The Bowles of Canada and their Roots in Ireland and England |
|
back to The Incident at Newtownbarry The Debate on a Motion in The House of Lords which was Critical of the Irish Government's Response to the Incident in the Days Following Captain Graham and the Yeomen's Trial
AFFRAY AT NEWTOWNBARRY—CAPTAIN GRAHAM.
House of Lords Debate 16 April 1832 vol
12 cc499-537
rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, with
great regret, as he might be supposed to stand in the situation of a
public accuser. He did not mean to place himself in that situation, but
the imputation of doing so might attach to him, and there was also other
imputations against which he felt it necessary to guard himself at the
outset. It might be supposed that he intended, upon the present
occasion, to make a general attack upon the policy of the Irish
Government, and to take this opportunity of venting his hostility
against the Administration to which he was opposed. Both these
intentions he disclaimed, and, with respect to the first, he would show
that it was unfounded, by avoiding all topics that were not immediately
connected with the subject before them; and, as to the government of the
noble Marquis, he begged to assure their Lordships that he entertained
for him feelings of high respect, and was convinced that he entered upon
the Irish Government with a deep anxiety to promote the welfare of that
country, and that he had never been actuated by any other motive: at the
same time, there was much that he disapproved—much of what appeared to
him bad policy in the conduct of the Irish Government. The noble Lords
opposite, had pursued the system while in office which, when out of
office, they had always recommended to all former Governments, and held
out as the most favourable to the welfare of the country. But now, after
so long an experience of the evils which arose from their system of
conciliation, it might have been expected that their eyes would have
been opened, and that they would have corrected their policy. While
attempting to avoid the errors of former Governments they had gone to
the opposite extreme, verifying the remark of the poet, Dumvitant
stulti vitia in contraria currunt. It would be
recollected that it had been attempted by himself and others to draw the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose absence upon the present occasion he
regretted, into explanations of the transactions relating to Captain
Graham. It was true, the noble and learned Lord said, that he would
withhold his explanation, as a notice of a motion on the subject had
been given by a noble friend of his; and then, when his noble friend had
set him right, and said that he had withdrawn his notice, the noble and
learned Lord said, "Oh! in that case, as there is no motion intended,
there is no occasion for me to say anything about it." On one occasion
the noble and learned Lord had risen apparently for the purpose of
giving an explanation of the proceedings of Government, when,
unfortunately, a noble Marquis called him to order. The noble Marquis,
however, immediately withdrew his objection, and all the noble Lords on
that side of the House loudly called upon the noble and learned Lord to
proceed, but, notwithstanding this, the noble and learned Lord had
thought better of it, and positively refused to proceed. This was the
course pursued by the noble and learned Lord when it was attempted to
get out of him an explanation for which all the country panted.
It had been truly said, on a former discussion of
the affairs of Ireland, that it was not so much a great military force
which that country required as an efficient Magistracy. This
sentiment was expressed by the noble Duke (Wellington), and he was glad
to hear it loudly re-echoed by the noble Earl at the head of his
Majesty's Government. But when he said it was the duty of Government to
support the Magistracy, he did not mean to contend that they ought to be
supported in illegal or arbitrary acts, but only that the Government
should show them some degree of favour; that they should not, at least,
judge of their conduct with severity, and manifest a disposition to
condemn it; that they should not sacrifice them for little faults, to
which it must be expected that country gentlemen should be liable; that,
above all, they should not sacrifice them for the sake of obtaining a
transitory, unworthy, and degrading popularity. If the character or
interests only of an individual Magistrate were at stake, the case would
then have a strong claim to the attention and to the justice of that
House; but this sunk into nothing, in comparison with a case in which
the interests of the whole of Ireland
were concerned. The case of Captain Graham had had
a powerful influence upon all the Magistrates of the country. He knew
that the Magistracy were paralyzed, he knew that they were alarmed, and
that they felt they were now liable, upon any slight occasion, to be
thrown over by the Government to the power and mercy of the democratic
party in that country. In order to show that this was the fact,
he would read an extract from the evidence given by the Archbishop of
Dublin before the Tithe Committee. It would be recollected that the
Archbishop of Dublin had received his appointment from the present
Government. He was asked if he knew of any instance in which the
Magistrates had been deterred from doing their duty from fear of popular
clamour? He replied, "Many. One Magistrate had said, upon one occasion,
that he would not put his head into the fire." And he mentioned others
who had been deterred, by the apprehension of clamour, from doing their
duty efficiently. In allusion to the affair of
Knocktopher, he said it was not that the force was insufficient, but
that the troops had been deterred from firing till the rioters had
seized their muskets, and wrested them from their hands. (note:
see the article on this event in
Wikipedia)
This evidence with respect to the massacre of
Knocktopher, was enough to show that this unfortunate occurrence had
been produced by the conduct of Government towards Captain Graham in the
affair of Newtownbarry. The first case he should come to was that
of Newtownbarry, and, having disposed of that, he should next endeavour
to ascertain what were the causes which made the Government angry with
the persons who took an active part in suppressing the riots there; but,
in the first instance, he should briefly point out to their Lordships
the state of the country previous to those riots, The accounts which had
reached the Government from various quarters were so alarming as to
induce the Lord Lieutenant to issue instructions to the whole of the
Magistracy, pointing out to them how they were to act, and promising
them countenance and support. He well remembered the circular issued in
the autumn of 1830, and one, he must say, which, at the time, afforded
him great pleasure, because, whilst it intimated to the Magistrates
that, as they would incur the displeasure of the Government for any
neglect of duty, so, on the other hand, the Government pledged itself to
do its duty in protecting the civil authority. That circular afforded
great consolation to him and to all well-disposed persons, and was shortly after followed by another,
in which the Magistrates were called upon, not only to disperse rioters,
but to take steps to prevent riots, and in which minute instructions
were given as to the manner in which the
Riot Act was
to be read and enforced. It was clear, then, that the Government at that
time felt that the peace of the country was endangered, nay, absolutely
outraged. He would not trouble their Lordships with the whole of that
circular, but he must call their attention to its concluding paragraph.
The letter was signed by Mr. Stanley, and was directed "to the
Magistrates assembled in petty sessions"—it concluded in these words:—'I
am directed, in conclusion, to assure you, that, while his Excellency
will not fail to visit with his severest displeasure any Magistrate who
may shrink from the due performance of functions so vitally important,
so, on the other hand, your efforts for the suppression of acts of
outrage or illegality will be duly appreciated and acknowledged. The
Government will perform their part, affording you the fullest protection
in the responsible exercise of your authority, and in supporting the
civil force whenever it may be necessary for the preservation of the
public peace.' This paragraph was very consolatory to the Magistrates.
But this was not enough; another circular was sent, encouraging and
directing the Magistrates, in which he found the following passage:—'You
will further observe, that the Magistrates are authorized to prevent, as
well as suppress, tumultuous meetings, and, therefore, when a riot, or
breach of the peace, is likely to be caused by such a meeting, they are
authorized, and it is their duty, to desire the parties to disperse or
desist, and, in case of their refusal to arrest them, in order to
prevent such breach of the peace. The letter then went on to say, that
the authority which gave the Magistrates these
powers did not take away from them those powers which they previously
possessed; and the passage concluded by saying that,—'If the persons so
assembled, or any of them, shall happen to be killed, maimed, or hurt,
in the dispersing, seizing, or apprehending, or endeavouring to
disperse, seize, or apprehend them, then every such Magistrate, and all
persons aiding or assisting, shall be indemnified.' Having now
called their Lordships' attention to the state of the country and the
instructions issued to the Magistrates, he would proceed
to refer to the affray at Newtownbarry. Captain
Graham, who was the senior Magistrate of the place, and three or four of
his brother Magistrates, received information, on the 16th June that a
distress for tithes was to be levied on the 18th of the same month upon
the goods of a wealthy farmer of the name of Doyle, and they also
ascertained that the people were determined to resist the distress, and
that a large concourse of people would be assembled for the occasion.
