man named Thomas Kenny, and having forced open the door, one of them suddenly entered, and in a menacing tone commanded Kenny to go down on his knees, but which he refused to do without knowing why or wherefore. The fellow then deliberately presented a pistol and discharged it at the unfortunate man, wounding him in three places in the right leg, but not badly, with slugs. He then threatened to fire at him again with more fatal effect, should he continue obstinate in refusing to go on his knees, and handed out the pistol to his companions to reload for that purpose. Kenny was forced to comply, when his assailant swore him to give up possession of his holding to his brother-in-law, John Roddy, and then left the house. Kenny saw the three fellows decamping together with great speed. It appears that Roddy, the former tenant, had been ejected for non-payment of rent about seven years since, and Kenny put in possession, and contiued so since. There is no clue to the knowledge of the party. Kenny cannot identify any of them, but, I believe, would if he could." party, as the houses are only about a mile distant from each other. The party on arriving at Walsh's knocked at the front door; before it could be opened the back one was forced in, by which a dresser was thrown down and several articles broken. Walsh was laid hold of by three or four men, one of whom caught his left ear, and gave it a cut as if with a shears, but did not take off the bit. I understand it has been stitched. This is all the injury he sustained. The party entered Mark Burke's by knocking at the door. He got up and opened it, when he was immediately seized, and after some time one of the fellows cut off the upper part of his left ear. He sustained no other injury in person or property. At this house one of the party directed a candle to be lighted, but the others would not allow it. The inmates state that they did not know them. A description could not be obtained. Walsh's wife saw them after they left the house, through an opening over the door, but cannot describe them. The general opinion is that the party were strangers; if so, they must have had a guide, from the nature of the country, and situation of the houses. The fellows told Burke that his offence was for having voted for Mr. Moore. They were the only two freeholders in the neighbourhood who voted for Mr. Moore." Hon. Gentlemen might say that this case was s one of the agrarian class, and he of eourse admitted that it was so. He thought, however, he had now established his case, that there was no relation of life that was [Mr. D BROWNE: What is the name of the not interfered with. It was impossible for noble Lord's correspondent?] The hon. public duties or private functions to be Member must pardon him if he did not performed with impunity. Mayo was not answer that question. He would not howone of the five counties, but a case occur-ever, quote from any letter or report which red there which evinced the system of terror that prevailed : "I have to report, that on last night, about the hour of 8 or 9 o'clock, a party of men, about four or five in number, attacked the house of E. Walsh, and in a most inhuman manner cut off the unfortanate man's ears, and on going away fired a shot. Having voted for Mr. Moore at last election, they assigned as the cause for such brutal treatment. It appeared there was no report made to the constable at Ballyhane. Mr. Barron and I have consulted, and agree in opinion in suggesting a large reward for such an outrage in a hitherto peaceable unty." [Mr. D. BROWNE: In what part of the county?] He could not make out the handwriting, which was extremely bad; but he thought it looked like Castlefor, or some such name. [Mr. D. BROWNE: I dare say it is Castlebar, the county town of Mayo.] He thanked the hon. Gentleman, who was no doubt correct. He would continue his quotation :— "Castlebar, April 9. With reference to my report of yesterday, the Sth instant, relative to the outrage on Edward Walsh, I have further to report, that on visiting the seene, I found that a similar outrage had been comitted on a man named Mark Burke, residing on the adjoining townland, Bollyruck, same parish and barony; also a 101. freeholder, and tenant to Lord Sligo. Neither man was injured to the extent I anticipated, and it appears, from all I could kr, both houses were attacked on the same night, the 7th, between the hours of 12 and 2 'clock, and it is generally supposed by the same he did not know to be trustworthy. These offences were not of an agrarian character, and the House might ask in what they had originated? He confessed he could not answer that question, but he would read a short extract from the evidence given before Lord Devon's Commission. Mr. Cahill, Crown prosecutor at the quarter sessions for Tipperary, and an extensive land agent, was asked, speaking of persons convicted of offences chiefly connected with the occupation of land," waylaying offences"and the answer may probably be taken to apply to other offences "Have you had an opportunity of forming a instigated by others, or were they revenging any judgment whether the persons so convicted were supposed wrongs of their own? They have generally committed these offences in consequence of the disputes of other persons, being connexions of their own, either by relationship or being their employers. I have also known instances where violent assaults have been committed by persons who absolutely did not know the persons they were employed toʼassault, and the person assaulted did not know them. They had never seen each other, but were pointed out by third parties; and some of the most desperate assaults I ever knew were committed in that way. In those cases do the outrages generally appear to be the result of system, or are they perpetrated at the instigation of an individual? At the instigation of individual malice in all the cases that come within my knowledge; but it is the habit of the country, where malice of that kind arises, to revenge it in a particrlar manner." 