Sitting of 16 March 1827

GRANT TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CLARENCE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee on the Duke and Duchess of Clarence's Annuity bill.
Mr. J. Martinsaid, he would avail himself of the present opportunity to put a question to the right non. gentleman, and which, he trusted, he would have no objection to answer. The feelings of the country were more acutely alive to the grants to the royal family, than ministers seemed to be aware of. It might be in the recollection of the House, that, in the year 1825, a bill had been introduced, granting an additional allowance of 6000 l. per annum to his royal highness, the duke of Cumberland. The pretence made by ministers for proposing such a grant, was the education of his royal highness's son. The vote excited very strong feelings amongst every class of the population, and it even roused such a spirit of opposition within the walls of that House, as induced ministers to reconcile members to the grant, by inserting a clause in the bill, that it was highly expedient that the young prince should be educated in this country, and that the payment of the money should be made only during his residence in England; unless he was permitted by his majesty to reside abroad. His present object was, to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether the 6,000 l. in question had been paid to his royal highness; whether the young prince had been resident in this country; and, if he had

1237
not, at what period, and upon what grounds, the privilege of his majesty's licence to absent himself had been granted? He wished also to know upon what grounds ministers had been induced to recommend such a measure to his majesty? If it appeared that his royal highness had pocketed the 6,000 l. a-year, and had never set foot in this country, the House had been most grossly deluded, and the country imposed upon.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was extremely happy, in the prospect of having the vote of the hon. member; as he had given him to understand, that, according to the answer which he received to his question, he should be influenced in voting upon the grant to be brought forward that evening. The hon. member doubtless expected, that, in point of fact, his royal highness the duke of Cumberland had been in the receipt of the 6,000 l. granted to him under certain conditions; that he had pocketed the money, and that the conditions had not been fulfilled. Now, so far from this having been the case, he could assure the hon. member, that his royal highness had not received one single sixpence of the grant.
Mr. J. Martinsaid, it was most singular that ministers should intrude such an objectionable measure upon the public, if the sequel proved that even the royal duke did not conceive the grant necessary, and had consequently neglected to receive it.
With respect to the fact, he could only say, that his royal highness's allowance from the public had, previously to the grant in question, been 18,000 l. a-year. He had found the sum charged as the allowance to his royal highness for the half year ending the 5th of Jan. 1825, to be 12,000 l.; which he had supposed included a payment on account of the latter grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the charge had been made in the account, as his royal highness might have demanded it, and might have complied with the prescribed conditions; but his majesty had not thought fit that the young prince should be brought into this country, and consequently the money had not been paid.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the government accounts and statements were made up properly, such misconceptions could not take place; members would not be misled into such errors; and all such questions
1238
and explanations would be avoided. With respect to the vote which ministers were about to propose, as he could not move that the subject should be taken into consideration that day six months, he would certainly oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. He was most anxious to do this, because he had lately presented petitions from the working classes, setting forth their great distress, and praying most urgently for relief, in order to save them from starving. A statement had just been sent to him of the enormous sums taken from the people in support of the royal family. By this account it appeared, that the expenses of the royal family, exclusive of 1,057,000 l. for the civil list, amounted to 250,000 l. per annum, and that that sum would maintain thirty-four thousand families for a year; and further, that the 9,000 l. proposed for the duke of Clarence, amounted to no less than the full yearly wages for one thousand two hundred persons. Now, when it was admitted on all hands, that the country was in so distressed a situation, could the House reconcile it to itself, with such petitions before them, to grant such a sum out of the pockets of the people? No man, with the proper feelings of an Englishman, could, he thought, consent to receive such a sum under such circumstances. It was said, that comparisons were odious, but, when we saw millions in a state of starvation; when, in answer to their demand for bread, ministers gave them stones, or what came to the same thing, when they were denied relief—was it not too much to add to that denial a grant of 9,000 l. to one of the royal family, who already received not less than 33,000 l. a-year? The House would, he thought, lose the confidence and respect of the people, if they consented to such an expenditure in the present state of our finances; and protesting as he did against it as a waste of the public money, he should oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he was anxious to offer a few words on this subject, as an erroneous opinion had gone abroad, as to the part which he had taken in a former discussion. He entirely approved of the vote; and he thought that, in a country which adoped the monarchical principle, an adequate provision should be made for the illustrious individual who stood next in presumptive succession to the throne. The late heir presumptive, had got involved

1239
in debts; and he thought that a liberal provision should be made, in order to keep the present heir from the same necessity. The sum now proposed, was, he thought, not more than was necessary to keep the royal duke in that splendour which became his rank. He gave his hon. friend credit for a desire to introduce economy and retrenchment; but he thought it was not quite fair to urge the distress of particular classes of the people, as an argument against such a grant as the present. He was as anxious to relieve the existing distresses, and had gone as far, by his votes in that House, to relieve them by economy, as any other member, but he did not think he acted inconsistently, in supporting this motion.
Mr. Tennysonregretted extremely that, upon every occasion when an increase of income became necessary for a branch of the royal family, these discussions should be provoked. It was inexpedient that the individuals of that family should thus be exposed in detail to the reflections cast upon them in the public journals, and in parliament, as persons who were inconsiderately and continually drawing upon the impoverished resources of the country. But, it was unjust as well as inexpedient. The royal family were brought to this country under circumstances of peculiar interest to the liberties and happiness of the people, and were thrown upon its liberality for a fit provision, he thought, therefore, it was its duty, as well as its interest, to establish some fixed scale by which that provision might be regulated, so that each member of the family should be enabled duly to occupy the station he was called upon to fill, and not be left to the alternative of encountering all the calumnies which these applications generated,—or of remaining exposed to the continual taxes upon his benevolence which his station brought upon him, with insufficient means.
Besides, when these questions were thus, from time to time, brought forward, members of parliament could scarcely avoid being unduly influenced by private or political bias. They ought only to consider the relative position of the prince in question in each case:—and thus in every instance, a general regulation would settle the matter. In that before the House, his (Mr. T.'s) vote would be governed by the principle on which the chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward this
1240
proposition; namely, a due regard to the position now occupied by the duke of Clarence. He regretted, with his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, that this grant became necessary at a period of public distress; but it could not in any case be contended, that the trifling addition to his royal highness's income, proposed, could sensibly increase that distress; and in this instance, it could not be said, with any degree of propriety; for the addition of 9,000 l. per annum would be paid out of an annual saving of 14,000 l., created by the lamented death of the duke of York,—leaving a surplus of 5,000 l. a year in favour of the country. To this might be added the further saving of the salary belonging to the master of the Ordnance, which, by the liberality of the duke of Wellington, had been given up on the union of the two offices, when his grace became commander in chief. Thus, there would be a total saving of 7 or 8,000 l. a year.
But, what he wished to suggest was, the expediency and justice of settling those payments to the royal family by an act of parliament, which, by the nature of its provision, should, in this respect, from time to time, regulate the Civil List. Suitable incomes might thus be assigned to an heir apparent, an heir presumptive, or a junior branch, with proportionate increases if married, and in case of issue—so as to render the individuals of the family equally independent, at twenty-one years of age, of the Crown and the ministry, as of parliament. It might be the policy of the country to keep the royal family, to a certain degree, dependent on parliament for their provision; but it was ungenerous, and, to say the least of it, needless, to exercise it in such minute detail. It was right and useful to assert and act upon this policy from time to time—at the beginning of a reign—by regulating the Civil List, and by other occasional means; but it should not be allowed to inflict continual mortification and injury on individual members of the family, as it now did. They ought not to be left, as now, necessarily dependent on the will of an administration; and he should suppose that a liberal-minded administration would be gladly relieved from the painful task of constantly bringing forward these questions.
Besides, the government had not always acted properly in these cases, towards the

