Sitting of 7 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Charitable Trusts.
Petitions presented. By Lord G. BENTINCK, from Retailers of Beer, Lynn, for Amendment of Beer Act,—By Mr. BURNARD, from Gravesend, for the Abolition of Gavel-kind.—By Sir JOHN RAE REID and Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER, from various Places, for Repeal of the Duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. H. GRATTAN, from various Places, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland), and that the House will adhere to the provisions of the Irish Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, as originally passed by the House.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. C. RIPON, from Gateshead, against Bishopric of Durham Bill, and from Sunderland, for Repeal of Duty on Newspapers.—By Mr. C. FERGUSSON, from the Legal Profession, Dursley, for Repeal of Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. HUTT, from Kingston-upon-Hull, for Mitigation of the Criminal Code.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, against Turnpike Trusts' Consolidation Bill.—;By Mr. FITZSIMON, from Tullamore and Kulbride, for Ballot, and from Eglish, for Poor-laws (Ireland).

MALTA.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that he rose to present a petition from the clergy, nobility, and other inhabitants of Malta, praying for a redress of the grievances under which they laboured. As the subject was one of importance, he felt it his duty to state as briefly as he could the grievances of which the petitioners complained, and the remedies for which they prayed. The grievances that affected the Maltese were pretty well known in that House, as they had been the subject of several former debates there, and he trusted that the period was at length arrived, beyond which the correction of those grievances would not be delayed. There had been many instances of colonial misgovernment on the part of this country, but he would venture to say, that the hitherto ill-conducted government of Malta had been pre-eminent for its mismanagement. In no one of our colonies was to be found such a number of highly-salaried officials, whose remuneration was generally in the inverse ratio of the duties which they had to perform. The petitioners complained that they had long wanted a Council or Legislative Assembly, and that under the old Constitution of Malta they had an assembly of that description. They stated, that they petitioned the Crown some years ago for such a Council, and that a Council was established, consisting, however, of only eight persons, the majority of them holding office under the Government, and the whole of them being under Government influence and control. They stated, that this was a mere mockery of the assembly
162
that they had sought for, and they now prayed that such a Legislative Assembly, constituted upon the principles of the British Constitution, would be granted to them. The next prayer of the petitioners was, that they should, for the benefit of the population there, get a well-digested and properly compiled code of laws, the decisions under it to be propounded, not in secret, but before the public, and open to public inspection and animadversion. The next prayer of the petition was, that they should enjoy the advantage of a free press in Malta. He was happy to say, that the wise liberality of his hon. Friend at the Colonial Department had already induced him to comply with this demand of the people of Malta, and that the press there was now free. With a free press at their command, the Maltese would not fail to make known their grievances and wants, and he was sure that, under the present Administration, the evils of that colony would be redressed. The next prayer was, that a system of general and popular education should be introduced into Malta. Under a former Government a University had been established at Valetta, but it was conducted on exclusive principles, and had not given satisfaction to the people at large. The petitioners next referred to the restrictions and burdens which fettered and injured the trade and commerce of Malta. Their complaints on that head well merited the attention of the House. The supply of grain to the island had long been conducted under a complete system of Government monopoly. There formerly existed an institution in the island for supplying the inhabitants with grain. The Government had taken that department under its control, and the supply was now completely in the hands of Government. The petitioners truly stated, that the wants of the population, and the interests of Malta, required that there should be a free trade in grain. He (Mr. Ewart) hoped that, under the auspices of his hon. Friend, this unjust institution would no longer be allowed to remain, and that the merchants and inhabitants of Malta would get the benefit of a free and unrestricted commerce. The petitioners further complained, that the quarantine laws of Malta were different from those established in any other of our colonial possessions. Under our general colonial law our merchants and traders were exempted from

163
paying any thing for the support of the quarantine establishments, but to that Malta was an exception. Our merchants and traders there were obliged to pay for the quarantine, which, being a Government establishment, should, on general principles, be maintained by the Government. His hon. Friend beside him would present a petition from the merchants trading to Malta, and he would no doubt call the attention of the House to the commercial policy pursued towards that island. It appeared to him obvious that Malta should be made a free port and entrepôt for our commerce in the Mediterranean. It seemed to have been constructed by nature for such a purpose, and upon no other principle could the government of Malta be conducted with advantage to the inhabitants and the empire at large. Since this petition had been forwarded to him, he had learned from his hon. Friend, that it was the intention of the Government to send out a Commission to inquire into the grievances of the Maltese, and to suggest the remedies that might be deemed advisable for their removal. On the part of the petitioners, he was ready to assent to that arrangement, upon this understanding, however, that the Commission should be based upon the principle of full and free inquiry—;that no opposition on the part of official characters in Malta should be allowed to stand in its way, and that its proceedings should be open to the free and unrestricted observation of the public press. He assented to the Commission, he repeated, on the understanding that it should be conducted as the Commission of Municipal Inquiry had been conducted in this country—in open court, and upon the genuine British principle of doing justice to all parties. But though this Commission should go out, he hoped that his Majesty's Government would not suspend the application of remedies to such evils as were pressing, and required immediate amendment. He trusted, that the Government, in such matters, would take counsel from the merchants trading to Malta, and he also hoped that there would be no objection to the Commission reporting from time to lime, such reports to be laid upon the table of the House. Entertaining the confidence that he did in the present Colonial Government, he would consent to the sending out of this Commission, reserving, however, to the petitioners the power,
164
should the Commission prove unsatisfactory to them, of appealing to Parliament, and bringing the whole of their grievances before the House of Commons and the country.
Petition to lie on the table.
Mr. Hollandsaid, that he held in his hand a petition from the merchants connected with the trade to Malta; and, as it was intimately connected with that just read, he would take the liberty of presenting it now. The petitioners prayed the House to abolish the charges levied for quarantine, and to render the trade with Malta free and unrestricted. These petitioners had been often before the House on this subject, and it was only a few months ago that they had presented a memorial to the Colonial Department with regard to it. On that occasion they had experienced nothing but kindness and courtesy, and since he had come into the House that evening, he understood from the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) that it was the intention of the Government to make an alteration regarding the corn trade of Malta; indeed, he understood the hon. Baronet to say, that it was the intention of Government no longer to interfere with the grain trade of that island. It appeared from the returns on the table, that the customs' duties collected in Malta, from 1825 to 1834, amounted to 97,797 l. 17 s. 6d. This gave an average of about 9,800 l. per annum. The expenses of collection during that period amounted to 27,598 l., which reduced the net annual revenue derivable from the customs to 7,041 l. In the quarantine department, in 1834 the amount collected was 3,717 l. 18 s. 2d. The expense for collection during that year was 4,727 l. 14 s.. 6d. This department was therefore a losing concern. In the Report of the Commissioners of 1830, it was recommended that the salaries, &c, in Malta, should be reduced to the amount of 15,000 l. per annum. If the Government would act upon that recommendation, the customs' duties there could be dispensed with, and the quarantine expenses confined to the collection of duties from vessels under foreign flags.
Petition to lie on the table.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from Charles Vere, who had been imprisoned in Malta for having opened a school without a licence. He hoped that the petitioner's case would be inquired into.
Sir George Greywould briefly state to

165
the House the course which the Government had adopted with respect to the complaints made. They had found that much was to be done. In the first place, there was but one press in the island, and that was in the hands of the Government, so that nothing could be published through the press but with the sanction of Government. The Government had felt, that a minute inquiry was necessary, and with the concurrence of Sir F. Ponsonby, the Governor of Malta, who was now in this country, had determined to send out a Commission to inquire into the several complaints made. They thought that a Commission on the spot would be a much more effectual mode of getting at the facts of the case, than an investigation by a Parliamentary Committee. As to the composition of that Commission, it would be such as no objection could be made to. With respect to the reduction of the customs' duties, he would only say, that it would be impossible to sacrifice so large an amount as 10,000 l. or 11,000 l. of annual income, until it was ascertained what reductions of expenditure could be made. For the same reason he could not speak at present as to the reduction of the quarantine charges. In Lord Aberdeen's time the sum of 3,000 l. of quarantine expenditure had been charged on the revenues of the island. He thought it would be impossible to charge that expenditure on the consolidated fund. He did hope, through the inquiries of the Commission, to effect many beneficial changes in the island, but it would be impossible to proceed with any until the inquiry had been made.
The petition to lie on the table.

PLAGUE IN LONDON,
Mr. Wakleywas very desirous of putting a question to the President of the Board of Trade, and he trusted that the pressing nature of the subject would be a sufficient excuse for now interfering. He had last night been informed that five persons had died of the plague in Tottenham-court-road, and on his return home he met a gentleman in extensive practice near Bedford-square, whom he asked if he had heard of these cases, or of any others resembling the plague? The gentleman instantly answered in the negative. The report, however, was still prevalent, and had created great alarm, and it. was material, therefore, that distinct information should directly be
166
given to the public. He had understood also that a deputation had waited on the President of the Board of Trade on the subject, and he begged to know of that right hon. Gentleman whether it were true that the disease had made its appearance, or whether the reports were wholly without foundation.
Mr. PoulettThomson was very glad that the question had been put, as it was obvious that if reports of such a nature were in circulation they could not be too soon contradicted. He had the satisfaction to be able to give the most unqualified contradiction to the rumour which he was informed had been spread through the town. He must add, that he thought there was some reason to complain of the quarter from whence the ridiculous rumour had proceeded. On Friday last it had come to his knowledge, from several communications, that such a report was abroad, and it had been traced to a medical gentleman, who had said that a case of the plague, or several cases, had occurred in London. When the rumour reached the department over which he presided, further inquiry was made, and a letter was written to the medical gentleman on the subject, to which he had sent a reply. That reply he held in his hand, and would read to the House;—
"In reply to the inquiry made, I have the honour to state, that the report was communicated to me by a medical practitioner on Sunday week, which report I mentioned in one house only on the same day, and not since. It was not that several cases of plague had occurred at the London Docks, but that Mr. Cooke, of the house of Shoolbred and Cooke, drapers, Tottenham-court-road, with seven assistants, had died from opening a bale of goods in their warehouse, and that it was suspected they had died of the plague. The medical practitioner in question, knowing that I had paid considerable attention to the disease, which I had witnessed at Constantinople, thought that the report would interest me, and wished that I should take pains to examine the truth, and investigate the particulars of it—an object which I have not been able to accomplish, in consequence of my other numerous avocations."
Upon the receipt of this letter, he had at once requested Sir William Pym to make the necessary inquiries. He did so, and he found that Mr. Cooke was the head of the firm. It was a large warehouse establishment, where there were between seventy and eighty people employed. He found that the head of this establishment

167
had died on the first of May of a brain fever, and that since that time there had not been one single person out of the seventy or eighty employed there who had been ill, except one young man, who was suffering from a pulmonary complaint. He must say, that for a medical gentleman to propagate a rumour of this kind, adding that the knowledge of many cases of this nature was in his possession, and not to call the attention of the Government to it during a whole week, afforded just grounds of complaint. Having made this public explanation, in order to prevent the continuation of any alarm that might have been created, he must at the same time express his own feeling and belief (and he was sure that every gentleman who heard him would participate in that feeling and belief) that it was the duty of every medical man to whom any report of so alarming a character as that mentioned in this letter might have been made, at once to have informed the Government upon the subject, in order that steps might have been taken to ascertain the truth of it, and to quiet the public mind by taking such further steps as might have been deemed necessary. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that alarm had been raised, and that a deputation from the parish had waited on him at the Council office this morning in considerable alarm. He also understood that in consequence of the reports that had been raised, Messrs. Cooke and Shoolbred had suffered very considerably, and expected to suffer more. They had been wise enough to offer a reward of 200 l. for the discovery of whoever was the original author of the calumny which had been spread against them.
Mr. Wakleyexpressed his satisfaction at the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman. It was the opinion of nine-tenths of the medical men in the country that the plague was not a contagious disease; but even if it were, it ought not in such a place as London to create any alarm.