They immediately took the best precautions in their power, and collected
as many as they could of the police, whom they placed under the command
of Captain King, an officer of the police, who had also considerable
experience as a military man, and who was known to be competent and
trustworthy. In addition to information which the Magistrates had
previously received, they, on the evening of the 17th, heard, from a
gentleman who had just arrived from Dublin that the adjoining parishes
were placarded with notices of the intended meeting, and that crowds
were likely to come from a distance for the purpose of being present at
the riot, for such was certainly contemplated. Some of the placards were
stuck up in the parish of Baltinglass, a distance of fourteen miles from
Newtownbarry, as well as on the road the whole way from Baltinglass to
Blessington. It then became necessary for the Magistrates to decide upon
the best course to be pursued. The nearest military force was at
Wexford, a distance of thirty miles; and if an application could have
been made in that quarter, it was well known to the Magistrates that the
officer there had no greater disposable force than about thirty or forty
men, even if there had been time for them to arrive at the scene of the
contemplated riots. No resource was then left but the Yeomanry, as it
was well known that the police were insufficient. The Yeomanry were sent
for, but the notice was so short that only 110 could be collected, and,
having marched into the town, they were, in order to prevent all
excitement, placed by Captain Graham in a close yard. About twelve
o'clock on the 18th a person called upon Captain Graham and informed him
that the cattle had been driven away. He, with the police force at his
disposal, immediately followed them, retook the cattle, and had them
driven back, during which proceeding he was frequently insulted, though
not absolutely attacked. Captain King called upon Captain Graham for
additional aid, and the latter gentleman seeing
that the party under Captain King could not execute their duty, went
back to the town for the Yeomanry force, which he had in readiness
there, and returned with it to the scene of the disturbance. The attack
then commenced on the part of the peasantry. From the evidence given at
the trial it appeared that the Yeomanry were not only insulted by the
grossest language but were assailed by vollies of stones, and fired at,
in consequence of which, some of the party were wounded. Captain Graham
seeing the situation in which his men were placed, and being a military
man, took up what he considered the most favourable position under the
circumstances, by placing the cattle in front, under the protection of
the Police, and bringing up the rear with the Yeomanry. In the course of
their march, the Yeomanry were constantly exposed to the attacks of the
peasantry, and were at length obliged to fire (which they did without
orders) in their own defense: the consequence was, an unfortunate loss
of life. The cattle were finally taken into the town, and thus ended the
unfortunate affair of Newtownbarry. This affair caused a great
sensation in that part of the country, and the Radical party in Wexford
made strong remonstrances to the Government against the conduct of the
Magistrates and Yeomanry. The Government acted with the utmost propriety
on the occasion. They admitted the affair was most lamentable, but they
said, it would ill become them to adopt measures against the supposed
guilty parties, who were amenable to the laws of their country. The
Government further stated, that the persons concerned in the
transactions should be put upon their trials at the next Assizes:
consequently, at the ensuing Assizes eighteen bills
of indictment were preferred, which the Grand Jury ignored, and, by
their verdict, pronounced that the Magistrates and Yeomanry had only
done their duty. Thus stood the case up to that moment, and he
would ask, what was there in all this to excite the
anger of the Government? Its cause of displeasure must have been founded
upon one of three grounds; first, that the calling out of the Yeomanry
was wrong, they being an improper force to employ on such occasions; or
next, that if the Magistrates had a right to call out the Yeomanry, that
was not an occasion in which it was necessary; or thirdly, that the
Magistrates had not acted with judgment, prudence, and discretion in
their official capacities. With respect to the first of these
points, namely,
the propriety of calling out the Yeomanry under any circumstances, He
could refer their Lordships to the high authority of the Judge who
presided at the trial, which arose out of the affair of Newtownbarry, at
the last Assizes at Wexford. The learned Judge
said— I
have not the least hesitation in saying that the Magistrates did nothing
more than their duty in calling out the police under these
circumstances, and that they were further justified in calling also on
the Yeomanry to be ready in case their services should be required. He
said, in his address to the Grand Jury— When
Yeomanry are called upon to assist the Magistrates in preserving the
peace, the circumstance of their being Yeomanry imposes upon them no
peculiar obligation, neither does it clothe them with any peculiar
protection. In such a case, they act not as Yeomanry, but as citizens,
who are called upon to lend their assistance to maintain the authority
of the laws. Persons who are called upon to suppress a riot, may take
with them such arms as may appear necessary to enable them to suppress
it. This
was the law as laid down by a most able Judge; and,
if the Magistrates of that country, acting under such authority, had
erred in the execution of their duty, their fault should surely be
attributed to an error of judgment, for which no punishment ought to be
inflicted on them; or, at all events, that punishment should be very
lenient. He could show, however, that Government, so far from
condemning the employment of Yeomanry, authorized Magistrates to avail
themselves of the services of that force. It so happened, that a similar
occurrence to that which occurred at Newtownbarry, had taken place, a
short time before, at a place situated in an adjoining county. He
alluded to the case of Captain Feltus, in the county of Carlow, who had
actually received the thanks of the Government for an act precisely
similar to that for which Captain Graham was dismissed; for dismissal he
would call it, though the noble Lord, the Chancellor for Ireland, said,
that Captain Graham was not dismissed, but that he was not reinstated.
The Magistrates, upon that occasion, called out the Yeomanry, and
succeeded, by means of that force, in preventing a riot. He would not
trouble the House with reading the instructions from the Secretary of
Ireland on that subject; but he
would refer to another occasion still prior to the affair of
Newtownbarry, in which resistance to the payment of tithes was
displayed; for, unfortunately, resistance to the law was, at that time,
spreading over the whole of the country, embarrassing the Magistrates,
and terrifying the loyal and peaceable portion of the community. The
circumstance to which be alluded took place at Ardmire in the same
county. The Magistrates, on that occasion, had time to consider what
measures they should adopt, and they, therefore, deputed one of their
body, Captain Owen, to ascertain from Mr. Stanley whether, in case of
necessity, the Magistrates might call out the Yeomanry? The extract
which he would now read, would put their Lordships in possession of the
result of the conversation which took place between this Gentleman and
Mr. Stanley, as detailed in a letter from Captain Owen to Captain
Graham:— Dear Sir—In reply to your letter, I can only give you the purport
of the conversation I had with Mr. Stanley, in February last, in the
presence of Captain Gossett, when I went up, on the part of my brother
Magistrates in this neighbourhood, to apply for military aid, to put a
stop to an illegal meeting which was about to be held near Gorey. There
not being any soldiers quartered near enough to reach us in time, Mr.
Stanley asked me, were there not Yeomanry, and why were they not called
out? A good deal of conversation ensued, but my impression was, and
still is, that at that time if we had, as Magistrates, thought fit to
call out the Yeomanry, we should have been acting with the complete
sanction of Government.The date of that letter was September the 4th,
1831. He would next read a letter written by the right hon. Secretary
for Ireland, in answer to one addressed to him by the rev. Henry Moore,
of Carnew, near Newtownbarry, with the view of ascertaining whether, in
the event of riot arising from resistance to the payment of tithe, the
Magistrates would be justified in calling out the Yeomanry? The letter
was as follows:— Dublin Castle, January 10, 1831.Sir—I
have to acknowledge your letter of the 7th instant, but cannot take upon
me to do more than recommend to your attention the line laid down in the
circular which I had the honour to address, some days ago, to the
magistracy of Ireland. It is for them to decide upon the peculiar
circumstances of each individual case, as it occurs. No Government can
do more than point out the general principles upon which their decision
should be
formed. As, however, you state that 'there is a sufficient body of loyal
Yeomanry in your part of the county to prevent aggression, and preserve
the public peace, if the Magistrates should be empowered to call upon
them,' you are certainly empowered by law to call on all persons to aid
and assist in preserving the public peace; but, perhaps, the safest
course to pursue would be, to swear, as special constables, such of the
Yeomanry as you can confidently rely upon, and call upon them for their
exertions in that capacity, should the ordinary civil force be
insufficient to prevent outrage and disturbance, or to disperse any
meeting clearly illegal, upon the requisition of the Magistrates. I have
the honour to be, your obedient servant, E. G STANLEY, Rev.
Mr. Moore, Carnew. He
thought he heard a cheer when he read that part of the letter which
stated, that the Magistrates might swear in the Yeomanry as special
constables. If the noble Lords opposite wished to take advantage of that
expression, he would give them all the benefit which they could derive
from it. Those noble Lords, probably, would be ingenious enough to show
the difference between employing Yeomanry in the ranks of the police and
as a separate body. His understanding, however, was not astute enough to
see that this circumstance made the slightest difference. He thought he
had now proved that the Magistrates were sanctioned by the law, and by
the wishes of Government, in employing the Yeomanry if necessary. The
next point was, to ascertain whether the Magistrates acted wisely in
having recourse to this force upon that occasion. It must be
recollected, that there was no military force within reach; that, on two
previous occasions of a similar nature, the Yeomanry had been called
out; and that, on one of these occasions, the persons calling them out
had received the thanks of the Government—further, the circumstances
attending this particular case must be recollected. The Magistrates had
received information that vast multitudes were to assemble to resist the
law, and preparations for this purpose were observed going on at
fourteen miles' distance from the scene of action. If any man would say
that, under these circumstances, the Magistrates were not justified in
putting into requisition all the force which they had at their disposal,
he must form a widely different opinion of the manner of dealing with
riots in Ireland from that which he, and most Irish Magistrates,
entertained. He thought he might venture to
assume, that he had established two points; first, that it was legal for
Magistrates to call out the Yeomanry; and, secondly, that this was an
occasion which justified them in having recourse to that force. He would
next proceed to show, that the Magistrates acted wisely and prudently in
this transaction, and ought to have received the same degree of
approbation which Government extended to others under similar
circumstances. Though he was unwilling to trouble their Lordships with
extracts, he felt that it was absolutely necessary, upon this point, to
call their attention to circumstances which transpired at the trial that
took place at the last Assizes at Wexford. The
evidence of Mr. Ralph, (Mr. M'Clintock's agent), was very important.
