Sitting of 6 March 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. ANGERSTEIN, from Woolwich; and by Mr. BARNARD, from Deptford,—against the Weights and Measures Act—By Mr. CULTAR FERGUSSON, from Kilmarnock, for an Extension

589
of the Established Church in Scotland.—By Mr. HODGES, from three Parishes in Kent, for a Repeal of the Malt Tax.

OUTRAGES IN ARMAGH.
Mr. Dobbinsaid, that in consequence of certain observations which had fallen from the hon. Members for Sligo and Armagh, he rose to move for a paper which—
Sir Henry Hardinge(interrupting the hon. Member) said, that the hon. Member had shown him a paper, for which he supposed he was then going to move. It contained an account of certain transactions which it was alleged had occurred in Armagh. The Government was pursuing an inquiry into those transactions; and, at the present moment it would be impossible to grant this paper without impeding the course of justice.
Mr. Dobbinsaid, that the investigations to which the hon. and gallant Officer referred, had, to his knowledge, been closed before he left Armagh. They were closed a month ago. He should, therefore, move that there be laid on the Table of the House a copy of the investigation instituted into certain proceedings at Armagh, which took place on the 5th of last November, between the Magistrates, the police, and the people: also a copy of the investigation instituted at Armagh into the proceedings which took place at Keady, in the county of Armagh, in collecting the tithes of that parish, in which one man was killed, and another wounded; together with a copy of the Coroner's inquest on the person killed. Also a copy of the investigation held at Armagh, into the proceedings which took place there on the 15th of January last, when several houses were destroyed, and fourteen belonging to Catholics in the town and neighbourhood were burnt by a body of armed Orangemen. His object in moving for these papers, was to show how far the lives of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects had been protected under the present Government.
Sir Henry Hardinge.I object to the hon. Member's bringing up this Motion. I object to it, because it is informal, as no notice was given to me that the hon. Member intended to bring it forward this day; and I object to it also, because it is likely to impede the course of justice. I can assure the hon. Member, that I shall have no objection to grant those papers which the Government may think proper; but I ask him to suspend his call for these
590
papers, until I can learn whether the investigations to which he refers are completed. By the last accounts which I received from the Earl of Gosford, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, it appeared that they were not completed, and any premature publication of the accounts would seriously impede the course of justice.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Armagh contained three distinct Motions for papers relating to three distinct transactions at three different places. The first of them had reference to a transaction which had occurred during the time when he was in office in Ireland. That investigation was completed, and he could have no objection to placing the account of it on the Table.
Mr. Dobbin.I was present at all these investigations. I was present when they were finished, and when the papers were sealed up and sent to the Government.
The Speakerasked Mr. Dobbin whether he had given notice to Sir H. Hardinge of his intention to bring on this Motion today.
Mr. Dobbin.I sent him a copy of it.
The Speakersaid, that as a strict matter of right, any Member of Parliament was entitled to bring on a motion without giving notice of it; but it had been found to conduce much to the convenience of hon. Members, and indeed to the convenience of transacting public business, to give notice beforehand of the day on which any Motion, that was not altogether unimportant, would be brought forward. Unless there were circumstances connected with this Motion of such urgency as to induce the hon. Member to think that they could not admit of delay, he would suggest to him the propriety of withdrawing his present motion, and bringing it forward on another day.
Motion postponed.

MAGISTRATES OF CARLOW.
Mr. O'Dwyerpresented a Petition from an individual of the name of Ryan Henessey, residing in the county of Carlow, and complaining of the oppressive treatment which he had experienced from certain magistrates in that county. The petition stated, that on the night of Saturday, the 24th of January last, after the petitioner had gone to bed, a driver belonging to Mr. Kavanagh, a Member of that House, accompanied by a party of police, knocked at his door, and stated that the priest of the parish wanted

591
to see him; that the petitioner, on opening his door in consequence of this message, was immediately seized and handcuffed by order of the driver, and that he was then dragged to the guardhouse, where he was put in irons, and where he remained handcuffed during that night and the following Sunday. The petitioner further alleged, that he was arrested without any summons having been previously served upon him, and without any warrant having been issued for his apprehension. He also stated, that a person offered to become security for his appearance, but that on his inquiring of the Magistrate, who was a Mr. Doyne, what amount of security would be required, Mr. Doyne called him a ruffian, and threatened to send him to the county gaol. In conclusion, the petitioner alleged, that he could not expect justice from the Bench of Magistrates at Carlow, as Mr. Doyne was one of them, and with another constituted the whole Bench. He had to present another petition from Thomas Butler and his wife, complaining of the misconduct of the same Mr. Doyne.
Colonel Bruenbegged to interrupt the hon. Member. The first petition presented by the hon. Member was not signed. There was only a mark attached to it, and it was not vouched by anybody that that mark was the mark of the petitioner. The authenticity of this petition should be established before it could be received, inasmuch as it contained allegations of a most serious nature against the character of a Magistrate. For his own part he did not believe that there was the slightest foundation for any of the charges which the petitioner had made against Mr. Doyne.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, that the petitions had come to him in the usual way, but in consequence of what had just fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, he must now add that they had come to him recommended and confirmed by a gentleman of unquestioned honour and respectability. For his own part, he firmly believed that every allegation in the petition could be substantiated.
The Speakersaid, it appeared that the petitioner was not able to write, but that his mark was attached to the petition. Now, the question for the House to decide, was, whether the man was to be deprived of his right of petition because he could not write?
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the signature of a petitioner was not a stronger proof of the authenticity of a petition than his mark would be. The House had no better means of ascertaining the authenticity of a signature than it had of ascertaining the authenticity of a mark. Why, then, should they place obstacles in the way of the poor unlettered man, who had already difficulty enough in getting his petition put into a shape in which it could be presented to them, when they removed the same obstacles out of the way of the rich man, who found no difficulty in petitioning?
Sir John Campbell.The petition is already signed, for a man may sign by his mark. That is admitted to be a signature in every Court of Law. You are bound to give credit to it as a man's signature, until the contrary is shown.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that to the petitions which had been received and printed last year there were the names of at least a hundred thousand marksmen attached. It was not many hundred years since Members on entering that House, made their marks, in consequence of their being unable to write their names.
Mr. Ewartobserved, that what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who presented the petitions was quite sufficient to authenticate them; and the objection which had been made to them ought not to enter into the equitable consideration of the House.
Mr. Kavanaghcontended, that there ought to be some voucher to prove the genuineness of the petitioner's mark. It there were no attestation attached to it any man might libel the character of another in that House with impunity. He believed, that the allegations of the petitioner were all false, especially those which reflected on that respectable magistrate Mr. Doyne.
Mr. O'Dwyerthought that when the hon. Member for the county of Carlow rose, he was going to propose the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the charges which the petitioner brought against Mr. Doyne, the Magistrate. That would have been the most proper and manly way to meet the charge, and do justice to the petitioner. If the hon. Member would propose that course, he would undertake that every allegation in the petition should be proved. He had received the petition from a source of the

593
highest respectability, and the House was bound to believe the allegations of it till they were disproved by some better evidence than mere assertion.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. D. O'Dwyerpresented a Petition from Thomas Butler and Judith his wife, of the county of Carlow. The petition complained, that on Saturday, the night of the 24th of January, after they had retired to rest, a party of police, accompanied by the under agent of Thomas Kavanagh, Esq., a Member of that House, had called at their cottage, dragged them out of their bed and conveyed them to Borris, where they were kept in confinement the remainder of the night, and the whole of the following day; that Judith, one of the petitioners, was the mother of seven children, one of whom was dangerously ill; that she requested to be left with the sick child till morning, and promised to be ready at that time to meet any charge which might be preferred against her; that she was forced from the embraces of her children, and compelled to accompany her husband; and that she was imprisoned with him in a dungeon for the time already mentioned, on a charge which she did not know. The petition further stated, that when the reverend John Walsh inquired of the police serjeant by what authority he had arrested the petitioners, he replied that he had not had any warrant, but that he had arrested them on the order of Mr. Doyne, the Magistrate, and of Mr. Hawkshawe, the chief of the police. The petition added, that Mr. Doyne, was an agent of Mr. Kavanagh, at a salary of 80 l. or 100 l. a-year, and that he was harsh, vindictive, and oppressive as a Magistrate. He would not enter into a description of the other charges which the petitioners brought against Mr. Doyne; but the circumstances, if true, were of a nature to challenge the immediate attention of the Irish Government. As to Mr. Doyne, who was spoken of in this manner, he would mention one fact, which he had upon the authority of a gentleman to whom he was sure the House would give implicit credit—he meant Mr. Vigors, who represented Carlow in the last Parliament. Mr. Vigors had told him that he was an eye-witness to this circumstance. Two persons were brought before the bench, on which Mr. Doyne was sitting, as a Magistrate. One of them, a woman,
594
was charged with having excited a tumult, and was sentenced to pay a fine of 20 s. A warrant had been issued against the other, who was in Mr. Kavanagh's employ, for an aggravated assault. He was proved to have struck another person on the head with a stone, and for this he was fined 5s. Now, let the house mark the difference in the sentence on these two cases. The woman was fined 20 s., who had committed no assault, and had been guilty of no actual breach of the peace, whilst the moan was fined 5s. who had committed a savage assault, and had been guilty of a gross breach of the peace. But this was not all. This very respectable Magistrate, Mr. Doyne, who had adjudicated on the case, had had the indecency on the bench to pay the fine of the latter offender. He implored the House to consider what hope could the people have of justice from a bench of which such a Magistrate composed a part? He would not use delicate phrases on a subject like this; but he would openly call on the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, if he could obtain his attention for a moment, to investigate this transaction, and, if it were proved to be of the nature which he had stated, to remove this Magistrate from the commission of the peace.
Mr. Kavanaghsaid, that among other phrases which he had heard the hon. Member for Drogheda utter he had distinguished this—"If this case be proved." He (Mr. Kavanagh) would use that phrase too. He would say—"If this case can be proved." But it could not; for the information on which the hon. Member was proceeding was in every respect incorrect. In short, the only reply he should give was, that the charge was wholly and perfectly false.
Colonel Bruenwas far from hushing up inquiry, like the hon. and learned Member for Drogheda, he challenged the fullest investigation into the allegations of the petition. He was sure that upon a proper and full investigation the allegations would be discovered to be wholly unfounded. He must observe, at the same time, that it was most extraordinary that it should be proposed to investigate these matters here, instead of leaving them to the proper tribunals in Ireland. As to the charges contained in the last petition, he knew nothing about them; but this he did know, that Mr. Doyne was incapable of acting in any manner unbecoming a

595
Magistrate and a gentleman. He again repeated that the Courts of Law were the proper tribunals for the investigation of charges like these, and that Magistrates ought not to be ruthlessly dragged before that House upon allegations which must circulate to their disadvantage until they were refuted.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if the hon. Member for Drogheda had previously informed him of his intention to bring forward such a charge against a Magistrate, he would have been prepared to meet it; but as the hon. Gentleman had not acquainted him with the allegations beforehand, he could only refer the matter for inquiry to the authorities at Dublin. It was due to the accused Magistrate to state, that from what he (Sir H. Hardinge) had heard of his character, there could be little doubt that he would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the transaction.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that much would depend on the quarter in which the inquiry should be made. He had little doubt that if the right hon. Secretary, or any individual who would act with equal fairness, took the matter up, the charge would be established. This was the conclusion at which he had arrived. The matter seemed quite susceptible of legal evidence; and any man acquainted with Ireland would think few things impossible of Carlow Magistrates.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, he should have been happy to let the inquiry proceed in due course of law, rather than have it taken up by the Government; but as the hon. Member had suggested the latter course, he was ready to concur in it.
Mr. O'Dwyerwould undertake, if the right hon. Secretary supplied the money, that the transaction should be brought before a Court of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman must know that individuals in the situation of the petitioner, could not go into Court without assistance.
Colonel Evanscomplained of the bias that operated upon the minds of most of the Magistracy of Ireland. From what he knew of recent occurrences in the County of Carlow, his impression was, that probably the Magistrate would not come clear out of the inquiry.
Mr. Shawthought that when a serious charge was brought against an individual holding a public office, the accusation
596
ought to rest upon the authority of some person who could be held responsible for its correctness; but this was not the case here; no name was signed to the petition: there was nothing but a mark, and no attestation that this was the mark of the person in whose name the petition was drawn up. The individual could not read the statements made in his name, and might never have heard them read. He knew one of the supposed facts stated in the petition to be untrue, and hence the House might, perhaps, judge of the rest. It was asserted that Mr. Doyne was the agent to Mr. Kavanagh, and had no property to qualify him to sit as a Magistrate, when the truth was, that Mr. Doyne had necessarily sworn to a qualification of 600 l a-year before he could sit on the Road Sessions. He was personally acquainted with Mr. Doyne, and a worthier or more respectable man did not exist. He agreed that the charge should be thoroughly investigated.
The petitions were laid upon the Table.

POOR LAWS (FRFSHFORD.)
Mr. Roebuckpresented a Petition from Colonel William Napier, complaining of cruelty on the part of the parish officers of Freshford to the paupers of that parish. The hon. Member read the petition, and detailed several cases of great wretchedness and destitution, two of which had ended in death, arising out of inadequate allowances to paupers, in that district. The Poor-law Amendment Bill had been passed with a view to the relief of the poor, and in order to raise them from a state of distress and degradation. The Bill originally contained a clause for the prosecution by the Commissioners of persons who should ill-treat or act with cruelty towards paupers, but that wholesome and necessary power of prosecution was taken away in the Upper House of Parliament. See the situation of the poor, as the law now stood; the persons injured were poor and destitute, and had no redress against their oppressors, unless their case happened to be taken up by some benevolent private individual. Cases of cruelty and oppression ought not to be left to the chance or charity of individuals to punish,—it ought to be the business of a public prosecutor to take them up. It was mainly with a view to enforce the necessity of establishing this principle, that he brought the present case before

597
the House. He thought that the case set forth in the petition, was one in which the House should direct the Attorney-General to prosecute. He appealed to Gentlemen's sense of justice and humanity, and asked them whether the parties who had been the cause of so much human misery and suffering, should be permitted to escape with impunity? The hon. Member proceeded to read, from the petition of Colonel Napier, several cases of extreme wretchedness and suffering among the paupers of Freshford. The workhouse consisted of a miserable collection of hovels, in which the paupers were kept without fire or sufficient clothes, or covering, in an inclement season of the year. The unhappy inmates complained of cold and hunger, and were surrounded with filth. Men and women between seventy and eighty had been reduced from an allowance of 2s. to 1s. 6d. a-week. Some had beds, but no bedclothes; and the sick were unprovided with medicine or attendance. A family, consisting of a man and his wife, and several children, were allowed so small a sum, that they must have perished from hunger, but for the aid of private charity. The hon. Member was proceeding to quote other cases of extreme privation, with a view to show the culpable conduct of the Overseers and Churchwardens of the parish, when
Mr. Secretary Goulburnsaid, that if the hon. Member for Bath would allow of the interruption, he (Mr. Goulburn) thought be could state what might satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and save the time of the House. The transaction in question, had only recently come under his cognizance, but, he had no hesitation in saying that, from what he had learned of the case, he should feel it his duty to see that it underwent a judicial investigation. The hon. Member would, therefore, see, he hoped, that the effect of entering upon the details of the transaction, previous to that investigation, must be to interfere with the proper administration of justice.
Mr. Roebuck.Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that, the Poor-law Commissioners having dismissed two individuals as guilty of misconduct, he would at once direct a prosecution to be instituted against the Overseers of the parish of Freshford? Their conduct was a disgrace to a civilized country.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnreplied, that he intended to take those measures which
598
he thought necessary, in order to meet the justice of the case. The course he proposed to adopt was this—to call upon the parish, for the sake of its own character, to prosecute the individuals whose conduct had been complained of, for he could not but think, that if the parish authorities had excercised a proper degree of vigilance over the management of the workhouse, such things could not have taken place. However, if the parish proved unwilling or unable to take up the case in a proper manner, he should direct a prosecution to be instituted at the expense of the Crown, though not through the medium of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Roebuckdid not think it necessary, after the observations of the right hon. Secretary, to say more on the subject.
Major Beauclerkcongratulated the House on the circumstance of one of the strongest supporters of the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, having at length found out that the measure could not work. ["No," from Mr. Roebuck.] He thought the hon. Gentleman admitted the Bill to be a complete failure ["No"]; if the hon. Member did not go so far, he (Major Beauclerk) had no wish to misrepresent his sentiments. It had been said, and he thought, not without justice, that the Bill could never be enforced. In the county (Surrey) he had the honour to represent, the measure was almost inoperative, and the same remark might be applied to other counties. Where the Bill had been enforced, it had produced a great deal of bad feeling among the lower classes. Many parts of the measure he admitted to be good, but there were others most objectionable in their nature: he referred particularly to the fact of the poor being put entirely in the hands of Commissioners residing in London, and he hoped the present Government would take the subject into its consideration, with a view to the introduction of improvements in the law.
Colonel Woodsaid, the Gentlemen who advocated this Bill last Session, would recollect he had warned them against the effects of the measure, and this petition justified the alarm which he and other Members had expressed respecting the consequences to be expected. ["No."] Hon. Members said no, but he said yes; and he thought that such atrocities as had been mentioned, ought to call forth the sympathies of every Englishman. He