CRIMINAL LAWS.
Mr. Ewartmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the law which admitted the fact of a previous conviction to be given in evidence to the jury in the case before them. It might be proper that the fact of a previous conviction should be urged after conviction in aggravation of punishment, but in his opinion it was most unjust to the accused,
168
that such a fact should be brought before the Jury; for it could not possibly assist them in coming to a right conclusion as to whether he was guilty or not guilty of the crime for which he was now upon trial. He proposed, therefore, in conformity with the opinion of many hon. Members, and other Gentlemen connected with the law, that such a law ought not to be allowed to exist, that this part of our criminal code should be repealed.
Mr. CutlarFergusson said, he was of opinion that the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool ought to be brought in, for he agreed with him in thinking the present state of the law on this subject most unjust.
Sir T. Fremantlewas in favour of the principle of the Bill proposed to be brought in. He thought the fact of a previous conviction ought to be known to the Judge, that he might appropriate the punishment accordingly; but that it ought not to be known to the Jury, as it had a natural tendency to create a prejudice against the prisoner.
Mr. Roebuckdiffered from the hon. Member (Sir T. Fremantle). He (Mr. R.) thought if a man upon trial had been convicted before of a similar offence, the fact ought to go to the Jury. It might, in some cases, assist them in determining upon his innocence or guilt of the offence he was charged with.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he should not object to the bringing in of the Bill. At the same time he did not wish to be understood as pledging himself to agree in every part of it. He thought it unjust, that facts not immediately connected with the offence for which a man was on trial, should be allowed to be given in evidence, when they would naturally create a prejudice against him in the minds of the Jury. At the late trial of Lacenaire, in France, facts had been given in evidence not in the slightest degree connected with the matter of which he was accused, but which had completely poisoned the minds of those who were to decide upon his fate. In some cases it was well known, that the Judge had the power of increasing the punishment for a repetition of the offence; in such cases, therefore, it might be necessary that the fact of a previous conviction should be known to the Judge; but he (The Attorney General) did not think it right that such a fact should be allowed to go to the Jury, tending, as it most certainly

169
did, to prejudice their minds against the prisoner.
Sir Eardley Wilmotagreed with what had fallen from the Attorney General, and expressed himself in favour of the Bill which the hon. Member for Liverpool asked leave to bring in.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had rather that the Jury should know the fact of a man's previous conviction than the Judge. A man was allowed to give his former good character in evidence; why should a man's bad character be concealed from the Jury, when it might assist them in coming to a right conclusion upon the case before them. In Scotland a previous conviction was allowed to be proved; why, then, should it be so great an injustice in England? In the English law, in the case of a rogue and vagabond, or one who was incorrigible,—the facts of previous convictions were to be given in evidence, as proving him irreclaimable, and he was to be dealt with accordingly. He (Sir R. Peel) must say, that he admired the French criminal law, except in one respect, that it allowed the Judge to examine witnesses, and the prisoners, for it prevented him from maintaining that coolness and impartiality which were so necessary to the administration of justice. He could not see why so great care should be taken to throw shields around the guilty, as some hon. Members appeared so anxious to do, though he admitted every endeavour should be used to protect the innocent.
Mr. Prymeagreed in much that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, but he was of opinion, that the fact of a previous conviction should not be allowed to go before a Jury to prejudice them against the prisoner.
Leave given.

MR. BUCKINGHAM'S CLAIMS.
Mr. Tulkmoved that the Report of the Select Committee appointed in 1834 to inquire into the claims of Mr. Buckingham to compensation be read. This having been done, the hon. Member said, that it was only from a conviction of the justice of Mr. Buckingham's claims that he ventured again to appeal to the House, in the hope of inducing them to reverse the decision to which they had come on the subject of them. The hon. Member then commented at some length upon the facts contained in the Report, and upon the injustice with which they showed that Mr. Buck-
170
ingham had been treated, and after intimating, that if he succeeded in carrying his first motion, he should afterwards move that the sum of 10,000 l. be paid out of the funds of the East-India Company, as Compensation to Mr. Buckingham for the injury, or rather destruction which they they had inflicted on his properly in India, concluded by moving, "that this House do agree to the resolutions of the Select Committee on the case of Mr. Buckingham, as reported to the House on the 14th of August, 1834."
Major Curteisseconded the motion.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, that there was only one observation in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion in which he could concur—and that was, that he (Mr. Tulk) did indeed owe an apology to the House for bringing forward this question again after it had been decided against him in this session, when the whole question was fully entered into. The hon. Gentleman had not shown the slightest ground for mulcting the East-India Company in a penalty of 10,000 l. for the benefit of Mr. Buckingham; and in making that proposition the hon. Member had even gone beyond the resolutions of the Committee, which had carefully abstained from stating the sum to which they considered Mr. Buckingham entitled.
Mr. Poultersupported the motion, on the ground that it was founded on the resolutions of the Committee, which had been agreed to almost unanimously.
Mr. Robinsonresisted the motion, on the ground that, the House had no jurisdiction, and could not erect itself into a tribunal to decide on the pecuniary claims of any individual as against the East-India Company.
Mr. Humeadmitted, that the House had no jurisdiction to interfere in pecuniary matters between man and man, or between an individual and a public company, where any other competent tribunal existed; but in the present instance, there being no such means of re as, he should support Mr. Buckingham's appeal.
Mr. Richardscould not believe that the House had no jurisdiction in such a case. There could be no doubt they were fully competent to entertain the claim of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and, therefore, he was much surprised the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) had thought it necessary to oppose the present

171
motion in limine on technical and formal grounds, without at all entering into the consideration of its substantial merits.
Mr. Hoggspoke as follows:—Having been on the spot during the whole period of the transaction adverted to, perhaps the House will kindly grant me their indulgence while I state my reasons for hoping that these resolutions may not be agreed to. I think, Sir, that, at first, a stand ought to have been made upon principle, and that the appointment of the Committee ought to have been resisted. But as the Committee was appointed, and has reported, I think the question ought to be argued on its merits; and on its merits alone I am prepared to meet it, abandoning every objection of form. I contend that the Committee have reported no facts to support their own resolution and recommendation. They and the Gentlemen opposite have treated this matter as one which consisted of one offence and one punishment, involving in its consequences the ruin of Mr. Buckingham. You are told that the Government not only sent him home, but, on his departure, adopted measures to suppress his paper and ruin his fortunes. I deny that this is correct; I deny that when he was required to leave India, Government, either directly or indirectly, said, or did anything to injure his paper, or interfere with his arrangements; and upon that issue I am willing to place the result of this motion. India and Indian affairs have few attractions, and command but little attention or interest; and I believe that, often as this subject has been before Parliament, no statement of the circumstances has ever yet been made. If permitted by the House. I will give them a narrative of Mr. Buckingham and The Calcutta Journal. I see Mr. Buckingham opposite; and I shall feel obliged by his interrupting me, if I in any respect misrepresent or overstate. I do not wish to weary the House by unnecessarily reading documents, but I have with me the evidence adduced before the Committee, and am prepared to prove the correctness of every statement I may make. No word shall intentionally fall from me calculated to reflect personally on the hon. Member; I agree in all that has been said as to the conduct and demeanor of that Gentleman in this House since I have had the honour of a seat in
✶ Republished from a corrected Report.
172
Parliament. But the more bland, and mild, and soothing his manner here may be, the more necessary it is to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances which compelled the local government of India to visit him with extreme severity. The hon. Member who introduced this motion complained of the state of the House, when the Bill on this subject was rejected this Session, and said that the friends of Mr. Buckingham were not then in attendance. As far as my memory serves me, that division was taken under circumstances peculiarly calculated to mark the sense of the House. The Bill was introduced as a private one, but did not come on till after five o'clock, when public business of some importance was expected; and the House was, in consequence, crowded—[No! No!]—I mean comparatively crowded, with reference to the numbers usually present on the discussion of private business; and I will venture to say, that the division this Session, rejecting the Bill, is the largest that ever took place on this subject. I have premised that I will urge no technical objection, but I must beg the attention of the House to the number of tribunals before which this claim has already been urged. It was introduced into this House as a public Bill, and withdrawn, I admit, on the ground of form. It was introduced this Session, as a private bill, and rejected by a division of 125 to eighty-one. It has been urged before the Court of Directors, a body constantly changing, ever since 1823, and has always been rejected. It has also been urged, during the same period, before the various Commissioners for the Affairs of India, and has been repudiated by them all, with the single exception of Lord Glenelg. It was brought, with the united influence of all Mr. Buckingham's friends, before the Court of Proprietors, and rejected by a majority of 279; the numbers being 436 to 157; and if, after all these unsuccessful appeals, the hon. Member has any fair claim, I must admit, that he has been unfortunate indeed. What, Sir, is Mr. Buckingham's first and great grievance, prominently dwelt on before the Committee, in his evidence and statements, and the one upon which all his complaints and claims must be founded? He states, that he arrived in Calcutta in 1818, and that believing the press there to be free, and subject only to the restraints imposed by

173
the English law of libel,—believing it to be free as in England (these are his words), he set up The Calcutta Journal. Mr. Buckingham so says, and I give the fullest credence to what he states. But I declare my conviction, that there was not another individual in Calcutta, European or native, white or black, who laboured under a similar delusion. It was notorious as the sun at noon-day, that the press was not only not free, but subject to the most rigid and stringent regulations. Mr. Buckingham is quite right in endeavouring to show, that when he established his paper the press was free, and that he was injured by some ex post facto law. He feels that he cannot have a shadow of claim, if it should appear that he perseveringly violated rules which were already in existence when he commenced his paper, and with which he either was acquainted, or ought to have been acquainted. No person can anywhere be permitted to plead ignorance of the law; and in a country peculiarly circumstanced, like India, it would be preposterous to allow a man to urge in justification, or even in palliation, that he had embarked in an undertaking in utter ignorance of all the rules and regulations relating to that particular calling. As this part of the subject is most important, I entreat the attention of the House while I mention the state of the press in India, as it existed before and at the time of the establishment of The Calcutta Journal. The first press regulations were framed by the Marquess of Wellesley, in 1799, and with the permission of the House, I will read them:—
1st. Every printer of a newspaper to print his name at the bottom of the paper.
2nd. Every editor and proprietor of a paper to deliver in his name and place of abode to the Secretary to Government.
3rd. No paper to be published on a Sunday.
4th. No paper to be published at all until it shall have been previously inspected by the Secretary to the Government, or by a person authorized by him for that purpose.
5th. The penalty for offending against any of the above regulations to be immediate embarkation for Europe.
These regulations first established the censorship, and the editors were then distinctly apprized, that the penalty for offending was immediate embarkation for Europe. These rules remained in force until 1813, when new regulations were established, of nearly the same tenor, but more general and stringent.—[Read!
174
Read!]—Being called upon to read them, I will do so.
1st. That the proof sheets of all newspapers, including supplements, and all extra publications, be previously sent to the Chief Secretary for revision.
2nd. That all notices, hand-bills, and other ephemeral publications, he, in like manner previously transmitted for the Chief Secretary's revision.
3rd. That the titles of all original works, proposed to be published, be also sent to the Chief Secretary, for his information, who will thereupon either sanction the publication of them, or require the work itself for inspection, as may appear proper.
4th. The rules established on the 13th May, 1799, and the 6th August, 1801, to be in full force and effect, except in so far as the same may be modified by the preceding instructions.
The rule of August, 1801, was a special one, relating to the publication of military orders. I hope the House will think that I was not incorrect in stating that these new rules were more general and more stringent than those first issued. Such was the state of the press from 1799 up to August, 1818, when the censorship was removed, under the government of Lord Hastings, and new rules were framed, much more extensive in their application than any which had preceded them, and much more perilous for those engaged in the conduct of public journals. As these were the existing rules when Mr. Buckingham arrived in Calcutta and set up The Calcutta Journal, I hope I shall be permitted to read them to the House, and also the circular letter which was then addressed by the Secretary to Government to the editor of every paper.
"Circular Letter to Editors of Newspapers.
"SIR.—His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, having been pleased to revise the existing regulations regarding the control exercised by the Government over the news-papers, I am directed to communicate to yon, for your information and guidance, the following resolutions passed by his Lordship in Council.
"The editors of newspapers are prohibited from publishing any matter conning under the following heads:—
"1st. Animadversions on the measures and proceedings of the Hon. the Court of Directors, or other public authorities in England, connected with the Government of India,—or disquisitions on political transactions of the local administration,—or offensive remarks levelled at the public conduct of the members of Council, of the Judges of the Supreme Court, or of the Lord Bishop of Calcutta.

