Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

WHEN has it been that Ireland, and its wrongs or injuries, has not been, to the British government, a topic of reproach, or a source of disturbance? Not at any time since the two countries first became acquainted. By the conquest under Henry the Second, popery was imposed upon the Irish people, and the domination of England but paved the way for the spiritual tyranny of Rome. Henry was, as it were, the pope's precursor. When this office had been well performed, and popery had become rooted and established amongst the people, the reformation in England took place, by which the Anglican Church asserted its undoubted right to regulate its own ecclesiastical concerns, without reference to any other authority than that to be found in the word of God, and the practice of the purest churches in the earlier ages. Would that our conquerors had been as successful in rooting up the tares, as they had been in planting them amongst us. But it was not so. The system of error which they had imposed upon us resisted the better lights by which they would fain have led our people from their state of spiritual bondage ;-and a principle of resistance to British government was generated by that very subjection to the tyranny of Rome which may be said to have been the condition of the conquest, by which Ireland has been periodically disturbed, while Great Britain has been perpetually endangered.

The time, we think, is very near at hand when the mind of parliament will be directed to the real source of our disorders; and we hail the success of Lord Roden's motion for a committee to inquire into the state of crime in Ireland for the last four years, because we feel persuaded that it must lead to a more correct view of the actual condition of the country than practical legislators have ever yet arrived at. Already it has struck dismay into the hearts of a profligate ministry, whose tenure of place would seem to be connected with a perpetuation of civil discord, and whose measures have all been studiously calculated to foment and to aggravate the national disorders.

And here, we beg to call public attention, in the strongest manner, to the very extraordinary fact, that Lord Normanby was not ashamed to oppose himself to that motion, and to do all that in him lay to prevent the proposed inquiry. It is, we believe, the first time that an accused individual ever had the audacity to maintain, that his own plea of not guilty ought to be taken as a sufficient answer to any charge that might be brought against him. Yet such is the modest attitude in which the noble lord presented himself to his brother peers, when he contended that they should refuse their assent to a motion which had for its object to call in question the wisdom or the honesty of his Irish administration. Doubtless the speech of the Earl of Roden was

* A Disclosure of the Principles, Designs, and Machinations of the Popish Revolutionary Faction of Ireland. By John Ryan, Esq., M. R.S.L., Author of "The Life of King William III.," "The History and Antiquities of the County of Carlow," &c. &c. Dublin: D. R. Bleakley, Lower Sackville-street. 1838.

VOL. XIII.

2 N

one by which the complacency of the ex-viceroy must have been not a little disturbed. It contained a recital of unpunished atrocities, which might well give pause to the most adventurous profligate who was minded to boast of the tranquillity of Ireland. Το some of the cases then adduced we may advert by and by; but they were all of a character which indicated a state of society in which the laws were either most negligently administered, or most flagrantly outraged. We are not, therefore, surprised that the noble marquis should have been excited to a prompt and indignant denial, that his demeanour as the representative of majesty, and his mode of dealing with crime, was, in any respect, the cause of the deplorable insecurity of life and property by which Ireland was so unhappily distinguished. This was no more than might have been expected. He was called upon to show, and it would become him to endeavour to show, that Lord Roden's statements were either unfounded or overcharged; or, if neither, that they were nothing to the purpose that Ireland has always been convulsed-that it was formerly much worse than it is now—and that, in point of fact, the returns respecting crime prove that the country is improving; and, having done all this, he should have concluded by offering to second the motion of the noble lord, in order that he might have the opportunity afforded him of substantiating by proof the statements upon which he relied for his justification. But did the noble marquis thus conclude? Did he beseech of noble lords to afford him thus an opportunity of vindicating his character, and covering with confusion the impugners of his administration? Lord Roden had not asked the house to believe the charges upon his averment. All that he asked for was a committee to inquire into them. Lord Normanby should not have thought that these charges were sufficiently negatived by his simple denial of them; and even if the house were disposed to agree with him so far, he himself, for the sake of his own character, should be desirous of resting his defence upon a better foundation. He should have said, "No; these charges shall not be thus cushioned; the house shall not be satisfied with my disclaimer; it must go into proof, in order that my adversaries may be put to shame, and the calumnies by which my government has been assailed purged away

