Lords Sitting of 31 January 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Prince Albert's Naturalization.
Petitions presented. By Lord Redesdale, from Gloucester, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Marquess of Bute, from three places, for Church Extension in Scotland.

NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.
Lord Broughamwished to ask a question of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, relative to a bill of very great importance, which his noble and learned Friend had introduced into that House, and which stood for a second reading this evening. It was most important that a satisfactory understanding should prevail
924
with reference to that measure, because it was one respecting which a strong feeling was entertained by many of their Lordships. Objections had been raised to one of the clauses of that bill, and the ground of those objections had been stated when the measure was last before the House. Now, however he might feel the force of those objections, he believed, at the same time, that every noble Lord, and he spoke of those opposite as well as those on that side of the House, felt that it would be unpleasant, invidious, and most painful to debate such objections, if it could be avoided, or to discuss the measure more than was absolutely and indispensably necessary. He, wished, therefore, to ask his noble and learned Friend whether he was disposed to make such an alteration in the clause objected to as would prevent unpleasant discussion? Whether, supposing the noble Duke opposite, and others who agreed with him in his views of the subject, were disposed to allow the second reading of the bill to-night, as they did not object to its principle, his noble and learned Friend would have any objection to state, that between this time and the commitment of the bill, he would make such an alteration as that to which he had alluded?
The Lord Chancellortook it for granted, that some precedence would be allowed to Prince Albert. He should, therefore, propose, that power should be given to the Crown to allow the Prince to take precedence next after any Heir-apparent to the Throne.
Lord Brougham: to continue during the life of her Majesty.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he was not prepared to go further.
Lord Broughamwas sorry that his noble and learned Friend was not prepared to go further than he had stated. At all events, it was clearly a case for committee. All were agreed, that the Prince should have some precedence, and it would be for the committee lo say what that precedence should be.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, nothing could be more satisfactory to him than the course proposed to be taken. He fully adopted the opinion of his noble and learned Friend opposite.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the best course would be for noble Lords to reserve their observations for the committee. It was very desirable that the bill should pass

925
through that House as speedily as possible; and that all unnecessary discussion should be avoided, as it must give rise to a great deal of uneasiness and embarrassment. But for the opposition of the noble Duke opposite, the bill would have been in a more forward state.
Lord Broughamsaid, that so far from wishing to retard the measure, he had no objection to meet to-morrow for the purpose of expediting it. They would thus avoid interfering with the motion of the right rev. Prelate (Exeter) on Monday.
The Marquess of Londonderry: when this bill was last before the House, had put a question to the noble Viscount opposite, with respect to that clause of the bill which was objected to, and he now called the attention of the noble Viscount more distinctly to the subject, in order to get a direct and specific answer. The noble Viscount at that time stated to the House, and it would have gone forth to the country as a fact, if the matter had not been explained by the noble Viscount, in consequence of his question, that he had had communication with all the illustrious persons who were interested in the effect of that clause, and that they had offered no objection to such an enactment. Now, how did the fact stand? He demanded, whether the Heir-presumptive to the Throne was not more particularly interested in this matter than any other person; and he asked the noble Viscount, whether that illustrious individual had been consulted on the question? He must say that, as a Minister of the Crown, and the organ of her Majesty in that House, the noble Viscount had taken a very cool and off-hand course when he made such a declaration—certainly not founded on fact—seeing that the individual most interested in this matter had had no communication whatsoever made to him on the subject. He would remind the noble Viscount, that it was one thing to enable her Majesty to give precedence to Prince Albert over all their Lordships, over the Archbishop of Canterbury, and over all the Officers of State, but there was a great difference between doing that and conferring on her Majesty the power to grant precedence over the members of the Blood Royal—over all the illustrious Dukes—who, their Lordships could not forget, were the sons of George 3rd. When they considered what the country owed to her Majesty's Uncles, they ought to be the last persons who should be forgotten.