175
"2nd. Discussions having a tendency to create alarm or suspicion among the native population, or any intended interference with their religious opinions or observances.
"3rd. The republication, from English or other newspapers, of passages coming under any of the above heads, or otherwise calculated to affect the British power or reputation in India.
"4th. Private scandal and personal remarks on individuals, tending to excite dissension in society.
"Relying on the prudence and discretion of the editors for the careful observance of these rules, the Governor-General in Council is pleased to dispense with their submitting their papers to an officer of Government previous to publication. The editors will, however, be held personally accountable for whatever they may publish in contravention of the rules now communicated, or which may be otherwise at variance with the general principles of British law as established in this country, and will be proceeded against in such manner as the Governor-General in Council may deem applicable to the nature of the offence, for any deviation from them. The editors are further required to lodge in the Chief Secretary's office one copy of every newspaper, periodical, or extra, published by them respectively.
(Signed) "J. ADAM,
"Chief Secretary."
Such was the state of the press when Mr. Buckingham established his paper. Such were the rules to which he, as an editor, was bound by his licence to conform; and I ask any hon. Member who hears me, if it is not a mockery to assert and contend that a press subject to such rules was "free?" And yet, Sir, it is gravely alleged that Lord Hastings, by removing the censorship, established the freedom of the press. I maintain that, so far from removing the restrictions on the press, he actually increased them; and rendered the situation of an editor much more difficult, much more embarrassing, and much more perilous, than it had ever been before. Previously to 1818, the whole of the responsibility rested with the censor; and an editor was safe in publishing everything that escaped his vigilance, Not so afterwards. Editors are furnished with a terrific catalogue of prohibited matters; and, in the event of offending, are declared personally accountable, and liable to be punished according to the will and pleasure of Government. I will explain to the House the reason why the censorship of the press was removed. In the early part of 1818 there was a paper in Calcutta edited by a half-caste;—I
176
need not say, that I do not use the word offensively, but as indicating a person born of an Indian mother and an European father. That gentleman was aware that, under the 53rd of George 3rd, he could not be transmitted for disobedience of the press regulations, and he held the Government at defiance. He published articles which had been struck out by the censor, and asserted his right to publish what he pleased—subject only to the English law of libel. It was not to be tolerated that an editor, because a half-caste, should arrogate to himself privileges that were not conceded to a British subject. Lord Hastings addressed the Home Government, stating the difficulty, and in the meanwhile, to escape from such embarrassment, removed the censorship, and framed the rules to which I have drawn the attention of the House. The censorship was thus abolished, not to render the press free, but because it was not sufficiently extensive in its application, and had failed in affording adequate control. Such, Sir, was the restriction, or, if you please, enslaved state of the press at Calcutta, when Mr. Buckingham set up his paper. The condition upon which he held his licence, and had permission to remain in Calcutta, was obedience to the regulations I have read; and yet, within a few months, that Gentleman thinks proper to discard these regulations, and to fasten upon an expression used by Lord Hastings, under the excitement of the moment, when returning thanks to an address from the inhabitants of Madras. When Lord Hastings returned from the upper provinces, after the successful termination of his campaign, the inhabitants of Madras presented him with an address, and, among other topics, adverted to his having removed the censorship from the press. It was always considered by editors irksome and humiliating to be compelled to submit every paper to the Secretary; and the removal of this necessity was regarded as a boon, though accompanied by the most stringent rules. Lord Hastings, in his reply, adverted to this subject; and, under the excitement of the occasion and the scene, indulged in a little flourish about the liberty of the Press, not very consonant with the rules he himself had framed. Mr. Buckingham thinks proper to consider this as a formal announcement of the liberty of the Press, and to disregard the rules and regulations

177
formally framed for the guidance of all editors. I will ask the House, if anything could be more unfair or uncandid, than to have culled from the speech of that distinguished nobleman, an expression used in the moment of exultation when returning thanks to a complimentary address; and to contend, that he regarded such expression as annulling the regulations which had been deliberately framed and passed by the Government of which Lord Hastings was the head? Mr. Buckingham knew as well as I do, that it was not competent for Lord Hastings, by anything that he could either speak or write, to annul, alter, or in anywise affect a regulation passed by the Governor-General in Council. I beg to apologise for having dealt so much at length on the state of the Press when Mr. Buckingham established his paper; but the House will see that it is indispensably necessary they should be made acquainted with the rules and regulations then in force, and to which Mr. Buckingham was bound to yield implicit obedience. I will now call the attention of the House to the general conduct and character of The Calcutta Journal; and having been on the spot at the time, and having carefully read the evidence before the Committee, my opinion is, that the character of that paper was most dangerous and injurious—that it tended to bring the Government and public authorities into contempt in the eyes of the natives—and that it tended to create, and did create, disunion and dissensions in society. As editor of The Calcutta Journal, Mr. Buckingham arrogated to himself the right of arraigning all the measures of Government, and all public officers before the tribunal of what he was pleased to call "public opinion." He inculcated the doctrine, that it was vain and idle to apply for redress to the Government or constituted authorities, and invited all persons to appeal to him as the supreme arbiter; his paper was accordingly filled by anonymous letters—from persons purporting to be civil and military servants— of a tendency destructive of the efficiency and subordination of those services. He also admitted into his columns articles and letters containing personal remarks, which excited discord and dissension, and kept society in a state of feverish excitement. I do not mean to state, or impute to Mr. Buckingham, that such articles and letters were scandalous or libelous,
178
They might, probably, have been inserted in a London newspaper without exciting attention or interest; but in India every one is known, and remarks that in England, might be harmless, would there excite feelings of animosity, destructive of the peace and harmony of society. Such is my opinion of the tendency and character of The Calcutta Journal. The authorities both in India and in England entertained, and have repeatedly expressed, a similar opinion; and I maintain that the evidence and documents produced before the Committee, bear me out in all I have said. Where, I ask, was "the public" in India—of which Mr. Buckingham vaunts, and to whose "opinion" he says he appeals, when holding up to obloquy public men and measures? It is mockery to talk of "a public," and "public opinion," in India. There is no public in India. There, every man is in office, civil or military, controlling those below him, and owing obedience to those above him. It is a society of public functionaries, but there are no elements to form a public. I suppose no hon. Member will tell me, that the military officers in the service of the King and Company form a public? As little can it be said, that the civil tenants form a public. That service is a kind of civil garrison, where, of necessity, discpline and subordination are preserved nearly as strictly as in the army. At the time referred to, who were then in India, besides the civil and military officers? None but 300 or 400 tradesmen and shopkeepers in Calcutta, with the few barristers and attorneys attached to the Supreme Court, and a few straggling Europeans in the interior, engaged in the manufacture of indigo. Is this, then, "the public," that is to control our mighty empire in the East, and to afford an adequate and salutary check to power that is absolute? The Government in India ought to be, and is, under the control of public opinion, but that public is in England, where measures originating in absolute power will ever be received with jealousy, and scanned with suspicion. This control is effected and secured by a system and gradation of checks. Every public measure is placed upon record, and the reasons for it fully assigned. Complete diaries of all public proceedings are thus kept, and regularly transmitted to the Court of Directors, and Board of Control, to whose vigilant inspection they are subjected, They are also accessible to the

179
Members of this House; and the appeal from injustice in India is to this House, and through this House to the people of England,—and not to the editor of a paper in Calcutta, and a discontented faction, by whom he may be supported, and which he may dignify with the name of "a public." I shall now call your attention to the first offence committed by Mr. Buckingham, or rather the first occasion on which Government felt compelled to notice his frequent violations of the press regulations I am anxious that the House should hear the early and distinct warning given to Mr. Buckingham; and, also, that they should contrast his mild, meek, and submissive tone on this occasion, with his subsequent arrogant defiance of Government, when continued impunity had rendered him daring. The offensive paragraphs were published the 26th of May, 1819, and, as hon. Members call upon me to read them, I will do so.
"We have received a letter from Madras, of the 10th instant, written on deep black-edged mourning post of considerable breadth, and apparently made for the occasion, communicating, as a piece of melancholy and afflicting intelligence, the fact of Mr. Elliot's being confirmed in the government of that presidency for three years longer. It is regarded, at Madras, as a public calamity, and we fear that it will be viewed in no other light throughout India generally. An anecdote is mentioned in the same letter, regarding the exercise of the censorship of the press, which is worthy of being recorded, as a fact illustrative of the calosity to which the human heart may arrive; and it may be useful, humiliating as it is to the pride of our species,—to show what men, by giving loose to the principles of despotism over their fellows, may at length arrive at."
Here is an article, announcing that the continuance of a certain governor in office is regarded as a public calamity, and imputing to that Governor, that his conduct had been governed by despotic principles, and had been influenced by unworthy motives. It is not necessary, for the purposes of this motion, that I should discuss the policy or the law of the press regulations, but, if requisite, I am prepared to do so. I refer you to the press regulations, and I ask if there could be a more flagrant violation of them than what I have read? On the 18th of June, a letter was written to Mr. Buckingham by the Chief-Secretary, from which I will beg permission to read an extract.
"The Governor-General in Council regrets to observe, that this is not the only instance in
180
which The Calcutta Journal has contained publications at variance with the spirit of the instructions above referred to. On the present occasion, the Governor-General in Council does not propose to exercise the powers vested in him by law; but I am directed to acquaint you, that by any repetition of a similar offence, you will be considered to have forfeited all claim to the countenance and protection of this Government, and will subject yourself to be proceeded against under the 36th section of 53 Geo. 3rd. c. 155.
What is the statement of Mr. Buckingham before the Committee respecting this article? He says, that Lord Hastings did not consider it objectionable, and would never have noticed it, if Mr. Elliot had not written and remonstrated. Now, what is the fact as appears by the evidence? Two days after the publication of this offensive matter, Lord Hastings recorded a strong minute, and considered the article so objectionable, that he directed a reference to be made to the law-officers of Government. [Mr. O'Connell: What was their reply?] The Advocate-General stated, that however offensive and injurious the article might be, it would not be held libelous, and that Mr. Buckingham could not be indicted. Why that is my case— that is what I am contending for; that in India articles may be published, which are most dangerous and injurious, but which would not be held libels by an English Court of Justice, and thence the necessity for the press regulations. Now, let me read the reply of Mr. Buckingham:—
"I shall not presume to intrude on the notice of his Lordship in Council, any observations tending to the extenuation of my conduct in this or in any previous instance, as departing from the spirit of the instructions issued to the editors of the public journals in India at the period they were exempted from the necessity of previously submitting their publications to the revision of the Secretary to Government. I shall rather confine myself to observing, that I sincerely regret my having given cause to his Lordship in Council to express his displeasure; and the more so, as there is not an individual among the numerous subjects under his benign government, who is more sensible than myself of the unprecedented liberality which has marked his Lordship's administration in general, and the immense obligation which all the friends of the press owe to the measure of the revised regulation in particular. The very marked indulgence which his Lordship in Council is pleased to exercise towards me, in remitting, on this occasion, the exercise of the powers vested in him by law, will operate as an additional incentive to my future observance of the spirit of the instructions issued before the commencement of The

181
Calcutta Journal, to the editors of the public prints of India, in August, 1812, of which I am now fully informed, and which I shall henceforth make my guide."
Nothing could be more proper or becoming than this reply. I read it, not to reprobate it, but to contrast it with some of the statements of Mr. Buckingham, and with his subsequent conduct and language, when he hurls defiance at the Government, denies their right and power to transmit him, and ridicules, as waste paper, these very regulations which he here declares shall be his future guide. Mr. Buckingham states, and strenuously contends before the Committee, that when he set up his paper in October, 1818, he thought that the press was free and unfettered. Does he, in the first letter, pretend or allege that he imagined the press to be free? He does not deem it decent to attempt even an extenuation of his conduct. He expresses his regret at having offended,—his gratitude for the indulgence shown to him,—and promises in future obedience to the regulations; and shortly afterwards, in fulfilment of that promise, proclaims in his Journal, that those very regulations are of no more avail than waste paper, and that no editor is bound to obey or respect them. I will only trouble the House with one other article, published about a year afterwards, in November, 1820, headed "Merit and Interest." A reference was immediately made by order of Government to the Advocate-General, who stated that he considered the article as a libel on the Government and Administration of India, not only highly offensive in its terms, but mischievous in its tendency; and a rule nisi for a criminal information, was immediately moved for and obtained in the Supreme Court. I will not ask the House to take the character or description of that libel from the Advocate General or from me. I will read to you how Mr. Buckingham himself characterised it. In writing to Government and begging for that mercy which was extended to him, he says—
"Should this information be filed (as it will be almost impossible to escape coming within the strict legal definition of libel, though nothing could have been more remote from my meaning), I may be subjected to a fine of 500 l. and twelve months' imprisonment, for a crime, in which, if it be one, I am so far from participating, that I have been the most active agent in endeavouring to counteract and expose the miserable calumny which I am accused of propagating with seditious intent."
182
And afterwards, in his own Journal, speaking of this article, he calls it "a violent and libelous article."
Mr. Buckingham: The article was not written by me, as editor, but by a correspondent, and published inadvertently.
Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Member must be rather in error in stating that it was published, inadvertently; for in his own paper he states, as his excuse, that he published it only for confutation. These are Mr. Buckingham's own words; he published the libel only for confutation. This is a blessed doctrine for the editor of a paper! He deliberately publishes a gross and violent libel one day, that he may sit in judgment on it the next, and ex cathedra confute and condemn it. What would be said here, in free England, if the editor of the Times, or any leading paper, having published a libel, would dare to state that he had published it only that he might confute it? Sir, this is the most dangerous the most monstrous, doctrine that was ever heard of in any country. I hold in my hand a paper circulated by Mr. Buckingham, and containing extracts from the speeches of many distinguished individuals; and among others an extract of a speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, in which that noble Lord states, that he was in possession of all the facts laid before the Committee, and that there was not one article in The Calcutta Journal (I quote the noble Lord's words "that would not do honour to any man possessing an honest zeal for the welfare of the community." Such is the declared opinion of the noble Lord, as to this article, which was pronounced a libel by the Supreme Court,—was declared a violent libel by Mr. Buckingham himself,—and was, by him, deemed of such atrocity, that if the prosecution had been proceeded with, he would have been subject to incarceration for twelve months and a fine of 500 l. These, Sir, are instances during the early period of Mr. Buckingham's career, when, though he ventured frequently to transgress, he was always ready to express his contrition, and solicit forgiveness; and had not, from continued impunity, assumed the attitude of defiance. I told the House that I should confine myself to the general character of the paper, and I shall not intrude on their indulgence by going through all the offences committed by Mr. Buckingham, and all the warnings he received, I am well aware

