Sitting of 1 March 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. F. BERKELEY, from Soap Manufacturers of Bristol, for a repeal of the duty on Soap.—By Lord ELIOT, from Saltash, in favour of the Municipal Boundaries Bill.—By Mr. RAIKES CURRIE, from the Working Men's Association of Northampton, for a mitigation of the sentence passed upon the Glasgow Cotton Spinners.—By Mr. W. WILLIAMS, from Carmarthen, in favour of Vote by Ballot—By Sir W. BRA LUZON, from the united parishes of Balla, Drum, and others in Mayo, against the Irish Poor-law Bill; from the Barony of Kilmain, in favour of Vote by Ballot—By Mr. MAUNSELL, from the Guardians of a parish in Northamptonshire, that houses under the value of 5l. may be rated to

321
the Owners.—By Mr. R. BETHELL, from a place in Yorkshire, against the continuance of Colonial Slavery.—By Sir C. STYLE, from places in the county of Donegal, for the total abolition of Tithes, for Municipal Reform, for Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments.—By Mr. CHALMERS, from Arbroath, for the Amendment of the Irish Reform Act.—By Mr. M. N. W. PARKER, from parishes in the county of Devon, against the Highway-rates Bill.—By Mr. COLLIER, from Plymouth, for the entire abolition of Slavery on the 1st of August next.—By Mr. FRESHFIELD, from the Proctors in London and Westminster, for reform in the Post-Office.—By Mr. MACKINNON, from inhabitants of Lymington, against the Municipal Boundaries Bill.—By Mr. BALL, from Clonmell, for alteration in the Government measure of the Poor-laws for Ireland.—By Sir G. GREY, from Teignmouth, by Colonel SEALE, from Bridport, by Mr. LABOUCHERE, from Taunton, and from a Meeting of a Society of Friends, by Mr. BAINES, from Halstead, by Mr. GREENAWAY, from Leominster, by Mr. BETHELL, from a place in Yorkshire, and by Mr. COLLIER, from Plymouth, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Mr. E. B. ROCHE, from two parishes in Cork, for the total abolition of Tithes in Ireland, and for Corporate Reform.—By Mr. F. FRENCH, from the High Sheriff, and Grand Jury of the county of Roscommon, against the Irish Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. M. ATTWOOD, for the reduction of the duty on Marine Insurances.—By Lord DALMENY, from Kilmarnock, against further grants to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. R. STEUART, from Edinburgh, for the reduction of the rate of Postage, and the repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. D. BROWNE, from a place in Mayo, against the Irish Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, several, for Vote by Ballot, Corporate Reform, extinction of Tithes, against the Irish Poor-law Bill; and from Cork, for a reduction of Postage.

SLAVE TRADE AND NAVAL OFFICERS.
Captain Pechelldid not think on any other occasion he had ever risen with so much anxiety as that with which he now presented himself to the notice of the House, as in undertaking the responsibility of defending the characters of so many brave and gallant officers he must naturally feel his own incompetence as their advocate; but as their cause had truth and justice on its side, be confidently relied on the sympathy of the House in the course he proposed to pursue. He should, therefore, at once state, that the object, of moving for certain returns relating to the slave trade, was to relieve the officers and seamen employed on the coast of Africa from the charge which had been made, of their having allowed sordid feelings and pecuniary motives to interfere with the discharge of their public and professional duties. And for this purpose he would confine his observations within those limits, and he would show that the officers and seamen had not merited the censure cast upon them; but on the contrary, that they had deserved well of their country. The right hon. Baronet opposite, now Member for Pembroke, appeared, by the shake of his head, to disapprove of what had just been said. He should have imagined that a late First Lord of the
322
Admiralty would have felt inclined to have supported the character of the Naval Officers when they had been so cruelly attacked.
Sir James Grahamintimated, that he had not meant to express any dissent.
Captain Pechellsaid, the bare suspicion of an inclination of the head of a late First Lord of the Admiralty was an awful circumstance—as the conduct of many, officers serving during the right hon. Baronet's administration was now in question. The charge then complained of was, that in the suppression of the slave trade the Commanders of her Majesty's ships, with a view to their pecuniary interests, by their thirst for blood money, have permitted vessels to take in their cargoes of slaves instead of using their best endeavours to capture them before they entered the rivers on the coast of Africa,—in plain English, that her Majesty's ships had permitted the empty vessels to pass by unmolested, that they might afterwards bag them as a richer and fatter prize when returning loaded with slaves. This was a charge which the British Navy would not submit to, and which they threw back with indignation, and which he now repelled in as strong language as the usage of Parliament would permit,—the more so, as a cruel charge was wholly unnecessary to substantiate the case the noble and learned Lord desired to prove as to the necessity for suppressing that infamous and cruel traffic which all parties were so desirous to put down. The navy, therefore, consider the charge as a gratuitous insult; and though the noble Lord who presides at the head of naval affairs has most kindly and honourably vindicated the character of the profession in another place, yet it is desired that some expression of this House should be manifested in favour of those who feel they have been so cruelly treated. It will therefore be necessary to explain the circumstances under which the cruisers are placed on the coast of Africa, and to remind the House that until January 1836, when the last treaty with Spain reached that part of the world, no vessel under the Spanish flag (although in every way equipped and provisioned) could be detained lawfully unless slaves were actually on board—and that no vessel with the flag of Portugal (even at this moment), could be detained unless tinder similar circumstances; consequently the difficulty is

323
great, and the cruisers are baffled in every way by the extreme facility afforded at the Isles of St. Thomas and Cape de Verd, of changing the flags of Spain and the United States to that of Portugal. This could be effected for the small sum of 100 dollars. Therefore it is to be understood that only vessels bearing the Spanish flag can now be seized legally, although there may be clear proof of their being engaged in the traffic. For this want of jurisdiction, for this non-fulfilment of stipulations and treaties by foreign powers, have those brave officers been denounced by the gigantic force and the steam-frigate power of eloquence of the noble and eminent philanthropist, wholly setting aside their sufferings and privations by constant exposure in that horrid and pestilential climate. The commanders of the cruisers, under all their difficulties of want of jurisdiction, had exerted themselves in the discharge of their duty to the utmost, and had shewn by their zeal in putting down the slave traffic that they had frequently been put to great risk and expenses by detaining vessels that had all the usual articles on board for the reception of slaves, but which the mixed Courts at Havannah and Sierra Leone could not condemn for want of power under the several treaties with Spain and Portugal. From documents which he held in his hand, he would prove, that in the first six months of the promulgation of the equipment treaty, twenty vessels were condemned at Sierra Leone, seven of which only had slaves on board, and thirteen were what was termed empty. This would at once shew that the cruisers had not permitted the outward-bound slave vessels to pass by unmolested that they might be afterwards taken on their homeward voyage with a full cargo of slaves. For these empty vessels the captors did not receive one farthing, the proceeds being paid into court, and the moiety was transferred to the authorities of the nation to which the condemned vessel belonged. In such cases the commanders of her Majesty's ships were liable to expenses, as the prizes sometimes remained six months for trial. In the case of slaves being on board, by Act of Parliament the captors were entitled to 5l. per head; out of this sum one-eighth went to Greenwich Hospital, one-sixteenth to the flag officer in command, and agency expenses of condemnation and fees paid at the
324
Treasury,—aye, fees at the Treasury. And here he would call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove such charges, and also to bring in a bill, or by order in council, to carry out the spirit of the treaties, by giving bounties to captors for the broken-up hulls and cargoes of the empty vessels taken under the equipment article. To prove further the zealous services of the cruizers, he could state, that the Charybdis, commanded by the gallant officer Lieut. Mercer, had, from January, 1836 to 1837, taken six vessels that were empty, and one with 449 slaves on board; and he trusted that the Board of Admiralty would mark their approval of that officer's conduct, by giving him the promotion he had so well earned. This officer had been eleven years on the coast of Africa, and was the only survivor of one of the surveying and exploring expeditions, and had completely lost his health. The Trinculo, captain Puget, had also been most active, and that officer had risked much by sending his boats to attack four armed vessels in the river Bonny, who were waiting for their cargoes of slaves; these vessels were cut out after a severe fight, when lieut. Tyron was taken prisoner and stripped naked by the Spaniards and blacks; and what will the House think would be the amount of prize-money to recompense the captors on such an occasion?—Why, the sum of 49 l. 5s. 4d. was the actual moiety of the proceeds of these four broken-up vessels which the British Government shared with that of Spain, and which sum the Treasury have not yet provided for the captors. He could state many cases where the greatest, gallantry had been shown in action against very superior forces on the coast of Africa, and which, if it had taken place during the time of war, would have sounded well in the Gazette; and it was due to the officers and seamen of H.M.S. Fair Rosamond and others, to state their heroic conduct. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty has shewn, that since Jan. 1836, when the Spanish treaty came into operation, thirty vessels had been taken, nineteen of which had been empty, thus showing that the naval officers had not been actuated by those motives which had been imputed to them, and that, at any rate, their thirst for what the noble Lord had termed "blood-money" had not prevented them from doing their duty in capturing vessels only equipped for the

325
transport of slaves. He had much desired that the charges made by the noble Lord on the 29th of January should have been either qualified or removed; but, to his great surprise, on a subsequent occasion, viz., on the 20th of February, these charges were not only repeated, but, in his opinion, and in that of all his brother officers, they were most materially aggravated, and he would read to the House the passages in question, which by implication, was sufficient to give the greatest offence to the profession to which he had the honour to belong. It was in these words:—
"The zeal of naval officers for the service had been much spoken of; these was a saying of Lord Thurlow, 'Far be it from me to utter anything against an officer in the public employ, either civil or military, for it will lay me open to hear his panegyric; no sooner was it said, that money was not without its charms, that the love of prize-money was kindred to the heart, than forth came a splendid panegyric on the exemplary character of the officers, that they were actuated only by noble feeling, that money had no power and no influence, and that nothing moved them but a sense of public duty; and the man who thought otherwise was designated as degraded and ignorant, and stupified, and had no knowledge of naval officers and naval duties."
Now he would leave it to the House to say, if the naval profession had not cause to complain. The insinuations were intelligible, and certainly no mistake, and, on the part of the navy, he repelled them; and feeling strongly on this occasion the great provocation the service had received, he could do no other than use the very words (by way of retort) which were applied to cast a slur upon the officers of her Majesty's cruisers. How dare any man accuse British officers of being fond of blood-money? How dare any man, without offering any proof whatever, to utter so slanderous and false an imputation? The navy had a just right to complain of these accusations, and also to expect this night a disavowal of such sentiments; and those hon. Members sitting below, who composed the Board of Admiralty, would undoubtedly seize the present opportunity, and thank him for having given them this occasion to pronounce their full and unqualified approbation of the faithful and honourable conduct of the officers, and their gallant services on the coast of Africa. The gallant Member concluded by moving for a return of all vessels captured under the late Spanish
326
treaty by her Majesty's ships since Feb. 1836, distinguishing whether having slaves on board, or under the equipment article, to the latest date for which the same can be prepared, and stating the name of the vessel by which each was captured.
Mr. Goring, in seconding the motion, expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant officer in reference to what he considered a most uncalled-for and unjustifiable charge on the part of a certain noble Lord. He was, however, of the same opinion which he had last year expressed on this subject—namely, that they could not effectually put a stop to the slave trade until they constituted it an act of piracy, and resolved upon hanging at the yard-arm the commander of every slave trade vessel they could capture.
Sir E. Codringtonregretted that any person in such a high station as the noble Lord who had attacked the naval officers elsewhere should indulge in such unjust and unfounded accusations. Some persons, however, were so much given to vituperation that they hardly knew or cared whom they attacked.
Mr. C. Woodhad no objection to the return moved for by his gallant Friend. He was satisfied that there was not the slightest foundation for the attack that had been made elsewhere on the naval officers employed on the western coast of Africa. He was convinced that no officers of the navy could have been guilty of such disgraceful conduct as had been imputed to them. The statement that had been made elsewhere was altogether unwaranted by the facts of the case. Before the treaty with Spain, no officer could seize a vessel engaged in the slave trade unless it had slaves on board, and if they did so, they exposed themselves to the risk of heavy penalties. Under the treaty, however, vessels equipped in a particular manner were liable to seizure. He should feel the greatest pleasure in giving the return moved for, as it would show that the naval officers had manifested the greatest exertions to suppress the Spanish slave trade, and that those exertions had almost entirely put a stop to the infamous traffic under that flag. He had thought it only a matter of duty to bear testimony to the gallant conduct of the officers employed in seizing slave vessels on the pestilential coast of Africa.
Sir Charles Adamsaid, that he also felt

327
himself bound to bear testimony to the statement of his hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, as to the gallantry and zeal of the naval officers employed in the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa.
Sir Thomas Troubridgeobserved, that a more unwarrantable attack had never been made at any place or time, on any body of men, than that which had been made elsewhere a few nights ago on the naval officers employed on the coast of Africa; and he deeply regretted that such an unguarded attack had come from such a high quarter. Nothing could exceed the gallantry, zeal, and disinterestedness, of the officers employed on the coast of Africa, in the suppression of the slave trade, and he trusted they would be rewarded as they deserved.
Captain Pechell, in reply, stated his sincere satisfaction at the manner in which the members of the Board of Admiralty had expressed their sentiments, and which would not fail of being most gratifying to the whole of the naval service. It would be very cheering to many of those whose relatives and connexions were now suffering on the pestilential coast of Africa. He held in his hand several letters of complaint from the widow, the wife, and the orphan of those who had fought and bled in the service. The honour of these officers was dear to them; many of them had no aristocratic influence to back them up; they had only their character, and the record of the number of captures, be they empty or be they loaded, to recommend them to the Admiralty for promotion; and it was hard upon them to have any censure cast upon them, and to have their claims disputed and set aside.
Motion agreed to.

