THE NORMANBY ADMINISTRATION IN IRELAND. "

The days are gone" when the calm discussion of Irish questions was impossible. The echo of the Rathcormac widow's moan has died away. The " hereditary bondsmen "—the" seven millions "- are no longer drawn up in formidable phalanx. It has been ascer- tained, that a little flattery and much corruption—blarney and bribery—will secure Milesmn support to any Government. The dark background of Connaught no longer alarms us ; the wild patriots of Munster are very manageable monsters ; and even Orangemen, with their" dry powder" and Hanoverian Grand Master, have dwindled into harmless shadows. This is an unhappy change for the Ministers, who drew the breath of life from Irish delusions —who always kept some Irish question in reserve for the day of distress and impending " resignation." Men now look boldly, or rather with indifference, at "the state of Ireland." Mr. O'CoNsimr, no longer stands out like a giant from the crowd of British pigmies. He can never be an insignificant, but certainly he is not at present a very important personage. He is no longer the main prop of the Government. Months pass away and the Tory journalists forget to abuse him. Buckingham Palace backs Lord MELBOURNE : to the Court, not the Catholics, he looks for support. When, therefore, Lord BaouanAst announced his intention of calling Lord NORMANBY to account, he provoked no public storm of indigna- tion, such as in 1835 would have overwhelmed him, Men are tolerably well disposed to " hear reason" now on Irish affitirs, almost as though they were British. The time has arrived when the plea, that all was one for the good of Ireland, will not prevent examination of particular acts. Irish Viceroys are no longer irre- sponsible deities.

In this frame of mind we approach the last "Irish question."

We have read large masses of the evidence taken by Lord RODEN'S Committee on the state of Crime in Ireland ; the portions on which Lord Bitouonsia founded his motion, having reference chiefly to the administration of justice ; and the drafts of two Re- ports submitted to the Committee by the Marquis of' WESTMEATU and Lord WHARNCLIFFE, but not adopted. There are two ques- tions involved,—one immediately concerns Lord NoRMANDY, the other the influence of his administration.

Now, as respects Lord NORMANBY, the perusal leaves this impression — that he is a popularity-hunter, who gained the distinction he coveted on very cheap terms. Any Irish Viceroy who will ally himself with Mr. O'CoNsism., and occasionally remit punishments which the Courts of justice award, may acquire a Noa- MANDY reputation. The late Lord-Lieutenant's disposition ac- corded well with that of the people he undertook to govern. He made a princely progress through the land, opened the prison-doors, anti appeared like a deliverer of the oppressed. The grateful creatures cheered him on his road from gaol to gaol. " Are there any peace-

ably-disposed fellows under your lock and key," said the Viceroy to the prison-keeper ? " Scores of them," submissively replies that disinterested functionary. " Then turn out fifty or sixty, and

when I arrive at Dublin your warrant for their release shall be despatched." Such was Lord NORMA NBY'S mode of exercising the royal prerogative of mercy. Of course it was all haphazard. For any thing Lord NORMANDY knew, he liberated the most trouble-

some and incorrigible reprobates, leaving the less guilty culprits in confinement. But it was an overflow of kindly feeling that induced the Viceroy to pardon the vicious—an indiscretion on the right

side. Then look to the consequences. how peaceful the land has become ! Jurors perform their duty ; witnesses give evidence when called upon ; the Irish millions, for the first time, have confidence in the Government !" Thus boast the NORMANBY patriots.

And there is some evidence to sustain the boast. Gladly did Lord NORMANBY escape from the defence of his personal conduct,

to the inure vague testimony of Assistant Barristers and Crown So- licitors on the state of the country. These gentlemen, who are removeable at pleasure, and naturally desirous of repi.esenting

matters favourably, described the conduct of the Irish people as

more peaceable under Lord NORMANBY than his predecessors. ‘' They were smitten with gratitude for my magnanimity," con-

cludes his Lordship, "and this generous people resolved that they

would bring offenders to justice as a return for my liberal exercise of her Majesty's prerogative of mercy." At the same time, credit is taken for that more rewards for the discovery of criminals were offered, and greater exertions made by Crown prosecutors, than under any former Viceroy. To these efforts Lord WHARNCLIFFE ascribes the improvement which is visible in parts of the country ; and it is not incredible that a firm and just execution of the law may deter offenders fully as much as the lax and capricious rends- sion of punishment. Though we cannot avoid the conclusion that Lord NORMANBY did use his high functions in a manner culpably careless, if not

capricious,—though we utterly deny that such an exercise of power could increase popular respect for the Queen's Representative, or deter ill-disposed persons from crime,—we are desirous of believing the numerous statements, that, on the whole, Ireland improved

under the NORMANDY Administration : but it were a dangeroo precedent to establish, that the pardon of two or three hundred criminals can gain popularity for a Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; and we rather believe that it was in spite of, not in consequefiVehr, - Lord NORMANBY'S doings in this regard, that the country has thritien and the offences against public order been diminished. As to the charge against Lord BaotiGnAnt, that he attacked his old friends at an inconvenient time, it is simply absurd. Lord NORMANIIY complained that he wanted leisure to prepare hh defence ; and yet he declared that all the matter of inculps..• tion was old, and had been sifted in Parliament two years ask " / ant quite ignorant of the ease," said Lord MEr.nounwn ; have not read the evidence, and therefore the house ought to et. press no opinion on the conduct of' the Irish Administration." The reply is, that Lord NORMANBY was furnished with a copy d the evidence given to the Committee from day to day; and that Lord MELBOURNE had not looked at it, he has no right ht gmislkateuh own negligence an obstruction to the proceedings of reis. Thu Al Emativaxii Whigs ima ' gine that it' they produce evidence of their Viceroy being popular, in whatever way his popularity my. have been acquired, it is little short of treason to express dia. approval of particular acts of his government. But popularity may be obtained by unworthy means, and it is a duty of Parlia. ment to investigate such complaints as those made against Lord NORMANDY and to return a true verdict, according to the evi• deuce, on distinct acts, though the general result of his adminis- tration might on the whole be gratifying. This is what the Lords did on Lord lin 017011AM'S motion. They passed no sentence of condemnation on the Marquis of' NORMAN fly's Administration as a whole, but declared that certain of' his proceedings were con. surable, and ought not to be repeated by his successors.