Lords Sitting of 26 May 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of TANKERVILLE, from the Landowners and Agriculturists of Gendale Ward, and by Earl BROWNLOW, from those of Boston, for Relief, particularly from Local Taxation.—By Lord RAVENSWORTH, from Chester-le-Street, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Bishop of LONDON and a NOBLE PEER, from two Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Lochwinnoch, against, and by the Duke of BUCCLBUGH and Marquess of BUTE, from several Places,—in favour of the Grant for Building Additional Churches in Scotland.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Individuals at Bath, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers.

UNIVERSITY DECLARATION.
The Earl of Radnorwished to ask the noble Duke opposite whether what he had seen in the public papers was correct, as to the rejection of the proposal of a new and amended form of declaration on the admission of members to the University? If the statement was correct, he begged to give notice, that, as the University had refused, of its own accord, to amend the form of the declaration, he should, before the Session passed over, introduce a measure for effecting that change.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould not say exactly what statement had been made in the public prints, but it was true that such a proposal as that referred to by the noble Earl had been made, and it was equally true that that proposal had been rejected.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION—(IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannonpresented a Petition from Mr. Gibson Craig and Mr. William Newport, Commissioners of Instruction in Ireland, against the charges which had been made against them six weeks ago, in the statement made by a right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) as to the nature of some imputations contained in a petition that he intended to present. In presenting this petition from these gentlemen, he should state the situation in which they were now placed, and the situation in which they had been placed when they went to make the inquiries under the Commission. On the 7th of April the right reverend prelate had entered on the books a notice for the 10th of that month, which, at his request, the right reverend Prelate had postponed to the 13th, to enable him to make inquiries into the matter. Upon that day the right reverend Prelate stated, that, as there
130
was no responsible Minister of the Crown present, he should further postpone the presenting of the petition till after the holidays. The notice intimated that it was a petition from the incumbent of a parish in the county of Mayo, complaining of the unfair and partial conduct of the two gentlemen referred to in the discharge of their duties as Commissioners under the Commission relating to public instruction in Ireland. He need not state, that there could not well be a heavier charge against any men; and the two Commissioners in question had been detained here in the full expectation that immediately after the recess the right reverend Prelate would present the petition. As, however, the right reverend Prelate, in answer to a question put to him within these few days on the subject, had said, that he would use his own discretion as to the time at which he should present the petition, they had thought it right to apply to their Lordships, and to state how they were circumstanced with reference to the individual whose petition the right reverend Prelate had undertaken to present. 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 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 answers thus printed were now read to their lordships. He should read some of them, as their Lordships would then perceive the sort of temper with which he was likely to meet the Commissioners when they appeared in his parish. The first question was,—whether the num of Protestants in the parish had increased or diminished, or remained stationary, and if increased or diminished, then to what extent. The answer printed and circulated in the country 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?—A. 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

131
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 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 their church and go to mass.
"What number of clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church belong to, or officiate in, the parish?—Two priests say mass on Sundays, and preach the above doctrines. One in the country drinks whiskey, expels devils, and reads a gospel for sick beasts.
"What number of places of worship belonging to Roman Catholics are there in the parish?—There are two mass-houses, out of one of which the King's troops had to fly from the seditious harangues of the priest, and in which the people are instructed in the art of defrauding and evading the payment of their legal debts, and abusing and murdering those in the Protestant clergyman's employment by 'walloping them with sticks.' Such is the Christian and pious instruction publicly given by the priest in the Roman Catholic place of worship.
"How often in each week or month, or on what days, is divine service performed therein respectively?—It is a horrid abuse of language to call the worship of wooden crosses, pictures, relics, and wafers, divine service.
"What is the average number of persons usually attending divine service in each of such places of Roman Catholic worship at each time of the celebration of divine service therein?—I do not know. I do not go there. If the priest is asked, he will not give too low a return.
"Are there any places of worship belonging to other Protestant Dissenters in this parish?—There is no Protestant Dissenting house of worship in the parish, though some popularity-loving, pro-Popery conciliators might wish to have such.
"Are there any, and how many, schools in the parish?—There are three daily Scripture schools and one Sunday school. There are some Popish schools instituted by the priest, in connexion with the new Education Commission, at whose board Satan sits shearing God's Word of its glorious truths.
"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?—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, who has fixed his residence close to the parochial school-house, persecutes them, hunts, stones, cudgels, cuffs, horsewhips, curses, calls out in the chapel, and tyrannizes over the unhappy victims of his
132
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 distance out of the way to avoid the infuriated priest and his cruel whip.
"What kind of instruction is afforded therein to the boys and girls respectively?—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, for the young cock always crows like the old one.