POOR-LAWS.
Mr. Blackstonerose to move for a return of the number of union workhouses in England and Wales, used for the reception of parochial poor, since the passing of the new Poor-law Bill, specifying the parishes in which they are severally situate, and the number of parochial poor received into each; also the return of deaths which had taken place in each of such houses, specifying their ages and the causes of their decease. His object in moving for this return was, to direct the attention of the House to the mode of visiting workhouses, and to the dietary allowed in them. He was satisfied
328
that the diet allowed in them was not sufficient for the support of an able-bodied labourer. During the severity of the winter, many labouring men who were unable to obtain employment, were compelled to take refuge in the union workhouses, but the diet was of such a low nature that they would be so much reduced that they would be unable to perform severe work when they came out of those places. This he knew to have been the case from what had occurred at Wallingford. Poor men had been driven into the workhouses from no fault of their own, and they there had only a sufficiency of food to maintain animal life. He was convinced that the low diet allowed in the workhouses, was likely to have the most prejudicial effect, as poor persons would rather plunder the property of their neighbours than be sent to the workhouses; as they knew that if they were sent to prison for theft they would have a better diet than in the workhouse. He was satisfied that the low dietary allowed in those places had already had the effect of increasing the amount of crime, as the returns at the assizes and the quarter sessions would show. He thought that the guardians of the poor should, under certain circumstances, have the power of increasing or altering the diet in the workhouses, as it was impossible that the commissioners could form so accurate a judgment in any case as those who were connected with the union. He trusted that before the end of the Session some hon. Gentleman would bring forward some short bill to allow the guardians of the poor to increase the diet in the workhouses in certain cases, provided in the mean time the Government did not take the matter up.
Mr. Humewould suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of making his return more comprehensive, as from the returns moved for, he would not be able to arrive at any conclusions. He would recommend him to add to his motion a return of the number of persons admitted at different periods into the workhouse, the periods of their continuing there, and also the number that had gone out in different periods.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to direct the attention of the House and of the noble Lord for the Home Department to a case that had appeared in the newspapers, which was a lamentable instance of the pernicious working of the Poor-law

329
Act. He alluded to the case of Hannah Brown, a girl of the age of fifteen, who had been tried within the last few days at the Old Bailey for stealing a pair of boots. When called upon for her defence, she stated that she stole the boots to sell them to procure money to buy bread, as her mother and brothers and sisters were starving, as they had been refused relief by the Poor-law officers. The judge stated that he had directed inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the case, and found the statement of the girl to be true; and he sentenced her to only two days' imprisonment, and animadverted in strong terms on the cruelty of the guardians of the poor. He wished to know whether this statement were true or not; and if it were, he trusted that such facts would never occur again, and that the unfortunate poor would not be placed in such a situation as to compel them to steal to obtain the means of existence.
Lord John Russellshould be glad if some time were given before the return was moved for, to see whether the information required could be readily obtained. He was not quite certain whether such' returns could be given, and therefore hoped the hon. Member would postpone his motion for a few days. For his own part he had no objection to give any of the information that was required; but he thought, if what was now asked for was given, that other returns would be requisite to elucidate them; for instance, the time when the several workhouses were opened for the reception of the poor, the different periods when the death of the inmates occurred, and the causes of their deaths, arranged under different headings.
Motion postponed.

VENTILATION AND LIGHTING OF THE HOUSE.
Sir Frederick Trenchbegged to draw the attention of the House to a project which he was desirous to submit to the House for the abatement of a most annoying nuisance within the walls of Parliament. He had to offer an experiment for the better ventilation and lighting of that House, an object in which they were all interested as respected their comfort, their convenience, and their health. He had been given to understand that the project which had been tried for lighting the House by gas a short time since had failed, and that the whole of the expensive apparatus had been removed. A scientific
330
gentleman, a Mr. Gye, had suggested a mode of producing a beautiful light in the House by an ingenious admixture of two gases in such exact proportions, that he (Sir Frederick Trench) though he was no philosopher, could easily divine, that if the exact proportion of these gases were not adjusted by some persons always on guard, who were philosophers, or if the person on duty fell asleep, or the adjustment of the two gases were to be disturbed by even the flapping of a stray bird's wing, the most unfortunate results might follow. If (said Sir Frederick) such an accident should, through these circumstances, or the negligence of these two philosophers, accompany this, Mr. Gye's, plan, you, Mr. Speaker, and this honourable House, would all be blown up together. The present mode of ventilating the House was open to great objection. The air was admitted from the floor through holes, over which a matting was spread. The air thus admitted, carried up into the atmosphere of the House great quantities of impalpable powder or dust, which being inhaled with the air, might affect the lungs of the most vigorous men in the House, whether the hon. Member for Kilkenny or for Finsbury, whose constant and assiduous attention to their duty at every hour on every night, particularly exposed them to the prejudicial consequences of such an unwholesome atmosphere, under which the hen. Member for Lymington, was now suffering. Dr. Birkbeck had proposed to procure a purer supply of air, by having two doors to the House instead of one. He had also applied for advice to Mr. Brande, and the result of all this consultation and consideration was his conviction that there was a very simple mode of ventilating and lighting the House much better. He would undertake that the experiment could be tried at the expense of no more than 10 l. for two nights. He should propose to raise all the side lustres about four or five feet higher than they now were, and on a level with the two lights in front of the reporters' and strangers' galleries. To compensate for thus losing light by removing the lustres to a higher level, he would add the light of seventy more candles to the present light of 150 candles, and to procure a supply of fresh air, he would, after stopping up the holes now in the floor, open other holes in the side walls, about the height of eighteen inches above the heads of Members when

331
standing near the wall. This he thought, could all be done for 10 l. And if it were not an impertinence, he would offer to try the effect of it at his own proper cost and expense. He hardly knew whom to apply to with reference to the proposition he now made, whether to the House, to the Speaker, or to the board of works.
Mr. Humeasked if the effect of a strong current of air at the backs of the hon. Members would not be extremely disagreeable?
Sir F. Trenchsaid, that it would not he cold air. He proposed to remove the matting from the floor of the House also, in order to let the air escape more freely.
Sir G. Stricklandsaid, he had a very strong opinion upon the subject, and he did not think that the hon. and gallant Member had stated sufficient grounds to warrant the adoption of his plan. He approved of the present system of lighting and ventilating the House, and must confess that, under the former one, he had frequently found the air in the House a great inconvenience. Such was not the case at present, the House being very much improved in that respect, and also with reference to the facility of hearing. His opinion was, that Dr. Reid's operations had been in a very great degree, if not wholly, successful, and the present proposition was not called for. The gas experiment had proved very disagreeable—and, although many hon. Members complained of a great want of light in the House at present, he was of opinion that the introduction of a great blaze of light would be found still more so.
Mr. Goulburnagreed with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He thought the House was now both well lighted and well ventilated, and disapproved of anything being adopted which had a tendency to interfere with Dr. Reid's plan of ventilation.
Mr. Prymesaid, that the present manner of lighting the House was very disagreeable to Members sitting in the galleries of the House, and he understood the plan of the hon. and gallant Member to refer not so much to the introduction of any very great blaze of light into the House as to the elevation of the present lustres.
Mr. Warburtonhoped the House would persevere in the present system of ventilating the House—as well as oppose any proposition such as this for altering the
332
manner of lighting it. The hearing was much facilitated at present, and he thought that the plan of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would very much affect that facility.
The Speakerhere submitted to Sir F. Trench whether it would be of any advantage to proceed further with the discussion?
Mr. Wakleyexpressed his opinion that many changes had been made with regard to the atmosphere of the House which were decidedly great improvements—the air being now almost as wholesome as any that could be produced. With respect to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member relative to lighting the House, it might be an improvement, perhaps, upon the present system; but if the present cloth were to be removed from the floor of the House, and an oilcloth put down its place, great inconvenience would be the consequence, for all the arrangements respecting sound in that House had been made in reference to that cloth. He had prescribed very frequently upon this subject, and had, in fact, commenced his prescriptions very early in the present Session—but they had, on that occasion, been so very positively rejected by the noble Lord the Home Secretary—and by 656 other ungrateful patients, that he did not feel disposed to offer any on the present occasion. He considered, however, every part of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member, except, perhaps, that relating to the manner of lighting the House, to be very bad.
Lord John Russellsuggested that the plan of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be referred by him to the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests.
Sir F. Trenchsaid he would prepare a plan, and lay it before Lord Duncannon.
Subject postponed.

COURTS OF QUARTER SESSION—COUNTY COURTS.
Lord John Russellsaid, he rose to bring under the consideration of the House an important measure, relating to the administration of justice in the courts of quarter session and in the other county courts in this country. There were several reasons why it was necessary that the attention of Parliament should be called to this subject, and that there should be some legislation with reference to it. One very obvious reason was, that very great changes had taken place in the law with regard to capital punishment.

333
For some years past those changes had been gradually occurring; but he more particularly referred to those more important alterations which were made in 1832 and during the last year. They had abolished capital punishment for offences that used to be deemed capital, and which used to come under the cognizance only of the judges. In order to show to the House the change of feeling that had taken place on this subject, he would contrast a speech made by a person of great eminence not many years ago with the actual facts of the last year with regard to capital punishment. The opinions of the eminent person to whom he alluded were those of Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough—a man of undoubtedly high legal attainments, and of most unsuspected integrity in administering justice in the court over which he presided for many years. It was known that Sir Samuel Romilly had proposed several measures for the mitigation of the severity of the criminal law. One of those measures related to the punishment for stealing 5s. in a shop. That offence was at that time capital, and Lord Ellenborough, when that bill came into the House of Lords, spoke with reference to it in these terms:
"My Lords, I think it necessary to state, that I never did cast any imputation, directly or indirectly, upon the motives of those who are the supporters of this Bill, when I intimated something like objection to what appeared to me to be a systematic plan for altering the criminal law of the land. What I meant, my Lords, was this—after having last year a Bill on our table which has made a most dangerous innovation on the criminal law of the country—having that followed up by another which is making equally as mischievous a progress—the same arguments applying to every law, and to every crime which has been applied to this—I want to know, my Lords, when we are to stop in this course of legislation? My Lords, if we suffer this Bill to pass we shall not know where to stand—we shall not know whether we are upon our heads or our feet. If you repeal the Act which inflicts the penalty of death for stealing to the value of five shillings in a shop, and suffer this Bill to pass into a law, you will be called upon next year, I have little doubt, to repeal the law which prescribes the penalty of death for stealing five shillings in a dwelling house, there being no person therein. A law, your Lordships must know, upon the severity of which, and the application of it, stands the security of every poor cottager who goes out to his daily labours. He, my Lords, can leave no one behind to watch his little dwelling, and dreserve it from the attack of lawless plunder-
334
ers—confident in the protection of the laws of the land, he cheerfully pursues his daily labours, trusting that on his return home he shall find all his property safe and unmolested. Repeal this law and see the contrast—no man can trust himself for an hour out of doors without the most alarming apprehensions, that, on his return, every vestige of his property will be swept off by the hardened robber."*
Those were the terms in which a person of the undoubted talent and authority of Lord Ellenborough—those were the terms which he used but a few years ago in favour of allowing the law to take its course, for stealing to the amount of 5s. in a shop. He sought not by this reference in any way to diminish the weight which attached to the name of that noble and learned Lord; indeed the opinions he quoted were stated to be those not of that noble and learned Lord alone, but of all the judges at that time; and his object was to show the great alteration which in the course of a few years, had taken place as regarded the feeling entertained on this subject, and the changes that it was consequently necessary to make in the administration of justice. During last year not only was the punishment taken away which Lord Ellenborough thought so essential to the security, in the open day, of the property of every poor cottager, but it was enacted, without any difference of opinion, that even in the cases of burglary at night, where no violence was done or threatened, the penalty of death should not be inflicted. In point of fact, the number of persons capitally convicted had so much diminished during the last few years, that in 1831 there were fifty persons executed; in 1835 there were thirty-four; in 1836 there were seventeen; and in the last year there were only eight. That number of eight was probably a lower number than there would be in this year or in future years, but it showed a very extraordinary change in the manner in which the law had operated. He had taken the proportion which the number of persons executed bore to the population during the last few years, making his estimate according to the supposed annual increase of the population from 1821 to 1831, and he found the following result:—

Years.

Executed.

Population.

1831

1

267,000

1835

1

437,000

1836

1

832,000

1837

1

1,903,000

*Hansard (Old Series),—Appendix, vol.

