HL Deb 15 May 1835 vol 27 cc1118-25
The Earl of Wicklow

said, that after the declaration which the noble Viscount had made on taking his seat as Minister of the Crown, he had felt that it was his duty to abstain from making any remarks on the noble Viscount's conduct, till he saw precisely on what principles the noble Viscount meant to carry on the Government. But circumstances had lately occurred in Ireland which made him feel that it would be a dereliction of his duty if he were to suffer them to pass over without notice. He referred to the manner in which the noble Earl recently appointed Lord-lieutenant of Ireland had made his entry into Dublin. He wished not to be understood as disapproving of demonstrations of regard on the entry of a favoured Lord-lieutenant into that city, he should be the last man in the world who could disapprove of the expression of regret that had been shown by the Irish people at the departure of his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Haddington), and, therefore, he could not but approve of that demonstration of feeling; and as he knew how well merited it was, he should not be justified in disapproving of another demonstration of a different kind upon the arrival of the noble Earl who had recently been appointed. But if the reports he had heard were true, the demonstrations made on the arrival of the noble Earl were of a totally different kind from those made on the departure of his noble Friend. He was informed that the cortege which took place, on the occasion of the noble Earl's entry was the organized arrangement of an individual of great power in the country. The men in the procession were marshalled by appointed leaders—they assembled in great numbers in consequence of orders issued in the chapels of the neighbourhood that they should assemble and take part in the procession. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the procession was in direct violation of the laws of the country. It was not only in violation of the common law, but of that law which was introduced two years ago, when the noble Viscount was Secretary of State for the Home Department. He alluded to the Bill which was to be continued for five years, and which declared to be illegal all bodies of men assembled with symbols and banners. If the reports he had heard were true, the noble Earl had permitted that to be done which rendered him incapable of holding the sword of justice in that country, for what he had done was prohibited by law; and how could he punish that in others which he had permitted himself, and in permitting which he had committed so direct a violation of the law? These circumstances must have a tendency to discourage the loyal and well-affected in that country, and they could not but be confirmed in their apprehensions when they saw the Lord-lieutenant thus lend himself to the party which was most dangerous in that kingdom, and which had often been denounced not only in Parliament, but even in speeches from the Throne. Coupling that circumstance with another of which he had heard, he must express his fears for the tranquillity of Ireland when he heard that the Solicitor-General of Ireland had sanctioned a toast at a public meeting to the speedy repeal of the Union. Coupling that circumstance with the fact that, at the entry of the new Lord-lieutenant, the banners bore the inscription "Repeal of the Union," "No Tithes," "O'Connell for ever," and sentences of that kind, he thought the commencement of the new Government was of a most inauspicious and even alarming character. He hoped that the declaration of the noble Earl would have the effect of settling the minds of the people, and that if such circumstances should be proved to have occurred, at least he would declare they had not his acquiescence. He asked the noble Viscount first, whether he had received such information that the noble Earl had made his entry into Dublin in the manner described; and secondly, if so, what steps had been taken to announce the displeasure of the noble Viscount at this course.

