nounced at too early a period of the session, to have been framed in special reference to the present state of Ireland. (Lord Eliot here made an observation.) His noble Friend told him that it was framed last year. He would only repeat, that Government were determined to exercise every legitimate power which they possessed, for the prevention of that which every Member for the English and Scotch constituencies, and a great proportion of the Irish Members, considered as equivalent to a separation of Ireland from England and a dismemberment of the empire; postponing, however, the discussion of that question until a fitter occasion.

The House divided; and the second reading was carried, by 270 to 105.

On the Motion for committing the Bill, Mr. Smith O'Brien moved as an Amendment

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the condition of Ireland was such as to require statutory enactments different from those of Great Britain; and if so, to ascertain to what cause the difference of legislation was to be attributed."

The Amendment was negatived without a division, and the Bill was ordered to be committed.

The Bill, of which the second reading had thus been carried, was yet destined, however, to encounter the most pertinacious and pro. tracted opposition. Lord Clements, Sir H. W. Barron, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Smith O'Brien, Mr. M. J. O'Connell, and other Irish Members, backed by some of the extreme Liberal party among the English and Scotch Members,

sure through the Committee clause by clause; moving repeated amendments, and dividing again and again on some of the most obnoxious sections. A great deal of valuable time at the latter end of the Session, when other important measures were pressing for the attention of the House, was thus consumed with very little effect, except increased irritation and more confirmed difference of opinion between the contending parties. Nor did the debates on the Arms Bill exhaust all the discussion of Irish affairs, for while it was dragging its weary length through the Committee, several interlocutory discussions took place in both Houses on the state of that country, now more than usually disquieted by the Repeal movement, which Mr. O'Connell was vigorously carrying on on the other side of the channel. A brief notice of some of these proceedings will not be out of place, though interrupting for a time our notice of the progress of the Arms Bill, which we shall subsequently trace to its termination.

While the discussion on the second reading of the Ministerial measure was going on in the Lower House, the Marquis of Clanricarde in the Upper, drew attention to a letter from Sir Edward Sugden's Secretary_to Lord Ffrench intimating to that Nobleman his dismissal from the Commission of the Peace, and from the Deputy Lieutenancy of the county, on account of his having attended some public meetings held for promoting and petitioning for the Repeal of the Union. Lord Clanricarde observed that, according to that letter, Lord Ffrench was dis

cause he had not read and digested the declaration which the Lord Chancellor said some Ministers had made in Parliament respecting Repeal. Lord Ffrench had simultaneously been dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from the Deputy-Lieutenancy of the county in which Lord Clanricarde was Lord Lieutenant. He wanted to know on what right a single declaration in Parliament was taken as sufficient ground for such a proceeding; and whether any communication of any message from the Throne, of any speech from the Throne, or of any speech in Parliament, had been made to the Irish Government, or published in the Gazettes either of London or Dublin, or in any other official form.

The Duke of Wellington replied, that the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor had both received instructions on their appointment to discountenance Repeal; but no instructions on the subject had recently been issued to her Majesty's servants in Ireland.

The Marquis of Clanricarde then proceeded to move an Address to the Crown, for a copy of the letter to Lord Ffrench. He admitted that the assembling of great bodies of men throughout the country, creating disturbances, and alarming the minds of peaceable subjects of the Crown, was in itself, on a broad principle, an illegal act; but the course to pursue would have been, to issue a proclamation stating the simple truth, that those meetings were calculated to disturb, and did disturb and alarm the minds of the quiet and peaceable subjects of the realm; advising such persons to discountenance these meetings; and then they might fairly

enough, if they had so chosen, have desired and enjoined all Magistrates not only to discountenance, but to keep away from such meetings. Without any such authentic warning, but merely from a declaration in Parliament, Government proceeded to break every Magistrate that attended a Repeal meeting. How could Lord Ffrench have known what was declared, but that a Parliamentary law is daily broken by the reporting of the debates ? and it is a positive fact, that many Magistrates in Ireland do not even sce the English newspapers, but only Irish papers, which give abridged reports of Parliamentary proceedings.

