with active individuals, with committees, and with public bodies in the different quarters of the distressed part of Ireland, and administered everywhere the relief that was most appropriate. Where there was food enough in the neighbouring markets, and all that was wanted was money to purchase it, money was remitted: where money would not have been sufficient, potatos, oats, and other cheap species of food, were purchased and conveyed with diligence to the scene of suffering. By all these different means, but most of all, by the efficacious exertions of British charity, the ravages of famine were arrested; so that the first dawning of the evil was the period of the greatest suffering, and its severity became less, as its duration was prolonged. Had Ireland been left to herself, or had she been united to a country less opulent than England, or less trained up to habits of munificent benevolence, it is impossible to conceive the extent of the horrors that must have followed. In the month of June, there were in the county of Clare alone (the whole population of which, is little more than two hundred thousand), 99,639 persons, subsisting on charity from hour to hour; in Cork, there were 122,000 individuals in the same situation; and in the city of Limerick, out of a population of 67,000, there were 20,000 who had not a morsel to eat except what pity gave. The magnitude of the relief afforded, may be estimated by such facts; but the extent of that relief, great as it was, is a very inadequate measure of the horrors and misery which it averted. The approach of the new crop of potatos put an end to this terri ble visitation, in the beginning of Autumn. The London committee continued its sittings and its activity throughout the whole of August: and in September it terminated its labours. Notwithstanding the liberality with which they had distributed food throughout the whole of the Western part of Ireland, there remained unem→ ployed a surplus of many thousand pounds. The sums sent to Ireland had been so large, as to leave in the hands of the archbishop of Tuam, 3 or 4,000l. unappropriated, and a sum of nearly equal amount, in the hands of other individuals who had distinguished themselves in this benevolent work. In addition to this surplus of the remittances sent to Ireland, the committee at the city of London-tavern found, on winding up their accounts, that they had still at their disposal considerable funds. It therefore became a subject of deliberation, how this balance might be best appropriated: and it was disposed of in the following manner:-5,000l. was voted for providing and distributing necessary articles of clothing for the poor in the distressed parts of Ireland, with the view of contributing to their comfort and health during the ensuing Autumn and Winter; 5,000l. more was voted for the encouragement of the fisheries along the coast of that part of Ireland where the distress was lately so prevalent, and where, from the want of employment, its recurrence might be apprehended, if a stimulus were not given to the industry of the poor. The facilities for fishing afforded by nature on the Western coast of Ireland, are great, and the advantages to the inhabitants of that district, as well as to the empire generally, from the promo tion of that branch of industry, are obvious. Yet, on several parts of the coast, the poor people, in endeavouring to obtain their subsistence from the ocean, still use the small wicker boat covered with hides, which is among the first inventions of the lowest state of social existence. Besides these two sums, the large one of 40,000l. was voted for the encouragement of the linen manufacture in the Southern provinces; and was to be applied more especially, in fostering those younger and coarser branches of the trade, which must necessarily be first cultivated, with a view to its future success in higher branches. A sum of 8,000l. was also voted for the general purpose of improving the condition of the Irish poor. The last appropriation consisted of 3,000l., voted to two associations of ladies which had been recently formed for the relief and employment of the lower classes in the sister country. The Insurrection act, and that for the suspension of the efficacy of the writ of habeas corpus, were to expire on the first of August; no committal had taken place under the latter of these acts; and no renewal of it was sought but the continuance of the additional powers conferred by the former, was deemed necessary to the public safety; and accordingly, early in July, a bill was introduced prolonging their duration till the 1st of August, 1823. The principal debate on it, occurred in the House of Commons, on the 8th of July; when Mr. Goulburn moved its committal. The expediency of the measure was maintained chiefly by Mr. Goulburn and Mr. Plunkett: and the substance of their argument was, that experience had proved the efficacy of the Insurrection act, and that, though the situation of Ireland was much improved, the disorders, of which it was still the scene, were too numerous, and of too grave a character, to be met by the ordinary course of law. As a specimen of these disorders, Mr. Goulburn mentioned that in one district of Tipperary, seven houses had been burned, and nine attacked and robbed of arms, and one murder committed, within the short space of ten days. He added, and with