Viscount Melbourne

said, that it was quite unnecessary for the noble Earl to disavow any intentions of a personal nature towards himself, for he had never seen anything in the noble Earl but fair political hostility. He had understood that on the occasion of his noble Friend's entry into Dublin there was a great concourse of people, and that there was, too, a very enthusiastic demonstration of popular feeling; but circumstances, such as those stated by the noble Earl opposite, he had not till this moment heard. He was not aware that there had been any illegal assemblage, nor any banners nor ensigns which were prohibited by Act of Parliament; but he had no doubt that if the law had been violated, it could and would be asserted by the ordinary means. With respect to the measures said to have been adopted to procure an attendance—with respect to the orders supposed to have been given to assemble, and the marshalling of the men in the procession, he could only say that he believed that processions of this kind were never purely spontaneous—never entirely unarranged; and he might venture to say that the assemblage which had accompanied the departure of the noble Earl opposite, did not occur without previous notice, nor without settled arrangements among those who were anxious to make that display of their political feelings. It was not in the nature of things that it should be so; no procession could be entirely spontaneous—none was purely the out bursting of the feelings of the moment, but was produced by previous settlement among the parties. If anything of an illegal nature had taken place—if any violation of the law had occurred—if anything had happened which called for strong animadversion and censure, and if this was intimated to his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant, he was sure that his noble Friend was so entirely aware of the intentions of the Government at home, and so entirely possessed of a spirit of impartiality—was so determined to conduct his Government upon the principles of even and equal justice, and so resolved not to place himself in the hands of any party or faction whatever, but to administer the law equally to all, that he would be the very first to put the law into effect against those who had violated it even on the occasion referred to. There were some other matters to which the noble Earl opposite had referred, with which he was not in the least acquainted, and to which, therefore, he should not allude; but he took that opportunity of declaring, that the principle of the Government here and in Ireland, was, that those who violated the law, be they who they might, should be made to answer for that violation.

The Marquess of Londonderry

was not surprised to hear the panegyric bestowed by the noble Viscount upon the noble Earl the Lord-lieutenant, but after a time they should be able to know how much it was deserved. His noble Friend near him had been right in putting the question, not with respect to the noble Earl the Lord-lieutenant, but in order to know whether these orders for the people to assemble, were issued by the protector of the Government—Mr. O'Connell; and if so, whether such orders were issued under the sanction of the Lord-lieutenant. It did appear that some correspondence had been carried on by Captain Phipps on the part of the noble Earl, which was alluded to in the papers. The banners were marked with "O'Connell, the rising Sun." "Dan's Lieutenant." "Repeal." This was stated to be the fact in various letters, and if the noble Viscount had not heard of these things before, he was the last man in the country who had not heard of them. He therefore called on the noble Viscount, as the first Minister of the Crown, to investigate the truth of these circumstances. He called on the noble Viscount the more from a letter he had received from a very influential person, who stated to him what must be the inevitable consequences of such an entry. The letter said "The Earl of Mulgrave's entry was a tremendous display of O'Connell force, and the sanction given to the party to display these colours will be considered a reason for the loyal Protestants not being meddled with in their display on the 12th of July next, when I fear some tremendous conflict will take place if they are interrupted. In consequence of this procession with the banners and the green flags, it will be impossible to prevent the Orangemen from taking their course." The Lord-lieutenant had, in fact, sanctioned these things, and unless he expressed his disapprobation of them, he might be well assured that the Orangemen of Ireland would not be tranquil, and that a tremendous collision would take place that would endanger the property of Ireland, and that the 12th of July would not pass over without the most serious consequences. He did not say this from any personal feeling. The time would come when he should state his opinion of what Ireland had to fear from the Government of the noble Lord. The inevitable consequence would be, that if some marked notice was not taken of this matter, there would be a procession on the 12th of July. He warned the noble Viscount of the matter. The noble Viscount could not have any feelings of enmity towards him because he brought these circumstances forward—for he must know that a noble person high in the confidence of his Majesty and in that, of the Government, (the Marquess of Wellesley, Lord Chamberlain)had just resigned office because he felt that the influence of Mr. O'Connell was so great in the Government, that with his opinions he could not properly continue in office. If the noble Viscount's personal friends were thus alarmed, could he wonder that his political enemies were frightened? People who had property in Ireland must and would stand forth on such occasions and let him know their opinions in time to prevent these unhappy consequences.

