_The Cure for Irish Ills_
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK had large but defined views as to the policy which
should be pursued with respect to Ireland. He was a firm supporter of
the constitutional preponderance allotted to the land in our scheme of
government, not from any jealousy or depreciation of the other great
sources of public wealth, for his sympathy with the trading classes
was genuine, but because he believed that constitutional preponderance,
while not inconsistent with great commercial prosperity, to be the best
security for public liberty and the surest foundation of enduring power.
But as reality was the characteristic of his vigorous and sagacious
nature, he felt that a merely formal preponderance, one not sustained
and authorized by an equivalent material superiority, was a position not
calculated to endure in the present age, and one especially difficult to
maintain with our rapidly increasing population. For this reason he was
always very anxious to identify the policy of Great Britain with that
of Ireland, the latter being a country essentially agricultural; and he
always shrank from any proposition which admitted a difference in the
interests of the two kingdoms.
Liberal politicians, who some years ago were very loud for justice to
Ireland, and would maintain at all hazards the identity of the interests
of the two countries, have of late frequently found it convenient
to omit that kingdom from their statistical bulletins of national
prosperity. Lord George Bentinck, on the contrary, would impress on his
friends, that if they wished to maintain the territorial constitution of
their country, they must allow no sectarian considerations to narrow the
basis of sympathy on which it should rest; and in the acres and millions
of Ireland, in its soil and its people, equally neglected, he would have
sought the natural auxiliaries of our institutions. To secure for our
Irish fellow-subjects a regular market for their produce; to develop
the resources of their country by public works on a great scale; and
to obtain a decent provision for the Roman Catholic priesthood from the
land and not from the consolidated fund, were three measures which he
looked upon as in the highest degree conservative.
When the project of the cabinet of 1846 had transpired, Lord George at
once declared, and was in the habit of reiterating his opinion, that ‘it
would ruin the 500,000 small farmers of Ireland,’ and he watched with
great interest and anxiety the conduct of their representatives in
the House of Commons. It was with great difficulty that he could bring
himself to believe, that political liberalism would induce the members
for the south and west of Ireland to support a policy in his opinion so
fatal to their countrymen as the unconditional repeal of the corn laws;
and, indeed, before they took that step, which almost all of them
have since publicly regretted and attempted to compensate for by their
subsequent votes in the House of Commons, the prospect of their conduct
frequently and considerably varied.
The Earl of St. Germans, the chief secretary of the Lord Lieutenant,
introduced the Coercion Bill to the House of Lords on the 24th of
February, and, considering the exigency, and the important reference
to it in the speech from the throne, this step on the part of the
government was certainly not precipitate. It was observed that the
strongest supporters of the measure in the House of Lords on this
occasion were the leaders of the Whig party. Lord Lansdowne, ‘so far
from complaining of the Government for bringing forward the measure at
so early a period of the session, was ready to admit, that after the
declaration of her Majesty, a declaration unhappily warranted by
facts known to many of their lordships, every day was lost in which an
effectual remedy was not at least attempted to put an end to a state
of society so horrible.’ Lord Clanricarde ‘gave his ready assent to the
bill;’ and even Lord Grey, ‘though he regretted the necessity for this
measure, was of opinion that the chief secretary had established a
sufficient case for arming the executive government with some additional
powers.’ When, therefore, at the end of the month of March, Lord George
Bentinck was invited to attend a meeting of his friends, held at the
house of Mr. Bankes, to consider the course which should be adopted
by the Protectionist party with respect to the Coercion Bill, it was
assumed, as a matter of course, that the coalition of the government
and the Whigs must secure the passing of the measure, even if the
Protectionists were disposed, for the chance of embarrassing the
ministry, to resist it; and of course there was no great tendency in
that direction. Men are apt to believe that crime and coercion are
inevitably associated. There was abundance of precedent for the course,
which seemed also a natural one.
In less than a century there had been seventeen coercive acts for
Ireland, a circumstance which might make some ponder whether
such legislation were as efficacious as it was violent. However,
assassination rife, Captain Rock and Molly M’Guire out at night, Whigs
and Tories all agreed, it was easy to catch at a glance the foregone
conclusion of the meeting. One advantage of having a recognized organ of
a political party is, that its members do not decide too precipitately.
