Commons Sitting of 6 December 1826

ROMAN CATHOLICS—EXCOMMUNICATION BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
Mr. Mooresaid, he held in his hand a petition from Mr. Emanuel Hutchinson Orpen, of Dublin, on a most important subject. The petitioner complained of the power exer-

285
cised by the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland to denounce by way of excommunication, persons of their own faith, who refused to concur with them in their political objects. The dangerous character of a control of this description must be too obvious to render it necessary for him to insist upon it; and it was not his intention to enter into any details at that moment, as, in the course of the session, various occasions would arise when it might be more advantageously discussed. The House would, however, permit him to make one observation. The power against which Mr. Orpen petitioned was a power not quiescent. It was a power which was not only capable of being exercised, but which had been actually and extensively exercised, for the purpose of inflicting some of the most serious grievances to which any member of a community could be subjected. It was a power, the bare possession of which, even if it were never exercised was calculated to give to the Roman Catholic priesthood a most dangerous influence over the laity. One of the most striking characteristics of this power was its creation of that mixed system of religion and politics which had placed his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland in that position with respect to the state, which put it totally out of their power to give security for the due exercise of whatever political rights might be conceded to them. He confessed that this consideration, with many others, impressed him most strongly with the conviction, that the Roman Catholics could give no security which would render it safe to make any further concession to them.
Mr. Spring Ricedid not rise to oppose the bringing up of the petition. On the contrary, it was his opinion that every man was entitled to complain to that House of any grievances under which he laboured. He rejoiced, therefore, that Mr. Orpen had come to that House; and he trusted, that if petitions from other individuals of a different nature should come to the House hereafter, the hon. member would be disposed to receive them with equal readiness. The hon. gentleman had stated what was known to all; namely, that the Roman Catholic priesthood possessed the power of excommunication. The question was, whether or not that power had been carried beyond its proper exercise. That was a question which would be tried upon the evidence of witnesses on oath;
286
when the various election petitions from Ireland came to be considered. If those petitions should be abandoned, then he would be entitled to say that no such impropriety had occurred. The hon. member regretted the combination of religion and politics. He regretted it also. Every good man regretted it. It defiled religion, and perverted politics: The error, however, was in those institutions which persevered in connecting them. In the laws which withheld their civil rights from the Catholics, might be traced the origin of the evil complained of.
Mr. James Grattansaid, he could not hear the allegations of the petition without declaring in his conscience, that he did not believe that the power possessed by the Catholic priesthood had been exercised to the extent alleged. He knew it was utterly impossible to disconnect the subjects of religion and politics in Ireland; but he believed that the opposite party was liable to a similar imputation. If the Roman Catholic priesthood exercised their influence with the Catholic laity, for political purposes, there could be little doubt that our own clergy exercised their influence for similar objects. He regretted that the hon. member should have indulged in a tirade against the Catholics, on grounds which, in his opinion, were wholly untenable.
Colonel Torrensobserved, that the hon. member who had presented the petition had uttered one sentiment, which he would never hear in silence. That sentiment was, that the Catholics could give no security which would render it safe to make any further concession to them. What security was required? If the legislature gave them political power, would not their love of that power induce them to retain it by their conduct? If the sentiment of the hon. member were largely acted upon, it would tend directly to the dismemberment of the empire.
The Petition was then brought up and read. It stated the outrages and atrocities which had, at various times, been committed in Ireland, and which it imputed principally to the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood; and it prayed, that henceforward, any person denouncing an individual by way of excommunication, or pronouncing an anathema upon him, should be subject to a penalty of 20 l., recoverable by civil bill before the assistant Barrister; and that any individual so ag-