The Duke of Wellington did not oppose the production of the documents required; but he described the anxiety felt upon the subject of the Repeal agitation by thousands in Ireland; the relief which the declaration of the Government had given to that anxiety, and the general notoriety of the declaration.

Lord Campbell argued that to make a meeting illegal, its object must be illegal; and petitioning for the Repeal of the Union was not illegal; nor was it made so by certain declarations, which did not alter the law. He condemned the use of the Sovereign's name by Sir Robert Peel, as establishing a bad precedent.

The Duke of Wellington remarked, that the Queen's name had only been used in connexion with her Majesty's reference to the declaration of her Royal predecessor. In dismissing the Magistrates, the Lord Chancellor had referred not only to the declaration of the Ministers, but to the tendency to outrage which

must belong to such immense as semblages.

In the course of some further remarks, the Earl of Charleville contended for the illegal character of the meetings, as calculated to create terror and alarm, and the Earl of Wicklow compared them to the great Manchester meeting, in 1819, which was declared by Mr. Justice Bayley and a Jury, and afterwards by the Court of King's Bench, to be illegal.

The Lord Chancellor contended that the Magistrates were properly dismissed, independently of the declaration, because of their attendance at meetings calculated to endanger the public peace, and therefore palpably illegal. The Marquis of Normanby himself had refused the Commission of the Peace to a gentleman, because he advocated Repeal.

Lord Cottenham drew a dis. tinction between a refusal to grant the Commission and the depriva. tion of it. Also, with respect to the Repeal meetings; ostensibly they were legal, though they might become illegal. Lord Ffrench was dismissed, not because he had attended a Repeal meeting, but because he had expressed an intention to do so. He insisted that the use which had been made of the Queen's name was not constitutional, as the Sovereign was not at the time constitutionally in communication with Parliament, according to the usual forms.

The Lord Chancellor admitted the difference between withholding the Commission and taking it away, but still thought that the Government had Lord Normanby's authority for considering an advocate for Repeal unfit to be a Magistrate.

having spoken in support of Lord Clanricarde, and Lord Wharncliffe on the other side, the Motion was affirmed.

A few nights afterwards Lord Lorton, on presenting a petition, offered a suggestion to the Government. The most sure and effectual way to restore tranquillity was, in his opinion, by calling out the Yeomanry of the North, and the loyal Yeomanry of other parts of the country. Such a proceeding, in a moral point of view, would have an extraordinary effect. It would convince the truly loyal, as to which part of her Majesty's subjects could be relied

on.

On a subsequent occasion Lord Clanricarde revived the same topic of discussion, moving on the 14th July, resolutions declaring the dismissal of Magistrates by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for taking part in the movement in favour of Repeal, unconstitutional, unjust, and inexpedient. The dismissal, he said, had given a great impulse to the prevailing agitation, manifested by the rise in the repeal rent; and he imputed the state of Ireland bordering on anarchy_to the policy of the present Government, for the country had been delivered over to them in a peaceable condition.

The Duke of Wellington met the resolutions by a direct negative. He reminded the House that the Repeal agitation originated in the time of the late Ministers, and Lord Fortescue had Lord Fortescue had expressly denounced it. The acts impugned were forced upon Government. He set aside the question as to the technical legality of the Repeal meetings, not being competent to discuss it; but he justified the

these grounds. It was notorious that Parliament was of opinion that the Union should not be repealed "These meetings, said the Noble Duke, consisting of 20,000, 10,000 or 100,000 men-no matter the number of thousands-having been continued after these declara tions in Parliament, I wish to know with what object they were continued? With a view to address Parliament to repeal the Union? No, my Lords, they were continued in order to obtain the desired Repeal of the Union by the terror of the people, and if not by terror, by force and violence. (Loud cries of "Hear, Hear.") And the persons calling these meetings, I beg your Lordships to observe, were Magistrates the very men who, if such force and violence were to be resorted to, must have been employed by the Government in measures to resist such terror and violence, to prevent breaches of the peace, and to arrest those who were guilty of such breaches of the peace, and bring them to justice. That is the ground on which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland said to the Magistrates-"You must be dismissed if you attend, or excite attendance at such meetings." The meetings were attended by large numbers, in military array; dispersed at the word of command; threats were held out" Blood or Repeal," and such inscriptions on flags. My Lords, I have had some experience in the course of a long life, passed in the service of the Sovereigns of this country -I say I have had some experience in these revolutions. A distinguished author who has written on France, said,' On conspire sur la place.' There was no secrecy in the transactions. The