1241
royal family, but had been influenced by private and political motives. When the late persecuted queen Caroline came to this country, the government had refused her an income, until the people were almost ready to demand it with arms in their hands. He would, instance, also, his royal highness the duke of Sussex, who had received no allowance whatever until he was nearly thirty years of age, notoriously because his political sentiments were unpalatable to the ministry of that day. But the same government placed his royal highness in situations where, in the season of youth, he was likely to contract, and did in fact contract, considerable debt; which, when, long afterwards, an income was tardily assigned to him, was left to burthen him. But with that honourable feeling, which ever characterized his royal highness, he had set aside 9,000 l. a year to discharge this debt. That fund had for several years, so operated that within three or four years from the present time, the debt would be paid. But, up to the present period, this charge, and the provision he had to make for a lady of high rank, with whom in early life, he had contracted a marriage (which the Royal Marriage act precluded from recognition), as well as for the issue of that marriage, had reduced his income to about 6,000 l. a year; while the marriages of the other princes had procured them, from parliament, augmentations of annual revenue. Yet, with these restricted means, and without any professional income, which all the other princes had, his royal highness had aided and patronized those useful and benevolent institutions, which tended to advance the happiness of mankind and the domestic interests of the country, in a manner quite unexampled here or elsewhere.
There was an idea that the Royal Family derived some income from Hanover. What his majesty might receive he did not pretend to say. Perhaps nothing. But, with the exception of a small provision for the princesses upon their marriage, he could state positively, that the junior branches received no income or emolument whatever from that quarter. The grant now asked for on behalf of the duke of Clarence was a fair example of the inconvenience of the present practice. His royal highness was heir presumptive to the Throne, and much more clearly and practically so, than the duke of York was, until the last few years of his life. Yet the duke of Clarence was
1242
held up to public animadversion on account of the proposition now brought forward, although it seemed that his royal highness was not party to it, or even knew that it was to be made on his behalf,—and, although, if it be acceded to, he will not have a greater income than the duke of York was allowed thirty or forty years ago, when his position as heir presumptive was little more than nominal. His late royal highness had also a very large professional income, while the duke of Clarence had a very small one. He would now be exposed to considerable demands for the exercise of patronage and benevolence; and it was, on public grounds, desirable that he should be enabled to maintain in those respects, the character which should belong to an illustrious individual so circumstanced. The nation was interested in maintaining the royal family in a manner to enable the individuals composing it, if they were so inclined, to engage and attract, by their beneficence, the just affection of the people; especially in the case of one occupying the prominent position of the duke of Clarence. Upon these grounds, on a consideration, also,-that the value of money was materially diminished since the grant to the duke of York, and that upon the whole result there was a saving to the country, the hon. gentleman said, he felt that he could not, conscientiously or decently, vote against the grant now proposed for the duke of Clarence.
Mr. Pendarvis,member for Cornwall, said, that, as he was not present on the last occasion when this subject was before the House, he would take the present opportunity of opposing the vote, as a most indecent, a most wasteful, and a most profligate expenditure of the public money. The House should recollect, that when the sums now paid to the several members of the royal family were voted, the state of our paper currency had rendered them much less in real, than they were in nominal, amount; but now that the currency was restored to a proper standard, those sums were much beyond, in actual value, what would have been voted if the state of the currency had been the same as it was at this day. He thought, therefore, that, if any alteration were made in the grants, it should be that of decrease rather than increase. He wished that royalty should be surrounded with proper splendor; but, at a period when our manufacturers were in a state of distress, and

1243
our agriculturists fearful of becoming so too, he thought it would been more becoming not to have proposed this grant. He would not oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair, but felt it his duty to give his opinion, which was also that of his constituents.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that an hon. member had expressed his belief, that his royal highness would secure to himself the respect and affection of the country from his mode of expending such grants. This sentiment, however, involved a most enormous mistake. He not only thought it would have been more consistent with good taste not to have brought forward this motion, but he very much lamented that any such sentiment should ever have been uttered. He lamented that any minister should endeavour to infuse into any branch of the royal family an opinion that he would not derive a much greater share of the respect and affection of the people of England, by refusing such a grant, than from any mode of expending it whatever. The virtue that secured respect to princes was a consideration for the distresses of the people. It was true that the 9,000 l. per annum, divided amongst the starving population would be nothing. If that were any argument for taking such a sum out of their pockets, the broad principle would be established, that the more numerous were the miserable, the greater was the sum you could extort from them. He, however, objected to the grant upon theory, rather than upon practice. Were the sum ever so small, it was a cruel mockery to demand it of the country, when such a mass of its population were on the verge of starvation. He sincerely wished that his royal highness had somebody about him who dared to speak to him the language of common sense and of common honesty. He wished his royal highness possessed a faithful counsellor, who would prevail upon him to send a message to the House, expressive of gratitude for the generous intentions of the Commons, and of his resolution to refuse the grant. In the eyes of the whole nation, his royal highness would then stand upon more exalted ground, than if he were to receive ten times the sum in the best manner that parliament, or rather ministers, could give it. Neither the credit, the honour, nor the respect of the royal family, depended on what was vulgarly called its splendor. It would be magnanimity, it would be real
1244
and lasting glory in his royal highness to refuse what the ministers had not the virtue to withhold.
Mr. Leycesteracknowledged that the distress in the manufacturing districts was great; and if he thought the present grant would take one farthing more from the pockets of the manufacturing population, he would oppose it. But he feared no such result. From whence were the 9,000 l. to be taken? From the sinking fund. And was it not better that that sum should go to his royal highness, by whom a part of it would be spent in charity, and the remainder in the purchase of articles of British manufacture, than that it should be devoted to purposes from which the people would gain no advantage? He thought the grant could be justified; first by the situation, and next by the conduct of the duke of Clarence. By his situation; because, though he was not what was, technically speaking, the heir apparent, yet he approached so near to the throne, that he could be considered in no other light. By his conduct he was intitled; and this grant was, in reality, but a proper tribute of respect from the people towards his royal highness, and an expression of their approbation of his conduct. He spoke of the conduct of his royal highness; because he was not one of those who were of opinion, that the conduct of princes was not a matter to be brought into discussions of this nature.
Mr. Monckthought, that if his hon. friend had proved any thing, he had proved too much; since, if the grant of 9,000 l. per annum would be a benefit to the people, the amount of that benefit would be proportionably increased by a grant of 90,000 l. For himself, he thought the present grant stood without foundation and support. The present question was not, whether the country could pay this additional sum, but whether necessity required it to be granted; and in this opinion he but adopted the sentiments of Mr. Plunkett, who, in the year 1818, before he was Attorney-general for Ireland, opposed a grant of a similar nature, and stated at the time, that his opposition was not founded upon any question as to the power of the country, but upon his conviction that the grant was not necessary. He now called on that learned gentleman to preserve his consistency, and to oppose the present grant. He thought this grant unconstitutional, and should therefore

1245
oppose it; but he also considered it to be both unprecedented and unnecessary, since, in his opinion, the grant to the duke of York in 1792, was not a precedent for this measure, as that grant was made, not merely on a treaty of marriage between the parties, but on a treaty of alliance between the two countries; and in that instance, too, the princess of Prussia brought a large sum of money as her marriage portion.
Mr. Calcraftthought the grant was to be defended, both on the precedents of the duke of York and the princess Charlotte. In the latter instance, the House not only granted 60,000 l. per annum, which was certainly a very large sum, but they added another sum of 60,000 l. as an outfit. That grant was made in consideration of her being the heiress apparent; and now that the duke of Clarence was placed substantially in the same situation, he ought to have an increase of his income, in the same manner as other princes had had before him. If the people had a monarchical government, they must expect these calls to support, in a proper degree of splendor, the branches of the monarchy. The present grant, too, was so small in its amount, that he thought that, instead of being extravagant, it was most moderate. He was of opinion, that when royal personages thus changed their situations, they might not merely require an increase of their income, but an outfit; and from some circumstances of the life of an illustrious prince, it might be seen into what difficulties and embarrassments they fell, when they had to begin their expenses entirely upon their income, without assistance of some other sort.
Sir W. Plunkettsaid, he should only think it necessary to trouble the House with a single sentence, in consequence of an observation which had fallen from an hon. member opposite, respecting an opinion of his, given in the year 1818. It was his intention to support this grant; and in doing so, he did not think he was forfeiting his claims to consistency. Indeed, he should adopt the opinion which that hon. member had been pleased to attribute to him, and should claim the benefit of it in requiring that hon. member, as he avowed his concurrence with it, to manifest that concurrence in the plainest manner, by supporting the present grant. He thought now, as he had thought in 1818, that the question ought not to be
1246
considered merely with respect to the power of the country, or if it was, then it would be decided at once; but with regard to the necessity of the grant. Now, he was of opinion, that the necessity in the present case could not be disputed, and that the duke of Clarence ought to be placed on the same footing as other heirs presumptive had been. He believed, that the people would be ready to acknowledge this necessity; and that each man would as willingly contribute his mite towards this grant as towards any other matter of public exigency.
Sir T. Aclandsaid, that he too came under the animadversions from which the last speaker had vindicated himself. In 1818, he had voted as that right hon. gentleman had done. He thought, however, that there was a wide distinction between the present and the former circumstances of the royal duke. He was now next heir to the throne; and no economy could be more false or illiberal than that which would go to circumscribe his income.
Mr. Beaumontdid not condemn the grant, so much as the breathless haste with which it had been submitted to parliament, and the want of sympathy with the distresses of the people, which it glaringly betrayed. There was no wish on his side of the House to drive the people to despair and madness; but the best mode of doing so would be for parliament to convince them that it had no sympathy whatever with their distress.
Mr. Alderman Woodcontended, that the expense of this grant would, like the general expenses of the country, fall most heavily upon the lower classes. He was proceeding to detail his reasons for that opinion, when he was assailed by loud cries of "question." He made a short pause, and then turning round to one of the vociferators, said, "Sir, you shall have the question whenever you like, but it must not be till I please. You shall not put me down. I will not be placed in the situation in which an honourable colleague of mine has been placed by the intolerant spirit of the landed faction. I have never interrupted the House, nor given intentional pain to any man in it; and I would ask, whether it is either fair, or just, or parliamentary, that I should be thus assailed in the performance of what I consider my duty?" The hon. alderman concluded by observing, that he should