599
was surprised that any Gentleman who had heard the horrid details brought forward by the hon. Member for Bath, should hesitate in his opinion as to the character of the Bill which permitted their existence. He had foreseen and foretold the likelihood of such evils and cases of extreme hardship as the petition described—evils for which the Bill provided no remedy, except what might be afforded by the Central Board. The measure proceeded on the principle of taking all the power out of the hands of the Magistrates, cutting off their interposition; and, in the event of cases of hardship, leaving only an appeal to the Central Board. With a view to prevent the evils that must arise, and had arisen, from this system, he last year ventured to propose that guardians of the poor should be appointed in every county, with whose assistance the Magistrates should take cognizance of gross cases of cruelty and negligence. This proposition, however, was not listened to by the House, which seemed to be infatuated in favour of this measure. His clauses were rejected in the Committee—in fact, they had been put down by general clamour. The moment the Magistrate's name was mentioned, their interference was scouted, the clauses were hardly listened to, and the Bill passed almost without any modification. Such modifications as were introduced, had been effected with very great difficulty. He was glad that the hon. Member for Bath had brought the matter under the consideration of the House. It would be necessary to revise the Poor-law Amendment Act, for the authority of the Central Board was of a temporary nature, that body having been appointed only for five years. If the operation of the Bill were to be extended, some alteration would be required in the number of Assistant Commissioners. At present the law was only partially brought into operation; in many parts of the country it was little known; but when it should be generally acted on, if it ever was, some mode must be devised for procuring immediate attention to the evils and severities to which the poor would be exposed from the grinding pressure of Overseers and others. It would be absolutely necessary to devise some mode of appeal other than that at present allowed to the Central Board.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnwished to set the hon. and gallant Member right with
600
respect to a fact. He did not mean to offer any opinion upon the Poor-law Amendment Act, or upon the matter before the House; nor did he wish to prolong the discussion, but he wished to state, that the cruelties complained of had occurred in the workhouse of a parish for which the Commissioners had issued no rules or regulations. That parish was in the state in which it would have been if no Poor-law Amendment Act had passed. The power of interference in that parish was yet in the Magistrates. He thought it only due to the Commissioners under the Poor-laws' Amendment Act to state that the unfortunate occurrences detailed in the petition could not be attributed to them.
Colonel Woodhad made no charge against the Commissioners, but had simply complained of the alteration in the old law effected by the act of last year. The statement in the petition was, that the small pittance allowed to the paupers had been reduced.
Mr. Roebuckobserved, that the petition complained of gross misconduct on the part of the overseers, who had been for three years in office.
Colonel Woodhad heard the petition read, and believed it to detail various instances in which poor persons receiving pecuniary allowance had had that allowance reduced from 3s. and 2s. to 1s. 6d. per week. Now, previous to the passing of the Poor-laws' Amendment Act two Magistrates had the power to order such pecuniary relief to paupers as they considered necessary; but by that Act the right of interference was entirely taken away from the Magistrates.
Mr. Poulett Scrope,to prevent any misrepresentation of the case of the parish of Freshford going forth to the public, was anxious that it should be distinctly understood, that all the irregularities complained of in the petition before the House were of more than three years standing. It was, therefore, evident that the Commissioners appointed last year were not responsible for them; but other parties were responsible besides the overseer, and those parties were the Magistrates. The law, as it existed before the passing of the Act of last year, and as it now existed, gave the neighbouring Magistrates sufficient power to put an end to the abuses which had prevailed in the parish of Freshford. It was perfectly true that the Poor-laws' Amendment Act took from the

601
Magistrates the power of ordering relief to paupers in parishes which had workhouses; but sufficient power was given to Magistrates to remedy abuses by another and very valuable Act. which had not been repealed by the Bill of last Session—he meant the 30th George III., c. 49, passed for the purpose of extending the powers granted by the 22nd George III. That Act gave the right to a single Magistrate to visit and inspect the workhouses in his district, and, in the event of discovering any irregularity in the management of the workhouses, or of ascertaining that sufficient relief was not allowed to the paupers, that they were in want of proper clothing, or exposed to diseases of an infectious nature, he was empowered, in conjunction with another Magistrate, to make an order for the remedy of all such abuses. It was, therefore, clear that the Magistrates in the neighbourhood of Freshford had the power, and ought, in the discharge of their duty, to have visited the workhouse in which the irregularities complained of had so long existed, and to have summarily put a stop to those irregularities. They might, also, have certified the state of the workhouse to the Magistrates at quarter sessions, and have obtained from them an order for the proper regulation of the place; therefore, if legal proceedings were instituted, they ought not to be directed solely against the overseers of the parish, but, also, against the Magistrates for having forgotten or wilfully neglected their duty. He really thought, that to institute a prosecution against the overseers, through the medium of the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General, was a very round-about mode of proceeding. There ought to exist some
more summary process. Every pauper, to whom relief might be refused, should be allowed to apply to some neighbouring tribunal for redress. With this view, when the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill was under discussion, he had made a proposition—to which the House did not think proper to assent—to permit any individual to institute proceedings, at quarter sessions, against overseers for neglect of duty towards paupers; and to empower the Magistrates to order the expenses of those proceedings to be paid by the parish in which the existence of abuse should be proved. If such had been the law, the abuses now complained of would have been remedied long since.
Mr. Benettexpressed a doubt whether the poor-house mentioned in the petition was a parish workhouse.
Mr. Roebuckconsidered, that the houses to which the poor were sent by the parish officers must be the parish poor-house. At all events, they were so considered, both by the assistant Commissioners and the Commissioners themselves. He commended the conduct of the Commissioners with respect to the case of the Freshford paupers, and said that they rendered the most prompt assistance as soon as the facts were communicated to them. With regard to the Poor-law Amendment Bill, many persons, both in and out of the House, had done much mischief by misleading the people, who neither read nor understood the law, as to the nature of its provisions. The hon. Member for Oldham had been most active in setting his constituents against the law. He and others had chosen to say, that the Bill had taken away all power from the Magistrates. The Bill did no such thing. The power remained to the Magistrates until the rules of the Commissioners should be promulgated. Those rules had not been promulgated, and, therefore, if the law were not carried into effect, the Magistrates had to blame themselves, and not the law. The law would place the poor in that position in which they ought to stand; and if the power to prosecute were given to the Commissioners, the law would be complete, and they would no longer have to complain of the cruelty of parish officers, or of the idleness of unpaid Magistrates.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUPPLY.
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up and agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Order of the Day, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Humewished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet. Hon. Members no doubt had seen a Report of a Committee of that House in which certain changes were recommended to be made in the salary of the Speaker and of his Secretary, and also that a different mode should be adopted with regard to providing the service of plate with which the Speaker had previously been supplied. Many years ago,

603
instead of a service of plate being given to every newly appointed ambassador, a fixed sum was agreed to be given them, and the plate was to be handed over from each ambassador to his successor. The Committee to which he had referred recommended a similar course to be adopted with regard to the Speaker, by which means a considerable saving to the public would be effected. What he was anxious to know from the right hon. Baronet was, whether he had taken any measure for carrying that part of the Committee's Report into effect?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer:On the appointment of the present Speaker, the necessity of referring to the Report which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, occurred, and approving as he did of the suggestion of the Committee, as being both advantageous to the Speaker, and economical to the public, he took the earliest opportunity of carrying it into effect. The suggestion was, that a service of plate should be attached to the office of Speaker, by which an annual grant, by way of outfit, would be saved. That suggestion, and every other important one made by the Committee, had been adhered to by the present Government.
Mr. Hume:Formerly it was usual on the expiration of the period of service by the Speaker's chaplain, to recommend that individual to preferment. On consideration, the Committee to which he before alluded, thought that that was not the proper way of rewarding the servants of the House of Commons; they, therefore, recommended that whoever should be appointed the Speaker's chaplain, should thenceforth receive a fixed and moderate salary. He begged to ask whether the right hon. Baronet had adopted that recommendation?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was his intention to do so, and he believed that the appointment of the present chaplain had taken place with the understanding that that recommendation was to be adhered to. The course pursued in suspending the nomination of the chaplain to any preferment would of itself make it necessary that some new arrangement should be made with respect to the remuneration to the chaplain.
The Speakersaid, that the appointment of the Gentleman who was his chaplain, had been made without any inducement being held out to him of a prospect of preferment.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
Several Resolutions were agreed to.
The House resumed.

ORANGE LODGES—IRELAND.
Mr. Shellrose to move that there be laid before the House copies of the letter written by Lord Manners to the Reverend Mr. Johnson respecting the legality of Orange Societies, and of the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General respecting such legality, given in the year 1827; also of the Address to the King of the Royal Luther Lodge, of the Down Orange Lodges, of the Trinity College Orange Lodge, and of the Orangemen of the County and City of Dublin, at a meeting held on the 5th of December last, and of the answers to the said addresses. He would first direct the attention of the House to the legality of Orange Societies, regarding which some doubt had been entertained on Wednesday evening, the Government having insisted that there had been no express opinion on that subject; and, on that ground, the Secretary for the Home Department had, if not vindicated, at least excused his having answered, and thereby recognised the Orange institutions. This subject had been brought before the House in the year 1813, by a Member of the present Cabinet (Mr. Wynn), who had moved for an inquiry into certain illegal Societies, called Orange, in Ireland. Upon that occasion, Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh concurred in deprecating the existence of those calamitous confederacies; and, if the Secretary for the Home Department concurred with them, it was matter of surprise that to those Societies, upon a recent occasion, he should have thought it becoming to give an answer. Again, in 1827, a discussion on the legality of these Lodges arose in the House of Commons, upon a motion of Mr. Brownlow regarding a procession in Lisburne. On that occasion, the present Secretary for the Home Department had referred to two official documents, for copies of which he now moved. The first was the opinion of the then Attorney and Solicitor-General. It might be urged that with the opinion of Mr. Plunket, on a political subject, it would be hard to exact acquiescence from the existing Administration. But Mr. Joy, who was not a Whig Chief Baron, although he was Chief Baron to the

605
Whigs, coincided. The opinion was adopted by Lord Manners, who, in a letter to a Magistrate on the strength of that opinion, declared the Orange Societies to be illegal. He owed it to justice to state, that in the debate which arose on that occasion, the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had declared, that so far from approving of Orange meetings and Lodges, if he were a resident in Ireland, he would use all the means in his power to produce their total extinction. To the production of the documents to which he had alluded, he could see no objection. Their existence could not be disputed. He should proceed, having thus established the illegality of Orange Lodges, to compare the conduct of the Government since their recent formation, with regard to the Orangemen of Ireland, with the opinions which they had formerly expressed, and for that purpose he should lay before the House a detail of some of the most remarkable addresses which had been presented to his Majesty, and which had received the Ministerial sanction, and also advert to some of the incidents which took place at the meetings where those addresses were passed; the first to which he should advert, was the address of the Luther Club, which derived its name from the father of the Reformation, although his tenets and those of the Church of England, did not essentially agree. He should read the following extract from a paper which was regarded as the organ of the Orangemen of Ireland:—"Evening Mail, Dec. 3, 1834. On Friday last the second meeting of the Royal Luther Lodge, No. 1483, was held; the first meeting for the purpose of formation, election of officers, &c., having taken place on the 10th of November, the anniversary of the birth of their illustrious patron, Martin Luther, A. D. 1483: hence the name and number of the Lodge. On the present occasion, the assemblage of visitors from grand, county, and private Lodges, was very great, and the effect produced on the members of this rising Lodge was cheering in the extreme, there being besides the Earl of Roden and Lord Cole, Deputy Grand Masters of Ireland, the senior Grand Chaplain of the Institution, the Grand Chaplains of the county and city of Dublin, the Grand Masters of the county and city of Waterford, the Deputy Grand Secretary and Treasurer of Ireland,
606
&c., and many members of private Lodges. Among the latter, the kind attentions of Trinity College grand district were most apparent, whose fostering care of infant institutions, like the one we treat of, will qualify her for the name she bears. The Constitutional Calvin Lodge, 1509, also sent representatives, to give their colleagues, the Lutherans, an impetus in the noble cause. Six gentlemen having been introduced, were duly initiated into the solemn mysteries of the Orange order. An Address was then read and passed unanimously to the King." He wanted the answer to that Address. The next extract which he should read, was from the Evening Mail of December 8.—"Orange Institution—grand aggregate meeting of the Orangemen of the county and city of Dublin, to address the King, at the Merchants'-hall, Wellington Quay, Dublin, Friday, December 5, 1834."—At half-past seven the right hon. the Lord Mayor entered the room. His Lordship was greeted with three distinct rounds of applause. "On the motion of the Grand Master of Trinity College, Dublin, seconded by the Secretary of 1483 Royal Luther Lodge" in the third resolution it was declared that "they will shed the last drop of their blood in the defence of the Protestant institution." The fourth resolution was as follows:—'Resolved, that an Address be prepared, embodying the sentiments expressed in the foregoing Resolutions, to be presented to his most gracious Majesty, as the address of his faithful and attached subjects, the Orangemen of the county and city of Dublin.'" It was at this meeting that the Lord Mayor presided, and thus the highest civic functionary (with whom a few days after the Lord Lieutenant thought it expedient to dine) had given his countenance to all that befel at the assembly. The mere fact of his attending there was offensive to the Irish public, but at the meeting an incident occurred which rendered his attendance more deplorably conspicuous, and which served to illustrate the feelings and character of the audience convened on that occasion. It might be thought, or, if not thought, it might be suggested, that the utterance of a few inflammatory verses at a public assembly ought to be regarded as rather ridiculous and absurd than highly censurable, and that a bad ballad ought not to be brought in evidence against those who had receiv-

607
ed it with preposterous applause. Let the House, however, be just. When the Coercive Bill was brought forward, the noble Lord to whom so much of its merits was to be assigned, the late Secretary for the Colonies, amidst shouts of acclamation read, in proof of the moral and political state of Ireland, and of the expedients by which the agitators worked on the mind of Ireland—a ballad, the burthen of which related to the planting the standard of liberty on the Mountain of Shevenomaun. He did not recollect the verses, but they related to the Member for Dublin, who was designated as "the Glorious Dan!" The poetry seemed to make in the House a strong impression; but surely if the character of one party was to be collected from a silly ballad, sung—no one knew where or by whom—an invocation to warfare, thrown into metre, and recited by a Protestant Clergyman, before thousands of his fierce confederates, and in the presence of the chief magistrate of the metropolis, must be regarded as affording some intimation of the state of feeling which had been awakened in his ferocious auditory. A few nights ago, his Friend, the Member for Dungarvon had glanced at this truculent effusion, which was as atrocious as it was preposterous, but he had contented himself with referring to the words, "Keep your powder dry!" He would beg leave to read the whole poem, as it appeared in The Evening Mail, as repeated by a Christian minister:—
"The power that led his chosen, by pillared cloud and flame,
Through parted sea and desert waste,—that power is still the same:
He fails not to the loyal hearts that firm on him rely;
So put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry.
The power that nerved the stalwart arms of Gideon's chosen few—
The power that led great William, Boyne's reddening torrent through:
In his protecting aid confide, and every foe defy;
Then put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry.
For happy homes, for altars free, we grasp the ready sword—
For freedom, truth, and God's unmutilated word:
These, these, the war-cry of our march; our hope the Lord on high!
Then put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry."
The Mailadded, "We thought the roofs would have been riven with the
608
shouts which followed the close of the determined sentiment of each verse." Such was the sanguinary rhapsody tuned out by Mr. M'Cree, who addressed a letter to the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), containing sentiments respecting Roman Catholics which that Gentleman, most honourably to himself, entirely repudiated. It was then at such an assembly that the Address to his Majesty was passed by the Irish Orangemen; and it was at that assembly that the Lord Mayor presided, whom the Lord Lieutenant afterwards honoured by his attendance at a civic festival. This attendance on a dinner given by a Lord Mayor of Dublin was treated as a matter of too little consequence to be seriously urged. A dinner, then, was a matter of no account. He was glad to find that it was deemed so slight and trivial an affair; but let the Conservatives mark the paper which he held in his hand, and which was a copy of the letter written by the Duke of Wellington to Lord Anglesea, and in which one of the chief causes for his dismissal was his having dined at the house of Lord Cloncurry, whose only crime seemed to have been, that he was a member of the Catholic Association. A dinner, then, provided it were an Orange one, given by a Lord Mayor, hot from the scenes of turbulence and faction, was not worth mention; but a dinner given in the intercourse of common life, by one nobleman to another, was a high crime and misdemeanor, and was a ground for changing the Vice-regal Government of Ireland. He would read the extract from the Duke of Wellington's letter, produced by Lord Anglesea in the House of Lords, dated the 19th of November, 1828:—"With respect to Lord Cloncurry, I did not advert to his former history, only to his being a member of the Catholic Association, and to his having attended the Association shortly after the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor had honoured him with a visit. In answer, you tell me, that he went there for the purpose of discouraging the system proposed, of not dealing with Protestants. His object in going there is very little to the purpose; but having referred to the newspaper report, I see that it expressly states, that Lord Cloncurry retired from the meeting before the discussion about dealing with Protestants came on. But I still am of opinion, that, considering the

