Chapter LVIII: {victoria. 1846} (1)

Position of the Conservative Party on the Defection of Sir
Robert Peel, and the Parliamentary Success of his Free-
Trade Measures..... Formation of a Whig Cabinet..... The
Sugar Duties..... Dreadful Condition of Ireland.....
Decline of Mr. O’Connell..... The Young Ireland Leaders.....
Colonial Affairs..... War with the Sikhs..... Foreign
Affairs..... Coolness with France..... Spanish Marriages

POSITION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ON THE DEFECTION OF SIR ROBERT PEEL, AND THE PARLIAMENTARY SUCCESS OF HIS FREE-TRADE MEASURES.

{A.D. 1846}

The adoption of a free-trade policy by Sir Robert Peel disorganised the conservative party, then more frequently designated Protectionist. The chief difficulty arose from the scarcity of talent in its ranks, and, therefore, the apparent impossibility of procuring a leader. At last the commons and the country were startled by the announcement of a new conservative chief in the person of Lord George Bentinck. So unfavourable were the antecedents—at all events, the immediate antecedents—of this nobleman, that the announcement of his name as the leader of the Protectionists excited the mirth of parliament, which found a loud echo in the country. After the public press had lampooned him—the _Times_ scarcely condescending to launch its thunders, only allowing a distant rumble to be heard—after the _Examiner_ had exhausted its pungent and polished satire, and _Punch_ had caricatured the noble member for King’s Lynn, and while yet his own party scarcely ventured to hope anything from his leadership, Lord George proved himself an orator and a debater, a party tactician, and an energetic, vigilant, intelligent chief of opposition. Perhaps no public man ever burst so suddenly upon the house of commons as a leading party politician. He had been well known as a member of parliament, had conciliated general esteem, and won extensive respect, as a private gentleman, from both sides of the house; but as a politician he had scarcely been noticed, nor had he taken any pains to make himself felt in debate: his irruption, so to speak, upon the ranks of the ministerialists, was sudden and effective. Mr. Disraeli has written an elaborate memoir of the noble lord, which exaggerates his capabilities and achievements, and in a style less eloquent than showy, holds up his policy to the admiration of his country. Mr. Disraeli, however, pays in many respects a tribute that is no more than just to the memory of Lord George, and his book affords material for an impartial judgment. At that period the noble lord was a distinguished patron of the turf: all England knew him as a sporting gentleman, a first-rate judge of horses, and an extensive winner on the course. In allusion to his habits in these respects, it became a popular sneer that the Conservatives required “a stable mind,” after the versatile performances of Sir Robert Peel, and they had at last found such in Lord George. But although his whole mind had apparently been given up to the turf, it was not actually so. He had been a member of parliament for eighteen years, and was a shrewd observer of party, as he was of men and things in general life. Before entering parliament he had for three years served as private secretary to Mr. Canning, whose sagacity was seldom at fault in the selection of persons of indisputable ability. The great statesman was connected with Lord George, for he married the sister of the Duke of Portland. The young nobleman’s powers of observation were such, that he was not likely to be in constant and intimate communication with such a man as Canning, without gleaning some political intelligence and experience. After Lord George entered parliament he remained for some time in the army, but gradually abandoned his military tastes for those of the turf, and his speculations in that direction were carried out on a scale of unprecedented magnitude. Politically, his sympathies and opinions appear to have been what might be designated Conservative-Whig. When the partisans of Mr. Canning left the Duke of Wellington’s administration, Lord George Bentinck ranged himself in opposition. Under Earl Grey’s administration, he sat on the ministerial side of the house. The Mends of Mr. Canning, who were associated with Lord Grey, entertained high opinions of Lord George’s talents for official and administrative service, so that he was requested to accept office, but he declined. These offers were repeatedly renewed, under the same auspices, and as often rejected. He desired to be unfettered in his parliamentary position, and freely gave up the chances of Downing Street for those of the race-course. He voted for the reform bill, and afforded a cordial and constant support to that and nearly every measure of the whig administration, until Lord Stanley abandoned the party. To that noble lord he was personally and politically much attached, and of Mr. Spring Rice, afterwards Lord Monteagle, he also had a high opinion; but no friendship nor influence was sufficient to retard what may be called his retrograde course: like his friend, Lord Stanley, he became less and less a Whig, and finally stood in the foreground of Conservatism. He was a warm supporter of the Irish Roman Catholics, but did not appear ever to have understood their political tactics. His sympathy for what is termed Puseyism may have accounted for his leanings to the Irish Romanist party, although in this respect, according to Mr. Disraeli, “he was for the Established Church, and nothing more.” According to the same author he was a Whig of 1688. It is admitted that his personal prejudices were strong; but those who allow this maintain that he had no prejudice as to things, but examined all doctrines and theories with a strong common sense and a clear judgment. His painstaking to inquire after truth is much vaunted by his biographer; but his speeches as leader of the Protectionists do not reveal this quality,—for while no orator of the time, not even Sir Robert Peel, relied more upon statistics, or at least made a larger use of them, no advocate of any cause was ever more unfortunate in the data selected as groundwork for argument. Such was the man in whom the conservative opposition found a leader, when despairing of being again able to form an effective and organised opposition. It was on the 27th of February, 1846, that Lord George made his _début_ in his new capacity. His speech was excellent in everything but its logic. Modest yet courageous in manner, plain but not ungraceful in style, his address told upon the house. The tone, however, was too aristocratic for the place and the times, and his arguments proved that he had not mastered the controversy, into the midst of which he had so chivalrously launched. He brought forward numerous details; but his facts were, as they say in Ireland, “false facts.” He had not investigated the science of political economy, or the condition of the nation, but had only “crammed,” as they say in college phrase, for the occasion and the controversy. He had industriously read whatever was written, and listened to whatever was said on the side of protection, but had not followed the counsel of an ancient adviser—_audi alteram partem_; and the result was that even the most transparent fallacies of the Protectionists were uttered by him with an air of serious but honest importance, as if they were truths which he was raised up irrefragably to establish by new and original arguments. When a free trade in corn was at last sanctioned by the legislature, Lord George continued to offer an industrious, courageous, and ingenious opposition, and by the vigour of his mind and the incessant energy of his attacks, kept up the party life of the opposition, which he resuscitated and led. Lord George looked upon himself as the champion of a class; to save or serve the aristocracy, irrespective of the interests of the masses of the people, was, in his opinion, patriotism, and he was willing “to spend and be spent” in that service. Throughout the debates on the customs bill, and upon the measures of reduction of duties generally which Sir Robert Peel proposed, Lord George offered an animated and pertinacious, although unavailing opposition.