66

of operation was terror-deception as to their followers, and terror towards their adversaries; and when a learned gentleman declares that Napoleon had not in Russia such an army as there is here, and the Duke of Wellington had not such a one at Waterloo,'

why, very possibly not, my Lords. (Loud Laughter.) Nay, more; mind what he said respecting the organization of this army, and the means of assembling the population. He said on one occasion, that in the course of one night he could collect the whole of his forces; and of that I have no doubt. What is the consequence of this? Why, my Lords, I say it became the duty of the Government to be prepared-and I hope the Government has been prepared-in all parts of the country, to protect the persons of the inhabitants, to preserve the property of the peaceable people, to do everything in their power to maintain the dominion of her Majesty and of this country, and to be prepared for any unfortunate event. I do not know what effect the measure has had: I can't say whether more thousands or less thousands have assembled since; but this, my Lords, I know that I feel more security when I know that we have not to employ men in putting down a mischief which they have themselves been instrumental in producing." The Duke went on to vindicate the willingness of Parliament to legislate for the benefit of Ireland. He regretted to learn the extent of poverty in Ireland; unfortunately there were poor in all parts of the kingdom." Is that poverty, he asked, relieved by a march of twenty-five or thirty Irish miles

semblages.

In the course of some further remarks, the Earl of Charleville contended for the illegal character of the meetings, as calculated to create terror and alarm, and the Earl of Wicklow compared them to the great Manchester meeting, in 1819, which was declared by Mr. Justice Bayley and a Jury, and afterwards by the Court of King's Bench, to be illegal.

The Lord Chancellor contended that the Magistrates were properly dismissed, independently of the declaration, because of their attendance at meetings calculated to endanger the public peace, and therefore palpably illegal. The Marquis of Normanby himself had refused the Commission of the Peace to a gentleman, because he advocated Repeal.

Lord Cottenham drew a dis. tinction between a refusal to grant the Commission and the depriva tion of it. Also, with respect to the Repeal meetings; ostensibly they were legal, though they might become illegal. Lord Ffrench was dismissed, not because he had attended a Repeal meeting, but because he had expressed an intention to do so. He insisted that the use which had been made of the Queen's name was not constitutional, as the Sovereign was not at the time constitutionally in communication with Parliament, according to the usual forms.

The Lord Chancellor admitted the difference between withholding the Commission and taking it away, but still thought that the Government had Lord Normanby's authority for considering an advocate for Repeal unfit to be a Magistrate.

Clanricarde, and Lord Wharncliffe on the other side, the Motion was affirmed.

A few nights afterwards Lord Lorton, on presenting a petition, offered a suggestion to the Government. The most sure and effectual way to restore tranquillity was, in his opinion, by calling out the Yeomanry of the North, and the loyal Yeomanry of other parts of the country. Such a proceeding, in a moral point of view, would have an extraordinary effect. It would convince the truly loyal, as to which part of her Majesty's subjects could be relied

on.

On a subsequent occasion Lord Clanricarde revived the same topic of discussion, moving on the 14th July, resolutions declaring the dismissal of Magistrates by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for taking part in the movement in favour of Repeal, unconstitutional, unjust, and inexpedient. The dismissal, he said, had given a great impulse to the prevailing agitation, manifested by the rise in the repeal rent; and he imputed the state of Ireland bordering on anarchy_to the policy of the present Government, for the country had been delivered over to them in a peaceable condition.

The Duke of Wellington met the resolutions by a direct negative. He reminded the House that the Repeal agitation originated in the time of the late Ministers, and Lord Fortescue had expressly denounced it. The acts impugned were forced upon Government. He set aside the question as to the technical legality of the Repeal meetings, not being competent to discuss it; but he justified the