The Earl of Wicklowwished to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a subject which appeared to him to be intimately connected with the peace of Ireland. When, some years ago, the Party Processions Prohibition Act was passed, although it was evidently directed against the Orange party in Ireland, yet it was so framed that it might be extended to all processions of political parties in that country. Unfortunately, since that time a new party had arisen, and the right of meeting had been turned into a curse. A description of processions was now common in Ireland, which arising out of circumstances in themselves great blessings to the country, had been made the occasion for practices which had tended to increase animosity and ill-will (the 877 noble Earl apparently alluded to the Temperance Societies). The whole of those who attended the meetings and processions to which he referred were of one particular religion and one political party, and they had their distinguishing emblems and banners. Under these circumstances, and in this state of things, his object was to ascertain whether it was the intention of Government to renew the Party Processions Act? and if so, whether under this alteration of circumstances, it was intended to put down this new description of processions? If these processions were allowed under the Act, a new principle would be introduced by the Government that would tend exceedingly to lower their character for impartiality. For his own part, he was perfectly convinced that there was not the slightest danger to be apprehended, if this Act were not renewed. The parties against whom it was originally directed placed the utmost confidence in those to whom they conceived confidence to be due, and they had not shown any disposition to march in procession—he thought, therefore, that the Government might abstain from renewing the Act altogether. But if it were renewed, it ought, he submitted, to include the processions of all those societies and associations that had recently sprung up. He begged leave to observe, that he had abstained from putting these questions until the anniversary days had passed when certain processions formerly took place in Ireland—and those days, so far as he was yet informed, had gone by without the slightest breach of order having been committed.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that although his noble Friend had, he thought, rather exceeded the bounds of order in the observations which he had made, he had no objection to give such answers as he could to the questions which he had put. His noble Friend, if he referred to the Votes of the House of Commons, would find that a Bill had been brought in on the subject he referred to, and that it stood for Committee this evening. In what state that Bill might come up to their Lordships it was impossible for him (Lord Wharncliffe to predict; he believed, however, that the Bill renewed till the 1st of June, 1845, an Act already existing against Party Processions in Ireland, which would give Parliament time to reconsider the whole subject. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be right for him 878 on the present occasion to enter upon any reply to his noble Friend's remarks. When the Bill came up from the other House there would be a proper opportunity for discussing the subject, and his noble Friend might propose any Amendment which he thought the Bill required. He would only add, however, that he thought he would find it very difficult to frame a Clause which would put an end to the temperance meetings which would not also put down all public societies whatever.