335
Without entering into an examination of the grounds on which, both in its theory and practice, the criminal law had been so much mitigated in its severity, he would observe that it was evident it could not have been left to a trial at a quarter sessions to decide with regard to the case of a person stealing 5s. in a shop, when it was the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and of the other judges that any conviction of that offence might be followed by the execution of the capital punishment. The gravity and importance of many of the offences brought before the quarter sessions were greatly changed by the act of last year, as well as by some other recent acts; and he did not know that at present there was any certain rule by which the cases to be tried at the quarter sessions could be distinguished from those which were to be tried at the assizes. The bill of last year provided that all offences which were capital previous to that enactment the quarter sessions should not try, but that they should be reserved for the assizes; those clauses, however, were struck out during the progress of the bill through the other House of Parliament; but it was at the same time stated that the whole subject required investigation, and that the attention of Parliament ought, as soon as possible, to be directed to it. He agreed that it ought, and feeling that there should be an enactment which should distinguish the cases to be tried by the judges from those which should be reserved to the quarter sessions, in the measure he proposed to introduce there would be a distinction drawn between those offences to be so tried by the quarter sessions from those to be reserved for the assizes. He did not think the distinction of the offences that now remained capital being left to the assizes would be satisfactory to the public, because, as they all knew, there were many of the offences that were capital no longer, that were of a very important and grave nature, and if the judges did not deal with them, it would probably be considered that they hardly gave that assistance in the administration of the criminal law which the judges of the land going the circuits and attending the assizes ought to be able to give. He would not now state the particular kind of offences that he proposed should be tried by the quarter sessions and by the judges. There was another important consideration which he thought established the necessity of the measure
336
he was now introducing to their notice; it was the great number of persons who were now tried at the quarter sessions. He had before him a return of the numbers who were committed for trial at the different courts in the years 1835 and 1837; it was as follows:—

ASSIZE COURTS.

1835

3,408

1837

3,466

LOCAL COURTS.

1835

3,373

1837

4,027

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

1835

2,849

1837

3,075

But the numbers were at the

QUARTER SESSIONS COURTS.

1835

10,737

1837

13,044

It was obvious that the constitution of a court which had such a very great number of criminals, which tried not less than three times as many as were tried at the assizes, was of the utmost importance. Amongst the other changes lately made in the law was that which allowed prisoners the benefit of counsel in cases of felony. He considered that a very proper alteration, but it was one which it must be admitted placed the chairman of quarter sessions in what many had felt to be a painful and difficult position. Their situation was now undoubtedly closely connected with the administration of justice in our courts. It was impossible for the chairmen of quarter sessions to allow arguments to be raised by prisoners' counsel which might mislead the minds of the jury from the true merits of the case, or to take a false view of the nature of the offence, without calmly and plainly setting right those arguments of counsel in their summing-up to the jury. He mentioned these facts because while he showed the difficulty of the situation, he established this, that it imposed on the chairmen of quarter sessions the necessity of great readiness and considerable knowledge of the law, to obviate the inconveniences that the arguments of counsel might otherwise occasion. Another consideration to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the very long period of imprisonment suffered in the prisons of this country before trial. It appeared from a statement he had made out, the particulars of which he would not go into, that the average imprisonment of the prisoners under sentence, comprising only those sentenced to be imprisoned,

337
not those sentenced to be transported, was 130 days; and the average term of the imprisonment before trial was forty-six days. Taking a considerable period of time, the number was 134,000 imprisoned for forty-six-days, and about 60,000 imprisoned for 130 days; so that in the prison there were four days passed by persons before trial, and but five days by persons who were undergoing their sentence. The average time was forty-six days, being about the period of six weeks. It appeared to him that these several instances established the necessity of their now taking into their consideration some improvement in the courts of quarter sessions. It was not fit, he thought, that there should be so many important cases (in former times reserved solely for the judges) brought under the consideration of those courts, or that so great a number as 12,000 or 13,000 cases a year should be left to them, or that there should be so long a period of imprisonment before trial, without some attempt on the part of Parliament to remedy the evil. His opinion was, that they ought to enact that the courts of quarter sessions should be, in all cases, held twice as often as they now were—that they should be held every six weeks instead of every three months; thus, that in every county in England there should be eight of those general sessions, as well as two assizes, making ten courts held for the trial of offenders in the course of the year. But he certainly did not think that the country could expect that the burdens thus imposed on those courts of quarter sessions, considering the importance of the trials and the number to be tried, could generally and for a much longer period of time be exercised by gentlemen who had not originally had any professional practice in the law. He did not mean, and he hoped he should not be understood, to say, that in the discharge of their functions, which certainly had come to be of far more importance than any that were formerly discharged in quarter sessions, they had shown incompetence; he did not put the measure on any such grounds; he had made no statement to prove any such case; but he thought it for the public convenience that there should be the means, if it were considered fit, of having a person of legal education to preside. He did not propose that this measure should take effect at first without the
338
application of the magistrates attending the court of quarter sessions. He proposed that on an application from them notified to the Secretary of State, the crown should be empowered to appoint a barrister of seven years standing as chairman of such courts. He proposed to connect with this a further proposition, with respect to which he had had a great deal of communication with the Lord Chancellor, and his hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney and Solicitor General. When Lord Spencer was a Member of that House, and before he was in office, he brought forward, in three consecutive years, a measure for the improvement of the county courts. His object was, that suits for the amount of 10 l. and under, should be tried before those courts, and that the courts should be rendered less expensive, less dilatory, and, altogether, more efficient for that purpose. The noble Lord's bill never passed into a law, and in 1827, a measure having a similar purpose was introduced by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel), who had then lately quitted office. His measure was founded on the same general principle with respect to the improvement of the courts, and the manner in which the cases were to be tried; the expense was to be little, the process was to be summary, and there was a power to summon not more than five persons to act as jurors. There was a difference, however, with regard to the judges who were to try these cases. In his noble Friend's measure, there were to be certain Commissioners as judges, named for certain counties. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was, that the sheriff should appoint a deputy or assessor who should act as the judge of the court. Now it did appear to her Majesty's Government that by adopting in part the principles of these two measures, and by combining the duties of presiding over the civil courts with the functions of the judges who were to act as the judges of the quarter sessions, the county courts might be rendered much more efficient than they had ever yet been. A sheriff, who was an annual officer, holding his office but for the year, would not be considered entitled to give, nor would it be proper that he should give, to any person of his nomination, a title to the situation of judge during his life or good behaviour. The inconveniences of such an arrangement were so obvious that

339
he need not detail them. He thought it far better that the judges should be named by the Crown to hold the office for life or during good behaviour. So far his measure was in conformity with the proposals of the Commissioners appointed in 1834; they proposed judges of this kind; also that the large counties should be divided into different districts, and that the judges should sit in the various towns of the same county. He proposed a similar arrangement, namely, that when the magistrates thought it necessary that the county should be divided into districts, an application to that effect having been made and granted by the Crown, the judges should sit once in six weeks in each town of the county, every such town being the capital of the district. He thought, that under such an arrangement, there would be a very cheap and efficient administration of justice. Persons would not be obliged to be for three or four days at a considerable distance from their homes, and the expense of witnesses and others would be considerably lessened. His noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, had a measure which he proposed to introduce into the other House of Parliament. His bill related to an act, which he thought was the 3rd and 4th of William 4th c. 32, and which provided for sending issues to be tried before the sheriff that did not go beyond 20 l.; what the Lord Chancellor proposed, he believed, was, that the Courts of Westminster should have the power of sending issues to be tried in this manner to the extent of 50 l. Where small counties were joined together, it might be possible for one person to perform these functions for more than one county. Perhaps that principle might be carried to a still greater extent; but experience, alone, would enable them to determine the matter. He expected that the fees of these courts for the recovery of debts would pay a great portion of the expenses of the judges and other officials, but he would say, that the county ought to pay out of the county rates, a certain sum for the remuneration of the chairman of the quarter sessions. Independently of this, however, he did not propose that any additional burthen should be imposed on the county. The calculations of the present expenses, taking into account the present expense both of keeping persons for a long time before trial, and of taking witnesses a great distance, had shown,
340
that from 20,000 l. to 30,000 l. might be saved, that sum being now lost, and not for any advantage gained in the administration of justice, but merely for the delay of the administration of justice. He hoped, then, that this measure would improve the administration of justice very considerably, and without entailing on the country any great expense. There were other subjects connected with this, which would readily occur to hon. Gentlemen's minds, and on which, therefore, he would not enter at this moment, but he would avail himself of the opportunity to inform the House that he intended shortly to introduce a bill relating to the present state of the prisons. It was his wish to carry further some changes in our prison discipline, that were effected three years ago in consequence of the inquiries of a Committee of the other House; but in his endeavours to accomplish that object, he should like to have the benefit of the labour of a Select Committee of this House; he should, therefore, move the appointment of such a Committee, and hoped that some Gentlemen, who were well qualified, would assist him in amending the provisions of the measure to which he had adverted. He did not think it necessary to trouble the House any further at this time; he hoped there would be other occasions on which he should be able to communicate to the House some further improvements in the criminal law. He felt that the rapid alteration which had taken place, partly attributable to a change of manners, and partly to legislative enactments, required that we should do something to keep pace with that alteration, rather than endeavour to maintain our institutions exactly what they were in former times. He, in conclusion, begged to move for leave to bring in a bill for the improvement of the county courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Mr. Plumptredid not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the introduction of the bill, which he was ready to say related to a subject of great importance, and might, perhaps, involve a great improvement in the law. He thought, however, that the question of the appointment of a paid barrister as presiding judge over these Courts, required much consideration. As far as his own experience of Quarter Sessions went, he must say that the law was well administered by the country gentlemen in the county, a part

341
of which he had the honour to represent.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the noble Lord was entitled to great praise for the many measures for the amendment of the law which he had brought forward. He thought that this was another measure for which the noble Lord was entitled to the gratitude of his country. He was glad to find, without meaning the slightest degree of disrespect to the magistracy of this country, that duties of such great importance as those connected with the administration of justice should in future be performed by persons professionally competent to the discharge of those duties. He thought that the improvements proposed by the noble Lord would tend to lighten the expense to the country, and at the same time to remove crime. He cordially supported the measure, with one single exception, and that, in his opinion, was one which was likely to obstruct the progress of the measure; he alluded to the provision which enacted that this measure should not be carried into effect except in cases where the magistrates applied for its introduction. He thought that if the measure was of real importance, if it effected great public good, and he would be surprised to hear this denied, in that case, he thought it desirable that it should be at once introduced and carried into operation generally. He would not oppose the bill, but he could not help expressing his regret that this provision formed a part of it.
Captain Pechellmost cordially concurred with all that had fallen from the noble Lord. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether it was intended that the same judge should preside in the sheriffs' courts as at the Quarter Sessions? [Lord J. Russell—Yes, the same.] He hoped then that the bill would be made compulsory, and that its introduction would not be left to the discretion of the magistracy.
Mr. Aglionbyrejoiced to find, that no opposition had been offered on any hand to this measure, and he rejoiced still more to find that the noble Lord in bringing forward this measure had offered to the House one of the greatest improvements ever contemplated in the administration of the laws of this country. But he was exceedingly anxious to know from the noble Lord whether he intended to limit the jurisdiction of this valuable court to cases of debts. He also wished to know whether the court would entertain questions of
342
damages not being debts. The third class of cases respecting which he wished to ask was that of trials of ejectment in cases of property of small amount—whether these would come under the jurisdiction of the new courts? The hon. and learned Member concluded by expressing his objection to making the operation of the bill dependent on the discretion of the magistrates.
The Attorney-Generalmerely rose for the purpose of answering the inquiries of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cockermouth. It was proposed to extend the operation of the court not merely to all cases of recovery of debts, but to all those cases which now might be decided in the county court. It was perfectly well known that the county courts, as now constituted, extended to almost all personal actions, and he hoped that all these actions would be brought before this court, where the damages did not exceed 10 l. If this succeeded, then the jurisdiction might be extended. With respect to cases of ejectment, he saw no reason why they should not be included in the operation of the bill. In reply to what had been said on the propriety of making the bill compulsory, he thought that no one who was a sincere friend to the measure would press that point. It was perfectly certain that the bill was likely to be introduced generally and become popular, and he had no doubt that before two years had expired the measure would have become the universal system of England.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that those who professed a regard for the magistrates of England took a very odd way of affording a very practical manifestation of their regard for those gentlemen when they suggested that, instead of being left to their discretion to adopt the measure, they should have no discretion at all in the matter, but that the bill should be made compulsory. He thought this was by no means behaving well towards that useful body of gentlemen, who gave their valuable services gratuitously, and discharged them with no less advantage than satisfaction to the country. There was another point to which he objected—namely, the payment of the salaries of the officers under this Bill out of the county rates. This, he thought, would be found burthensome and unsatisfactory, He wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that offences of a certain description

