Lords Sitting of 25 June 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of LONDON,

1201
from several Congregations at Bristol, against Allowing Beer to be drunk on the Premises of Beer-shops.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Bristol, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By the Dukes of RICHMOND and BUCCLEUGH, and the Earl of SELKIRK, from several Places,—for further Accommodation in Scotch Churches.—By the Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from the Clergy of Derby, Matlock, &c,—for Protection to the Established Church.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Duke of Richmondpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Clare, in favour of the establishment of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland. He should not take up their Lordships' time by entering at large into this subject; but he should merely say, that he earnestly hoped to see the law of England and Ireland assimilated in this respect. The supposed difficulty of finding persons by whom the Poor-laws were to be worked, was now abandoned, and the only question was, whether the introduction of Poor-laws would be beneficial to the country. For himself, he was convinced that the establishment of Poor-laws for that country would tend much to the comfort of the people, and, he believed, would much diminish the number of offences of violence, now unfortunately so common in Ireland.
The Earl of Limerickthanked the noble Duke for the courtesy of giving him notice of his intention to present this petition. He did not agree with the noble Duke in his opinions on this subject. The noble Duke thought that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would be of advantage to Ireland, and that the laws of the two countries should be assimilated. He would to God that the situation of that country would allow of such an assimilation. But he, who had passed the greater part of along life in that country, was convinced that there was no man who had done so, but must feel that that which would suit in England would not suit in Ireland, and that this was particularly the case with respect to the Poor-laws. But with respect to the Poor-laws in this country, he thought that they had exercised a horrid influence here—they had nearly ruined this country; they would be still worse in Ireland. If they were introduced there, he believed that they would do away with all the kindly and charitable feelings that now existed in that country. Ireland, cursed as it was with many misfortunes, was happily distinguished by the possession of the best feelings of human nature. The affections of the people were strong; and there were no instances of a pauper not being relieved by the inhabitants, or of a
1202
poor child not being relieved by its parents, or of poor parents not being relieved by their children. That would no longer be the case if the Poor-laws were introduced there, and money was taken by force of law from those who possessed it, for the relief of the needy. He should content himself with saying that his sentiments on this subject remained unchanged.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a Petition similar to the last from Tullamore. He knew that the result of the introduction of the Poor-laws would be to take money by force of law from the rich for the relief of the poor. That was just what he wanted, for he wished that there should not be a possibility of persons starving when relief could be afforded them. He wished to see introduced into Ireland a Poor-law, not such as had been formerly so injurious to this country, but an amended system, which he thought would be of the greatest advantage to Ireland. The noble Earl had spoken of the relief voluntarily afforded in Ireland to those who were distressed. He had spoken, also, of the Poor-laws ruining this country. When Ireland was suffering from distress, that distress was relieved not only by what was voluntarily contributed in that country, but there was a large subscription of money in this country. If it was true that England had been nearly ruined, surely the people here ought not to have been expected to subscribe to relieve distress in a country which was not ruined by a system of Poor-laws. The noble Earl said that charity did every thing in Ireland. He feared that whatever it might be on the noble Earl's estate, or on the estates of other noble Lords who resided on their property in Ireland, it was not so everywhere. His feeling was so strong on the subject, that he should have proposed a resolution if the Government had not taken up the matter last Session, and recommended a Commission. He was sorry that the Commissioners had not made a Report at this moment; he hoped that they would do so this Session, and that they would express their opinion as to the practicability, and as to the expediency, of establishing Poor-laws. He hoped that, in his Majesty's Speech next year, this subject would be distinctly recommended to the consideration of Parliament.
The Earl of Limerickdenied that the difficulty of finding men to work the Poor-laws in Ireland had been overcome. On the contrary, the difficulty was greater than ever. The south and south-west of Ireland,

1203
he said nothing of the north, had fallen into the hands of the Roman Catholic priesthood. If the Poor-laws were enacted they were the persons who would have all the power that those laws could confer—they would levy the taxes and the imposts on that unfortunate people—then would be the day for the success of an agitator, and the incomes of the priesthood would be raised higher than that which any of their Lordships possessed. That unfortunate country which had been more subject than any other country in Europe to confiscations would then suffer more than ever from that cause. Instead of hoping to see the Report of the Commissioners, he should be glad if it could be kept back to the Greek Kalends; but whenever it did come, he hoped that they should find the observations on it of men who were personally acquainted with the country and its habits.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that before he presented the petition of which he had given notice, he wished to present another, on which he should make no comment, though it was a petition of great importance, but should move that it be read by the Clerk at the Table. It was a petition from the reverend Edward Nangle, who was a most highly respectable clergyman of the Church of England, and whose diocesan (the Archbishop of Tuam) gave him the highest character. Mr. Nangle stated in his petition the efforts he had made to bring into a state of cultivation the island of Achill, and to benefit the people there, especially by the establishment of a school—efforts which had been observed by Mr. Commissioner Newport, and approved of by him, though not mentioned in his Report. He moved that the petition be read at length. [The petition was then read.] It stated that the petitioner, who was resident Minister in the island of Achill, when he came to the island in July last found it without church or glebe house or resident Minister. He built the first slated house which had been seen in the island, and by this means and others enabled the poor inhabitants of the island to clothe their naked children. He also supplied them with schools and medicine, and hoped a note to that effect would appear in the Report of the Commissioners of Education Inquiry. So pleased were the people with his exertions that they greeted his arrival on the island by lighting bonfires, but still
1204
his attempts to serve the inhabitants were frustrated by the denunciations of the Roman Catholic priests. Week after week from the altars of their chapels they pronounced frightful imprecations on those who either sent their children to the schools, or assisted in the works which he had undertaken. As a specimen of the sort of imprecation was the following, uttered on a Sunday in April last, against those who dared to disobey the injunctions of the priests:—"May they be childless by that day twelve months, and at their deaths may they have no hand held out to them." The priests further desired the people to have their pitchforks sharpened, and one man to stand at the front door, and the other at the back, in the event of the petitioner visiting them, so as that there should be no means of escape, and added a prayer that if they did not do so, they might lose the power of their hands. Men came to the labourers who were at work for the petitioner, desiring them to desist, as they were at work for the devil, and adding, that if they came to their labour again they might as well bring their coffins with them. These circumstances the men were ready to prove on oath, The parties were indicted at the petty sessions, and some of them admitted their guilt, declaring that they had acted on the instigation of the priests. On the morning after the day on which they had been cited to the petty sessions one of them upbraided the priest for having brought him into such a situation. The priest's reply was—"Hold your tongue, you ruffian; do not mention my name in the transaction, and you shall have one of the ablest lawyers in Ireland to defend you." In addition to this, the children who attended the schools of the petitioner were beaten by persons total strangers to them, and who had no right whatsoever to interfere with their mode of education. The priest's schoolmaster had beaten these children, and yet he was still in the employment of the priest. The petitioner complained that in consequence of this tyrannical restraint he could not procure labourers to perform his necessary business, whereby he sustained material injury. It further added, with regard to the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, that the population was described in the Returns as 156, whilst in 1831 it was double that number. Besides these annoyances the petitioner had been described by the reverend John M'Hale, who called