That gentleman deposed that Captain Graham and his party were pelted
with stones of a very large size—that the mob made use of the most
insulting and irritating language towards the Yeomanry—and that Captain
Graham warned the people that the muskets of the Yeomanry were loaded
with ball-cartridges. He would next refer to the evidence of Dr. Hyde,
to which he particularly requested the attention of their Lordships, on
account of circumstances to which he would allude presently. Dr. Hyde
deposed, that the Police and the Yeomanry were exposed to a fierce
attack from the people. He described the stones which the mob threw, as
forming from their numbers in descending, a perfect arch. Many of the
police were hurt by them. He stated that three shots were fired by the
crowd, and that he attended one of the Yeomanry who was wounded in the
heel. This evidence completely disproved the assertion that the people
had no fire-arms. It appeared that two of the Yeomanry were actually
wounded, before they commenced firing in their own defence. It was sworn
by one or two witnesses, who were brought forward by the prosecution,
that Captain Graham gave orders to the Yeomanry to fire, but this
evidence was most decidedly contradicted by other witnesses. In the
first place it was shown, that the witnesses who deposed to the fact of
Captain Graham having ordered his men to fire, were persons of infamous
characters. But further than this, men who were in the ranks, deposed,
that the words used by Captain Graham were "fie fie," which were
addressed to the men to make them cease firing, instead of "fire, fire."
The result of the evidence adduced at
the trial, went most fully to prove, that Captain Graham, in the
execution of the difficult duty he was called upon to perform, acted
with sound judgment and discretion, and in a manner which, in his (the
Earl of Wicklow's) opinion, did him infinite credit. He would,
however, read the opinion of a person whose authority on this point was
much higher than his own, that of the learned Judge before whom the
trial took place, who said, "You are not now trying Captain Graham, but,
after it has been his fortune to have been indicted for the same alleged
murder before two successive Grand Juries, and his name called so much
in question, it may not be improper to declare to you that, if you
believe the witnesses brought forward for the defense, he appears to
have conducted himself throughout not merely with a high sense of
magisterial duty, but with prudence, moderation, and humanity." When he
reflected that Captain Graham had obtained the sympathy of his
countrymen—that he had received an approving address from fifty-five
Magistrates of the county of which he was himself a Magistrate—that he
had been twice instantaneously acquitted by grand juries, and that his
conduct had called forth from a Judge of the land the expressions of
approbation which he had just read, that Gentleman notwithstanding, the
anger of Government had reason to be proud of his situation.
In the first instance, the Government certainly
acted correctly in refusing to yield to the clamour which was raised
against Captain Graham; but subsequently to the trial, and when it was
supposed that the affair was at an end, the factious demagogues of
Ireland had goaded on the Government to adopt some measures against the
magistrates of Wexford. The Government was no longer able to resist the
force which burst upon them in August; the Secretary for Ireland, by the
desire of the Lord Lieutenant, wrote a letter of censure to the
Magistrates of Wexford for their conduct in the Newtownbarry affair.
The Magistrates replied, as became them, by sending in their immediate
resignation; upon which the following letter was instantly addressed to
Mr. Davenzy, one of their body:— Dublin, August 19,1831. Sir—I
have had the honour to lay before the Lord Lieutenant the letter of the
12th instant, desiring, in consequence of the censure, as you are
pleased to express it, which his Excellency conveyed by my letter of the
7th instant, to be relieved from the Commissions of
the peace for the counties of Carlow and Wexford. His Excellency, in
giving effect to your wishes, cannot refrain from expressing his
surprise that you should have considered an intimation of his opinion on
the impolicy of the measure adverted to in that letter as amounting to
so severe an animadversion as to justify, in your opinion, so strong a
declaration of feeling as the resignation of your commissions. I have
the honour to be, Sir, Your roost obedient and humble servant, J.
Davenzy, Esq. W. GOSSETT. He
was astonished that the Lord Lieutenant should express any surprise that
Magistrates who had been twice virtually acquitted in the face of their
country, should feel indignant at receiving a letter of censure from the
Irish government. So far from taking the same view of this subject as
his Excellency did, he should have considered these gentlemen unworthy
of sitting on the bench, if they had not acted precisely as they did.
There were reasons which prevented Captain Graham from resigning at the
same time as his brother Magistrates. Captain Graham was the agent in
several counties, for a most respectable nobleman, whose absence, on the
present occasion, no one had so much reason to regret as himself,
because he would have performed the duty which he had undertaken much
more ably than he could pretend to do. Captain Graham, feeling that he
could not effectually perform his duties as agent to Lord Farnham, did
not feel himself justified in resigning his commission; but, shortly
afterwards, his Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant,
withdrew Captain Graham's name from the commission of the peace.
Their Lordships must recollect that the Lord Lieutenant expressed his
surprise that the other Magistrates should have felt it necessary to
send in their resignations, and yet he had deprived Captain Graham of
his commission. Why he made any distinction between their case and that
of Captain Graham he had yet to learn. The Magistrates were all engaged
in the same transaction—they co-operated together in the discharge of
their duty; and no difference of opinion prevailed amongst them. When he
proposed a question to time Lord Chancellor of Ireland upon this
subject, he seemed to draw a distinction between the dismissal of a
Magistrate and the omitting to insert his name in the commission. He
gave the noble and learned Lords all the benefit which he could derive
from the distinction. It might be said, perhaps, that the omission of
Captain Graham's name was the act of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who, under the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland's
Act,
was called upon to revise the Magistracy—and not the act of the
Government. This, though not stated, was in some degree implied in what
fell from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In order to remove all doubt
upon that point, however, and to show how the matter really stood, he
would trouble the House with some further correspondence. Captain Graham
wrote a letter to Mr. Carew, the Lord Lieutenant of the county of
Wexford, to the following effect: Newtownbarry, December 31, 1831. Sir—Finding that circular letters have been addressed by you to the
Magistrates of the county, and not having myself been honoured with one,
I am in doubt whether or not I am authorised in continuing to act as a
Magistrate for the county of Wexford. May I, therefore, beg you will be
so good as to favour me with the necessary information on this point. I
have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, R.
S. Carew. W. GRAHAM. This
was the answer which was re-turned— Castleborough,
January 4, 1832. Sir—I
have this day had the honour of receiving your letter, and beg to inform
you that the new Commission of the Peace for this county will be very
shortly issued, by which the functions of the Magistrates under the
former Commissions will cease, and any act done by them before they
qualify under the new Commission would be illegal. I regret that I
cannot, at present, give you any further information on the subject of
your letter, which I have laid before his Excellency the Lord
Lieutenant. When I am enabled to do so, I shall have the honour of
communicating it. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, W.
Graham, Esq. R. S. CAREW. Subsequently,
Captain Graham received the following letter;—Castleborough,
January 10, 1832. Sir—I
have the honour to inform you, that the new Commission for the county of
Wexford will be immediately issued, and with reference to my former
letter, in which I mentioned that I had laid your letter before his
Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, I beg to say, that it is not deemed
expedient that your name should be replaced in the new Commission. I
have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,Captain Graham." "R.
S. CAREW. This
relieved the Lord Lieutenant of the county from all responsibility on
this point. The matter, however, did not end there. Although Captain
Graham had been once acquitted, his enemies were still urging
on the Government the necessity of putting him and his companions once
more on trial for murder. Captain Graham naturally felt anxious on the
subject, knowing the bitter hatred of those enemies, and the little
support which he was likely to receive from the Government; and,
therefore, his Solicitor by his direction, wrote to the Attorney General
a month before the last Assizes, to know whether the Government intended
to institute a prosecution against him? The answer of the Attorney
General was, that it was not the intention of the Government to do so.
Notwithstanding that answer, Captain Graham was again put upon his
trial! So sudden was the determination of the Government on this
point—so little regard did they show for the feelings of
individuals—that, actually, they had not made up their own minds as to
the course they should pursue on the morning the Assizes commenced; for
the Judge observed, in his charge to the Grand Jury, that he was in a
state of uncertainty as to the course which the Crown would pursue with
respect to the events at Newtownbarry. A bill of indictment was,
however, preferred against Captain Graham, and immediately ignored. He
must now mention one circumstance, though not immediately connected with
the case of Captain Graham, to show the inexplicable manner in which the
Government acted, and the little regard they exhibited for the feelings
and interests of the persons implicated in the affair of Newtownbarry.
The individual, from the report of whose trial he had been quoting (Mr.
Kilfoy, one of the police), was put upon his trial for manslaughter. Dr.
Hyde, who was a material witness in his favour, was then in Scotland. It
had been the invariable practice of Government, whenever any of its
functionaries had been put upon their trial, under circumstances similar
to those in which Kilfoy stood, to grant funds to defray the expenses of
bringing witnesses from a distance. An application was made to the
Government for funds to defray the expense of bringing Dr. Hyde from
Scotland. Kilfoy's friends were told that the application would be laid
before the Attorney General, and his opinion taken upon it. They
continued to call day after day, but no answer was given to their
application. Kilfoy's trial was fixed for the 2nd of March, and at
length, on the 25th of February, his solicitor was informed, too late
for the post, that, on his client lodging an affidavit that the
evidence of Dr. Hyde was absolutely necessary, the requisite funds for
defraying the expense of that gentleman's journey would be provided. Was
this proper conduct? Government was already in possession of an
affidavit, stating that Dr. Hyde was a material witness; and yet no
answer was given to Kilfoy's application until two or three days before
the time fixed for the trial, when it was physically impossible that he
could derive advantage from the proffered liberality of the Government.
