Sitting of 7 July 1817

STEAM VESSELS REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the report from the committee on the late accidents in Steam Vessels, had proved that these conveyances would always be liable to similar accidents, if not subjected to regulations. The accident at Norwich, which had occasioned the death of eleven persons, had been shown to have originated in the bad construction of the boiler, and the obstinacy of a person who persisted in loading

1303
the safety valve. Under proper regulations he believed it was practicable to construct them in such a manner that no possible accident could occur. In the bill for which he should move, it was intended to provide, that every steam boat should be registered, and that no such boat should be permitted to carry passengers till it was certified by an engineer, that the boiler was of wrought iron, and provided with such safety valves as experience had shown to be necessary. The hon. member then moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of steam vessels, which was granted. The bill was brought in and read a first time.— On the following day, it was read a second time, committed, reported, and ordered to be taken into farther consideration that day three months.

EDUCATION OF THE POOR.
Mr. Broughambrought up the report of the committee on the Education of the Poor. He said, that the report contained a description of many enormous abuses attending the management and application of charitable funds. One instance he had mentioned on a former occasion, which was that of a rector, who was principal of a school, with a salary of 1,500 l. per annum, and who assigned the whole to his brother, another clergyman. The latter not choosing to perform the duties of the office, made a journeyman carpenter the schoolmaster, with an allowance of 40 l. a-year. This small sum was, however, so much grudged by the rev. gentleman, that the irregular payment of it led to the knowledge of the whole transaction, There was another instance of a school, in the north of England, with an endowment for the master of 400 l. a-year, in which there was but one scholar. Had the powers of the committee been less limited, many similar cases would probably have fallen under their notice. The reason of the committee proposing no immediate legislative measure was, that it appeared to them that the objects of their inquiry would be best intrusted to a parliamentary commission, composed of persons whose abilities fitted them for the undertaking, and who would be enabled to visit different parts of the country. The expense of this commission need be but small, and might be defrayed by a small percentage on the money recovered by their exertions.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowbore testimony to
1304
the zeal, knowledge, and indefatigable exertions manifested by his hon. and learned friend in the production of this report. He was sure that the subject could not be in better hands, and he had only to wish that the inquiries of the committee might be extended to the state of education amongst the lower classes, and to the state of all endowed institutions whatever.

POLICE OF THE MKTROPOLIS.
Mr. Bennetpresented another report of the committee on the Police of the Metropolis. The committee he stated, had made great progress in the discharge of the duty committed to it, though a considerable part of it still remained unfinished. The committee had classified its labours under different heads. The first of those was, the system of licencing public houses, its opinions on which were already before the House. The report which he had now to present related to the system of rewards on convictions, commonly called blood-money; to the increase of juvenile delinquency, and the transportation system. As to the system of rewards, or blood-money, the witnesses had been unanimously of opinion that it ought to be abolished; instances had been adduced in which persons had forsworn themselves for the sake of the rewards. In the last year there had been three trials for conspiracies to produce convictions for the sake of the rewards; and to show the extent to which the system of obtaining these rewards had gone, it was stated that officers had made a practice of swearing persons to be vagrants, for the parliamentary reward of 10 s. each, and it was so easy a way of getting money, that some of them doubted whether it was not better than catching felons.—As to the increase of juvenile delinquency, he should state a few facts. In 1813, there were committed to Newgate 62 boys under 16 years of age, of whom one was 6 years of age, 3 of 10 years, and 3 of 11 years. In 1814, 98 boys under 16 were committed; 4 of them of 9 years, 8 of them of 10 years, and 12 of them of 11 years of age. In 1815, 98 boys under 16 were committed; and in 1816, 116 of the same age. In 1816, there were committed 1,683 persons under 20; of these 1,281 were of 17 and under, and 957 of those of 17 years of age and under were committed for felonies. From the 25th of August 1814, to October 1816, 200 boys had been in custody. Of these 23 had been in custody for the

1305
first offence; one aged 16 had been 40 times in custody, and another had been 80 times in custody; and 170 of them had been from 8 and 4 to 20 times in custody, for different offences. Of these 200, there were convicted 141; 26 of them capitally, the youngest of these was 9£ years old; 42 were transported, the youngest of whom was 11; and 73 were imprisoned for different terms. Of these 200, two-thirds were under 14 and down to 8 years of age. The remaining one-third were from 14 to 17 years of age. Of these 200 miserable beings, two-thirds could neither read nor write.—On the subject of transportation, it appeared that since 1812, 4,659 persons had been transported to Botany Bay, of whom 3,978 were males and 681 females. Of these, 1,116 were under 21; of whom 5 were of 11 years, 7 of 12 years, 17 of 13 years, 32 of 14 years, and 65 of 15 years of age. Of the 4,659 persons, 2,055 were transported for life, 726 for 14 years, and 1,916 for 7 years. Of 2,038 who were on board the hulks in 1815, there were 111 under 20 years of age, amongst whom one was of 11, two of 12, and 4 of 14 years of age. The expenses of New South Wales from 3 798 to 1813, were 2,435,325 l. The hulks in the same period had occasioned an expense of 948,613 l., and had increased from 30 or 40,000 l. to 93,695 l. which it was in 1813. The total expense of the two establishments in the fifteen years were 3,383,938 l. or 225,588 l. a-year. Though the expense of this system of punishment was so great, it answered no good purpose, and moreover occasioned great injustice, and an increase of punishment never contemplated by the judges who passed sentence. The persons who were transported for seven years had no means of returning, and their punishment was thus equivalent to transportation for life. Women who wished to return to England, prostituted themselves to obtain a passage, and those who did return were not at all improved in morals or habits. He hoped, during the recess, that members would turn their attention to this important subject.