926
Was the House of Brunswick, he would ask, to be set aside in this off-hand way, by the noble Viscount coming down, and saying, "Oh, we have made a communication to all the Royal Dukes, and they have offered no objection to this proposition?" The noble Viscount had stated distinctly to the House that he had communicated with all the illustrious persons concerned. [Cries of "No, no."] He would be most sorry to state anything that had not taken place, but he had so understood the noble Viscount, and it had so gone forth to the world, and he was only anxious that the true state of the case should be known, because he was quite certain that the people of England went along with him. He wished the declaration of the noble Viscount to stand on record, and let the country judge of it. He had formerly stated, and should state again, that the Duke of Cumberland stood called to this Parliament by her Majesty's writ, and he would ask by what right any other person should take precedence of that illustrious individual.
Lord Broughambegged to interrupt the noble Marquess. If the noble Marquess had heard what fell from him, the noble Marquess must be aware that he had called for a postponement of the proceedings on the bill for the express purpose of avoiding debate.
The Marquess of Londonderry: The noble and learned Lord is always extremely ready to rise up and correct other people, but when others rise up to correct him, he does not receive it in good part.
Lord Broughamdid not rise to correct anything that fell from the noble Marquess, but merely to explain what he thought the noble Marquess might not have been aware of. A conversation had taken place, and it was expressly agreed on both sides to take a certain course, in order to put an end to discussion, if possible. Perhaps such a communication would be made on Monday as would render all discussion unnecessary.
The Marquess of Londonderryrequested their Lordships to judge between him and the noble and learned Lord. He rose in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Viscount, who had got up and charged the noble Duke behind him with being the cause of delay in proceeding with this measure. The noble Viscount said, "I intended to do so and so, only the noble Duke interfered." Now, he

927
wanted to show that it was not the noble Duke who was the cause of the delay; but that it arose from the noble Viscount having come down in his off-hand and cool manner and made a statement to that House which was entirely foreign to the fact. He, therefore, took the earliest moment to guard against the possibility of that statement remaining uncontradicted. He would reserve what he had further to say until Monday; but as the clause giving the Crown the power of unlimited precedence stood in the bill, and as the principle was recognised upon a second reading, he could not allow it to take place without entering his protest against it. He was certain that the country was with him on that point.
Viscount Melbournestated, that in the observations which he had made on a former evening, he had made no allusion to any communication with the King of Hanover.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought the Ministers of the Crown had done that which was extremely reprehensible, and had made as strange a proposal as ever came to the knowledge of that House.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought that he had formerly stated his reasons for the course which he had taken with respect to this bill. The question had been brought forward by surprise, and it was proper that the House should have a fair opportunity for considering it. He had refrained from discussion on a former occasion; and he conceived that the noble Viscount might have avoided bringing any charge against him in the present instance. The noble Viscount ought to have taken care to give the bill its real title, as it was not solely a bill for the naturalization of Prince Albert. The fault of the delay, then, was not his, but the fault of others. Under these circumstances, it was his duty to give the House an opportunity of considering its merits. He was not at all desirous to speak that evening on the subject. The very instant the proposition was made by his noble and learned Friend that the bill should be read a second time, and committed on Monday, he had agreed to it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he should, on Monday, move for the suspension of the standing orders, in order to avoid the further delay which a compliance with them would create.
Bill read a second time.

