§ MR. MAGUIRE
, who had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for the Home 818 Department, Whether his attention has been seriously called to the frequent instances of riot and disturbance, injury to person and destruction of property, caused in certain districts of this country by the addresses of a person named Murphy, and his colleagues; and whether he could give any assurance to the House that the delivery of such addresses could be prevented for the future? said, he desired to supplement his Question by a brief statement and that he might put himself in Order, he would conclude with a Motion for the adjournment of the House. He thought if the House would attend to him for a very short time, there was not a Member of the House who would not feel he was justified in calling the attention of the House to the subject of his Question. He was sure that every good and generous man in the country must have witnessed with pain and disgust the systematic attempts which had been for some time past made to excite evil passions and sow dissension among the population in many of the manufacturing districts of the country, by inflaming those prejudices which naturally arose from differences of religion and of race — prejudices which he asserted every Christian man and true patriot ought rather endeavour to allay. There was, as they all knew, a considerable Irish Catholic population in many of the large cities of England; and throughout every manufacturing town in England there was a considerable number of Irishmen and Catholics, Now, he did not claim for his countrymen any peculiar excellence. Like other branches of the human family they had their defects and their weaknesses, but none even of their worst enemies denied that they possessed many sterling qualities and many great virtues, or that they were deeply attached to their country and their faith. He was not in the least opposed to free discussion, and had no desire to stifle the expression of public opinion; but there was a great difference between free discussion and a licence to abuse and outrage the religion of others. There had been dining the past twelve months, in nearly all the leading communities, attempts made on the part of a certain organization which he would not mention, to inflame the passions of the English people against the Irish; and the religion of the Roman Catholics had been made the pretext of the assault. He intended only to refer to the late proceedings at Ashton-under-Lyne, and would not allude to what had taken place at Black- 819 burn and Birmingham. This was a matter of life and death to many, and as interesting to the people of this country as any question which could be brought under the notice of Parliament. Wherever this Mr. Murphy and the agents of the society to which he had alluded had gone—wherever they had raised the standard of intolerance the result had been most mischievous. There had been noting, destruction of property, and sometimes loss of life.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he rose to Order. He was far from wishing to deprive the hon. Member of any latitude the House might wish to accord him; but he hoped the hon. Member would not depart from the usual —["Order."]
§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he believed he was perfectly in Order. He did not wish to do anything to cause ill-feeling in the House or out of it. His only object was to put an end to a state of things which caused bad blood throughout the community, and to enable men of different religious views to live in peace and amity. For the last three or four months the people of Ashton had been kept in constant fear and apprehension by the advent of these emissaries of disturbance; and he liad it on the authority of a clergyman that during that time the Roman Catholics had been obliged to stop up night after night to protect their churches and schools. On the 9th instant there was a great tea party, consisting of about 1,000 persons, most of them wearing Orange ribbons. On the next day, which was Sunday, there was an Orange procession. He was sorry to say that the Irish were provoked, and no doubt they were parties to the riot that ensued; but it should be remembered that they had been systematically provoked for months previously. After they were dispersed, at a late hour of the night two Catholic chapels were nearly gutted, and the houses in several of the streets in which the Irish dwelt were wrecked. His complaint was, that the magistrates did not take any active steps to suppress that riot. He made that assertion on the authority of a letter he had received from Mr. Aspland, Chairman of the Lancashire county magistrates, a gentleman who was not a Catholic, but, he believed, a Unitarian, and a man of the highest character. Mr. Aspland stated that the riot was allowed to proceed for four hours without any attempt being made to cheek it. The riot, which commenced on the Sunday, was continued on the Monday morning 820 though the Home Secretary was asked by some clergymen to afford them protection. Fifty-one houses were wrecked and gutted on the Monday night. He was informed that although 500 special constables had been enrolled during the day, and one of the officers of police who had at his command a large body of policemen offered his services at the Town Hall, the magistrates did not accept his assistance. They seemed to be utterly helpless and feeble, and the result was a state of things utterly disgraceful to a Christian country. One hundred and ten houses and shops, two chapels, one school, one hall, and two priests' houses were wrecked. Wherever this Murphy appeared there was riot and disorder. Speaking of Ireland, Murphy said, "The country can never be quiet until every Catholic priest is hanged." Referring to