Sir S. Romillyhoped that the important matters contained in the report would receive the serious consideration of the House. It would be a reproach to parliament if some steps were not taken to remedy the abuses which had been pointed out. As to the subject of transportation, it should be remarked how
1306
large a proportion of the persons transported were for seven years. Many of these were transported when a large portion of their term had expired. Thus, to the term of their punishment was added the whole time which must elapse before they were able to obtain a passage in return to this country. On these subjects, and on the increase of young offenders— the conspiracies to recover rewards—the public-houses, the notorious resorts of thieves—known as such by the police-officers, but not known (for so it appeared) to the magistrates, the House was called on to adopt some effectual measure, as there was no subject more important to the morals of the whole country than the police of the metropolis.
Mr. Butterworthbore testimony to the extraordinary zeal and diligence evinced by the hon. chairman of the committee who was entitled to the thanks of the country at large. He hoped the subjects of the report would be taken up in another session. An instance had come to his knowledge, in which, for the purpose of obtaining the parliamentary reward of 80 l. police-officers had paid counsel to prosecute persons who had entered into a squabble in the street without any malicious motives.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
Sir H. Parnellrose to move for certain papers, relative to the courses of education pursued at the College of Maynooth. He felt it his duty to move for these papers, in consequence of some observations upon this college, contained in a note in a printed speech of an hon. member (Mr. J. L. Foster) and also in order to have an opportunity of refuting, in the most public manner, many charges, which had of late been brought against the Catholics, and those who advocate their cause in parliament, in other printed speeches of members of both Houses, and in many other publications. It was the more necessary to take this step before the session closed, because the perseverance and activity with which it was attempted to revive exploded calumnies against the Catholics and their religion, if suffered to remain unnoticed, would, no doubt, contribute very much to establish much erroneous opinion respecting them, and so far to defeat the object which every true friend of this country ought to have the most at heart, namely, the complete union of all religious sects in one common cause, for the support

1307
and preservation of the laws and constitution.—The charge brought against the college of Maynooth by the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was, that doctrines peculiar to Papal Rome, inconsistent with the legitimate and necessary authority of government, were still taught at this college—that the transalpine doctrine had but two spots in Europe on which it could rest its foot—one of these spots the Vatican—the other, Maynooth. It was unnecessary to remind the House, that this doctrine was no other than that by which the pope was, in ancient times, supposed to claim a temporal authority in all Catholic countries. But, with every respect for the hon. member, who had published to the world that this doctrine was still taught at Maynooth, he must say, that a statement more entirely destitute of foundation never was made. There was no Catholic in Ireland who did not willingly abjure this doctrine, of the temporal authority of the pope, upon every occasion on which the law required him to do so, in order to qualify himself for the exercise of any civil privilege. How, then, was it to be supposed, that those Catholics, who were the teachers at this college would surreptitiously teach a doctrine which they publicly declared not to be a true doctrine of the Catholic church? It was sufficient merely to mention the names of some of the persons who had been presidents of this college, to refute any such notion. The rev. Dr. Everard, and the rev. Dr. Murray, the Catholic prelates who had attended the discussion of the Catholic Question this session, had both been presidents of it, and no one the least acquainted with them could say, that they were advocates of the transalpine doctrine. It was made a matter of complaint, that there exists no means of ascertaining what the course of studies is at the college of Maynooth, but without reason, for the papers which were presented to this House m 1813, the report of an hon. baronet, on the foreign Catholic regulations of last session, contain a copy of a letter from the president of the college of Maynooth to the Irish government, giving a full account of all the books and lectures which were then made use of in that college, so that there exists no ground of complaint whatever in respect to any suppression of the truth, in regard to the principles and doctrines in which the students at this college received their education. In another part of the same publication it is endea-
1308
