Obrazy na stronie

speedily brought into operation. By a proclamation, dated April 6, the Lord Lieutenant declared the County of Kilkenny to be in such a state of disturbance and insubordination as to require the application of the provisions of the act; by another, dated the 10th of April, he prohibited and suppressed the association, named the Irish Volunteers ; and by a third, dated the 17th of April, he also suppressed the National Trades' Political Union.

In May, Mr. Littleton was appointed Secretary for Ireland, in the room of Sir John Cam Hobhouse, who resigned his place in the ministry to avoid being compelled, in conformity with a pledge to his constituents, to vote against Lord Althorp on the question of the house and window tax; and in September, the Marquess Wellesley was appointed Lord Lieutenant, in the place of the Marquess of Anglesea, who retired on account of his declining health. The Marquess Wellesley entered Dublin in state on the 26th of September; and on the 11th of October, addresses were presented by the corporation of Dublin and the University.

On the 15th of October, the Poor Law Commissioners held a meeting in Dublin Castle, for the purpose of arranging the mode of inquiry best calculated to effect the object of the legislature regarding the state of the poor of that country, and the expediency of securing for them a legal provision. It is sincerely to be hoped that the labours of these gentlemen may succeed, in suggesting such a system for the relief of the poor in Ireland, as may prove one remedy for the evils of that country. There is every reason to conclude that such a system would be highly beneficial, and tend very materially to appease the dissatisfaction of the poorer classes, and hence to diminish, if not wholly extinguish, the influence of the agitators.

The effect of the Coercion Bill was, unquestionably, the preservation of comparative order for some months, throughout the whole of Ireland; but whether this was a deceitful calm, remains yet to be seen. At the close of the year, symptoms of renewed agitation were but too manifest. In November, a meeting of the householders of three united parishes in Dublin, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament for the total extinction of tithes and ministers' money, and the repeal of the Union. Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Shiel made very powerful appeals to their audience, and the resolutions were unanimously carried. The only remarkable feature was a declaration made by Mr. O'Connell that the repeal of the Union, “ instead of being a dismemberment of the empire, would be a firm consolidation of the empire in all its parts. In December, a most determined spirit of combination broke out amongst the working classes in Dublin, exhibiting itself in acts of continued outrage and violence. But the true source of this discontent was, as usual, obscured by party politics. A requisition, most numerously signed by the leading merchants and employers of the city, was laid before the Lord Mayor, to request that his lordship would convene a public meeting to take the subject into consideration. The meeting took place at the Commercial Buildings. The crowds that attended were so great that the speakers were obliged to adjourn to the interior square-yard. The apprehension, however, caused by the immense mob of workmen, appears to have inspired the principal persons who signed the requisition with fears of their personal safety, and, accordingly, the business of the meeting was abandoned to the agitators. The opportunity was taken advantage of by Mr. O'Connell's party to declaim upon the necessity of a repeal of the Union; the speakers defended legal combination, and, of course, denounced violence. The commercial body, thus intimidated by the overwhelming influence of the agitators, were silent, and the meeting passed off without adopting a single measure of utility.

The result of a trial which took place in Dublin at about the same date, also offers a practical comment on the state of affairs in the capital. On the 11th of December, in the Dublin Court of Exchequer, an action of libel was brought by the Rev. S. C. Lyons, a Catholic priest, of Ennis, against Major Bingham (a Protestant), William Bingham, his son, and Patrick Lavelle, a driver on Major Bingham's estate. Mr. O'Connell, the plaintiff's counsel, said that the Major and his son were embittered against the plaintiff, because, when there was a famine and great distress in Ennis, in the year 1831, the plaintiff had been the means of showing that Major Bingham had not contributed a single farthing to the relief of his poor tenants, and he was, in consequence, struck off the Committee of Relief. The libel was published in the

Mayo Constitution,” in the form of a memorial to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, and it charged the plaintiff with tyranny towards his parishioners, extorting money from them for christenings, &c., and represented him as a clergyman in whom no confidence could be placed. It even charged him with betraying the secrets of the confessional. Witnesses were called to substantiate the plaintiff's case, and the court adjourned till the next day; when the jury ultimately separated without agreeing to a verdict; so strongly do party politics interfere with the jurisprudence of distracted Ireland.

The trial for a libel written by Mr. O'Connell in The Pilot newspaper came on in the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, on Tuesday, the 26th November.

