_The Passing of O’Connell._
LORD GEORGE wrote the next morning (Tuesday, March 31st) to a friend,
who had not been able to attend the debate: ‘I look upon last night as
the most awkward night the government have had yet; I believe they would
have given their ears to have been beaten. We have now fairly set
them and the tail at loggerheads, and I cannot see how they are to get
another stage of either the tariff or Corn Bill before next Tuesday at
any rate. I doubt if they will do anything before Easter.’
It was understood that the House would adjourn for the Easter recess
on the 8th instant. There were therefore only two nights remaining for
government business before the holidays. On the first of these (Friday,
April the 3rd), Mr. O’Connell had announced that he should state his
views at length on the condition of Ireland, and the causes of these
agrarian outrages. Accordingly, when the order of the day for resuming
the adjourned debate was read, he rose at once to propose an amendment
to the motion. He sat in an unusual place--in that generally occupied by
the leader of the opposition--and spoke from the red box, convenient
to him from the number of documents to which he had to refer. His
appearance was of great debility, and the tones of his voice were very
still. His words, indeed, only reached those who were immediately around
him and the ministers sitting on the other side of the green table, who
listened with that interest and respectful attention which became the
occasion.
It was a strange and touching spectacle to those who remembered the
form of colossal energy and the clear and thrilling tones that had once
startled, disturbed, and controlled senates. Mr. O’Connell was on his
legs for nearly two hours, assisted occasionally in the management of
his documents by some devoted aide-de-camp. To the House generally it
was a performance in dumb show, a feeble old man muttering before a
table; but respect for the great parliamentary personage kept all as
orderly as if the fortunes of a party hung upon his rhetoric; and though
not an accent reached the gallery, means were taken that next morning
the country should not lose the last and not the least interesting of
the speeches of one who had so long occupied and agitated the mind of
nations.
This remarkable address was an abnegation of the whole policy of Mr.
O’Connell’s career. It proved, by a mass of authentic evidence ranging
over a long term of years, that Irish outrage was the consequence of
physical misery, and that the social evils of that country could not be
successfully encountered by political remedies. To complete the picture,
it concluded with a panegyric of Ulster and a patriotic quotation from
Lord Clare.
Lord John Russell, who, as an experienced parliamentary leader, had
already made more than one effort to extricate the Whigs from the
consequences of the hearty support given to the government measures in
the other House by Lords Lansdowne and Clanricarde, and even by Lord
Grey, ventured to-night even to say that if he should agree that the
House would do well to assent to the first reading of this bill, he
thought he was bound to state also that in the future stages of it, he
should have ‘objections to offer, going to the foundations of some of
its principal provisions.’
His speech was curious, as perhaps the last considerable manifesto of
Whig delusion respecting Ireland. Coercion Bills might be occasionally
necessary; no doubt of it; Lord Grey had once a Coercion Bill, and Lord
John Russell had voted for it; but then remedial measures ought to be
introduced with coercive ones: the evil should be repressed, but also
cured. Thus, Lord Althorp, when the government introduced their great
Coercion Bill, introduced also a measure which, besides making a great
reform in the Protestant Church of Ireland, exempted the whole Catholic
community of Ireland from the payment of church cess, which had
previously been felt as a very great grievance. On another day Lord
Althorp declared his intention of pressing through Parliament a Jury
Bill, which had been brought into the House the previous session, but
which was allowed to drop in the House of Lords.
Again, there was another declaration which Lord Althorp had made, which,
somehow or other, seemed to have been forgotten; it was a declaration
with respect to the municipal corporations of Ireland. Lord Althorp said
it was exceedingly desirable that the institutions of the two countries
should be assimilated as much as possible; and that, as a general rule,
the corporate bodies of Ireland should be the same as England. Mr.
