HL Deb 22 February 1844 vol 73 cc3-22
Lord Monteagle

wished to move for a Return relative to a subject which was alluded to in the course of the debate the other night, and he believed that there would be no objection to furnish the papers in question. He was, however, anxious to make some observations in explanation of the reasons which had induced him to bring the subject under the notice of the House. It would be in the recollection of those noble Lords who took part in the discussion last Session, respecting the appointment to the Arch-deaconry of Armagh, that the particular circumstances attending the exercise of the Prerogative in that appointment, were brought under the attention of the House. From what then took place it appeared to be the general opinion that the English Government was not responsible for that appointment. It was said you must deal with that appointment as having been made on the authority of the Irish Government, and for which they were responsible. In the course of the last Session he had pointed out, and it was not denied, that the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been departed from in filling up this appointment to the Archdeaconry of Armagh. The Commissioners recommended that on any vacancy occurring in the Archdeaconry, that the two parishes constituting it should be separated, and that they should be bestowed in such a manner as to secure the residence of the Rector in each. The avoidance of that Archdeaconry was occasioned by the Government itself, which had appointed the clergyman holding this dignity to a Bishopric in Ireland; and they had, in his judgment, most improperly continued the union of the two parishes in favour of the gentleman whom they themselves had appointed to the vacant Archdeaconry of Armagh. It was true, that the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was given previous to the passing of the Church Temporalities Bill; therefore, at the time it was made, the resources of the union were larger than they were when the Government had to deal with the appointment in 1843. The value, however, of this piece of preferment amounted to 1,000l. a-year when it fell into the hands of the Government, and the recommendation of the Commissioners was, that on any vacancy arising, there should be two clergymen and two parishes. The Government passed over the recommendation of the Commissioners, and conferred this piece of preferment on one clergyman, by which arrangement they left the parish of Caledon, containing upwards of 2,000 members of the Church of England, without a resident clergyman. The defence made of that appointment by the noble Duke was, that it had taken place in consequence of the high character of the individual appointed, and of his peculiar adaptability to the situation in question. He would take this to be the case on the statement of the noble Duke. But if the defence of an appointment rested on the great capacity of any man for the office m question, it ought to be considered whether that was sufficient to justify a departure from the recommendation of the Commissioners. If this was to be the case, they had only to select a good and proper man for any appointment which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners wished to have, abolished, and every one of the recommendations of the Commissioners might go for nothing. In that case, the excellence of the choice of the party was the only defence for the appointment; but would noble Lords opposite apply the same reason to the present case before the House. They, however, had been told a few nights ago, when allusion was made to this appointment, that it was merely honorary, and that peculiar circumstances called for it. When the case was first mentioned in that House the noble Lord, the President of the Council, said that the appointment of the Rev. Holt Waring to be Dean of Dromore was defended on this ground, that there were no emoluments annexed to the Deanery. Although this statement was made to his surprise, being at variance with the only information before Parliament, he confessed that he did not think it any thing extraordinary that the noble Lord might have been misinformed on the subject, and he was anxious that all doubt on the matter should be cleared up by the production of the Papers which he now intended to call for. If the noble Lord was correct in his information as to the reasons for this appointment, the reasoning in defence of the appointment of last year could not be applied to the present case. The latter appointment could hardly be justified on the grounds of the merits of the individual upon whom it was bestowed, for it was on this ground only, that the Archdeaconry with the united parishes, producing 1,000l. a-year, was conferred on Mr. Stokes, in direct opposition to the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It should be recollected, that the state of these parishes was first brought under the attention of Parliament by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed by the noble Duke when he was at the head of a former Government, and the report of which Commission was laid before Parliament in 1831. He knew not what alteration had been made since, as regarded the emoluments connected with the