"What are the funds or sources, and the annual amount thereof, from which each school is respectively supported?—The Protestant parochial Scripture schools are supported by funds bequeathed by an incumbent of the parish, and by the contributions of Christians, who in this day of rebuke are zealous for the word of God. The Popish national schools are upheld and supported by a Government whose authorized formalities declare the Romish mass to be "a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit;' thus helping to buildup the superstition denounced as contrary to God's truth by the law of the realm, and supporting nurseries for rebellion, sedition, and treason. 'We unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.'
"Has the number of children attending such school, or schools, respectively been increasing, &c.? 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 character of the priest Hughes, of Newport, is 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 Commissioners after these answers had been received had visited this parish. He was sorry to trouble their Lordships with what had occurred, but as one or two circumstances had happened of a particular nature, it was absolutely necessary to bring them under their Lordships con-

133
sideration. The following statement was made by the Commissioners.
"The first discussion arose as to the attendance at Church. The rev. Mr. Stoney stated upon this subject, that the attendance would be much larger were it not for the intimidation and persecution of the Protestants. The Commissioners earnestly requested Mr. Stoney to refrain from such observations, as their inquiry was restricted to statistical facts, and did not enter into the causes from which they proceeded. Upon asking for the roll of the school, the Rev. Mr. Stoney wished that the names of the scholars should not be made public, as the priest had used a horsewhip and thrown stones at the children to drive them away.—The Commissioners deprecated these remarks and with difficulty succeeded in inducing Mr. Stoney to discontinue them, informing him that they were subjects upon which they could make no report, which were quite foreign to the nature of the inquiry, and which only tended to produce bad feeling and irritation among the people by whom the Court was crowded. On proceeding in this inquiry with respect to the school, the Rev. Mr. Hughes, P.P., expressed a suspicion of the accuracy of the master's statement of the number on the list. The Commissioners stopped this—swore the master to the facts—stated they would pursue the same course as to all the masters—and would suffer no further interruption. Third the Rev. Mr. Stoney having tendered an original census of Members of the Established Church, the Commissioners explained to him that they could receive no census which was not laid open to public inspection. Mr. Stoney then desired to withdraw it, as it contained the name of every member of each family in the parish, thereby laying them open to persecution. The Rev. Mr. Stoney persisted, and withdrew to prepare another census. Upon Mr. Stoney's return he produced this census, which was accordingly left open for public inspection while the Commissioners were examining some of the schoolmasters. After some time the Commissioners inquired if there were any objections to the census being received. The Rev. Mr. Hughes P.P., stated that he had many. After several had been discussed, during which much altercation had arisen, producing obviously much excitement and angry feeling in the Court, a question arose as to the religion of a woman named Gordon. The Rev. Mr. Hughes, parish priest, stated upon oath that he had received her into the Roman Catholic Church, and administered the sacrament to her. The Rev. Mr. Stoney stated that he had always attended her, and knew her to be a Protestant. Upon being asked by the Commissioners whether she had been recently at church, or that she had communicated there, he said 'She is afraid to go to church; she would be murdered;' and persisted in statements of a similar nature, notwithstanding the remonstrances and entreaty of the Commissioners.—
134
The Reverend Mr. Wilson, rector of Achill, who had been curate of Borrishoone for ten years, and still resident in it, here rose, and protested against this being received as a fair representation of the state of the parish, saying, 'I have lived in this parish many years, and would walk through it at any hour of the day or night, with no other weapon than the cane I hold in my hand. Connell O'Donnell, Esq., and Captain Stewart, magistrates of the neighbourhood, and Protestants, residing in the parish, rose and made similar observations. The Rev, Mr. Stoney said, 'I would answer for it I am in danger of my life.' After vainly endeavouring to stop these intemperate statements, which were still further exciting the people around, several of whom had broken in upon the business with irritating observations, the Commissioners repeated a warning several times before given, that the first person again interrupting the business in such a manner should be turned out of Court. The Rev. Mr. Hughes then said, that the conduct and language of Mr. Stoney were so calculated to destroy the good will and unanimity which ought to prevail in a parish, and to produce such bad effects upon the people present, that he preferred withdrawing all objections, and allowing the census to be received as it stood. The Commissioners asked 'How shall we decide as to Mrs. Gordon?' (the objection as to her not having been determined) a person at the far end of the room called out, 'She declared herself a Protestant to me very lately.' The Commissioners requested him to come forward for the purpose of receiving his evidence The Commissioners, however, having found that Mrs. Gordon lived in the village, to prevent further discussion, directed the enumerator (a highly respectable man, and a Protestant) to inquire of herself how she chose to be classed in the census, begging her at the same time not to make any declaration on the subject unless inclined to do so. While the enumerator was leaving the Court a person in the crowd called out, 'She dare not make the declaration for fear of persecution.' The Commissioner directed the person who made the observation to leave the Court, which he immediately did. The rev. Mr. Stoney then said to the Commissioners, 'You have turned the honestest man in the Court out of it. The Commissioners stated that they did not know who made the irritating observation, but whoever it might have been, after the repeated warnings they had given, they would have pursued the same course. [The body of the Court house was much crowded, and nearly dark at the time, and the individual stood among the crowd.] The Rev. Mr. Stoney remained a few minutes longer, then rose and said,' As you have turned the honestest man in the Court out of it (my Protestant parishioner) this is no place for me to remain;—you may turn me out if you like;' and then left the Court. The Rev. Mr. Hughes then withdrew his objection to Mrs. Gordon. On

135
the return of the enumerator, the Commissioners directed him not to state the answer from Mrs. Gordon. After receiving the Rev. Mr. Stoney's census, on the oath of his enumerator, the Commissioners stated that the business was concluded, when Connell O'Donnell, Esq. rose and said, 'He wished to bear testimony to the honesty and general respectability of the person (Mr. Hamilton) who had been turned out of Court; but he must say that it was not to throw the slightest imputation on the Commissioners, for they could have pursued no other course.