609
conduct of the Association, the speeches which have been made there, and the doubts entertained of the legality of such an assembly (to say the least of it), the members of it are not exactly the persons to be encouraged by the Government of Ireland, which intends to conduct its Administration impartially." Good God! would any man on the Treasury Bench, after having heard that letter, insist that no stress was to be placed on the factious orgies of the Corporation, and on the intermixture in those scenes of the Chief Governor of Ireland? From the meeting the transition was almost immediate to the festive board—the chairman of the lodge was the host of the banquet, and at that banquet the Viceroy was the guest. He would next direct the attention of the House to the addresses of the Orangemen of Down, as referred to in The Evening Mail of February 13. The letter of the Secretary to Lord Roden contained the following passage:—"My Lord and Brother—I have the honour to forward your Lordship 120 addresses to his Majesty, from loyal Orange lodges meeting in different parts of the county of Down, thanking his Majesty for his constitutional exercise of his Royal prerogative, in dismissing the late incapable Ministers, despised of all classes of persons, but particularly so by that really devoted portion the Protestants of Ireland, for the many injuries done to the institutions of the country, particularly in establishing a system of education founded on anti-scriptural principles, namely, the mutilation of the Word of God." And yet in that mutilation of the word of God, in that vitiation of the Holy Writings, the Government were about to acquiesce, and notwithstanding the vehement protestations of their partisans, although efforts were made to raise the religious passions of the whole country. Upon that topic, the Orange supporters of his Majesty's Government now saw abundant reason to give way. Great praise was, beyond all doubt, due to the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, for his manly declaration that the Education Commission was to rest on the same principle, and that a further sum was to be granted: but what could be thought of those who, being a little while ago loud in their invectives against the late Ministry upon this Anti-Protestant proceeding, now remained dumb, gave assent by silence, or had even been con-
610
verted from their delusion, and saw in the mutilation of the Scriptures nothing in which any ground for censure could be detected? In taking that step some risk might be run by the Ministry; but it might have the effect of drawing still closer the amiable liaison which existed between the present Government and the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, to whom, perhaps, this sacrifice of prejudice was intended to be made, as he was the illustrious originator of the entire scheme by which the anti-scriptural system had been established in Ireland. He should advert to one address more, from a club which had been established in a place—the very last in which it ought to have been permitted to exist—the University of Dublin. The Evening Mail of January 23rd gave an account of it. It purported to be the address of the Trinity College district. The following was the answer of Mr. Goulburn:—"I have had the honour to lay before the King the loyal and dutiful address signed by you, and several other gentlemen of Dublin, expressive of their thanks for his Majesty's late most salutary exercise of the royal prerogative, which address accompanied your letter of the 10th instant. I have the satisfaction to inform you that his Majesty has been pleased to receive the same in the most gracious manner.—I have the honour, &c.,—Henry Goulburn." The Secretary of the Home Department, then, who had, in 1827, admitted the illegality of these societies, thus gave his unequivocal countenance to the proceedings of the students who had enrolled themselves in a confederacy, which the heads of the University ought never to have tolerated, and which, at all events, the Government ought never to have sanctioned. What but a sanction was this answer of the Secretary of State? It was deplorable that this knot of juvenile politicians should have been formed in a national institution to which Protestants and Catholics were indiscriminately admissible, and where harmony and peace should be cherished; but if it were to be lamented that the spirit of religious animosity should have found its way into those retreats which ought to be sacred to literature, to science, and to the attainment of those ingenuous arts by which the mind was softened and the passions were assuaged, not only regret, but a feeling of resentment, must be awakened, when a

611
Minister of the Crown, instead of reprimanding these beardless confederates, conveyed to this assemblage of precocious partisans an assurance of his Sovereign's approval. This conduct on the part of the Government was, in the highest degree, exasperating to the Irish people. No wonder that it had produced, on the part of the Orangemen, the greatest excesses, and that they had given way to a factious exultation. On the other hand, a sentiment of deep anger had been generated amidst the great mass of the population; and it was enough to make men's blood boil to witness the triumph, however temporary, of that faction, to which so many of the misfortunes of Ireland were to be referred. Let the Government, when they had taken this course out of the House, be frank within it. If they had been bold enough to restore the Orange ascendancy to the plenitude of its dominion, let them have the manliness to acknowledge it; let there be an end to delusion; let there be a truce to the affectation of impartiality; and of professions without performance let the world hear no more. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the papers mentioned at the commencement of his speech.
Mr. Secretary Goulburn:The House had heard the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman read. Would they permit him to read the notice the hon. and learned Gentleman had originally given, in order that those Gentlemen who had heard only the terms of his Motion might be enabled to compare the two? The hon. and learned Gentleman gave notice of his intention to move for "Copies of the Answers given by the Secretary of the Home Department to certain Addresses from Orange and other Societies." The hon. and learned Gentleman now moved, in addition, for a letter of Lord Manners, written in 1827, founded as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, upon certain opinions of the law officers given at that time to the Government of that day; and the hon. and learned Gentleman expected him to be prepared upon the moment to express his opinion whether there was anything in the documents so moved for, which would justify him in conceding the Motion, or authorize him to oppose it. He was sure that with respect to that particular question, the House could not expect him to acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He
612
must at least have time to refer to the correspondence for which application had been made; and without expressing any opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of laying it upon the Table of the House, he threw himself upon their candour and asked them, whether it was not fair and reasonable to allow him some little time to judge of its nature, and the propriety of producing it. The other part of the Address moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, was for Copies of particular Addresses from certain Orange Societies which he wished to have laid upon the Table, together with the answers thereto. Now he had on a former occasion stated, that he could have no possible objection to lay those Addresses upon the Table of the House, together with the answers which had been returned to them. He had stated this, because he was confident in his own mind that nothing could be farther from his intention than the giving any particular encouragement and support to those extravagant and violent opinions contained in the different newspaper extracts with which the hon. and learned Gentleman had favoured the House or exalting that particular society in the eyes of the public. In returning the answers which he had given to those addresses, he was merely fulfilling what he was informed, on entering office, was the ordinary routine of the acknowledgment of such addresses. He could have no objection to lay those papers before the House, in order to show that what had been done on his part was a mere formal act of civil acknowledgment towards parties addressing the Crown—an act of civil acknowledgment which would have been rendered to bodies whose Constitution was certainly not less doubtful; and which had been rendered to them, not as Orange Societies, but as individuals coming forward for the purpose of humbly and deferentially expressing their opinions to his Majesty. He could have no wish for concealment on this question. On his coming into office, there certainly were a very large number of addresses of all kinds and description—amounting, he believed, to somewhere near 500. He naturally asked what had been the usual form of acknowledging the receipt of such documents. Out of the whole number he believed there were twelve in all which proceeded from persons who stated themselves to be members of Orange Societies.

613
He certainly did not pretend to tell the House that he had read through the whole of these addresses severally—he was necessarily obliged to take their contents, front the representations which were made to him of their nature; and the conclusion which he arrived at was, that answers should be returned to those addresses in conformity with the practice established on similar occasions, when a large number of addresses had been presented. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the words or the answers, which he need not have done; for he (Mr. Goulburn) had expressly intended to read that part in which the parties were assured that his Majesty had been pleased to receive the address in the most gracious manner—he believed that was the expression. In consequence of the notice the hon. and learned Member had given, he had looked back with the view of ascertaining whether he had been misled in his impression of the practice of this particular department, or whether he had gone out of his way with reference to the particular society in question, or afforded them an encouragement which every one who knew what his conduct had been both in Ireland and in that House, must know it had never been his intention to afford. On referring to an antecedent period—to the year 1831, when political unions were formed in great numbers, and poured in their addresses to the Crown—he found that addresses from bodies expressly styling themselves members of the Political Union of Worcester, of the Political Union of Leeds, of the Political Union of Sheffield, and of a vast number of other places, were presented to the Crown. To all of these bodies, he found the following answer had been returned. "I have had the honour to lay before the King the loyal and dutiful address signed by yourself and Mr.—which accompanied your letter of such a day; and I have the satisfaction to assure you that his Majesty was pleased to receive the same in the most gracious manner." The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that there was no doubt or suspicion of the legality of these Societies, but that there was some suspicion certainly as to the legality of those in question. He fairly admitted to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he did not consider that point as one of great moment, because his
614
directions had been, and his object was, to conduct the formal part of the business in the ordinary and accustomed manner. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman expatiated on the legality of the Political Unions, could he have forgotten the Proclamation issued with repect to them, in which his Majesty's subjects were distinctly warned that they were illegal bodies, into which it was highly inexpedient for them to enter; and that they were constituted in a way which rendered them amenable to the existing law. He did not refer to this Proclamation, with the view of casting any imputation on those who had preceded him in the department for having returned the ordinary gracious answer with which his Majesty was in the habit of receiving those who came before him to express their approval of particular measures of his Government. He wished to show merely, that there was neither in the one case nor in the other a disposition on the part of the Secretary of State to set up the legality of the body to which the answer was addressed; but that it was only a gracious acknowledgment of the sentiments which those persons, purporting to be one body or another, entertained towards the Government of his Majesty. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as it appeared to him, had mixed up with that which was a very simple question, a great many exciting and irritating topics. He had referred to paragraphs which appeared in the newspapers and speeches made at the meetings at which the addresses were agreed upon. Perhaps they were most violent, and he was not one who was disposed either to justify speeches of this kind or the descriptions given of them in the public press. But he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman, or, if he were insensible to the appeal, he asked the House, whether it were possible for the Secretary of State, receiving addresses to the Crown, before deciding upon and answering them, to take into his consideration all the topics of excitement, or irritation which had been broached at the meetings preliminary to them, or whether that excitement or irritation would be a ground for his excluding those addresses, if properly worded, from presentation to the Crown, or for not returning the usual civil acknowledgment of the Address itself. He would not detain the House any further upon this subject. He would only say, that

615
if the hon. and learned Gentleman imputed to him, either in this instance or, in his general conduct, any desire to keep up institutions calculated to maintain religious prejudices, or separations between different classes of his Majesty's subjects, he did him the greatest possible injustice. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew, that during the time he (Mr. Goulburn) was in Ireland, no one had been exposed to greater obloquy or reproach; he had been charged with introducing measures tending to destroy the Constitution of those Societies as they were then established; and he had been on more than one occasion opposed to men for whom he entertained privately the highest individual respect and esteem, simply because he would not lend himself to the encouragement of separations between different branches of his Majesty's subjects which he considered did not conduce to the public good.
Mr. Feargus O'Connor:The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to draw some kind of analogy between the Orange Societies and Political Unions. With regard to the proclamation, the right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken. The Orange associations were contrary to law; but with reference to the Political Unions, the proclamation went no further, as it affected those bodies, than to discourage their assembling in great numbers. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would press the Motion to a division. However the right hon. Gentleman might attempt, by proving that he acted with the ordinary degree of courtesy, to defend the Government generally, he told him, and he told the House, that the very refusal of Ministers to accede to the Motion would give a triumph to the Orange party in Ireland, and any triumph, however short-lived or ideal, gave that body which had made Ireland a kingdom of poverty, fresh life and vigour. He had intended, in 1822 to publish two large volumes of letters from members of the then government of Ireland to the Orange Association; they were suppressed, no fewer than 3,000 copies having been seized by the High Sheriff of Cork; but he hoped he should be enabled to publish them yet. He hoped the Ministry of the day would not be allowed to give a triumph to this despotic faction to which the whole government of that country was confided, and who insulted and trampled on its population.
616
The Gentlemen on that side of the House—the Reformers of England—were, he was happy to say, beginning to see that the people of Ireland had real grievances to complain of, and wrongs that required redress. The consciousness of these facts would soften the naturally inflammable and hasty disposition of his countrymen, and they would now begin to conquer by moral strength and power.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas very happy to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was going to substitute moral strength and power for the irritable and inflammable qualities that had formerly been exhibited on that side of the House; but he really could not find, in anything that had occurred in the course of that debate, any justification for even that degree of mitigated warmth which the hon. Gentleman had displayed in the course of his address to the House. He must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to him to take fire very easily, and boil at a very low temperature. He thought he could convince the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was nothing on the present occasion to justify the ebullition which he had just exhibited. He had told them, that now the Irish Members were supported by a powerful party, they were determined to try their strength. Now, what was the Question before them? The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) had given notice, for the information of the whole of the House, that on that day he would move for the production of certain documents—namely, the addresses to the Crown from the Orange bodies, and the answers returned to them by the Secretary of State, thinking that on the production of those documents, he should be enabled to found some measure criminatory of that Member of the Government. The Secretary of State said, "I am perfectly willing to accede to your Motion, in which I am myself concerned, and to produce the Orange addresses and the answers thereto. I am perfectly willing to follow out the objects which you declared you had in view in the notice you gave, and as far as I can have a personal or political interest, to promote them." But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not adhere to his notice, but got up and without any notice whatever, moved for the production of a letter written by Lord Manners in 1827, and

617
the opinion of the Officers of the Crown of the legality of these Societies. "I say," continued the right hon. Baronet—"I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, take your division on this point, and if you have a majority, I would infinitely prefer being in the minority for opposing, than in the majority for acceding to it. I say, in the first place, your notice misleads us; and when you give notice of a Motion for the production of documents dated in 1834, relating to the Secretary of State, and he says, 'I am willing to produce them,' I say, in the face of any majority, that it is not fair without the slightest notice to make a Motion for the production of a letter written by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1827." It might or it might not be right to produce it, but he would say that it was not fair to call for its production without previously giving notice of the intention to move for it. It tended to diminish the confidence of the Government in their notices, and to mislead them, when they gave notice of a motion for the production of one document, and then moved, without notice, for the production of another, with no possible reason for so doing. What motive could they possibly have for refusing the production of those documents, if, consistently with the ordinary and constitutional practice, they could lay them before the House? He had sat in Parliaments which had evinced extreme unwillingness to receive the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown—he had sat in Parliaments which had said, "The opinions of your Law Officers are nothing to us, and we will not be bound by them; we distrust the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown on questions of constitutional law;" and when a proposition had been made by a Secretary of State for the production of such documents on a question in which his own political conduct was implicated, he had seen men, claiming for themselves the title of friends of constitutional liberty, the first to oppose the production of the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. The present Question, therefore, was one demanding the gravest consideration. He could have no interest in opposing the Motion, but he thought he had a right to call upon the House not to decide in favour of the production of these documents until after regular and proper notice had been given. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would divide, and
618
show the House, if he had no moral force on his side, what was his boasted physical strength. He had that confidence in the manliness and fairness of the hon. and learned Gentleman; that he did expect him to redeem his pledge, and take the sense of the House upon the Question. What was the Question after all?—the only Question on which the hon. and learned Gentleman could take the sense of the House? Government had promised to produce the addresses and answers, and the only question was, whether the additional document should be produced which had been moved for, without any notice having been given. What was the drift of the hon. Member's speech? If the Motion had any object at all, it was this, not whether in compliance with the form that prevails on such occasions, the Secretary of State had returned certain answers, but whether, in point of fact, there had been any intention shown on the part of Government to countenance certain exclusive Societies. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said, in reference to him, that when he was in office as Secretary for Ireland, he had found it convenient and necessary to encourage those confederacies, and to look for their support. He would follow the course the hon. Member had taken in his speech, and show that in attempting to found the charge against this Government, which he had endeavoured to substantiate, he must himself have been sensible of the reply which it was in the power of the Government to make. He would read to the House the language he had made use of in 1827, when speaking on the subject, and he would beg them to remember, that that was the period when he was supposed to be an encourager of Orange Associations. In the language which he had used the other night, he had expressed himself, as at present, averse to such Associations, and he should now show that he had never thought it necessary to encourage them. He was aware that it might be said, that he afterwards changed his opinions as to the relief to he given to Catholics; but the period of which he was now speaking, was in 1827, when he certainly was opposed to the removal of the Roman Catholic Disabilities, and this was the language he then used:—"First, however, he must be allowed to say, that he heartily wished all these Associations were at an end. He believed

619
that they were dying away; but at the same time he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that if the processions were done away with, it would be better for the peace, the tranquillity, and the happiness of Ireland. Any opinion, therefore, which he might hold—any of the strong opinions which he was known to entertain respecting Catholic Emancipation, could not fairly be supposed to influence him upon the present question. If he were a private gentleman in Ireland, he declared to God, that he would, by his influence, by his example, by every means in his power, endeavour to put down these Associations and processions."* Did this imply any desire on his part to encourage these Associations? Did this show that any alteration in his opinions on the subject of the Catholic Claims, had influenced his sentiments with regard to these Associations since 1827, at which period, although himself opposed to the Catholic Claims, he had endeavoured to put them down, and expressed his belief, that if they were done away with entirely, it would be better for the peace, the tranquillity, and the happiness of Ireland.
Mr. Sheil.That was precisely what he wished to show. It was to this very statement of the right hon. Baronet, that he had referred.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould then ask, whether this was not in direct opposition to the argument, that he had first encouraged, and afterwards opposed, these confederacies?
Mr. Sheilbegged to interrupt the right. hon. Baronet for a moment. He had never charged him with having encouraged these Societies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas putting the accusation in the form in which it had been put by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Feargus O'Connor) and he was contrasting the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) with those of that hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Feargus O'Connor.I give the right hon. Baronet credit for assuming the two distinct characters.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.That was the point on which he was desirous to set himself right with the House. He was anxious to show that he was not entitled to the honour of
*Hansard, vol. xvii. New Series.—p. 149.
620
those two distinct characters on the subject of Orange associations, and never had been. When he opposed Catholic emancipation in 1827, he had earnestly desired the discouragement of those associations in every possible way; that had been his uniform course, and he had never assumed two characters with reference to the subject. But it had been said, that there was a Mr. M'Cree, from whom he had received an address. He had received an address from Mr. M'Cree, and, if he had been desirous of encouraging those associations, would he not, in his reply, have omitted all reference to them? Had he done so? On the contrary, he had distinctly stated, in his answer, that he totally differed in opinion with Mr. M'Cree, and that he could not agree with him; that it was not desirable to fritter down the law, which had established perfect equality and justice between all his Majesty's subjects. Again, it had been said, the constitution of the present Government was such as to destroy all confidence on the part of Irish Members. They had been told, that in 1827, when there was a discussion about Orangemen, the very person who brought the question forward, and expressed himself most strongly against Orange Associations, was the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and he had been selected by his Majesty as a Member of the present Cabinet. Well, but was it likely, if there were any desire to encourage confederacies of an exclusive nature, on the part of the Government, that his Majesty would have selected for his adviser the very man who, according to the hon. Gentleman's statement, had directed his voice and influence against Orange Associations in 1827? [Mr. Sheil: In 1830.] The difference was of no great importance; it did not affect the force of his argument. The question, after all, was not as to the precise legality of these Associations. It was possible that associations might strictly conform to the law, and yet, that all the evils, to which they gave birth, might be lasting. These evils would not be cured by making them conformable to the law, because the real danger was not the breach of the law, but the encouragement and dissemination of angry feelings. If such an Association were formed, so as to conform strictly to the law, but still so as not to free it from the promulgation of angry and malignant feelings, though such an Association would be within the verge of