At this juncture the state of Ireland was melancholy in the extreme. Unlawful confederacies were formed among the peasantry and small farmers, and outrages of the most sanguinary character were perpetrated in the open day. Disaffection pervaded the masses of the Roman Catholic population, and language of daring menace was employed towards the government by the popular leaders of every rank, both in and out of parliament. Neither life nor property was safe, in any part of the country, except where the Protestants predominated. The loyal and peaceable petitioned for some measures of protection, and this class was indignant that the government did not propose laws which would afford security to the well-disposed. Sir Robert Peel listened to these demands, and prepared a bill, known as the “life-protection bill,” which was very stringent in its nature, and proposed utterly to disarm the whole population, except under restrictions which would not be felt by the peaceable inhabitants, but would reach effectually the disaffected masses. This bill was at first supported by both the Whigs and Tories, acting under a sense of the common danger to society in Ireland, which would exist so long as the refractory populace had easy access to arms. The efforts to procure both fire and side-arms, all over the country, were extraordinary; this fact alarmed the Whigs, and made them feel disposed to support Sir Robert: the Conservatives were always ready to entertain repressive measures for Ireland. Both parties at last perceived that the tendency of the bill was to strengthen Sir Robert’s government, and, therefore, although they supported the first reading, they determined to give it, in its future stages, a determined opposition. The ground taken by Lord John Russell, as the whig leader, was, that if Ireland was criminal she was also oppressed; that measures of coercion and redress should proceed _pari passu_. He would not support repression, unless accompanied by relief. Lord George Bentinck, as the conservative leader, took different ground. He admitted that the state of Ireland was such as to require extra constitutional remedies, but such ought not to be entrusted to any but constitutional ministers; that Sir Robert did not advise her majesty in the spirit of the constitution, and he (Lord George) would not therefore confide so large a responsibility to his administrative discretion. The union of the two parties ensured the minister’s defeat, although the first reading was carried after seven nights’ debate. Sir W. Somerville, then a popular and influential member of the whig party, proposed an amendment on the 9th of June, when the bill was brought up for a second reading; the amendment was its postponement for six months, and was carried by a large majority. This decided the fate of the Peel administration. During the debate Lord George Bentinck gave an unhappy proof of his inaccuracy of statement and party spirit. He accused Sir Robert Peel of having made up his mind in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation, before he turned Mr. Canning out of office on that very question. This allegation was made in terms of the bitterest reproach, and was placed in such a form and light before the house, as, if true, must have left the impression that Sir Robert was a man destitute of all principle and honour. The following Friday, the 12th of June, the honourable baronet exculpated himself in one of the happiest speeches which he ever delivered in parliament. On this occasion Mr. Roebuck defended Sir Robert, and assailed Lord George with much justice and more acrimony; but the speech was well received by the house, and by the country, and increased the honourable member’s reputation as a debater and a politician. Mr. Hume, then in the zenith of his influence, followed up the blows so heavily dealt by Sir Robert and Mr. Roebuck. The efforts of Lord George’s followers to cover his disastrous defeat were feeble and fruitless. It was not until the 20th that the amendment proposed by Sir William Somerville on the 9th was carried, and on the 29th the announcements were made in the lords and commons that ministers had resigned. The Duke of Wellington made it known to the lords, as the ministerial leader in that house, and never was a similar communication so laconically delivered. Sir Robert made a long speech, vindicating his policy and his personal consistency, and declaring his unabated confidence in the measures in favour of free-trade, which he had been enabled to carry, and which he averred would bring peace, contentment, and prosperity to the country. The farewell address of the minister was rendered still more remarkable than it otherwise would have been, by his announcing that the Oregon dispute with the United States had been amicably adjusted. This was well received by the house and by the country, although, perhaps, neither had given such attention to the nature of the differences between the two countries on that subject, or the character of the adjustment. The foreign policy of Sir Robert had neither been firm nor dignified, and the basis of the settlement of the Oregon dispute was simply concession on the part of England. There can be no great merit in a minister preserving peace by giving up everything, or nearly everything, for which he might have to go to war. On this principle our foreign politics would be easy enough to all administrations, and the only talent really necessary would be, the ability to persuade parliament that, in conceding what was justly ours, we saved the expense of defending it, and that such a course was wise, honourable, and statesman-like. The spirit infused into our foreign policy by Sir Robert, and which the Earl of Aberdeen too faithfully represented, proved, afterwards, costly alike to our resources and our honour.