183
that when speaking of the general character of the paper, I shall be told by hon. Members opposite, "Oh! we cannot listen to you or the authorities you cite; you have all been long resident in India; you have all long breathed the atmosphere of despotism, and you have not escaped the contagion to which you have been exposed." This, Sir, is a convenient mode of disposing of the opinions of gentlemen, who from long residence in India, are surely the most competent to judge of the condition and circumstances of that country. But I ask, how comes it that any fresh importation from England became similarly infected? How comes it that the Bishop and the Commander-in-Chief, who had passed their lives in free England, were compelled to address the Government on the subject of The Calcutta Journal, and to require that the clergy might be protected from obloquy, and the army from insubordination? In July, 1821, the Bishop was compelled to address Government, complaining of an anonymous letter, charging the Chaplains with gross delinquency, and imputing to the Bishop, that he connived at the offence. So frequent were the anonymous letters, purporting to be written by military officers, and so dangerous their tendency, that in June, 1822, the Commander-in-Chief found it necessary to publish a General Order on the subject. For three years was the indulgence and clemency of Government extended to Mr. Buckingham, who was almost justified in mistaking forbearance for weakness, and in demeaning himself accordingly. In 1822, he not only transgressed the regulations, but boldly contended in his paper, and publicly proclaimed, that they were not binding, and that he owed them no obedience. He also publicly maintained, and proclaimed, that by law the Governor-General had no power or right to transmit an editor. Was it to be endured that the editor of a paper should thus set at defiance the Government, and hold up to scorn and ridicule, as waste paper, the regulations which he was bound to obey, and which, after his first offence-he declared should be the rule of his future conduct? Was it to be endured, that he should delude the ignorant and encourage the factious, by contending and dictating in his paper, that the Governor-General had no power to transmit for any offence committed through the Press, although he had again and again been referred to the
184
Statute, which is as clear and distinct as language can make it;—and, after more-over, he himself had expressed his gratitude to Government for not putting in force against him the provisions of that very Statute? The hon. Member for Middlesex has contrasted the conduct of Lord Hastings with that of Mr. Adam, and has told you, that if Lord Hastings had remained, Mr. Buckingham would not have been sent from India. Now, Sir, what are the facts, and I will leave the House to draw their own conclusion? Every warning that was given to Mr. Buckingham, and every letter that was written to him, was while Lord Hastings was at the head of the Government. In the very first letter that was written to Mr. Buckingham by the order of Lord Hastings, and which I have read to the House, he is distinctly told, that a repetition of his offence will subject him to transmission. That warning and threat was again and again repeated; and will any man, who knew that great and distinguished individual, venture to assert, that he would have deigned to threaten what he was not prepared to perform? In September, 1822, while Lord Hastings was still in India, Mr. Buckingham received his final warning; and, as his next offence was accordingly punished by transmission, I trust the House will permit me to read part of the letter written to him on that occasion:—
"Whether the Act of the British Legislature, or the opinion of an individual shall be predominant, is now at issue. It is, thence, imperative on the duty of the Local Government to put the subject at rest. The long-tried forbearance of the Governor-General in Council will fully prove the extreme reluctance with which he adopts a measure of harshness; and, even now, his Excellency in Council is pleased to give you the advantage of one more warning. You are now finally apprized, that if you shall again venture to impeach the validity of the Statute quoted, and the legitimacy of the power vested by it in the chief authority here, or shall treat with disregard any official injunction, past or future, from Government, whether communicated in terms of command, or in the gentle language of intimation, your licence will be immediately cancelled, and you will be ordered to depart forth-with from India."
Lord Hastings left India shortly afterwards, and the next offence was committed during the temporary government of Mr. Adam; but if Lord Hastings had remained, will any one contend, that he would have hesitated to discharge what he himself had

185
declared to be an imperative duty? I had the honour and pleasure of knowing Lord Hastings well; and, however great the liberality and humanity of that distinguished nobleman, he would have scorned to dictate the threat I have just read to you, if he had not been prepared to execute it in the discharge of what he considered a public duty. It may be asked, why did Lord Plastings forbear so long?—why did he not send off Mr. Buckingham long before? I will refer you to his own words for the reason. He did not forbear because he had any doubts as to the dangerous character and tendency of The Calcutta Journal. He says, in a minute made by him on the subject, that he was reluctant to visit Mr. Buckingham with the last severity, "because he regarded him as the tool of a faction in Calcutta, that were arrayed in hostility against the Government." He thought that Mr. Buckingham, if left to himself, would yield obedience to the laws; and he hesitates and abstains, from feelings of compassion towards Mr. Buckingham individually, regarding him merely as an instrument in the hands of others. All the authorities, both at home and in India, were agreed as to the dangers to be apprehended from the abuses of a licentious press in India, and as to the necessity of adopting some strong measures of prevention. It is a strange coincidence, that on the 1st of March, 1823, the very day in which Mr. Buckingham embarked for England, Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Wynn, were assembled at Fife-House, and in a minute made there, recorded their opinions of the dangers to which the British power in India might be exposed by the abuse of a licentious press; and they distinctly state in that minute, that the transmission of the individual offending is the ultimate foundation on which any step that may be taken must rest for its support and efficiency. Let the House bear in mind, that there was no middle course—no matter how dangerous the articles published —no matter how calculated to bring the Government into contempt—to excite the alarm of the natives—to create insubordination in the army and dissension in society; still, if not indictable as a libel by the law of England, the Government had no power to prevent or control the publication of such articles, except by warning at first, and ultimately by trans-
186
mission. The authority of the noble Lord the Member for Glasgow, the late Governor-General of India, has also been referred to, and you have been told that his opinions as to the press in India have already been evinced by his vote this Session in favour of Mr. Buckingham when the Bill was thrown out. I beg the attention of the House, while I read to them the opinions of that noble Lord, deliberately recorded by him so late as 1830. On the 6th of September, 1830, be recorded a minute on the subject of the press, an extract of which I will ask permission to read:—
"To prevent, as far as may be possible, the publication of remarks (the disrespectful nature of which may be too certainly anticipated), that this despatch will call forth, it seems necessary that a prohibition should proceed from the Secretary to Government to all editors of papers, from admitting into their columns any observations whatever upon this official document."
And further on—
"I have always said and thought that, as well with the liberty of the press as of the subject, it was indispensable for the safety of the empire, that the Governor-General in Council should have the power of suspending the one, and of transmitting the other, whenever the safety of the State should call for the exercise of such authority."
This was not the assertion of any bare abstract public principle. The noble Lord carried it into immediate execution; and, on the same day, he ordered the Chief Secretary to write to all the editors a circular which, as it is very short, I shall also ask leave to read:—
"I am directed by the right-honourable the Governor-General in Council to acquaint you, that you are prohibited from admitting into your paper any comments on the letter from the honourable the Court of Directors, No. 37 dated 31st March, 1830."
Now, I should like to know what that noble Lord would have done if the editors had disregarded and disobeyed his injunction? But, still more, what would the noble Lord have done if he had deemed it necessary to repeat such injunctions, and the editors had persevered in disobedience? I know the noble Lord's humanity, but I also know his firmness in the discharge of his duty; and I am afraid that any offending editor would have been in imminent peril of losing his licence. From what I have already stated, the House will readily understand why

187
The Calcutta Journal had great circulation, and realised considerable profits. It is to be regretted, but it is not the less true, that the paper which contains the strongest animadversions on Government.—the most violent strictures on public officers, and the most personal remarks—will always have the greatest circulation. I do not deny that The Calcutta Journal was conducted with ability; but the House must not suppose that Mr. Buckingham was the only able editor in Calcutta. There were then, many papers in Calcutta, conducted by men of great talents and learning; and some of whom now fill the highest stations both at home and in India. But these gentlemen then complained, and I now complain, that Mr. Buckingham had a monopoly of the articles I have enumerated. They obeyed the laws, and abstained from all strictures on Government and public men, and from all personal remarks, while Mr. Buckingham dealt in all those contraband commodities; and he, who calls himself the great enemy of all monopolies, for four years enjoyed the exclusive trade in articles, that were prized the more, because they were prohibited,—and thence the circulation of his paper. The hon. Member for Shaftesbury says, that Mr. Buckingham's only offence appears to have been, that he was more forward in liberality and legislation than his time, and that the Parliament of England have adopted and carried into execution many of the principles, for the assertion of which he was punished. Now, Sir, let us apply this doctrine and see its results. Suppose Mr. Buckingham, instead of establishing his paper, had arrived in Calcutta, in 1818, with a cargo of goods then contraband, but now legal—suppose he had said, that actuated solely by sentiments of benevolence, he had voyaged to India to supply the poor natives and his enslaved countrymen with what they required, on reasonable terms, and to day and break down the infamous system of monopoly and exclusion which compelled them to deal with a rapacious company— suppose that his ship so freighted, had been seized, and that notwithstanding his patriotic professions, it had been confiscated, would you now hear him say to Parliament, "I led the way—I broke down the system—I adventured gallantly—and you, the Parliament, cannot say that I was wrong, for you have stolen and adopted my principles—restore to me my good ship and cargo, which was confiscated under laws which
188
ought never to have existed, and which I was the first to assail?" Such, Sir, is the argument of the hon. Gentleman, as practically illustrated. I feel that I have trespassed on the time and indulgence of the House, but the story is a long one, and I endeavour to compress it as much as I can. On the 8th of February, 1823, Mr. Buckingham disregarded the last solemn warning he had received, again offended by animadverting on the conduct of Government in an appointment they had made, and on the 12th his licence was withdrawn by the order of Mr. Adam, then acting as Governor-General—[Hear! hear!] And notwithstanding that cheer, I say it is fortunate that Mr. Buckingham was sent home by such a man as Mr. Adam, as it excludes the possibility of establishing any charge of harshness or severity. Eminent for talents and attainments of the highest order, Mr. Adam was the proudest ornament of the distinguished service to which he belonged —benevolent almost to weakness—and generous almost to profusion—he was beloved with devotion while living—and now that he is gone, his memory is hallowed by blessings throughout the continent of India. This, Sir, is not the language of panegyric—it is the language of truth. I have not uttered a word to which my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Ashburton, will not now more than bear testimony; and if my right hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcudbright was in his place, he would pour forth his soul in eloquence, whilst dwelling on the talents and virtues of that distinguished and truly good man. I have stated, that on the 12th of February, Mr. Buckingham was informed that his licence was withdrawn, and on the 1st of March he embarked for England. This is the most important period in the case, and I entreat the attention of the House to the conduct of Mr. Buckingham, and the endurance of Government during this period. I have heard Gentlemen on both sides, say, "supposing it was necessary to send away Mr. Buckingham, why interfere with his property, and suppress his paper? My reply is,—"I deny that when Mr. Buckingham was transmitted, Government in any manner interfered with his property or papers." Nay, I declare, that Mr. Buckingham shall have my vote if any gentle man can show me that Government, either directly or indirectly interfered with him whilst making what arrangement he pleased on his departure. The case has been treated as if Mr. Buckingham had offended,

