Page images
PDF
EPUB

Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, February 24. UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL-PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST.] Mr. Hutchinson rose to present the petition of the Roman Catholics of Cork, against the bill for the suppression of the Catholic Association. The petitioners denied that the contribution, known by the name of the Catholic rent, was in any way extorted from the people. It was a voluntary gift, contributed for the moral and religious education of their poor, and in order to obtain redress for the many grievances under which the calumniated peasantry of Ireland laboured. The petitioners hoped parliament would at least allow the Catholic Association to be heard at the bar. This petition came from the largest county in Ireland, and had been agreed to at an aggregate meeting held in Cork, by a body of men as numerous and as respectable as any that had ever assembled. The petitioners felt indignant at the unwarrantable attacks which had been made upon the Catholic Association. That Association had already achieved much good both to Protestants and Catholics, and, with the aid of the priesthood, was the means by which, whilst the people were guarded against oppression on the one hand, they would be kept from expressions of irritation and discontent on the other. A measure like this must be obnoxious at any time; but above all at a period like the present, when peace and tranquillity existed in Ireland. The opponents of the Association argued the question, as if that body and the Roman Catholics generally, were opposed to the Protestants. This was a cruel misrepresentation. It was true that they were opposed to the Orangemen, but they were few in number compared to the thousands who formed the great body of the Protestants of Ireland, and who were as earnest in their prayers for Catholic emancipation as the most zealous Catholic could be.

France in consequence of the revocation of the edict of Nantes. They suffered persecution as Protestants under a Catholic government; for what religion did there exist which had not, at some period or other, been degraded and polluted, by the fanatical zeal of those who thought they served it by acts of cruelty and injustice? As fanatical zeal led to the formation of erroneous principles, so the exercise of benevolent feelings, through three successive generations, had taught these descendants of persecuted Protestants to regard the Roman Catholics among whom they resided, not as enemies whom they ought to dread, but as brethren, as fellow subjects of the same sovereign, discharging the same duties, and with whom they would be proud to live under the same laws and in the enjoyment of equal rights. Their lordships could not fail to recollect, that the names of these men were names essentially connected with the Protestant religion. They would besides find attached to this petition, the names of some of the principal bankers, and of various capitalists materially connected with the great interests of Ireland, and engaged in speculations just beginning to be unfolded for the benefit of that country. Of the men thus engaged in great and useful enterprises, many had come forward to add their testimony in favour of the justice and the policy of granting the claims of their Catholic brethren. And, did their lordships believe, that they who had set their names to the present petition had subscribed it without well considering what would be the consequences of granting the prayer of the petition? For himself, he felt flattered by the confidence that had placed it in his hands. He had always felt that this great question was not a Catholic, or a Protestant, but an Irish question; that it was not a question, whether or not several millions of Catholics should be admitted to an equal share of the benefits of the constitution, but how long that practical community, in which here, as in every other country all over the globe, Catholics as well as Protestants should enjoy a participation of civil rights, was to be deferred; for he felt that this mea sure, to use the words of a noble friend of his, would inevitably pass. But he hoped it would pass soon, and that when it did pass, it might pass with the assent and concurrence of a large portion of the Protestants.

Mr. Abercromby presented a petition from the parish of St. Andrew, Dublin, against the bill; and adverted to a petition from certain Presbyterians of Tyrone, complaining that the Association were the authors of the rapine, and murders and bloodshed in Ireland. Now, the petition

from St. Andrew's, as well as the Speech | other subject presented to the House, from the throne at the opening of the session, directly contradicted this assertion, as Ireland had never been so tranquil as at this moment.

unless it was the spontaneous act of the
persons by whom it was signed.
Ordered to lie on the table.

Sir J. Newport adverted to a document NORFOLK ASSIZES.] Colonel Wodein the possession of the House of Lords, house rose to submit to the House a mostating, on the authority of the viceroy of tion respecting the removal of the Spring Ireland, that the peace of that country Assizes for Norfolk from Thetford to the was to be attributed to the exertions of city of Norwich. The grounds upon which the Catholic Association. He stated that this motion was made were already before such a document existed, on the authority the House in a petition which had been of the marquis of Lansdown. He should presented from the county. The main move to-morrow that it be laid before the grievance complained of was, that the House. petitioners were under the necessity of Mr. Peel said, that under any circum-carrying the prisoners a distance of 30 stances it would be laid before the committee on the state of Ireland.