66 66 He now came to another important point. | furnished in the monthly returns, under the The hon. and learned Member for Cork heads, "House Attacks,' Assaults on had remarked to the House the other night Police," "Levelling," "Turning up Land," that crime had diminished in Ireland since or Cutting, Maiming, or Killing Cattle," the introduction of the present Bill, and nor cases of murder and homicide, a sepathe hon. and learned Gentleman had at-rate return of these two last classes of tributed that fact to the exertions made by offences having been moved for by the right the Government to meet the distress in hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Pigot), which many parts of Ireland. Now, if it were he had to regret had been so lately retrue that crime had indeed greatly dimin- ceived that it had not been possible that ished during the last three or four months, they should be printed so as to have been he did not think that, looking at the cir- in the hands of Members that morning. He cumstances of the case, that would be a would proceed to compare from the sumground for resisting the second reading of mary of those returns the offences of the this Bill. The hon. Baronet had assumed last five months with those of the preceding the diminution of crime to be an established year; and he was quite sure that hon. Genfact. He wished it were. There were tlemen, when they came to have the Papers reasons why crime ought to diminish at this in their hands, would agree with him, that season of the year. During the long days not only in the description of crime, but crime did usually for a time diminish. He also most certainly in the aggregate of was so satisfied the hon. Baronet was right crime, there had been little or no practical in his assumption of the fact, that he was diminution of crime in those five counties, very nearly not investigating the subject with the exception of Leitrim. In Leitrim, at all. The hon. Baronet said, the moral he did rejoice to say-and he congratulated effect produced by the first reading of this the noble Lord the Member for that county Bill had not been great. He was willing (Viscount Clements) on the fact-there had to admit that the effects in Ireland of the been a considerable diminution of crime. debates in this House, among the classes But when the grounds of that diminution principally concerned in crimes of this de- of crime came to be investigated, they scription, might not be very considerable, would be considered, he was convinced, to yet they ought not to be discarded from strengthen rather than diminish the neconsideration, and they might perhaps be cessity for this measure. As regarded, regarded as one of the causes of the then, a comparison of these five counties as diminution of crime. The Government to crime with the whole of Ireland, there had endeavoured to provide employment were of the offences to which he referand food for the destitute poor of Ire- red in the last five months 2,098 comland; but, as this was a sudden emer-mitted in the whole of Ireland; in these gency, and the remedy was a temporary five counties 1,188, or considerably more one, if hon. Members assigned that as than half the crimes committed in the a reason, they would lay no grounds for whole of Ireland. He had not had time the rejection of that Bill. But he was since the arrival of these Papers yesterday obliged to undeceive the House with re- even to work the sum in arithmetic, which spect to this diminution of crime. He had would have enabled him to present the before him a copy of the return of the of- exact comparison between the present state fences committed during the five months of these counties as to crime with their confrom December 31 to May 31. These re-dition in the preceding year; but he could turns were made in pursuance of an Order assure the House that there had been of the House of Commons of the 28th of practical diminution. The numbers stoo May last, and were returns of all aggra- thus:-In Clare there had been 171 of vated assaults, assaults endangering life, fences in the period he had mentioned. incendiary fires, demands or robberies of Leitrim, 171-an amount which presente arms and appearing armed, unlawful ad- a very considerable diminution; but then i ministering of oaths, threatening letters must be remembered that it was a diminu or notices, malicious injuries to property, nution from an excessive amount. In L firings into dwellings, arising between merick, 210; in Roscommon, he was sorr the 31st of December last and the 31st to say, there had been a very considerabl of May, specifying the time and place, and increase; the number was 383. In Ti the names, condition in life, &c., of the perary, 286; making in all 1,188 offence persons injured, and the supposed causes. compared to 2,098 in the whole of Irelan They did not, however, include the cases Now, these crimes were, as he had alread I remarked, not only of a local nature, but it was remarkable that they did not exist in those parts of Ireland which on former occasions had been found to be infected with this disease. It might be desirable to state the amounts of population in some of these counties, and to compare them with the amount of crime and population of other counties. In Roscommon, in these five months, there had been 383 offences, in a population of 253,000. In Kerry, with the much larger population of 293,000, there had occurred during that time only 16 offences. Another comparison might be made with the county of Kerry. The hon. Gentleman opposite had endeavoured to raise a laugh against him, in consequence of his not having been able to read a word in one of the letters he had just quoted, as though he had been ignorant that Castlebar was in Mayo; but he believed, unless he really was ignorant of the geography of Ireland, that the county of Kerry adjoined the county of Limerick. [Mr. D. BROWNE