The life of this man might have been sacrificed, had it not been for the
generosity of an individual, who gave 30l. to defray the expenses of Dr. Hyde's journey. The Doctor arrived in
time to give evidence, which was materially instrumental in obtaining
the acquittal of the prisoner. He could not refrain from contrasting the
conduct of Government towards Captain Graham with their conduct towards
another Magistrate in the same neighbourhood, to whose case he had
before adverted. An affidavit was forwarded to the Government, stating
that this individual was in the habit of proceeding from chapel to
chapel, urging the people to resist the payment of tithes. No notice,
however, was taken of this representation of the Magistrates. He by no
means asserted, that the information which was sworn to was correct—and
he admitted that the gentleman in question felt much hurt at the charge
which had been brought against him, and asserted, most solemnly, that it
was false. For his argument, however, it mattered not whether the charge
was true or false. What he complained of was, that the Magistrates were
not informed by the Government whether the transactions reported by them
had been investigated or not. All they knew was, that their
representations were disregarded, whilst they saw, at this moment, the
individual whom they accused, and whom they still believed to be guilty,
supported by the Government, and made a Deputy Lord Lieutenant! On the
other hand, they observed, that Captain Graham, who, to the best of his
ability, exerted himself to preserve the peace of the country—was
degraded, and struck out of the Commission of the Peace! He knew not
whether the noble Duke, who, on a former evening, said that he had
afforded a singular example of Irish justice, was now in his place—but,
if he was, he would refer him to this transaction, as a specimen of what
the Irish government considered to be even-handed justice.
Could the Government expect that gentlemen in Ireland would exert
themselves to preserve the peace of the country, when they were liable
to be treated as Captain Graham had been? Government could not expect to
receive the cordial co-operation of the Magistracy; and without that,
they would be obliged to overrun Ireland with military in order to
maintain tranquillity. He had now brought the whole case before the
House, and had stated sufficient he hoped, to induce the House to agree
to the motion for papers to elucidate the case. He begged leave to move
"that there be laid before the House a copy of Mr. Stanley's circular
letter to the Magistrates of Ireland, dated December 30, 1830."
My Lords, in the absence of my noble and learned friend, the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, I rise to give a full explanation of the Motion
which led to the decision of not replacing Captain Graham in the
Commission of the Peace for the several counties where he has hitherto
acted. I do this the more readily, because I entirely identify myself
with my noble and learned friend in this case. I fully concur with him
in the view he has taken of it, and am even quite ready to take the
whole responsibility upon myself. I shall very much confine myself to
that particular case, because I really am unequal to follow the noble
Earl, who has made the Motion now before you, through all the variety of
topics upon which he has descanted—of some of which I have no knowledge
whatever—of others, but an imperfect recollection; and, as they are
foreign to the case immediately in question, I think I may dispense with
noticing them in detail. I will merely observe, that, if in the course
of what I have to say, I should omit any material point which might
require explanation, I would intreat the noble Lord to interrupt, and to
put any question he may think fit; or, if he should be inclined to lay
any stress upon the points on which I may not touch, if he will give me
notice of it, I will take care to come prepared to meet him in
explanation. I proceed now to the case before us:—Your Lordships are all
aware that it is entirely in the province of the Chancellor to appoint
Magistrates. So much inconvenience had been felt by former Chancellors,
and more particularly by the late Chancellor Hart, who felt that he had
made many improvident appointments, that in 1828 I determined upon
recommending to his Majesty's Government, of which the noble and gallant Duke
opposite was then at the head, to put the administration of county
affairs in Ireland upon the same footing as those of England and Wales.
I recommended that Lords Lieutenants of counties should be appointed.
The measure was approved, but it was not acted upon. After my dismissal,
upon my return to resume the Government of Ireland, in 1830, it was one
of my first Acts to recommend its adoption. His Majesty's present
servants entirely concurred in this view, and, by bringing in a Bill,
they immediately effected the object. Upon the appointment of the
Lieutenants of counties, a circular letter was addressed to them by the
Chief. Secretary, pointing out the required qualifications, explaining
that certain specified offices would render those holding them
ineligible; and particularly stating, that, although there might be
persons then upon the Bench, whom, if this were an original appointment,
it might not be desirable to place there, still, that being already
there, if there was no very material objection to them as to character,
they should bere-appointed. Now, my Lords, there is a great difference
between erasing a name from the list, and merely declining to re-appoint
the person, when, by the demise of the Crown, his Commission would
cease. Captain Graham stood precisely in the predicament to be dealt
with upon this rule. Captain Graham was not
dismissed. He was merely not re-appointed. I mention this to show
that there was not the least disposition to deal harshly by Captain
Graham—but I do not wish to lay any stress upon it. I rest my
vindication of the conduct of the Chancellor upon much firmer ground. My
Lords, I assert that the Magistrates, of whom
Captain Graham was one, in calling out the yeomanry, acted illegally.
They had not the power to do so. The Lord Lieutenant of the county had
not that power—even the Chief Governor is not authorised to call out the
yeomanry except in cases of invasion, or of actual and well defined
insurrection. The Magistrates have the full power to call upon the
Members of these corps, separately and individually, to turn out and to
support the civil authorities. They have even the power to compel them
to act as special constables, and to fine and imprison them if they
disobey; but they have not any authority to call them out as an armed
organised body. I say, then, that, in doing this, they acted illegally; and that they acted most
indiscreetly, it will be equally easy to show. My Lords, in
considering this, your Lordships must bear in mind the actual state of
the country. Owing to the indiscretion of that part
of the people called Orangemen, and amongst whom there is a vast number
of the yeomanry, this force has become particularly obnoxious. They had
attended large meetings called together by a class of the highest order
in the country, and who had lately assumed the title of Conservators.
There the yeomen had frequently appeared in party colours, some in
uniform, some armed, some even carrying the King's arms—here they had
heard the most inflammatory harangues, they were brought to believe that
the Catholics were to assume the ascendancy, that the Government was
unfriendly to the Protestants, and no pains were omitted to inflame them
against the Government, and against their fellow subjects. Is it to be
wondered at, then, my Lords, that these people, thus goaded to mischief,
should frequently have effected it? My Lords, it rarely happened
that these pernicious meetings did not terminate in some collision. Now,
my Lords, let me not be misunderstood or misinterpreted in regard to
what I have said, or think, of this body of the people. My Lords, I
consider the yeomanry of Ireland to be brave, honest, independent, and
loyal. I have no hesitation in saying, that, if I were in the
unfortunate predicament to have to repel invasion and foreign
aggression, I should feel proud and happy to place myself at their
head—and I should feel the utmost confidence in leading them—but I must,
at the same time, say (and I wish that all I have said were heard by
them as well as your Lordships), I do think them the very last
description of force that ought to be employed in cases of domestic
disturbance. It ever did, and it will never fail, to lead to mischievous
results. Let me also say, my Lords, that, although I cannot but highly
deplore and condemn the conduct of those of the highest influence in the
country, who are perpetually inflaming the minds of the Protestants, and
encouraging, or rather forcing, them to believe that the Government is
not favourable to their interests (than which a fouler calumny cannot be
put forth), let me, I say, observe, that, in deploring the line of
conduct they have pursued, I do not deny that they have met with great
provocation. My Lords, there exists in Dublin a Society (indeed
Societies) whose
ramifications extend to every county, and whose sole object is, to
vilify and calumniate every party in the State that does not partake of
their revolutionary principles. These have assuredly been the first
aggressors; but does even their misconduct justify the violence of the
other party in vilifying and misrepresenting his Majesty's Government,
and using every exertion to weaken it? My Lords, the Government of
Ireland is taxed with condescending to rule upon the principles of
conciliation—most assuredly that is the principle upon which it has been
my ambition to act, but most lamentable has been my failure, for I find
every act of the Government systematically misrepresented and
calumniated. Each party, or rather the extremes of each party, being
bitter and unforgiving, because each discovers that there is not the
slightest chance of its being permitted to assume the ascendancy and to
dictate to the Government. This is the miserable state of the public
mind in Ireland. Is it, then, under such a state of things, that the
yeomanry ought to have been called out? In addition to all that I have
already said, I must add, that the county of Wexford was only at that
moment recovering from the agitation and excitement of two county
elections, where party spirit had run unusually high.
I say, then, my Lords, that the calling upon the
yeomanry was an act of the greatest indiscretion. It was illegal. It was
indiscreet, and I will show that it was unnecessary. The noble Earl has
stated, that there was no troops within thirty miles, therefore he
conceives Captain Graham acted judiciously in calling out the yeomanry.
Now, my Lords, the fact is not so. Regular troops were within reach.