voured to be shown, that Catholicism in Ireland possesses a character peculiar to itself, or a nature extremely hostile to the state. It is said, that the part of Europe in which the pope possesses the most political authority is Ireland. This is a statement so likely to promote erroneous opinions, that some examination of it is absolutely necessary, to ascertain the degree of credit which belongs to it. The reasoning with which it is sustained is, that the pope possesses an unlimited power over the Irish bishops—the Irish bishops the same kind of power over the Catholic clergy—and the Catholic clergy an unbounded authority over their flocks. But it is wholly omitted to be shown in what manner the pope has so great a power over the Irish bishops, it does not appear, that they maintain any regular correspondence with the see of Rome—that they ever receive any order from the pope— that they acknowledge his infallibility, or his possessing any temporal power—or that they either have obeyed him, or are likely to obey him if he endeavoured to make them do any thing which was inconsistent with their duty as good clergymen or good subjects. In point of fact, so far from their statement being correct, if there exists one Catholic church in Europe more independent than another, it is the Catholic church of Ireland; and the truth is, that no communication scarcely ever takes place between the bishops and the pope, except for the purpose of obtaining canonical institution for a newly elected bishop. This arises from the circumstance, that the discipline of the Irish church renders every bishop wholly independent of the pope in the tenure of his office, and gives him every necessary power for the administration of the duties of it. It would be sufficient merely to refer to the statement of the resistance which the bishops made to the celebrated rescript of M. Quarantotti to show, that there was no foundation for the assertion, that the political power of the pope was greater in Ireland than in any other country. In respect to the authority which the clergy possess over the people, it was a very great mistake to suppose that this was owing wholly to the character of the Catholic religion, and not to a proper religious feeling on the part of the people and a correct discharge of duty on the part of the clergy. The Irish people were much too intelligent, and much too high-minded, to yield a servile obedience to a

1309
mere name, and to a false and fictitious authority. They obeyed their clergy because their clergy in the first instance succeeded in instilling among them a proper notion of religion, and of their duty as good christians, and the clergy held their authority only by showing by their conduct and their precepts, that the principles of the religion which they taught, were deserving of being respected and obeyed. This obedience on the part of the people to their clergy, instead of being complained of, as it was so frequently, as a source of danger to the state, ought to be approved of as the best possible symptom of the good conduct of the people, and as the basis of every good quality which can belong to a christian or a good subject. So far was this authority of the clergy from being in any manner injurious to the state, it was the only support the state received in Ireland, in promoting good order and obedience to the laws among the lower orders of the Catholics; and, therefore, instead of being held up as an object of terror and regret, it should be encouraged and protected. In corroboration of this opinion, it is very well known, that all those persons who take a lead in the disturbances which prevail in Ireland, commence their career by resisting the authority of their clergy, and that if their progress in life is inquired into, it will uniformly be found that their first sins have been against their religion and their clergy. It is further asserted, in various publications, that the Catholic clergy of Ireland inculcate habits and opinions inconsistent with the legitimate and necessary authority of government; but in this instance, as in others, these publications omit to support their statement by any reference to facts. If it was examined into what the conduct of the Irish Catholic clergy had been, during a very long period of years, it would be found, that a different opinion ought to be formed concerning them. The rebellions of 1715, 1745, and 1798, were occasions on which their principles were fully put to the test —yet on each of these occasions they exercised their whole influence in support of the law and the established Protestant government. It was impossible for any one the least acquainted with Ireland, to deny that their efforts are incessant in all quarters and at all times in teaching obedience to the laws; and that their conduct in the faithful and laborious discharge of their duties, was not only most praise-worthy,
1310
but formed an example which others would do well to imitate, who are not the least forward in misrepresenting and calumniating them.—A further charge had been brought against the Irish clergy for having declared that they could not consent to the Catholic bill of 1813 without incurring the guilt of schism; but this was evidently made under a misapprehension of the state of the case, for this guilt of schism did not consist in approving of any thing contained in the bill; but in giving any approbation to a change in the church discipline without the concurrence of the pope. Many other charges had been brought in various other ways against the Irish Catholic clergy, and amongst these, there was one for opposing the education of the lower order and the circulating of the Bible among them. In order to meet this, the hon. member read extracts from a publication of the Hibernian school society.— The reports of the commissioners of education had been referred to in order to show that the education, which was afforded by Catholic schools to Catholics, was a "supply of moral poison," inconsequence of the want of a supply of proper religious works. To answer this, he would read an extract from a statement of the annual sale of one Catholic bookseller in Dublin, of cheap religious tracts, 20,000, intituled The Path to Paradise, price 8d. —6,000 of the same by Dr. Challoner, price 1s. 8d.—2,000 The Garden of the Soul, price ls.8d.—500,000 of Dr. Butler's Catechism, four sizes, from 1d. to 4d. This work was drawn up for the express purpose of teaching to Catholics their civil and social, as well as religious duties— 2,000 Gahan's History of the Old and New Testament, 2s. 2d.—1,500 Reeve's ditto, 6s. 6d.—3,000 Catholic Church Hymns, 3d.—2,000 Douay New Testament—4,000 Dr. Gahan's Catholic Piety, 1s. 8d.— 10,000 small Religious Tracts, from 6d. to 8d. each, besides many others. So great was the demand for the New Testament in Dublin, that there were no less than four different editions of it printed by the four principal Catholic booksellers. So much had been repeatedly said on the subject of the Catholic religion prohibiting the reading of the Bible, that it had become a matter deserving of some inquiry, what the true state of the case was; and how it stood, the following account of the several Catholic editions of it would satisfactorily explain. No less than six different editions of the bible had been printed