Mr. Denman presented a petition in favour of the Association, asserting that the Association had been productive of the present tranquillity in Ireland. The learned member expressed his conviction that the Association, as far as the administration of the law was concerned, had done much good and no injury.

Sir T. Lethbridge was not so much surprised at the statements of petitions, as that hon. members should coincide with them. In his opinion, both reckoned without their host, when they said that the tranquillity of Ireland was owing to the Association. Who could say to what extent the Association might go, if ministers, in mercy to the whole Catholic body, did not put a stop to its proceedings? The Association was self-elected, and uncontrolled. Those who said it had done no injury, were not, in his opinion, true friends of the Catholics.

Mr. Hume said, that, notwithstanding all that had been said by the right hon. Secretary, and which had had the effect of having the walls partially placarded, the more the question of emancipation was understood by the people of England, the more was it likely to succeed. An attempt had been made by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, to raise a cry against the Roman Catholics; but fortunately that attempt had not succeeded.

Mr. Peel denied that he had sounded an alarm on the subject of the emancipation of the Catholics, and that through his interference the walls of the metropolis had been placarded. He had never encouraged the presenting a single petition against the claims of the Catholics in the whole course of his life; and never wished to see a petition, on that or any

miles from the gaol to the place at which they were to be tried, and if they happened to be convicted, the same distance back again to the gaol. This evil had existed for a length of time, and representations of it had frequently been made, but without procuring any alteration. There was, however, no time at which the desired alteration could be more properly made than the present. A large and commodious gaol had lately been erected in Norwich, at an expense of 50,000l. It was arranged in such a manner as to carry the provisions of the Gaol-act into complete operation, and to combine all the advantages which were supposed to result from the classification and inspection of prisoners. Upon former occasions it had been objected to the removal of the assizes, that to do so would be to interfere with a branch of the prerogative. He denied, however, that the prerogative was concerned in the measure he proposed. The places at which the assizes for counties were held, had been in all instances fixed by acts of parliament. That by which Thetford was appointed for Norfolk, was passed six centuries ago. There was at that period a reason for such an arrangement which did not now exist. One assize was then held for the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; and Thetford, being upon the extreme border of the latter, was well situated for the purpose. Applications had been made to the chancellor, and to the judges, who had declined to change the assizes. It was, in consequence, imputed to them, that they were induced by merely selfish motives; but he could not bring himself to believe, that persons holding the high offices which they were intrusted with, could prefer their own convenience to that of the public. The hon. member concluded by moving, "that

the petition of certain magistrates and others of the county of Norfolk, praying that the Spring Assizes should be removed from Thetford to Norwich, be referred to a select committee; and that the counterpetition of the mayor and burgesses of Thetford be referred to the same committee."

Sir J. Sebright supported the motion. He bore testimony to the insufficient state of the gaol at Thetford, and thought that the circumstance of the prisoners being carried a distance of 30 miles to take their trial, was in itself enough to induce the House to grant the prayer of the petition. The due administration of justice was immediately concerned in this affair. The question, in fact, was, the borough of Thetford against the county of Norfolk; or borough interests against the principles of morality and public convenience.

Mr. N. R. Colborne opposed the motion. The same application had been, he said, repeatedly made, and had always failed. The assizes for Norfolk had been held at Thetford for more than six centuries. Unless a very strong case could be made out, no alteration should be attempted. He thought there could not be a more direct attack upon the prerogative, than was meditated by this measure. It would be no less so, than it would be to interfere with the appointment of lord-lieutenants or the sheriffs of counties. He should content himself with having called the attention of the Secretary of state for the Home Department to this point, and here leave it. The petition which he had presented, prayed that the House would not permit any interference in the ancient practice which had prevailed. That petition was signed by 48 magistrates of the county, eight of whom had served the office of high sheriff; snd it was impossible to collect names entitled to more weight on such a topic.