They listen before they determine, and if they have a doubt, they
will grant the benefit of it to him whose general ability they have
acknowledged, and to whom they willingly give credit for having viewed
the question at issue in a more laborious and painful manner than
themselves. Without a leader, they commit themselves to opinions
carelessly and hastily adopted. This is fatal to a party in debate; but
it often entails very serious consequences when the mistakes have been
committed in a less public and responsible scene than the House of
Commons.
In the present case, there was only one individual who took any
considerable lead in the management of the party who ventured to suggest
the expediency of pausing before they pledged themselves to support an
unconstitutional measure, proposed by a government against which they
were arrayed under circumstances of urgent and unusual opposition. The
support of an unconstitutional measure may be expedient, but it cannot
be denied that it is the most indubitable evidence of confidence. This
suggestion, though received with kindness, elicited little sympathy, and
Lord George Bentinck, who had not yet spoken, and who always refrained
at these meetings from taking that directing part which he never wished
to assume, marking the general feeling of those present, and wishing to
guide it to a practical result advantageous to their policy, observed
that the support of the Coercion Bill by the Protectionists, ought to be
made conditional on the government proving the sincerity of their policy
by immediately proceeding with their measure; that if life were in
such danger in Ireland as was officially stated, and as he was bound
to believe, no Corn or Customs’ Bill could compete in urgency with the
necessity of pressing forward a bill, the object of which was to arrest
wholesale assassination. He was, therefore, for giving the government
a hearty support, provided they proved they were in earnest in their
determination to put down murder and outrage in Ireland, by giving a
priority in the conduct of public business to the measure in question.
This view of the situation, which was certainly adroit, for it combined
the vindication of order with an indefinite delay of the measures for
the repeal of the protective system, seemed to please every one; there
was a murmur of approbation, and when one of the most considerable of
the country gentlemen expressed the prevalent feeling, and added that
all that was now to be desired was that Lord George Bentinck would
kindly consent to be the organ of the party on the occasion, and state
their view to the House, the cheering was very hearty. It came from the
hearts of more than two hundred gentlemen, scarcely one of whom had a
personal object in this almost hopeless struggle beyond the maintenance
of a system which he deemed advantageous to his country; but they wished
to show their generous admiration of the man who, in the dark hour of
difficulty and desertion, had proved his courage and resource, had
saved them from public contempt, and taught them to have confidence in
themselves. And after all, there are few rewards in life which equal
such sympathy from such men. The favour of courts and the applause
of senates may have their moments of excitement and delight, but the
incident of deepest and most enduring gratification in public life is to
possess the cordial confidence of a high-spirited party, for it touches
the heart as well as the intellect, and combines all the softer feelings
of private life with the ennobling consciousness of public duty.
Lord George Bentinck, deeply moved, consented to become the organ of the
Protectionists in this matter; but he repeated in a marked manner his
previous declaration, that his duty must be limited to the occasion: he
would serve with them, but he could not pretend to be the leader of a
party. In that capacity, however, the government chose to recognize him,
and there occurred in consequence, very shortly after this meeting, a
scene in the House of Commons, which occasioned at the time a great deal
of surprise and scandal. The Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuance
of one of his principal duties, which is to facilitate by mutual
understanding the conduct of public business in the House of Commons,
applied to Lord George Bentinck, confessedly at the request of Sir
Robert Peel, to ‘enter into some arrangement’ as to the conduct of
public business before Easter. The arrangement suggested was, that if
the Protectionists supported the Coercion Bill, which it was the wish
of Sir Robert Peel should be read a first time before Easter, the third
reading of the Bill for the Repeal of the Corn Laws should be postponed
until after Easter. The interview by appointment took place in the Vote
Office, where the Secretary of the Treasury ‘called Lord George aside’
and made this proposition. Lord George stated in reply, ‘what he
believed to be the views of the party with whom he served,’ and they
were those we have already intimated. The ‘arrangement’ was concluded,
and it was at the same time agreed that certain questions, of which
notice had been given by Lord John Russell, relative to the progress
of these very measures, should be allowed by the Protectionists to pass
_sub silentio_. This ‘pledge,’ made by the noble lord for himself and
his friends, was ‘scrupulously observed.’ Nevertheless, after all this,
a letter arrived from the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to the
noble lord, stating that the secretary ‘had not been authorized in
saying as much as he had said,’ and requesting that the conversation
which had taken place might be considered private. Upon this, Lord
George Bentinck drew up a statement, ‘setting forth all that had
passed,’ and forwarded it to the secretary as his reply. Subsequently,
he met that gentleman, who admitted that ‘every word in that statement,
as respected the conversation which had passed, was perfectly correct.’
