HC Deb 18 May 1825 vol 13 cc784-8
Mr. Brougham

presented a petition from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Taghadoe, praying that, as the proportion of the Roman Catholics to Protestants in that parish was three hundred to one, they might not be obliged to build a church for Mr. Grierson, a member of the Protestant establishment. A more humble or reasonable request never was made to this or any other public body. The petitioners stated, that t lit re was a very good church in the neighbourhood, in which Mr. Grierson had a free pew; that whereas he required a sexton, sextoness, pew-opener, clerk, and others, in all six people, to attend to the salvation of his spirit; they prayed that he might open the pew himself, that he might dig his own grave, and perform the other duties in his own character. This was the request these individuals made; and a more fair and reasonable one never was made. As this was a petition from Roman Catholics, he could not help adverting to an event which had occurred since the House had last met; he meant the rejection of the Roman Catholic bill by the House of Lords. He deplored the rejection of the bill by a majority, which, if not altogether unexpected would prove a source of bitter disappointment to millions of subjects. He hoped that before the present session passed aver some palliative might be administered for such a disappointment. While Ireland was Ireland it never could be set at rest, except by the two House together with the Crown, concurring to give to Ireland equal and impartial justice. The bill had had the aspirations of six millions of loyal subjects. How long a constant renewal of hope and a perennial disappointment could be endured and how soon despair might take place, let the Lords determine; for the House of Commons had done its duty. Not Only had the bill the aspirations of six millions of fellow-subjects, but it had the support of the greatest men, Burke, Romilly, Whitbread, and others; and greater than all, Fox and Grattan, who were the fathers of this measure. The wisest men of the present generation were the constant, zealous, friends of this measure. Great lawyers were in its favour, he meant not men on this side of the House—not men great in their own estimation, but great in the estimation of a higher authority—he meant great in the estimation of the lord high chancellor of England; for if they were not great in that noble lord's estimation, what a pusillanimous course was his, who, to keep his own paltry place, permitted his colleagues, with whom he differed, to keep those great lawyers in the highest legal offices under the prince whom he served. He said, "great lawyers"—the Attorney-general for Ireland was a great lawyer. Eloquent he was, and that the House knew; able he was, and that the lord chancellor knew and felt; and he, the lord chancellor, was either the meanest of men, or he, the lord chancellor, thought and knew that Mr. Plunkett was a great lawyer. That was the authority by which this bill was recommended. On that authority rested the case; and he prayed to God that measures might yet be taken to remedy the present evils.

Sir T. Lethbridge

said, that if the observations of the learned gentleman had not been said by him to be parliamentary, he should have thought them quite out of order. If any portion of the community were disappointed by the vote of the other House, he hoped they would still be distinguished for that loyalty by which they had been hitherto characterized. He was sorry that his right hon. friend had not been in the House when the learned gentleman made his speech; a speech which seemed prepared for the occasion, and which was certainly exceedingly well got up. He was surprised that the learned gentleman should have had the bad taste to come down and question the decision of last night. The petition seemed to have been kept back for the occasion.

Mr. Spring Rice rose

for the purpose of setting the hon. baronet right with respect to the circumstances under which his learned friend had presented the petition. He could assure the hon. baronet that he was quite mistaken in supposing his learned friend had had it in his possession for a month or even for a day; as it had been handed to him only a few hours back, and five minutes after he had received it he had confided it to his learned friend. If, therefore, all the hon. baronet's inferences were drawn from similar premises, he could hardly think them deserving of much attention. He had, however, to thank the hon. baronet for one part of his speech; and it was that in which he had praised the people of Ireland. Ha believed the hon. baronet did not exaggerate when he so eulogised them. They were as brave, patient, and loyal as any other people; but he was sorry to say, they had met a very bad reward for their patience and their loyalty. For his part, he would say now that the measure of Catholic emancipation bad been defeated—now that the hopes of the people had been disappointed—he would, if he had not duties to perform in that country which he could not abandon, and if all his feelings and associations had not been bound up in its fate, willingly quit the country for ever, and never hear the name of Ireland mentioned again [hear, hear !]. @@@If this was his feeling as a Protestant proprietor (and if, as he well knew, such were also the feelings of many other Protestant proprietors) what must be the deep affliction of the Catholic gentry and nobility, many of whom, perhaps, might not consider themselves bound by the same ties of duty, but might abandon the country to its fate, and to all the evils which would flow from the want of a resident gentry [hear, hear !]. With respect to the observations which had been made by the hon. baronet as to the impropriety of the observation made by his learned friend, with reference to the conduct of another House in rejecting this bill, he thought it was perfectly competent to members of that House to comment upon the conduct of the House of Lords. Their votes were upon record, and from these votes it appeared that they had twice rejected the Catholic bill, although passed by a majority of that House. Even if there had been any severity exercised by his learned friend in the remarks which he had that evening thrown out, they were, in his opinion, perfectly justified by the uncourteous language in which certain noble lords in the other House (in pursuance, he had no doubt, with what they imagined their duty) had chosen to speak of the conduct of the House of Commons.

Sir R. H. Inglis rose,

to correct a mistake of his on a former night; not that his own experience led him into an error, when he stated that no place of worship was granted to the Protestants at Rome, but a right hon. friend had since informed him, that permission was granted within the last year. He disapproved of the allusion of the hon. and learned gentleman to a noble lord in another place, and he put it to him whether it was consistent with common sense or good feeling to make allusions to a noble lord in his absence.

Mr. Brougham

said, that he quite agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, in the constitutional view he had taken of their right to allude to what occurred in another place. But even that House bad been treated cavalierly and disrespectfully by the other House; at which he confessed that he felt much pain as one of its members. The hon. baronet charged him with an attack upon a noble lord in his absence, and he did it precisely because he was not in that House. Besides that noble lord was not only a member of the House of Peers, but he was the lord chancellor, and a minister of state; a minister, by the way, who was paid twenty-thousand pounds a-year for bearing with these attacks. Was not lord Liverpool, or any other member of the government to be attacked, because he was absent and could not be in that House, if his conduct deserved it? He would put it to the hon. baronet if, in his experience, he had ever committed a greater blunder than in saying that a noble lord ought not to be attacked because he was absent?

Mr. Peel

said, it so happened that he did not hear a word of the speech of the learned gentleman, and he only inferred what it was from the allusions of the hon. baronet who last spoke, and the hon. member for Somersetshire. He was not sorry that he had not been present, because he should have been sorry to have been provoked to say any thing which could add to the disappointment which was likely to be produced by the vote of last night. But he must Say, that if any of his colleagues with whom he was bound in friendship, as well as by the ties of office, were attacked in his presence, he should vindicate them from the charge.

Ordered to lie on the table.