621
the law, it would not be freed from that which was the real objection. They could not pass an Act that no Orange lodge should be formed excluding Roman Catholics. They might, indeed, say that no oaths should be administered to an Orange Association, or that the test of an Orangeman should be, that he took the oath of allegiance; but he could not see how they could object to their not receiving any particular class of persons into their Associations. His opinion was, that the course followed by the opponents of those Associations was, in many respects, unwise. They had been taunted, threatened, and provoked; and now the feeling, which in a great measure kept them together, was, that they would resist the threats and despise the taunts, which were heaped upon them. He had never sought to conceal his opinions upon this subject; he had never supposed that a conformity to the law would remove the real objection to these Associations; he had always been of opinion, that the best mode of proceeding with reference to them, was to adopt that tone, which would not only induce them to conform to the law, but which would enable them to form some sense of the danger of encouraging angry feelings, and the memory of feuds, which were no longer called for, and which ought to be buried in oblivion. To those who wished for the tranquillity and peace of Ireland, he would say, that they ought not to set the example of establishing these dangerous Associations themselves; and, above all, that they should avoid language which might tend to keep up the feelings which engendered them. But, with regard to the particular Question before the House, he was surprised at the manner in which it had been discussed. It, was a privilege secured to the King's subjects, by the Bill of Rights, that they should lay their petitions before his Majesty; and, he would ask, would it be proper or wise that the King should stop to make minute inquiries, as to what particular association the persons sending the address belonged to, or what particular opinions they held, before he received their addresses. No doubt, the hon. Member would be able to show, with respect to political unions, that before they were denounced by proclamation, the King had received their petitions, and that the King did not inform them they had forfeited the common right of his subjects. Was it not clear, then, that his
622
right hon. Friend, in following the ordinary practice of his office, had not the slightest intention to pronounce an opinion on the legality or illegality of the body from whom the addresses had come, but merely, in conformity to that practice, to return the usual answer? If this principle had been acted upon in the case of the Political Unions, why was it objected to in the case of the Orange Association? It was an attempt to narrow the right and privilege of the subject to address the Crown, or to cause the Crown to inquire into the particular opinions or Associations to which those persons belonged who did address it, and, in that way, to prevent those opinions being conveyed to the Sovereign, or to Parliament, in the manner most palatable to those who wished to express them. If these bodies were illegal, why were they not put down? Hon. Gentlemen would seem to assume that they were illegal—if they were, would there be no difficulty in suppressing them? Although he considered that they led to irritation, he was not satisfied of their illegality; but if they were illegal, why not institute a prosecution against them? If they were illegal, let them be prosecuted; but, if they were not, his earliest advice was, to set an ample of forbearance; and let the advice conveyed to them be in friendly terms, for then he was confident that it would have a much more salutary impression, than the most violent and menacing language that could be resorted to.
Mr. Sheilbegged to explain. He felt the justice of the objection on the part of his Majesty's Government, that they were taken by surprise in being called upon to produce a document, respecting which no notice had been given. The fact was, that on looking into the question, he found that an opinion had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown, and that a letter had been written by Lord Manners; and he had included both documents in his Motion, not imagining that his Majesty's Government would object to the production of them. As the objection had been raised, however, and in order that the Ministers might have the opportunity of considering whether there were any grounds for the withholding that document, he would not press for its production then, but would move for it hereafter. The right hon. Baronet had accused him of an intention to resort to physical strength. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer:Numerical

623
strength.] He could assure the right hon. Baronet that he had never had the slightest intention of resorting to physical strength. He must leave its display to his hon. and learned Friend beside him, the Member for Cork (Mr. Feargus O'Connor), who was much more likely than himself to succeed in any attempt of that sort,—and to the hon. Member for Sligo who had urged the necessity of displaying "the physical strength" of the Orangemen, when the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire designated them as the "fragment of a broken faction."
Colonel Evanshad bad to present an Address to the Crown from his constituents on the subject of the removal of the late Ministry, and the appointment of the present Ministers, disapproving of that appointment. He received an account from the Home Secretary, that that and some other addresses to a similar effect, had been delivered to his Majesty, but, as far as his recollection went, it was not said that they had been graciously received. The similarity of form, therefore, spoken of by the right hon. Baronet did not seem to have been altogether strictly adhered to in practice.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that as the object of hon. Members was manifestly on former nights, as well as on the present, to impugn his conduct as a member of the Orange Institution; he felt himself called upon when the subject was last under the consideration of the House, to give an unlimited declaration of the principles upon which the Orange Institution was founded. Hon. Members had since then got up one by one and attacked him; and he might almost say that he had run the gauntlet from one end of the Opposition benches to the other. The charges brought forward against the Orange Institution, were founded on surmises which could not. be sustained; and he would once for all assert that those surmises were one and all unfounded. With the view of bringing the matter to an issue, he pledged himself to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, to furnish him with every document connected with the Orange Institution; and further, he was ready to avow himself, outside that House, as a member of the Orange body; and he therefore challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to put to test in his person the legality or illegality of the Institution. An hon. Member on a former night, called upon him to withdraw
624
from the Society, inasmuch as it was illegal; and the only reason he could adduce in favour of his proposition, was, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had said so. Now, he was one of those who did not place implicit credence in all that was said by that hon. and learned Gentleman. But, though he undoubtedly should look up with the respect it deserved, to a legal opinion, given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his office, in Merrion-square; yet, for these gratuitous, capricious opinions which he was in the habit of volunteering—either to serve his own interests, or for the purpose of warping the judgment of country Gentlemen in that House,—for such opinions, notwithstanding that he might pledge his professional character for the correctness of them, he entertained no respect whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman had staked his professional character as to the illegality of Orange Societies. He had offered the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of setting that question at rest, and if he declined the challenge, then he trusted the House would hear no more of the illegality of the Society. With respect to himself, and to several friends of his who belonged to that body, he could say, that not one among them would continue for a single hour connected with it, if they believed it to be illegal. The body was not bound together by any oath; when the law was brought in by Lord Plunket, making sworn societies illegal, they at once submitted to the act of parliament. [Mr. O'Connell: The act which makes them illegal was passed long before that.] Oaths were never administered since he became a Member—it was, in fact, long subsequent to the passing of the act to which he had alluded, that he joined the Society; and he well remembered the day on which he was admitted, meeting the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who told him that he was in possession of all the rules and regulations of the Society. The purpose for which he had risen, was to afford the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of trying the legality of the Society. He had promised the hon. and learned Gentleman every document connected with the body, and an avowal in writing, of his being a Member. These documents the hon. and learned Gentleman should have whenever he chose to apply for them. The principles upon which the Institution acted, were purely of a

625
defensive nature—they were not associated for the purpose of hurting the feelings of any man, on account of his political or religious opinions. If he thought the body illegal, he would withdraw from it at once; but, were it even legal, and had for its object the shedding the blood of his fellow countrymen, as had been falsely stated, he would scorn to belong to it. Within a very short period, this body was eulogised by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in terms not less strong than those in which his censure was now conveyed. He believed, that if the Orangemen had not resisted the Repeal of the Union, but had permitted themselves to be deluded into a junction with the hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to effect a dismemberment of the empire; the House never would have heard the denunciations against them which had been fulminated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that for four or five years, he had held out the hand of fellowship to the Orangemen; if so, he could not have been sincere in doing so; inasmuch, as within a very short period, he declared that he never shook hands with one of them that his blood did not boil with horror. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman succeeded in cajoling them, the House would not have heard so much of the mischiefs of Orange domination.
Mr. O'Connelldid not know whether he understood the gallant Colonel. Did he mean to say that he would furnish him with the test which admitted Orange Members into their respective lodges? Would the gallant Colonel give him a copy of the declaration made by each newly elected Orange member? [Colonel Perceval—"Yes."] Could he go into an Orange Lodge? Could any one who is not a member of the Association? It was easy to vapour, but could he, or any Catholic, obtain admission to these Associations. Would the hon. and gallant Member initiate him in the secret of passing into these Lodges, for at present, he was unable to procure admission? Would the hon. and gallant Member disclose to him the way in which Orangemen tested each other? Would he show him the declaration which Orangemen made on being admitted into their Associations? "[Yes."] Then he (Mr. O'Connell) would take the hon. and gallant Member on his own statement, and he would prove in the
626
plainest manner, that on his own showing, Orange Associations in Ireland were illegal. He did not mean to say that in England such an Association would be illegal, but he affirmed that in Ireland, on the gallant Colonel's own showing, such an Association as he had described was an illegal society. He had paid the Orange Associations the greatest attention; he had their history from the date of their atrocious and bloody proceedings in Armagh, to the present time, and he was convinced of their illegality. The hon. Gentleman opposite, had said that Political Unions were illegal, and that addresses from them had been received by the late Government. Now, this was a mistake. The Political Union of Birmingham, in a notice issued by them, stated that they intended to act under a particular system of organization; upon which, a proclamation was issued by Government, that such a system would be illegal, and it never was carried into effect. The Political Unions never, therefore, existed in a state which rendered them illegal, nor could any addresses be received from them as Unions. The Political Unions from which the addresses were received, were open to every one—they had no oaths or declaration, and they were therefore perfectly legal. It was true, as the right hon. Baronet had said, that, although a society might not be illegal, it still might be dangerous and unconstitutional, and in this he agreed with him; but what was to be said of societies which were both illegal and unconstitutional, as well as un-Christian? The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had certainly read them a most excellent lecture on the beauty of Christian charity; and had recommended that all party distinctions should be buried in oblivion, but he might as well have given his advice to the winds. He might declare that he had always been an enemy to the continuance of Orange Societies, and that he wished to remove all grounds of difference between the professors of both religions, and he (Mr. O'Connell) had no doubt the right hon. Baronet was sincere, but his practice was to foment and encourage their perpetuation. Did he not arm the Orange yeomanry, to the number of 20,000, in the north of Ireland? Was there a chance of justice there, for the poor Catholic, when the magistrate and the juror were all Orange? If a poor man were persecuted by a faction, he had not the slightest prospect of success, so

627
long as that faction had power in their hands. The right hon. Baronet and the hon. and gallant Colonel, could not have read the statute relative to such associations. The right hon. Baronet was not aware that any confederacy, bound by an oath, declaration, or test, was illegal. It was on this account that he asked the hon. and gallant Colonel to give him the test required of an Orangeman, but. the test was refused. The words of the act were as follows: "That from and after the expiration of fourteen days next after the passing of this Act, any, and every society, association, brotherhood, committee, lodge, club, or confederacy whatsoever now established, or hereafter to be established, in Ireland, of the nature hereinafter described shall be, and be deemed and taken to be, and is hereby declared to be, an unlawful combination and confederacy; that is to say, any and every society, association, brotherhood, committee, lodge, club, or confederacy, the members whereof shall, according to the rules thereof, or to any provision or agreement for that purpose, be required, or admitted, or permitted, to take any oath or engagement, which shall be an unlawful oath or engagement within the intention or meaning of the said recited Act of the 50th year of his late Majesty's reign, or to take any oath not required or authorised by law; and any and every society, association, brotherhood, club, lodge, or confederacy, the members whereof, or any of them, shall take, or in any manner bind themselves, by any such oath or engagement, upon becoming, or in consequence of being members of such society, association, brotherhood, committee, lodge, club, or confederacy, the members whereof shall take, subscribe, or assent to any test, or declaration not required by law." So, that, not only was it illegal to take or subscribe any test or declaration, but the society was illegal, if the law did not make such test or declaration mandatory upon the person taking it. The hon. and gallant Colonel knew, as well as he did, that there were secret tests by which Orangemen were known. He could not get into an Orange lodge if he wished it; nor could any other person, whoever he was, who did not know the sign. Every person must be tested, before he could gain admission; and thus, every Orangeman was guilty of a misdemeanor. It had been asked, why these associations, if illegal were not prosecuted? He would tell
628
the House the reason. It was because the Government would not do their duty. No! They would rather reward the men who proclaimed themselves to be Orangemen. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it better to treat them with a dissertation on the sweet and social charities, and the suggestions of humanity, and was surprised to find that he did not get credit for his endeavours to discourage sectarian differences. But look at the right hon. Gentleman's actions. He might have been mistaken in attributing to Mr. Robinson a relationship to Lord Farnham, but he was not mistaken as to his Orange politics. Then, there was Lord Roden, the Deputy Grand Master of the Orange Lodges of Ireland; he was selected by the Government as an object of especial favour, though he declined the proffered honour. It might be true that the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had always advocated the expediency of granting the Catholic claims; but, on the other hand, there was the right hon. Member for Kent, the present Paymaster of the Forces, a most respectable Gentleman certainly in private life, but one who had always proved himself the unflinching opponent of any measures of relief, as regarded the Catholics, and who, when the hon. Member for Caithness, divided the House on the question, whether any grant should be made for the support of the Catholic college of Maynooth, was one of the minority of twelve who refused to sanction such idolatry, as the hon. Member for Caithness expressed himself. He was therefore fairly entitled to set off the right hon. Member for Kent against the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and he ought to have the balance allowed him. Then, who were the new Privy Councillors of the present Government? Why, the two right hon. Members for the University of Dublin. They were most respectable Gentlemen in domestic life, and most consistent in their politics, but the senior of them had all his life been a most determined opponent of the Catholic claims, and so far did his zeal carry him, that it was reported of him that he once, he meant in the year 1829, went even to the verge of rebellion in resisting them. The hon. and learned Member had, however, denied the accuracy of this report, and he had done right, but it could not be doubted, that he had done every thing to show his detesta-

629
tion of those who presumed to bestow equal rights, with himself, on his Catholic fellow-countrymen. Whom did they take next? Why, Mr. Gregory, who ought never to have been employed at the Castle at all, and who had now retired from the situation he held, but had been made a Privy Councillor. He would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet, if it was not a matter of notoriety, that a Catholic had not a chance of getting a fair hearing, as long as that Gentleman was in Dublin Castle? Who was the third? The learned Recorder of the city of Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, most undoubtedly, a very respectable man, in private life, also; but he would ask any unprejudiced Gentleman in that House, whether there was within its walls, a more decided partizan than that hon. and learned Member. Before the house of Commons was prorogued after the last Session of Parliament, the House had condescendingly listened to his representations, and had given him reason to look out for better days for Ireland. A Bill was introduced for the commutation of tithes, and carried through that House, and it was not necessary for him to advert to the manner in which it was thrown out by the House of Lords, after he had left town for Ireland. They then held out the promise to the Irish nation, that they would take off two-fifths from the amount of Tithe then paid, and, at the same time, led the people to expect some additional relief, in the ensuing Session of Parliament. What was the conduct of the Catholics of Ireland—of the Repeaters—on that occasion? Did they proceed to agitate the country? Not a single agitation meeting was held by those who coincided in opinion with him. What, however, did the right hon. Gentleman opposite then do? He and his party agitated the country to the centre. What was the conduct of the Corporation of Dublin, and those connected with it? Who was the orator? who was the principal speaker at the orgies then held, and occasionally honoured by the presence of great folks?—who, but their legal adviser. What did that party then do, with which some hon. Gentlemen opposite said they were proud to be connected? Did they not send over for a first-rate performer in agitation—Lord Winchilsea. But, was that all? What was the conduct of some of the High Sheriffs? Did they not put themselves at the head of those who came
630
forward with declarations, that they were prepared, even with force, to put down their Catholic fellow-subjects? Did not one of their high functionaries preside at a meeting, where the persons assembled armed, and where they fired their pistols in the air, to shew that they were ready to use them, in another way, should they be called upon to do so? This was the source of agitation now complained of by the hon. Gentleman—they originated it in their Brunswick Lodges. What other object had this agitation, than to put down civil and religious liberty? The able and talented representative of the party in the House, the right. hon. the Recorder of the city of Dublin—and he fully admitted both his talents and ability—had made observations in that House, imputing to Catholics a desire, if not for the blood of Protestants, at least for the blood of Protestantism. The Government then had made a Privy Councillor of this maker of wild discourses, to shew their anxiety to govern Ireland with impartiality. And from whence had they selected their other Privy Councillors and public officers, but from that party which had domineered, in Ireland, for 600 years—and they then thought that they had discovered a mode of quieting Ireland? He had been informed, and if it was necessary, he could prove it at the bar of the House, that the Lord Lieutenant had undertaken to govern Ireland on Orange principles. He had been so informed, and he believed it to be the case. But be cared not, as far as his argument was concerned, whether it was the case or not. Was there not, however, one shout of exultation from every Orange Lodge in Ireland, when they heard of the accession of the present Ministers to office? Was there not a shout from that party, when they heard that the Gallant Officer opposite (Colonel Perceval) was selected to fill a high office connected with the Government? It would not be said that he had superior qualifications, for that office, to those who sat around him, although he was fully their equal; yet it would appear that he had been selected merely because he belonged to this society. Did not this party raise, before the eyes of the Lord Lieutenant, in the Dublin Theatre, an Orange flag, on which were inscribed the words "No Popery;" and yet no steps were taken to censure their proceedings, or to mark a disapproval of their conduct? What would the House have said, if a flag

