§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the circumstances under which a pension was granted to Mr. Robert Young, agricultural and historical poet. The question involved in this matter was not an Irish grievance, but one which equally concerned all parts of the country. This was not a solitary instance of an abuse of the Royal fund out of which pensions were accorded to literary and scientific men. He regretted to say that the fund had been too often abused and made the means, if not of rewarding incompetence, at any rate of bestowing eleemosynary aid on persons of mediocre ability, who had no other claim to that aid than their poverty, or perhaps their incompetence. There was, however, something worse than this, and that was when the recipient had no claim to literary merit or services rendered to his country; but if he had a claim at all it was one that ought not to be recognised—namely, party services, rendered, not to his country, but against his country. One distinguished instance of the abuse of the fund was that of the poet Close; but in that case the late Leader of that House (Viscount Palmerston), who was entrapped into granting the pension, had confessed his mistake, and retracted what he had done, though he compensated from his own purse the object of the misplaced public benefaction. The case to which he (Mr. O'Reilly) now wished to draw attention was also that of a poet—at least, of a man who wrote rhymes. It might be said that it was difficult to judge of poetic merit; but it would surely be expected that the noble Lord who had so ably translated Homer (the Earl of Derby) would at least have been able to decide upon the merits of poetical compositions, and that a pension would not have been granted by him to a wretched rhymester. Homer sometimes nodded; but in this case the noble translator not only dozed, but slept his sleep outright. He freely acquitted the noble Lord of anything but ignorance, and that was a serious fault to find. He believed that the noble Lord must have been ignorant of the circumstances under which the pension was granted; that he 429 knew nothing of the true history of the poet, and never asked to look at his works. It was exceedingly difficult to get a copy of the poetical works of Mr. Young; and although the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry (Lord Claud Hamilton) and the Earl of Enniskillen had subscribed liberally for copies of the book, it was stated that no sooner was the pension granted than every single copy that could be got hold of was consigned to the flames. He (Mr. O'Reilly) knew a gentleman who had applied to every bookseller in the country to get a copy and found it impossible. He had procured two copies, one of them the real original edition, and certainly a valuable work it was. For a moment let him trace the history of this person before he received his pension. In early life he was a nailer. Nine-tenths of his poems commemorated different Orange festivals. They were addressed to the Orange body. The hon. Member for Peterborough had been frequently requested to favour the House with a poetical recitation, and he had apologized by saying that he was not able to comply with the request. Now this work exactly expressed his sentiments. These poems were exactly what he would write if he was a poet. He would make a present of one of the copies of the work to the hon. Member for Peterborough on the condition that he would favour the House with extracts from it in the course of his different speeches. If the hon. Member would not accept a copy on that condition, he Mr. O'Reilly) would deposit it in the Library of the House for the improvement of hon. Members. For many years Mr. Young wrote songs for the Orangemen of the North of Ireland, and the time came when he looked for a reward of his literary and Orange loyalism in a pecuniary sense, but the Conservatives not being in office, his hope was long deferred. Either because the occupation was unprofitable or for other reasons, he had for many years ceased to write Orange songs. It was said that Mr. Robert Young had become an agricultural poet; but he (Mr. O'Reilly) could find very little about agriculture in this book. Probably the Secretary of the Treasury might favour them with the proofs that Mr. Robert Young had devoted himself to agricultural subjects. He would not disgust the House with the greater part of what the book contained. This writer contrasted himself throughout with the late Thomas Moore. He remarks that the late Thomas Moore wrote poetry of 430 which he entirely disapproved—as not being loyal in the Fermanagh sense of the word—and he attached to the airs of some of Moore's songs words more suited to the tastes of the Orangemen. To the air of "The Exile of Erin" he attaches the following words:—
In Munster assassins in league are invited,The laws to resist and confusion create,By priests of sedition to outrage excited,To bring back the horrors of dark Ninety-eight.He was aware that there was one hon. Gentleman in the House who would applaud the sentiment, but he did not think that the House would view it in the same way. To show that this was a man who had constantly libelled the great mass of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, he (Mr. O'Reilly) begged to read the following words attached to Moore's air, "Oh, Erin, my country":—Thus maddened by Jesuit's poisonous chalice, The Popesmen no longer contented remain; But bigotry, fierce persecution, and malice Inflame their dark bosoms and over them reign.The Scripture that tells of eternal salvation, And man, erring man, in religion renews, The prelates of Rome to their flocks ruination, Withhold or pervert them to suit their own Views.He (Mr. O'Reilly) need not say that there was throughout the book the most ribald abuse of the late Mr. O'Connell. There was a man of whom all Ireland was proud—a Roman Catholic bishop—a man celebrated as a writer—the friend of the late Duke of Wellington—"J. K. L.," the late Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare. Here was the way in which he was mentioned by Mr. Robert Young—Hail, Erin! most delightful land For strife and superstition, Where Lucifer to govern seems, And to excite sedition.Of vows and murders almost sick, Old Satan, discontented, Of late a most surprising trick For change of scene invented.Sure, none but he or J. K. L., Who does our isle enlighten, Would propagate so strange a spell, The cholera to frighten.He could give a few more extracts if it would not weary the House. ["Hear!"] The title of the next extract—"Croppies lie down,"—required some explanation. By the word "croppies" the poet meant Roman Catholics. 