much engaged in judicial proceedings as the Judges themselves-he meant members of the Bar-in the situation of military men, who could say that those learned individuals would not get enamoured of their extraordinary powers, and say that trials without Juries were necessary for the ordinary administration of justice in Ireland?

He was afraid that, owing to the provision that no officer should sit upon these Courts-martial who was not of full age, and of two years' standing in the army, a false impression had been made upon the public mind respecting these Courts-martial. It appeared to be a general notion that these Courts-martial would be composed of nothing else than young officers, who had just attained their twenty-first year. This was about as erroneous as to suppose, that because there was an Act of Parliament declaring that no man should sit in that House for any borough who was not twenty-one years of age, and in possession of a qualification of 300l. a year, that House did not contain among its Members a single individual who was more than twenty-one years old, or who possessed more than 300l. a-year. He saw no reason why there should be any limitation as to the number of years during which the officer had served; he thought that if the officer were twenty-one years of age, it was enough, for a civilian at twenty-one was capable of serving upon juries; and he believed that the education of a young officer, from his station in life, was likely to be quite as vigilantly looked after as that of any ordinary Juryman who was called on to decide matters of life and death.

Another provision of the Bill, which had raised considerable objection, was that which gave the right of visiting and searching the houses of suspected persons. He felt this objection as strongly as any man, but its force was overcome by the fact that every gentleman who was either a native of Ireland, or connected with Ireland by property, thought

Whilst

that this provision was absolutely necessary. upon this point, he would ask the House to remember what was the provision contemplated by the Committee which reported last year on the state of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had told the House that the Committee had not recommended the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; but he had forgotten to tell them that they recommended the adoption of a measure by which, if a person was found absent from his home more than once, he should be held to bail for his good behaviour, and, in default of bail, should be liable to imprisonment. There was no need of a Jury to have him held to bail, and yet, if he refused to find bail, he must be committed to prison. These were the words of the Report:

The warrant to be executed always in the presence of a magistrate, and the persons who may be absent from their houses to be summoned by the Court of Sessions, and if unable to give a satisfactory explanation to the Court of the cause of their being absent, a record to be made of the conviction of their absence; those persons who shall be found absent a second time, to give bail for their good behaviour for twelve months, and, in default of doing so, to be committed to the county gaol for one month.' He said therefore, most decidedly, that the opinion of the Committee was, that a person should be liable to punishment, without the intervention of a Jury, if he were twice absent by night from his home.

The hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House that the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland had stated, in his charge to the Grand Jury of the Queen's County, that the present law was sufficient for the repression of these outrages; but he had not told the House that the Committee did not agree with the Lord Chief Justice on that point, but were of opinion that other provisions were necessary. Now, an extraordinary case must have been made out before the

Committee, or the Members would not have violated the usual practice of Committees by making distinct proposals for the suppression of these outrages. The making of such proposals was almost invariably left by Committees to the Executive Government; but when we find a Committee, consisting chiefly of Members elected by popular constituencies, making such proposals at the very time when they were about to appeal again to their constituents, we must admit that the case must have been strong which had led them to so unusual a determination.

The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had taunted him with inconsistency because he supported this measure now, after having opposed a similar measure some years ago; and the hon. and learned gentleman who had just preceded him had said: If such a law had been proposed by a Tory Administration, the Whigs would have risen in files to oppose it.' He hoped that both the hon. Gentlemen would listen to the answer which he was going to give to this charge. In the year 1822, on February 7, the Administration came forward and proposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the enactment of the Insurrection Act. They did so upon their own statement and upon their own responsibility: they asked for no inquiry, they reverted to no committee, but they introduced the Bill as the present Government had introduced this measure, upon the proper feeling that such a measure should be introduced upon their single and undivided responsibility. There was a discussion on the measure on Thursday, February 7; the Bill was then read a first time; very few persons divided against it; and he (Lord John Russell), feeling that the measure was necessary, did not come down to oppose it. When the debate was over, the late Lord Londonderry proposed that the second reading should take place that night, in order that the Bill might be committed and read a third time the next night, that it might then be sent in to the Lords on the Saturday, and after passing

through all its stages in one night in that House, be sent off without delay to Ireland. It was not read a second and a third time that day, but within a week both measures were passed and sent to Ireland. Now, if the Administration of the day had met with the opposition that the hon. and learned gentleman who last addressed the House had stated it had met, it could not have passed those Bills, for there were two of them, within the short space of a week. His opinion was-and he had always avowed it his opinion was, that Acts of this description rested for their justification on the necessity of the case. He believed that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin were in full possession of power, he would not be slow in producing a measure to suppress these outrages. The hon. and learned Member had admitted that the greatest sufferers by these outrages were not Protestants but Catholics, and had said, that he was ready to agree to any law which would make it a misdemeanour for a man to be absent from his house at night. If such were the case, what became of this charge of inconsistency and desertion of principle, so confidently made against his right hon. colleagues and himself?

The present was a case in which every man must judge, according to his honest conviction, whether these laws. were necessary or not. If they were not necessary, let them not be enacted; but if they were necessary, he called upon gentlemen not to shrink from the duty which they owed to their country, but to pass them at once. Let them be assured that, whatever measures of concession, conciliation, or improvement might be necessary, that must be a great improvement which rendered life and property safe. Talk of men not obtaining employment! How could they expect to gain employment when the inland conveyance of goods on canals for the purposes of trade was interrupted in open daylight by bands of armed men traversing the country? From whom could employment come, except

from men in the possession of capital? And what capitalist would vest his capital in Ireland until he was certain that his property would not be destroyed, and his servants would not be murdered, in performing his business? If employment be wanted in Ireland, pass Acts to give it to the people; but do not fancy that you are doing your duty towards Ireland by refusing your consent to a measure without which, life and liberty would be left insecure, and made the sport of every miscreant or ruffian who may delight in blood. He was convinced that by subduing insurrection, while they maintained, as they ought, the authority of the laws and the dignity of the Crown, it would be confessed in the end, even by those who were averse to own it now, that they had been the best friends to the peace, the liberty, and the prosperity of Ireland.

DEFECTS IN THE REFORM OF PARLIAMENT ACT.

Wednesday, May 22, 1833.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL objected to the Motion, and trusted that the House would not adopt it. The Government had entered into a consideration of the doubts said to arise upon the face of the Reform Bill, and after carefully considering those doubtful points, and the difficulties stated to be thrown in the way of easy and cheap registration, they had come to the opinion that no alteration of that measure ought to be introduced in the present Session. They thought it better to give men who had been taken by surprise before the opportunity of registering their votes now, and they believed that many of the objections which at first sight appeared so formidable, would be found, upon trial, not to be so serious as was imagined. He wished the House to wait till the end of the next Session of Parliament, and see whether many of the objections now conjured up would not be found to be of no value or weight whatever.