The Marquess of Westmeathwished, before making the motion of which he had given notice, to call their Lordships' attention to what he considered to be an unfair, reprehensible, and cruel misrepresentation of words used by him in the debate of Monday last. He was too sensible of his own deficiencies to offer any opinion except on subjects connected with the country in which he lived, or on topics on which he was well informed, and he thought he had a right to complain when language was put into his 1059 mouth totally contrary to that which he had used. The misstatement to which he referred was contained in the Courier newspaper of Tuesday, in its account of the preceding night's debate. That paper stated, that he had opposed the motion, and declared, with the noble Duke who had just sat down, that nothing should induce him to give the Catholics of Ireland the power of taxing themselves. What he had really said was, that as it had been imputed to many noble Lords on the same side, that by the course they were taking they were heaping injury and insult on Ireland, nothing could induce him at least to be a party to anything that could be attended with such consequences, and he was too well aware of the hardships pressing on that country to insist on increasing the burden of its taxation. Having given this explanation, he would proceed, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to the returns (laid before the House on the 2nd inst.) of the parishes in Ireland to which the Crown presents, and the archbishops and bishops present. He complained that the returns had been very incorrectly made out, and that, as his Majesty's Ministers had included the advowsons of the lay proprietors in their scheme of confiscation, great injustice was thus done to individuals. He concluded by moving, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to order the bishops of the several dioceses in Ireland to amend the returns presented to the House on the 2nd of June last, and that the Bishop of Meath be commanded forthwith to furnish the return already sanctioned by his Majesty, in answer to the address of this House.
§ Viscount Melbournethought that the terms in which the motion was couched were very vague and uncertain. It appeared to him, that the deficiency which the noble Lord wished to be supplied, and the errors he wished to be corrected, should be pointed out rather more distinctly, for otherwise the officers whose duty it was to amend the return would not know in what respect it should be amended. With regard to the latter part of the motion, referring to the Bishop of Meath, it was a very unusual course to take, and, he thought, unnecessary and peremptory.
§ The Earl of Riponsuggested to the 1060 noble Marquess the propriety of withdrawing his motion, and putting it in a more convenient shape.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that the words of the motion were of a very unusual and offensive kind. He was not aware of any prerogative of the Crown which could authorise his Majesty to order any Bishop to make or to amend any such return. He must say, that it would be a very strong measure for this House to take, and he hoped they would not consent to it without some strong reasons. He should certainly feel it his duty to move that the opinion of the twelve Judges of the realm be taken before such an address be presented. It appeared to him that no sufficient ground had been laid for the motion.
The Marquess of Clanricardewished that fuller returns should be obtained, as they were absolutely necessary for the purposes of legislation.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownerecommended the noble Marquess to withdraw his motion, and frame another, particulariing the deficiencies of which he complained. To a motion properly worded no objection could be made.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaw clearly that his motion was not properly worded, and he would therefore beg permission to withdraw it.
§ Motion withdrawn.