HL Deb 10 May 1842 vol 63 cc330-3
Lord Clifford,

of Chudleigh, presented six petitions from Roman Catholics in different parts of England, complaining of grievances in the want of the means of religious instruction to their fellow-subjects of the same creed in the army and navy, and some of our foreign possessions, and also in prisons and workhouses. He concurred in the prayer of the petitions, and he hoped that the attention of Government would be directed to the subject. He had given notice, That a committee of this House be appointed to inquire how far it is in the power of the Governor in Council in the Presidency of Madras to afford that protection to her Majesty's subjects, whether British or native, which it was the intention of the East India Bill of 1833 that they should thenceforward enjoy; and that such committee be instructed to hear evidence on the subject and to report thereon to the House. It had been his intention to urge this motion on the attention of their Lordships, but circumstances which had lately occurred in India induced him not to press it at the time. He would only state some of the grounds of the course he took. An a Irish Roman Catholic priest went to Calcutta at the time when his noble and lamented Friend (Lord W. Bentinck) was Governor-general of India. That clergy- man, on arriving at Calcutta, produced his authority from the head of the Catholic church to exercise his functions as a minister of that communion. To the extent of receiving that rev. gentleman, and sanctioning his ministry, his noble and lamented friend might be said to have admitted the Roman Catholic religion on sufferance, as it were; but to no greater extent could he 1 have been said to establish that system in British India. The Portuguese Governor at Goa laid claim on behalf of Portugal to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Hindostan. Complaints had been made against his noble and lamented friend, that he interfered with the rights of the Portuguese Government, in allowing any priest to remain in India who had not been appointed by Portuguese authorities. Now there was one fact which, as he had so far trespassed already upon their Lordships' attention, he should beg leave shortly to state. There were churches in India which had been built by individuals on their own ground and with their own money, and what was the cause of complaint against those owners of churches? No more than this, that they refused to give up the keys of their own churches to persons appointed by Portuguese authorities, and admitted clergymen, their own fellow-subjects, to officiate there in; and the persons who did this were imprisoned. The magistrate by whom they were imprisoned was said to be a person of excellent character, who acted under the control of Mr. Blackburne, a gentleman who had been resident in India ever since the year 1815, and who had held many situations, and he believed there was no doubt of his being generally a very benevolent man. That which occurred was probably no fault of his, and had it not been for his presence perhaps greater cruelties might have been inflicted. The noble Lord next proceeded to observe, that in withdrawing his motion he wished their Lordships distinctly to understand that he had not changed his opinions in any respect. His conviction had in no degree been altered, as to the system of which he complained being dangerous to her Majesty's interests in India. His principal reason for withdrawing his motion was, that he understood the Government were going to take the matter up, and notice of a motion had already been given in the other House on the subject. He trusted that the principle of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1S29 would now be acted on and carried out, and he hoped be might take the liberty of adding, that if any one person more than another was called on to see that measure well administered, it was the noble Duke opposite. It had been said when he first brought forward this motion that he should regret it. He could see no reason why he should regret it. But it was not for any personal interests whatever that he had brought the subject forward. True it was, that he had withdrawn the motion, with the consent of various persons connected with the order. Having done all he thought it his duty to do, he was relieved from a task which it was not necessary to pursue further. He begged leave to withdraw his motion.

Lord Fitzgerald

said, the House could not expect that he should follow his noble Friend into the various points which his speech embraced, as the noble Lord had not persevered in his motion. Had he done so, he should have had great difficulty in acceding to its terms, which devolved such large functions upon a committee. But he could not help saying, that a different impression had been made upon his mind by a perusal of the papers connected with the conduct of the collector and magistrate of Madura than upon the noble Lord's. Blame had been imputed to that gentleman which he did not deserve, and which the papers did not bear out. The preservation of the peace of the district had been committed to him, as well as the maintenance in their places of worship of persons who had been in the habit of officiating there. It was; not for him to inquire into the bull of the Pope, nor could he be cognizant of the principle of the Roman Catholic church, that a person not in communication with the vicar apostolic was a schismatic. There was another imputation, which seemed by the context of the noble Lord's speech to be made upon Mr. Blackburne—that he permitted torture to be applied to British subjects. This was an imputation which he denied, upon the authority of Mr. Blackburne and upon that of the noble Lord himself, whose testimony in favour of Mr. Blackburne's character showed that he was; incapable of such an act. The full information required by Lord Ellenborough had not yet been received in England, and, considering its voluminous character, this was not surprising. The noble Lord might have information, for he had several correspondents in India; but the facts he had stated were not authenticated by any papers before their Lordships. He would state to his noble Friend now what he had assured him in private, that it was the anxious wish of her Majesty's Government to give their attention to this case, as to every case under the Government of her Majesty. He thought the subjects of Great Britain in India had peculiar claims on the care and solicitude of the authorities of England, not because he doubted the impartiality and justice of the Indian Government, but owing to their distance from the seat of the supreme Government, and because their prejudices and feelings were not so represented in this country as if they had been included in the country.

Motion withdrawn.

House adjourned.