Lords Sitting of 13 August 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a London Bridge Approaches; Crime and Outrage Act (Ireland) Continuance; Savings Banks (Ireland).
Reported.—General Board of Health (No. 3); Friendly Societies; Spitalfields and Shorediteh New Street; Transfer of Improvement Loans (Ireland); Law Fund Duties (Ireland).
3a Westminster Temporary Bridge; Portland Harbour and Breakwater; Friendly Societies; Customs; Assizes (Ireland); Stamp Duties (No. 2); Assessed Taxes Composition.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
The Order of the Day being read, for the Attendance of Charles Gream, of 23, Temple-street, Liverpool, and Michael Alexander Gage, at the bar of this House; the Yeoman Usher informed the House, that they were in attendance; they were accordingly called in.
LORD MONTEAGLEdetailed the circumstances connected with the subscription of false signatures to this petition, and the steps already taken by the House to punish the subordinate agents in the fraud; the appointment of the Select Committee to investigate into the conduct of the employers of those subordinate agents—to the investigations of that Committee—to the report which it had presented to their Lordships—and to the order of the House that the two persons now at the bar should appear there to give some explanation of their conduct and proceedings. 1,500 names had been appended to the petition, and among them 900 or 1,000 fraudulent signatures had been discovered. At a public meeting called for the purpose of forwarding this petition to their Lordships, it was publicly stated by the framers

1057
of it that it was signed by 18,000 ratepayers. A person who attended the meeting observed that this could not be true, and the consequence was, that the concocters of this fraud altered their statement, and alleged that it was signed by 18,000 inhabitants of Liverpool. Having mentioned this fact as a proof that the petition had not been sent up to their Lordships without some premeditation, it was next alleged by the Liverpool Committee that the discovery of the false signatures had not been made until it was too late to alter it. This allegation was incorrect, as the promoters of the Bill had given that Committee notice that the petition was fraudulent. There could be no doubt upon that point, as page after page were in the same handwriting. It had been suggested that this was occasioned by a number of the subscribers being marksmen; but it was impossible to believe that merchants, brokers, and one person who described himself as a "student," could not write their own names. Besides, the placing of a mark before a man's name who had not given authority for it, was as much a forgery as a false signature. As to the evidence taken before the Committee, so far as it applied to the two persons at the bar, it was proven beyond doubt that they had not used due diligence to prevent fraud—which, perhaps, might not be a Parliamentary offence—and next, that they had not only made themselves privy to that fraud, but also responsible for it, by referring the petition so got up to the consideration of a Committee of their Lordships. The Select Committee which had inquired into the whole of this subject was unanimous in their report that measures must be adopted to check such conduct in future. The particular offence which it was incumbent on their Lordships to punish was this—that after it came to the knowledge of these parties that frauds and forgeries had been committed, they had instituted no inquiry respecting them, but on the contrary employed counsel to support the petition so got up, and to defeat the investigation commenced by their Lordships into its merits. He, therefore, proposed, that their Lordships should first of all accede to a resolution, declaring that it appeared from the evidence taken before a Select Committee that C. Gream, Esq., and M. A. Gage, Esq., had caused a petition against the Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Bill to be presented to their Lordships, they well knowing, or having
1058
good reason to believe, that numerous fictitious signatures, and the names of persons without their authority, attached to it. He proposed to follow up that resolution, by two others declaring, that each of those individuals by so doing had been guilty of a high breach of their Lordships' privileges.
