Sitting of 25 June 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HANDLEY, from Stafford, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. GISBORNE, from the Deputies of the Corporations of England and Wales, to the same effect.—By Sir GEORGE CLERK, from the Cordwainers of Edinburgh, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Mr. HARVEY, from Harwich, for Stopping the Supplies till a full Measure of Reform be granted.—By Sir GEORGE CLERK and Mr. PRINGLE, from the Clergy of several Places,—for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. BARNARD, from Deptford, for Allowing the Occupiers of small Houses to Vote, though the Owners may have Compounded for or Fanned the Rates of their Houses.—By Messrs. HUME, SHELDON, P. M. STEWART, TYNTE, and ROBINSON, from a Number of Places,—for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers.—By Mr. FECTOR, from Rochester, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. AGLIONBY, from the Millowners and Others of Keswick, for Amending the Factories' Regulation Act.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Rutherglen, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Mr. BETHELL, from the Clergy of the East Riding of Yorkshire, in Support of the Protestant Church Establishment of Ireland.—By Mr. HUTT and an HON. MEMBER, from Kingston-upon-Hull and Mold,—against transferring to Doctors' Commons the sole Right of granting Probates and Administrations By Mr. FINCH, from Stamford, in favour of the Municipal Corporations Bill.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.—By Mr. WILKS, Mr. J. POWER, and an HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—against Drunkenness.—By Mr. J. POWER, from New Ross, for an increased Duty on Spirits in Ireland.—By Mr. J. POWER and Mr. WESTENRA, from a Number of Places,—against Tithe.—By Messrs. CLAY, AGLIONBY, COLLIER, and BAINES, from several Places,—for Remitting the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. C. BERKELEY, from the Postmasters and Coachowners of Cheltenham, for a Reduction in the Duty on their Servants and Carriages.

CORPORATION REFORM BILL.
Lord Sandonrose to present a Petition of rather a complicated nature, but of very deep importance. It was a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Liverpool, showing how the Corporation Reform Bill now before the House would affect their vested rights, their liabilities, and peculiar circumstances. They did not wish to offer any opposition to the progress of the bill, but merely to show the existence of certain local regulations and peculiar circumstances, which it would be difficult to accommodate to the general principles of that measure. The petition first recited the amount of income from freehold lands, &c, at the disposal of the Corporation, and then proceeded to show the amount of debts and liabilities which they had incurred, and which they had secured in a great measure by bonds. In respect to these debts the petitioners hoped that the House would
1230
make some provision by law, and recommended a sinking fund for that purpose. Another circumstance was, that contracts to a large amount had been entered into by the Corporation for the improvement of the town, and these improvements were now in progress. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that these contracts might be confirmed, as well for the benefit of the town as out of justice to the contractors. There was another point alluded to in the petition, which called for legislation, whether in a separate bill, or in a new clause in the Municipal Reform Bill itself, the petitioners did not pretend to say. They alluded to the dock estates of the Corporation, which were very extensive, and which had hitherto been regulated by a certain number of the Corporators, selected for that purpose—a system which, according to the provisions of the Corporation Reform Bill could be pursued no longer. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that some new form of trust might be appointed by Parliament in respect to these dock estates in lieu of that now to be abolished. The petitioners enumerated various other local acts and regulations which would be found practically incompatible with the bill brought into Parliament by his Majesty's Ministers, but into those details the noble Lord said he would not enter at the present. He would simply move that the petition be laid on the Table, and also that it be printed, in the hope that it would receive the attention it deserved at the hands of the House on some future day.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that he thought the fact stated last night by an hon. Member, that in Liverpool a merchant was taxed to the extent of 1,400 l. above his fellow-merchant simply because he did not happen to be a member of the Corporation, was argument sufficient against the continuance of the exclusive privileges which the Corporation had hitherto enjoyed and laid claim to. He said that if any peculiar provisions were deemed necessary to adapt the affairs of the Corporation of Liverpool to the principles of the great measure of Municipal Reform they should be brought forward in a separate bill for that purpose. But, whatever was done, he hoped the House would not permit the Corporation of Liverpool to escape from the reforming influence of the great measure now so largely occupying the attention of the House and of the country.
Mr. Thorneleysaid, that although it was very true the Corporation of Liverpool

1231
was in debt to the amount of 800,000 l., it was also true that they were in receipt of an annual income of 100,000 l. So, also, there was a debt on account of the dock estates of 400,000 l.; but the income received from the docks was about 200,000 l. He could not, therefore, believe that any of the parties interested in that property ran the least risk of loss from the operation of the Municipal Reform Bill. He, for one, was a holder of dock stock to a considerable amount, and he could assure the House that he should consider that property much more safe when the Corporation Reform Bill had passed, and the dues collected by the Corporation were placed under responsible men, than he did now.
Petition laid on the Table.

IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr Hawespresented a Petition from John Pilgrim, confined in Newgate under an order of that House. The petitioner stated facts in his petition which required to be brought to the attention of the House. He stated that he had been thirty-years, preceding this transaction, the confidential clerk of Messrs. Sewell, Blake, and Co., the Solicitors at Norwich; that he was entirely under their control, and had acted throughout under their directions; that when he left England for Calais to avoid service of the Speaker's warrant he was asked to do so by a note from Mr. Keith of the house of Sewell, Blake, and Co.; that that note was procured as a colour for his absence from England; that he received 20 l. from that house to cover his expenses; that after he had been absent, he felt a natural wish to return to his family; that on his arrival at Norwich, he was arrested on a criminal charge by Sewell, Blake, and Co.; and that whatever might be the imputations on his character, he was willing to be brought to the Bar of the House, and there to be examined, touching every thing in which he was concerned in reference to the Ipswich election, and to disclose every circumstance within his knowledge. There was another very strong reason stated in the petition as a ground why the House should interfere. Having been arrested by the very persons who up to that hour never raised a voice against him, when he returned home, it would be necessary for him to take his trial on the 1st of August next, therefore he prayed that the clemency of the house might be extended to him, and that he might be discharged in order that he might have
1232
an opportunity to prepare for his defence. The hon. Member thought a more reasonable claim could not be made, therefore he begged to give a formal notice that so soon as the petition should be read, he should move that Mr. Pilgrim be brought to the bar of the House to-morrow.
Mr. Grotemoved that the petition be read.
Mr. Humesuggested the propriety of having the petition printed. It appeared to him that men of respectability and character had been concerned in a conspiracy to defeat the power and object of the Legislature, and it would be a question hereafter for the House to consider whether a Committee ought not to be appointed to inquire into the circumstances. There were not only the persons mentioned in Mr. Pilgrim's petition, but the Magistrates in the county of Norfolk who had become very deeply involved in this transaction; and he could not help thinking that there ought to be the fullest investigation into the circumstances, that eventually blame should not he cast on the innocent.
Mr. Warburtonwould propose, if Mr. Pilgrim were to be brought to the Bar tomorrow for the purpose of being examined, that the House should sit at twelve o'clock, and that he should be examined then, so that the other important business now before the House should not be interfered with.
Mr. Hopewas of opinion that no proceedings should be taken on this petition or in this affair further until all the circumstances had been fully investigated. With respect to the petitioner's statement that he had received 20 l. from Sewell, Blake, and Co. to cover his travelling expenses he had not stated one syllable of that before the Committee. He had persisted before the Committee also that it was under Mr. Clipperton's advice he had gone away.
Mr. Hawessaid, that by his petition Mr. Pilgrim declared that owing to the agitation he was under when before the Committee, from his having been in custody by virtue of Mr. Speaker's warrant, and also under a criminal charge, he had not had presence of mind sufficient to enable him to make that statement.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that if the House brought Mr. Pilgrim up to be examined at the Bar, he believed it would be adopting a course which had not been resorted to on any former occasion. On all previous occasions, a party having similarly of-

1233
fended had been brought to the bar, simply to be reprimanded and discharged. He agreed with the hon. Member, that it was extremely desirable there should be a Committee appointed to examine into the whole of the affair. He had only received the evidence last night which had been taken before the Committee, and had not had time to go through it. He should apply himself as diligently as possible to it, and he hoped that in the course of two or three days he should be able to state what the course was that he thought ought to be adopted. He should be sorry to throw any obstruction in Mr. Pilgrim's way; he hoped the House would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and if it was considered right, any hon. Member might tomorrow move that Mr. Pilgrim when brought up should be remanded.
Mr. Hawesmoved that John Pilgrim be called to the Bar of the House to-morrow.
Lord John Russellthought it would be very inconvenient to press such a Motion at present.
Mr. Robert Steuartsaid, that he held in his hand a similar petition from Mr. Dasent, who was also well known to the House. By his petition he confessed his crime, alluded to the extent of his punishment, and expressed his willingness to appear at the Bar, and answer any questions the House might be pleased to put to him. Probably the best, easiest, and shortest course to arrive at justice would be to pursue the line which had been adopted in the Camelford case in 1819. In that case the period of imprisonment did not exceed five days, a d he really thought the fair course here would be to have the parties brought to the Bar, that they might be reprimanded and discharged, on their deliberate undertaking, as in the Camelford case, to return and give full and free examination whenever they might be required to do so at any future time.
Sir George Clerktook the same view of the question as the hon. Member for Haddington who had just spoken. He would put it to the noble Lord opposite, to say whether he did not think the parties had suffered punishment sufficient for the offence they had committed. The noble Lord would find, that in no former case where parties had been sent to Newgate by the House for a similar offence, had they been subjected to so long an imprisonment. If th were now to be called to the Bar, reprimanded, and discharged, it would still be open for the House to take any further
1234
proceedings it might deem it expedient to resort to.
Mr. Kearslegrose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move "that the persons now confined in Newgate in consequence of the report of the Ipswich election Committee be brought to the Bar of the House." After what had passed, he would not occupy the time of the House. He sincerely hoped hon. Members would not refuse to accede to his Motion, but that they would be merciful to those who were now in affliction, knowing, as they must, how much they—how very much they themselves stood in need of mercy.
Mr. Humeapprehended that it was not competent to propose any measure of relief for persons who had been committed to Newgate by that House for an offence against the House until after the parties themselves had presented petitions.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that he had a Petition to present to the House from Messrs. Sewell, Blake, and Co., but that from an accident he had it not with him, in which they distinctly denied the allegations made by Mr. Pilgrim in his petition. He hoped the House would permit him to present the petition to-morrow.
Lord Hennikersaid, he had a Petition in his hand from Mr. Sparrow, which he had been requested to present.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, he really thought the better way would be to postpone any proceedings for the present, that all the parties might have an opportunity of having petitions presented.
Mr. Robert Steuartsaid, he should like very much that the whole of this thing should be sifted fully, and that it should he made public, because he was quite sure that, notwithstanding the long investigation which had taken place on this subject, there was still much that remained in mystery. At the same time, he thought that the parties ought to be brought up and discharged in the manner he had before pointed out had been done in the Camelford case.
Sir John Wrottesleycould not accede to the Motion. The petition should be printed, and afterwards the House ought to have twenty-four hours for consideration.
Mr. Grotethought, that the discharge of those persons should be preceded by the appointment of that Committee of which notice had been given for an inquiry into all those facts of the case which it was admitted on all hands were involved in the greatest mystery.
Lord John Russellsaid, it would be advisable that all the petitions now in the hands of hon. Members, as well as any others which might be sent by to-morrow from the other prisoners, should first of all be presented; afterwards any order might be made for them to appear immediately at the Bar, and the House might take any course which it should think proper to adopt.
Mr. Williams Wynncould see no objection to the House now making a simple order for the attendance of the prisoners tomorrow in custody of the keeper of Newgate; and they might then determine what course should be pursued. The great object in committing them had already been accomplished—namely, the vindication of the honour and independence of the House.
Mr. Wilksconsidered it impossible, consistently with the claims of justice, to make an order for the attendance of the prisoners to-morrow, especially after the notice which had been given by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Wodehouse) of the petition to be presented from Messrs. Sewell and Blake, with reference to the allegations of Pilgrim. It was but right that both sides should be heard before any step was taken towards the discharge of that individual. In the present state of the matter it was the duty of the House to take care that it was not precipitate in its proceedings.
Sir Robert Peelthought, that there would be considerable difficulty in making any order for the prisoners to appear tomorrow to await any contingency that might occur. The mere circumstance of their being in waiting would fetter the proceedings of the House. At the same time there would, no doubt, be considerable hardship in detaining them in prison till Monday, if the House should ultimately be of opinion that they ought to be discharged to-morrow. He should recommend that the whole of the petitions be now presented, and taken into consideration immediately the House met to-morrow, and if the prevailing opinion was that the petitioners ought to be discharged, they would, no doubt, submit to the inconvenience of interrupting the debate in a later period of the evening, in order to have their immediate attendance. That course, he thought, would be most considerate for all parties.
Motion withdrawn.