When the business was concluded, Mr. Stoney put in a protest against the proceedings, saying that as that person Mr. Hamilton had been turned out of the room, he had no witness on his side, and would not acknowledge that the census was a fair one. Mr. Stoney could have no doubt however, about the census, because it appeared that, as he made it out, so the Commissioners in the end accepted it.—According to that census the number of Protestants was 497; Catholics, 12,135; and Presbyterians, 2. The protest mentioned was in these terms, as he begged their Lordships to remember the animus displayed by Mr. Stoney, which must convince them that if he could have said any thing worse of the Commissioners he would not have failed to have done so.
"TO THE COMMISSIONERS."
"SIR—You have rejected the honest evidence of Mr. David Hamilton, an upright Protestant—you have turned him, being my witness, out of the Court-house, when he came forward to bear testimony in favour of my Protestant parishioner. As the rector of this parish, I protest against your proceedings, as not being conducted with impartiality—as grossly and unwarrantably tyrannical in respect of Hamilton, and as calculated, by courting popery and depressing protestantism, to destroy the lives and religion of the members of the Protestant faith.
"W. B. STONEY, Rector of Borrishoone."
This was the only parish in which any complaint was now made of the conduct of the Commissioners. Out of 2,700 parishes which had been visited, five complaints only, with the exception of the present, had been made against the Commissioners; the first was by a noble Lord whom he believed he now saw opposite, and four others by Protestant clergymen; but he believed that in every one instance upon explanation of the matter it was considered satisfactory and the complaint withdrawn. He should not now take advantage of the opportunity afforded him
136
of expressing his opinion of the proceedings of the Rev. Gentleman whose petition was yet to be brought forward by the right reverend Prelate. What he wished to do now was, to bring under the consideration of their Lordships the situation of the two gentlemen who were attacked by Mr. Stoney. He had mixed up this case with the 2,700 other parishes, and declared that all had been unjustly treated. It was against that which the Commissioners protested. They had been sent to perform an arduous duty; they knew what opposition they should meet with from various gentlemen, and they had not been mistaken. They were called on to answer these charges, and only knew from the protest what those charges were.—They stated that they were ready to answer any charge which might be brought against them, that they would furnish all the means in their power to make the investigation complete, and that they were certain that several Protestant clergymen and magistrates would bear favourable witness to their conduct. But they insisted on not having their case mixed up with others, and prayed their Lordships to confine any inquiry they might institute to the charge made by Mr. Stoney. That individual might, if he had thought proper, have put the complaint into the hands of his own diocesan, who had been in the House in the early part of the Session; but instead of doing that, he had sent the petition to an English prelate, who could not possibly know anything of the man, of his character, or of the circumstances of the affair; and therefore it was, that they called on their Lordships to compel Mr. Stoney to make good the charge while they were remaining in this country so as to give them the opportunity of refuting it, or else to take steps to relieve them from the charge. He was sure that their Lordships would consider this charge of partial conduct as one of the heaviest and severest that could be made against gentlemen in the situation of these two Commissioners, and that they would agree with him and these gentlemen, that they ought to have the earliest opportunity afforded them of relieving themselves from it. The petition of these gentlemen, which was to this effect, he now moved might be read.