The LORD CHANCELLORthought it unnecessary for him to enlarge on the heinous nature of an offence which had deprived petitioners whose interests were affected by the Bill, of the benefit of being heard before their Lordships, as well as the House itself, of the information which was necessary for its guidance. The evidence taken before the Committee, showed that the grossest frauds had been perpetrated in attaching signatures to the petition, the persons employed to procure signatures having signed many hundreds of names of imaginary persons, with imaginary places of residence. The humbler instruments in those frauds had already been called before their Lordships and punished; and now the more important parties were before the House. He regretted to say that, in their case, there was but one conclusion to which he had been able to come from the evidence given before the Committee, namely, that persons whose profession and station in life—a solicitor and an engineer—ought to have afforded protection and assistance to their Lordships in the investigation of the Bill, should unfortunately have forgotten what was due to their own character no less than to the House. Under these circumstances, it was for their Lordships to take such steps as the dignity of the House and the nature of the case required.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had given a correct history of the proceeding's as they were detailed in the evidence; and he was gratified to hear, that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack, the report of the Committee was completely borne out by the evidence. He hoped that these proceedings would have an effect beyond the parties now at the bar. Whenever petitioners approached their Lordships' House, they had a right to expect a full consideration of the matter of their petition; but a corresponding duty was imposed upon petitioners, of taking care by every means in their power that the representations which they made were founded in fact, and that the signatures to the petition were genuine. He hoped that this case would be the means of causing peti-

1059
tions presented to that House to he more carefully looked at before being presented; but certainly, if a similar case again occurred, the parties would be severely punished.
The parties were then ordered to withdraw.
First resolution agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLORthen put resolutions, and it was resolved that Charles Gream and Michael Alexander Gage had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House and contempt of its authority.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that having been absent upon circuit when the proceedings in this case commenced, he was scarcely able to give an opinion upon the circumstances; but it appeared to him that a specific punishment should be meted out, such as would meet the justice of the case. There was every reason to believe that the Session was rapidly drawing to a close; but for so grave an offence, a bare committal allowing the parties to petition tomorrow, and discharging them on expressing their contrition, would hardly be a sufficient punishment. He threw out this suggestion for the consideration of their Lordships; but, of course, they would pursue the course which justice and their own dignity seemed to them most to require.
The LORD CHANCELLORsuggested, that before proceeding to consider the question of punishment, the parties should be called in, to ascertain if they had anything to say.
Then the said Charles Gream and Michael Alexander Gage were again called in, and
The LORD CHANCELLORinformed them that the House had resolved that they had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House; and he demanded of Mr. Gream whether he had any explanation to offer upon the subject of this offence?
Mr. Gream: My Lords, I beg with all respect to your Lordships to claim to be heard by counsel, and to have my witnesses examined upon this, to me, most important subject. I feel that I am perfectly innocent of the charges laid against me, and I claim at your Lordships' hands the privilege of being heard by counsel, and to have my witnesses examined.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Charles Gream, you have given your evidence before a Committee of this House, and that Committee heard what you had to say. It has also been reported to the House. The
1060
House, upon that report, has resolved that you have committed a great breach of its privileges; and you cannot be heard in contravention of the judgment of the House. Whatever you may have to say in extenuation or explanation of the offence of which you have, by the judgment of the House, been found guilty, the House will hear.
Then the parties having been severally heard, were ordered to withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that their Lordships had had two persons at their bar occupying a respectable station in life, who undoubtedly must suffer severely from the circumstances under which they had fallen under their Lordships' displeasure; but their Lordships would have to consider the interference which had taken place with the right of petitioning enjoyed by Her Majesty's subjects, and which had been lost in prosecuting before their Lordships a measure in which they were deeply interested; and they had also considered that their Lordships' authority had been abused to a greater extent than he remembered ever to have heard of before, and that too by persons in a respectable station of life, who appeared competent to judge of the misconduct of the transaction in which they were implicated, and who it appeared were in the course of carrying it into execution, contemplating the probability of the very circumstances which had occurred, for they