189
and had been punished by transmission and the suppression of his paper; and the House and public have been thus misled. There are three distinct intervals in the case. The first, from the establishment of The Calcutta Journal till the transmission of Mr. Buckingham; the second, from the departure of Mr. Buckingham till the 4th of April, when the new press regulation was passed; and the third, from the passing of that regulation until November, when the licence granted under that regulation was withdrawn. On the 12th, Mr. Buckingham was informed that he must leave India; on the 14th, two days afterwards, he sneers at and defies the Government, both in his paper and in a pamphlet which he circulated. He boasts that by appointing, as editor, an Anglo-Indian, who is not liable to transmission, he has secured the independence of his paper. He invites the Company's servants to correspondence, and suggests the means of conducting it clandestinely. He also invites them to take shares in his paper, and suggests the means of holding them secretly. He speaks of his own transmission, and all the arrangements he has made, as a consummation devoutly to be wished; and adds his belief, that the circulation of his paper will thereby be greatly increased. Government might, if they pleased, have prohibited their servants from holding shares in a paper, placed under a management, that declared to be in defiance of the regulations—they might, if they pleased, have prohibited the circulation of the paper beyond the Mahratta ditch, or local limits of Calcutta. But I repeat, and beg the attention of the House to this fact, that although the Government did consider the conduct of Mr. Buckingham as most offensive and insulting; yet they did not, by word or deed, directly or indirectly, say or do anything that could in any manner affect the property in the paper, or interfere with the arrangements which Mr. Buckingham might choose to make. If we are to judge from Mr. Buckingham's triumphant exultation, and the rapidity with which he made all his engagements, we must suppose that he sought and courted the martyrdom of transmission, and had prepared himself for its consequences. On the 12th of February, that he is told he must leave India in two months; within five days he states that the transfer of his property has been made and completed, and in fourteen days he embarks for Europe. We come now, Sir, to the second interval—
190
from the departure of Mr. Buckingham to the passing of the new press regulations. On the 14th of March, the new editor, Mr. Sandys, was apprized, that the character of The Calcutta Journal remained the same, and he was warned of the consequences. On the 4th of April the new regulation was passed, prohibiting any person to print or publish any public journal without having obtained a licence for that purpose from Government. This regulation was rendered necessary by the daring conduct of the new editor, from the perid when Mr. Buckingham, was ordered to leave India. I will not myself describe to you the conduct and character of the paper during this interval. I will give you its character from the lips of Sir Francis Macnaughton, one of the most distinguished Judges that ever sat on the Indian Bench—eminent not only for his talents and learning, but for his liberality and humanity, and referred to by Mr. Buckingham himself as a witness. When the new press regulation was presented for registry in the Supreme Court, it was opposed by Counsel, who appeared for The Calcutta Journal; and I hope the House will permit me to read a few extracts of what fell from Sir Francis Macnaughton when pronouncing the judgment of the Court. Adverting to the necessity of such a regulation he says:
"That if this was not a case in which the enactment of a regulation was proper, he was at a loss to conceive how any regulation could be justified by its propriety. He went further, and declared some such one to be, in his opinion, absolutely necessary."
Then adverting to the editor being a half-caste, Sir Francis says—
"If he had been a British subject, and committed an offence against the British Government to-day, he might be ordered to depart from the country to-morrow. Yet what is the insolent boast? That he is free from all control of Government, and amenable to this Court alone. That is, that he may print and publish anything, however seditious and destructive of the Government's authority; that he may continue such publications at pleasure; and that they cannot even be questioned until the next Session, which will be in June; and although a bill of indictment may be found against him, he may, perhaps, traverse over until October, giving him all the intermediate time to bring the Government into hatred and contempt, and to hold it in open defiance. The Government had thought proper to order Mr. Buckingham (the late editor of The Calcutta Journal) to be transported to his own country. He (Sir Francis) did not think himself at liberty to enter at all into the merits of

191
that proceeding. Sitting where he sat, it would be highly improper in him to give an opinion upon the question; it may be, at least, assumed that the order, in the opinion of Government, was proper. And what was the consequence? An immediate proclamation of defiance, a declaration that the paper should be continued upon its former plan, and on the same principles, because the editor to be appointed would not be within the reach of the Government's immediate authority. Nay, they went further, and announced the folly and weakness of the Government in having removed Mr. Buckingham from his office, and in not having so much sagacity as to discern that another editor might be appointed who would be free from their control, and that they had aggravated the evil of which they complained, by subjecting themselves to a greater annoyance in this country, and by sending Mr. Buckingham to another, where he could be a more formidable opponent; and that they had thus, instead of being exposed to one battery, placed themselves between two forces. He asked if any Government ought to submit to such insolence and outrage, or if such a one as this could be consistent with such a press?"
As we have heard so much about property, I entreat the attention of the House to what Sir Francis says on this subject:—
"As to the property of those who might have speculated upon profit to be derived from an abuse of the Government, it stood upon a very different footing. The Government is no guarantee to such an adventure. It may truly say, "Non hœac in fœdera veni." The Government is free to act as it may think proper; but he hoped, if there was any body concerned in such a fund, that he would not be suffered to benefit by his speculation. If, like other funds, it was to rise as the State in hostility was reduced, and to advance upon every defeat of the enemy—the Government being that enemy—he trusted it would not be long before he saw an end of such a stock and of such a stock-jobbing."
What Sir Francis Macknaughton says is most true. The stock in trade was the abuse of Government; and you will presently see, that when this stock was withdrawn, the whole concern tumbled to pieces. On the 4th of April, after a long argument, the press regulation was registered by the Supreme Court; and after that registry, no person could print or publish any public journal without having previously obtained a licence. I have read to the House a description of the conduct of The Calcutta Journal, after the abdication of Mr. Buckingham, and while under the management of Mr. Sandys; and I ask the House, if they
192
would be much surprised if they heard that Government, before granting a licence to such a paper, had required some alteration in its management. Here was an opportunity when the Government could have evinced their displeasure, and controlled the paper as they pleased. No such course was adopted. Mr. Sandys, the offending editor, applied for a licence, and obtained one immediately, without limit or restriction, on the same ground on which a licence was granted to the editor of any other paper then existing. I come now to the third interval—I mean the period from April, when the licence was granted to The Calcutta Journal, under the new regulation, until November, when that licence was withdrawn; and over this period I feel that I must hurry rapidly, having already trespassed too long on the kind indulgence of the House. On the 8th of April, the Commander-in-Chief was again compelled to interfere, to prevent publications inducing insubordination in the army. On the 18th of July, the Chief Secretary addressed Mr. Palmer and Mr. Ballard, the constituted attorneys of Mr. Buckingham, noticing seven violations of the law within thirteen days, and Mr. Palmer and Mr. Ballard replied, disclaiming any influence or control over the management of the paper—and thus compelling the Government to visit on those conducting the paper, and on the paper itself, any consequences arising from disobedience of the laws. On the 23rd of September, the Government was under the necessity of noticing the continued violation of the press regulation; and not wishing to suppress the paper, by withdrawing the licence, they ordered home the assistant-editor, Mr. Arnott, then residing in India without permission. This severe measure proved as unavailing as the milder warnings; the law continued to be broken and defied, and on the 6th of November the licence was withdrawn, and the paper could no longer be published. Here again, I deny, that the Government interfered with the sale of the paper; the attorneys of Mr. Buckingham might have sold it the next day, and would have done so, if they could have found a purchaser. Mr. Merton proposed to rent the premises and conduct the paper for a limited period; but after some correspondence, Government thought it right to refuse him a licence, because it did not appear that he

193
would have the sole control. He afterwards made some arrangements with Mr. Buckingham's attorneys, and having sent in an affidavit, stating that he was sole-proprietor, he obtained a licence, and continued the paper, under the name of The Scotsman, in the East, for about seven months, when the paper died a natural death. I feel most grateful to the House for the attention with which they have been pleased to honour me; and I trust I have redeemed my pledge by showing that the House and the public have been misled and deceived by having this matter represented as one transaction—as if Mr. Buckingham had offended, and for that offence had been transmitted, and his paper suppressed, and his property ruined. I have shown you, that, for two years, Mr. Buckingham, in reply to repeated warnings from Government, expressed his contrition, and promised, in future, an obedience, which he never observed;—that, encouraged by impunity, he latterly defied the Government, denied their authority, and held up to derision and contempt their regulations; and that Government did not resort to the extremity of sending him home, till they were compelled to do so by his perseverance in a course which he well knew could lead to no other result:—that, when he was required to leave Calcutta, the Government neither directly nor indirectly interfered with his property, nor with the transfer and management of his paper, but permitted him to make his own arrangements, at a time when he was sneering at and defying them. I have shown you how offensive and insulting was the conduct of The Calcutta Journal, under the editorship of Mr. Sandys, from the departure of Mr. Buckingham until the registry of the press regulations; and that, notwithstanding such misconduct, a licence was granted to him, in common with all other editors. I have shown you that, after the granting of such licence, the law continued to be violated and defied by Mr. Sandys:—that Mr. Buckingham's friends and attorneys disclaimed having any control over the management of the paper:—that all warnings and threats were scorned and disregarded by Mr. Sandys:—that the contest at length was, whether the Governor-General in Council or The Calcutta Journal should be supreme;—and that the Government were thus reluctantly compelled to have
194
resort to the last extremity, and withdraw the licence from the paper.
If The Calcutta Journal was so valuable as has been represented, how comes it that Mr. Buckingham's attorney did not immediately sell the good-will and stock in trade? How comes it that Mr. Merton, who attempted to continue the paper, was obliged to abandon it in seven months? I have already told you the reason, and will repeat it, because it is an answer to all that has been urged by Mr. Buckingham. For four years The Calcutta Journal attained extensive circulation, and realised considerable profits by a flagrant violation of the law, to which other papers yielded obedience. When the licence was withdrawn, and it became notorious that the Government was determined to vindicate its authority and enforce the law, the paper was deprived of an advantage that it ought never to have been permitted to have enjoyed. It was then, for the first time, placed in fair competition with the other Journals—to that competition it proved unequal,—and in seven months was abandoned as a losing concern;—and thus ends the history of The Calcutta Journal. Before sitting down, I will, with the permission of the House, draw their attention to a libel published at Madras, so lately as December, 1834; and I am anxious to do so, because all idea of danger, either to the State, or individuals in India, has been ridiculed. The letter I allude to is signed, "The East Indian Franklin;" and as a specimen, I will read a few extracts from it.
"Let every one of us boldly determine, whenever a fair opportunity offers, to send an useless resident, a wicked collector, a sleeping member of the council, &c. to the * * let us mark every favoured servant of the John Company, or rather the embryos of the future John Company; and if we cannot, then let us mark them with the signs of our vengeance. Most of us have daily hundreds of opportunities to act the part of an E—A—, and often with more impunity, or with perfect safety to our lives; if so, why should we hesitate to make a few embryos of the future John Company undergo the fate of a C— C—."
I will tell you the persons indicated by the initials I have read. E. A. is Enam Ally, who murdered Colonel Coombs on parade, and C. C. is that Colonel Coombs, The letter thus concludes,—
"Snatch the bloohy dagger with which our tyrants incessantly wound us, and show it to them; and if the sight of the blood they spill

195
do not turn their hearts, bury it deep into their bosoms,"
This is a specimen of a "harmless, innocent libel," and published, too, within these two years. Mr. Buckingham stated before the Committee, that the persons composing the Petit Juries in India were residing with a licence revocable at pleasure, and intimated that Juries so com posed were ever ready to find a verdict of guilty when persons in authority prosecuted. I hope, Sir, and believe, that Juries in India will ever discharge their duty fairly and honestly, and must deny, that they have ever shown the tendency imputed to them. On the contrary, their leaning and bias is all the other way. The Petit Juries consist of tradesmen and shopkeepers, having no communication with the services, or with persons in authority, and completely segregated from them; and I say that they are by no means prone to find a verdict upon the prosecution of a person in authority. In the very case I have read to you, what think you was the finding of the Jury? Their verdict was, "guilty of publishing, inadvertently," and strongly recommending the defendant to mercy. This verdict the Judge refused to receive, and then a verdict of "guilty" was returned, with a strong recommendation to mercy of the person who had admitted into his columns this atrocious libel. I have not addressed myself to the amount of compensation, because I feel assured it will be the opinion of a very large majority of this House, that Mr. Buckingham is not entitled to any compensation whatever, either from the East-India Company or the public. I beg, Sir, to repeat my apologies for having intruded at such length on the indulgence of the House, and my thanks for the attention with which they have been pleased to hear me.
Mr. O'Connellcontended, that now the questions as to the circumstances of The Calcutta Journal, the amount of compensation to be paid to Mr. Buckingham, and the parties who were to pay it, were neither of them before the House, but the real and only question for consideration was the confirmation of the resolutions which the Committee had unanimously agreed to, after hearing the whole case opened and conducted by eminent counsel on both sides, and the examination of witnesses upon every point bearing upon the question at issue, which resolutions were drawn up by the hand of Lord Glenelg, then President of the Board of
196
Control, and now the principal Colonial Secretary. It was not, for it could not be denied, that Mr. Buckingham had suffered a most grievous wrong, and was he without any legal remedy? The proudest despot on the earth could not with impunity injure or offend the poorest Englishman; there was in that House a tribunal—there was in England a moral force, which cast its protection over all who bore the English name, and surely it would not be alleged that Mr. Buckingham formed an exception to that rule hitherto deemed universal. The question was really not the amount of the compensation, but there did arise a very serious question between the East- India Company and the people of this country. At all events, there was one thing to which, as a Member of that House, he could not consent—namely, that a British subject should be ruined and robbed, and then told that a reformed House of Commons could afford no remedy.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the present question had been already fairly and fully tried—had been decided by a competent and solemn tribunal; and now, if the present proceeding were successful, they must reconsider that decision in a totally different, and, as he would contend, irregular form, and annul it altogether. It had, on the previous occasion, been brought forward as a private Bill, and now it was to be considered in the form of a public resolution. He thought himself entitled to say, that he was as open as any Member of that House, to a claim of justice. It had been said that justice was blind, but he presumed it would hardly be contended that justice should have one eye open, and be alive only to the interests of the complainant. Justice he desired to have; but justice required that both sides should be heard. In his opinion, nothing could be clearer than that the case was strictly a private question, and he desired to know what grounds there had been laid for taking it out of the regulations according to which all private questions were discussed in that House. Then it was alleged, that the amount was of no importance; surely the amount which the hon. Gentleman, whom he was sorry to see in his place, ought to receive, was the question, or at least formed so very large and important a part of it, and was so intimately interwoven with the entire question, that no just or successful