by a recorded vindication." Such a course would indicate a confidence in his own integrity, by which it must at least appear that the noble marquis's administration was justified in his own eyes, and that he feared not manfully to confront himself to any adversary by whom his public conduct was arraigned. But did he so conduct himself? Was it thus that he met the motion of plain, downright Lord Roden? Did he thus court inquiry? He did the very reverse of all this. He shunned, he deprecated, he dreaded inquiry. He struggled as hard against it, as though he were conscious that, if granted, all the charges against him must be proved true. This, we say, gives a very peculiar character to the present case, and attaches a degree of interest to the inquiry at present proceeding in the House of Lords, which renders it not at all surprising that it should have attracted a large share of public attention. Lord Normanby and the ministers complain loudly that his plea of not guilty has not been accepted as a sufficient defence against the charges that have been preferred against him. Accordingly, while we write, Lord John Russell is addressing the House of Commons with a view to procure from them such a character of Lord Normanby's viceroyalty as may deter the factious peers from meddling, for the future, with any of the leaders of the democratic movement. Before these pages can meet the eye of the public, the result of this appeal must be known. The principle upon which it is founded is already well knownnamely, that a state delinquent's declaration of innocence is equivalent to a verdict of "not guilty;"—and that any interference, by the House of Lords, with the course of government which may receive the sanction of the House of Commons, is to be resented as a contumacious indignity, by a repetition of which they may peril their existence.

And here we cannot but advert to the very different course pursued by the Irish Orangemen, when they were assailed in parliament as a disloyal and pestilent society, who were the authors of all the national discord in Ireland. Such was the charge which was brought against them by able and unscrupulous men, who were determined, if they could, to make it good; and so confidently was it urged, and so frequently was it repeated, that even many honest men were induced to believe it could not be

Did

altogether unfounded. The reader will perceive this was, as it were, the counterpart of the charge now preferred against Lord Normanby. Let his administration be substituted for the Orange faction, and the cases will be substantially the same. He is charged with abetting and encouraging the violence of one faction, just as the leaders of the Orange body were charged with abetting and encouraging the violence of another. But how did they act when the charge was preferred against them? Did they presume to say that their own simple denial of it ought to be conclusive in their own favour? they exhibit any wish to ride off upon a mere plea of "not guilty ?" Did they deprecate or shrink from inquiry? The contrary is notoriously the case. They sought, they provoked, they challenged inquiry. They dared their adversaries to the proof of any one of the atrocities which were alleged against them. They braved the scrutiny of the most hostile tribunal before whom they could be tried ;-a tribunal consisting chiefly of the members of the tail; of which Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Finn, Mr. Shiel, Mr. Wyse, Mr. O'Loghlen, were members; before these the whole arcana of their boardroom were poured forth-books, papers, accounts, letters-nothing even to the minutest particular was withheld; probably there never was a more unreserved disclosure of materials by which an accused body might be criminated, if there was aught of truth in the charges by which they were assailed. Such was their conduct under the difficult circumstances in which they were placed, when they might be said to have been abandoned by their friends and surrounded by their enemies. And the result did not disappoint their honest hopes. This hostile committee were utterly unable to sustain any one of the heavy accusations which had been preferred; and every candid man who witnessed their proceedings, or made himself acquainted with the evidence which was taken before them, became convinced that there was no foundation whatsoever for the atrocious calumnies by which the brave and loyal Orangemen had been assailed; and that they were the most foully abused body of men in existence. Will Lord Normanby dare to imitate them, in the honest confidence which they exhibited on this occasion? It is needless to ask the

question. His feeble, querulous, deprecatory tone, when put upon his defence in the House of Lords, even when the ministry were at his back, and he could calculate upon an unscrupulous majority in the House of Commons, argued any thing rather than the confidence of conscious innocence; and if we are not very much deceived by our anticipations, the result of the inquiry at present proceeding will prove that there were very sufficient reasons why he should not have been very forward to provoke it.

