civilised country ever before presented; and what are the remedies
propounded for its amelioration? Simply this, that two hundred
additional police should be employed--that the carrying of arms, or
their possession by a certain class of persons, in certain districts
where crime has _previously_ prevailed, should be a misdemeanour,
and that the expenses of the proceedings to enforce those enactments
should be levied on the inhabitants of the disturbed districts. But
Sir George Grey, while he read his list of horrors, was most cautious
lest he should offend the feelings of (what the member for Cork termed)
"the most endearing and religious people on the face of the earth," by
implicating more than four or five counties in the conspiracy which he
denounced; and too tenacious of the constitutional privileges of the
Irish assassins to propose their general disarmament, or the violation
of the sanctity of their homes by the efficient remedy of nocturnal
domiciliary visits. No: those visits are only to be paid by day,
when the parties suspected of the violation of the law may have full
notice of the approach of the constabulary, and, as a consequence,
full time to remove the arms of which they may be possessed; and they
are _only_ to be made in search of arms, and not at all as a means of
deterring "the endearing" people from leaving their homes at night,
to perpetrate the murders which they now accomplish by day. Another
clause is added, on the efficacy of which Sir George Grey seems to
place great reliance, but which is of so ludicrous a nature that we
scarcely know how to notice it seriously. "The justices and constables
shall have the power to call on all persons between the ages of sixteen
and sixty, residing or living in the district, to assist in the search
for and pursuit of the persons charged with the commission of crime;
and thus," triumphantly exclaims the Home Minister, "it will be the
duty of every person to join in such pursuit, and do his utmost to
assist in discovering and apprehending the offender; and any person
refusing to assist in such pursuit and search, would be guilty of a
misdemeanour, and would be liable to be imprisoned with or without hard
labour for any term not exceeding two years." There is an old adage
that "one man may take a horse to the water, but twenty can't make him
drink;" and so it will be found in reference to the operation of this
most sapient enactment. The justice or the constable may call out the
lieges, but can they induce or compel them to guide them to the haunt
of the murderer? "Not a bit of it;"--they will join most willingly in
the pursuit, but it will certainly be to mislead the pursuers; and, as
the police force is generally found sufficient to vindicate the law,
if they can only arrive when the crime is being perpetrated, they will
not summon any assistance except in those cases where the outrage has
been committed previous to their arrival; and in such instances, the
culprits will have had full time to escape, and the witnesses of the
deed, ample opportunities of arranging their plans for his protection.
We assure Sir George he will find that this clause, all-powerful as
he hopes its operation to prove for the repression of crime, will
remain a dead-letter on the statute-book; for no magistrate, who is
acquainted with the feelings of the people, would be so silly as to
expect efficient support or correct information from them; and no
officer who understood his duty, would hamper himself with a mob of
assistants, whose undoubted object it would be to deceive and thwart
him in its discharge. A story is told, that, during Lord Anglesey's
administration, when Whiteboy offences were prevalent in the South of
Ireland, a Cabinet Council was summoned, at which the then Chancellor,
(Sir Anthony Hart,) having been called upon to give his opinion as
to the best remedy to be adopted for their repression, at once, with
the feelings of an Englishman, declared,--"that he would order the
sheriff to call out the 'posse comitatûs.'" "By my sowl," interposed
Chief Baron O'Grady, in his broad Munster brogue, "my Lord Chancellor,
that's just what we want to avoid!--'the posse's' out already: may be
you could give us some method of getting them to stay at home." And so
it will be with "the posse" of Sir George Grey, if ever called out;
they will prove an encumbrance instead of an assistance to the officers
of justice. But what a lamentable state of ignorance as to the state
of Ireland does the proposal of those most absurd remedies indicate,
on the part of our present rulers! Every one at all acquainted with
the country, knows that the assassin is _never_ selected from the
inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood where the crime is to be
committed; and yet, by this enactment, only the persons resident in
such districts are to be disarmed, or deprived of the right of openly
carrying arms. And thus, by residing beyond or by stepping over the
ditch which bounds the proscribed locality, the murderer may assert
his right of bearing arms, and defy the police to deprive him of his
gun; or, by altering his position so as to avoid the forbidden ground,
he may coolly wait the advent of his victim without the slightest
danger of molestation. "On the very day that Major Mahon was murdered,"
continues Sir George Grey, "two persons were seen lurking about, who it
was strongly suspected were the murderers. There was, indeed, no moral
doubt that they were the persons by whom the fatal act was committed.
