Sitting of 28 November 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Commissions of the Peace.
Petitions presented. By Mr. H. FLEETWOOD, from the Guardians of the Preston Union, against the Poor-law Amendment Act—By Mr. SERGEANT JACKSON, from the county of Tipperary, and from Clonmel, for amending the Reform Act for Ireland.—By Mr. HOUSTOUN, from Renfrewshire, against the present Rate of Postage.—By Mr. HAWKES, from the manufacturers of Sheffield, for protection against the evil consequences resulting from the use of Illicit Marks.

CHARITIES.
Lord J. Russellbrought up the report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Public Charities.
Mr. Humehoped, that after 200,000 l. had been expended in this inquiry, the Government would now proceed to introduce a Bill for the purpose of carrying the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect. He desired to know from the noble Lord if they entertained such an intention?
Lord J. Russellreplied, that after the attention bestowed upon the subject by Lord Brougham, it was intended to leave the matter in his hands. Her Majesty's Government certainly wished to see the recommendations of the Commissioners accomplished.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that he observed we were to have a new tribunal to decide on election petitions, that recently a new tribunal had been established to take cognizance of affairs in bankruptcy, and that now a third was to be created, having jurisdiction over charities. He decidedly objected to the ancient courts of the country being cut up into so many subdivisions. It was his opinion, that the want of general practice would in a great

355
degree disqualify judges from that discharge of their duties which was now so beneficial to the public.
Lord J. Russellhoped, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give a patient and attentive consideration to the recommendations of the Commissioners before he decided against them.
Sir E. Sugdenreplied, that he had given the subject a great deal of attention, and the reason of his making this remark, with which he had ventured to trouble the House, was to account for his name not having been signed to the report.
Report laid on the table.

BISHOPRIC OF SODOR AND MAN.
Sir Harry Verneyrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve the Ecclesiastical Commission of England and Wales from the duty of laying before her Majesty in Council a scheme for uniting the sees of Carlisle and Sodor and Man. The see of Man being an island in itself, the greatest inconvenience would arise from adding to that see any portion of the main land. From time immemorial the Bishop of Sodor and Man had been of the greatest use to that island. Bishop Wilson was the first person who had translated the Bible into the Manx language, and he had also collected the ecclesiastical constitutions until he had so perfected them that, if the ancient discipline of the Church were lost to the rest of the world, it might be found in all its purity in the Isle of Man. The same rev. Bishop had also founded parochial schools and parochial libraries, and had likewise founded that system of education which it had been the object of the House to extend to all parts of the empire. It was of great importance to have a resident Bishop in the island, and the present Bishop had trodden in the steps of Bishop Wilson, having succeeded in building and repairing no less than twelve places of public worship, and having founded a college, containing two hundred students, not for the purpose of adding to the emoluments of the Church, but for the purpose of extending a liberal education to the subjects of her Majesty generally. Dissenters of every persuasion were admitted, there was no sort of religious bigotry, and for the trifling sum of 8/. a perfect school education might be obtained, under professors from Cambridge. No test was required to be
356
signed upon admission; and, in fact, the benefit of the see was felt in the amelioration of the condition of the inhabitants of the island. Some individuals might think that the ecclesiastical establishments might as well be superintended by the Archdeacon and resident clergy, but no Archdeacons could ever have collected such sums as the Bishop had been able to collect for the purposes he had stated. Under these circumstances, he hoped that all parties would concur in the measure he was about to propose. It was proposed in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Report to unite the island with the bishopric of Carlisle. This, he undertook to say, was a most inconvenient arrangement. The Bishop of Carlisle had to spend half the year at least in London, attending his Parliamentary duties; a great portion of the rest of the year in Carlisle; and if he could spare any it must be a very small portion in the Isle of Man. It was, indeed, far better to have a Bishop resident among them in the island, acting as the patron of all their interests. He was anxious to enlist the attention of hon. Members on both sides. He appealed to those hon. Members who thought that no Bishops should be in the Upper House, as their time could be better spent at home in the discharge of their episcopal duties. Those hon. Members would not approve of the proposed change, which would deprive those who had now the benefit of a Bishop's residence of the advantage they enjoyed in this respect. He would ask, if a Bishop occupied with his spiritual and other duties elsewhere, could attend to those committed to his care in the Isle of Man? He therefore appealed for support to those hon. Members, who thought that no Bishops ought to be returned in the other House; but he appealed more strongly to hon. Members opposite, who considered themselves peculiarly the friends of the Church. He called on them to retain one Bishop more on the ecclesiastical establishment of the country. No Bishop had been more practically beneficial to those over whom he had charge than the Bishop of Sodor and Man was at all times. The present Bishop exercised the functions belonging to his charge with the most animated feeling of beneficence for those over whose spiritual interests he presided. Although affected by age and infirmity, he still took a deep and lively interest in the welfare,

357
spiritual and temporal, of all those with whom he had been so long connected. The hon. Member concluded with submitting the motion to the House, amidst cheers.
Lord John Russellwould have supported a proposition for transferring the income of the bishopric, after existing interests were satisfied, to the Archdeacon and clergy of the Isle of Man, but he could not agree to the present motion, which he thought quite unreasonable.
Sir Robert Ingliswould decidedly urge the Bill on the House, though upon very different grounds from those advanced by the hon. Baronet. The ground on which he proceeded he believed to be a far higher one than that of the hon. Baronet. The question at issue was not whether a new bishopric should be created; if it were, he (Sir R. Inglis) would be very ready to support such a measure, as he thought there was a necessity for more bishoprics, in order to meet the increasing wants of the community; but whether they should wantonly destroy the oldest bishopric in her Majesty's dominions, one which had furnished many saints (in the strongest sense of the word), and one in respect of which a prime minister of France had, a century since, given orders to the privateers of his country to spare the island which it comprised. This, too, they were about to do, in defiance of all the wishes of the people, as expressed in their petitions against the plan. As the motion had been made and leave given to bring in the Bill, he could not but hope, either that the noble Lord would withdraw his opposition, or that, the House would overrule it.
Sir Edward Codringtonsupported the motion. He had always expressed his opposition to the bishops having seals in the House of Lords, because he considered it injurious to the country. The bishop who was not in the House, but who devoted his time to the spiritual wants of his country, ought to be held up as an example worthy of imitation.
Mr. Shawsaid, he should give his best support to the motion of the hon. Baronet opposite.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, a commission had been appointed to inquire into ecclesiastical revenues and duties, with the view to suggest such changes as might be useful. They had encountered considerable opposition from those who thought that no
358
change should be made. They, however, acting according to the best of their conviction, had suggested certain reforms, and recommended their adoption; and the hon. Gentleman opposite, two years after a Bill had passed, carrying into effect the reforms suggested by them, now came forward to propose their abolition. If the House of Commons took that course in one instance, it would very soon be called upon to take it in others.
The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 159: Majority 106.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T.

Holmes, hon. W.

Adare, Viscount

Hughes, W. B.

Alsager, Captain

Ingham, R.

Baring, H. B.

Jackson, Sergeant

Bell, M.

Jones, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Borthwick, P.

Mackenzie, T.

Bramston, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Buller, Sir J.

Maidstone, Viscount

Burr, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Christopher, R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Codrington, Admiral

Palmer, R.

Courtenay, P.

Patten, J. W.

Darby, G.

Perceval, hon. G.

Dick, Q.

Pinney, W.

D'Israeli, B.

Pringle, A.

Dugdale, W. S.

Pryme, G.

Duncombe, W.

Ramsay, Lord

East, J. B.

Richards, R.

Estcourt, T.