THE DORCHESTER LABOURERS.
Lord John Russellasked the hon. Member for
1236
Finsbury whether he would have the goodness to postpone his Motion, which stood first on the paper, for an address to his Majesty to grant the pardon and order the recall of the Dorchester labourers. The reason he addressed this request to the hon. Gentleman was, that the House might go at once into Committee on the Municipal Corporation Bill. He would avail himself of this opportunity to afford the hon. Gentleman some explanation in connexion with this subject. The case of the Dorchester labourers was one to which he had given a great deal of attention, and after a careful consideration of all the circumstances, he thought it his duty to recommend to the Crown a remission of the punishment of those persons to a certain extent. The extent to which he had recommended a remission was this—that pardon be granted to the whole of them, there being six, on the condition that they remained in the colonies—such being the form in which pardons were often granted—and with respect to four of them, he recommended that at the end of two years from the time of their arrival in the colony, provided the Governor approved their conduct during that period, and no offence was attributed to them, they should receive a full pardon, which would enable them to return to this country. But two of those persons named Loveless, whom he considered the most culpable, and who in fact had incited the others to the commission of the offence, would not be allowed to return to England. Having given this explanation, he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would press his Motion now; and he could not help hoping that the hon. Member would not consider it necessary to do so at any future time, inasmuch as the Motion was one of an unusual nature, and involved an interference with a prerogative of the Crown, namely, the exercise of mercy.
Mr. Harveypresented a petition from an attorney at Dorchester, who stated that he was so affected by the arbitrary and severe course pursued by the Judge on the occasion of the trial of these men, that he could not remain in the Court to witness the remainder of the proceedings.
Mr. William F. S. Ponsonbysaid, he was one of the Grand Jury who found the bill, and there was no difference of opinion amongst them.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodhoped the Crown would extend its clemency, and place the whole of these men on an equal footing.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury could hardly be considered an interference with the King's prerogative of mercy any more than it was an interference of that description to petition the Crown for mercy, which was often done with success.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that after a great deal of deliberation on the case, it appeared to be the opinion of all persons that these unfortunate men had violated the law.
Mr. O'Connellfelt called on to make a remark or two after what had just fallen from the Attorney-General. When the indictment against these men was first found, his impression was that the conviction was illegal. He had no hesitation in avowing that he changed his opinion on the subject after hearing what fell from the Attorney-General, respect for whose judgment led him, inclined as he always was to defer to it, to doubt his own. He had since that time given the case much consideration, and the opinion he now entertained was that the conviction was not sustainable.
Mr. Roebuckreminded the House, that these unfortunate men were so hurried out of the country, that there was no opportunity of learning what they could say in their own behalf.
Mr. Wardsaid, when it was seen how much difference of opinion existed as to this case, he thought a very strong claim was made on behalf of these men for mercy. All the purposes of this prosecution had been answered; it had proved to the labouring classes the danger of secret associations, and had put a stop to similar combinations.
Mr. Humewished to press on the noble Lord's consideration that what appeared to be the general wish was that all six of the men should be placed on the footing of the four to whom the noble Lord proposed to extend the mercy of the Crown. The noble Lord could scarcely be aware of the anxiety which existed amongst all classes of the community on this subject; but it was particularly strong in that class with which he was most anxious that the Government should stand well. The prevailing feeling was that the punishment of these men was a personal injustice. He would not now enter into the question of whether it was so or not; but he would express his wish that the noble Lord would hold out some hopes that the difference between what was granted and what was refused would
1238
be conceded, in order that they might not be obliged to enter into what might probably be an unpleasant discussion. Though his hon. Friend had given a pledge to bring the question forward, he was inclined to ask his hon. Friend to postpone his Motion for fourteen days, to give time to the Government to take the case again into consideration. There were the names of half a million of petitioners upon the Table of the House, and three times as many more would have been sent if sufficient time had been given.
Lord John Russellwould state at once the answer he had to make to the hon. Member for Middlesex. What he had to say was, that in this case, as in any other that might be brought before him, whether in this House or out of it, he did not hold himself precluded from entering upon the consideration of any facts or circumstances which might come to his knowledge, and forming a judgment upon them without reserve; but he begged to add, that he had considered most deeply the case of the Dorchester labourers, and it did appear to him, on looking into what had been the conduct of two of the parties, he meant the two Lovelesses, that in the extension of mercy towards them, they ought to be distinguished from the others. His opinion was, that the four had been the dupes of the two he had named. With respect to these two, then, his conviction at the moment he was speaking was, that if he recommended, either on his own authority or in consequence of any proceedings in this House, the Crown to extend further mercy to them, he should be lending himself to weaken the authority of the law, and to impair the influence which that great institution, Trial by Judge and Jury, ought to have in this country.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that if the two men had been treated in the same manner as the other four, he should have been disposed to be content. He was prepared to prove that those persons were innocent; nay more, he could show that they ought not to have been prosecuted at all. The learned Attorney-General said the prosecution was a just one; but he begged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman under what Act of Parliament the prisoners were prosecuted? If the Attorney-General could not tell, how should poor ignorant men, living in remote districts of the country, know any thing about it. If the noble Lord would reconsider the question, he would defer his Motion till some day next week, otherwise he must bring it forward.
Lord John Russellsaid, it seemed to him, that after what he said, and what had fallen from the hon. Member, that it would be better for the hon. Member to bring forward the Motion at once.
Mr. Wakleythen rose, and in bringing forward his Motion could not help expressing his astonishment that the foreman of the Grand Jury, a gentleman in that House, should endeavour, even before the case was heard there, to interpose between the sufferers and the seat of mercy, and he hoped that if any other hon. Member was connected with the prosecution he would, at least, hear the discussion. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire was himself the Foreman of the Grand Jury, and he, upon an ex-parte statement, having found a true bill against the unfortunate men, came forward in the House, and, before he had made his statement, repeated the evidence given in a Court of Justice. Now under what circumstances were those men prosecuted? He begged the attention of the House, for if he should fail in his object he could only say that the people of England would hereafter look in vain for justice at the hands of that assembly. He believed that every one in the House well knew that the Trades' Unions were instituted in London in July 1833. When was the union of Tolpuddle instituted? In the November of that year, after the Trades' Union had been established in London for four months. Hundreds of men belonged to them, and Government permitted, at least had not interfered with, them. No party was prosecuted, and thus, by acquiescence, at least, Government gave their sanction to those Unions. It could be proved that in numberless instances police-officers, in plain clothes, belonged to them, and if any one would read the evidence given before a Committee of that House, it would be at once inferred that the information of those police-officers was regularly transmitted to the Home Office. The Dorsetshire labourers having received notice (pray let Gentlemen mark this) that their wages were to be reduced from 7s. a-week to 6s., they having wives and families, they wrote to their brothers in London and communicated to them their distressed condition. What was the reply? "We have established the Unions for our protection here, we are given to understand that they are strictly legal, we walk in procession in this metropolis, and neither Police Magistrates, nor the Ministers, nor the Judges of the land, interfere with our
1240
operations. We recommend you to do the same." The men of Dorset seeing that there was a protecting power in those Unions in the metropolis, immediately set to work to establish one there, and it was not established in those distant villages until such Unions had existed for four months unmolested in London. He asked hon. Gentlemen whether it was possible for them to believe that those men imagined they were committing any offence against the law in establishing such an Union? An hon. Member had stated, that a placard containing extracts from certain Acts of Parliament relating to Unions was found in the pocket of one of the men. That was true: but when did the poor man obtain possession of them? Why, on the Sunday previous to the day of his being taken into custody,—the individual obtaining cognizance of the nature of his offence (if he had committed any) only after the offence had been perpetrated. These men were actually going to break up the Union in consequence of seeing that paper—but they had not time to accomplish its dissolution. A prosecution was determined on by the magistrates of Dorset, and one afternoon, a constable called at the cottages of the men telling them there was a criminal charge against them. So great was their conviction of their innocence that they went, with only one officer, all the way to Dorchester, under the impression that they were to return the next day. On their arrival they were examined by the magistrates, and remanded to the gaol. The next morning the magistrates actually, instead of bringing them into open court, visited them in the gaol, took the remainder of their depositions in private, and made out their commitment in the gaol. Even the witnesses were committed to gaol, in order that they might be compelled to give the required evidence at the trial of the accused. And who was the chief witness whom it was necessary to imprison, in order to secure his testimony? Why, the son of the gardener who was in the employment of that very magistrate who caused the labourers to be apprehended. In fact, the whole matter looked like a conspiracy to entrap the accused. He admitted that societies bound together by secret oaths ought not to be tolerated, but no objection to them in point of law in this case could exist, as combinations for the protection of wages were strictly legal. Besides he contended that men should not be punished for alleged offences, the law

1241
against which had not been clearly defined and settled. The proceedings connected with their commitment and trial were equally unfair. On the Sunday before the trial an officer connected with the county court, visited Tolpuddle, and other neighbouring villages, in order to make inquiries relative to the characters of the individuals who were to be summoned as jurors on the trial of the labourers, and the neighbours were asked who would be safe persons to put into the jury-box on that occasion? In pursuance of the objects sought to be obtained by this unjust inquisition, a tradesman, of the name of Bridle, a linen-draper at Bere Regis, was challenged by the Crown, and turned out of the jury-box, his disqualifying offences being, that he was not a farmer, and that he had occasionally heard one of the Lovelesses preach in the Methodist chapel of Bere Regis. Now, seeing such a determination on the part of the magistrates and the prosecutors, was it likely that the men would have a fair and impartial trial? The House would imagine what were the feelings of the Judge and the Jury when they heard the charge delivered by the former to the Grand Jury of the county—
"Gentlemen, (said Mr. Baron Williams) there is only one other subject on which I shall presume to give you information; it is the case at the conclusion of your calendar—the charge of administering secret, or as they are called—and properly called—secret and unlawful oaths. Gentlemen, you are probably aware that the Act 37 Geo. 3rd, c. 123, seems to allude particularly to seditious societies and confederacies; but, though it does so, it has been decided that the combination, or confederacy, be it which it may, need not be for a seditious purpose, but that other unlawful purposes of combination are embraced in the Act of Parliament; if, therefore, you should have evidence that a person or persons had administered an oath to bind to secrecy, though there should be no evidence to satisfy you that it was connected with mutinous and seditious purposes, yet there can be no doubt that it would come within the meaning of the Act. Gentlemen, having had my attention called to it, I cannot refrain from making some observations on the nature and quality of these offences. In the first place, it is no light matter to receive an oath in the secret manner alluded to, especially if it should appear to be for illegal purposes, as it is disparaging and bringing into discredit the
1242
administration of oaths altogether, thereby affecting that which is essential to the purity of judicial oaths, upon the obligation of which the administration of justice depends. It has been observed by moralists (among whom I may mention Dr. Paley), that a frequent and familiar administration of an oath, even for purposes of justice, is much to be regretted, and if there be any truth in such an observation, how much more applicable is it where the administration of an oath, which places the party in so doubtful a state of morality, that a casuist would be puzzled to decide what course the party ought to pursue? Certainly, in courts of law we could not allow of his acting under that obligation, but how far it would be incumbent on him to disclose anything against his oath, is a question of doubtful morality, and is one of the baneful effects resulting from the administration of an oath, which puts the party in such a predicament; openness and publicity of conduct have hitherto been considered the criterion of honesty, and I fear it would be an evil day for this country if the disposition for such openness should fail; all secret societies which are self-constituted, self-elected, are calculated to shake the foundations of society, and bring the country into extremely perilous circumstances; the misery of these particular cases is this—that men subject themselves for the irresponsible conduct of others, who have no regard for the individuals over whom they exercise this authority, and who are the most dangerous persons in the world to be intrusted with authority; the unhappy men who have been thus misled are in a state of the most wretched subjection and debasement. Gentlemen, of all the persons affected by it, not even excepting the public, the unfortunate persons themselves who are brought into the trammels of these bonds, and have had an oath of this kind administered to them, are affected the worst. Sure I am, that in my own experience, I have known that they have been compelled, by forced oaths, to make out of their scanty means contributions to so large an amount, as would not be endured if demanded by Government for the service of their country. The arbitrary demands made on them have, in many instances, exceeded anything before known in this or any other country; nor does the evil rest here, for when men unite themselves to such societies, the common right of labouring for whom they please is taken from them; this is undoubtedly a very

1243
serious subject, and as far as your influence extends, I doubt not that every means will be used on your parts for the prevention of this great, and I fear prevalent, mischief." Thus the Jury were led to infer that all secret societies were illegal. Now after such a charge as that coming from such high authority, it was impossible to expect that the men should have a fair trial, the impression made upon the Jury by such language as that would be that the parties had committed a very heinous offence. Now, what was the evidence, to make it appear to the Jury that the combination was illegal? The rules of the society were laid before them, and there was not one rule among them which he (Mr. Wakley) considered illegal. Yet the illegality of the association was the foundation, in all the counts of the indictment,—for sustaining the allegation with regard to the illegality of the oath. Had the indictment been framed in accordance with the spirit and the letter of an Act passed in the 39th of Geo. 3rd—avowedly framed for the purpose of putting down all secret associations, with the exception of the society of freemasons, and two or three other societies therein specifically named,—then, indeed, doubts might justly have been entertained whether these men had not offended against the conditions of that Statute, notwithstanding the repeal of the combination-laws. But there was a motive for not prosecuting them under that Statute. The poor fellows might then have been proceeded against summarily before the magistrate, and been committed to prison for three months for taking an oath not required or authorised by law; whereas, under the 37th of Geo. 3rd, the Judge, upon the conviction of the accused had the power of transporting them for the term of seven years—a power, which he could not exceed, and which, in the discharge of his duty, he exercised to the very uttermost. It was true that the society was secret, and proved to be secret, but he denied that it was an illegal combination. He called the attention of the House to the Act of 1826, an extract from which he would read to the House, which provided that workmen of the country might legally combine to any extent, or in any form they pleased, with respect to the trades in which they were engaged, without subjecting themselves to any legal condemnation, and if he should succeed in proving that, he thought no Gentleman would say that the merely administering
1244
the oath made them illegal. The Act to which he referred, was the, sec. 4, Geo. 4th, cap. 129, it said. "Provided always that nothing in this Act shall subject any persons to punishment, which shall meet together for the purpose of consulting upon the rate of wages, or the prices which the persons present at such meeting shall demand, or upon the time for which such persons should work, in any manufacture, trade, or business, or who should enter into any engagement verbal or written, for the purpose of fixing the rates of wages which the said parties shall require for their work, or the time for which the said persons should work, at any manufacture trade, or business, &c." Now the combination of those men was to protect themselves; they had notice of a diminution of their wages, from 7s. to 6s. and they followed the example set them in London, to protect themselves and their families from a diminution in their scanty earnings, which was to them nothing less than starvation. He would refer to a case in 1816, when the unions did not create such agitation, and excited no such morbid feeling, and he thought from the language then used by Mr. Justice Holroyd, all parties must admit that he considered the 37th of Geo. 3rd did not apply to those societies unless their object was strictly illegal; the combination in that case was one of poachers who went out at night with blackened faces to kill game. He would quote the charge from Carrington's and Paine's Reports; the case was tried at Gloucester Spring Assizes, 11th April 1816, the indictment was against sixteen persons for administering unlawful oaths; the Lord Judge summed up as follows. "If the oath, administered by the prisoner to the poachers, was intended to make them believe themselves under an engagement, it is clearly within the Clause, whether the book was the Testament, or not. As to the assembly itself, it is impossible that the meeting to go out with faces disguised, can be other than an unlawful assembly, and therefore the oath to keep it secret is clearly an oath prohibited by this Act." That, in his opinion, decided the question as to the oaths which could only be considered illegal, if the society were illegal. The union of the poachers was unlawful, but the union of the labourers was legal, and the Act under which they were punished, did not apply to their case. Under those circumstances, was it possible that the

1245
noble Lord could be justified in commanding the infliction of the sentence upon the men? He (Mr. Wakley) had asked almost one half the Barristers in the House, and none could tell him under what precise Act those men were condemned; or who could say that the conviction was legal, or that the prosecution was legal. He, therefore, appealed to that sense of justice which he was sure the noble Lord possessed, for a remission of the sentence imposed on the unfortunate men. If they had erred, they erred in ignorance, he would however altogether throw aside the question of law, and go to the question of facts, to the character and conduct of the men. Was it proved in the Court that any of the men had been guilty of threatening their fellow labourers, or in any degree given offence to their neighbours? He had evidence on the contrary, that six better labourers, and more honest men did not exist in the kingdom. They were most exemplary persons:—and the two men, whom the noble Lord was to visit with the last sting of the law's severity—those men who had never been anything during their lives but common labourers; had by dint of study, and application, become so qualified in mental capacity as to be enabled to give lectures in the neighbourhood to their fellow labourers, and had even been received into the Wesleyan conference as preachers. He (Mr. Wakley) feared very much, that that was their great offence; he feared there was something behind the scenes which would not, but which ought, to come out. The two men had large congregations attending them, and he much feared there was something in the transaction to which he would not then further advert. George Loveless, at the age of twenty-eight, with a salary of 7s. a week had succeeded in purchasing a small theological library and had studied with so much assiduity that there was no man in the neighbourhood who could compete with him in point of theological knowledge, but he could prove that in political discussions he had never taken part in his life. With the exception of one individual who had been charged when a boy twelve years of age, with taking a piece of old iron from a farm yard, valued at four-pence, not one of the individuals was ever accused of the slightest breach of the law. It was admitted, in fact, by all persons acquainted with their characters, that six more honest, peaceable, and industrious men were not to
1246
be found in the county of Dorset. Their employers at Tolpuddle bore one and all the highest testimony to their good conduct. He had received a note from a lady who had employed four of the men for several years. That lady said,—"George Loveless, James Loveless, Thomas Stand-field, and John Standfield, were agricultural labourers of mine for many years. I most willingly comply with your request, and now state, that they were all honest and industrious men."—Under date April 28th, 1835. The lady's name was Northover. Who, then, could describe the cruelty of the sentence passed on these meritorious men? He blushed for the character of his country while he related the particulars of such a barbarous transaction. To shew the stamp of mind, and the estimable character of George Loveless, he would read an extract from a letter written by him from on board the hulk in which he was confined immediately after his conviction, and previous to leaving this country. The letter was addressed to his wife in all the confidence of matrimonial attachment, and unrestrained domestic intercourse; never expecting that it would be seen by any individual—except the object of his anxious solicitude at home—least of all did he ever expect that any portion of his letter would ever be read in the British House of Commons. He might observe, that when he asked Loveless's wife whether she had received any letters from her husband that would enable him to judge of his character by the tone and temper of his language, this letter, and others which she handed to him, had been in her possession within a few days of twelve months. Never, should he forget with what trembling hands she gave him those documents, her countenance denoting almost insupportable agony, scarcely mitigated by an unceasing flow of tears, and her little children witnessing and partaking of the sorrows of the scene. The letter was dated from Spithead, May 28th, 1834, and was remarkable as containing not one word expressive of indignation or complaint against his prosecutors; it was as follows:—"I thank you, my dear wife, for the kind attention you have ever paid to me, and you may safely rely upon it, that as long as I live it will be my constant endeavour to return that kindness in every possible way, and hope to send to you as soon as we reach our place of destiny, and that I shall never forget the promise made at the altar; and though we may part awhile, I shall consider myself under the same obligation as