Mr. F. Buxton said, that as the petition in favour of the proposed removal of the assizes proceeded from the lord-lieutenant, the sheriffs, and a large body of the magistracy, it might reasonably be supposed to convey the sentiments of those who were best qualified to pronounce on the expediency of the proposed measure. The important question for the House to consider was, however, whether the administration of justice was impeded by the assizes being held at Thetford? The general convenience of the county would be, as it ought to be, more considered

than that of the judges; and the interests of justice more than those of the borough of Thetford. The fact of the prisoners being carried in an open waggon, a distance of 30 miles, thus making them a spectacle for the whole county, was in itself sufficient to induce the House to put a stop to such a practice. But, the evil did not end here. When the prisoners arrived at Thetford, they were placed in a prison, which, if he were to describe, would shock and offend the House. If a prisoner had to bring up witnesses from the remote parts of the county, they would have to travel 50 miles, the difficulty of doing which, it might be believed, not unfrequently prevented their attempting the journey. If the man was convicted, he was then conveyed back again, exposed to the curiosity and unfeeling remarks of the people of the country through which he might have to pass. He spoke not from hearsay, but of what he had actually seen. Let the House suppose, Fauntleroy had been placed in this situation, would it not have been highly improper that he should have been so exposed? [An hon. member said, "It would have served him right."] He (Mr. B.) denied that it would have served him right: the law had fixed for his, and for every other criminal's offence, a certain punishment, beyond which it was not just to extend a prisoner's sufferings. For these reasons, and not for any private interest he had in the question, he should support the motion.

that

Mr. Baring objected to the motion, because if it were adopted in this instance, it must also be applied to a great many other counties.

Mr. Secretary Peel objected to the motion, on the ground, that the House had no proper jurisdiction in the case. The question had been referred to the chancellor and the judges, who had decided against it. He was of opinion that the consideration of questions such as the present, with which local interests were mixed up, could not be left in better hands.

Dr. Lushington complained, that the right hon. Secretary had not stated the grounds upon which the decision of the judges was founded. It appeared to him, that there was no just reason for holding the assizes at Thetford. The present plan was calculated to promote the interests of the few to the disadvantage of the many. The assizes were originally held at Thet

from St. Andrew's, as well as the Speech | other subject presented to the House, from the throne at the opening of the session, directly contradicted this assertion, as Ireland had never been so tranquil as at this moment.

unless it was the spontaneous act of the
persons by whom it was signed.
Ordered to lie on the table.

Sir J. Newport adverted to a document NORFOLK ASSIZES.] Colonel Wodein the possession of the House of Lords, house rose to submit to the House a mostating, on the authority of the viceroy of tion respecting the removal of the Spring Ireland, that the peace of that country Assizes for Norfolk from Thetford to the was to be attributed to the exertions of city of Norwich. The grounds upon which the Catholic Association. He stated that this motion was made were already before such a document existed, on the authority the House in a petition which had been of the marquis of Lansdown. He should presented from the county. The main move to-morrow that it be laid before the grievance complained of was, that the House. petitioners were under the necessity of Mr. Peel said, that under any circum-carrying the prisoners a distance of 30 stances it would be laid before the committee on the state of Ireland.

Mr. Denman presented a petition in favour of the Association, asserting that the Association had been productive of the present tranquillity in Ireland. The learned member expressed his conviction that the Association, as far as the administration of the law was concerned, had done much good and no injury.

miles from the gaol to the place at which they were to be tried, and if they happened to be convicted, the same distance back again to the gaol. This evil had existed for a length of time, and representations of it had frequently been made, but without procuring any alteration. There was, however, no time at which the desired alteration could be more properly made than the present. A large and commodious Sir T. Lethbridge was not so much sur- gaol had lately been erected in Norwich, prised at the statements of petitions, as at an expense of 50,000l. It was arranged that hon. members should coincide within such a manner as to carry the provisions them. In his opinion, both reckoned without their host, when they said that the tranquillity of Ireland was owing to the Association. Who could say to what extent the Association might go, if ministers, in mercy to the whole Catholic body, did not put a stop to its proceedings? The Association was self-elected, and uncontrolled. Those who said it had done no injury, were not, in his opinion, true friends of the Catholics.

Mr. Hume said, that, notwithstanding all that had been said by the right hon. Secretary, and which had had the effect of having the walls partially placarded, the more the question of emancipation was understood by the people of England, the more was it likely to succeed. An attempt had been made by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, to raise a cry against the Roman Catholics; but fortunately that attempt had not succeeded.