Round, J.

Forbes, W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Gibson, T.

Stanley, E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Williams, R.

Gore, O. J. R.

Williams, W. A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Sir H. Verney

Hodgson, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Bruce, Lord E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Ainsworth, P.

Bulwer, E. L.

Archbold, R.

Busfeild, W.

Bailey, J.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Baines, E.

Canning, Sir S.

Barnard, E. G.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Barneby, J.

Cavendish, G. H.

Barrington, Viscount

Cayley, E. S.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Chalmers, P.

Bernal, R.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Bethell, R.

Clay, W.

Blair, J.

Clive, E. B.

Blake, W. J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Crawford, W.

Blunt, Sir C.

Currie, R.

Broadley, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Broadwood, H.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Brodie, W. B.

Davies, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Denison, W. J.

359

Dennistoun, J.

Master, T. W. C.

De Horsey, S. E.

Maule, W. H.

Divett, E.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Duke, Sir J.

Monypenny, T. G.

Dunlop, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Eastnor, Viscount

Muskett, G. A.

Eaton, R. J.

Neeld, J.

Eliot, hon. J. C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Euston, Earl of

O'Callaghan, C.

Evans, Colonel

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Evans, W.

Pakington, J. S.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Palmerston, Viscount

Feilden, W.

Parker, R. T.

Ferguson, R.

Parnell, Sir H.

Fergusson, R. C.

Pechell, Captain

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Philips, M.

Fitzsimon, N.

Philpotts, J.

Follett, Sir W.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Fort, J.

Potter, R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Poulter, J. S.

French, F.

Protheroe, E.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Redington, T. N.

Gillon, W. D.

Rice, E. R.

Gordon, Captain

Rolleston, L.

Goring, H. D.

Round, C. G.

Grey, Sir G.

Rumbold, C. E.

Grimsditch, T.

Rundle, J.

Halse, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Harland, W. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Hastie, A.

Salwey, Colonel

Hawes, B.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Hayter, W. G.

Sheppard, T.

Hodgson, F.

Shirley, E. J.

Holmes, W.

Standish, C.

Hope, hon. J.

Stanley, Lord

Horsman, E.

Steuart, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Stewart, J.

Houstoun, G.

Stewart, John

Hume, J.

Stuart, V.

Hurst, R. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

Style, Sir C.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Sugden, Sir E.

Labouchere, H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Leader, J. T.

Thomson, C. P.

Lefevre, C. S.

Tracy, H. H.

Lennox, Lord G.

Turner, W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Vigors, N. A.

Lister, E. C.

Wakley, T.

Litton, E.

Wall, C. B.

Lockhart, A. M.

Warburton, H.

Logan, H.

Whalley, Sir S.

Lucas, E.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Lushington, C.

Wilshere, W.

Lygon, hon. General

Winnington, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Winnington, H.

Maclean, D.

Yates, J. A.

Macnamara, Major

Young, J.

Manners, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Marsland, H.

Baring, F.

Marton, G.

Seymour, Lord

GRAND JURIES.
Mr. Prymerose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish grand juries in England. He was aware that the subject, though one of great and
360
general importance, was not a very entertaining one. At times, however, it became necessary to inquire whether certain institutions had not outlived their usefulness, and did not any longer answer the end for which they were instituted. At one time the grand jury system was justly considered as one of the great bulwarks of English liberty; but now grand juries were no more than an appeal from the committing magistrate. According to Lord Somers, who was a high authority upon the point, grand juries were instituted to search out crime—to find out offences—and not, as now, merely to put cases in a train for trial. In his opinion, the grand jury system was, in many cases, an obstruction to justice. In Scotland there were no grand juries, but there was a public prosecutor; and when a judgment was given against any one it was submitted to the Lord Advocate or the Sheriff. He was not about to propose the adoption of any such principle in this country, although it would be competent for him to do so if he thought it would do good. The hon. Member proceeded to quote a variety of evidence as to the inefficiency of grand juries. Mr. Harvey Coombe, the magistrate of the Lambeth-street police-office, had stated before a Committee of the House of Commons that the grand juries, as at present constituted, were an impediment rather than an advancement to justice. The Recorder of Worcester had said before the same Committee, "After a man has been imprisoned for several weeks, it ought not to be left to a secret tribunal to determine whether there was a sufficient case against him." He wanted no intervening tribunal. He conceived that in the present state of the magistracy in England and Wales, formed as it was by enlightened and intelligent gentlemen, such a tribunal was not necessary. If it was contended that it would be a saving of time, he did not admit the force of such an argument; if there was a gain of time in one respect there would be a still greater loss in another. The time of the judge would, no doubt, be saved, but then they would occupy the time of from three to five thousand gentlemen during the year, and in this point of view more of the time of the country would be consumed. But he would never admit that time was a consideration in such cases. They ought alone to consider how justice could be