1205
himself Archbishop of Tuam, as having introduced the demon of fanaticism into the island.
Lord Duncannonunderstood from the Commissioners who had visited Achill, that the petitioner had laboured very zealously for the advantage of that place. He could not, however, avoid observing that the notice for the day was of a petition which the right reverend Prelate had long had in his hands; and it was impossible not to see, from the introduction of the name of Mr. Newport, the Commissioner, that this petition now presented was intended to be connected with the complaint made in the other petition by Mr. Stoney. They had, however, nothing to do with each other. The only complaint made of Mr. Newport was, that in his report he had not mentioned the school. If the petitioner had waited a little longer, he would have seen that the report now presented only related to the church, and did not at all refer to schools, which would form the subject of a distinct report, as voluminous as the first.
The Bishop of Exeterhad not meant to say one word more on the subject of this petition, but he was compelled to do so by the observations of the noble Lord, who had certainly misapprehended one part of it and misunderstood the object for which it was now presented. The petitioner did not intend to complain of Mr. Commissioner Newport, with whose conduct, on the contrary, he was highly gratified. The petitioner had certainly expected that his labours would have been noticed by that gentleman, who, when upon the spot, had expressed his full satisfaction with what he saw. The petitioner did not refer to the omission of any mention of the school—the Commissioner had seen the settlement, and the means there taken for humanizing, civilizing, and christianizing that island, and those means were the subject of panegyric by Mr. Newport, and the petitioner hoped to have seen them noticed by that gentleman in the report. He repeated that the petitioner was much gratified with the conduct of Mr. Newport, and with his observations when he visited the settlement. He wished to add, that he was assured that the petitioner was not only a pious and ardently zealous man, but that he was mild and temperate in his conduct, so as not to be likely to provoke such treatment as he complained of in this petition.
Lord Farnkamknew the petitioner, and a more zealous, mild, and amiable man did not exist in the Church of Ireland, He
1206
had known the petitioner for years, and he could positively say, that the petitioner was the last person in the world to provoke the outrages of which he had complained.
Lord Duncannonadmitted that the petition did refer to the establishment, and he supposed that word to mean the school and not the settlement.

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).—Mr. STONEY.
The Bishop of Exeterthen rose to present the Petition from Mr. Stoney. If in doing so he trespassed rather longer than it was his wish to do on the attention of their Lordships, he trusted that he should be excused. He must mention one circumstance before he entered on the subject of the petition. He had been asked by a noble Baron whether the petition he was going to present that night was the same as that with which he had been originally intrusted: he answered that it was not; but, he asked the noble Baron, at the same time, whether he had a right to ask the question. The noble Baron admitted that he had not. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had mentioned this circumstance, as it would probably be referred to in the course of the discussion. He should state the changes in the petition as far as he could recollect them, and he would give any noble Lord who desired it, an opportunity of correcting his statement, by showing a copy of the original petition. If it was supposed that it was a different petition from that which he had to present when Mr. Newport and another gentleman had presented themselves by their petition to the House a few weeks since, the supposition was erroneous. No alteration had been made in it since then. The petition, at first, did include more things than he thought it was desirable to lay before their Lordships, and he had therefore sent it back to the petitioner, with the recommendation to leave out certain parts of it. The parts which had been left out chiefly respected the schools. Having said thus much, he trusted that he should be considered as having disposed of the preliminary question. The first thing he should now do would be to read the prayer of the petition. The petition implored their Lordships to take steps to protect the religious instructors of the people, and their religious instruction, and to secure the religious liberty and personal safety of those who inculcated in Ireland the doctrines of the Church. In order to see whether the

1207
proceedings under the Commission were impartial and just, the best course for him to pursue would be, in the first instance, to refer to the Commission itself. Their Lordships would bear with him when he said that, recollecting that this was a Commission that had passed the Great Seal, it was perfectly certain that the object of the Commission must be, not in the slightest degree to weaken the Established Church, to interfere with the cause of true religion, or to impair the rights and privileges of the clergy in that part of the United Kingdom. He said that, not only because they had the best of all securities in the fidelity of the Sovereign to this most sacred cause, which he was interested in maintaining, but because if the Sovereign had departed from that fidelity, he would have done that which it was unseemly to conceive possible. He spoke of it, therefore, as a thing impossible even to be imagined, for the doing of it would have been what no one could for a moment suppose the Sovereign would ever consent to do—it would have been the violation of his Coronation Oath. It was, then, impossible to imagine that such a thing was in the contemplation of his Majesty, when he ordered the Great Seal to be put to the Commission. There were no words in the Commission which looked to such a result. In its terms it upheld the Church, which it was the best interest of all to maintain, and which his Majesty, of all the inhabitants of the kingdom, was most anxious to support. In saying this he could not disguise that there was one part of the Commission which was, though not so intended, likely to produce that dangerous result. That was, the direction given to make a statement of the numbers of the different religious persuasions. That direction had a tendency to exacerbate religious animosity and to endanger the lives of the Protestants in that part of the country where from the paucity of their numbers they were peculiarly exposed to danger. It was true that they had heard that it had been stated in another place, that the object of the Commission was to inquire, with a view of taking away a portion of the possessions of the Church of Ireland, because it was deficient in attaining the main object for which it was instituted, namely, the religious and moral instruction of the people. A Member of his Majesty's present Government had been reported to have used language something like that; but in that House, on all occasions, very different language had been used, and their Lordships
1208
had been assured that the Government, in instituting the Commission, had no thought, or intention, or wish whatever, to interfere, with the revenues of the Irish Church but for Ecclesiastical purposes; and that after fully providing for the Ecclesiastical wants of the Church, if any surplus should arise, that it might be appropriated to the education of the people, under the management of the Irish Board of National Education. It was with great gratification he referred to the observations of the noble Viscount on this subject. He shuddered at the notion of any man connected with the Government daring to make a proposition for taking away a portion of the revenues of the Church. He could not believe that any Government could have it in contemplation to propose such a measure to Parliament until it was actually before them. Until then he must believe the rumour of an intention to submit such a measure to the Legislature was a foul imputation on any man who had been sworn to discharge his duty truly and faithfully to the King, and when he must know that his Majesty had solemnly sworn to maintain the cause of true religion in Ireland, and to preserve inviolate the revenues of the Church in Ireland. Until he found that a Bill, founded on the principle of destruction or invasion of these rights, was actually proposed to Parliament, he would not believe it possible that any Councillors of his Majesty would dare to advise such a measure. He was the more justified in concluding, that no injury to the Church was contemplated when this Commission was issued, by looking further into the Commission; for he found some very important particulars of inquiry confided to the diligence and fidelity of the Commissioners—particulars into which if there had been a faithful and impartial inquiry instituted, it would have conferred the greatest blessings upon the people of Ireland, and would have provided greater security for the Church in Ireland than any measure which could possibly be proposed. He alluded particularly, to the last matter given in charge to the Commissioners; they were directed—"To inquire generally, whether adequate provision is now made for the religious instruction, and for the general education, of the people of Ireland, and to report such other circumstances connected with the moral and political relations of the Church Establishment, and the religious institutions of other denominations dissenting from the Established