an execution that took place, Murphy said he would put the rope around the culprit's neck, and around the neck of the priest too. Scarcely under any circumstances had the magistrates of the manufacturing districts been equal to the discharge of their duty. He (Mr. Maguire) would tell the House what he did when charged, under similar circumstances, with the preservation of the peace of his own city, and what these magistrates could have also done. In the midst of the Belfast riots there was great excitement in his city, and at that time a person came to lecture there against "Anti-Christ" and the Pope. He knew that persons would have gone to meet those who assembled to receive that man, and at every risk he stopped him. Being a Catholic, he stopped him at the risk of being charged with bigotry; but there was a time when a man must brave everything to save the peace of the community. Though he incurred for himself the deadliest hostility amongst those who entertained strong views on religion, he had the approval of every man who loved peace and order. He wished to ask the Home Secretary what steps were taken to preserve the peace? Was he satisfied that sufficient precautions were adopted? When the riot commenced was it stopped with vigour? And what stops would be taken to prevent this man from going to other parts of England and producing elsewhere the same terrible results? In his programme, issued at Bury, Murphy stated that he would take his wooden walls to Manchester. Every man knew there was an enormous Irish population in Manchester, and they might anticipate what 821 would be the result. He said that, in spite of the authorities, he would go there. He said he would go to Preston and every town in Lancashire, and would not fail to visit Liverpool. There being 150,000 Roman Catholics in Liverpool they must see what would be the effect of inflaming the passions of the Protestants and Catholics there. Murphy said there were Irishmen in Liverpool whose motto was "No surrender;" and declared that one of them was better than forty Papists. The Duke of Wellington did not think so.
§ MR. MAGUIRE
explained that he had read from the paper because he did not wish to quote from memory, which might prove fallible. Murphy stated in his programme that he intended to make the tour of all these places, and he (Mr. Maguire) asked if the local authorities and the Home Office were prepared to accept the challenge Murphy had given to them? Were they prepared to prevent the preaching of disunion, and to take steps for the preservation of the peace? He (Mr. Maguire) wished that his countrymen would not mind this man; but that was asking from them more than human nature was capable of. He knew also that their clergymen had given them the best advice. The disciples and followers of Murphy wherever they met the Roman Catholics in the Lancashire districts retailed the infamous statements they heard from Murphy's platform, offending fathers, mothers, and sisters and brothers in their dearest and most sacred feelings. The Catholic clergy were outraged in every way, and were actually afraid for their lives, having received frequent threats, and the nuns in the district were made the subjects of the vilest and grossest abuse. The book called Maria monk, which had been exposed as a lie in America, forty-three years ago, was disseminated by these people as a means of casting the vilest odium on those whom every Catholic reveres and every Protestant gentleman of honour must respect. He hoped the House would consider he had said nothing offensive to anyone in bringing this matter before the House. Although he did not wish to interfere with the Business of the House, merely asking a Question under the circumstances would not satisfy him. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of 200 memorialists, that there should be an investigation into the cause 822 of these riots. The prayer of the memorial was in these words—That the undersigned magistrates and others whose names and descriptions are herein underwritten, humbly request that a Commission be issued by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the late riots at Ashton-under-Lyne, the cause of these riots, and the proceedings of the authorities, with the view to the Commission pointing out remedial measures for the suppression of such conduct as has been and is now affecting the manufacturing districts of Lancashire.That memorial was signed by twelve clergymen, eight magistrates, four medical men, one solicitor, four manufacturers, and 161 others. He would conclude by reading a few lines which he had received from a Scotch soldier — who was a Presbyterian and Christian—with reference to the Notice he had placed on the Paper. He believed that letter would meet with the sympathy of every man in that House. It ran as follows:—I am an old officer who has served in the four quarters of the globe, and I have commanded many hundreds of Irishmen and Catholics with the greatest satisfaction. I am an elder of the Presbyterian Kirk; but I have an utter contempt for those who insult others through the religion in which they were born and bred.Now he (Mr. Maguire) would simply ask for protection for these poor people that they might live in peace in the midst of the society in which they had cast their lot. He might tell those who were the authors of this abominable propagandism that the most grievous consequences, not local merely, but Imperial, would result from the continuance of this detestable strife. He knew that hundreds and thousands of these people had emigrated from the manufacturing districts to America on account of the causes he was deploring. They did not want to increase the feeling in that country against England. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Maguire.)