O’Connell had said on that occasion that there was no greater grievance
in Ireland than the existence of corporations in their then shape. Lord
John contrasted this language of Lord Althorp, ‘simple, plain, emphatic,
and decided,’ with the language of the government of Sir Robert Peel;
and held up to admiration the Whig policy of 1833, certainly coercive,
but with remedial measures--a measure for the abolition of church cess,
introduced ten days before the Coercion Bill, and a promise of municipal
reform made simultaneously with the proclamation of martial law. This
was real statesmanship and touching the root of the evil. Whereas
‘Sir Robert Peel had only consented to passing the Municipal Bill in a
crippled state, and only now (in 1846) promised, that the corporations
of Ireland should be placed on the same footing as the corporations of
England.’ Who could be surprised that such a policy-should end in famine
and pestilence?
The followers of Mr. O’Connell again succeeded in adjourning the debate
until Monday the 6th. On that day Sir Robert Peel made ‘an earnest
appeal’ to extricate himself from the almost perilous position in which
he found his administration suddenly involved. In case the division on
the first reading of the Irish Bill should not take place that night, he
endeavoured to prevail on those members who had notices on the paper
for the following night (Tuesday the 7th), the last night before the
holidays, to relinquish their right and to permit the Irish debate
to proceed and conclude. ‘He had no wish to interfere with the due
discussion of the measure; but he believed that the Irish members, if
they permitted the House to proceed with the Corn Bill, by concluding
the discussion on the Irish Bill, would be rendering an essential
service to their country.’
But this earnest appeal only influenced still more the fiery resolves
of Mr. Smith O’Brien and his friends. They threw the responsibility for
delay of the Corn Bill on the government. The inconvenience which
the country suffered was occasioned by the minister, not by the Irish
members. He ought, on Friday last, to have adjourned the discussion on
the Coercion Bill until after Easter. He and other members who were
on the paper for to-morrow would willingly relinquish their right of
priority in favour of the Corn Bill, or of any measure of a remedial
kind, but not in favour of a Coercion Bill. He did not wish to have any
concealment with the minister as to the course which the Irish members
would pursue. It was their bounden duty to take care that _pari passu_
with the discussion of the Coercion Bill there should be discussions
as to the misgovernment of Ireland; and that, in the absence of any
remedial measures of the government, they should have an opportunity of
suggesting such as they thought advisable for removing those evils which
they utterly denied that the measure now before the House would remove.
In vain Sir Robert, in his blandest tones and with that remarkable
command of a temper not naturally serene which distinguished him,
acknowledged to a certain degree the propriety of the course intimated
by Mr. Smith O’Brien; but suggested at the same time that it was
compatible with allowing the Irish bill to be now read for a first time,
since on its subsequent stages Mr. O’Brien and his friends would have
the full opportunity which they desired, of laying before the House the
whole condition of the country. All was useless. No less a personage
than Mr. John O’Connell treated the appeal with contempt, and lectured
the first minister on the ‘great mistake’ which he had made. Little
traits like these revealed the true parliamentary position of the once
omnipotent leader of the great Conservative party. With the legions
of the Protectionists watching their prey in grim silence, while
the liberal sections were united in hostile manouvres against the
government, it was recognised at once that the great minister had a
staff without an army; not a reconnoitring could take place without the
whole cabinet being under orders, and scarcely a sharpshooter sallied
from the opposite ranks without the prime minister returning his fire in
person.
Sir Robert Peel mournfully observed that he ‘did not wish to provoke
a recriminatory discussion,’ and he resigned himself to his fate.
Immediately the third night of the adjourned debate on the Irish bill
commenced, and was sustained principally by the Irish members until a
late hour. It had not been the intention of Lord George Bentinck to have
spoken on this occasion, though he had never been absent for a moment
from his seat, and watched all that occurred with that keen relish which
was usual with him when he thought things were going right; but having
been personally and not very courteously appealed to by the late Mr.
Dillon Browne, and deeming also the occasion, just before the holidays,
a not unhappy one, he rose and concluded the debate. His speech was not
long, it was not prepared, and it was very animated.
Recapitulating himself the main features of the disturbed district, he
said: ‘It is because of these things, sir, that I am prepared to support
at least the first reading of a bill, which I freely admit to be most
unconstitutional in itself.’
