Lord Clifford,(of Chudleigh), moved for—
Copies of any official communications made in the year 1835 to the British Government at home by the Governor-General of Hindostan, relative to a correspondence between the Governor-General and the governor of Goa, upon a claim advanced by that governor, on the part of the crown of Portugal, to the right of authorising the residence for the exercise of spiritual functions of any Roman Catholic missionary in Hindostan; also copies of any official communiations made in 1839 by the Governor of Madras to the British Government at home, relative to two decrees, dated the first, December the 18th, 1838, and the j second decree very soon afterwards of the collector and magistrate of the Madura district, which gave rise to an order in council of the Madras Presidency, dated June 7th, 1839, 727 and to another order in council, dated July 9, 1839.In submitting this motion to their Lordships he had no wish or intention to embarrass the Government on this subject, although he sat on the opposition benches. The grievances and disabilities under which the Catholics laboured in some parts of India, were of a most harrassing nature, and they found that they could not get redress from any inferior court, and that the proper mode of proceeding was an Address from both Houses of Parliament to her Majesty. The matter had been under the consideration of the board of directors of the East-India Company, and either a most unfair report had been made by the directors, or the directors had no power of granting redress. It was possible that objection might be made to the production of these papers, and that it might be termed merely a petty squabble between some Jesuits and Portuguese priests, who the more they quarrelled the better, as it might end in their being converted to the Protestant faith. He trusted, however, their Lordships would not take such a view of the matter, but would grant the papers he had moved for. He would say a few words with regard to a petition which had been presented to their Lordships in the course of the evening from a rev. Gentleman— Sir Harcourt Lees. That gentleman was not, perhaps, aware, that in applying the name of Jesuit to the class of persons to whom his petition referred, he was making use of nick names. Dr. Johnson being asked to give the definition of the term "Jesuit," his answer was, "A man who is rather more clever than the man who called him so." His friend, the rev. Mr. Kenny, to whom he should have occasion to refer, was a Jesuit, and had been so called by Sir Harcourt Lees, who, however was not a Jesuit himself. Some evidence had been adduced before their Lordships in the year 1825, when a select committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject of Catholicism in Ireland, the effect of which had been entirely to do away with any charges of disloyalty which might be brought against the Jesuits. A question was asked of one of the witnesses whether there was not a body of friars in existence in Ireland, called Jesuits, and the answer was, that there was no body so called of a purely ecclesiastical character, but that there were some per- 728 sons of that denomination who had established a seminary in Ireland. The object of a seminary was to afford domestic instruction in opposition to foreign education, and where such was the object of a body of persons, he conceived that they must be looked upon as a loyal body of the subjects of her Majesty, and the most likely of all persons to be useful to the state. From another portion of the evidence given, it appeared that the Roman Catholic hierarchy did not countenance an active interference by the clergy in political matters. At a general meeting of the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, in 1832, an exhortation, signed by all those bishops, to all the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, thenceforth to abstain from being chairmen or secretaries of political meetings, from moving or seconding resolutions at such meetings, or from being members of any secret societies, was drawn up and published; and no instance had occurred, before or since 1832, of any of the Irish Jesuits having done what all the Irish Roman Catholic clergy were there exhorted not to do henceforward. It was expressly stated by Mr. D. O'Connell, in his examination, that no single instance had as yet occurred of the infringement of this rule. But to proceed to the subject to which his motion more particularly had reference; he was not surprised on his returning to England, in 1833, to find that advices had been received in this country, of meetings having been held in Calcutta, at which resolutions had been agreed to, and opinions expressed condemnatory of the existing state of things in our Indian colonies. It appeared that there were at that time in India several of our Irish regiments, composed, in a very great measure, of members of the Roman Catholic Church, whose discipline and proper demeanour, their Lordships were aware, were in a great measure dependent upon the moral influence exercised over them by the priests of their religion. The only Roman Catholic priests at that time there, were of Portuguese education, and those not the êlite of the Portuguese colleges, and were connected with the convent of Goa, and possessing a strong feeling also in accordance with the principles of those of Lisbon. These persons were in a great measure unacquainted with the English language, and ill-qualified, therefore, to discharge the duties imposed upon them by their position. Under