This being the state of the case, on the second night of the debate
on Mr. Eliot Yorke’s amendment, which we have noticed, and after the
adjournment had been moved and carried, the government proceeded with
some motions of form, which indicated their intention to secure, if
possible, the third reading of the Corn Bill before Easter. Upon
this, Lord George Bentinck, after a hurried and apparently agitated
conversation with the Secretary of the Treasury and others connected
with the government, rose to move the adjournment of the House. He then
gave as his reason the circumstances which we have briefly conveyed. A
scene of considerable confusion occurred; the Secretary of the Treasury
admitted the correctness of the statement; the First Lord of the
Treasury rejected the alleged authority of the secretary. Mr. Tuffnell,
on the part of the Whigs, intimated that public business could not be
carried on if the recognized organs were repudiated by their chief. The
feeling of all parties coincided with Mr. Tuffnell; finally, an Irish
repealer rose and announced that the government were bartering their
Corn Bill to secure coercion to Ireland. Lord George Bentinck said the
Coercion Bill was ‘a second Curfew Act,’ that nothing but necessity
could justify it, and if it were necessary it must be immediate. Sir
Robert remained irritated and obstinate. He would not give up a stage
either of the Corn Bill or the Coercion Bill; he wanted to advance both
before Easter. The mere division of the House between Free-traders and
Protectionists had already ceased; there were breakers ahead, and it
was not difficult from this night to perceive that the course of the
government would not be so summary as they had once expected.
This strange interlude occurred after midnight on the 26th of March. On
Friday, the 27th, the House divided on the amendment of Mr. Eliot Yorke,
and the Corn Bill was read for the second time. On the reassembling of
the House on Monday, the 30th, an extraordinary scene took place.
It appears that the cabinet, after painful deliberation, had arrived at
the conclusion that, notwithstanding the importance of sending up
the Corn Bill to the House of Lords before Easter, it was absolutely
necessary to proceed at once with the Coercion Bill; and it was resolved
that the Secretary of State should on this evening lay before the House
the facts and reasons which ‘induce the Government to believe in the
necessity of the measure.’ Mr. O’Connell and his followers had already
announced their intention of opposing the first reading of the bill,
an allowable but very unusual course. It is competent to the House of
Commons to refuse a first reading to any bill sent down to it; but the
journals afford few examples of the exercise of such a privilege. A
member of the House of Lords may lay on the table, as a matter of pure
right, any bill which he thinks proper to introduce, and it is read a
first time as a matter of course; the orders of the House of Commons are
different, and a member must obtain permission before he introduces a
bill. This permission is occasionally refused; but when a bill comes
from the House of Lords, the almost invariable custom is to read it
for the first time without discussion. There are, however, as we have
observed, instances to the contrary, and the Irish Coercion Bill of ‘33
was one of them. So pregnant a precedent could not be forgotten on
the present occasion. The government therefore were prepared for an
opposition to the first reading of their bill; but trusting to the
strength of their case and the assumed support of the Whig party, they
believed that this opposition would not be stubborn, more especially
as there were numerous stages of the measure on which the views of its
opponents might be subsequently expressed, and as they themselves were
prepared to engage that they would not proceed further than this
first reading until the Corn Bill had passed the House of Commons. The
consternation, therefore, of the government could scarcely be
concealed, when they found on Monday night that they had to encounter a
well-organized party opposition, headed by Sir William Somerville, and
sanctioned and supported in debate by Lord John Russell and Sir George
Grey.
It would seem indeed a difficult and somewhat graceless office for the
Whigs to oppose the first reading of a government bill, concerning,
too, the highest duties of administration, which had received such
unqualified approval from all the leading members of their party in the
House of Lords, who had competed in declarations of its necessity and
acknowledgments of its moderation, while they only regretted the too
tardy progress of a measure so indispensable to the safety of
the country and the security of her Majesty’s subjects. A curious
circumstance, however, saved them from this dilemma, which yet in
the strange history of faction they had nevertheless in due time to
encounter.