431We'll fight for our country, our Queen, and Her crown,And make all the traitors and Croppies lie down, Down, down, Croppies lie down.Our country's applauses our triumph will crown, While low, with the French, brother Croppies lie down,Down, down, Croppies lie down.Perhaps the Secretary for Ireland would wish to have these poems re-published, to improve the spirit of loyalty throughout Ireland. Amongst the most unfortunate reminiscences of the North of Ireland were the memories of the contests between Roman Catholics and Orangemen. The following was a poem which Mr. Robert Young wrote on what he called the battle of Castle Wellan:—It was in the year of thirty, on July the first old style,The Castle Wellan Orangemen and Clarkhill rank and file,To Clough with flags and music sweet, marched off in grand array,Where fifteen banners were displayed in honour of the day.So let cringing politicians vile and Whig and Papist join,Still annually we'll celebrate the conquest of the Boyne.Thus may we still triumphant be and keep rebellion down,Maintain our just ascendancy and guard the British Crown.The following was another beautiful extract:—Oh! could I Homer like, indite Sublime heroic lays,My faculties should all unite In singing Graham's praise;Who, undismayed by threatening foes Has faithfully revealedThe worth, the woes, and deeds of those Which time from us concealed.His pages true bring to our view The actions of the brave,Who fought of old like lions bold Our liberty to save.Weak Statesmen may to Rome give way, Expediency their guide,Lest civil war should Erin mar And spread through Britain wide,Each passing year some through fear, Give up to bigots baseWho Church and Crown would trample down And cover with disgrace.Not so our sires, whose glory fires The breast of Graham braveBehaved of old, but Rome controll'd And fought our rights to save.From a Conservative Government able to appreciate literary fame—with a noble poet at its head capable of rewarding loyalty like that of the Fermanagh trueblue—Mr. Robert Young received the pen- 432 sion which in his own opinion he had long deserved. In his preface he states—If a Moore, the author of seditious and licentious songs, has been considered deserving of a pension by our present Whig-Radical Administration, the humble man who exerts his talents in writing loyal and constitutional pieces, must surely have some claim on the patronage of those whose cause he advocates, although he cannot make pretensions to the expansive and highly cultivated genius of the celebrated Irish bard. Should he be assailed by critics of the Romish or Radical school, who scruple not in the present day at attempting to blacken by calumny—every man, no matter how eminent for virtue, who has the manliness to speak or write on behalf of the Protestant religion, he tells them beforehand that he despises their malignity, and can afford to treat their lucubrations with silent contempt.He regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry was in Ireland, but a relative of his was in the House, and he (Mr. O'Reilly) had nothing to say but matter of fact. The reason assigned for the giving the pension was that Mr. Robert Young wrote four volumes of poems and songs of considerable merit, was connected with a newspaper, and sixty-seven years of age, old and infirm. To that he (Mr. O'Reilly) had nothing to say. He believed the man was old, infirm, and poor. If poverty were a claim upon the literary and scientific fund, he (Mr. O'Reilly) had not a word to say against the pension. But if Parliament voted the money to reward literary merit, he then would say that Mr. Robert Young had no claim to it. Attached to the memorial for the pension were the names of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Derry and of several Roman Catholic clergymen; but that did not justify the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry in not inquiring into the literary merits of Mr. Robert Young. For years this man had libelled the Roman Catholics, and had been noted as their enemy. It was said to the Roman Catholic Bishop and clergy "this poor, wretched, and old man will get a pension if you will not stand in his way, and will charitably put your name to the memorial." They did so, and he honoured their motive however mistaken they were in doing so. But that was no vindication of those having to administer the bounty of the nation on literary and scientific grounds. He had also been informed, on authority which he could not dispute, although he could not assert it from positive knowledge, that the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry recommended Mr. Young for a pension, stating as of his own knowledge that his 433 songs were as free from any taint of Orangeism as of Ribbonism, and were as acceptable to Roman Catholics as to Protestants. If such were not the fact he hoped it would be denied on behalf of the noble Lord, who was now in Ireland, but who had received notice that the statement would be made. He (Mr. O'Reilly) might be asked, was it generous or right to make war against an old man of sixty-seven, who was poor, feeble, and infirm, for a wretched sum of £40? But he did not make war upon him. He protested as a matter of principle against a fund which should be devoted to the reward of literary and scientific attainments being applied to reward mediocrity, because it happened to be feeble and impoverished. If the pension were withdrawn, as it ought to be, and a subscription to aid Mr. Young entered into by his friends and patrons, he (Mr. O'Reilly) would be happy to subscribe. The granting of the pension he considered an abuse of the fund.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, his acquaintance with the works of Mr. Robert Young had only commenced that evening, and he thought it would probably end there. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that these pensions ought to be confined to persons of eminence in literature or science, and ought not to be granted to persons in Mr. Young's rank of life.