197
attempt could be made at a separation. Then if the House affirmed by its resolution the statement that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to 10,000 l., what became of the distinct assurance given on a former occasion, that the question then brought before the House was a private and not a public question? The House was, therefore, most seriously called on to deliberate respecting the course which it would pursue. First, the hon. Gentleman demanded 5,000 l.— next, 40,000 l.—then 10,000 l.; the last was what he at present required, and under such conflicting demands, he professed himself at a loss to know how the House was to legislate. It was most unusual thus to come forward with a public resolution, when a private Bill had been lost, and even if the resolutions were agreed to, it would be mere waste paper, so far as its effects went upon the minds of the East-India Directors. One consideration urged upon the attention of the House was this truly—the resolution ought to be at once affirmed, because the Bill was on the former occasion defeated by an accident. What would the House think, if he were to come down and say, "A private Bill having been carried by an accidental majority, for compensating the hon. Member for Sheffield, the House ought to remedy that evil, by adopting a public resolution, with a view to deprive him of that compensation?" In spite of all the menaces of the hon. Member, and in spite of the letters the hon. Member might address to the electors of Nottingham, he meant conscientiously to discharge his duty. He hoped that on consideration his hon. Friend, the Member for Poole would not press this extraordinary question to a division. He could not be serious in that intention; it was impossible that he could be serious. There never in the history of Parliament was an instance in which the Legislature paid a set of men by a resolution, for to that it would come, since this resolution must be intended to be the basis of some Bill or other,
Mr. Buckinghamwas not about to give his opinion on this question, and he only wished to make an observation in answer to a complaint which the right hon. Gentleman had made, that he (Mr. Buckingham) was present while this matter was discussed. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would give him leave to state that this question was now being heard judicially, and he would ask if there was
198
any instance known of a plaintiff being excluded from a Court of Justice while his cause was being tried. He denied having sent any threatening letters to any part of the country, and he disclaimed writing anything in the Sheffield Iris, reflecting on anybody for the course they had pursued in reference to this question. As to writing to Members of that House to request their attendance in support of the motion, he had the example of his Majesty's Government for doing that.
Mr. Harveywished to ask a question of the hon. Member for Northampton, which would, if answered in the affirmative, place the point at issue in a very narrow compass. He had understood the hon. Member to say, that the solicitor of the East-India Company, so far from concurring in the correctness of the statement made by Mr. Buckingham, estimating the damage he had sustained at 40,000 l., had declared that it could not exceed 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. If so, that was an admission from the proper quarter, that a considerable sum of money was due to Mr. Buckingham.
Mr. Vernon Smith,in answer to the question put to him, said, that Mr. Peacock, when before the Committee, at first defended the whole case, and denied that Mr. Buckingham had any claim to compensation, and afterwards, supposing that the Committee had decided that Mr. Buckingham was entitled to compensation, he went to show, that admitting him to be entitled to some compensation, it could not exceed more than 7,000 l. or 8,000 l.
Mr. George F. Youngthought that a moderate sum ought to be given to the hon. Member for Sheffield out of the public purse, because he had been injured by the public; but he objected to the source from which that remuneration would be provided by the resolutions, as the East-India Company was not to blame, since the Government, and not the East-India Company, appointed the Governor-General.
Major Beauclerkwas surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of the Committee that reported in favour of Mr. Buckingham's claim, should pursue the course which he had adopted. He was surprised also that he should accuse the hon. Member for Sheffield of sending-menacing letters—an accusation so grave in its nature, that he ought to be called upon to prove it at the bar of the House or elsewhere. It was not right or fair to throw out these personalities before the House.
Sir John Hobhouseremarked, that so far from being a Member of the Committee which reported in favour of Mr. Buckingham's claim, he was not even in Parliament at the time.
Mr. Anderson Pelhamwished to ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, whether he himself, or some one else using his name, had sent him under an enclosure, addressed to him, three letters, with a request that he would forward them? He thought he had understood the hon. Member to say, that he had not sent any letters, but these bore the signature of "J. S. Buckingham."
Mr. Buckinghamwas desirous of explaining a subject which it appeared was little understood. The hon. Baronet had adverted to a threatening letter which it was alleged he (Mr. Buckingham) had sent to the Sheffield Iris, and of his having in that newspaper used menacing language to him with respect to his opposition to his claims for compensation. He had before distinctly denied, and he did still deny, that part of the charge, he never having done anything of the kind. Disposing of that part of the charge, he would next allude to the letters. He certainly had written some fifty or sixty letters, the tenour of which he would repeat. There was in doing so no attempt at concealment, they having been dated from his own house, signed by his own name, and addressed to those Members likely to take an interest in his case. The letters contained a statement of facts, a printed Report of the Parliamentary Committee, and an expression to the effect that he should feel happy if the hon. Member to whom it was sent would do him the honour to transmit the documents to his constituents, for them to deal with the subject as they might think fit. As the hon. Member had stated in his case, one corporation did and another did not entertain the petition; but the general result was, that from ninety to ninety-five petitions from England, Scotland, and Ireland were sent up to Parliament, signed by 25,000 individuals. In procuring their signatures no magic art had been exercised. He was not in a condition to spend money very liberally, as other hon. Members might be. The moral influence of the facts themselves had been the only influence employed, and those he had left to the judgment of the public.
Mr. Bainesremarked, that the Committee came to an unanimous decision that
200
Mr. Buckingham ought to receive compensation, and if they had not the power of giving it, why was the Committee appointed?
Mr. Tulkreplied, that his right hon. Friend had appealed to him to withdraw his motion, a request with which he could not comply, and he could not but at the same time complain that this question, which was to have been treated as a neutral one, had been made a question of party. He could not but remark that the leader of the Government in that House was absent. He held in his hand an extract of the noble Lord's speech on a former occasion upon this subject. He did not know whether the noble Lord had paired off or not; but he knew that upon this subject he had expressed himself in the strongest manner, and that he had said, so far from attaching any blame to Mr. Buckingham, he thought his conduct highly honorable and praiseworthy, conformable to those rules of conduct and examples of freedom which ought to be held up to the imitation of his fellow-countrymen. Yet that noble Lord was not there to give the hon. Member the benefit of the expression of his opinion. He was sorry to think it; but he thought if it had been a question taken up by the other side of the House, there would have been more zeal displayed.
The House divided, when the numbers appeared:—Ayes 60 5 Noes 92; Majority, 32.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hindley, C.

Attwood, T.

Ingham, R.

Baines, E.

Lister, E. C.

Barnard, E. G.

M'Leod, R.

Beauclerk, Major

Maher, J.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bernal, R.

O'Brien, C.

Bish, T.

O'Connell, D.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bowring, Dr.

Palmer, General

Brady, D. C.

Parker, J.

Bridgeman. H.

Parrott, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pease, J.

Browne, R. D.

Potter, R.

Cave, R. O.

Poulter, J. S.

Cayley, E. S.

Pryme, G.

Collier, J.

Richards, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Roche, W.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon.

Rundle, J.

C. T.

Scholefield, J.

Ewart, W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Fielden, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Fitzsimon, C.

Stuart, V.

Gaskell, D.

Talbot, J. H.

Grattan, H.

Thompson, Colonel

Harvey, D. W.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Wallace, R.

201

Walter, J.

Wyse, T.

Warburton, H.

TELLERS.

Wason, R.

Hume, Mr.

Williams, W.

Tulk, Mr.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

King, E. B.

Alsager, Captai

Law, Hon. C. E.

Angerstein, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Archdall, M.

Lucas, E.

Bailey, J.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Mostyn, Hon. E.

Baring, F.

Nicholl, Dr.

Barnaby, J.

North, F.

Blackburne, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blackstone, W. S.

Parker, M.

Bonham, R. F.

Pelham, Hon. C. A.

Bramston, T. W.

Perceval, Colonel

Brownrigg, S.

Pigot, R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Chandos, Marquess of

Plumptre, J. P.

Chichester, A.

Plunkett, Hon. R. E.

Chisholm, A. W.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Denison, J. E.

Praed, W. M.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Price, S. G.

Duffield, T.

Bickford, W.

Duncombe, Hon. A.

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Egerton, W. T.

Ross, C.

Elley, Sir J.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Estcourt, T.

Scott, J. W.

Estcourt, T.

Scourfield, W. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Seymour, Lord

Forbes, W.

Sheppard, T.

Forster, C. S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fort, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Geary, Sir W.

Townley, R. G.

Gladstone, T.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Hale, R. B.

Turner, W.

Halse, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Hawes, B.

Walpole, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

West, J. B.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Whitmore, T. C.

Henniker, Lord

Wilkins, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Williams, R.

Hogg, J. W.

Wilson, H.

Howard, P. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Hoy, J. B.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Young, G. F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

TELLERS.

Irton. S.

Smith, Mr.

Kearsley, J. H.

Baring, Mr.

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

E. W. Pendarves

H. Goulburn

J. J. Guest

J. G. Heathcote

Alderman Wood

Hon. S. R. Lushington

T. F. Buxton

R. Sanderson

Captain Dundas

J. M. Fector

Sir S. Whalley

J. A. Smith

O'Conor Don

E. J. Stanley

A. Lynch

J. Young

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.
Mr. Vernon Smithmoved for "leave to bring in a
202
Bill for the election of Charitable Trustees in the corporate towns in England and Wales." Some such measure as the present was rendered necessary by the Act which passed last Session, "for the better regulation of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales." The House would remember that, in the discussions on that Bill in this House, it was the general object to separate the management of the Charitable Trusts from the immediate control of the Town Councils; and clauses were introduced for that purpose by the noble Lord, the Home Secretary. In the House of Lords, however, Lord Lyndhurst had proposed that these clauses should be expunged from the Bill, on the ground that Lord Brougham had then before that House a Bill "for the Regulation of all Charities, and for the Extension of Education," and in consequence the clauses were withdrawn. Clauses were substituted of a temporary nature, providing that, until August this year, these trusts should remain under the control of the Corporations, and that after that period the nomination of trustees should be vested in the Lord Chancellor, or in the Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time being. Now it was obvious that the Legislature never intended that either of these arrangements should be permanent. The latter would lead to great expense and delay; while it was not to be expected that the Legislature should, after it had been declared that the Corporations were unfit to manage their corporate funds, vest these corporations with the management of the Charitable Trusts belonging to the several towns of England and Wales. It was therefore, with a view of making a permanent provision for the management of these funds that the present Bill was introduced-a Bill which would not in the slightest degree interfere with the working of any Bill that might hereafter be introduced for the general regulation of charities. He proposed that these charitable trusts should be vested in Local Commissioners, but with a view to counteract, as far as possible, the influence of political feelings in the election of the new trustees, the Bill would provide that they should be chosen in the way the auditors were now, and not as were the town councillors-namely, every individual in the constituency would be entitled to a vote, but only for half the number required, which should be fixed by the

203
Town Council. He proposed to leave to the Town Council the power of fixing the number of Commissioners, a certain number going out annually by rotation, but the number would always be one divisible by three. He also proposed to leave it to their own discretion to fix the times of their meetings. In order to keep up some correspondence with the Town Council which might sometimes be useful, he proposed that the mayor should be ex-officio one of the Trustees: and he did not exclude Town Councillors from that body, if the burgesses chose to elect them Commissioners, but it was his (Mr. Vernon Smith's) desire, by every means in his power, to separate the management of these trusts from the political discussions of the Corporations; and it was, therefore, provided, that the treasurer of the Corporation should not be the treasurer of the Commissioners, and that in general all the officers of the two bodies should be distinct.
Colonel Sibthorpedid not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he hoped ample time would be given for its discussion, as it was a most important measure.
Mr. Potterexpressed his great satisfaction that a measure of this kind had been introduced.
Leave given.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time.—Judicial Ratifications (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of DOWNSHIRE from Newry, in favour of Amendments made by their Lordships to the Irish Municipal Corporations Act. By several noble Lords from various places for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY (IRELAND)
Lord Lyndhurstrose to present a petition from a Roman Catholic clergyman of Ireland, complaining of great injustice and oppression to which he had been exposed, and requesting the interposition and protection of their Lordships' House. He (Lord Lyndhurst) certainly could not in that instance venture to say, that their Lordships could afford the petitioner the
146
redress for which he prayed; but as the petition was respectfully worded, and as the facts to which the petitioner referred appeared to him (Lord Lyndhurst) to be well authenticated, he felt it his duty to state them to their Lordships. The petitioner, whose name was Dr. Mulholland, had for many years held a Roman Catholic living in the county of Louth, and, according to testimonials which he had seen, Dr. Mulholland, had obtained respect and esteem for his piety and good conduct from all persons in the district in which he resided. It happened, however, that he had the misfortune to bring upon himself the animosity of the Roman Catholic priest in an adjoining parish, and that individual thought himself justified in circulating calumnies greatly to the prejudice and disadvantage of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in justification of his character, he applied to the titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of the province, at that time Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly saw the propriety of the appeal, and directed his vicar-general to investigate the matter. The result of the investigation was, that the vicar-general came to the conclusion that there was no foundation whatever for the charges preferred against the petitioner, and he accordingly directed the person preferring them to make a public apology. This, however, that person refused to do; and under these circumstances, the petitioner had no alternative but to bring an action in one of the civil courts for defamation of character. The action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and after a full investigation of the whole matter, a verdict was pronounced by the jury in favour of the petitioner. His conduct having thus been twice investigated—first before the domestic tribunal appointed by the titular Archbishop, and afterwards before a jury of his countrymen, he felt that his character was completely vindicated, and of course expected that the matter would there have been allowed to rest. In a very short time afterwards, however, he was removed from his living by the authority of the titular Roman Catholic Primate, without any reason whatever being assigned for his removal, except the circumstance of his having instituted the civil action against a brother priest. It appeared extraordinary to the petitioner, and he thought it must also appear extraordinary to their Lordships, that this course should be adopted;