As the Coercion Bill coming from the Lords appeared on the paper of
the day in the form of a notice of motion, the Secretary of State,
this being a day on which orders have precedence, had to move that such
orders of the day should be postponed, so that he might proceed with
the motion on the state of Ireland, of which notice had been given. The
strict rule of the House is, that on Mondays and Fridays, orders of
the day should have precedence of notices of motion, so that it was
impossible for the Secretary of State to make his motion, that a certain
bill (the Protection of Life--Ireland--Bill) should be read a first time
without permission of the House, a permission always granted as a matter
of course on such nights to the government, since the business which can
be brought forward, whether in the shape of orders or motions, is
purely government business, and thus the interests and privilege of no
independent member of Parliament can be affected by a relaxation of
the rules which the convenience of a ministry and the conduct of public
business occasionally require. However, on this night, no sooner had
the Secretary of State made, in a few formal words, this formal request,
than up sprang Sir William Somerville to move an amendment, that the
orders of the day should not be postponed, which he supported in a
spirited address, mainly on the ground of the great inconvenience that
must be suffered from the postponement of the Corn Bill. The motion of
the Secretary of State would produce a long, exciting, and exasperating
debate. Time would be lost--for what? To advance one stage of a measure
which it was avowedly not the intention of the government to press at
the present moment. Sir William concluded with a very earnest appeal
to Lord George Bentinck and his friends, who might at no very distant
period have the government of Ireland entrusted to them, not, for the
sake of a momentary postponement of the Corn Bill, to place themselves,
by voting for this measure of coercion, in collision with the Irish
nation.’ He called upon Lord George Bentinck to weigh the position in
which he was placed.
This amendment was seconded by Mr. Smith O’Brien, the member for the
county of Limerick, who warned the government that they ‘were entering
on a contest which would continue for months.’ He taunted the minister
with governing the country without a party. What chance was there of
reconciliation with his estranged friends? After the treatment of that
‘disavowed plenipotentiary,’ the Secretary of the Treasury, who would be
again found willing to undertake the mission of patching up a truce?
He was not present when the terms of the treaty were exposed: but he
understood, that if the government introduced this Coercion Bill before
Easter, then that Lord George Bentinck would deem it wise, proper, and
expedient; but if after Easter, then the complexion and character of the
bill were, in the noble lord’s judgment, utterly transformed, and it was
declared to be quite untenable and unconstitutional. Was that the kind
of support on which the government calculated for passing this measure?
The Secretary of State made a dexterous, conciliatory, almost humble
address, in reply to the taunts of Mr. Smith O’Brien. He said that he
was well aware of the fact of which he had been just reminded, that, in
the present state of parties, the declared adherents of the government
were a small minority; he even, while excusing the delay in the progress
of the Irish measure, reminded the House of the curious fact, that since
the meeting of Parliament, two successive Irish secretaries had lost
their seats in the House of Commons in consequence of supporting the
administration of which they were members.
The case of the government was really so good and clear, that for a
moment it seemed the opposition could hardly persist in their unusual
proceeding: but this was a night of misfortunes.
There had been for some time a smouldering feud between the secretary
and the Recorder of Dublin. The learned gentleman had seized the
occasion which the present state of parties afforded, and in the
course of the recent debate on the second reading of the Corn Bill, had
declared that the asserted famine in Ireland was, on the part of the
government, ‘a great exaggeration.’ The secretary had addressed himself
particularly to this observation in his speech on the 27th, the night
of the division, and had noticed it in a tone of acerbity. He had even
intimated that it might have been used by one who was a disappointed
solicitor for high office, and whom the government had declined to
assist in an unwarrantable arrangement of the duties and salary of
the judicial post he at present occupied. The learned Recorder, justly
indignant at this depreciating innuendo, resolved to make an opportunity
on the following Monday for his vindication and retort. He rose,
therefore, immediately after the skilful and winning appeal of the
secretary, and pronounced an invective against the right honourable
gentleman which was neither ill-conceived nor ill-delivered. It
revived the passions that for a moment seemed inclined to lull, and
the Protectionists, who on this occasion were going to support the
government, forgot the common point of union, while the secretary was
described as ‘the evil genius of the cabinet.’
After this, it was impossible to arrest the course of debate. Mr.