The petition was read.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that it was not his intention to follow the noble Lord

137
into the details which he, in his discretion had thought fit to introduce respecting the conduct of Mr. Stoney, Mr. Hughes, or Mr. Craig. He should therefore confine himself to the reasons that had influenced him in his own conduct. He wished to set the noble Lord right with respect to the terms of the notice he had given, and which the noble Lord had referred to. He had no doubt that the terms were such as the noble Lord stated, but they were not so printed in the usual papers that were delivered to their Lordships; for he had said nothing whatever in his notice as to charging the Commissioners with the persecution of the clergy. He did state that the petition he intended to present, charged the Commissioners with unfair and with partial conduct; and also that the clergy prayed for protection from the persecution they suffered; but the suffering against which they prayed protection did not proceed from the Commissioners—it proceeded from other parties in Ireland. The noble Lord had said that it was an extraordinary circumstance that the petitioner had not placed his petition in the hands of his own diocesan, but had transmitted it to an English Bishop, who was not acquainted with the character of the man, or the circumstances of the neighbourhood in which he lived. On that point he could only say, that that diocesan had not been in England since the beginning of the Session, when he took the oaths and his seat. He himself had written to the Archbishop of Tuam, who was the diocesan of the rev. gentleman, and he had received in return a most handsome letter of thanks from that most rev. Prelate, for having undertaken the protection of one of the clergymen of the diocese, a gentleman whom the diocesan thought to have been most grossly persecuted, and whose statement might, in his opinion, be assumed for truth. The noble Viscount had remarked on the number of weeks that had elapsed since the first notice had been given of his presenting the petition of Mr. Stoney. That delay had been a matter of regret with him; but what had prevented him from presenting it? Their Lordships would recollect the remarkable fact, that one of the Commissioners (Mr. Gibson Craig) had not his name on the copy of the Commission which was laid on the Table of the House, and which professed to give the names of the Commissioners appointed. He felt,
138
therefore, that he had no right to complain in the petition of the conduct of a Commissioner who, for all the House knew was no Commissioner at all. He waited till there should be a complete copy of the Commission. The motion for that purpose was made when there was not a responsible Government. That being the case, he was again obliged to wait till after the recess. In the vacation, he received a letter from the noble Viscount, stating that the Commissioners in question had written to him, requesting to be informed of the nature of the charge contained in the petition, and the noble Viscount said that he applied, that he (the Bishop of Exeter) might state generally the grounds on which he charged the Commissioners with partiality, so that they might be enabled to send him statements in answer to the charge. These gentlemen had not given him (the Bishop of Exeter) notice that they should be in London, and the communication requesting that he would enable the noble Viscount to inform them how they might meet the case of the petition, naturally led him to suppose that they were still in Ireland prosecuting their inquiries. Immediately after the vacation, he attended in the House, and on being asked by the noble Lord, when he should present the petition of Mr. Stoney, he said, that he should wait for the Report of the Commissioners, as he understood that it would soon be presented, and that if the facts stated in the petition were worthy of their attention at all, they would be peculiarly worthy of attention in connexion with the Report of the Commissioners. The noble Lord had again questioned him the other night, on the same subject, when he gave him a similar answer; and it would perhaps, be no violation of confidence for him to state, that as the noble Lord passed him, on going out of the House, he said, "The consequence must be that these gentlemen must remain in town three weeks longer." A fortnight from that time had now elapsed, and therefore he determined to wait one week longer, as he supposed from the observation of the noble Lord, that the Report would be presented within three weeks from the time of that observation being made. The Commission appointing Mr. Craig had only been put into their Lordships' hands this Morning. He should be ashamed to take advantage of any casual circumstance of want of due form in a matter of this

139
kind, but that to which he was about to call their Lordships' attention, was certainly most remarkable. A month ago, the Commissioner's name was not in the Commission. He had received a copy of a paper, which was directed to Mr. Stoney, desiring that he would attend the Commissioner. That paper was dated at a time previous to the inquiry being made. At that time Mr. Craig's name was not in the Commission, but even if it had been, he had no right to make such an inquiry on his own authority alone; for the Commission directed that the powers conferred by it, should be exercised by two or more Commissioners. Their Lordships would now consider the paper that had been delivered to them this morning. This was not the paper he had moved for, nor that which the noble Lord had promised he would lay on the Table. The paper purported to be a Commission appointing additional Commissioners. It was not a Commission—it was a mere warrant for a Commission. Whether it had been executed or not he could not say, but it was most strange that when the importance of the Commission and the terms of the Commission had been so much adverted to, and when he wanted to see whether the gentleman in question was in fact a Commissioner, such a paper as this should be laid before them. But still it was said to be a Commission. Supposing