361
most speedily and impartially administered. He would not occupy the time of the House further than to express a hope that, if his motion had no other effect, it would call attention to the subject, and that there would be further opportunities of discussing it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish grand juries in England and Wales.
The Attorney-Generalrose for the purpose of opposing the motion. He thought that there was a general impression in the House the other night that the House would not in future give leave to bring in a Bill unless there was a reasonable prospect that it could be carried into a law during the Session. His hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cambridge, had asked for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish grand juries in England and Wales, Why, if grand juries were so faulty an institution, he had not proposed to extend his Bill to grand juries in Ireland, saving always their fiscal jurisdiction in that country, he had not thought proper to explain. He did not wish it to be supposed, because he opposed this motion, that he considered the institution of grand juries one of the best possible institutions for criminal jurisprudence; on the contrary, he thought that an officer like the public prosecutor in Scotland, who was appointed by the Government, liable to the same responsibility for his actions to which all other Government officers were liable, would be a far better institution. He was convinced that you must either have grand juries or a public prosecutor; and if his hon. and learned Friend had proposed, upon abolishing grand juries, to appoint a public prosecutor, he might have respectfully entertained that proposition, although he warned the House that it would be a proposition which could not be carried into effect in this country without many difficulties. But his hon. and learned Friend had not proposed any substitute for the institution which he desired to abolish; and as there was no chance of carrying such a Bill as he had proposed through the House, he must, with all deference to his hon. and learned Friend, withhold his assent from the motion.
Mr. Warburtoncould not assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, that the House had on a former evening laid down a rule, that if there was no prospect of carrying a Bill
362
into law in the course of the Session, leave was not to be given to bring it in and discuss it. To such a rule he should never for one moment yield his assent. If such a rule had been established in by-gone times, they must have kicked out in their very first stages the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, the Registry Bill, the Catholic Emancipation Bill—ay, and as an hon. Friend near him suggested, the Reform Bill itself. He felt inclined to support the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cambridge, as a proposition wise and salutary in itself, and he did hope that his hon. and learned Friend would be permitted to introduce it with a view to have it submitted to discussion. If the institution of an office like that of the public prosecutor in Scotland was so advisable as the hon. and learned Attorney-General represented it to be, let him consent to the introduction of this Bill, and then, when it was in Committee let him propose a clause appointing such an officer. If his hon. and learned Friend divided the House on this motion, he should certainly have the benefit of his vote.
Lord John Russellcomplained, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had not represented correctly the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General. His hon. and learned Friend had stated the impression of the House to be this:—that if there was no reasonable prospect that the principle of a Bill could be carried into law, it was not advisable to give leave to introduce it. Now. he was not prepared to abolish grand juries altogether; and such being the case, he should oppose the motion of his hon. and learned Friend for leave to bring in his Bill.
Mr. Aglionbymeant to support the proposition for leave to bring in this Bill, but would not pledge himself to support it hereafter. He also complained of the manner in which his hon. and learned. Friend had endeavoured to stifle all discussion upon it.
Mr. Maulesaid, that the question was, whether this Bill was a fit subject for the consideration of the House. He was of opinion that it was, and that it did not deserve to be classed with those frivolous and trifling Bills which had wasted so much of the time of the House in former Sessions. He should support the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cambridge.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that it was not possible to maintain the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, that the introduction of a Bill was to be resisted unless there was a reasonable chance of carrying it to a successful issue in that Session of Parliament. The mode of dealing with the introduction of new Bills must depend upon the nature and merits of each distinct Bill. There were many Bills which, although not perhaps at all likely to pass into a law, might, notwithstanding, be very fit subjects to be discussed, while others ought to be rejected without any discussion. With regard to the present measure, he must say that there were, in his opinion, very satisfactory grounds for refusing to entertain it. No practical reason had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman for striking out of our system of criminal jurisprudence this important branch, which gave, as he believed, perfect satisfaction to the people. If the House were to consent to abolish grand juries on the plausible philosophical reasons adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, what was to prevent him from recommending it to abolish petty juries also, for the same specious but unsatisfactory reasons? He could tell them that it was very absurd to have a tribunal of twelve persons to try every species of offence. He could tell them that it was still more absurd to require unanimity in their verdict, and to lock them up in a room till they came, in spite of all differences, to that unanimity. These might appear to some to be good plausible philosophical arguments; and when he had carried his Bill for the abolition of petty juries, and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had carried his Bill for the abolition of grand juries, the only part of the community who would receive their legislation with satisfaction, would be that part of it which was in the habit of preying on the property of its neighbours. He thought the House had a right to require of the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose some substitute before they proceeded at all to discuss such a proposition as this. It was bad policy in a branch of the Legislature to condemn any portion of the jurisprudence of the country on which the lives and property of the community depended for protection, merely because a philosophic speech had been delivered to recommend such condemnation. It would
364
be much wiser, he thought, to permit the present system to remain as it was than to deprecate that system, without any substitute being proposed in its stead. He would, therefore, refuse his assent to the introduction of the present Bill. A public prosecutor had been suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General), such as they had in Scotland; but would not the objection hold as strongly, if not more strongly, against one individual putting a man upon his trial, after hearing evidence in private, than against a grand jury? It was far from his wish to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this Bill, that he ought to publish his philosophical arguments in favour of it in some magazine, but while he would offer no such advice, still, at the same time, if the hon. and learned Gentleman should act upon the advice already given to him in this respect, and would oblige him by telling him in what magazine the arguments appeared, he would promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would read them, and give them the most impartial consideration. At present, seeing, as he did, that no substitute was proposed for that which it was intended to abolish—seeing that grand jurors were a powerful check upon the committal of the King's subjects for trial in a public court by magistrates without sufficient grounds—and seeing that the country generally was satisfied with the present system, he believed that to abolish that system abruptly, without viewing and considering it in relation to all the other branches of the jurisprudence of the country, would be attended with bad results and much dissatisfaction. For all these reasons he was prepared to give a decided negative to the introduction of the present Bill to abolish grand juries.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that every man in England who had paid the slightest attention to the subject, knew that the grand jury was a species of Star Chamber, which served the purpose of screening the magistracy. The remark appeared to be felt, but he would repeat his belief that its only use was to screen delinquent magistrates. There were hundreds of commitments under the game-laws, which would throw disgrace on the magistracy, if the parties were brought to trial; but they were not tried, because the grand jury conveniently interposed between the com-

365
mitment and the petty jury. If the House rejected the motion and disposed of the question without consideration, they would show the people of England that they were prepared to deny them justice on a most important branch of jurisprudence.
Viscount Sandonremarked, that commitments under the game-laws did not come before quarter-sessions at all. That court only took cognizance of aggravated offences, such as assaults. The hon. Member ought not to make a charge against the magistracy of England, without any sufficient foundation.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that some time since, in the north of England, a contest took place between a gamekeeper and a person supposed to be a poacher, in which the poacher was killed. A coroner's inquest was held on the body, and the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the gamekeeper. The grand jury, when the matter came before them, ignored the bill. He thought this fact afforded sufficient grounds for the assertion he had made.
Mr. Pryme replied.
The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 196: Majority 171.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Leader, J. T.

Briscoe, J. I.

Marsland, H.

Brotherton, J.

Maule, W. H.

Bulwer, F,. L.

Pechell, Captain

Chichester, J. P. B.

Potter, R.

Currie, R.

Rundle, J.

Davies, Colonel

Salwey, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Eliot, hon. J. C.

Villiers, C. P.

Evans, W.

Wakley, T.

Finch, F.

Yates, J. A.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Pryme, G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Baring, H. B.

A'Court, Captain

Barnard, E. G.

Adare, Viscount

Barneby, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Barrington, Viscount

Alsager, Captain

Bateman, J.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Bateson, Sir R.

Archbold, R.

Beamish, F. B.

Attwood, T.

Belfast, Earl of

Bagge, W.

Benett, J.

Bailey, J.

Bentinck, Lord

Baines, E.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Baker, E.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Bannerman, A.

Bethell, R.

Baring, F. T.

Bewes, T.

366

Blackstone, W. S.

Houldsworth, T.

Blair, J.

Howard, P. H.

Blake, M. I.

Howick, Viscount

Blakemore, R.

Hughes, W. B.

Blennerhasset, A.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Blewitt, R. J.

Ingham, R.

Blunt, Sir C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bolling, W.

James, Sir W. C.

Bowes, J.

Johnston, General

Bramston. T. W.

Johnstone, H.

Broadley, H.

Joliffe, Sir W.

Broad wood, H.

Jones, W.

Brownrigg, S.

Knight, H. G.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Knightley, Sir C.

Bryan, G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Burr, H.

Lascelles, W. S.

Busfeild, W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Callaghan, D.

Lennox, Lord G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Christopher, R. A.

Lister, E. C.

Clive, Viscount

Litton, E.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Collier, J.

Logan, H.

Collins, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Maclean, D.

Courtenay, P.

Macnamara, Major

Craig, W.C.

Mahon, Viscount

Cripps, J.

Maidstone, Viscount

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Manners, Lord C.

Darby, G.

Maunsell, T. P.

D'Israeli, B.

Maxwell, H.

Divett, E.

Monypenny, T.

Duckworth, S.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Duke, Sir J.

Morris, D.

Duncombe, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Dunlop, J.

Neeld, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Nicholl, J.

Eliot, Lord

O'Brien, W. S.

Erle, W.

O'Callaghan, C.

Estcourt, T.

Packe, C. W.

Etwall, R.

Paget, F.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Pakington, J. S.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Palmer, C. F.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Palmer, R.

Fitzsimon, N.

Parker, R. T.

Follett, Sir W.

Peel, Sir Robert

Forbes, W.

Pendarves, E. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Perceval, Colonel

Gaskell, James Milnes

Perceval, G. J.

Gibson, J.

Philips, M.

Gibson, T.

Phillpotts, J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Protheroe, E.

Gordon, Captain

Ramsay, Lord

Goring, H. D.

Redington, T. N.

Grimsditch, T.

Rice, right hon. T.

Halford, H.

Richards, R.

Harcourt, G. S.

Rickford, W.

Hayter, W. G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Heathcote, Sir W,

Rolleston, L.

Henniker, Lord

Rose, Sir G.

Hinde, J. H.

Round, C.G.