1209
Church, as may bring clearly into view their bearings on the general condition of the people of that part of our said United Kingdom."—Nothing would have been more calculated to advance the ultimate tranquillity of Ireland. Nothing would have conduced more to the security of the empire. Nothing would have contributed more to the welfare, temporal and eternal, of the people of Ireland—than to have had a fair investigation into the effects produced, respectively, by the religion of the Church of England, and the religion of the Roman Catholics, on the character and conduct of that people. He stated with regret, that on looking to the Report which the Commissioners had presented, he found that those functionaries not only had not instituted any inquiry at all into these most important and most interesting matters—(the main part of the duty which they had undertaken, namely,—"the moral and political relations of the Church and of other religious institutions, so as to bring clearly into view their bearings on the general condition of the people,")—they not only had not instituted any such inquiry, but they had permitted themselves to speak—heedlessly, he trusted—in terms both very inadequate to the duty imposed upon them, and very injurious to the Church. He had read to their Lordships what the Commissioners were required to do; he would now read to them what they themselves said they had done. In their Report they said,—"Inasmuch as the Inquiry committed to our charge is essentially of a statistical nature, and as we are not authorised to recommend remedial measures, in respect to the anomalous relation in which the institutions of the Established Church stand, with reference both to its own Members, and to the rest of the population in the greater part of Ireland; therefore, 'we abstain,' &c."—Thus the Commissioners not only refused to do that which was the most important part of the charge intrusted to them, but they actually garbled and perverted the terms of their commission. They spoke as if all they had been required to do, was, to look at "the anomalous relation in which the institutions of the Church stand, with reference both to its own members and the rest of the population in the greater part: of Ireland. Could such a Report, in execution of such a Commission, have been expected from honourable men? He was astonished at it. The Commissioners characterized their inquiry as one of "an essentially statistical nature," but it was
1210
his misfortune to be ignorant of their meaning. If it was to be understood that all the subjects enumerated in the Commission were of an "essentially statistical nature," then, indeed, the phrase was of so comprehensive a meaning as to baffle his utmost efforts even to conjecture its probable limitations. He had referred to Johnson's Dictionary, but found that the word "statistical" had come into use subsequently to the death of the great lexicographer. However, in the Continuation, of Johnson's Dictionary, by Todd, it was said that "statistical" meant "political," and that the substantive "statistics" meant "that part of municipal philosophy which states and defines the situation, strength, and resources of a nation." Now, according to this definition of the phrase, if the Commissioners considered the inquiry with which they were charged, as being "of an essentially statistical nature," they were bound to investigate the circumstances connected with the "situation, strength, and resources" of Ireland, and he must therefore again express his surprise and regret, that they did not direct their attention to the particular operation of the religious tenets of the Church and of the Roman Catholics on the general character, and therefore on the moral strength of the people of Ireland. This was the only rational manner of bringing the inquiry committed to these Commissioners within the definition of statistics. Looking to what these Gentlemen had actually done, he must suppose that they thought the inquiry which had been intrusted to them was merely and solely confined to facts relative to the amount of population, and the numbers of churches and ministers of churches, and meeting-houses. If that was their opinion, a more extraordinary interpretation, or rather perversion of words, when considered in relation with the language in which the Commission was drawn up, never took place. He had been the more anxious to notice what the Commissioners had said relative to the "essentially statistical nature of the inquiry," because it had an important bearing upon the alleged conduct of the two gentlemen who were referred to in the letter. Undoubtedly, if the Commissioners were right in thinking that all they had to do was, to inquire into the amount of population, and points of that kind, much of what was charged against those two gentlemen as matter of blame, would be shared by them only in common with all their colleagues in the

