DR. MULHOLLAND. (Hansard, 13 February 1837)

§ Mr. Maclean
said, that pursuant to the notice he had given, he now rose to call the attention of the House to a Petition which he was about to present. It was the petition of a Roman Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Mulholland, who complained of a series of injuries which he had sustained at the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, and prayed that means might be found for the protection of the second order of clergy in that country from the grievous and unjustifiable interference with their temporal concerns, to which they had long been subjected. As this petition was well worthy of the consideration of the House, he felt that he should best discharge his duty to the petitioner, if he read as shortly as possible the petitioner's statement in explanation of his case. The petitioner humbly prayed, that that honourable House would be pleased to cause inquiry to be made into the situation of the second order of Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. The petitioner was anxious that an opportunity should be given him of proving the nature of the evils and inconveniences under which those clergy laboured, and which he stated to be of such extent that it was apprehended by many of his reverend brethren, and by himself, that a continuance of the present system must be attended with the extinction of religious feeling in Ireland. Such was the prayer of Dr. Mulholland's petition; and he did think, that praying as that petition did, not for the House to interfere between a clergyman and his diocesan (for in that case he would admit, the petition could not have been received), 437 but for inquiry into the condition of the second order of Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, with a view to their better protection and support against the oppression of their superiors, he did think a petition of this nature was well worthy the attention of the House, and he hoped, therefore, he should be allowed to enter more at length into the statements of—

§ The Speaker
said, that if the hon. Member meant to found a motion upon the contents of the petition, it was then competent for him to open it to the House; but that to argue on a petition when there was no intention of pursuing the matter further was contrary to the practice of that House.

§ Mr. Maclean
had not intended to move for any inquiry, to which he did not at all feel himself pledged.

§ The Speaker
said, the rule of the House was, that when an hon. Member intended to found any further proceedings upon a petition, then he ought to give notice of the course he meant to pursue, in order that the House might be in a condition to decide whether they would allow the matter to go farther or not.

§ Mr. Maclean
begged to state, with great submission, that this petition had been brought forward both in the House of Lords and in that House, on a former occasion, when its merits had been discussed at considerable length. He must say, therefore, he thought it hard that he should be denied the liberty of making a remark on the subject.

§ The Speaker
Of course, it is not for me, but for the House, to determine this point.

§ Mr. Maclean
proceeded: It was necessary, in order to put the House fully in possession of this case, that he should detail the particulars of the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner stated, that, in 1826, he had been appointed to a parish in the county of Louth, the duties of which he continued to discharge until the year 1833, when he was deprived by a mandate of his diocesan, the right rev. Dr. Crolly, the ground for that proceeding being, that he had brought an action against a brother-clergyman, who had slandered him in public; that he had, however, previously to bringing this action, appealed, as was his duty, to the proper ecclesiastical tribunal; that he had received a promise from the Archbishop's Vicar-General, that measures should be 438 taken to enforce a withdrawal of the charge affecting his character; but that having waited six months without obtaining any withdrawal of the charge, he had at length instituted law proceedings, and recovered damages against his calumniator; but that, pending those proceedings, he had been suspended from the performance of his clerical functions, and thereby reduced to a state of utter destitution; that he had appealed to the see of Rome; that two mandates for his restitution from thence had been set aside by Dr. Crolly; that he had further received an appointment from Rome which had not been confirmed; and that he was in consequence deprived of all means of supporting himself in Ireland. Under these peculiar circumstances, the petitioner approached the House, in humble expectation that some remedy might be applied to the singular grievances under which he suffered.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
rose to order. He thought the general understanding was, that hon. Gentlemen were not to enter into these long statements on the presentation of petitions. He would appeal to the Speaker as to whether it would not be proper, if one hon. Gentleman were allowed to follow this course, that others should have the same privilege extended to them?

§ Mr. Maclean
begged to remind the hon. Member that this was a case of a very peculiar nature. He hoped the House would not consent to a course which would in effect shut out the public from the exercise of the right of petitioning.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
said, that the usage was, that any hon. Member who wished to bring the subject matter of a petition under the consideration of the House should place a notice to that effect on the books, without which he could not enter into the details of a petition.

§ The Speaker
said, that for many years during which he had had the honour of a seat in that House, it used to be the practice that hon. Members, on presenting petitions, should merely state the prayers of those petitions. That practice, however, had been latterly departed from, and morning sittings had been resorted to, with a view of relieving the pressure of petitions. A Committee had then been appointed on the subject, which had reported, but its reports had never been acted upon; and it had been thought 439 proper to discontinue the morning sittings. Under these circumstances, he had felt that it only remained for him to retrace the steps of the House, and endeavour to bring it back to what had been the ancient practice; that was, that hon. Members should content themselves with stating the prayer of the petitions which they had to present. If any hon. Member wished to open the subject matter of a petition more fully, that course was open to him, to which he (the Speaker) had already referred. This matter had been left too much, perhaps he might be permitted to say, in his discretion; and the rule had, perhaps, on some occasions, been somewhat too much relaxed. But if every petition were to give rise to a discussion or a debate, in which statements on one side would be met by counter-statements on the other, then he felt it his duty to represent to the House the necessity of considering whether, under the present pressure of business, the House, in that case, would be able properly to dispatch its public duties.

§ Mr. Maclean
had had no intention in the course he had pursued, of deviating from the deference with which he always received what fell from the chair. After stating the prayer, he was proceeding to state the substance of the petition, without meaning to argue the subject at all. He was simply stating the facts of the petition, not reading it.

§ The Speaker
again interposed, to intimate that the hon. Member could not read the petition.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
said, the House had heard many of the allegations of the petition, and it was not disposed, he thought, to enter further into the subject.

§ Mr. Maclean
rejoined: He did not know whether the hon. Member spoke for the whole House, or for himself. How came the hon. Member to be a censor literarum to determine whether petitions should be gone into or not?

§ Mr. Gillon
remembered to have presented a petition last Session, from an individual who was actually incarcerated at the time, and yet even in so urgent a case, affecting the liberty of the subject, he had been prevented from opening the petition to the House. He hoped the House would follow that precedent on the present occasion.

§ Mr. Maclean
must be permitted to recapitulate the facts stated by the peti- 440 tioner. That gentleman had ample proofs that his moral character was unimpeached; and he complained of having been deprived of the means of subsistence, because he appealed to the laws of his country. He had applied to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connell), but he found that this application to Parliament was considered by the hon. and learned Member a disgraceful aggravation of his original offence.

Mr. Bellew
trusted that, in common justice to the character of a most respectable prelate, the Roman Catholic Bishop of his diocese, that the petition now brought forward was precisely the same in character to that which was brought forward, but rejected by the House, last Session. As to the statement of the petitioner, that he had received damages from a jury, he had received damages to the amount of one farthing—that was the amount at which his character was estimated.