Lords Sitting of 23 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Timber Duties; Colonial Passengers; Admiralty.
Petitions presented. By the Lord Chancellor, from Solicitors in London, and various other places, for the Removal of the Law Courts from Westminster to Lincoln's-inn. —By the Marquess of Downshire, fron the Presbyterian Congregations of Holyrood, and other places, against Non-Intrusion.—By the Bishop of Exeter, for the exclusion of Papists from Parliament.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, with reference to a notice of motion, given by a noble Marquess (Westmeath) for a select committee, to inquire into matters relating to the Poor-law Act in Ireland, which stood for Thursday next, that it would be impossible for Mr. Nicholls and other Gentlemen connected with the introduction of that measure into Ireland, whose conduct might perhaps be impugned, to appear at so short a notice. He would put it to the noble Marquess himself, whether he would feel justified in moving for a select committee, on so short a notice, of which he was not himself aware until he saw it on the paper. He hoped the noble Marquess would not
2
persevere in his intention at that late period of the Session.
The Marquess of Westmeath, upon looking to the order book, saw no other open day but that which he had selected until Friday week. In the present state of the Session he hoped the noble Marquess would not ask him to put off his motion till the arrival of Mr. Nicholls. The question was one of pressing importance, and if he consented so to postpone his motion it would be thrown over for the present Session. He hoped that the Irish Poor Law would not be allowed to remain in its present state during the ensuing recess. That law had been basely and wickedly perverted to party purposes in Ireland, and the proceedings which had taken place under it ought to be investigated. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Marquess would allow him to proceed with his motion on Thursday. He had received many communications on the subject, urging him strongly not to postpone his motion.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the more convenient course would be for the noble Marquess to take an open day for stating any general objections which he might entertain against this measure. It

3
ought to be recollected, when they were called on to consider this subject, that Mr. Nicholls had a very difficult and delicate task to perform, and that his efforts were likely to be checked and discouraged by such a proceeding as the noble Marquess contemplated. All, however, that he required, on the part of Mr. Nicholls was, that fair time should be given for the production of full information on all matters connected with his proceedings.
Lord Ellenboroughwas not aware, whether the noble Marquess near him meant to impugn the conduct of Mr. Nicholls as wrong, or whether his object was to shew that the Poor-law itself was bad? If the latter, there was nothing to prevent him from bringing in a bill to amend the law; and, on the second reading, he might go into the whole subject. There was a very great difference between bringing charges against individuals, and introducing a bill to amend or to repeal another measure.
The Marquess of Westmeath, if he was sure of carrying a bill through that House, and more particularly through the House of Commons, for altering the Irish Poor-law, would most certainly propose it at once. But he did not flatter himself with any such assurance. His idea at present, therefore, was, that a committee should be appointed to consider the question, and, if the noble Marquess wished it, he would postpone his motion till Friday week.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, they were now past the middle of June, and he would ask his noble Friend did he think it at all likely that a committee appointed at so late a period could make such a report, as that any bill could possibly result from their labours this Session? This, too, was the most critical moment at which the law could be attacked, when it had been so recently brought into operation. The greatest possible inconvenience would result from pursuing such a course, and he thought the most judicious mode would be for his noble Friend not to persevere in his motion for a committee.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, the bill was working as ill as it possibly could, and, if it were allowed to go on in the same way during another recess, the worst consequences might be apprehended. Why might not an inquiry take place, so that the law might be amended on particular points? As the law now stood, in many instances the Roman Catholic priests ran away with the elections of guardians. Why should not this defect in the measure be corrected?
4
He conceived it to be his duty to bring the subject fully before the House. The system now acted on could not, and ought not, to be allowed to go on even for three months longer.
Lord Broughamwas opposed to the appointment of a committee to consider of this law. It should be recollected, that the law was now only early in the course of operation, and the formation of a committee must necessarily have the effect of preventing it from having any fair play whatever. The effect of appointing a committee would be neither more nor less than putting the bill on its trial before it had been a sufficient time in operation to judge of it fairly.
Lord Ellenboroughwas sorry that parties, actuated by religious feelings or prejudices, should interfere in those elections. But how could they expect to ameliorate the situation of Ireland, in that respect; or in any other matter connected with the law, by going into committee at this period of the Session? They must hear both parties. And when the noble Marquess talked of the influence of priests, his opponents would speak of influence on the other side. Thus, the statements made before the committee, upon which it would be impossible to frame any measure this Session, would, during six months of the recess, be the subject of angry discussion in Ireland. Would that, he begged leave to ask, be conducive to the tranquillity of Ireland, or to the successful working of the bill? His conviction was, whatever was the ground on which the noble Marquess wished to call for a committee, that such a proceeding would only lead to aggravation of public feeling in Ireland—the very thing that was most to be avoided.