great truth, that the real nature of the evil lay not so much in the numbers, as in the peculiar and distinctive character of the outrages committed. They all bore the marks of a systematic attempt to exalt the power of the populace above the law. They were in general preceded by a notice, which prescribed a certain line of conduct to some individual: and his disobedience was punished by the destruction of his property, or of himself and his family. Another alarming feature of the Irish outrages, was, that they presented a systematic diligence in the infliction of vengeance on those, who were in any way instrumental in bringing criminals to justice. The duty of giving evidence in a court was become one of the most hazardous services that could be undertaken in Ireland: so hazardous, that, as the best means of protecting the witness, it was now the usual course to commit him to one gaol, while the culprit was sent to another. In a recent instance, even this precaution had been unavailing: a witness, previous to giving evidence, had been induced to quit for a single day, the prison to which he had been sent as to a place of security; and, on that very day, he fell by the hands of assassins. According to a statement made by Mr. Plunkett, there had been in the county gaol of Cark, a hundred witnesses seeking security in the abode of guilt, from the terrorists who desolated the country. Sir Robert Wilson and Mr. Spring Rice, took the most prominent part in opposing the measure. Sir Robert Wilson proved very satisfactorily, that all discretionary powers are liable to abuse; and he attempted to show, that to render Ireland a perfect paradise, three things only, were necessary : -Catholic emancipation-the abolition of tithes-and the education of the lower orders. In what way, the excellence of these measures, even if admitted, disproved the propriety of the bill under discussion, the General did not endeavour to show. Mr. Spring Rice met the question more fairly; directing his argument chiefly against that clause, which gave the magistrates the power of convicting without the intervention of a jury. He admitted that the Insurrection act would be useful in quieting disturbed districts. The crime, to which it referred, was fairly described, and the punishment attached to that crime was not too great. But he protested against the principle of superseding the trial by jury-a principle introduced, not only without cause, but with the most decisive evidence the other way. If juries had been found unwilling or unable to do their duty, then, perhaps, he would not have blamed the legislature for dispensing with that great constitutional bulwark. Such a measure, however, could only be one of great emergency. But how stood the case here? Since the disturbances in the county of Limerick, the trial by jury had been resorted to. Two special commissions had been held, and one, if not both, of these commissions was attended by the present attorney-general for Ireland. No jurors could have assembled under circumstances of greater terror and apprehension, than prevailed at the two periods. The circumstances were such as might have shaken the resolution even of the most constant and firm-minded men; yet, though placed in this perilous situation, it was impossible for any juries to behave with a more undaunted spirit. Then if the experiment of trial by jury had been attempted under all possible disadvantages, and if it had been found to answer every purpose of substantial justice; what good reason could be adduced for suspending the great constitutional right of the country? It was in the power of the magistrates, under this bill, to try the accused party without a jury; and it was also in their power to extend to the prisoner, if they pleased, the merciful interposition of a jury. But surely a jury trial ought to have been the rule, and not the exception. There was, undoubtedly, considerable weight in this objection; but it was forgotten amid the mass of heterogeneous matter which the other speakers introduced into the debate; so that the ministers eluded its force by not attempting to make any answer to it. They probably might have replied, that the attendance of juries at the assizes, and special commissions, was only of short duration, and that it was easy to assemble them from the whole extent of a county: that the special sessions, on the contrary, instituted by the Insurrection act, were of indefinite duration, and that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to collect a proper jury, so often as its aid would be wanted. Still, this would only have proved the propriety of empowering the magistrates to dispense with the intervention of a jury: it would have been no answer to Mr. Spring Rice's position that trial by jury ought to have been the general rule, and conviction without the intervention of a jury, only the exception. The division on the principle of the bill, exhibited a very feeble minority; 135 voting for the measure, and only 17 for an amendment proposed by sir Robert Wilson. In the committee, sir John Newport moved, that its duration should be limited to the 1st of May, 1823, instead of to the 1st of August; his object was, that the re-consideration of the measure might be forced upon parliament at an early period of the ensuing session. This amendment was likewise lost by a majority of 94 to 37. The