HL Deb 22 July 1836 vol 35 cc430-5
The Bishop of Exeter

said, that a paper had recently been laid on their Lordships' table (he alluded to the third Report of the Commissioners of national education in Ireland), which was of so important a nature, that he trusted he should be excused in thus adverting to it. Having looked at that Report, he begged leave to state, that nothing should prevent him from renewing the motion which he had made this session in the early part of next session, for an inquiry into the operation of the national system of education which had been introduced into Ireland. No member of the Education Commission in Ireland—no friend of any member of that commission—could, he conceived, object to such an inquiry. He hoped, therefore, for the support of that House, when, early in the next session (and he pledged himself that he would bring the subject forward at the earliest period of the session), he should move for an inquiry into the operation of the system of national education adopted in Ireland.

Viscount Melbourne

said, it would be almost impossible for individuals to give a prompt explanation upon points connected with this subject, unless they were apprised, in the first instance, of the nature of the charges that were to be brought forward. The right rev. Prelate might bring forward as he had done on a former occasion, a number of minute facts, with reference to which the parties criminated might not at the moment possess any information. It would therefore be extremely convenient, and certainly more satisfactory to those who were immediately connected with the motion of which notice had been given, if the right rev. Prelate would, in the first instance, furnish a list of those facts on which he intended to found his motion, in order that the parties might know what charges they had to meet, and also that their Lordships might be enabled to discuss the question in a more satisfactory manner.

The Bishop of Exeter

felt the full force of what had fallen from the noble Viscount. He wished, however, to observe, that he had already put the House in possession of the general view of the case which he intended to present. He was quite ready to state, that the main points of the case which he meant to adduce in moving for a Committee were those which he had formerly noticed. He should not, however, consider himself prevented hereafter from going further, if in the course of investigation new cases presented themselves to his observation, as would very probably be the case. It was not unlikely, that between the present hour and that at which he meant to address their Lordships on the subject hereafter, new facts and new cases might be elicited; but he certainly would give the Commissioners a full and fair opportunity for the investigation of every case which he should feel it to be his duty to bring forward. He would only ask, as so much had been said on both sides of the question, that the noble Viscount and his Majesty's Government would concur with him in calling for a full and fair investigation of the subject.

The Duke of Wellington

could not agree to the doctrine laid down by the noble Viscount with reference to the notice given by the right rev. Prelate of his intention to renew a certain proceeding in their Lordships' House. When a noble Lord made a motion for inquiry on any particular Subject, he did so on his own credit, and stated those facts which he deemed proper in support of his case. Assuredly it was not usual—assuredly it was not in accordance with the practice of Parliament—for individuals to come forward, in the first in- stance, with written statements detailing the facts on which any specific motion was to be founded. Such a proposition was quite of a novel nature, and he hoped that it would not be adopted.

Viscount Melbourne

said, he did not wish to introduce any new rules, or to fetter the discretion of any noble Lord as to the course which he might think it proper to adopt in making a motion for inquiry. What he had stated was, that in this particular case, where a charge was to be made, founded on small and minute facts—such as particular proceedings in a school, or writing copies permitted in a school—it would be convenient that some notice should be given of those facts. Under these circumstances, he had put it to the candour of the right rev. Prelate whether, in a case of this nature, it would not conduce to a full and fair inquiry on the subject if the facts were stated before the motion for inquiry was made. Otherwise it was clear, that they might be led to proceed on mere matter of assertion; and it ought to be observed, that to sanction an inquiry into the conduct of a number of individuals, without due information, was of itself, so far as those individuals were concerned, a matter of no light importance.

Lord Plunkett

did not think, that the course taken by the right rev. Prelate was the most prudent or discreet. The right rev. Prelate had taken the same course before, but finding that he was not borne out in his statements, he had abandoned his motion. A charge, it appeared, was intended to be brought against a public body—against persons who were performing an arduous duty without reward or compensation. This charge was to be introduced without letting the parties know the facts on which it was founded. Now, he conceived that it would be much better, that it would be more consistent with Christian charity, if the right rev. Prelate, before he made his charge (a very grave charge, though it rested on minute cases), would give the accused parties an opportunity of knowing exactly what his facts and cases were, in order that they might be prepared to meet them. On some of the points formerly brought forward the right rev. Prelate might have procured more correct information than he appeared to possess, if he had applied to the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin; or, if he did not wish to apply to him, he might have consulted the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. He conceived that it was only fair to acquaint the Commissioners with the facts which it was intended to allege, instead of making charges, some of them on anonymous authority, which it was impossible for the accused parties to refute at the moment. He had no doubt that the right rev. Prelate would fail, as he had formerly done, in making out any case.