287
grieved, might sue besides for special damages. On the motion that the petition be printed,
Mr. Spring Riceput it to the hon. member, whether any good could arise from printing and circulating such a petition. It might produce much heat and irritation; and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Mooremaintained, that the statements in the petition were incontrovertible. He wished them to be fairly placed before every hon. gentleman. He was not conscious of having pronounced the tirade which one hon. gentleman had imputed to him. He had merely asserted that which was as notorious as the sun at noon-day, that the Roman Catholic priesthood possessed the power described in the petition. He did not blame them for exercising that power. They had a spiritual duty to perform, and he gave them credit for performing it conscientiously. But that was the very state of things he complained of. The performance of such a supposed duty was calculated to occasion extensive mischief. He was surprised at the warmth with which the hon. colonel had made almost reproachful observations on what he had stated respecting securities; and he was satisfied that what he had advanced on that subject could not be controverted. If it were established that the Catholics could not give any securities for the proper exercise of whatever civil rights might be conceded to them, that he presumed, would immediately determine the question. The necessity of securities had been maintained by all our wisest and greatest statesmen. He repeated his opinion that, situated as the Catholics were, a further concession of political power to them was dangerous to the state.
Mr. S. Riceobserved, that many of the burnings and massacres adverted to in the petition were as unconnected with religious considerations, as if they had taken place in this country. The petitioner charged the Roman Catholic clergy with the most enormous vices; and prayed for the establishment of a new code of laws against them. The House had the authority of the Attorney-general for Ireland, that the clergy had not contributed to the excesses which had taken place in that country. What ground, therefore, could there be for the allegations of the petitioner? He deprecated the revival of old animosities
288
in Ireland. If that book were opened, let not the House believe that all the guilt would be found on one side. That those dreadful scenes of atrocity and bloodshed, to which the petitioner had referred, were deeply to be deplored, no one would deny; but every judicious man was anxious that, they should, as much as possible, be forgotten. If, however, they were referred to, let it be for the purpose of taking such steps as might prevent their recurrence; and not for the purpose of giving a new stimulus to ancient animosities. The present petition was a firebrand; and he entreated the hon. member, as he valued the peace of his native country—as he valued his own estimation in that House, not to press his motion.
Mr. Goulburnthought the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, had taken a tone far beyond what the nature of the cast required. Every one was aware that petitions were frequently presented, stating ' the opinions of individuals. In the propriety of which opinions, it was by no means necessary that the House should concur, before they allowed the petitions to be printed. Undoubtedly, he concurred with the hon. gentleman in thinking, that it would be much better, if the statements, on both sides, were calmly and dispassionately made and that all parties would consult their true interest by such conduct. But, to select one petition for reprehension, on this ground, while petitions, equally objectionable, on the other side, were allowed to pass without observation, would not be much to the credit of those by whom it was done, nor make a very favourable impression on the public mind of the justice of their cause.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that the right hon. gentleman had mistaken his hon. friend, who had merely urged the good sense and good feeling, under the circumstances of the case, of not giving circulation to the allegations of the petition, by ordering it to be printed. His hon. friend's first statement was, that the petition referred to a subject which was about to undergo the investigation of committees, before whom witnesses would be examined upon oath. That being the case, and the matter being one with which the House at large could be but very little acquainted, it was surely not too much to ask the House to withhold printing a petition, not from a body, but from an individual, containing statements calculated to make a

289
strong and premature impression. Let it be recollected, that the question about to be considered and determined was a novel, untouched, untried, question; and, therefore, that all possible pains should be taken to avert from it every thing tending to the creation of an undue and injurious prejudice. In the appeal, therefore, which his hon. friend had made to the hon. member by whom the petition had been introduced, he most sincerely concurred. He would venture to say, that no person in that House contemplated the approaching discussion on the state of Ireland with a more intense feeling of anxiety than he did. To him it appeared to be most expedient, that this new parliament should come to the discussion of that great question with minds free from prejudice; and, above all, that they should be fully sensible of its immense and vital importance. For twenty years, he had attended every discussion in that House on the Catholic question, and had, on every occasion, voted in favour of Catholic emancipation. During that period, he had frequently been in Ireland. He had also been in Ireland since the last agitation of the question; and he declared that he had never returned from that country so deeply impressed with the urgency of carrying that measure. He was convinced that it was their most serious duty to take every means, if it was not yet too late, to save the integrity of the empire. So feeling, he asked the House if the subject was not one which required the calmest consideration? He trusted that others would be of the same opinion; and he intreated the House to enter upon the consideration of this great question, whenever it should be brought forward, with reference only to what was the existing state of Ireland in the year 1827, and to what was the mildest and best course which an honest parliament could adopt. Nothing which had recently occurred in Ireland had altered his view of the great merits of the case, or had shaken his opinion in favour of Catholic emancipation—a measure which he had always thought desirable, and which he now thought absolutely necessary. He implored the hon. member for Dublin, not to be instrumental in any act calculated to excite prejudice and animosity. For himself, no person had ever more uniformly set his face against violence and intemperance on either side of the question.
Mr. Secretary Peelwould not say a word
290
on the great question alluded to. Whenever the subject came regularly before the House, he should be prepared to discuss it to the best of his ability; but until then he would avoid all allusion to it. This, however, he would say, that he most sincerely believed that the parties on both sides would consult their best interests, by abstaining from all exhibitions of violence and intemperance. Confining himself to the simple question before the House, he could assure the House, that the advice which he should give on the occasion would be given on principle, and without considering from which side of the House, or from what party, the petition emanated. On looking at the petition, he found that it was the petition of a single individual. Now, every individual had an undoubted right to communicate his sentiments to the House in the form of a petition; but the House had also an undoubted right to abstain, if they thought proper, from giving those sentiments publicity. He found, in this petition, that a certain class of persons were said to be "notorious for their avarice, drunkenness, and debauchery." Now, he certainly did not think it fair, that, under the pretence of petitioning that House, any individual should be enabled to give circulation to statements affecting the personal character of others. He therefore joined with the hon. gentleman opposite in. expressing his hope that his hon. friend would not press the printing of the petition. When an individual abused the privilege of approaching that House by petition so far as to indulge in calumnies on the private character and conduct of others, and to introduce treatises on political questions, while the House allowed him the right of presenting his petition, they ought to exercise their own right of refusing to give circulation to that petition at the public expense.
Mr. Mooreobserved, that he conceived he should not have performed his duty if he had refused to present the petition, and indeed, with the exception of the single sentence which had been animadverted upon by the right hon. gentleman, it appeared to him to be unobjectionable. It was far from his wish to be instrumental in placing any statement on the records of the House which might have the effect of creating any unfair prejudice on the minds of any of its members when this most important question should be brought under their consideration. He would not there

