THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.
On the 1st of January an Irish nobleman, Lord Norbury, was savagely murdered. His lordship was shot within sight of his own house, in clear daylight, with many people at hand, and yet the assassin escaped with impunity. The occurrence was the more shocking, because the deceased nobleman was a most exemplary character both as a man and as a landlord. His lordship expired on the 3rd of January, after forty-three hours of suffering; and on the same day a notification to the magistrates was issued by the lord-lieutenant of the county, requesting their attendance on the 10th instant, to consider the measures necessary to be taken in consequence of the late outrage. This meeting was held, under the auspices of Lord Osmantown, at Tullamore, and in the course of it resolutions to the following effect were unanimously adopted:—“That it appears to this meeting, that property had its duties as well as its rights; that the answer conveyed to the magistrates of Tipperary by Mr. under-secretary Drummond has had the effect of increasing the animosities entertained against the owners of the soil, and has emboldened the disturbers of the public peace. That finding from the circumstances mentioned in the former resolutions that there is little room to hope for a successful appeal to the Irish executive, we feel it a duty to apply to the people of England, the legislature, and the throne, for protection. That the magistrates assembled are determined to co-operate with the government in any manner pointed out by her majesty’s ministers which may give the slightest hope of restoring tranquillity in this distracted country.” In the meantime the opposite party made efforts of counteraction. Mr. O’Connell was indefatigable in stirring up his Precursor Society and other similar machines of agitation. Festivals were even held in honour of the demagogue; and at one of these Mr. O’Connell actually asserted that the assassin of Lord Norbury had left on the soil where he had posted himself, not the print of a rustic brogue, but the impress of a well-made Dublin boot. By this and other insinuations, indeed, the arch-agitator directed the minds of the audience to the conclusion that the earl had met his death at the hands of one bound to him by the nearest of natural ties—his son.
The state of Ireland being such, it naturally became a subject for discussion in parliament. On the 7th of March Mr. Shaw moved for returns of the number of committals, convictions, inquests, rewards, and advertisements for the discovery of offenders in Ireland, from 1835 to 1839, in order to enable the house to form a judgment with regard to the actual amount and increase of crime in that country. Lord Morpeth expressed his satisfaction at the course Mr. Shaw had taken; instead of appealing to parliament for a verdict of censure upon government, he had simply moved for papers. There could be no objection to the issue of any information respecting Lord Normanby’s administration: he might, indeed, move for returns applicable to a period beyond the last four years, in the confidence that the late lord-lieutenant would have nothing to fear from the comparison. Mr. Colquhoun endeavoured to show, from a long enumeration of cases, that crime had been gaining ground under the system of agitation which prevailed, and which was connived at by the present government. Colonel Conolly, and Messrs. Villiers, Stuart, Litton, and Emerson Tennent, all urged the same serious charge against the Irish administration which had been made by preceding speakers, Mr. O’Connell, after delivering a violent speech, in which he was constantly interrupted, and in which he charged several members with coming to parliament for the sole purpose of villifying their native land, moved that after the word “Ireland” there be added the words, “also similar returns for England, Wales, and Scotland.” The last speaker on this evening was Serjeant Jackson, who maintained that by almost every single exercise of patronage, and especially by the appointment of Lord Ebrington to the viceroyalty, government had favoured the cause of agitation. The debate was resumed on the 11th of March, when the house was addressed by Messrs. Lefroy, French, and Sir Charles Styles. As the latter gentleman was speaking the house was counted out, and the discussion, which had little reference to the motion, therefore dropped. The subject of the state of Ireland was introduced in the upper house on the 21st of March by Lord Roden, who moved for a select committee of inquiry into the state of Ireland since 1835, with respect to the commission of crime. His lordship, indeed, adopted the most inculpatory view of the question, and every circumstance in his delineation of the matter—the deeply-rooted ribbon conspiracy; the unredressed grievances of the persecuted Protestants at Achill, and the general insecurity of life and property, were, in his opinion, either created by the conduct of Lord Normanby, or had acquired an aggravated character under his auspices. In reply Lord Normanby vindicated his administration with very great ability. Lord Melbourne also ably defended the noble marquis. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Brougham offered an earnest and eloquent support to Lord Roden’s motion. The two noble lords spoke as if they had had a previous concert and arrangement. This alliance of Lord Brougham with the Duke of Wellington did not silence Lord Plunkett. He begged to know what course Lord Brougham would pursue in the event of the motion being carried. Had he any measure of his own to propose, or was he willing to adopt the propositions of others? Was he willing to commit all the friends with whom he had hitherto acted, and to surrender all the principles and opinions which he had advocated throughout life? On a division, Lord Boden’s motion was carried by a majority of sixty-three against fifty-eight: a result which gave great dissatisfaction to the ministers. On the day following, indeed, Lord John Russell gave notice of his intention to take the opinion of the house of commons on the government of Ireland in late years in the very first week after the Easter recess.
