Lord Rodensaid, that before he presented a Petition that he held in his hand, he should take the liberty of adverting to a subject of some importance—he meant that of the late triumphal procession which accompanied Lord Mulgrave's entrance into Dublin. He sincerely regretted that he had not been present when this subject was before alluded to; but as he had only come to town last night, he took this, the earliest, opportunity of noticing the statements made with respect to it by the noble Viscount opposite. Those statements were, that it was not of the description which was stated, but was merely the legitimate and lawful effervescence of political feeling. He should not enter into any controversy with the noble Viscount on the point of the legality of such processions—far be it from him to curb the demonstration of political feeling, so long 2 at least, as that demonstration was legal, and so long as it confined itself within the bounds of quiet and decorum. But it now became his duty to state what this procession was, and to let, not the noble Viscount alone, but their Lordships and the country decide whether it was a procession of such a nature as the noble Viscount had described. As to the statements which had been made with respect to the procession, he was ready to prove on oath, at the Bar of the House, nor at any distant time, but now, by the oath of an hon. Gentleman, who perhaps now heard his voice, what that procession was. He could prove that it was a procession accompanied with the symbols of sedition, poles with green flags, and mottoes on them, such as "The Repeal of the Union," "O'Connel for ever," "No Tithes;" and not only that, but there was one flag on which was worked the harp, the emblem of Ireland, and their Lordships must understand that it was without the Crown. There was also a flag having on it, as he was informed, and believed it to be true, the cap of liberty. Was that a legal and harmless procession—one that was not to meet with the positive reprehension of the Government? He should say no more of this procession than this, that he demanded on behalf of the loyal Protestant population of Ireland; that they might proceed with their processions, not with the symbols of sedition, but of loyalty—that they might not be 3 prosecuted by the Government—and that as the law was not put in force against those who went out to meet Lord Mulgrave, those creatures of Mr. O'Connell, it should be equally restrained in its application to those loyal individuals of whom he had the happiness to acknowledge himself a Member. He was not sorry for the decision of the noble Viscount, for he thought that much less harm was likely to be done from adopting it than from adopting one of an opposite kind. He had altered his opinion on this point from circumstances which had recently taken place, and he believed that by permitting processions to proceed, and allowing each party to show what its sentiments were boldly and openly, much less harm was likely to be done than by circumscribing the expression of opinion. He had come to that opinion since the passing of the law that had put down those peaceable processions which had formerly been common in most parts of Ulster. He should not enter into the reason for his opinions at the present moment, but he demanded that justice from the noble Viscount, and that same line of conduct towards the loyal Protestants, which he dealt out to those other parties who carried in their hands the symbols of sedition. He moved that the petition be laid upon the Table.
Viscouut Melbournecould only say, that facts which had been stated by the noble Lord were entirely contrary to the statement of facts which he had received from the highest authority, and which was also made on the assertions of eye-witnesses, as well as that put forward by the noble Lord. He had already said, that he greatly lamented these displays of party feeling, and that in his opinion it was to be hoped that both sides would abstain from them, and then the irregularities which necessarily arose from them might be avoided. But he must observe, that much as he should condemn, if it were proved, that which had been stated by the noble Lord—much as he should lament the use of those symbols, he much doubted whether the carrying of those banners, provided they were carried on the occasion, were illegal and would bring them within the purview of the law. He lamented that such symbols should be used and such inscriptions exhibited to the public; but, without taking upon himself to give a legal opinion, he doubted whether this was an oc- 4 casion on which the Act could be taken to apply. If it did apply here, it would apply to every occasion of public rejoicing—to every event of a public nature which the people might meet to celebrate. He believed that it was confined to certain occasions, when there were processions arising out of religious differences. Now, supposing that this assembly was legal, the use of these banners would not then be of itself illegal, though he repeated that their use was to be lamented. It was not illegal to inscribe on a banner, "O'Connell for ever!" nor even "Repeal of the Union!" for the Repeal of the Union might be effected by legal means, as well as the Repeal of the Tithes. And, much as the circumstances stated were to be lamented and deprecated, he did not think that of themselves they constituted a violation of the law. Banners had been exhibited on former occasions in a manner which, as he understood it, ought undoubtedly to be condemned. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Haddington) had stated, that on the occasion of the procession on his departure from Dublin no banners were exhibited; but was that always the case?—was that the case when the noble Earl went to the theatre in Dublin? The theatre was a place where persons met in a room—where, therefore, there was more opportunity to prevent the display of banners than among a multitude in the open air. On that occasion, as he had been informed, an Orange flag had been waved over the head of the noble Earl during all the time that he was in the theatre. He did not blame the noble Earl for the circumstance, for he could not prevent it; but he must ask the same indulgence, for the present Lord-lieutenant that he was willing to concede to his noble Friend opposite, more especially as his noble Friend now in Ireland was not at the time of the procession, as his noble Friend opposite was at the time of the visit to the theatre, the Lord-lieutenant in full possession of all the powers of his office, resident in Dublin, and probably aware of what was about to occur. The noble Lord who had introduced this discussion seemed to grant no indulgence, no toleration of the kind; but because something had been done which might or might not, even if it had occurred as he stated it, be illegal, he demanded that full indulgence should be given to that which was decidedly illegal. With respect to the demand thus made, he 5 should only say that it would be for the Government of the country to decide what measures should be taken on processions of the kind alluded to in other parts of the country, for which he begged to remind the House the procession that had now taken place did not afford precedent, and would not afford an excuse.
The Earl of Haddingtonshould confine himself strictly to the reference which his noble Friend had made to him, with respect to the time when he went to the theatre in Dublin. He had said, that was the case of a Lord-lieutenant in full possession of the powers of his office, resident in Dublin, and probably aware of what was about to take place. No doubt that was the case in all respects but one; but he begged leave to tell his noble Friend that he was completely unaware of what was about to take place. He had given notice that he should go to the play, and he concluded, of course, that there would be a large assembly of persons—that the house would be full—but he knew no more; and he should say, however stupid the declaration might make him appear, that he had been a very considerable time in the theatre before he knew anything about the matter. So far, therefore, as to his knowledge of what was about to occur, and as to his power to prevent it. As to the late procession, he should not make one observation upon it; but with respect to himself, he should say, that after the occurrence referred to, it was made known that he lamented the display of party flags; and he was assured, by a person of very great respectability in Dublin, that to the head and leader of the Orange party in Dublin, it was not known that any exhibition of party flags had been intended. The fact was, that it was a spontaneous outbreak of feeling on the part of a number of persons, without any regular organization. Among them was a number of young men, and a good many strangers. English sailors were there also. It was most strange that this circumstance should have been made the subject of reiterated misrepresentations, and of gross attacks upon him from day to day, and from week to week, by persons who, when they made the attacks, must have known that no man more acutely felt the false position in which he was placed by such exhibitions; and that no man was move anxious to take means 6 to prevent them. This manifestation of feeling was of an insignificant character—it was the spontaneous effusion of feeling from a number of persons who did believe that the Government which preceded that of which he had the honour to be the representative in Ireland, had pursued a course from which the Protestant Establishment was in danger, and who, therefore, expressed their great joy at the change, in a way, for which he repeated, he was not in the least degree answerable.