§ MR. O'REILLYI said literary eminence, not grade of life. Robert Burns was in a humble position, but he was a man of genius.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the hon. Gentleman had several times referred to Robert Young having commenced life as a "nailer," and seemed to think that he was thereby fastening an opprobrious epithet on him. He had supposed, therefore, his complaint was that a person of such humble origin had been selected for a pension. Now, it had for many years been the practice of Prime Ministers not only to give pensions of larger extent to persons of eminent literary and scientific attainments, but pensions of similar amount as that given to Mr. Young to persons of humble origin, who had so far educated themselves as to publish poems acceptable to their readers; and it seemed to him very desirable to encourage men who, without having had educational advantages, had devoted themselves to literary pursuits, even though their works were not such as to deserve world-wide fame. It was plain from the way in which the extracts that had been 434 read had been received, that Mr. Young's poems were not appreciated by that House. Tastes, however, differed. The hon. Member had said it was difficult to obtain a copy of his books, the natural inference from which would be that they were valuable works, and were greedily bought up. The hon. Gentleman, however, said they had been burnt; but he did not say whether he stated this of his own knowledge. He held in his hand a volume, of which no less than twelve pages of small print were occupied with subscribers' names. ["Read!"] If he read them, the House would probably be none the wiser, for they were mostly those of persons unknown to him; but so long a list showed that many persons in Ireland were anxious to encourage Mr. Young in his poetical efforts. The memorial upon which Lord Derby granted the pension was signed by clergymen of various denominations, magistrates, members of corporations and others. It described him as the Irish historical and agricultural poet, and stated that he had published four volumes of different degrees of merit, which had been well received and widely circulated. It also stated that his writings were strictly moral, and that their tendency was to inculcate loyalty to the Throne, and to promote feelings of mutual goodwill among the people. It then went on to say that if the noble Lord made some provision for Mr. Young, it would afford great gratification not only to the people of Derry, but to the whole of Ulster. That was the memorial on which Lord Derby acted. It was quite clear the Prime Minister had not time to peruse the volumes of every poet whose claims were brought before him for a pension, but that he must necessarily be guided by the representations of others. He had pointed out that Mr. Young's poems were largely subscribed for, and from the number of signatures to the memorial it was quite clear that his poems created considerable interest in his neighbourhood. The hon. Gentleman assumed that Mr. Young's claim rested on political grounds, and that the adherents of Lord Derby were the only persons anxious to give him a pension. The hon. Gentleman spoke of Mr. Young as having passed his life in abusing persons of the Roman Catholic faith. If so, all he should say was that they must be of the most forgiving nature, because at the head of the list of signatures was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Derry. The Protestant Bishop of Derry likewise signed the me- 435 morial, together with three Roman Catholic priests, two Presbyterian ministers, one Congregational Minister, and one Dissenting minister. So that persons of all sects and denominations came forward to bear testimony to the merits of Mr. Young. The memorial was also signed by twelve justices of the peace. As a Prime Minister was obliged to be dependent upon the representations of others in such matters, and as out of all question Lord Derby had never read a line of Mr. Young's poems, what more complete testimony in favour of a man of that humble rank could he have than when such a body of persons, including ministers of all denominations and twelve justices of the peace, came forward and bore testimony to his merits? Under these circumstances, he asserted that Lord Derby was justified in granting a pension to Mr. Young, supposing that pensions of that kind were to be granted at all to persons of that class of life. It was suggested that his noble Friend the Member for Londonderry (Lord Claud Hamilton) had got up this testimonial as a sort of political weapon to strengthen his influence at elections; but he held in his hand letters from persons who could not be considered as political adherents of Lord Derby. Here was a letter addressed to the noble Lord the Member for London-derry—
