Lords Sitting of 20 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—On the Motion of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, Sinecure Church Preferment; Seamen's Enlistment.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
Lord Teynhamsaid, he had given notice of an intention to move for certain Returns relative to the trials and convictions of several men in the county of Kent, for riots and assaults which had been committed by them, and which, he believed, would never have happened, had they not been injured by the provisions of the new Poor-law Act; but as he found that the same papers had been moved for in the House of Commons, he should suppose that there would he no objection to his Motion. He should, however, proceed as briefly as the subject allowed, to inform their Lordships of the consequences that were likely to arise from the feeling which pervaded the minds of the agricultural labouring classes. He should not detain their Lordships longer than he could possibly help. He had given notice of his intention to move for the documents he had referred to, in consequence of the strong feeling entertained in the county of Kent on the subject of the convictions of those poor men who had opposed the unconstitutional proceedings under the Poor-law Act. The trials of those persons had taken place at the sessions, and he would venture to assert, that the severity of the punishments inflicted upon them was without a parallel. In the county of Kent, some of the persons who had offended against this Act had been
716
sentenced to two years' imprisonment; whilst, in another part of the country, a person had been sentenced to but one month's imprisonment for a similar offence. The convictions were as numerous, too, as they were unprecedented. In proof of this, he might read a letter which he now held in his hand, from an extensive farmer—a most respectable inhabitant of the county. The feeling in the county was very strong on the subject, as that letter showed; and he was sure that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would not refuse to listen to the representations of those people, however humble they might be, or however humble was the individual who brought the matter under the notice of their Lordships. It was his intention, when these Returns were produced, to move an address to the Crown on the subject of the conduct of the Magistracy of the county of Kent. All the evils which it was the object of his Motion to disclose, had been the consequences of the Poor-law Bill. He had ever reprobated and used his utmost endeavours against it. He had been fully convinced, from the first, that the operation of this Bill would destroy the character of the people of the country. If the character of the peasantry and working people of this country were destroyed, their Lordships would have the less resource to throw themselves back upon in the hour of need. Let the noble Lords opposite remember that; for they might soon be obliged to fall back upon the people of England. The ignorant and unfortunate were punished under this Bill. Many of the people who had been convicted under it of rioting, had not read this Bill, and were not able to read it; and he appealed to the Bishops to look after the state of the people, and the improvement of their morals and education for it was owing to the want of moral education that the riots and the other offences with which they were charged, had been committed. The noble Baron concluded by moving for—first, a Return of the number of persons committed, in England and Wales, upon charges of riot, assault, and other offences, under the Poor-law Amendment Act, from the 1st of June, 1834, to the 1st of June, 1835; secondly, a Return of all persons charged with such offences within the like period, specifying their names, employments, and other material particulars, together with the result of the charge.
The Marquess Camdensaid, that from the tenor of the noble Baron's observations,

717
the Poor Laws themselves, and not the conduct of the Magistrates of the county of Kent, seemed to be the object of his censure.
Lord Teynham: No! no ! [cries of "Order!"]
The Marquess Camden resumed, but was again interrupted by
Lord Teynham, who said, that he complained that the offences under the new Poor Laws had received punishments in other counties completely trivial as compared with those which had been inflicted in the county of Kent.
The Marquess Camdenstill thought that he had rightly described the object of the noble Baron's speech, however the noble Baron might now complain of the conduct of those particular Magistrates.
Lord Teynham, again interrupting, said, that when these returns were on the Table, he should move for an address to his Majesty to inquire into the business.