The vote of the house of lords also alarmed and gave umbrage to Ireland’s agitators. Incensed by it, Mr. O’Connell crossed St. George’s Channel as soon as the houses had arisen, in order to increase the turbulence of his country. Day after day was he to be seen on the corn exchange haranguing the multitude; on Sundays, after mass, he attended parochial meetings; and the columns of the newspapers were filled with the exercitations of his pen. On the 11th of April a grand meeting was held in the theatre-royal, to prepare petitions to the queen and the house of commons, declaratory of their confidence in the actual administration of Ireland. On this occasion Mr. O’Connell exerted all his eloquence to rouse the passions of his hearers, and their shouts told that he was but too successful. “Shout!” he exclaimed at the close of his harangue. The shout that that day emanated from that theatre would be heard in St. Stephen’s, and it would cheer the heart of the queen at St. James’s.
When the house of commons, resumed its sittings on the 8th of April, Lord John Russell gave notice of his intention on the 15th to propose the following resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the executive government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the laws and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.” On the following day Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he should move an amendment on this resolution, and on the 12th the right honourable baronet brought forward the draught of his resolutions. They read thus:—“Resolved, that on the 13th day of March last, a motion was made in this house for the production of various documents connected with the state of Ireland, in respect to crime and outrage; including communications made to the Irish government relating to offences connected with ribbonism, and all memorials, resolutions, and addresses, forwarded to the Irish government by magistrates, or other official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in Ireland, and the answers thereto. That the period included within the returns so called for extends from the commencement of the year 1835 to the present time; and that the motion made for the production of them was assented to by this house, no opposition to it having been offered to it on the part of her majesty’s government. That on the 21st day of March last, the house of lords appointed a select committee to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire. That, in consequence of the appointment of such committee by the house of lords, it has been proposed that this house should resolve, ‘That it is the opinion of this house that it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the executive government of late years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the law, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.’ Resolved, that it appears to this house, that the appointment of a committee of inquiry by the house of lords, under the circumstances, and for the purposes above-mentioned, does not justify her majesty’s ministers in calling upon this house, without previous inquiry, or even the production of the information which this house has required, to make a declaration of opinion with respect to one branch of the public policy of the executive government, still less a declaration of opinions, which is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve, nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is not fitting that this house should adopt a proceeding which has the appearance of calling in question the undoubted right of the house of lords to inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and outrage, more especially when the exercise of that right by the house of lords does not interfere with any previous proceeding or resolution of the house of commons, nor with the progress of any legislative measure assented to by the house of commons, or at present under its consideration.” The adroitness with which these resolutions were framed are apparent, and needs no comment; they completely evaded all the difficulties of the case. The situation of the ministers was also rendered more difficult by the conduct of the radical section of the house, whose tactics were called into play on this occasion. They felt themselves bound, indeed, to support Lord John Russell’s motion, but then they wished him to go further. No sooner had Sir Robert Peel sat down, indeed, than Mr. Duncombe stated that in the event of the noble lord’s resolution being-carried, it was in his contemplation to move an addition to it in the following terms:—“And that it is expedient also to effect such further reforms in the representation of the people in parliament as would conduce to their contentment, and to the security and welfare of the kingdom at large.”
On the 15th of April Lord John Russell moved his long-announced resolution of confidence on the part of the house in the executive government of Ireland. His lordship dwelt at great length on the constitutional right of the lords to make inquiry into the state of Ireland and the conduct of its government. He did not deny that right; but considering such a measure under all its circumstances, the indiscriminate vehemence of the inculpations allowed to circulate, the limitation of time, the very name of the mover, he could not but feel that he was called upon to demand from the house of commons a definite opinion upon the conduct of the Irish administration. Sir Robert Peel contended that the noble lord’s resolution was partial and unintelligible. Mr. Spring Rice, in reply, contended that the vote of the house of lords was a vote of censure upon government; and he remonstrated against the unfairness of making the existence of crime in Ireland a charge against the present government, when nobody ever thought of censuring preceding administrations on account of turbulence and outrages in Ireland. At the close of Mr. Spring Rice’s speech the debate was adjourned, and subsequently two adjournments took place. In the course of the debate ministers were supported by Messrs. Smith O’Brien, Bellew, Henry Grattan, Grote, Edward Lytton Bulwer, Hume, the O’Connor Don, Sir William Somerville, and others, and opposed by Messrs. Lascelles, Sidney Herbert, Lucas, Shaw, Colonel Conolly, Sir James Graham, and others. Mr. Shiel delivered a long and eloquent speech in defence of Lord Normanby. The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell, whose statements, as usual, were more distinguished for their animated delivery than their accuracy. On a division Sir Robert Peel’s amendment was negatived by three hundred and eighteen against two hundred and ninety-six; and Mr. Duncombe’s rider by two hundred and ninety-nine against eighty-one.