N the 18th of July, lord Al

sions of the existing measure than

in a bill to continue and amend the coercion act. He explained it to be the intention of government to re-enact only those parts of the bill which referred to the proclaiming of districts. The lord-lieutenant would have power to proclaim any district which he might think necessary; and, in these districts, any meeting, not convened by the high sheriff of the county, or with his sanction, would be held to be illegal. No person would be allowed to leave his home between sunset and sunrise, except on lawful business; and constables would have power to make people show themselves at any hour of the night, when they might call at their houses. The bill would endure only till the 1st of August 1835. He scarcely thought, that it would be necessary to assign to a house of Commons any other reason for not proposing to re-enact the remaining provi

pared to hold themselves responsible for the security of Ireland without such powers, such powers ought not to be forced upon them. He admitted, however, that the true reason was, the knowledge which parliament had obtained, that the Irish government did not think the provisions in question necessary; but on the source of that opinion in the Irish government he threw no further light, except that the letter of the lordlieutenant stated, that although agitation had prevailed throughout the country during the winter, there had been no attempts at disturbance for several weeks; that this opinion was expressed in consequence of communications made by "a member of the government in this country;" that the lord-lieutenant was then asked whether he still thought the whole of the bill absolutely necessary; to which he answered, that if, in the

progress of business, the convenience of the government in England would be advanced by leaving out those clauses, he would be prepared to go on with the government of Ireland without them. Such being the case, why should the Irish government be compelled to accept of unconstitutional authority which it did not want.

Mr. O'Connell would not oppose the motion, but he contended that public meetings should be allowed in districts where there were only "predial disturbances." He had no objection that notice of the meeting, and of its object, should be required to be given to two magistrates ten days before it was held. He was willing that the power of proclaiming should be retained, and that in proclaimed districts all persons found out of their houses at night, without being able to give a rational excuse, should be tried as for a misdemeanor. This would at once operate as a protection to those who desired to remain peaceable, and as a check on those who wished to commit outrages. It was the most anxious desire, he said, of those who, with him, wished well to Ireland, that agrarian disturbances should cease. Their existence strengthened the hands of her enemies, and gave power to the faction which domineered over her. Each petty village despot throughout the country contemplated the disturbances with delight. A burning or the assassination of a whole family would call the whole body of yeomanry and police into play. Political agitation, instead of causing them, had a directly contrary effect. In 1824, after an insurrection had actually occurred,

It

Mr. Ruthven, however, Mr. O'Connell's colleague in the representation of Dublin, Mr. Sheil, Mr. F. O'Connor, and Mr. Ronayne, opposed even the introduction of the bill, notwithstanding its mitigated character. was clear, they said, that Ireland owed no gratitude to ministers for this mitigation, since it had been conceded only in despair of carrying the bill in any other shape, after the secrets of their prisonhouse had become known. It was admitted by them that even this modification was the result only of an "indiscretion" on the part of one of their own number; and that five ministers, who had voted in the cabinet for a relaxation of this despotism, had nevertheless made up their minds to vote the contrary way in parliament. There was no foundation for the bill even as it stood; and yet ministers proceeded as if the supposed facts admitted of no contradiction, and as if the house were dealing with truisms. Baron Pennefather, at the last assizes in the county of Clare, had told the grand jury, that he was glad to find in the calendar so few of those crimes with which it was formerly stained; and at Louth, chief justice Bushe had said, that he found no case in the calendar of a similar nature to those which had been so com