that to be the case, then let them see what it was that the Commissioners called upon their Lordships to do; they called upon the House not to draw any general conclusion from what was alleged to have happened in a particular parish. He (the Bishop of Exeter) must say, that the Report would have the effect attributed to it, in the particular parish in question; and that being the case, he thought it was not more than reasonable, supposing that there was a ground of complaint against the conduct of the Commissioners in one case, that the House should wait to see the Report, which attested that one case amongst many others, before any petition upon the subject was brought forward. He was quite sure that Mr. Stoney would bring forward, and would be able to substantiate, his case, whenever their Lordships should please to give him the opportunity of doing so; and unless he (the Bishop of Exeter) felt satisfied upon that point—unless he were convinced that Mr. Stoney would at any time, be prepared to establish the
140
whole of what he had advanced upon the subject, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would be the last person to bring forward his petition. When he was told that he ought not to act upon a mere suggestion of his own mind, he begged to say that their Lordships would find him most ready to comply with their wishes, whenever they were expressed; but, in the mean time, he must be allowed to act according to the dictates of his own judgment, and to adopt that course, which, in his opinion, he deemed to be the most correct and most proper. There might have been, and he concluded there had been, a Commission executed, but upon that point their Lordships, of course, could, at the present moment, know nothing. Under such circumstances, and considering that they had only a week to wait, before the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction would be laid upon the Table of their Lordships' House, he thought he should be exercising his discretion very unreasonably if he were to thrust forward the petition, before the receipt of the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction.
Lord Broughamdid not intend to detain their Lordships for more than a very few minutes; but as he was answerable for the issuing of the Commission in question, he naturally felt himself called upon to offer a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the right reverend Prelate. Upon the subject matter of the present petition he apprehended there could be but one opinion; though he did not blame his hon. Friend, Mr. Gisbson Craig, or the other Gentleman who had joined in the petition, for presenting such a petition, because smarting as they were under the supposition that imputations had been cast upon them which they felt and knew to be unfounded, it was only natural that they should hasten to that House to defend themselves. He did not blame his hon. Friend, therefore, for preparing such a petition, nor did he blame the right reverend Prelate, because, acting upon his discretion, he had postponed presenting the petition with which he was charged. The only misfortune was the form of the notice; and when he said he did not blame the right reverend Prelate for not presenting the petition, he must also state that he did not blame his worthy Friend, the Clerk at the Table, for the form of the notice. It had suggested itself to the right rev. Prelate's mind, that there

141
must be something discrepant between the words read by the noble Viscount and the terms of the notice. Since the right reverend Prelate had made that remark, a comparison had been instituted between the notice which the noble Viscount had read and the printed order of the day, and the two documents so compared turned out to be to a letter, not to a word or a syllable, but to a letter, a transcript the one of the other. This, therefore, acquitted of all blame on the one hand his noble Friend the noble Viscount, and on the other hand it acquitted also of all blame whoever it might be that furnished the copy from which his noble Friend read. But then it might be said that another party remained to be acquitted, and that that could only be done by making another comparison. It might be said, that although what had been read that evening tallied distinctly and exactly with what had been printed that morning, nevertheless what was printed was not an accurate transcript of what was given in by the right reverend Prelate. That of course rendered a further inquiry necessary, and that further inquiry had accordingly been instituted; and he (Lord Brougham), by a happy accident, held in his hand the original paper given in by the right reverend Prelate himself. Now, nothing could be so satisfactory in the proceedings of any court—and in the case of their Lordships, who constituted the highest court in the kingdom, it was of course the more necessary—as that they should proceed strictly step by step in the investigation of any case brought before them, never taking written evidence when they could obtain viva voce evidence, nor receiving copies when they could obtain the original. It must be highly satisfactory to their Lordships to learn that they could proceed strictly according to that course on the present occasion. He would first call their Lordships' attention to the order of the day, which stood in these terms:—"Notice: To present on Thursday next a petition of the reverend B. Stoney, incumbent of Borrishoone, in the county of Mayo, complaining of the unfair and partial conduct of certain of the Commissioners of the Commission of Public Instruction, and of the persecution carrying on in Ireland against the clergy." That he understood to be exactly what was read by his noble Friend. ["No, no!"] Well, then, they would carry
142
