Lords Sitting of 26 February 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. County Works Presentments (Ireland); Drainage, &c. (Ireland).
Reported.—Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Ministers. Churchwardens, and others, in the Parish of Witbourne, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester—By Lord Somers, from Hereford, for the Reduction of the Duties on Tea and Sugar.—From the Presbytery of Elgin, against the present practice of granting Spirit Licenses to Keepers of Toll Houses in Scotland.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Landowners, Tenants, Labourers, and others, of Ackbrook, and several other places, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—From Landowners, Occupiers, and Tradesmen, of North Walsham, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From Farmers of Buttevant, against the Measure relating to Customs and Corn Importation.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Inhabitants of Nuneaton, against the Measure proposing to reduce the Amount of Protection on Ribbon Manufacture.

THE RECENT OPERATIONS IN INDIA.
The EARL of RIPONhaving laid certain Papers on the Table of the House,
The DUKE of RICHMONDrose, and said that he, for one, could entertain no other feeling than that of the deepest gratitude for the bravery and gallantry displayed by the British troops in the recent battles in India. He wished, however, to ask his noble Friend whether he was prepared to lay upon the Table any Papers which would show whether or not it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that hereafter a Governor General of India should accept a secondary office in the Indian army? He did not mean to cast any censure on Sir Henry Hardinge, who, as an old soldier, might naturally have wished to place himself in the thick of the fight; but he objected to a divided command of the army; and he thought that if Governors General were to accept secondary commands, that division of authority might some time or another become extremely prejudicial to the interests of the British Empire and the glory of our arms.
The EARL of RIPONsaid, that there could be no doubt that great inconvenience might arise from such a division of authority. Her Majesty's Government had not been aware of the arrangement until they had recently received a notification with respect to it from India. He could assure his noble Friend that the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the subject.

CASE OF BRYAN SEERY.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid he wished to put a question to the noble Earl near him (the Earl of St. Germans)

111
upon a subject to which he had referred the other evening. He was sorry that he had been interrupted upon that occasion, because as the matter regarded the feelings of individuals, he should have been much better pleased that it had been at once disposed of. He wished to ask, in the first place, whether any deputation had proceeded to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, from the county of Westmeath, upon the subject of the conviction of Bryan Seery, who had been left for execution in that county; and he wished to ask, in the second place, whether if there had been such a deputation, their proceeding ought to be deemed "harsh and unusual." Now it might be that such a proceeding would be harsh and unusual in England; but it did not follow that what would be improper in this country would necessarily be improper in Ireland. He would remind their Lordships that at the time at which the deputation was alleged to have proceeded to the Lord Lieutenant a portion of the Irish people were in a state of great excitement; that all the individuals concerned in bringing Seery to justice had been assailed; and that a tone of great violence had been adopted by a certain portion of the press against the Government itself, while it was deliberating on the course it should take on the occasion. If, under such circumstances, any deputation had proceeded to the Lord Lieutenant, it would be but fair to bear in mind what were the feelings under which they might be supposed to have acted. All those proceedings had arisen out of the ribbon conspiracy; and that was a brigandage—a conspiracy, including almost all the youthful population of Ireland; all the population between sixteen and twenty-five, or, perhaps, a greater age; or, at least, all those who had not escaped the coercion put upon those young persons who might otherwise not have joined in so bloody a conspiracy. It was possible that in such a state of affairs individuals might have gone to the Lord Lieutenant, and might, without any just blame, have adopted such a course in the midst of the great excitement which prevailed, after the jury had been assailed in the newspapers, after the complaints made of the manner in which the commission was said to have been got up, and after the whole judicial body of the country had been placarded as having sacrificed an innocent man. And it would, in his (the Marquess of Westmeath's) opinion, be a most unfortunate thing that any Minister of the Crown should have designated the
112
proceeding in question as "harsh and unusual;" because their Lordships should know that there were in Ireland persons ready to seize upon any circumstance whatever for the purpose of holding up individuals to odium, and of misrepresenting their conduct. In order to show how justifiable might be the proceeding to which he had been referring, he would state to their Lordships what had been the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy upon that subject. Long before the commission had gone down, the Romish bishop of the diocese had given out from his altar that Seery was innocent, in those emphatic terms, and in that kind of announcement, which were very well understood in that country by many of the laity, who dared not give their opinion as to whether such observations ought to be made. A letter of a most indecent kind had been published, with the name of the Romish bishop attached to it. It condemned the whole course of the Crown counsel and of the Government; it bore hard upon the jury, and it made the poor people of that country believe that that unfortunate man had been sacrificed, and that he was in reality innocent. Even when it appeared that the Government were determined to let the law take its course, he gave out in his chapel that no person ought to come in to witness the execution, and that he should take care there would be persons on the roads to watch and see who would come in. Now those were circumstances which could take place in no country but in Ireland; and he deeply and heartily and profoundly regretted to know that they were not unusual in that country. He would take that opportunity of telling Her Majesty's Ministers, that, before they brought forward any measures of concession for Ireland, they ought to restore tranquillity there, and the supremacy of the law, and convince the people that the country was to be ruled by the Government and by Her Majesty, and not by threats, not by menaces, not by bullyings, and not by insinuations of the Roman Catholic clergy. Such interference on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy as that of which he had given an instance, powerfully contributed to make the law odious. With these observations, he would conclude by putting to the noble Earl the Postmaster General the following questions of which he had given notice:—"Whether a deputation, consisting of several persons, waited upon His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, after the conviction, and

