The Earl of Rodensaid, he felt it right to address to their Lordships a few words with respect to the committee which was appointed by their Lordships, a short time since, for the investigation of the causes of crime in Ireland. He was anxious to take that opportunity of referring to the subject in the presence of several noble Lords opposite, who had been named on that Committee, because it had been stated in another place, that the Committee appointed to carry on that investigation, was composed of Members, as thirteen to five, with respect to political opinions on the matter to be investigated. That assertion was, however, set right immediately by a right hon. Gentleman, who showed how unfounded it was, by his reading to the House ten names of noble Lords opposite, who were nominated on 218 that Committee. But that investigation was of too important a nature, for him to allow it to go forth, even for a moment, that an inquiry of so serious and so grave a kind, had been intrusted to a committee of doubtful character. He solemnly declared that he had but one object in view in calling for that investigation—namely, the arrival at truth. He cared not before whom it was held, provided that that object was attained. His whole desire was, that the inquiry should be conducted by honourable men—by men anxious to do their duty impartially; and he had no object whatever, in putting one man more than another, on the Committee. That Committee had already met twice. It had met, according to the orders of their Lordships, on the day after its appointment. Achairman had then been chosen, and certain witnesses were ordered to attend. If there were any noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, who did not think that it was their duty to attend that Committee, he was anxious to ascertain the fact: He wished, therefore, to know from the noble President of the Council, whether it was the intention of the noble Lords on the opposite side of the House to give their attention to the subject which was referred for investigation to that committee; because he felt it important that the committee should be so constituted, and should so proceed, as to command the confidence of the country. He was thus anxious, because he considered this to be the most important committee ever appointed by Parliament. He therefore begged leave to ask, whether it were the intention of the noble Marquess to attend the committee?
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the noble Earl must feel that, in a Parliamentary sense, he had no right to put that question to him. Noble Lords would, of course, use their own discretion, and attend or absent themselves from the committee as they thought fit. He was not in the House when the committee was appointed. He had been obliged on that occasion to leave the House in consequence of illness. But he would state distinctly that it was not his intention to attend the proceedings of the committee. His noble Friend who sat near him (the Marquess of Normanby) also thought that it would not be right for him to attend the committee; and, in his opinion, the refusal of his noble Friend to 219 appear on the committee was perfectly correct. Were he to state all the reasons which induced him not to attend, it would, be feared, lead to inconvenience and irregularity. All, therefore, that he should say was, that the chief ground on which he conceived he best consulted his duty by abstaining from attendance on the committee was, because he was perfectly convinced that that committee was of a criminatory character as concerned the whole administration; and under these circumstances he felt himself precluded from sitting on it. Such also was the feeling and impression of his noble Friend near him. The committee was appointed "to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect of crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire." Here they saw that the investigation of this committee had been confined to the specific years of his noble Friend's administration, and there was directly excluded from consideration all inquiry into remote causes of crime in Ireland, which in any fair inquiry it was utterly impossible to disconnect from the subject.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not agree with the noble Marquess in thinking the committee of a criminatory character. He felt himself acting in a judicial character on this committee, and he should give his verdict according to the evidence which he heard.
Lord Broughamsaid, he took a part in the debate on the appointment of the committee, and he was therefore induced, with his noble Friend opposite, to deny that it was a criminatory committee, unless the noble Marquess meant to use the word in its Latin sense. It was inquisitorial, but it was not criminatory. As to the investigation being confined to a period of three years, he knew it had been argued, that there was an object to be obtained by so restricting it. But the noble President of the Council did not move, as he might have done, neither did any other noble Lord move, that the period of inquiry should be extended. Why did not the noble President of the Council move to extend the period of inquiry further back? As to the committee being precluded from investigating and examining matters that occurred more than three years ago, he should like to see any one attempt to prevent him 220 from pursuing his investigation of the causes of crime, even if he went thirty years back. It had been said, that he himself admitted that the vote in this case was a vote of censure on the noble Marquess. Now, he had never said anything of the kind. He had said nothing like it. He had said something different, something actually opposite. What he had said was, that a primâ facie case had been made out, which primâ facie case called for an answer—just as a judge would say to a defendant's counsel, "There is a primâ facie case made out, to go to a jury;" but then it would be for the jury ultimately to decide. He had said, "Because this primâ facie case is made out, we must go into an inquiry to see what may be advanced on the other side, but it would be as unjust as it would be premature to say, that such a proceeding was a vote of censure." Was not that the very reverse of declaring that the appointment of this committee was a vote of censure? He had further said on the occasion alluded to, "And I shall be happy if the result shall be the acquittal of the noble Marquess, who cannot himself desire an acquittal more than I desire it for him." So that the error committed by the very accurate historian of this debate was, that he confounded a trial with a conviction, an accusation with a sentence, an inquiry with a conclusion. This error had been committed, too, after the greatest pains had been taken to prevent it; for he had expressly said, "Mind, I don't sentence, I don't convict, I don't pronounce, I only call for inquiry." How, then, could it be said, that they had come to a conclusion against the noble Marquess without inquiry, when their Lordships' House had ordered an inquiry, and when the hope prevailed, that that inquiry would terminate favourably?