631
with the motto "No Protestantism," had been exhibited in the presence of the meanest magistrate in England? Would it not have rung with the indignant cries which the insult would have called forth? In England, a magistrate would instantly be removed from the bench, who said he was a member of an illegal association; yet the Lord Mayor of Dublin declared that he was an Orangeman, and that he gloried in the name, and notwithstanding this, he was visited and complimented by the King's representative. This Corporation resembled that of London, in the name of its officers, and at the present moment, the High Sheriff of London was a Catholic. Such was the spirit of Protestantism in this country, but what was the case in Ireland? So long since as the year 1792, the corporation of Dublin was enabled to admit Catholics as freemen, and the late statute admitted them to all other corporate offices. From 1792, however, not a single Catholic had been admitted to the freedom of the corporation. For forty-three years, notwithstanding the removal of the legal disabilities, not a single Catholic had been admitted as a freeman,' and yet the legal adviser of the corporation had, this year, been made a Privy Councillor. Talk not to him, then, of being impartial and free from party influence, when they gave every species of support to the cruel faction that domineered in his unhappy country. Let not the House be deceived, with supposing that the meetings, which he had alluded to, were mere tea-table associations for idle gossip. The administration of justice was deeply affected by the proceedings at these places. What justice had a poor Catholic to expect, when he saw arrayed against him an Orange sheriff, an Orange prosecutor, and an Orange jury encouraged and upheld by such leaders? Let the majority of that House continue the present Government in office for a few months, and they would give to Ireland another generation of partial judges; they would continue the party sheriffs and the party juries, who perjured themselves for the sake of protecting those with whom they were associated. "Remain," (continued the hon. and learned Gentleman)—"Remain in office, do; let your majority or your minority keep you in, but for three months, and see what a fruitful harvest of crime you will reap." He had been told, that they ought to look to the character of the Lord-lieutenant,
632
who had voted often for the concession of the Catholic claims. How many men, however, had voted for the Catholic claims who were anything but constant supporters of religious liberty! Did not some who were now regarded as chosen specimens of Orangeism lend their aid to carry that measure? The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had disclaimed any connection with the Orangemen of Ireland. His conduct had been so pellucid, that his declaration would surprise the whole of the Orangemen of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was regarded as the child and champion of Irish Orangeism; and however he might disclaim their society, he would ever be regarded as attached to the principles of the body. The country must soon be made acquainted with the line of policy intended to be pursued by the present Government; and it would then be seen, whether the just expectations of the people would be fulfilled. The House would have to determine whether, after four years of improved government, Ireland was again to be ruled by that system which had existed for so many centuries. He was not satisfied with the conduct of the late Government on many points, and, above all, on the selection of many of their officers. He repeatedly warned the late Government against the want of care manifested in the selection of their instruments. Above all, he indignantly denounced the selection of the late Attorney-General, for he knew that that learned person would make himself instrumental in supporting anything but a liberal course. He regretted that the right bon, Member for Staffordshire was not in the House, as he would have reminded him of the caution he then gave the Government. Where was the Whig Attorney-General—had he not become the Attorney-General of their successors in office? In perfect consistency with the whole of his previous life, he had pursued this course, for he had always distinguished himself as the opponent of civil and religious liberty. The hon. Member for Donegal said, that he did not belong to an Orange Lodge, although he highly approved of the principles of the excellent men who formed them. He (Mr. O'Connell), however, would ask what those men had ever done for the people of England? Had that party ever supported a liberal measure? Could the Dissenters believe that they would support

633
the claims of that numerous class? Was it not notorious that the Orangemen had ever been the strongest opponents of the liberties of the Protestant Dissenters? He would ask the Reformers, whether they did not oppose the Reform Bill in all its stages? Not only were they unqualified opponents of that measure, but they endeavoured to mix up religious fanaticism with other feelings, and to bring them forward in opposition to it. Had they not shown themselves on all occasions to be the enemies of education, and had they not charged those who advocated a liberal system of education, with being actuated by the wish to mutilate the Scriptures? Many Gentlemen opposite had assailed him for the conduct he had pursued, but he did not regret it. They vituperated those who continued agitation in Ireland, and they were just pursuing the course to lead to it as a natural result. The right hon. Baronet bad stated, that he was anxious to carry on the Government with impartiality, but he had, connected with him in office, those who were members of the faction that had so long misgoverned Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had taken Orangemen into his councils, but he contended, that no lawyer could justify the Orange system, or show the legality of such societies. No man could dispute that now—indeed he was sure the opposite side would at once admit them to be illegal societies when they react the Act to which he had referred in the early part of his speech. He regretted the course that had been pursued, because he feared that it would excite agitation of the worst character, with all its attendant evils. ["No, no!"] He repeated, that it would excite agitation and crime: misgovernment and oppression would again excite Whiteboyism, and lead to the commission of crimes which must be abhorrent to every human being. Who chiefly suffered by this species of agitation? Of what class of persons were those chiefly murdered and massacred by the Whiteboys? Not the Protestant landlord or the Protestant tenant, but the Catholic landlord and the Catholic peasantry were generally the victims. An atrocious attempt to commit murder lately occurred in the county of Limerick. A respectable gentleman, Mr. R. Ryan, was assailed on the high road by two miscreants who fired blunderbusses at him and his servant, and who supposed they had succeeded in killing him. This
634
gentleman was a Catholic Magistrate, much respected—was a near relation of his, and took an active part in Catholic affairs. This person, however, was near falling a victim to those who had been driven to desperation by Orange landlords, who knew that they could escape by pursuing such a system of Government as had been carried on for such a period in Ireland, and which, he feared, was about to be revived. If agitation were desirable to him, the course now pursued by the Government would do more to encourage it than any other that could be adopted, and therefore it was not his interest to throw any impediment in their way. He feared that he had trespassed too long on the attention of the House, but he had been led to do so by the speech of the right hon. Baronet. He warned the right hon. Gentleman of the consequences of receiving Addresses, or giving answers to bodies such us those which had been the subject of that night's discussion. He cautioned the right hon. (the Secretary for the Home Department), that if he (Mr. Goulburn) had sent an answer to an Orange Address to Ireland, he had been guilty of a misdemeanor. ["No, no, no!"] He was prepared to show this. The Act stated, that "any person who, after the expiration of fourteen days next after the expiration of this Act, shall directly or indirectly maintain correspondence or intercourse with any such society, association, brotherhood, committee, lodge, club or confederacy or with any division, branch lodge, committee, or other select body, president, treasurer, secretary, delegate, or other officer or member thereof, as such, shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful combination and conspiracy." Did not this prove that the correspondent of an Orange Lodge in Ireland was guilty of a misdemeanor? If the right hon. Gentleman had sent an answer to Ireland, let him avow it and name the Lodge. He would accept the offer of the gallant Colonel, as to the declaration and test of the Orange Lodges; and then, if any correspondence took place, they could try the question. But it would be folly for him to attempt to get a bill of indictment from the Grand Jury of Dublin—they never would find such a bill. Even if the Government brought those who were guilty of such an offence to trial, they would be defeated, as they were before; for the Sheriff of Dublin would again get an Orange Jury to defeat

635
the prosecution. A law had passed to make all the King's subjects equal, as regarded their religious opinions, and yet the members of this Corporation had had the audacity to draw the line of demarcation between different classes, and to conspire to beard the King's Government. What would the gallant Colonel, and those who acted with him, say to a body of the Catholic nobility and gentry forming themselves into societies, and holding Lodges, and declaring that no Protestant should belong to them? Would not such conduct excite the abhorrence of the good sense of the country, and rouse the indignation of all Europe? And yet what had been the conduct of the Orange Lodges in Ireland? He would merely refer the House to one of many testimonials he had in his possession, as to the conduct of the Orangemen of Ireland. Lord Viscount Gosford, in his address to the Grand Jury of the county Armagh, had said, "It is no secret, that a persecution, accompanied with all the circumstances of ferocious cruelty, which have in all ages distinguished that dreadful calamity, is now raging in this county. Neither age nor sex, nor even acknowledged innocence as to any guilt in the late disturbances, is sufficient to excite mercy, much less to afford protection. The only crime which the wretched objects of this persecution are charged with is a crime, indeed, of easy proof—it is simply a profession of the Roman Catholic faith, or an intimate connexion with a person professing this faith. A lawless banditti have constituted themselves judges of this new species of delinquency, and the sentence they have denounced is equally concise and terrible. It is nothing less than a confiscation of all property, and an immediate banishment. It would be extremely painful, and surely Unnecessary, to detail the horrors that attend the execution of so rude and tremendous a proscription—a proscription that certainly exceeds, in the comparative number of those whom it consigns to ruin and misery, every example that ancient and modern history can supply: for where have we heard, or in what story of human cruelties, have we read, of more than half the inhabitants of a populous country deprived, at one blow, of the means as well as of the fruits of their industry, and driven, in the midst of an inclement season, to seek a shelter for themselves and their helpless families where chance
636
may guide them? This is no exaggerated picture of the horrid scenes now acting in this county; yet, surely, it is sufficient to awaken sentiments of compassion and indignation in the coldest bosoms. These horrors are now acting with impunity. The spirit of impartial justice (without which law is nothing better than an instrument of tyranny) has for a time disappeared in this county, and the supineness of the Magistracy of Armagh is become a common topic of conversation in every corner of the kingdom."—This was no exaggerated picture of the present state of the north of Ireland. The horrors thus eloquently described were now acting with impunity, and the law of the land was daily violated without the interference of the constituted authorities. The conduct of the Magistracy of Armagh, on a recent occasion, had been a topic of observation in every part of the kingdom. It had been his anxious wish to conciliate, and he had been taunted with his attempts to do so. He had spent five years in this attempt. He had exerted himself to get an act of justice done to the Grand Master of the Orangemen, and had, after great difficulty, succeeded in inducing the Government to reconsider the subject; and what was the treatment he had experienced from this body in return? In conclusion, he would tell them, that if the Government were determined to persevere in the course which it appeared they had commenced, he prophesied—and it would be no futile prophesy—that their proceedings in Ireland would be most disastrous.
Mr. Shawsaid, he was aware how much the time of the House was wasted, and their patience wearied, with discussions of that nature; more partaking of the character of a personal Irish wrangle, than calculated to lead to any profitable result; he had, however, been so personally alluded to, and so much personal abuse poured upon friends whom he esteemed and valued, that he was persuaded the House would bear with him for a short time in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. With regard to the Question in point of form before the House, it was not the real object of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) nor of the discussion which followed it; no one doubted that, when congratulatory addresses, respectfully worded, were presented to his Majesty from individuals de-

637
scribing themselves as they might, that such addresses should be acknowledged as having been graciously received. Some hon. Members opposite would probably be disappointed, if he did not enter into a justification of Orange societies; now, for his own part, he never had belonged to any political society or association in his life—he never had encouraged them—and, if his individual opinion were of any importance, he never even had approved of them—but then he must say, that was a very different thing from their being illegal; they never had been pronounced illegal by a competent authority, and the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) that night, had entirely failed to prove their illegality; the hon. and learned Gentleman had confounded a sign with a test, and if the sign by which Members of that body knew each other rendered it illegal, that must equally apply to Freemasons, Friendly Brothers, and all other societies where such signs existed; whatever his own opinion might be, he could not but feel a deference for the opinion of those who differed from him in that respect, and he was bound to say, that some of the most estimable and worthiest men in Ireland were Members of Orange lodges, who would not for a moment continue so, if they believed them to be illegal—men who regarded these societies as merely defensive—who intended no offence by them, and he would add, that it was not easy for English gentlemen, unacqnainted with the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, to form a just opinion on the subject; what might apply to a natural and wholesome state of society, might be very inapplicable to the present distempered condition of Ireland. [Cheers from Mr. O'Connell.] If he rightly understood the cheer of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Connell), his answer to it was, that it ill became those to complain of the symptoms, who he (Mr. Shaw) sincerely believed had been the cause of the disorder. It was really too much for common sense and ordinary patience to endure, that hon. Members opposite should now come forward to denounce political and exclusive associations, who had, all their lives, been the instigators and promoters of them. Aye! who had lived, and moved, and had their very being in them. [Continued cheering, in which Mr. O'Connell joined.] The hon. and learned Gentleman (continued Mr. Shaw), cheers—his delicate nerves,
638
forsooth! seemed quite shocked at the notion of an exclusive society, or one even bordering on illegality; this reminds one of the old story of the giant, who lived all his life upon windmills, and was at length, choked by a morsel of fresh butter; the hon. Gentleman, whose boast it has ever been, that he was the father of the Roman Catholic Association, eo nomine, exclusive, is frightened at the shadow of an exclusive society. The truth is, the hon. Member acts such various characters—is so entirely different in and out of this House, that it is no wonder the House is imposed upon by him. Would the House believe, that within the last few weeks, I, myself, heard the hon. Gentleman, when addressing his own constituents, and turning to a large body of Orangemen who were present in a particular part of the court-house, referring at the time to his favourite topic of a Repeal of the Union, assure them that he had no objection to their being Orangemen; that it was only those foreign Saxons (or some such expression, speaking of Englishmen), who tried to sow dissension between Orangemen and Roman Catholics; that before the Union, Roman Catholics used to join cordially with Orangemen in commemorating the birth day of King William, and that, please God, after its repeal, he (Mr. O'Connell) would walk arm in arm, with his brother Orangemen round King William's statue in College-green, and, suiting the action to the word, the hon. Gentleman marched on the table, from which he was speaking at the time, to the step, that he and the Orangemen would together perambulate King William's statue, when "the odious Union was repealed." Well, not three days passed after that scene of acting—when the hon. Gentleman called that very body of men whom he was then trying to cajole, "a base, brutal, bloody, cowardly faction"—and then, indeed, he deplores that there should be any party animosity kept up in Ireland. So with respect to the toast of "the glorious memory," about which the hon. Gentleman and his friends complain so bitterly, as calculated to exasperate the feelings of Roman Catholics; the hon. and learned Gentleman reviles them for it in their absence, and when they are present encourages them by his own example to drink it. ["No, no!" from Mr. O'Connell]. Will the hon. Gentleman deny that he did so at Sheriff Scott's in Dublin—Sheriff Scott at the time being

639
considered to favour the Repeal Question?—or that at a dinner at Drogheda where the hon. Gentleman presided—called to promote the Repeal of the Union, and at which many Orangemen attended—the hon. Gentleman not only proposed the toast of "the glorious, pious, and immortal memory, of the great and good King William"—but said he would not be satisfied unless he drank it in Boyne water, and sent for a bucket of water from the river Boyne, (which washes the town of Drogheda), for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman said, all the legal appointments in Ireland under the present Government have been "Orange," knowing perfectly well at the time that not one of the gentlemen appointed has the slightest connection with Orangeism—first, the Attorney-General, an eminent public officer, who was acting under the late Government, and merely continued in office by the present; then the Solicitor-General.—He defied the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), or any Gentleman who supported him, to stake his reputation as a lawyer, or his word as a gentleman, by denying that Mr. Pennefather was in every respect pre-eminently qualified for the highest office in his profession; again, the two Assistant-Barristers—than whom there could not be two more respectable or competent men found at the bar; the hon. Gentleman passes one by, merely calling his an Orange appointment, probably because that gentleman was supposed to be of what are termed liberal politics, and comes to Mr. Robinson, with respect to whom the hon. Gentleman states three facts, all unfounded—first, that he was the nephew of Lord Farnham, Mr. Robinson being no relation of Lord Farnham; when that was contradicted, the hon. Gentleman said, "oh, then he was moral agent to Lady Farnham" (without dwelling upon the indelicacy of such a reference to a lady who was dead, whose eminent virtues and exalted character had, in an almost unparalleled degree, adorned the society in which she moved)—the answer is, that Mr. Robinson was never in the employment of either Lord or Lady Farnham; and thirdly, the hon. Gentleman had that night accused Mr. Robinson of being of the Orange faction; whereas, he had never been connected, as he (Mr. Shaw) believed, with any political society; and one fact he knew, that to avoid even the
640
appearance of being a party man, Mr. Robinson had not voted for him (Mr. Shaw) at the last contested election in the University of Dublin; the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had then alluded, in terms of reproach, to his (Mr. Shaw's) being made a privy councillor, now, whether or not he was worthy of that honour, it was not for him to discuss; he might, however, be permitted to say, that he had neither solicited nor expected it; but as it was the habit of the hon. and learned Member, and some of those who sat near him, to accuse him (Mr. Shaw) of agitation—sorry as he was to occupy a moment of the time of the House in a matter personal to himself—yet as he saw the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. O'Dwyer) in his place, he would entreat the House to give him their attention to one instance as a specimen of the courage with which some hon. Members would plunge into facts of which they knew nothing, rather than not purchase notoriety on any terms. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Dwyer) had stated, without any provocation on his (Mr. Shaw's) part, that agitation had made him a judge, a Member of Parliament, and had since procured for him honours of which he was unworthy: as to what had occurred since he entered political life, that might be matter of opinion, so that he would not say a word upon that point, but simply confine himself to matter of fact; the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Dwyer) then asserted, that it was by agitation he (Mr. Shaw) had made himself a judge and a Member of Parliament; now he (Mr. Shaw) declared, upon his honour as a gentleman, (and when he did so, he appealed with as much confidence to every Gentleman on the other side of the House as his own for credit,) that up to the period of his obtaining his present judicial office, and from thence to the Dissolution of Parliament, which led to his return, as Member for Dublin, he had never interfered in politics, nor been concerned in any matter to which agitation could attach, more than the child unborn. Perhaps, however, the hon. Gentleman would say that his (Mr. Shaw's) father had been an agitator before that in Dublin politics; with the permission of the House he would mention, that shortly before he was appointed Recorder of Dublin, an important event had occurred in his father's political life; he had lost the honour of representing the city of Dublin, which he