Deanery of Dromore, hut he found a description of that Church Dignity in the report of the Commissioners. It appeared, that it comprised a union of six parishes, which were sixteen miles by nine miles in extent. In each of these parishes was a church, and also in each parish resided a considerable number of Protestants, who were members of the Established Church. In each parish, also, there was a resident vicar, who received the vicarial tithes, while the rectorial tithes constituted the emoluments of the Deanery. He did not know the exact amount of the emoluments thus received, but he found that the tithes of one of these parishes was 250l. a-year, independent of the vicarial tithes. If the same thing applied to the other parishes constituting the union when the report was made in 1831, it was clear that the Deanery of Dromore was at that period a profitable benefice. Undoubtedly, it was quite certain, that in 1831 the rectorial tithes went to the Dean of Dromore. The recommendation of the Commissioners was, that on a vacancy occurring in the Deanery a severance of the union should take place, and that the revenues arising from the parish, five miles long and four miles broad, should constitute the emolument of the Deanery of Dromore. It appeared from the report that the revenue of this parish was 497l., or 500l. a-year, derived from tithes. Now, he wished to know whether there had been any diminution of the revenue derived from those parishes since that time. According to the recommendations of the Commissioners there was to be a severance of this union, and the tithes of one parish, the amount of which he had just stated, was to constitute the future emoluments of the holder for the time being of the Deanery. He, therefore, inferred from this Report that the communication that had been made by the noble Lord, alleging that there were no emoluments annexed to the Deanery of Dromore, was erroneous. He (Lord Monteagle) was not affirming that he was necessarily right as to the facts of the case, as he could only draw his information from the Reports of the Commissioners which were before the House. If there had been no severance of the union the emoluments of the benefice must be large, but even if the emoluments of the Deanery had been reduced as recommended, were only the tithes of a single parish, the result would be, that since the passing of the Church Temporalities Act the revenue would not be reduced below 500l. a-year. He could not, therefore, understand how it could be asserted that the Deanery of Dromore was a benefice without emolument. He trusted, however, that a benefice of such high dignity in the Church would not be held valueless, whether there were emoluments or not annexed to it. He would now proceed to advert to the manner in which this benefice had been filled up. In the selection of a person to be appointed to the Archdeaconry of Armagh, they had been told that the step that had been taken was justified from the circumstance that the person was not in any way a political character, and that he was, from his acquirements and qualities eminently fitted for that office. This was the ground on which the noble Lord rested to justify this appointment, which was made directly contrary to the recommendation of the Commissioners. Now, he begged noble Lords to consider what were the inducements to the appointment to the benefice which he was now alluding to. It was immaterial for his argument whether this dignity was accompanied with emoluments—whether it possessed considerable emoluments, and involved the performance of duties, or whether it was a sinecure without emoluments—when he regarded the manner in which it had been filled. He was not desirous of laying down any fanciful standard as to the selection for a Church appointment, nor would he go back to remote periods to search into the character or conduct of those who were named to stations of authority in the Church. He should not make a complaint on any abstract ground, but he did complain of Her Majesty's Ministers, that they were acting in this case against their own declarations as to the mode in which they meant to act in their distribution of Church patronage in Ireland. For these good intentions, they claimed credit as evidence of the honourable and impartial disposition of the Government. The extract which he was about to read was written by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on the subject of Church patronage. The letter was dated the 14th of September, 1841, and was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman observed,— Let it be understood, that in respect to the Church preferments, you will act on your own sense of duty, and on the result of your own inquiries; and if that sense of duty prompts you to prefer the claims of professional merit, let your inquiries be directed to the ascertainment of those claims. The general purport of the letter was obviously to give to the Lord-Lieutenant the unrestrained power of selecting for the objects of his Church patronage in Ireland persons, the most deserving from their virtues and their acquirements. The next paragraph proceeded,— It is absolutely necessary, for the best interests of Church and State, that the patronage of the Irish Church should