291
fore press his motion for the printing of the petition.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn,

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from the Machine Makers of Manchester, praying for an alteration of the law prohibiting the Exportation of Machinery. The hon. member said, that the petition involved a principle of very great importance to this country. He recollected hearing the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade say, that he hoped the day would soon arrive when the word "prohibition" would be expunged from our commercial system. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman in the sentiment, and he appealed to him whether it was right to continue a system of prohibitions with respect to machinery, when he was endeavouring to abolish that system with regard to every other article of industry? The object of the petitioners was to obtain a repeal of the law which prohibited them from exporting the produce of their ingenuity and labour to the markets that would afford them the best remuneration or reward. This object, at all times just, was rendered infinitely more necessary now that the markets at home did not afford a demand for their industry. The petitioners declared themselves to be totally out of work, and in a state of absolute starvation; the British manufactures affording them no employment, and the foreign markets being shut against them, by the prohibitory system persevered in by ministers. Every man was now allowed to export the produce of his industry to where he could find a purchaser, except the unfortunate maker of machines. The consequence of this was, that the machinists of England were in a state of destitution, whilst their sufferings were increased by a knowledge that it was in the power of ministers, by opening their trade, to relieve their distresses. Those who opposed the exportation of machinery were like those who had opposed the opening of every other trade, in order to augment their individual gains, and to secure to themselves a monopoly. He might illustrate the truth of this by referring to many trades, but particularly to the silk trade. The persons engaged in that trade had done every thing in their power to persuade the country and the government, that removing the prohibi
292
tory laws would ruin the whole silk trade of England. Ministers, however, had persevered in their enlightened views; and so far from the English silk manufacturers having been ruined, they were even benefitted by the new system. The opposition to the exportation of machinery arose from the same narrow views and personal motives, and he did not see why the government should not extend their principles to that branch of our industry. The House had been so strongly impressed with the impolicy and injustice of preventing British artisans taking their capital and ingenuity out of the country, that they had come to a unanimous resolution of allowing artisans to export themselves wherever they pleased. The rational consequence of this measure ought to be, that artisans should be allowed to export their machinery as well as themselves. If the exportation of machinery were to be prohibited, artisans would export themselves to an extent to prove highly injurious to the country. The effect of the law, as it now stood, was to encourage the emigration of our most useful machinists. No apprehension could be entertained of foreigners being enabled to rival us in manufactures; by obtaining our machinery, for it was in large works that required the use of machinery, in which our supplies I of coal and iron, our canals and our large capital, gave us the advantage over foreign manufacturers. In works that required little combinations of capital, and only the application of small machines, foreigners might rival us. Labour in France, considering the relative value of money, was almost as dear as in England. The law, as it now stood, was so contrary to good policy, that it could not be carried into effect; and it accordingly operated solely as a bounty upon the smuggling of machinery out of the kingdom. The law in its details was most absurd. He expressed his most anxious wish that it might be speedily abolished, and moved, that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Huskissonappealed to the hon. member, whether a question of such vast importance could with propriety be discussed at a period when thousands of manufacturers were either out of employ, or but partially employed? He assured the hon. member, that if a bill were to be introduced, which had for its object the abolition of every restriction upon the exportation of machinery, it would be pro