1311
by the Catholics in England and Ireland, in the last fifty years, of which a continual succession of new editions had been sent from the press. Of the New Testament, besides those printed in Dublin, seven other editions of it have been printed in England and Scotland—one of the last is a stereotype cheap edition, in the notes of which the greatest care has been taken to omit every expression that could, in any degree keep alive the spirit of controversy between the Catholic and Protestant religion. In France, there are no less than eleven different translations of the Bible into French. There also are translations of the Bible into Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese languages, and into the language of every Catholic country in Europe. So that upon the whole it is quite evident, that nothing can be more unfounded than the common opinion, that Catholics are not permitted to read the Bible. That some circumstances of authority have occurred to assist in giving rise to that erroneous opinion, cannot be denied; but these may be shown to have a different meaning to that which is commonly affixed to them. Among them is the Pope's bull, concerning Bible Societies in Poland. But it is evident on reading this bull, that the object was, in all probability, not to prevent the circulation of the Bible among the Catholics of Poland, but to stop an effort which was making by persons acting under the name of the Bible Society, to convert the Catholic Poles to the Protestant religion. That this was the case would be very easily intelligible to those who were acquainted with the proceedings of some Bible societies in Ireland, of which the leading persons were particularly eminent for their exertions to make converts from the Catholic religion. In one publication it is stated, that a regular establishment of Jesuits has lately been formed in the county Kildare. The short answer to be given to this statement is, that it was a complete misrepresentation of the real state of the case:—a school had been opened in the county Kildare, by a person who had been educated and bred up in a seminary of Jesuits in Sicily, but, his school did not belong to the order of Jesuits, nor did he teach any thing that was not taught in all other schools.—There was another circumstance relating to Catholic doctrines which it was right to notice, it was to be found in a letter from the bishop of Ossory to the Editor of "The Courier" newspaper, written for the
1312
purpose of explaining a passage of a speech which had been incorrectly, reported in that paper. The right rev. prelate says, that what he had really stated was "that a few days prior to the inauguration of the king of the Netherlands, a sort of Pastoral Letter, signed by the archbishops of Malines, and by all his suffragan bishops, except two, was thrust under the doors of the shopkeepers of Brussels, telling the Catholics, that no good Catholic could take the oath of allegiance to a Protestant sovereign." Now, it appears by the Brussels Gazette, that the king of the Netherlands was on the very best terms with his Catholic bishops, for that, on the 9ih of May, having gone to Tournay, he slept at the bishops palace, and, upon his departure, made a speech, in answer to an address which had been presented to him, in which he said, "I am perfectly well satisfied with the conduct of jour clergy; there remains still some slight difference to be settled between my government and the see of Rome; but I have good reason to think, that the negociations now on foot, will bring them to a satisfactory termination." And by a subsequent Gazette it appears, that a concordat has been signed, and that all disputes have been amicably settled between these two powers. The only inference to be drawn from this statement is, either that some ill disposed persons had fabricated this pastoral letter, or that the bishop of Ossory had been imposed upon, by the person who gave him his information; for, surely, it is impossible that the king should have expressed himself in the manner he did to the bishop of Tournay, if such a pastoral letter had ever been circulated by the archbishop of Malines.—He hoped he had succeeded in convincing the House, that the transalpine doctrine was not taught at the college of Maynooth — that the political power of the pope was not greater in Ireland than in any other country in Europe —that the influence which was possessed by the Catholic clergy was not exercised to any bad purpose—that the priests were not hostile to the circulation of the Bible, and the extending of education among the lower orders— that, in short, there was nothing in the Catholic religion which rendered a person who professed it less fit to be a good subject, or less qualified than his Protestant fellow countrymen to deserve and enjoy all the civil privileges of the constitution.—He theft moved,

1313
"That there should be laid before the House, copies or extracts of any communication received from the college of Maynooth, respecting the courses of education pursued in that college since the last return made on the 23rd of April, 1813."