the comparison a little further; but do not let noble Lords cheer before they came to the point, because he had seen such lamentable disappointments arise out of a too precipitate expression of approbation, as to induce him to regard it as a thing generally to be avoided, especially on so serious a topic as the persecution of Protestants in Ireland. He would now put all three of the documents before them—the notice as it stood upon the orders of the day, the transcript of the notice read by his noble Friend the noble Viscount, and the original notice given by the right reverend Prelate. He could not, of course, read all three of them at once, but if any noble Lord who had learnt reading and writing would follow him as he read, it would at once be seen whether he were reading correctly or not. [Here the noble and learned Lord again read a notice, which was expressed in the following words:—"Complaining of the unfair and partial conduct of certain of the Commissioners of the Commission of Public Instruction, and of the persecution carrying on in Ireland against the clergy and others of the Church of England and Ireland."] That was what his noble Friend read. He would now read what the right reverend Prelate wrote, or rather what he gave in. [Here the noble and learned Lord read the paper.] Why there was not the difference of a single letter. The two papers were precisely the same; and now he came to the copy, which, he must say, was made with a degree of accuracy for which he should always laud the Clerk at the Table, for not only was it verbally the same as the notice given by the right reverend Prelate, but it was literally the same; for in the copy the letter P was retained as representing the word "parish," in precisely the same manner as it had come from the right reverend Prelate's own pen. [Here the noble and learned Lord read the copy, which appeared to be exactly in the same words as the notice which he had previously read.] There could be no doubt then but that the notices were all correct; yet he had certainly understood the right reverend Prelate to doubt the accuracy of that read by the noble Viscount.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to be permitted to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, for the purpose of explaining. He understood the noble Viscount—perhaps it might have arisen

143
from the defect of his hearing—but he certainly understood the noble Viscount to speak of the notice as if it related to the presentation of a petition complaining of the Commissioners for persecuting the clergy; whereas, in point of fact, the notice which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had given, alluded generally to persecution going on in Ireland, and not to any particular persecution originating with any particular Commissioner.
Lord Broughamhad been showing that the words read by his noble Friend at the commencement of the evening, corresponded exactly with the notice given in by the right reverend Prelate; but now the right reverend Prelate got up and said, that what he complained of was, not any inaccuracy in the notice, but the misconstruction which the noble Viscount had put upon that notice. But that would not tally with the argument of the right reverend Prelate, because his argument had nothing to do with any connexion or any discrepancy between what the noble Viscount had said, and what existed in point of fact. His argument in the first instance had nothing to do with the speech of the noble Viscount. It referred only to the notice. The right reverend Prelate had said, that he naturally concluded that the notice read by the noble Viscount was not the accurate notice, because he had received the print, in which no such allegation was to be found; for, if it had, it must have caught his eye; and, in that case, what did the right reverend Prelate say that he would have done? He did not say that he would go to the noble Viscount (how could he? he was not endued with that second sight which would give him a knowledge of what the noble Viscount was likely to say on this present Tuesday evening)—no, no, he said, not that he would go to the noble Viscount, but that he would apply on the subject to the Clerk at the Table. What, he would ask, had the conduct of the Clerk to do with a speech made by the Lord Privy Seal? This house, composed as it was judicially, would, no doubt, deal justice to both sides, and therefore, as twenty throats had been raised against him for correcting a misrepresentation, he concluded twenty throats at least would be joined in the cry of "order" when the right reverend Prelate interrupted him, not for being guilty of an interruption, but for looking as if he
144
had been going to interrupt. He (Lord Brougham) had not interrupted, but had merely moved to prevent the right reverend Prelate from rushing ruinously to his own undoing, while the right reverend Prelate had not merely interrupted, but had insinuated a small speech in the middle of his observations. Leaving these comments, into which he had been drawn, he would now come to the important matter before the House—he meant the prayer of this petition. In the first place, however, he acquitted the right reverend Prelate of all blame in not presenting the petition according to his notice, the alteration of which was unfortunate. He agreed in thinking that it was extremely natural that these petitioners should wish to vindicate themselves, but at the same time it was for the right reverend Prelate to judge and to use his own discretion when and in what way he would present any petition that might be entrusted to him. He should think it exceedingly odd if any noble Friend of his should call upon him and say, "You have received a certain petition, and I insist on your presenting it." He should to such a request respond, that as to the course he should pursue he should use his own discretion. In like manner he totally differed from his noble Friend who had presented the petition now under consideration, if his noble Friend seriously entertained an idea that the House would accede to the prayer of the petition. That petition he had never seen before, but if he had been consulted upon it, he should never have advised such a prayer as that with which it terminated. What did it call upon the House to do? Why, it called upon the House to compel Mr. Stoney to instruct the right reverend Prelate to bring forward charges contained in the petition with which he was intrusted, but which he had not in his discretion yet thought fit to present. The House had no power, still less had it the right, to call upon any individual to bring forward charges against another. He was, however, willing to regard this petition now before the House as presented, not for the purpose of obtaining the grant of its prayer, but as a vehicle of defence to the petitioners. Admitting this, he would ask, had they then or had they not, completely defended their course of conduct? The right reverend Prelate had asked him the question whether the document which had been laid