The Marquess of Westmeath

Whom does the noble and learned Lord designate as the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin?

Lord Plunkett

would have been more correct perhaps if he had called the individual the titular Archbishop of Dublin.

The Marquess of Westmeath

The noble and learned Lord began by speaking of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and then he alluded to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. Now, in my opinion, there is but one Archbishop of Dublin.

The Bishop of Exeter

complained, that the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented him, he was sure unintentionally. He could assure the noble and learned Lord, that his confidence in the truth of the statements which he had formerly made was not at all diminished, and he had never said anything to justify a contrary inference. He said now, as he had said before, that he felt it to be his duty to the Commissioners, to the Church of Ireland, and to the people of Ireland, to call for this inquiry. The noble and learned Lord had made use of very strong expressions, and had charged him with making charges which could not be borne out by facts. Now, he would ask the noble and learned Lord what right he had to make such an accusation? He would further ask the noble and learned Lord, the first Equity Judge in Ireland, whether it was consistent with justice or equity, when a solemn inquiry was called for—an inquiry which he hoped would be granted—to anticipate the result of that inquiry by such an assertion as he had been pleased to make? Such a proceeding, to say the least of it, was totally unusual.

Lord Plunkett

did not wish to prevent the inquiry which the right rev. Prelate was so anxious to institute. But he must be allowed to say, that the right rev. Prelate himself, when he formerly introduced the question, was so conscious that he could not make out a case for inquiry, that, in the very outset, he declared that he did not mean to take the sense of the House on the subject. The right rev. Prelate had come forward with charges which he would not press on the House, and yet he now stated, that he would again introduce his motion for inquiry.

The Earl of Mansfield

begged leave to protest against the inference drawn by the noble and learned Lord from what had occurred on a former occasion. The noble and learned Lord said, that the right rev. Prelate having laid before the House what he conceived to be a proper ground for granting an inquiry, abandoned his motion, because he felt that it would not be supported. Now, he (the Earl of Mansfield) would assert, that several noble Lords expressed their regret at the time that the right rev. Prelate did not proceed. Nay, one noble Earl, not now present, was going to do that which would have effectually manifested his opinion, though the course would have been somewhat irregular. That noble Earl was anxious to carry out to the full extent, the motion which the right rev. Prelate had abandoned. In obedience to the advice of others, the right rev. Prelate had withdrawn his motion; but this he would state most positively, that in the opinion of many noble Lords, he would say of a majority of that House, the right rev. Prelate ought not to have withdrawn it He expressed regret at the time, and other noble Lords had expressed regret since, that the question did not go to a division.

Lord Hatherton

said, he knew that any noble Lord might introduce a motion for inquiry without communicating with the parties to whom it related; but, at the same time, he was of opinion with the noble Viscount, that in a case like this, the convenience of the individual implicated, as well as the convenience of the House, would be best consulted if such information as might be deemed essentially necessary were produced before any proceeding took place. What would be said, if persons were to go about collecting a catalogue of abuses in the army, in the navy, or in the law, for the purpose of dragging the conduct of individuals before the House, without signifying to them the specific nature of the charges that were to be preferred against them? The noble Duke opposite who had been at the head of the army of this country, would not, he was convinced, encourage a practice of that description. He would ask of the right rev. Prelate how he would like such a principle to be adopted with reference to the Church? Looking to the different departments of Government, if charges were intended to be made against any one of them, he conceived, that it would be most unjust not to inform the parties meant to be called to account, of the nature of the accusation, in order that they might be prepared to give, if possible, a satisfactory explanation; and precisely the same principle applied in this case.

The Bishop of Exeter

said, he had already stated that his motion would be mainly based on the facts which he had already laid before the House.

Conversation ended.