1247
certainly oppose the grant, because he was convinced that there was not a man, who either drank a glass of gin or paid for a pot of porter, who would not have to contribute his mite towards this increased allowance.
Mr. Alderman C. Smithdenied that, those who drank gin and beer in the manner described by his brother alderman, would feel the effects of this grant in any way whatsoever. He gave it his warmest support.
Sir R. Heronobserved, that the hon. member for Devonshire had exhibited considerable warmth in denouncing what he was pleased to call false economy; but that hon. baronet had never come forward with any definition of what he considered true economy. He recollected the manner in which the hon. baronet generally voted on all questions of retrenchment, and he would, therefore, be obliged if he would point out to the House the true economy for which he would allow it a vote. His hon. friend, the member for Wareham, had pointed to the grant made to the princess Charlotte and prince Leopold on their marriage, as a precedent which the House ought to follow on the present occasion. Now, it appeared to him at the time when that grant was made, that both the House and the country were in a very extravagant humour. The House had as yet exhibited no symptom of repentance; but the people, he believed, were in a different temper. Let the opinion of the people on that point be what it might, they considered the grant now proposed to be as unnecessary and as extravagant a grant as was ever submitted to parliament; and under that consideration he should certainly vote against it.
The House divided on the question, That the Speaker do now leave the chair: Ayes 90. Noes 15. Majority 84. The House then went into the committee.

List of the Minority.

Beaumont, T.

Rancliffe, lord

Folkestone, lord

Smith, W.

Gordon, R.

Warburton, H.

Harvey, D. W.

Walrond, B.

Martin, John

Wood, ald.

Monck, J. B.

Waithman, ald.

Pendarvis, E. W.

TELLERS.

Pryce, P.

Heron, sir R.

Robarts, A. W.

Hume, Joseph

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRACY IN IRELAND.
Mr. Villiers Stuartcalled the
1248
attention of the House to the appointment of a Stipendiary Magistrate at the village of Kilmackthomas in the county of Waterford, under the provisions of the Constabulary act. He had been furnished with a petition with four hundred signatures upon this important subject, from the landed proprietors, freeholders, and magistracy of the county of Waterford, assembled at a meeting convened by the high sheriff. They had not resorted to parliament until they had in vain sought hearing and redress in that quarter upon which they had a most unquestionable claim to earnest attention. The facts were within a narrow compass, but the question was one of general importance; it was not a Waterford or an Irish question only, but it touched the rights and interests of the whole empire, and the stability of the constitution itself. He therefore called upon the House to arrest, in the first instance, one of the most dangerous innovations—one of the boldest attacks upon the pure administration of justice. In March, 1826, the late governor of Waterford called upon the magistracy to take into consideration certain outrages at Kilmacthomas. Opinions were divided, and the magistrates separated into two parties, although both agreed that the disturbances arose out of the spirit generated by the eve of a general election. On the 3rd of April, the first intimation was given of the intention of the Irish government to appoint a resident Stipendiary magistrate. A meeting was held, and it was there carried by a small majority, approving of such a step; but the dissenting magistrates signed a protest, declaring that it was unnecessary, on account of the peaceful character of the county, on which it was inflicting a heavy burthen. Very soon afterwards a letter was received from the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulbourn) announcing that the appointment had been actually made. On the 12th of April a county meeting was held, and resolutions, strongly disapproving such a course, were agreed to; and a memorial, in which they were embodied, was presented to the lord lieutenant, by the high sheriff of Waterford. An intimation was then given, that the subject should be taken into immediate consideration. Seven months having elapsed, and no answer being returned, the county naturally felt indignant at the disrespect with which it was treated; and despairing of justice from so motley a body

1249
as the government of Ireland, a public meeting, under the authority of the high sheriff, was held on the 14th of November, when the petition to parliament, with which he was intrusted, had been agreed to.— Such were the brief facts, and the House would not fail to recollect, that the meeting of the 3rd of April, which took place at Dungarvon, was on the eve of a general election, in a county which it was known was to be contested. At such a time, when it became the Irish government to close its ears to all party representations, it had thought fit, listening to the representations of one party, and remaining deaf to the remonstrances of the other, to make the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate, as a mere mockery of and satire upon the administration of justice. The object seemed to be, to counterbalance the popular feeling at Kilmacthomas. Had robberies, murders, the burning of houses and villages, the midnight seizure of arms, been committed in that district? No: and the House would hear with surprise and indignation, that at the moment chosen by the Irish government, the county had been free from every thing that could be fairly called disturbance. On the approach of a general election, no doubt there was a certain degree of excitement; some foolish old women, not certainly as wise and prudent as the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, had furnished children with a few faggots for bonfires, and drums, and the abomination of penny trumpets were in request among the younger inhabitants; but only in two instances had the peace of the district been more seriously disturbed, than by these juvenile processioners. Even those two instances were deemed of too trifling a nature to need further inquiry; and the calendar afforded irrefragable testimony of the general tranquillity of the county. No doubt the right hon. Secretary would contrast the state of the county of Waterford at such a time, with the calm and quiet of the archiepiscopal borough of Armagh, which had the good fortune to have him for its representative. But such unanimity could not be expected in all parts of Ireland, and if the right hon. gentleman himself had never stood on the popular interest, the lord lieutenant, before he was exalted to the peerage, had had some experience of the violence of party feeling during a general election. It could not be said, that such an appointment was necessary from the want of re-
1250
sident magistrates, for within four or five miles of Kilmacthomas there were many justices of the peace, ready at all times to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the commission. As matters now stood, the county was called upon to pay 800 l. a-year for an individual to reside among them, whose interest it was, for the sake of keeping his place, to produce division and disturbance. The experiment tried at Kilmacthomas was dangerous and unconstitutional, and in opposition to the statutes of Edward 3rd, Richard 2nd, and Henry 5th and 6th, passed expressly to preserve the purity and independence of the magistracy. The 13th Richard 2nd provided, that justices of the peace should be chosen from men who were the most worthy, and of the best reputation, while the 18th Henry 6th declared, that no man should be a magistrate who was not possessed of a certain qualification. The only qualification now required was, that of pleasing the right hon. Secretary and the Lord-lieutenant, and political accordance was a strong ground of recommendation. Had there been no resident magistrate within fifty or sixty miles of Kilmacthomas, the case would have been quite different, and the appointment excusable; and as it was, it would have had some warrant if there had been any disturbances seriously calling for the interposition of the police. The only outrage at all deserving notice had occurred within the last fortnight, but that was not within thirty miles of Kilmacthomas. In order to put the House in possession of the necessary information upon this subject, he would move for a copy "Of the certificate of magistrates petitioning for, and of the memorial of the county of Waterford against, the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate for the district of kilmacthomas, in the county aforesaid."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that after the manner in which the hon. member had arraigned the conduct of the Irish government in the particular instance alluded to, and after the efforts, not only of the hon. gentleman's argument, but of his humour— which latter he could assure the hon. member he took in perfect good part—after all this he felt himself called upon to advert more particularly to the circumstances of the case, with a view to explain to the House, and vindicate from the aspersions which had been cast upon it, the course which the Irish government had, in this