had meant to intimate that if the noble Lord was ignorant that Castlebar was the county town of Mayo, he might be ignorant who was his correspondent.] In the county of Limerick, with a population of 281,000, the number of offences was 210, as compared with sixteen in Kerry. In Leitrim, the offences were 138, the population 155,000; whilst in the adjacent county of Fermanagh, with a population very nearly equal, namely, 156,000, the crimes were only 14. In Antrim, the population was 276,000, the number of offences only 17. In the county of Dublin, exclusive of the city, the population being 140,000, the offences were only four. Now, he thought that these were facts which went far to establish to his own mind they most clearly proved-how purely local was the character of these offences: and that, he thought, was a fact which strengthened and corroborated the ground which had been laid for the enactment of this mea sure. As he had said, he quite admitted that which the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment had laid down as the duty of the Government on proposing a measure of this nature. The hon. Baronet stated there were three things which the Government ought to prove, and the first was the necessity of legislation of some kind. Now, he did think that with the facts before the House, which had been laid before them in the former debate, and with the proofs that he thought he had given that these offences VOL. LXXXVII. {} Third Series were not only not in the majority of cases, but also not in any large proportion, of an agrarian character, with the proofs that he had given that there had not been a diminution of crime in the last five months, the case of necessity for legislation required by the hon. Baronet had been clearly made ont. The hon. Baronet also stated that it would be the duty of the Government to prove that they had attempted to meet this case by putting in execution the powers of the existing law, and that they had failed in the attempt; and the hon. Baronet had asked why they had not issued special commissions, and given that mode the fair trial they were bound to have given it. The hon. Baronet had further observed that a special commission had been sent down to the county of Westmeath; and, without stating the circumstances under which that special commission had taken place, asked whether there was anything in the condition of these five counties that rendered it impossible to have treated them as we had treated Westmeath. But in Westmeath, it must be remembered, there had happened to have been within the six weeks preceding the issue of the special commission not only a great accumulation of offences, but a great accumulation of prisoners in the gaol committed for trial; and in consequence of that, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, he believed, but certainly the magistrates and gentry, had applied to the Government to issue a special commission. The Government hesitated for some time whether they should do so; and they first sent down a person to investigate as to the evidence that would be produced to substantiate the prosecutions, and whether there was any necessity to issue a special commission. The result was, that the commission was issued; but when the hon. Baronet asked why was not that course taken with respect to those five counties, if it had been thought proper with respect to Westmeath, he answered by replying that although they had to deal, in those counties, with a state of crime so great, and outrages so numerous, yet, that the instances of detection were so few, and the committals so rare, that it was evident there would be no advantage in issuing a special commission, which would end in nothing. When, therefore, the Government was taxed by the hon. Member for Drogheda, and by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, with not issuing special commissions, let him remind the IIouse that this was a new charge, and that these were not the G 44 answer was, "Do you conceive that undue protection is given His to the parties engaged in these outrages?" piers of land, farmers and small tenants, will all My impression is, that the occureceive a man that they know to have been guilty of a crime of that description, and that they will harbour him and protect him, and he is, in point of fact, looked upon as a better man than another, because he has put down what they call a tyrant. He is sure of being received wherever he goes, and has the character of what they call a 'good boy.' Now, this was the evidence of Mr. Cahill as to the difficulty of obtaining evidence. But, he thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda was entitled to require from him a still more distinct proof than those he had yet given, that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of views that had generally been entertained hitherto by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If he was not much mistaken, Lord Althorp, in bringing forward the measure of 1833, had dwelt on this, that he considered special commissions were totally inadequate in cases of this kind; and that noble Lord stated reasons which he must say were most convincing to his mind to show that to issue special commissions in a state of circumstances like the present, was neither desirable nor wise. The House would remember also that in 1835, in speaking on the Coercion Bill of that year, the hon. and learned Member for Cork, who supported it in all its provisions, stated that he did so on this special ground—that it was necessary for the Go-issuing special commissions; and he should vernment to meet these crimes by some give that proof. He assured the House means; and that, deprecating as he did that not only were there difficulties in prospecial commissions, he thought the Go- curing evidence, but that, numerous as vernment had taken the wiser and better were the outrages, the committals were course in proposing that measure. The