I think that Mr. Young is well deserving of a small pension. I have always understood him to be a very respectable person, and that he has educated himself in a manner highly creditable to him.This letter was signed "Dufferin." That noble Lord was a distinguished member of the late Government, and he had never heard that he was known for his Orange tendencies. On the principle of laudari a laudato viro he would next quote a letter signed by Lord Cremorne, now Earl Dartrey, a man whom Earl Russell delighted to honour:—Dear Claud Hamilton,—I shall be very glad if Mr. Young's well-known poetical abilities are rewarded by placing him on the Pension List, and I authorize you to attach my name to any memorial that may be presented on this subject to Earl Russell.He read these letters to show that there was no foundation for saying that this was a mere Orange memorial, or that it was got up for electioneering purposes in Londonderry. Although the House might not appreciate Mr. Young's poems—and he confessed for himself that he would much rather read Lord Derby's translation of 436 Homer—yet he trusted that he had satisfied the House that Lord Derby had not in this matter acted in a hasty or hurried manner, because he had been fully supported by the representations made on behalf of Mr. Young. After the testimonials which had been addressed to the noble Earl it was clear that he was justified in granting that pension, if such allowances were ever to be made to poets in the humbler ranks of life.
§ MR. COGANsaid, he considered that every one who had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend who had brought the subject forward must be convinced that Lord Derby had been shamefully imposed on in this matter, and that if his Lordship had exercised a little more care and caution the grant to Mr. Young would never have been made. The Government had carelessly prostituted—not to use too strong a word—a portion of the fund set apart to reward literature and art to the vilest purposes. The reply of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was most unsatisfactory, and though it had called forth the mirth of the House, the subject-matter was really too serious to be turned into a joke. It was a sad and lamentable reflection that the bounty of the Crown should be conferred on a man who had turned the little talents—and they were small enough—which he possessed to inflame and embitter the animosities which raged so fiercely in the North of Ireland. He held in his hand the volume containing the "poems" of the person thus marked out for the distinguishing favour of a pension, and they were so full of ribaldry, if not, indeed, of blasphemy, that he really did not dare to read them to the House. He would hand the book to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he liked. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented.] Well, if the right hon. Gentleman—whose fine literary taste the House was well acquainted with, and was justly proud of—would devote a short time to the perusal of the volume, he (Mr. Cogan) was convinced that before twenty-four hours had passed away the pension would be revoked. His hon. Friend, when he brought forward the subject, had not concluded with a Motion; because he never for a moment supposed that, after the light which he was prepared to throw on the appointment, the Government would try to vindicate or maintain it. He still hoped that, before the debate closed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rise in his place and 437 announce that the Government would reconsider the matter; but if this was not done, he begged to inform the House that his hon. Friend would feel it to be his duty, on another occasion, to bring forward a distinct Motion for the discontinuance of the pension; and he believed that such a Motion would be carried by an over whel mingly large majority.