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
Sir, everyone must feel with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) how disgraceful and discreditable the riots which have occurred in the North of England have been to the parties concerned; and I cannot sufficiently deplore and condemn the excesses committed in Ashton in the wrecking of a whole street, and the destruction of a Roman Catholic chapel. At the same time, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been altogether just to the magistrates 823 of that place. The Mayor at the time when the riots occurred was absent, but it is stated to me that there was a gentleman named Mason—I believe a magistrate for two counties and also for the borough — who from the first moment that he received notice, while at chapel, was with little intermission in constant attendance during the entire week, and did all in his power to put a stop to the riots. It appears from a statement I have received from the Mayor that in January last there was some apprehension of riots, and special constables were sworn in to the number of 100. The local authorities received instructions to assemble them when occasion required, and they were assembled with the police at the Town Hall on the first evening of the riots, and the troops were also sent for; but on the Sunday evening the excesses do not seem to have gone very far. I do not intend to enter into the circumstances which attended the riots, or to say which party was the aggressor, as that does not come within the scope of the hon. Gentleman's Question. But on the Monday these violent outrages were renewed, and great destruction of property, no doubt, took place. With respect, I will not say to the proximate cause, but to the original cause of those disturbances, the hon. Member attributed them to the addresses of a person named Murphy and his associates, who have been lecturing in the North of England. The Question which the hon. Gentleman put on the Paper, and which is hardly addressed to the point to which the hon. Gentlemen adverted towards the close of his remarks—namely, the issue of a Commission— is whether I could give an assurance to the House that the delivery of such addresses could be prevented for the future? Now, as I understand, the mode which is adopted by Mr. Murphy when he is going to lecture at a place is either to hire a room for the purpose or to make use of a building which belongs to him, and to which persons are admitted by ticket. There is no analogy in such proceedings to meetings held in the open air, and I am not aware that there is any law in existence by which a person can be prevented from delivering controversial lectures either in a room which he takes or a structure which he carries about for the purpose. No person is compelled to attend those lectures. If, however, such a lecturer uses language calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, or of a seditious or 824 blasphemous character there is a remedy; but so long as the person lecturing confines himself to what the law cannot take hold of I am not aware of any means of putting a stop to the delivery of such lectures. The hon. Member said he should be averse from any interference with free discussion; but I am afraid, unless you were to impose a limit with regard to the language used, which would be found intolerable, you must rely under the present law on the moderation of those who lecture, and on the authority of persons of influence on their side, whether in religion or politics, to make them temperate in the language they employ. I am not able to say, therefore, that I contemplate any mode by which persons going to deliver controversial lectures which in themselves are not wrong, in buildings which are their own or are hired, can be prevented from doing so. The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is in the power of any person, who has reason to apprehend that such lectures are likely to lead to a breach of the peace, to swear an information to that effect, and so bring the question to an issue. But that is a question for the local authorities, and not for any central authority in London. With respect to the part I have taken, it has been this —The Roman Catholic clergymen to whom the hon. Gentlemen referred telegraphed to me, and I at once telegraphed back to the chief constable and magistrates of the borough telling them they could have extra assistance if required, and at the same time I called on them to swear in a sufficient number of special constables, and if they could not find as many as they required to apply for military aid. We received an answer to the effect that they did not require any additional assistance, for that the force at their disposal was sufficient. I am not aware that after that there was any extreme disturbance. I believe during the week afterwards they were able to maintain order in the town. There are now a great many persons waiting to take their trial, and I believe, without issuing a formal Commission, the facts of the case will come out fully in the ordinary way before a jury, otherwise I might perhaps have been prepared to issue a Commission; but I believe that such a course now might prejudice the trials about to take place before the Judges of the land. Without entering into detail, which I do not think the present occasion calls for, I will say this, that every effort will be made by the authorities in London to assist magistrates who re- 825 qnire aid in their endeavours to keep the peace. But information must be sworn before the local authorities if the protection of the law is to be appealed to; for I am not aware that, without entirely interfering with free discussion, we have any other means of putting down such proceedings as those of which the hon. Gentleman complains.