Sir J. C. Hippisleyseconded the motion; and, observing, that the subject was one of the greatest importance to the interests of the empire at large, he lamented the absence of the noble secretary of state, of the right hon. the secretary of Ireland, of the hon. member for Yarmouth, and above all, the incalculable loss of one removed from them by the high dispensations of Providence (Mr. Ponsonby), whose eulogy he would not attempt to pronounce, but whose fate he might be permitted to deplore. The question was not, whether they should grant 9,000 l. a year to the college of Maynooth, or whether they should increase it by 3 or 4,000 l more, and thereby raise it to what it had enjoyed under the administration of the noble duke then at the head of the Irish government. The subject to be discussed was of far more consequence, for it referred to the religious and moral education of the people, and involved their own Happiness and the safety of the empire. Sir J. H. then answered the call upon him to ascertain what was to be understood by Transalpine doctrines, stated to be maintained at Maynooth. The infallibility of the Pope constituted the first principle, and from thence flowed her superiority over general councils, and the assumption of a supremacy in temporals as well as spirituals; but it was not to be understood as the generally maintained doctrine, even at the Vatican; a more liberal and rational code prevailed there. Individual and powerful pontiffs, such as Gregory the 7th, and many of his predecessors, had asserted these arrogant principles, but their adherents were now but few; nevertheless, they were to be guarded against, and there was scarcely a state in Europe of whatever religious communion, but had so guarded itself against their contagion. He had given notice of a motion for the production of the concordat between the court of Portugal and the see of Rome, and he should now shortly state his motion, as it was not unconnected with the object of the present question. In one of many publications, adverting to the late report of the select committee on Catholic regulation, a charge had been made of withhold-
1314
ing this document, which, in fact, was only an agreement between Portugal and Rome, to divide the patronage of the benefices falling vacant in the papal months-of patronage. It appeared, by the printed letter of sir Charles Stuart, that it had been sent by him to the foreign office; but, as it was not deemed of sufficient importance to be printed, an implied charge was raised on the omission.—The hon. baronet then proceeded to the work of Mr. Gandolphy, a work which had been stated as approved by the official authorities of Rome, and licensed as such. Well might it attract the observation and denunciation of those hon. members who noticed it. Nothing could be more insulting to the establishment, and the government of the country. The hon. baronet then read a passage, in which Protestants were charged with intentionally debauching the morals of their own children, if they suspected them inclined to lend an ear to Catholic teachers. Fortunately, however, for the Catholics and for the public, though Mr. Gandolphy's works had furtively obtained the official imprimatur of Rome, he now stood censured by the same authority, and was ordered to suppress his books, and make a formal and public recantation of his errors to his immediate superior, the apostolic vicar of his district. Such was the fate of Mr. Gandolphy's works—at one moment declared fit to be enclosed in cedar and gold—at the next doomed to censure and abrogation.—But to return to the immediate subject of the motion. He begged to call the attention of the House to the documents which had been moved for some years since. Nothing could be more opposed to Transalpine opinions. The course of education was precisely conformable to the principles of the Gallican church, and the courses of the Sorbonne, where Dr. De la Hogue had been himself a professor. Under such a visitorial power as maintained at Maynooth, it was scarcely possible, that the exploded Transalpine doctrines could be suffered to be taught. The lord chancellor, the chief justices, lord Fingal, and other highly accredited and loyal persons constituted the visitors; and he had had the satisfaction of receiving within a few days from lord Fingal, the full confirmation of the rectitude of their courses, as conformable to the tracts which had been laid before the House. From professor De la Hogue, he had also received a letter complaining of the impu-

1315
ration in the printed speech of the hon. member for Yarmouth, and after particularising the courses, he exclaims, "Is this to teach Transalpine doctrines?" He referred also in the same letter to the fact of the hon. baronet's having, in a former debate, led Mr. Perceval to a confession that he had not made a due distinction between the construction of decrees of doctrine and discipline, as the former were held to be immutable, and discipline might change and be adapted to times and circumstances. He then stated, as an instance, the discipline of the council of Trent respecting marriages, which had been adopted by the church of England; it nevertheless was not received or acted upon in six of the principal dioceses of Ireland, including Dublin, nor could, therefore, all decrees of general councils be held to be generally obligatory. The hon. baronet then adverted to the report of the aggregate meeting of Dublin, on the 4th instant, in which they persisted in their former resolution, adverse to the interference of the Crown, and supporting domestic nomination. A vote of thanks to Mr. Hayes also was referred to the consideration of the board—to Mr. Hayes the delegate of the aggregate meeting to the see of Rome—to a person distinguished by the insolence of his attacks upon the constitution of his country, upon its government, and even upon the principal functionary of the Roman government, the cardinal secretary of state—to a person who, on being admitted to the pope to receive his benediction, was dismissed with the pontifical reproval of "Depart, rash man!" It was worth noticing that this father, delegate Hayes, loudly demanded associates in his embassy, or the whole would be lost. Dr. Dromgoole, well known by his speeches and writings, and a Mr. M'Gawley, a brother of a count of that name, attached to the ex-empress of France, was another associate. Sir J. C. H. here read from a Dublin paper, an extract of a letter from Dr. Dromgoole, suggesting how necessary it was for Rome to be on its guard against the government of England—in a word, of most mischievous import, and which merited the reprobation of every loyal subject. Of such materials were the accredited delegates of the aggregate meetings of Ireland composed! Of the same complexion was a work which had been presented to the ministers of Rome, and stated to "be got nearly by heart by one of them"—the
