Commons Sitting of 25 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Four-per-Cent Annuities.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BERNAL, from Rochester and Stroud, for Amending the Friendly Societies Act.—By Sir R. DONKIN, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, for a Clause in the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Watermen on the River Thames, against the Lord's Day Observance Bill, No. 2.—By Messrs. BAINES and WINDHAM, from two Places,—against the Church Rates Bill—By Colonel PERCEVAL, Mr. WINDHAM, Mr. WYNN, and Mr. MILDMAY, from several Places,—against the Separation of Church and State.—By Mr. SHAW, from Lustleigh, against the Universities' Admission Bill; from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church of Ireland.—By Mr. FINCH and Mr. PLUMPTRE, from three Places,—for securing Protestant Officers against the necessity of attending the Ceremonies of the Catholic Religion.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS,
840
Sir GEORGE MURRAY, Messrs. FINCH, HALFORD, and Captain BARNARD, from several Places,—against the Separation of Church and State.—By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from Chester, for a Reform in the Established Church of Wales.—By Mr. FORSTER, from several Friendly Societies, for amending the Act concerning such Societies.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS, from Loughborough, against the Claims of the Dissenters.

BOROUGH OF DUNGARVON.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorpresented a Petition front an individual named Richard Keefe, of the Borough of Dungarvon, complaining of the conduct of the authorities towards him in respect to his vote at the late Election for that Borough. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to complain of the acts of the stipendiary Magistrates in the neighbourhood of Dungarvon, and assured the House, that a number of the supporters of the present member for Dungarvon were, without cause, crammed into the Bridewell, and the stipendiary Magistrate refused to take bail for them, or at least demanded such excessive bail, that it was tantamount to a refusal. The petitioner, who was a shoemaker, he refused to release, unless he found bail to the amount of 600 l. When he recollected that the gaol of Dungarvon was given to the Whig candidate for his voters, he was led to the very natural inference, that every assistance was given by the Government and the authorities to the opposing candidate of the present member for the borough of Dungarvon. There was, however, a previous election for this town, when it was proposed to start the present Solicitor General for it, and he had in his hand a Letter from that hon. and learned Gentleman to a Member of this House, in which he talked of "liberating" the town of Dungarvon. How was he to do this? Why, by means of moving. Every one, however, well knew what was meant by "liberating" a place when mention was made of moving in connection with it. As far as the present member for Dungarvon was concerned, he could assure the House, that not a single penny was spent in the way of bribery; and for this statement he pledged his honour as a Gentleman; whereas he could prove that bribery to a large amount had been committed by a Member of this House. He could also prove, that bribery had been committed by the Government of Ireland, or at least with its connivance. The hon. and learned Gentleman read a Letter from the Solicitor General of Ireland to Mr. Galway M. P., in which the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) said, that he trans-