The Marquess Camdenremarked, that to grant or refuse that inquiry would be the business of the Government. He understood that the principle on which the noble Baron now proceeded was, to show that there had not been as severe punishments for these offences in other counties as in the county of Kent. Whatever might be the ultimate result of this Motion, he left to the discretion of his Majesty and of their Lordships, so far as that result would be the consequence of the specific or general Return now applied for by the learned Baron. The noble Baron now charged the Magistrates of the county of Kent [Lord Teynham; Of East Kent] with having misconducted themselves in this matter. He (the Marquess Camden) should be able to satisfy their Lordships that there was not the slightest ground for the charge which the noble Baron had chosen to throw on the Magistrates of the county of Kent. All the evils against which the noble Baron had declaimed, all that he had said about destroying the character of the people of the country, were evils that were arising under the old system of the Poor-laws and from the bad administration of them. He was glad that he had been one of those who joined in grappling with those evils, and with the mischief which caused them, and was heartily glad that there had been so general a desire to provide against them. In consequence of the notice given by the noble Baron of this Motion he had thought it right to inform himself afresh of the particulars of the cases referred to, for those
718
circumstances had not passed at the time without his being acquainted with them. He had looked, however, into papers to refresh his memory, in order the better to be able to address their Lordships on the subject. He was sorry to say that there had been serious disturbances in the county of Kent; but after having carefully informed himself of the facts, he must say that, so far from attaching blame to the Magistrates, they were, in his opinion, fully entitled to his thanks for the promptitude and firmness with which they had acted. The punishments chiefly objected to by the noble Baron were those inflicted upon two persons of the names of Merton and Robson. Of the former, it was proved that he went from parish to parish creating disturbances, that he prevented men from going to their work, and one particular instance of that kind, in the case of Daniel Goodyer, had been distinctly proved against him. The second person, Robson, was also proved on various occasions to have used most violent and ferocious language, such as saying that "he would have blood or money." On one occasion, the Magistrates could not quell the tumult till they sent to Chatham for the military, and for a time, indeed, they might be considered to have been in the hands of the rioters. The Magistrates felt, that this was the first effort, by violent means, to put a stop to the working of the Amendment Act: they deemed it the more necessary on that account to act with becoming firmness; and felt that they were called on to extinguish the riots by active exertion. He believed, that whatever the noble Baron might say, there was a general feeling of thankfulness in the country for the manner in which the Magistrates had conducted themselves, and had succeeded in putting the law in operation. As to the mode of the trial of these men he could assure their Lordships that the Quarter Sessions at which they were tried was a most numerous and respectable assemblage of the Magistrates of the county. The right hon. Baronet (the Member for the county) Sir Edward Knatchbull was not the Chairman as had once been supposed by the noble Baron, for upon his appointment to the important office which he had lately held, the right hon. Baronet had resigned his office as Chairman of the Sessions. If there was a general feeling among their Lordships that these Returns should be granted, he should bow to the decision, but he trusted there would be no such course adopted, as it would, in his mind,

719
be passing a most undeserved censure upon the Magistrates.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, he had not till now heard of any complaint as to the conduct of the Magistracy of the county. He was not fully aware what was the circumstances alluded to while the noble Baron was addressing the House; but now that he had become aware of them, he was prepared fully to support the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess opposite. At the time in question, he transacted the business of the Home Office in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) in Devonshire; and he was happy to say, from the knowledge he then obtained of this matter, that he fully concurred in the opinion of the noble Marquess, and thought that in speaking of the judicious conduct of the Magistracy he had not made use of terms sufficiently strong. He did not know how they could have been too severe in such a case, for, if he mistook not, one of the Magistrates was actually in the poor-house when it was blockaded by these rioters. The conduct of the Magistrates was most praiseworthy—it could not have been better. He should certainly not consent to the production of these papers.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that it was hardly necessary for him to say anything after what had just fallen from his noble Friend. He begged, however, to observe, that he did not conceive, because a paper had been laid on the Table of the other House of Parliament, that therefore, it should be laid on the Table of their Lordships' House as a mere matter of course. He had listened to the speech of any noble Lord who moved for papers, and he had examined it to see if that speech justified their production. In the present instance it did not. It appeared here that the men who had been convicted, did not reside in the parish where they had committed the offences, but had gone from parish to parish, stirring up the people to riot. He thought that the Magistrates had acted most properly. In 1830, he knew that they had been abused for pursuing a different course. He believed, that if they had not shown too much lenity then, the riots which took place would not have extended as they did to Sussex, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and Bedfordshire. What was the conduct of the Magistracy on the present occasion? Why it marked their determination not to allow the law to be outraged by suffering men to go on in this manner. The noble Baron had
720
shown in his own speech that these Returns ought not to be produced, and if they had been produced in the other House of Parliament, it was perhaps because there had been no one there at the time capable of explaining the matter. At all events, he should say to the present Motion Not Content.
The Marquess of Lansdowneunderstood, from the whole tenor of the speech of the noble Baron, that this was a Motion for what was in fact an actual inculpation of the Magistrates; and in order to prevent a misrepresentation from going abroad—a misrepresentation which it was in all cases of infinite importance to avoid, but which was more than ever important in the present instance, he considered it his duty to express his opinion on the subject. He concurred fully with his noble Friend near him that this Motion should be negatived lest it should be imagined here or elsewhere that this House had adopted with regard to the conduct of the Magistrates a censure which in his conscience he believed to be most unmerited, and which ought rather to be the subject of a vote giving them the approbation and support of their Lordships.