The Attorney-General, in his statement of the case, said that the libel in question was published in The Pilot newspaper, on the 8th of April last, and was contained in a letter purporting to have been written in London on the 4th of that month by Mr. O'Connell. The learned gentleman, after some preliminary observations, proceeded to comment at length on the contents of the letter, and maintained that the whole tenor of it was to exhibit the British Legislature as tyrannical, oppressive, and hostile to the best interests of the people of Ireland. He read in detail several extracts, and dwelt particularly on the passage which stated that “insults and injury were all that the people of Ireland received at the hands of the British Legislature. He said he could not imagine any language more strongly inculcating sedition than this. The learned gentleman, in conclusion, said that the only question for the jury to consider was whether the composition was libellous, and, if so, whether they were satisfied that it had been published by the defendant. Mr. O'Connels

, for the defence, admitted the publication, and also the fact that part of the language complained of referred to the Coercion Bill. It referred, he said, to an act which the Attorney-General himself admitted to be unconstitutional. The immediate object of the prosecution, he maintained, was, that the Whig Ministers, in reviving it, only wished to use it as a means for putting down all discussion upon the vital question of repeal. This would appear from their having urged it on the moment they found a public meeting called, at which the real merits of that question were to be taken into consideration. Was it a libel to recommend a measure, the object of which was to prepare petitions for the repeal of an act of Parliament? The learned gentleman then read several passages of the letter; and said that, in denouncing the Coercive Bill, all he meant to lay before the people of Ireland was, that the common law of the land was of itself quite sufficient to put down whatever agrarian disturbances existed in the country at the time. Was it a libel to tell the people of Ireland that the friends of repeal were peaceably and legally seeking the restoration of the Irish Parsiament? He would put it to the jury to say on their oaths, whether the adoption and recommendation of such a course was what the indictment charged it to be ; namely, an incitement to the people of Ireland to bring about a repeal of the Union by intimidation and force? He begged to remind the Protestant jury, that that excellent Protestant, Mr. Lefroy, and the amiable young Protestant, Lord Castlereagh, supported his views when the followers of the government refused to hear him. He quoted Mr. Charles Kerdal, Burke, Judge Jebb, and others, who had spoken against the Union in words more libellous than his. They were not there that day merely arguing demurrers—they had no blue books to consult; the question before the jury was a question of constitutional right-a question simply as to whether a subject had a right to discuss an act of Parliament. But that jury might, by their verdict, not only disappoint and baffle those who had brought this prosecution, but even by it send discomfiture into the cabinet itself. The address occupied four hours, and was followed by loud cheers from the gallery. Soon after the court adjourned.

On Wednesday, the Solicitor-General replied. He denied that it was a Whig prosecution; the time was come when there could be no distinction between Whig and Tory, but all honest men should unite against those who would subvert the constitution.

The Chief Justice, in summing up, said it was the undoubted liberty of the press to discuss the policy of either passing or repealing acts of Parliament. The indictment charged that the publication was published with intent to excite hostility between his Majesty's subjects in England and Ireland, and stir up the people of Ireland by intimidation to effect the repeal of the Union. It also charged the publication with bringing into contempt the 3d William IV. If the publication had that tendency, it could not be protected by the liberty of the press. That point the Court left to the jury. Verdict, Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.

A most important act, as relates to Ireland, was passed during the session of Parliament of 1833, affecting the vestry cess, first fruits, the number of bishops, the tenure of church lands, &c. It is entitled, “ An Act to alter and amend the Laws relating to the Temporalities of the Church in Ireland,” and contains upwards of 150 sections, of which the principal provisions are as follow :

1. That the Lord Primate of Ireland, the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord Archbishop of Dublin, the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and four of the Archbishops or Bishops of Ireland shall be Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland, who shall most solemnly declare that they are members of the united Church of England and Ireland, as by law established.

2. That all payments of first fruits in Ireland shall cease and determine for ever.

3. Commissioners to make a valuation of all livings, &c., ecclesiastical benefices, and offices; and levy a yearly assessment therefrom, to commence from the next avoidance.

4. Spiritual persons to make a return of the annual value of their livings, &c., and if the value shall be fluctuating, then such account shall state the average annual value, exclusive of the glebe-house, or place of residence.

5. Certain sums chargeable on livings, &c., to be deducted from the valuation, namely—salaries of curates, &c. money expended in buildings or improvements, &c.

6. For enforcing payment of rates or assessments, the Commissioners may apply to the Court of Chancery or Exchequer in Ireland, by petition in a summary way; and such court shall order process of sequestration, &c.

7. The bishopric of Waterford, now void, and all the other bishoprics named in the first column of Schedule (B) shall, when the same may severally become void, be thenceforth united to the bishopric or archbishopric mentioned in conjunction therewith respectively in the second column of the said Schedule (B).

8. Commissioners to make good deficiencies happening to bishops by the union of bishoprics.

9. Temporalities of the bishoprics in the first column of the said Schedule (B) named, shall, in the case of the said bishopric of Waterford, after the passing of this act, and in the case of the other bishoprics in the said Schedule (B) mentioned, after their respective unions, be transferred to, and vested in the said ecclesiastical commissioners and their successors for ever, subject, however, to all leases, rents, charges, and incumbrances now or at the time of such transfer legally affecting the same, except the annual assessment by this act authorized, and which shall be applied by such commissioners to the several trusts in this act mentioned, and subject to the like regulations as are herein declared .concerning the said annual assessment.

10. Commissioners shall, by such instalments, in such manner and at such periods from and after the respective

« PoprzedniaDalej »