In the House of Commons, on the 13th of March, Mr. Shaw moved for papers by which he hoped the state of crime in Ireland for the four years from 1835 inclusive, would be as fully revealed as it could be by official documents. To this motion the government assented;—Lord Morpeth asking, with a vapid sneer, was that all the right honourable gentleman aimed at ? "We have heard," said his lordship, "so much of boasting and so much of threatening on the part of honourable gentlemen opposite and their supporters, that we were prepared for terrible doings when the period for the meeting of parliament arrived. We had been led to apprehend exposures and denunciations, which, if they did not lead to impeachment, could scarcely terminate in any thing short of a vote declaring a want of confidence in the administration. And is it all now to end in this? A motion for papers! Fiddle didi!" We do not pretend that these were the very words which were made use of by the noble lord; but, most undoubtedly, his commencing observations were to that purport; and they were conveyed in a tone of haughty triumph over the pusilanimous Conser vatives, who, by limiting themselves to such motion, seemed to shrink from all their previous declarations. was well answered by the member for Kilmarnock, Mr. Colquhoun. who told him, "that the ground of any ulterior proceeding must be laid in inquiry; and that, without the production of the papers which had been moved for, the Irish government could neither be acquitted nor condemned. He therefore deprecated the haste of the noble lord in concluding that the motion for the production of papers precluded any further motion for a censure upon ministers upon grounds which those papers, when produced, might be found fully to justify. We inquire first, and condemn or acquit,

He

as the case may be, afterwards. This is our notion of justice both to England and to Ireland; and should these papers furnish us with the means of bringing home to the Irish government one serious charge by which public justice or national tranquillity might seem to be compromised, the noble lord may rest assured that no fear of being outvoted by such a majority as he may command, shall prevent our pressing it against them." Well-all matters thus remained until the 21st of March; ministerialists still chuckling at the thought that the conservatives should have contented themselves with a motion for papers, which might be garbled, or hocused, or mystified, so as to be rendered totally unavailable for the purposes for which they were required when Lord Roden, in the House of Lords, moved that a committee be appointed with power to examine persons and papers, "with a view to illustrate the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect of crime and outrage," when lo! all Lord Morpeth's insolence is forgotten!-the Io triumphe of ministerialists is heard no more!-but, on the contrary, a dismal howl is set up by the whole crew, from the premier down to the lowest under-strapper in office, as if the opposition were, in good truth, carrying the joke a little too far, and casting most discourteous imputations upon a patriotic and immaculate administration. Motions for papers they would never complain of; because the papers being in their own power, either to grant or to withhold as they thought fit, they could always take care that they should do them no harm. But a viva voce examination of able and honest witnesses, before competent tribunal, determined discover the whole truth, that was altogether a different thing in the eyes of those who had very good reason for dreading any such serious inquiry; and, accordingly, while the motion of Mr. Shaw was received with shouts of derision by the ministerial phalanx in the House of Commons, and not more earnestly pressed, than readily granted, that of Lord Roden in the House of Lords, fell amongst the supporters of government, like a shell amongst an unsuspecting tea-party, producing consternation and dismay amongst the affrighted beholders.

a

to

In our judgment, one branch of the inquiry in the House of Lords ought to be the character of the returns to which lord Normanby referred, and the man

ner in which they have been prepared. Already such discrepancies have appeared between the returns of crime made by different officials, as are sufficient to provoke strong suspicion of their fairness; or can the conflicting statements, or the equally conflicting explanations, which have been made with a view to reconcile these returns, be thoroughly understood without a parole examination of the several officers who are responsible for them. Upon that ground alone, the Lords were right in instituting inquiry. The fairness, or the unfairness of those returns, as indicating the real state of the country in respect of crime, constitutes the whole question. Does Lord Normanby object to have them put to the test? Upon what grounds can he fairly do so? Does he, the accused, consider it right to say, you must take these returns prepared by my direction, by my own officials, no one but myself as yet knows how, for granted? Is that his defence? Does he mean to deny his adversaries an opportunity of cross-examining these officials, for the purpose of discovering whether they acted under any undue bias; whether the returns were made mala fide or bona fide; to serve a purpose, or to elucidate the truth? If he does, we consider that he takes an attitude which no accused party, when put upon his defence, ever yet was permitted to take in a court of justice. He offers, forsooth, to be tried by his own returns; returns which may be said to be impeached by their own discrepancies, and which are, as yet, utterly unaccredited by any satisfactory authentication. It reminds us of the charletan ventriloquist, who put a loaded pistol into the hands of a blind man and told him to fire at him, not to be afraid, for that, such were the wonderful resources of his art, no ball could take effect upon him. The blind man fired at the voice, and therefore missed the man. Now this is just what the House of Lords do not want to do. They desire to go into the inquiry with their eyes open. They desire to see distinctly what they are about. If Lord Normanby's defence be a good one, it can suffer nothing from the sifting examination which they propose; if it be a bad one, its inconclusiveness must be detected. The noble marquis himself best knows whether he has reason to court or to dread such an inquiry.