There was ample time to draw them to Newtownbarry. There was a small
garrison at Wexford, only twenty-one miles distant. There was also
troops at Carlow, distant fourteen miles; and I believe that there was
also a small detachment still nearer. Be that as it may, there was ample
time to move even from the most distant station, and I will answer for
it, that, had these troops been employed, not a drop of blood would have
been spilt. I will now come to the conduct of Captain Graham during the
affray. Upon this there is a most conflicting and contradictory
evidence; many witnesses swore positively that they heard the word
"fire" given by that officer; others swore as positively that he did not
give that order. Now, here I must remark, without, however, meaning to
bear hard upon Captain Graham, that the evidence of the former witnesses
is positive; they say they heard the word, whilst the others can only
prove that they did not hear—not that the word was not given, for it
might have been given when they were out of hearing; others, one I am
sure, and I believe two, swore that the Captain did not give the word
"fire," but that, in order to prevent them, he said "fie, fie." Now, my
Lords, if this be the case, is it not lamentable that the lives of men
should be contingent on the accurate distinction between the words
"fire," and "fie?" Most assuredly that officer could not, in the whole
vocabulary, have fixed upon a word of more equivocal sound than of
"fie," when it was used to prevent the effect which the word "fire"
would have produced. Upon this subject I find it difficult to come to a
satisfactory result; I rather lean to the opinion, that Captain Graham
did not give the word "fire," and, certainly, he did exert himself to
prevent the continuance of the firing. The consequence of this
lamentable affair was truly distressing! No one who was not in the
county, or who did not receive accurate and daily intelligence, can form
a notion of the agitation, the irritability, and the frightful
excitement, it occasioned. Many of the yeomanry
absconded—some, I am assured, left the country; of those who remained,
and from whom bail was taken to answer the charges against them at the
next Assizes, it became necessary to escort them to their residences
under a guard, in order that they might not fall a prey to the fury of
the people, or come again into collision with them. It was also
necessary to place safe-guards in some of the houses. The friends
of Captain Graham prevailed upon him to quit the country; he judiciously
and humanely consented to do so. I say humanely, because the character
of that gentleman as an officer stands too high to imagine he would do
so from personal consideration, and I am quite certain that he took this
step from motives of humanity, and to avoid any increased irritation by
his presence. Here, my Lords, I feel that I may close this case. I
imagine that your Lordships will concur with me in thinking that the
employment of the yeomanry was—even if not illegal—at least indiscreet,
and that it was unnecessary; and that, under these circumstances,
coupled, too, with the fact, that Captain Graham was not possessed of
any landed property in Wexford, a sound discretion
has been exercised in not naming him on the Commission. The noble
Marquis then alluded in pointed terms to an attack made on him in his
absence by the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Westmeath). What could be
the noble Marquis's motive? He could not fear to answer me as a debater.
He knew that I had no practice—no experience—and that in the way of
argument I was incapable of taking any advantage. The noble Marquis must
have felt, that upon that score he had the superiority. What, then,
could have actuated him? My Lords, the noble Marquis did not like to
encounter the plain facts, which he knew I should, at all events, be
able to bring forward, and which he must have been conscious would have
blown his Address (for I maintain that it is his Address, and not the
Address of the Magistrates of Westmeath, his writing is legible in every
line of it), his speech and arguments to the winds. With respect to the
motives of the noble Earl for bringing forward the Motion now before us,
and at this particular time, I should more easily have accounted, if he
had not been a practised and a finished speaker. Although the noble Earl
may not himself, have suffered under the desperate inflictions of my
noble and learned friend, yet, as he must have occasionally witnessed
the painful writhings of some of his noble friends, under my noble and
learned friend's powerful lash, I might have been tempted to believe
that the noble Earl would feel some relief from knowing that the moment
he was speaking there was a wide channel, and 300 miles of land between
him and the person he was calling to account. No such motive, however,
could actuate the noble Earl, and, therefore, I am wholly at a loss to
account for his conduct. My Lords, if I was not afraid of trespassing
too severely upon your Lordships' patience I would gladly be permitted,
if the rule of the House do not preclude me from doing so, to make some
observations upon the papers now lying upon your Lordships' Table upon
the motion of the noble Marquis, the Lieutenant of Westmeath. I allude
to the address of that noble Lord and the Magistrates of that county. To
save your Lordships' time as much as possible, I will, without
circumlocution, proceed to make a few remarks upon the most prominent
paragraphs of that address. The first I would notice runs thus:—' We beg
leave to represent that the state of the laws do not afford that sort of
discouragement to that crime, that would amount to an adequate
protection for those who would rally to them, if they saw they dare
assist in bringing the offenders to justice.' Now I should be glad to
ask what sort of further discouragement than that which the law gives,
the noble Marquis would propose? Fine—imprisonment—transportation—Death.
These are the discouragements which the law already affords, and I
should wish to learn what can be added to these? My ingenuity presents
nothing beyond these but torture, and I hardly imagine that, in this
enlightened age, this could be seriously thought of. The next paragraph
to which I would refer is as follows:—'We humbly beg leave to observe to
your Excellency that a leading feature of this system is, that it
involves the forfeiture of human life as the penalty for any breach
committed against its various impositions, although the presumed
offences are undefined, and vary from one moment to another; indeed
solely arising out of the caprices of savage men, broke loose from
restraint, in a country, the laws of which command the respect of all
other parts of the United Kingdom subject to them.' It would seem by
this sentence that the actual law does command the respect of all other
parts of the United Kingdom. How comes it, then, that there only it
fails? Is it shown that any extraordinary exertion has been made by the
authorities to meet the licentiousness of the turbulent? Have there been
meetings of the gentry to combine, and unite, and organise a system to
resist outrage? Has there been any previous representation to the
Government? Has application been made to proclaim the county, or at
least the most disturbed Baronies? Has an additional constabulary force
been applied for? Is there a single instance in which a military force
has been required, that it has not been sent? Have the tenantry been
encouraged to support their landlords in any vigorous exertions to
support the law? Have special constables been sworn in? Has the noble
Marquis himself set a laudable example? Has he collected his servants,
his tenants, his dependants—all those over whom he must have influence?
Has he asked them to turn out and protect his neighbourhood from
outrage? And if he has not, must he not upon reflection acknowledge that
such a course would be more likely to effect tranquillity, than writing,
within a well barricaded house, angry letters to violent and ungrateful
agitators, and denouncing the population of a whole country? My Lords, I
know, and I say it confidently, there is a vast number of the people who
if properly called on and encouraged, would willingly combine with the
gentry in the suppression of crime. I will simply relate one striking
occurrence in exemplification of this. At the late
Assizes of the Queen's County, held at Maryborough, several persons were
upon trial for Whiteboy offences. A witness of the name of Dunne was
under examination. A Magistrate, known to be of very high party feeling,
and not a very constant resident, asked him, in a somewhat imperious
tone—"And pray, Sir, do the farmers in your neighbourhood look on at
these proceedings, and take no pains to check them?" The farmer replied
in a sturdy tone—"No, Sir, they do not; but if you and those who call
themselves gentlemen, and the Magistrates (instead of skulking out of
the country when the danger comes on), were to help the farmers as they
ought, these disturbances would have been put down long ago." The farmer
was a Catholic. "We come next (says the address) to the case of
Thomas Grotley, a man of notoriously desperate character, who was taken
in his progress from the county of Meath, to which he belonged, through
a part of the country with a carriage and money in his possession, for
the purpose of swearing in and organizing the people, with seditious
papers and in their nature treasonable, found upon him, one of them
exulting in the confusion of Britain, as the triumph of the system he
was organizing. This miscreant was enlarged from the prison he never
ought to have left, upon the avowed opinion of the Attorney General,
that although the papers were found upon him no tangible case could be
made out to convict him as the law now stands." This is a very plain
story: a bad character was travelling through the county, papers were
found upon him he was taken up and sent to jail. The noble Lord
pronounces that these papers were treasonable and of a seditious nature,
and that he had been enlarged from a prison he ought never to have left.