SIR WILLIAM-STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid, he would entreat the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember the course pursued in a case similar to the present one by Lord Palmerston when Prime Minister. That noble Lord, when it was made plain to him that he had been led to confer a literary pension of that kind on a person who was unworthy of it, announced, after some consideration, that the pension would be withdrawn. That was a proceeding which commended itself to both sides of the House, and he thought it was an example which he might most respectfully beg to submit to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and to Lord Derby. In the remarks which it was the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to offer to the House that evening they all knew that he had a very difficult task to perform. A pension had been granted, and it was that right hon. Gentleman's duty to rise at that table and defend it. ["No!"] Well, the Secretary to the Treasury was there, and it was his business to make a speech on the occasion. He could not, however, congratulate either that hon. Gentleman, or the unfortunate recipient of that pension, on the success of that speech. Every word which the hon. Gentleman had said proved either that that particular pension ought not to have been conferred, or, perhaps, that pensions of that kind ought not to be granted at all. The sum at Her Majesty's disposal for the reward of persons who distinguished themselves in literature, in art, or in the public service was, they knew, very limited; but it was a sum which had been the means of promoting the comfort, and in some degree rewarding the talents and services, of many eminent persons. And he did say that the House which voted that sum had a right to see that those rewards, small as they were, and must be when bestowed upon persons of real merit, were not made ridiculous and contemptible by being conferred upon individuals like the poet whose works had now been brought before them. A memorial to the Government, as he understood, had been signed by many persons of distinction 438 and position in the part of Ireland where that gentleman resided, and letters were written by them to their friends in the Cabinet. They got their friends to do the same; and yet not one of those noble Lords or hon. Gentlemen had thought it right to come there and help the Secretary of the Treasury to defend what had been done. The question involved in the granting of those literary pensions was a very large one, and he should not enter into it on that occasion. He must, however, call the attention of the House to the example—if, indeed, example were wanting—which was furnished by the present discussion of the utter worthlessness of all memorials. Hon. Members knew that any person was ready to sign any paper which might be laid before him on any subject, provided he saw a certain number of names already attached to it. From what had that evening occurred they might learn that they could not depend even on private letters, for he could not pay his noble Friends whose letters had been read the poor compliment of saying that they were acquainted with Mr. Young's works. If they had been acquainted with them they would scarcely have desired to have been presented to the House as having displayed so remarkable a taste in literary criticism. He hoped that what had just passed would convince the Government that the granting of the pension to Mr. Young was a matter which ought to be re-considered. It was suggested that it had been granted out of charity to a person who was poor and old, and in bad health; but he could not see how the House, although it might decide that he should be deprived of that pension, would be committing in the administration of the public funds the slightest injustice by handing him over to the charity of his acquaintances and friends, among whom it appeared he was respected, and who, he must say, owed him, he thought, considerable reparation for having been the means of dragging him and his works as they had been dragged before the House.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he considered that the hon. Gentleman opposite was hardly justified, considering the number and weight of the names attached to the recommendation to Lord Derby in favour of Mr. Young, in imputing to those gentlemen an attempt to impose upon the noble Earl. No such attempt had been made, and no grounds whatever for such an imputation existed. The hon. Baronet 439 the Member for Perthshire had criticised the absence from the House of all the Gentlemen who had signed the recommendation. Now he (Sir Hervey Bruce) was one of those whose signatures were attached. He was prepared to justify the recommendation; and, though he was not in his seat when the debate commenced, it was because he did not expect that it would have come on so early. The absence of other gentlemen who had joined in the recommendation, and especially of the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), was explained by the assizes that were now being held and by other business; and, if the hon. Gentleman opposite had desired to have all information on the subject, it would have been better if he had put off the Motion for a week.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, that he had written to the noble Lord in question, and had had no reply; but he had been informed that his noble Relative in the House would represent the noble Lord.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he was not aware of this; but he trusted that he had explained the absence of the noble Lord, as well as that of many others of those who signed the recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cogan) had thought it his duty to attribute the pension of Mr. Young to party motives, and had suggested that he was indebted to it for the inflammatory tone of the poems.
§ MR. COGANsaid, that he had conveyed no such imputation; but only expressed his regret that the writer of such a tendency should have been selected for the bounty of the Crown.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that he had no desire to adopt the insignificant line of argument involved in retorting upon an opponent that he had been guilty of the very offence with which he charged you. But he warned the right hon. Gentleman opposite to beware before he brought forward a Motion for the discontinuance of the pension, for if that were done, he (Sir Hervey Bruce) could place this pension in a light of transcendant eminence compared with some that had been made on the other side of the House. He desired to mention no names; but he should be fully prepared to do so, if the threat of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out. When it was argued that Mr. Young was an insignificant poet, the House must remember that a pension of £40 a year was intended only for comparative insignificance, and that such 440 a sum would be beneath the acceptance of any man of even moderate position in the intellectual world. A Milton or a Byron needed not the Queen's bounty. But it might very fairly be given as a reward to a poet in humble life, who had been able to write verses that were admired by those among whom he lived. He (Sir Hervey Bruce), knowing Mr. Young well, and the neighbourhood in which he resided, could say that this was the case in the present instance. The poems of Mr. Young were read by the poorer classes in the district with pleasure if with no particular benefit to their minds. He was therefore no unfit recipient of the Queen's bounty, which was intended for the benefit of poor men, not of rich ones. He thought this man had shown himself able in the sphere of life into which he had been born, and had written a certain kind of poetry which went down very well with the people for whom it was written. Under these circumstances, he did not think it was fair to challenge the pension. The hon. Member said his attack was not against the man but the principle. If so, it would have been fairer to have attacked the principle and let the man alone. He defended the grant upon the broad principle that it was a pension given out of Her Majesty's bounty, one of the objects of which was to give help to self-educated meritorious men in struggling circumstances.