The Earl of Wicklowfeared that the most lamentable results would arise from the late procession, unless Government took some step to prevent its being drawn into a precedent. His noble Friend (Lord Roden) had pointed out what roust be the result of the matter, and had shown how probable it was in what way the other party—a party of considerable strength in Ireland, exercising a degree of strength and power that was hardly correctly estimated—would consider this display, and how likely it was to make them attempt to infringe the Statute which they saw was not obeyed equally by all. When he mentioned this subject, he had done it from no other motive than to make the Ministers take some measure to allay the feeling which must prevail on this subject. Last night he had been at a loss to understand the statement of the noble Viscount opposite, not knowing whether the noble Viscount meant to say, that the carrying of the banners was not illegal, or that the object of the meeting itself was not illegal. On this night he had stated that there was no infraction of the law in what had passed. He (Lord Wicklow) on the contrary, asserted that if it was a political demonstration, which he understood it to be, it did decidedly come under the operation of the law. That Act embraced any description of procession; and he had been astonished by the noble Viscount's attempting to draw a comparison between the recent procession, and the case at the theatre. What comparison was there between the one and the other, between the seditious banners in the procession, and the Orange handkerchief at the theatre? He called on the noble Viscount, to show to the people at large, how much it was the determined object of the Government to prevent all displays of such processions. The procession was not a meeting to welcome the representative 7 of the King, but it was a party meeting, got up by him who had intended to head it, but who, in consequence of some scrapes which he had got into in this country, was obliged to come here (as he had stated at a public meeting), and so was prevented from attending the procession. Was he not known to influence the conduct of Government, and that he had recommended the individual who had been sent over to govern the country? Who was now the supporter of the Government—the very man whom they had once denounced—whom they had once introduced into the King's Speech, and of whom it had been stated in a dispatch written by the noble Marquess (Lord Wellesley)in March last year, when that noble Marquess was Lord-lieutenant in Ireland, that ail the disturbances, which it was the intention of the Government then to suppress, arose entirely from the combination of the demands for the destruction of tithes, with those for the Repeal of the Union? Who was it that avowed that these two objects were the objects of his life? Who but the individual in question. Seeing what were the noble Marquess's sentiments, so short a time ago, it did not surprise him that the noble Marquess should have resigned his office, which, as a man of honour, he felt bound to do, when he found what was the influence of the individual to whom he had alluded. With those sentiments, the noble Marquess had acted as a man of honourable character might be expected to act; and in accordance with what he felt to be his duty, he had resigned his office. He cared not what reasons the noble Viscount assigned for it—he had heard others—and seeing and hearing what he did, he conjured the noble Viscount, if he thought that this act did not apply to such processions, as the one which had recently taken place, to take legal opinion on the subject, and to make it clear to the people of Ireland, that the law which did apply to Orange processions, was not violated on the recent occasion. It would at least be satisfactory to know this to a certainty.
The Marquess Wellesleysaid, it was not his intention to enter on the subject which had given rise to this discussion, however important it might be considered, and however anxious he might be to express his disapprobation of party proceedings, and still less was it his wish to call the attention of their Lordships to that 8 unfortunate subject—the resignation of the office which he lately held. But this latter point having been alluded to by his noble Friend opposite (if he might be allowed to call him so), this much he must say, in correction of what his noble Friend had stated—namely, "that his resignation was founded on intelligence which he had received from Ireland, relative to the entrance of Lord Mulgrave into Dublin," that he was totally ignorant of the whole of the circumstances at the time when his resignation took place. He had at the time no knowledge of the matter whatever; and therefore he humbly requested, whatever opinion their Lordships might please to form on that event, to which some persons attached so much importance, but to which he attached none, that their Lordships would not be led away by the supposition that it was connected with anything that had occurred on the occasion of the noble Earl's entrance into Dublin.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould but admit that the noble Marquess had evinced great talent whilst he was Viceroy of Ireland, but he must express a doubt whether his explanation would give satisfaction to those who were connected with, and were consequently anxious for, the welfare of Ireland. He said this more particularly after what had appeared in the public journals, and what had transpired in that House, with reference to the resignation of the noble Marquess. He had formerly alluded to that subject. He felt himself in a situation to do so. He thought himself at liberty to state what he had stated, in consequence of a communication which he had had with a noble and illustrious personage, who declared that he had the fact from the mouth of the noble Marquess himself. He was sorry that the noble Marquess had made his statement in the absence of that noble and illustrious personage; but, as the noble Marquess had addressed himself to the subject of his resignation, he would give him an opportunity at any time, on Tuesday next for instance, to enter into the causes which had led to his resignation, and to afford some information to their lordships on the subject.