This is the noble Lord's opinion: that of the Attorney General is
different. He says, that, upon these papers no tangible case could be
made out, and he was accordingly enlarged. I think the House will go
along with me in thinking, that upon a point of law, the Attorney General was the better
judge. We then meet with this passage:—"Upon these facts thus selected,
and upon the mass of crime which, if enumerated here, would swell a
folio, we mainly rest our assertion." Why, my Lords, here is a folio
filled already, and closely filled with assertions which cannot be
proved. It goes on to say—"The laws at present are utterly powerless to
check the progress of a system so destructive to society, or to reach
the known abettors of its blood-thirsty organization; a state of things
to which open rebellion would be preferable as that might be dealt with
by a corresponding power adequate to the evil." To this conclusion, my
Lords, I cannot come. I totally dissent from it. Open rebellion would
evidently entail a frightful loss of life. The present state of the
country is, I admit, extremely deplorable—but, inasmuch as I feel
certain that it may by union and proper exertions be tranquillized, I
greatly prefer it to the other alternative. The Address goes on to
say—"We have assembled to prepare a respectful Address to your
Excellency, and petitions to Parliament, but we cannot, in the utmost
stretch of respect, acknowledge to your Excellency or the Legislature
that system to be sound which subjects the peaceable and industrious
members of the community to the ravages of the depraved; or that,
although one offence, in a given mass of enormity, may meet a tardy
retribution, still leaves exposed all that is valuable in a trading and
agricultural country to the tyranny of savage caprice." Here, my Lords,
is a direct libel upon the whole system of law and jurisprudence of the
United Kingdom, applicable, not merely to the present moment, or to any
particular spot, but to every place; and to meet the views of the noble
Marquis, it would be absolutely necessary for your Lordships to go into
a revision and alteration of all those laws under which the empire has
been enjoying more freedom, more happiness, and more prosperity, than
any other portion of the known world; and to prove these calumniated
laws are not asleep, but in actual operation, I beg leave to lay upon
the Table, a catalogue of punishments which have been the results of the
last Spring Assizes, and which it is truly painful to contemplate. The
Address concludes with this remarkable paragraph; "With great respect,
we conceive it to be nothing less than an absurdity to leave the enjoyment of the privileges of free Government unsuspended among a
peasantry who know not its value, or are so far corrupted as not to
appreciate its advantages." Upon the whole, my Lords, this Address deals
only in general abuse of the existing laws and institutions, without
specifying defects, or suggesting a single remedy, and it concludes with
a sweeping anathema against a whole population, denouncing it as utterly
unworthy of enjoying the privileges of a free Government. I need not
trouble your Lordships with my answer to it. It is on your Lordships'
Table. I will merely say, that upon the fullest reflection, I cannot
retract one word of its sentiments. I utterly deny that there is
anything offensive in a single sentence, and I do assure your Lordships
that it was written in a spirit of the most perfect good feeling towards
the Magistrates of Westmeath.
said, that, as allusion had been made to him, he felt it necessary
to repeat what he had distinctly declared on a former evening—namely,
that he was actuated by no feeling of hostility to the noble Marquis in
the Motion which he had then brought forward. As to the address which
had been referred to, he had no hesitation in avowing that he had
written it, but it had been approved of generally by the Magistracy of
Westmeath. He could assure their Lordships that he had no intention of
taking advantage of the absence of the noble Marquis the Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland when he brought forward his Motion, and, if he had thought
that such an idea could have been entertained, he should not have
brought the subject forward. But he had brought it before their
Lordships as an act of the Irish Government of which he disapproved. He
considered such acts to be fair and open subjects of discussion, and
that, in the present state of the country, consideration for individuals
ought to give way to the interests of the public. He was quite ready to
avow that, whenever a military force was demanded, the noble Marquis was
most willing to give it; but he felt some regard for the King's troops,
and he did not wish to see them harassed by encounters with a population
who made a mockery of them, and could disperse like flies whenever
occasion required. The Magistrates only asked for
protection for life and property. It was said that they ought to stay at
home and do their duty. For his own part, he wished to God he was at home now; but he was here—and could not be in two
places at once. He must say that the Irish Government, in not taking
vigorous means for the restoration of tranquillity and the protection of
property, was in his opinion very much to blame.
said, that after hearing the several statements made by the noble
Earl who brought the matter before the House, and the noble Marquis's
reply thereto, he must maintain that the charges which the noble Earl
had brought against Government for their conduct respecting Captain
Graham had been fully substantiated, and he could not help thinking that
that individual had been the object of great and unmerited persecution
and hardship. The noble Marquis (Anglesey) said that the reason which
induced the Government of Ireland to omit the name of Captain Graham
from the commission of the peace for the counties of Wexford Carlow, and
Meath, was his having called out the Yeomanry without being sufficiently
authorised to do so. The noble Marquis said, there was no intention on
the part of Government to act with harshness towards that gentleman, but
he (the Earl of Roden) could not conceive any more harsh act than
putting a gentleman on his trial twice for the same offence, and causing
him an expense of upwards of 400l., for
the vindication of his character. The result, indeed, was highly
honourable to Captain Graham. It was fully proved that he was a most
honourable and upright man. As to its being illegal to call out the
Yeomanry, he would beg to refer their Lordships to a letter addressed by
Mr. Stanley to a gentleman of the name of Moore, residing in the same
county in which Captain Graham lived, in which he alluded to the
disturbed state in which the country then was, and recommended the
Magistrates generally to act with resolution, and if necessary (in the
event of a decided manifestation of resistance to the laws) to call for
the assistance of the Yeomanry corps. Yet because he had done this very
act was the chief reason assigned for the dismissal of Captain Graham,
he, therefore, left the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Secretary
for Ireland, to reconcile that difference. Further the noble Marquis
said, that Captain Graham had acted indiscreetly; but there again he was
contradicted by the Judge who tried the cause; and he, (the Earl of
Roden) also trusted many of their Lordships fully agreed with the
learned Judge. It was then said in extenuation of the dismissal that
Captain Graham had little or no property in the county of Wexford, and
consequently ought not to be on its commission. This he had no
hesitation in stating openly was a mere quibble and pretext for
injustice. Did such a circumstance exclude other individuals from being
retained on the commission? There was Mr. Challoner, the agent of the
estates of the Earl Fitzwilliam in the county of Wicklow, who, although
possessed of little property in that county, was invested with the
duties of a Magistrate. He really could not but regret that such idle
and absurd excuses should be tendered in explanation of an act of
injustice. It might be fairly asked, if the allegations of the Irish
Government were unfounded, to what was the dismissal attributable? He
would tell their Lordships; Captain Graham was dismissed in obedience to
the directions of demagogues, a class unfortunately too prevalent in
Ireland, and to whose influence still more unfortunately the Government
of that country seemed inclined on all occasions to bow. These
demagogues were individually pledged to the destruction of Protestantism
in Ireland, and naturally every man who had the hardihood to offer his
support to that religion became the object of their hate and
persecution. One of that class was Captain Graham. He was known in
Ireland to be an individual who made it his object and endeavour to
support the Church whose religion he professed, against the open and
daring attacks which were being made against it; and by his honest and
open avowal of his principles he became obnoxious to the feelings of all
those whom he had just described as pledged to the annihilation of the
Protestant religion in Ireland. The neglect and want of countenance
which the Government of Ireland had shown to the Protestant gentry of
that country was productive of the worst consequences. Those individuals
had for some time past looked upon themselves as badly treated: and he
could assure the House that the manner in which Captain Graham had
suffered had not contributed to improve that feeling. There was not a
Protestant who did not regard the dismissal of that individual as
demonstrative of what might be expected from a resistance to the efforts
of insidious agitators, having for their object the expatriation of the
Protestant gentry. Indeed since the present Government had entered upon their office they had been guilty of a total disregard, nay, more
than that, of a studied and avowed scheme to destroy Protestant
influence, if not the Protestant Church, in Ireland.
And what was the motive which influenced Government
in this respect? Why, the weak and vain desire of conciliating mob
demagogues. In the first place Government had introduced a
measure relating to education. They withdrew the grant from that society
which afforded the children of the Protestant poor the sole means of
being brought up in the full knowledge of the Scriptures, and bestowed
the grant thus withdrawn upon a Board which put into the hands of the
people the Bible in a mutilated form, and which separated a moral from a
religious course of education. Then again in the Reform Bill,
what was the avowed object of one of its clauses? If their Lordships
would look into that Bill they would see the little care that was taken
of the Protestant portion of the constituency. In the English Bill, as
their Lordships might be aware, the existing rights of freemen, under
certain restrictions, were vested in their children, but in the Irish
Bill no such provision
was made. Now, when speaking of that clause on the occasion of the
introduction of the Bill, what was the language used by the right hon.
Secretary for Ireland? After stating that it was determined by Ministers
that the rights of freemen should cease on their demise, Mr. Stanley
said, that this determination was occasioned by the circumstance that in
Ireland the freemen of corporations were for the most part Protestants,
whence if their rights were to be continued to their children a set of
Protestant constituents would be formed and perpetuated; a state of
things which he openly avowed it was far from the wish of Ministers
should take place. He begged to ask their Lordships if such a statement
was not enough to induce an apprehension in the minds of the Protestant
gentry that their religion was in danger of being sacrificed to the
wishes and dictates of the demagogue portion of the Irish people? In
addition to this there were many other acts of the present Government in
which the Protestants of Ireland felt themselves much aggrieved. They
perceived that in several instances persons were chosen for public
situations in consequence of the dictation of a certain knot of
demagogues, who held their periodical parliaments in Dublin, and who of
late were in the habit of issuing their orders
in council, as it were, directing who were and who were not to be
appointed to official situations. Noble Lords on the opposite side of
the House might dissent from his statement, but he still would maintain
it; and, what was of more importance, could prove it. In one instance an
individual was named as Deputy Lieutenant for the county of Sligo,
although possessed of little property, and less influence, in that
county, merely because he was brought into notice, having been nominated
as a fit and proper person about a week before the date of his
appointment by Mr. O'Connell, at one of his demagogue and mob-agitating
assemblies. Such was the state in which Ireland then was—a state into
which she had been reduced by the weak, irresolute, and temporising
system pursued by its Government—a system which, unless it was not only
restrained but destroyed, would soon render its Government a mere farce.