Hodges, T. L.

Round, J.

Hodgson, R.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Holmes, hon. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Hope, G. W.

Sandon, Viscount

Hope, H. T.

Seymour, Lord

Horsman, E.

Shaw, right hon. F.

367

Sheppard, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Slaney, R. A.

Vivian, J. E.

Smith, J. A.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Smith, R. V.

Whalley, Sir S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wilberforce, W.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Williams, R.

Stanley, E.

Williams, W.

Stanley, Lord

Williams, W. A.

Stansfield, W. R.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Strangways, J.

Wilshere, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Winnington, T.

Stuart, V.

Winnington, H.

Style, Sir C.

Wood, T.

Sugden, Sir E.

Young, G. F.

Surrey, Earl of

Young, J.

Thomson, C. P.

Tracy, H. H.

TELLERS.

Tufnell, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Turner, W.

Stanley, E. J.

Leave refused.

SMALL TENEMENTS.
Mr. Aglionby Mr. Aglionby moved for leave to bring in "a Bill to facilitate the recovery of possession of tenements after due determination of the tenancy." It was not necessary for him to trouble the House with the details of the measure, as the Bill which he desired leave to introduce was substantially the same as the measures on the same subject which he had brought forward in the last two Sessions. There was a positive necessity for some alteration of the law relating to landlord and tenant with regard to the recovery of small tenements; and while he was anxious to relieve the landlord from the difficulty with which he had to contend, in consequence of the present state of the law he made due provision for the protection of any party who might be unjustly dispossessed of his holding. Where tenements, under the value of 20 l. a-year, were improperly held over after the expiration of the tenancy, he proposed to invest two magistrates with jurisdiction to afford relief to the landlord, and in all cases beyond 20 l. he meant that the party seeking possession should be entitled, after action brought, to go before a judge for the purpose of obtaining, by a summary proceeding, an order for the delivery of the possession of the premises wrongfully withheld. This was the general effect of the Bill; but, if in the course of its stages, any suggestions should be made for the purpose of rendering it more perfect than it was, without interfering with its principle, he could only say, that he would be most happy to adopt them.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.

FEES ON CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. Humerose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject which intimately concerned every individual Member, not only of the present, but of all future, Parliaments. The object which the motion with which he meant to conclude had in view was, if possible, to ascertain how far the expenses of controverted elections could be lessened. He wished it had been in his power to suggest any plan for regulating the expenses of counsel, as well as the fees of the House in such cases; but although he was not able to say how far their power extended in the former case, he had no doubt whatever, that the latter was a matter which was entirely within their control. The present scale of fees had existed since the year 1785, and certainly it was high time that some alteration on the subject should be made. He would not trouble the House by entering into a detail of the abuses of the system, but he might be pardoned for mentioning one or two instances, which would show how monstrous it was. By the Standing Order, or original rule, the sum of 2s. 6d. was charged for every witness who might be examined. He could refer to one case, in which the number of witnesses was only nineteen, while the charge was for 487, and this arose from the circumstance of every party, who during the investigation, might be called back to answer even a single question being treated as a distinct witness. As often, therefore, as a party giving evidence before a Committee was recalled for examination he was considered as a new witness, and this practice it was that had led to the multiplication he had stated of 19 into 487. In this case, instead of 2l. 10 s. a sum of 60 l. 17 s. was actually paid. He would now show, that the same system prevailed with respect to papers given in evidence. For every paper produced during the inquiry, the charge was 2s., and it followed, according to the present practice, that if the same document were presented twenty times, there would be twenty 2s. fees to pay. By this means, the individual fees payable during the inquiry were swelled to a sum of from 100 l. to 1,000 l. Now, as every Member of that House might be subject to a proceeding of this kind, it was a duty which they owed to themselves to remedy the evil of which they complained, and to throw as few impediments as possible in

369
the way of trying contested elections. He was anxious last Session to bring the subject forward, but was prevented by the sudden termination of the Session. The fees charged in public offices had undergone inquiry, and two years ago, at his suggestion, a commission was appointed by the Government, and what was the result? Why, that the fees payable in fourteen of the public offices connected with the Customs and Excise had been abolished, and only thirteen offices remained in which fees were once payable. He hoped soon to see all such fees done away with. He was not aware that there could be any objection to the inquiry which he now proposed, as he believed every Member of that House was anxious to ascertain how far the expenses of election petitions could be lessened. It should not be forgotten, that compensation had already been given to the officers of that House for the emoluments in the way of fees of which they had been deprived, and even if the abolition of the fees payable in the investigation of controverted election petitions were to burthen the expense of that House with a few hundreds a-year additional, it would be of little consequence in comparison with the good which such an alteration would effect. With this view he brought forward his present motion, and therefore, without further observation, he begged leave to move "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the fees on the trial of controverted elections."
Mr. Warburtonhoped, that his hon. Friend would comprehend in his motion, not only the fees of that House, but all fees charged under the authority of the Speaker. In cases where petitions were reported to be "frivolous and vexatious" surely some control should be exercised over the charges for fees to counsel. He apprehended that the Speaker had power to allow them or not. [Cries of "No, no."] He believed he stated only what was the fact, as the Speaker had the appointment of the officer by whom such costs were taxed. They all knew how large a proportion of the costs of a controverted election the fees of counsel formed, and, therefore, he hoped that his hon. Friend would make this subject a part of his motion.
The Speakersaid, that although he had the appointment of the taxing officer, he had nothing whatever to do with the costs
370
beyond granting the certificate under the Act of Parliament which enabled the parties to recover their costs. He acted merely in his ministerial capacity.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had no objection to have such an inquiry as would enable them to ascertain the whole of the expenses, but he doubted whether they could carry the investigation beyond what he proposed,
The Speakersaid, that the inquiry must be limited to the fees paid under the authority of the Act of Parliament. He had no authority whatever to do more in such case than to grant, when applied to for the purpose, the certificate to enable the party to recover his costs.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

