162J ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



The nature and extent of the evil 

 should have been made known to 

 the house, that it might in its 

 wisdom apply the proper remedy. 

 The most correct manner of pro- 

 ceeding was to refer the documents 

 to a select or secret committee. 



Lord Castlereagh saw no neces- 

 sity for such a proceeding, as the 

 disturbances were so notorious as 

 to be admitted on all sides. 



Sir Hen. Parnell said, it would 

 have been moie agreeable to him 

 if the state of Ireland had been 

 discussed in a committee before the 

 present measure was introduced, 

 since it might now be thought 

 that the house had acted precipi- 

 tately, upon the spur of the occa- 

 sion. It appeared to him neces- 

 sary that the magistrates should be 

 armed with additional authority, 

 but he was not friendly to a sys- 

 tem which punished without the 

 intervention of a jury. 



Mr. Fitzgerald observed, that it 

 was most unfortunate that the trial 

 by jury in those parts of Ireland 

 which were disturbed could not be 

 acted upon beneficially, because 

 information could not be obtained 

 against those who violated the 

 laws. 



Some other Irish members spoke 

 in approbation of the proposed 

 measure, and leave was given to 

 bring in the bill. 



On the motion for its second read- 

 ing, July 13th, Mr. Horner rose 

 to oppose the bill. He said, it 

 was an unconstitutional measure, 

 brought forward towards the close 

 of the session, when most of the 

 members for Ireland were absent, 

 and not called for by any sudden 

 emergency or new occurrence. 

 He was convinced that it would 

 ^end rather to exasperate the peo- 

 ple, and exaggerate the evils com- 



plained of, than to remedy them, 

 and could not consent, without 

 much stronger groundb, to violate 

 the trial by jury, and suspend the 

 ordinary operation of the laws. 



Mr. Peel, in reply, defended 

 the bill, as being a copy of that 

 which passed in 1807, and could 

 not be thought less necessary in 

 the present circumstances of the 

 country. He entered into vari- 

 ous particulars for its vindica- 

 tion, and said, that the argument 

 from experience was altogether ia 

 its favour, si nee the very passing of 

 the act in 1807 had rendered it 

 unnecessary to carry it into execu- 

 tion. 



Sir S. Romilly said, that the 

 precedent of the act of 1807 had 

 no weight with him, since he had 

 thought then, as he now did, that 

 no such bill ought to pass till a 

 committee had been appointed to 

 enquire into its necessity. As a 

 reason for the former act, it had 

 been declared that a French party 

 then existed in Ireland, but at 

 present we were at peace with 

 France. 



Some other members took ihp 

 same ground of the propriety of 

 previous enquiry ; and Mr, J- -P. 

 Grant contended that tlie state of 

 Ireland imperiously called upon 

 parliament for a thorough investiga- 

 tion, since its diseases lay deeper, 

 and required a radical remedy. Oa 

 the otherhand, the bill was support- 

 ed as a measure of immediate neces- 

 sity ; and at the conclusion of the 

 debate it was read a second time. 



The house being in committee o^ 

 the bill on July 14th, SirH. Paniell 

 rose, and made a speech, the princi- 

 pal object of which was to censure 

 the omission of the righithon. morer 

 in not noticing the disturbances ex- 

 isting in the province of Ulster, 