He spoke warmly on the subject but he assured their Lordships he but
spoke as he felt. The speech of the noble Marquis seemed to imply, that
there was no part of Ireland in a disturbed state except the county of
Kilkenny, but if the noble Marquis had that belief, he was very ill
served by his new allies in the county of Kildare; such was the state of
society, that it was described by a noble friend of his (the Marquis of
Ormond), to be worse than in a state of open warfare, that it would be
better for a man to know his enemies and to meet them face to face than
to be waylaid as at present in the roads and defiles, without the least
power of defence. Look again to the state of Queen's County. At a
meeting held the other day by the Magistracy, resolutions were passed
stating that the laws were openly violated, that crime, intimidation,
and outrage were increasing, that the civil power was unable to cope
with the difficulties, and that more energetic measures were required to
put an end to such terrible disorders; and it was agreed that a petition
founded on these facts should be presented to Parliament. He would not
go through the melancholy detail of crime by which these facts were
fully borne out, but he would say that, if the present system falsely
called conciliation was persevered in, these enormities which were at
present confined to particular districts, would spread throughout the
land. The noble Marquis had said, that the people of Ireland were
divided into great parties, and that Government could obtain the support
of neither of the extremes of those parties; but so far as the one party the Protestants were
concerned he believed there was no extremes, that they were united
almost as one man in opposing the miserable policy of expediency. It was
urged that they had united themselves in societies. They were united,
and he thought they ought to be united. Government had in a measure
withdrawn its countenance from them, and unless they formed a union
among themselves for the security of their property, lives, and
interests, their existence in Ireland would be precarious. They had
likewise united with a determination of upholding their religion, and he
was satisfied that to that union while life remained they would stand
fast. Before he concluded, he desired to allude to one other topic in
the noble Marquis's speech. The noble Marquis said, that if the
Magistrates of Ireland did not timidly skulk out of the country there
would be little or no disturbance. He begged to repel the imputation
which the noble Marquis seemed desirous of fixing on the Magistrates.
They were no skulkers. Nothing could be further from their intentions
than to skulk out of the country. The Magistrates of Ireland were as
brave and intrepid a set of men as ever existed in any country. If they,
in some instances, did not act with the resolution with which they were
in the habit of acting, it arose from no fear of personal consequences,
but from a conviction that they could not rely on the support of
Government in any measure they might deem necessary to adopt according
to their own judgment.
begged to remind the noble Earl that he had not charged the
Magistrates with "skulking from danger;" quite the contrary: he had
merely repeated those words as part of the evidence of a farmer, to show
that the class of persons of whom the witness was one were not unwilling
to assist the Magistrates, if called upon. The number of persons brought
to punishment for crime at the last Spring Assizes was sufficient to
show that the Magistrates were not remiss in their duty. The calendar of
the convictions at the Assizes which had lately terminated, he regretted
to say, was exceedingly frightful, but it was right the House should be
put in possession of it:—38 persons were sentenced to be transported for
life; 342 for seven years: 106 had sentence of death recorded against
them; 64 had been left for execution; and 19 were actually executed.
said, that he was decidedly of opinion, that the Government of
Ireland had acted perfectly right in pursuing the course they had
adopted in the case of Captain Graham. After the representations which
were made to them respecting the feeling of the people of Ireland in
regard to that individual's conduct, it would have been most impolitic
to have retained him in the Commission of the peace. He did not mean,
for his own part, to cast the slightest imputation on Captain Graham's
character; indeed, from the representations which had been made to him,
he believed him to be a highly honourable man; but still he was of
opinion that if his conduct was such as to give general dissatisfaction,
which he understood was the case, he ought not to be retained upon the
Commission. He thought it should be also considered that the Catholic
population of Wexford—and the population of that county was principally
Catholic—entertained very strong feelings as to Captain Graham's
conduct; consequently, if not on grounds of justice, which he was far
from admitting, on the grounds of prudence alone his dismissal was
proper. It was said, that the Government of Ireland
ought to maintain the law, and that they ought not for trifling faults
to act with severity against Magistrates. True, but how did that
argument hold in the case of Captain Graham? What was the trifling act
in which his name, justly or unjustly it was not then for him to say,
had been implicated? Twenty-two individuals were known to have been shot
by the Yeomanry under his command. Was this a trifling act, or one which
the Government of the country would be justified in passing over?
Unquestionably not. Indeed he was convinced such would have been
the hatred of the people of Ireland to the laws of that country had not
Captain Graham been dismissed, that in a short time both it and the
Government of the country would have become a dead letter, totally
disregarded and laughed at. Considerable stress was laid on the
rejection of the bills against Captain Graham by the Grand Jury, and the
language addressed by the Judge of Assize on that occasion. As to the
address of Baron Foster, he thought it ought not to be regarded with too
much consideration, for it was absolutely impossible that a man who had
lived all his life in the midst of a party could divest himself of his
private feelings, particularly when the decision of the Grand Jury
gave him a pretext for indulging in them. The noble Earl who had last
spoken had been particularly vehement against the sufferance of
assemblies composed of demagogues, as he termed them, whose sole object
he stated to be the destruction of the Protestant Church and the Repeal
of the Union. Did then the noble Earl think that the Orange party in
Ireland, by their conduct and bearing towards their brethren, would
further the maintenance of the Union? If the noble Earl cherished such
an opinion it was not one in which he participated. On the contrary, it
appeared to him that the line of policy pursued by the Orange party was
inimical to the maintenance of that Union which they professed to
advocate. To such an extent did he carry this opinion, that if called
upon to make a comparison between the Irish demagogues and Irish Orange
conservatives, he should give the preference to the former. The
principles of the Orange party were in fact most unjustifiable and
unprincipled, and calculated beyond any thing else to lead to the
separation of the two countries. As a sample of the spirit in which
persons belonging to those Associations conducted themselves, he need
only refer to an address delivered lately at a great conservative
meeting by a Mr. Archdale, a clergyman too, he believed. The Christian
spirit of this address might be judged of when he informed the House
that the speaker exhorted his hearers "to put their trust in God and
keep their powder dry." That was a proper speech indeed for a Protestant
clergyman, though it had not the merit of originality. If the present
state of the law was not sufficient, he begged to know what the noble
Marquis (Westmeath) and others wished for? Was it for martial law? If
this was their desire let it be openly stated. He resided a good deal in
Ireland, and for his own part, he knew of no instance in which the law
had been put in force and in which it was not efficient; and he believed
that what was wanted was, the vigorous exertion of the law, in all cases
and towards all persons.
felt himself bound to stand up in defence of a Magistrate who, he
considered, had been harshly treated for the conscientious performance
of a public duty. The noble Marquis (the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland),
with that frankness and generosity which generally characterised him,
had taken the blame of this transaction on himself, but he (the Earl of Winchilsea)
thought it ought more properly to fall on the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, who had advised the proceeding now complained of. Captain
Graham be it remembered, did not act on the occasion referred to by
himself—he acted with two other Magistrates; and, though it had been
repeatedly alleged that Captain Graham had acted indiscreetly, after
reading over the evidence, he could not bring his mind to that
conclusion. If any blame rested on Captain Graham, however, it rested
equally on the other two Magistrates who acted with him. Whilst on this
subject he was most anxious to ascertain whether the law really was as
laid down by the noble Marquis (Anglesey); was it a fact that a Yeomanry
corps could not legally be called out by the Magistrates unless in a
case of invasion, or "well-defined insurrection?" those he believed,
were the words of the noble Marquis. He was the more anxious on this
point, as it happened only a few weeks ago that the Magistrates of the
county with which he was connected called for the assistance of the
Kentish Yeomanry for the protection of property. Now he wished to know
if that was illegal? Had not Captain Graham and his
brother Magistrates called out the Yeomanry, he believed that the lives
of many more persons would have been lost; and how the Government could
feel itself justified in censuring Captain Graham, by omitting his name
from the Commission, he knew not, as that gentleman had been tried twice
for the same offence, and not only honourably acquitted, but
complimented by the Judge who presided for the discretion, humanity, and
kindness with which he acted. The Orange Association of Ireland
having been alluded to in terms of such severe censures by the noble
Marquis (Clanricarde), he (Lord Winchilsea) felt bound to state that he
had enrolled his name in that loyal Association; and he trusted the
Protestants of England would follow the example set them in the sister
country. Their objects were, to support the Protestant religion—to
uphold the laws of the country—to maintain the just succession to the
Crown, and to defend the true religious establishments of the empire.
Such an association was a species of institution entitled to the respect
and support of every sound-hearted Protestant. He would conclude by
declaring his intention to support the motion, and he hoped the noble
Earl would follow it up by an address to his Majesty to reinstate
Captain Graham.
Lord Templemore
observed, that the Lord Lieutenant of Wexford was adverse to the
omission of the name of Captain Graham from the list of Magistrates,
simply because he feared that such a proceeding might seem to prejudge
the case which was about to be tried at the Assizes. Captain Graham had
but a few fields in the neighbourhood. He believed they were situated in
Carlow, not in Wexford, and it was not necessary to place him in the
Commission of the Peace for that county, when a great number of resident
gentlemen might be found to undertake the office.
observed, that he did not know whether the law of Ireland differed
from that of England with respect to the calling out of the Yeomanry.