THE SOCIALISTS.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to ask the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the superintendent-registrar of Birmingham (Mr. Pare), to whom he had on a former occasion adverted, still held that office?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that in consequence of the statements made by the rev. Prelate on this subject on a former occasion, he had felt it his duty to make some inquiries relative to it. For that purpose a copy of the charges made by the right rev. Prelate against Mr. Pare had been sent to the registrar-general. He held in his hand a copy of those charges, to which he begged to call the attention of the right rev. Prelate, in order that he might say whether or not they were correct. It was recently stated, by the right rev. Prelate, that Mr. Pare was superintendent-registrar of births, marriages, and deaths, at Birmingham, where he also officiated as vice-president of the Social Society; that he had a painted board over his office stating the fact, and that he performed his duties as vice-president of the Socialists in the same office, where he acted as superintendent-registrar, &c. He thought the registrar-general had taken a very proper course in this instance—namely, that of sending a copy of those charges to Mr. Pare. In answer to the inquiries which had been made, he learned that Mr. Pare had been vice-president of this society from May 1838, to May 1839, but he distinctly denied that he advertised the fact on the painted board over his door, which merely contained his name, and had no reference to any office held by him as a member of the Socialist Society; that in November last, he had taken the room which he now occupied as an office—that that office was in no way appropriated to the use of the Socialists; but that there were several other rooms on the same premises, one of which was occupied as an office by the Socialists, but not at all connected with the office which he (Mr. Pare) held as superintendent-registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, Mr. Pare, also, denied that he had been obliged to give up any office in consequence of the strong expression of public indignation; but had long since voluntarily resigned the situation of vice-president to the Socialist Society, with which he now distinctly denied having any connexion. He had, this day,

929
received further information on the subject, and he found that since the month of June last, Mr. Pare had ceased to be an officer of this society, or to have any connexion whatsoever with it. Mr. Pare could no longer, therefore, be justly described as an active agent of the society. He should have another opportunity of stating his views with respect to the whole subject when the right rev. Prelate brought forward his motion; but he should now say, that he had looked over the rules and regulations as they were enrolled, and if the members were bound to nothing beyond them, nothing could appear to him to be more unobjectionable. What their doctrines might be was another question; but he understood from Mr. Pare, that the members were bound only by those rules.
The Bishop of Exeterthought it would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that besides stating that Mr. Pare had been vice-president of the association, he had also said that he had been an active person, and that he had presided at meetings where various lectures had been given. Now, on the mere circumstance, on the admitted fact, that this individual, being superintendent-registrar of the district of Birmingham, was also vice-president of the Socialist Society till the month of June last—on that statement, he rested his charge against the noble Marquess. Looking to the principles which were charged on that society, it was the duty of the noble Marquess to take care that a member of it, a conspicuous member too, should not hold a public office of this nature. Till he quitted the office of vice-president, in the month of June last, Mr. Pare had been a most active member of the Socialist Society. He found, from information which he had received, that that individual, who represented himself as now no longer a member of the association, had been its most active agent, not excepting Mr. Owen, till about the time the noble Marquess had mentioned. He held in his hand a publication of the society, containing the proceedings of the fourth congress of the association, held in May last, and on an examination of those proceedings, it appeared that Mr. Pare had, in May last, taken the chair six times, was appointed on committees or deputations twenty-one times, moved or seconded sixty-one resolutions, and addressed the congress ninety times, in addition to any
930
speeches which he made in moving or seconding propositions. The congress sat only seventeen days in May last; therefore, this learned member must, on an average, have spoken five times each day. Now, to show the nature of the lectures at which Mr. Pare presided, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would read to their Lordships the testimony of a rev. gentleman whose name he should have the honour to communicate to the noble Marquess, if such was the noble Marquess's pleasure, but which he did not wish to make generally public, for reasons which must be obvious to their Lordships. His correspondent stated as follows:—