641
had enjoyed uninterruptedly for two-and-twenty years—and was it by an act of agitation he bad lost it? No!—It was notorious he had lost it by voting in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims. Now he did not charge the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. O'Dwyer) with stating that which he knew to be untrue, but he did say, that hon. Members should not make bold assertions, affecting the characters and feelings of others, when they were utterly and entirely ignorant of the subject on which they spoke; he would only add, that he was not aware of having ever, either in or out of that House, made a personal allusion to the hon. Member for Drogheda; he should take no farther notice of any observation that hon. Member should make of him, but close the subject with this one observation, that while the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Dwyer) had shown entire ignorance of the cause of his (Mr. Shaw's) holding a judicial office, he had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Dwyer) constantly kept in sight the fact of his holding such an office, when, without the least provocation on his part, the hon. and learned Member so frequently singled him out for personal attack. To return to the charges of the hon. Member for Dublin.—Who was there, not immediately, and at the time, of his own party, that did not fall under his vituperation? Lord Wellesley—Lord Anglesey—Lord Stanley—as well as the distinguished Nobleman who now held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—and the hon. Member stated, that Lord Haddington had been heard to say, that Ireland must be governed on Orange principles; he could, from the mouth of the Lord Lieutenant himself, give the most direct and unqualified contradiction to that statement—but the truth was, every one and everything was "Orange," in the estimation of the hon. Member, that did not exactly conform to his arbitrary will; the hon. and learned Member had lately said, that he divided all Ireland into "Orangemen" and "Christians," and among the "Christians" he classed none but his own servile adherents; while, in the opposite ranks, he classes, for example, "the Orange Knight of Kerry"—yes, the hon. and learned Gentleman called the Knight of Kerry "Orange," well knowing that that worthy and accomplished gentleman was all his life opposed to Orangeism, and had, for twenty-five years, sepa-
642
rated himself from his friends and from office—to give his active and unwearied support to Catholic Emancipation; and why did the hon. Member call him Orange? In order that he might point out those who voted for him as objects of assassination; and that was the hon. Member's freedom of election.—[Mr. O'Connell called upon the Speaker to say, whether such language were orderly?
The Speakerhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in using such language.
Mr. Shaw:Sir, I at once submit to your correction. I withdraw my inference, and will simply state the fact; the hon. Gentleman publicly announced, that "whatever miscreant Catholic voted for the Orange Knight of Kerry, should have 'a death's head and cross bones painted over his door.'" I know not what construction Englishmen may put upon this expression, but I am well aware, considering by whom and to whom it was addressed, what meaning it was intended to convey, and did convey, in Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman, who has talked so much of honest jurors this night, venture to submit the construction of those words to any twelve honest. men upon their oaths? Would he submit them to the opinion of the distinguished Roman Catholic Nobleman who is the Lieutenant of his own county? Were I to mention Lord Kenmare's opinion, I should run the risk of being again out of order—and, good God! Sir, how long is the peace of a country to be sacrificed to the ambition of' one man? and is he to be suffered to enrich himself upon the crimes and the penury of his infatuated countrymen? The hon. and learned Gentleman had animadverted upon the composition of the Government—of his (Mr. Shaw's) right hon. friends below him, and the nature of their supporters; he thought he might very fairly retort upon those on the opposite side, and he would seriously ask the noble lord (Lord John Russell) if he thought he could consistently and honourably descend from the high station he held at the head of the Whig aristocracy in the country and that House, and coalesce with the hon. Member for Dublin and his followers? Did the noble Lord suppose that the House or the country forgot that the last Session of Parliament commenced by the noble Lord and his colleagues putting it into the mouth of

643
his Majesty to denounce, almost by name, the hon. and learned Member, attributing the insubordination that prevailed in Ireland to the practices used by him to produce disaffection to the state, deploring the ruinous consequences to the deluded instruments of agitation, and calling upon all the loyal and well-affected subjects of the King to unite with the Government in putting an end to the excitement and violence caused by the individual (all but named in the King's speech) with whom the Members of that very Government are (now uniting in factiously opposing the present Government. Then, as to the Repeal of the Union; did not the Members of the late Government declare, that civil war world be preferable; that they would "resist it to the death," and treat it as bordering on treason to the state; yet, the hon. and learned Gentleman, at the very meeting at which he settled the preliminaries of the present coalition, announcing that the new Ministry was to be composed of one-third altered Whigs, and two-thirds Radicals, and that he would be a member of the Administration, stated, that while he would not introduce, for the present, the Repeal Question, but confine himself to "routing the enemy," yet, in the same speech, he declared that "it was the strongest conviction of his mind, and the most determined decision of his judgment, that nothing could eventually secure Ireland, but a Parliament in College-green." And at another meeting the same day, declared, that he would continue "to agitate at all events." The whole burden of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was "The Repeal of the Union."—waking or sleeping he told them that it was the darling object of his mind.—He said, that they had met "to register a vow before high Heaven to Repeal the Union." In the same speech the hon. and learned Gentleman treated Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform as but means to that end—and said that his hopes would never be accomplished, nor his labours completed, till he "beheld the Union prostrate in the dust." Was this then one of those principles in which the noble Lord considered, as he said the other night, that one part of the coalition thinks the other goes only "too slow," and the other only regards them as "too impatient." Was their difference merely in point of time? and were they agreed in
644
the principle? Let the House then look to what was the bearing of the hon. Member during the last Session to those upon whom he was now ready to lavish the honied accents of his praise and approbation; why, the entire vocabulary (and it is no scanty one) of his vituperation was poured upon them.—He recollected one short letter, which he had before quoted, written in June or July last, after the Cabinet had been, as hon. Members at the other side said, purged of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, and his Friends—he believed it contained fewer lines than expressions such as these applied to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and his colleagues—"an audacious and imbecile Ministry"—"a base and atrocious Whig faction"—"a contemptible and drivelling Administration"—"disastrous tyrants"—"the bane of Ireland"—calling upon the Irish people to resist their tyranny, and "scorn the instruments of Whig despotism." Were these the seeds of that concord which seemed now gathering? If the noble Lord knew but all, he had not much reason to be proud of his new conquest. The noble Lord must not indulge the fond hope that he was wooing the first love of the hon. Member for Dublin; the thin veil of modesty which covered the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell's) present motives must not deceive the noble Lord, or induce him to think that he was winning the maiden virtues of the hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord was receiving but the refuse of his political opponents—the alliance had been over and over again proffered to and repudiated by them. Frequently during the last Session had the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell) openly said to him (Mr. Shaw) and many others, "now is your time to join us to oust those despicable Whigs; better have Tories, who will be at least candid and straight-forward, than such double-dealing miscreants as these Whigs." Under those circumstances, will the noble Lord, from any feeling of wounded ambition or party resentment, condescend to means for the annoyance of his political opponents, which under similar circumstances they rejected?—and without a reasonable hope of reinstating his own party in office, stoop—for the mere purpose of vexation to a rival party—to a course which that rival party had, when a similar opportunity presented itself to them, considered inconsistent with their honour and their duty.

645
Then as to the state of Ireland—he (Mr. Shaw) entreated the serious consideration of the House. He would deprecate as much as any man that the divisions and difficulties of that country should be left to contending parties there to settle—he desired favour for no party, but an equal administration of justice to all. He did not contend that any class was impeccable; and let all that violated the laws meet their just punishment; but this he must say, that it hon. Members, at the other side, dragged forward whatever indiscretions or excesses had been committed by Orangemen, there was abundant store for recrimination at his side of the House. He would not then mention any of the various cases which presented themselves to his mind, to prove the universal terror and intimidation which was spread by the other party during the late elections; but if hon. Gentlemen at the opposite side provoked him to it, be would confine his selection of proofs to instances of the treatment of Roman Catholic voters by Roman Catholics. From those alone he could cover the Table of that House with well authenticated documents, affording evidence of the direst persecution by Roman Catholic clergymen and agitators against Roman Catholic voters, that ever disgraced a civilized community. All he required for Ireland was a moderate, settled, and firm government. He would not then touch upon the question in regard to England; there, there might possibly be room for a difference of opinion; but, as regarded Ireland, time pressed too hard, and circumstances were too urgent, to admit of any game of party tactics. The question there was hourly impending, whether we were to have, as our permanent lot, peace or agitation—anarchy or any form of Government—security for property, or a general scramble—safety for our lives and families—or the hourly apprehension of the lurking assassin or the midnight murderer, instigated by selfish and sordid agitators [Cheers from. Mr. O'Connell.] Mr. Shaw turning to him (Mr. O'Connell), then added with great emphasis and warmth) yes! the question in short is this. The English nation must decide it, and very soon, whether in Ireland we are to enjoy the common rights and rational liberties of British freemen—or wear the heaviest yoke that ever slavery imposed—the iron despotism of a single dictator, wielding,
646
with irresistible sway, for every evil purpose, the passions and the physical force of an ignorant and deluded multitude.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) had named him (Mr. O'Connell) in connexion with what he would describe to be disturbances in Kerry, he begged to ask him if he were aware that not a single assault or offence against the law was committed during his (Mr. O'Connell's) canvass, or since? If he have not heard of any assault or offence being committed, he requested him to ask the hon. Member for Coleraine (Alderman Copeland) the extent of outrage committed, on the other hand, by the Orangemen in that part of Ireland.
Mr. Shaw:Sir, with the permission of the House I will answer the question of the hon. Gentleman without one word of comment; he asks me if I am aware of one single fault or offence against the law that was committed in the county of Kerry, before, during, or since the Election? I have been assured, Sir, on the highest authority—and I believe—that, immediately before the Kerry election, the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) himself went to the house of a man of the name of David Murphy, a Roman Catholic trader in the town of Killarney—asked him not to vote for the Knight of Kerry—and, upon Murphy assuring him that he would, the hon. Gentleman then said he would draw a cross before his door, and that he should feel the consequences; shortly after which the house of this Murphy was broken into, and he was violently assaulted.
Mr. O' Connell;I declare, Sir, solemnly, in the presence of the God that shall judge me, that the whole story is utterly false.
Mr. O'Dwyerfelt himself called upon to offer some remarks to the House on the speech of the right hon. Member who last spoke under the umbrageous protection of the Treasury Bench. He should first thank the hon. and learned Member for informing him and the House, that the right hon. Member held a judicial office. He was sure, that there was very little of judicial demeanour in the exhibition which the right hon. Gentleman had just made, to suggest the fact to the recollection of the House. The House would now understand what quantity of calmness and temperance was required to constitute an

647
Irish Judge. The right hon. Member had been pleased to intimate, that he (Mr. O'Dwyer) had been encouraged to come into personal collision with him. He did not think, that this was a very judicial observation. He would dismiss this subject, and he would apply himself to the observations of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, who spoke of the disturbed state of society in Ireland; of the impossibility of governing that country by ordinary means, and then attempting to invoke English prejudices, had adverted to the desire of the popular party in Ireland for a Repeal of the Union. It was true, that there was a distempered state of society in Ireland; that must be a distempered state of society when the ascendancy of a faction over the people was encouraged by authority; but with regard to the impossibility of governing Ireland by ordinary means—to say this, was the cant of faction. Englishmen were too clear sighted to believe, that measures of just Government would have less influence on the Irish people than the rest of the human kind. The Irish resembled all other men—they hated and they resisted oppression and injustice, and they were right to do so, and this was the real complaint of the faction against the people; but there would be no people more easily subdued by kindness, nor more quickly won over to the support of a Government than the people of Ireland, if they were treated with benevolence and sound policy. Englishmen he hoped were not to be easily excited by alarms of the Union being in danger, if the Orange party in Ireland were not encouraged and sustained. Why did the people of Ireland seek for Repeal? Because the Government had ever preferred to rule Ireland through a faction, than to govern by means of the people's love. The cry for the Repeal of the Union gained more strength in Ireland during the disastrous Administration of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), who sat on the opposite Bench, than by all the efforts of the Member for Dublin. He had ever asserted, that he believed the people of Ireland were not carried away by an abstract dislike to the union with England, so much as by the conviction, which had been too frequently justified by facts, that the faction in Ireland was preferred to Ireland herself in the estimation of English Parliaments. He was sure, if the
648
people of Ireland received full justice from an Imperial Parliament, they would be satisfied. At all events, the prescription of the Member for the University of Dublin, which recommended a Government to be conducted on his principles, was not the remedy to correct any desire that might exist for a separate legislation in Ireland. The hon. Member, to whom he should once more advert, had denied that he had been elevated by political agitation. Without meaning to be offensive to the hon. Member, he would repeat, that he could not conceive by what miracle he became a judge almost as soon as he became an advocate. The hon. Member was opposed in his election as Recorder by seniors of long standing, and yet the hon. Member outstripped all competition. He gave him credit for all the talents that he possessed, and all the industry, and all the good luck too, but he still asserted, that even with these qualities he would never have been Recorder of Dublin, but for his politics. Who returned him to Parlialiament? The freedom of Dublin, for the city was not then enfranchised. Did not his politics and his agitation, by which he meant his active politics, here stand him in need? Why was he selected to represent the University of Dublin? Because he was the sturdy champion and the tumultuous upholder of the Established Church in Ireland. He was now, by his own admission, the adviser of the Lord Lieutenant. He was the co-governor of Ireland. The House would remember the former Administration of the right hon. Baronet opposite, and the contumelious manner in which, at that time, Lord Anglesey was treated, because that nobleman had ventured, forsooth, to invite an estimable Irish Peer of popular politics to the viceregal party. The House would not fail to observe the fidelity to faction, which characterised the present government, when in the Administration composed principally of the same men—the adviser of the King's Lieutenant—the instigator of the policy to be pursued in Ireland—the Councillor—the Privy Councillor of the Lord-lieutenant, was the intemperate leader of a violent and most unpopular party. Contrast the two facts, think of the proscribed Peer, and the cherished corporator. There had been something said of the creators and the creatures of agitation; that was only bluster. There were to be found

649
those who agitated to some purpose beyond the mere assertion of cold and unproductive principle. He had heard of a late profitable employment in the stamp department of Ireland, in which, by a strange coincidence, a gentleman named Shaw, was the fortunate recipient of the Minister. Thus, there was some profit to be made of agitation by some of the loudest declaimers against it. He should conclude with expressing his delight at the occurrences of that night. The party stood candidly revealed, and he augured great good to Ireland from the naked exposure by themselves of their principles and their conduct.
Lord John Russellspoke to the following effect: I have paid considerable attention, Sir, to the speech just concluded by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), and I must confess that to me it appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to consider, that personal remark and personal invective will suffice to satisfy the House of the soundness of his argument as well as the purity of his intentions. Now, I beg to say, that I, for one, feel little interest in personal remark and invective; and whether the hon. and learned Gentleman be right or wrong in the allusion he made to the circumstances which took place in Dublin and elsewhere, and leaving him to join the Orange Association, or any other society, I do feel, as one interested in the peace of Ireland, that the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that the violence with which he spoke—that the violence with which he spoke—that the total want of candour which he exhibited towards his political opponents—that the entire absence of moderation in his manner of treating the subject before the House; these things, I say, Sir, do make me seriously regret that his Majesty has chosen him as one of those who are to give him advice in his Privy Council. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me whether I am about to take a part in forwarding the Repeal of the Union, and whether I do not remember the advice given by the King's late Ministers to his Majesty, when Parliament met in February last. Sir, I perfectly well remember it; and I say now, as I did then, that I am ready to oppose, by every means in my power, the Repeal of the Union; because I should consider it equivalent to the separation of the two countries, and the dismemberment
650
of the empire. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will please to carry on his examination to a more advanced period of the Session, he will find, that shortly after the Motion for the Repeal of the Union, my vote against which I gave as cordially as I ever did any vote, I declared that I should not feel satisfied in giving that vote, unless we rendered justice to all the complaints of the Irish people; and that it was only by the course of policy to be pursued, the policy being, that every petition of the Irish people sent here, containing a just complaint, should receive as full attention as it would if this were an Irish Parliament sitting in Ireland—that it was only on condition of doing that justice to Ireland that I could feel myself conscientiously entitled to oppose, by every means in my power, the Motion, the object of which was to get the Union repealed. Well, Sir, do I stand in a different situation now? I then declared against a Repeal of the Union; I declared also, that with respect to Irish Tithes and the Irish Church, there were some just grounds of complaint; and I declared further, that I would not continue a Member of the Cabinet and a Member of this House without giving a vote in favour of a redress of those grievances. What, then, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reproach me with? Have I altered any of my former opinions? Have I changed my course of conduct? On the contrary—on the one hand I said that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin appeared as the advocate of the Repeal of the Union, I should oppose him, and at the same time, whenever he brought forward a question founded on a matter with respect to which Ireland had just cause to complain, I should think it my duty to render full justice to that complaint. Such is my answer to the appeal the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made to me; and I think I shall now stand acquitted in his eyes and in the eyes of the House, of having pursued on this occasion a course at all inconsistent with my previous conduct. I will now say a word as to some other questions that have grown out of the Motion before us. I came into the House just when the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was declaring, that the Orange Societies, even if such societies did conform to the letter of what Acts of Parliament required, might do as much injury

