persons to gaol on merely being accounted suspicious; the penalty for the indefinite offence of possessing "any weapon capable of being used as a pike or spear; and in all these cases the evidence of one witness would suffice to convict ! Lord Eliot had shown himself to be influenced by the most superficial views respecting the state of Ireland; why should the people desire to have arms? was it judicious to war with the symptom instead of destroying the cause? A far better plan than an Arms Bill would be to ameliorate the condition of the people; and the evil lies in the relation of landlord and tenant. What other causes of complaint have been removed? There is still the Law Church, with tithes a Poor-law has been attempted, but calculated to give no satisfaction. Mr. Crawford urged the certainty that Ireland would be best subdued by equal laws, good institutions, kindness, and impartiality of legislation. Lord Clements seconded the amendment. He regretted that it was so moderately worded, for he would gladly have supported a proposal that the Serjeant should be ordered to kick the Bill out of the House. He thanked Lord Eliot, however, for having introduced the monster in its proper shape, for, in former years, the course had been to bring in a mere continuation-bill of half-adozen lines, whereas now the abomination appeared entire on the face of the Bill. There were a variety of measures needed for Ireland, none of which were brought forward by Government; tolls, grand-juries, registrations, manor-courts, and many other nothing useful would ever be enacted while the Government of Ireland was left in the hands of the clerks of Dublin Castle. The present measure, if it passed, would pass against the sense of the majority of the Irish Members. Sir R. Peel had declared himself generally adverse to extraordinary measures of coercion, as widening the breach between the higher and lower classes, and weakening the efficacy of the ordinary law. Now all these evils would be produced by the present Bill, and a milder measure would have effected all the really legitimate objects of it. Since the year 1792, there had never been a period when Ireland was so long without coercive measures as she had now been. There had been times at which the Arms Act was suffered to expire, and to lie unrenewed for two or three years together, and he did not find that in those intervals all Ireland had been a scene of bloodshed. Lord Clements, at very great length, went on through the list of the enactments passed from time to time for the preservation of the public peace in Ireland, marking the circumstances under which each had been respectively passed, its date and its duration. The present Bill, he said, contained a clause respecting the arms of the Yeomanry Corps. These corps, though they called themselves loyal Protestants, had refused to give up their arms at the order of Government when disbanded. They had since, in many cases, sold those arms into the worst of hands, and thus it was, that an Arms Bill had now come to be thought necessary. Mr. Bateson considered that Lord Clements's speech itself prov was not really so much a measure of coercion, as of protection for those who stood in need of being protected, and it was a merciful measure for those whom it would save from being hurried into crimes, by agitators as cowardly in fact as they were blustering in speech. He wished that those who talked so loudly about dying for their country, would take to the easier and more useful duty of living for her. Mr. Sheil delivered a vehement and brilliant harangue against the Bill, which he was persuaded would prove wholly inefficient. The spirit of outrage which prevailed in that county with which he was best acquainted, Tipperary, arose, not from the want of an Arms Bill, but from the want of a due administration of justice. The Crown Solicitor who conducted the prosecutions at the assizes was not resident in the county, but at Dublin; he knew nothing of the parties or witnesses, and thus was easily foiled by the legal assistants of the prisoners, men who were acquainted with everything and everybody there. Again, it was the practice of the Crown to bribe informers, but to leave witnesses unprotected. Thirdly, the higher classes were averse to serve on the petty juries at the assizes: the only remedy for such reluctance would probably be a fine of 500l. or 600l. But he objected to the principle of this Bill: it took from the honest the means of defence; it could not take from the ruffian the means of annoyance; and even if it could deprive him of his most noisy weapon, it would still leave to him the more silent and fearful engines of death. But his main objection to the Bill was founded and England which it established. Repeal the Union restore the Heptarchy!" Thus exclaimed George Canning, and stamped his foot as he gave utterance to what he regarded as a comparison in absurdity which has been often cited. But that exclamation be turned to an account different may from that to which it is applied. Restore the Heptarchy-repeal the Union. Good. But take up the map of England, and mark the Saxon subdivisions into which this, your noble island, was once distributed; and then suppose that in this