were unnecessary. The remaining eight, therefore, were of opinion that the law ought to be renewed in all its integrity. He had now arrived at the top of the pyramid, the highest authority in the state -that of his majesty. On the first day of the session, by the advice of his ministers, these words were inserted in the speech which his majesty delivered to parliament:"To the practices, which have been used to produce disaffection to the state and mutual distrust and animosity between the people of the two countries, is chiefly to be attributed the spirit of insubordination, which, though for the present in a great degree controlled by the power of the law, has been but too perceptible in many instances. To none more than to the deluded instruments of the agitation thus perniciously excited is the continuance of such a spirit productive of the most ruinous consequences; and the united and vigorous exertions of the loyal and well-affected in aid of the government are imperiously required to put an end to a system of excitement and violence, which, while it continues, is destructive of the peace of society, and if successful, must inevitably prove fatal to the power and safety of the United Kingdom." Thus, as far as authority could be relied on, the opinion of the subordinate officers of the secretary for Ireland, of the lord-lieutenant, and of the king himself, as far as his opinion could be inferred from a speech from the throne, was in favour of the extension of the bill to objects which, it now appeared, would not come within its scope? And to what were the political

agitators of Ireland indebted for this indulgence? Was it to the predilection of government for liberty, or their horror of coercion ? no; but to the accidental circumstance of a disclosure being made, that the lord-lieutenant, in consequence of representations from this side of the water, was content to try to administer the law with less power than he considered to be necessary. Ministers had conciliated their differences in the cabinet; they would not press them to a division; and now they objected to a renewal of the clauses on the ground that they could not ask parliament to agree to the bill as it originally stood, after parliament knew that the Irish executive would be contented with less. Parliament and the country had a right to know what was the nature of the representations which induced the lordlieutenant to change his opinion. He did not mean to say, that the house had a right to require the production of evidence upon that point as their justification for passing the bill now proposed; but he thought that for the sake of the character of the government and of that mutual confidence which ought to exist between its members he spoke now on behalf of all government-the house had an equitable and a moral right to demand explanation. He had, on a former occasion, stated his opinion, that the letter written by the lord-lieutenant ought to be produced, and he thought that it would have been impossible to carry the bill in all its integrity, after having been informed, thai on the 20th of June the marqui; Wellesley was ready to administer the government of Ireland withou

the clauses which, on the 18th of April, he considered to be absolutely necessary, unless a full explanation were given of the causes which had led to the noble marquis's change of opinion. It was a general rule that private and confidential communications should be excepted from remark; but if such communications were made the groundwork of any public act, they became publici juris, and parliament had a right to call for explanation respecting them. If by any accident the fact had come to his knowledge, he would not have mentioned it; but the moment a member rose in his place, and declared that a member of the government had told him that the lord-lieutenant held a different opinion with respect to the Coercion Bill on the 20th of June from that which he entertained on the 18th of April, he thought it impossible for parliament not to demand explanation on the subject. He knew nothing of the circumstances; but this he knew, that, if the common report were true, which stated that a member of the government wrote a letter to the marquis Wellesley without the cognizance of the premier, advising his lordship to address a letter to the premier of a different purport from that which he had previously written to the government, he was not surprised at earl Grey's retirement from office. Why was the answer sent to earl Grey? Why was it not addressed to the person who made the application? Was it possible that the public business could be conducted with that degree of mutual confidence which was necessary amongst the members of the go

vernment, when such conduct as this was pursued? He was bound in justice to the secretary for Ireland to say, that he did not believe he had made the communication to the marquis Wellesley. He thought that the right hon. secretary had acquitted himself from the suspicion of having any connexion with the transaction. However, whatever he might think of the whole transaction, however he might deem the conduct of government calculated to lower the dignity and authority of the executive, he would vote for the bill as now proposed; for since ministers were content to remain in office, and to undertake the government of Ireland, without certain clauses, he would not move their insertion, because he would not force upon reluctant instruments powers which they did not want. He still, however, retained his opinion as to the injustice involved in the omission; and deeply regretted the course which ministers had adopted, because its inevitable effect must be, to lower the character of all executive government, and to diminish the confidence which ought ever to be reposed in those documents, which, from time to time, might be submitted to parliament as the groundwork of their legislative enactments.

Lord Howick, adverting to the same topic, of the sacrifice of the three clauses, and recapitulating the facts of the cabinet having unanimously adopted them before the 23rd of June, so that the attorney-general had instructions to prepare the bill, and that lord Grey, till he broke the seal of the lord-lieutenant's despatch received on the 23rd, had not even the