§ MR. O'NEILLsaid, he did not happen to be in the House when the discussion commenced, and he had not therefore heard the charges which it seemed had been made as to the use of inflammatory language in the works of Mr. Young. All he could say was that when he signed the memorial to Lord Derby he did so after having seen some of the poetry in question, which, so far as he could judge, contained nothing inflammatory or objectionable. He thought, knowing as he did that Mr. Young was in distressed circumstances, that he was of good character, and in every way, so far as he was aware, deserving of the recognition which it was proposed to obtain for him, that his was a case in which a pension might properly be granted. That was the sole motive which had led him to attach his signature to the memorial.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the present aspect of the Fenian conspiracy. In reference to a previous statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he could 441 afford no information as to the origin, nature, or extent of the conspiracy, he wished to know whether an inquiry had been instituted for the purpose of obtaining such information, and the nature thereof; and, if not, whether it was intended to institute such inquiry? He had visited Ireland on the 12th of July, and thought it only fair to a class which had been much maligned to bear his testimony to their admirable conduct. Positive orders had been given by the Lord Lieutenant that no public meeting of Orangemen should be held on that day; but under the advice of a magistrate, who held that the Lord Lieutenant had exceeded his duty, they did assemble to the number of some 20,000. An enormous number of dragoons and foot soldiers was sent to put them down; but the officers, in conversation with him, admitted that a more orderly or peaceable assembly they had never seen, and they greatly regretted that their orders were so peremptory. He told the officers that he was prepared to accept the responsibility of the proceedings. He should gladly have received a communication from the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Chancellor upon the point, but nothing ever came of it. The statements which had been made in the course of this debate were malicious and calumnious.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to order. Was it proper that statements made in the course of a debate should be designated as calumnious?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe words used were "malicious and calumnious," and I think those words should not have been used.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would leave the House to form its own opinion. For himself he withdrew entirely the words he had used. He would quote a passage which deserved almost to be written in letters of gold, commencing, "Justice to Ireland?—Do it," and describing the hatred of Irishmen to everything English. This passage he attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Young had obtained honour of all persons who could appreciate his sentiments, which he with great humility offered to him on that occasion. Before hon. Gentlemen presumed to express the feelings of England they must get repealed that part of our Constitution which required the Queen upon her oath to declare that the things which the poet Young has been engaged in denouncing are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. As the House seemed for once in- 442 clined to afford him a hearing, he would state the most unusual and improper mode in which the noble Lord had answered his (Mr. Whalley's) questions about Father Maginn and Bishop Moriarty. He asked whether Father Maginn refused to be sworn against the men engaged in the affray where the police-constable Duggan was shot, saying he was acting as a priest; and whether he had the effrontery to say that he purposely put his handkerchief over his eyes that he might not see who were the parties engaged in the murderous affray; and whether Bishop Moriarty had approved the conduct of Father Maginn. The noble Lord said he had received no information upon the subject, and that no investigation had taken place; but the information contained in his (the hon. Member's) Question was communicated to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who suggested it should be forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant's secretary answered that communication. Notwithstanding this, the noble Lord had led the House to believe that there had been no investigation whatever. He submitted that this must be borne in mind in regard to any matters he might have to submit to the House to justify an inquiry into the present state of the Fenian conspiracy. Last Session he endeavoured to bring this subject before the House; but after an hour's attempt to be heard the Speaker intimated that he could not obtain for him a hearing, and that it would bring discredit upon that assembly if he proceeded further. In yielding on that occasion he thought he had entitled himself to some consideration on the present occasion, when the facts, as they had developed themselves from day to day, had tended very much to confirm the statement he then made, that this Fenian conspiracy was a very serious matter, that there was a very deep and extensive organization, and that the mistakes which had been made by the Government at that time ought to induce them to institute full inquiry. The mistakes and miscalculations had continued since, and there was therefore the more