1247
though living in your immediate presence. What Member of this House could have expressed himself to the object of his affections in more delicate or refined terms? How undying and unalterable was the force of his attachment to a deeply affectionate wife! In a portion of another letter which he would read, this virtuous man—stigmatised as a common criminal—was anxious that the moral and spiritual education of his children should not be neglected during his absence. Really, to see such a man as this torn from his wife and infant offspring,—dragged from his friends and country on grounds so slight, doubtful, and suspicious,—was enough to drive the working millions of this country into madness and revenge. In the letter to which he had referred, Loveless said,—"Be satisfied, my dear Betsy, on my account. Depend upon it it will work together for good, and we shall yet rejoice together. I hope you will pay particular attention to the morals and spiritual interests of the children. Don't send me any money to distress yourself: I shall do well, for He who is Lord of the winds and waves will be my support in life and death." Poor fellow, he needed the support of the Lord who ruled over the winds and the waves, for he had found only cruelty and persecution in the decrees of the great men of the earth. Was it fitting, was it just, that such a man as this, for a doubtful offence, should be torn from his loved family, and expatriated for the lengthened period of seven years? This excellent man and his brother were the two selected to be left in New South Wales after they had been pardoned, which was a most harsh and unwarrantable proceeding. There had not been a just consideration shown to this case,—no adequate discussion and examination into its merits,—no ordinary adherence to the dictates of justice. The prosecution was one uniform and unmitigated act of tyranny. The husband was torn from his wife, and the son from his mother, and no distinction whatever was made between the case of a man who had reached the age of fifty-seven years, and a boy of twenty. The two Stanfields were father and son—the one a man, the other almost a child. "And hear it," said the hon. Member, apostrophizing the House, "Ye Gentlemen of England, who are husbands, and fathers, and brothers,—who have wives and children of your own;—one woman,—ah! poor creature, how painfully is she figured in my mind at this moment,—having a
1248
husband and six children, had taken from her her two brothers, her husband, and her eldest son, all at 'one fell swoop,' and this, my Lord, (addressing Lord John Russell) is your boasted England! This is your country of equal laws and equal justice. I do appeal to your Lordship——" [The Speaker: Order! Order!] He was aware that he was out of order in addressing the noble Lord personally, yet he trusted he would receive the appeal personally, for personal it was intended to be. The cause of the sufferers came not within the limits of any ordinary rules, and the pain which it excited was calculated to lead to a divergence from ordinary arrangements. He called upon the noble Lord to extend justice—mercy—to those individuals; and if they were allowed to return home, he would himself give personal or pecuniary security for the good behaviour of the two Lovelesses. He implored the House, he entreated the noble Lord, to take this fitting opportunity of extending mercy to the men, thereby gratifying thousands of the labouring classes who had appeared before the House as petitioners. Enough had already been done to deter others from following their example, and there was no longer reason why mercy should not be extended to these poor men.
"The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed;
It blesaeth him that gives, and him that takes."
He lamented that the labouring classes of England had no representatives here. A few of them, by birth and servitude in borough towns, enjoyed—and would, he hoped, continue to enjoy, the right of voting for representatives in the Legislature; though it had been decided otherwise in that House, unjustly and unwisely in his opinion. He had no desire to press the Motion to a division: he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of bringing the men back to their country. As to remaining in the colony, the hand of persecution had reached the poor men even there; would the House believe that the two brothers had been separated; that George Loveless was in a hut, 250 miles from the sea-shore, and James was in a part of the country in which the men were actually dying of famine, and in want of work? So long as George and James Loveless were in New South Wales, and were confined there against their will, they would be neither more nor less than transported men, suffering all the miseries concomitant to a forced separation from the

1249
persons whom they dearly loved, and whose happiness constituted a part of their existence. The noble Lord shall judge whether George and James Loveless would feel their continuance in New South Wales, under any circumstances, to be less than a forced transportation, by an extract, which he would read from a letter that, within the last fortnight, had been received from George Loveless:—'From what I can observe (he says) of this country, it is not such a paradise as is generally supposed by the people of England. Bread is uncommonly dear, more than double the price of bread in England, and other provisions in proportion. Clothing is dearer than provisions,—thousands of people are actually starving in this country, as many cannot get employment, and many are too idle to work. As yet, I see nothing to attract my attention to make me stop in the country one day after I obtain my liberty, and have the means to return; in fact, at present I despair of ever getting money to go to England, and yet nothing would yield me so much satisfaction, nay, nothing in this world will satisfy me, until I return to you and the children.' What mitigation of punishment would that be which was attended with such a reservation as a five years' domiciliation in such a country under such afflicting circumstances? His prayer to the House was for the restoration of all the prisoners to their families. He beseeched them to concede the favour—to gratify the humane wishes of the working people of England who had implored the House for mercy to their fellow-labourers. The people of England, he could assure the House felt deeply on the subject. To the working classes especially it was a constant subject of agitation, and unless the men were restored, that agitation would continually increase. The society was legal with the single exception of the oath; and when the object was legal, the oath alone could not make the society illegal. He hoped the House would interpose its authority; it was nothing to say there was no precedent; let them make one as soon as they could, for as it was well said yesterday night they did not need one to do right. He had no object in bringing forward the Motion, but the interests of the working classes. He trusted there would be no misinterpretation of his motives, he had entered the Motion two months ago, in hopes that the men would be restored without his bringing it forward; that the entering the Motion on the books would lead to investigation,
1250
and that investigation would lead to a conviction that the men had committed no offence whatever in a moral point of view; the laws had been vindicated by the transportation; the power of the law had been displayed; it had been made evident that the Unions would be repudiated and condemned, and he was convinced that no evil would arise from the restoration of those individuals to their native country. He therefore moved, "That an Humble Address be presented to the King praying that his Majesty would be pleased to grant a pardon to, and direct the recall of, the six Dorchester Labourers who were convicted at the assizes held at Dorchester, in the Spring of 1834, on a charge of having administered oaths not required by law, and who were, thereupon, sentenced to transportation for a term of seven years."
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion, and said he was anxious to do so, because he was one of those who took a part in framing the Act of 1826, respecting the combination of workmen. He was happy the noble Lord had determined to re-consider the subject. The objects of these poor labourers were justifiable, and only directed to protect their interests against an attempt made by their employers to reduce the wages of their labour one-seventh. He strongly recommended their cases to the noble Lord, who, he hoped, would not sanction an opinion rather prevalent, that their improved information and peculiar religious opinions had, in some degree, been permitted to aggravate their unwitting offences against an obsolete law. He appealed, therefore, to the noble Lord, if they even had committed a fault, whether they had not amply atoned for it? He entreated the noble Lord to consider the number of persons who had petitioned for a remission of the sentence passed on these men, and the excitement which the severity of their punishment had caused throughout the country. To one petition alone there were upwards of 21,000 signatures; and he believed the entire number of persons who had petitioned in their favour exceeded 800,000. If this boon were granted to these unfortunate persons it would impress a conviction throughout the population of the country, that although it might be delayed, justice in the end was sure to prevail in England.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was with the deepest regret he saw such a Motion as the present submitted to the consideration of the House, yet he confessed that as far as

1251
regarded the manner of bringing it forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury he had no fault to find. He was perfectly willing to bear his testimony to the temperate manner in which the hon. Member had appealed to the House and to the Government for a further extension of mercy to those men of whose cause he was the advocate. He said a further extension because he was free to admit that he did not consider this a case from which mercy ought to be excluded—while, at the same time, he looked upon it as a case that required punishment for example sake. There were some cases that deserved punishment on account of the moral guilt that attached to them, while other cases required to be punished for the sake of public example. In the latter cases, the persons offending might have very good views as to the end and object of their proceeding, while at the same time they were committing a crime against the well-being of society. The latter species of guilt, he believed, attached to the persons who were the objects of the Motion before the House, and upon this ground he considered them not unworthy of some extension of mercy. But, however, innocent or even good the ultimate views of persons thus offending might be, it was the duty of the Judges and the Government to see that, by the operation of the laws, the peace and interests of society were preserved. In the year 1883, Unions were established throughout the country, for the purpose of destroying or preventing those voluntary engagements between masters and workmen that are so essentially beneficial and necessary to the interest of both. The object of these Unions was, by a forced and compulsory system, and by an unjust combination, to direct the terms on which labourers and artisans should receive employment; and he thought it was a fortunate event—an event for which Lord Grey was at the time well entitled to take credit, that all the dangers which such a state of things threatened to inflict on society were overcome without the necessity of resorting to coercive measures, and the suppression of which was left to the mere ordinary operation of the laws without any strong interposition on the part of Government or the adoption of any new system of legislation. It was not, he contended, any exception to the forbearance which was then observed by the Government that the Dorchester Labourers had been declared guilty of a violation of the law. He was satisfied that the hon. Member who brought forward the
1252
question in so calm and judicious a manner did not suppose that these men were guilty of any intentional breach of the laws; but he was sorry that he or the hon. Member for Middlesex should have declared, and the latter expressly pronounced it as his opinion, that these men were guilty of no offence whatever—that they had met for legal purposes, and that no proceedings should have been instituted against them. He said, that he regretted this, because, if he had not wished that these individuals should be treated with all due clemency, if he had not in fact already advised the Crown to extend its mercy to them, it might be supposed, had he given that recommendation after and not before the Motion of the hon. Member, that these persons were not guilty at all—that they were the victims of an unjust proceeding—that all those who took up the defence of the case of these persons, as a general and political question, would be considered to have attained a great triumph over those whom they looked on in the light of opponents. It would, no doubt, be readily believed, too, that the tardy pardon which had been awarded to the Dorchester Labourers would justify those who might be desirous to follow their example in executing that which these men had done without being liable to be checked by any just interference on the part of the law. He could only say on the law of the question, that it was not for him to give any interpretation of the Act under which these men had been sentenced. The opinion of the legal tribunals of the country was the only guide which he could have for his decision. He knew that the Attorney-General of the time had confirmed the legality of the application of the Act—that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, in the discussion which took place last year, admitted the legality of the sentence—that the learned Judge who presided on the trial carefully considered the case, and read the particular section of the Act under which these persons were charged, to the Jury—that they were declared guilty by that Jury, and that no one of the numerous bodies by which their cause was espoused thought it expedient to bring the question at the time under the cognizance of the twelve Judges. He did not see, then, how, such being the state of the authorities on this subject, any man could dispute the law as it was then laid down. Well, then, he next came to the question how far these men had infringed what ought to be the general policy of the

1253
law of this country; and on this point the hon. Member for Finsbury, so far from denying, appeared fully to admit, that the state of the law ought not to allow of the existence of secret societies, bound together by secret oaths. He might be permitted to state, in addition to what the House had already heard on this subject that one of the regulations of these societies was, that the Members on entrance bound themselves by oath, that they would not give evidence with regard to their associates, and that they would maintain inviolate all the rules and regulations by which their society was bound together. The purpose for which such a society was instituted was no doubt an innocent one in the minds of those by whom it had been originally formed; but that it was harmless in its effects he entirely and unequivocally denied. He thought he should be able to establish the justness of the view which he took of such combinations, by informing the House of the substance of one or two of the rules which they laid down for the conduct of their proceedings. By rule 20, if any master should attempt to reduce the wages of his workmen, the fact was to be communicated to the Grand Lodge, in order that they should receive support from that body whilst they remained away from employment. By another (No. 22.) if a Member of the order should divulge any of the secrets, or violate any of the obligations of the same, it was directed that the name and a description of the person, and the crime of which he had been guilty, should be communicated to all the Lodges throughout the county in which the society was established, in order that wherever such persons got work, all the labourers in that employment should instantly refuse to cooperate with. them. Was such a system, under which the persons who composed such societies were denounced as criminals, if they divulged the secrets of them, to be tolerated in a country pretending to anything like freedom. However innocent the intentions of persons forming such societies, the societies themselves governed by such rules and regulations must be dangerous; for certainly it was contrary to law, and to the spirit of our institutions, that men should take such power into their own hands. No doubt every man had a right to put what price he pleased upon his own labour, but he had no right to dictate his price to another. What was to become of the industry and capital of the
1254
country, if men were not to be allowed to make their own bargain for the sale of their labour at what they might think a fair price? If men who entered into such combinations were to be exempted from the operation of the law, when fairly brought before the tribunals of the country, or if the Government were to be easily released from those obligations imposed upon them by the decisions of these tribunals, the inevitable result of such a relaxation would be, that instead of the flourishing and prosperous condition which the industry of the manufacturing districts in many instances exhibited, those persons possessed of capital, and who sought to employ it, would transfer that capital to other countries, where they might be at liberty to strike their own bargains with those whom they employed, without having their workmen denounced as criminals for observing the terms of the contract into which they had entered. However innocent these two persons of the name of Loveless might have considered such proceedings, they must be regarded by every person of proper judgment as most dangerous to the community; and if those societies had spread through the county of Dorset, and through the other counties of England, their suppression would have required not the transportation of six men for seven years, but would have called for the strong interposition of the Legislature, and demanded a far greater extension of severity than the punishment which had been visited on the Dorchester labourers. With regard to the two persons named Loveless, he could not help thinking that they deserved some greater degree of punishment than that inflicted on those who were associated with them. He considered the very fact on which the hon. Member for Finsbury relied—namely, their intelligence—as an aggravation of their offence, inasmuch as it rendered more probable the extension of their principles. He submitted that the intelligence of these men would render their proceedings more dangerous; and of itself would be a ground of aggravation, for their superior intelligence ought to have made them see the dangerous consequences of such societies. All these circumstances fully justified the Government, in the first instance, in allowing the law to take its course. But the case was now somewhat different. The law of the land had in a great degree been satisfied; and under all the circumstances, his Majesty had been advised to mitigate the sentence to a considerable degree. The

1255
Governor of Van Diemen's Land had been written to, and directions had been sent to him, to announce to these men that they were pardoned, subject to the conditions he had already mentioned. It was objected by the hon. Member that these men could not at present leave the colony; but in this, under their circumstances, there was no great severity or hardship. Although they received a pardon, he might be told that they were separated from their homes and families; but it should be borne in mind that they were allowed their freedom in a country, which so far from being a desolate and wretched land, was a place to which numbers were voluntarily hastening from this country, as being more likely to receive there, than if they remained at home, the proper reward of their industry. But still it would be objected that they were separated from their wives and children. In answer to that, he could only say, that at the time when he sent those orders, commanded by his Majesty, he made inquiries as to the usual course or practice pursued with respect to the wives and families of convicts who had received their pardon at the colony; and without stating precisely what were the exact steps which he wished to be taken, he did not hesitate to declare that whatever he found to be the most lenient course he was willing to adopt, and either to assist the wives and children to go out, or send them out altogether at the expense of the Government. The prisoners had now been gone for more than a year, and at the end of two years, from the time of their going out, four of them would be at liberty to return to this country. It would have been more grateful to his own feelings to advise the full extension of the Prerogative of the Crown, if circumstances had appeared to justify him in so doing; but at the same time he must consider that if he advised his Majesty to grant a full pardon, it would be concluded that the sentence was illegal. If these men were now wholly pardoned, it would be considered not so much a remission of the former sentence as a reparation of the injustice which had been done them; and their return to Dorchester would, so far from serving as a check for preventing others (which had been he was convinced the effect of the original sentence) from following the evil courses into which they had fallen, their presence would be only a signal for the spread of that spirit of insubordination, and reliance on the noninterference of the law, which must create
1256
a necessity for fresh trials, harsher punishments, and greater dangers than those which had been already overcome. He hoped, then, that the House would not, under the circumstances, sanction a proceeding which, in an unusual manner, interfered with the prerogative of mercy vested in the Crown—a power the exercise of which, while it enabled us to preserve the authority of the Government and order in society, enabled us also to dispense pardon humanely and mercifully to those who had ignorantly fallen into the commission of offences. For his own part it had always been a source of the greatest gratification to him to have it in his power to prevent a severe sentence of the law from being carried fully into effect; but he must be allowed to say, that he had looked into this case most carefully, and that the conclusion at which his mind had arrived on a review of all the facts and circumstances of it (though there might be some with which he was not yet acquainted, and a knowledge of which might induce him to alter his opinion) was, that it was not safe to grant further favours to those persons. He entertained, therefore, the sanguine and earnest expectation, that the House would not, by agreeing to the proposed address, act in a manner which was at once most inconsistent and inexpedient, and thus establish a precedent which must be considered as conveying the reproach of severity to a judge who administered the law, and the Government which sanctioned the sentence.
Mr. Roebuckcontended, that the Dorchester labourers were perfectly ignorant of the law; that they had a right to assemble together for the purpose of fixing a certain price on their labour, though, in the mode in which they did so, they might have been guilty of some offence, but certainly not of that which deserved the severe punishment of transportation.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, he had received a number of petitions from individuals in the borough which he represented, in favour of a remission of the sentence, and as many of these persons had not votes for Members of Parliament, and consequently were unrepresented, he considered it a duty only the more imperative on that account to represent their wishes to the House. The question lay in a narrow compass, and he thought that any Member might support the Motion of the hon Member for Finsbury, though at the same time he disapproved of the conduct of the men. He did