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he should; not do his duty if he did not make a remark or two with respect to the conduct of the magistrates of Ashton during the recent disturbances, as it had been impugned by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire). He had gone into this matter with considerable care, and he had come to an entirely opposite conclusion from that of the hon. Gentleman. His conclusion was, that the magistrates and chief constable had shown remarkable skill and firmness, accompanied by moderation, in dealing with the riots. It should always be remembered that the police force of a borough was not constituted to deal with a riot every day in the week, and when a disturbance such as that under discussion sprang up unexpectedly and suddenly, of course the magistrates were placed in considerable difficulty. He begged the House, however, to take this strong fact into account, that, although there was a deplorable destruction of property in one or two streets, and the homes of some of the poor Irish were sacked and their furniture burnt, yet the riots were put an end to without the loss of a single life, and he believed there was only one person who could be said to have received any serious personal injury. As the Secretary of State had said, the rioting on Sunday was not considerable, and, though unexpected by the authorities, it was put down by means of the police and special constables with comparatively little difficulty. It commenced again on Monday evening, and what did the magistrates do? Mr. Mason wrote a letter to the commanding officer, who was in barracks not a mile distant, to keep his troops in readiness, and he also wrote and carried about in his pocket another letter, and kept a mounted messenger by his side to take it to the officer, requiring him to put his men in motion without delay. The magistrates, of course, acted with him, and constables were placed in all parts of the town to watch, so that the force collected at the Town Hall, consisting of special constables and a large body of county and borough police, might be sent to any point where a 826 riot might break out. A riot occurred in a particular street, where houses were sacked and windows broken; but in a few minutes the special constables and police, accompanied by the magistrates, were on the spot, and the riot at once ceased, no resistance being offered to the authorities. After this, information arriving that an attack was being made on St. Mary's Catholic Chapel, the police and special constables were immediately sent to the spot, and that riot also was put down. Now, considering that the disturbances had been suppressed by the use of the constable's staff, and not by the unnecessary use of the military, he thought that, instead of blame being imputed to the magistrates, they ought to be thanked for the skill which they had displayed in putting down the riots without any more serious results. While concurring in that part of the hon. Member's remarks which referred to the lectures of Mr. Murphy, he must call the attention of the Home Secretary to a branch of the subject which had not been noticed. The riot in Ashton on Sunday, the 10th, was not caused by any lecture by Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy had been there in the preceding January, and probably a certain feverish feeling existed in the town between Catholics and Protestants; but what occurred on Saturday, the 9th, the day previous to the riots? Why, a great political meeting was held, under the auspices of a society called the Protestant Electoral Union. The clergy of the district were present, and the speeches for the most part condemned in no measured language the proceedings of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). Ono of the rev. speakers was Dr. Tresham Gregg, who came from Dublin, and described himself as a gentleman who had a valuable living in Ireland; but, from the extraordinary anomalous state of the law, had no duties to perform in connection with that living. He stated that he nevertheless felt it his duty to devote himself to the service of his religion, and that every minute of his time had been occupied in meditation and in thinking how he could benefit the Protestant interest, and promote the cause of religion. He added that he had a plan which would raise all classes to one social level, and would sweep away Popery for ever. Several other clergymen made speeches of a very strong character; but since it might not be in Order to quote them, he would not describe them from 827 memory. Many of the clergy and leading persons of the district were present at the meeting, which was called a tea-party. The president was provided with what was called, at the opening of the proceedings, an Orangeman's hat, which he put on in order to preside in proper form and with due dignity, and there was an immense display of Orange favours. A great number wore these ribands, and the next day whole streets were filled with persons flaunting them in the faces of the Irish. Well, the Irish donned their green, and on that Sunday afternoon the riot began. The authorities had had no apprehension of serious disturbance, the chief constable having given the magistrates an assurance that, notwithstanding the violent speeches, things had since gone on peaceably. Indeed, he had left Ashton for the purpose of visiting some of his relations. Now, he (Mr. Milner Gibson) called upon the Home Secretary to use his influence with his political friends, so that upon occasions of this kind, when there were Orange parties, they might not deck themselves with orange ribands at tea parties, in the midst of a population already excited by the lectures delivered by Murphy and other agitators. Speaking advisedly, he thought it would have been becoming that these clergy should not have attended a meeting of such a strong party character. He had no doubt that the most respectable Conservatives altogether repudiated Murphy; but he begged to inform the Secretary of State for the Home Department that at this Protestant Electoral Union meeting a verse of "Rule Britannia" having been sung, three cheers were proposed for Mr. Murphy, and were received with a will. To a certain extent, therefore, those present at the meeting identified themselves with the teachings of Murphy. He thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department had exercised a wise discretion in not countenancing the idea that there was any case for a Commission; for, deplorable though the riots had been, and attended with much mischief to many poor families, he believed the accounts had been much exaggerated, and he further believed that the magistrates had performed their duty with ability and discretion.