Noticing a speech made in the course of the evening by Lord Morpeth,
who had himself once been chief secretary of the Lord Lieutenant,
Lord George thought it discreet to remind the House of the unequivocal
support given to this bill by the Whig leaders in another place: ‘Sir, I
think when we see all the great leaders of the Whig party supporting the
measure elsewhere, we cannot be justly impugned for doing as they do.’
Lord Morpeth had referred to ‘remedial measures which he thinks
should be introduced for Ireland: to measures for the extension of the
municipal, and also of the parliamentary, franchise of that country; and
he expressed his desire to see those franchises put on the same footing
as the franchises of England.’ ‘For the life of me,’ exclaimed Lord
George, ‘I confess, I cannot see in what way the extension of political
franchises of any description in Ireland would afford a remedy for
the evils which this measure aims to suppress. I think, sir, it is
impossible not to perceive that there is a connection between agrarian
outrage and the poverty of the people.’
After noticing the inadequate poor-law which then existed in Ireland,
he added: ‘There is also another point immediately connected with
this subject to which I must refer. I allude, sir, to the system of
absenteeism. I cannot disguise from myself the conviction, that many
of the evils of Ireland arise from the system of receiving rents by
absentee landlords who spend them in other countries. I am well aware
that, in holding this doctrine, I am not subscribing to the creed of
political economists. I am well aware that Messrs. Senior and M’Culloch
hold that it makes no difference whether the Irish landlord spends his
rents in Dublin, on his Irish estates, in London, in Bath, or elsewhere.
I profess, sir, I cannot understand that theory. I believe that the
first ingredient in the happiness of a people is, that the gentry should
reside on their native soil, and spend their rents among those from whom
they receive them. I cannot help expressing a wish that some arrangement
may be made connected with the levying of the poor-rate in Ireland, by
which absentee landlords may be made to contribute in something like a
fair proportion to the wants of the poor in the district in which they
ought to reside. There is an arrangement in the hop-growing districts in
England in respect to tithe, which might, I think, afford a very useful
suggestion. There are two tithes: the one, the ordinary tithe; the
other, extraordinary; which is levied only so long as the land is
cultivated in hops. I think if there were two poor-rates introduced into
Ireland, the one applying to all occupiers of land, and the other to all
those who did not spend a certain portion of the year on some portion of
their estates in Ireland, it would prove useful. I think, that by thus
appealing to their interests, it might induce absentee landlords to
reside much more in Ireland, than is now unfortunately the case.
‘But, sir, I think there are other remedial measures. Some days ago, the
Secretary of State told the member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope),
when he suggested some such measure, that he was treading on dangerous
ground, and that the doctrines he was advocating might be written in
letters of blood in Ireland; but, notwithstanding all this, I still say
that I think measures might be introduced for improving the relations
between landlord and tenant in Ireland. I do not think that some
guarantee might and ought to be given to the tenantry of Ireland for the
improvements they make upon their farms.
‘Sir, the Secretary of State, in introducing this measure, maintained
a doctrine which, I think, much more likely to be written in letters of
blood, for he bound up the question of the corn laws with the present
one. He said, that unless he could, have prevailed on his colleagues
to accede to his free-trade measures as regards corn, he would not have
introduced this bill. Why, sir, far from giving food to the people of
Ireland, in my opinion the measures of her Majesty’s ministers will take
away from the people of Ireland their food, by destroying the profits
of their only manufacture--the manufacture of corn--and injuring their
agriculture; depriving them of employment; in fact, by taking away from
them the very means of procuring subsistence. Sir, I cannot see how the
repeal of those laws affecting corn can be In any way connected with the
suppression of outrage and the protection of life. What is this but to
say, that unless we have a free trade in corn, we must be prepared to
concede a free trade in agrarian outrage--a free trade in maiming and
houghing cattle--a free trade in incendiarism--a free trade in the
burning and sacking of houses--a free trade in midnight murder, and in
noon-day assassination? What is this but telling the people of
Ireland, that assassination, murder, incendiarism, are of such light
consideration in the eyes of the Secretary of State, that their sanction
or suppression by the minister of the crown hinges upon the condition of
the corn market and the difference in the price of potatoes?