On the resignation of Sir Robert, her majesty sent for Lord John Russell, and confided to him the task of forming an administration. His lordship succeeded in this object, and presented himself to parliament as first lord of the treasury and prime-minister, with Lord Cottenham as lord-chancellor, Lord Lansdowne as president of the council, Mr. Charles Wood as chancellor of the exchequer, and the three chief secretaries of state—home, foreign, and colonial—were Sir G. Grey, Lord Palmerston, and Earl Grey.

The public were not displeased with the formation of a whig ministry, although, had the parliament been dissolved upon the question simply of Sir Robert or Lord John, the former would have had an overwhelming majority. Some discontent was expressed with the prevalence of the Grey family in the cabinet—three members of that connexion in three of the principal offices gave too much patronage and influence to a single family, especially as their nepotism had brought discredit upon the late earl, even in the height of his popularity. The chancellorship of the exchequer, and the home and colonial secretaryships, being now in the hands of this aristocratic house, the departments, it was alleged, would be overwhelmed with scions and _proteges_ of the noble lord, the representative of the race. Some of the liberal journals sneered at the administration as “the Grey government” from the beginning, and prepared the minds of the more radical portion of the people for an administrative failure. The conservative press caught up the tone of the Radicals, and ridiculed the new whig government in similar terms, affecting to feel a constitutional alarm and jealousy at the prevailing influence of “the Grey sept.”

When Lord John appeared in the house as the head of the government, Mr. Duncombe, one of the members for Finsbury, a popular and patriotic commoner, challenged the premier to make a full and explicit statement of the principles upon which he intended to administer the affairs of the country. This appeal met with a noble response in a clear, manful enunciation of free-trade principles, justice to Ireland, peace as far as that could be maintained in justice and honour, and the “maintenance and extension of religious liberty, which, together with its civil liberty, had made England conspicuous as one of the greatest nations of the world.”