Viscount Melbourne

said, that with respect to the circumstances alluded to by the noble Marquess opposite, there could be nothing more unfortunate, if the statement of those circumstances was true, and if it was, he admitted that the consequences predicted in the letter were likely to follow. But he must at the same time ask whether the sort of procession referred to could have been prevented? Could the noble Earl opposite have prevented, if he had wished, the display which accompanied his departure from Ireland, even when he was Lord-lieutenant, and in the country itself? how, then, could the noble Earl, now the Lord-lieutenant, prevent that which was no doubt prepared while he yet remained in England? If there had been display on one side, so there had on the other. He was perfectly aware of the consequences that might follow an exhibition of the sort described; but he knew no means by which his noble Friend could have prevented it. He had said that if there was anything illegal, it should be inquired into; but it was not, unfortunately, in the power of the Government here, or on the other side of the water, to prevent these displays of feeling on the entry of a Lord-lieutenant, whom the Irish people welcomed with satisfaction to their shores. No man more deeply regretted than he did, the strong party distinction still existing in that country—the strong line of demarcation there drawn between men of opposite political sentiments; there was no man more truly anxious to adopt measures which could, even by possibility, have the effect of rendering; that country tranquil; but it was impossible to do that with the aid of one party alone. If both could be prevailed on to assist in this good work, something might be done; but he feared that that was hardly to be expected, from the weakness of human nature. The noble Marquess had adverted to the Chamberlain of the Household, and had said, that that noble Marquess had resigned his situation on account of differences with the Government on the subject of Ireland. He assured their Lordships that the statement was wholly erroneous. He had the authority of the noble Marquess himself for stating most distinctly, that any report to that effect was entirely without foundation. It was not upon the grounds stated that the noble Marquess had resigned his office; and, with respect to the management of Ireland in general, the noble Marquess agreed with the views of the Government which was dismissed in November, and with the views of the present Government.

The Earl of Haddington

could assure the noble Viscount and their Lordships, that it had not been his intention to address them on this subject; but as the noble Viscount had appealed to him, and had twice adverted to that assemblage to which he was honoured on quitting Ireland, and had done it as if he meant to compare it with what had recently occurred he must be allowed to say a word or two on the matter. What he wished to state was simply this—that on that occasion there was neither banner nor colour, nor any outward appearance of party manifested that met his eye, nor anything that could be so considered. As to the procession itself, it was most undoubtedly as spontaneous and unsolicited as it could be; but, at the same time, he must be allowed to say, that if he had given any warning that he did not like it, or did not wish for it, or that he thought it would produce any bad consequence, he believed that it would have been given up. But he had not done that because there was no reason why he should. It would have been ungracious in him to say anything of the kind. He did not mean to say that the noble Earl, now the Lord-lieutenant, could have prevented the recent procession; but he was certain that he could have prevented that which took place with regard to himself; but he saw no reason for doing it, and it would have been an ungracious return for the great kindness which he was far from being vain enough to think that he deserved.

The Marquess of Londonderry

said, that with regard to the report about the Lord Chamberlain, a person had told it to him who had it from the noble Marquess himself.

Viscount Melbourne

believed that the noble Marquess overrated the value of his information.

Lord Brougham

said, that in opposition to the second-hand report of the noble Marquess, there were to be placed two personal communications with the noble Marquess, showing that it was wholly incorrect. He happened to be a witness who could give evidence which would place the matter of the cause of the retirement beyond the possibility of a doubt; for the intention of the noble Marquess to resign, and the grounds of the intended resignation, were known to him long before the account of what took place in Ireland reached this country. He knew of the intention and the reasons for it, early last Saturday, and it was taken, he was going to say, on grounds diametrically opposite; but he might say, completely different, and wholly standing apart from those supposed. He had not seen the noble Marquess since, and it was possible that in the mean time the noble Marquess might have said something which had occasioned the mistake.

The Marquess of Londonderry

had asked the question of one of his Majesty's confidential servants, and he should have been more assured had the answer come from one of them.

Lord Brougham

remarked, that the position taken up by the noble Marquess was most extraordinary. According to that whatever report a man might hear of Lord Wellesley was to be believed, though Lord Wellesley had fifty witnesses to disprove it, unless it should happen that one of the twelve King's Ministers should also happen to know that the statement was unfounded. Really no other man would be placed in so unfortunate a situation as that in which such a rule would place the noble Marquess.