841
mitted a draft for 200 l. towards opening the borough of Dungarvon, and that 300 l. would be ready to be sent for the same purpose when necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman also expressed a hope, that the Committee was a good one, and that he waited with anxiety to know how the Committee stood. He would read a notice from the notary, acknowledging the receipt of 300 l., and having done so, proceeded to say, that he did not know what defence the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland would make for the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman further observed, that the Government had adopted every means to induce persons to vote for the Whig candidate. Amongst others, a person named Hughes was threatened with the loss of his place by Mr. Barron, if he did not vote for him. The Devonshire family had used their influence at the election in a most improper manner. Would the right hon. Gentleman say, that he had nothing to do with the Solicitor General?—or would he say, that the conduct pursued by the stipendiary Magistrate, and the authorities of Dungarvon, at the last election, ought not to be inquired into? Nothing short of inquiry would satisfy the people of Dungarvon, that unfair measures were not resorted to at the last election. Had it not been for the presence of the troops the voters for the present member for Dungarvon could not have got up to the poll. He also complained of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Stanley), at the former election for Dungarvon, and he could prove, if an opportunity were afforded him, that that right hon. Gentleman also sent money to the town of Dungarvon. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give such an answer as would prove, that Government would punish the persons who had so violated the freedom of election.
Mr. Littletonfelt the utmost astonishment at the extraordinary proceeding of the hon. and learned Member, in bringing charges of so grave a nature without enabling him, by previously communicating them to him, to procure any information on the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given neither to him or his hon. friend, any intimation of the charges he intended bringing forward. Had he done so they would have been prepared with evidence to meet these charges. The hon. and learned Member charged a Member of this House with no less a crime than per-
842
jury. Did he intimate to Mr. Galway his intention to make this charge? Did the hon. Gentleman intimate to the Solicitor General for Ireland his intention to make a charge against him? No, he had not done so and those gentlemen and the Government had reason to complain of the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, had he made such an intimation, was it to be supposed that those Gentlemen would not have been prepared to retort those grave charges? But those charges were, after all, founded on stolen papers. He felt himself perfectly satisfied in saying, that those papers were stolen by some scoundrel employed for the purpose—and they were now produced for the purpose of founding those charges against the right hon. Gentleman. He knew that those papers were stolen from the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the servant who did so was dismissed. Was it not likely that the person who would steal these would also falsify them? He did not say, that they were falsified, but he might assume that they were, and he, therefore, might doubt their authenticity. He had only to regret that the hon. and learned Member should have been made the medium of producing them. With respect to the charge against his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley), had the hon. and learned Member intimated to him his intention to make it, would that right hon. Gentleman have left the House but a few minutes ago, as he had done? [Mr. F. O'Connor: He had intimated to Mr. Stanley, that he intended to make those charges.] He was not aware of that. With respect to the charge against the Magistrate, he had no information on the subject, and he hoped the House would suspend its judgment until correct information could be obtained. The hon. and learned Member asked him, whether he had any interest in the Dungarvon election? He had no hesitation in saying he had. He naturally wished that the person whose politics he preferred should be returned, but he interfered in no way in the election. With respect to the money transmitted to Mr. Barron, it was a subscription collected in Dublin by Mr. Barron's friends. It was certainly an indiscreet thing for the Solicitor General to transmit it, holding the situation he did; but he did not think it a matter of serious charge against him. He should not himself have done so. As to any money having been transmitted by Government, he knew nothing whatever about it.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, he hoped he might be allowed a few words by way of reply to the serious charge brought against him. He had, as he had already informed the House, told the right hon. Secretary for Ireland of his intention to charge the right hon. ex-Secretary for the Colonies. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland, had applied harsh terms to the individuals who procured these papers. He had no knowledge whatever of them, and he could not therefore, undertake to defend them. He had received the papers from the hon. member for Dungarvon, though the hon. and learned member for Dublin, in whose possession they had been, he had no doubt whatever would have been able to throw light on the subject, if his attendance as chairman of Mr. Harvey's Committee had not precluded his presence there. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had said, that if he had intimated to him the grounds of his charge, he would give him an opportunity of bringing it before the House; but he did not think it consistent with the dignity of the House that any hon. Member should do that. He stood on his own integrity as the Representative of a large constituency; and he required no aid whatever either from the right hon. Secretary or any other hon. Member, in stating to the House any case of grievance worthy of its consideration. The right hon. Secretary had made but a lame defence for his friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland. He said he believed he had interfered, but he thought it at worst only an imprudence. But by this admission the right hon. Gentleman had fastened a charge where there was before but a suppositious inference. For so much had the Solicitor-General for Ireland to be grateful to the right hon. Secretary. The case was now in such a condition that a Committee of the House to investigate into the whole transaction was absolutely imperative; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had the honour of his friend so much at heart would move for it himself.
Mr. O'Dwyerwas willing to admit, that those who gave such letters to the public were responsible for the correctness of the means by which they were obtained. He entertained no desire, but, on the contrary, he felt every disinclination to give utterance to a word offensive to the Solicitor General for Ireland, who was not there to defend himself, and whom he believed to be in private life a gentleman of great amiability and worth. He was bound,
844
however, to say, that he went further than the Secretary for Ireland in condemnation of the share which the hon. and learned Solicitor appeared to have in the proceedings of the election. He could not conceive a more grave offence than for a member of the Government, having no local connexion with a town, and whose duty it was to tranquillise the public mind, to stir up social animosities, to identify himself with political cabals, and give the influence inseparable from his office to the side of one of two hostile political parties. With respect to the production of these letters, however they were obtained, they were now before the House, and should be dealt with (unless their genuineness was repudiated) as evidence so far as they went. It appeared from them that a sum of unusual magnitude had been subscribed by an officer of the Irish Government to the purposes of prosecuting an election petition. It was due to the character of the Government to ascertain from what source this contribution proceeded.—If the funds were drawn from the secret service money voted for Ireland, which, in days of less claim to political virtue used to be the manner of assisting ministerial adherents to a seat in the House, it was desirable to have that ascertained. At all events, the matter should be investigated, if it were only in a spirit of justice towards those against whom the hon. member for Cork had brought forward accusations, in very unmeasured terms.
Mr. Sheilsaid, there was one phrase in the letter which he wished to call attention to. It was that which said "making altogether 500 l." It was a matter of importance to ascertain the facts. The right hon. Secretary had admitted "the imprudence" of the Solicitor General. Now, it was well known that in many Government cases imprudence was a palliative expression for guilt. It was something like the old Spartan custom which made the essence of crime consist in being detected. If it were the fact, that 500 l. was sent to the Dungarvon election; and if it were proved that the Solicitor General for Ireland had been the medium through which it was conveyed, he (Mr. Sheil) asked the House would the disapprobation of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland be sufficient for the country? Would not a strict and a searching investigation into the facts of the case be absolutely requisite? The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had said, he believed that the Solicitor General had sent the money, and that the money was the amount of a