The first parliamentary measure introduced by the Whigs was a plan for the better regulation of the sugar duties. On the 20th of July Lord John introduced his plan, which he professed would meet the wishes and expectations of the producer, the consumer, and the treasury. His proposal was substantially a protective duty of twenty shillings the cwt. upon all foreign Muscovada sugar, to be diminished annually in a certain ratio, so that in 1851 it would be only fifteen shillings and sixpence, and after that year permanently fourteen shillings. This was a great advantage to the consumers as compared with the old prohibitory duty of sixty-three shillings, and the protective duty of twenty-three shillings and fourpence. Lord John met the objections of “the negroes’ friends,” as to the admission of slave-grown sugar, by showing that the exclusion of such sugar was impracticable, inasmuch as by treaty, states producing slave-grown sugar were entitled to demand its admission under “the most favoured nation clause.” To conciliate the West-India interest, his lordship announced that it was his intention to introduce a bill giving the queen power to assent to any act of the West-India legislatures, modifying or abolishing the differential duties established there in favour of British goods. As these differential duties were only five or seven per cent., the West-India interest considered that his lordship mocked them by a show of concession. The whole of that interest was “up in arms,” as their parliamentary and colonial opposition, moral and political, was described. This interest had not joined the Conservatives in resisting the repeal of the corn laws, but, nevertheless, it now supplicated conservative support in impeding the measures of the ministry. The English landed interest was anxious to strengthen itself by the aid of the West-India planters and merchants, and therefore affected to be generous, and to repay evil by good. Lord George Bentinck’s boastful words were paraded before all monopolists to induce their co-operation with his party—“If we are a proud aristocracy, we are proud of our honour, inasmuch as we have never been guilty, and never can be guilty, of double-dealing with the farmers of England, of swindling our opponents, deceiving our friends, or betraying our constituents.” The West-India party was happy to gain help from any quarter, and joined “the farmers’ friends” in adopting Lord George Bentinck as their leader. The premier had proceeded by “resolution,” as it is constitutional to do in all measures affecting the public revenue. When the resolution was reported, Lord George moved as an amendment, “That in the present state of the sugar cultivation in the East and West-India possessions, the proposed reduction of duty upon foreign slave-grown sugar is alike unjust and impolitic, as tending to check the advance of sugar produced by British free labour, and to give a great additional stimulus to slave labour.” In support of this amendment the noble mover paraded a vast array of “facts and figures,” which made a wonderful show of industry and knowledge; but his statistical statements were illusory as his logic was unsound. The awkward manner in which his amendment was expressed embarrassed his arguments and those of his party, justifying the description of him in the following passage of his memoir, written by Disraeli:—“He had not much sustained his literary culture, and of late years, at any rate, had not given his mind to political study.” Sir Robert Peel gave the government a qualified and hesitating support. He started so many objections to the government measure that the opposition might have fairly looked for his support, but he answered his speech by his vote. In the course of his oration he predicted evils which never came to pass, and after all that had occurred, even his own glorious triumph in repealing the corn laws, the speech proved that he was not only an unwilling reformer, but that he had not clear and fair convictions of the truth of the great principles of political economy, that he was still the man of mere political expediency, and almost as jealous as ever of all bold attempts at theoretical or practical reform. The support of Sir Robert, such as it was, saved the government, for on this question, at all events, he held the balance of power. The debate lasted through the nights of the 27th and 28th, the West-India interest affecting great horror of slavery, and depicting the encouragement the measure would give to that evil in terms of great and even pious alarm. Never did a party resort more scandalously to cant and hypocrisy to serve a purpose than this, on the memorable occasion of “the sugar debate.” The resolution was carried, and a bill embodying it rapidly passed the commons, but was resisted in the lords with much tenacity of purpose. This was in a considerable measure the result of a remarkable petition presented to that house by Mr. Clarkson, of whom Mr. Wilberforce had been a disciple. Mr. Clarkson was a philanthropist and a Christian, but neither a political economist nor a politician. The Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment, on the second reading, which would have virtually destroyed the bill; but the original motion was carried, and the remaining stages were unobstructed.

This was a most important measure to the comfort of the people and the commerce of the country. The government was logically and politically right; and the Whigs left the impression upon the country, by the bill itself, and the arguments by which they conducted it through the house, that they had been of late successful students in the important department of economics. A considerable stir among the wealthy and influential body of English citizens, the Society of Friends, was created, by the support which Mr. Bright, Mr. Crewdson, and others of the Quakers of the north of England, gave to the sugar bill. The body at large considered that support inconsistent with their professed principles. Mr. Bright, and those who took his views, eloquently defended themselves against the criticisms of the Friends, and Mr. George Thompson, the celebrated anti-slavery lecturer, espoused their cause with great ardour. Mr. Bright and his fellow-labourers of the Quaker persuasion were in a minority. The great body of the Friends disapproved of his conduct, and the old anti-slavery party throughout the country joined in the disapprobation. Mr. Bright was not a man to be deterred by friends or foes from pursuing a course which he thought right, and he persisted in giving to the government a very hearty and efficient support. The Manchester school accepted the bill with great favour, and upheld the ministry in carrying it. Large assemblages were convened in Manchester and the manufacturing districts, but especially in South Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire, on behalf of the measure, and the various chambers of commerce and commercial associations passed resolutions or sent petitions in its favour. It was a good beginning for Lord John as premier, and conduced to the tenure of office which he was enabled to maintain.

THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.—DISTURBED STATE OF THE COUNTRY.—DISAFFECTION OF THE POPULACE.—FAILURE OF THE POTATOE CROP.—DISTRESS.—AGITATION BY THE YOUNG IRELANDERS.—DECLINE OF O’CONNELL.

Some notice has been taken of the condition of Ireland as leading to the dissolution of the Peel ministry. It is appropriate to resume here the thread of Irish history. The affairs of that country, politically and socially, became rapidly worse. From day to day the people of England were startled with tidings of fierce conflicts which faction waged, the disloyalty of the great majority of the people, the relentless cruelty with which the Ribbon Society exacted its victims, and the continued pressure of famine and sickness upon the physical life of the people. Ireland, so long conversant with misery, was still to taste the cup in all its bitterness. Everything meant for her good by the legislature brought with it some new form of evil, or aggravated some that existed. She had sought and obtained emancipation, but while her arms wore no longer a manacle, she still clanked her broken chain, and with it smote her benefactors or wounded herself. The removal of restrictions from commerce, effected by Sir Robert Peel, she regarded as an injury; the majority of Irishmen believed that the repeal of the corn laws was designed to enrich England at the expense of Ireland, and that it was the most fatal blow ever given to her agricultural and commercial prosperity. There were many enlightened Irishmen who advocated the repeal of the laws which made the food of the people dear;—of seven men who met in Manchester to form the anti-corn-law association, out of which sprang “the League,” at least two were Irishmen. Perhaps the man to whom that cause was originally indebted, more than to any other, was Archibald Prentice of the city just named, a native of Scotland; but among his earliest and most earnest coadjutors were Irishmen. The merchants of the three principal cities in Ireland—Dublin, Cork, and Belfast—favoured Sir Robert Peel’s law, especially those of the enlightened and enterprising town last named; but the Irish agriculturists, and the inhabitants of the country generally, resented it as a new Irish grievance! Lord George Bentinck did not misrepresent the feeling of the Irish people towards the free-trade movement, when he claimed the country, with some exceptions only, as on his side. Even the educational boon, so recently accorded by parliament, was regarded as a religious affront. “The Queen’s colleges” were denounced by Mr. O’Connell and the priests as “godless colleges.” In parliament he opposed, in Ireland he vituperated it.