POST MASTERS VOTING AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Fitzroyrose, pursuant to his notice, to move for a return of the names of persons in the employ of the Post-office against whom complaints had been made for voting at the late elections, and also of those who had been dismissed for that cause. The hon. Member said, that the grounds on which he moved for this return were, that at the late election for the borough of Lewes, which he had the honour to represent, a person in the employ of the Post-office there had voted for him, and had since then been dismissed from his situation. He had been given to understand, that a similar rule had not been applied in other cases where parties in the employment of the Post-office had voted for other candidates. In that he might have been misinformed, but at all events he could form no correct judgment on the subject until the returns for which he moved were laid before the House. If it should appear to be the general practice in all cases, he could not complain; but if it were not, it was a case of hardship to which he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House. This motion was in effect an act of kindness to the Government, as it would give them an opportunity of correcting, if it were erroneous, the very general impression that had gone abroad, that never had the influence of Government been more strongly used to effect the return, than at the last general elections. The returns for which he now moved would go far to rid the Government of the imputation, if it were unfounded.
Mr. Francis Baringseconded the motion, and said, he was equally as anxious as the hon. Member that the House should have the returns before them. If any dismissals had taken place from the Post-office for voting at elections, it was not the result of a regulation made at the moment. Notice had been given in 1835 under the late Government, in consequence of many persons in the Post-office having voted at the elections, that if in any future election any person so employed should have complaints made against them for having voted at all, no matter how, they would be severely dealt with, which was well understood to mean that they would be dismissed: and wherever any such complaints had been made, and the fact established, the parties were dismissed, without any distinction being made as to the party for whom they voted. He begged to deny the imputation cast by the last speaker, that the Government had used, most strongly used, its influence to affect the returns at the last elections. He was aware that charges of that kind were made in some of the newspapers, but of those he was not disposed to take any notice, but he was disposed to notice charges of a more tangible nature; one of these had been made in a letter from a gentleman con-netted with his (Mr. F. Baring's) own county, in which he had charged the Government with gross oppression, and canting and clamorous hypocrisy, with reference to the late elections. Now, he did think that a gentleman who felt himself warranted in making that charge ought in justice to himself and to the public, and to those charged, to bring it publicly forward and substantiate it by proofs, if he had any, and he would most readily give him the fullest opportunity of so doing.
Sir Charles Knightleysaid, that he did not know the individual to whom the hon. Member alluded, but this he could state, that the complaints of the conduct of Government with respect to some of those who had voted against them at the last election were not confined to one individual, or to one county. He would beg to call the attention of the House to a case which had already made its appearance in some of the public papers. The facts were stated on the authority of the Rev. Mr. Charles Gilbee, a gentleman entitled to the highest credit. The hon. Baronet detailed the facts as they appeared in the following extract of a letter, addressed—
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHAMPTON HERALD.
"Sir,—A most scandalous act of injustice has been lately inflicted upon a respectable individual in this parish, which deserves to be held up to public execration. About eight months ago I made an application to the Postmaster-General for a penny post-office at Kilsby, the parish having long felt the inconvenience of receiving their letters from Daventry, in the ordinary way of delivery in distant villages. His Lordship was pleased to comply with my request, in a very polite and handsome manner; and in a short time after I was applied to by the office-keeper at Daventry, to recommend a suitable person to keep the office at Kilsby. In accordance with the general wish of my parishioners, I named Mr. and Mrs. Wood, persons of undoubted integrity, and worthy of the most unlimited confidence. They were accordingly appointed, and sworn in before one of the magistrates at Daventry. About three months after this a letter was received by the office-keeper at Daventry, from the Earl of Lichfield, containing the appointment of a Miss Wall to the office at Kilsby, the daughter of a Dissenter, and actually under sixteen years of age. I immediately wrote to the Postmaster-General, to state this circumstance, and to inquire why Mr. and Mrs. Wood should be removed. To this his Lordship replied that he had appointed Miss Wall on the recommendation of the Treasury, and that it was not in his power to revoke the appointment so long as she was competent to discharge the duties of the office. In the course, however, of a few days I received another letter from his Lordship, stating, that in consequence of Miss Wall being under sixteen he had cancelled her appointment, and had written to the Treasury for another name. I immediately sent a petition to the Treasury, signed by forty-five respectable individuals in the parish, in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wood. This petition has not been acknowledged in any way; but another person, a Miss Lee, also a Dissenter, has been since appointed. As I could obtain no answer from the Treasury, I determined upon writing to Lord Melbourne himself, feeling assured that he, at least, would not lend the sanction of his name to what appeared to me so wanton an act of injustice; but still I have received no answer. And thus, without any reason being assigned, the office is taken away from Mr. Wood, who has for four months discharged the duties of it to the highest satisfaction of the whole parish.
"CHARLES GILBEE."
He thought it his duty to bring this case under the notice of the House.
Mr. Francis Baringwas afraid he did not perfectly understand the charge of the hon. Member. The points of his statement, as far as he could collect them, seemed to be, that on the recommendation of a clergyman, a penny post-office was

373
established at Kilsby, and that a man named Wood was appointed as keeper of that office, without any consultation of the proper authorities. In a few months, on the recommendation of the Treasury, Wood was removed, and another person appointed in his place. This appeared to be the whole charge, and he could only say, that as long as certain appointments continue vested in the Government, a repetition of similar occurrences was likely to take place.
Motion agreed to.

REPEAL OF THE EMANCIPATION ACT.
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, he rose with great satisfaction to present the petition, of which he had given notice, from the Protestant Association. That association had been established in London for the purpose of supporting those Protestant interests which those who composed it conceived to be in danger at this moment. In his opinion their object was praiseworthy, and he cordially agreed in the prayer of their petition. In that petition they slated their reasons for wishing that Roman Catholics should be excluded from seats in Parliament. When the Relief Bill was passed, it was required that Roman Catholics should take an oath that they would not support any measure the effect of which would be to weaken the Protestant institutions of this country; and it was also provided, that the titular bishops should not assume the title of their respective sees. Now they were all aware that this latter condition was not at all complied with, and in his opinion, and the opinion of the petitioners, the oath was disregarded in a most extraordinary manner. He knew perfectly well, and it gave him the highest degree of satisfaction, that there were some individuals of the Catholic faith, Members of that House, who acted differently. There was one noble Lord in particular who, on every occasion, when matters connected with the Established Church were brought under consideration, had uniformly declined voting on such occasions. This he conceived to be most highly creditable and praiseworthy on the part of that noble Lord, and he sincerely wished that his example had been generally followed. That, however, was not the case. Roman Catholics had supported measures the effect of which, he was convinced, if carried, would be most detrimental to the Protestant Establishment. Under these circumstances, it was advisable that some steps should be adopted for preventing individuals professing that faith from doing anything that had a tendency to injure the Protestant Church. He thought it was high time that the question should be seriously taken up. It was not for him to recommend any proposition on the subject. So far as their Lordships' House was concerned, he believed that the Roman Catholic Members which it contained were most honourable persons; but he thought it most desirable, so far as regarded Ireland, that Roman Catholics should be excluded from the Irish repre-
340
sentation. The noble Duke concluded by moving that the Petition be read at length.
It was as follows.
"To the Lords spiritual and temporal of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled
"The Petition of the undersigned Protestants of the United Kingdom,
"Humbly showed),—That your petitioners regarded the admission of Roman Catholics to legislative power as equally at variance with Christian duty, and with the Protestant principles and character of the British constitution.
"That peril to the Protestant religion, and more immediately to the Established Churches of the United Kingdom, having been apprehended from the admission of Roman Catholics to legislative power, in order to obviate this danger, and as an adequate security for our Protestant Establishments, it was, by the Act of the year 1829, for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, enacted, that all Members of that communion should, previously to entering on their legislative functions, swear that they will 'defend, to the utmost of their power, the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws'; and also that they do 'disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm;' and further, that they 'never will exercise any privilege to which they are or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom.' That notwithstanding the security which this solemn oath was intended to provide, Roman Catholic Members of the legislature have used their utmost exertions in, as well as out of Parliament, for the destruction of the Church Establishment, especially of that part of it existing in Ireland; that they have voted for the alienation of its property, a measure characterised by his late Majesty's Prime Minister, its advocate in the House of Peers, as a heavy blow to Protestantism in Ireland;' and that they have also voted for the subtraction of church rates from the revenues of the Church of England, not scrupling to avow, as their ulterior object, that the State should withdraw its support altogether from any particular denomination of Christians, leaving all alike to the precarious maintenance of the voluntary system, but with the ultimate design, as your petitioners are convinced, of finally establishing the domination of the Popish superstition.
"Your petitioners humbly submit to your right hon. House that the foregoing brief statement establishes, beyond all controversy, the two following facts:—
"1. That upon the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, a certain security was intended to be provided by the legislature for the Church Establishment.