The Marquess of Westmeathwas prepared to shew that the power of rating under the Poor Law, as connected with the Reform Bill, was greatly abused. He could prove that many evils arose out of the system. These points might be considered, and the committee might declare what should be done, or whether nothing should be done. He should not be doing justice to numerous parties who had applied to him on the subject if he did not bring it forward this Session.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that, with respect to rating, there was a power of appeal under the act. If those who now complained had not appealed, they had no right to come before Parliament. If they bad appealed, and could shew that the law was.

5
defective, then certainly they might apply to the Legislature. He had read the clause with attention, great pains had been taken with it, and if the parties could not shew that it was ineffectual for their protection, they had no right to come to that House.
Subject dropped.

ANGLO-SPANISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to asked the noble Viscount a question, having reference to a motion of his relative to the unfortunate officers of the Anglo-Spanish Legion, which stood on the order book for Thursday next. He wished to received some information from the noble Viscount as to the progress of the negotiation for settling the claims of those officers. He had now, since April last, earnestly urged the claims of those unfortunate persons who, for three years, had been endeavouring to procure what was justly due to them. Those individuals still hoped, from had passed in that House, that justice would at length be rendered to them. He strongly felt the propriety of their claims; and he hoped that the Session would not be allowed to pass, without some decisive statement from the noble Viscount that their demands would be liquidated. If the noble Viscount would give an assurance of that nature, he should most readily withdraw his motion which stood for Thursday. He had heard a report, that a promise had been given for a speedy payment of 50,000 l., and a farther advance of 50,000 l. by instalments. If the noble Viscount had any communication, or information of that kind to justify him in withdrawing his motion, he should be glad to hear it. He saw that the claims of the Portuguese officers had been favourably considered and dealt with, and it was a great reproach to the Government that the equally just claims of the unfortunate men, who had formed the Anglo-Spanish legion, had been not long since settled. He called on the noble Viscount to state distinctly in what position the negotiation now stood.
Viscount Melbournewas happy to be able to reply that the negotiation was very near its termination. There had been no payment as yet in money, but bills had been received in London. He could also add, that he was satisfied with the negotiation, so far as it had gone.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that that declaration of the noble Viscount was satisfactory. The justice of the claims had been acknowledged by the course which
6
her Majesty's Government had taken. He, therefore, begged leave to withdraw the notice of the motion which he had given for Thursday next, but would bring it forward again before the end of the Session, unless the satisfactory statement of noble Viscount were carried into effect.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad a short statement to make to their Lordships, pursuant to notice, connected with the administration of justice in Ireland. His object was to obtain authentic information, in the shape of documents, connected with a transaction of which he understood the following to be the fact:— A Roman Catholic priest, in the county of Cavan, the Rev. Philip O'Reilly, by name, of the parish of Ballymacue, had chosen to indulge (what was not uncommon in Ireland) in very insulting language from the altar, against any person who might presume to take some land. The words which the priest used were, that,
"He, who would take this land, ought to have his ears cut off, like a pig's, or an ass's."
There were present at the delivery of this sermon, two Roman Catholic policemen, who, in the execution of their duty, laid an information before some magistrates in the neighbourhood. Instead of acting upon it and issuing a warrant, these magistrates forwarded the information, as he understood, to the Government to learn what they should do. The information was returned to the court of magistrates, recommending that the business should be hushed up. A proposal was made to the priest to pay 50 l., he supposed to be divided amongst the parties. A magistrate, whose name he would not now mention, proposed that the affair should be submitted to arbitration, and the sworn information was cushioned. It was necessary for either the magistrates, or the Government, or both, to account for this matter. The greatest jealousy and alarm prevailed in Ireland in consequence of the favour which was shown to Roman Catholic priests. A most remarkable interchange of good offices was constantly taking place between them and the Government, who were in a great measure indebted to them for place and power, and the priests availed themselves of this to confirm their influence. The result of all this, as evidenced in the continual application for mitigation of sen-

7
tences, was mischievous to a degree which Englishmen could not imagine. He would refer to a few cases, to show the great partiality which had been shown by the Government to Roman Catholic priests. About seven years ago, a case had occurred at the Cork assizes. A Roman Catholic priest, named Burke, suborned a witness to swear against the gaoler of Macroom for the crime of murder. The witness broke down on his cross-examination, confessed that priest Burke had suborned him to swear away the man's life, and the judge made use of these remarkable expressions:—
"He congratulated the jury and himself, that they had not been brought to the commission of a legal murder."