1211
execution of the Commission under which they acted. He did not wish, further than was absolutely necessary, to lay anything specially to the charge of those two Commissioners. He did not know them, and he was not disposed to speak of any part of their conduct more harshly than his duty compelled him to do; and, therefore, he must acknowledge that when they refused to enter into the inquiry which was urged upon them, they had the sanction, however erroneous that might be, of their colleagues in the Commission. It appeared that they sent certain inquiries round into every parish respecting the increase or falling-off in the numbers of the attendants of the Protestant Church, and also respecting the increase or falling off in the numbers of scholars attending the Protestant or Catholic schools, and what were the reasons of such increase or diminution. Their Lordships would therefore perceive that the Commissioners when they began the inquiry, supposed that it was part of their business to inquire into these important particulars. He would then proceed to state the object of the petition. The petitioner says, "that no language can describe, nor any petition contain within reasonable bounds, the various outrages committed, and the dreadful intimidation and threatenings held out against the unoffending and defenceless Protestants,—their persons and property exposed to outrage and destruction. He implores your Lordships to take such steps, as shall seem fit in your wisdom, to protect them from the evil consequences of the partial and unjust proceedings of this Religious Instruction Inquiry, and to redress the grievances inflicted by it, as well as generally to relieve the members of the Church from the persecution they are suffering; so that religious liberty and personal safety may be secured for those who teach and inculcate its doctrines, as is their bounden duty; and that the due and impartial execution of the laws, or the exciters to violence and outrage, may repress the out-breakings of crime, and insure the lives and properties of defenceless Protestants." When the Commissioners were at Newport, Mr. Stoney, the Rector of Burrishoole, appeared before them, and expressed his wish to give evidence as to the cause of the diminution of the number of Protestants in his parish, and also to explain the falling-off in the attendance at the Protestant school. He was prepared to show that this had resulted from persecution; and yet the Commissioners
1212
had refused to listen to what he had to say. The petitioner offered to give evidence that the falling-off in the attendance at the school arose from the persecution of the Roman Catholic priests, and he offered to adduce evidence that the priests had endeavoured to intimidate the children from attending the school by using a horsewhip, by throwing stones at them, and calling out in the chapel against them, and thus exposed them to the hatred and vengeance of the Catholic congregation. Whether these things were so he (the Bishop of Exeter) could not say, but the petitioner offered to prove them either before the Commissioners or at their Lordships' bar. The Commissioners acted in this way for reasons which he was not disposed to find fault with—namely, to relieve themselves from the difficulties in which they were placed. These gentlemen, however, had brought forward a statement in answer to what they supposed to be the complaint preferred against them by the petitioner. The noble Viscount (Duncannon) had presented a petition from them, and certainly it had produced great effect on the House, and he confessed also on himself. On that occasion the noble Lord stated in the course of his speech,—"When the Commission was first sent to Ireland, the Commissioners sent round to all the parishes in Ireland certain queries on the subject of the Commission, and though all the answers were not perfectly satisfactory, yet in every case the Commissioners had received written answers except in the case of the reverend individual in question, and he had thought fit to print his answer, and to circulate the answer as printed. He did not consider, therefore, that that individual could complain if the answer thus printed were now read to their Lordships." The noble Lord then proceeded to read certain of the answers returned by the petitioner to the queries. In consequence of this he wrote to that Gentleman, and expressed strongly his opinion on the subject of his conduct, which he considered to be intemperate and highly improper, and above all in returning a printed answer to the queries sent by the Commissioners. To his utter astoishment he had received an answer from that Gentleman, to which he was anxious to direct the attention of their Lordships. He would, however, previously observe, that he requested the noble Lord to put him in possession of the paper containing the original answer to the queries. The noble Lord laid a paper on the Table a few

1213
days ago, containing the answers he had alluded to, but on his (the Bishop of Exeter's) inquiry he found that this was not the original answer but a copy. The noble Lord, however, had since laid the required document on the Table. This document, however, so far from being in print, was written. The letter purported to be received on the 28th November, and was directed to Mr. Barrington, Record-Office, Dublin, the Secretary of the Commission. The letter he had received from the petitioner indirectly showed that he was in a more temperate state of mind than when he wrote the answer to the queries. He had wished to believe that there had been some mistake respecting the answer sent by the petitioner. That Gentleman now stated that he had been sent a list of printed queries, and he had been requested to return an answer by post, but he had not sent, as alleged, a printed answer. He went on to say, that his memory had been refreshed on this point by a person he had to assist him, as clerk, in answering the questions. He then added, that he afterwards got the answers that he had furnished to the Commissioners circulated in his parish, in consequence of the attacks made on him by the reverend Mr. Hughes the parish priest. He had no intention to make an attack, either on the Government or on the Commissioners, but merely pursued the course he did to defend himself from the charge brought against him by the parish priest, and he felt called upon to expostulate against the Romish mass being called divine worship. The writer then went on to express his regret that he had made use of any language which could give offence to any of their Lordships. He added, that the parish priest had ordered the people attending his chapel to wallop—this was the priest's expression, and not Mr. Stoney's—any person who dared to collect the tithes of the parish. He also stated, in addition to other facts, that the soldiers who attended the chapel were withdrawn by the officer accompanying them, in consequence of the language in which the priest had harangued them. This latter was by no means a rare occurrence in Ireland; for it appeared that on several occasions officers who had attended chapel with the soldiers had withdrawn them in consequence of the seditious language of the priests. One remarkable case of the kind was mentioned in the Tithe Report of 1830, where it was stated that a lieutenant had withdrawn a party of
1214
soldiers from a chapel in consequence of the inflammatory and seditious language used by the celebrated Father Burke. Another remarkable case was where a number of troops were withdrawn from a chapel at Ballina by the officer attending there, in consequence of the seditious language used by Dr. M'Hale, who now called himself Archbishop of Tuam. The officer stated, on that occasion, that he should have conceived himself acting most improperly if he had not withdrawn the troops from listening to such inflammatory language as was used by the priest. With the present there were three instances, and in none of those cases had any slur been cast on the officers. Such was the character of the priests in Ireland, that it was necessary that the Catholic soldiers should be accompanied to chapel by their officers, to withdraw them when inflammatory language was used. Much had been said with respect to the nature of the answers returned by the petitioner. He regretted that the reverend gentleman had so far forgotten himself on the occasion in question, as to use language highly reprehensible. He thought that it was comparatively immaterial whether the answers were printed or written, because the language was still intemperate. Some of the answers were extremely objectionable. For instance, it was highly unbecoming of the reverend petitioner to use the expression,—"The Popish national schools are upheld and supported by a Government whose authorized formalities declare the Romish mass to be a blasphemous, false, and dangerous deceit, thus helping to build up the superstitions denounced as contrary to God's truth by the law of the realm, and supporting nurseries for rebellion, sedition, and treason." Again, another expression was highly reprehensible, about the new Board of Education, when he said that "Salat sat there shearing God's holy word." He admitted that there were many other expressions equally censurable; but in saying this, he did not agree in all the censures passed on the reverend petitioner. He fully concurred with him in saying, that he "could not call the worship of wooden crosses, pictures, relics, and wafers, divine service;" and he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought that the Commissioners were censurable for calling the ceremony of the mass divine worship. In one of the Articles of the Church, the mass was designated as idolatrous and superstitious. In the rubric, the worship of the host in the mass was called idolatrous,