reason now for an investigation of the subject. It was with no hope of restoring peace to Ireland that he proposed this, because the disturbances of 1867, like those of 1848, 1798, and 1641, were due, not to political, but to religious causes. It was said there were religious wrongs in Ireland. Those wrongs were that persons differing from the Roman 443 Catholics in religion were allowed to live, write poetry, speak, and act amongst them. It was a religious wrong that he should be allowed to speak, and the poet Young to write. When General Garibaldi was over here he purposed visiting Ireland, to point out to the people how they could relieve themselves from their troubles; but the most eminent men on both sides of that House, when they heard that such was his intention, hurried him out of the country. He had seen in the handwriting of Garibaldi that which amounted to a statement that he was sent away to prevent his expressing the sentiments which he (Mr. Whalley) was now endeavouring to express. He had lately visited Wolverhampton, Chester, and Liverpool, and found no difference of opinion on this point—that the danger to be apprehended from a Fenian rising was co-extensive with the cause which made the Roman Catholic quarters of those towns the scenes of constant squabbling. The outbreak of Fenianism was for the purpose of supporting an application contemporaneously made to the President of the United States, to declare the Irish republic belligerent, and he had seen a statement to the effect that several of the leading merchants of New York had subscribed 5,000,000 of dollars, to be employed, when England was engaged in civil or foreign war, in fitting out privateers under the flag of the enemy, whether that enemy should be Irish Republicans or foreign Powers. Another statement was, that during Smith O'Brien's rebellion in 1848 a subscription was organized on his behalf in America, some of the subscribers being leading statesmen of the day, including Mr. Seward and Mr. Horace Greely, and that when the rebellion was over 95,000 dollars of this money remained in hand, which sum the Fenians were now seeking to recover. It was said they could not restore permanent tranquillity to Ireland unless they redressed the religious wrongs of the country. No doubt it was a wrong that he was allowed to speak in that House, and it was a most grievous outrage that Mr. Young should be allowed to publish his poetry. According to these persons Ireland could not be relieved from her wrongs till persons of different opinions from the Roman Catholics consented to hold their tongues, and not in any way to interfere with the full exercise of the utmost authority of the papacy. If they could not throw off that yoke, if they must continue to subsidize their irreconcilable 444 enemy, there should at all events be an inquiry into the origin of the rebellion. They would then have no more of those transparent falsehoods about the political wrongs of Ireland being the cause of the outbreak, and they would at all events be doing something to maintain the character of England, if they could not maintain her independence of this foreign power.
§ MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was surprised, after the appeal of the hon. Member for Perthshire for the re-consideration of the question of the pension, that no Member of the Government had risen to give any reasons in its favour. The principle involved was a very serious one; and he was surprised to hear it said that anybody who endeavoured to educate himself, or who wrote a book that went down with a certain class of people, was eligible for a pension. This announcement had astonished him. In his country—Ireland—there were many humble men, self-educated men, who had illustrated the language, the history, and the antiquities of Ireland, who had received no pension. But here was a man pandering to the worst passions of our race, by writing, he would not call it poetry, but ribald trash, who was receiving a pension for literary services. If Lord Derby had been assured that the productions were not of a party character that matter should be explained. His own opinion was that Lord Derby had been imposed upon. This was a matter in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might interfere. The right hon. Gentleman was a man himself of the highest literary character, and if he took up by chance this volume and read any page of it, would hardly endorse the exercised discretion which granted the pension in question for such wretched poetry. The Secretary of the Treasury had defended the granting of this pension. But he (Mr. Sullivan) said it was a scandal to the country that such a grant should have been made. It was a great injustice to those who had a claim to a share of the literary fund that a poetaster should be deemed worthy of a pension, and that the bestowal of it should be sustained.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIt was my intention to have risen, Sir, when the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) caught your eye; but as he seemed anxious to speak on the general merits of the question, particularly as it related to the country in which this act of patronage has been exer- 445 cised, I was unwilling to interpose. I would mention, in the first place, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the house labours under an error in thinking that this pension was granted from the Literary Fund. The Literary Fund is a private institution, presided over by Earl Stanhope.