1257
not impugn the conduct of the Jury, or the summing up of the Judge—he would not even find fault with the law. There was no point even reserved by the counsel; but still it was very clear there was now some doubt as to the legality of the conviction. From the admissions of the noble Lord himself, on which he would refer the case to the House, it might be fairly concluded that it was one calling for some interference. The noble Lord admitted that they were assembled for innocent purposes. Their object, in fact, was to better their condition by procuring a rise of wages, and though they might have gone farther than the law allowed, still under all circumstances he thought them entitled to mercy. The noble Lord said too that the object was not so much punishment as example, that, with respect to the Lovelesses they might not have been aware that they were committing a moral offence, and in the third place the noble Lord admitted that the law was, in a great degree, satisfied. Why not, then, extend full pardon to them? [Lord John Russell: "They are pardoned in the colony."] He trusted that the noble Lord would go still further, and recommend to the Crown to grant them full pardon. Such clemency would have the very best effects on the working classes. He saw nothing in the case of the Lovelesses why the same merciful consideration should not be extended to them as to the others. Men who could write such letters as were read by the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion must be persons alive to some of the best feelings of human nature, and he had no doubt that, if permitted to return home to their families, they would become useful and exemplary members of society.
Viscount Howickagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, that that House was not the proper tribunal for the decision of such a question as the present; and that if there was any serious doubt as to the legality of the sentence passed upon the individuals in question, the matter ought to be submitted to the twelve Judges. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell) was represented to have said that the Lovelesses might have thought they were doing what was for the good of society. He believed his noble Friend, in anything he uttered upon this occasion, did not admit, and could not have intended to admit, that these men did not well know they were doing what was wrong; but even if they thought other-
1258
wise it would be no justification. If the principle was to be admitted that there was no guilt when men thought they were acting for the good of society it would go far to justify every crime. Was it possible to suppose that they were ignorant that they were committing a crime in the eye of the law? Such cases were not unfrequent. When persons were convicted of high treason, of an attempt to destroy one form of government and to establish another, they no doubt believed they were acting for the good of society; but they were aware that they were committing an offence against the law. The unfortunate men who were executed on the occasion of the two last great rebellions in 1715 and 1745 were no doubt actuated by the most high and honourable feelings, by devoted loyalty to the person who they believed was entitled to the Crown; but at the same time they were quite aware that their conduct was a violation of the law, and for that violation they were prepared to pay the penalty. The same might be said of recent societies in France and other parts of Europe, which attempted to overthrow the existing state of society under the romantic idea that they were about to bring back the golden age, and to restore mankind to primeval happiness and innocence. To the Unions lately so prevalent the same observations applied. Everybody knew, in fact, that mistaken notions of this kind had been frequently entertained. From the voluminous correspondence which had come under his notice, he had reason to believe that those mistaken notions very generally prevailed among the working classes. The periodical publications circulated among them had greatly increased the evil. That the members of the society to which the persons in question belonged were aware that they were violating the law, and rendering themselves liable to punishment, was proved by the fact that they not only held their meetings in a remote and secluded place, but carefully posted sentinels to prevent their being interrupted by persons who were charged with the administration of the law. It was quite evident, therefore, that they were aware they were acting contrary to law, although they might not know what specific Act of Parliament they were violating. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion in a manner which was highly calculated to recommend it to attention, a manner no less distinguished by its moderation than respect for the feelings of the House, said, and this was

1259
one of the few mistakes into which he fell, that no lawyer whom he consulted could exactly point out to him the precise law under which these men were convicted, and that it could not therefore be expected that the parties were acquainted with the existence of such law. The same observations would equally apply to most crimes and offences. He did not know that he could point out, or name the statute, which made murder punishable with death, though he well knew that there was such a law. He believed there were few Gentlemen in the House who knew what laws were applicable to the various crimes and offences, though they knew generally that such and such acts were illegal and punishable. He was ready to admit that the great object of punishment was prevention; and surely no person would deny that the acts of these men, their combinations, and meetings, accompanied with the secret obligation of an oath, were such as ought to be put down. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex that a combination of working men to raise their wages without any violation of the law was quite justifiable. But here there had been a combination to raise wages by means which violated the law. Last year a very extensive correspondence connected with this subject had come under his official notice. There was one case of the grossest tyranny and hardship which he had ever heard of, connected with the Huddersfield Union, and which, with the leave of the House, he would state. Two individuals connected with one of the Trades Unions, and members of the committee, quarrelled with the other members of the committee, and were expelled from the Union. They were members of a particular trade, which was only carried on in certain portions of the county of York. They were immediately placed under the ban of the society throughout the whole of that part of Yorkshire to which they belonged, a description of their persons was circulated in those districts, and no master dared employ them. Thus these men, for resisting a point upon which they were fully entitled to exercise an independent discretion, were reduced to a state of absolute starvation, though it was admitted that they were good and skilful workmen. The hon. Member for Bath intimated that this case had nothing whatever to do with that under the consideration of the House. He should, however, show that the cases were analogous. Societies were in the first
1260
instance formed for proper and justifiable purposes; but when the leaders had contrived to impose oaths of secrecy on the members, they drew them on to practices which led to tyranny and oppression. In all the inquiries which had been instituted into the subject by the Home Office last year, it was found that the existence of these oaths of secrecy was the immediate cause of the gross description of tyranny to which he had alluded. It appeared, therefore, that the administration of these oaths was not only a legal crime, but that it was a practice which, for the good of society at large, and for the welfare of the working classes themselves, it was the bounden duty of Government to endeavour to suppress. The hon. Member for Bath had observed that the administration of oaths of secrecy had been allowed with impunity in London. That was true; but the practice had remained unpunished only because the system was so perfect, that it was impossible to obtain evidence of the fact. If that had not been the case, Government would not have shrunk from the duty of inflicting punishment on persons by whom it was so richly merited. To show the tyranny exercised by these societies he would read the article in the constitution of one of the lodges of those Unions, which had already been read to the House by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. [The noble Lord read the rule, declaring that if any member divulged the secrets of the society a description should be given of his person and of his offence; that his name should be communicated to all the lodges and that all members of the same must decline working with him.] That article contained palpable evidence of the system of tyranny which existed; proscribing, as it did, individuals who differed from the society, and communicating that proscription to all other lodges, so that no member of the society was permitted to work in company with the proscribed individuals. To a working manufacturer such a proscription amounted to an absolute denial of the means of getting his daily bread. It was the duty of Government, it was the duty of Parliament, by every means to discourage the taking of these unlawful oaths. Now he asked the House if the course which was proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury was not calculated to deprive the country of all the advantages which had been derived from the punishment of the men in question? If

1261
the decision of Government on the subject were overruled by a vote of the House of Commons, he asked, what must of necessity be the effect? Would it not go forth to the country that these societies were so powerful—that they could get up so many petitions in their favour—that they could apply such an influence over the House of Commons—that if Government did not give way they would be compelled to do so? If, therefore, the address proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury were agreed to by the House, not only would the benefit of the punishment which had already been inflicted be lost to the country, but a blow would be given to the authority of the law, and a source of public danger would be opened, which he shuddered to contemplate. Still he was prepared to concur with his noble Friend in saying, that there was much in this case which entitled it to consideration. That consideration, however, ought to be left to his noble Friend, without any interference on the part of the House. These individuals were already exempted from labour in the Colony, and their families were perfectly free to go out to them if they pleased. Undoubtedly it might not be safe to allow these persons to return to that part of the country to which they belonged; thereby creating a general impression either that the sentence which had been passed upon them was unjust, or that Government was afraid to carry that sentence into execution. He concluded by repeating his earnest hope that the House would leave this question in the hands of the Executive Government, and would not establish a precedent fraught with the highest danger to the peace of the country.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that having presented to the House a petition, signed by upwards of 22,000 individuals in favour of the unfortunate men now suffering under a sentence of transportation, he hoped to be allowed, in the name of the petitioners to implore the House and his Majesty's Government to use their influence in order that mercy might be extended to those six unfortunate individuals. He was satisfied that a remission of their sentence would not be hailed by the people of this country as a triumph over the Government, but, on the contrary, would be received by millions with thankfulness and gratitude. He was not disposed to blame the noble Lord or the Government for the course which had been pursued, but he must state, that there were some extenuating circumstances in the case which had weight upon his mind.
1262
The law had been vindicated, and without any wish to discuss the legality or otherwise of the conviction, he claimed on behalf of the petitioners who had addressed the Legislature an extension of mercy to the objects of their commiseration. The legality of the conviction had, however, been doubted by many high legal authorities, and he would claim the benefit of those doubts in favour of those now suffering the punishment of the law. In point of good, moral, industrious character, these men were entitled to the royal clemency. The public mind, too, had been roused, and the public sympathies had been excited in their behalf, and the law he held would ever be inefficient unless supported by public opinion. It had been a saying, he believed, of the late Sir Robert Peel, that it seldom or never happened that the feeling of the common people of the land was wrong, and, therefore, that their feelings upon any subject ought to meet attention. In that sentiment he concurred, and on all these grounds he submitted that the time had arrived for an extension of mercy to those six unfortunate individuals.
Mr. Mark Philipsamidst cries of "Question," which rendered the hon. Member nearly inaudible, observed that, during the last Session he had presented several petitions on this subject, and had examined into all the allegations and statements bearing upon the case, and which had been urged against the legality of the conviction, and the sentence to which these men had been condemned. He had, by that examination satisfied himself that the sentence was a legal sentence, and he had, both in Parliament, and to the working-classes out of doors, declared such to be his conviction. He, however, must now, as he had done before, call upon the Government to temper justice with mercy. He deprecated as much as any man the formation of these unions, and he was anxious to rescue the operative classes from, that tyranny which owed its origin to the selfish views of one or two individuals. He differed from the noble Lord (Lord Howick) in the opinion he had expressed as to what were likely to be the feelings of the people if the sentence were reversed. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford in thinking, that an extension of mercy would be received by the people with gratitude.
Mr. Blackburnedid not wish to protract the discussion, but merely to express a hope that the Government would again take the case of these men into consideration; for

1263
although he knew that a decision had been pronounced in the courts of law, that under the Act of Parliament they had been guilty of the offence charged to them, yet he, for one, confessed that he was not able so to construe the Clause upon which the indictment had been framed. He, however, concurred in thinking, that that House was not the proper tribunal for discussing that question of law. Although he was anxious that the Government should take the subject into consideration, he was not prepared by voting for this Motion, to take from their hands a power which properly belonged to them. He did not like to vote against the Motion without thus stating the reasons why he should do so.
The Attorney-Generalmerely rose in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down. His hon. and learned Friend had truly said, that this House was not a Court of Appeal from the decision of a Judge of Assize, and therefore it would not become him (the Attorney-General) to enter into any argument upon the question of legality. He was, notwithstanding, prepared to show by sections of the statute in question, by decisions of the Court of King's Bench, and by two other statutes agreeing with the first in part materiâ, that the indictment was valid in point of law, and that there had been at the trial evidence abundantly sufficient to support that indictment. He should, however, content himself with declaring his most clear and decided opinion that the conviction had been strictly legal. He should not enter into the merits of the case, but rest satisfied with expressing a hope that the House would not consent to interfere with the exercise of the strict prerogative of the Crown?
Mr. Harveyexpressed his surprise that any impatience should be manifested during a discussion affecting the working classes of the community, who had so few direct Representatives in the House. That class in this respect were unlike either the agricultural or manufacturing interests, whose friends, if the question affected them, would crowd all sides of the House, and secure the utmost attention. He should have hoped, that on this occasion there would have been manifested something like the appearance of impartiality, even though this debate had been extended to another night. He should have hoped that the intense anxiety prevailing out of doors, and the circumstance of nearly half a million of petitioners having approached the Legislature
1264
on this subject, would have secured something like decency in its discussion. When that very night several hon. Members from Suffolk had called to the recollection of the House the deplorable situation of some six or eight gentlemen, some of them of the law, who had violated the best safeguards of the Constitution, in whose behalf he doubted not that to-morrow night a whole army of advocates would be arrayed, and when the suggestions that they had been torn from their families and homes (he believed for something like a fortnight) had raised such a sympathy in their favour, he had anticipated that the case of the unfortunate men of Dorchester would have received something like common attention. Their case, however, could not be discussed, even for a few short hours, without shouts of discontent, and expressed demonstrations of impatience. The Attorney-General, in the short part he had taken in this discussion, had drawn very largely upon his very high reputation, and had seemed to suppose that it was abundantly sufficient for him to place his hand upon a mass of law books, and to express as his solemn opinion, that these men had been legally convicted, and that the sentence pronounced upon them was both legal and just. Now, he thought it would almost have been worth while for the Attorney-General of the Crown and of the people to have condescended in a few simple popular terms, and not with the dryness of an Act of Parliament, just to have dispelled the impressions prevailing in the minds of several hon. Members, and other ignorant people, that the sentence was illegal. It would have been well if the hon. and learned gentleman had condescended to fortify his declaration by a reference to the statutes and to the decisions of the Courts of Law. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not done so, but having now beside him a learned Colleague (the Solicitor General), who was equally conversant with the statutes, and who would be able to reply to him (Mr. Harvey), he would state one or two points in contravention of the declaration of the hon. and learned Attorney-General. He had been furnished with a report of the trial of these unfortunate men by one of the Counsel engaged in the case, and the report contained the opening speech of the Counsel who conducted the prosecution. In that learned Gentleman's statement to the Jury, he said that the prisoners were arraigned on an indictment framed under the provisions of the statute 37th George 3rd., ch. 7, and he had

1265
made no mention of any other statute at all. Now, what was that statute (because, after all, the question was reducible to a question of common sense), and what was the indictment? A copy of the latter he had now before him, in a return obtained by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and a reference to it would show that every count in it was framed exclusively under the statute 37th George 3rd., and it was a great mistake to say, that because these men had administered an illegal oath, the verdict on that ground alone could be sustained in point of law. To justify the conviction, two distinct and separate points must be established—first, the administration of an illegal oath; and secondly, that it was administered for an illegal purpose. He knew that the hon. and learned Attorney-General, in one of those displays for which he was remarkable in the neighbouring Courts, where he would not be interrupted by cries of "Question," or shouts of "Spoke," would be well pleased to show that these parties had been guilty of an illegal combination. He had, however, also before him a copy of the objects of the combination, which it was remarkable had been pressed on the trial from the counsel for the prosecution. The objects were shown in the rules of the association itself, which were given in evidence on the trial, and which it appeared had been furnished by the turnkey of the prison, who had come into possession of a key belonging to one of the prisoners, which opened a box in that prisoner's house, containing the document in question. He must ask whether the labourers, who had an interest in their labour, had not as much right to meet, as their landlords, who had an interest in keeping up enormous rents, had to meet to promote what they were pleased to call the agricultural interest? Now, from the rules of this society, it appeared that "this society was to be called the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers." Why not such a society as well as a Friendly Society of Agricultural Landlords? Another rule was, "that there was to be in the society no drinking, no immorality, no conversation on politics or religion." Now, would the Attorney-General contend that a society meeting for such purposes was in itself an illegal confederacy and combination? If he would not, then where was the illegal oath administered for an illegal purpose? The administering an illegal oath was a misdemeanour in itself punishable, but not by
1266
transportation for seven years. The administering an illegal oath for an illegal purpose was made punishable with transportation by this Act. But when was this Act passed, and for what purpose? It was passed in the year 1797, for the purpose of preventing individuals from being seduced from the army and navy, and from being afterwards bound in secret societies by illegal oaths. He thought that this statement was enough to prove that these individuals had not been legally indicted and convicted under this statute. He hoped that the affecting letters which had been read by the hon. Member for Finsbury in the course of his speech, which did so much honour to the individuals who had written them, and which had produced such a strong impression upon the feelings of the House, would be laid before his Majesty by the noble Lord opposite, whose amiable anxiety to temper justice with mercy, he could speak of with certainty from his own communications with that noble personage. He had hoped, but in that hope he had been disappointed, that the noble Lord, on hearing those letters read, would have risen in his place and said, "Let the debate here have an end, and give me further time to inquire into the circumstances so feelingly depicted by these artless and uneducated, but eloquent and affecting, writers." He concluded by declaring his intention to support the Motion.
The Solicitor- Generalsaid, that this debate had been conducted with the most perfect calmness and propriety, until the hon. Member for Southwark rose to take part in it. He thought, however, that the success of the cause which that hon. Member advocated would not be much promoted by the tone which he had assumed in the remarks which he had addressed to the House. The reason why his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had spoken so shortly on this Question, was to give a contradiction to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Huddersfield, in terms as short as those which that hon. and learned Gentleman had used when he said, that the sentence passed on these individuals was not, in his opinion, strictly legal. It would be tedious were he to go into the details of the trial; but he thought that he could state very shortly reasons sufficient to prove the complete legality of the decision to which the Judges came upon this indictment. The indictment was framed on the 37th George 3rd, c. 7. That Statute made it a felony for any person to