1215
which no Christian should tolerate. He would also beg their Lordships to recollect that the great majority of them had sworn at the table that they believed the worship of the mass was idolatrous and superstitious. The Commissioners, therefore, had acted most improperly and indiscreetly in calling it divine worship. From the statement put before him, he felt bound to say, that the Commissioners in their inquiry at Newport, acted with partial views. He had no wish, however, to bring any charges, but would rather wish to regard the Question as one of a general nature, and as affecting the general interests of the people of a country in which all felt so deeply interested. But he feared if he abstained from bringing forward Mr. Stoney's statements, it would be said, that he had shrunk from them. In consequence of the charges brought against the petitioner, he felt bound to specify some of the points urged by him. The reverend Gentleman stated, "that he was summoned to attend the Commissioners of Religious Inquiry in Ireland, on the 3rd of March last, held at Newport Pratt, for the parish of Borrishoole; that the priest of the Church of Rome, the reverend James Hughes, was there with a large concourse of the people of that religion; that the said priest objected to the number stated on oath of the parochial Scripture school master to be in attendance on his school, and the petitioner offered to give evidence of the cause of the diminution being violent persecution of the children. The Commissioners refused to receive such evidence, though it was a part of their instructions, as stated in the printed Government circulars, to inquire into the reasons of increase, or falling-off, of attendance on schools, or places of public worship, for the last five years; and, notwithstanding, your petitioner, in answer to questions put to him in a circular letter by the Commissioners, preparatory to the Inquiry, had apprized them of this persecution; and in consequence of the notification given to him by the Commissioners, had come prepared to prove the same.' In the statement made by the noble Lord, on a former evening, it was alleged—"that the Commissioners earnestly requested Mr. Stoney to refrain from such observations (respecting intimidation and persecution), as their Inquiry was restricted to statistical facts, and did not enter into the causes from which they proceeded." In contradiction to this statement of the Commissioners, He was instructed to say, that the words really used
1216
by the Commissioners were to this effect:—On Mr. Stoney's pressing them to inquire into the causes of increase or diminution of attendance at schools and places of worship, and respectfully urging it as part of the Government instructions to them—they replied, "They knew it was; but they had come to the determination not to enter into such part of the inquiry, as it led to altercations." He had not only the authority of Mr. Stoney, but of another respectable person who was present, for the accuracy of this statement, which that other person was ready to attest on oath. He must therefore conclude, that the Commissioners did give this reason for refusing to prosecute this inquiry. Those gentlemen must have entertained a singular notion of the investigation upon which they were about to enter, if they supposed that it would be all plain sailing—that nothing like collision of opinion and consequent ill humour was likely to arise out of it. Such, however, was their expectation; for it seems that, as soon as they found that proof was ready to be given that events of a formidable nature, and scenes of the most appalling description, had, in fact, been the causes of a diminution of the number of children attending schools, and of Protestants attending Churches, they said they could not inquire into those points, because they would lead to altercation. But the case of hardship, and of injustice, towards Mr. Stoney, in refusing to admit him to prove the case which he had been invited by the original queries to bring forward, did not end there. Shortly before the inquiry at Newport, he was again called on to prove his case. And he must remark, that the Commissioners did not give Mr. Stoney the slightest reason to suppose that they had seen anything amiss in his answers to the queries, which, it was said, were sent in the form of a printed handbill. So far from it, Mr. Gibson Craig spoke in these terms of them, only three days before the holding of the Commission, in the letter summoning Mr. Stoney to attend:—'I have earnestly to request your attendance, and the benefit of such information as you can afford me, in relation to the several matters connected with the said inquiry; and I have also to acquaint you, that I shall then further proceed to make such inquiries, with reference to the said parishes, as may appear necessary.' Mr. Stoney, therefore, very naturally,—supposed that he was to produce the evidence which he had pledged himself to bring forward, at the Board

1217
which the Commissioners had announced their intention to hold, and, therefore, he had great reason to complain, when he went with his witnesses to prove that schools and churches had been thinned by persecution, that he was turned round and told that, to the delicate ears of the Commissioners, forsooth, the word "persecution" sounded harshly, and they would hear nothing on the subject. The Commissioners would admit of proof upon trivial points, but with respect to the grave and overpowering topic, the causes of the diminished number of scholars and congregations, they would not hear a syllable. The petitioner went on to state, that the jeers and insults of the mob towards him, were not repressed by the Commissioners, as they ought to have been; and that their conduct towards the Roman Catholic Priest was, on the contrary, most courteous and most encouraging. He would not multiply instances of partiality, because he was unwilling to trespass too far upon their Lordships' patience; but without uniting the motives which the petitioner ascribed to the Commissioners, he must say it appeared to him that they were guilty of a culpable dereliction of duty in refusing to enter into an inquiry which they had themselves invited, and which the petitioner was ready and anxious to pursue, and to confirm his own statements by facts of the gravest nature. He thought, taking into account the facts stated in the petition, that a strong prima facie case was made out. Before he sat down, he would briefly allude to a subject which had recently been brought under the notice of the inhabitants of this great metropolis, and which could not but be considered as having an immediate and important bearing on any question concerning religious instruction in Ireland, and especially concerning the influence of the Roman Catholic religion on the character of the people. He alluded to a work which had recently been discovered to be regarded by the highest authorities in that Church in Ireland as a depository of the real principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and which was especially recommended by these authorities as the fittest book, under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, for the study of the priests. He had examined that work, which was called Den's Theology; and more atrocious principles than were set forth in it,—principles more inconsistent with the security of a Protestant Government, and with the rights, liberty,—aye, and the safety of a Protestant people—he had never read, even when looking into the
1218
most intolerant and persecuting dogmas of Popes or councils, in the worst ages of Popery. He would not go through the particulars of this work, but would content himself with stating that in it Protestants were described as worse than Pagans—they were represented as being subject to the Roman Catholic Church, and liable not only to Ecclesiastical punishments, such as excommunication, and other spiritual penalties, but to the gravest corporal punishment. The property of the Protestants was declared to be ipso facto confiscated: their persons were held liable to incarceration, to exile, to death itself, as the punishment of their heresy. The book which contained all this, and more than all this, was set forth on the authority of no less a person than Dr. Murray, who was called the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, one of his Majesty's Commissioners of Education in Ireland. In an official publication,—The Annual Calendar and Directory of the Roman Catholic Priesthood, for the present year, published with the authority of Dr. Murray,—it was stated, that Den's Complete Body of Theology was declared, by the Prelates of 1708, to be the best book that could be republished. That was not all; not only had this book been ordered to be published for the edification of the priests in Ireland, as containing the most secure guidance for them in the present circumstances of that country, but Dr. Murray, and three other Prelates with him, had further directed that it should be used as a text book within the province of Leinster, in the conferences which the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland were required to hold four times in the year. Such was the sanction given to this work by the living heads of the Roman Catholic Communion in Ireland. More on the subject, he need not say. But thanking their Lordships for the patience with which they had heard him, he would move that this petition do lie on the Table.
Lord Duncannoncould not deny that, in the first instance, certain queries were sent round to the clergy of all denominations, one of which required them to state the causes of the increase or diminution of the attendance at schools and churches; but before the Commissioners left Dublin, they received instructions as to the mode in which they were to conduct the inquiry. He would quote one sentence of the instructions. 'It will also be observed, that the Commission only requires a statement of the bare fact, whether the numbers attending