343
against property had very much increased in the county with which he was connected. He particularly alluded to the crime of sheepstealing, which prevailed to a most alarming extent. Sheep were stolen in large numbers as many as 140 had been stolen at once, and found their way into the hands of butchers. This was a very serious offence, and one the recurrence and extension of which it was important to devise means to check.
Mr. Handleyexpressed his complete satisfaction with the measure. He flattered himself he was not saying too much, on the part of the payers of county-rates, when he said that they would not grudge paying the salaries under the bill in return for the great benefits in the administration of justice which would be conferred by it upon the country.
Mr. Barnebysaid, the House would perhaps be surprised to learn, that no fewer than 13,000 persons had been tried in the course of last year at the Quarter Sessions, there being an increase of 3,000 persons above the preceding year. This might, however, be in a great degree accounted for by the fact that additional sessions had been held in many places in pursuance of a recommendation of the judges of assize. The questions he rose to ask were, whether the paid chairman who was to be appointed to preside was to have a concurrent jurisdiction with the magistrates, or was to be considered as the recorder now was in cities and boroughs, and whether appeals against orders of removal, &c., were to be tried in this court?
Lord J. Russellsaid, the chairman was intended to act as chairman of the court, not as sole judge or recorder, and that appeals were to be tried before the Court.
Mr. W. S. O'Briensaid, it was worthy of observation, that the Irish Members in the House were unanimous in support of this bill, some of the enactments of which were upon the model of what was already established in Ireland. He hoped that hon. Members would agree to copy still more the institutions of Ireland. Why not follow the example of Ireland, and give the court power to try cases of ejectment to the value of 50 l.? It was also well worthy of consideration, that the salaries of the assistant-barristers in Ireland were paid, not by the county, but out of the consolidated fund, and he hoped that, in justice to England, the Chairman of these courts would be placed upon the same footing,
344
and paid out of the consolidated fund. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord would extend to England the principle that courts be held every six weeks, instead of every three months, as at present.
Mr. Wodehousewas perfectly certain that no person would grudge to pay the salaries under this bill out of the county-rates who was capable of judging of the improvement in the administration of the criminal justice of the country which would be effected by this bill.
Mr. Gaily Knightcould not, upon this occasion, deprive himself of the pleasure of expressing the great satisfaction which he felt at the measure brought in by the noble Lord. He sincerely hoped the noble Lord would not be deterred from the "permissive system," which was well calculated to recommend the bill to the country. There were one or two points, however in which he thought the bill defective, but these he would have an opportunity of considering more fully at a further stage of the bill. At present he might say, that when there were to be eight sessions held in the course of the year instead of only four, as at present, there was no necessity for setting a court entirely apart for the trial of debts. The business, it appeared to him, might be taken together in the same court.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, it was intended that the business should be done in the same court.
Mr. Gally Knight.—Then my objection ceases.
Lord J. Russellhad now only to express his acknowledgments to the House for the manner in which it had been pleased to receive the bill. He trusted he should be able to have the bill printed and distributed some time before the next Quarter Sessions came on. It was not his intention to bring it on for further consideration before Easter, in order that in the mean time hon. Members might have an opportunity of maturely weighing its provisions, and making suggestions with a view to rendering the bill as effective as possible.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Custody of Insane Persons.
Petition presented. By Lord FOLEY., from Kidderminster, for the abolition of Slavery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH.
The Bishop of Exeterhad to present to their Lordships a petition on a very important subject. It came from certain inhabitants of the city of Cork, and, as it was not very long, he moved "That it be read at length."
The petition was read accordingly in substance as follows:
"That by the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, in 1829, a serious alteration was made in the security of the ecclesiastical property of this country, and by which the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom were rendered eligible to various offices and seats in Parliament. That, notwithstanding the oath taken by Roman Catholics, upon entering into office and taking seats in Parliament, not to subvert the Protestant Church, or weaken the established religion, the petitioners had viewed with great alarm certain persons of this description, openly avowing themselves in favour of the overthrow of the Established Church. The petitioners called their Lordships' attention more particularly to the fact of conspiracies existing, amongst other places, in Cork and Carlow, for the express purpose of taking away the lives of Protestants by base and false swearing on the part of Roman Catholics, and which, it was apprehended, had succeeded in numerous instances; and the petitioners prayed their Lordships to adopt such measures as might be calculated to render the sworn engagements of the Roman Catholics effectual for the purposes for which they were intended."
The Bishop of Exeterthen said, that, in supporting the petition which their Lordships had just heard read, he should feel it necessary to refer to a great number of documents. It was there stated, that a solemn compact had, in 1829, been entered into between the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom and this Protestant state, in consequence of the former being admitted to the benefits conferred on them by the measure commonly called the Catholic Relief Act. The Roman Catholics then bound themselves not in any way to interfere with the Protestant Establishment. As it had been denied that such a compact had been entered into, he should feel it to be his duty to make a few observations to the House, in order to prove that such a compact had been made. That fact had been denied, if reliance could be placed on the

285
published reports of the proceedings in Parliament, and he did not know why reliance should not be placed on them, by Mr. O'Connell on the 11th of March, 1834. On that day he moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the oaths which were taken, and those, if any, which ought to be taken by Members of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member then said,—"In 1829 we were not asked by the Government to make any compact or contract, and we made none. A seat in Parliament is not to be considered by us as a privilege, but as a matter of right." On that occasion Lord Althorp and Sir Robert Peel both expressed their extreme regret that this subject should have been again brought under the consideration of Parliament. Lord Althorp said, as well as he recollected, on that occasion, that, if it had been conceived possible that, in five years from the passing of that measure, such a proposition could have been made in either House of Parliament, he was quite sure that the act would not have been carried. Sir Robert Peel went more at large into the subject to prove that there had been a compact. Thus both Lord Althorp and Sir Robert Peel agreed in the proposition that a compact had been entered into. It never was contended that a compact had been entered into with all the necessary forms of recognised powers on each side; but it was a question of common sense and common feeling, whether what had passed on both sides did or did not amount to a compact. He did not see all the noble Lords present who were likely to be in a condition to know what passed between the Roman Catholics and the Protestant leaders of the House of Commons at that time; but he saw some noble Lords who were Members of that Cabinet who introduced the Bill in question, who must have known whether any thing like a compact had then taken place; and he ventured to express ft hope, that they would have the goodness to say, if it were contradicted now, whether there was or was not a compact then entered into, or an agreement that amounted to a fair understanding of one. Whatever might be the result of that appeal, he should take leave to show to their Lordships, that enough had occurred on the part of the Roman Catholics, in making their applications to Parliament, to constitute them contracting parties to the provisions of any measure that might be passed for their relief, when Parliament thought fit to ac-
286
cede to their petitions. They were at first called by the humble name of "petitions," though afterwards they assumed the character of demands for relief. He should now take some short extracts or passages from certain petitions which the Roman Catholics had at various times presented to Parliament. The first to which he should allude was one presented in the year 1757, from Dr. O'Keefe, a Mr. O'Connell, and others. The petitioners said,
"It has been objected to us that we wish to subvert the present Church Establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment in its stead. Now, we do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any such intention; and, further, if we shall be admitted into any share of the constitution, by our being restored to the right of the elective franchise, we are ready, in the most solemn manner, to declare, that we will not exercise that privilege to disturb and weaken the establishment of the Protestant religion or Protestant government in this country."
The learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) to whom he had referred, denied that a seat in Parliament was to be regarded as a privilege conferred upon the Roman Catholics. He, therefore, wished to show, that at the very earliest movement of the Roman Catholic body, they acknowledged the possession of the elective franchise, to be a privilege. The next extract with which he should trouble their Lordships was, from a petition presented to the Irish parliament from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in which the petitioners said,
"With satisfaction we acquiesce in the establishment of the national Church; we neither repine at its possessions, nor envy its dignities; we are ready upon this point to give every assurance that is binding upon man."
He now came to a petition which was presented in 1805, and which was the more worthy of remark as bearing the signature of Mr. O'Connell himself. In that petition he found the following passage:—
"By the same solemn obligation 'they are bound and firmly pledged to defend, to the utmost of their power, the settlement and arrangement of property in their country, as established by the laws now in being; that they have disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured every intention to subvert the present Church establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its stead,' and that they have also solemnly sworn 'that they will not exercise any privilege, to which they are or may become entitled, to disturb or

287
weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in Ireland."
In 1808, a petition was presented, in which he found this passage:—
"Your petitioners most solemnly declare that they do not seek or wish in any way to injure or encroach upon, the rights, possessions, or revenues appertaining to the bishops and clergy of the Protestant religion, as by law established, or to the churches committed to their charge, or any of them; the extent of their humble application being, that they be governed by the same laws, and rendered capable of the same civil and military offices, franchises, rewards, and honours, as their fellow-subjects of every other denomination."
He would trouble their Lordships with only one more extract from petitions. In 1812, a similar petition was presented. This petition was the more remarkable, because it was presented to the House of Commons by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), as he now was, but who was at that time a Member of the other House of Parliament. He was sorry that the noble and learned Lord was not then in his place, because he was sure that he would have concurred in what he (the Bishop of Exeter) was then stating. The petition presented by the noble and learned Lord in 1812, contained the following passage:—
"We have disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment for the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment in its stead. And we have solemnly sworn, that we will not exercise any privilege, to which we are or may become entitled, to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in Ireland. We can, with perfect truth, assure this honourable House, that the political and moral principles asserted by those solemn and special tests, are not merely in unison with our fixed principles, but expressly inculcated by the religion we profess."
It so happened, that the noble and learned Lord, in presenting that petition, remarked upon the oath in a very strong manner. The noble and learned Lord said, "You have got all the security that oaths can give you—I defy the art of man to devise anything stronger." Their Lordships would perceive, from the passages he had quoted, that before the boon was obtained there was a wish, on the part of the Roman Catholics, to give every satisfaction that could be required by a Protestant Legislalature and a Protestant State, and a perfect readiness to enter into engagements that should preclude them from any right of interference with the Established Church.
288
This was further demonstrated by other evidence to which he now begged leave to call their Lordships' attention. The secretary to the Catholic board, in his examination before the Committee of that House, said he firmly believed, that the Catholic body had no intention of intermeddling with the Protestant Church Establishment. This was an extract from his evidence:—
"Have you, in conversations or at meetings of Catholics, or communication with Catholics, ever heard any speculation advanced of a change in that establishment being desirable to the Catholics of Ireland? Never; nor do I believe the Catholics either wish or desire it. As a Roman Catholic, and communicating with the respectable portion of them, we have always deeply regretted, that our emancipation has been so mixed up with ecclesiastical matters; we have always considered it most unfortunate that the question has not been separated. Our earnest wish would be for every possible guard and barrier, and fence, and protection, to the Established Church, and that all her rites and immunities should be preserved. I can undertake to say, that not a single Catholic clergyman in Ireland will contradict what I aver, that they, as Catholics, have no views whatsoever to the disturbance of the establishment."
He should read no more extracts from petitions or the statements of laymen, but should proceed to lay before their Lordships some clerical statements. He should advert to certain declarations of Dr. M'Hale, who was not at the time they were made so high in the Church as he then was, but was in a position which entitled his opinions on Catholic matters to great respect. On the 6th of November, 1826, Dr. M'Hale, who had been for eleven years a lecturer in Maynooth College, stated on oath, before the Commissioners of inquiry into Irish Education, as follows:—
"Without reference to Parliamentary enactments, I do not consider the Church Establishment in Ireland as productive of benefit to the country, but as I am bound to obey the law, I shall acquiesce in the enactments of the Legislature. If there were no laws to bind me, I should feel no respect for the Establishment. As it is, I am bound by the Legislature of the country, and respect its enactments."
In another place he says—
"Although the great mass of the Catholic population derive no benefit from the Established Church, and are therefore under no moral obligation to pay tithes to it, yet so long as the law requires that tithes should be paid, they will acquiesce in its decisions."
He went on to say:—

289
"As to the dignitaries of the Established Church in Ireland, we shall never refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction in their temporalities, or the possession of their titles, conceiving that the state, which conferred them, alone has the power to take them away, and considering that, as St. Paul says, We ought not to refuse honour to whom honour is due, or tribute to whom tribute.'"
He next felt it necessary to call their attention to the testimony of a layman, which he had forgotten at the moment when he said, that he would quote no more matter drawn from that source, and which was very important. It was the evidence given by Mr. O'Connell himself. He quoted this testimony as it had been given to their Lordships by a noble Earl whom he regretted not to see in his place—he meant the Earl of Winchilsea; because, had the noble Earl been present, he would have been able to inform their Lordships from what source he obtained the information. He was satisfied, however, that their Lordships would consider that noble Earl's name a sufficient warrant for the authenticity of the testimony. The evidence of Mr. O'Connell, as quoted by the noble Earl, was as follows:—
"Suppose the witness were to receive a carte blanche upon the subject of Catholic Emancipation, and were required to fill up the extent of concession with which the Roman Catholics would be satisfied, how would he do so, and what would they require?—Mr. O'Connell.—I would require that the doors of both Houses of Parliament should be thrown open to Roman Catholics; and that persons professing that religion should be eligible to hold the situation of judges, and other places of trust and emolument, from which they are now excluded. This is what I would require, and what would, I think, satisfy them; but, in making this concession, I would recommend the absolute abolition of 40 s. freeholds.—Let the witness state for what reasons he would recommend the curtailment of the privilege of elective franchise. Mr. O'Connell.—For the purpose of securing the Established religion in Ireland, and I would further recommend, that no concession whatever be made to the Roman Catholics unless the Establishment in Ireland be rendered inviolable.—The recommendation now given, and the opinions expressed by the witness appear to be very much at variance with those sentiments said to have been contained in his speeches at the Catholic Association and elsewhere.—Mr. O'Connell.—I do not bold myself bound by what I might have said in that assembly or elsewhere, under particular circumstances. Many things have been spoken by me on these occasions in the beat of debate, or under the influence of
290
excited feelings, to which, in cooler moments, I would not give the sanction of my judgment."*
Now, he thought he had shown, that the
* With reference to this quotation, the following correspondence took place between Mr. O'Connell and the Earl of Winchilsea:—
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
"Sir,—May I request that you will have the kindness to insert in your paper of to-morrow the enclosed correspondence?
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your most obedient, humble, servant,
"WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM.
"2, Hill-street, March 20, 1838."
"16, Pall-mall, London, March 5, 1838.
"My Lord,—I cannot bring myself one moment to doubt that your Lordship will receive this letter in the spirit of courtesy in which I write it, and that you will do me the act of justice which I respectfully solicit from your Lordship, precisely as you would desire to have a similar justice done to yourself under similar circumstances, should they be applicable to you.
"The grounds, my Lord, upon which I ask this act of justice are these:—The Lord Bishop of Exeter is reported by the newspapers, and in particular in the Morning Post and Morning Chronicle, to have quoted you, my Lord, as his authority for attributing to me opinions and assertions the exactitude of which I mean publicly to deny; but being convinced either that the newspapers misunderstood the right rev. Prelate, or that some person has misinformed) your Lordship, I solicit at your hands a reply to the two questions which I beg leave to address to you on the subject. I think I have a right, in point of justice, to such reply, but I prefer seeking it as an act of courtesy.
"The first question is, whether your Lordship ever quoted the questions and answers specified by the right rev. Prelate, or I should rather say, alleged by the newspapers to have been specified by him?
"The second question is, if the facts be answered affirmatively, upon what authority did you, my Lord, quote them?
"In order to save your Lordship any trouble in searching for the matter which has given rise to these questions, I beg leave to enclose that portion of the Morning Post, of the 2nd instant, which contains the supposed introductory words of the right rev. Prelate, and the queries and replies of the introduction of which I complain.
"I think it my duty to add, that until I read the newspaper of the 2nd instant, 1 never heard of such questions and replies, that I remember.