these cir- 729 cumstances, application was made to the Government of this country, and with a view of supplying the obvious want which existed, they caused inquiries to be made in Ireland for persons to go out to Calcutta, and an Irish priest belonging to Clougowes College, a particular friend of his(Lord Clifford), whom he had known from boyhood, who had been with him in Sicily in 1811, when Lord William Bentinck was in command there, had been accordingly sent out by the Rev. Mr. Kenny, superior of that college, in 1833, to Rome, and had there been appointed by Pope Gregory XVI. his vicar apostolic for Bengal, whether he had proceeded. His name was Robert St. Leger. After he had arrived, a letter was 6ent to the Governor-General by the Portuguese priests, demanding, on the part of the crown of Portugal, the exclusive right of introducing priests of the Roman Catholic church into our Indian possessions at Madras. This was the first letter he wished to be produced. The second letter which he required was the answer of the Governor-General to this application. He did not know whether their Lordships would be disposed to recognise an act of the Pope, but he wished to know whether, after Mr. St. Leger had received the authority of the Sovereign of this country to proceed to Hindostan, as the superior of the Catholic body there, and after his character had been recognised by the Pope, and by our local government in India, it was found out by the House, that these Portuguese priests should be considered to be the only priests, because they said so? He was sure that their Lordships would agree to no such proposition. But his information, in reference to this matter went much farther, and he sincerely trusted, that in this respect it would turn out to be false. It appeared, that certain trustees, or persons acting as such (but not priests), of churches or chapels built by certain Roman Catholic congregations with their own money, on their own ground, for which churches or chapels those persons acted as trustees, with the obligation of providing Roman Catholic pastors for the said churches or chapels in the Madura disirict, had been imprisoned by the collector and magistrate of that district for refusing to deliver up the keys of the said churches to certain Portuguese priests belonging to a party whom the right rev. Dr. O'Connor (who is not a Jesuit, nor had a single 730 Jesuit in his district, nor brought out with him a single Jesuit), but a Roman Catholic Bishop, recognised in the Madras presidency as superior of the Roman Catholic missions in the Madras district, and Dr. St. Leger, who being a Jesuit, could not be a bishop, but was recognised in 1834 by the Bengal presidency as superior of the Roman Catholic missions in that district, had declared by public pastoral letters to be out of the communion of the Roman Catholic church, and who had not contributed one farthing to the building of those churches. He stated that to their Lordships upon the authority of the hon. and rev. Waller Clifford, his own brother, a Roman Catholic missioner at Trichinopoly in the Madura district. A report, he must further inform their Lordships, founded on the authority of a foreigner of distinction, was current in the Madura district, and was doing much harm there. The report in question was, that some of these imprisoned persons bad been tortured (soumis aux tourments) to oblige them to deliver up the keys. He considered it his duty to disbelieve such a report till it was confirmed; but equally his duty to state the existence of such a report to the House, as a report that ought to be inquired into. But he must also state to their Lordships, that he had not been informed, that those persons had been tortured by order of the magistrate, or of any magistrate. He must add, that the Roman Catholics in the Madura district had been officially informed, that the Court of Directors, or the Government in London,' to use the words of his information, had approved the proceedings of the collector and magistrate in the Madura district, as reported to that Government from the Madras presidency; and that the foreigner of distinction above mentioned, had repeated a conversation between himself and one of the superior judges of the district, which was calculated, in his opinion, to do incomparably more mischief than the act of the collector and magistrate, inasmuch as it imputed to Lord Melbourne's Cabinet, principles which were the very reverse of those of that Cabinet, on the authority of that superior judge. The noble Lord concluded by submitting his motion.
Lord Ellenboroughwished the noble Lord to state any authority on which he accused a servant of the Government in India of administering torture.
Lord Cliffordhad stated it as a report which had gone abroad, and had done much mischief, that such an act had been perpetrated, and he said that he would not believe any such acts. When the Irish Catholics, who were in possession of the churches, refused to give them up, a party of soldiers turned them out by force, and then reported that they had only kept in possession those who already had it.
Lord Ellenboroughhad never heard a noble Lord express himself so ambiguously when he thus accused a servant of the Government of England acting in India. As the noble Lord had not answered the first question, would the noble Lord say whether any Englishman whatever had used the word torture?
Lord Cliffordsaid, as the report went, these parties were put into prison and were there tortured, whether by order of the magistrate or not did not appear.