The Marquess Wellesley, I repeat that my resignation had nothing to do with the procession which accompanied the noble Earl now at the head of the Government of Ireland. I must also again declare that I was ignorant of the circumstance attend- 9 ing it when I resigned. The noble Marquess opposite seems to entertain notions with respect to my reading, in which he is exceedingly inaccurate; it is not so extensive as to make me complete master of every sort of vague report that is spread abroad. I shall add one word more. I do not feel called upon—I should not feel justified, in entering in this House upon an explanation of the causes of my resignation of the office of Lord Chamberlain. If your Lordships are of opinion that I should enter on that explanation, let me be called upon in a distinct and regular manner; or, if you choose, institute an inquiry into the subject if you think it sufficiently grave; but without that I shall not think that I am required to give an explanation, nor shall I give it. I shall reserve my opinion on all public questions as an independent man, as I now am not engaged in any office, nor in any connexion which can in the very slightest degree fetter the expressions of my opinion on public affairs. That opinion will be formed as my reason suggests, and delivered as my pleasure may dictate; for it is not my duty as an officer of Government—it is not my task, to come down here and answer any questions that noble Lords may please to put to me. My opinion on public matters will be formed with independence, industry, deliberation, and, I trust, with integrity. Further I will not go, at the present moment, in answering the questions of the noble Lord opposite. I will not state the grounds of my resignation till I am called on so to do by your Lordships—till I am compelled by proceedings of this House, or by your instituting an inquiry which shall render my doing so absolutely necessary. I shall then, and not till then, think fit to reply to those questions. I will not make any disclosures not called for in a regular manner.
Lord Wicklowasked as a particular favour, that the noble Marquess would let him clearly understand whether he meant to say that the reason for his resignation was not in any way connected with the appointments which had taken place in Ireland?
§ The Earl of Harrowbyunderstood the noble Marquess to say that his resignation was not owing to any thing that had passed on the entrance of the Lord-lieu 10 tenant into Dublin, because at the time he resigned, the noble Marquess was ignorant of that transaction; on that point he would not make a single observation. His noble Friend near him (the earl of Haddington), with the delicacy which was natural to him, and proper to the situation in which he was placed, had entirely confined himself to an explanation of the transaction which had been alluded to by the noble Viscount opposite, who had thought fit to make it a parallel to this Dublin procession. That parallel was one composed of dissimilitudes rather than of likenesses. If some unknown person had displayed an Orange flag over the box in which his noble Friend was sitting, how could such a fact be compared with a procession formally proclaimed and arranged by the person whom he need not describe except as the only individual who was ever held up to the reprobation of his country from that place (pointing to the throne)? The fact of such a procession being intended was communicated at the Castle of Dublin, and inquiry was made there for the purpose of learning the particular hour at which the Lord-lieutenant would land. The influence of the person to whom he alluded was known in Ireland to be powerful for any purpose; but for such a purpose was all-powerful. That individual had announced that he would not himself head the procession; and he did not. He would not then examine the particular reason given for that individual abstaining from doing so; but perhaps he thought it more dignified, and more becoming the regal station to which he was advanced, to make his entry into the Castle by proxy. He was unwilling in the absence of a noble Lord whom he had been accustomed to designate as his friend to reflect upon his conduct; but he professed that he would rather have exposed himself to be torn to pieces by that same Dublin mob, than to have entered the city in procession with them. He would not inquire whether, according to a strict technical interpretation of the law, the banners that were carried were legal or not; but he was inclined to say, that they were illegal. At all events, the whole affair exhibited the Government of the country as putting itself at the head of a party, and doing every thing possible, by means of menace, to affect the existence of the Protestant Church in Ireland. There could be no symptom more alarming to 11 the future happiness of Ireland and the destinies of this country. What ought to be done, he had not the presumption to say; but if the Government had any hopes of maintaining tranquillity, after what it had done, it was not fit to be trusted.
§ Viscount Melbournebegged to explain, that any degree of concern he might have expressed was subject to the contingency of the noble Lord's statement being correct. But he did not admit that it was correct; for the accounts he had received were of an entirely different nature. Banners such as were described might have been carried, but their number did not exceed one or two at the outside. The statement made to him was, that the banners in general were not marked with any inscription of a seditious character. The sorrow he had expressed, therefore, was on the supposition that the facts were different from what they had been represented to him to be.