Now, if the police had been armed with the powers which were sought for
by this bill, those persons might have been arrested; the fatal weapons
would have been taken from them, and they would have been amenable to
the law for a misdemeanour, in carrying arms contrary to the provisions
of this act, or for having arms concealed for the purpose of carrying
them to effect a murderous object." Now we deny the Right Honourable
Baronet's conclusions. This enactment could not have prevented the
assassination of Major Mahon, for his murderers had only to choose a
locality where it would not be in operation. Neither will it at all
affect the commission of other meditated murders; _for there is now
organised_ (and we give the information to her Majesty's government, if
they are not already in possession of it,) _a new society_,[55] _who
have regular hired assassins in their pay, for the purpose of pursuing,
wherever they may be found, the denounced persons who have fled the
country and escaped their vengeance._ This may appear incredible; but
it is well known and openly spoken of in the disturbed districts. One
of those bravos, the other day, in Dublin, entered the office of a
marked man, who is agent to an English gentleman, a large proprietor in
a western county; he inquired for the person of whom he was in search,
but who was fortunately absent. Suspicion having been excited by his
contradictory replies to questions which were put to him touching his
business, and from the well known fact that the gentleman he desired
to see was denounced, he was given into custody, and on his person was
found a case of loaded pistols. Now, there can be no doubt that this
man meditated murder; yet he walked off with his arms, and we should be
glad to learn how this enactment, even though it were on the statute
book, could have interfered with his proceedings. Galway, from whence
he came, might be proclaimed, but it is not possible that Dublin,
where he purposed to commit the deed, should ever come under its
operation. We admit that a general and stringent Arms act would have
afforded, both in this and Major Mahon's case, probable protection,
and possibly might have saved many other victims from a premature and
bloody death. And whose fault is it that such is not in existence?
Whose but that of the administration of which the Home Secretary is an
influential member? To overthrow a hostile government, and obtain the
reins of power for themselves, they sacrificed the peace of Ireland
and the lives of multitudes of most estimable persons; and now they
unblushingly come to parliament to ask the enactment of a measure
which they must well know will prove but a mockery and a delusion, as
a substitute for the efficient law which their factious opposition
blotted from the statute book. Have those men hearts to feel or
consciences to be smitten?--if so, what must their sufferings be at the
record of each successive murder, which adds another victim to those
already sacrificed by their fatal and unprincipled policy.
While those provisions of the proposed law, to which we have already
alluded, are utterly inefficient and valueless for the repression of
crime, there is another clause in the bill which inflicts a positive
and unmerited injustice. The proclaimed district is to pay the expense
of the additional police force, necessary for its pacification. Now,
the gentry and large farmers, who are the victims of the system sought
to be repressed, and not its supporters, will be the persons upon whom
this heavy charge must principally fall. The guilty have little or no
land, and, consequently, will be exempt from the increased taxation;
and thus the pockets of the peaceable and well-disposed will be picked,
although their persons may not be protected. We do not understand
why government, which is bound to protect the lives and properties
of its subjects, should mulct those whose safety is their peculiar
charge, because additional expense is rendered necessary to root out
crime, generated and fostered by its own incompetency or neglect. But
this is an administration of political economists, and the loyal and
peaceable portion of the Irish nation need not expect ordinary security
without the payment of an extraordinary price for it, upon the same
principle that the struggling English trader could only obtain monetary
assistance, at a rate of interest too usurious to leave the aid useful.