1267
administer to another an oath to admit him into an association for mutinous and seditious purposes, or to obey the authority of any body of men not having legal authority from the Crown, or not to give evidence against any member of their association, or not to give information of any unlawful combination or confederacy. Afterwards another Statute was passed under which this association in Dorsetshire evidently was an illegal association. That Statute was the 49th Geo. 3rd, c. 39. It declared every society which administered an oath not required by law an unlawful society. Was it necessary for him to say more to justify the proceedings in this case? There was a strong primâ facie cause for supposing that the Judges who tried, and the Counsel who conducted, this case were right, and he therefore trusted that the House would not take upon itself the duties of a Court of Appeal against the opinions not only of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, but of the twelve Judges, to whom the Counsel for the prisoners might have appealed, had they been dissatisfied with the opinions of the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. Tulkconsidered, that in whatever way the Question was decided, the hon. Member for Finsbury would rest satisfied that he had done his duty, and would have the further satisfaction of knowing that the cause had not been injured by his conduct. He (Mr. Tulk) was well satisfied with the manner in which the Question had been met by the noble Lord. He could not, however, help regretting that he had made such a distinction in the objects of his mercy: he could not say that he believed the noble Lord had made out a case that the two Lovelesses were more guilty than the other four. He was not going then to enter into the Question of the justice of the sentence passed on them. He thought the House was not the proper place to raise that Question; but he asked the merciful consideration of the House, on the ground that the men were ignorant. He remembered last year, the late hon. and learned Member for Hull stated that he was ignorant of the Clause; and that undoubtedly the Clause applied to him inasmuch as being a member of a club he had taken a secret oath, and was, therefore, as much an object of justice as the six unfortunate labourers. If the hon. Member pressed the Motion to a division, he proposed the Members should vote in the following manner; that those Gentlemen,
1268
who, at the time of the unfortunate men's offence, were aware of the illegality of the oath, should vote against the Motion, but that those who at the time were ignorant of it should vote for it. He would tell the noble Lord that the effect which would be produced on the poorer classes of the country by the recal of the labourers would be very different from what he apprehended; they would see that the Government was conducted on principles of reason, not merely by force; and acquainted as he (Mr. Tulk) was with the working classes, he knew there could be no act of the Government which would be more popular among the people, and better calculated to bring around them the affections of the great body of the population, than the pardon of the Dorchester labourers. And he could not help expressing a hope that the noble Lord, upon a re-consideration of the Question, would see the propriety of, in this instance, administering mercy.
Mr. O'Connellhoped that his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, before he rose to reply, would remember that his first duty on the present occasion was to be useful to these individuals. It would require the exercise of all his hon. Friend's judgment to decide properly on the course which he ought now to pursue. He therefore wished his hon. Friend to take his advice on the course which it was most advisable to follow. His hon. Friend must know that the House of Commons was an improper place for an appeal from the decisions of the Courts of Law. Hon. Members could not indulge their sympathies on such occasions without running the risk of injuring a great constitutional principle. His hon. Friend had heard from the noble Lord the manner in which he had already mitigated the punishment inflicted by the sentence of the Court. He had remitted the punishment of four individuals entirely, and had ordered it to be mitigated so far as regarded the other two. If, then, there was any difference between the noble Lord and his hon. Friend, it could only be with regard to that part of the punishment on two individuals which still remained unremitted. Now, in pressing this Motion, would his hon. Friend leave Ministers in that situation which was best calculated to produce a further remission of the sentence? Would he not, if Government was in a majority, as there was every reason to expect that they would be, leave the Government under the impression that the House was of opinion that they had already done

1269
enough in the mitigation of the punishment? What could his hon. Friend expect from pressing his Motion to a division? He had produced by his speech that night an effect on the House which he had never seen exceeded in his life. The letters which he had read, and which did honour to the feelings of the writers, and to the country which produced among its peasantry men capable of such feelings, must produce an effect upon the public mind. He had formerly stated it to be his opinion that the sentence passed on these men was illegal; but, on more mature consideration, he was inclined to think that opinion was erroneous. He avowed his change of opinion as to the legality, but not as to the severity, of the sentence. He must, therefore press his hon. Friend to withdraw his motion. But if his hon. Friend would not take his advice, he should vote with his hon. Friend, because he thought that the sentence ought not to be carried into full execution. He was, however, of opinion that his hon. Friend would act more wisely in leaving the consideration of mercy in the hands of the noble Secretary for the Home Department, and in giving him an opportunity of advising his Majesty to exercise towards these individuals one of the most valuable and delightful prerogatives of the Crown.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should give his vote on this occasion upon a great principle which excluded any reference to the individual merits of the case. He thought that the consideration of it ought to be left in the hands of those who were responsible for their decision—he meant, in the hands of the executive Government. He did not dispute—on the contrary, he admitted—the right of the House, if it entertained a suspicion that the course of justice was perverted for corrupt purposes, to interfere for the purpose of redressing so great a wrong. He did not, however, see that there was any allegation or even any suspicion that Government had been actuated by any improper motive in the consideration of this case, and therefore, he should recommend the House to leave the Question in the hands of the executive Government—the constitutional party by whom the punishment ought to be fixed. He did not hesitate to say that if Government should be in a majority in resisting this Question, that majority ought to have no influence in their minds with respect to their ultimate decision respecting these individuals. He did not give his vote on
1270
the principle of defending unnecessary severity. He did not give his vote in reference to the merits of the case, he left that entirely in the hands of the Government. He should recommend the noble Lord, who now filled the office which he himself had formerly had the honour of filling, to consider this case on its intrinsic merits, and to forget what passed in this House. Having ascertained the legality of the sentence, the Government ought to adhere to this principle, that no proceedings taken in the House of Commons should influence their judgment, unless the House went the length of asserting its right—which he did not deny—of charging the Government with improper motives. He should give his vote against the Motion.
Mr. Sergeant Wildesaid, that he happened to be at Dorchester when the case of these men came on for trial. He was generally intrusted with the care of conducting the prosecutions instituted by Government on that circuit; and in performance of that task upon that occasion he had carefully looked into the statutes against which they were charged to have offended, in order that he might discharge his duty properly. He came to the conclusion that if the witnesses should prove the facts which were communicated to him as the groundwork of the prosecution, the parties, whom he was directed to prosecute, had been guilty of the offence mentioned in those acts of Parliament which had been quoted by his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Member proceeded at some length to argue the legality of all the proceedings in this case; and at the conclusion of his argument said that he had not risen to offer any objection to the extension of mercy to these misguided individuals. He thought, however, that any doubt as to the legality of their sentence formed a very different subject from the consideration of their claims to mercy. He thought, too, that it was a doubt which ought to be disposed of, before the claims for mercy were even considered; for the claims of justice were the first claims which ought to be satisfied. If the parties were suffering under an illegal sentence, it could not be for the public good that they should any longer suffer a punishment which the law did not affix to their offence; but if they were legally convicted of an offence clearly denounced by the law, then it was not usual for the House to interfere with the exercise of the most valuable prerogative of the Crown.
Mr. Wakley,in reply, said, when the noble Lord opposite had any question to propose hon. Members showed the utmost forbearance for hours; but when the case of poor labourers was introduced to the House, he hoped the Representatives of the people of England would not refuse some time to them. He trusted these wretched sufferers would not be repulsed because they were poor. The impatience which had been displayed by some hon. Members during the consideration of the case of these poor and unfortunate individuals, formed an instructive contrast to the attentive patience which had been paid to a recent motion which affected the honour and character of a nobleman of rank, who filled the situation of Lieutenant of an Irish county. He would not, however, prejudice his clients by exciting unpleasant feelings, but would proceed to notice some of the objections made to his Motion. And first with regard to the objection which had been made to his Motion, on the ground that it was an improper interference with the prerogative of the Crown, he had only to observe, that he had consulted their journals, and found more than one instance of such interference with it as he had proposed. One instance was of so extraordinary a character that he would briefly state the nature of it to the House. In the year 1814, the noble Member for Devonshire (Lord Ebrington) moved that an address be presented to the Crown for remission of part of the sentence inflicted by the Court of King's Bench on Lord Cochrane. On that occasion Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor expressed his regret that a question which had been decided by a jury should be brought under the cognizance of that House, because he was convinced that that was not the place in which the merits of a proceeding of the kind could with propriety be tried. The best and safest way, as it appeared to Mr. M. A. Taylor, was to leave the prerogative of mercy unmolested, where the constitution had placed it, and not to attempt any interference whatever. To this argument a reply was given by an hon. Member, whom the House acknowledged to be high authority in all cases of parliamentary practice and privilege—he meant the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. That gentleman said that—"if they subscribed to the doctrine of his learned Friend, there would be at once an abandonment of their best rights, privileges, and immunities. His learned Friend had said that it was better to leave
1272
the prerogative of mercy just where the constitution had placed it; and he seemed to think it would be a violation of the constitution to interfere with it. Now he denied that there was any prerogative of the Crown which that House had not a right to interfere with, so far as to give advice with respect to the way in which it ought to be administered. Not only did the House give advice in the two cases cited by his noble Friend, but in many others. He did not mean to say that the House were not bound to examine the particular case before them, and every other in which their interference was called for; but he could not allow that they should sit down shorn of one of their greatest privileges. It was as much their duty, if they thought the punishment undeserved, to come forward and address the Crown on the subject, as it was that of the Ministers of State. They were the great council of the nation: Ministers were merely the council of the Prince."* The hon. Member who spoke last, told the House that he was at Dorchester at the time of the trial, and that he had a brief. He could not attach much value to the opinion of the hon. Member in this case, for lawyers were so much in the habit of making truth falsehood, and falsehood truth, that they lost all power of just discrimination. He did not defend the oaths of secret societies—they carried dishonesty on the face of them; and if these societies were fair why should they be ashamed to meet the face of day? But these men were ignorant, and had in their ignorance taken such an oath. Still they had not, in his view, done any thing illegal, and were not justly punished. The children of these unhappy men cried to the House for pity. If the House listened to their cries, it would receive the gratitude of the poor of England; but if they rejected them, he hoped the people, if they were wise, would form legal societies, and return proper men to that House. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his regret that he could not comply with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to withdraw his Motion. He felt he could not discharge his duty without pressing the Motion to a division.
The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 82; Noes 308—Majority 226.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Baldwin, Dr.

Ainsworth, P.

Barnard, E. J.

* Hansard, vol. xxviii. p. 777.

Attwood, T.

M'Cance, J.

Baines, E.

Macnamara, Major

Blake, M. J.

Marsland, H.

Beauclerk, Major

Maxwell, J.

Bish, T.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Brien, C.

Brady, D. C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bridgman, H.

O'Connell, D.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Connell, M.

Brotherton, J.

Power, P.

Buckingham, J. S.

Philips, M.

Buller, C.

Phillipps, C. M.

Bulwer, H. L.

Richards, J.

Butler, Hon. Colonel

Rippon, C.

Cayley, E. S.

Roebuck, J. A.

Collier, J.

Rundle, J.

Crawford, S.

Ruthven, E. S.

Dennistoun, A.

Ruthven, E.

Dobbin, L.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Sinclair, G.

Duncombe, T.

Spiers, A. G.

Dundas, Hon. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Elphinstone, H.

Thompson, Colonel P.

Euston, Lord

Thornley, T.

Ewart, W.

Tooke, W.

Fergus, John

Trelawney, Sir W.

Fielden, J.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Finn, W. F.

Tulk, C. A.

Forster, C.

Wall, B.

Gully, J.

Wallace, R.

Harvey, D. W.

Walter, J.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hector, C J

Wason, H.

Hindley, C.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hodges, T. L.

Wilks J.

Hutt, W.

Williams, W.

Kemp, T. R.

TELLERS.

Lawson, A.

Hume, J.

Lister, E. C.

Wakley, T.

Lowther, Hon. J. H.

GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Fox Maulemoved for leave, according to his notice, to bring in a "Bill for relief of the tenants and occupiers of land in Scotland from the damages done to their crops by hares, pheasants, and rabbits." On two farms of 132 acres, thirty-three of which were in pasture, the damage done by game last season, was no less than 335. Against this loss the farmer had no protection, and in the present state of the law could obtain no redress. The Bill he wished to bring in would remedy them by allowing the tenant to kill the game, and in compelling landlords in all existing leases to submit to arbitration.
Admiral Adam seconded the Motion.
Viscount Stormontdoubted the utility of the proposed Bill, but he would not oppose the Motion.
Sir George Clerkdid not think that any alteration of the law was necessary, for at
1274
present injured tenants could recover compensation from the preservers of game.
Mr. Jerviswas decidedly against interfering between landlords and tenants. As the law now stood, tenants had the remedy in their own hands.
Mr. Benettunderstood that the object of the Bill was only to assimilate the law in the two countries, and he would support the Motion.
Captain Wemyssaid, the Bill would lead to endless controversies between landlords and tenants. The hon. Mover had greatly exaggerated the evil of the present system, and he thought the Bill so uncalled for, that he would divide the House against the Motion if he stood alone.
The Lord-Advocatedid not agree with the gallant Member. The game laws in Scotland were a perfect nuisance to the tenants, and certainly the law as it at present stood was not adequate to give them relief.
Mr. Philip Howardthought the principle of the Measure bad, and not regarding it as a cabinet measure, he should oppose it at once.
The House divided: Ayes 50; Noes 76; Majority 26.