291
Roman Catholics, on their part, were ready to enter into a compact; and, from what he had said of the declaration in the House of Commons, in March, 1834, it was clearly so considered by Parliament. Their Lordships would perfectly recollect, that on the 28th of April, 1837, when the Marquess of Downshire presented a petition from the Protestants of Ireland, stating that they did not approve of that oath, the noble Viscount near him had said, "he did not approve of that oath. Their Lordships all knew how it was introduced, how it was got into the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Without that oath, their Lordships knew the bill would never have been got through Parliament." That was very true, and it was satisfactory to show, that that amounted to a compact on both sides. He still hoped to have the advantage of hearing what must be known by certain noble Lords—namely, what actually passed between the Roman Catholic leaders and the Cabinet at the time when the Emancipation Bill was introduced. But whether there was a compact or not would be very far from deciding the question. The great point was, whether those persons had, as
"It is right that I should add, that I am not inquiring into anything that was said or done in the House of Lords. I appeal solely to the newspaper statements, and my inquiries are limited exclusively to the document set out in these newspapers, purporting to be an examination I underwent. I solicit information merely as to whether that document was represented to your Lordship as genuine, and if so, by whom and in what manner. This is my object in writing to your Lordship.
"Confiding to your courtesy for as speedy a reply as may suit your perfect convenience, I have the honour to be, my Lord, your very obedient, humble servant,
"DANIEL O'CONNELL.
"The Earl of Winchilsea."
"Eastwell-park, March 6, 1838.
"Sir,—I hasten to reply to your letter, which has just reached me. In answer to the first question which you have put to me, 'Whether I ever quoted the questions and answers lately specified by the Bishop of Exeter in the House of Lords?' the extracts of which you have enclosed to me, I beg to inform you, that I certainly have, upon different occasions, both in the House of Lords and elsewhere, publicly quoted them.
"In answer to your second question,' Upon what authority I quoted them?' I have only to reply, that I read them in the House of Lords out of a newspaper, in which they had been inserted, stating, at the same time, as they had received no contradiction from you, that
292
the petitioners alleged, and as he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought they had, violated their sworn engagements. Then, in order to see whether they had or had not done so, the first thing necessary would be to ascertain what their sworn engagements were, to look at the oath, and also to look at what must be considered as the fair interpretation of that oath. He should not fatigue their Lordships by reading the whole of the oath, but should confine hint-self to that part of it which related especially to this subject. The Roman Catholic oath contained this passage:—
"I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws: and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in this kingdom: and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this
I conceived them to be authentic. If in this conclusion I find myself mistaken, I have only to add, that I shall be ready to acknowledge it.
"I cannot bring back to my recollection positively at what time, or in what paper, the quotations appeared; but I think either in the Morning Post or New Times, and that they were founded on the evidence given by you, about the year 1825, on the subject of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your obedient humble servant,
"WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM.
"Daniel O'Connell, Esq."
"16, Pall-mall, March 17, 1838.
"My Lord,—I am bound to acknowledge thankfully the promptitude and distinctness of the reply to my two questions.
"I owe it to myself, and I think I also owe it to you, my Lord, to state, that although I had no doubt that the pretended extract of my evidence, which you found in the newspapers mentioned by your Lordship, was a mere fabrication by the writers of those newspapers, yet I have taken the trouble of reading over the entire of my evidence before both douses of Parliament, and I can now solemnly pledge myself that the passage quoted by you is totally unfounded, and that no evidence of mine could warrant the publication of that passage as genuine. You have, therefore, I do assure you, my Lord, been deceived by the

293
oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever."
Now, in order to come at the real meaning of those words, and to arrive at their true construction, did not, he conceived, require much argument. He knew it had been denied, that they were to look alone at the animus imponentis—that they were not to rely on the meaning the petitioners affixed to the oath. Well, then, they certainly had a right, in their endeavour to interpret its meaning correctly, to refer to any contemporaneous history or to any contemporaneous or cognate acts or words of the Legislature, as tending to elucidate the question. Now, for that purpose, he would request the attention of their Lordships while the Clerk at the table read certain extracts from the Speech his Majesty George 4th was pleased to command the Lords Commissioners to deliver in the year 1829. The Clerk then read as follows:—
"The state of Ireland has been the object of his Majesty's continued solicitude. His Majesty laments, that in that part of the United Kingdom, an association should still exist which is dangerous to the public peace, and
newspapers you quote, and perhaps you would permit me to say, that my leaving the deception uncontradicted would be no proof of its truth, as I have little inclination and less time to contradict the multitudinous false charges daily published in the newspapers against me.
"I readily offer your Lordship to authenticate or to contradict any matter attributed to me of which you should desire to make public use, if you give yourself the trouble of a previous inquiry from me.
"Again, my Lord, thanking you for your satisfactory reply, I have the honour to be, my Lord, your very obedient humble servant,
"DANIEL O'CONNELL.
"The Earl of Winchilsea."
"2, Hill-street, March 19, 1838.
"Sir,—I was on the point of writing to you when your letter reached me, to inform you, after a considerable search I have discovered that the extracts of the evidence reported to have been given by you before the Parliamentary Committee in 1825 were inserted in the Standard newspaper of the 5th of February, 1833, accompanying the leading article of that day.
"I have since carefully perused the evidence given by you before the Committees of both Houses in that year, and I am bound in justice to you to state, that the opinions attributed to you in the extracts referred to are
294
inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution; which keeps alive discord and illwill amongst his Majesty's subjects; and which must, if permitted to continue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve the condition of Ireland. His Majesty confidently relies on the wisdom and on the support of his Parliament; and his Majesty feels assured, that you will commit to him such powers as may enable his Majesty to maintain his just authority. His Majesty recommends, that when this essential object shall have been accomplished, you should take into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; and that you should review the laws which impose civil disabilities on his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal of those disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and permanent security of our establishments in Church and State, with the maintenance of the reformed religion established by law, and of the rights and privileges of the Bishops and of the clergy of this realm, and of the churches committed to their charge. These are institutions which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom, and which it is the duty and determination of his Majesty to preserve inviolate. His Majesty most earnestly recommends to you to enter upon the consideration of a subject of such paramount importance,
not in any way borne out by the sentiments you then expressed.
"I have only to express my sincere regret that I have in any way been instrumental in misrepresenting any part of the evidence which you gave before the Committees in 1825.
"I shall be most ready to make you the only reparation in my power, by placing you right before the public on this point, in any way most gratifying to your own feelings, either by contradicting it in my place in the House of Lords, or by publishing the correspondence which has passed between us.
"I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
"WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM.
"Daniel O'Connell, Esq."
"16, Pall-mall, March 19, 1838.
"My Lord,—I am bound to say, and I say it cheerfully, that nothing can be more candid or handsome than your Lordship's conduct on the subject of the fictitious extract from my evidence in 1825.
"I therefore accept your offer of the publication of our correspondence on the subject.
"I cannot conclude without once more tendering to your Lordship the expression of my thankfulness.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient humble servant,
"DANIEL O'CONNELL.
"The Earl of Winchilsea."

295
deeply interesting to the best feelings of his people, and involving the tranquillity and concord of the United Kingdom, with the temper and the moderation which will best insure the successful issue of your deliberations."
The answer to the address was precisely similar. The right rev. Prelate proceeded to say, that he thought he was not going too far in stating, that when they considered these very solemn communications which had passed between his Majesty George 4th and that House of Parliament, at this time, and he might add the other House of Parliament also, for he believed the answer to the address returned by the House of Commons was, as usual, an echo of the Speech—he said, when they considered the very remarkable answer which was returned to the communication made by his Majesty to their Lordships' House—when they observed how pointedly it referred to the oath—when they recollected that his Majesty declared himself bound to maintain the Protestant Establishment and the rights of the clergy of that establishment, and when their Lordships answered that communication as they had done—when they considered all these things, they could scarcely come to any other conclusion than that the proceeding amounted to no less than a solemn compact between that House and the Sovereign, to preserve those rights and privileges inviolate. The oath was, in fact, the only security given by the Roman Catholics when the boon which they had so long desired was granted to them. In looking to that security, he thought that the words of the oath ought to be interpreted according to the Speech of his Majesty, in which he expressed his intention to maintain the rights of the Protestant establishment, and to guard and secure it from all danger. That, however, did not seem to be considered by all men as the right mode of interpreting this oath. A learned Member of the other House of Parliament had said, "that he felt himself at liberty as a Protestant, to deal with the whole of that oath according to the construction put upon it by the House of Commons." That arose from the failure of Mr. W. Horton's motion to prevent Roman Catholics from exercising the right of voting on matters affecting the Church. That was resisted, because it would lead to endless discussion as to what question was or was not connected with the interests of the Church. It was also argued that such a provision was unnecessary, because the oath was perfectly clear, and
296
afforded the best security that could be obtained. In several publications, another notion was broached—that the oath was not to affect Members of either House of Parliament in their legislative capacity. That notion was first broached by a very honourable man, the brother of a noble Lord, Mr. Langdale, and was subsequently assented to by Mr. O'Connell. That learned gentleman said—"The interpretation he put upon the language of the oath was this—that the Roman Catholics were bound, as were the Protestants also, to support the Church Establishment as long as it continued to be the law. But as a legislator, he considered it perfectly competent in him to make any proposition for, or to be any party in, altering those laws." On this interpretation, there was one observation to be made—namely, that it was in virtue of that oath that Roman Catholics were admitted into Parliament, which privilege they deemed the most important, and considered all their other demands only as fine dust in the balance. That admission was, in their estimation, the only object of consequence, and unless that was granted all other objects of their desire were to be rejected. It would, therefore, be rather strange if, while one party was so eager to obtain admission into Parliament, and the other was so reluctant to grant that admission, the oath did not extend to Roman Catholic Members in their legislative capacity. In the very front of the Catholic Emancipation Act it was said—
"And be it enacted, that from and after the commencement of this act, it shall be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, being a peer, or who shall after the commencement of this act he returned as a Member of the House of Commons, to sit and vote in either House of Parliament respectively, being in all other respects duly qualified to sit and vote therein, upon taking and subscribing the following oath, instead of the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration."
And why, or for what purpose, was such language placed in the front of that Act, if the oath provided by the Act was not to affect the Roman Catholic Members in their legislative capacity? If such language was not used for the purpose of restraining them as legislators, he knew nothing more absurd than that such expressions should have been inserted at all. But he would beg to remind their Lordships that Protestants were not bound by a similar oath and wherefore, then, were the Roman Catholics bound by an oath not