No wonder that Mr John O'Connell should express his "agreeable
disappointment at the measures proposed," when, in common with the
generality of the public, he expected that the melancholy state of
things would have compelled even the Whigs to originate something
more stringent and effective. Nor need we be surprised, that his
gratitude overcame his discretion. This was but natural, even though it
exposed him to the lash of his more circumspect rival. We have waded
through the entire debates on the state of Ireland, from the schoolboy
puerilities of Mr Adair, to the cold-blooded per centages of Sir George
Grey, and we have discovered nothing which would lead us to anticipate
the adoption of such measures, or of such a system of government, as
would ensure the pacification, and, as a consequence, the prosperity
of that unhappy country. Enough there is of the cuckoo cries of
"developing resources," "introducing capital," "creating domestic
manufactures," &c. &c.; but we would ask those holiday declaimers how
resources are to be developed, or capital introduced, or manufactures
fostered, in a country where property has no rights, and where life has
no protection?
Whoever ventures to propose for the government of Ireland a system,
stringent and effective enough to secure the enjoyment of the fruits
of industry, and the preservation of life, is at once met with the
cry of, "you have tried coercion long enough, and it has failed--try
a conciliatory policy now, and you must surely succeed." But the
truth is, that although both systems have been tried, neither have
been judiciously applied; and it is to the shuffling and changing of
successive administrations, that all the evils which now curse the land
are mainly attributable. "You tried coercion for centuries," the Irish
_patriot_ will exclaim, "and what are you the better for it?"
It is true, that in former days, the Irish peasant was ground to the
dust, and trampled on, when he was faithful, trustworthy, honest, and
submissive. It is true the Popish priest was persecuted, and a price
set upon his head when he was intelligent, educated, loyal, and pious.
But it is equally true, that when the Roman Catholic layman was placed
upon a full equality with his Protestant fellow countryman, and the
Roman Catholic priest was recognised by the law, and protected in the
discharge of his duties, another and an equally mischievous course of
policy was adopted towards both. A sort of political saturnalia was
allowed the emancipated slaves, and they were taught to riot in the
enjoyment of newly acquired liberty. They were misled and corrupted
by cunning and designing demagogues, while the government, which
should have enforced submission to the laws when they had removed all
just causes of complaint, remained passive, until the minds of the
people were poisoned by false representations. Then first was yielded
to political combination as a matter of expediency, that which, if
conceded at all, should only have been granted as a matter of right.
And when, by intimidation and violence, the representation of the
country was vested in the heads of agitation, it became an object of
the last importance to each of the political parties who rule the
country to procure the popular support; and, to accomplish this, no
sacrifice of principle was considered too great, and no concessions
to democratic principles too exorbitant. The Whigs, after they had
coerced with success, were obliged to abandon their protective policy,
because they were denounced as "base, brutal, and bloody;" and then,
adopting the other tack, they boldly launched their bark on the sea of
conciliation. The lowest, and least intelligent class of men, and those
who, from their callings and station in life, were most exposed to
intimidation, were placed indiscriminately on the criminal jury lists.
The right which the Crown enjoys of challenging improper jurors, was
forbidden to be exercised, and, to consummate the glorious triumph of
liberality, "the beloved Normanby" commenced his tour of grace, and,
in the plenitude of his mercy, liberated those malefactors who had
been consigned to the restraint of the gaols by the vindicated laws
of their country. The Peel government followed in the same course as
to the administration of the law, established the poor-houses, issued
the land commission, and suggested the principle of tenant-right. They
permitted the most unbounded liberty of speech and of action; they
allowed hundreds of thousands of men to unite in military array, for
the purpose of dismembering the empire; they endowed Maynooth, founded
the godless colleges, and recognised the temporal rank of the Roman
Catholic prelates, by placing them in royal commissions above the heads
of temporal peers. They complimented O'Connell on his patriotism,
after they had been compelled by his boastful menaces to prosecute him
for sedition, and connived at his escape when they had procured his
conviction. And after those conciliating measures, may we not ask, what
has conciliation accomplished? The answer is obvious: its result is
to be _read_ in the list of crimes which have annihilated all law in
Ireland--it is to be _heard_ in the wailings and lamentations of those
who have been made widows and orphans by the system of assassination
which it has generated and protected.