SOUTH SEA DUTIES.
Mr. Youngmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal certain Clauses in the Act 55, Geo. 3rd, c. 57, imposing duties on tonnage and goods in the trade with countries within the limits of the exclusive privileges of the South Sea Company. The hon. Member explained that the Clauses he wished to have repealed, threw a great burthen exclusively on the shipping interest. It was as unnecessary too as it was unjust.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the Government contemplated a general measure, to include these duties which had been hitherto delayed owing to the difficulties of the subject. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Youngwould withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that a measure would be introduced next Session.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of LONDON,

1201
from several Congregations at Bristol, against Allowing Beer to be drunk on the Premises of Beer-shops.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Bristol, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By the Dukes of RICHMOND and BUCCLEUGH, and the Earl of SELKIRK, from several Places,—for further Accommodation in Scotch Churches.—By the Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from the Clergy of Derby, Matlock, &c,—for Protection to the Established Church.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Duke of Richmondpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Clare, in favour of the establishment of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland. He should not take up their Lordships' time by entering at large into this subject; but he should merely say, that he earnestly hoped to see the law of England and Ireland assimilated in this respect. The supposed difficulty of finding persons by whom the Poor-laws were to be worked, was now abandoned, and the only question was, whether the introduction of Poor-laws would be beneficial to the country. For himself, he was convinced that the establishment of Poor-laws for that country would tend much to the comfort of the people, and, he believed, would much diminish the number of offences of violence, now unfortunately so common in Ireland.
The Earl of Limerickthanked the noble Duke for the courtesy of giving him notice of his intention to present this petition. He did not agree with the noble Duke in his opinions on this subject. The noble Duke thought that the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would be of advantage to Ireland, and that the laws of the two countries should be assimilated. He would to God that the situation of that country would allow of such an assimilation. But he, who had passed the greater part of along life in that country, was convinced that there was no man who had done so, but must feel that that which would suit in England would not suit in Ireland, and that this was particularly the case with respect to the Poor-laws. But with respect to the Poor-laws in this country, he thought that they had exercised a horrid influence here—they had nearly ruined this country; they would be still worse in Ireland. If they were introduced there, he believed that they would do away with all the kindly and charitable feelings that now existed in that country. Ireland, cursed as it was with many misfortunes, was happily distinguished by the possession of the best feelings of human nature. The affections of the people were strong; and there were no instances of a pauper not being relieved by the inhabitants, or of a
1202
poor child not being relieved by its parents, or of poor parents not being relieved by their children. That would no longer be the case if the Poor-laws were introduced there, and money was taken by force of law from those who possessed it, for the relief of the needy. He should content himself with saying that his sentiments on this subject remained unchanged.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a Petition similar to the last from Tullamore. He knew that the result of the introduction of the Poor-laws would be to take money by force of law from the rich for the relief of the poor. That was just what he wanted, for he wished that there should not be a possibility of persons starving when relief could be afforded them. He wished to see introduced into Ireland a Poor-law, not such as had been formerly so injurious to this country, but an amended system, which he thought would be of the greatest advantage to Ireland. The noble Earl had spoken of the relief voluntarily afforded in Ireland to those who were distressed. He had spoken, also, of the Poor-laws ruining this country. When Ireland was suffering from distress, that distress was relieved not only by what was voluntarily contributed in that country, but there was a large subscription of money in this country. If it was true that England had been nearly ruined, surely the people here ought not to have been expected to subscribe to relieve distress in a country which was not ruined by a system of Poor-laws. The noble Earl said that charity did every thing in Ireland. He feared that whatever it might be on the noble Earl's estate, or on the estates of other noble Lords who resided on their property in Ireland, it was not so everywhere. His feeling was so strong on the subject, that he should have proposed a resolution if the Government had not taken up the matter last Session, and recommended a Commission. He was sorry that the Commissioners had not made a Report at this moment; he hoped that they would do so this Session, and that they would express their opinion as to the practicability, and as to the expediency, of establishing Poor-laws. He hoped that, in his Majesty's Speech next year, this subject would be distinctly recommended to the consideration of Parliament.
The Earl of Limerickdenied that the difficulty of finding men to work the Poor-laws in Ireland had been overcome. On the contrary, the difficulty was greater than ever. The south and south-west of Ireland,

1203
he said nothing of the north, had fallen into the hands of the Roman Catholic priesthood. If the Poor-laws were enacted they were the persons who would have all the power that those laws could confer—they would levy the taxes and the imposts on that unfortunate people—then would be the day for the success of an agitator, and the incomes of the priesthood would be raised higher than that which any of their Lordships possessed. That unfortunate country which had been more subject than any other country in Europe to confiscations would then suffer more than ever from that cause. Instead of hoping to see the Report of the Commissioners, he should be glad if it could be kept back to the Greek Kalends; but whenever it did come, he hoped that they should find the observations on it of men who were personally acquainted with the country and its habits.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that before he presented the petition of which he had given notice, he wished to present another, on which he should make no comment, though it was a petition of great importance, but should move that it be read by the Clerk at the Table. It was a petition from the reverend Edward Nangle, who was a most highly respectable clergyman of the Church of England, and whose diocesan (the Archbishop of Tuam) gave him the highest character. Mr. Nangle stated in his petition the efforts he had made to bring into a state of cultivation the island of Achill, and to benefit the people there, especially by the establishment of a school—efforts which had been observed by Mr. Commissioner Newport, and approved of by him, though not mentioned in his Report. He moved that the petition be read at length. [The petition was then read.] It stated that the petitioner, who was resident Minister in the island of Achill, when he came to the island in July last found it without church or glebe house or resident Minister. He built the first slated house which had been seen in the island, and by this means and others enabled the poor inhabitants of the island to clothe their naked children. He also supplied them with schools and medicine, and hoped a note to that effect would appear in the Report of the Commissioners of Education Inquiry. So pleased were the people with his exertions that they greeted his arrival on the island by lighting bonfires, but still
1204
his attempts to serve the inhabitants were frustrated by the denunciations of the Roman Catholic priests. Week after week from the altars of their chapels they pronounced frightful imprecations on those who either sent their children to the schools, or assisted in the works which he had undertaken. As a specimen of the sort of imprecation was the following, uttered on a Sunday in April last, against those who dared to disobey the injunctions of the priests:—"May they be childless by that day twelve months, and at their deaths may they have no hand held out to them." The priests further desired the people to have their pitchforks sharpened, and one man to stand at the front door, and the other at the back, in the event of the petitioner visiting them, so as that there should be no means of escape, and added a prayer that if they did not do so, they might lose the power of their hands. Men came to the labourers who were at work for the petitioner, desiring them to desist, as they were at work for the devil, and adding, that if they came to their labour again they might as well bring their coffins with them. These circumstances the men were ready to prove on oath, The parties were indicted at the petty sessions, and some of them admitted their guilt, declaring that they had acted on the instigation of the priests. On the morning after the day on which they had been cited to the petty sessions one of them upbraided the priest for having brought him into such a situation. The priest's reply was—"Hold your tongue, you ruffian; do not mention my name in the transaction, and you shall have one of the ablest lawyers in Ireland to defend you." In addition to this, the children who attended the schools of the petitioner were beaten by persons total strangers to them, and who had no right whatsoever to interfere with their mode of education. The priest's schoolmaster had beaten these children, and yet he was still in the employment of the priest. The petitioner complained that in consequence of this tyrannical restraint he could not procure labourers to perform his necessary business, whereby he sustained material injury. It further added, with regard to the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, that the population was described in the Returns as 156, whilst in 1831 it was double that number. Besides these annoyances the petitioner had been described by the reverend John M'Hale, who called

1205
himself Archbishop of Tuam, as having introduced the demon of fanaticism into the island.
Lord Duncannonunderstood from the Commissioners who had visited Achill, that the petitioner had laboured very zealously for the advantage of that place. He could not, however, avoid observing that the notice for the day was of a petition which the right reverend Prelate had long had in his hands; and it was impossible not to see, from the introduction of the name of Mr. Newport, the Commissioner, that this petition now presented was intended to be connected with the complaint made in the other petition by Mr. Stoney. They had, however, nothing to do with each other. The only complaint made of Mr. Newport was, that in his report he had not mentioned the school. If the petitioner had waited a little longer, he would have seen that the report now presented only related to the church, and did not at all refer to schools, which would form the subject of a distinct report, as voluminous as the first.
The Bishop of Exeterhad not meant to say one word more on the subject of this petition, but he was compelled to do so by the observations of the noble Lord, who had certainly misapprehended one part of it and misunderstood the object for which it was now presented. The petitioner did not intend to complain of Mr. Commissioner Newport, with whose conduct, on the contrary, he was highly gratified. The petitioner had certainly expected that his labours would have been noticed by that gentleman, who, when upon the spot, had expressed his full satisfaction with what he saw. The petitioner did not refer to the omission of any mention of the school—the Commissioner had seen the settlement, and the means there taken for humanizing, civilizing, and christianizing that island, and those means were the subject of panegyric by Mr. Newport, and the petitioner hoped to have seen them noticed by that gentleman in the report. He repeated that the petitioner was much gratified with the conduct of Mr. Newport, and with his observations when he visited the settlement. He wished to add, that he was assured that the petitioner was not only a pious and ardently zealous man, but that he was mild and temperate in his conduct, so as not to be likely to provoke such treatment as he complained of in this petition.
Lord Farnkamknew the petitioner, and a more zealous, mild, and amiable man did not exist in the Church of Ireland, He
1206
had known the petitioner for years, and he could positively say, that the petitioner was the last person in the world to provoke the outrages of which he had complained.
Lord Duncannonadmitted that the petition did refer to the establishment, and he supposed that word to mean the school and not the settlement.

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).—Mr. STONEY.
The Bishop of Exeterthen rose to present the Petition from Mr. Stoney. If in doing so he trespassed rather longer than it was his wish to do on the attention of their Lordships, he trusted that he should be excused. He must mention one circumstance before he entered on the subject of the petition. He had been asked by a noble Baron whether the petition he was going to present that night was the same as that with which he had been originally intrusted: he answered that it was not; but, he asked the noble Baron, at the same time, whether he had a right to ask the question. The noble Baron admitted that he had not. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had mentioned this circumstance, as it would probably be referred to in the course of the discussion. He should state the changes in the petition as far as he could recollect them, and he would give any noble Lord who desired it, an opportunity of correcting his statement, by showing a copy of the original petition. If it was supposed that it was a different petition from that which he had to present when Mr. Newport and another gentleman had presented themselves by their petition to the House a few weeks since, the supposition was erroneous. No alteration had been made in it since then. The petition, at first, did include more things than he thought it was desirable to lay before their Lordships, and he had therefore sent it back to the petitioner, with the recommendation to leave out certain parts of it. The parts which had been left out chiefly respected the schools. Having said thus much, he trusted that he should be considered as having disposed of the preliminary question. The first thing he should now do would be to read the prayer of the petition. The petition implored their Lordships to take steps to protect the religious instructors of the people, and their religious instruction, and to secure the religious liberty and personal safety of those who inculcated in Ireland the doctrines of the Church. In order to see whether the

1207
proceedings under the Commission were impartial and just, the best course for him to pursue would be, in the first instance, to refer to the Commission itself. Their Lordships would bear with him when he said that, recollecting that this was a Commission that had passed the Great Seal, it was perfectly certain that the object of the Commission must be, not in the slightest degree to weaken the Established Church, to interfere with the cause of true religion, or to impair the rights and privileges of the clergy in that part of the United Kingdom. He said that, not only because they had the best of all securities in the fidelity of the Sovereign to this most sacred cause, which he was interested in maintaining, but because if the Sovereign had departed from that fidelity, he would have done that which it was unseemly to conceive possible. He spoke of it, therefore, as a thing impossible even to be imagined, for the doing of it would have been what no one could for a moment suppose the Sovereign would ever consent to do—it would have been the violation of his Coronation Oath. It was, then, impossible to imagine that such a thing was in the contemplation of his Majesty, when he ordered the Great Seal to be put to the Commission. There were no words in the Commission which looked to such a result. In its terms it upheld the Church, which it was the best interest of all to maintain, and which his Majesty, of all the inhabitants of the kingdom, was most anxious to support. In saying this he could not disguise that there was one part of the Commission which was, though not so intended, likely to produce that dangerous result. That was, the direction given to make a statement of the numbers of the different religious persuasions. That direction had a tendency to exacerbate religious animosity and to endanger the lives of the Protestants in that part of the country where from the paucity of their numbers they were peculiarly exposed to danger. It was true that they had heard that it had been stated in another place, that the object of the Commission was to inquire, with a view of taking away a portion of the possessions of the Church of Ireland, because it was deficient in attaining the main object for which it was instituted, namely, the religious and moral instruction of the people. A Member of his Majesty's present Government had been reported to have used language something like that; but in that House, on all occasions, very different language had been used, and their Lordships
1208
had been assured that the Government, in instituting the Commission, had no thought, or intention, or wish whatever, to interfere, with the revenues of the Irish Church but for Ecclesiastical purposes; and that after fully providing for the Ecclesiastical wants of the Church, if any surplus should arise, that it might be appropriated to the education of the people, under the management of the Irish Board of National Education. It was with great gratification he referred to the observations of the noble Viscount on this subject. He shuddered at the notion of any man connected with the Government daring to make a proposition for taking away a portion of the revenues of the Church. He could not believe that any Government could have it in contemplation to propose such a measure to Parliament until it was actually before them. Until then he must believe the rumour of an intention to submit such a measure to the Legislature was a foul imputation on any man who had been sworn to discharge his duty truly and faithfully to the King, and when he must know that his Majesty had solemnly sworn to maintain the cause of true religion in Ireland, and to preserve inviolate the revenues of the Church in Ireland. Until he found that a Bill, founded on the principle of destruction or invasion of these rights, was actually proposed to Parliament, he would not believe it possible that any Councillors of his Majesty would dare to advise such a measure. He was the more justified in concluding, that no injury to the Church was contemplated when this Commission was issued, by looking further into the Commission; for he found some very important particulars of inquiry confided to the diligence and fidelity of the Commissioners—particulars into which if there had been a faithful and impartial inquiry instituted, it would have conferred the greatest blessings upon the people of Ireland, and would have provided greater security for the Church in Ireland than any measure which could possibly be proposed. He alluded particularly, to the last matter given in charge to the Commissioners; they were directed—"To inquire generally, whether adequate provision is now made for the religious instruction, and for the general education, of the people of Ireland, and to report such other circumstances connected with the moral and political relations of the Church Establishment, and the religious institutions of other denominations dissenting from the Established

1209
Church, as may bring clearly into view their bearings on the general condition of the people of that part of our said United Kingdom."—Nothing would have been more calculated to advance the ultimate tranquillity of Ireland. Nothing would have conduced more to the security of the empire. Nothing would have contributed more to the welfare, temporal and eternal, of the people of Ireland—than to have had a fair investigation into the effects produced, respectively, by the religion of the Church of England, and the religion of the Roman Catholics, on the character and conduct of that people. He stated with regret, that on looking to the Report which the Commissioners had presented, he found that those functionaries not only had not instituted any inquiry at all into these most important and most interesting matters—(the main part of the duty which they had undertaken, namely,—"the moral and political relations of the Church and of other religious institutions, so as to bring clearly into view their bearings on the general condition of the people,")—they not only had not instituted any such inquiry, but they had permitted themselves to speak—heedlessly, he trusted—in terms both very inadequate to the duty imposed upon them, and very injurious to the Church. He had read to their Lordships what the Commissioners were required to do; he would now read to them what they themselves said they had done. In their Report they said,—"Inasmuch as the Inquiry committed to our charge is essentially of a statistical nature, and as we are not authorised to recommend remedial measures, in respect to the anomalous relation in which the institutions of the Established Church stand, with reference both to its own Members, and to the rest of the population in the greater part of Ireland; therefore, 'we abstain,' &c."—Thus the Commissioners not only refused to do that which was the most important part of the charge intrusted to them, but they actually garbled and perverted the terms of their commission. They spoke as if all they had been required to do, was, to look at "the anomalous relation in which the institutions of the Church stand, with reference both to its own members and the rest of the population in the greater part: of Ireland. Could such a Report, in execution of such a Commission, have been expected from honourable men? He was astonished at it. The Commissioners characterized their inquiry as one of "an essentially statistical nature," but it was
1210
his misfortune to be ignorant of their meaning. If it was to be understood that all the subjects enumerated in the Commission were of an "essentially statistical nature," then, indeed, the phrase was of so comprehensive a meaning as to baffle his utmost efforts even to conjecture its probable limitations. He had referred to Johnson's Dictionary, but found that the word "statistical" had come into use subsequently to the death of the great lexicographer. However, in the Continuation, of Johnson's Dictionary, by Todd, it was said that "statistical" meant "political," and that the substantive "statistics" meant "that part of municipal philosophy which states and defines the situation, strength, and resources of a nation." Now, according to this definition of the phrase, if the Commissioners considered the inquiry with which they were charged, as being "of an essentially statistical nature," they were bound to investigate the circumstances connected with the "situation, strength, and resources" of Ireland, and he must therefore again express his surprise and regret, that they did not direct their attention to the particular operation of the religious tenets of the Church and of the Roman Catholics on the general character, and therefore on the moral strength of the people of Ireland. This was the only rational manner of bringing the inquiry committed to these Commissioners within the definition of statistics. Looking to what these Gentlemen had actually done, he must suppose that they thought the inquiry which had been intrusted to them was merely and solely confined to facts relative to the amount of population, and the numbers of churches and ministers of churches, and meeting-houses. If that was their opinion, a more extraordinary interpretation, or rather perversion of words, when considered in relation with the language in which the Commission was drawn up, never took place. He had been the more anxious to notice what the Commissioners had said relative to the "essentially statistical nature of the inquiry," because it had an important bearing upon the alleged conduct of the two gentlemen who were referred to in the letter. Undoubtedly, if the Commissioners were right in thinking that all they had to do was, to inquire into the amount of population, and points of that kind, much of what was charged against those two gentlemen as matter of blame, would be shared by them only in common with all their colleagues in the