had cautioned the persons engaged of what the consequence would be, should it come to their Lordships' knowledge that there were fictitious signatures to the petition. When he considered the conduct of those persons to their Lordships, he felt under the painful necessity of coming to the conclusion that the caution to those persons was only as to the mode of doing what they had done so as to avoid detection, and that the direct object in view was that of protecting the persons who were the cause of the misconduct, if the facts should come to their Lordships' knowledge. If their Lordships were to deal out a punishment to these men measured by the magnitude of the offence, and the direspect to their Lordships' authority, they would be bound to go to a greater extent than he thought they would be disposed to go. Their Lordships would therefore have to think by how small a measure of punishment they could make it understood that it was the determination of their Lordships to defend the rights of the people to peti-

1061
tion, and to maintain their own dignity and privileges, and yet to be as lenient as their public duty would allow. He also felt strongly that whatever their Lordships' judgment might be, the punishment suffered afterwards by these men would be severely felt. An attorney who had been censured or punished by their Lordships' House must, throughout the whole course of his professional life, suffer a stigma of a very serious description; and the other person, who was an engineer, and who was liable to be brought in the discharge of his professional duties before Committees of either House of Parliament, must also suffer from these circumstances being brought forward to his discredit. They had thus brought themselves within the scope of a punishment heavy and severe, and that relieved their Lordships, to a certain extent, from dealing with them in such a way as otherwise they might have dealt with them; because their Lordships' object was to protect the public, and the public would be protected, inasmuch as the parties would suffer as much from the consequences of their own conduct as by any punishment their Lordships could inflict. He should, therefore, move, that the persons who had appeared at the bar, and whose statement their Lordships had heard, but from which statement he had failed to extract anything advantageous to their case, should be committed to prison for a fortnight for the offence which they had committed.
Motions were then made and agreed to—
"That the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod do attach the bodies of Charles Gream and Michael Alexander Gage, and afterwards convey them to the Prison of Newgate, there to be kept in safe custody for the space of one fortnight."

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN IRELAND.
The EARL of RODEN,in rising to put the question of which he had given notice on the subject of the alleged religious persecution of certain Protestant ministers and others in Ireland, wished to say that he had lived a long life in the sister kingdom, had communicated with all classes of society, and was, he believed, well acquainted with the interests and opinions of his countrymen, and he felt most interested and anxious upon any subject in which he thought they were particularly concerned. He wished sincerely he could state as his opinion that any amelioration in their condition had taken place during the last few years. But when he looked
1062
back to the circumstances of that portion of the empire and reflected upon the awful scenes of blood that had taken place, and were still taking place from month to month in that country, he could have no reason to suppose that any change for the better had taken place in either the moral or social condition of the people. And their Lordships would allow him to say that he did not think any beneficial change could be effected so long as the present system of national education was the only system supported by the Government. He could not but think that the denial of the Holy Scriptures to the people, which formed part of that system, and the refusal of the Legislature year after year to give any portion of the national grant from the public funds to separate scriptural education, must leave the people in that part of the empire in the state of ignorance and misery in which they now were. It was with the view of some measures being taken to prevent the recurrence of such unhappy scenes as had recently taken place, that he claimed the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the facts he was about to mention. Some years ago, in many parts of the south and west of Ireland, large numbers of the Roman Catholic community left the Church of Rome and joined the Church of England. He alluded in the present instance particularly to Dingle in the county of Kerry, and Limerick. About a year ago very serious feelings arose between those two parties, and a tyrannical course was adopted towards, not only the poor people who from conscientious conviction had entered the communion of the Church of England, but towards the Protestant ministers themselves. He would first allude to Kerry. A man of excellent character who had left the Church of Rome had died about a year and a half ago. A gentleman was sent to him—the Rev. Mr. Lewis—who had had nothing whatever to do with the bringing of those persons from the communion of Rome to the communion of the Church of England. This rev. gentleman had in consequence been during the last year subjected to the most tyrannical proceedings, and he would read to their Lordships what those proceedings were, as sworn before the justices. The noble Lord then read extracts from the evidence of Mr. Lewis, in a trial before Chief Justice Blackburne, to the effect that the witness, on his return in the October preceding, had found that the parish priest had died, and that