293
ductive of serious alarm in the manufacturing districts, and would give rise to the presentation of numerous petitions from all purls of the country to that House. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would confine himself to the presentation, of the petition, and would not follow it up with any specific motion. It had been generally agreed, that some alteration in the law respecting the exportation of machinery should take place; and the question having been agitated some time ago, a regulation was made, giving to the Board of Trade a discretion, as to the kinds of machinery which might or might not be exported. The discretion thus vested in the Board of Trade was of a most disagreeable and unpleasant nature. It was, moreover, liable to this objection, that in whatever way the Board of Trade decided, the party refused the right of exportation conceived himself injured and wrongly dealt by. Upon this ground alone he felt the necessity of establishing some fixed and settled principle of exportation and prohibition of all articles of machinery. He had himself endeavoured to lay down a rule by which the discretion vested in the Board of Trade should be regulated; and that principle was—that where machinery was of great bulk, and contained a great quantity of the raw material, no objection should be made to exportation, as he considered that no injury could be done to the country by it. But where machinery was of modern construction, and depended mainly upon the ingenuity and excellence of the mechanism, and where the raw material used was trifling, then the exportation of such machinery was prohibited. It was a notorious fact, that many manufacturing establishments were at this moment standing still, under the expectation of obtaining machinery from this country. Under such circumstances then, and particularly in the present state of the manufacturing interests, he implored the hon. member not to agitate the question at this period. He had no objection to the petition being brought up and read, and, if necessary, printed; but he did not wish it to go forth to the public, that the whole law with respect to the exportation of machinery might be safely repealed.
Mr. Littletonprotested against the sweeping doctrines laid down by the hon. member for Aberdeen. As a representative of a large manufacturing county, he
294
would say, that if such doctrines were to go abroad, and to be acted upon by that. House, the greatest alarm would be created throughout the country. He meant nothing offensive to the hon. member for Aberdeen, when he stated with confidence, that the alarm existing among the manufacturing interests was not at all diminished by the fact, that that hon. member had taken the lead upon this important question. There was not any one great town in England, from Nottingham downward, that did not entertain alarm at, and that had not expressed a wish to be exempted from, his measures relative to trade. For himself,' he thought it a most difficult question for any person, or set of persons, to define the kinds of machinery which might be exported, and those which were to be prohibited. Under this impression, he thought that the most advisable course would be for the right hon. gentleman to present the skeleton of a bill, accompanied by schedules of the allowed and prohibited machinery, and to refer that bill to a select committee, who should have the power of filling up the blanks. That a revision of the law was necessary was beyond all doubt; because as it now stood, though the exportations of certain machines was prohibited, yet it was much doubted whether that law prevented the exportation of the same machinery in parts. Upon this question of the exportation of machinery, a memorial had been some time since presented to the Board of Trade, from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, containing such sound and practical arguments against indiscriminate exportation, that he wished it was possible to have it printed and laid before the public. That memorial stated, that if the finer and more ingenious parts of machinery were allowed to be sent abroad, the artisans and manufacturers would soon emigrate after them. He hoped the hon. member would not follow up the petition with any motion on this delicate and important subject.
Colonel Torrenssaid, that, although he agreed in principle with those who looked upon free trade as a great advantage, he was far from going along with them to the extent to which they proposed to carry it. He thought that the principle of free trade must be ever limited by another principle; namely, the policy of each country reserving to itself the sole benefit of those exclusive advantages, which, cither from nature or by acquisition, it might enjoy.