Lord Teynhamwas still resolved to call for the Returns. He was not to be intimidated by what was said there or elsewhere. If they carried this Act into effect, they must be prepared to immure two millions of people in work-houses. He was not sorry for bringing this subject before their Lordships; but he was sorry for their sake for the manner in which it had been received.
Motion negatived.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS—Mr. HOGG.
The Earl of Aberdeencalled the attention of the House to the subject of Mr. Hogg's protest against the Report of the rest of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners, and begged to ask the noble Viscount at the head of the Government whether he meant to lay it on their Lordships' Table or not.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that as to the protest of this learned Gentleman, if he had not agreed with the rest of his brother Commissioners he should have made a separate Report. This was not like the case of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Scotch Universities, for their protests were made to the rest of the Commissioners and formed part of the Report; here that course had

721
not been followed. In the present instance the Chief Commissioner had said, that it was not his duty to receive such a protest or to send it to his Majesty, and he had therefore declined to receive it. He (Lord Melbourne) was not, therefore, aware how he could reach the protest or lay it before the House. It had been suggested to the learned Gentleman by a noble Lord opposite that the Commissioner might petition the House on the subject, and embody the substance of his protest in a petition. It certainly was open to the learned Gentleman to pursue such a course, but their Lordships would say how far such a recommendation, tending to create so much prolixity in petitions, was to be encouraged. In his opinion the practice had been carried quite far enough, if not a great deal too far.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he wanted the protest of Mr. Hogg to accompany that of Sir F. Palgrave. He had presented by his Majesty's command, the Commissioners Report to the House. Sir F. Palgrave's protest accompanied it, and now he wanted to sec what was in that of Mr. Hogg, he wanted to know what was the difference between the opinion and statements of Mr. Hogg and of the rest of the Commissioners. Of that Gentleman he knew nothing, but he saw him appointed to an important duty, and therefore presumed that his opinion was deemed worth notice, or he would not have been appointed. If his protest should be of a nature resembling that of Sir F. Palgrave, which was appended to the Report, it would be exceedingly important that their Lordships should be in possession of it; for without it they would lose much valuable information.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that in his opinion the Chief Commissioners had acted erroneously in receiving the protest. He did not see the noble and learned Lord the Chief Baron of the Exchequer present, or their Lordships might perhaps learn that he had moved for a criminal information against Mr. Hogg in the Court of King's Bench.
Lord Lyndhurst: For his conduct before his appointment.
Viscount Melbourne: No; it was for his conduct as a Commissioner. The noble and learned Lord being then at the Bar, had acted as Counsel, so that perhaps his statement was hardly to be received in such a case. As to the protest, it was evidently the interest of the Government to produce
722
it, if they could; for its non-production would have a worse effect than the protest itself; but he did not know how he could compel its production.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he knew nothing of Mr. Hogg, and had never heard his name till recently. That Gentleman had, however, been sent down as a Commissioner, and now he sent in his protest, the Chief Commissioner refused to receive it. He should certainly make further inquiries into the subject.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that Mr. Hogg was a member of the Northern Circuit, and he had always considered him a very respectable person. With respect to what had been said as to the criminal information, the noble Viscount should have told them what it was for. He thought he was right in saying that it had either been refused or discharged—[It was refused]—and therefore it was to be presumed that the acts on which the application was made did not afford a sufficient ground for the charge. Mr. Hogg's inquiries were among some of the most important towns referred to in the Report. When the Report was about to be drawn up, he was not only no called on to be present, but he was not allowed to be present with the other Commissioners. He believed that when his Majesty appointed certain persons to be Commissioners, and to report to him on any subject, his Majesty intended that all the persons included in that Commission should assist in making the Report. How were they to know that the arguments laid by Mr. Hogg before the Secretary of State, if suffered to be laid before his brother Commissioners, would not have altered their opinions? It was altogether unjust to exclude Mr. Hogg's opinions, and the reasons on which he founded them. He was clearly of opinion that they ought to have the opinion of the Gentleman in question laid before them; because before they entered upon an inquiry of so important a nature as that which was about to take place, it was highly desirable that they should be in possession of every species of information that was calculated to lead them to a correct conclusion.