O’Connell, who appeared to be in a state of great debility, made one
of those acute points for which he was distinguished. He said the
government complained of the threat held out by those who opposed the
bill, that they would avail themselves of the forms of the House to
give it every opposition in their power. But what did the government do
themselves? Why, they were trying to trample upon one of the sessional
orders and to abrogate the forms of the House in order to coerce the
Irish people. Lord George Bentinck said, that ‘the chief minister had
told them, that this was a bill to put down murder and assassination; in
that case, if this bill were delayed, the blood of every man murdered
in Ireland was on the head of her Majesty’s ministers.’ Sir George Grey
followed, and avoiding any discussion of the state of Ireland, in
which Lord George had entered, supported the amendment of Sir William
Somerville, on the broad ground that the bill for the repeal of the corn
laws ought not to be for a moment delayed. ‘The debates on that
measure had continued several weeks; and all who had any lengthened
parliamentary experience must be convinced, that if the further progress
of the Corn Bill was postponed until after Easter, they would have much
longer and protracted debates in its future stages, than if the bill
were pushed _de die in diem_. As he had understood, the government had
intended that this bill should have gone up to the House of Lords before
Easter, when it would have been printed, and the second reading could
have taken place at an early day after the holidays; but if it were put
off until after Easter, he would defy any man to show any reasonable
expectation of its getting to a second reading in the other House before
June, or July, or even August.’ This was encouraging, and the plot
seemed to thicken. The Secretary at War was put up by the government to
neutralize the effect of the speech of Sir George Grey, and he said, ‘I
speak not only as a cabinet minister, but also as a considerable
Irish proprietor.’ He said, ‘that anything so horrible as the state of
demoralization and crime in which many parts of Ireland were plunged,
anything so perfect as the suspension of the law in those parts of the
country, anything, in short, so complete as the abrogation of liberty
that obtained there, was, perhaps never known.’ He thought that, ‘no man
and no minister could, under these circumstances, decline to admit that
every and any measure ought to be postponed until a division had been
taken, at least upon the principle of a measure which had for its object
the suppression of these horrors.’ After such a declaration it was clear
the government were in a false position when by the same organ it had to
state, ‘that in asking to read this bill to-night, they only intended to
postpone the Corn Bill for one night.’
Lord John Russell following, admitted, that ‘in voting for the motion of
Sir William Somerville it was not to be supposed, that if the Secretary
of State made out a case, he would not support the government bill;’
yet how the secretary was ever to find an opportunity of making out his
case, if the amendment of Sir William Somerville was carried, was
not very apparent. Sir Robert Peel, who was disquieted by the whole
proceedings connected with the Coercion Bill, irritated by the episode
of ‘the disavowed plenipotentiary,’ from which he did not for some
time recover, and really alarmed at the indefinite prospect of delay in
passing his all-important measures which now began to open, could not
conceal his vexation in the remarks which he offered, and speaking of
the amendment as one ‘of a frivolous character,’ indignant cries of ‘No,
no,’ from his usual admirers, obliged him to withdraw the expression.
His feelings were not soothed when, later in the evening, even Mr.
Cobden rose to deplore the conduct of that minister whom he otherwise so
much admired. ‘He certainly regarded it as a great calamity. Something
had actuated the government which he could not understand. He had a
perfect belief in the sincerity of the prime minister, but in all human
probability the Corn Bill would not now enter the House of Lords before
the beginning or middle of May; and when it would come out again, heaven
only knew!’
The House now divided, and being supported by all the Protectionists
present, the government had a majority of thirty-nine, so the standing
order was for that night rescinded; and, although the hour was late for
such a statement, the secretary proceeded with the official exposition.
Notwithstanding the depressing circumstances of the previous debate,
the speech of Sir James Graham was distinguished by all that lucid
arrangement of details and that comprehensive management of his subject
which distinguished him. The statement made a great impression upon the
House and the country; but, unfortunately for the government, the more
necessary they made the measure appear, the more unjustifiable was their
conduct in not immediately and vehemently pursuing it. They had, indeed,
in the speech from the throne at the commencement of this memorable
session, taken up a false position for their campaign; and we shall see,
as we pursue this narrative of these interesting events, that the fall
of Sir Robert Peel was perhaps occasioned not so much by his repeal
of the corn laws as by the mistake in tactics which this adroit and
experienced parliamentary commander so strangely committed.
On this night of the 30th the government made no advance; immediately
after the secretary had finished, the followers of Mr. O’Connell moved
the adjournment of the House, and persisted in this line notwithstanding
the almost querulous appeal of the first minister.