341
"2. That the security has proved wholly inefficacious.
"Under those circumstances, your petitioners humbly submit to your right hon. House, that it is absolutely necessary to devise some more effectual safeguard for our national establishments. That scriptural authority, and the principles of the British constitution, as well as experience, call for the total exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Legislature; and your petitioners humbly implore your right honourable House to take such steps as may be deemed advisable for the accomplishment of this essential object.
"And your petitioners will ever pray, &c."
Viscount Lorton.—My Lords, having been called upon to support the prayer of the petition the noble Duke has just presented to your Lordships, I must decidedly say, that no feelings of party spirit induce me to address your Lordships upon the present occasion. No, my Lords; the truly awful state of Ireland should preclude such paltry sentiments from entering into the mind of any man who is anxious to preserve British connection and the integrity of the empire. The grand and vital mistakes that have arisen in carrying on the affairs of Ireland have been occasioned by a total ignorance of its actual state on the part of our Legislators, and thus a system of concession, under the vain hope of conciliating, has thrown an immense political power into the hands of a body of men closely connected with a foreign state, which is most decidedly hostile to the civil and religious liberty and institutions of this great empire. My Lords, from having been almost a constant resident since I became a landed proprietor in Ireland, and having previously most unhappily witnessed the rebellion of 1798, by serving in Wexford, and subsequently as a general officer in the western district, I may be supposed to have acquired some experience, and can consequently give an accurate opinion as to the true condition of Ireland; and such being the case, I do not hesitate to say, that things are in a tenfold worse condition in that wretched portion of our country than at the lamentable period I have alluded to. My Lords, I may be fairly called upon to account for such opinions, and I shall find no difficulty in doing so. The great political power granted to the Roman Catholics in 1829 has been, and still is, altogether and entirely wielded and overruled by the clergy of the Church of Rome who are, with
342
very few exceptions, and none openly, most inveterate against every thing Protestant and English, and I firmly believe that persecution was never carried to a greater extent than at present. It has been a most mistaken notion to suppose that certain Legislators (and more particularly one) have occasioned all the troubles in Ireland. No, my Lords, such is not the case. They are merely a secondary cause, and must obey the orders of their church, which they certainly have done with ardour and with extraordinary effect. My Lords, if tranquillity and prosperity are to be established in Ireland, that power, most unfortunately granted, must be withdrawn, and the poor miserable people, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, must be emancipated, in the true sense of the word, from the most tyrannical oppression that perhaps ever was inflicted upon any population; they must also be relieved from the most miserable poverty by some mode of regular employment, which at present the great mass of the people are entirely without. I have now, my Lords, in a very cursory manner, laid before your Lordships my opinion as to the true condition of Ireland, and I shall at present abstain from making any observations upon her Majesty's Government, or on the conduct of the noble Earl at the head of it, who I trust will in future be more tender of the character of Irish landlords. I shall also refrain from any narrative of outrages, as my noble Friend last night in so able and feeling a manner laid many before your Lordships, as did the noble Earl connected with Tipperary so very clearly; but when, my Lords, the election petitions are under investigation, many most dreadful acts will be brought to light, and such as your Lordships will hardly conceive could have been perpetrated in any civilised and Christian country, and more particularly in one so closely connected with this, I still trust, great Protestant empire. My Lords, I shall trespass no further upon your Lordships' time, but in conclusion, will only say that I trust this petition will be followed up by others of a similar nature from all parts of the empire.
Viscount Melbournewas unwilling to trouble their Lordships on this occasion, as he believed that there were few noble Lords within the walls of the House who would be inclined to give their support to the prayer of the petition presented by

343
the noble Duke; but he could not hear statements made of the Members of either of the Houses of Parliament having violated the oaths they had taken in the votes which they had given on some questions, without offering some observations in answer. He felt for them, and he felt for himself. The assertion which had been made was founded on- the idea that the measures for which the Members had voted were founded on grounds injurious to the Established Church of England, as their oaths bound them not to support measures having such a tendency. He could not, however, admit that proposition.—He had not, it was true, taken the oath as a Member of Parliament which was required to be subscribed by the Roman Catholic Members; but if the measures which had been adopted, and for the support of which they were reproached, were injurious to the Established Church, he had violated what was a high moral obligation which he had imposed on himself. When he admitted this, however, he must express his opinion that the Members had not violated their oaths in the support which they had given to the Government. He confessed that he was rather surprised to see an individual like the noble Duke, a man of his property and of his character, stir in such a matter as this, and meddle with a measure so recently settled as the Catholic Relief Bill. Did the noble Duke recollect how it was carried through the House? With what difficulty it was finally settled? What deliberation it required? Did he remember the great political shock which followed it? And did he not imagine, in considering all these things, that now to meddle with it again—to disturb and unsettle it, after it had been so recently determined—would be again to produce as great difficulties, as great a convulsion, and as serious political consequences? The noble Duke was an advocate of what was denominated Conservative principles, and they were doubtless founded on a determination to maintain the great institutions of the country, subject to such reforms as might appear to be just and wholesome. But he could do nothing more at variance with those principles than now to attempt to disturb a measure of such importance, which had so recently been determined upon. If there were anything of a dangerous tendency at this time, or if there were any vice which ought to be guarded
344
against more than another, it was that disposition which existed for further changes in measures which had already been adopted after great consideration, and carried with great difficulty. In a year or two after some enactment had passed it was perhaps found not to answer exactly its proposer's views, and to be attended with some inconveniences which were not expected. Then it was directly said, "We must change and alter, we have not changed enough;" but he would say that that was not in the spirit of wise legislation, and he called on the noble Duke not to give his counsel or his support to any such proposition. A measure like that of the admission of Roman Catholics into the Legislature, or placing them on an equality with all other of their fellow-citizens, was one which was not to be tried by its immediate effects, or by a few years' experience, it required a longer trial to show its real character, and the manner in which it would work; it must be tried in the time of prosperity, it must be tried in the time of adversity, in times of peril, in times of security, in times of peace, and in times of war; and it was not on the experience of a few years, or of any short period of time, that an opinion was to be formed on its actual working and tendency. He would ask the noble Duke whether he were acting on that principle which he professed, in so lightly lending his authority to disturb a great matter so recently settled by the authority of that House, and of the other branches of the Legislature.
The Earl of Winchilseawas anxious to address a few words to their Lordships on this occasion, because he looked on the petition now before them as of the greatest importance. It contained a clear and distinct intimation, that a strong feeling was gaining ground among the Protestants of this part of the empire, that those securities which were promised for the protection of the Protestant institutions of the state, had proved wholly inefficient, and that danger did exist, if not throughout the whole empire, at least in Ireland, to all that was dear to the Protestant religion. During the time the Emancipation Bill was under discussion, he had endeavoured to impress upon their Lordships the necessity of withholding their consent to those concessions, firmly believing that, instead of giving tranquillity to Ireland, the very power they were conceding would be used