Lord Skelmersdalethought it was of the utmost importance that they should have laid on their Table, before they proceeded to legislate upon the measure, all the evidence which could be collected and all the opinions which could be procured from persons whom either inquiry or talent rendered competent to form one. It so hap-

723
pened that Mr. Hogg was one of the Commissioners sent down to the part of the country with which he was connected; and, when he stated to their Lordships that in consequence of the refusal of the Commissioners to embody in the general Report the opinions and evidence contained in the particular Report sent in by Mr. Hogg, he was in entire ignorance of the justice and policy of the measure as regarded the cases of several individual boroughs in the county to which he alluded, he put it to the House whether he was not justified in calling for its production? One of the towns to which Mr. Hogg was sent was Liverpool; and unless his opinions were brought forward, the House would be deciding without knowing whether circumstances justified the application of the measures to that particular Corporation. He was, therefore, glad to hear his noble Friend promise that steps should be taken for the production of the Report in question; and should his noble Friend find it necessary, in furtherance of this promise, to make any substantive Motion on the subject to the House, he confidently trusted that that spirit of justice and impartiality which had ever dignified their Lordships' proceedings would secure him all the assistance he might require at their hands.
Viscount Melbourneobserved that notwithstanding what had fallen from a noble and learned Lord, it did not appear to be probable that the Report of the Commissioners would have been materially altered by any return which Mr. Hogg might have made. He entirely disclaimed having made an attack, or anything like an attack on that Gentleman.
The Earl of Devonwas decidedly of opinion that in some shape or other the House ought to have the required information. His Majesty had sent Commissioners to inquire into the state of all the Municipal Corporations in the kingdom, and on the Report of those Commissioners, one of the most important measures that had ever been submitted to the consideration of Parliament was founded. It could not be intended that that Report should be made by the persons who took only one particular view of the question. The object clearly was, to have the opinion of all the Commissioners, as far as they had pursued their several investigations. He was aware that there were technical difficulties in the way of obtaining the required information. If a distinct Motion were made for it, the Secretary of State must of necessity make
724
a return of nil; he not having any such information in his possession. Another mode of endeavouring to obtain it would be by appointing a Committee of their Lordships to inquire into the facts of the case. That had been done before; and this was peculiarly a case in which such a course might be advantageously resorted to; although he was aware that even that course would be attended with some inconveniences.

CORPORATION REFORM.
Lord Greyhad a Petition to present relative to the subject which then occupied their Lordships' attention, and, although it was somewhat out of the proper time for offering it, he trusted their Lordships would, Under the particular circumstances, excuse his doing so. It was the petition of a very numerous and respectable meeting at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, presided over by the Mayor of its Corporation, and its prayer was, that their Lordships might pass the Bill for the regulation of Municipal Corporations of England and Wales without in any way imparing its beneficial provisions or detracting from its efficiency. The petition was signed by the Mayor of New-castle-upon-Tyne alone, but it was so signed by him as Chairman of the meeting; and, although, according to the rules of their Lordships' House, it could only be presented as the petition of the individual who had signed it, he had authority to state that it might be considered as an expression of the sense and opinion of the district in question as to the Bill to which it referred. He was aware that the presentation of a petition, praying their Lordships to pass a Bill not yet before them, was to a certain degree irregular; but as several petitions under like circumstances had been already received, and as he was not likely to have another opportunity of presenting it, being under the necessity of leaving town immediately, he trusted their Lordships Would have no objection to receiving it. If its presentation were objected to, he would at once withdraw it and leave it in the hands of some noble Friend. The prayer of the petition, he repeated, was, that their Lordships might be pleased to pass unimpaired and unaffected the measure of Corporation Reform about to be presented for their consideration. He was glad to have that opportunity of declaring his hearty concurrence in and approbation of the measure to which the petition alluded. He had long seen with pain and anxiety

725
the many abuses and anomalies existing in the Corporation system of the kingdom, and it had been for years his wish that a measure similar to that now before the other House should become law. A Commission of Inquiry having been appointed, a most rigorous investigation took place, and the result of that investigation was, that all the abuses and anomalies alleged to exist were proved, so that nobody could doubt the existence of them. To the principle of the Bill he did not expect there would be any opposition. To the details of the measure their Lordships would, no doubt, in the exercise of their deliberative functions, give every attention; and considering them with every impartiality and justice, their object, he was persuaded, would be to pass the Bill in such a manner as might best give effect to the great principle in which it was framed, namely, that of giving to the several Corporations of England a good and permanent system of Municipal Government. If the Bill were passed in its present form he was confident it was calculated to meet the wishes of the people of England; but should their Lordships, in their wisdom, think proper to alter it, he sincerely trusted their Amendments would be directed by a desire of extending and perfecting, rather than of impairing the machinery by which the principle was to be called into operation. He begged, in conclusion to offer the petition which he referred to their Lordships' consideration.