Lord Farnhambegged to ask, whether the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government would consent to an inquiry into the facts connected with the entry of Lord Mulgrave into Dublin, either at the Bar of the House or before a Select Committee? He had heard from persons of veracity, present on the occasion, that the facts stated by his noble Friend were as he had represented them, and if the noble Viscount would not grant the inquiry he (Lord Farnham) asked for, the statement of the noble Viscount in opposition would not be entitled to the implicit reliance of the House.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid that if the noble Lord would lay a Parliamentary ground for the inquiry he should of course be as ready to join in it as any of their Lordships. But the noble Lord was bound to show that the facts were different from what he had stated them to be, that the object was of sufficient importance, and that it was expedient and wise to enter upon such an inquiry, before asking their Lordships to grant it.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamwould ask the noble Lord connected with the county of Wexford, whether he believed that an inquiry at the Bar of the House would be attended with any other consequences than to create excitement and irritation on both sides in Ireland, which would be destructive of those hopes of tranquillity which the noble Earl opposite seemed so desirous 12 of realizing. There would be statement and counter statement, and notwithstanding all the solemnities with which an inquiry at the Bar was conducted, there would be great difficulty in arriving at that clear, distinct statement of the truth which would carry conviction to unwilling minds; and if conviction was not carried to unwilling minds, so far from such an inquiry carrying peace and tranquillity to Ireland it would have a directly contrary tendency. He trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend would pause before he yielded to this demand for Parliamentary inquiry into such a matter.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that the noble Earl was mistaken in what he supposed would be the effect of inquiry at the Bar of that House. A Member of the other House of Parliament could establish the facts as he had stated them, and they would, he doubted not, be admitted by the parties themselves who carried the banners, for they gloried in what they had done.
§ The Duke of Richmondregretted, that the procession in question should have taken place, and whatever number of these banners were carried, he was sure the noble Lord-lieutenant must himself regret it; for he must see that they would be displeasing to the majority of the people of this country. If there were flags exhibited such as had been described, he was sure that the Government must regret the fact, and he hoped his noble Friends would exert their influence with their Protestant brethren to abstain from any violation of the law.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he must enter his protest against its being understood that the whole power of the law would not in future be exerted by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, under the instructions he had received and would receive, to put down every species of illegal meeting and procession in whatever quarter, and for whatever purpose, it might be assembled. If the Dublin procession was not put down, it was because it was not conceived to be illegal. If it had been illegal, it would have been the duty of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to have taken measures to suppress it. But he knew of nothing more likely to compromise the peace of Ireland, and to lower the character of the Government, than attempting to stretch the provisions of a law which was limited 13 in its application to subjects connected with religious differences.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownewould not now, although perfectly ready to do so at a fit time, enter into a discussion on the provisions of the Act in question; but he must say, that nothing would be more unfortunate than that this law should bear a construction which would suppress the expression of political feeling, which ought to be free, except to an extent which would endanger public peace and excite those religious animosities which it should be the object of the Legislature to prevent. The Government of Ireland ought not to exist as a Government if it did not use all its efforts, direct and indirect, to put down such ebullitions in future. But those who knew the doubtful description of such Acts must be aware that with all the efforts of the Government, no Act of Parliament could be enforced without the assistance of individuals, who should endeavour to substitute for the spirit of mischief a union which, on some topics at least connected with the general prosperity of the country, might exist among all classes.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the speech of the noble Marquess who had just sat down was in direct contrast with that of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. Both agreed that the Act of Parliament did not apply to such a case; but whilst the noble Marquess said that such ebullitions should be prevented, the noble Viscount said he should not regret that which had taken place if it were not in opposition to the Government.
§ Viscount MelbourneNo; I denied that the description given of the event was correct.
The Earl of WicklowIf such processions were allowed to pass without inquiry and censure, he feared they would be made precedents for Protestant processions. Certainly the question could not be allowed to rest as it was.
The Marquess of Londonderryasked whether the noble Viscount would consent to lay before the House the letter he had received from the Lord-lieutenant, stating the circumstances connected with the procession, and the instructions which it appeared had been since sent out upon the subject?
§ Viscount Melbournebegged to be allowed till Monday to consider whether he should lay before the House the Lord-lieutenant's letter; but as to instructions since sent out to him, there existed no such document.
The Marquess of Londonderryunderstood the noble Marquess opposite to say that instructions had been since sent over to the Lord-lieutenant on the subject.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid that he alluded to his general instructions.
The Earl of Rodenbegged to assure the noble Duke (of Richmond) that he and his friends would do all in their power to discourage processions in violation of the law.
§ The petition was laid upon the Table.