1211
execution of the Commission under which they acted. He did not wish, further than was absolutely necessary, to lay anything specially to the charge of those two Commissioners. He did not know them, and he was not disposed to speak of any part of their conduct more harshly than his duty compelled him to do; and, therefore, he must acknowledge that when they refused to enter into the inquiry which was urged upon them, they had the sanction, however erroneous that might be, of their colleagues in the Commission. It appeared that they sent certain inquiries round into every parish respecting the increase or falling-off in the numbers of the attendants of the Protestant Church, and also respecting the increase or falling off in the numbers of scholars attending the Protestant or Catholic schools, and what were the reasons of such increase or diminution. Their Lordships would therefore perceive that the Commissioners when they began the inquiry, supposed that it was part of their business to inquire into these important particulars. He would then proceed to state the object of the petition. The petitioner says, "that no language can describe, nor any petition contain within reasonable bounds, the various outrages committed, and the dreadful intimidation and threatenings held out against the unoffending and defenceless Protestants,—their persons and property exposed to outrage and destruction. He implores your Lordships to take such steps, as shall seem fit in your wisdom, to protect them from the evil consequences of the partial and unjust proceedings of this Religious Instruction Inquiry, and to redress the grievances inflicted by it, as well as generally to relieve the members of the Church from the persecution they are suffering; so that religious liberty and personal safety may be secured for those who teach and inculcate its doctrines, as is their bounden duty; and that the due and impartial execution of the laws, or the exciters to violence and outrage, may repress the out-breakings of crime, and insure the lives and properties of defenceless Protestants." When the Commissioners were at Newport, Mr. Stoney, the Rector of Burrishoole, appeared before them, and expressed his wish to give evidence as to the cause of the diminution of the number of Protestants in his parish, and also to explain the falling-off in the attendance at the Protestant school. He was prepared to show that this had resulted from persecution; and yet the Commissioners
1212
had refused to listen to what he had to say. The petitioner offered to give evidence that the falling-off in the attendance at the school arose from the persecution of the Roman Catholic priests, and he offered to adduce evidence that the priests had endeavoured to intimidate the children from attending the school by using a horsewhip, by throwing stones at them, and calling out in the chapel against them, and thus exposed them to the hatred and vengeance of the Catholic congregation. Whether these things were so he (the Bishop of Exeter) could not say, but the petitioner offered to prove them either before the Commissioners or at their Lordships' bar. The Commissioners acted in this way for reasons which he was not disposed to find fault with—namely, to relieve themselves from the difficulties in which they were placed. These gentlemen, however, had brought forward a statement in answer to what they supposed to be the complaint preferred against them by the petitioner. The noble Viscount (Duncannon) had presented a petition from them, and certainly it had produced great effect on the House, and he confessed also on himself. On that occasion the noble Lord stated in the course of his speech,—"When the Commission was first sent to Ireland, the Commissioners sent round to all the parishes in Ireland certain queries on the subject of the Commission, and though all the answers were not perfectly satisfactory, yet in every case the Commissioners had received written answers except in the case of the reverend individual in question, and he had thought fit to print his answer, and to circulate the answer as printed. He did not consider, therefore, that that individual could complain if the answer thus printed were now read to their Lordships." The noble Lord then proceeded to read certain of the answers returned by the petitioner to the queries. In consequence of this he wrote to that Gentleman, and expressed strongly his opinion on the subject of his conduct, which he considered to be intemperate and highly improper, and above all in returning a printed answer to the queries sent by the Commissioners. To his utter astoishment he had received an answer from that Gentleman, to which he was anxious to direct the attention of their Lordships. He would, however, previously observe, that he requested the noble Lord to put him in possession of the paper containing the original answer to the queries. The noble Lord laid a paper on the Table a few

1213
days ago, containing the answers he had alluded to, but on his (the Bishop of Exeter's) inquiry he found that this was not the original answer but a copy. The noble Lord, however, had since laid the required document on the Table. This document, however, so far from being in print, was written. The letter purported to be received on the 28th November, and was directed to Mr. Barrington, Record-Office, Dublin, the Secretary of the Commission. The letter he had received from the petitioner indirectly showed that he was in a more temperate state of mind than when he wrote the answer to the queries. He had wished to believe that there had been some mistake respecting the answer sent by the petitioner. That Gentleman now stated that he had been sent a list of printed queries, and he had been requested to return an answer by post, but he had not sent, as alleged, a printed answer. He went on to say, that his memory had been refreshed on this point by a person he had to assist him, as clerk, in answering the questions. He then added, that he afterwards got the answers that he had furnished to the Commissioners circulated in his parish, in consequence of the attacks made on him by the reverend Mr. Hughes the parish priest. He had no intention to make an attack, either on the Government or on the Commissioners, but merely pursued the course he did to defend himself from the charge brought against him by the parish priest, and he felt called upon to expostulate against the Romish mass being called divine worship. The writer then went on to express his regret that he had made use of any language which could give offence to any of their Lordships. He added, that the parish priest had ordered the people attending his chapel to wallop—this was the priest's expression, and not Mr. Stoney's—any person who dared to collect the tithes of the parish. He also stated, in addition to other facts, that the soldiers who attended the chapel were withdrawn by the officer accompanying them, in consequence of the language in which the priest had harangued them. This latter was by no means a rare occurrence in Ireland; for it appeared that on several occasions officers who had attended chapel with the soldiers had withdrawn them in consequence of the seditious language of the priests. One remarkable case of the kind was mentioned in the Tithe Report of 1830, where it was stated that a lieutenant had withdrawn a party of
1214
soldiers from a chapel in consequence of the inflammatory and seditious language used by the celebrated Father Burke. Another remarkable case was where a number of troops were withdrawn from a chapel at Ballina by the officer attending there, in consequence of the seditious language used by Dr. M'Hale, who now called himself Archbishop of Tuam. The officer stated, on that occasion, that he should have conceived himself acting most improperly if he had not withdrawn the troops from listening to such inflammatory language as was used by the priest. With the present there were three instances, and in none of those cases had any slur been cast on the officers. Such was the character of the priests in Ireland, that it was necessary that the Catholic soldiers should be accompanied to chapel by their officers, to withdraw them when inflammatory language was used. Much had been said with respect to the nature of the answers returned by the petitioner. He regretted that the reverend gentleman had so far forgotten himself on the occasion in question, as to use language highly reprehensible. He thought that it was comparatively immaterial whether the answers were printed or written, because the language was still intemperate. Some of the answers were extremely objectionable. For instance, it was highly unbecoming of the reverend petitioner to use the expression,—"The Popish national schools are upheld and supported by a Government whose authorized formalities declare the Romish mass to be a blasphemous, false, and dangerous deceit, thus helping to build up the superstitions denounced as contrary to God's truth by the law of the realm, and supporting nurseries for rebellion, sedition, and treason." Again, another expression was highly reprehensible, about the new Board of Education, when he said that "Salat sat there shearing God's holy word." He admitted that there were many other expressions equally censurable; but in saying this, he did not agree in all the censures passed on the reverend petitioner. He fully concurred with him in saying, that he "could not call the worship of wooden crosses, pictures, relics, and wafers, divine service;" and he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought that the Commissioners were censurable for calling the ceremony of the mass divine worship. In one of the Articles of the Church, the mass was designated as idolatrous and superstitious. In the rubric, the worship of the host in the mass was called idolatrous,

1215
which no Christian should tolerate. He would also beg their Lordships to recollect that the great majority of them had sworn at the table that they believed the worship of the mass was idolatrous and superstitious. The Commissioners, therefore, had acted most improperly and indiscreetly in calling it divine worship. From the statement put before him, he felt bound to say, that the Commissioners in their inquiry at Newport, acted with partial views. He had no wish, however, to bring any charges, but would rather wish to regard the Question as one of a general nature, and as affecting the general interests of the people of a country in which all felt so deeply interested. But he feared if he abstained from bringing forward Mr. Stoney's statements, it would be said, that he had shrunk from them. In consequence of the charges brought against the petitioner, he felt bound to specify some of the points urged by him. The reverend Gentleman stated, "that he was summoned to attend the Commissioners of Religious Inquiry in Ireland, on the 3rd of March last, held at Newport Pratt, for the parish of Borrishoole; that the priest of the Church of Rome, the reverend James Hughes, was there with a large concourse of the people of that religion; that the said priest objected to the number stated on oath of the parochial Scripture school master to be in attendance on his school, and the petitioner offered to give evidence of the cause of the diminution being violent persecution of the children. The Commissioners refused to receive such evidence, though it was a part of their instructions, as stated in the printed Government circulars, to inquire into the reasons of increase, or falling-off, of attendance on schools, or places of public worship, for the last five years; and, notwithstanding, your petitioner, in answer to questions put to him in a circular letter by the Commissioners, preparatory to the Inquiry, had apprized them of this persecution; and in consequence of the notification given to him by the Commissioners, had come prepared to prove the same.' In the statement made by the noble Lord, on a former evening, it was alleged—"that the Commissioners earnestly requested Mr. Stoney to refrain from such observations (respecting intimidation and persecution), as their Inquiry was restricted to statistical facts, and did not enter into the causes from which they proceeded." In contradiction to this statement of the Commissioners, He was instructed to say, that the words really used
1216
by the Commissioners were to this effect:—On Mr. Stoney's pressing them to inquire into the causes of increase or diminution of attendance at schools and places of worship, and respectfully urging it as part of the Government instructions to them—they replied, "They knew it was; but they had come to the determination not to enter into such part of the inquiry, as it led to altercations." He had not only the authority of Mr. Stoney, but of another respectable person who was present, for the accuracy of this statement, which that other person was ready to attest on oath. He must therefore conclude, that the Commissioners did give this reason for refusing to prosecute this inquiry. Those gentlemen must have entertained a singular notion of the investigation upon which they were about to enter, if they supposed that it would be all plain sailing—that nothing like collision of opinion and consequent ill humour was likely to arise out of it. Such, however, was their expectation; for it seems that, as soon as they found that proof was ready to be given that events of a formidable nature, and scenes of the most appalling description, had, in fact, been the causes of a diminution of the number of children attending schools, and of Protestants attending Churches, they said they could not inquire into those points, because they would lead to altercation. But the case of hardship, and of injustice, towards Mr. Stoney, in refusing to admit him to prove the case which he had been invited by the original queries to bring forward, did not end there. Shortly before the inquiry at Newport, he was again called on to prove his case. And he must remark, that the Commissioners did not give Mr. Stoney the slightest reason to suppose that they had seen anything amiss in his answers to the queries, which, it was said, were sent in the form of a printed handbill. So far from it, Mr. Gibson Craig spoke in these terms of them, only three days before the holding of the Commission, in the letter summoning Mr. Stoney to attend:—'I have earnestly to request your attendance, and the benefit of such information as you can afford me, in relation to the several matters connected with the said inquiry; and I have also to acquaint you, that I shall then further proceed to make such inquiries, with reference to the said parishes, as may appear necessary.' Mr. Stoney, therefore, very naturally,—supposed that he was to produce the evidence which he had pledged himself to bring forward, at the Board

1217
which the Commissioners had announced their intention to hold, and, therefore, he had great reason to complain, when he went with his witnesses to prove that schools and churches had been thinned by persecution, that he was turned round and told that, to the delicate ears of the Commissioners, forsooth, the word "persecution" sounded harshly, and they would hear nothing on the subject. The Commissioners would admit of proof upon trivial points, but with respect to the grave and overpowering topic, the causes of the diminished number of scholars and congregations, they would not hear a syllable. The petitioner went on to state, that the jeers and insults of the mob towards him, were not repressed by the Commissioners, as they ought to have been; and that their conduct towards the Roman Catholic Priest was, on the contrary, most courteous and most encouraging. He would not multiply instances of partiality, because he was unwilling to trespass too far upon their Lordships' patience; but without uniting the motives which the petitioner ascribed to the Commissioners, he must say it appeared to him that they were guilty of a culpable dereliction of duty in refusing to enter into an inquiry which they had themselves invited, and which the petitioner was ready and anxious to pursue, and to confirm his own statements by facts of the gravest nature. He thought, taking into account the facts stated in the petition, that a strong prima facie case was made out. Before he sat down, he would briefly allude to a subject which had recently been brought under the notice of the inhabitants of this great metropolis, and which could not but be considered as having an immediate and important bearing on any question concerning religious instruction in Ireland, and especially concerning the influence of the Roman Catholic religion on the character of the people. He alluded to a work which had recently been discovered to be regarded by the highest authorities in that Church in Ireland as a depository of the real principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and which was especially recommended by these authorities as the fittest book, under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, for the study of the priests. He had examined that work, which was called Den's Theology; and more atrocious principles than were set forth in it,—principles more inconsistent with the security of a Protestant Government, and with the rights, liberty,—aye, and the safety of a Protestant people—he had never read, even when looking into the
1218
most intolerant and persecuting dogmas of Popes or councils, in the worst ages of Popery. He would not go through the particulars of this work, but would content himself with stating that in it Protestants were described as worse than Pagans—they were represented as being subject to the Roman Catholic Church, and liable not only to Ecclesiastical punishments, such as excommunication, and other spiritual penalties, but to the gravest corporal punishment. The property of the Protestants was declared to be ipso facto confiscated: their persons were held liable to incarceration, to exile, to death itself, as the punishment of their heresy. The book which contained all this, and more than all this, was set forth on the authority of no less a person than Dr. Murray, who was called the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, one of his Majesty's Commissioners of Education in Ireland. In an official publication,—The Annual Calendar and Directory of the Roman Catholic Priesthood, for the present year, published with the authority of Dr. Murray,—it was stated, that Den's Complete Body of Theology was declared, by the Prelates of 1708, to be the best book that could be republished. That was not all; not only had this book been ordered to be published for the edification of the priests in Ireland, as containing the most secure guidance for them in the present circumstances of that country, but Dr. Murray, and three other Prelates with him, had further directed that it should be used as a text book within the province of Leinster, in the conferences which the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland were required to hold four times in the year. Such was the sanction given to this work by the living heads of the Roman Catholic Communion in Ireland. More on the subject, he need not say. But thanking their Lordships for the patience with which they had heard him, he would move that this petition do lie on the Table.
Lord Duncannoncould not deny that, in the first instance, certain queries were sent round to the clergy of all denominations, one of which required them to state the causes of the increase or diminution of the attendance at schools and churches; but before the Commissioners left Dublin, they received instructions as to the mode in which they were to conduct the inquiry. He would quote one sentence of the instructions. 'It will also be observed, that the Commission only requires a statement of the bare fact, whether the numbers attending

1219
have been stationary or not for the last five years, without noticing the numerical extent of the variation. The Commissioner need not, therefore, ascertain the fact. He will also be careful to exclude all evidence respecting the cause of any such variation. In respect to education, the inquiry is limited to the statistical facts expressly mentioned in the Commission. The Commissioner should, therefore, be careful not to seek for or receive evidence in respect to the defectiveness or partiality of any particular system—the conduct of school-masters and others—the misapplication of funds—the religion to which the different children belong—the numerical extent of any increase or decrease that may have taken place in their numbers—the cause of such increase or decrease—or other similar circumstances not necessary for the establishment of those statistical facts; accordingly he should studiously avoid entering upon an inquiry into any of these subjects.' He differed from the right reverend Prelate as to the propriety of entering into the inquiries which were suggested by the first list of queries. The Commissioners, on leaving Dublin, were properly directed not to enter into inquiries as to the causes of the diminution of the Protestants? If any thing were wanting to prove the wisdom of that determination, it would be found in such conduct as that of Mr. Stoney. When the Commissioner arrived at his parish, and informed him that they did not mean to inquire into the cause of the diminution of Protestants, he protested against their proceedings in no mild manner. He did not countenance the violent proceedings of the Catholic priest, neither could he approve of the violence of Mr. Stoney. Both were violent men, and their quarrels kept the parish in an uproar. There were various points which had been alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, to which he was not prepared to give an answer. He did not know whether the children at the school had gone out, as had been alleged, to meet the Bishop with green boughs in their hands or not; but even if they did, that was not to interfere with the nature of the schools. It was not to be supposed that the children were always in school and under the superintendence of their masters. They formed a part of the population; and if the populace went out with green boughs to meet Dr. Machale, which, from his popular character, they very probably did,
1220
it was very likely that the children accompanied them with boughs also. With respect to the answers given by Mr. Stoney to the Commissioners, they were the subject of controversy, not to say that they had been proved to be false. He was informed that by the return made by Mr. Stoney, the number of his congregation was said to be 300. This return was originally objected to as incorrect. Mr. Gillespie said that the number was no more than 150. Mr. Dogherty had counted the congregation on three several Sundays, and on the first Sunday the number was 150; on the second 180; and on the third 150. Captain Stewart had also given it as his opinion that the number stated by Mr. Stoney was too large; and all agreed in assuring him, that, as regarded the Commissioners, nothing could be fairer or more impartial than their conduct during the inquiry. He had stated on a former day the circumstances under which Mr. Stoney, after some violent altercation had taken place, had left the room in which the Commissioners had met for the purpose of their inquiry. He should not now trouble their Lordships by repeating them. He could only say, that the whole inquiry appeared to him to have been conducted with the greatest propriety, and that in no case could the Commissioners be blamed on the score of partiality. With regard to the Commission itself, he could state that it would never have been issued at all if those who recommended to his Majesty to issue it had not sincerely thought that it would tend to the furtherance of the Protestant religion in Ireland, and not to its overthrow. As regarded himself, he could say that he participated with the right reverend Prelate in his wish for the prosperity of the Protestant religion and its furtherance. He had his own opinions as to what would tend to improve the state of the Protestant Church in Ireland; but whether he did or did not agree in opinion with the right reverend Prelate as to the means, he could assure their Lordships that no person was more anxious as to the desired end than he was. He did not, however, think the maintenance of an establishment larger than was requisite for the wants of the Protestants one way of promoting the success of the Protestant religion. With respect to what the right reverend Prelate had said regarding the census to be taken, he (Lord Duncannon) could not understand why a question of such great importance, and which came so frequently before their Lord-