§ MR. WHALLEY
said, he hoped the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) had been mere badinage, and that he had not gravely called attention to the orange ribands at the meeting of the Protestant 828 Electoral Union as an excuse for the outrages which had been committed. He was, himself, a subscriber to that in common with many other Protestant societies; and he sincerely assured the House that if all the facts could be fully stated this subject would be one of the most important questions that had ever been brought before them. If, however, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) imputed to him responsibility for this society or for Mr. Murphy—as from his frequently turning to him during his speech he appeared to do— why had he given him no notice of his intention to bring the subject forward? He had no idea, on coming down to the House, that this discussion would occur. The President of the Union had that day called upon him, and had read to him an account of these transactions, which went to show that at no period of our history had there been a more deliberate organization on the part of the Romish priesthood for putting down freedom of speech. Boys at school, even, were drilled for the purpose of answering the summons of the priest and putting down all obnoxious speakers. Men were drilled in their chapels for the same purpose; and, indeed, there was a system of terrorism for putting down every kind of discussion. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton had clearly shown, it was not this Mr. Murphy who had excited the disturbances, bnt the Rev. Tresham Gregg, or some other person; so that the excuse on which the Question had been brought forward was altogether fallacious. For his own part, he had had no communication with this Mr. Murphy for eight or nine months, and he had had no communication with the Electoral Union; so that he was not an interested party in the matter. He believed, however, that a more honest, truthful, and he might almost say a more careful man in his statements, had never appeared as a public lecturer than this Mr. Murphy. As to a Commission, this was by no means the first time that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had asked for an investigation; but they had invariably shrunk from it when the opportunity had been offered to them. He should be glad to believe that the hon. Member was serious in his suggestion for an investigation; but he really did not mean it, and he defied him to an investigation.
§ MR. MAGUIRE
rose to Order. Was it Parliamentary for a Member to say that another Member had distinctly told a lie? 829 He had made a certain statement, and meant it in all faith and honour. Now, had any Gentleman a right to imply that he had not spoken truly?
§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that on a previous occasion the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) challenged him to prove a certain statement; but after an hour spent in vainly attempting to appeal to the honour and rectitude of the hon. Member, so as to be allowed to redeem the pledge, the Speaker interposed, and he had to desist. If he had said anything offensive to the hon. Member for Cork he exceedingly regretted it; and he was sorry he could not believe that the hon. Member had the least intention or expectation of a Commission being granted.
§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member must not repeat what he had already been told was not in Order or Parliamentary.