‘Sir, what has the potato disease to do with the outrages in Ireland?
Some think a great deal. I have taken the trouble of looking into
the matter. I have examined into the state of crime in at least five
counties--Tipperary, Roscommon, Limerick, Leitrim, and Clare--and I
find, that during the three months prior to the first appearance of
the potato disease, and when in fact food was as cheap in Ireland as at
almost any former period--when plenty abounded in all quarters of the
empire, that the amount of crime exceeded that in the three months
immediately following. Now, those who doubt this statement will have an
opportunity of ascertaining the correctness of my figures, for I will
not deal in general assertions. Well then, sir, I find in the three
months, May, June, and July last, that the number of crimes committed in
the five counties I have mentioned amounted to no less than 1,180, while
in the three months immediately after the potato disease, or famine as
it is called, the amount of crime committed in the same three months was
not 1,180, but 870. I should like to know, therefore, what this agrarian
outrage has to do with the potato famine; and where is the justification
for a minister coming down to this House, and declaring that unless we
pass a free-trade measure, we are not to obey her Majesty’s commands
by passing a measure for the protection of life in Ireland. Why, sir, I
think when this language reaches the people of Ireland--coming, too, as
it does from the Treasury, above all, from the Secretary of State for
the Home Department--there is indeed danger to be apprehended that such
a doctrine may be written in letters of blood in that country. Why, sir,
if we are to hear such language as this from that minister of the crown
charged with the peace of the country, we may just as well have Captain
Rock established as lord lieutenant in the castle of Dublin, a Whitefoot
for chief secretary, and Molly M’Guire installed at Whitehall with the
seals of the home department.’
And afterwards he remarked, ‘I have been taunted that when I may be
entrusted with the government of Ireland, I should perhaps then learn
that Tyrone was an Orange county. Sir, in answer to that taunt, I must
take leave to ask what expression of mine, either in this house or out
of it, justifies any such remark? When or where can it be said that I
have ever permitted myself to know any distinction between an Orangeman
and a Catholic; when, in the whole course of my parliamentary career,
have I ever given a vote or uttered a sentiment hostile or unfriendly to
the Roman Catholics, either of England or Ireland?’ This speech, though
delivered generally in favour of the Irish bill, attracted very much
the attention, and, as it appeared afterwards, the approbation of those
Irish members, who, although sitting on the Liberal benches, did not
acknowledge the infallible authority of Mr. O’Connell, and was the
origin of a political connection between them and Lord George Bentinck,
which, on more than one subsequent occasion, promised to bring important
results.
Two successive motions were now made for the adjournment of the debate,
and Sir Robert Peel at length said, that he ‘saw it was useless to
persist.’ He agreed to the adjournment until the next day, with the
understanding that if it did come on, he would name the time to which it
should be postponed after the holidays.
Upon this, Sir William Somerville made one more appeal to the minister
to postpone the further discussion of the Irish bill altogether until
the Corn Bill had passed the Commons. He intimated that unless the
government at once adopted this resolution, they would find themselves
after Easter in the same perplexity which now paralyzed them. They would
not be permitted to bring on this measure except upon government nights,
and the discussion might then last weeks.
The minister, exceedingly embarrassed, would not, however, relent. On
the following day, when he moved the adjournment of the House for the
holidays, he reduced the vacation three days, in order to obtain Friday,
a government night, which otherwise would have been absorbed in the
holidays, and he announced the determination of the government again
to proceed on that night with the Irish bill in preference to the Corn
Bill. The Irish members glanced defiance, and the Protectionists could
scarcely conceal their satisfaction. The reputation of Sir Robert
Peel for parliamentary management seemed to be vanishing; never was a
government in a more tottering state; and the Whigs especially began to
renew their laments that the Edinburgh letter and its consequences had
prevented the settlement of the corn question from devolving to the
natural arbitrator in the great controversy, their somewhat rash but
still unrivalled leader, Lord John Russell.