ver
they might be found.

_April 27, 1843._

* * * * *

_Reasons for the Dismissal of the Irish Magistrates._

These gentlemen having been some of the persons to instigate and
encourage the assembly of those large meetings in Ireland, on which the
first law authority had pronounced in writing the opinion that they had
a "tendency to outrage;" that "they were not in the spirit of the
constitution, and may become dangerous to the State;" the
lord-lieutenant of the government could not put any confidence in the
performance of their duties by these magistrates and deputy-lieutenants,
who had thus excited these meetings, or who presided at them. Your
lordships are perfectly aware that on one occasion it was proved that
these meetings had a tendency to outrage--indeed, outrage was actually
committed. I told your lordships on a former occasion that there was a
great difference in Ireland on the subject of the repeal of the union.
Now, suppose that two assemblies representing such opinions assemble on
the same occasion and in the same neighbourhood, why it is obvious that
outrage and bloodshed may occur, and it must be likewise obvious that
those magistrates and deputy-lieutenants are not officers on whom the
Lord-lieutenant can rely for carrying into execution measures for the
repression and suppression of outrage which he may think proper to take
on such an occasion. My lords I have besides to observe to your lordships,
that for a very considerable period of time it has been a matter of
notoriety in Ireland that the members of her Majesty's council, her
majesty's servants in this and the other house of arliament, declared it
to be the fixed and positive determination of the government to maintain
inviolate the legislative union between the two countries. Some of the
most distinguished members of both houses of parliament declared, in their
places, that they had the same intention; and this declaration of opinion
has been communicated to the public more than once; and in no one instance,
as I believe, has there been an intention avowed to promote the object of
this repeal of the union. Well, then, what must be inferred from the
notoriety of that fact? What but that the repeal of the union, so far as
a vote of parliament is concerned, is hopeless? It is to be carried then
by intimidation, by force, and violence; and, of course, as the government,
whose duty it is to resist and repress such act