A new phase of mischief gradually ripened during the year 1846. O’Connell had taught the people habits of political organisation, and while he had so wielded the masses thus organised as to prevent insurrection, he kept the government in continual alarm, lest some sudden outbreak should rend society and deluge the country with blood. The “agitator” professed to hold the doctrine of moral force in opposition to physical force; but while he proclaimed that the liberties of Ireland were “not worth the shedding of one drop of blood,” and in long letters and speeches declared that whoever committed crime was his enemy, and the enemy of Irish freedom, he palliated those crimes, when committed, defended the criminals, shifted the blame to the Protestants, the local authorities, the government, the law, or the Saxon; and so wrote and spoke as was calculated to lead the perpetrators of outrage to regard themselves as having an excuse for their crimes, in their own condition or that of their country. The general feeling of the disaffected in reference to Mr. O’Connell’s exhortations of peace was, that he was only sincere so far as expediency dictated; that he had no other objection to physical force than his conviction that the prospects of success did not warrant recourse to it. Accordingly, whilst a great display was made of carrying out his “moral force” policy, and his “pacificators” were the ostensible preservers of the peace,—taking the credit themselves, or claiming it for their chief, of preventing an open insurrection,—murder, incendiarism, assault, and religious persecution were carried out in detail. When any were arraigned, no scruples were entertained as to the means by which conviction might be prevented; perjury, intimidation, and assassination were among these instrumentalities. When convicted, the criminal was regarded as suffering for his religion and country, although the crime for which he was condemned was some cruel and cowardly assassination, or attempt to commit such. “The liberal press,” as the newspapers devoted to the agitation were designated, was filled with extenuations or denials of the culprit’s guilt, and the most vengeful attacks were made upon all who sought to enforce the laws, and preserve peace and life from the ruffian hands of the Ribbonmen, and “the moral force agitators.” Lord John Russell has often resorted to _finesse_ in his parliamentary tactics which has not always done him honour, but he never erred in this respect more egregiously than when, withdrawing the Irish arms bill, he reported that the law had its unimpeded course, that juries did their duty, and that crime was effectually restrained. So far from juries doing their duty, it was difficult in the provinces to obtain convictions, where a portion of the jury were O’Connellites, if the person before them was arraigned for an agrarian offence, or an outrage against the persons of those who were loyal. Neither Whigs, nor Protestants who were politicians of a school yet more free, nor liberal Roman Catholics who respected the law, or enforced their rights as landlords, were spared by the secret societies, any more than the most rabid Tories or the most flaming Orangemen. A reign of terror prevailed through the country; the perpetrators of outrage were everywhere, and the popular masses sympathised with them. An illustration of the state of things then prevailing was afforded in the following paragraph from the _Illustrated London News_ of the 21st of February, 1846:—

“On Friday (last week) Bryan Seery was executed at Mullingar. The conviction took place under the following circumstances:—Some time since Sir Francis Hopkins was shot at by a man in Westmeath; Sir Francis tried to seize the assassin, but he escaped; and afterwards Seery was captured. The sole witness to the prisoner’s identity with the assassin was the prosecutor: the defence was the common Irish defence—_alibi_, which was of course sworn to stoutly, as it always is in Ireland. One jury could not agree to the verdict, two Roman Catholics standing out against conviction: a second jury condemned the man: efforts to procure commutation of his sentence failed, and he was left for execution. Seery, at the place of execution, solemnly denied his guilt. A circumstance highly characteristic of the feeling of the public occurred. The morning was calm—the sounding of bugles and peeling of drums were heard in all directions: there was a perfect cessation of business in the town. About ten o’clock all the shops were closed, and not a single human being was to be seen in the streets—not one individual came in from the country. Thus the people determined to mark their opinion of this awful tragedy, for all regard Seery as a martyr. At eleven o’clock the military were paraded before the gaol, and not one human being appeared before the scaffold but themselves and the police. Even the magistrates of the county stayed away—not one of them appeared, except Mr. Uniacke, who walked up and down with Captain Despard. Under the imposing head of the ‘Mullingar Tragedy,’ the reporter of the _Dublin Freeman_ furnishes that journal with a long and highly-coloured account of the interment of Bryan Seery. The melancholy spectacle took place on Sunday, in the presence of vast multitudes of the country people, whose numbers were estimated by the writer to amount to fifty thousand or sixty thousand souls.”