651
to the state of society, as if an illegal oath, or illegal declaration were subscribed. Of this I have no doubt, and I cordially assent, therefore, to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. But has the Government of Ireland always been conducted in a spirit conformable to the language now held by the right hon. Baronet? If I look to the spirit of the Government of Ireland, I am obliged to say that it does not depend on what a Chancellor of the Exchequer or even a Prime Minister shall declare in this House, while in Ireland a different system of conduct is allowed. The party there will care little for your speeches and declarations in Parliament; for they will consider that, notwithstanding such speeches and declarations, Orange Associations are the object of your especial protection. I consider that the character of the Members of the present Government bears full testimony to the approbation and support of Orangeism. I cannot help considering the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Perceval) as the organ of that body in this House, when he comes forward and avows his connexion with it. Does he now say to the House, "I shall retract my Orange opinions, I shall separate from that connexion?" No.; his whole speech was to the effect, "I declare myself an Orangeman, and the society to which I belong, and of which I am the organ here, is not an illegal, but an organised society, bound together by a special bond of association. I will allude to another circumstance. What was the first act of the present Government? It was to offer to the Earl of Roden the highest place in his Majesty's household—one in which he would be entitled to be with his Majesty in opening the Houses of Parliament, and to accompany him on all occasions of state and ceremony. Can any one believe, under such circumstances, that this Government wishes to discredit Orange Societies, when they offer their patronage and countenance to those who are so connected with these Societies? Will the great body of the Orange party in Ireland believe—notwithstanding all the speeches of Ministers in Parliament—that they mean seriously to discountenance those Societies? Did it appear that in offering their patronage thus they ever said to the noble Earl, "You must give up Orangeism?" Did they insist that he must cease to belong to that party if he wished to make one
652
of them? Without saying anything of the kind, with one breath the Government affected to discourage Orange Societies, and with the next they bestowed upon them their highest favour and protection. There is another question to which I will take permission to allude. My noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, assisted in contriving for Ireland, and notwithstanding the opposition then made to it by Members of the present Government, succeeded in introducing a system of education there, the tendency of which was to promote the harmony, the peace, and the moral character of the country. That measure of education for Ireland was denounced by Gentlemen connected with the present Government in terms of the greatest violence. They did not merely except to that measure—they did not merely assert it would not succeed, but they denounced it as unscriptural, and that the then Government were grossly mutilating the word of God. I will take the liberty of reading to the House an extract from a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, the Recorder for Dublin,—a speech delivered by him at a meeting held at Exeter Hall, on the subject of the measure for Education in Ireland, a report of which appeared in the newspapers of the day. This extract of the speech was afterwards quoted by Lord Radnor in the House of Lords in the Session of 1832, and is as follows:—"The Government might make what regulation it pleased; but he trusted the people knew their duty too well to submit to its enactments. It might degrade our mitre—it might deprive us of our property, but if the Government dared to lay its hands upon our Bible, then we must come to an issue. We will cover it with our bodies—we will. My friends, you will permit your Christian brethren to cry to you in vain? In the name of my country, and my country's God, I will appeal from a British House of Commons to a British public. [Mr. Shaw denied that he had ever said so; the statement was made by Lord Radnor; he never said anything like it.] Lord John Russell then continued the extract—"His countrymen would obey the laws so long as they were properly administered; but if it was sought to lay sacrilegious hand on the Bible—to tear the standard of the living God, and raise a mutilated one in its stead; then it would be time to halt be-

653
tween two opinions—then in every valley and on every hill would resound the rallying cry—"To your tents O Israel!" The right hon. Gentleman denies the correctness of the report of the Speech. Why it appeared in the Standard, and other newspapers of the day; it was afterwards quoted by Lord Radnor in the House of Lords, and now the right hon. Gentleman takes, he says, the first and only opportunity of giving it a contradiction. But did the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends think, that many of the present Ministry were converted by that Debate? Did they think that by the formation of the present Government they would be enabled to get rid of those schools which taught unscriptural doctrines, and from a mutilated Bible? Why, the present Administration claimed a character of impartiality and fairness, and they had announced their intention to keep up their schools. This is their language on the one hand; but what is said in other quarters? An Address has been presented to the King from the friends of the present Government in Ireland, which thanked his Majesty for dismissing the late Ministry, and the more especially as that Government had been the means of establishing the schools which taught from a mutilated Bible. If the Members of the present Government are at all guided by principle, let them say, the Act being passed for establishing the schools, they will not seek to alter it; let them say they will aid in forwarding the success of those schools which their supporters previously denounced as mutilating the word of God, and as being anti-scriptural. I ask this for the peace of Ireland. I cannot understand a wavering and unsettled conduct. Let them openly and candidly say, "We recant all we have before said," or let them at once and distinctly make an opposite declaration. Let them either say, that the present system of education is liberal and wise, and that they are content to give it full effect under the present establishment, or that it is not. Let them say or do one or the other. It is not fair, that they should, on the one hand, take an opportunity of promoting societies which are violent and illegal; and on the other, come before a British House of Commons with different representations. This system is not wise: nay, I will say it is not honest. While I maintain opinions and principles, I will
654
maintain them consistently; I will maintain them in office and out of office; and I ask the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, what is the consistent and uniform plan on which they propose to govern Ireland.
Sir Henry Hardingehoped the House would allow him to say, that he had nothing to explain or recant on the subject of national education. He had never voted, against the plan of education to which reference had been made, neither had his right hon. Friend. He had not called in question the conduct of the noble Lord when in office as respected that question; but he confessed he could not help feeling some surprise, when he saw that noble Lord the leader of an Opposition which had formed a coalition with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; when he remembered the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in reference to the Ministry of which the noble Lord(Lord John Russell) was a Member, and which he denounced as all that was bad, treacherous, and wicked; and when he recollected that that Government had thought proper to single out that hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) in a speech put into the mouth of his Majesty, in which that Gentleman was almost held out to the country as a fit object for the block; he confessed he could not help feeling some surprise when he found the noble Lord ready to assent to that coalition. He could not help referring to one fact of the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin: In a speech made by that hon. and learned Gentleman to his constituents, only so recently as the 15th of February last, when he told them he was going to take his seat in Parliament, that he expected an Administration would be formed of which he could consent to form a part, and that he would consent to do so on certain conditions, but that he would never relinquish the Repeal of the Union, nor his hope, that he would one day see a Parliament sitting in College-green. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny this; it had been stated in newspapers attached to his cause, to which he could refer. The inconsistency of the Whig party was remarkable in coalescing with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who had stated his readiness to take office, for the express purpose of carrying the Repeal of the Union, which nothing should induce him to give up.

655
The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had referred to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo (Colonel Perceval). The gallant Colonel was not called upon to pledge himself that he no longer would be an Orangeman, because he had accepted office, but had said that if he could be convinced that the Orange associations were illegal, he would give them up. The Government was said to be carried on on Orange principles, in consequence of its having named Mr. Gregory a Privy Councillor; that right hon. Gentleman had faithfully served his country in the capacity of Under Secretary of State of Ireland, and his conduct during that period was distinguished for uprightness and impartiality, and the Government had thought it right, after his retirement from office, to bestow that honour on him which he had so well merited. He had no intention of saying anything personally offensive to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but he would refer to the declaration made by that hon. Gentleman that he would have marked on the door of any one who voted for the Orange Knight of Kerry, a death's head and bloody bones. The party in Kerry who supported the right hon. Knight of Kerry, considered it to be a threat of assassination. He would not, he did not wish to, attribute that motive to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but several individuals had asserted that the threat had had the effect of deterring persons from giving their votes to the Knight of Kerry for fear of assassination. [Cries of "Name!"] He would name a very high authority, the authority of the Lord Lieutenant of Kerry, who was a Catholic nobleman of large fortune, and independent character. He did not say it was the intention of the hon. and learned Member, but that it was the effect of his speech upon those who voted, of which he (Sir Henry Hardinge) complained, and it was asserted upon oath, that it was believed that the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had deterred many from voting freely from their fears of assassination. He was asked by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to state on what principles they intended to conduct the Government—he would at once declare, on principles of the strictest impartiality. It had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) that the Lord Lieutenant was not im-
656
partial. He asked that hon. Gentleman to state where the Lord Lieutenant had acted partially. He was no encourager of Orangeism. If the hon. and learned Member could point out a single occasion where the Lord Lieutenant had encouraged Orange principles, he would admit he was liable to the imputation of acting partially and improperly. But he denied it utterly. Why had he been attacked, and what was the improper conduct which had been imputed to him? it amounted to this—that he had never read of the dinner given by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, or the verses that had been recited there, which took place before he was in office, and about forty days before the Lord Lieutenant had dined with the Lord Mayor? If he had read them he saw no reason why he should not do honour to the Lord Mayor, and treat with respect the first Magistrate of the city of Dublin. On no occasion could it be alleged that he had encouraged Orange principles, and he trusted that the noble Lord would give him credit for acting in his situation with impartiality.
Lord John Russell,in explanation, said he was accused of a coalition with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; he had never asked that hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) to join him. That hon. and learned Gentleman had voted with him (Lord John Russell) on the question of the Reform Bill, and he was again voting on the same side as himself, in the advocacy of Reform principles.
Mr. Maurice O'Connell:the right hon. Baronet had declared that he could not amidst his many important avocations, find time to read the newspapers. There was such a thing as a convenient memory; for, when there was anything to suit his purpose, he was found the next minute quoting passages from newspapers, which he stated were of an inflammatory description. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) had been acquitted of any intention to threaten, as originally charged against him; but it was said, that the same effect had been produced as if the threat had really been made. The Lord-lieutenant of Kerry had volunteered a pledge to act in a particular way with reference to the elections—that he would not exert the influence of his station over the elections. He further declared, that he was indifferent to both the candidates, and that if any influence were exerted, it would rather be in favour

657
of that Ministry which had given him the appointment. But the noble Lord had found a pretext for getting out of his pledge by the speech about the "raw head and bloody bones." He could appeal to Members opposite, who were acquainted with the contest in the county of Kerry, whether it was not carried on with peace, order, and sobriety. There was, indeed, one instance of persecution during the election, but it was on the part of the supporters of the Government. A person desired to vote in spite of his landlord; he went at his own expense and voted as he desired—the next half hour his cows were impounded as a punishment for his independence. He was not disposed to say one word in derogation of the character of the Knight of Kerry, who was a gentleman of the kindest manners in private life; but it was different with him as a politician, and he was only estimated by his constituents in Kerry as he preserved his consistency or abandoned it;—he had not preserved it, and therefore had been rejected.
Mr. Mullinscould not permit the assertions made by the right hon. Baronet (the Secretary for Ireland) to pass uncontradicted. He could bear full testimony to the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee, with reference to the election for Kerry. His friends had left their tenants to vote as they wished. He had canvassed the whole of the county before the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had made the declaration so much referred to, when almost every tenant on the property of Lord Kenmare had promised their votes for him. He would ask, was the Knight of Kerry first rejected in 1835?—was he not rejected in 1831 and 1833? It was because an independent and enlightened constituency had seen that he who had formerly advocated their interests, did so no longer, but had joined their bitterest enemies. He did not disapprove of the private character of the Knight of Kerry as a gentleman and a Magistrate, apart from his politics. But his principles in 1831 differed from his former principles, and they were called up in judgment against him. When the Knight of Kerry advocated principles different from those of his constituents, they had a right to change their opinions.
The Motion, withdrawing the part objected to, was agreed to.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of GORDON, from several Parishes in Aberdeen, Ross, and Roxburghshire, for Extending the Established Church in Scotland.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
The Earl of Roden,seeing the noble Duke in his place, was anxious to put a question to the noble Duke, which he would no doubt be kind enough to answer. Knowing the extreme anxiety that there was, not only among the Protestants of Ireland, but among the great mass of religious communities in this country, with reference to the subject of Education in Ireland, he wished to ask the noble Duke whether it were the intention of the Government to
576
propose this year an estimate for the National School in Ireland; and if so, whether the amount of that estimate would be an increase upon that which was proposed last year?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it was the intention of the Government to apply to the House of Commons for the grant of a sum for the support of the National School in Ireland; and that that sum would be greater than was asked last year, on account of providing for the expenses of certain buildings.

UNIVERSITY OATHS.
The Earl of Radnorrose to move for certain returns respecting Oaths taken at the Universities. In order to explain something of the object he had in view, and likewise to defend himself against an attack that had been made upon him, he should feel it necessary to preface his motion by a few observations. In the course of the last session of Parliament, a bill had been brought to their Lordships, from the other House, upon the subject of these University Oaths. That Bill was thrown out upon the second reading. In the course of the discussion that then took place, a good deal was said on both sides on the subject of the nature of these University Oaths. He had given notice, a day or two after that Bill was thrown out, that he should bring in a measure relating to subscriptions and tests, as well as oaths at the University. Having given that notice, he had been induced to turn his attention to the subject; and the more he looked into it, the more serious in its consequences did it appear to him to become. He should probably, therefore, make a separate measure of that which related to Oaths applied as tests at the University; for the more he examined it, the more he was convinced that the subject of these Oaths required to be reviewed. In the course of the discussions, he had alluded to something of a personal nature which had occurred, which he must be pardoned if he now remarked upon. He felt strongly upon it at the time, but he should dispose of it now very shortly. One of the right reverend Prelates, in answer to an observation that he feared that some of the young men who took these oaths on entering the University must commit perjury, remarked that he (the Earl of Radnor) must be the only perjured man in the University, as he did not appear to be acquainted with the sta-

577
tutes to which those Oaths related, and had not obeyed them; for he had not attended certain lectures, as they required him to do. He did not much feel that he was liable to the charge of perjury; for he believed that, in the case of Oaths of this kind, the perjury, if any, was not in the person who took an oath, the meaning of which he did not rightly comprehend, so much as in the man who compelled him to take it. But the right reverend Prelate should have been sure of his facts, before he brought such a charge against any person. If there was any guilt in his not attending the lectures it was the guilt of those who required him to attend the lectures, but gave no lectures at all. There was the Epinomis, too. He had been talking to several friends of his, men educated, like himself, at Oxford, on the subject of the Epinomis, and all but one of them said that they knew nothing whatever about it; that one said he certainly had heard the word, but never could comprehend what was meant by it. What, then, did the authorities at the Universities do, but call on boys of sixteen to take an oath, the nature of which they did not explain? If these persons did their duty, they would make a standing statute of the University, that these boys should become acquainted with the nature and meaning of the Oath, before they took it; or, at least, that they should construe or translate the Epinomis. He thought, however, that it would be better to get rid of the Epinomis altogether, for there might be very good reasons why young men should not he instructed in it; for, in his opinion, it opened the way to the easy committal of perjury, or at least it stated things that much shook the authority and sanctity of an oath. It made quibbles on the subject, which it would be just as well not to present to men's minds. It stated three cases in which a man might commit perjury. The first of these was one about which no man could doubt, namely, that if a man swore that he had done a thing, or that he believed a thing, when he had not done it, or did not believe it, he would be guilty of perjury. The second was, that those were perjured who swore that they would do something, but were not willing afterwards to submit to punishment for not doing it. That appeared to him altogether doing away with the value of an oath. If a man only bound himself to submit to punishment for not doing what he had sworn to
578
do, the oath to do the thing was of no value whatever, A witness in a court of justice was sworn to speak the truth; but, according to the doctrine he had just stated, if the witness was willing to undergo the penalty for perjury, he was absolved from his oath. This doctrine was one of a most false and dangerous kind. The third of the cases stated was, where a man had incapacitated himself by any disobedience of the statutes from taking his degree; but against this it was said there might be dispensations. It, again, seemed to him most mischievous, that men should ever understand that there might be dispensations to absolve them from the consequences of the oaths they had taken. Then there were three chapters on dispensations. The first treated of ordinary dispensations; the second of dispensations to be granted by the great convocation; and the third mentioned cases, where no dispensations at all could be granted. It was curious enough, that those things which in the third chapter were treated of as incapable of being made the subject of dispensations, were now held at Oxford to afford the most ample ground for dispensations. It seemed, therefore, that there were three sorts of satutory dispensations very commonly, if not universally in use; and one of these was intrusted to the Chancellor of the University. He had no doubt that the noble Duke opposite was not in the least aware that as Chancellor of the University, he could give these dispensations, (which the Epinomis said could not be given at all) to every one about to take the degree of Master of Arts. Here was an instance. It was a rule, that before receiving that degree, a man should keep twelve terms; but it appeared from the Oxford Calendar, that only one of them was indispensable; and that three might be dispensed with by the convocation; and six more by the Chancellor's letter. The noble Earl here went into a statement relating to the keeping of terms, and the dispensations from them. An anonymous writer had attacked, in a very furious manner, those who said that these things were abuses; and had lavished some very hard epithets upon them, and upon him among the rest; but he was not to be deterred from conscientiously discharging his duty by such abuse. He proceeded, therefore, to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the Epinomis actually declared guilty of perjury, all those au-