§ The Marquess of Lansdownehad already stated, that he was not in the House when the committee was appointed. He, therefore, had not an opportunity of stating his opinion. But the objection to the restriction placed on that committee had been taken distinctly, solemnly, and pointedly by his noble Friend near him. His noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) had complained, that the motion was limited to the years of his noble Friend's government in Ireland. Why, then, did not the noble Earl offer to extend his motion? If the noble and learned Lord had reason 221 to know, that the noble Earl (Roden) would not oppose a motion, that the term should be extended, why was it not mentioned? The objection to which he referred had been solemnly taken; why then, if he were so disposed, did not the noble Earl concede what his noble Friend wished to obtain—an extension of the period of inquiry?
Lord Broughamsaid, he certainly never had the slightest communication, directly or indirectly, with the noble Earl opposite on this subject. But he judged, from his usual candour, that, if the noble Earl had been called on to extend the period of inquiry, he would have consented.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, he understood, that not only the noble Marquess would retire from the Committee, but that other noble Lords would pursue the same course. He was ignorant of the fact, but he wished to know whether that were the case. He could not but consider it most extraordinary, that the noble Marquess should refuse to attend for the purpose of assisting in the defence of a colleague. Here were matters of a very grave nature to be brought forward, and yet it appeared, that certain noble Lords would not serve on the Committee because the inquiry was restricted to a certain time. He certainly could not tell how they reconciled that course of proceeding to the just discharge of their duties. These noble Lords would, it seemed, leave the Committee entirely in the hands of those who supported its appointment. Now it appeared to him, that this was not a fair or proper course. They on that (the Opposition) side of the House called only for examination. They asked for nothing more. On his honour he would declare, that he went into the Committee without any wish except to act fairly, and to come to a decision on the evidence which he should hear. If noble Lords opposite refused to serve on the Committee, the country, he thought, would say, that the Government had incurred great blame, that they were deserving of censure for not taking a part in the investigation, and that, in fact, they were afraid to encounter it. He would to-morrow move for the appointment of other noble Lords in the place of those who might refuse to attend the Committee.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the noble Lord had no right to assume, from anything which he had said, that other 222 noble Lords on that (the Ministerial) side of the House would not attend this Committee. He had only spoken for his noble Friend and himself; and the noble Lord was not justified in saying, that the course which they had adopted was not a fair proceeding on their part. The noble Lord must excuse him for saying, that in any question of fairness of conduct, with reference to the course which he might think it proper to pursue, he would not consult the noble Lord. In taking the course which he had stated, he did not act merely on his own opinion, but on the opinion of his noble Friend, the noble Marquess himself, whose feeling he perfectly well knew. He most decidedly objected to that which, in his conscience, he believed to be an unfair proceeding towards his noble Friend, in confining this investigation to a certain number of years, which, in justice, ought to be extended to the state of Ireland for a long period. Instead, however, of going into the cause of crime in Ireland for a long period, the inquiry was restricted to a few years, during the administration of his noble Friend, when crime was committed in a less degree than formerly. It was on this ground of marked injustice that he acted; and it gave him great satisfaction to know, that by abstaining from attendance on the Committee he best consulted the feelings of his noble Friend,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he thought in fairness to his noble Friend below him, that he ought to be informed as to those noble Lords who did not mean to attend the Committee, in order that he might call for the appointment of others in their places.