1219
have been stationary or not for the last five years, without noticing the numerical extent of the variation. The Commissioner need not, therefore, ascertain the fact. He will also be careful to exclude all evidence respecting the cause of any such variation. In respect to education, the inquiry is limited to the statistical facts expressly mentioned in the Commission. The Commissioner should, therefore, be careful not to seek for or receive evidence in respect to the defectiveness or partiality of any particular system—the conduct of school-masters and others—the misapplication of funds—the religion to which the different children belong—the numerical extent of any increase or decrease that may have taken place in their numbers—the cause of such increase or decrease—or other similar circumstances not necessary for the establishment of those statistical facts; accordingly he should studiously avoid entering upon an inquiry into any of these subjects.' He differed from the right reverend Prelate as to the propriety of entering into the inquiries which were suggested by the first list of queries. The Commissioners, on leaving Dublin, were properly directed not to enter into inquiries as to the causes of the diminution of the Protestants? If any thing were wanting to prove the wisdom of that determination, it would be found in such conduct as that of Mr. Stoney. When the Commissioner arrived at his parish, and informed him that they did not mean to inquire into the cause of the diminution of Protestants, he protested against their proceedings in no mild manner. He did not countenance the violent proceedings of the Catholic priest, neither could he approve of the violence of Mr. Stoney. Both were violent men, and their quarrels kept the parish in an uproar. There were various points which had been alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, to which he was not prepared to give an answer. He did not know whether the children at the school had gone out, as had been alleged, to meet the Bishop with green boughs in their hands or not; but even if they did, that was not to interfere with the nature of the schools. It was not to be supposed that the children were always in school and under the superintendence of their masters. They formed a part of the population; and if the populace went out with green boughs to meet Dr. Machale, which, from his popular character, they very probably did,
1220
it was very likely that the children accompanied them with boughs also. With respect to the answers given by Mr. Stoney to the Commissioners, they were the subject of controversy, not to say that they had been proved to be false. He was informed that by the return made by Mr. Stoney, the number of his congregation was said to be 300. This return was originally objected to as incorrect. Mr. Gillespie said that the number was no more than 150. Mr. Dogherty had counted the congregation on three several Sundays, and on the first Sunday the number was 150; on the second 180; and on the third 150. Captain Stewart had also given it as his opinion that the number stated by Mr. Stoney was too large; and all agreed in assuring him, that, as regarded the Commissioners, nothing could be fairer or more impartial than their conduct during the inquiry. He had stated on a former day the circumstances under which Mr. Stoney, after some violent altercation had taken place, had left the room in which the Commissioners had met for the purpose of their inquiry. He should not now trouble their Lordships by repeating them. He could only say, that the whole inquiry appeared to him to have been conducted with the greatest propriety, and that in no case could the Commissioners be blamed on the score of partiality. With regard to the Commission itself, he could state that it would never have been issued at all if those who recommended to his Majesty to issue it had not sincerely thought that it would tend to the furtherance of the Protestant religion in Ireland, and not to its overthrow. As regarded himself, he could say that he participated with the right reverend Prelate in his wish for the prosperity of the Protestant religion and its furtherance. He had his own opinions as to what would tend to improve the state of the Protestant Church in Ireland; but whether he did or did not agree in opinion with the right reverend Prelate as to the means, he could assure their Lordships that no person was more anxious as to the desired end than he was. He did not, however, think the maintenance of an establishment larger than was requisite for the wants of the Protestants one way of promoting the success of the Protestant religion. With respect to what the right reverend Prelate had said regarding the census to be taken, he (Lord Duncannon) could not understand why a question of such great importance, and which came so frequently before their Lord-

1221
ships and the other House of Parliament, should not he inquired into. Assertions were continually made on one side and contradicted upon the other, without there being any means of coming at the exact truth; he therefore thought that it would be best that they should have authentic information upon a matter which was now almost the constant subject of discussion, both in their Lordships' House and in the other House of Parliament. A census of the population was to be taken; and what reason there could be why, in that census, the number of Protestants and the number of Catholics in the country should not be stated, he could not conceive. He could not think why the mere statement of the numbers should bring about dissensions. The right reverend Prelate had complained that the Commissioners had not stated their own opinions; but he (Lord Duncannon) was not sure but they would be more blameable if they had given their opinions to their Lordships instead of submitting to them a simple statement of facts, and allowing them to form their own opinions upon those facts.
Lord Broughamsaid, he would trouble their Lordships with a few remarks upon this subject; not that his noble Friend had not said quite enough to repel the extraordinary charges brought against the Commissioners in the most extraordinary manner, but because those who were attacked in this Petition might expect that something should be said by him in their favour. He did not mean to complain, although he might well do it, of the elaborate charges which had been brought forward by the right reverend Prelate, both against the Government and against individuals, in the most unusual manner. Had it often happened, upon the presentation of the petition of an individual, when their Lordships were not even summoned to attend the House, that elaborate and grave charges against the Government, and not only against the present Government but the former Government, and charges against public individuals, had been brought forward?—charges which, in the merciful hands of the right reverend Prelate, to be sure had dwindled down to a simple case of mere malversation of their public duties; but still grave charges were brought forward. It had been said that the Commissioners had been guilty of a dereliction of duty in departing from the instructions which they had received. Now, he had carefully read the Commission; indeed he
1222
had written the principal part of it, and attached the Great Seal to it, and he should therefore know what it meant; but he could find nothing in the Commission which required the Commissioners to enter upon the inquiry which they were now complained of for not entering upon. The right reverend Prelate had said, that it was lamentable that the Commissioners had not gone into this inquiry. Now he (Lord Brougham) could not agree with the right reverend Prelate. He could not regret that the Commissioners had not left the clear line of their inquiry, which could lead to no dissensions, to no heart burnings among any class of religionists, to travel into debateable ground, which it was desirable should ever, if possible, be avoided, and which was almost sure to give rise to emotions and feelings, and, what was worst of all, to politico-religious feelings, which ought to be lulled both in Ireland and in this country. The noble and learned Lord contended, that as regarded the charge of partiality which had been brought by Mr. Stoney against the Commissioners, that charge would more properly have been brought against them by Mr. Hughes; for the fact was, that all Mr. Stoney's charges against Mr. Hughes were fully heard, while Mr. Hughes was not allowed an opportunity of making any answer to them. Mr. Stoney was, therefore, the last man who ought to complain of partiality on the part of the Commissioners. By looking at the answers which Mr. Stoney gave to the Commissioners' queries, their Lordships might estimate the loss which had been sustained by the same line of inquiry not having been carried further. The first query was, "Has the number of Protestants been stationary, increasing, or diminishing, within the last five years; and, if increasing or diminishing, to what extent, and what has occasioned such increase or diminution?" The answer to this question showed the advantages which might have been expected to flow from a course of investigation for not proceeding with which the Commissioners were blamed by the right reverend Prelate. The Rev. Mr. Stoney, in reply, said, "The number is increasing yearly, and would be greater than the church would hold, only for Popish persecution. The parish priest preaches in his chapel the destruction of those who read the Bible, by pitchforks, bogholes, and paving-stones, and is not ashamed to avow it on oath before the magistrates of the country. Protestants are threatened to be murdered, violently

