The first measure which had received the assent of the Imperial Legislature had been prepared by the Talents Administration, and adopted by the Tory Government which succeeded it. The last measure on the subject had been introduced by Morpeth in 1838, and passed without discussion and without notice. The change, which had since affected the feelings of the Irish, made it probable that even Morpeth's Act would not be renewed without debate. But a mere continuance bill might perhaps have been passed without much observation. The ministry, however, decided on strengthening its machinery by amending the Act which they had the opportunity of simply continuing. For the sake of securing a few additional precautions, it exposed itself to a bitter and protracted opposition.1

This opposition was doubly inconvenient because it was conducted by moderate men. O'Connell and the Repealers, despairing of parliamentary help, were absent in Ireland, and the objections made to the Arms Bill were raised by men who, like Smith O'Brien, still clung to the connection with England, or, like Redington, were ultimately to receive office in the service of the State. The Arms Bill, it was argued, was unconstitutional; it was diabolical. Even Castlereagh, when he framed the Six Acts, had not ventured on proposing such a measure. Old as tyranny, it was the work of tyrants. The Saxons had applied to Ireland the legislation by which the Philistines had endeavoured, 3000 years before, to crush the Israelites. To carry arms was the inherent right of every freeman; but arms, which were needless elsewhere, were necessary in Ireland; and in practice the bill would disarm the Roman Catholic cottier, and leave his wealthier neighbour armed. It disarmed the victim without hindering the assailant. True, it was a mere continuance of previous legislation. True, the

1 The main provisions of the bill, which were thus introduced, were simple. No one in Ireland was to be allowed to carry armis, to sell arms or gunpowder, or to ply the trade of a smith without a license. No license to carry arms could be granted except on a recommendation of two householders; a smith's license was forfeitable on his conviction of any misdemeanour; licensed arms were to be distinguished by a brand; and the constabulary were authorised to search night or day for unbranded arms.

man who was foremost in attacking it had supported the bill of 1838. It was one thing to place such a measure in the hands of Melbourne and Normanby, it was another to entrust it to Peel and De Grey. England, only a year before, had been the scene of an armed organisation of Chartists; Wales, at that moment, was the theatre of outrages, committed under the directions of a secret association of men in disguise. Yet the ministry had not proposed an Arms Bill for England in 1842, it was not proposing an Arms Bill for Wales in 1843. Why were the old expedients of tyranny to be reserved for Ireland alone? Why, if the ordinary laws were strong enough for Chartists in England, and Rebeccaites in Wales, was it necessary to resort to exceptional legislation in Ireland? The Union could be defended if Celt and Saxon were governed on the same principles. The Union became, as O'Connell called it, a living lie if one law was in force in England and another law thought good enough for Ireland.1

Vigorous arguments of this character were employed again and again during the progress of the measure. But they fell like idle words on the ears of the Tories who supported Peel. The second reading of the bill was carried on the last day of May.2 But the real struggle only commenced with this. victory. Debate after debate led to division after division.

1 Hansard, vol. Ixix. pp. 1042, 1100, 1128, 1129; vol. lxx. pp. 275, where the arguments summarised in the text will be found. The Rebecca riots, which broke out in Wales in 1843, and which furnished the Irish members with a telling argument, were of an extraordinary character. Armed bodies of men, led always by a man in woman's clothes, and frequently disguised themselves as women, attacked and pulled down the turnpike gates in Central and South Wales. These bands took the name of Rebeccaites from a verse in Genesis, in which Rebecca is promised that her seed shall possess the gate of her enemies. The riots were ultimately put down, or rather ceased when the obnoxious gates were destroyed. But the leaders of the movement were never discovered, and the few persons who were arrested were treated with leniency. The Government had the good sense to issue a commission to inquire into the cause of the riots; and, on ascertaining that the tolls were excessive, to amend the law instead of rebuilding the gates. Hence, Central and South Wales were relieved from the pressure of turnpike tolls more than a quarter of a century before they were abolished in other parts of the country. Successful organisation of this character is certain to be imitated. Rebecca still maintains her sway in Central Wales. But her attacks are now made upon salmon, and not upon turnpikes. 2 Ibid., vol. Ixix. p. 1217. By 270 votes to 105.

The bill, which had been introduced in May, did not pass the Commons till the beginning of August. It did not pass. the Lords till the end of a protracted session.1

The policy

of coercion.