1063
the Roman Catholic bishop had sent over three priests, who had distinguished themselves by their persecutions. Before his arrival they had avowed their intention of giving him a warm reception, and he had been denounced by them. It was sworn in open court a few days ago, by a Roman Catholic policeman, that he had seen a mob of 300 persons pursuing this gentleman like a mad dog, the mob being headed and directed by the friends and relatives of the Roman Catholic priest. On another occasion, they surrounded a house in which he was, yelling all the time, and blowing horns; and so great was the noise which they made, that they drove a man who was in the house, and ill at the time, into a state of lunacy. These parties were bound over to keep the peace, but the very next day the same offence was repeated. For three nights in succession mobs assembled round the church for the avowed purpose of disturbing the performance of divine worship. On the third evening this gentleman was obliged to discontinue his sermon, and to call upon the police to take into custody those persons who interrupted the performance of divine worship. The substance of these statements had been sworn to by this gentleman, who could not walk from one house to another without being followed by crowds of people hooting. When he heard of this in Dublin, he thought that it might be an overstatement, and he, therefore, took the opportunity of sending down a friend of his to Dingle, to ascertain whether the facts were as this gentleman had represented them to be. This friend of his wrote to say, that on going into the street with Mr. Lewis, the mob commenced hooting and groaning and assailing him with the most currilous epithets, making all the time such a noise that they could hardly hear one another speak. During the whole scene the police walked behind, outside of the mob, without the slightest attempt at interference. He added, that to this state of things Mr. Lewis was daily subjected. The only offence which this gentleman had committed was that he was a minister of the Protestant Church, for he could refer to the opinion of two eminent lawyers in Ireland to show that Mr. Lewis was as remarkable for his Christian moderation as for his prudence and meekness. But be would continue his narrative. During the month of April or March last, while this gentleman was performing divine service at his church one Sunday, a great disturbance was made
1064
outside, and he sent out a policeman to arrest any person who was found to be active in the disturbance; and two persons were actually arrested, and were tried on the 16th of July, at Tralee, before Chief Justice Blackburne. They were indicted for a conspiracy, were found guilty, and were sentenced to be imprisoned for six calendar months, the Chief Justice observing, in passing sentence, that the crime of which they had been convicted was a very serious one, and that the punishment to which they had made themselves liable would have been more severe if they had not been indicted for the minor offence of conspiracy. The Chief Justice added, that if the rev. gentleman had chosen to indict them for a disturbance of public worship, they might have been transported. There was another case to which he would refer. At Croom there was not a church in the parish where divine service could be celebrated, and therefore it was obliged to be performed in a private house. A riotous mob made a continual disturbance by yelling and hooting, and the incumbent's curate was assailed with stones. A letter was addressed on the subject to the Lord Lieutenant on the 24th of June, and the reply stated that instructions had been given to the police to arrest all parties offending against the law; and that if the magistrates saw any difficulty in dealing with the case, they would be fully advised how to act upon sending a statement of facts. Since that time, however, no petty sessions had been held, and no steps had been taken to put a stop to this disgraceful persecution. This was a state of things which deserved and called for serious investigation and consideration. One of the greatest privileges of this country was that a man might profess what religion he pleased; and it was shameful that there should be any portion of the realm in which a man was not allowed to worship God according to his conscience. He had, therefore, felt it his duty to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to this state of things; and if the Government were to send down some stipendiary magistrate to the neighbourhood of Dingle, he thought it would have a good effect. The question which he had to put was, whether the Government was aware of the persecution which had been carried on against the Rev. Mr. Lewis—whether any information had been received from the local authorities themselves—and whether any measures were to be taken to preserve

1065