1316
Statement of Penal Laws. It was sufficient to refer to the speech of the attorney-general, and the denunciation of the judge who tried an information against this book, to appreciate the value of the present, as coming from a British subject to a Roman minister.—Sir J. C. H. followed with a quotation from Mr. Clinch's-Inquiry. The works of this gentleman had been presented to the ministers of the Pope: it was fair to Mr. Clinch, however, to state, that he w-as at issue with his patrons when he asserted, that "the protestantism of the Crown would, even in the case of the concession to the Catholic claims, remain as a land-mark to show that the concession has been a gift."—It had been argued that we had sedulously maintained securities for the Protestant church. If by Protestant church was meant the church of England, he would ask, where was the security in any test now required, to exclude Protestant dissenters of every denomination from sitting in parliament—or even the Mussulman, if a natural born subject? Sir J. C. H. regretted that, in all the discussions of this important subject, none had ever yet taken place that could be deemed satisfactory, either to the Protestant or the Catholic. No inquiry into the real tenets of Catholics of the present day had ever been instituted—a few set speeches annually closed the debate—no inquiry—no evidence whatever. Was it possible that such a course could be satisfactory? He then referred to a pamphlet circulated by Dr. Milner, naming himself the agent of the I Irish bishops—an agency, however, which was strenuously denied by the bishops themselves, when recently on a mission to London. But Dr. Milner had great facilities of dispensing with the inaccuracies, to say the least, of his own statements. In this solemn address to the members of the; House,—Dr. Milner was pleased coarsely to accuse sir J. H. with the wilful statement of an untruth. Sir J. H. read the original words of archbishop Egar's letter, which Dr. Milner attempted to fasten as a fabrication. He adverted also to this prelate's vacillations—at one moment the strenuous advocate of the Veto—at the next as strenuous an impugner of it. This gentleman was pleased also to represent sir J. H. as the candidate for office—at one moment for an embassy to Rome— at another for the Ministre de Culte. It is possible, observed the hon. baronet, that I may early revisit that clime to winch

1317
this prelate alludes—unquestionably, however, unaccredited and unpaid. He should not be withheld from attempting to render such services to his country, as at a former period he had not unsuccessfully attempted, and to represent the real state of this important question to those whom it imports so much to be apprized of it, might, at such a crisis, be not unreasonably be considered as an act of some public benefit. He should at least not be deterred from the denunciations of such commentators. His walk over this thorny ground had been undeviating; nor should he now diverge from the course which, in his humble opinion, was traced on the soundest constitutional ground of justice and expediency.
Sir G. Hillrose, not to oppose the motion, but to complain of the unfair and disingenuous manner in which the hon. mover had undertaken to reply to the speech of his hon friend, the member for Yarmouth, during his absence. His hon. friend had attended sedulously to his business in parliament for a considerable period after the speech had been printed and published, and ii would have been more candid had the hon. baronet replied to it while his hon. friend was present.
Mr. Butterworthapologized for offering a few observations, more especially as it could not be the desire of members, in the present state of the House, nor of himself, to prolong any debate upon the Catholic question; but there were some points in the speech of the hon. baronet, who had made the present motion, which he apprehended were so incorrect, that they might make a wrong impression if left without observation. Mr. B. did not rise to defend the printed speech of the hon. member for Yarmouth, who was most able to defend himself, but every one who knew that gentleman, must be persuaded, that his love of truth would never allow him to state in a speech, and much less in print, any facts, or to make any assertions, which he did not believe to be true; and that hon. gentleman's judgment and accuracy, were such as to render him very unlikely to make any incorrect statements. But Mr. B. rose, chiefly to notice some misrepresentations made by the hon. baronet, respecting the Hibernian schools, and the British and Foreign Bible societies. With regard to the former, the hon. baronet had described them as greatly countenanced by the Roman Catholic priests, of whom he had spoken in such
1318
high terms, as would insinuate that all their bigotry and intolerance were gone, and that they manifested nothing but candour and christian cordiality towards their protestant brethren. The hon. baronet had read some extracts of a work lately published by a member of the Hibernian society, to show the friendly disposition of some of the priests towards their schools; but he would beg leave also to read some extracts from the same work, which plainly showed, that although there might be a few candid priests who did not oppose these schools, yet there were many of a very opposite description; and having himself been a member of the committee of the Hibernian society, he could of his own knowledge state, that although these schools were instituted for the most benevolent purposes, not with a view of making proselytes, but simply to teach poor children the art of reading, and to give a little instruction to the most wretched part of the Irish population, yet they had in many instances met with the most determined hostility from the Roman Catholic priests. It was evidently the desire of the author of the work in question, to throw a veil over these hostile demonstrations, but they nevertheless made their appearance, and he begged to borrow the hon. baronet's book, to read a passage or two to the House.—Mr. B. here read two passages to the House. The book was an account of the chartered schools in Ireland, and of the schools established by the Hibernian society. The first is at p. 160, where it is stated, that "the Roman Catholic parents, have, in a multitude of instances, withdrawn their children from schools kept by Catholic masters, because of the superior education to be obtained in the society's schools; and this not unfrequently at the risk of the priests displeasure—of being refused confession, yea, of excommunication!" Now, this is no great specimen of the candour of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, when the refusal of confession, and the risk of excommunication, is incurred by parents, for sending their poor children to a charity school simply to learn to read. The next passage is at p. 216, where, speaking of the schools of the Hibernian society; it is stated, that "many have been the attempts, on the part of the Catholic clergy, to break up and disperse the schools; and I am sorry to say, that in not a few cases they have been successful. These hostilities have elevated many gra-