1251
instance, thought it necessary to pursue. He could not but say that the allegations of the hon. member appeared to him somewhat extraordinary. He had heard of governments being blamed for not adopting the necessary measures to suppress outrage when disturbances existed; and he had also heard governments arraigned for making use of unconstitutional measures for their suppression; but he believed this was the first time that a government had been ever called to account for applying measures which were pointed out by act of parliament, to the suppression and prevention of acts of violence arising, or likely to arise, in a moment of public excitement. The fact was, that the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate had been recommended by the county magistrates assembled at quarter session. Was it improper that the lord-lieutenant of Ireland should take the recommendation into consideration? At the Waterford sessions, several of the magistrates determined to apply for the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate for the district of Kilmacthomas; and, with their request, the lord-lieutenant thought proper to comply. The hon. member had said, that this appointment was made in reference to the approaching election for the county of Waterford, and with a view to favour one of the candidates; but he was sure the hon. gentleman would not have made such a statement if he knew any thing of the feelings or the principles which directed the policy of the noble lord at the head of the Irish government. Had the hon. member for a moment considered the measures (to say nothing of the character) of that distinguished nobleman, he must have arrived at a very different conclusion; and he now defied the hon. gentleman to bring forward the slightest proof of any one measure of the Irish government having been suggested by a wish to influence the election of one candidate or the other. Further, the hon. gentleman was the very last individual from whom he should have expected such a charge to emanate; for, if there was any one individual who had been more attended to than another by the Irish government, it was himself. He called upon the hon. member to say, whether his communications and suggestions had not always met with attention and respect from the noble lord at the head of the Irish government [hear! from Mr. V. Stuart] He was sure, notwith-
1252
standing the present attack of the hon. member, that the marquis Wellesley would still continue his feelings of regard and kindness towards him; uninfluenced by the course the hon. gentleman had on this occasion thought proper to adopt. The question was,—Was the state of things in the county of Waterford misunderstood or misrepresented by the magistrates, when they applied to the Lord-lieutenant? and if not, was not the appointment which they recommended necessary? It was unnecessary to detail the state of the county in 1825: for any person in the habit of reading the public newspapers, must know, that during the entire of the year preceding the late election, the whole of the county was in a state, of which individuals, who drew their ideas from the condition of this country, could happily have no conception. The animosity existing between the parties in Waterford was of a most serious nature, and such as could not but be calculated, if unchecked, to injure the peace of the county. It was not confined, as the hon. gentleman would fain lead the House to imagine, to the blowing of penny trumpets, or the beating of two-penny drums: on the contrary, very serious alarm was excited. The hon. member might recollect, that in that part of the county in which his own property was situated, armed parties of twenty or thirty on each side assembled, and were only prevented from engaging in hostile contests by the prompt measures adopted for the preservation of the public tranquillity. In the same neighbourhood an instance had occurred, in which a magistrate was obliged to order the police to attend him, in order to assist him to distrain a tenant for non-payment of rent. Such was the state of things, that a magistrate, in the ordinary discharge of his duty, required the police of the county to be called out, to enable him to check the opposition he was likely to receive Would the House, after this, believe that nothing had occurred at Kilmacthomas beyond the ordinary expression of popular feeling, on the occasion of an election? The House would permit him to detail a portion of a Report received, by the Irish government, before the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate had been determined on. A mob of persons just returned from chairing Mr. Stuart, broke the windows of the post-office at Kilmacthomas, and committed various other acts of violence. Shots

1253
were fired, and two weights, one a half hundred, and the other of fourteen pounds, were thrown violently into the postmaster's apartment. This occurred at four or five o'clock in the evening, when it was yet broad day-light. The postmaster was compelled to send to the magistrate, and the police were called in, by whom some of the parties to the riot were arrested. The mob having collected stones, and manifested an intention to use them, it became necessary to call out the horse police, and it was thought that the entire police of the county would be necessary to quell the riot. Such was the state of things in Waterford, when the magistrates thought proper to meet to consider what measures should be adopted. If any additional argument were necessary to prove how requisite it was to appoint a Stipendiary magistrate, the proceedings of these very magistrates themselves furnished it. The first thing that happened when they assembled was, that the magistrates, being all of them in the interest of one or other of the candidates, could not consult together on the subject, to discuss which they had assembled, but immediately determined on sitting in separate rooms. This conduct would naturally lead the people to suppose, that parties so opposed in principle, as to be unable to sit in one room, could not be free from partiality. When it was seen that the friends of the hon. Member could not associate with the supporters of the noble lord, his opponent, the natural conclusion would be, that the parties could not act with impartiality, where the interest of their respective friends were at stake. He did not mean to say that the magistrates would have so acted, but it was not unreasonable that the people should imagine that they were so deeply embarked in the interests of each candidate, that they could not act without an improper bias. At the meeting to which he referred, the subject of the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate was discussed, and eighteen had voted for the appointment of the magistrate, and thirteen against it. What was the lord-lieutenant to do under those circumstances? He had to form his own opinion as to the necessity of the application made by the magistrates. From what had reached the lord-lieutenant, previously, from persons entirely unconnected with the county, he had been led to fear that tranquillity was about to be interrupted. Under those circumstances,
1254
he did what any man responsible for the peace of the county must do; namely, agreed to the request made to him, and. appointed a resident Stipendiary magistrate.—The hon. member had argued, that this appointment was unconstitutional; but his remarks upon that subject bore the character of an attack on the legislature, rather than on the lord-lieutenant The act of parliament gave the lord-lieutenant full power to nominate a Stipendiary magistrate, when the magistrates assembled in quarter session required the appointment; so that, so far from the act being unconstitutional, it took place under the direct sanction of the law. It appeared to the lord-lieutenant, that immediately to put a stop to acts of violence was a material object; and, accordingly, a person was appointed. This individual was removed from another district, in which he had been previously employed, and placed at Kilmacthomas on a diminished emolument, and with a great probability of increased trouble. The hon. member appeared to intimate, that the high sheriff, and several of the magistrates, entertained no fears that the peace of the county would be broken at the then approaching election. The hon. member was mistaken in his conclusion; for the sheriff was so apprehensive of scenes of violence and outrage, arising out of the political feelings and animosities of the respective parties, that he applied not only for the police of his own county, but also for that of the adjoining one, to enable him to preserve the peace.—He thought the House would be of opinion that the decision of the lord-lieutenant was fully justified, the rather, as he was happy to say, that since the appointment of the magistrate, and from that period down to the end of the election, the Waterford contest had not been marked by those unfortunate circumstances which had occurred in other places. What would be his situation, if he was now standing there to defend the government of Ireland against the accusation of the hon. gentleman, for not appointing a Stipendiary magistrate, in consequence of the application of the county magistrates? How would the lord-lieutenant have felt, if the hon. member could now address the House in this manner—"We knew what would occur, and we forewarned you of it; we applied to you to appoint a Stipendiary magistrate, in order to prevent the

1255
scenes of violence which we were aware would ensue. You refused. You are responsible for the violence and deaths which have occurred." What defence could he have made in that case? If the government had erred, it had erred on the side of caution; and it was satisfactory to know, that the measures adopted had had the effect of keeping the county of Water-ford free from those scenes of violence which were experienced elsewhere. The hon. member complained of the expense of 700 l. a-year entailed by this appointment on the county; but the appointment was never intended to be otherwise than temporary. Subsequent to the election, it had only been continued, because the best-informed persons were of opinion, that though no outrages were then committed, yet, as a matter of precaution, it would be right to keep the Stipendiary magistrate in the county during the winter, in order to prevent any possible breach of the public tranquillity. Again, as to the subject of expense: if the appointment had the effect of keeping the peace, the expense was a matter of minor consequence; for even in a financial point of view, it would be much better that the county should pay 700 l. a-year to the magistrates, than 1,000 l. on presentments, for the reparation of outrages and injuries. The question was, would the county be more willing to pay these items than the salary of a magistrate, who, in all probability, prevented the recurrence of acts of the description to which he had alluded? He thought it was scarcely necessary to go further into die discussion after what he had stated. His principle was, that it was better to prevent the commission of crimes than to provide for their punishment. It was much better to do so than to wait till the outrage occurred, and then expend time, money, and trouble, in bringing the perpetrators to justice. He was sure the House would concur with him in thinking, that the course which the lord-lieutenant had adopted was one which it became a wise and prudent government to pursue.
Mr. Carewcomplained of the imputation cast upon the impartiality of the Waterford magistrates by the right hon. Secretary.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he had cast no such imputation. What he had said was, that the people might naturally conclude that the magistrates would not be impartial,
1256
so deeply did they appear interested in the success of one candidate or the other.
Mr. Carewthought it an awkward circumstance, that the appointment should have taken place so near the time of election; as if it had been intended for the furtherance of an election purpose.
Mr. H. Grattanconsidered the appointment of stipendiary magistrates and police highly unconstitutional. They might be necessary; but it was only because his majesty's ministers did not keep Ireland in the state in which she ought to be kept. If Ireland were tranquil, there would be no necessity for such appointments; but Ireland could never be tranquil under the present system. The expense of the police in that country was very considerable; and the individuals who composed it, might be almost considered as amenable to no law, for they were not punishable under the provisions of the Mutiny bill; indeed, he understood that their only punishment was dismissal. It was necessary for gentlemen on this side of the water to look to the system in Ireland, lest the evil should approach their own shore. He held in his hand, the private and public instructions given to the constabulary police in Ireland; and it would be only necessary for him to read one or two of them, to put the House in possession of their extraordinary nature. [The hon. member here read one of the public and general, and one of the private orders given to the police. The public order stated, that the police were not to converse on the roads, lest they might be overheard, and the nature of their duty discovered; that they must not divulge the countersign; that two patrols were to walk in advance of the party, lest any mistake should occur; and that, on the approach of any person, they were to demand the countersign. The private order stated, that the police should observe the habits of the people in the neighbourhood and the business and characters of persons newly arriving in the neighbourhood; that great circumspection and secresy should be observed; that they should take notes of every thing that was done in the neighbourhood; and, if they proved themselves to be trustworthy, they should be declared fit for the service.] Such was the system of espionage earned on in Ireland—a system to which the people of England would never submit. It was part of the old system of government in Ireland—