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he would not have troubled their Lordships on this subject, if he had not been almost personally appealed to. But what his noble Friend near him had stated was perfectly correct. He did, in the course of his narration, or whatsoever else they might please to call it, on the night when the committee was moved for, state, as one of his great objections to the appointment of that committee, that its labours were to be confined to the period of his government in Ireland. The motion was, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect of crime and outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of the empire." When it was thus stated, arid when the House agreed to the 223 resolution that since 1835 life and property had been rendered insecure in Ireland, what was it but assuming that they had first become insecure in that period? But a primâ facie case had been established the other way. The returns of the constabulary officers proved that, so far from anything having occurred since the time specified to render life and property insecure, all grave and serious offences had diminished in number, and that consequently life and property were more secure than previously. He had, therefore, complained that the course pursued by the noble Earl opposite had precluded the possibility of instituting any comparison between the period pointed out and former periods. He was ready to give the, noble Earl opposite the whole period of the history of Ireland, since the noble Earl's first recollection, and he would trust to his candour to name, if he could, any four years in which the state of Ireland was preferable to that which it presented while he administered the government of that country. He would confidently state that the noble Earl would find, if he made such a comparison, that the state of Ireland was better during the last four years than it had been for many years before. As to what the noble Earl opposite had thrown out formerly with respect to certain acts of his connected with the prerogative of mercy, he would merely say, that it placed the noble Earl and those who agreed with him in this dilemma—either an inquiry on that point was of importance, or it was not. If it was of importance, why had it not before been brought forward, when three years had elapsed since the circumstances complained of had occurred? They had been distinctly brought forward in an address moved at a meeting at which a noble Lord opposite did not indeed preside, but at which he took a prominent part and at which also a noble Lord near him had attended. The speeches addressed to that assembly were distinguished by their violence against the Government. He wished to know, when all those facts were distinctly brought before their Lordships by the proceedings adopted at that time, why, if it were deemed necessary to institute an inquiry into the exercise of the prerogative of mercy (which he believed had never before been inquired into), why, he desired to know, that inquiry was not then instituted? That certainly was the time, if ever, when that inquiry should have been set on foot. It ought not to have been postponed till this period. Had that course been taken, he 224 should have had a much better opportunity of replying to these accusations than he now had, after such a lapse of time. If the matter was really of importance, it ought to have been inquired into at the time; if not of importance it ought not to have been interfered with at all. He could not therefore avoid thinking that something like personal feeling was mixed up with this proceeding. Before he sat down he wished to make a motion, not with reference to the question before the select committee, but for the information of the House. He wished to move for a return of the number of persons who had been committed between the years 1835 and 1839, after having been once discharged, in consequence of the remission of their sentences; specifying the nature of their original offence, and of that for which they had been recommitted. By the result of that inquiry, he was content to be judged by that House and the country as to the discretion with which he had exercised a most delicate prerogative, and one which had been called in question with such a perseverance in misrepresentation; arising, of course, as far as their Lordships were concerned, from misreported facts, as had, he believed, never been used towards any individual but himself.
The Earl of Rodnewould not suffer himself to be betrayed into a discussion by the observations which had been made; but he assured the House, that as he was not instigated by any personal motives to bring on his motion, so he should not be deterred from doing what he considered to be his duty by any attacks which might be made upon him there or elsewhere, or any accusations which might be brought against him of being a violent political partisan. He was convinced that in the committee which had been appointed upon his motion, the case of the noble Marquess would receive the greatest consideration; and that any statements which the noble Maquess might either make himself, or which he might authorize any other noble Lord to make on his behalf, would be attended to with the greatest care. When he proposed his inquiry, he must confess he had no intention whatever of extending it beyond the period of the noble Marquess's government with which he found fault; beyond that, as far as he was concerned, he had no wish to extend his inquiry. But, at the same time, if any noble Lord had thought it right to move 225 that a longer period should be included, he, for one, should not have objected to such an amendment, although, with the object which he himself had in view, it was not for him to make the motion in that shape originally.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the charge of being a political partisan was not wholly unfounded, if, as was understood to be the case, the noble Earl, at a great public meeting, had commenced the proceedings by waving an orange handkerchief.