The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that only a few days ago, a petition which had been presented by a noble Friend of his was withdrawn as irregular, it being against a Bill still in its progress in the House of Commons. If their Lordships intended to be consistent, they could not receive the noble Earl's petition; and he thought the noble Earl had better not press its presentation.
Lord Segraveexpressed a similar opinion.
Earl Greywas quite aware that the petition came within the absolute rule of exclusion; but under the peculiar circumstances which he had mentioned, he had hoped that their Lordships might receive it. He had no objection to withdraw the petition.
Petition withdrawn.

COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION —MR. M'DERMOTT.
The Earl of Clanricardebegged to be allowed to say a few words on a subject which had previously occupied their Lordships' attention.
726
He knew it was irregular to refer to what had passed in former debates; but he hoped the House would allow him briefly to advert to the charges which had been brought against Mr. M'Dermott, one of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland; and more especially with reference to a speech which it was alleged that Gentleman had some time since made of a very exciting description. He had received a letter from Mr. M'Dermott, distinctly disavowing his ever having used the language which had been imputed to him in that House; and sending him a Report of that speech, taken by a short-hand writer, for the accuracy of which Report, of course, he (Lord Clanricarde) could not vouch; but which certainly did not contain a single word that justified the statement which had been made respecting Mr. M'Dermott in that House. He really was at a loss to conceive the meaning of continued statements of this description, which appeared to have no bearing whatever on their Lordships' proceedings.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he was happy in being able to support the statement he made on a former evening by some important documents, and as the observations of the noble Marquess gave him an opportunity to present them, he would at once proceed to place them before their Lordships. The circumstances which gave rise to the speech in question were the following:—A Miss Bourke, a lady of twenty-eight years of age, residing at Castlerea, became a convert to the Protestant Church; and dreading violence from the peasantry in consequence, took the advice of a Magistrate (Major Baggot) as to the best means of protecting herself. She was recommended by that gentleman to place herself, until she could arrange to leave the district, under the protection of the police constable of the town, by occupying apartments in the barracks. This advice she followed, and it was in consequence of her doing so that the meeting, at which Mr. M'Dermott spoke the speech in question, took place. Of the temper of that meeting—and it was not sought to be denied that Mr. M'Dermott was present—it would be sufficient for him to say that the reverend Robert Boyd, the Protestant clergymen of the district, chancing to pass by at the same time, was assailed by the mob, and narrowly escaped from their violence. With respect to the speech made by Mr. M'Dermott upon the occasion, he had but this to say, that the accuracy of the

727
Report he (the Bishop of Exeter) referred to on a former evening, did not rest on a single evidence. In the Roscommon and Leitrim Gazette of the day it appeared as a reprint from another journal, and attached to it was not only the name of the reporter, Mr. Thomas Brooks, as vouching for its accuracy, but in a note was appended, in the form of a letter, a certificate, signed by four persons, who attended the meeting, namely, Messrs. Quin, Black, Kelly, and Blundell, in which the parties signing pledged themselves that Mr. Brooks's report contained a true statement of the scurrilous and abusive language used at the meeting. In fact, the report of Mr. Brooks was never doubted until it was mentioned by him (the Bishop of Exeter) on a former evening in that House. Fortunately, a copy of Mr. M'Dermott's speech, as so reported and so vouched for, was now in his hands, and, without further preface, he would read it to their Lordships. It was as follows:—
As soon as he (William M'Dermott, Esq.) took the Chair, he stated, that the reason of their assembling there was to present a memorial to the Lord-lieutenant, in order to get the constabulary police broke for their interference in controversial doctrines, and giving bibles and tracts; and finally for their gallant captain, contrary to his duty, making a police barrack an asylum for perverts, and a prison for illegally detaining children from their parents; therefore we are assembled together in order to adopt measures to tame their fanaticism. Gentlemen, the unhappy wretch, Miss Bourke, who is the occasion of our assembling here to-day, was seduced, or rather perverted, by that nefarious, puny, insignificant legislator of Ballaymor (a magistrate named Baggot). This fiend not only did this, but he goes about with a tract in one hand and money in the other, in order to accomplish his pestiferous ends; he goes farther, for if he miss one of the children from the school, he takes the Bible in one hand and his sword in the other; when he goes in, if he find none in the house, he will pierce his naked sword down through the bed. Gentlemen, he proceeds still further; if this fail him, he will take the sword in one hand and a coal of fire in the other. I say, Gentlemen, should not this man be held up to the contempt of the people? [Deafening sliouts.] But, Gentlemen, one would think that this nefarious wasp had some wisdom in his head; and certainly, if we are to measure brain by the circumference of the skull, he must be possessed of a very extraordinary one. [Shouts and clapping.] But, Gentlemen, this insignificant wretch stood not alone in his endeavours to raise a disunion in the minds of the people; for he has a low, poor, grovelling, ill-coloured, demoniacal, clerical mountebank, who was chased from