1319
tifying instances of true Irish independence of character. How often have the; poor parents pleaded with the priest for permission to send their children to the society's schools, and in the face of the most arbitrary refusal, they have ventured to ask for a reason; but no reason, except his will, would be given. Often after a severe struggle between subjection to priestly domination, and an affectionate concern for their children's education, the latter has prevailed, and, braving all consequences, they have continued to send their children to the schools. Whilst I record these instances of hostility I am happy in being able to mention some very pleasing instances of the reverse of all this."—Now, said Mr. 15., I submit to the House, whether the work which the hon. baronet has quoted, notwithstanding all its forbearance and desire to conciliate the Roman Catholics, bears him out in the high character for candour, which he has given of their priesthood in Ireland?—The hon. baronet has stated that the pope's late bull, which had been issued in Poland against the Bible, and Bible societies, was framed in consequence of attempts made in Poland, by the Bible society, to proselyte the Roman Catholics to the Protestant faith. Now, it unfortunately happened for the hon. baronet's argument, that the Polish Bible society was not in operation till after the pope's bull had been issued. There had been a disposition manifested by some of the nobility and gentry of Poland, to establish a Bible society, and a plan was drawn up, but it was suspended by the opposition made to it by the Roman Catholic primate of Poland, the archbishop of Gnezn, who, fearing that his opposition would be insufficient, wrote to Rome for instructions how to prevent or oppose the Bible society. The Pope's bull of June, 1816, was issued in consequence of this application, and it would have been effectual in preventing the formation of a Bible society in Poland, had not the emperor Alexander happened to be at Warsaw in October, when the friends of the Bible submitted the plan of the society, together with the Pope's bull, to his imperial majesty, who declared his intention of becoming a patron of the society; and it was publicly formed at Warsaw in consequence of the emperor's sanction, and in opposition to the pope's bull. The hon. baronet has stated, that the Polish Bible society, and the Irish Bible societies, were
1320
occupied in proselyting to the Protestant faith. Now, it is well known, that the Bible societies are not occupied in making any proselytes whatever. They merely circulate the word of God, leaving that word to speak for itself, and to find its own level in the mind of man. Their sole object is, not to proselyte, but to make both Protestants and Roman Catholics better christians. Mr. B. stated, that it was not any wish to create unfriendly feelings towards the Roman Catholics, that had induced him to make these observations, as he entertained a great regard for some individuals of that body, both of the clergy and laity; but as he knew that a strong spirit of intolerance towards Protestants existed in Ireland, and as he could state many facts to establish this assertion, he had felt it his duty to correct some mistatements in the hon. baronet's speech, which might otherwise have made an undue impression.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldpresumed, that the object of the motion had been effected by the opportunity it presented the two hon. baronets of making their statements. He defended the conduct of the member for Yarmouth, who had, he firmly believed, been influenced by the most conscientious motives.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the topics on which he had animadverted were not contained in the speech which the hon. member had made in the Catholic debate, but in the notes which he had published with that speech. His object in referring to that speech at all was to show the grounds on which he called for information respecting the course of studies pursued at Maynooth. He begged to notice the unfair way in which an hon. member had selected passages from the book he had just quoted, tending to show that the Catholic clergy were hostile to the schools of the Hibernian society. For if the hon. member had read a whole page, instead of half a one, he would have found, that though they were at first, in some instances, hostile to them, they had ultimately become the warmest supporters of them.
The motion was agreed to.

SIR F. BURDETT V. THE SPEAKER AND SERJEANT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
This was a writ of error brought by sir F. Burdett, to reverse the judgment of the court of King's-bench, which was in favour of the Speaker. The case was argued last week by Mr. Brougham and Mr. Courtenay, for the Plaintiff in error, and it stood over till this day.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that before their lordships proceeded farther, it would be proper to take the opinion of the Judges on the following question:—Whether, if the court of Common Pleas had adjudged that a person should be committed for a contempt, and the warrant stated that adjudication generally without setting forth the particular circumstances, and the case had been brought before the court of King's-bench by Habeas Corpus, and the return stated the warrant of commitment for contempt, whether, in such a case, the court of King's-bench would liberate the prisoner on the ground that the particular circumstances were not set forth in the warrant.
The question was accordingly put to the Judges, and they having consulted together for a few minutes, the lord chief baron delivered their unanimous opinion, that in such a case, the court of King's-bench would not liberate.