1221
ships and the other House of Parliament, should not he inquired into. Assertions were continually made on one side and contradicted upon the other, without there being any means of coming at the exact truth; he therefore thought that it would be best that they should have authentic information upon a matter which was now almost the constant subject of discussion, both in their Lordships' House and in the other House of Parliament. A census of the population was to be taken; and what reason there could be why, in that census, the number of Protestants and the number of Catholics in the country should not be stated, he could not conceive. He could not think why the mere statement of the numbers should bring about dissensions. The right reverend Prelate had complained that the Commissioners had not stated their own opinions; but he (Lord Duncannon) was not sure but they would be more blameable if they had given their opinions to their Lordships instead of submitting to them a simple statement of facts, and allowing them to form their own opinions upon those facts.
Lord Broughamsaid, he would trouble their Lordships with a few remarks upon this subject; not that his noble Friend had not said quite enough to repel the extraordinary charges brought against the Commissioners in the most extraordinary manner, but because those who were attacked in this Petition might expect that something should be said by him in their favour. He did not mean to complain, although he might well do it, of the elaborate charges which had been brought forward by the right reverend Prelate, both against the Government and against individuals, in the most unusual manner. Had it often happened, upon the presentation of the petition of an individual, when their Lordships were not even summoned to attend the House, that elaborate and grave charges against the Government, and not only against the present Government but the former Government, and charges against public individuals, had been brought forward?—charges which, in the merciful hands of the right reverend Prelate, to be sure had dwindled down to a simple case of mere malversation of their public duties; but still grave charges were brought forward. It had been said that the Commissioners had been guilty of a dereliction of duty in departing from the instructions which they had received. Now, he had carefully read the Commission; indeed he
1222
had written the principal part of it, and attached the Great Seal to it, and he should therefore know what it meant; but he could find nothing in the Commission which required the Commissioners to enter upon the inquiry which they were now complained of for not entering upon. The right reverend Prelate had said, that it was lamentable that the Commissioners had not gone into this inquiry. Now he (Lord Brougham) could not agree with the right reverend Prelate. He could not regret that the Commissioners had not left the clear line of their inquiry, which could lead to no dissensions, to no heart burnings among any class of religionists, to travel into debateable ground, which it was desirable should ever, if possible, be avoided, and which was almost sure to give rise to emotions and feelings, and, what was worst of all, to politico-religious feelings, which ought to be lulled both in Ireland and in this country. The noble and learned Lord contended, that as regarded the charge of partiality which had been brought by Mr. Stoney against the Commissioners, that charge would more properly have been brought against them by Mr. Hughes; for the fact was, that all Mr. Stoney's charges against Mr. Hughes were fully heard, while Mr. Hughes was not allowed an opportunity of making any answer to them. Mr. Stoney was, therefore, the last man who ought to complain of partiality on the part of the Commissioners. By looking at the answers which Mr. Stoney gave to the Commissioners' queries, their Lordships might estimate the loss which had been sustained by the same line of inquiry not having been carried further. The first query was, "Has the number of Protestants been stationary, increasing, or diminishing, within the last five years; and, if increasing or diminishing, to what extent, and what has occasioned such increase or diminution?" The answer to this question showed the advantages which might have been expected to flow from a course of investigation for not proceeding with which the Commissioners were blamed by the right reverend Prelate. The Rev. Mr. Stoney, in reply, said, "The number is increasing yearly, and would be greater than the church would hold, only for Popish persecution. The parish priest preaches in his chapel the destruction of those who read the Bible, by pitchforks, bogholes, and paving-stones, and is not ashamed to avow it on oath before the magistrates of the country. Protestants are threatened to be murdered, violently

1223
assaulted and beaten, and their property destroyed; their remains torn from the grave; husbands taught to beat their wives, and wives to abandon their husbands and children, to force them to leave the church and go to mass." Another of the queries was, "What kind of instruction is afforded therein (the schools) to the boys and girls respectively?" The answer was, "The instruction given in the Popish schools of this parish is still worse. Idolatry, rejection of the second commandment, praying to the Virgin Mary, image and saint worship, hatred to Protestants, hunting Scripture readers with pitchforks and stones, and shouting after them:" and Mr. Stoney added, "for the young cock crows like the old one." Another question—"Has the number of children attending such school or schools respectively been increasing," &c? The answer was, "The last question needs no reply; the above answers will do for most of the parishes in Ireland; with the exception of the numbers, ex uno disce omnes. The persecuting haracter of the priest Hughes, of Newport, s a faithful picture of Popish priests in general; the sufferings to which Protestants are exposed are nearly alike everywhere; and the abominations and wickedness of Popery unchanged and unchangeable."—[The Bishop of Exeler: "Hear! hear!"] He was to gather from the right reverend Prelate's cheer, that Popery was unchangeable. He trusted, however, that they might be able to effect an improvement even in Popery, though if they were to educate Protestants only, he could not see how the Papists were to be improved. But Popery was a great deal better now than it was 200 or 300 years ago. Mr. Stoney was asked, "Of the children so attending at each such school, what is the number of Protestants of the Established Church, and what the number of Roman Catholics and of Presbyterians, or other Protestant Dissenters respectively?" His answer was, "Most of the Protestant children of the parish attend the Sunday and daily schools. The Roman Catholic children would, and frequently did, attend; but the priest has fixed his residence close to the parochial school-house"—It would appear from this, that the priest had taken up a military position for the purpose of cutting off the scholars as they approached the school. He seemed as intemperate a Catholic priest as the other certainly was a Protestant one. He would give their Lordships a specimen of the mild and dignified language employed
1224
by Mr. Stoney. "Hughes, the priest," he said, "persecutes them, hunts, stones, cudgels, cuffs, horsewhips, curses, calls out in the chapel, and tyrannizes over the unhappy victims of his fell superstition, so that they are forced to stay away from the Scripture-school, contrary to the wishes of both parents and children. The lash of the driver's whip was never more terrific to a West-Indian slave than the priest's whip and curse to a poor Irish peasant; the desolating slave-system carried on in Africa is liberty itself when compared to the horrid tyranny of Irish priests, and the interminable sufferings they inflict. Some of the poor children are robbed of their books, some welted with horsewhips, some forced to run into the rivers, others confined to sick beds for weeks from the brutal treatment they receive; some children may be seen going a great deal out of the way to avoid the infuriated priest and his cruel whip." That certainly was a logical answer to the inquiry respecting the falling-off in the attendance of children at schools; but it was one which justified the Commissioners in not having entered into any examination of witnesses with respect to the superiority of the Roman Catholic or Protestant character, which was the issue directly raised by the "infuriated priest" on the one side, and the equally infuriated Protestant clergyman on the other, and which would also have been raised in every parish in Ireland where such men as priest Hughes and priest Stoney were placed over it. He could figure to himself nothing more fatal to the peace of Ireland—nothing more likely to excite religious discord—than the Commissioners sitting to try an issue between a Catholic priest and a Protestant clergyman, each attended with a crowd of witnesses, and eager to support his own abominable anti-Christian feelings of hatred to his fellow-creatures, and enmity to goodwill among men; and the Commissioners, he repeated, did wisely in abstaining from it.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he was astonished that the noble and learned Lord spoke of being particularly interested in this question on account of the attack which had been made upon the commission, because he himself had heard the noble and learned Lord state at the commencement of the session that he did not belong to the commission, and had nothing to do with it beyond the circumstance of having affixed his name to it in his official capacity. When the noble and learned Lord could make such a mistake as that, it is not very

1225
probable that he could have given himself much trouble to ascertain the nature of the duties imposed upon the Commissioners. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the noble and learned Lord should condemn so strenuously a course of inquiry which was directed to be pursued by a commission, of which he himself was the head. For his part, he was glad that that line of inquiry had been abandoned, but he was a little surprised that its mischievous tendency, of which the noble and learned Lord and his former colleagues were now so thoroughly satisfied, did not strike them, when they, in the first instance, determined that it should be pursued. It appeared from the statement of the noble Viscount, that the character of the inquiry had been changed by the Commissioners. This was an extraordinary proceeding. What authority had two Commissioners (all of whom had equal power) to alter the course of the inquiry originally agreed upon under the sanction of the Government? He did not say that the change was not proper. He thought it was; for the inquiry first proposed might have excited animosity, and the resolution adopted by the Commissioners was, at least, the safest. He had no acquaintance with the rev. Mr. Stoney, and could have no private cause for entering into the discussion of this subject under any feelings of undue partiality. On the contrary, he was ready to admit that the reply of that Gentleman to the queries submitted to him was not a becoming one from an individual in his situation. On the contrary, a more temperate style would have been much more proper on the occasion. He was, however, happy to find that Mr. Stoney had not committed the disrespect (and this was one of the most serious charges raised against him) of sending his answer in print to the Commissioners.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that it seemed to have afforded matter of complaint against the Commissioners that they should, in the execution of their comprehensive duties, have demanded information in writing relative to points which they did not subsequently pursue, and which written information they did not seem disposed to make use of as materials in the composition of their report. Now it appeared to him, that herein they had exercised a sound discretion, and had best fulfilled the spirit of their trust, by refusing to sacrifice the statistical points of the inquiry to the speculative ones. He was quite willing to take the right rev. Prelate's
1226
assurance that the petition had not been changed in consequence of what had passed n that House as he had previously been ed to suppose was the case. He must add his testimony to what had been previously adduced in favour of the exemplary manner in which the Commissioners had acted with reference to the origin of this unpleasant controversy. They, in common with all who were conversant with the state of parties in that quarter of Ireland, were well aware that in the parish of Borrishoole the most rancorous hostility in controversial topics had for a length of time subsisted between the reverend Messrs. Stoney and Hughes, and that whenever they came to that parish, in the course of their progress as Commissioners, they might expect to elicit the most contradictory and disagreeable feelings. They had, therefore, refrained as much as possible from unnecessarily exciting the parties to additional enmity by discreetly and cautiously abstaining from accepting any invitations to enter on inquiries that involved points of theological controversy and discord in a parish already sufficiently agitated on that score. Mr. Stoney's character was so fully established as a violent religious and political partisan that it was impossible his evidence alone could be received as competent and satisfactory on questions which affected his feelings and prejudices. The fact was, that his feelings had been so warped by religious excitement that it was impossible to place reliance on what he asserted when under the influence of his exuberant zeal. There was another topic on which he felt it necessary to trouble their Lordships, and he did it with considerable reluctance, under the circumstance of his recent admission to the honour of a seat in that House. During the twenty months that he had been previously intrusted with the performance of official duties, while a member of the other House, it had been the invariable habit there, previous to the presentation of any petition relative to affairs within his jurisdiction, to transmit him a copy, and give him a week's time at least to write to the spot, to make inquiries, and be prepared with useful information on the public presentation of the petition, and he must say, if on the occasion a similar courtesy had been shown him with respect to petitions against the manner in which the Commissioners had executed their work throughout Ireland, it ought to be known that, out of 2,500 parishes, only five had complained—a strong

1227
proof of the fairness and impartiality which had characterised their proceedings. He hoped, if any other petition should be received on this subject he should be favoured with a timely notice of the day on which it would be presented, that the statement and the reply might have an opportunity of being heard and going forth together. In conclusion, he begged leave to express his sincere gratification at the progress which had been made in the investigation of the educational and Ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, and hoped it would, ere long, be perfected, so that it might be ascertained to the satisfaction of all how far each parish was a sinecure, or how far the Church Establishment was itself a sinecure. "I am (said the noble Lord) "proud to reckon myself amongst the firmest supporters of that Church, and one most anxious to resist any encroachments of a nature that might tend to injure or depreciate her; and I feel confident that the more thoroughly her condition is inquired into, and the causes ascertained which may have tended to interfere with her beneficial influence, the more effective and secure will that influence become in all its important relations, so deeply bound up with the well-being of Ireland."
The Bishop of Exeter,in explanation, declared that the intended appropriation of the property of the Church of Ireland (to which the noble Lord alluded in terms of such hope and approval) was, in his (the right rev. Prelate's) opinion, one of the most wanton and outrageous assaults on property, as well as one of the most outrageous insults on common sense, that he had ever known to be contemplated in a British House of Parliament. With respect to the support and the security of that Establishment, he considered the property in question only as the means; the needful temporal means whereby her spiritual efficacy was to be extended, diffused, and made palpable amongst the multitudes for whose instruction that Church was established. That property was intrusted to her sole care and use, for the common benefit. He did not intend to say that it was as equally or advantageously distributed as it might be; but while he saw a proposition made that what was termed the extra wealth of parishes should be applied (not to remedy the deficiency which existed in other parishes but) to extraneous and irrelevant purposes—he would oppose it to the last—feeling that the interference was undertaken in the
1228
most hostile spirit to the utility of the entire Establishment. He must also conscientiously declare that this project of appropriation was of a character that directly interfered with the spirit in which the Coronation Oath was taken, to support the rights of the Church, and if the Royal sanction were given, it would decidedly be a violation of the oath. In a word, he must characterize the measure as a foul spoliation contrary both to the oath of the Sovereign and the Constitution of their country.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he felt it to be only a matter of justice when transactions like the present took place, and charges were made against public officers to investigate the character of the complainant. He would read to the House a document, containing a portion of the proceedings of the Mayo Central Committee of Charitable Distribution at a meeting held at Westport, on the 9th of May, 1831, Sir Francis Lynch Blosse, Bart, in the Chair, which would throw some light on the character of the rev. Mr. Stoney. [The noble Lord then read a resolution of the meeting, declaratory "that they had read with feelings of the greatest disgust and reprobation a published letter of the rev. Mr. Stoney; that the statement therein contained was not founded in fact; and that it was calculated to injure the cause of liberality and charity." The only answer that the rev. Gentleman condescended to make to this resolution was, that the "statement alluded to was a private document, and not intended for publication."] After such an exhibition could their Lordships believe that Mr. Stoney's character was a sufficient answer to any charges brought against him or a sufficient guarantee that he must be in the right. He must say, that the Commissioners for their good feeling and discretion in forbearing to awaken in their progress further theological controversy which had ever been the curse of Ireland deserved great praise; and he much regretted that their excellent example should be lost upon a Christian Bishop, who had lent himself to foment its religious dissensions, and, in conjunction with the noble Earl, seemed ready to foster all the evil passions, the result of religious animosity which had so long been the curse of Ireland.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged leave to contradict most emphatically any such intention. He conceived that he had only done his duty in bringing the matter before the House.
The Earl of Wicklowdeclared that no word had fallen from him to justify the imputations cast on him by the noble Earl.
The Petition laid on the Table.