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 5002. or 6001. 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

66

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

Irishman could be transported for seven years for having arms in his possession. Yet when the English Bill was proposed, Lord Grey entered a strong protest against it in the House of Lords; and in the House of Commons, Henry Brougham-not Lord Brougham, asked if he was an Englishman, and offered up an aspiration that the people would rise up in a simultaneous revolt, and sweep away the Government by which a great sacrilege upon the constitution had been perpetrated. What would he have said-how would Lord Castlereagh have been blasted by the lightning and appalled by the thunder of his eloquence, if a bill had been brought forward, under which the blacksmiths of England should be licensed, under which the registry of arms was made dependent on a bench of capricious magisterial partisans, under which an Englishman might be transported for seven years, for exercising the privilege secured to him by the Bill of Rights? Lord Eliot said, that the measure originated with the Whigs: the Whigs prepared a measure of coercion and relief; the Tories turned them out on the measure of relief; and of the measure of coercion took a conservative care.

Alluding to Sir Robert Peel's use of the Queen's name, Mr. Sheil read a letter from Lord John Russell, written by command of the Queen on her accession to the throne, to Lord Normanby, approving of his policy; and he contrasted the spectacle which Ireland now presents with that which it then offered to the contempla tion of the Sovereign. He concluded by exhorting Sir Robert

policy which he had pursued in Canada.

more

Mr. Smith (the Attorney-general for Ireland) said, he would not refer to the authority of Lord Grey or Mr. Brougham, he would refer to the authority of Mr. Sheil himself. A former Arms Act was on the point of expiring in 1838; it was renewed by the Whig Government; the Bill for that renewal went through every one of its stages, and in not one of them did Mr. Sheil say a single word against that violation of the constitution of which he now so vehemently complained. In 1839 he became a member of the Whig Government; in 1840, that Government again renewed the Bill, and still Mr. Sheil did not, nor did any one of the Irish members open his lips upon it. In the first Session of 1841, the same Government brought in another Arms Bill, making provisions stringent than before; that was the Bill now about to expire, and against it, neither Mr. Sheil nor any other Irish member said one syllable, though Mr. Hume called the attention of the House to it in an especial manner. Mr. Smith then instanced a great number of cases, showing the prevalence and violence of outrage in Ireland, and the consequent necessity of this preventive measure. Before the plea of "justice to Ireland" was set up, we ought to know what was meant by that sort of justice. In the very year succeeding the Queen's letter just quoted, the Precursor Association was set up. The objects of the present repeal agitators were first, the total abolition of the Tithe Commutation Rent-charge, next the extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to

of a crime, next, fixity of tenurea phrase meaning the transfer of the whole landed property of Ireland from the landlord to the tenant-and with these were required vote by ballot, and one or two other extreme propositions of the same class. This measure had been in existence, with little intermission, for almost a century; its necessity was cogent, and though at so late an hour he should not attempt to analyse its details, he was prepared to vote for its second reading.

At

Lord J. Russell said, that after the speech of the Irish Attorneygeneral, who had put his argument, not upon the merits of the Bill or its present necessity, but mainly on the course taken by the late Government, he begged to have an opportunity of justifying the course which, as a member of that Government, he had pursued on this subject. The policy and circumstances under which the late Government had to legislate were widely different from those under which the present legislation was brought forward. their accession Ireland had long been misgoverned; it was necessary to bring her round, but that was a work requiring a mixed policy, kindness to the people, but repression of those who had been but too long accustomed to violence. Lord Normanby so go verned as to have the sympathies of the people with him, and as these should have been more and more secured, it would have become practicable from time to time to let go the harsher measures. But when a new Arms Act was introduced, he would ask, whether any attempt was now making to conciliate those popular sympa

vations of the magistracy were conducive to the peace of Ireland? He believed that Lord Eliot was sincerely desirous to govern on principles of justice and conciliation, but yet, somehow, the Irish Government was a Government conducted by a small minority. The Irish could not but feel it a hardship that promotion was not distributed in Ireland as impartially as in Canada. Considering, however, the whole case, he would not go so far as to withhold his vote from the second reading of this Bill. As to the Repeal of the Union, he was wholly adverse to it, for the sake of Ireland as well as of England, and if it were attempted by force, the Executive Government must put that force effectually down; but, while only legal means were taken, he disapproved of harsh inflictions on the part of the Government, as tending, needlessly to aggravate dissatisfaction. Now as to those outrages, which in the time of the late Government had been ascribed to political causes, he must observe, that the last speaker had furnished a defence against that charge, for his enumeration had shown that these outbreaks occurred under all Administrations, and were unconnected with political causes. He and his late colleagues had been unfairly treated by the Opposition in this particular, but they had been generously supported by the Irish people.

Lord Bernard thanked the Government for this measure. If Parliament had parted without giving some such protection, Ireland would have been wholly insecure. Lord J. Russell, in taking credit, on the preceding night, for the conciliatory policy of his own Go

Irishman could be transported for seven years for having arms in his possession. Yet when the English Bill was proposed, Lord Grey entered a strong protest against it in the House of Lords; and in the House of Commons, Henry Brougham-not Lord Brougham, asked if he was an Englishman, and offered up an aspiration that the people would rise up in a simultaneous revolt, and sweep away the Government by which a great sacrilege upon the constitution had been perpetrated. What would he have said-how would Lord Castlereagh have been blasted by the lightning and appalled by the thunder of his eloquence, if a bill had been brought forward, under which the blacksmiths of England should be licensed, under which the registry of arms was made dependent on a bench of capricious magisterial partisans, under which an Englishman might be transported for seven years, for exercising the privilege secured to him by the Bill of Rights? Lord Eliot said, that the measure originated with the Whigs: the Whigs prepared a measure of coercion and relief; the Tories turned them out on the measure of relief; and of the measure of coercion took a conservative care.

Alluding to Sir Robert Peel's use of the Queen's name, Mr. Sheil read a letter from Lord John Russell, written by command of the Queen on her accession to the throne, to Lord Normanby, approving of his policy; and he contrasted the spectacle which Ireland now presents with that which it then offered to the contempla tion of the Sovereign. He concluded by exhorting Sir Robert

policy which he had pursued in Canada.

more

Mr. Smith (the Attorney-general for Ireland) said, he would not refer to the authority of Lord Grey or Mr. Brougham, he would refer to the authority of Mr. Sheil himself. A former Arms Act was on the point of expiring in 1838; it was renewed by the Whig Government; the Bill for that renewal went through every one of its stages, and in not one of them did Mr. Sheil say a single word against that violation of the constitution of which he now so vebemently complained. In 1839 he became a member of the Whig Government; in 1840, that Government again renewed the Bill, and still Mr. Sheil did not, nor did any one of the Irish members open his lips upon it. In the first Session of 1841, the same Government brought in another Arms Bill, making provisions stringent than before; that was the Bill now about to expire, and against it, neither Mr. Sheil nor any other Irish member said one syllable, though Mr. Hume called the attention of the House to it in an especial manner. Mr. Smith then instanced a great number of cases, showing the prevalence and violence of outrage in Ireland, and the consequent necessity of this preventive measure. Before the plea of "justice to Ireland" was set up, we ought to know what was meant by that sort of justice. In the very year succeeding the Queen's letter just quoted, the Precursor Association was set up. The objects of the present repeal agitators were first, the total abolition of the Tithe Commutation Rent-charge, next the extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to