1257
part of that system which left the Catholic without freedom, the Protestant without spirit, and Ireland, herself, without the benefit of a free constitution. He should give his cordial support to the motion of his hon. friend.
Sir George Hillwas surprised to hear the hon. member for Waterford, designate as unconstitutional, an act done by the lord-lieutenant, under the authority of an act of parliament. He wished to express his decided opinion, that, considering the then disturbed state of the county of Waterford, the lord-lieutenant would, if he had not acted as he had done, have been guilty of a monstrous dereliction of duty.
Mr. Van Homrighsaid, that, although the annual salary of the Stipendiary magistrate was 700 l., not more than 250 l. of it was paid by the county; the remainder being paid by government. Before the Waterford election, it was well known throughout. Ireland, that that county was in a state of great excitement; and when the lord-lieutenant was called upon, by a petition signed by eighteen magistrates, to appoint a Stipendiary magistrate, he was justified in doing so. He believed that justice was never more fairly and impartially administered in Ireland than it had been since the appointment of the marquis Wellesley. But, it unfortunately happened, that the lord-lieutenant was unpopular with both parties in that country. When his excellency administered justice in such a way as was pleasing to one party, he was attacked in the Evening Mail, and when his conduct pleased the other party, he was attacked in the Morning Register.
Mr. V. Stuart,in reply, said, that in making this motion, he intended nothing offensive towards the lord-lieutenant or the right hon. Secretary for Ireland; from both of whom he had received great kindness and courtesy, whenever he had had occasion to make any communications to them; but he thought that he should not have done his duty if he had not made this motion. He had heard nothing from the other side to induce him to alter his opinion that the appointment was unconstitutional and uncalled for. He was ready to admit, that a trifling disturbance had taken place at Kilmacthomas; and that, during the affray, a stone was thrown into his carriage; but he did not think it a disturbance of such a nature as to re-
1258
quire the appointment of a Stipendiary magistrate, with a salary of 700 l. a year, whilst there were in the neighbourhood, magistrates capable of suppressing it; and he had, therefore, abstained from signing the memorial to the lord-lieutenant. The motion was agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The Marquis of Londonderryrose to present two petitions from the counties of Londonderry and Monaghan, in favour of the Roman Catholic claims. He said, he should not detain their lordships at present, as he had before endeavoured humbly, but honestly, to state the conviction on his mind, that the great and important question of the Roman Catholic claims was intimately connected with the happiness, welfare, and he might add, the social order of Ireland. He thought it would be bad taste to press the question forward, not only from what he had already said upon the subject, but more especially because an enlightened statesman had thought it most wise to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice. He was not in his place when that incomparable speech was delivered; in every part of which he most cordially and sincerely concurred. He thought he had acted most wisely in not pressing forward a discussion, which could only excite irritation. The question would, of necessity be resumed; and he must hope that the Roman Catholics would bear their present disappointment with patience and resignation; and if he could conceive that they would have recourse to force or rebellion in order to obtain from parliament their claims, and not to persuasion or argument, he hoped, as an honest Irish soldier, he should be in the van-guard of those who opposed such proceedings. He had hoped that those noble lords who did not join with him and his friends in their opinions upon the question, would come forward with some measure calculated to reconcile the country to the disappointment, and to allay the feelings of irritation which now prevailed. That was his wish; and when he found that no measure was coming forward, he felt deeply grieved. Nevertheless, he would advise the Roman Catholics to hope that by patience and resignation they would arrive at the great object of their wishes; and that the justice and magnanimity of a British king and a British senate would

1219
ultimately accord to them what they had prayed for session after session.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he had purposely refrained from making any observations on the sentiments contained in the numerous petitions which he had presented to their lordships against Roman Catholic emancipation; because he thought that a more desirable opportunity would be afforded him for such observations, when the noble marquis had redeemed the pledge he had given to the House, of bringing this great political question of the Catholic claims under the consideration of the House. Finding, however, that that intention had been abandoned, he could not, in justice to his own feelings, or to those persons who had signed the petitions which he had presented, allow the question to be withdrawn from the House, only to be brought forward on a more favourable opportunity, without stating his own views upon the subject. He must own, however, that he regretted that that motion had been abandoned; because he was convinced, that the oftener the subject was discussed, the more it would be found that it was impossible to open the constitution to individuals professing the tenets of the Catholic church, without endangering the principles upon which that constitution was founded. If, however, such discussion would have been attended with the same bitterness of feeling which had characterized the debate upon the subject in another place—if any noble lord had been prompted to follow that example, and forgetting what was due to his own private and public character, should deal in bitter invectives against those who were united with him in political power—he felt, if such should be the conduct that would be pursued, that it would leave, as it had done, in the breast of every friend of uncompromising principles, an impression which would never be effaced, and would tend, as it had tended, to unite that party more firmly than any thing that could be said. It was a matter of sincere regret to him, therefore, that the noble marquis had thought proper to withdraw his motion; and on that occasion he should freely have stated the grounds upon which he objected to granting the claims of the Catholics. He now begged leave, therefore, to state the grounds upon which he thought that it was impossible to admit the Catholics to legislate for a Protestant country, without
1220
endangering the Protestant principles of that country; and he did so in order that he might hear those arguments which might be brought forward to combat his opinion, and which he sincerely assured their lordships he should take home with him from that House and give them the attention they deserved. He wished most sincerely to come to a just conclusion upon this great question. In the first place he would draw their lordships' attention to the grounds upon which the Papists, at the time of the Revolution, were, by the wisdom of our ancestors, effectually excluded from political power; and he should then endeavour to show that the same grounds existed at present for the continuation of that exclusion, as a security against the intolerant principles of popery. He did not wish to draw their lordships attention to any of those melancholy events which occurred before the period he alluded to. He would direct their lordships attention to the character of popery exemplified in the conduct of James 2nd and that of his advisers. He would draw their attention to the state of the continent at the same time; and they would see Louis 14th revoking the edict of Nantes, and banishing every Protestant from his dominions. Let noble lords look to the opinions of the Roman Catholic clergy of that period, as collected from authorized statements. He would read a passage written by the bishop of Meaux, indicating the spirit of persecution of the church of Rome against all those who were opposed to it. Let their lordships judge from his own words. He said, that "the church of Rome, is the most intolerant of all churches: it is our inflexibility which renders us unconciliating and odious." In another passage he says, "that the exercise of the power of the sword was not to be called in question." He should avoid entering into a detail of the melancholy events that happened before that period. Having endeavoured to show that the principles of popery were dangerous to a Protestant constitution at the time he had mentioned, he should now examine the declaration of those who stated, that the doctrines of popery were no longer composed of those intolerant and obnoxious principles: that no sale of indulgences were allowed, or the doctrine of purgatory believed. He would refer to a bull of pope Leo, as giving him a ground of coming to a more correct conclusion on