297
to weaken or injure the Protestant establishment, if that oath did not extend to them in their legislative capacity? There was another interpretation of this oath. It was assumed to be no more than a declaration similar to that which was made by persons previous to taking office in any department of the public service. This was a notion which he believed was also put forward by Mr. Langdale. That hon. Gentleman referred to the obligation which all Ministers of State and other high officers came under when they took office, not to use the influence of their office in any way tending to injure the Protestant Church or Protestant Government. But Mr. Langdale did not advert, when arguing on a question affecting the Church of Ireland, that that declaration was specially limited to England, and therefore was not applicable to any question having reference to the Church of Ireland. That hon. Gentleman, however, put forward his views on a question having reference solely to Ireland. They would now see that there were very different views in reference to this oath as it affected the church. A noble Viscount, a Member of the other House, and a Member also of her Majesty's Government—he meant the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland—made some observations in the other House in reference to the Irish Church in 1835. On that occasion the noble Lord—and he believed the noble Lord was a sincere Christian and good Churchman, he said with the greatest sincerity that he believed the noble Lord was a good Churchman—but in 1835 the noble Lord had said, that although he was bound not to injure the Church of England, he considered the Church of Ireland an insult to the Irish people. The noble Lord felt himself restrained by his oath of office so far as the Church of England was concerned, but he felt also that that oath was not binding on him in reference to the Church of Ireland, and that he was at liberty to use his influence as a Cabinet Minister to effect such alterations in the Irish Church as his peculiar views might induce him to consider necessary. He (the Bishop of Exeter) therefore was obliged to say, that the Roman Catholic oath had no affinity, and could not have been intended for a purpose similar to that for which the oath of office was provided. He was, however, happy to say, that while some Roman Catholics were eager, or apparently eager, to throw off the obligation of the oath they had
298
taken, there were others, and not a few, who adhered to it in its obvious meaning and refused to participate in any measure affecting the interests of the church. He might, in the first place, mention a noble Lord, formerly a Member of the other House, and now one of the greatest ornaments of their Lordships' House—he alluded to the Earl of Fingal. That noble Lord had not any of those loose notions in regard to the oath which he had taken which some entertained, and felt himself bound to abstain from all acts which could possibly affect, in the slightest degree, injuriously the Church Establishment. He had shown his sincerity, too, in the view he had taken of that oath by refusing to join in any measure hostile to the Established Church in Ireland, even at the hazard of his seat in the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord's declaration in regard to the Roman Catholic oath caused him the loss of his election for the county of Meath. Such, he believed, was the fact, for it was generally stated, that he had lost his election in consequence of his declaration in regard to that oath. He would not argue, that the noble Lord had been a martyr; he was not certain of the cause which produced the defeat of the noble Lord, but it was generally said to have been his unlucky declaration—unlucky as far as his election was concerned, but in other respects most happy. Mr. O'Reilly had also declared similar sentiments; he was not a martyr, but he shared the same fate with the noble Lord to whom he had alluded, and also lost his election as the consequences of the views he entertained of the oath which he would have had to take before assuming his seat in the House of Commons. Whether any other Irish Roman Catholic Members of the House of Commons were equally willing to make a similar declaration, at the hazard of similar consequences, he did not know, but he rejoiced to say, that Mr. Petre, an English Member, had stated, that nothing could induce him to act on the interpretation put upon the oath by some Gentlemen. It was not for him (the Bishop of Exeter) to say, that the interpretation put upon the oath by those individuals was the only one which could fairly be put upon it; but it was his duty when presenting petitions on the subject, to state, what his own views were, and to declare what was, in his opinion, the right interpretation of that oath. The first clause of that oath to which he would advert was as follows:—

299
"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by, law within this realm."
Now, he thought that in point of fact that part of the oath prevented any conscientious man who had any feeling of hostility to the Church Establishment, or any intention of subverting it, from qualifying himself, by taking the oath for a seat in Parliament. The next passage was:—
"I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom."
Now, he certainly did not hold that that part of the oath was to stop the mouths of the Roman Catholic Members; he did not hold that Roman Catholic Members were by that clause of the oath compelled to leave the House when any question regarding the Protestant religion in this country was brought forward. Far from it; for they were present in the Legislature under a writ of summons, which called upon them to advise her Majesty upon certain important affairs relating to both Church and State. It would be too much to say, that persons having received such a writ of summons should be precluded from advising her Majesty upon one portion of public affairs to which the summons bore a direct reference. But while he stated, that such were his opinions, he was bound to say, that he held the portion of the oath he had last read to impose a restraint on Roman Catholic Members which was not put upon Protestants. The Roman Catholic Members swore, that they would not exercise any privilege to which they were or might become entitled—and that could only refer to their legislative privilege, for their other privileges were mentioned afterwards—to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or the Protestant Government. They swore to do nothing having a tendency to injure the Protestant Church or the Protestant Government, as by law established. Now, he was happy to say, that these were not wild notions of his. They were not taken up by him without consulting the testimony of conscientious Roman Catholic gentlemen in regard to their view of the oath. To show their Lordships the view taken by conscientious Roman Catholics in regard to this oath, he would read a passage from a letter of a most respectable gentleman, Mr. Waterton, of Yorkshire, as
300
we understood, dated Wakefield, the 6th of March, 1835. In that letter, Mr. Waterton said:—
"Catholic Emancipation has done nothing worth speaking of for me. I can neither be a Member of Parliament nor a magistrate; for no entreaty, no power on earth, shall make me take Peel's oath."
He remarked that with pleasure, for the Jesuits appeared to have taught this gentleman the right interpretation of the oath, although they might not have been so successful with others.
"If I understand the English language—and I ought to understand it, for I was with the Jesuits till I was twenty years old—I say that Peel's oath binds me before Almighty God to abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment. Now, I will do everything in my power, fairly and honourably, as a gentleman, to upset that Church as by law established."
That was frank; it was a fair avowal on the part of the honourable gentleman of his intention to subvert the Church; and he respected the honourable gentleman for his candour. The honourable gentleman openly told his sentiments, and he, for one, was sorry that Mr. Waterton did not take the oath, because he was certain that if once taken it would not be violated. But this was not the only individual who, from similar causes, had refused to take the oath; and to what he was about to state he begged the attention of the noble Baron, the Secretary for the Colonies, who would perhaps be able to give their Lordships some information on the subject. It happened that a Roman Catholic gentleman of high rank—the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta—was nominated to be one of his late Majesty's Council in that island, and was required to take the oath under the act for repealing the Roman Catholic disabilities. But that gentleman, very much to his honour, said he could not take that oath consistently with the view he entertained, and in consequence he was not admitted a member of the Council. This statement he had received from a most respectable individual; but if the facts were different, perhaps the noble Baron, the Secretary for the Colonies, could inform their Lordships how the matter really stood.
Lord Glenelgbelieved, the facts were as stated by the right rev. Prelate, but he doubted whether it was the oath necessary under the Emancipation Act which was refused.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, it seemed,

301
however, that some oath had been refused, which, as a Roman Catholic, the Bishop of Malta could not conscientiously take. He was sorry, that time had prevented him from making more particular inquiries on the subject. Had he thought, that there could have been any doubt in regard to the matter, he would have given the noble Baron notice of his intention to put the question to the noble Baron, when a satisfactory answer might have been obtained. The noble Baron had, however, allowed that some oath had been refused, and it was highly probable, at all events, that it was the oath necessary to qualify for office prescribed by the Emancipation Act. [Lord Glenelg: That was not to be assumed.] The noble Baron had admitted, that there was a question about some oath, but the noble Baron could not say positively what that oath was. He thought they might conclude, under the circumstances, that it was really the oath to which he had called their Lordships' attention.
Lord Glenelgwas unable to say what the oath was, but would make inquiries on the subject and inform the right rev. Prelate of the result.
The Earl of Aberdeenknew that the oath was the one mentioned by the right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Exeterhad now the authority of a late Secretary for the Colonies that the oath was what he had stated it to be, and that the Bishop of Malta had refused to take that oath—that that Prelate had refused to qualify himself to be a member of his late Majesty's Council by taking an oath which was at variance with his views as a Roman Catholic. His refusal was the cause why he was not appointed. That Prelate felt, that he could not conscientiously take an oath not to weaken or disturb the established church or to injure the Protestant religion, he himself being a Roman Catholic, and he chose rather to forego the honourable office which was offered him than do violence to his conscience. These were men whom he most sincerely honoured. In the course of the discussions on the Roman Catholic oath there was one learned person who put another construction on the word "establishment" than what that word was usually supposed to imply. Mr. O'Connell, on the 11th of March, 1834, was reported in Hansard to have said, that
"There could be no controversy about the oath as it now stood, because there was nothing in it to prevent a Catholic from acting
302
as he pleased with respect to the temporalities of the established church, either as regarded the power, authority, or emoluments of the church."
He would not charge that individual with having used the words "established church," because reports of the proceedings in that House could not be expected always to convey the very words of the different speakers, and all that could be expected was a fair representation of arguments and opinions. In any case of nicely-balanced expressions, when great importance would be attached to particular shades of meaning, he would not place entire confidence in the accuracy of a report. The phrase used in the oath was not, however, the "established church," but "the present church establishment," and there was a very great difference between the two expressions. Mr. O'Connell said, he did not swear to maintain the tithes and oblations paid to the church. But the "church establishment" could only mean those privileges, possessions, rights, and endowments which the State took care the church should possess, whether by original endowment, or by donations from the Crown or individuals afterwards. If there was any meaning in a church establishment, that was the true meaning, and certainly it was the meaning contemplated in the oath. But Mr. O'Connell said further, that there were two churches in Ireland—the one established by law, and the other by the people, and he asked would the Protestant be less an established church if deprived of its temporalities? To be sure it would; for it would then cease to be an establishment, although it would not cease to be a church, for the church was beyond the reach of human laws, and depended on the will of the Almighty. An establishment meant, and could only be understood to mean, the rights, privileges, possessions, and endowments of the church, as protected and secured to her by the laws. This, then, was the duty imposed on Roman Catholics by the oaths which they had taken. They were bound to do nothing to injure the establishment, or to weaken any of those rights secured to the church by the laws. These were the engagements into which the Roman Catholics had entered, and those engagements the petitioners said, and he said with them, the Roman Catholics had violated. They were here met in limine by an objection in the nature of a question—namely, what was it that kept the Roman Catholics so

303
long out of Parliament? And the answer was, their adherence to their oaths—an adherence which nothing could induce them to violate. He admitted, that at first sight there was much in that objection. The oaths previously required to be taken by Roman Catholics had long been a matter of complaint. They said, that they were ready to enter into any engagement not to hurt the established church, but they complained that they were required to take an oath by which they were compelled to abjure a principal dogma of their faith. They said that that obnoxious oath was proposed to them because they were considered enemies of the church, and they asked, what was the utility of imposing such an oath upon them, if they gave security not to interfere with the church establishment? Now, he admitted that there was a great deal in that argument, but still he did not think it was conclusive. What was the history of the necessity for requiring Roman Catholics to take oaths different from those required from Protestants—take, for instance, the oath abjuring transubstantiation? It was this—they were found not to have adhered to their other engagements. In the times of Charles 2nd, an individual very conversant with the conduct of the Roman Catholics of those days, Father Walsh, and who was well acquainted with the troubles of that period, wrote in 1661, a "Remonstrance to the Roman Catholics of England, Ireland, and Scotland," and in the preface he stated, that
"Their missionaries (i.e., their Jesuit priests) labour to infuse into all their penitents all their own principles of equivocation and mental reservation in swearing any oath, even of allegiance or supremacy, to the King, and for swearing anything or doctrine whatsoever, except those articles which, by the indispensable condition of their communion, they may not dissemble upon oath. That the tenet of transubstantiation is one of these; therefore, &c."
Such was the statement of a learned Roman Catholic, a friend of the Duke of Ormond, to whom, in fact, Father Walsh dedicated his pamphlet, and than whom there were few greater men. It was in consequence of the practices of the Roman Catholics on the Duke of Ormond that Father Walsh wrote his remonstrance. He had said, that he thought that the oaths taken by certain parties had been broken. It would be affectation in him to pretend to be ignorant that, in consequence of having made that assertion on a
304
former occasion, his conduct had been subject to a good deal of comment; and, therefore, dismissing for the moment what was stated by the petitioners, he begged leave to say a few words in support of the position he had taken up. Their Lordships would not, probably, think this a waste of time when he read a notice, which stood on the paper of the House of Commons for last Monday. The notice was to this effect, "that in case the notice by Lord Maidstone is proceeded with, and entertained by the House, to bring before the House the charge of perjury, made by the Bishop of Exeter against Members of this House." He had not been able to find any subsequent statement relative to this subject, either among the notices of motions, or in the minutes of the proceedings of the House of Commons, although it did appear that Lord Maidstone proceeded with his motion, and that the House entertained it. He trusted that he should receive the indulgence of their Lordships if, in reference to his assertion of the violation of the oath imposed upon Roman Catholics, he ventured to read that part of his charge to the clergy of his diocese which a noble Lord in the other House alluded to, and, for ought he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew, still intended to bring under the notice of that House; and as he could not be present in the other House to defend himself, perhaps their Lordships would forgive him if he coupled that matter a little with the petition now before them. In 1836 he had occasion to address the clergy of his diocese, at the triennial visitation, and, in the course of his observations, he did, what it was commonly the practice of bishops to do, address the clergy on all the great transactions which had taken place with respect to the religion of the country and the church of England and Ireland; and he had particularly thought it his duty to express his opinion on a Bill which had been under the consideration of Parliament, entitled, "An Act for the better regulation of ecclesiastical revenues and the promotion of moral instruction in Ireland, in reference to which he remarked—and there appeared to him nothing irregular or reprehensible in commenting, however strongly, on a Bill which had never passed into an Act of Parliament—that it was, in plain English "a Bill for seizing on the revenues of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and applying them to some undefined purpose of teaching morality

