble Duke had alluded" to the number of persons, according to the statement of Baron Foster, in the county gaol of Tipperary at the period of the spring assizes of the present year; but the noble Duke should have recollected the answer made to him on the former occasion—namely, the great number of persons acquitted at those assizes, and also that the learned judge included the list of the names of persons tried at the sessions. With reference to the present state of Ireland, all the judges agreed as to the state of tranquillity and the steady and continued improvement of the country. That state of improvement had not been produced or promoted by exaggerated statements in wandering and desultory debates in that House, such as they had heard that night, but had resulted from the improved government of the country, and this improvement was manifest to every one from the simple circumstance of the increased value of property in Ireland. This, he was convinced, was one of the surest indications they could possibly have of the improvement in the state of the country, which had resulted from the admirable and steady administration of the Government by his noble Friend near him. When noble Lords opposite referred to particular cases, he begged them to compare the average returns for the last five years, when there was no suspension in the regular state of the law, with the average of the previous five years, when measures of extraordinary severity were continually had recourse to. He hoped by pursuing the same course of good government that he had hitherto done, and he was sure that from nothing that he had heard brought forward would his noble Friend be deterred from pursuing that course—that his noble Friend would have the satisfaction of finding the tranquillity and happiness of Ireland as great as those of any part of the empire.
The Marquess of Westmeath
in reply, 1892 complained that his remarks relative to the Irish representation had been entirely misrepresented. What he considered objectionable in the state of that representation was, that fourteen places returned Members who had not otherwise the slightest connexion with them. He was sure that none of their Lordships would say, that Mr. Raphael, if he had continued the Member for Carlow, would have been the legitimate representative of that county. The county of Meath, too, was represented by one of the O'Connells, who he (the Marquis of Westmeath) would venture to say had not a single acre of land on the earth. This was a species of representation which he considered a mockery, and he thought that the people of Ireland had better have no representation at all than such a one.
§ Motion agreed to.