728
diocese to diocese for his schism. Gentlemen, this puny, ill-coloured runaway wrote certain letters, in which the Catholic religion is set up to ridicule; and I say, my friends, from the authority of the Attorney-General, that any person ridiculing the religion of the people should be brought to public trial, as a nuisance to society. Gentlemen, this poor little monkey slily and insidiously insinuated himself into the police-barrack, and openly and publicly calumniated the Catholic religion, thinking, poor fiend, that the gallant captain would write a very affectionate letter to his noble cousin (the Archbishop of Tuam) about his vigilance and zeal, and be partly the means of procuring for this arch-hungry fiend some part of the green acres. But, gentlemen, our memorial will be before the Lord-lieutenant in a few days, and as he is a man of candour and honesty, wholly divested of prejudice, we will get a hearing. Thank God, Goulburn is out; if it were not so, I would not stand here this day. While he was in, if we petitioned daily, none of them would be presented; but now we hope to be heard, and are confident that we will bring one of the King's parsons to a sense of his duty [laughter]; and, if possible, to have both captain and police broke. I am sure your great and good clergyman, Mr. Quin, daily warns you against these abominable schools. Dread not their tyranny. What is the Catholic rent for? I hope there is no Protestant who will be so inhuman as to turn any person out of his land for his religion; and if he does, we will be at the necessity of holding him up to the ridicule of the public; and, as great as the authority of the landlord or agent is, perhaps they will ill brook the consequence [shouts, &c.] But, Gentlemen, I did not say that Stoney was that fiend of fanaticism and proselytism who is protected by the police; but we will shortly have him suspended, and if not, we must be necessitated to hold him up to the ridicule of the multitude. [shouts, &c.] Gentlemen, we have funds enough; we will set up schools in opposition to them; we will try all means to rebut their schools; and if we cannot do it by these means, does any one think that seven millions will be held in trammels, and thwarted in their purposes by a handful of men?
That speech was reported in The Roscommon Journal, and published also in other Irish newspapers. Now he put it to their Lordships whether a person capable of such feelings and such language was one on whose authority one of the most important, if not the most important legislative measure that had ever been brought forward ought to rest? He had felt it his duty to bring the subject under the consideration of the House; he rejoiced that he had done so; and he had endeavoured to show that the individual in question was utterly unfit for the duty which had been intrusted to him.

729
As to Mr. M'Dermott's denial, on which side the evidence preponderated, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would leave it to their Lordships to determine.
The Earl of Clanricarde, in explanation, repeated Mr. M'Dermott's distinct denial, that he had, on the occasion alluded to, used language calculated to excite the people to use violence towards any person whatever.
Subject dropped.

IRISH COERCION LAW.
The Earl of Glengall, adverting to the circumstance that the measure known by the name of the Irish Coercion Bill, would expire in August, wished to know whether it was the noble Viscount's intention to propose its renewal.
Viscount Melbournereplied, that it was intended to introduce another measure for the purpose of preserving the public peace, and repressing any outrage or disturbance that might break out. The existing measure was founded on the report of a commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Queen's county in 1831 and 1832.
The Earl of Clanricardeobserved, that that meant, he presumed, that the law in Ireland was to be permanently altered.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that under existing circumstances, he did not think it would be necessary to lay before their Lordships any statement of the present condition of Ireland, which he had reason to believe was one of comparative tranquillity. It was not intended that the proposed Bill should be in permanent operation; but only that Government should be empowered to put it in operation under circumstances of necessity.
The Earl of Glengallthought the great increase of troops in Ireland, during the last two years, was a circumstance which showed that danger was to be apprehended. Whatever the measure might be of which the noble Viscount had spoken, it was of the utmost importance that it should be efficacious. As to the existing tranquillity, it appeared to him to be merely a lull before a storm. The Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland had more power than ever; more especially with reference to the facility of disuniting landlord and tenant; and he was persuaded that unless some strong legislative measure were adopted, neither the property nor the life of any Protestant would be safe.
Subject dropped.