147
because, adverting to the testimony that was given by the Roman Catholic bishops before the Commissioners of Education, and in particular of an individual of great eminence, Dr. M'Hale, he found it stated over and over again, in the most distinct terms, that, in vindication of a civil right, it was no violation of the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, notwithstanding the Pope's bull to the contrary, for an ecclesiastic of that Church to institute proceedings before a civil tribunal against a brother divine. If their Lordships referred to the evidence given before the Education Commission, they would see, that questions upon that particular point were put in a great variety of forms, and in a manner the most sifting, and, that over and over again the same answer was returned. Under these circumstances, the petitioner, feeling himself deeply injured, appealed to the superior authority of his Church at the Court of Rome. There again the matter underwent a fresh investigation, which terminated by a rescript being forwarded from Rome to the Roman Catholic Archbishop in Ireland, recommending, in the strongest terms, that the petitioner should be reinstated in his living. In the meantime Dr. Kelly died, and Dr. Crolly was appointed titular Primate in his stead. The rescript was handed to that reverend person; he read it, considered it, said that its recommendation should be obeyed, and that the petitioner should be reinstated in his living. Thus the petitioner supposed that every thing was done according to his wish, and as the justice of the case seemed to require. In a short time, however, Dr. Crolly told him that he had altered his mind —that he should not reinstate him—that the love and veneration which he felt for the memory of his reverend predecessor, Dr. Kelly, was such that he could not by possibility reinstate one whom that excellent ecclesiastic had seen reason to dispossess. The petitioner asked Dr. Crolly if he had any thing to find fault with in his character or conduct? "Quite the contrary," said Dr. Crolly, "I consider you a model of piety and good conduct; but for the reason I have stated I cannot reinstate you." At the same time Dr. Crolly expressed himself so completely satisfied with the petitioner's conduct, that he gave him a paper attesting his merits in the strongest terms, and stating that he was distinguished in the highest degree for zeal, piety, and doctrine. Under these
148
circumstances the petitioner again thought it right to appeal to the tribunal at Rome, where the matter was again investigated with the same results. Meanwhile the petitioner was requested not to leave Ireland, and Dr. Murray, the titular Archbishop of Dublin, requested him, for the sake of maintaining peace and harmony in the Roman Catholic Church In Ireland, to accept of a curacy. The petitioner offered at once to do so. "I will accept a curacy," said he, "if Dr. Crolly will appoint me." Dr. Crolly promised to do so, and the petitioner relied on the fulfilment of that promise. In a few days, however, Dr. Crolly again told him, that he had changed his mind—that he would not give him a curacy in Ireland, but that he might, if he thought proper, go to America, or elsewhere. These were the facts of the case. A clergyman was calcumniated—he appealed for redress to the domestic tribunal appointed under his immediate ecclesiastical superior, an investigation took place—he was acquitted of all blame—his conduct was approved—the party calumniating him was desired to make amends—this the party refused to do—he then appealed to the laws of his country, which he was justified in doing— which a due regard to his character bound him to do—which, according to the authorities to whose testimony he (Lord Lyndhurst) had referred, was no offence against the rules of his Church—a jury of his countrymen, after a full investigation of the matter, completely vindicated his character, and pronounced a verdict against his calumniator—he was described by his ecclesiastical superior as highly distinguished for zeal, piety, and doctrine—and yet, under all these circumstances, he was stripped of his living because he dared to make an appeal to the laws of his country. In the course of his statement he (Lord Lyndhurst) had referred to a document to which he begged to call their Lordships' attention, because it showed how little attention was paid to those prohibitions and restrictions which were imposed at the time that Parliament was granting what was considered a great been to the Roman Catholics. By the 24th Clause of the Act for the Removal of the Disabilities of the Roman Catholics, it was enacted that no person should assume the title of Archbishop of any province, Bishop of any diocese, or Dean of any deanery, who was not entitled thereto by the law of the land,

149
That was a prohibition which was acceded to by the Roman Catholics at the time that the Act passed, and which their Lordships had every reason to suppose, and every right to expect would be obeyed. Yet the document to which he (Lord Lyndhurst)had referred, was signed by Dr. Crolly, describing himself as Archbishop of Armagh, and authenticated by Mr. Mathews M' Cann, describing himself as vicar general of the same province. He would not longer detain the House. He was sure their Lordships would feel the hardship of the petitioner's situation, and the injustice which had been done him, and that they would be anxious, if possible, to afford him some redress. He came before their Lordships, feeling himself aggrieved by his ecclesiastical superior, for no other reason than that he sought to obtain redress for an acknowledged injustice from the laws of his country. Under these circumstances he was sure their Lordships would feel disposed, if possible, to afford redress; at all events, they would justify his bringing these facts to their knowledge, and would allow the petition to he on their table.
Lord Hollandthought it most extraordinary that the noble and learned Lord should bring forward a subject so entirely alien to the functions of their Lordships' House as that which was then laid under their consideration. He (Lord Holland) had always been for throwing open the doors of the House to petitioners as much as any one within its walls; but he had always thought it was improper for their Lordships to receive any petition which was either couched in disrespectful language to the House, or called upon the House to do that which the House had not the power to do—which called upon the House, in fact, to exercise a jurisdiction where jurisdiction it had none. It was extraordinary, indeed, that the noble and learned Lord, above all other Lords in that House, should think it a part of the duty of that House to attend to the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church—for what else did the petitioner in this instance pray? The noble and learned Lord had told them a long story—he would not call it a cock-and-a-bull story, though it had something of the bull in it —a good deal was said about a bull of the Court of Rome; but the noble and learned Lord had told them a long story about the grievances of this Catholic clergyman. When that story was commenced, he ex-
150
pected to hear that the person whose petition was presented had not received justice at the hands of the constituted courts of law of the country; but it. appeared that he brought his action, and that a verdict was given in his favour. The noble and learned Lord did not tell them exactly what that verdict was, but he concluded that the benefit of that verdict, as against his libeller, was received from the justice of his country. But because a Church not recognised, not paid, not established by the Government of this country—because that Church chose to interfere with this person, a member of its own body, for having (as the petitioner alleged) sought redress in one of the courts of law—though it did not appear, from anything else than what the noble and learned Lord had stated, that that was the real cause—because his own Church, for some reason or other, thought fit to dispossess him from the living which he had previously held, their Lordships were called upon to interfere and to afford redress. Did their Lordships confer the living upon him? Had they the power either of taking it from him, or of conferring it upon him? The noble and learned Lord described all the Roman Catholics in Ireland as aliens in blood, in religion, and in disposition. Were their Lordships, then, entitled to regulate their spiritual concerns?—because it came to that. Were their Lordships to interfere in the exercise of the Church discipline, or in the spiritual affairs of those who received no temporal or secular advantages from the Government of the country? As fur as he understood the present petition, it appeared to him to be one which their Lordships could not properly receive. But whether they chose to receive it or not, of this he was certain—it was one upon which their Lordships ought not and could not act. For even supposing it were more consistent with the usages of the House, their Lordships would recollect that it complained of a grievance received by one man at the hands of another, and they would also remember that that House had no original jurisdiction, even if it were a question between Protestant and Protestant, and still less when it was a question between a Catholic priest and a Catholic archbishop. He always suffered pain when any person felt himself aggrieved, and came to Parliament for redress, that Parliament should not entertain his complaint. But still he thought their

151
Lordships should pause and consider before they received a complaint of such a nature as that contained in the present petition. If this complaint were entertained, it would be impossible to refuse a like indulgence to others; and were their Lordships really to enter into the question of how far the Church of Rome, in the discipline of its members, was actuated by correct and proper principles?
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, if the noble Baron, who had just sat down, was astonished at his noble and learned Friend for presenting the petition, he was in no degree less surprised at the tone which the noble Baron had adopted. He had understood, or at least had always believed, that it was the duty of every Member of that House not to refuse to present any petition properly and respectfully worded, from any oppressed person in the country, if the constitution of the realm did not afford that individual redress in any other quarter. When it was clearly evident that a person had been grossly injured, and when, under the constitution of the country, there was no court to which he could appeal for redress, he (Lord Wick-low) maintained, not with standing the doctrine of the noble Baron, that it was the duty of a Member of their Lordships' House to bring the subject under their Lordships' consideration. The petitioner, in the present instance, had requested him (Lord Wicklow) to support the prayer of his petition, and he certainly did so with the most unfeigned alacrity. He felt that the petitioner had been most severely and most unjustly treated—that a tyrannical power, unknown to the constitution of the country, had been exercised upon him; and for no other reason upon earth than that he had presumed to exercise the birthright of every British subject. Was it to be endured that any British subject should be deprived of the means of support at the will or dictation of any individual, and that solely because he dared to appeal to the laws of his country in a civil case? The petitioner had shown him testimonials of character from some of the most distinguished members of his own Church, and especially from the Roman Catholic Lord-Lieutenant of his own county, Sir Patrick Bellew, who deeply lamented the injury he had sustained, and strongly condemned the means by which that injury had been inflicted. It was truly surprising that the noble Baron (Holland), professing as he did Whig and liberal principles, should
152
be the first to raise his voice against the reception of a petition coming from an individual claiming redress in the only court in which he could now hope to obtain it. When the prisoner waited upon him to communicate his complaint, and to ask his support, the first question he put to him was, "Why do you not appeal to those persons who profess to be the representatives of your own persuasion? Why do you not appeal to some of those great patriots of your own country, who declare themselves to be friends of the oppressed —who are, in fact, the representatives of the order to which you belong—who owe their seats in Parliament to the support which they receive from those of your persuasion? Surely, the matter would come with greater weight before Parliament if it were introduced by one of those in the other branch of the Legislature." But these individuals knew too well the dangers to which they were exposing themselves; they would not venture to bring upon themselves the censure of those through whose instrumentality they obtained their entrance into Parliament. He had in his possession the answer of the individual who considered himself the representative, not only of the Catholics, but of the whole body of the Irish people, in which he refused indignantly to undertake the case of the petitioner, assigning as a reason that he (the petitioner) ought rather to submit to any injury which the discipline of the Church might bring upon him, than attempt to obtain redress from the ordinary tribunals of the country. In acting otherwise, the petitioner showed that he trusted rather to the fairness of the British public than to the justice of those of his own community. He thought an application of the kind extremely well-timed, now that persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion were endeavouring to impose upon the country, by making them believe that the doctrines they professed in no way interfered with the enjoyment of civil rights and civil privileges. It was well that the country should have an opportunity of seeing what was the real despotism of the Roman Catholic Church. In his opinion it was the bounden duty of his noble and learned Friend to present the petition.
Viscount Melbourneobserved that both the noble Lords had allowed that the House could do nothing in the case in question. The petition was from a Roman Catholic clergyman, who said, that he had