be applied on such principles. I will willingly forego any Parliamentary support which will only be conciliated by the disregard of those principles; though, indeed, the fact is, that if such considerations are to be attended to, the interests of the Government are, on the long run, much better promoted by the honest exercise of patronage, than by administering it to favour individual supporters. He thought that the general import of these suggestions would not be objected to by any of his noble Friends; on the contrary, that they would meet with their approbation. The letter to which he alluded, was read in a discussion in the House of Commons, and therefore might be regarded as a public document; certainly if it could be viewed as a private letter, he would not have read it, or allowed it to influence him. It appeared from the first observation in this letter, that the responsibility and the patronage of these appointments were transferred from the Home Government in Downing-street to the Irish Government, and the power was given to the Lord-Lieutenant to make such appointments as corresponded with the principles laid down in this letter. How did it appear that the ecclesiastical appointment now under consideration could be defended on the ground, that it was in conformity with Sir R. Peel's letter? Could there be any doubt that the ecclesiastical appointments to high stations in Ireland were matters of great and serious importance at the present time in Ireland? His noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Normanby) could refer with satisfaction to the ecclesiastical appointments made by him while at the head of the Government of Ireland, for he was enabled to challenge public opinion, and even the judgment of his political opponents, as to the propriety of the ecclesiastical appointments made by him. He believed that no doubt had ever been entertained or expressed as to the excellence of his appointments to high dignities in the Church, or even insinuate that they had not been bestowed on those in the highest degree qualified to fill them. He said this with confidence, for he knew that noble Lords opposite would not have abstained from complaint, had an opportunity been afforded. He was sure that it must be in the recollection of noble Lords, that even the appointment of Justices in a corporate town, and the nomination of Registrar of Births and Marriages, had been made a matter of charge and accusation against the late Government. It was clear, that Her Majesty's present Ministers were fully aware of how much importance it was to exercise the greatest caution in their appointments to the high ecclesiastical dignities in Ireland; but let the House now consider who the gentleman was who was recently selected to fill an office of great dignity in the Church—the Deanery of Dromore—possessing either large emoluments, or being only an honorary appointment, he cared not which—but which was a station next in rank to that of a Bishop in the Church. The noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe), on a former occasion, when the subject of this appointment was alluded to, and when a noble Friend of his referred to an exhibition of conduct on the part of this dignitary which, on the part of a clergyman, was not of a very seemly kind or character, stated, that the newspaper paragraph, from which the description of the proceedings had been taken, was grossly exaggerated. Now he (Lord Monteagle) would refer to no newspaper paragraph to no report of a hos- tile character respecting this gentleman, but he would refer to the evidence which the reverend gentleman himself gave on oath before a Committee of that House. He should like to know what noble Lords opposite, who were parties to this appointment, thought of such evidence? It appeared, that in the year 1825, the most serious inquiry that had ever been entered into as to the state of Ireland was undertaken by Parliament, and this at a period when Lord Liverpool was at the head of the Government in England, and Lord Wellesley was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland—the investigation before that Committee lasted a considerable time, and persons of all classes, and drawn from all parts of the country, and of every shade of political opinion and of religious belief, were brought before the Committee and examined on oath. The Rev. Holt Waring was brought before this Committee, and examined on oath. He was asked in 1825, How long were you a member of the Orange Society?—Since 1798. Have you held any office under the Society?—I have. What office?—I undertook the office of Secretary. Did you hold any other office in the Society?—No, except chaplain. Have you ever been present at the procession of Orangemen?