579
thorities of the University who should presume to allow the statutes to fall into disuse, even through negligence alone. Having stated these things generally to their Lordships, he should move for a copy of the Epinomis, from the University of Oxford, together with an account of the Oaths taken at that University. His object was, to make some alterations in the laws of the University on the subject of Oaths. He believed that the noble Duke, since becoming Chancellor of the University, had desired to make some change of this sort; but that he had found that the body from whom he desired these changes to proceed, was not quite so easily moved as some other troops that he had had the command of. It was to be hoped, however, that they would consent to make the necessary alterations. It would be more for the good of the University, that such alterations should come from them than through the means of an Act of Parliament. This was, in substance, the return of which he had given notice, though the form of it was somewhat altered. With respect to the University of Cambridge, he only wanted one return—namely, the oath which was administered to young men on matriculation. They were sworn during the whole of their lives to maintain the honour and dignity of the University; an oath most improvidently taken, at the early age at which they generally entered themselves there. The noble Earl concluded by moving for Copies and Translations of all Oaths taken by Members of the University of Oxford, (excepting the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, as follows:
1. On Matriculation.—2. On taking the respective Degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts.—3. On the Admission of Masters of Arts to their Regency.
Also, Copies and Translations of the Form used,—1. In petitioning for Graces for the Degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts respectively.—2. In applying for, and—3. In granting Dispensations for the Degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts, under Tit. ix. Sec. iv. §, 2., Articles 1 and 4, and under Tit. x. Sec. v., respectively.
Also, Copy and Translation of the Chancellor's Letter for Dispensation, stating the Form and Mode of Application for, and the Manner of obtaining the same; and the average annual Number applied for and granted for the last Ten Years.
580
Also, Copy and Translation of the Epinomis.
Also, Statement of the Number of Degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts respectively granted in the last Ten Years, under the following Circumstances:—1. Without any Dispensation whatever.—2. Without Dispensation under Tit. ix. Sec. iv. § 2. Article 1.—3. Without Dispensation under Tit. ix. Sec. iv. § 2. Article 4.—4. Without Dispensation under Tit. x. Sec. v.
And also, Copy and Translation of the Oath taken at Matriculation in the University of Cambridge.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Earl having been so kind as to communicate to him the list of the papers comprehended in the motion which he intended to make, he had thought it his duty to consult those who were most interested in the inquiry which the noble Earl had thought proper to institute, and he had obtained the willing consent of those persons to the production of these papers. The noble Earl said, that he had altered the motion; still he had no objection to make the required return. But he did think that the noble Earl, having communicated the motion he intended to make, and having been informed that there would be no objection to it, he ought to have been also informed, by the noble Earl, of the noble Earl's intention to come down there, and make a charge against the University of Oxford, if it was his intention to do so at the period that these communications took place. The noble Earl said, that he was anxious to awaken the public mind to this matter of the University of Oxford, in order to influence the University by the expression of public opinion. In his opinion, the public mind was not likely to be influenced by one-sided discussions; but would wait till both sides were heard, when there was some one to make the charge, and some one prepared to answer it. He acknowledged that he was not prepared; and he was not because the noble Earl had not done him the justice, nor the University the justice, to state that he intended to come there, and make a charge against the University. There was not the smallest objection to the production of the papers. He should be perfectly willing to meet the noble Earl when the papers were produced—when he moved for his Bill, or after it was brought in; but he had not expected that the noble

581
Earl would take the course he had taken that day, and therefore he was not prepared with an answer. Under these circumstances, he could not do more than consent to produce the papers, which he did most readily.
The Bishop of Llandaffcould make some answer to one of the charges of the noble Earl, as he had long been connected with the University of Cambridge. Knowing the candour of the character of the noble Earl, he thought the noble Earl would have abstained from making charges which involved the moral character of the men to whom they related, and which went to throw on them a stain of a very serious kind. The noble Earl objected to Oaths, which he said were administered to men at a time of life when they were not quite competent to decide what these Oaths meant, and to pledge themselves to things which they did not intend, and could not be expected to intend, to perform. Now the Oath administered was no more than this, that the young man would observe and keep the laws, statutes, and customs of the University. A copy of the statutes was delivered to the young man at the time he took the Oath, and the most superficial observer of these statutes could not look at them without seeing that they put an end to mach of the serious charge brought against the University by the noble Earl. Some of the offences, there provided against, were to be visited with a fine of 8d., some of 1s. 4d., and some of a larger sum. A gradation of penalties like these, showed that the offence was not considered to amount to perjury. The offender was bound to submit to the punishment, for the disregard of the statutes, or else he would violate the Oath he had taken. But, besides this, annexed to the collection of statutes, given to each student, there was a declaratory law, which stated the limits of the obligation under which those, who took this Oath, were placed. All the writers on the subject of moral philosophy were agreed, that the measure of the obligation was not that which the mind of the man who took the oath put upon it, but that which was put upon it by him who proposed the oath. That was the opinion of Paley, and of Saunderson, in his celebrated treatise, De Juramenti Obligatione. The explanation of the meaning of the University Oaths, was drawn up by Bishop Saunderson himself, for the purpose, as it is expressly said, of satisfy-
582
ing tender consciences, and of pointing out to them the extent of their obligation. It might be better not to retain a form of words that required explanation, but the practice was not culpable, as it had been stated to be this night. It might, also, be culpable not to explain to each new comer, in the fullest manner, all that could be said on these Oaths; and he himself had always thought it his duty to explain to such persons, the sense in which they administered these Oaths; and whether his explanation was right or wrong, their consciences were clear. But the omission of this well-understood explanation, was not deserving of the serious censure expressed, with regard to the whole matter, by the noble Earl. Then, the noble Lord had attempted to assimilate the proceedings at the University, with what took place in a court of justice. He said, a man having been sworn to speak the truth in a court of justice, and having been punished with the pillory for not speaking the truth, was according to the rule adopted in the University, absolved from perjury when he had undergone the penalty. This was a very curious, but not a very accurate, view of the subject. If, indeed, the witness was told beforehand by the judge, that such was the meaning of the Oath, there might be some ground for the comparison.—In a court of justice, a man is sworn simply to speak the truth, but in the case to which the noble Lord referred it was openly declared that something was to be done, or, in default, a certain penalty was to be submitted to, by which means the offence of perjury was removed. Another of the noble Lord's charges was, the facility with which dispensation was procured for the non-performance of those duties which the oath rendered imperative.—Whether dispensations were too easily granted, was quite a different question from the guilt of perjury. It was to avoid perjury that they were granted; but when he said this, he agreed with the noble Lord, that it would be better to repeal obsolete statutes, than to be continually dispensing with them as a matter of course. His great object, however, in addressing their Lordships was, to defend the moral character of those whose conduct was impugned. They were not considering what at was most expedient with respect to the course which the University should adopt, but whether the individuals who were con-

583
nected with the University, were guilty or not guilty of forsaking the duty imposed upon them by an oath. With regard to the last of the charges, which the noble Lord had supported by reference to a pamphlet, which he (the Bishop of Llandaff) had never seen in his life, if the noble Lord examined that pamphlet again, with more attention, he would probably find that that part of the system of which he complained, was perfectly consonant with strict observance of the statutes.—In conformity with the Oaths, certain degrees could not be taken, without certain exercises had been performed, unless a dispensation were granted in due form. Now, there was a chapter in the statutes, as to what was indispensable, and what might be dispensed with, by application to certain authorities. There was nothing ambiguous in this. On such and such points, proper reasons being assigned, dispensation might be granted, by the inferior body to whom the ordinary business of conferring degrees was intrusted. But other things could not be dispensed with by that body. These things were called indispensable—i. e. not absolutely indispensable, but indispensable by them. A higher authority must be called in, namely, the collective authority of the whole University, acting upon a recommendation from the Chancellor. The course was, to have the case submitted to the deliberation of the heads of houses. Then, a petition was sent to the Chancellor for his recommendation—which, being addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, and read in full Convocation, the dispensation was allowed to pass—the result was then made known. This was meant as a check to the grant of such indulgences. He understood, however, that in most instances, it was become a matter of course, and that the practice had been abridged ever since he had left the University—that blank forms, signed by the Chancellor were left to be filled up as the case might require. But it was not so in Lord Grenville's time. This was a subject, however, not for their Lordships' consideration. They were assembled for public purposes; and he should not therefore enter into private details of that nature, connected with the customs of the University. It was, however, a great deal too much for the noble Lord to say, that the young men at the University were so treated, that they did not mind the obli-
584
gation of an oath. The public were told so, and he would say, that nothing could be more decidedly false, than such an assertion. He knew very well, that, thus taken by surprise, he had not done justice to the subject; but feeling, as he did, for the character of the University, and of those individuals who were closely connected with it, he could not avoid saying, that the charges of the noble Lord, as far as they related to the obligation of Oaths were utterly unfounded.
Lord Broughamsaid, he did not mean to accuse any of the authorities connected with the Universities; but he was sure their Lordships must feel with him, that the subject was worthy of serious consideration. He knew nothing personally of the University of Oxford; but he entirely objected to the taking of Oaths, when the individuals did not know to what they were binding themselves when they made an asseveration in the presence of God. In the first place, it was for their Lordships to consider whose fault it was that such a system prevailed, and, in the next, to look a little at the manner in which the Oaths administered in the University were kept. His noble Friend had been attacked, as if he had brought a charge against the University—as if he had brought any imputation against it—as if he had charged the University of Oxford with wilfully encouraging perjury. He had done no such thing. But his noble Friend having been charged last year, with somewhat of the guilt of perjury, he turned round and said, "So far from my being guilty, it is you who propound those Oaths with whom the guilt rests, seeing that they are administered without due preparation." His noble friend cast no blame upon individuals, but he blamed the system. The Oaths, it appeared, were taken as a matter of course. "The consequence," said his noble Friend, "is neither more nor less than this—that we are driven to the conclusion, that the oaths are more lightly dealt with than they ought to be." Now, what was the extent of this charge? Why, it went only to the extent which he had mentioned. His noble friend had brought up evidence in support of what he had said. He had pointed out in the statutes the denunciation of perjury against those who suffered the law to fall into desuetude; and yet it was clear that the law had in the instances pointed out been allowed to fall into

585
desuetude. This, then, went to one of two things—those who had the care of those laws ought to keep them up; or, if they were totally unfit to be retained, then they ought at once openly and fairly and frankly to be repealed, instead of allowing them to remain on the book. When they saw that the statutes were not kept up, did not that circumstance clearly show that they were no longer applicable to the circumstances of the University; and that being the case, was it not evident that those oaths should no longer be allowed? He could not help considering the taking of oaths on such trifling occasions as extremely reprehensible. That the occasions were trifling he inferred from the circumstance, that 6d. absolved an individual for breaking one, 8d. for breaking another; and so on in gradation. Oaths ceased to be proper safeguards when they were so lightly treated. They ought to be reserved for the most solemn occasions—dignus vindice nodus. If a necessity existed for the intervention of an oath—if an appeal were proper to be made to divine justice, let it be done in the most solemn manner. It surely ought not to be resorted to in a case where a fine of 8d. would remove the charge of perjury; it should only be introduced with reference to the performance of duties that could not by any means be dispensed with. As to other oaths, they came within the same principle, with the exception that they were taken by adults in the course and practice of business, and the affairs of the world; whereas these Oaths prescribed by the Universities were taken with all the form and solemnity of oaths generally, although in quality, in reality, or in effect, they were unlike other oaths. He had always thought that voluntary affidavits made before Magistrates (affidavits in which, if such should be the case, perjury could not be assigned, though still such false swearing might be treated and punished as a misdemeanour), tended to bad effects, and to bring oaths into a sort of levity of dealing, and to remove the impression of those solemnities which should be flung around, and to fence so important an obligation. However absurd it might be to take voluntary affidavits, it was more absurd to make a boy take oaths which perhaps might be explained, but which were such a trifle that he could either keep them or not, for a penalty only of 6d. or 8d.
586
The Bishop of Llandaff begged to say, in explanation, that students did take a serious oath, to obey the authorities of the Universities.
Lord Brougham.—And to swear to keep the statutes.
The Bishop of Llandaff.—To observe the statutes.
Lord Brougham.—Yes, or to make the last an eightpenny matter, and in fact, and in substance, it was not, therefore binding. His (Lord Brougham's) opinion was, that it would be a most excellent thing to get rid of these Oaths, as well as others, which had fallen into desuetude, and to fix on Oaths required by law the denunciation, that to break them would be perjury.
The Earl of Radnorreplied. In answer to what had fallen from the right reverend Prelate, he begged to say, that the first complaint or charge which he made against the University of Oxford was for not doing that which as the head of one of the houses the right reverend Prelate had stated he himself had always done—namely, that care was not taken by those to whom the education of youth was there intrusted to explain to them this form to which they were liable, and which he had mentioned. It was the duty of those so intrusted to make that explanation. The other complaint was, that in the University of Oxford there prevailed a far too great laxity in granting dispensations, and that degrees were granted by those means too readily, and in these two complaints he, as it seemed to him, had the perfect concurrence of the right reverend Prelate himself. The other practices to which he had alluded were not charges of his making, but charges made by the work he had mentioned, which stated that parties were perjured in certain cases. He, however, further contended, that under one chapter dispensations could not be granted. Their Lordships were aware that under the standing orders of the House a Bill could not pass more than one stage in one and the same day. It was true that in cases of urgent necessity this standing order was suspended, but should it become a practice that every Bill should be so treated, and perhaps progressed all its stages on the same day, what would their Lordships say to swearing, on the opening of the Session, to keep and observe the standing orders of the House? By such a proceeding their

587
Lordships would stultify themselves in the same manner as he contended the Universities did in matters of dispensation. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) had complained of want of candour on his part in this instance. The facts of the case were these:—When he had read his notice of Motion, the clerk at the Table asked him to furnish it, in order that it might be entered upon the notices. He remarked that it was probable he might alter it before the Motion came on, and when he spoke on the subject afterwards to the noble Duke, he had also mentioned the probability of an alteration in its form. He had certainly not told the noble Duke that it was his intention to preface the Motion with a speech, and when the noble Duke inquired if he sent down the terms of the Motion to the Universities and they assented to furnish the information, he had replied that in such a case he would make the Motion. Now, he was sure that when the noble Duke and himself formerly sat together in another place, it was deemed improper to submit a Motion without first laying some grounds for it. Under the impression that such a practice was to be followed in this House, he thought he had done sufficient to relieve himself from the charge of want of candour by putting the noble Duke in possession of the terms of his Motion, and also of his intention, under any circumstances, to make it. It had been also stated, somewhat in the tone of complaint, that owing to these circumstances there was a want of preparation now to meet the Question. He was surprised to hear this advanced, because scarcely twelve-months had elapsed since the noble Duke himself had taken the oath to observe these statutes, and, besides the noble Duke, there were several Prelates who had taken them over and over again. He was therefore at a loss to know how want of preparation could be urged on the present occasion. Repeating his impression, that the only charges which he himself had made had been sanctioned by the right reverend Prelate who had addressed the House, he should conclude by expressing the satisfaction he felt that his observations on the subject had met with that right reverend Prelate's concurrence.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that he assented to the observations of the noble Earl no further than to say that it would be much better that those statutes should
588
be repealed, instead of dispensations being continued.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, that he should not have said a word on the present occasion had it not been that the noble Earl who had brought forward the present Motion had applied, last year, words to the University of Cambridge which he (the Bishop of Glocester) was disposed to think undeserved. The noble Earl had alluded to one Oath, which was to the effect that the party taking it would "protect and preserve all the honours, dignities, privileges, and immunities of the University, and defend them by his counsel and advice so long as he lived." The noble Earl had termed this oath first to be absurd, and, afterwards, to be wicked. He (the Bishop of Glocester) was himself so decided an enemy of all unnecessary oaths, that he should be disposed to join in the wish that this law of the University should be expunged as soon as it was proved to be unnecessary. Indeed, he might almost agree in the proposition that the Oath was unnecessary, upon the fact that though it had existed for many centuries, the instances of perjury on that head were indeed very few, for there had ever been found many ready to defend the honours, privileges, and rights of the University with which they had been connected. If this was wickedness, it was a wickedness which had extended over many ages, and yet many advocates had been found for the Oaths both of matriculation and the conferring of degrees.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he was in possession of the form of Oath, which had been sent him by a son who had recently entered the University of Cambridge, and he repeated, that if that University did its duty by those confided to its care, an attachment to its institutions would of course grow up with increasing years, but that to make a boy of sixteen years of age swear to impressions, and feelings to be retained all his life was, as he thought, absurd as well as wicked.
The Motion was agreed to.