153
been treated with great injustice by his superior, who had dismissed him from his ecclesiastical station, and that he had not been restored by the successor to that superior, notwithstanding the rescript which had proceeded from the highest authority in the Romish Church. It was clear, therefore, that the question was entirely one of ecclesiastical discipline. But the noble Earl said, the petition was an appeal to public opinion through that House; that was, in other words, that the petitioner stated alleged facts in censure of the conduct of another person, under cover of a petition to that House, into the merits of which petition the House could not enter. Now, although he (Lord Melbourne) could not in all respects reprobate such a mode of proceeding, yet he could not put it out of his consideration that it might be carried further in other cases, and indeed to an extent that would prove very inconvenient. Under these circumstances he doubted the prudence and policy of the noble and learned Lord in presenting such a petition. There was one observation made by the noble and learned Lord to which he wished briefly to advert. The noble and learned Lord read from some documents proceeding from the episcopal authorities of the Romish Church, the titles of (Bishops and Archbishops, and then contended, that the use of such titles was a violation of one of the clauses of the Act for removing the disabilities of Roman Catholics. Now he apprehended that the clause in question only prohibited those titles from being taken in ordinary style. To abolish their use in the Roman Catholic Church, would be to abolish that Church itself; for to that Church the existence of episcopal ordination and episcopal authority was indispensable. In the internal discipline of the Romish Church, the use of episcopal titles, and the exercise of episcopal authority, were essential.
The Duke of Wellingtonmust say, that the objections which had been made to the character of this petition, appeared to him to be most extraordinary; and above all, it appeared to him to be most extraordinary that the noble Baron opposite, of all persons in the world, should object to a petition from an individual with reference to a subject on which he could have no redress in any other quarter; for, if he were not greatly mistaken, he had heard the noble Lord
154
himself present a petition from certain clergymen of the diocese of Peterborough, complaining of the questions put to them by the Bishop of that diocese preparatory to ordination. But, at all events, he had never heard such an opinion expressed by any one (the noble Viscount had been too prudent and discreet to express it) as that expressed by the noble Baron, that the petition ought not to be received. "Would the noble Baron move as an amendment to his noble and learned Friend's motion, "that the petition be rejected?" For that was the course which the noble Baron ought to take, if he seriously thought that the petition ought not to be received. It was very true that, as the noble Baron had said, that House could not take any steps to redress the grievance of which the petitioner complained; but he had never heard of any instance, and, in his opinion, the noble Baron would be unable to find any instance, of the rejection of a petition to their Lordships, respectfully worded, only because no ulterior steps could be taken respecting it. The noble Baron said, that in some former debate in that House his noble and learned Friend had talked of the Roman Catholic clergy as aliens in religion, aliens in feeling, aliens in principle to the rest of the country. But he (the Duke of Wellington) begged to ask their Lordships whether, if the circumstances which had been stated by his noble and learned Friend respecting the present petitioner were true, his noble and learned Friend was not justified in speaking of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland as he had spoken of them? He wanted to know whether an inhabitant of this empire, going to Rome on a subject of this kind, and thereby appealing to a foreign tribunal, was not in the state which had been described by his noble and learned Friend? He would now advert to some of the arguments which had been used by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount asserted, that the Act of Parliament for relieving Roman Catholics from civil disabilities, could not be supposed to prohibit the use of certain titles used by certain persons in the exercise of their religious authority, because, forsooth, the Roman Catholic Church was an Episcopal Church, and, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary to use Episcopal titles in its administration. But did we never hear of Roman Catholics in any other part of the world but Ireland?

155
The law had forbidden, and had succeeded in preventing, the use of episcopal titles by the Roman Catholics in England; but although the law had equally forbidden, it had not succeded in preventing, the use of episcopal titles by the Roman Catholics in Ireland. The law, the execution of which at present rested in the hands of the noble Viscount, was, it appeared, not successful in preventing the use of episcopal titles by the Roman Catholics in Ireland? The use of these titles had been abolished in this country, and ought to be abolished in Ireland,
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that what had fallen from the noble Duke showed the inconvenience of entertaining such petitions as that which had been presented by the noble and learned Lord; for the noble Duke justified the terms in which the noble and learned Lord had recently spoken of the great bulk of the population of Ireland, by assuming the accuracy of the statement made in the petition—a statement resting on no authority but that of the petitioner himself. Now how was it possible to know whether that statement was accurate or not, except they were prepared to enter into an inquiry on the subject. Did the noble and learned Lord propose or invite such an inquiry? Did the noble Earl opposite propose or invite such an inquiry? And yet their Lordships were told, that this was an appeal to public opinion made through their Lordships, although that assertion was unaccompanied by any proposal to inquire into the veracity of the assertions. But it was on the assumption of that veracity alone that the noble Duke could think the noble and learned Lord justified in the never-to-be-forgotten taunts, which he had, on a late occasion, thrown out against the bulk of the population in Ireland. In his opinion, the noble and learned Lord would have exercised a sound discretion if he had declined presenting this petition. As to the rejection of the petition, the House had the right, if they chose to exercise it, of refusing to receive any petition. If they received this petition, and acted consistently, they must receive all petitions from persons who were, or fancied they were, aggrieved by others; and where would that end? Were all persons in subordinate situations, stewards, clerks, and others, complaining of the conduct of their superiors, to have the privilege of making that House the channel of an appeal to the public on their cases? They had no more
156
right to take such a step, than any of their Lordships' servants, or tenants, would have, although their case might be—as possibly the present case was—one of great hardship and injustice. He was much surprised at the comparison which had been made by the noble Duke, between the present petition and the petition complaining of the questions put by the Bishop of Peterborough to candidates for ordination. Was the Roman Catholic Church an Established Church? Were we to interfere with a Church which we neither recognised nor paid, because we had a right to interfere with the discipline, emoluments, and possessions of a Church which we both recognized and paid? We had no right whatever, to interfere with the discipline of any Church which we neither recognised nor paid unless that Church were guilty of some contravention of public law. The petitioner in the present case had a remedy at law. That remedy he had sought and obtained. Whether the petitioner had been unjustly treated or not, he (Lord Lansdowne), having heard only an ex parte statement, could not say; but this he would say, that if their Lordships received this petition, they could not refuse the petition of any other clergyman of the Roman Catholic religion, who complained of his superior. This might be attended with great inconvenience. At the same time, if the noble and learned Lord pressed the reception of the petition, he (Lord Lansdowne) would not oppose it; for it certainly was his opinion that great latitude ought to be allowed with respect to petitions, however it might be ultimately inconvenient and even mischievous.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to explain what he had said respecting the petition presented against the Bishop of Peterborough. He did not dispute the right of their Lordships to inquire into any subject, the consideration of which might be submitted to them in a petition. But there ought to be something like prudence and propriety on the part of the petitioners; and certainly, the subjects of the question which a Bishop might think fit to put to candidates for ordination, was as improper and imprudent a subject for a petition as could be imagined.
Lord Hollandbegged permission to say a few words in answer to the personal observations which had been made upon him by the noble Duke. There was nothing analogous in the two petitions in question. The noble Duke said that the petition

157
which he (Lord Holland) presented against the Bishop of Peterborough for putting certain questions to candidates for ordination, was improper and imprudent. If the noble Duke would look back to the circumstances of that case, he would find they were these, that the law of the land required certain qualifications and testimonials from the candidates for ordination, and that the Bishop introduced others, which he was not authorised to introduce. But, in the present case, was there any allegation of a departure from the law of the land? Did the law of the land declare that a Roman Catholic Bishop should not dismiss any Roman Catholic clergyman from the exercise of his functions? The noble Duke had said, that of all men in the world, he (Lord Holland) was the last from whom he should have expected an objection to receive this petition. Now, at all times, whether sitting on one side of the House or the other, he had always expressed an opinion, that every petition ought to be received, which was couched in respectful language, and which did not relate to subjects of which the House had no cognizance. For many years that House had enjoyed de facto, though perhaps not de jure, an original jurisdiction between one man and another. But in every case like that which he had just described, where a petition referred to a subject of which the House had no cognizance, he had always refused to present such petition; and he had recommended a similar course to other noble Lords placed in similar circumstances. Suppose any of their Lordships were to dismiss an old servant for having brought an action of which they disapproved, would that servant be entitled to present a petition complaining of his dismissal? How could they enforce rights, the existence of which was not acknowledged by the law? He would not, however, press his opposition to the reception of the petition to a division, but should be satisfied with saying "Not content."
The Marquess of Westmeathdenied that there was any thing in the petition which should disincline their Lordships to receive it. The intolerant, inquisitorial, and tyrannical spirit of the Church of Rome was well known; and the object of the petition, as of many other petitions, was to obtain redress for an unjust act which the law could not reach. The noble Baron might recollect the case of the rev, Charles O'Connor Bog, a Catholic priest, who wrote on the veto, and on several
158
points of the Catholic religion, and who was brought to an untimely end by the oppression and tyranny of a Catholic Prelate. It was endeavoured to raise proceedings in his favour, but the interference came too late. In the present case, there was a tyranny beyond the reach of the law; and as one of the Representative Peers of Ireland, he could not consent to the withdrawing of the petition.
Viscount Duncannonobserved, that in the first instance the gentleman who now petitioned their Lordships did apply for and obtain the redress which a court of law could afford him. He had been chaplain to the titular Archbishop, Dr. Kelly, and Dr. Kelly removed him from that situation. Could the House interfere in such a matter as that? The noble and learned Lord spoke of the high character which the petitioner had received from the Catholic Lord-Lieutenant of his county. It was very true, that the petitioner had applied to that gentleman for a character, but he (Lord Duncannon) was authorised to say, that that character was not given with any view of its being brought forward in that House, and that in giving it, there was no intention to countenance the object which the petitioner now had in view.
The Earl of Wicklowremarked, that the Catholic Lord-lieutenant in question knew all the circumstances of the petitioner's case, and, therefore, that his giving the petioner a high character, was a tacit approval of his conduct in those circumstances. He could state, that the Catholic titular Bishop of London, notwithstanding his knowledge of the facts, had given the petitioner leave to exercise his functions in every chapel in his diocese.
Viscount Duncannonreplied, that so far was the Catholic Lord-lieutenant in question from approving of the conduct of the petitioner in the circumstances which occasioned his removal, that he approved of the removal.
Viscount Melbourneobserved that, as so much had been said upon the subject, it would be but fair to read to their Lordships a letter from Dr. Crolly respecting it. The noble Viscount read the letter. It stated that Dr. Kelly had been informed that Mr. Sergeant Jackson was about to present a petition to the House of Commons from the petitioner, and as it was probable that reference would be made to the circumstances of the case, Dr. Crolly thought it right to declare, first, that the petitioner never had a living, but was chaplain to

159
the Bishop, and was only administrator to a parish; secondly, that he had dragged a worthy clergyman before a court of justice, where he had obtained only a farthing damages, and was adjudged to pay the costs; thirdly, that his conduct on that occasion was universally disapproved of, and that his removal from the office of administrator was confirmed by the proper authority; fourthly, that he (Dr. Crolly) had offered him the choice of three curacies before two Catholic priests, who were prepared to give evidence that he contemptuously refused them all; fifthly, that at the last conference at Dundalk, he (Dr. Crolly) had offered to confirm the petitioner as the associate of any parish priest, but that he refused to be so associated; and the parish priests were as unwilling to be appointed with him, as he was to be associated with them. These statements he hoped would satisfy the minds of their Lordships with respect to the merits of the case.
Lord Lyndhursttrusted their Lordships would allow him a few words in explanation. With respect to the allusion of a noble Marquess, to what he (Lord Lyndhurst) had said, or was supposed to have said, on a former occasion, he could assure the noble Marquess and the House, that he was never disposed to shrink from the responsibility attached to any expressions which he had really used, and least of all was he disposed to do so on the present occasion. With respect to the present petition, what other course could he have pursued than that which he had taken? A gentleman came to him, told him that he had been unjustly and oppressively treated by an individual having authority over him. That gentleman produced the highest testimonials to his character, even from the individual from whom he had received the injury. By that individual he was declared to be insignem zelo, pietate et doctrina. Another document from the same individual, after the transaction in which the whole affair originated, also contained the highest eulogiums on the petitioner's character. Under such circumstances was it possible that he could refuse to present the petition? But it had been said, that the statement in the petition was only the statement of the petitioner. Why, what was the statement in any petition, but the statement of the petitioner? But in the present case, he found the statement of the petitioner vouched for by the very person of whom the petitioner complained, He
160
was glad to see the noble Viscount reading the petition, and he would now ask that noble Lord if he had stated the facts or not? Had he attempted to give them a false colour? Had he done more than it was his duty to do, namely, to state to their Lordships as plainly and intelligibly as he could, the substance and the prayer of the petition? The noble Viscount seemed rather to have mistaken the meaning of the clause in the Act for removing the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics, to which his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had alluded. The clause ran thus—"Be it therefore enacted, that from and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be lawful for any person other than the person thereunto authorised by law, to assume, or use the name, style, or title of—;Archbishop?" No;—"Archbishop of a province;" Bishop? No; "Bishop of a Bishopric." It was not a violation of the law to assume generally the title of Archbishop or Bishop; but it was a violation of the law to assume the title of "Archbishop of any province; or Bishop of any Bishopric in England or Ireland." That was the statement of his noble Friend; and to that statement the observations of the noble Viscount were not an answer. If the noble Lords opposite wished the subject to be investigated, he (Lord Lyndhurst) was quite prepared to enter upon that investigation. All he now asked, however, was, that the petition might he on the table.
Lord Hollandwished to know if their Lordships were to understand, that if any petition were to be presented from Dr. Crolly, that was also to be inquired into? It might be that a petition might be presented from Dr. Crolly directly contradicting the statements of Mr. Mulholland.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that if Dr. Crolly signed that petition as Bishop of Armagh, he should object to its being received [a laugh]; otherwise he should never object to the reception of a petition complaining of injustice, come from what quarter it might.
The Marquess of Lansdowneasked, if a petition was presented from Dr. Crolly, as Dr. Crolly, and not as Archbishop of Armagh complaining of great injustice, would it be received?
The Duke of Wellingtonspoke to order. It was irregular to ask noble Lords how they would vote on a hypothetical case.
The petition to lie on the table.