1221
the subject. The bull in question, which was issued in 1825, and was published in all the newspapers, bore unqualified testimony to the statement, that the doctrines of popery had not changed in those two particulars. But perhaps some noble lords would maintain, that an essential alteration in the fundamental doctrines of popery had taken place. He begged leave to ask by what authority and at what period had such alteration been effected?—to what authority were those differences in the Catholic religion to be ascribed, and in what writings were they allowed? Their lordships were all aware, that the principles of the Catholic religion could not be altered without the concurrence of a general council, and they must know also that there had been no general council held since that of Trent, in the sixteenth century. To that council their lordships must refer, if they wished to come to a just conclusion on the true and real doctrines of the popish church. Were their lordships, then, to be told by individuals who had interested motives—for he contended, that they had interested motives, to conceal the real character of that religion—that in their opinion the Roman church no longer held doctrines so obnoxious and intolerant? How little such a statement was worth, would appear when put to the test of a writer of our own church, who wrote in answer to Dr. Doyle. He would now draw the attention of their lordships to the unconstitutional conduct of the Catholic priests in their interference at elections in Ireland. Availing themselves of the ignorance of the poor people, they did not exercise that sort of influence which was derived from wealth, as was done in this country; but availed themselves of a power purely spiritual to excite the minds of the superstitious people. Had not their lordships heard of their opposition to every measure proposed for the instruction of that country; for they well knew how short lived their power would be, if the people were left to their private judgment, and to the exercise of a better religion? He thought he needed not to add one word more as to the intolerance of the Roman Catholic religion. High minded and honourable men, he admitted, there were professing that religion; but he would ask this simple question—whether those individuals, if such was their character, could be safely trusted with a power to legislate for a
1222
Protestant country? But it was now said, that the Roman Catholic gentry did not give their assent to the intolerant doctrines of the Romish church. When the Roman Catholics said so, they were deceived—deceived by the influence of those treacherous principles, which always had been, and still were, the characteristics of the Roman Catholic religion. If those principles were not opposed, no adequate security would be had against the vigorous and domineering spirit of popery. If these were not the principles which the Roman Catholics now entertain, let them, then, open their eyes to that religion; or let them state candidly that it is not the Throne, it is not the laws, it is not the parliament, but it is the church of Rome, which bars the entrance to the British parliament. It was said that Ireland could not remain as she was, and he assented to that observation. But it was also stated, that conceding the Catholic claims would make that country tranquil. He no more believed that conceding those claims would have that effect, than that the breath of man could calm the ocean. He had not abilities or talents sufficient to enable him to propose any measure for the improvement of Ireland; but there was a measure which would tend to render that country happy; namely, the effort now made to rescue the people from the degraded state of religion in which they stood, and an endeavour to unite them in bonds stronger than any other—the bonds of religion, which would make Ireland both happy and tranquil. All that he wished was, that when this great question should be again brought forward, every endeavour would be made to transmit to posterity that constitution which had made this country the envy of surrounding nations, and not to fritter away the principles upon which that constitution was founded, or abandon that system of government which rendered us the most exalted upon earth. The noble lord then presented a petition from Northampton, against granting any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, and adverted to a petition from the same place, presented by earl Spencer, and stated that the one he now presented was very numerously signed.
Earl Spencerdid not rise to enter into a discussion with the noble lord who had just sat down, on all the various topics upon which he had touched. The noble lord had finished his speech by presenting

1223
a petition from the town of Northampton. He also had presented a petition from the same town, signed by six hundred persons. He knew very well that two petitions might be signed in the same place; and he would not make a comparison of the judgment or pretensions of the petitioners. He was aware that in that town, as throughout the whole country, the opinions of the people were much divided. The petition he presented was sent to him by post, and he knew some of the names to be very respectable. He made the observation, at the time of presenting it, that twenty years ago, it would have been extremely difficult to find six hundred persons, who would have put a petition into his hands in favour of the Catholics. He really believed, notwithstanding the assertions of the noble lord to the contrary, that the country, though it was still divided, was beginning to open its eyes upon this question. He gave that noble lord, and other noble lords full credit for their opinions being grounded on the notion, that they were doing their duty to the constitution of the country; and with respect to himself and his friends, he must be allowed to say, that they were as good and as steady friends to the constitution, in church and state, as any of those noble lords who were opposed to granting the claims of the Catholics.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, he had several petitions to present to their lordships, coming from different quarters, and containing different opinions. He had divided these petitions into three classes. The first class contained petitions from the Roman Catholics of Ireland; they consisted of five, and deserved attention on account of the respectability of the petitioners. The first petition came from the Roman Catholic bishop and clergy of the united dioceses of Waterford and Lismore. The others were from Tuam and other places in Ireland. These petitions were signed by immense numbers of Roman Catholics, and they all united in praying most earnestly for the repeal of those penal statutes which still remained laws, which were, as it appeared to him, the misfortune and disgrace, and would be the ruin of this empire at no distant period, if the wrongs of millions remained much longer unredressed. The second class of petitions came from clergymen of the Church of England. These petitions were signed by many very learned and excellent men, who
1224
prayed that no further concessions may be made to the Roman Catholics. It was with much concern that he was obliged to differ widely in opinion from persons of that denomination; and it gave him much pain to find that such men could have brought themselves sincerely to believe, that the security of any Christian Church could be endangered by acting on Christian principles; or that the safety of any civil state could be hazarded, by uniting the hearts and minds of all the subjects of every denomination in the state, by giving them equal rights, instead of alienating a very large portion of those subjects, by an unprovoked, and, as it appeared to him, unjust and cruel persecution. He felt perfect satisfaction in presenting a petition from the archdeacons of Norwich and Sudbury, and other clergymen of the Church of England. This petition was also signed by many learned and excellent persons who had a regard for the constitution; but they thought, and he perfectly agreed with them in opinion, that the constitution could never be more effectually secured than by promoting peace and good-will among all classes of the king's subjects. They, therefore, prayed for the removal of those severe laws that affected the Roman Catholics. These sentiments were much more in unison with the improvement of the times in which we lived, and with a just notion of civil and religious liberty, and the mild and tolerant spirit of Christianity. The petition was drawn up with so much moderation and temper, that he wished it to be read at length.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he must object to the petition, which was stated to come from the bishop of Waterford. In the discharge of his duty, he could not receive any petition coming from the bishop of Waterford, unless it was the Protestant bishop.
Lord Clifdenstated, that his majesty, when he was in Ireland, had received all the Irish bishops in full robes.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that made no difference. He had a positive duty to perform, and he must object to any petition being received coming from the Catholic bishop of Waterford.
Lord Clifdenstated, that there had been an especial presentation of Catholic bishops to his majesty while in Ireland.
The Marquis of Lansdownfelt persuaded, that the noble and learned lord on the woolsack would have no objection to re-

1225
ceive the petitions of persons who, from the station they filled, were highly respectable, provided they were properly worded. He understood the objection of the noble and learned lord to be only to the assertion of a supremacy which did not, and ought not to exist. There could be no doubt that those persons were entitled to the designation of Catholic bishops in Ireland. He was sure that if this petition was withdrawn, and signed with the name of the individual as Catholic bishop in Ireland, the noble and learned lord would not object, to its being received.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he never would oppose the reception of petitions written in a style which the House could recognise. There could be no doubt that the parties in question were bishops, nor did he doubt their respectability. But what he could not allow was, that the person from whom this petition came, should be recognised a Catholic bishop of Waterford. He might be designated as Catholic bishop in Ireland, but not as Catholic bishop of Waterford, for the law knew nothing of such a designation.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, there was no difficulty on his part to withdraw his petition.—The petition was accordingly withdrawn.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, he could not help lamenting that his noble friend (the earl of Winchilsea) should, on his first political appearance, have shown so much zeal and energy in what he could not but consider a bad cause. He called it a bad cause, because he was perfectly convinced, that if his noble friend, and those who thought with him, continued to oppose successfully the just claims of the Catholics, they would succeed in convulsing this great empire to its centre. He could not but regret the strong language which had been used with respect to a man of transcendant genius, who had long advocated this great cause with distinguished ability, and who, he trusted, would continue to advocate it until it should be finally successful. But he would not refer to living authorities; it should be recollected, that Fox, Pitt, Burke, and Grattan, who had never agreed upon any other question, concurred in supporting the measure which his noble friend opposite so warmly deprecated. The ill-omened rejection of this measure was undoubtedly calculated to induce the people of Ireland to consider the country to which she was united, rather
1226
in the light of an enemy than a friend. He trusted that this consummation would not take place; he trusted that better feelings—feelings more in unison with the Christian charity so eloquently recommended that night by the venerable prelate —would prevail in that, country. He did not absolutely despair; though he confessed he was not very sanguine in his expectations of hearing his noble friend opposite argue, at some future period, for the expediency of Catholic emancipation, with as much zeal as he now opposed it. As to the number of petitions against the measure from the county of Kent, he was not at all surprised that so many had been presented; for nothing could be easier than the way in which they were got up. It was as easy as lying. A paper was drawn up, containing the usual commonplace expressions, about Church, State, and Constitution, with a few allusions, perhaps, to the Pope, the Pretender, Bloody Mary, and Guy Fawkes, and this document was carried about by the clergyman of the parish, who prevailed upon every body who could write to sign it. In one instance, the clergyman of a parish, charged with a petition of this description, happened to take it, in the first instance, to an honest tenant of his, who occupied four or five hundred acres of land. The farmer said it might be all very right; but he never signed any thing he did not understand. "Not sign it!" exclaimed the clergyman, "why surely you won't suffer the bloody Papists to get power into their hands, and burn Protestants at the stake again?" The farmer persisted in his refusal; and was equally impracticable, when the clergyman wished him to get his wife and children to sign it. The clergyman was at last obliged to go into some neighbouring brick-yards, and get the petition signed by as many labourers as could write. It was absolutely absurd to attach any importance to petitions got up in this manner. It had been inquired of those who had succeeded in putting an extinguisher on this question, what they meant to do for Ireland? His noble friend opposite answered, that they meant to convert the Catholics to the Protestant religion. If such a scheme were practicable to any extent, no man could be more desirous than he was, to see it accomplished; for he had a bad opinion of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, though he did not think that the Catholics