These debates had made it plain to every Irishman that the ministers might rely on the support of the Legislature in any measures of coercion. Estimable country gentlemen, who would have resisted an attempt to revive the Six Acts, passed an Arms Act at the bidding of the Irish Government. Nor, even now, is it plain that they were unwise in their generation. A country may be governed, as England governs India, by a race or class, superior in organisation and education, imposing its decrees on a subject population. Such a government may be just or unjust, brutal or popular. But, just or unjust, brutal or popular, it rests on the solid foundation of force. A country, on the other hand, may be governed-as England and the United States are governed by representatives, periodically elected by its people, and reflecting their opinions. In such a government the will of the people—that is, the majority of the peopleis the sole ultimate law. A mean between these two forms of government may be attempted, but is not likely to endure. Such a mean has existed for eighty years in Ireland. Nominally an integral part of the United Kingdom, she has sent her representatives-100 and 105 at a time-to the British House of Commons. Her representatives have uniformly found that their ideas were not English ideas; that their proposals for promoting their country's good were continually thwarted by English and Scottish members. They have consequently remained an impotent minority in a dominant assembly, unable to regulate business, able only to delay it; and the majority, conscious that representation in Ireland was. a mockery, a delusion, and a snare, has resorted to the old machinery of force, the constant expedient of despotism.

Even in 1843, however, some members clung to the hope that the Legislature might sanction a measure of justice, and that Ireland, governed on Irish ideas, might become a willing 1 Hansard, vol. lxix. p. 1578; and vol. lxxi. pp. 470, 912.

member of the United Kingdom. It fell to the lot of Smith Smith O'Brien to give expression to this hope. In a O'Brien. speech, which received unbounded praise for its moderation, he described the wrongs of his fellow-countrymen. The sins, which England committed towards Ireland, were sins of omission and commission. The head and front of her offending was the maintenance of the Church of a minority, the neglect of the Church of the majority. But this gigantic injustice permeated the whole system. Since Peel had been in power, every important office had been filled by Protestants; many important offices had been given to Protestant Englishmen; only three subordinate situations had been reserved for Irish Roman Catholics. On the same principle of distrusting the Irish Roman Catholics, the parliamentary and municipal franchise in Ireland had been limited by restrictions, and the number of voters was in consequence annually decreasing. The neglect which the Roman Catholics experienced was supplemented by other acts of injustice. Ireland was taxedSmith O'Brien thought inordinately taxed-for the support of the British Government. But the money which was drawn from Ireland was expended in England. The drain of wealth, which was thus exhausting the poorer country, was increased by the rents of the absentee landlords, who, aliens in race, in language, and in creed, had no common bonds of sympathy with their wretched peasantry. These various sources of discontent were not destroyed by any compensating advantages. The sins of omission, indeed, supplemented the sins of commission. An Irish Parliament would undoubtedly have dealt with the complicated question of tenant-right. The British Parliament had not even contemplated its consideration. An Irish Parliament would have adopted some scheme for introducing railways into Ireland. The British Parliament had rejected the scheme which had been proposed for the purpose. The Irish Roman Catholic, therefore, convinced by

1 The argument is O'Brien's. As a matter of fact, however, it is very doubt. ful whether the taxation, drawn from Ireland, has ever done much more than pay the cost of governing and garrisoning Ireland.

the experience of a bitter past that he could gain nothing from England, placed his hopes on the possible restoration. of the Irish Parliament. The cry for repeal, said O'Brien, was not the voice of treason, it was the language of despair.1

But O'Brien spoke in vain. The House, rallying in support of the Union, was determined to prefer coercion to concession. Five long nights were passed in discussing O'Brien's thesis. At the close of the fifth night O'Brien was defeated? A few weeks afterwards, Ward, who had originated the Appropriation Clause of 1834, formulated the chief of the Irish grievances in an address for such a settlement of Church property in Ireland as would remove all just grounds of complaint. Ward had, at any rate, displayed the courage to propose a real measure of relief. The men, however, who formed the House of Commons in 1843, did not think his arguments worth consideration. There were not even forty members who would trouble themselves to maintain a House on a debate of the first importance to their Irish fellow-subjects; and, on the second. night of the discussion, the House was counted, and the motion was lost.3

The ministry had, in fact, chosen its part. The restoration. of order was to precede the redress of grievances; and preparations had already been made, which were reassuring Troops in its supporters. Thirty-five thousand troops were quartered in Ireland, a war squadron was stationed on her coasts, the barracks were turned into fortresses, and Ireland

Ireland.

2 By 243 votes to 164. Ibid., p. 1088.

1 Hansard, vol. Lxx. p. 630. Ibid., vol. lxxi. pp. 118-219. In the course of his speech on this motion Ward said that Lord R. Tottenham, when he was made Bishop of Killaloe, at the time of the Union, had never read prayers, had never preached, had never baptized-in short, had never performed any of the offices of his holy calling; but his father, Lord Ely, had six votes, and his nominees had given them for the Union, and the price of the six votes was a bishopric worth £9000 a year. Ibid., p. 145. It appears, from the same debate, that Stewart, Archbishop of Armagh, left £300,000 behind him, and Porter, an Irish bishop, £200,000. Mrs. Porter had a great passion for gold, and the bishop consequently declined to accept his rents in paper. On rent-days there was always a gentleman in another room, ready, for a consideration, to accommodate the tenants with gold, so that a single bag of gold travelling in at one door and out at the other, brought in a handsome return to the bishop." Ibid., p. 145.