—I have. The witness was then asked what remedial measures he would recommend for the state of Ireland. The witness proceeded to recommend that the Roman Catholics should be deprived of the Elective Franchise, and that the Act of 1793 should he repealed. This might conduce, that is, it might tend towards tranquillity, but I believe would not accomplish it at the present time. It would give confidence and satisfaction to the Protestants of Ireland, and would have very little bad effect on the Roman Catholics, who are already in opposition to the Government, and are desirous to separate England from Ireland, as we have reason to suppose; and who are bound, as was lately exposed on public trials in Dublin, to the extirpation of the Protestant religion out of Ireland; therefore, I think it would not altogether accomplish tranquillity, it would make us better, and. them no worse. Now, he would ask the House to consider the character of this evidence, and whether it could be listened to without feelings of mingled astonishment and regret. The next question elicited a still more extraordinary answer. He was asked, On what ground do you consider the Roman Catholics in opposition to the Government?—Their being almost universally bound together by oaths of a treasonable nature, and having been convicted of acting up to their oaths in every instance that they have been tried for it. Here was a charge brought against the Catholics of Ireland, according to which they not only were opposed to the Government of the day, but that they were charged as engaged in attempts to form conspiracies for the extirpation of the Protestants of Ireland. Such was the evidence of the Rev. Holt Waring, whom the present Government had selected of their own accord to fill a dignified office in the Church, and to perform the ecclesiastical functions as Dean of Dromore in the present day. He found also in the Papers which were on the Table respecting Orange Lodges, that in 1833 and 1834, the name of the Rev. Holt Waring appeared as Grand Chaplain to the Orange Society of Ireland. It should be remembered that the Orange Society, the members of which took secret oaths, was given up when the Act of Parliament was passed enacting that all oaths taken in secret societies rendered them illegal. The Orange Society, therefore, gave up their illegal oaths, but instead thereof they substituted solemn declarations, and subsequent to this, and at the present time, to make matters more serious, an attempt was made to reconstruct the system of Orange Lodges in the north of Ireland. [Lord Wharncliffe: "When did that appear?"] He saw the announcement in the public prints, and he believed that it was the case. This Mr. Holt Waring, a man of large fortune and influence, had been appointed to this high ecclesiastical dignity, just at the time when an attempt was made to revive the Orange Lodges in the North of Ireland. He admitted, however, that at the time when attempts were some years since made to get up Orange processions in the North of Ireland, the Rev. Holt Waring interfered to prevent the placing Orange emblems on the church of which he was the Rector, and to prevent the desecration of the church. That rev. Gentleman succeeded in this, but did not do more. [Lord Wharncliffe: "When was that?"] About two or three years ago. What he wanted to know in the first place was, whether it was a fact that this was an appointment without emolument; and he should also like to know whether the ground which justified the selection of the Rev. Holt Waring to the Deanery of Dromore was the decorum of his conduct, or his peculiar fitness for the office to which he had been appointed. As to Members of Orange Societies—there could be no question that they were illegal—the man taking the oath, and the man administering it, were both guilty of an illegal act, for which they might have been indicted, if there had been evidence of it; and here the Government had selected as an object of especial favour for promotion in the Church of Ireland a man who was a great dignitary in that illegal association from the year 1798 to 1825, and a Gentleman who gave the evidence to which he had referred, and of which the Members of the Government ought to have been aware at the time the appointment was made, the evidence in which he spoke of the Roman Catholics having been bound together by oaths of a treasonable character and having been convicted of acting up to those oaths on every occasion when they had been tried. If men of that description were to be made objects of preference by the Crown, if they were to be made depositories of the favour of the Crown, and, above all, were selected for Church patronage, it was in vain to consider that the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel's measure were carried practically into effect, which set forth the principle of abandonment of all political motive, and the selection of persons for appointments in the Church for professional merit and piety alone. What was the ground of the selection of the Gentlemen here referred to? would it be justified on these grounds, or on the ground that he was a very rich man? This appointment appeared to him a departure from the principle laid down by the head of the Government, by the selection of a man for high Church preferment who was known as a violent partizan, and whose evidence was, in fact, that he had preferred an indictment on oath against the great mass of the people by whom he was surrounded. In conclusion he would beg to move for a Return of the parishes constituting the Deanery of Dromore, as laid before the Commissioners in 1830, and a copy of any orders which might have been subsequently issued, altering the nature of the preferment, and showing exactly what it now is.