§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that as the hon. Member had placed no Notice on the Paper of any investigation he was not justified in making the statements he had made. He believed that, although the hon. Member was of course unconscious of the fact, the statement he had made was the exact reverse of the truth. Would the House permit him to state what he knew on the subject? He had stated that he would be answerable for the statements of Mr. Murphy. Upon two occasions, when Mr. Murphy was lecturing in Birmingham, he had made inquiries in order to ascertain whether the reports of his lectures in the London newspapers were correct, because if they had been he should have withdrawn from the society that sent Mr. Murphy forth. He found, however, that these reports of what Mr. Murphy had said were entirely fabricated, and that not one word of the kind had been uttered by Mr. Murphy. No doubt the tendency of the proceedings was towards the effect mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) but that was solely through the reading of documents furnished by Popery itself. Instead of answering him, an organization of men, boys, women, and girls had been got, and this was the cause of the riots at Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and other places. The question was, whether there should be the right of public discussion on these matters in our towns. Why, there was scarcely the right to speak in that House. He most cordially supported the suggestion that there should be an investigation into this subject.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, he wished to state a material fact to show that Mr. Murphy's lectures ought to be put an end to. He had himself been present at one of these meetings at Chelmsford, and had not only heard Murphy say that all the convents in England ought to be burnt, but had heard him incite a mob of the lowest description to go and burn the neighbouring convent of New Hall. [Mr. WHALLEY: What did he say?] He (Sir George Bowyer) should be the last man to wish to restrict fair discussion; but when a lecturer incited those before him to commit crimes and breaches of the peace that was not fair discussion. In the course of those outrages churches had been destroyed, the houses of Roman Catholics had been gutted, offences against the peace had been committed; there were disturbances wherever Mr. Murphy went; and the reason was that he did not restrict himself to fair discussion, but incited the people to commit outrages against the law. These occurrences deserved the serious consideration of the Secretary of State, in order that he might put a stop to meetings which were not held for purposes of discussion.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that the greater portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) was not in accordance with the mere Question, of which he had given Notice, The hon. Member had made statements with reference to cases of riot, for which numerous persons had been committed and were to be tried. It seemed to him (Mr. Newdegate) that this was not fair, and that it looked like an attempt to prejudice cases of men who are now sub judice. He rejoiced at the answer given by the Home Secretary. He knew nothing of Mr. Murphy, except that he was connected with the Protestant Electoral Union, a body to which he (Mr. Newdegate) did not belong. When the disturbances broke out last year at Birmingham, the reports of them were at first so uncertain, and so garbled, that he requested a friend to go down and inquire what had happened. It appeared that Mr. Murphy had arrived at Birmingham, and had given notice of his intention to deliver lectures. On the Sunday previous to his lectures he was to hold a service in his temporary hall; but before he opened his lips several persons who were going to the building were knocked down in the streets. Now, that was not what Englishmen were accustomed to, and that was the origin of what were called Orange disturbances at 831 Birmingham. The hon. Member told them, that there was a proposal to hold such a discussion in Cork, and that he had exerted himself to put it down. But the people of England were not accustomed to have free, if lawful, discussions put down by violence. From what occurred last year in Birmingham, he believed that there was great danger to freedom of discussion, since the Roman Catholic population appeared to be organized, and committed outrage before the discussion began. They had no right to interrupt discussions in private buildings hired for the purpose; but if they were to be attacked before the discussions began, he thought that the spirit of the people would not bear coercion of that kind, which they knew to be contrary to the law. He was glad to hear that the Home Secretary had decided that these matters should be left to the action of the Courts of Law. One of the strangest signs of the time was an extraordinary decision lately given, by which a book, called The Confessional Unmasked, had been condemned by the Court of Queen's Bench. This book might be per se, objectionable; but the judgment appeared to have been delivered upon a false issue, assumed by the Court itself. The learned Judges seem to have supposed that the doctrines, which this book was intended to expose and to arrest, were not current. There was a case, however, which would be recollected by the elder Members of that House, in which an hon. Member (Sir J. Tyrrell) rose in his place and stated that an attempt had been made by a Romish priest to convert a female member of his family by placing in her hands a book founded upon the authorities, whose doctrines the work known as The Confessional Unmasked was intended to expose. He made that statement to show that while the Roman Catholics appealed against the excitement caused by these lectures, the rights of families were invaded by the secret and insidious introduction of books, such as were condemned by the work in question. The Protestants were not the first aggressors, either in Birmingham or in Ashton; and if the hon. Member for Cork were anxious for the preservation of peace, he must induce persons of his own religion to abstain from outrage before discussions commenced, and during discussion, when that discussion was conducted within the limits of the law, and in places hired for the purpose of carrying it on. Should the hon. Member for Cork feel it 832 his duty hereafter to bring any question of that sort before the House, he hoped he would give such a Notice as would enable hon. Members to be prepared to discuss the topics he might introduce.
§ MR. PAULL
said, he wished to call attention to the extreme inconvenience of that Motion having been made at all. The custom, often stated by Mr. Speaker, and which he thought amounted to a rule, was that Motions for the adjournment of the House ought not to be made unless some pressing emergency existed; and, he thought it would be a very advantageous thing if Mr. Speaker, on such occasions as the present, enforced his opinion to that effect.