305
without religion, and religion without a creed." He afterwards proceeded to observe as follows:—
"On this Bill I shall be brief, but I cannot but congratulate you, on higher grounds than sympathy with your distressed and excellent brethren, the clergy of that country, that the cause of true religion has not been there abandoned; that those moderate funds (for such they have been proved to be) which the piety and wisdom of former ages have provided for the maintenance and extension of a pure faith throughout Ireland have not become the prey of a perfidious faction, which would not have acquired the powers of mischief which unhappily they possess and exercise but by entering into engagements and binding themselves by pledges, which Englishmen and Protestants would deem it impossible for any who call themselves Christians to dare to violate. In the discussion of the measure in Parliament I felt it my duty to rest my resistance to it on this point—to denounce as treachery, aggravated by perjury, such an exercise of rights acquired under an oath not to weaken or disturb the Protestant religion. In truth, when we call to mind the solemn and oft-repeated protestations made by the Roman Catholics, and by their friends for them—of the sense in which they took that oath, and of the awful obligation imposed by it upon their conscience—and then advert to the certain consequences of the proposed Bill (if it had passed) as avowed by its chief adviser—that it would prove a serious discouragement—a heavy blow—to the Protestant religion, and a triumph to its enemies; but that it was a measure which the augmented force of the Roman Catholics, and their unmitigable hostility to that religion had rendered it necessary—when we call to mind that such was the nature of the measure, such the argument by which it was enforced, I know not in what milder terms the indignation of an honest mind can be expressed than by characterising the conduct of those who demanded it as treachery, aggravated by perjury."
The only meaning of the sewords was, that the persons who demanded that measure were guilty of "perjury, aggravated by treachery;" and it was for him to show that those persons were Roman Catholics, who required it for purposes contradictory to the engagements which they had entered into. Before he proceeded further, he wished to observe, that the noble Lord who had given the notice he had just alluded to, described the passage he had now read as a charge of perjury against Members of the House of Commons, and consequently implied that the words "perfidious faction" applied to Members of the late House of Commons. Now, it was not
306
his intention to advance the technical and trumpery plea, that because his statement related to the last Parliament, the present House of Commons had no right to take notice of the matter; but he should deal with the real merits of the question. The noble Lord, he repeated, must intend to say, that the phrase "perfidious faction," meant certain Members of the late House of Commons. The noble Lord must also assume that those who demanded that Bill were Roman Catholic Members of the other House of Parliament; for it was quite clear, that the noble Lord's notice charged him (the Bishop of Exeter) with accusing of perjury Members of the House of Commons. He was ready to admit, that by the phrase mentioned he did mean to include some Members of the other House, but not all, who united in favour of the particular measure he had alluded to. He had not stated, that he referred to Members of the other House, but the noble Lord concluded, that such was the aim of his observations, because they could not be taken to have any application to their Lordships' House; for it had never been degraded by receiving within its walls any man who could be considered the member of a "perfidious faction," and who had acquired certain powers by the violation of his sworn oaths. Therefore it was, that none of their Lordships for one moment imagined that his words applied to any of their Lordships, though there were Roman Catholics in that assembly; but they were as determined to adhere to their oaths as any noble Lord or right rev. Prelate then present. Whom, then, did he intend to allude to by the words which had been quoted? He meant the agitators in Ireland, who had forced this measure on the Government, and some of them were out of Parliament. Among them was Dr. M'Hale, whose letter to the Secretary of the Roman Catholic Association he had before noticed. Dr. Murray was to be included in the same class, for he was notorious for insisting that all the rights of the church, especially tithe, be done away with. Dr. Murray was pleased to come forward, he forgot precisely on what occasion, but he believed it was on the occasion of the expedition of the hon. Member who was the prime mover of the General Association of Dublin, through the country, for the purpose of abusing their Lordships. Dr. Murray, he repeated, thought it necessary to send his 10 l. to aid that learned Member in his design of ob-

307
taining the total abolition of tithes. Dr. Murray, too, belonged to the General Association of Ireland, and, consequently, he was a member of a body the declared object of which was, to effect the entire abolition of tithes. He would not trouble their Lordships with any further allusions to individuals out of Parliament; but, having admitted, that his language applied to certain Members in Parliament, he would now endeavour to show, that he had not described them injuriously. He would show, that Mr. O'Connell, who was then the Representative of Kilkenny, did make certain declarations entirely inconsistent with the oath he was obliged to swear when he presented himself to take his seat in Parliament; and he would show this, not by wounding their Lordships' ears with the quotation of any of those expressions which the learned individual in question unhappily too frequently uttered, and which were so loathsome as to be painful to all ordinary ears. For the object he had in view, he had endeavoured to find (but had had no small difficulty in the search) some observations of the hon. Member which were merely wicked without being loathsome. In his address to his constituents of Kilkenny, that learned Member said:—
"I heartily supported the Ministry of Lord Melbourne in their new measure of tithe relief, not as giving all I wanted for the people of Ireland, but as giving us a part, and establishing an appropriation principle, which would necessarily produce much more. Nothing, however, can be so absurd as the allegation of its finality. That bill, had it passed into a law, was equally capable of being altered or repealed that Session; that is, in the Session in which it should have been passed. I, therefore, who am for the total abolition of tithes, voted for the abolition, in the first instance, of part only."
This showed the animus of the hon. Member when he voted for the measure already referred to in 1835; and certain resolutions, which plainly demonstrated what his intentions were, had been submitted by him to the general association of Ireland. These resolutions were as follow:—
"That it is the opinion of the association that it is the first duty of the representatives of the Irish people to realise, if possible, entire religious freedom for the Irish nation, in the next Session, by obtaining, if that be practicable, the total abolition of the blood-stained impost of tithes. That if it shall prove impracticable to obtain the entire abolition of tithes in the next Session, then it is the bounden and sacred duty of our representa-
308
tives to fall back on the next best measure, the abolition of part; provided the same be accompanied by the appropriation clause. That in thus supporting the Ministerial plan of last Session, or a more enlarged one, if practicable to enlarge it, the Irish Members do assert and maintain the principle that the entire should be abolished upon the first practicable occasion."
Such was the testimony he adduced of the learned Member's notions of the oaths he had taken; and the reason why he did not quote passages of an earlier date was, because those which he had collected were of so disgusting a kind, that he did not like to read them to their Lordships. But this was not the only individual, who was a Member of the last Parliament, to whom he alluded in the charge to the clergy of his diocese. There was another learned person, the Member for the county of Tipperary, who, on the 23rd of July, 1835, about a month before the delivery of the charge in question, was reported to have made these observations:—
"Abandoning all metaphysical disquisitions, I proceed, not to a consideration of mere expediency, but of paramount and dire necessity; and I lay down a very plain proposition, and it is this—(I do not mean it to be offensive, but however harsh the truth, it must be told)—it is this, whatever may be your inclination, you have not the ability to maintain the Irish establishment. Why? Because the power of the Irish people has risen to such a pitch, that to the mistaken interests of an impuissant minority, the rights, undoubted although not undisputed, of the enormous majority, cannot, any longer, with impunity, be sacrificed. For what are all these risks to be incurred?—for what are all these appalling hazards to be run?—for what stake is this awful die to be east? for what into all these affrighting perils are we to rush? For what into these terrific possibilities (for likelihoods I will not call them) are we madly, desperately, impiously to plunge? For the Irish Church!"
The use of the word "impious," in the passage he had just read, certainly astonished him. He must suppose, that the learned individual conceived that it was impious, though sworn to protect the Established Church, to run any hazard for the Church in Ireland. The learned Gentleman proceeded to designate that Church as:—
"The Church, the minority, long the Church of the State, never the Church of the people; the Church on which a faction fattens, by which a nation starves; the Church from which no imaginable good can flow, but evil after evil, in such black and continuous abundance

309
has been for centuries, and is to this day, poured out; the Church by which religion has been retarded, morality has been vitiated, atrocity has been engendered, which standing armies are requisite to sustain, which has cost England millions of her, treasure, and Ireland torrents of her blood."
Such was the language of a Member who had sworn that he had no intention, on entering Parliament, to subvert the present Church establishment; and it was the language of one who had further sworn that he would not use any power which he acquired to weaken the Protestant religion. He would ask their Lordships whether it was to be said, that such an individual had observed his oath? He (the Bishop of Exeter) had already said, that he thought that that individual had not observed his oath; and he had no hesitation in declaring his most firm conviction—a conviction as firm as it was possible for him to entertain on any subject, that the individual who uttered those words, or anything like those words, had grossly—grossly deviated from the sworn engagements into which he had entered. He should not, on the present occasion, have mentioned the name of any individual, had it not been for the course of proceeding adopted elsewhere, which made it necessary for him either to shrink from his statement, or to publish to their Lordships the names of some of the agitators whom he had alluded to in his charge. He must be permitted to make one more observation with regard to Mr. O'Connell. Among other things, the learned Member had said, that he did not consider himself at all bound by the oath taken in the Legislature, when he acted as the leader of the general association at Dublin, for there he did not act in his legislative capacity. Did the learned Member suppose, that by such a miserable quirk he could justify any of his proceedings out of Parliament, which were calculated to subvert the Protestant establishment? The interpretation thus put on the oath appeared to him so preposterous, that he could not avoid noticing it to their Lordships. With respect to the other learned Member, the representative of Tipperary, he would, with their Lordships' leave, read another extract from a speech delivered by him to his constituents in October, 1835, which was illustrative of his intentions towards the Church, and of his fidelity to his sworn engagements to do nothing to weaken the Protestant religion in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman then said:—
"Our eyes were opened, and while we
310
became conscious of the fatal results of our disunion with the Whigs, we determined to repair the evil, and never again to fall into a similar error. Accordingly we entered with them into a class alliance, and at the meeting at Lord Lichfield's formed that compact, and, I trust, indissoluble junction, by which so much has been effected.
"The complete union of the popular party, of which the meeting at Lichfield House was the foundation, is indispensable for the maintenance of the Administration, and therefore for the good of the empire.
"At these meetings, what course was taken by Mr. O'Connell? The most moderate, the most practical, and that which led to the most successful issue. There it was, that the course of proceeding was devised which broke up the Government of Sir Robert Peel. What a glorious and at the same time what an incalculably serviceable circumstance it was, that by a resolution on the Irish Church, and the great principle of secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property, we should have annihilated the Tories. To defeat them by any means would have been in itself a great achievement; but to put them out of office by a resolution, pledging the Whigs for ever and ever to the principle, without which all church reform would be a mere imposture—this was, indeed, a triumph to the Irish people; and if, in the last Session, nothing else had been done, still this would have been a signal instance of success, because that resolution is irrevocable, and the commencement of a new policy, from which a deviation will be impossible for the government of Ireland."
But this brought to his mind the commencement of that policy which that individual had considered he had ground for great merit by insisting on. It was not, however, on the authority of a report of what that learned person had said to his constituents that he held this opinion; it was strengthened by what had passed last year, when a right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in another place most pithily alluded to this resolution, and called it a "compact," by which it was agreed on the one part that the present Ministers should be kept in power, and, on the other, that the Church of Ireland should be given up to the Roman Catholics. When this passed he said, that the only incorrectness in it was in calling it by the term of "compact," for it was a compact alliance. But let him not be thought to impute such motives to individuals wrongly—and he felt sure that there was one individual (the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government) who was not a party to that alliance. He did not recollect whether he had spoken for others, or not, but his object had only been to name those persons

311
against whom he had been compelled to bring the charge of perjury, and he had been reduced to it by the motion of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). It was the course which had been chalked out for him by that motion. He had nothing whatever to remark on the Government; that was not the object of his observations, but there was one circumstance connected with that individual to whom he had before alluded (Mr. Sheil), which gave a tone of authority to his statement, and seemed to sanction it as correct. That individual who had made the assertions to which he had adverted had within the last fortnight received from her Majesty's Government a remarkable proof of their confidence, but at the same time he felt sure that the noble Viscount would never have recommended to her Majesty to bestow on him such an especial mark of royal favour. He would now remark upon what had been said of him upon a former occasion by a noble and learned Lord whom he was glad to see present—the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—that he had not only charged certain persons with perjury, but also others with subornation of perjury. The noble and learned Lord had said (and it was a conclusion as clear and correct as all the conclusions of the noble Lord were when he was not actuated by political bias, and one of which he himself admitted the full force) that all persons privy to any instance of perjury, or assisting others in doing that which they could not effect without perjury, were all guilty, morally guilty, of subornation. This was the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, and this was the opinion which he himself held, and in his character as a dignitary of the church it was one he would maintain. He did not wish to pursue the inquiry as to what extent the individuals he had mentioned had been guilty of perjury, but he would not shrink from following up the principle on which he had made the charge. This had rendered it necessary for him to deal with the names of those persons, but he had done so solely on that account, and he did not think that he had done anything contrary to his duty as a Bishop, when he was addressing the clergy of his diocese on the solemn occasion of a visitation, in pointing out to them the way in which the church was seemingly endangered, and the source from which that danger had arisen. For having done that, however, he had been made the subject of animadversion in another place, not only during this, but
312
also during the last Session. It was said, he ought to be impeached for it, and he was told that this idea was founded on the authority of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The noble and learned Lord had said, when he expressed his opinion in Parliament on the charge to which allusion had been made, that he (the Bishop of Exeter) was impeachable for what it contained. Upon hearing that, he had ventured to cry out "impeach;" it was the only thing he could do, not as a defiance, but as giving him, when a grave matter of this kind was brought against him, the only opportunity there was of defending himself. This charge, too, had been made by the noble Lord, the chief Secretary of State, not only in this, but also during the last Session of Parliament, and it had been also made by another high functionary of the Government—the Attorney-General. That learned person had said (and it was most surprising to him that he had done so), or was reported to have said, in a speech on the discussion of the Church-rate Bill, on the 14th of March, 1837,
"That the Bishop of Exeter had, in a charge to the clergy of his diocese, been guilty of the greatest libel; that it was, indeed, the most libellous production he had ever read, and if ever he had filed a criminal information at all, he should be justified in filing one against that Prelate."
There was another thing also which the learned Attorney-General was reported to have said (and having collated the reports, because he thought it impossible that such a person had ventured to say these things about him, he had found it confirmed), as a reason for aggravating his conduct, that he (the Attorney-General) "had recently read a visitation charge of the Bishop of Exeter, in which that Prelate had stated that he was remiss in not having prosecuted certain libelous publications; and he thought that it was most indecent and most unwise in the Bishop of Exeter having spoken in that manner." Having seen that report, he had read through the charge he had delivered three times since, to find out whether there was any foundation for these remarks of the learned Attorney-General, but he had been always unable to discover any, and there was not only no sentiment or language, but not even a scintilla of either, on which an honest man could pass any such observations. From what quarter those reports had proceeded he knew not, but