"Mr. Pare, the registrar, was generally present at those meetings, often took the chair. The first evening I attended the subject was 'The falsehood of the Bible.' The object of the lecturer (a Mr., a popular surgeon dentist here) was to prove the book a human invention, a tissue of lies, imposture, and wickedness. This argument was further developed from the innumerable contradictions of the book, from its absurd statements, ridiculous doctrines, &c., that, for instance, of 'the thing which Christians call God' being generally described as a great animal, or anthropo-morphyle of feelings, and passions, and actions like other animals; and that such was the general notion, tone, and language of—from its statement of man's depravity—a doctrine which they, the audience, knew was false. The subject matter of the next lecture was, 'The vicious, irrational, and oppressive system of society,' which was traced to the doctrine of man's responsibility, the religion of the Bible, human laws, the priesthood, private property, the marriage system, delivered to an audience composed, for the most part, of the working classes, women with children in their arms, boys, girls, with affecting appeals on their slavery and wretchedness in consequence of the system. This was closed with an announcement from the lecturer, the said Mr.——, that the subject of the ensuing lecture would be—'That there was no God.' I took care to be present. Pare presided. The aim of the lecturer was to show 'that the marks of intelligence and design,' as they were called, 'in the things of creation around us, were no proofs of intelligence, or of an intelligent designer,' and the whole, as usual, was accompanied and wound up with a warm and impassioned appeal to the audience, which was very numerous, the chapel being quite crowded, 'to seek their heaven here, as they could be sure of none elsewhere.' Man is, therefore, necessarily irresponsible to any power, human or divine, if there be such, for what nature and society have made him. In all these meetings at Lawrence-street chapel that I was present at, four successively, Pare presided, and every thing done in them seemed to be entirely under

931
his management and control. Indeed, he was quite the Coryphaeus of these social orgies. These, my lord, are a few of the leading particulars of the meetings which I attended. To have a due sense and impression of the horrible things uttered in them, a personal presence is necessary, as it is quite impossible to describe the lies, the misrepresentations, the partial extracts from authors, the misconstructions put upon them. The defence set up for the infidels of past times, such as Mirabeau, Robespierre, Voltaire, &c., the general ribaldry and blasphemy with which they were accompanied, and the appeals that were made to the poor and ignorant audience, 'On the evils of the present social system, on the oppressions of the rich and higher orders over the lower—on the cruel and sanguinary system of laws against irresponsible beings, whom these very laws thus vitiated—on the expense which the lower orders only bear, they being the basis of the whole social system'—of maintaining a Government, standing armies, hosts of judges lawyers, priests, &c., in order to keep up the present irrational wicked, diabolical system, itself the very source and cause of their misery. These are facts, my Lord, upon which you can rely, and which I am ready and willing to deto. P.S. After writing the above, I recollected a remarkable fact, which deserves to be communicated. It is this:—In order to bring the question of man's responsibility prominently before the persons assembled in what I considered a practical point of view, I put the following interrogatory to the lecturer at one of the meetings:—Was the murderer of the late Lord Norbury responsible to society or not for that act, according to the doctrine of Socialists? And the answer from the lecturer on the platform was, 'Certainly not; decidedly not'—an answer which was received by the meeting without a mark of disapprobation, except by n few friends who accompanied me."
Such was the character of the meetings at which the superintendent-registrar, Mr. Pare, attended, and took a prominent part; and he was ready to prove it to their Lordships, or to the noble Marquess, on the testimony of competent witnesses. The fact of this man having been vice-president at such meetings rendered it indecorous, if not criminal, on the part of the noble Marquess should he not be put out of office, and if some steps were not taken upon the subject. Unless something were done, he should feel it a duty to make some motion that would affect a higher quarter.
The Marquess of Westminsterwished to know the date of the letter?
The Bishop of Exeter.—The 28th of January.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad already
932
stated that the matter was at present the subject of inquiry, as Pare's explanation had not been deemed satisfactory, and it was therefore that he had been summoned to London that further inquiry might be made. He had also stated to their Lordships the answer of Pare, in which he gave a direct denial to all the details on which the right rev. Prelate relied. Notwithstanding this denial, he the (Marquess of Normanby) wished to ask Pare some further questions with respect to these proceedings, and for that purpose he had been summoned to town. Pare in the answer which he had already given, denied that the objects of the Socialists were those which the right rev. Prelate had imputed to them. For his own part, he would only say that if the right rev. Prelate would put the letter in his hand, if the case contained in it could be made out, and if it were shown that such monstrous and atrocious doctrines were urged in the presence of Pare, with his assent or without his disapproval, he had no hesitation in saying that such a person was most unfit to hold the situation of superintendent registrar. If, as was stated in the letter to the right rev. Prelate, clergymen heard such doctrines broached, it was their duty to communicate the information to the Home-office, but as they had not done so, on them rested the blame that Pare had been retained in office so long. If the writer of the letter were sincere in his intentions of discountenancing such doctrines when he put the letter which had just been read into the hands of the right rev. Prelate, it was obvious that he had not adopted the best mode of proceeding, for time had been lost in the course which had been pursued. Unless magistrates and others interested in protecting the peace and promoting the morals of society communicated matters of this nature to the Home-office, they must of course occur without the knowledge of Ministers, who were not, therefore, to blame, having no machinery by which to procure the necessary information. When any communications were made to the Home-office, they were always promptly attended to, and every requisite explanation was required. This was the course which he ever had pursued; it was the course which he ever would pursue, and no one could be more desirous of instituting inquiry when, as in the present instance he considered that investigation was called for.
