Lords Sitting of 18 March 1811

Preamble
MUTINY BILL.] The Earl of Liverpool moved the third reading of the Bill for punishing Mutiny and Desertion.
Earl Stanhopeexpressed his surprise, that, after what had passed on a former night, when the Bill was under discussion, the noble Secretary of State should have brought forward the third reading that night, when those noble lords who took a more particular interest in the question, and who wished to pay every possible attention to the state and concerns of Ireland, were unavoidably absent, and that for the laudable purpose of forwarding the interests of a benevolent Irish Institution. Another business (the Message respecting the Subsidy to Portugal) had on that account been postponed from Monday till Thursday; and he was at a loss to see why a question which more nearly interested the feelings and opinions of the representative peers of Ireland, should not also be deferred till that day.
384
He should therefore more, That the Bill be read a third time on Thursday next.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that as the noble lords to whom the noble earl alluded had expressed no wish of deferring till Thursday the third reading of the Bill, he could see no just ground for not proceeding in the Bill during their absence. Had they intimated such, he should undoubtedly have acquiesced in it, from the usual courtesy observed on such occasions; but no such wish having been manifested, it was unnecessary to interpose any further delay in the progress of the Bill, the more so, as the period of its expiring so nearly approached.
Earl Stanhopeobserved, that within these few years the Mutiny Bill had not passed that House before the 27th March.
The question was then put on lord Stanhope's Amendment and negatived.
Earl Stanhopenext rose to propose a rider to the Bill, which, in his opinion, contained matter of much importance, and which could not fail of having a most salutary tendency. The ground adduced on a former night by the noble Secretary of State, for rejecting the amendment which he had the honour to propose was, that no fact had been stated to prove the necessity of adopting the amendment. He had remarked at the time that he did not think it necessary to state any facts—that he rested the propriety of his amendment on its justice and expediency, and if he abstained from mentioning facts and names, it was because he felt anxious to forbear from every thing that might tend to irritate and inflame. But as the noble Secretary slighted his amendment because it did not come backed by facts, he should now state a few facts which he challenged the noble Secretary to controvert. The noble earl then read extracts from letters which minutely detailed the case of a private in the Enniskillen regiment, who had been sentenced to perform duty publicly in a turned coat, and condemned to several days confinement in the black hole of the prison for having refused to attend Divine Service, according to the rites of the established church. The case of this private had been communicated by a Mr. Vernon, a barrister to the earl of Harrington, and almost immediately on that noble earl having received the communication, orders were issued by him for discontinuing such practices, and for faithfully adhering in this respect to the general orders which

385
long before had been issued respecting the permission to allow Roman Catholic soldiers to attend Divine Service, as performed by the clergy of their own persuasion; and these fresh instructions were issued in terms so clear and significant as to do infinite credit to that gallant, honourable and honest man. These occurrences took place in the beginning of January of the present year.—He should now refer to another case which happened at a remoter period; but which equally went to prove the injustice, the cruelty, and the tyranny of preventing Roman Catholics or other dissenters from following the suggestions of their own conscience in matters of religion, or from compelling them to attend other religious rites, from which their consciences recoiled. This case happened in Sicily at the close of the year 1809. Among the British troops serving in that island, were two regiments which were principally composed of Irish Roman Catholics. They had no opportunity of receiving spiritual instruction or consolation, as though Roman Catholic priests abounded in the island, none of them understood English. It happened, however, about that time, that two Roman Catholic Irish priests were accidentally in Sicily, and to those gentlemen several of the Irish Roman Catholic soldiers applied for spiritual consolation, especially when any of their comrades were on the point of death. Such a request they could not refuse; and they accordingly proceeded to Messina, where the troops were garrisoned, who solicited their ministerial assistance. Would their lordships believe, that the governor of Messina was instructed, by orders from sir John Stuart, not to allow the clergymen to attend the soldiers; and that the clerygymen were even ordered to take their departure from that place, and not to proceed to any place or port where Irish Roman Catholic soldiers were in garrison? Here then, were these unfortunate men deprived of that assistance, which, under the pressure of sorrow and of sickness, can afford relief and consolation to the human mind. On the cruelty and tyranny of such proceedings, it were superfluous to enlarge; he must only say, in justice to that gallant officer, sir J. Stuart, that he did not act from his own impulse, but from the instructions of government at home. To shew the impolicy of such conduct, a word or two would suffice; he already had observed, that the
386
British ranks were principally filled with, and recruited from dissenters, and of the dissenters from the established church, chiefly Irish Roman Catholics. Were their lordships aware how the number of dissenters daily increased? If they were ignorant of it, he would inform them, and shew that for the first 15 years of his present Majesty's reign, there were not in this kingdom more than 3,250 dissenting meeting-houses. In the succeeding 15 years of his Majesty's reign, that number had increased to 6,512 such meetinghouses; and taking into the calculation the period that since followed, the number of dissenting meeting-houses now in this kingdom amounted to no less than 13,100. Of the impolicy and danger, therefore, of alienating the affections of so large and useful a class of his Majesty's subjects, their lordships would no doubt seriously consider. To him, at least, it was an alarming consideration, and in order to perform what he conceived to be his duty under such circumstances, he should now move a Proviso to the Bill, the substance of which was nearly the same as that of the Amendment he had moved in the Committee in the Bill, viz. "That Roman Catholics and other dissenters should be permitted to attend divine worship according to such rites as their consciences suggested, and not be compelled to attend at divine service according to the rites of the Established Church."
The Earl of Liverpoolwas furnished with a sufficient answer to the arguments of the noble earl, by the acknowledgments in his own speech. The noble earl confessed that the only case which was reported to the noble commander in-chief in Ireland, met with immediate redress; and that with regard to the case in Sicily, it came to the noble earl in the shape of an ex-parte statement, and was confessed to be such by a right hon. member of the other House of Parliament (Mr. Grattan), who was requested to introduce it into his statement on his presenting the Roman Catholic Petition in 1809, but who declined doing so, on finding that it was an ex-parte statement. This he conceived to be a sufficient answer to all the observations of the noble earl.
The Earl of Hardwickevindicated the conduct of the Irish government with respect to these matters, both during the five years he had been employed in that country, and also during the government of his predecessor. For the whole of that

387
time he had never heard of any one complaint of the nature now brought forward; and had any such ground of complaint been brought forward, he was sure it Would have been instantly removed. He could not but regret that the noble earl who brought forward this question, no doubt with the best intentions, should have glanced at matters, and even made assertions, into the truth of which he had not sufficiently inquired. For under the sanction of such authority, they would go out to the world, and might be converted by ill-disposed men to very mischievous purposes.
The Earl of Carlislecomplained that ministers had given no better reason, in his mind, a most absurd one, for opposing the noble earl's Amendment, namely, that it would call into doubt the sincerity of government in issuing the orders which were to prevent any obstruction to the free exercise of their religion by the Roman Catholic soldiers. Could a legislative declaration create, did it not rather remove all doubt in such circumstances? and as making the matter clear and intelligible to all the world, it was his opinion that such a legislative declaration should be adopted.
Lord Clancartyvindicated both the government of Ireland and England from imputation or blame with regard to their conduct towards the Roman Catholic soldiers.
Lord Rosslynthought it would greatly promote the recruiting service that a general legislative-declaration should be adopted, to remove all doubts and hesitations on this very important point.
Earl Stanhopebriefly replied, and said he should not divide the House on his proposition, as the noble lords connected with Ireland were absent, who, if present, would have strenuously supported him—The noble earl's proposition was therefore negatived without a division; the Bill read a third time and passed.