On other occasions the populace attended the execution of criminals in large numbers, and exhibited their sympathy by demonstrations of respect and of regret for their fate, speaking of them as “the blessed martyrs” for their religion, or their country, or both. An execution took place at Nenagh, in the county of Tipperary, early in June, which was thus noticed in a paper, neither unfavourable to the rights of the people, nor the exercise of the utmost clemency on the part of the government towards the misguided:—“Three men were executed at Nenagh on Friday (last week), pursuant to their sentences; two—namely, Patrick Hayes and Patrick Rice—for conspiring to murder the late Mr. Patrick Clarke; and one, named William Fogarty—for shooting at Mr. M’Donald, a steward in the slate quarries. An immense multitude collected to witness the scene. The three men were accompanied to the drop by Roman Catholic clergymen. They died after a brief struggle, having made no public confession of their crimes. A large police force of one hundred and fifty men, and a company of the 72nd depot, comprised the guard in attendance. All was quiet and peaceable, says a local paper, and nothing heard but the moanings of the friends of the culprits. After the usual time of hanging, the bodies were lowered into coffins, and given to the relations. The long respite obtained by these men whilst various points of law were urged in their favour, gave much additional interest to their cases.”

Executions did not, however, extinguish the prevalence of crime, nor were the precautions of the executive sufficient to wrest the weapon from the murderous hand. A Galway paper, in “the liberal interest,” recorded a murder near the junction of that county with the county of Clare, immediately after the execution at Nenagh, and various others of a similar character throughout the country. This atrocity was very much in character with those which disgraced the whole south and west of Ireland, and which, to a less extent, took place in the north and north-eastern portions of the land:—“We regret to state that, on the night of Thursday (last week), a barbarous murder was committed at a village near Woodford, in this county. The unfortunate object of the assassin’s vengeance was a man named Pat Hill. Two persons came into his house, and brought him out of his bed to a place about forty yards distant, and there inflicted no less than forty-two bayonet wounds on his person, besides a fracture of the skull. His wife, hearing his screams, went to his assistance, and, having begged for mercy, she was told by the heartless ruffians that if she did not go away, she would herself be treated in a like manner. Having completed their purpose, the miscreants, who are unknown, walked off, and their victim almost immediately expired. An inquest was held at Portumna, when a verdict of ‘Wilful murder’ was returned against persons unknown. Deceased was in rather comfortable circumstances, and bore a most excellent character.”

While disaffection, secret societies, fanatical intolerance, and wide-spread personal outrage cursed unhappy Ireland, the failure of the potato crop intensified every other form of evil to which the country was subjected. Very early in the year it was obvious to intelligent observers that the failure of 1845 would be exceeded in 1846. The distress developed itself very early. In February the Rev. W. B. Townend, rector of Aghadda, in the diocess of Cloyne, county of Cork, published a letter, in which he thus described the sufferings and the prospects of the people:—“In this part of Ireland we are in a frightful state—the humbler classes are all living on the contaminated potato; the sides of fields and gardens literally covered with rotten ones, thrown away. The detail of destruction is endless. That employment should be wanted for the people, while one-third of Ireland is as much waste as the woods in Canada, and the rest badly cultivated, not affording half labour, is a strange anomaly.”

Later in the year the Rev. J. B. Tyrwhitt, an English clergyman of the Established Church, settled in Keny, published an account of the sufferings and prospects of the people of the south and west of Munster, truly appalling. The reverend gentleman wrote in the celebrated Vale of Iverah, where the O’Connells held property, and exercised an almost absolute sway:—“The prospects of the people of this very poor barony, and all along from the River Kenmare, Sneem, Darrynane, to Cahirciveen, and thence towards Killorglin, is harrowing and startling. The whole potato crop is literally destroyed, while over a very wide surface the oat crop presents an unnatural lilac tinge to the eye; at the same time, in too many instances, the head is found flaccid to the touch, and possessing no substance. The barley crop, too, in many places, exhibits the effect of a powerful blight. In some places, also, where turnips have been grown, they present—as, indeed, has been the case in other parts of the county—a healthier exterior in top and skin, but, on being opened, are found deeply impregnated with a taint similar to that which has smitten the potato, to such an extent, that one cannot stand in the blackened fields without being overpowered by the offensive effluvia.”