The man was acquitted, the priest escaped from justice, and staid away three years. He was subsequently apprehended through the exertions of Captain Vignolles, whose name was familiar to their Lordships, as as having been dismissed by her Majesty's Government for a public service, while Captain Gleeson, who had conducted himself towards his superior officer in such a way, that, if he had been in the army, he would have been shot for it, had been appointed barrack-master. The priest was brought to trial, sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and fined 50 l. for the offence. The judge expressed his regret, considering the enormity of the offence, that the law did not enable him to pass a more severe sentence. The three years' imprisonment he suffered, but when it came to the payment of the fine, the Government, imposed on by a statement that he was insolvent, reduced the fine to 20 l. He begged to call the attention of the legal Lords to this case, and to ask whether there ought to have been the slightest mitigation in the punishment for this man's workmanship. At the Spring assizes of the present year, a Roman Catholic priest, named M'Call, was tried at the Fermanagh assizes for a brutal assault with a horsewhip. He was found guilty, and sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, and to the payment of 20 l. fine. He suffered the three weeks' imprisonment, but the Government went about in a comical way to compromise the remainder of the punishment. He was kept in gaol for three weeks longer, and the fine was reduced from 20 l.to 40 s. Such was the favour which had been shown to this individual, while other persons would have been kept at the tread-mill until they paid the money. The Roman Catholic popula-
8
tion in Ireland had received the strongest countenance from the "heavy blow and great discouragement "policy; and they were, indeed, considered a very ' liberal ' Government, that was to say, liberal of what did not belong to them. The favour shown by them to the Roman Catholic population had affected the Protestant population with a degree of the most serious alarm. The disgraceful conduct which the priests had latterly displayed, had never made its appearance until the college of Maynooth was established, since which time the priests were chosen from the dregs of the people. They were by no means entitled to the degree of favour which the Government had shown them. They took great credit to themselves for retrieving the Irish people from drunkenness. But how was this accomplished? By the poor friar, who thus outstripped the parochial clergy in the discharge of their own duties, and turned the people away from this abominable vice. Their Lordships would perceive from evidence lying on their table, and tile noble Marquess (Normanby) must be aware from experience during his ovation in Ireland, that of the sentences remitted by the noble Marquess in nine cases, the applications had been signed by Roman Catholic priests. Into their hands, in short, the Protestants of Ireland felt that every thing was now thrown. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for
"Copies of any report or reports made to the Irish Government relative to the conduct of the Rev. Philip O'Reilly, Roman Catholic priest, of the county of Cavan, and of informations exhibited against him by any of the constabulary police for his having used language of an inflammatory character in his chapel, and to the congregation there, inciting to acts of violence against any persons relative to the taking of land. Also copies of the informations, &c., exhibited against the said Mr. O'Reilly, or any other Rowan Catholic priest implicated thereby in the same. Also, copies of all correspondence between the Irish Government and any magistrate, stipendiary or otherwise, attending the petty sessions of Ballymacue, in the county of Cavan, relative to this transaction. And also, copies of any report made to the Irish Government by any magistrate, stipendiary or otherwise, relative to the same."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the the noble Marquess opposite had concluded his speech by stating that, in his opinion, he had laid sufficient grounds for the production of the documents for which he had

9
moved. If the noble Marquess was convinced that such was the case, he did not think that any other of their Lordships would also be convinced. The noble Marquess stated, that he wanted the production of papers, or an explanation of the particulars relative to the case which he had brought before their Lordships. He must refuse the papers, but would willingly give the particulars. He should state to their Lordships the real facts of the case, and he hoped on doing so, he should be able to convince them that they ought not to consent to the motion for the production of documents. The noble Marquess had said, that the Protestants ought to be protected, and in that opinion he fully agreed. The noble Marquess had said, that this was a question between Protestant and Roman Catholic, and that the cause of complaint had reference to the taking of land. Now, he could assure their Lordships, that this was not a question between Protestant and Roman Catholic, and that it had nothing whatever to do with land. The statements of the noble Marquess were, therefore, incorrect. Four-fifths of the speech of the noble Marquess was an attack on the Roman Catholic priests. At all events, this was a question, not between Protestant and Roman Catholic, but between Roman Catholic priest and Roman Catholic priest: and when he mentioned that fact, their Lordships would see