The Earl of Ripon

was not about to object to the Motion which his noble Friend had made. It was very proper that their Lordships should be put in possession of the information he claimed; but as he had prefaced his Motion by remarks of a eliminatory character, he felt called upon to make a few observations. He had no intention of going into the question of the Archdeaconry of Armagh. He had stated last year what appeared to him sufficient grounds for the steps which had been taken. He was by no means clear whether he could then recollect all the circumstances of the case as they were communicated to him, and by him to the House; but with regard to this particular appointment of the Rev. Holt Waring to the Deanery of Dromore, he knew that the noble Lord was entirely mistaken in some most important and material facts on which he seemed to have relied. He (Lord Monteagle) entertained considerable doubt whether this was a dignity without any emolument, but he (the Earl of Ripon) begged to repeat that it was not only a dignity without any emolument, but it could not be so by law. His noble Friend had referred to certain documents laid before the House, but he would state how the facts stood subsequent to that period; but of course he could not find fault with the noble Lord for not knowing what he was about to state. The noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that what had been done was confined to the suggestion made by the Commissioners. In 1834 an Act was passed, to which he had not adverted, to amend the Church Temporalities Act, and a clause in that Act directed that in case of a vacancy of the Deanery of Dromore, or any other dignity below that of Archbishop or Bishop, it should be competent for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to recommend to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council to suspend the appointment of any such dignitary, if they thought fit; and it might be competent for the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council to give effect to such recommendation; and it was provided further, that, during the time of such Deanery being suspended, all profits derived from it should be applied to the purposes of the Ecclesiastical Commission. But the next clause proceeded to state, that after such a suspension of an appointment had taken place, if it should seem fit to the Lord Lieutenant, or the necessary authorities, whoever they might be, to remove the suspension, it should be competent for them to do so, provided all tithes and emoluments were dissevered from the dignity to be conferred. So that the Act of Parliament made it impossible that this Deanery, conferred on Mr. Holt Waring, could carry with it any emolument whatever. Now, what was the course taken with respect to this Deanery? Under the law to which he had referred it appeared that, in the year 1837, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners recommended the suspension of the appointment to the Deanery, by an instrument dated the 18th of April in that year. There being then a vacancy in the Deanery, the Lord Primate submitted to the Commission that the rectorial tithes of the six parishes constituting the cure of the Deanery should be disappropriated, and applied to augment the vicarages in the same parishes. Both these recommendations were submitted to the Privy Council, who reported that, finding that certain matters over which his Grace the Lord Primate had no control, and which were necessary to precede the final adjustment of his Grace's plan, remained undone, and that the composition ending with the year 1837 had become due and payable, they recommended that the appointment to the said Deanery should be suspended until the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council should think fit otherwise to direct. An order was made for the suspension, dated 22nd December, 1837. The subject was again brought forward before the Privy Council on the 25th of May, 1838, when they reported that the objection to the adoption of the plan proposed by the Lord Primate bad, since their report, been removed, and they accordingly recommended that the suspension should be removed, and all the rectorial tithes of the Deanery should be severed therefrom, and united to the vicarages of the six parishes forming the cure. An order was accordingly made to remove the suspension, dated the 9th of October, 1838, and a further order was made of the same date, disappropriating the revenues, and appropriating them otherwise; so that all these emoluments were dissevered from the dignity, and the gentleman who now held it could derive no possible emolument from it whatever. That would appear in the Papers for which the noble Lord had moved. Now the noble Lord next went into the question of the personal character of this gentleman, and he read extracts from evidence given by him in the year 1825, nineteen years ago. His noble Friend had doubtless an exceedingly accurate me- mory and a very scrutinising eye, and he had had the good fortune, for his own purpose, to pick out of that evidence what had been stated by that gentleman, which he had not the slightest recollection of, although he read the evidence given at the time: and, in fact, he did not recollect that he had ever been examined at all. At all events, the expressions were used nineteen years ago; and he thought if their Lordships were all to be tried by the opinions which they had expressed at such a distant period, they would come off very indifferently. He had no doubt he (the Earl of Ripon) had said very many foolish things in his time, and he should not like to be tried by such a standard, and which, he thought, ought not to be sanctioned for the purpose of throwing odium on the character of this gentleman. But how came this gentleman to be appointed to this office? What induced the Lord Lieutenant to confer the appointment on him? It was a recommendation, or memorial, addressed to the Lords Justices, in August, 1842, a year before the agitation had reached its highest point. Now, his noble Friend tried to connect this matter with what had been going on very recently. He said, what a time, when Ireland was almost in a state of rebellion, to show to the Catholics, by such an appointment, the spirit by which you are actuated towards them. But his noble Friend must remember that this appointment was made in 1842, before the Repeal Agitation had become so great. But, further, a recommendation was made to the Lord Lieutenant, pointing out that it was desirable that a person should be appointed to perform whatever duties there were as connected with this Deanery; and the Chapter, the Canons, or whatever they might be, they all united in recommending this Gentleman, on the ground that he was the oldest beneficed clergyman in the whole district. This was not a reason that indicated a desire for Parliamentary support; but this was reported by the Bishop of the Diocese, who confirmed and recommended it; and after due consideration this Gentleman was appointed to this empty honour—empty, at least, as far as it concerned the emoluments. The Lord Lieutenant was bound also to consider who was likely to take it, for it was not everybody who would do so—but Mr. Holt Waring resided in the neighbourhood. If they had taken a poor man, however respectable, from a distant part of the country, and placed him in that dignity, how could he reside there? He ventured to say, that if his noble relative had hunted about for some one else, he would have found some difficulty in getting anybody to take it; and if he (the Earl of Ripon) was not misinformed, his noble relative's predecessor did offer the dignity to an individual who would not take it. But one word as to the Resolution of Parliament with reference to Orange Societies. It was only a Resolution, but certainly a most important one, and he was not sure whether it was not laid before His Majesty; but he had stated, and he would adhere to that conviction, that the conduct of this Mr. Waring, a zealous and eager man, if they pleased, and full of prejudices; but his conduct, as he (the Earl of Ripon) had been informed by a person who lived in his neighbourhood, and who was a Member of that House, was most praiseworthy, for he exerted all his influence and power, and it was great, to induce his friends, neighbours, and dependents, many of whom were poor, ignorant, and full of the most vehement feelings by which those Societies were actuated—he exerted himself, he (the Earl of Ripon) said, in the most earnest manner to induce them to pay willing obedience to the Resolution of Parliament; and, in conclusion, he would say, that a man who had thus sacrificed all his feelings, and made atonement for the past, was not to be reproached as undeserving of the confidence of the Government.