But if we find that neither unreasonable persecution on the one hand,
nor unjustifiable concessions on the other, have been productive of
good, is that a reason why we should not now have recourse to temporary
measures which are indispensable to secure the action of the law, and
the lives of the Queen's Irish subjects? What is coercion, after all,
but an extraordinary means to enforce the law, and to support the
constitution, when the ordinary means have failed? In England, the law
is respected and obeyed, and the people have sense and discrimination
enough to perceive that their own welfare and safety are identified
with its maintenance. But in Ireland, the case is widely different; we
think it was Swift who said, "that what was considered morally wrong
in other countries was considered morally right in Ireland,"--and if
the Celt be not enlightened enough to appreciate, he must be taught to
respect, the blessings which the British constitution confers upon him.
The utter inefficacy of the measures for which the Whig administration
now seek the sanction of Parliament is not all that we have to
deplore. On reading the debate, there will be found in the tone of
the ministerial speeches, in their promises, and still more in their
omissions, much to be lamented. Instead of boldly insisting on the
vindication of the law as the primary object to be accomplished,
they, to use Sir Robert Peel's expression, "hold parley with the
assassins;" and instead of denouncing with firmness, they palliate, as
far as decency will permit, the conduct of the Irish conspirators, and
studiously avoid all allusion to the transgressions of the priests.
Crime they say, must be repressed, but "a sop is thrown to Cerberus"
at the same time, and an additional stimulus is given to agitation
by the announcement, that a landlord-and-tenant bill is under the
consideration of the government. Now we tell her Majesty's ministers
that they never laboured under a greater delusion, than to suppose
that any measure which they or any other administration can venture to
propose to Parliament, on this subject, will be sufficient to meet the
views or satisfy the wishes of the Irish peasantry; and furthermore,
that even although they did _apparently_ succeed in accomplishing this
object, by other means than a transfer of the property of the land from
the present proprietors to their tenantry, they would be just as far
as ever from effecting the pacification of Ireland. The visionary and
prosy Mr Scrope, or the egotistical Mr Crawford, may occupy themselves
in talking and attempting legislation on a subject which the one does
not understand, and the other is incapable of explaining; but any man
of common sense who comprehends and considers the question, must at
once perceive that great danger must attend on any attempt to legislate
for the exercise of private rights, and that in this instance it would
be an utter impossibility to satisfy the wishes of one party without
absolutely sacrificing the just rights of the other. And, after all,
what is this mysterious measure of "tenant-right," which like the wand
of Aladdin is at once to restore peace and establish order, and to
which the prosperity and happiness of the Protestant north is so often
and so erroneously attributed? If it be what the advocates for its
universal adoption represent it,--namely, "The right of the occupying
tenant to dispose of the interest derivable from the improvement of
his farm, should he fall into arrear or wish to emigrate, and the
possession of what remains of the purchase-money after paying all rent
due, as a recompense for his labour, skill, and expenditure,"--we at
once answer that nothing can be more reasonable, unexceptionable,
or just; but is any man so silly as to suppose that such a measure,
if carried, would satisfy the desires of the Munster peasant? As Mr
O'Connell used to say, he would cry "Thank you for nothing,"--he is
much better off at present than he could be under any such arrangement;
he in reality not only makes the want of tenant-right an excuse for his
indolence and dishonesty, but he uses it as a cloak for his meditated
spoliation.
