documents in question, for it would completely justify their conduct; but they would not, for the sake of that advantage, set a bad example. Nay, what power had the house to enforce its production, or to what office in the state would they apply for it? Whereever such an application was directed, the answer would be, "we have no such document in our possession;" so entirely and strictly was it a private communication. He himself had never seen the original, but only an extract from it. Lord Ellenborough remarked very justly that Lord Melbourne's assumption of the chancellor of the exchequer having authorized the communication to Mr. O'Connell only of the fact that the question was still under consideration, while Mr. Littleton had gone the further length of communicating likewisethe lord-lieutenant's letter, was inconsistent with dates and facts, on which no doubt had as yet been thrown. It appeared from the statement of the Irish secretary that his communication to the member for Dublin took place on the 20th of June. At that time, lord Althorp could not authorize him to mention that the question was still undecided, and under consideration, because there was nothing requiring consideration, or that could be the subject of decision; for earl Grey had in formed them that, until he received the lord-lieutenant's letter on the 23rd, he had no reason to suppose that any difference of opinion existed among the members of the cabinet. If there had been previous differences, they had all, by that time, been cleared away; for, by that time, the prime minister had given instructions to the attorney-general to draw up the

bill as it now stood. Neither could Mr. Littleton have communicated to Mr. O'Connell on the 20th, the substance of the lord-lieutenant's letter, for that letter was not written till the 21st, and not received till the 23rd. The substance, however, might have been communicated in this sense, viz. that persons, who had been previously in communication with his excellency, might have reason to conjecture to what opinion he was likely to be brought, and might thus be able to state by anticipation the purport of a despatch which they expected, and the contents of which they had themselves been instrumental in creating.

Earl Grey himself repeated that a communication had been made to lord Wellesley, with out his knowledge, which led to the letter of the 21st of June, to the subsequent difference of opinion, and to all the other consequences of the transaction. He would answer for it, that, till he received the lord-lieutenant's letter on the 23rd of June, he had no idea whatever that any difference would arise, the bill having been agreed to, with the omission of only the court-martial clauses. It was on the 19th, that he had given instructions to the attorneygeneral to frame the bill, a circumstance which he recollected from his having made the communication to the attorney-general at the drawing-room which was held on that day. Earl Grey further stated that he blamed nobody; that he was convinced every thing had been done with the best and purest intentions; and that he had himself counselled lord Althorp to continue in office with the re-constructed ministry, as an act of duty to his sovereign and to the country, what

ever share of obloquy and misrepresentation he might incur. As to the letter, it was a private letter, addressed to himself. It was in his possession: no person had a right to call for it; and he would not give it up without the sanction of the noble marquis who had written it. It was said, however, that this letter was made the foundation of a public measure,-of the new bill. He did not understand it to be so. The clauses had been abandoned, not on account of that letter, which was in the possession of ministers before the first bill, was brought in, but because the disclosure of the contents of that letter had rendered it impossible to carry those clauses through the house of Commons, an alteration which he deeply regretted, thinking, as he did, that these clauses formed the most valuable part of the bill. Lord Wharncliffe withdrew his motion.

In the house of Commons, lord Althorp announced, on the 17th of July, that he still continued to be chancellor of the exchequer, but admitted that he could not pretend that the new government had as great claims on the confidence of the house and of the country, as when earl Grey had been its head. He had himself remained in office under the new minister, because he had always concurred with him on every subject brought under the consideration of the former cabinet, because his majesty had been pleased

to request the continuance of his services, and because he had been urgently advised to do so by earl Grey himself, whose retirement from office he well knew had been occasioned by his own resignation. The principles of the government of earl Grey would still be adhered to. The administration, while feeling it their duty not to submit to the legislature any propositions which could be productive of danger to the institutions of the country, would take care to see those institutions placed in such a situation as would be neither more nor less than adequate for the purposes in view, and would carry forward such reasonable but effectual reforms as the people had a right to expect in consequence of reform in parliament. Mr. O'Connell was extremely well pleased. He considered from the appointment of lord Duncannon to the home office, that ministers intended honestly and fairly to do Ireland right, and administer justice impartially. He expressed his heartfelt satisfaction at the prospect of a coercion bill being introduced, which, retaining the clauses that gave government the power of proclaiming disturbed districts, would not hinder the free expression of public opinion. He would cheerfully support it; he would give every assistance to the protection of persons and property, or to any means of preventing agrarian disturbances.

N the 18th of July, lord Al

in a bill to continue and amend the coercion act. He explained it to be the intention of government to re-enact only those parts of the bill which referred to the proclaiming of districts. The lord-lieutenant would have power to proclaim any district which he might think necessary; and, in these districts, any meeting, not convened by the high sheriff of the county, or with his sanction, would be held to be illegal. No person would be allowed to leave his home between sunset and sunrise, except on lawful business; and constables would have power to make people show themselves at any hour of the night, when they might call at their houses. The bill would endure only till the 1st of August 1835. He scarcely thought, that it would be necessary to assign to a house of Commons any other reason for not proposing to re-enact the remaining provi

sions of the existing measure than

pared to hold themselves responsible for the security of Ireland without such powers, such powers ought not to be forced upon them. He admitted, however, that the true reason was, the knowledge which parliament had obtained, that the Irish government did not think the provisions in question necessary; but on the source of that opinion in the Irish government he threw no further light, except that the letter of the lordlieutenant stated, that although agitation had prevailed throughout the country during the winter, there had been no attempts at disturbance for several weeks; that this opinion was expressed in consequence of communications made by a member of the government in this country;" that the lord-lieutenant was then asked whether he still thought the whole of the bill absolutely necessary; to which he answered, that if, in the

progress of business, the convenience of the government in England would be advanced by leaving out those clauses, he would be prepared to go on with the government of Ireland without them. Such being the case, why should the Irish government be compelled to accept of unconstitutional authority which it did not want.