The Marquess of Normanby

said, he was not aware that his noble Friend intended to do more than move for the Papers. If he had seen him before, he should have borne testimony to the accuracy of that part of the statement of his noble Friend opposite, with reference to the transactions of 1837 and 1838, as to the Deanery of Dromore. He had before stated, that he thought the appointment had been very improperly conferred on Mr. Holt Waring. His noble Friend opposite stated that the evidence which had been quoted by his noble Friend behind him was given nearly twenty years ago, and persons changed their opinions in that time. Some did, but others did not. But that the opinion of Mr. Holt Waring had not been lately taken up by him, he thought was sufficiently evident from his own statement at the time, when he said that he had been twenty-seven years a member of an Orange Lodge. Then with reference to the continuance of the sentiments he had expressed, he must say, that a much stronger objection to his appointment arose from his unbecoming conduct as a clergyman in taking a large body of men, marching in military array, to a public meeting, the object of which was not to uphold the Union between the two countries, but by an exhibition of force to awe the Executive Government of the country. But the noble Earl said it was difficult to find any one to perform the duties of this office; why the Deanery of Dromore was an absolute sinecure. Then what was it after all but another instance, which he mentioned with much regret, of that conduct which had been most unfortunate and impolitic with reference to the Government of Ireland, which was giving all the dignities and honours of the Church to the most zealous partizans that could be found. Whatever respect he might have for the Gentlemen whom the Government had elevated to the Bench, he must say, that whilst persons hostile to the Educational System filled that dignified position, and whilst all the Church patronage in Ireland was given in that direction, it was impossible for the Government ever to convince the great masses of the population there, that they were sincere in their professions, and would give all due support and countenance to the Educational System of Ireland. He thought it necessary to say a few words with reference to the appointment of Mr. Holt Waring; he would, however, add, that when Parliament intimated their desire that the Orange Societies should cease, he was quite aware that Mr. Waring had taken the step which his noble Friend opposite had referred to. By this improper appointment the name of Mr. Waring was brought before the public, and he had been always distinguished for his prejudices. The noble Earl, not then in his place, the Master of the Orange Lodges, had taken the same step as that which Mr. Waring had been praised for, but noble Lords opposite would hardly think it right, he presumed, to appoint to any important office, a Nobleman who had exhibited such strong party feeling.