1223
assaulted and beaten, and their property destroyed; their remains torn from the grave; husbands taught to beat their wives, and wives to abandon their husbands and children, to force them to leave the church and go to mass." Another of the queries was, "What kind of instruction is afforded therein (the schools) to the boys and girls respectively?" The answer was, "The instruction given in the Popish schools of this parish is still worse. Idolatry, rejection of the second commandment, praying to the Virgin Mary, image and saint worship, hatred to Protestants, hunting Scripture readers with pitchforks and stones, and shouting after them:" and Mr. Stoney added, "for the young cock crows like the old one." Another question—"Has the number of children attending such school or schools respectively been increasing," &c? The answer was, "The last question needs no reply; the above answers will do for most of the parishes in Ireland; with the exception of the numbers, ex uno disce omnes. The persecuting haracter of the priest Hughes, of Newport, s a faithful picture of Popish priests in general; the sufferings to which Protestants are exposed are nearly alike everywhere; and the abominations and wickedness of Popery unchanged and unchangeable."—[The Bishop of Exeler: "Hear! hear!"] He was to gather from the right reverend Prelate's cheer, that Popery was unchangeable. He trusted, however, that they might be able to effect an improvement even in Popery, though if they were to educate Protestants only, he could not see how the Papists were to be improved. But Popery was a great deal better now than it was 200 or 300 years ago. Mr. Stoney was asked, "Of the children so attending at each such school, what is the number of Protestants of the Established Church, and what the number of Roman Catholics and of Presbyterians, or other Protestant Dissenters respectively?" His answer was, "Most of the Protestant children of the parish attend the Sunday and daily schools. The Roman Catholic children would, and frequently did, attend; but the priest has fixed his residence close to the parochial school-house"—It would appear from this, that the priest had taken up a military position for the purpose of cutting off the scholars as they approached the school. He seemed as intemperate a Catholic priest as the other certainly was a Protestant one. He would give their Lordships a specimen of the mild and dignified language employed
1224
by Mr. Stoney. "Hughes, the priest," he said, "persecutes them, hunts, stones, cudgels, cuffs, horsewhips, curses, calls out in the chapel, and tyrannizes over the unhappy victims of his fell superstition, so that they are forced to stay away from the Scripture-school, contrary to the wishes of both parents and children. The lash of the driver's whip was never more terrific to a West-Indian slave than the priest's whip and curse to a poor Irish peasant; the desolating slave-system carried on in Africa is liberty itself when compared to the horrid tyranny of Irish priests, and the interminable sufferings they inflict. Some of the poor children are robbed of their books, some welted with horsewhips, some forced to run into the rivers, others confined to sick beds for weeks from the brutal treatment they receive; some children may be seen going a great deal out of the way to avoid the infuriated priest and his cruel whip." That certainly was a logical answer to the inquiry respecting the falling-off in the attendance of children at schools; but it was one which justified the Commissioners in not having entered into any examination of witnesses with respect to the superiority of the Roman Catholic or Protestant character, which was the issue directly raised by the "infuriated priest" on the one side, and the equally infuriated Protestant clergyman on the other, and which would also have been raised in every parish in Ireland where such men as priest Hughes and priest Stoney were placed over it. He could figure to himself nothing more fatal to the peace of Ireland—nothing more likely to excite religious discord—than the Commissioners sitting to try an issue between a Catholic priest and a Protestant clergyman, each attended with a crowd of witnesses, and eager to support his own abominable anti-Christian feelings of hatred to his fellow-creatures, and enmity to goodwill among men; and the Commissioners, he repeated, did wisely in abstaining from it.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he was astonished that the noble and learned Lord spoke of being particularly interested in this question on account of the attack which had been made upon the commission, because he himself had heard the noble and learned Lord state at the commencement of the session that he did not belong to the commission, and had nothing to do with it beyond the circumstance of having affixed his name to it in his official capacity. When the noble and learned Lord could make such a mistake as that, it is not very