295
Why should we not take advantage of the materials which were placed exclusively in our hands, and confine the enjoyment of them to ourselves? We had, for instance, coals at a cheap rate from our mines. He had some time ago been told by a manufacturer on the Seine, that he could not work his steam-engine, on account of the dearness of fuel. Now, he thought that if a duty of fifty per cent were levied on coals exported to the continent, it would produce two good effects. In the first place, it would, to a certain extent, benefit our revenue; and in the next, it would prevent the foreign manufacturer from competing with us. He was, generally speaking, a friend to free trade. But, in every science, there must necessarily be exceptions. There could be no universal principle applicable to all circumstances. Now, it was admitted on all hands, even by the hon. member for Aberdeen, that we made better machinery than our rivals; that they could not compete with us in that branch of art; and that our manufactures were, in consequence, cheaper and better. If such was the case, he would ask, why we should give up our exclusive advantage? He would contend, that we ought to keep, with a firm hand, all our exclusive advantages, because they evidently ministered to the wealth and the prosperity of the country. The country was now, as it were, in a storm, and we ought to keep the ropes tight, and let nothing go, until fair weather came round again.
Sir H. Parnelldid not conceive that any mischief could arise to any branch of our trade or commerce, by the exportation of machinery of whatever description. The use of that machinery would enable other countries to increase their wealth, and we should ultimately derive a proportionate benefit from such increase. It appeared to him unjust to withhold this liberty from the manufacturers of machines. They formed a large class of the community; and he could not see why their interests should be sacrificed to those of other manufacturers, the produce of whose industry was exported.
Mr. Baringsaid, he thought that it would conduce to the economy of the time of the House, if hon. members would avoid making long speeches upon presenting petitions, and reserve themselves until the specific questions to which such petitions related came property under their
296
consideration. It would, in his opinion, be much better to adopt this course than to fatigue the House, night after night, with arguments and disputations without end. The opinions just delivered by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he was sure he had heard him repeat more than twenty times before; and he could not but think, that they would better suit a discussion upon a specific measure. He was, however, pleased that this debate had taken place, as it had called forth a gentleman whose talents promised to be a great addition to those who thought with him. It had been for so long a time the habit to look upon any man as a Goth who dissented from the modern doctrine of political economy, that he could not help congratulating the House upon the accession of the hon. member for Ipswich (colonel Torrens), and he hoped to find that hon. member frequently coming forward, upon his side of the question. It was true that the heavier articles of our machinery, such as cylinders, wheels, &c. were exported without injury to our trade or commerce. They were composed of a large quantity of the raw material, but the articles proposed to be prohibited were, as far as the material was concerned, of trifling value, and were only prized because of the ingenuity and skill exercised in their construction. As the law now stood, however, it was almost impossible to define what might and what might not be exported; so that, after all, it would be most advisable to appoint a board, who should have power to regulate the whole question of the exportation of machinery. If we were driven to the question of an unqualified exportation, or a total restriction of machinery, he, for one, should prefer the latter. But we were not driven to this extremity; and the best course would be, to appoint a proper tribunal, which should have the power of deciding the articles of machinery which might be exported, and those which ought to be prohibited.
Mr. Warburtonwas of opinion, that the discussion of such an important subject as this ought not to be confined to one field-day, but that it ought to be frequently brought under the consideration of the House. The speech of the hon. member for Ipswich rested entirely on the assumption that this country possessed a monopoly of the more ingenious machinery, and therefore ought to enforce

297
it. Now, he denied that this assumption was correct, and therefore his argument went for nothing. The fact was, that nine tenths of our machinery was open to all Europe, and there remained only one tenth for the protection of which we had to struggle. But even if we had that monopoly, how could we hope to retain or enforce it? How could we prevent persons from copying the different models of that machinery which were regularly given in our Encyclopædias and other publications? The fact was, that by this monopoly we were sacrificing a certain profit for an uncertain gain. He trusted that no specific measure would be introduced upon this subject, but that the regulation would be left as it was at present with the Board of Trade. He could not help expressing his surprise, that the people of Manchester, who had been the first to petition for a free trade in corn, should have lent themselves to the getting up of such a memorial as that alluded to by the hon. member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), relative to the exportation of machinery.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that when the hon. member for Aberdeen, in the last parliament, had expressed his determination to introduce a measure for the repeal of the present law, he had urged him to postpone it, because he thought it was due to the feelings of the manufacturers not to make so great an alteration at that particular time; and, in his opinion, the present was as little suited for such an experiment. They had been told that it was quite absurd to continue this law, and to prohibit the exportation of machinery, because drawings of the different machines were to be found in the Scotch Encyclopædia. But, since the year 1821, when that Encyclopædia was published, many improvements had been made in those machines. [Mr. Warburton, "Then they are secrets."] Then, if they were secrets, why should not the country profit by them as much as possible? This was a question which ought not to be hastily taken up. They had already had some experience of the ill effects attending a precipitate decision on long-established laws. When the hon. gentleman brought forward the repeal of the combination laws, he laid down some broad general principles, which sounded very well. He called on the House to put the master and the journeyman upon the same footing; and
298
he inveighed against the then existing law as a mass of absurdity. But, what was the result? Why, in about ten months, having become wiser by experience, they found it necessary to retrace their steps. They did not, it was true, go back to the old laws; but they were obliged to adopt new ones, to remedy the defects of the measure which was to have wrought wonders. The right hon. gentleman stated, that he fully agreed in the expression of satisfaction that had fallen from an hon. member opposite, as to the conclusive and able statement made by the hon. member for Ipswich (colonel Torrens) respecting the true principle on which our commercial policy should rest.
Mr. Brightobserved, that the effect of particular systems of law was frequently over-rated, their real operation being ascertained correctly, as soon as they were repealed. Such had been the case with the combination laws; and, as soon as the statutes forbidding the exportation of machinery should be abrogated, it might be found that they had materially contributed to the protection of the manufacturer. He trusted that, in the present session, the true principles of political economy would be better understood, and that no sudden change in the existing law would be attempted.
Ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.