rare indeed. He had not been able to exhon. and learned Gentleman had given his tract from the reports of the outrages of support to that measure with expressions last year the exact proportion of commitwhich he, unwilling as he always was to tals and offences; but he was enabled to quote Hansard to the House, would not give the proportion in each of the five recall to their recollection; but he would countios for the first five months of the only say they were stronger than he should present year, as regarded the offences to use, though he certainly thought that to which he had before referred. He had issue special commissions in these cases already stated that in these five counties for would neither have been wise nor prudent. the five months ending the 31st of May Before a special commission could be is- there had been 1,088 offences, and out sued, it must be ascertained that there was of that number there were only 54 comevidence forthcoming to maintain the pro- mittals. In Tipperary there had been secutions. Now, what was the evidence 286 offences and 19 committals; in Limeof Mr. Cahill on this point? He was asked rick, 210 offences and 12 committals; in whether he had observed that when agra- Leitrim, 138 offences and 8 committals; rian outrages had been committed the in Clare, 171 offences and 7 committals; country people about had been cognizant and in Roscommon the disproportion was of the perpetrators; and he answered that greater than in all the other counties; for he was perfectly convinced that no outrage while, as he had already intimated, crime of the sort occurred but the parties about was greatly on the increase, the offences knew all the circumstances, and also the for the period referred to being 383, there parties concerned in the outrage. Mr. had been only eight persons committed. Cahill also declared, that he was able to Now he said, that if there were no other state generally that there was an utter in- objection than this, it sufficiently proved disposition to give any evidence whatever to the hon. Member for Drogheda that the of any offence connected with the occupa-issuing of a special commission was tion of land; and that, though such hold-practical impossibility and a nullity. The ing back might be attributable in some de- Government, he maintained, had tried gree to terror, there was besides an actual such means as the law authorized to meet indisposition on the part of the people to the circumstances of the country. His give evidence; for that the people thought right hon. Friend at the head of the Gotheir own interests were bound up in the vernment had gone at such length into this cause of the parties committing these mur- subject on a former occasion, that he should ders, and that any party giving evidence not dwell on it now. But he would repeat, against them was looked upon as an enemy that they had fulfilled the demand made of the general class to which he belonged. upon them by the hon. Member for DrogMr. Cahill was further asked— heda. It remained only to deal with the a did not mean that; but he assured the hon. Gentleman that it would be found that the offences against life were in much the same proportions between night and day. He repeated, that in Tipperary, out of 260 offences, between 130 and 140 were committed at night, and only between 50 and 60 by day. In 60 or 70 cases the hour was not specified. In Leitrim, out of 359 cases, between 200 and 210 were com But hon. Member's last question, which he had a right to have answered, namely, would this Bill be efficacious if passed? Now, he knew that it was always difficult to speak of the future. Other things might admit of proof, but that which belonged to futurity could not be proved. It was only by reference to past experience, as to what had already taken place, that one could even argue as to what might be expected hereafter. In the first place, as re-mitted by night, and between 90 and 100 garded the efficacy of the measure, an objection had been raised on a previous occasion, and repeated by the hon. Gentleman the seconder of the Amendment, namely, that the majority of the outrages took place by day. [Mr. BERNAL: I said attempts at assassination.] He thought the hon. Member had referred to outrages generally, and had argued that, as the provisions of the Bill referred to outrages by night, the measure would have no effect. But if the hon. Member had not made the statement that the greater number of outrages took place during the day, others had; and he assured them they were greatly mistaken, for, on the contrary, the great majority took place during the night. He assured the hon. Member that even he would find himself mistaken; and that when he came to investigate the case more closely, he would find that even attempts at murder most frequently occurred at night. But, even if it were the fact that the greater number of attempts at murder took place during the day, it would not be denied that they were usually plotted at night. But even if the hon. Gentleman and others were quite correct as respected the comparison they had stated, that had reference to only one clause of the Bill, and there were other provisions to meet the day assailant as well as the night assailant. He was not, he was sorry to say, so well prepared to prove this part of the case by calculations framed from the returns on the Table as he had been some other parts; but nevertheless he would mention the proportions in two counties, which he believed were a fair sample of the other counties. As he had stated in answer to the right hon. Gentleman who put the question in the course of his speech, there were some cases in which the hour of the day or night was not mentioned; but it appeared that in Tipperary out of 260 of fences contained in the list which he had presented to the House that day, between 130 and 140 were committed at night. [Mr. BERNAL : Not against life?] No; he by day. The number unenumerated was He |