Mr. O'Connell would not oppose the motion, but he contended that public meetings should be allowed in districts where there were only "predial disturbances." He had no objection that notice of the meeting, and of its object, should be required to be given to two magistrates ten days before it was held. He was willing that the power of proclaiming should be retained, and that in proclaimed districts all persons found out of their houses at night, without being able to give a rational excuse, should be tried as for a misdemeanor. This would at once operate as a protection to those who desired to remain peaceable, and as a check on those who wished to commit outrages. It was the most anxious desire, he said, of those who, with him, wished well to Ireland, that agrarian disturbances should cease. Their existence strengthened the hands of her enemies, and gave power to the faction which domineered over her. Each petty village despot throughout the country contemplated the disturbances with delight. A burning or the assassination of a whole family would call the whole body of yeomanry and police into play. Political agitation, instead of causing them, had a directly contrary effect. In 1824, after an insurrection had actually occurred,

and when the southern counties were ready to burst out into open rebellion, no fewer than 36,000 copies of an address to the people, written by him, were circulated by sir James Lambert, who then commanded 37,000 troops. Even during the existence of earl Grey's government, sir J. Harvey made use of an address prepared by him in a similar manner.

It

Mr. Ruthven, however, Mr. O'Connell's colleague in the representation of Dublin, Mr. Sheil, Mr. F. O'Connor, and Mr. Ronayne, opposed even the introduction of the bill, notwithstanding its mitigated character. was clear, they said, that Ireland owed no gratitude to ministers for this mitigation, since it had been conceded only in despair of carrying the bill in any other shape, after the secrets of their prisonhouse had become known. It was admitted by them that even this modification was the result only of an "indiscretion" on the part of one of their own number; and that five ministers, who had voted in the cabinet for a relaxation of this despotism, had nevertheless made up their minds to vote the contrary way in parliament. There was no foundation for the bill even as it stood; and yet ministers proceeded as if the supposed facts admitted of no contradiction, and as if the house were dealing with truisms. Baron Pennefather, at the last assizes in the county of Clare, had told the grand jury, that he was glad to find in the calendar so few of those crimes with which it was formerly stained; and at Louth, chief justice Bushe had said, that he found no case in the calendar of a similar nature to those which had been so com

mon there. Why, then, not try the effect of the usual administration of the law, as those, who were now ministers, had themselves recommended in 1824? Predial disturbances were not now in existence if they revived, parliament could easily be assembled; but why not wait till next session, to see what the law could do? Juries were sufficiently effective; the sheriff could call together a body of men to support the law; why then have recourse to an odious and unconstitutional measure? As ministers had changed their minds on some of the clauses, they might change their minds upon others. Why not say to lord Wellesley and lord Melbourne, "as you have altered your opinions with respect to the political meeting clauses, why cannot you consent to abandon the rest?"

Sir Robert Peel had no objection to what the bill contained, but thought government altogether unjustifiable for omitting that which it did not contain. The question was, whether the disturbances which prevailed in Ireland were, or were not, connected with the system of political agitation. If they were, then there could be no honest justification for that house tying the knot round the neck of the inferior instruments, and permitting the advocates and abettors of political agitation to escape scatheless. Every authority, from the lowest to the highest, without exception,-from the constable whom ministers had consulted to the king upon the throne, concurred in this, that political agitation and local disturbance were inseparable. He would not quote the opinions of the gentlemen who had been con

sulted by the lord lieutenant, though that opinion was concurrent and conclusive in favour of the extension of the bill to political offences. He came first to the opinion of the secretary for Ireland. He was asked on the first day of the session, when he had just returned from Ireland, this emphatic question-" Do you think that political agitation is connected with nocturnal outrages?" His answer was as follows:-"I think the language held at many public meetings in Ireland has tended very much to encourage feelings of disobedience to the laws, and to endanger the well-being of society itself. Having been asked for my opinion, I do not hesitate to avow it." Next came the decisive opinion of the lord lieutenant, who was mainly responsible for the tranquillity of Ireland, an opinion which had been quoted more than once during this discussion He was convinced that agitation and outrage were inseparably cause and effect, and stated that, by no effort of his understanding could he sever their indissoluble connexion; an opinion moreover, which they had since been told was his opinion still. Next they had the opinions of members of the government; and here he was entitled to claim the authority of eight out of thirteen gentlemen that it was most expedient to enact a law directed against political agitation. He called for no disclosure of individual sentiments on the part of his majesty's responsible advisers, but the chancellor of the exchequer had voluntarily stated, that, out of a cabinet consisting of thirteen persons, five thought the clauses against political agitation