145
upon the table was a Commission. He knew not with what organs of vision the right reverend Prelate regarded it, but he possessed no organ that enabled him to see the difference between this document and the Commission itself. The only way of getting at a copy of any Commission was by obtaining a copy of the warrant upon which that Commission issued; it was impossible to get at the Commission itself, because it was not filed of record,—correspondence might be obtained because the originals were copied,—the proceedings in courts of law might be furnished, because they were filed as records, but Commissions could not be obtained because from their nature they issued forth, and, as in this case, might be in Ireland in the custody of one or more of the Commissioners, or in the hands of their Clerk or Secretary. The Commission, therefore, the House could not have, but their Lordships had before them the warrant; they had the constat of the Commission, which contained all that the Commission itself would express. The warrant stated that, "whereas letters patent had issued to certain persons, constituting them Commissioners, and that whereas it had been deemed expedient to increase their number, know ye, we have revoked, and by these presents do revoke, the said recited letters patent." The warrant then proceeded to reconstitute the former Commission with the increased number of Commissioners, The warrant then set forth all the instructions, clauses, and articles contained in the former Commission, authorized any one or more Commissioners to act, and concluded by the appointment of Matthew Barrington, Esq., to be their Secretary, for all of which "this shall be your warrant." The warrant, therefore, was a complete copy of the Commission, with the exception of the command or canon of the King at the commencement, and its direction to "his Majesty's Attorney or Solicitor-General," both of which are omitted from the Commission itself. The warrant thus prepared was, in practice, transmitted from the Secretary of State's office to the Law-officers of the Crown, who reported upon it—the Commission then passed to the Privy Seal, and lastly to the Great Seal, and eventually issued in precisely the terms of the warrant, with the exception of the two omissions he had already mentioned. The authority of the Commissioners to act was then fully
146
established, and he for one was prepared to state, that he thought these two hon. Gentlemen had fully met every charge, so far as they knew—every charge of which they had ever heard, and had completely vindicated themselves not merely by a general denial of the charges, but what was more, by stating that which did not take place, as well as that which actually did occur. Could any man doubt that they had a perfect right to turn out Mr. Hamilton, after repeated notices that every man who interrupted the proceedings should be turned out of the Court-house? There was nothing extraordinary or singular in such a notice; he had often seen it enforced at Public Boards, in Committees, and at Commissions, and in Courts of Justice; if any man interrupted the proceedings, be he Protestant or be he Roman Catholic, he might be turned out. It happened, in this instance, that it was a Protestant who began this interruption, and to him the terms of the oft-repeated notice were extended. With respect to Mr. Stoney he wished to say nothing that could reflect upon the character of that Gentleman, after the high testimony which had been borne to it. The House had been told, on the authority of the Archbishop of Tuam, that Mr. Stoney was not a Gentleman who would tell an untruth. He would take leave (with the greatest respect to the Archbishop of Tuam) to observe that it was one thing to say that a man was very respectable and would not tell an untruth, and a very different thing to declare, "I would believe every word he states." It was one thing to take a statement of fads occurring in a season of peculiar party spirit, a time in which though a man of the fairest intentions and best of characters, yet he could not believe him, on his word, or his oath, upon matters with respect to which his passions had been excited. He said thus much without any impeachment of Mr. Stoney, but it should not be forgotten that Mr. Stoney was now before the House in the character of an accuser of respectable individuals on charges of the grossest conduct which could be imputed to a man in a public and quasi judicial situation, namely, partiality and unfairness. Mr. Stoney was the accuser, and upon his statement the House was to attach blame to those individuals against whom such imputations were raised. Unfairness and partiality were the charges dependent on

147
proof upon Mr. Stoney's accuracy. He did not care a straw for the allegation in a case in which Mr. Stoney's passions were concerned, and why did he say so? Because he had read the evidence given by Mr. Stoney before the Commissioners, as printed and circulated by himself in and through Ireland. He would ask any of their Lordships to read that evidence, and say whether it was given in that tone or with that frame of mind which could induce any one of them to wish to have his testimony taken against any man or body of men? Such was the religious zeal of this Gentleman, such was his devotion to his cause, that he could not answer a single question. He was asked how often divine service took place in the Roman Catholic chapels. To this simple question he returned no answer, but stated that it was an abuse of language to call the worship of crosses, stones, stocks, and waters, divine service; and instead of answering the question, he