1227
ought to be excluded from an equal participation in civil privileges, on account of erroneous religious opinions. But to suppose that five or six millions of Catholics were likely to be converted to Protestants was really a most extravagant notion. And, if there were really a prospect, of effecting their conversion, then he should contend, that this was an additional argument for granting Catholic emancipation; for no one could pretend to say, that a persecuted sect was more likely to embrace Protestantism, than one which was admitted to the common benefits of the Constitution. The noble lord adverted to the language of the Resolutions recently adopted by the Catholics at Dublin, which was characterized by great moderation and discretion. They expressed a feeling of regret at the vote which rejected the just claims of seven millions of his majesty's subjects: they recommended peace and forbearance, confidence in God, and in the justice of their cause: they recommended their Catholic brethren not to give way to despair, but to await the course of events. The influence of the Catholic clergy in the late elections had bean complained of; but there had been no proof of any unconstitutional interference on the part of the Roman Catholic priests. They had, undoubtedly, a powerful moral influence over their flocks; they felt their increased moral strength; they knew the justice of their cause; they saw how they were supported in this country, by numbers, by intellect, and by every thing that could make a cause respectable. The ultimate success of that cause was as certain as cause and effect— as sure as that summer followed spring. Sooner or later Catholic emancipation must be granted; and the only question was, whether parliament would grant it as a boon, or be compelled to concede it under the pressure of national calamity.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, he held in his hand several petitions praying for Catholic Emancipation. The first was from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the county of Roscommon. He did not mean, in introducing this petition, to follow the example of the noble lord (Winchilsea) by discussing the whole question of the Catholic claims. There were many reasons why a collateral debate of this kind was not one in which the great question of Catholic Emancipation could be conveniently discussed. It was utterly impossible, in a debate like this, to settle this great—he
1228
was sorry to be obliged to call it—this terrific question. He perfectly agreed with his noble friend (the marquis of Lansdown) as to the propriety of postponing the motion of which he had given notice; for that notice could not nave been brought forward with any advantage under the circumstances which had recently occurred. He should not enter into any part of the discussion, except to notice an observation which had fallen from the noble lord who opened it, and who had brought it forward as a charge against the Roman Catholic clergy, that they exercised a purely spiritual influence over their flocks. If the exercise of a purely spiritual influence over their flocks was a crime, he wished to God, that the same complaint could be made of our own clergy! He should be happy to believe that no influence was ever used by the Protestant clergy in questions of a political nature; but that their influence over their flocks was purely spiritual. He trusted that the earliest opportunity would be taken of affording their lordships the means of coming to a decision on the great question of Catholic Emancipation. He said this, not because he wished for a debate on this question; but because, in his opinion, nothing could be more mischievous than that the people of Ireland should believe that their friends despaired of the cause, and that parliament had shut its ears against their claims. He could not, at the present moment, look forward with hope to the success of the question, after what had occurred in the other house of parliament; but the time was near at hand, when this question must be carried, and it would depend upon their lordships to decide in what spirit it should be carried. The arts of man might, for a time, raise barriers against it; attempts might be made to check the progress of reason through the land; but the current of knowledge and intelligence could not be arrested by the work of human hands. The tide of human reason could not be kept back; but it depended upon man whether the current should take such a course as to fertilize the land, or spread ruin and desolation around. Many rejoiced at the decision of the other house of parliament; but he believed that few persons of sound statesman-like opinions participated in their triumph. The decision was a subject of triumph to those who did not wish Ireland to look to the

1229
imperial parliament for protection and support. The triumph was felt by those who wished Ireland to believe that the parliament of England was deaf to their claims, and that they could look only to the ravings of seditious demagogues for the redress of their grievances. By rejecting the claims of the Catholics, parliament was delivering Ireland into the hands of those demagogues. A question involving the liberties of seven millions of people could not be put by, according to their wishes or caprice. It was utterly impossible that the present state of things could last. In the name of God, then, as the danger was thus imminent, as it pressed so immediately upon them, why not settle this question in the only way in which it could be settled, by embracing the offers of Ireland, and admitting her to a participation in the benefits of the constitution? Ireland offered us every thing we could require; she offered us allegiance, she offered us affection, she offered us attachment. If we rejected her offers, there were many on the alert to tell her, that our professions were false and hollow, and that they were the only friends, by whose efforts she would be saved. By a seasonable concession to the just claims of Ireland, we might save her from those who were luring her to destruction—we might restore the tranquillity of the country, and secure the allegiance and attachment of seven millions of people.
The Bishop of Chestersaid, he could not forbear noticing an expression of the noble duke who had just sat down, which seemed to call for some animadversion from the representatives of the Protestant Church. The noble duke had stated, that the noble earl who presented the petition from the county of Kent, had imputed to the Roman Catholic priests as a crime, the exercise of their spiritual functions. The noble duke had entirely mistaken the meaning of the noble earl. The noble earl had not imputed to the Roman Catholic priests the exercise of their spiritual functions as a crime; but he had argued, that the tremendous influence of the Catholic priesthood was a very powerful reason why the legislature should not intrust power to so many millions who were subjected to it. The noble earl did not say that they were not at liberty to use the legitimate influence which would follow the faithful discharge of their high and sacred functions; but he argued against
1230
the abuse of their sacred trust, and the misapplication of their influence to political purposes. He had no hesitation in expressing his belief, that, in the late elections, the Roman Catholic priesthood had taken down polished weapons from the armoury of heaven, and employed them in carnal warfare. Such conduct had never, he believed, been imputed to the Protestant clergy, except in a single instance, where a Protestant clergyman had invited his congregation from the pulpit to sign a petition; and this single instance of misconduct had met with a merited rebuke from that House. The influence of the priesthood in Ireland was a very powerful reason why the Catholics ought not to be intrusted with political power. Ireland was the most unenlightened country in Europe; and political power in the hands of a body of artful and designing men— though he did not mean to include the whole Catholic priesthood in that description—might be employed to the worst of purposes. This brought to his recollection a remark of the noble earl who preceded the noble duke—a remark which called equally for animadversion. That noble earl had thought fit to speak in discouraging, if not contemptuous, terms of the efforts to diffuse the light of the gospel among the unenlightened population of Ireland. He thought he saw the finger of God in the recent conversion of so many of the Catholics of Ireland; and woe be to those who should presume to lift up their hands and voices in vain and impotent attempts to stem the flood of light that was bursting over the country! If these efforts were continued in a spirit of gentleness, wisdom, and zeal, they would bring down the blessing of the Almighty; and the good work would go on to its consummation. He could not sit with patience, and hear a member of the Protestant Church speak contemptuously of these efforts. Day by day, the tide of reformation seemed to be rolling on—gradually, indeed, as was to be at first expected—with sure and certain progress. He could not avoid expressing his indignation, or rather his pity, at the language which had been used in the other house of parliament. He could not but lift up the voice of expostulation, if not of reprobation, at those who designated the attempt to convert the Catholics of Ireland as a crusade. A crusade, indeed, in its true sense, was not in itself reprehensible;