The Lord Chancellorthen observed, that this was an important but not a difficult case. If he had thought it difficult, or had any doubt about it, he would have been anxious to hear the counsel for the defendants: but being clearly of opinion that the House of Commons had the power of committing for contempt—that this was a commitment for contempt— that the contempt, if that was necessary, was sufficiently set forth in the warrant— and that the objections in point of form had not been sustained; unless any other noble lord stated it to be his wish to hear the council for the defendants, he would move that the Judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
Lord Erskinesaid, that as he concurred in the motion, it would have been quite unnecessary in almost any other case, to add any thing to the formal proposition of affirmance, by his noble friend who presided in the House; but from what had formerly passed when the imprisonment of the plaintiff in error took place, he felt it incumbent upon him to say a very few words. At that time, it was an opinion expressed by persons of great weight in the House of Commons, and it was generally thought to have been its settled intention, not to permit any action to be proceeded in so as to have its privileges at all questioned or canvassed in a court of law, and that imprisonment would attach upon all who should issue process, or countenance it in judgment. Having felt the utmost alarm at a proposition so dangerous to the liberty of the subject. He had expressed himself on that occasion with more warmth than was thought right by some whose opinions he valued most highly; but, for his own part, he repented of none of it, and under the same circumstances would repeat it again, and stand by every word of it. No man could respect or uphold more than he did the high privileges of that House, so essentially necessary for the security of public liberty, and whilst the Commons were advancing amidst many obstacles to its just station in the constitution, now so happily and securely attained, it was no wonder that they were jealous of their privileges which often led them into excesses unnecessary for their preservation, and inconsistent with the security of our legal constitution, as they had imprisoned persons for only appealing to the laws of their country for their deliverance. He could not, therefore, help expressing his heartfelt satisfaction at the course which, in the present instance, had been pursued. The speaker, though standing perhaps in a situation which might have differed in argument from that of inferior persons, (though upon that he should give no opinion), had put in his plea like the most private man. He had not objected to the jurisdiction of the court of King's-bench, but had put himself upon the country for the fact, and pleaded his justification to the judges of the law; so that if the court had decided against him, he must have been bound by the judgment, and the House of Commons also, which had authorized that proceeding. This was no waver of privilege, but an act which gave it double security and

1301
lustre; as the privileges of parliament were port of the law of the land, and would always be duly maintained in the courts of justice. The House of Lords, though possessing, as a branch of the legislature, the very same privileges as the House of Commons, thought it no derogation of them, to ask the assistance of the learned Judges now on the woolsacks, although their lordships were not at all bound to consult them even when deciding upon a writ of error in an ordinary case. The matter had been argued with equal ability and propriety, and every objection had been taken which could support the plaintiff's claim; but if, instead of its being a commitment by the House of Commons, it had only been that of one of the superior courts of law, he should have given the same opinion; as he could not agree that the Commons had any higher privileges of commitment for contempt than that which was necessarily possessed by the superior courts for their own protection, and that of the people whom they protected. It had been contended, that the plea did not contain a sufficient allegation that the plaintiff in error had authorized the printing of a libel upon the House of Commons as a paper might reflect upon it without its being an injurious reflection; but the record stated that it was "a libellous and scandalous paper reflecting upon the just privileges of the House;" No averment could be more distinct. It had also been contended that the plaintiff in error had only admitted this paper to have been printed by his authority, and not the publication; but the record stated, that it was printed in Cobbett's Weekly Register; and if I authorize what I send to such a paper to be printed, I, of course, consent that it shall be published. Taking it, then, to have been published by his authority, the learned judges had just given their unanimous opinion, that such a general statement of a contempt would be sufficient to support a commitment of the court of common pleas, and that the King's-bench, though a superior court would upon a Habeas Corpus, adjudge it to be sufficient, and would not discharge the party. Now, to apply this to the case before the House. It had been properly conceded in argument by the learned counsel at the bar, and admitted in their printed reasons, that the courts of law could not deliver a person committed by the House of Commons, whilst
1302
it continued sitting; but they contended, that the validity of the same warrant which would hold the party when returned to a Habeas Corpus, might nevertheless be declared to be illegal in an action; but such a proposition could in no way be supported. A Habeas Corpus was the highest writ in the law, and the cause of commitment must surely demand the same precision under a return to it, as could be required in any form of pleading by way of justification in an action; and, indeed, the process of contempt by the superior courts could never at all be executed unless it were held sufficient for all who carried it into execution to justify by their pleas in the language of the warrant since what other authority could they possibly produce in their defence. Though if this were so, and of that he entertained no doubt, it embraced the whole case, and concluded it, since the judgment of the House must have been precisely the same, if the record now before it had stated a commitment of the court of common pleas for a contempt instead of the House of Commons, for a breach of privilege. He only repeated this to assign clearly the reason of his opinion, as he never could agree that the Houses of parliament had any higher or larger privilege of commitment than that which necessarily belonged to the superior courts. He would trouble their lordships no farther. He always felt more than he could express when the legal jurisdictions of the country were in question, as he was sure that if they were overborne the sun of British freedom would set for ever.
The counsel were then called in, and informed, that the House did not think it necessary to hear the counsel for the defendants; and the judgment of the court below was, without farther proceedings, affirmed.