And what is the meaning of all this; for, in good truth, the motions of Mr. Shaw and of Lord Roden are sub

stantially the same? Those who acceded to the one, should, if they were honest men, have had no hesitation to accede to the other also. It is simply this; that they were willing to brave an inquiry which they could baffle; but most reluctant to encounter one by which they might be detected. That they were most willing to submit to a mock, but could not endure a real inquiry. It is perfectly impossible to offer any other explanation of the difference of conduct observable in their reception of the one motion in the House of Commons, and the other in the House of Lords. Both had the same object; they both professedly aimed at the inculpation of government in the matter of Irish disturbance, and only took different modes of arriving at the same result; the one house confining itself to the examination of documents, while the other were, in addition, at liberty to summon individuals, and examine them on oath. And yet the sensations produced by each were as different as those produced by farce and tragedy. In the one case, they are as merry as if old Silenus had got amongst them; jibing the honourable mover with grimaceries the most provoking, led on by one whose very physiognomy has procured for him the cognomen of the "Liston" of the House of Commons. In the other case, they were "like Niobe, all tears;" or tears only interrupted by sobbings and wailings, mixed with a gnashing of the teeth, and a rumbling noise of grumbled vengeance, which is not more envenomed in thought than it is impotent in deed; and, as in the former case, their scornful disregard of truth and justice causes us to say, that nothing could be more melancholy than their mirth, so in the latter, the prospect of detection which their alarm and confusion affords, must compel even the gravest moralist to feel that nothing can be more mirthful than their melancholy.

And here it is but justice to the Conservatives to give them credit for a prudence in their arrangements, to the praise of which they have not often aspired. The motion in the House of Commons was wisely made to precede that in the House of Lords; and we can now understand it as furnishing the most valid justification of the course which was pursued by Lord Roden. He, in substance, asked from the Lords no more than had been already, by ministers themselves,

granted in the Commons-and granted, as we before observed, with many expressions of insolent astonishment that so little should have been demanded. How, then, can the Lords be censured for doing any thing in the step which they have taken calculated to provoke collision ? Is it disrespectful to the other house to follow the very example which they have set them? May not the peers of England, in parliament assembled, presume to prosecute an inquiry in one way, because the House of Commons have resolved to prosecute it in another? Here is no money-bill interferenceno trenching upon privileges-no proceeding calculated to give rise to sensitive apprehensions respecting the security of popular rights; but a plain, and almost literal following of the example which had been already set them, by forwarding, by means of inquiry, in the one house, the very object sought to be attained by means of documents in the other. We, therefore, give our leaders great credit, not only for the measures upon which they have resolved, but for their mode of timing them so judiciously as to make one serve as the support and the justification of the other. Mr. Shaw's motion in the Commons is the advanced battery, under the protection of which his friend Lord Roden proceeded to lay the foundation of his motion in the Lords; and if a collision between the two houses must take place, it is quite clear that the Conservatives are not the party who have provoked it, as they have neither questioned the privilege nor threatened the independence of any other of the estates of the realm, but only exercised an undoubted right, when they took the best means in their power to inquire into the malversation of the government and the grievances of the people. Be, then, the responsibility of any such collision on the heads of those by whom it may be wantonly caused. The honest and well-judging portion of the community will be at no loss to know where to impute the blame, if, in the strife of parties on the present occasion, any shock should be given to the constitution. But even already the faction are condemned-we had almost said selfcondemned. Their blow is like that of a dying desperado-it merely exhibits another specimen of "the ruling passion strong in death ;" and is destined, we hope, to afford an edifying example, that as by fraud and trickery office

« PreviousContinue »