§ MR. SULLIVANsaid, what be meant was the fund at the disposal of the Crown for Literary pensions.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThere is no such fund or bounty in existence, although the mistake is not one confined to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Her Majesty has the power, with the consent of Parliament, of distributing the sum of £1,500 annually in pensions; but that sum is not exclusively devoted to literary or scientific claims, and it is only by the gracious permission of Her Majesty that a portion of it has been devoted to these purposes. It has been distributed ever since Her Majesty's accession, and has not been considered to be a profuse amount; but it was not all destined to be devoted to the claims of literature and science. There is no doubt but that of late years a considerable portion has, by the gracious consideration of Her Majesty, been allotted to these purposes; and I think that, on the whole, the pensions that have been awarded to science and literature have been granted with great taste and discretion by whatever Government happened to be in power. There have been cases, certainly, more than one, in which, upon erroneous statements to persons in authority, pensions have been granted—one, a case of great notoriety, with which the House is familiar. These cases are to be regretted; but we must remember that in granting these pensions, in which the claims of literature are concerned, the Prime Minister cannot always act on his own personal experience. A man of great accomplishments, as Prime Ministers generally are, and as we must all admit Lord Derby to be, will have acquaintance with the merits of literary men of high eminence; but literature is so multifarious in its character, that it is hard for a Minister to know the merits of all who may prefer a claim to the Royal bounty. As a general rule, he must depend on the representation of others. In the case of a great poet, like Mr. Tennyson, or an accomplished scholar, like Mr. Southey, the reputation of the individuals would be a sure guide; but there are many 446 other instances, perhaps a majority, in which pensions are granted without the previous knowledge on the part of the Minister who is responsible. On what, then, must he depend? I take the case of a poet—of a person whom the hon. and learned Gentleman calls a poetaster, or it may be a poet. It might be the case of the author of a Farmer's Boy, or some other work which is now looked upon as a rustic classic. How would it be possible in such a case for a Prime Minister of England to be familiar with the merits of a Bloomfield or a Clare? He must be guided by persons in the locality in which the writer had distinguished himself. Now what happened in the present case? We are told now that this writer is a poetaster, and that his writings are distinguished by very vindictive feelings and the worst passions of a violent political faction. This may be true, it may or it may not be true, and if the test is to depend on my reading this writer's works, I must say, with all respect to the distinguished persons interested, that I would not undertake to read them through. What is it Lord Derby sees? That wonderful and mysterious document which exercises such an influence in all the transactions of public life—a memorial. He sees that, with all that patriotism and liberality which has always distinguished the Irish people, the memorial in favour of this poetaster who had indulged in the worst rancour of Orange politics is signed by a Roman Catholic prelate of that part of the country. It was unjust thus to treat Lord Derby. It was not fair thus to throw him off his guard, to play off this hoax upon him. I am the last man who would reward a poetaster, whether he was an Orangeman or of opposite politics, who attempted by means of his power of versification to propagate opinions of a malevolent description; but I should myself be thrown off my guard if he came recommended by a Roman Catholic prelate, or vice versâ by a Protestant prelate. It was no doubt actuated by the sublimest feelings of charity and patriotism, that the Roman Catholic prelate, in this case, recommended the writer who had attacked his creed and country. I know there is a Christian charity that may distinguish Roman Catholic prelates and Protestant prelates. There is a sublime feeling of forgiveness described by the hon. Member for Longford. And no doubt it was in consequence of this person's continuous attacks on his creed and worship 447 that the Roman Catholic bishop was induced to recommend him for a pension. I think we should take a large and generous view of this case. Lord Derby is, perhaps, by natural temperament too apt to believe what people tell him, and when a man in the position of a Roman Catholic prelate makes an appeal he would naturally believe his statement. Who can believe that Lord Derby would refuse? If he were a cautious or suspicious character he might hesitate. He might think that the man was perhaps a strong political or religious partisan, and that representations had been made to him which the circumstances did not justify. But I look about—I look again at the memorial, and I find that one of the most accomplished men in Ireland, and a practical statesman of the Liberal school, has also signed it. I find attached to it the classic name of Dufferin, a nobleman who is not attached to the party of Lord Derby. I find also the name of a nobleman, a high Wig—the name of Lord Cremorne. Lord Cremorne is particularly anxious that this pension should be bestowed. I say, then, that all these circumstances must be taken into consideration; and when Roman Catholic prelates and Whig Peers and statesmen came forward and pressed upon Lord Derby the exercise of the patronage of the Crown, it is really too absurd to have strictures made in this House as if this was some villanous political job by which some reckless political partisan was to be rewarded. It is quite clear that Lord Derby—perhaps from some error in his education, was not acquainted with the writings of Mr. Young. But when this memorial came supported by Anglican and Roman Catholic prelates, countenanced by endless local potentates, by justices without end, and by the distinguished names of Dufferin and Cremorne—men well known for their acquaintance with literature and science, surely Lord Derby was justified in granting such an inconsiderable pittance. The moral which this case, as well as the whole experience of my life, teaches me is to beware of testimonials. Nobody ever acted on a testimonial who had not afterwards cause to regret it. I am sure that Lord Derby would be sorry to do an unkind or harsh act to any one; but he will notice in the spirit of a man of the world what has occurred in this House, and will do what is proper. In future, when asked to do a similar act by Protestant and Roman Catholic prelates and by Liberal Peers, he 448 will, I am sure, if he possibly can, first read the works of the poet who is to receive the pension.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.