1225
probable that he could have given himself much trouble to ascertain the nature of the duties imposed upon the Commissioners. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the noble and learned Lord should condemn so strenuously a course of inquiry which was directed to be pursued by a commission, of which he himself was the head. For his part, he was glad that that line of inquiry had been abandoned, but he was a little surprised that its mischievous tendency, of which the noble and learned Lord and his former colleagues were now so thoroughly satisfied, did not strike them, when they, in the first instance, determined that it should be pursued. It appeared from the statement of the noble Viscount, that the character of the inquiry had been changed by the Commissioners. This was an extraordinary proceeding. What authority had two Commissioners (all of whom had equal power) to alter the course of the inquiry originally agreed upon under the sanction of the Government? He did not say that the change was not proper. He thought it was; for the inquiry first proposed might have excited animosity, and the resolution adopted by the Commissioners was, at least, the safest. He had no acquaintance with the rev. Mr. Stoney, and could have no private cause for entering into the discussion of this subject under any feelings of undue partiality. On the contrary, he was ready to admit that the reply of that Gentleman to the queries submitted to him was not a becoming one from an individual in his situation. On the contrary, a more temperate style would have been much more proper on the occasion. He was, however, happy to find that Mr. Stoney had not committed the disrespect (and this was one of the most serious charges raised against him) of sending his answer in print to the Commissioners.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that it seemed to have afforded matter of complaint against the Commissioners that they should, in the execution of their comprehensive duties, have demanded information in writing relative to points which they did not subsequently pursue, and which written information they did not seem disposed to make use of as materials in the composition of their report. Now it appeared to him, that herein they had exercised a sound discretion, and had best fulfilled the spirit of their trust, by refusing to sacrifice the statistical points of the inquiry to the speculative ones. He was quite willing to take the right rev. Prelate's
1226
assurance that the petition had not been changed in consequence of what had passed n that House as he had previously been ed to suppose was the case. He must add his testimony to what had been previously adduced in favour of the exemplary manner in which the Commissioners had acted with reference to the origin of this unpleasant controversy. They, in common with all who were conversant with the state of parties in that quarter of Ireland, were well aware that in the parish of Borrishoole the most rancorous hostility in controversial topics had for a length of time subsisted between the reverend Messrs. Stoney and Hughes, and that whenever they came to that parish, in the course of their progress as Commissioners, they might expect to elicit the most contradictory and disagreeable feelings. They had, therefore, refrained as much as possible from unnecessarily exciting the parties to additional enmity by discreetly and cautiously abstaining from accepting any invitations to enter on inquiries that involved points of theological controversy and discord in a parish already sufficiently agitated on that score. Mr. Stoney's character was so fully established as a violent religious and political partisan that it was impossible his evidence alone could be received as competent and satisfactory on questions which affected his feelings and prejudices. The fact was, that his feelings had been so warped by religious excitement that it was impossible to place reliance on what he asserted when under the influence of his exuberant zeal. There was another topic on which he felt it necessary to trouble their Lordships, and he did it with considerable reluctance, under the circumstance of his recent admission to the honour of a seat in that House. During the twenty months that he had been previously intrusted with the performance of official duties, while a member of the other House, it had been the invariable habit there, previous to the presentation of any petition relative to affairs within his jurisdiction, to transmit him a copy, and give him a week's time at least to write to the spot, to make inquiries, and be prepared with useful information on the public presentation of the petition, and he must say, if on the occasion a similar courtesy had been shown him with respect to petitions against the manner in which the Commissioners had executed their work throughout Ireland, it ought to be known that, out of 2,500 parishes, only five had complained—a strong

1227
proof of the fairness and impartiality which had characterised their proceedings. He hoped, if any other petition should be received on this subject he should be favoured with a timely notice of the day on which it would be presented, that the statement and the reply might have an opportunity of being heard and going forth together. In conclusion, he begged leave to express his sincere gratification at the progress which had been made in the investigation of the educational and Ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, and hoped it would, ere long, be perfected, so that it might be ascertained to the satisfaction of all how far each parish was a sinecure, or how far the Church Establishment was itself a sinecure. "I am (said the noble Lord) "proud to reckon myself amongst the firmest supporters of that Church, and one most anxious to resist any encroachments of a nature that might tend to injure or depreciate her; and I feel confident that the more thoroughly her condition is inquired into, and the causes ascertained which may have tended to interfere with her beneficial influence, the more effective and secure will that influence become in all its important relations, so deeply bound up with the well-being of Ireland."
The Bishop of Exeter,in explanation, declared that the intended appropriation of the property of the Church of Ireland (to which the noble Lord alluded in terms of such hope and approval) was, in his (the right rev. Prelate's) opinion, one of the most wanton and outrageous assaults on property, as well as one of the most outrageous insults on common sense, that he had ever known to be contemplated in a British House of Parliament. With respect to the support and the security of that Establishment, he considered the property in question only as the means; the needful temporal means whereby her spiritual efficacy was to be extended, diffused, and made palpable amongst the multitudes for whose instruction that Church was established. That property was intrusted to her sole care and use, for the common benefit. He did not intend to say that it was as equally or advantageously distributed as it might be; but while he saw a proposition made that what was termed the extra wealth of parishes should be applied (not to remedy the deficiency which existed in other parishes but) to extraneous and irrelevant purposes—he would oppose it to the last—feeling that the interference was undertaken in the
1228
most hostile spirit to the utility of the entire Establishment. He must also conscientiously declare that this project of appropriation was of a character that directly interfered with the spirit in which the Coronation Oath was taken, to support the rights of the Church, and if the Royal sanction were given, it would decidedly be a violation of the oath. In a word, he must characterize the measure as a foul spoliation contrary both to the oath of the Sovereign and the Constitution of their country.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he felt it to be only a matter of justice when transactions like the present took place, and charges were made against public officers to investigate the character of the complainant. He would read to the House a document, containing a portion of the proceedings of the Mayo Central Committee of Charitable Distribution at a meeting held at Westport, on the 9th of May, 1831, Sir Francis Lynch Blosse, Bart, in the Chair, which would throw some light on the character of the rev. Mr. Stoney. [The noble Lord then read a resolution of the meeting, declaratory "that they had read with feelings of the greatest disgust and reprobation a published letter of the rev. Mr. Stoney; that the statement therein contained was not founded in fact; and that it was calculated to injure the cause of liberality and charity." The only answer that the rev. Gentleman condescended to make to this resolution was, that the "statement alluded to was a private document, and not intended for publication."] After such an exhibition could their Lordships believe that Mr. Stoney's character was a sufficient answer to any charges brought against him or a sufficient guarantee that he must be in the right. He must say, that the Commissioners for their good feeling and discretion in forbearing to awaken in their progress further theological controversy which had ever been the curse of Ireland deserved great praise; and he much regretted that their excellent example should be lost upon a Christian Bishop, who had lent himself to foment its religious dissensions, and, in conjunction with the noble Earl, seemed ready to foster all the evil passions, the result of religious animosity which had so long been the curse of Ireland.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged leave to contradict most emphatically any such intention. He conceived that he had only done his duty in bringing the matter before the House.
The Earl of Wicklowdeclared that no word had fallen from him to justify the imputations cast on him by the noble Earl.
The Petition laid on the Table.