Mr. Peel denied that he had sounded an alarm on the subject of the emancipation of the Catholics, and that through his interference the walls of the metropolis had been placarded. He had never encouraged the presenting a single petition against the claims of the Catholics in the whole course of his life; and never wished to see a petition, on that or any

of the Gaol-act into complete operation, and to combine all the advantages which were supposed to result from the classification and inspection of prisoners. Upon former occasions it had been objected to the removal of the assizes, that to do so would be to interfere with a branch of the prerogative. He denied, however, that the prerogative was concerned in the measure he proposed. The places at which the assizes for counties were held, had been in all instances fixed by acts of parliament. That by which Thetford was appointed for Norfolk, was passed six centuries ago. There was at that period a reason for such an arrangement which did not now exist. One assize was then held for the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; and Thetford, being upon the extreme border of the latter, was well situated for the purpose. Applications had been made to the chancellor, and to the judges, who had declined to change the assizes. It was, in consequence, imputed to them, that they were induced by merely selfish motives; but he could not bring himself to believe, that persons holding the high offices which they were intrusted with, could prefer their own convenience to that of the public. The hon. member concluded by moving, "that

the petition of certain magistrates and others of the county of Norfolk, praying that the Spring Assizes should be removed from Thetford to Norwich, be referred to a select committee; and that the counterpetition of the mayor and burgesses of Thetford be referred to the same committee."

Sir J. Sebright supported the motion. He bore testimony to the insufficient state of the gaol at Thetford, and thought that the circumstance of the prisoners being carried a distance of 30 miles to take their trial, was in itself enough to induce the House to grant the prayer of the petition. The due administration of justice was immediately concerned in this affair. The question, in fact, was, the borough of Thetford against the county of Norfolk; or borough interests against the principles of morality and public convenience.

Mr. N. R. Colborne opposed the motion. The same application had been, he said, repeatedly made, and had always failed. The assizes for Norfolk had been held at Thetford for more than six centuries. Unless a very strong case could be made out, no alteration should be attempted. He thought there could not be a more direct attack upon the prerogative, than was meditated by this measure. It would be no less so, than it would be to interfere with the appointment of lord-lieutenants or the sheriffs of counties. He should content himself with having called the attention of the Secretary of state for the Home Department to this point, and here leave it. The petition which he had presented, prayed that the House would not permit any interference in the ancient practice which had prevailed. That petition was signed by 48 magistrates of the county, eight of whom had served the office of high sheriff; snd it was impossible to collect names entitled to more weight on such a topic.

Mr. F. Buxton said, that as the petition in favour of the proposed removal of the assizes proceeded from the lord-lieutenant, the sheriffs, and a large body of the magistracy, it might reasonably be supposed to convey the sentiments of those who were best qualified to pronounce on the expediency of the proposed measure. The important question for the House to consider was, however, whether the administration of justice was impeded by the assizes being held at Thetford ? The general convenience of the county would be, as it ought to be, more considered

than that of the judges; and the interests of justice more than those of the borough of Thetford. The fact of the prisoners being carried in an open waggon, a distance of 30 miles, thus making them a spectacle for the whole county, was in itself sufficient to induce the House to put a stop to such a practice. But, the evil did not end here. When the prisoners arrived at Thetford, they were placed in a prison, which, if he were to describe, would shock and offend the House. If a prisoner had to bring up witnesses from the remote parts of the county, they would have to travel 50 miles, the difficulty of doing which, it might be believed, not unfrequently prevented their attempting the journey. If the man was convicted, he was then conveyed back again, exposed to the curiosity and unfeeling remarks of the people of the country through which he might have to pass. He spoke not from hearsay, but of what he had actually seen. Let the House suppose, that Fauntleroy had been placed in this situation, would it not have been highly improper that he should have been so exposed? [An hon. member said, "It would have served him right."] (Mr. B.) denied that it would have served him right: the law had fixed for his, and for every other criminal's offence, a certain punishment, beyond which it was not just to extend a prisoner's sufferings. For these reasons, and not for any private interest he had in the question, he should support the motion.

He

Mr. Baring objected to the motion, because if it were adopted in this instance, it must also be applied to a great many other counties.

Mr. Secretary Peel objected to the motion, on the ground, that the House had no proper jurisdiction in the case. The question had been referred to the chancellor and the judges, who had decided against it. He was of opinion that the consideration of questions such as the present, with which local interests were mixed up, could not be left in better hands.

Dr. Lushington complained, that the right hon. Secretary had not stated the grounds upon which the decision of the judges was founded. It appeared to him, that there was no just reason for holding the assizes at Thetford. The present plan was calculated to promote the interests of the few to the disadvantage of the many. The assizes were originally held at Thet

« PreviousContinue »