bill passed through its subsequent stages, and through the House of Lords with very little remark. Another measure, which had in view the preservation of the public tranquillity in Ireland, was the establishment of a more effective civil police. By an act passed for this purpose, *the lord lieutenant was empowered to appoint by warrant under his hand a chief constable for every barony or division of a barony, or for two or more adjacent baronies, and to require by his proclamation, the magistrates of any county to appoint a sufficient number of constables and 3 Geo. IV, c. 103. sub-constables, not exceeding in the whole the rate of sixteen for each barony or division of a barony, and to fill up all such vacancies in their number as should from time to time take place. If the magistrates did not, within 14 days after the proclamation, name these constables and sub-constables, then the lord lieutenant was to appoint them: and he was further authorized upon the certificate of the magistrates, at the general quarter sessions, to direct the appointment of an additional number. These constables and sub-constables, were invested with all the power belonging to constables duly appointed, and might apprehend all offenders against any act in force in Ireland. Horses, with all necessary accoutrements and arms, were to be furnished to them. The chief constable was to have a house provided for him, and a salary not exceeding 100l. a year: the salary of the constables and sub-constables, was not to exceed 351, a year. The lord lieutenant was also authorized to appoint superintendants or inspectors of the chief constables and constables, with salaries of 500l. a year. Their duty was, among other things, to draw up rules for the conduct of the officers committed to their superintendance, to submit such rules to the consideration of the quarter sessions, and to transmit them, when approved of by the magistrates and lord lieutenant, to the chief constable within every barony. Another important provision of the act was, that, upon a certificate from seven or more magistrates of a county, or three or more magistrates of any county of a city or town, stating the expediency of appointing a magistrate to be constantly resident within any dis trict, the lord lieutenant might appoint such resident magistrates. The persons nominated to this office had all the powers belonging to a justice of the peace: they could not, except in the execution of their duty, leave their respective districts, without the permission of the Irish government, signified in writing by the secretary; and they were to make monthly returns of the state of the country within their jurisdiction. Their salary was not to be more than 500l. a year, exclusive of an annual allowance for house and furniture, not exceeding 2001. The main discussion on the principle of this measure took place on the 7th of June, when Mr. Goulburn moved the second reading of the bill. The grounds alleged for it were, the acknowledged inefficiency of the existing magistracy and police of Ireland, and the impossibility, from the different frame of society in the two countries, of introducing there the system which existed in England. It was keenly opposed by sir Henry Parnell, Mr. Spring Rice, sir John Newport, and Mr. Abercromby. Their arguments against it were, that it entailed a great expense on the state; that it made a large addition to the power of the executive; that it was unconstitutional in its nature; that it was ineffectual with respect to the purposes intended to be served by it. In reply to these objections, the ministers, and Mr. Plunkett more especially, contended, that the object of the measure was, instead of having a relaxation of law one moment, and a paroxysm of violence the next, to substitute a steady, vigorous, and efficient police a police which should tend not only to punish crime, but to prevent it; and which, by habituating the people to obey the law, might probably in the end have the effect of attaching them to it. It was not a measure which proposed any new law, or created any new crime, or introduced any new officer, or set up any new authority. How, then, was it unconstitutional? The difference proposed in the mode of appointing the constables was merely this :the constables were now appointed by the grand juries; under the new system, they might be nominated directly by the crown. As the crown was the fountain of all executive power, what difference could it make, whether the crown appointed the magistrate and the magistrate the constable, or whether the crown appointed the constable directly? And if it was possible that the projected system might become a job, it was quite certain-the existing system was notoriously and avowedly Where the power of appointment was divided among 24 persons, each of whom was exempt from responsibility, and shifted all blame upon his neighbour, the appointment of officers could not fail to be made negligently and corruptly; and that from the nature of the system, and not from any fault in the parties who worked it. With respect to expense, Mr. Plunkett contended, that the measure would really be one of economy. The number of baronies in Ireland was 250. Take the scale of one chief constable to every barony, and the probable cost, under the new system, would be this: : Chief constables year so. £.32,500 175,000 2,000 |