assembly of wise men this Imperial Parliament-you were to ordain that there should be one law in what once was the kingdom of Kent, and another in what once was the kingdom of Mercia; that in Essex there should be one municipal franchise, and in Sussex there should be another; that among the East Angles there should be one Parliamentary franchise, and in Wessex there should be another; and that while through the rest of the island the Bill of Rights should be regarded as the inviolate and inviolable charter of British liberty, in the kingdom of Northumberland an Arms Bill, by which the elementary principles of British freedom should be set at nought, should be enacted: would you not say that the restoration of the Heptarchy could scarcely be more preposterous? Nor would the English endure such a measure. In 1819, an English Arms Bill, one of the Six Acts, was proposed by Lord Castlereagh: it was comprised in a single page; while Lord Eliot's bill was a whole volume of coercion : in the English Act no penalty was inflicted for the possession persons to gaol on merely being accounted suspicious; the penalty for the indefinite offence of possessing "any weapon capable of being used as a pike or spear; and in all these cases the evidence of one witness would suffice to convict ! Lord Eliot had shown himself to be influenced by the most superficial views respecting the state of Ireland; why should the people desire to have arms? was it judicious to war with the symptom instead of destroying the cause? A far better plan than an Arms Bill would be to ameliorate the condition of the people; and the evil lies in the relation of landlord and tenant. What other causes of complaint have been removed? There is still the Law Church, with tithes a Poor-law has been attempted, but calculated to give no satisfaction. Mr. Crawford urged the certainty that Ireland would be best subdued by equal laws, good institutions, kindness, and impartiality of legislation. Lord Clements seconded the amendment. He regretted that it was so moderately worded, for he would gladly have supported a proposal that the Serjeant should be ordered to kick the Bill out of the House. He thanked Lord Eliot, however, for having introduced the monster in its proper shape, for, in former years, the course had been to bring in a mere continuation-bill of half-adozen lines, whereas now the abomination appeared entire on the face of the Bill. There were a variety of measures needed for Ireland, none of which were brought forward by Government; tolls, grand-juries, registrations, manor-courts, and many other nothing useful would ever be enacted while the Government of Ireland was left in the hands of the clerks of Dublin Castle. The present measure, if it passed, would pass against the sense of the majority of the Irish Members. Sir R. Peel had declared himself generally adverse to extraordinary measures of coercion, as widening the breach between the higher and lower classes, and weakening the efficacy of the ordinary law. Now all these evils would be produced by the present Bill, and a milder measure would have effected all the really legitimate objects of it. Since the year 1792, there had never been a period when Ireland was so long without coercive measures as she had now been. There had been times at which the Arms Act was suffered to expire, and to lie unrenewed for two or three years together, and he did not find that in those intervals all Ireland had been a scene of bloodshed. Lord Clements, at very great length, went on through the list of the enactments passed from time to time for the preservation of the public peace in Ireland, marking the circumstances under which each had been respectively passed, its date and its duration. The present Bill, he said, contained a clause respecting the arms of the Yeomanry Corps. These corps, though they called themselves loyal Protestants, had refused to give up their arms at the order of Government when disbanded. They had since, in many cases, sold those arms into the worst of hands, and thus it was, that an Arms Bill had now come to be thought necessary. Mr. Bateson considered that Lord Clements's speech itself prov was not really so much a measure of coercion, as of protection for those who stood in need of being protected, and it was a merciful measure for those whom it would save from being hurried into crimes, by agitators as cowardly in fact as they were blustering in speech. He wished that those who talked so loudly about dying for their country, would take to the easier and more useful duty of living for her. Mr. Sheil delivered a vehement and brilliant harangue against the Bill, which he was persuaded would prove wholly inefficient. The spirit of outrage which prevailed in that county with which he was best acquainted, Tipperary, arose, not from the want of an Arms Bill, but from the want of a due administration of justice. The Crown Solicitor who conducted the prosecutions at the assizes was not resident in the county, but at Dublin; he knew nothing of the parties or witnesses, and thus was easily foiled by the legal assistants of the prisoners, men who were acquainted with everything and everybody there. Again, it was the practice of the Crown to bribe