1231
its object was to plant the Standard of the Cross in regions of darkness. But the term had been applied in a disparaging and reproachful sense. Was it a crusade which Luther undertook? Were those who embarked with him in that glorious enterprise crusaders, in the sense in which it was meant to stigmatize the humane and charitable attempts which were now making by a man not less distinguished by his piety than conspicuous for his rank? He begged their lordships' pardon for having thus trespassed upon their attention, but the observations which had been made that night seemed to him to call for some animadversion.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, the learned prelate bad noticed an observation of his, for the purpose of misrepresenting it. He put it to the House, whether he had said any thing of which a good Protestant need be ashamed. He had stated, that he should be extremely glad to see the whole population of Ireland converted to the Protestant faith, but he was not so sanguine as some others were on this subject; and he maintained, that if there were a prospect of their conversion, it would furnish an additional argument for Catholic: Emancipation, inasmuch as a persecuted sect was less likely to be converted, than one admitted to equal civil rights and privileges.
The Bishop of Chestermaintained that the noble earl had treated the attempt to convert the Catholics of Ireland as a visionary scheme.
Viscount Clifdenwas of opinion, that the Protestant religion had never had fair play in Ireland He had no doubt that if there had been no penal laws, the whole population would have been Protestants before now. The gentry, to prevent the loss of their property, had been compelled to abjure the Catholic faith; but the people at large were, by the cruelty of those laws, bound to the Catholic priesthood.
The Earl of Rodenpresented petitions against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, from 22,000 Protestants of the county of Londonderry, and the county of Tyrone. The noble lord said: —When I consider the importance of the subject on which these petitions are addressed to your lordships, I feel myself compelled to declare, in a few words, my opinion on the present condition of that country from which they proceed; but first, I must express my regret, that on this
1232
great and important subject, the members of his majesty's government are still divided in opinion; that they do not yet consider it a subject fit to be decided by them; but that they still reserve the decision of it as an apple of discord, to be thrown between the two parties in Ireland, who ground their own division upon the division that exists on this question among his majesty's ministers. To this division in the cabinet we must also trace the present system of policy pursued by the Irish government— a system which its supporters term conciliatory, but which I consider weak and puerile—a policy, whose only result has been to draw down on it the disgust of the Irish Protestants, and the contempt of the Roman Catholics. But I firmly believe that the time is not far distant, that the day is close at hand, when this division among the members of the government must cease to exist—when the government must take an influential part in the decision of the question—when the government, as one united body, must come forward and declare their determination to support the Protestant church and constitution in Ireland, or to support the Popish ascendancy that now domineers over that country. It has been said, here and elsewhere, that the present condition of Ireland cannot continue; that things cannot remain as they are. With this opinion I entirely concur, as I think it impossible that Roman Catholics should be allowed to legislate for a Protestant church. For that I contend is the ultimate object of the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and this opinion I pronounce, not only on the authority of history, but on the acknowledgment of the Roman Catholics themselves, who declare that they look on their admission into this and the other house of parliament, merely as a step to the intended overthrow of the Protestant establishment. The speeches and measures of the Roman Catholic Association, and the concurrence of the Catholic gentry and the general population in those measures, will show, that the object of them all is one and the same; namely, the subversion of the Protestant religion. Can then these things remain as they are? Shall we ever allow the Roman Catholics to prescribe laws for the Protestant church of Ireland? I have heard noble lords assert, that the treatment of Roman Catholics of Ireland is as bad as that suffered by the Greeks from the Turks—that one sect of Irishmen is persecuted by ano-

1233
ther; and that they are subject to a system of tyranny on account of their religious opinions. Is it so? Yes; if there be religious persecution in Ireland, it is the persecution inflicted by the Catholics on the converts from Popery; if tyranny is exercised over men in Ireland, it is the tyranny employed by the Roman Catholic priests over their congregations, to prevent them from shaking off the slavish yoke of Popery, and becoming converts to that glorious Reformation which is now working its rapid way through every part of the country. That great work has been censured by persons in other places, and in high authority, as a mere chimera. I think differently, my lords. My sincere conviction is, that its success is the work of Heaven—the pure result of the preaching of the Word of God, and the operation of his Divine Spirit. It has been urged as an argument in favour of concession to the Roman Catholics, that the refusal of it will drive them into rebellion. I do not believe that assertion; but even though I did believe that rebellion would be the result of our refusal, still I would encounter the risk of rebellion, immense an evil as I consider it, than allow the Protestant constitution to be ruled by the legislations of men, who, by the very essence of their religion, hold a divided allegiance to a Protestant establishment. My lords, I must declare, that I am not satisfied with the present system of Irish government, or rather of no-government, which, instead of allaying the evils of the country, increases them a hundred fold. For proof of this, look to your lordships' own legislative measures. Two years ago, your lordships passed a bill, which has since been called the Algerine act, which some of your lordships opposed, as infringing on popular liberties; but which I then supported, through a certainly, that it was calculated to attain the object for which it was designed—I mean the suppression of party associations in Ireland, which have so long been the bane of that country—but what has been the effect of that, act? It put down the associations of Protestants, which had originally been formed for the protection of the laws and the constitution. I do not complain that these Protestant associations were put down. They were no longer wanted; they had degenerated into signs and badges of party: but what I complain of is this, that though the Protestant associations yielded to the law, yet
1234
still, at this day, the Roman Catholic Association is in existence, spreading its destructive poison to the remotest extremities of the land. I have heard it asserted, that the Irish government has made attempts to put down this Catholic Association. I say no attempt has been made to put it down; and, as a proof, it stands, my lords, before parliament and government at full work, unchecked in its operations, uninjured in its power. I may be told, indeed, of a prosecution that has been brought by the Attorney-general for Ireland against Mr. Shiel, for a certain inflammatory speech delivered by him before the Association; but when your lordships remember the violent opinions and language used elsewhere by that same Attorney-general, will you not agree with me, that it is a great hardship that Mr. Shiel should be prosecuted for his seditious speech, while the Attorney-general for Ireland is allowed to diffuse, with impunity, opinions productive of the greatest mischief, in the present state of Ireland. That condition of the country, combined with the existence of the Roman Catholic Associasion, is an indelible stain upon the character of the government.
The Bishop of Norwich,in explanation, justified his applying the word persecution to the conduct observed towards the Roman Catholics. He was taught in early life, by abler men than now lived, that every penalty, every restriction, every disadvantage, every inconvenience imposed upon an individual on account of his religious opinion, was persecution. That being the case, he thought that the noble earl need not complain, if he said the Irish were the most persecuted men on the face of the earth [hear].
The Earl of Carnarvon,in allusion to what had fallen from a noble earl, with reference to a comparison between the state of the Irish Catholics, and that of the Greeks under the Turks, observed, that when the present state of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland was referred to as an argument against conceding to them their claims, he did say that noble lords might as well apply that argument to the Greeks as to them; namely, that because a long system of oppression had reduced them to a state of degradation, therefore they were not entitled to be relieved from that oppression. He was satisfied, that the Roman Catholics, under the rule of Protestant ascendancy,

1235
were not much better off than the Greeks under their Turkish rulers. The noble lords of the Protestant ascendancy were not only for disqualifying the Roman Catholics from being heard in parliament, but all the British peers also; and now the noble earl was for disqualifying the House of Commons too; for he had told their lordships, that Mr. Shiel was under prosecution for having used certain expressions, but that the language of a right hon. and learned gentleman, in another place (evidently alluding to the House of Commons), was infinitely more culpable. The Protestant ascendancy lords were at once parties, accusers, and judges; and every day brought forward charges against the Roman Catholics, while the voice of the latter could not be heard. Irritation had been imputed to the Roman Catholics; but, if it existed on the part of the Catholics, their lordships had ocular demonstration, that great irritation existed on the part of the noble lords. The noble earl had even gone so far as to say, that sooner than see the Roman Catholics emancipated, he would encounter all the dangers of rebellion. Now, he appealed to the House, if ever any language had proceeded from the Roman Catholics of a more dangerous tendency than that? If their lordships wished to save the country, they must not await the tardy progress of reformation, but at once take measures to put down, not only the Catholic Association, but the Protestant ascendancy party also. Their lordships must not leave this subject to their irritability, but take it under their own dispassionate judgment. If they did not do so, the time would soon come when they would repent it, but when repentance would be too late.
Viscount Clifdensaid, that if he were to go into the question, he could show that great changes had taken place in the Roman Catholic religion. It had been said, that, if emancipation was granted, the Roman Catholics would not be satisfied. He was quite certain that they would be satisfied—they must be satisfied.
Lord Mountcashelregretted that noble lords treated the question as a matter rather of policy than religion; and expressed his conviction, that the spirit of the Roman Catholic religion remained unchanged to this day. In support of this opinion, he quoted passages from the decrees of several Roman Catholic councils. The doctrines inculcated by these councils
1236
were taught, at this day, in Roman Catholic seminaries, which were supported by parliamentary grants, and diffused, by the priests, among their several congregations. The persecutions suffered by the Vaudois, in Piedmont, were a proof of the bigotry of the Roman Catholic religion. He was astonished how noble lords who had taken the oath of Supremacy, could support the claims of the Catholics. He considered himself justified in accusing them of a violation of that oath, as he felt that, if he acted in the same manner, he should be guilty of perjury. For these reasons, he should, at all times, oppose further concessions to the Catholics.
Ordered to lie on the table.