845
subscription. The right hon. Secretary, if he had any regard for the dignity of the Government and the honour of his friend, ought to make his belief certainty, and come forward himself with the proposition for a Committee. If the Solicitor General should deny the truth of the allegations, he would believe him, because he knew that he was a man of private worth and honour; but he should get an opportunity of vindicating himself. If the Attorney or Solicitor-General of England had done what the Solicitor General for Ireland was charged with having done, there would be an outcry from one end of England to the other. There was another charge in the speech of the hon. member for Cork which the right hon. Secretary did not attempt to disprove. It was that against a stipendiary Magistrate for requiring 600 l. bail from a working shoemaker. How did the right hon. Secretary seek to justify such an enormous amount of bail? Surely he was as much bound to explain the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate, a dependant on the Government, quite as much, if not more, than he had to explain and defend that of the Solicitor General. But the right hon. Gentleman had perhaps not heard of the case before, otherwise he would certainly be able to give some information on the subject. The right hon. Secretary had indignantly denounced the use of a private letter; but he remembered the time that the present Lord Chancellor of England, when the organ of the party in that House with which the right hon. Secretary now acted, had read a letter of Mr. Saurin, the then Attorney General of Ireland, surreptitiously obtained, at least as surreptitiously as the present letter, and when Sir Robert Peel taunted that noble Lord with having so used the letter of Mr. Saurin, that noble Lord turned round upon him and asked "What, then, was the conduct of the Tories when they resorted to stolen letters for evidence against the Queen?" If, Mr. Saurin's letter had been made use of by the Whigs and the Queen's letters by the Tories, he did not see how either party could fairly object to the present letters being used in the same manner, or why the correspondence of the Solicitor General for Ireland, on such an interesting topic, should be kept hermetically sealed. He hoped his hon. friend, the member for Cork, would not let the matter rest as it was; but that he would take it from its present form of an appendage to a petition,
846
and bring it forward as a resolution, in which these letters should be embodied. Then the attention of the House would necessarily be drawn to it, and the eyes of the country opened to the conduct of the public functionaries.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that the charge against the stipendiary magistrate was one of a most serious nature. And as it had been asserted that the Solicitor-General had sent down money to Dungarvon for electioneering purposes, it was impossible that the matter could be passed over without inquiry. Still he thought that the hon. and learned member for Cork county was anything but discreet in bringing the subject before the House without giving the hon. member for Waterford notice of his intention.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorexplained. It had been communicated over and over again to the hon. member for Waterford, that this subject would be brought forward, but the hon. Member did not choose to appear. The letters were only that morning put into his hands, as it was the duty of the hon. member for Dublin to present them. He had only intended to speak to the petition.
Colonel Percevalsaid, it was wasting the time of the House to spend it in debating as to how those letters were obtained, as in his opinion all the cases quoted were equally discreditable. Mr. Saurin had as much reason to complain of a breach of morality as the present Solicitor General for Ireland as the letters of both were obtained by unhallowed means. He hoped, however, that the matter would be fully investigated.
Mr. Lambertsaid, he could never consent to an inquiry founded upon documents obtained in the infamous manner in which the present letter had been obtained. If the accusation was brought forward upon evidence fairly obtained, he would not object to the fullest inquiry.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, that the Gentlemen who were now in power, and who complained so much of the use made of a confidential letter, had not scrupled to avail themselves of a letter similarly obtained well known as the "tame-elephant letter." The hon. member for Wexford seemed to think, that it was no matter how foul the means used might be, so that they were concealed.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Sir George Murray: The petition which I hold in