From the county of Clare statements arrived in London, if possible, more appalling. Early in April pestilence manifested itself in various places, and the county of Tipperary was disturbed by famine riots, independent of the normal disturbances which subjected that county to such misery, and earned for it so terrible a reputation. At Clonmel food riots assumed a formidable appearance, and the military had to guard the flour mills. The Roman Catholic clergy exerted themselves successfully to soothe the minds of the peasantry, and prevent that increase of their sufferings, which would result from the plunder of private property. The peasantry of Ireland were not addicted to robbery, and whatever outrages fanaticism, political and religious, might goad them to commit, the necessities of their famishing wives and children alone could cause them to resort to plunder. Thus, at a large and peaceable meeting of the peasantry in the county of Galway, at the end of April, they made this declaration:—“If employment be not immediately given, we can no longer stand the distress under which we are suffering.” Of course it was necessary to put down tumult and protect property, and very painful were the duties which in consequence devolved upon the civil and military power. _Ex uno disce omnes_. At Kilsheelan, between the counties of Tipperary and Waterford, an occurrence took place, which was described in the language of one of the leading journals of the south of Ireland in the following terms:—“On Thursday morning, in consequence of information received by the magistrates, they very prudently had cars stationed in the barracks for the prompt conveyance of the troops in case of necessity; and subsequent proceedings will show how very judicious and prudent their arrangements were. In a short time an express arrived in town stating that an immense mob was plundering the boats at Kilsheelan, within four miles of Clonmel, and forthwith a party of the 33rd got on the cars and proceeded to the scene of outrage, together with a party of the 1st Royal Dragoons, under the command of Major Galloway. Mr. J. Bagwell, Mr. W. Riall, Major Shaw, and Sub-inspector Fosberry accompanied them, and when within a short distance of the scene of plunder, word reached them that the robbery going on was most extensive. Mr. Fosberry and a mounted policeman immediately galloped on, and when they reached the spot, the scene which met their view is more easily imagined than described. An immense multitude were plundering the boats; a vast quantity of Indian corn, the property of Mr. Going, of Caher, was destroyed or made off with, and a quantity of wheat, the property of Mr. T. Hughes, was also stolen and destroyed. The military quickly came up, and a regular engagement took place. Stones were firing in all directions—several soldiers were struck; Mr. Fosberry received a blow of a stone in the leg, and it was not until some time had elapsed that this lawless rabble were subdued, and thirteen of them taken prisoners and brought into our gaol. Nothing could exceed the coolness of our magistrates, officers, and soldiers during this rencontre, and we are happy to say that a portion of the wheat was retaken.”

Such was the state of Ireland up to the harvest time of 1846, when, unhappily, all the fears of men, such as have been quoted, and the predictions of Sir Robert Peel, were fulfilled. There was another failure of the harvest; the crops of potatoes and oats suffered to such an extent as to increase, many fold, all the miseries previously experienced, and the dangers previously apprehended. Five millions, five hundred thousand tons of potatoes, and five millions two hundred thousand quarters of oats, below the average, was produced that harvest. The estimated loss in money, from the deficient produce of the year, was sixteen millions pounds sterling!

