The Marquess of Londonderrygave notice that, on Tuesday next, he should present a Petition, with which he had long since been charged, from 50,000 Protestants of the north of Ireland. He stated this, that noble Lords who had been or were connected with that country might have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments on the subject of this most important petition, and also because he hoped that on that occasion they should have an explanation from the noble Earl, now Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, made through the noble Viscount opposite, on the subject of that disgraceful procession which had lately occurred in Dublin, and also that they should be informed whether the noble Earl had taken any, and what steps, to prevent such scenes for the future.
§ Viscount Melbournecould have no objection to the noble Marquess's presenting the petition; but considering that it had been voted above six months ago, he must say, that it might have been presented before now. As to the procession alluded to, he was ready to give an explanation now; and that explanation was, that he did not believe that anything had occurred on that occasion in the slightest degree of an illegal nature, or at all fit to be made the subject of those at [...] ions which had been made upon it. 1292 There was a good deal of enthusiasm and a good deal of excitement, from the congregation of people, on this occasion of welcoming a popular nobleman on his coming to take on himself the office of Lord-lieutenant. The flags and banners had been entirely overstated; and as far as he could learn, there was nothing whatever, in the slightest possible degree, that could be called illegal, nor anything that exceeded the limits that must be allowed to the expression of popular feeling on all such occasions.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas not prepared to retract what he had been informed on the subject of the banners and flags displayed at the procession.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the noble Viscount having stated that there was nothing of an illegal nature in the procession, their Lordships were bound to believe the fact until evidence to a contrary effect was produced. But if it was true, as was now stated, that there were no proceedings of an illegal nature, then he must say that greater falsehoods or more gross fabrications had never issued from the press of any country than had issued from the press of Ireland on this subject, and not only from the press of Ireland, but of this country. If the statements made were not true, it was a case of most extraordinary fabrication. But the noble Viscount having stated, that there was no ground for the representations that had been made, they were bound to wait till evidence was produced before that House by some noble Lord, or by some other witness who had seen what was now denied. He should say no more of that, but he would take that opportunity of trespassing one moment on their Lordships' indulgence, which he was sure they would forgive him for doing when they knew that his object was to do justice to an individual (Mr. O'Loughlen, the Solicitor-General for Ireland) who considered himself to have been aggrieved by statements made in that House. At the time that he (the Earl of Wicklow) made the statements, he declared that he had no authority for them but that which he saw in the public prints. He had stated, that the individual in question had been present at a public meeting, and had heard a toast—the repeal of the Union—drunk, without any expression of disapprobation. He had said, that he made these statements from the newspapers; he believed them, as they had not been contradicted. He had this day received a letter from that gentleman, stating that he felt much hurt at the publicity that he (Lord 1293 Wicklow) had given to the charge; that he considered it as a grave charge brought against him; and that he asserted that there was not the slightest foundation for it; that he had not attended any such meeting, and that no such toast had been drunk.—The whole tenor of his letter showed that he did not approve of the Repeal. It gave him pleasure to see this. The gentleman who wrote this letter made two mistakes. In the first place, that gentleman conceived that he had first given publicity to the statement, and then he conceived that a charge was made against him. He had not first given publicity to that statement. It had first appeared in the Irish newspapers; and then in a paper of the greatest circulation, and certainly the best conducted in this country—he meant The Times newspaper. The learned Gentleman thought that the statement contained a charge against him. In his opinion it was no such thing. On the contrary he should say, that if the Gentleman was friendly to the Repeal of the Union, it would be a gross charge against him to say that he concealed that fact. If there had been any charge against any one, it would have been a charge against the Government for appointing a gentleman with such opinions to an official situation; but he was exceedingly happy to find that the whole circumstance was without foundation—that there was no charge against anybody; and it gratified him to find that the individual who had thus been placed in power and trust, was not connected with the party with which he had been supposed to be connected.