313
they were an unalloyed and unmitigated fiction. It had been his intention on the following day to avail himself of his privilege, and to bring the subject before the notice of their Lordships. But on going down to the House he found it closed, and on the Thursday afterwards he met a noble Friend, who told him he might judge for himself whether he could do anything in the matter, but that the Attorney-General had met with such a smashing from Lord Stanley that the poor man was done for, and he thought it was hardly worth while. Now, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had given the same reason last year as he did now for not prosecuting him for this libellous charge, and that was, that it was too contemptible a course to be adopted. But he must remark on the contempt of the noble Lord (and it was a curiosity in the history of the human passions and feelings, for contempt usually brooded on in silence) that it was of a peculiar kind, and was constantly forcing itself forward. No one could doubt that the noble Lord did not hold the person to whom he had before alluded (Mr. O'Connell) in contempt. Probably he had not more respect for that individual than he had for him (the Bishop of Exeter), but it was extraordinary that that person, who acknowledged himself the master of the Government councils, who vaunted himself the dictator of the country, and the annihilator of the Church of Ireland, should be constantly supported by the noble Lord. He did not understand such a mode of showing contempt as that adopted by the noble Lord. But he would not dwell on this, though he must remark that his observations applied also to another individual, the Attorney-General, and he must say, that he regretted that persons in such high stations as the noble Lord, the Chief Secretary of State, and the Attorney-General, should give so much trouble to others, by bringing forward charges against them in an unfair manner, and when it was impossible for them to defend themselves. He thought it was most unconstitutional (and strong as this term was, it was not too strong for the occasion) that the Chief Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the chief law officers of the Crown, should think themselves at liberty, night after night and year after year, to bring forward such subjects, and repeatedly to threaten to prefer these charges without ever doing so; and that they should come down to the Houses of Parliament and
314
hold this kind of language without enabling the individual himself to answer it. They ought to do that which their office pointed out for them; and if they regarded not the dignity of their office, they ought to consult justice, and pursue the course which that required. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was constantly repeating this subject: it was his stock subject. When he had nothing else to say, he always began to talk about the Bishop of Exeter. He hoped, therefore, that if the noble Lord had no regard for the dignity of his office, for the sake of justice, of generosity, that he had some Friend in that House—and he would trust to his manliness, if there were a particle of it in him—who would tell the noble Lord to come forward in an open and decided manner, and give him an opportunity of meeting the noble Lord face to face, or that henceforth he should be silent on this subject. The right rev. Prelate moved that the petition be laid on the table.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, he found it necessary to make a few observations, though he apprehended that if it had not been for what had recently passed in another place, they would have heard nothing upon this subject from the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate had adverted to various animadversions which had been made on him respecting a charge addressed to his clergy a few years ago. He would not, however, advert to what had passed in the House of Commons; and he must say, that it was imprudent anywhere, either in that House, or anywhere else, to bring forward the matter; and that the less said on the subject, and the sooner forgotten, the better. He thought that the noble Lord, the Chief Secretary of State, had no other intention in having mentioned it, than to show the inconvenience which the course then about to be pursued in the House of Commons might possibly lead to, and that he had no idea whatever of following up the notice which he had given. His only object had been to point out this, and to admonish the House of Commons, that the course in which they had embarked was unwise and imprudent, and that it was better not to proceed with it. The charge might be considered a breach of privilege of the House of Commons, and the right rev. Prelate, to a certain extent, had admitted this. [The Bishop of Exe-

315
ter: "No, no!"] Well, this might be saved under a nice technicality, but it certainly contained a libel on certain Members of that Assembly. The right rev. Prelate had read this passage, and had alluded to the rights bestowed on Roman Catholics by the Emancipation Bill. He would not trouble their Lordships by referring to it again, but he thought if their Lordships read the charge, they would pronounce it as very strong, considering the persons by whom it was uttered, as very strong for the persons to whom it was delivered, as very strong for an address to the ministers of a diocese on such a solemn occasion—to parochial clergy, who, although they were excellent men, faithfully discharging their duty, and for whom he had very great respect were rather to be tempered and restrained by their spiritual superior, than urged along by political violence and political zeal beyond that degree to which they had been already actuated. In his opinion, it would have been better for this matter not to have been taken up in the other House; and not to have been spoken of by the Attorney-General, but he would convey to that learned individual the communication committed to him by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate had adverted to another topic, the meeting at Lichfield-house, and had read a speech of the late hon. Member for Tipperary, which gave a full account of it. That meeting was one attended by Members of the House of Commons, and what was agreed to then was a certain resolution relating to particular questions of Government There was no secrecy in it; and as for the resolution itself, let its effect have been what it might, it was a meeting held to settle that, and nothing else; and if it had all the effect which the right rev. Prelate had attributed to it, he might be correct but if, besides that, he said that there was an agreement on the one hand to give up the Irish church, he stated what was no the fact; and, indeed, in what he had sail upon this subject altogether, he seemed to be entirely begging the question. The right rev. Prelate had said, that Roman Catholic Members were bound by them oath to do nothing to weaken the Protestant church; but in order to prove that they had done so, he should have proved that the measures for which they had voted had a tendency to that effect. The right rev. Prelate, during the discussion on the
316
Roman Catholic Relief Bill, was not opposed to Roman Catholics enjoying the same privileges as their Protestant fellow-subjects, provided a proper security was given that they would not attempt to destroy or weaken the Protestant religion. Securities were thought of, several parties exercised their faculties to decide on the most satisfactory, and at length the oath introduced into the bill was agreed upon. Oaths were, in themselves, objectionable,—they embarrassed the minds of weak men, and disturbed the minds of scrupulous men, so that it became extremely difficult to fix on an interpretation admitted by all. If the establishment were in danger, oaths would not tend to its salvation. The Protestant reformation, in its commencement, was secured by the violation of oaths. Every alderman, every mayor, and every public officer, were sworn to put down the new opinions that were disseminated. In the reign of Henry the 5th, the Lord Chancellor, the judges, and the magistrates were sworn on oath to extirpate Lollards. Now, if the statute of Henry the 5th, enforcing that oath, were not repealed (of which history made no mention), all those officers had violated their oaths by countenancing the new opinions which they were sworn to put down. Supposing the Roman Catholics had violated their oaths, what remedy could be resorted to? He presumed the right rev. Prelate was not prepared to repeal the Act of 1829, that he was not anxious to withdraw those privileges conferred on the Roman Catholics by the Relief Bill, or to render the tests and oaths more stringent. Let the case be as it might, he felt convinced that it was impossible to place reliance exclusively on oaths or tests of any kind, but that the chief reliance should be on the honour and patriotism of individuals. In conclusion, he begged leave to say, that whatever language, whatever expressions or sentences, had been uttered out of doors, he could not stand forward in defence of those expressions; but this he would declare, that no measure had been proposed to Parliament on which the Roman Catholics were not entitled to vote, and could not have voted with the most perfect propriety.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that the noble Lord had cited history as a precedent, but the perjury of former parties could not justify others in violating en-

317
gagements which they had solemnly promised to fulfil. When the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was before Parliament, he had devoted the greatest attention to the subject, and had tried to bring his mind to the most cairn consideration of a measure of so much importance. The result was, that he had agreed with the policy of admitting Roman Catholics into the Legislature, provided that ample security was given that they would not interfere with the Protestant religion or the interests of the Established Church. The oath introduced into the bill ought to be sufficiently binding to a man of conscience and integrity, but at the time he thought that one might have been proposed less subject to evasion. This opinion was mentioned to Sir R. Peel, on whom he looked as one of the best friends of the church, and one of the most able supporters of her religion and dignity; but the right hon. Baronet rejected the hint, as being an unworthy imputation on the principles of Roman Catholic gentlemen, and that the oath was sufficiently stringent. Many agreed in the views of the right hon. Baronet, and voted in favour of the bill. In the existing courtesy of society, people supposed that it was ill-mannerly to charge parties with perjury. Calumny, of course, was very reprehensible; but to charge a man with a crime was not a greater fault than the commission of one. Perjury, although a heinous offence against religion and against law, was frequently committed, and although no person should charge another, except on good grounds, with a crime that ought to exclude him from society, no one should, for a moment, hesitate publicly to denounce any party against whom the commission of such an offence could be substantiated. Every Roman Catholic was aware, that the meaning of the oath was to bind parties to a defence not only of the spiritual but of the temporal interests of the Established Church. In that sense the oath was administered, and it was well known that, without that security, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill would not have passed into a law. He did not name any parties that had violated the sanctity of an oath, but he had read a charge to his clergy similar to that delivered by his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter). It certainly did not possess the eloquence or masterly style of the latter, but its tendency and meaning were the same. He had felt it his
318
duty to declare in that charge that several parties, foes to the Church, had maintained that they were not bound to act in accordance with the spirit of the oath they had taken, but according to their own interpretation of the words, and that if such a violation of principle were to be countenanced, society would cease to exist.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) had not quoted history to palliate the crime of perjury, but to show that when institutions were in danger, oaths would not insure their safety. The right rev. Prelate had begged the question, and assumed that there had been an infringement of the rights of the Established Church. Could such a charge be substantiated? Where was the proof? Certain oaths were imposed on the Roman Catholics, and the interpretation of those oaths was left to their own consciences. He would ask, was it intended that these oaths should now be interpreted by the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other tribunal? If so, a court would be established higher in its judicial authority than Parliament itself, and by which the proceedings of the latter would be controlled and checked. The right rev. Prelate had alluded to a certain compact; but he could not have thought that any person, particularly a right rev. Prelate, could have so mean an opinion, so low a view of society, as to suppose that a league had been entered into between the advisers of the Crown, and the Roman Catholics, for the purpose of overthrowing the Established Church. The noble Lord then said, that it was the opinion of all great legislators, that all British subjects should have equal rights and privileges, as long as they displayed allegiance to the Crown and anxiety to preserve the existing institutions of the country. It was under this feeling that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was introduced on the responsibility of Government. It was not the result of compact between any parties. He thought it would be establishing a dangerous precedent to limit the duties or inquiries of legislators. An oath was given as security by the Roman Catholic Members, and their right to exercise their free and unfettered judgment on any political subject could not be disputed. The right rev. Prelate had said that all Roman Catholics who voted for the abolition of tithes, had been guilty of

319
a violation of their pledge. He differed from the right rev. Prelate and thought that on that subject Roman Catholics had a right to exercise their conscientious judgment, and that they should not be fettered in their legislative functions as long as they could not be found guilty of any breach of allegiance to the Sovereign, who was the admitted head and sworn defender of the Church of England. For his own part, he had long felt that only one form of oath should be administered. He thought the declaration of faith was unnecessary, by any class of Christians. The oaths taken by parties entering Parliament were declaratory, not substantial, and he felt considerable pain when swearing that the mass was idolatrous, lest he might hurt the feelings of noble Lords in that House, who conscientiously differed from him in their mode of worshipping the Creator. In conclusion, he would repeat his opinion of the impolicy of putting any check to the free exercise of the judgment of any Member of Parliament.
The Earl of Shrewsburysaid, the Roman Catholics had shown as little party bias in their legislative capacity, and had as high a sense of the obligations of an oath, as any Member of their Lordships' House. It was their respect for the sanctity of an oath that had so long excluded them from the legislative councils of the nation. For his own part, (and he was sure he spoke the sentiments of a large body of the Roman Catholics), he did not conceive that he was violating his oath in lending his support to certain measures introduced by the Ministers of the Crown. On the contrary, the only scruple he had in supporting those measures was, that he was giving stability to institutions in the utility or truth of which he did not conscientiously believe.
Lord Wharncliffewas understood to say, that he was far from asserting that there were not many Roman Catholics who would conscientiously object to support measures which had a direct tendency to weaken or injure the Established Church: but it was not to any such that the remarks of the right rev. Prelate had reference. It was well known—for, indeed, not only were no pains taken to disguise the fact, but it was openly avowed by many Roman Catholics—that they supported certain measures of the Government, because they believed they would tend to
320
weaken and injure the Established Church. They looked, as had been said, upon such measures, as so many instalments, of what they considered they had a right to expect, and they looked forward to the time when they should see their views accomplished by the destruction of that Church; and when they asserted, that in thus acting they did not go contrary to the letter or spirit, of their oath, let it he recollected that it was not our (the Protestant) but their (the Roman Catholic) version of the oath which they gave. Those Roman Catholics, who, as members of the Legislature, had taken the oath and had openly avowed their support of measures which tended to destroy the Established Church in Ireland, would, in the judgment of any unbiassed persons, be considered as having acted contrary to the expressed and understood meaning of that oath, That, at least, was his opinion. As to the question whether it was worth while in the right rev. Prelate to take notice here of what occurred in another place, he would not say more, than that individually he thanked the right rev. Prelate for having given him the opportunity of stating his opinion on the subject, and that opinion was, that no person who took that oath could be justified in the course which some Roman Catholics had adopted with respect to the Irish Church. He would not say that any Roman Catholic noble Lord, or other member of the Legislature, who conscientiously believed that in supporting certain measures he was not injuring the Established Church, was liable to a charge of wilful violation of his oath, but the case was very different with those who held different language, and who openly professed that their object in supporting those measures was the injury of the Established Church.
Petition to lie on the table.