113
before the execution of Bryan Seery, to pray that the convict should not be respited, or his sentence transmuted, but that he should be executed? 2ndly. Whether that deputation purported to proceed from the county of Westmeath? 3rdly. Whether such proceeding is to be deemed 'harsh and unusual?'"
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, it was not his intention on that evening to go into a discussion on the general state of Ireland. But before he proceeded to answer the questions put to him on the present occasion, he should enter his protest against the assertion of the noble Marquess relative to the youth of Ireland, and also against his assertion with regard to the Roman Catholic clergy. He (the Earl of St. Germans) could say with regard to the Roman Catholic clergy, as a body, that he knew many of them who were men eminent for their piety, their charity, and their attention to all the duties of life. With respect to the first part of the question put to him by the noble Marquess, he would only read to the House an extract from a letter from his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but without naming any parties therein mentioned. It was this:—
"Whatever may have been the language used by the deputation that waited upon me, it had not the slightest influence on my mind, nor swayed my judgment in the least, in deciding upon the case of Seery; nor did I give the least encouragement nor countenance to such interference. But in point of fact the principal object of the deputation was to represent to me the lawless state of the county of Roscommon, and the necessity of some stringent measures for its pacification; and it was only incidentally stated that any lenity shown to Seery would be considered as a proof of the weakness of the Government, and tend to encourage the perpetration of such atrocities, and to keep alive that sanguinary spirit so fatal to the peace of the country."
With regard to the noble Marquess's next question, he could only say that he was perfectly certain the eminent individuals who formed the deputation referred to were actuated only by a strong sense of duty, and a conscientious feeling, in making the representations which they did to the Government in Ireland; but at the same time he could not but affirm that the course here pursued was altogether an unusual one, and he knew of no precedent for it either in Ireland or in England at any former period. He would not like to charge an act done conscientiously as a harsh one; but he had no hesitation in saying that the proceeding was an unusual one. His noble
114
Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not come to the conclusion at which he arrived with respect to the case alluded to, without the most anxious and deliberate consideration.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHexplained that what he had said with regard to the youth of Ireland only referred to those who were under the iron rule of the ribbon conspiracy.
LORD STOURTONwas understood to defend the Roman Catholic clergy generally, as being individuals who had exerted themselves much to preserve the peace of the country, procure safety to life and property, and contribute to the proper administration of justice. He thought also that it should not for a moment be supposed that a Roman Catholic juror would be influenced by his bishop or clergy to take any course at variance with his oath.
LORD BROUGHAMwould ever most strongly deprecate, as highly injurious to the proper administration of the law, any discussions concerning the different religious beliefs of judges, of jurors, or of prisoners. Such mixing up of questions of religion did not, in his opinion, do any service to the sacred cause of justice. He was happy to hear from the noble Lord who had just spoken that the Roman Catholic priests were the best friends of the people of Ireland, and the promoters of the administration of the laws; but if they were so, he should like to see them at once give up that abominable practice of addressing political lectures in their chapels. It was a most reprehensible desecration of the altar of their faith, to deliver political sermons from them. As to the administration of justice being interfered with by any priest—be he Protestant or be he Roman Catholic—he did not believe it; and if any man did it, the law would know how to deal with him, and not leave him for any panegyric of any noble Lord. But it would be for the judge, who would not discharge his duty, if, when a case was made out before him, he did not punish such persons for contempt.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHand Lord STOURTON explained.
Subject at an end.
House adjourned.