847
my hand is a petition for the protection of the Established Church, and against the separation of Church and State. As it has been transmitted to my care from a parish in the county of Devon, a part of the kingdom with which I have no natural connexion, and by persons to whom I am not personally known, I wish to explain in what points I fully concur with the petitioners, and in what there may be, possibly a shade of difference between my opinions and theirs. I most fully concur with the petitioners in my desire to protect the Established Church; and I also most fully concur with them both as to the existence of endeavours to separate Church and State, and in my determination to oppose those endeavours, in whatever form, and under whatever pretext they may be made. My understanding of the separation of Church and State is this, that it is the casting off, on the part of the State, of all connexion with, and all care about, the religion and the morals of the people. I join the two because I think that although it may, perhaps, be possible for an individual to be a moral man, although he is not quite so assiduous as his friends might wish him to be in the discharge of his religious duties, I hold it to be impossible for a nation to be moral which is not also religious. But, Sir, the separation of Church and State as I understand it is the adoption of that principle which I have sometimes heard advanced in this House, that every man is to be left to call in his spiritual adviser, as he would call in his lawyer or his physician. I cannot give my assent to such a principle, nor can I give my support to anything which has a tendency to introduce it. Such a system would not only sweep away at once the Established Church of England and Ireland, the Established Church of Scotland, and those Presbyterian Establishments which are aided by the State in Ireland by the grant called the regium donum, but it would produce still further evils; for, the State having thus left the religion and the morals of the people to chance, every form of superstition and every kind of fanaticism would gradually creep into the country. Allusion has been made in the petition to certain of the Dissenters who are using their endeavours for the separation of Church and State, and who couple that demand with their prayer for relief from other grievances. I hope that there are great numbers of the Dissenters who have no such object in view; and I am quite certain, that the
848
highly respectable body of Presbyterians in the north of England have not only no such view, but that they sincerely respect the Established Church, and deem themselves to be closely connected with that of Scotland; for I lately received from them a copy of a memorial which they had addressed to the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General of the Forces, by which they expressed their wish not to accept the boon proposed to be given by the noble Lord's intended Marriage Bill, unless it recognised their connexion with the Established Church of Scotland. Although I am desirous, and have always been so, for relief being given as far as possible from every real grievance connected with religious belief, I can never consent to support any claim which connects itself with the principle of the separation of Church and State. I have alluded to the regium donum in Ireland; I think that grant is made upon an admirable principle. Whenever a congregation of Presbyterians is formed to a certain amount in numbers, a certain stipend is allotted to the Minister of that congregation from the public purse; and thus a link of connexion is formed between the State and the religion of the people, which contributes much to the tranquillity and harmony of the country. When there is no such connexion, alienation and discontent take place. We have seen enough in Ireland of the evils which result from there being no link of connexion between the State and the religion of the majority of the people. I should be glad to see such a link established by the grant of stipends to the ministers of that Church. When I had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Department, I was desirous of introducing into our colonial possessions the principle of the regium donum. In the Canadas in particular, I wished to leave it open to every Christian sect to become in this manner connected with the State. And, if any sect should decline to join that connexion, then that sect would not, at least, have any just ground of complaint against those which did join it. My system was not that of casting off, but of connecting religion to the State—not that of pulling down, but of setting up—not that of taking away emolument, but that of granting it to those Christian sects which might be willing to accept it. With these explanations, I again express my support of the prayer of this petition for the protection of the Established Church, and against the separation of Church and State.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

DUNGARVON ELECTION.
On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee on the Highways Bill, and the Question put, that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Stanleysaid, an occurrence took place that morning to which he begged to call the attention of the House for a moment. Without having previously given him any notice of his intention, an hon. Gentleman, the member for the county of Cork (Mr. F. O'Connor), stated that morning, on presenting a petition to the House, that he (Mr. Stanley) was one, among others connected with the Government, who subscribed a sum of money to forward the return of one of the candidates at the Dungarvon election. It would have been no more than common courtesy had the hon. Member mentioned to him, particularly as he was in the House only two minutes before, that it was his intention to mention this circumstance, for which, as there was not the least foundation, he could not allow it to remain for a moment uncontradicted.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there was more than one mistake in this matter. He was not present at the time the matter occurred that morning. The document adverted to, however, in the discussion, did not at all authorize the mention of the right hon. Gentleman's name. If the grounds of the charge against the right hon. Gentleman were looked into, he would see there was no necessity that the right hon. Gentleman should deny the charge at all.

HIGHWAYS.
The House went into Committee on the Highways' Bill, and was occupied with it the whole evening. Several Amendments were proposed, and several divisions took place; one of which proposed by Mr. Cayley, deserves to be preserved. On the 66th Clause being proposed, it was moved that those should be exempt from summary penalties who might plough up foot-paths. The Committee divided—Ayes 35; Noes 35.
The Chairman (Mr. Pryme) gave the casting vote in favour of the Amendment.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Childers, J. W.

Barham, H.

Clive, R.

Bethell, R.

Crompton, J. S.

Brotherton, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Buckingham, J. S.

Evans, W.

Buller, J. W.

Ewing, J.

850

Hardy, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hawes, B.

Plotter, R.

Hornby, E. G.

Romilly, E.

Hume, J.

Scholefield, J.

Johnston, A.

Stanley, H.

King, E. B.

Thicknesse, R.

Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J.

Torrens, Colonel

Mangles, J.

Young, G. F.

Mosley, Sir O.

Vigors, N. V.

O'Connor, F.

Wallace, T.

O'Reilly, W.

Williams, W. B.

Patten, J. W.

TELLER

Pease, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

The Committee proceeded through several Clauses, when the House resumed. The Chairman reported progress. The Committee to sit again.