Lord Ellenboroughhad but a very few words to say in reply to the statement of the noble Lord. He should not follow the noble Lord into his defence of the Jesuits, for whatever might be his (Lord Ellen-borough's) opinion with regard to that able and learned body, it could not be denied that Parliament had at various times entertained very great jealousy of them. Neither should he follow the noble Lord in his attack on the Portuguese priests, of whom he knew nothing except that they had conducted themselves in India very peaceably, and had discharged their religious duties in that country with zeal and assiduity. It might, however, be convenient to their Lordships that he should state, as the noble Lord had not done so, what was the origin of the transactions out of which the difference to which the noble Lord had alluded had arisen. For more than 200 years the Portuguese priests, acting under the Bishop of St. Toma, and under the sanction of a bull issued by the Pope, and been in the habit of administering religious rites to the whole of the Roman Catholic population in that part of the world, amount- 732 ing, as the noble Lord had said, to about a million of souls. Some years ago a person of British extraction was sent out to Madras, with the title of vicar-apostolic, and this person was accompanied by some eighteen or twenty Jesuits from Ireland. Subsequently, another gentleman went out from Ireland (Dr. O'Connor) to Calcutta with a similar title, accompanied by ten or twelve Jesuits. The Government of India had thought it right to acknowledge the vicars apostolic as the channel through whom all communications between the Government and the Roman Catholic body should be made. Now, the vicar having thus conceded to him the spiritual authority, proceeded to lay claim to the temporalities of the Church. And out of this difference about the temporalities of the Roman Catholic Church in India between the Irish Jesuits and the Portuguese priests had arisen the complaint of the noble Lord. The course which the Governments of India had taken in the matter when applied to on the subject was simple and correct. They said that it was their desire to interfere as little as possible with the religious feelings of the people under their Government, or to give any opinion as to the temporalities belonging to the various churches; but that if questions of property connected with those temporalities arose, the parties must go to the courts of law for redress. These parties had done so, and in one case, in a question relating to a Capuchin convent, the decision had been given in favour of the Portuguese priests who were in possession. The only other case which had arisen was that to which the noble Lord had alluded, and which was the cause of this charge against the collector. But it was not in the power of the collector to give possession. He had only authority in preserving the peace, a jurisdiction, in fact, similar to that of a civil magistrate. If he had acted wrongly the parties aggrieved had an appeal, first to the state court, then to the provincial court, and again to the supreme court, where they would have an opportunity of proving their case. It was unnecessary for him (Lord Ellenborough) to inform their lordships that no magistrate could presume to administer the torture, and if it could be proved that the magistrate to whom the noble Lord had referred had done so, he would be immediately dismissed; and he was quite sure that it 733 would be found, when the case should be investigated, that the enthusiastic foreigner who had written to the noble Lord had totally misrepresented what had actually taken place. He thought it was wrong in the noble Lord to bring forward a charge of this nature against a magistrate, and that without stating any name, but indicating pretty distinctly to whom he alluded. The noble Lord had brought forward a grave accusation against one of of the judges of the supreme court of India on the authority of a person unknown, and whose name even he had not given; and he must say that it was a most unfair proceeding to circulate such charges in that House without giving to the accused party an opportunity of defending himself. He regretted much that the noble Lord had mentioned the subject. He did not think the noble Lord had done good service to his co-religionists by so doing; for what the noble Lord had said could not but tend to increase that exasperation which already existed between the flocks who adhered respectively to those priests who were quarrelling for those temporal possessions of the Church. It would have been far better to have left the matter in silence now, as the noble Lord had done during the period when his own political Friends were in office — than thus, by alluding to it, to add to that ill feeling which already existed between those religious bodies. Nothing which the noble Lord had said— nothing which he was likely to say, could embarrass the Government here; but if by the course he took he should create exasperation more than already existed amongst the religious bodies in Madras, he would, without doubt increase the difficulties of the Government there, while he would fail in doing good service to those to whom he was desirous of rendering assistance. The papers for which the noble Lord had moved were so described that the India Board had been unable to find them. Whether they existed or not he (Lord Ellenborough) did not know. With regard to the first of these papers —the letter of the Governor of Goa and the answer of Lord Bentinck—he could have no objection to produce them; and he should, at the same time, move for and lay upon the table some other papers connected with the same subject, including a letter from the Governor of Goa to Lord Bentinck, and the answer thereto by the President of the 734 Council of Calcutta; also a petition transmitted by the vicar apostolic of Madras to the governor of that province, and the answer thereto; in which documents it would be seen that the priests to whom allusion had been made were, notwithstanding what the noble Lord had said, distinctly described as Jesuits. He would only repeat that if any magistrate had exceeded his powers in administering the law, there could be no doubt whatever, if proof of such illegal acts were forthcoming, that the government at Madras would be ready and willing to punish the parties who had committed them.
§ Motion, as amended, agreed to.
§ Papers laid on the Table.