Lord Wharncliffe

said the noble Lord who had made the Motion had fortified it by bringing forward evidence of what Mr. Waring had said many years ago; but he would put it to the noble Marquess and the noble Lord whether they thought the raking up of these matters for many years was the way to tranquillize Ireland, or induce persons who had held strong opinions in the course of their lives to behave as he (Lord Wharncliffe) thought they ought to do towards their fellow-countrymen. They had arrived at a time when he thought it would be better to forget all these things. The noble Lord had alluded to the appointment of Law-officers, which, he said, he thought was improper. He (Lord Wharncliffe) thought that at the time the answer given to that objection was perfectly good—that it was no reason why, if four or five years before a gentleman had been a member of the Precursor, or any other political society, he should be excluded from promotion in his profession: and he would say so in this case, that it was not a reason for excluding this gentleman because twenty years ago he had had strong feelings, when many people not only in Ireland, but in this country, had also—for we were then in the midst of a great struggle with Ireland. He would repeat that it was not fair to adduce these things as proofs and reasons why a clergyman who might in other respects be perfectly fit for his office, should not be honoured by such an appointment as that which had been conferred upon him. If the noble Lord had brought a case against the Government of the conduct of this gentleman of late years, it might be different; but merely because ten years ago he appeared at the head of his parishioners, or that twenty years ago he gave the evidence spoken of, when he had since shown a desire to disband the Orange Societies, he thought it was not right to impugn his conduct now.

Lord Campbell

said, that in his humble opinion his noble Friend was justified in bringing forward this matter and well justified in introducing the topics which he had alluded to. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade said, that the appointment took place in 1842, when there was no agitation. [The Earl of Ripon dissented.] When there was little agitation. [The Earl of Ripon: "No, No."] Well, then, he said the appointment was not recent, when the Repeal agitation was at its height, but in 1842, when there was but little agitation. Why had they the agitation now? It was from such appointments being made. ["Oh, Oh," and Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Noble Lords might try to treat this with ridicule, but he believed it was the opinion of a large portion of the public body, that by such appointments all hope was taken away from the Catholic community, that their just rights would be attended to, and it was from such causes that they had been induced to join in the Repeal agitation to such an extent as to bring the Empire into its present state of peril. His noble Friend had proved, that in the year 1825, Mr. Holt Waring expressed sentiments against the Roman Catholic body, as a body, of the most offensive description; and what evidence was there that he had ever retracted those sentiments? In the year 1834 he certainly had not, for it was then he headed the procession which it had been stated was an attempt to overawe the Executive of the country, after which it appeared, that he discouraged the Orange Lodges; but that did not show that he had altered his principles with regard to the Catholic body. Did he show any charity towards them as fellow Christians, that he respected their rights, and was willing to live in peace and tranquillity with them; and that he fostered those feelings that ought to prevail among all persuasions of Christians. There had been nothing to show that his opinions in these respects had been altered. If that were so could this be called a proper appointment in 1842, when the new Government had been installed into office when they had Ireland handed over to them in a state of peace and tranquillity—when it was to be seen if they would follow up the course that had been pursued—whether the practical enjoyment of equal rights for six years was to be continued? That there was no emolument belonging to this office had been proved; but it was an honour, a distinction meant to express the favour of the Crown, and the Executive Government of the time to this individual; and in that point of view it must be considered by all the Roman Catholic population of Ireland.

The Duke of Wellington

said, he begged to call the attention of their Lordships to one circumstance. This gentleman was recommended for the appointment by the Chapter in August 1842, who petitioned the Lords Justices to give them the advantage of having a Dean added to their body. This petition was presented to the Lord Lieutenant by the lord Bishop of the diocese—so there were the Bishop and Chapter concurring in recommending that this appointment should be made, and that the appointment should be conferred on this gentleman. All this, however, material as it was, had been entirely left out of the case, as stated by the noble Lord, and had been inadequately brought forward, as he thought by his noble Friend. It was thought necessary to run this gentleman down on account of what he had stated in evidence nineteen years ago; but that fact was totally left out of the case, although it was distinctly stated by his noble Friend. It was in consequence of that recommendation that the appointment was made, and he thought it was perfectly justifiable.