345
for still further innovation on everything connected with Protestantism in that part of the country. The event had justified his apprehensions; for every day fresh aggressions were made on the Protestant institutions of Ireland. It could not be doubted, that a Protestant Parliament had been established for the security and protection of our Protestant institutions in Church and State. With that feeling he had adopted the course which he deemed the clear and proper one in dealing with this question. Many noble Lords, he believed, were induced to give their support and assistance to the Catholic Relief Bill, upon the firm and honest conviction that the declarations then made by so many leading members of the Roman Catholic Church, would be fairly and fully acted upon, and that the power which their Lordships were then, as he thought unwisely, conceding, would not in any way be employed for the purpose of endangering the Protestant Church of this country, or injuring our Protestant institutions. If their Lordships would refer to the evidence, to the distinct evidence of that powerful man who now wielded the whole strength of the Roman Catholic interest in Ireland, they would see it plainly stated by that individual that he never would propose to their Lordships, or recommend to their Lordships, that any measure of concession should be granted, unless complete security was given to the Protestant Church. Looking back at the evidence in 1825, he found that evidence delivered in these words—and here he must say, that it was painful to him ever to speak on this subject, for he was afraid of offending the feelings of those who differed from him conscientiously in their religious opinions, and he could most honestly state, that there was not a man living who would feel more unfeigned pain than he should feel if he gave any cause of offence to any individual Member of that House. Before he proceeded with the evidence, he would remind their Lordships, that during the time that great measure was going through the House, he repeatedly declared his firm and honest conviction, that the members of the church of Rome would use the political power their Lordships were about to concede to them in a very different way from that which was then professed. He would ask of any impartial man, whether he was not right in his anticipation? But to return to Mr. O'Connell. In answer to a question put to him before the Committee in 1825, he
346
said, "I would require that the doors of both Houses of Parliament should be open to the Catholics; that they should be eligible to act as judges, and to fill places of trust and emolument, from which we are now excluded. That is what I require, and what I think would satisfy them. Besides that, I should call for the actual abolition of the 40 s. freeholders." It was demanded of Mr. O'Connell, why he should ask for the extinction of that body? and his answer was, "For the purpose of securing the established religion in Ireland; and I would further recommend, that no concession whatsoever should be made to the Catholics, unless the Established Church in Ireland is secured inviolate." It was then observed, "this is a very different doctrine from what yon have used in the Catholic Association;" and the answer was, "I do not feel myself bound by what I say in that association." He did not charge the Members of the Roman Catholic Church, who were admitted into the other House of Parliament, as a body, with acting with similar views and designs as those which he believed the great body of their priesthood were pursuing, for the total destruction, not only of the Protestant Church, but of the Protestant connection with the country; but if anybody looked to the opinions of the individual whose evidence he had just referred to, it would be found that he had repeatedly stated to the public, that he would not be satisfied until that Establishment was overthrown, which he looked upon as an incubus upon the land. The sentiments which he had now the boldness to declare, so much at variance with the evidence which he had formerly given, had justly caused an apprehension in the minds of the Protestants of this country, that that power would not only be employed in the destruction of Protestant institutions, but would end in a violent internal civil commotion. He hoped that such a melancholy event would be averted; but to avert it, there was but one course to be taken, and that was by the great body of the members of the Protestant Church in this country, declaring that they did not coincide in such sentiments, and that they would resist, to the utmost of their power, any inroad on our Protestant constitution. On former occasions, he had done justice to noble Lords of the Roman Catholic faith in that House, who had most honestly and fairly upheld, respected, and observed the sanctity of their oaths; but he could not conceal from their Lordships that a general

347
feeling was spreading through the country, that the principles which the individual to whom he had before referred was diffusing, were most dangerous to the safety of the Protestant Church; and, therefore, anxious as he was to extend the enjoyment of political privileges to all persons, however they might differ from him in religious opinions, yet, feeling as he did, that if he belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, he should use his power as many were now doing, he must say, that if a measure were brought forward for the exclusion of members of that Church from a seat in Parliament, it should have his most decided support.
Lord Broughamhad seldom listened to any speech with more deep regret than to that of the noble Earl who had just sat down, not on account of the force of the observations which had been made by his Lordship, not on account of the cogency of any arguments which he had employed in support of the prayer of the petition, but because of the high character of the noble Earl, for he believed that the really conscientious and honest manner in which he discharged what he felt to be his duties as a legislator on all occasions being known out of the House, the observations which he had made would tell with double force with the country upon a question which was fearfully calculated to put in hazard the general peace of the community. Therefore it was that he rose to say, that he would fain hope the noble Earl had given his judgment the same scope which he was apt to give his honest warmth of feeling, and that he would be disposed on further reflection, and on the exercise of that calm judgment which he possessed, to adopt different conclusions, both as a Member of that House, in recommending to their Lordships the measures which had been suggested, and also when in his private position he judged the conduct and motives of others. What, was it that men now, in the nineteenth century, asked of the House? What was it that they now recommended? Was it not extraordinary that, having reached this, the thirty-seventh year of the nineteenth century, a petition like that presented by the noble Duke should be brought to that House?—from a respectable body of men he was willing to admit, but he was happy to say from a small one. Was it the object of the petitioners that the Legislature should take new measures of precaution to guard against evils which existed, because those
348
which had already passed had failed? Was it that they were to take precautions against an avowed enemy? No; but they were called upon to do what was called retracing their steps. Those were smooth and easy words; they were vague and general, and" they did not at first strike the mind; but they went in reality much further than they at first appeared to go; they meant, in fact, that they should repeal the Catholic Relief Bill of 1829; and to this was added, by way of qualification, to make the proposition the more palatable and more practicable, that the repeal should be confined to Ireland—that Catholics might sit in Parliament to represent this country, where their number did not exceed 400,000 or 500,000, but that in a country where their proportion to the whole people was six millions out of eight, they should be bound to speak their opinions through the medium of persons of a different religion from themselves; that they should be stigmatised as Catholics, and simply because they conscientiously differed in their religious opinion from other persons, that they should be refused the right of selecting for themselves persons of their own religious persuasion to represent them in Parliament. But besides this, to make the measure more practicable, the uninvidious, fair, equitable, statesman-like distinction between Lords and Commons was to be drawn, that Catholic Peers and their descendants should be permitted to sit and vote in this House, while the Catholic commoner should not be represented by a person of his own church. But it did not stop there. He thought this alone would be sufficient to make the noble Earl take the same view with himself (Lord Brougham) on the subject. But could the Legislature stop there? Could they stop at the Relief Bill of 1829? Must they not go still further back when they once began to retrace their steps? It was not at the Bill of 1829 that they must pause; they must go to the Bill of l793, and even that would not do; they must even, to take security against all risks, go as far back as 1778, when the foundations of emancipation were laid, and the first blow given to the penal code. But, "Oh," said they, "there is no fear from Catholics voting as electors; the Constitution is safe if they are excluded from being elected by persons of the same religion, to represent them in the House of Commons." What! having flung open the doors of the Constitution,