But, at all events, were he in the Commission of the Peace in England he
should not hesitate for one moment to call out either the Yeomanry or
any other class of the King's subjects, to maintain the peace or
preserve the property of the lieges. Every man in this realm, who was
likely to be despoiled of his effects, had a right to call upon every
other man to assist him in defending them.
wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the law on this
subject, which, with respect to Ireland, was explicit and direct. It
pointed out distinctly when the Yeomanry might be called out. The Act of
4 Geo. 4th, cap. 15, said, "that in all cases of invasion, or
insurrection, or apprehension of insurrection, in Ireland, it would be
lawful for his Majesty's Justices of the Peace to call out the
Yeomanry." Did that provision, he would ask, apply to the present case?
He would assert, that there was no country the people of which were more
disposed to respect the laws than Ireland, if they saw those laws
administered with justice and impartiality. No matter with what severity
they were administered, the people were disposed to respect them if they
saw them administered equally to all classes. Though he was unwilling to
trespass longer on the attention of their Lordships, he could not
forbear to state what had been omitted by the noble Earl who opened this
discussion, and the noble Marquis who followed him; he meant the
circumstances out of which this fatal affair had arisen.
The fact was, that it arose out of a dispute as to
whether or not the tithes claimed were due. It appeared by the evidence
on the Coroner's inquest, published by the House of Commons, that the
tithe was not
strictly due. The people who lost their lives by the imprudence of
Captain Graham, said, they would leave the question in dispute to two
country gentlemen, the sons of clergymen. Mr. M'Clintock was ready to
leave it to two lawyers. The clergyman was willing, also, to accept the Composition Act,
if the people would make him an advance to pay his tithe-proctor. They
did pay him in advance, and afterwards the clergyman wanted them to
continue to pay in advance. This only part of them agreed to. The point
in dispute was, whether what they had paid in advance should be set down
to their credit or not. Then came a Magistrate, who issued his orders as
a Magistrate to himself as a Yeoman, and he went forth as a
tithe-proctor, driver, and Yeoman, to execute the orders he gave as a
Magistrate. He admitted that the laws were not respected in Ireland, but
the reason was, that the gentry were guilty of breaches of the law. They
were the first to break them. It was the duty of Magistrates to call out
the yeomanry and military in certain cases, but the Magistrates ought
never to leave them to themselves. Much of the evil of Ireland arose
from the destitution and want of employment of the people; only find
them employment, and double the population, and the people of Ireland
would be a blessing to the empire. But certainly there could be no peace
in that country while a Magistrate could go out and shoot people for
something like amusement. The people were naturally irritated at the
whole proceeding, and it was found that in other parts of the country
the affair of Newtownbarry had made a most unfavourable impression.
Captain Graham ought, in his opinion, to have been removed the instant
the act was committed which had given rise to the debate.
must beg leave to repeat that it was a mistake to suppose that the
Yeomanry might not be called out to preserve the peace and protect
property, as well as any other class of subjects. He had himself had
occasion to call for their aid some time ago, not as yeomen, indeed, but
as fellow-subjects, for the protection of property; and, if they had
refused to come, they would have subjected themselves to an indictment.
As to the dismissal of a man from the commission of the peace, he must
say, for his own part, that he had never done so, during the time he had
the honour to hold the Great Seal, without strict inquiry as to his
conduct, and into all
the circumstances of the case alleged against him. He did not know that
it was done so in this instance.
thought it was very natural that his noble friend (the Marquis of
Anglesey) should have made a few observations on his own conduct, which
had led to a general debate on the state of Ireland, which he did not
mean to go into. Without noticing, therefore, the extraneous topics
which had been introduced in the course of this discussion, he begged
leave shortly to advert to the Motion really before the House.
In the first place, he wished to call their
Lordships' attention to the extreme inconvenience of the Motion itself,
and of the extremely inconvenient precedent which would be established
if such a Motion should be acceded to. The appointment, the
re-nomination, or the dismissal of a Magistrate in Ireland, were
prerogatives of the Crown, exercised by the Lord Chancellor—and
certainly ought not to be interfered with by any vote of that House. He
trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would consider seriously before
they countenanced any Motion of such a nature as that then before them.
The Lord Chancellor might not always be able to state the reasons why he
had removed a Magistrate from the Commission; and, if their Lordships
consented to such motions as this, it would lead to most inconvenient
interference with the prerogative of the Crown. The noble Earl who
brought forward the Motion, commenced his statement by reading certain
letters which had been issued by a Member of the Government, exhorting
the Irish Magistracy to an active, zealous, and energetic discharge of
their duty. He supposed that the noble Earl read those letters in order
to lead the House to conclude that the Government was not prepared to
support those whom they had thus exhorted, if any unfortunate results
should ensue. But he was sure their Lordships would
remember that, in the same letters, the Irish Magistracy—at the same
time that they were exhorted to act with vigour—were also exhorted to
act with prudence, discretion, and temper. With respect to this
particular case, Captain Graham had been wanting in all these qualities.
In the first place, he called out the Yeomanry, being all Protestants,
to act against a population of Catholics. Next, they were called out by
the person who commanded them, and on a question of a doubtful and
difficult nature—a question of Tithes. He might and ought to have called out the military. He was imprudent also
in ordering the sale on a fair-day. These were sufficient reasons for
not reinserting his name in the Commission of the Peace when it was
renewed, which was very different from taking his name out of the
Commission while the Commission was yet existing. As to the opinions of
the Judge, quoted by the noble Earl (Wicklow), he thought they were of
no authority, except on a point of law; and, in his political opinion,
he did not concur with the Judge. At the same time the Judge had only
stated, if the witnesses for the defendant spoke true, that the conduct
of Captain Graham was praiseworthy. The other cases quoted by the
noble Earl (Wicklow) did not bear on the point; because the noble Earl
had not stated what were the circumstances of these other cases; and,
unless these circumstances were stated, no correct opinion could be
formed. He admitted that the description given of
the affray at Newtownbarry, by the noble Earl, was correct; but he must
say, that the whole of the evil at Newtownbarry was caused by the
Yeomanry. The firing was begun by the Yeomanry, and continued much
longer than it ought to have been, and would have been, if they had been
military. He was apprehensive that there must be some mistake in
the assertion that Captain Graham was informed, on an application to the
Attorney General, that no further proceedings should be taken against
him. The Attorney General could not have made such a statement, because
he could not tell what additional evidence might be brought to light. A
second prosecution might be the result of such evidence, and proved no
particular asperity on the part of the prosecutor. With respect to the
Motion, some of the papers moved for were already published; the Report
made by Mr. Green was intended solely for the Lord Lieutenant, and he
hoped that the noble Earl would not press for that document.
said, he found it necessary to make a few observations on the
various statements which had issued from the opposite side of the House.
The noble Marquis, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had insinuated that
this case had been postponed till the period when the noble and learned
Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was absent. When his noble friend
(the Marquis of Westmeath) brought forward the Motion some time since—to
which reference had already been made—the
noble and learned Lord accused the noble Marquis of doing so, because
the noble Marquis, the Lord Lieutenant, was absent in Ireland; and now
he was accused of having introduced his Motion because the noble and
learned Lord was absent. He was well aware of the great talents and
sarcastic powers of that noble and learned Lord, yet he should have had
no objection to meet him upon the present question; and certainly his
absence had made no difference in his plans. The noble Marquis stated,
as a reason for the dismissal of Captain Graham, that he had been guilty
of an illegal act in calling out the Yeomanry. That law, as laid down by
the noble Marquis, was directly contrary, not only to the usually
received impressions on the subject, but to the circular letter of Mr.
Stanley. For his part, he would not hesitate to say, that, having
previously seen a precisely similar case in which the conduct pursued
met with the approbation of the Government, he should have thought it
his duty, under similar circumstances, to have acted exactly as Captain
Graham did. The noble Marquis also cast some
aspersions upon the Yeomanry concerned on that occasion, and stated that
some of them had fled the country. He was not surprised that such should
be the case; and the statement of the noble Marquis made it imperative
on him to declare some further facts. Very shortly after that
transaction, one of the Yeomanry engaged, who had received a shot in his
knee which was with difficulty extracted, had his house burned to the
ground. A letter was written by Lord Farnham to the Lord Lieutenant,
mentioning this gross outrage, and requesting that a proclamation should
be issued for the discovery of the perpetrators. He obtained an answer,
in which the Lord Lieutenant stated that that should be done. No
proclamation had, however, been issued up to that day. In the course of
the debate it had again been intimated, that Captain Graham had given
the orders to fire; but any noble Lord, who would take the trouble to
read the evidence, must be convinced that could not be the fact—for,
when the firing commenced, Captain Graham was not with the Yeomanry, but
was heading a column of police. Again, the letter from the Lord
Lieutenant, expressing disapprobation of the conduct of the Magistrates,
was not addressed to Captain Graham, but to Mr. Brereton; from which it
appeared, his Excellency thought both Magistrates in fault, although one
of them only was selected for punishment. Such a distinction made the case appear
more invidious. After what had been stated by the noble Viscount
(Melbourne), he would not press his Motion to a division.
Motion negatived |
See The Bowles of Great Britain
This page was last updated 10/18/18