The efforts to mitigate these evils were manifold. Subscriptions were raised in every part of the British Isles, and, indeed, in every part of the British empire. From various places on the continent, especially France, donations were transmitted in either money or food. The Sultan of Turkey sent a generous contribution to the common stock of relief. From the United States of America supplies also came. The world might be represented as laid under contribution to relieve the miseries of Ireland. The government also made great exertions. Sir Robert Peel’s administration made secret and extensive purchases of Indian corn, which were sold, or distributed gratuitously, according to circumstances. By donations for public works, and “general presentments,” Sir Robert Peel also prepared for the coming disaster. He had expended in this way more than eight hundred thousand pounds, a little more than the half of which had been repaid by rates levied in Ireland under the powers intrusted to the grand juries. Lord John Russell, soon after he passed his sugar duties bill, made proposals to parliament calculated to meet the distress as it then existed, and in some measure to anticipate the relief which he foresaw would be required. He proposed to empower the lord-lieutenant to summon sessions of counties and of baronies, to consider the propriety of making public works for the relief of the poor, and to give to those sessions, under certain circumstances, authority to determine upon what works were desirable or necessary, which the board ot works would upon such decision execute. The imperial treasury was to make advances for carrying on these works, to be repaid in ten years at three and a half per cent, interest. Grants of £50,000 each would be made to certain poor districts which would be unable to repay advances. His lordship moved resolutions embodying these proposals, which were carried, and a bill founded upon them passed through both houses with the utmost rapidity. The introduction of these measures seemed to produce a good effect on Ireland, for crime and outrage abated. The ministers took advantage of this circumstance to claim great merit for their administration, and, on the 28th of August, when parliament was prorogued by commission, the speech delivered ascribed to her majesty great satisfaction in the relief so cordially provided by parliament for the Irish poor, and the beneficial effects produced. These tokens of returning peace were as the morning dew, which soon passes away, and the measures of parliament, notwithstanding their magnitude, were soon proved to be inadequate. The government acted, however, with generosity and courage, although their wisdom and administrative aptitude were not equally conspicuous. During a portion of the interval of the reassembling of parliament, in January, 1847, the government, unauthorised by parliament, expended a million sterling per month. The cabinet felt assured that parliament would indemnify and England approve. Immense supplies of Indian corn and other articles of food were carried by government steamers to such points of the coast as were convenient for their prompt dispersion to the interior. The labourers on the public works were paid from one shilling to one shilling and sixpence per day. In the county of Mayo, where the distress was peculiarly aggravated, nearly half a million sterling was expended in public works, in districts the Ordnance valuation of which was little more than half that amount. These works were unproductive, and baronies were pledged to their whole value, some for a year, and others for several years, in repayment of the grants, although the plan of repayment to the government was, that only half the amount advanced should be refunded. Many private individuals, both in Ireland and in Great Britain, exhibited a noble generosity; and the heroic self-sacrifice of clergymen, medical men, and others, in the midst of the famine and plague-stricken people, cannot be too much commended. The liberality and exertions of the Irish residents in England and Scotland was much to their own honour and to the reputation of their country. Notwithstanding all these exertions, the aid of the government and of private individuals was abused, and the annals of the world do not contain any narrative of ingratitude and selfishness more base than those which record the transactions of certain classes of the Irish people during that terrible crisis. Many of the landed gentry took occasion to have their own fences and private roads repaired at the public expense, and there were few parts of the country where “public works” did not mean improvements of the domains, and the creation of roads to the mansions of the gentry. The Roman Catholic chapels, and the ways of access to them, were also treated as “public works.” The conduct of “the Board of Works” was far from unimpeachable, and men distinguished in her majesty’s service cut a poor figure in connection with the inquiries and discussions to which the modes of managing the public relief ultimately led. The moral effect of the charity was most injurious to the country, whatever its material advantage in the urgency of the occasion. This was exemplified in many ways. The peasantry were unwilling to bestow a fair amount of labour upon works of acknowledged utility, although paid nearly double the ordinary rates of wages; they lazily preferred public works, so that there was a scarcity of hands to gather in the imperfect harvest until the government partially withdrew its competition from the labour market. Considerable numbers of farmers, some of whom held as many as sixty acres of land, applied for tickets from the relief committees, and were placed upon the public works, thus drawing off the money from the legitimate objects of aid. Small farmers in numbers received gratuities of Indian corn and other food, whose means were such as ought in common decency and common honesty to have prevented such an application. The local committees acted with partiality and injustice, and numbers of the peasantry perished of starvation, while the greedy, who were not necessitous, preyed upon the public charity. In the county Clare, five thousand persons were struck off the lists of those who were employed by the labour rate, and who, it is scarcely necessary to add, rendered no return for the money they had received, for the ostensible labour was in these cases a sham. The most scandalous of all the exhibitions of want of probity which the crisis developed was the revival of efforts to procure arms. The peasantry, farmers, town-population—all of every rank—sought to possess themselves of weapons of war, especially fire-arms. The demand for powder and percussion-caps was as eager as for weapons. Birmingham was kept busy; every hand in the gun-making trades there was employed; Sheffield was also labouring at sword cutlery, and in the manufacture of daggers and bayonets; while the smithies of Ireland were extensively engaged in the manufacture of pike heads. The money expended by benevolent persons and by the government on the vast scale which the emergency and a noble compassion dictated, was employed to procure arms which those who purchased them intended to turn upon the hands that fed them as soon as opportunity allowed. Whatever thanks might be felt by the peasantry towards those who on the spot gave of their private store to mitigate the pangs of the sufferers, no gratitude was entertained to the British public or to the government. Starving Ireland armed to strike down her benefactors with weapons procured by the misuse of the boon which these benefactors had extended. However painful it may be to relate the story of such turpitude, truth constrains it: the Irish peasant begged, that he might arm against the charitable hand that succoured him. Persons actually perished leaving some, money, with which surviving relatives, in the depths of their misery, purchased arms. It was thought that no other opportunity so favourable would arise to turn the gold of the Saxon into steel, which might be pointed against his own breast. The object most at heart with the famishing crowds was the ascendancy of their religion, to be accomplished by the subjugation of British authority; for this they famished and bought muskets and horse-pistols, powder and percussion caps, old swords and bayonets. To such an extent was this carried that in Clonmel, a town of about 18,000 inhabitants, and where the people rioted for food, as already recorded, nearly twelve hundred stand of arms were sold in a few days. These were purchased by the silver which the government Board of Works had paid in the charitable employment of the people on non-productive labour.

Much difficulty arose, in the distribution of gratuitous supplies of food, from the routine of the public offices. So complex were the details which the under-officials were obliged to observe, that men actually perished while a useless routine correspondence was being conducted. It was satirically said by an English observer, “the delivery of a few quarters of English corn to those who want it requires as much correspondence and documentary forms as a chancery suit.”

The refusal of grand juries to “present” was another obstacle to the prompt relief of the people. They were unwilling to carry into force the presentment act, because the money advanced should be one-half repaid, and, while held as a loan, be chargeable with interest. These bodies, which refused presentments on grounds that it was not desirable or necessary to make them, were amongst the most clamorous in the kingdom for their share of patronage in dispensing the money and food for which no repayment was to be made.

POLITICAL AGITATION.—YOUNG IRELAND.