Lord Abingerwished to know, if the charges were well founded, whether information would be given as to who recommended Mr. Pare, and on what grounds he had been recommended?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he was considered to be a highly respectable man in his neighbourhood, and at the time of his appointment he was not connected with Socialism.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that the letter of the clergyman stated that he was accompanied by several of his friends, and therefore the allegation did not rest on his own testimony solely.
The Marquess of Normanbyconsidered that the right rev. Prelate's correspondent would have better performed his duty had he made the communication to his own Bishop or to the Home-office.
The Bishop of Exeterfelt himself called upon to defend the rev. gentleman whose letter he had read from the attack of the noble Marquess, who charged him with a neglect of duty in communicating with the Home-office. If a resident clergyman in such a town as Birmingham were to communicate to the Home-office any outrage on society or morals which might be committed there, the place would soon be made too hot to hold him. The rev. Gentleman had not written to him for the purpose of making an accusation in that House. The information, as he had already stated to their Lordships, had reached him through another quarter, and he never had any communication with the rev. gentleman until he received the letter yesterday, in consequence of having expressed a wish to the gentleman who gave him the first information that he might be furnished with fuller details. He would ask the noble Marquess whether any information on this subject had been forwarded to him by any of the magistrates whom he or his predecessor had appointed to protect the laws, the morals, and the religion of the country? If such proceedings were going on through the country, the magistrates must be very negligent not to be made aware of them; and if they were aware of them, they were still more blameable in not making the necessary communication to the Home-office. If the magistrates neglected to do their duty, was it not right in one of their Lordships to call their attention to the subject? This question was not as yet set at rest. It would be introduced on another night,
934
and he was rejoiced at the different tone which had been adopted from that taken on Friday evening.
Subject dropped.

FRENCH OCCUPATION OF MINORCA.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to ask the noble Viscount (Melbourne) a question of considerable importance relative to a discussion which had taken place a few evenings since. He wished to know if her Majesty's Ministers had any information respecting the military occupation of Minorca by France, or of the establishment there of naval and military hospitals?
Viscount Melbournewas understood to say, that he could give no information on the subject, more than that he understood they were possessed of some small island off Minorca, which was principally used as a depot for coals.
The Earl of Riponwished to know how long they had had possession of that island?
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, it had been occupied four or five years. It had been originally made over to the United States by Spain, and thence passed into the hands of France, but the Spanish authorities were satisfied with the sureties which had been given.
The Earl of Riponwished to know whether there would be any objection to producing copies of those?
The Earl of Clarendonsaid that some of the papers were confidential, but as they had passed through his hands, he could assure his noble Friend that they were perfectly satisfactory. So far as he (the Earl of Clarendon) was concerned, he should be very glad that they should be produced.
Lord Lyndhurst.—That will be the better course, and then we can judge for ourselves whether they were satisfactory or not.
The Marquess of Londonderryhoped there would be no objection to lay the papers before the House, because the occupation by the French of Minorca had produced a very strong impression upon the people there. He felt very great difficulty in getting from her Majesty's Government any information relative to the foreign affairs of the country. Some time since he had requested that the convention of Bergara should be laid upon the table, and he understood the noble Viscount to have consented to its production. It had not yet been produced, and he therefore gave

935
notice, that he would move an address to her Majesty that there be laid before the House copies or extracts of any communications which may have passed between her Majesty's Government and the Court of Spain between the 28th of July last and the present time, relating to the convention of Bergara, together with a copy of the said convention.