how applicable the declaration was which the noble Marquess had, for, perhaps, the hundredth time, addressed to the House. He should simply state the facts to their Lordships. The noble Marquess said, that the papers relative to this case, had been laid before before the Government, and that the Government had declined to take any proceedings. The fact, however, was, that whatever had had been done, had been done not as the noble Marquess stated, by the Government of its own accord, but on the recommendation of the bench of magistrates, before whom the information had been laid, and who were perfectly acquainted with the real merits of the case. This was not only a a question between Roman Catholic priest and Roman Catholic priest, but it was also a question between two priests, both of the name of O'Reilly, while the person aggrieved was also one O'Reilly. It was perfectly true that Philip O'Reilly did use, not the language which the noble Marquess had quoted, but language exclusively improper, more particularly when the place where it was used was considered. He agreed with the no-
10
ble Marquess, that such language ought to be discouraged, and that it was highly improper that such addresses should be made from the altar. He had, while in Ireland, always expressed himself strongly against such a course of proceeding, and he was aware that his noble Friend (the present Lord-lieutenant) had in every case discouraged such addresses to the people from the altar. The complaint which the noble Marquess had brought forward, had originated in a memorial, which had been addressed to the Government by the other priest, O'Reilly, not with reference to land, but as to the supposed right of his broker to the customs of a fair. It was the custom in Ireland for the person who had a right to the customs to stand in the fair "gap" as it was called, with a cudgel in one hand and a book in the other, not necessarily a bible, and unless those attending the fair declared on the book, that the custom had been paid, they were not admitted. Now, in the case which the noble Marquess had brought forward, it was the exercise of this right by the brother of the priest, which was the cause of complaint. A memorial on the subject was addressed to the Lord-lieutenant, and that memorial was forwarded to Mr. Little, a stipendiary magistrate. Mr. Little was a person well known to some of their Lordships, and had ever proved himself an efficient and impartial public officer. That magistrate was sitting in sessions with other two magistrates, viz., Mr. Morton, and a magistrate of the same name as the priests—another Mr. O'Reilly. These gentlemen heard the informations which had been laid in this case, and gave the matter the fullest consideration, and so far from Mr. Little having favoured Father O'Reilly, that person had actually complained to the Government of the conduct of the magistrate in having brought forward prematurely some portion of the evidence. These magistrates had made themselves fully acquainted with the whole facts of the case, and they were also perfectly aware of the state of the country, but they had all concurred in the recommendation which had been made to the Lord-lieutenant. They stated in their memorial that Father O'Reilly having acknowledged the language he had used to have been highly improper, and that as he had asked for mercy and given the most ample promise to abstain from such language in future, they considered under all the circumstances of the case that the law

11
had been sufficiently vindicated. It was on that recommendation of the magistrates that the Government had acted. It was a mere exercise of the discretion of the Lord-lieutenant, who, after having consulted the law-officers of the Crown, had considered further proceedings in the case unnecessary. Having stated this much in explanation of the case which the noble Marquess had brought forward, and which he hoped would be satisfactory to their Lordships, he did not consider it necessary to go into the other cases to which the noble Marquess had alluded. As to the case of Father Burke, the whole time of his imprisonment had been allowed to expire, and the fine, he believed, had been paid. In the case of Father M'Call, the complaint seemed to be that that person had been confined three weeks beyond the time of his sentence, and such a proceeding could hardly be considered as an act of partiality to the Roman Catholics. He must say that he did not think the noble Marquess, by throwing out random charges against the Roman Catholics, pursued a course tending to insure the peace of the country, and for himself, he would never hear the Roman Catholic priests attacked without acknowledging the valuable assistance he had received from them while in Ireland. It appeared to him that this was not a case which ought to have been brought before their Lordships, and he hoped, after the explanation he had given, that they would not consent to the motion for the production of the papers for which the noble Marquess asked.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad never witnessed a more signal failure than that of the noble Marquess, in the attempt which he had made to lay a foundation for refusing the production of those papers. The noble Marquess had admitted the whole case, and yet he refused to produce the documents by which alone their Lordships could judge of its merits. In his opinion, he had laid fair grounds for the production of those papers, and he should persist in his motion for their production.
Their Lordships then divided: Contents 18; Non-contents 19; Majority 1.
Motion lost.