went on in recondite quotations and descriptions to show that this was idolatry and not divine worship. He stated further, that African slavery was pure liberty compared with the condition of the Irish peasants under the thraldom of their priests. Was his evidence altogether that of a man of understanding, or possessing soundness of mind? He thought that the best vindication of Mr. Stoney, for the conduct he had pursued in this instance, was, that he was not of sound mind when certain questions were under discussion. He had never seen a greater indication of excitement and paroxysm than in the case of the Rev. Mr. Stoney. He would not, upon such testimony, convict a cat, still less a Court of Commissioners. The zeal of this Gentleman was greater than his wisdom—his zeal, he was sure, was without knowledge and without calmness. But he found that the Commissioners were not the only persons of whom Mr. Stoney complained, for it appeared that a certain Baronet, a Magistrate and Deputy-lieutenant of the county of Mayo, had termed him a disgraceful, litigious, and scandalous clergyman. Of this language, used to himself in a public court before his fellow countrymen, Mr. Stoney complained in a letter which had fallen under his notice. If Mr. Stoney's truth was such as the House had been called upon to believe what he said, by one having an archiepiscopal dominion over him, he, of course, must
148
give credit to the reverend Gentleman's statement. Mr. Stoney himself had written that Sir Richard So and So had declared in public court that he (Mr. Stoney) was a disgraceful, litigious, and scandalous clergyman. Such were the designations which had been applied to Mr. Stoney in open Court, in the presence of his neighbours, on his own showing, and though this House had nothing to do with the disputes which might have given rise to this character—though
"Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites,"
yet it proved the estimation in which there-verend Gentleman was held. The letter of Mr. Stoney proceeded to state that another person had called him a scandalous clergyman, and that he was fit only to be an attorney. This was contained in Mr. Stoney's letter of the 13th of March, 1833. In addition to this there was the letter of the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Mayo, to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, stating that it appeared to the former that the decision of the Commissioners might be very correct, although altogether displeasing to Mr. Stoney, which his Lordship thought very likely to be the case. With these proofs of the general feeling towards him, coupled with the endless litigation in which the parties, (he meant Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stoney) had been engaged, he had seen enough to induce him to think it would not be safe to form a judgment upon his statement on a controverted point between Protestants and Roman Catholics. He should be sorry to decide the point on such evidence. The petitioners had, however, in his judgment, completely rebutted the charges advanced against them.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to say a few words in explanation. He should only occupy the attention of their Lordships for a single moment. He was anxious to set himself right upon one point. He misunderstood what the noble Viscount had said. He thought the noble Viscount represented the petition that had been confided to him, as charging the Commissioners with persecution. Labouring under this misunderstanding, it was, that he had said, that there had been a mistake of the clerk in entering the notice. If he had been right, the clerks would have altered the notice, but he wished it to be borne in mind, that he distinctly said, in his notice, persecutions carried on in Ireland, but not by the Commissioners. It

149
was clear he misunderstood the noble Viscount, and, therefore, the whole matter fell to the ground.
Lord Farnhamwished to say one word in answer to something that had fallen from the noble Viscount opposite, as to his having spoken unfavourably of the Commissioners. But he denied that he had ever said one word against the Commissioners. On the contrary, he always said and thought, that nothing could be better than their conduct. When the Commissioners first came down to the part of the country where his property was situated, he wrote to Dublin to state that no person should be admitted to the schools, under his control and direction, in that part of the country, without an authority from him, but that the Commissioners should have every facility afforded them in this, and every other respect, to forward the object of their inquiry, which, in fact, was the case. He took this precaution, to prevent the access of strangers, of whom he knew nothing, and who might come there for other purposes than those of the Commission.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that what he had stated was, that four charges had been made by clergymen, and one by a noble Lord, against the Commissioners, but he did not say that the noble Lord had made any.
The Earl of Rodensaid, Mr. Stoney had been charged by the noble and learned Lord opposite, with unsoundness of mind. He wished that the noble and learned Lord, with all his talents, had half the soundness of mind of Mr. Stoney. He did not rise to vindicate the language that had been read, as used by Mr. Stoney in his answers to the Commissioners; on the contrary, he considered such language most improper. He had, however, the pleasure of knowing Mr. Stoney personally, and he knew him to be deserving of the character which his diocesan had given of him. He knew, also, that he had been subject to great persecution in Ireland, not only from Catholics, but from Protestants, and chiefly on account of his zeal in propagating the true principles and doctrines of the Gospel. He lamented the indiscretion Mr. Stoney had fallen into in giving such answers as those which the noble Viscount had read, and he hoped that the present discussion would be a lesson to him to take care that in future he did not fall into a similar error.
The petition was laid on the Table.