Mr Griffith, the government valuator, stated in his examination before
Lord Devon's commission, that his valuation was based upon the market
price of certain articles of agricultural produce, which, at the time
he commenced his proceedings, were _ten per cent_ higher in value than
they were at the time when the act which authorised his valuation was
passed; and that, consequently, being restricted to the respective
values attached to each article in the schedule of that act, his
valuation was in the first instance ten per cent _under_ what it would
have been had he not laboured under such a restriction. He further
says, that while in the north the rent actually paid amounted in most
instances to from thirty to fifty per cent _above his valuation_, in
the western counties it was not much if at all more than the value he
had put upon the land; and yet, he adds, the peasantry in the north,
paying those high rents, were industrious, prosperous, and happy, while
those in the west, who held better land on so much more reasonable
terms, were steeped in misery and crime. It is then manifestly unjust
to attribute the poverty of Connaught to the exorbitance of the rents,
or the prosperity of Ulster to the moderate price exacted for the
land. But then the northern tenant is secured remuneration for his
toils if he wish to dispose of his tenant-right:--admitted,--but the
southern and western tenant has still the advantage, for he sells or is
compensated where he has never made any improvements at all. There is
no absolute law to protect the right of the tenant in either case: but
whereas custom, a due regard to justice, and we may also add, to his
own interests, induce the northern landlord to consent to a sale which
will secure not only his rent, but a thriving instead of a failing
tenant,--intimidation and violence compel the southern landlord not
only to forgive all rent due by a defaulting tenant, (and that in most
cases amounting to three or four years) but also, after he has been
put to heavy legal expenses, to _compensate_ him for leaving his house
a wreck and his land a wilderness. Under such circumstances, can it
be supposed for a moment that any landlord would refuse a tenant the
right to sell, thereby avoiding the loss of his arrears; or that he
would prefer to evict at a heavy legal expense, and then in the end
remunerate, in order that he might conciliate the outgoing tenant, and
thus escape being shot?
Tenant-right is as really, though not so ostensibly, enjoyed in the
south as in the north; and if we hear of _sales_ of tenant-right
in the one and not in the other locality, the difference arises
from the fact that the northern tenant having improved his land,
advertises his interest in it and sells, while the southern tenant
having deteriorated, instead of having improved his farm, compensates
himself for "his right of possession" by mulcting his landlord, and
levying a species of black mail under the name of "good-will" money
from his successors. Is any man weak enough to suppose that, if the
southern tenant was secured by law a right to sell that which his
indolent and lawless habits will not permit him to make, (improvements
on his farm) such a contingent right would in any wise reconcile him
to his condition, or render him more obedient to the law? Before the
emancipation act passed, it was said by the leaders of the people,
"Grant us this, and you secure peace and tranquillity to the land;"
and the same has been said with regard to every other concession
which they exacted. Peace was to follow the abolition of the tithes,
the enactment of the Reform Bill, and the recognition of the right
of the destitute to obtain support from the land: but what has been
the consequence? Each successive triumph of the Popular Party has but
imboldened their pretensions, and confirmed them in the doctrine which
they have been assiduously taught--that "to succeed they have only to
combine:"--and so it will be with tenant-right; give them what their
advocates _profess to ask for_, and you will have them clamorous for
more. This tenant question has been adopted as a sort of safety-valve
to secure an escape for the leaders of repeal, now that the delusion on
that question can no longer be upheld; and its agitation is prosecuted
with vigour by the priests, because, by means of it, they hope not only
to strike down their hated rivals, the landlords, but to secure the
overthrow of all those legal rights by which the possession of property
is guaranteed.
It is not, we presume, contemplated that land should be held without
payment of any rent, save what the tenant may see fit to give the
owner of it, after he has secured from the produce of his farm enough
for his own "comfortable and independent subsistence." Neither do we
suppose that government will sanction a law, by which the tenant in
possession shall remain so in perpetuity, subject to the payment of
such surplusage of his profits as he shall find it convenient to bestow
upon his landlord: yet those are precisely the doctrines laid down at
the tenant-right demonstrations, and any thing granted short of these
will be considered as a blinking of the question, and treated as an
attempt to delude and deceive the people.