the public peace, and to ensure for Mr. Lewis's congregation the enjoyment of that religious liberty to which they were entitled? He also wished to ask, whether the Government would lay on the table such communications as they had received on the subject? He begged pardon of their Lordships for taking up so much of their time; but the matter was of so much importance in his estimation, that he could not forbear from adverting to it.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEperfectly appreciated the motives which had induced the noble Earl to put the questions which he had proposed, and to make the statement which he had thought it necessary to lay before their Lordships. It was a very serious thing that religious dissension should subsist between any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, especially when it led to a state of irritation pervading society from the highest to the lowest. There was nothing that either Her Majesty's Government or the Lord Lieutenant could do which they were not prepared to do to prevent proceedings such as those which the noble Earl had described. But the origin of these unfortunate disputes was owing to some persons who, actuated no doubt by very great zeal, and by purely conscientious motives, gave a tone to their addresses which was called in Scotland an "aggressive" character, and had stimulated discussion on religious subjects among a population the majority of whom were hostile to the communion of the Church of England. The conduct of the persons thus employed had been, in some instances, most indiscreet, though he did not mean to say that it was such as to justify the acts of violence which had been committed, or the annoyance to which they had been exposed. When, however, these annoyances, unjustifiable as they might be, did not extend to positive acts of violence, it became almost impossible to put a stop to the expression of feeling, pervading as it did the whole body of the population. He much regretted that such annoyances had been experienced, and he regretted also to add that they had been experienced not only in those places to which the noble Earl had adverted, but also in many other parts of Ireland. It had been alleged, he knew not with what proof, that in some places a system of proselytism had been carried on, in some instances, by what the inhabitants of the district regarded in the light of bribery, which was certainly highly calculated to excite irritation among the
1066
people. He had said, however, that he did not rise to justify in any degree the proceedings which had taken place. He could assure the noble Lord that every effort had been made by the Government to put a stop to them that circumstances would permit; and if there had been the slightest reluctance on the part of the police to arrest individuals, that reluctance had arisen from their fear of the excitement which the apprehension of a great number of persons would occasion. Her Majesty's Government and the Lord Lieutenant had uniformly discountenanced any annoyance or persecution being offered to any person of any religious persuasion in the performance of his religious duties. The extract which the noble Earl had read from the letter of the Lord Lieutenant, showed that instructions had been given to the police to arrest all persons found offending against the law, and that if the magistrates found any difficulty in dealing with the case, they would be fully advised upon sending up a statement of the facts. As far as the sentence of the court went, two persons had been already punished for making a disturbance at a place of divine worship; but it was not to be expected that it would have the effect of quelling the animosities which prevailed, and which could only be allayed in the end by great forbearance. In the meantime the magistrates of the county would, of course, he bound to administer justice in every case that came before them. He had no doubt the gentleman to whom the noble Earl had alluded was of an irreproachable character; but he had been informed that the employment of persons who were of immoral character to make proselytes, had greatly tended to increase the irritation which prevailed. He would only say that if the noble Earl was disposed to move for extracts from the reports which had been received from the police, and from the instructions given by the Government, he should have no objection to produce them.
The EARL of RODENacquiesced in the suggestion, and moved—
"That there he laid before this House, any Extracts from the Reports of the Proceedings of the Police respecting the Annoyances against the Reverend Mr. Lewis at Dingle"
After a short debate on Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD REDESDALEobserved, that both the police and the magistrates in Ireland acted in a very different manner to what was done by the same individuals in

1067
England. They seemed to think that they must nurse a disturbance and never interfere till matters took really a serious turn. He would answer for it that if the Government would make it generally known, that parties engaged in these disturbances would certainly be arrested and punished, they would hear hut little more of these proceedings.
The BISHOP of CHICHESTERbegged to ask the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, whether an individual concerned in such proceedings as these, was not guilty of a misdemeanour?
The LORD CHANCELLORdid not precisely understand the exact nature of the question which the right rev. Prelate wished to have answered. If he referred to persons associated with others in hooting down a minister, they would he guilty of a misdemcanour, but that would not be the case if a man was standing by, and as the crowd came up, hissed and hooted like the rest of them.
The BISHOP of CHICHESTERsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had given the answer which he expected, namely, that the persons who had been concerned in these proceedings were guilty of a misdemeanour. If the Government would give proper instructions to the magistrates of Ireland, to afford protection to persons following their lawful avocations, there would soon be an end put to disorders of this kind.
The EARL of RODENfully concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess opposite, as to the advantage of the display of a spirit of forbearance on the part of ministers of religion in Ireland, and believed that great forbearance had been shown by the rev. gentleman to whom his question had referred.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.