informers, but to leave witnesses unprotected. Thirdly, the higher classes were averse to serve on the petty juries at the assizes: the only remedy for such reluctance would probably be a fine of 500l. or 600l. But he objected to the principle of this Bill: it took from the honest the means of defence; it could not take from the ruffian the means of annoyance; and even if it could deprive him of his most noisy weapon, it would still leave to him the more silent and fearful engines of death. But his main objection to the Bill was founded restore and England which it established. Repeal the Union the Heptarchy!" Thus exclaimed George Canning, and stamped his foot as he gave utterance to what he regarded as a comparison in absurdity which has been often cited. But that exclamation may be turned to an account different from that to which it is applied. Restore the Heptarchy-repeal the Union. Good. But take up the map of England, and mark the Saxon subdivisions into which this, your noble island, was once distributed; and then suppose that in this assembly of wise men -this Imperial Parliament-you were to ordain that there should be one law in what once was the kingdom of Kent, and another in what once was the kingdom of Mercia; that in Essex there should be one municipal franchise, and in Sussex there should be another; that among the East Angles there should be one Parliamentary franchise, and in Wessex there should be another; and that while through the rest of the island the Bill of Rights should be regarded as the inviolate and inviolable charter of British liberty, in the kingdom of Northumberland an Arms Bill, by which the elementary principles of British freedom should be set at nought, should be enacted: would you not say that the restoration of the Heptarchy could scarcely be more preposterous? Nor would the English endure such a measure. In 1819, an English Arms Bill, one of the Six Acts, was proposed by Lord Castlereagh: it was comprised in a single page; while Lord Eliot's bill was a whole volume of coercion : in the English Act no penalty was inflicted for the possession flour could be admitted into this country. Their two great articles of commerce were timber and corn. The Canadas differed from other provinces in being a corngrowing country, and able to export it. Their situation was peculiar. The hazardous experiment of the union of the two Legislatures was tried; we looked at those things, we regarded the expenditure of 2,000,000l. for sup. pressing the rebellion, and the cost of the twenty-two battalions of infantry to maintain peace there; we bore in mind the unsettled question on the frontier, and that we were involved in a dispute with a powerful country at a great distance from our resources; and we added to this, that the honour and security of England were not safe unless we carried with us the cordial goodwill and co-operation of the people of Canada. You have professed your readiness to support your relationship with Canada, and you are bound in honour to support it; and there can be no doubt that the Government in introducing the Measure attached this important consideration to it, that it would be taken as an indication of cordial good feeling towards Canada. And I now say, that unless you carry that cordial co-operation of the people of Canada with you, the weakest point of the whole empire will be Canada. It is easy to talk of dissolving that alliance; but in point of honour, and in point of policy, you cannot set that example. If your connexion with Canada is to be dissolved, your connexion with New Brunswick, with Prince Edward's Island, and with Nova Scotia, may follow; indeed, you will never be able to determine policy-apart from a feeling of honour-you must terminate your course. The more of ill-will, the more of dissension and unwillingness to submit to connexion with this country there exists, the greater will be the temptation for foreign powers to interfere." In conclusion, Sir R. Peel remarked that there was a tendency in the Opposition to undervalue colonial Legislatures, which were popular assemblies, and best able to judge of colonial interests. Any advantages to be derived from the principles of free-trade, would be but a poor equivalent for the disappointment which would be felt by Canada if this Measure were rejected. Lord John Russell spoke in answer. He characterized Sir Robert Peel's declaration that the Canadian colonies would be endangered, as imprudent; and he ridiculed the argument-first advanced by Mr. Roebuck, "Her Majesty's learned counsel (Laughter)--about the affront to the prerogative of the Crown. It was most constitutional and proper to go up to the Queen and say, "Your Majesty has been ill-advised:" a mortification to the Ministers it might be, but that it would be a mortification to the Crown, was really an assumption of the honourable and learned Gentleman who had identified himself with the Throne. (Loud laughter.) Such a departure from the usual decorum of language he scarcely had expected. Lord John Russell also questioned Sir Robert Peel's accuracy as to the right of intervention reserved by the Imperial Parliament: the 43rd section of the Canada Act retained the whole power that Parliament previously |