The Marquess of Westmeath

said, that when this subject was introduced, in the general debate, he was surprised; but he was not so much astonished that it was now brought forward as a party Motion to create effect out of doors. Could anything be so unfair? He felt it as having been a resident in Ireland, for he was convinced that this matter would be felt by every one at his fireside. A statement that appointments were made for the purpose of insulting a large class of Her Majesty's subjects was injurious to the peace of every family who wished to live securely under the Government. It was not his wish to defend the Government in this matter—they did not want his assistance—but as an honest country gentleman he felt it right to address a few observations to their Lordships. What could be more unfair than to have read this evidence given four years before the Emancipation Act passed, at a period when most parties in Ireland had forgotten their cause of disagreement? A new series of events had taken place, and the dates should have been taken up from a later period. Nothing but the most unhandsome conduct could induce any one to rake up evidence which was given when Orangemen did feel that they were the best defenders of the country. The noble and learned Lord who last addressed the House went to the extent of saying, that this appointment had been considered an insult by all the Roman Catholics of the country who had been agitating the subject of Repeal. He had no doubt he had read the reports of their proceedings at their debating societies as closely as the noble and learned Lord, and he did not recollect having seen that the appointment of Mr. Waring was given as a reason for causing a separation of the two countries. The observations which had been made on that side of the House would stamp upon the proceeding the character and feeling which had dictated it, and the manner in which it ought to be received in Ireland. Was it on account of emolument? In what position did the noble Lord himself stand? When he was in office, a gentleman prominent in politics was appointed to a patent place—a situation his physical powers did not enable him to fill. The noble Lord thought the right hon. Gentleman might not outlive the Government of which he was a Member. But what happened? A pension was procured for that right hon. Gentleman, and the noble Lord got his place in time to have a pension himself of 2,000l. a-year. If this were true, he could not help telling him that the words "Holt Waring" would hang as well under a sineure Deanery, as those of "Spring Rice" under a pension and a peerage.

Lord Monteagle

said, after the remarks which had been made upon his Motion, he would merely trouble their Lordships with a few observations. He would not make any reply on a subject of a personal nature, which certainly had no kind of connection with the question before the House; and he would deal with that question utterly unconcerned, without using any unparliamentary terms, at what had been introduced. He denied altogether that he could be charged with bringing this case forward: he had only referred to the rules of the distribution of Church patronage laid down by the Premier, and had applied those rules to the present appointments. The noble Lord, the President of the Board of Trade, would have had it believed that the Chapter, being incomplete for the performance of its functions, wished it to have it completed by having a Dean; but no duties are required; it was a mere sinecure—an appointment which was a matter of personal distinction, intimating the approval of the Government for the conduct of the individual. His object in bringing forward the case was not adverse to Mr. Holt Waring: he only desired that the Government should justify the appointment. They were informed that there was no emolument attached to the Deanery; but there was a recommendation of the Commissioners, which went to attaching a living to the Deanery, and he had doubts whether, in point of law, if that living fell in, the Dean would not be entitled to it.

The Duke of Richmond

did not wish to take part in the debate, but he certainly felt that expressions of rather too strong a nature, and of too personal a character, had fallen from his noble Friend on his left (the Marquess of Westmeath). He did not at the time rise to order, because he found, from experience, that when noble Lords were angry, rising to order often made them more angry still; and upon this point, he thought that a late occasion had shown that the House had reason so to think. He would ask noble Lords, however, whether it was consistent with the dignity of the House, whether it was right, whether the country would look up to them with that respect they had hitherto done, if they did not do their utmost to keep their tempers, and not to sanction the use of personal language. He did not call upon his noble Friend to do more than he would do if left to his own feelings; but if his noble Friend asked his opinion, he would say that he did, in the heat of debate, use expressions which were not strictly in order.

The Marquess of Westmeath,

called upon as he was by the noble Duke in so handsome a manner, would not be the person to persist in disorderly conduct. He had felt strongly when he had used the expressions; and if their Lordships thought them disorderly—and the noble Duke was an excellent interpreter of order—he had no objection to say that he had been disorderly, and had exceeded the bounds of fair discussion in what had fallen from him.

Motion agreed to. House adjourned.