349
would they complain of the Catholics forcing their way in? The power which enabled the Catholics to become Members of Parliament would enable them to prevent the repeal. But so would the power of choosing Protestants to represent them; for it was by Protestant representatives that they had obtained their full emancipation. But disappointment had arisen as to the operation of the Emancipation Act, and political agitation and agrarian disturbance were referred to in aid. He was at issue with the noble Lord upon these questions: they were tried last night, and he thought that no one would feel disposed to move for a new trial. But, for the sake of argument, he would admit what he had denied last night, and would, if the noble Lord thought it better, allow that there was more disturbance at the present time than before 1829. But might not the same be said of the measures passed in 1778 and 1793? After the year 1778 there was almost a military revolution; yet no one thought of repealing the laws of that year. Again, after the Act of 1793, came the great rebellion, and yet it was never proposed to repeal that great statute. If they went back to repeal the measure of 1829, which proceeded from the enlightened and statesman-like wisdom of the noble Duke, for whose great capacity then displayed in the conduct of the affairs of this country he (Lord Brougham) had never expressed other than the highest admiration—talents which gave him an almost greater title to permanent fame than even his military exploits —a measure passed by the noble Duke in defiance of clamour and regardless of odium, with the hope only of adding to the prosperity and of improving the condition of Ireland—if they went back to repeal the measure of 1829, which he firmly believed was a measure of peace, they must go back also to repeal the measures of 1793; they must go still further back, and repeal the Acts of 1778, and, in fact, they must re-enact the whole of the penal code, of which it had been long said, that though cruel, it was at least consistent. The House had good reasons to urge the noble Duke and the noble Earl to pause before they tried to work on the feelings—the too-excitable feelings—of their fellow-citizens by broaching such doctrines as he had heard that night; and, for the like reasons, they should pause ere they made any representations, founded, perhaps, in conscientious zeal, but not dictated by
350
sound judgment, or chose to pronounce their fellow-citizens and fellow-Christians unfitted for self-government—before they declared all incompetent, who acted conscientiously in the furtherance of the measures which their duty to their country compelled them to support, although they might happen to entertain different opinions from the noble Earl, from the noble Duke, or any petitioners, as to the probable tendency of the measures which they were minded to support. If they thought that those measures were safe and advantageous for the constitution both in Church and State, and were conducive to the benefit of their fellow-subjects, provided only that they differed in opinion from those noble Lords or the petitioners, were they to be denounced by a sentence which was little better than that they had forsworn themselves—that they had broken their solemn oaths? He (Lord Brougham) never read the Catholic oath according to the gloss of the petitioners. He had never considered that oath as militating against the honest and the free discharge of a Member's Parliamentary duties. He never believed it possible for Parliament to prescribe an oath which should tie the hands and fetter the judgments of its Members; or which, with the shadow of consistency, could be held to interfere with the unlimited and conscientious discharge of Parliamentary duties. If he were to admit, which he utterly denied, that in point of law the construction of the oath was such as the petitioners assumed, yet the votes which had been given by the Members of Parliament could not come within the scope of even that strict construction which they had heard of in this petition. A reference had been made upon the present occasion to an expression of his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) relating to a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Protestant Church in Ireland, but his noble Friend had last night most satisfactorily explained those words, by taking them in connexion with the context; and the omitted parts of the passage that his noble Friend had only said that the Irish Church Bill might for the present be felt as a heavy blow, and be considered as a great discouragement to the Protestant church, but that this would only be its temporary tendency, for he was certain that the benefits which the church establishment must derive from it would more than counterbalance any present injury. He thought at the time when his

351
noble Friend was making this statement that it was a most unprofitable act, for he was quite certain that the mis-statement would survive, whilst the explanation would perish; and so it had already turned out. His noble Friend only last night made this satisfactory explanation, and to-night, before twenty-four hours had elapsed, the mis-representation was repeated and the explanation forgotten. It was indeed possible that the petition had been drawn up before the explanation was given, but even before the explanation the place was open to all,—to noble Earl, to noble Duke, and to petitioners—for reference, and the exact statement might have been easily discovered. But it was more convenient for their argument to remain uninformed or rather mis-informed; they chose to take that part which was more consonant with the drift of their argument, that part which made for them, and to omit with some dexterity the remainder. The imputed expression, however, of his noble Friend would not be forgotten; he would hear again and again of a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Protestant church, whenever any question relating to church affairs was brought forward either here or elsewhere. He himself well knew, from experience, the uselessness and insignificance of all explanation and of all contradiction. Three years ago he had given some explanation or rather a peremptory contradiction relative to expressions attributed to himself. It was said that he had made the assertion, that "if little had been done in the last Session, less would be done in the next;" and it ran through the country like wildfire. He took the earliest opportunity of giving this statement a most positive contradiction. It was, he believed, the only time he had ever taken the trouble of making any such explanation, for he had always been well aware how unavailing were all such contradictions: he made a statement; it was printed and published; it was signed by him; and was circulated as widely as the circumstances would permit early in December 1834; in which statement he declared, that he had said no such thing; and that what he did say was, that during the two last Sessions, 1833 and 1834, the Sessions succeeding the passing of the Reform Bill, ten or twelve most important measures had been passed, and that those who thought that too little had been done in those Sessions, the whole question being
352
as to the fruits produced from the Reform, could scarcely expect that more should be done in the next, because all that had been done in the last Session could not be again accomplished, and, that those several great questions which he enumerated distinctly, having been settled less remained to be done; and it was clear from the context, that in no other sense could his observations be taken. This explanation was received; it was pronounced satisfactory; but it was immediately forgotten alike by friend and enemy. The enemy continued to cherish and revive the original mis-statement; and the friend, instead of denying that he had ever uttered it, entered upon cavillings as to the expressions, and argued in extenuation of them, urging that they were possibly used in the heat of the moment, when in fact they were never used at all. No one knew better the utter falsehood of the charge than his noble Friend at the head of his Majesty's Government and his colleagues. Nobody knew better than the Ministers of the Crown, his former colleagues, that he could not have uttered the imputed statement, because they knew the measures in preparation, and which were to be brought forward at the meeting of Parliament had not the Government been displaced; but they seemed to think that it was better to allow those charges to be made and remain unanswered. He did not charge them with being agents in this matter, but they thought it better to sit by in silence, and to let persons circulate those reports, and leave them to run like wildfire through the country, whilst they remained passive and permitted attacks which indeed injured them as well as himself. He only mentioned this to point out to his noble Friend how futile were all such attempts at explanation; it was in the nature of things and of men's minds that it should be so; the slander was more highly seasoned than the antidote; it remained on the palate; the taste of the contradiction quickly passed off, whilst the scandal endured; the oil was less pungent than the vinegar, and the sooner escaped the sense; the one glided smoothly away, whilst the other left its impression, till time, conduct, and action enabled a man to over live and live down the absurd and ridiculous misrepresentation; and he hoped that his noble Friend would live through and live down the mis-statement which had been raised against him, as well as the more humble and insignificant indivi-

353
dual who was then addressing them would outlive those affecting himself. He would say no more than earnestly to request the noble Lords opposite, and those whom they represented, to apply their minds to the real state of the country, and to cease exciting it in favour of one of the most visionary, one of the wildest and most monstrous propositions which was ever submitted to the Legislature, not only that Parliament ought to retrace its steps, but for the still more extravagant reason that the hopes founded on the passing of the Bill had not been realised, and that the failure had been occasioned by the perjury of men who had only acted conscientiously in the discharge of their duty, under the oath which they had taken.
The Earl of Mulgraverose to correct a misapprehension under which the noble Viscount (Lorton) laboured, and which he had stated in vindication of his support to the introduction of this petition, and it related to the offences committed in the sister country. The noble Viscount had stated his conviction that the outbreaks which were casually occurring in different parts of that country were connected with the members of one religious persuasion. Now he (the Earl of Mulgrave) would not be dealing candidly with the House did he withhold from them the fact that the noble Viscount had formed a most erroneous conclusion. He had received a report of an outrage lately committed in the county of Monaghan, communicated in a letter from a stipendiary magistrate of that county, in which it was stated that an armed body of fifty men had the night before gone about the place and broken into several houses; that all the houses assailed were those of Catholics; and that all the persons implicated in the transaction and who had been apprehended were Protestants. He would be the last person to found a general charge on an individual instance, or to bring an accusation against any religious body, least of all against the members of the persuasion to which he himself belonged, and he would ask the noble Viscount whether he was justified in placing those outrages to the credit of the religious feelings of one persuasion? He would adduce another instance of the impropriety of such a course. A sermon was preached on the 5th of November in Manor-Hamilton, against the system pursued in the national schools, and on the 8th of November the schools were burnt
354
down. Now this showed the impropriety of enlarging on topics which were of such a nature as to lead to the possibility of their being taken in a wrong point of view. Since that period, the Rev. Mr. Douglas a clergyman living in the neighbourhood of the schools, had received a threatening letter, stating that if he did not restore the money which he had collected for building the schools he would meet with the same fate—destruction. He besought noble Lords, therefore, not to mix up any attempt to violate the law with any religious feeling.
Petition laid on the table.