except under restrictions which would not be felt by
the peaceable inhabitants, but would reach effectually the disaffected
masses. This bill was at first supported by both the Whigs and Tories,
acting under a sense of the common danger to society in Ireland, which
would exist so long as the refractory populace had easy access to arms.
The efforts to procure both fire and side-arms, all over the country,
were extraordinary; this fact alarmed the Whigs, and made them feel
disposed to support Sir Robert: the Conservatives were always ready
to entertain repressive measures for Ireland. Both parties at last
perceived that the tendency of the bill was to strengthen Sir Robert's
government, and, therefore, although they supported the first reading,
they determined to give it, in its future stages, a determined
opposition. The ground taken by Lord John Russell, as the whig leader,
was, that if Ireland was criminal she was also oppressed; that measures
of coercion and redress should proceed _pari passu_. He would not
support repression, unless accompanied by relief. Lord George Bentinck,
as the conservative leader, took different ground. He admitted that the
state of Ireland was such as to require extra constitutional remedies,
but such ought not to be entrusted to any but constitutional ministers;
that Sir Robert did not advise her majesty in the spirit of the
constitution, and he (Lord George) would not therefore confide so large
a responsibility to his administrative discretion. The union of the two
parties ensured the minister's defeat, although the first reading was
carried after seven nights' debate. Sir W. Somerville, then a popular
and influential member of the whig party, proposed an amendment on the
9th of June, when the bill was brought up for a second reading; the
amendment was its postponement for six months, and was carried by a
large majority. This decided the fate of the Peel administration. During
the debate Lord George Bentinck gave an unhappy proof of his inaccuracy
of statement and party spirit. He accused Sir Robert Peel of having made
up his mind in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation, before he turned
Mr. Canning out of office on that very question. This allegation was
made in terms of the bitterest reproach, and was placed in such a form
and light before the house, as, if true, must have left the impression
that Sir Robert was a man destitute of all principle and honour. The
following Friday, the 12th of