Page images
PDF
EPUB

MR. HAYTER said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had thrown out gentle insinuations that the Government had acted corruptly in making promises, or that some Government had made some promises; but those allegations were of too general a nature to allow him to give them what he then proposed to give them, an unqualified denial. He could only deny, so far as he was concerned, that there was any ground for any such insinuations. But the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield became more specific in his charges, and stated that Mr. Coppock was a dispenser of the places of the Government. But where in the evidence did hon. Gentlemen find anything to warrant such an assertion? So far as he (Mr. Hayter) knew, Mr. Coppock had no connexion with the Government with respect to St. Albans, except that he had happened to be present when the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Bell) had shown him (Mr. Hayter) his address. That was all that he had had to do with him directly or indirectly. He thought the address was such a one as was consistent with the views of the hon. Member. Mr. Coppock had never in his life asked him (Mr. Hayter) a favour. It was also insinuated that some promises had been made by Mr. Coppock to Mr. Edwards, who relied on them; but he (Mr. Hayter) begged to deny in the most explicit manner, as far as he was concerned, that any promise or expectation had ever been held out by the Government with respect to the election at St. Albans.

[ocr errors]

effect, and then the House could decide He did not state his own opinion. He whether that Motion should be granted. simply read a portion of the evidence from He asked if it was fair in the hon. and the blue book of the admission on the part learned Member for Sheffield to insinuate of Mr. Coppock that he had got places that he (Sir G. Grey) had pledged the for his friends. That was the only stateGovernment to accede to such a Motion ment made by my hon. Friend. It was a before he knew the grounds on which it statement, not a charge. It was quite was made. unnecessary for my hon. Friend to make a charge on such a subject. But, Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to recall the attention of the House to a certain document upon the table, of a very interesting character, and peculiarly apposite to the subject now before us. And here I may say that I am not one of those liable to the imputation of the right hon. Secretary of State, namely, that I came prepared for this discussion, as I was totally unaware that it was on the paper. What I wish to do is to call attention to a passage in the Report of the Commissioners appointed by a Tory Government to inquire into the existence of bribery at Sudbury, with reference to the election which took place at the general election of 1841, when the late Mr. Dyce Sombre was returned, although he never took his seat in this House. [An Hon. MEMBER: Oh, yes, he did.] I mean that he was unseated on petition. But I find this passage in the Report of the Commissioners appointed to make the inquiry in 1843. [The hon. Member then read an extract from the Report, to the effect that the Commissioners in the course of their inquiry found that Mr. Dyce Sombre borrowed a sum of 3,000l., which was placed by the bankers, Messrs. Coutts, to a separate account; that this sum was immediately drawn out by cheque payable to bearer, and that Bernard was the name of the bearer. The money was paid in three 1,000l. notes, two of which were cashed in gold on the same day. The person was required to write his name upon the back, and the MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise to sug-name given was "Samuel Moore and Comgest to the hon. and learned Member for pany, King William Street. Samuel Sheffield that he should avail himself of Moore said that the signature was not his, the proper opportunity, if the present is and was consequently a forgery. Bernard, not considered a fair one by the Govern- the party who signed his name, was at the ment, for pressing his Motion, which I time in question a clerk in the office of think is a very proper Motion. I also Mr. Coppock, but had since been appointed wish to make one observation upon the to a clerkship in the Custom House.] So charge made by the right hon. Secretary it appears by this Report that the late to the Treasury (Mr. Hayter) against my clerk in Mr. Coppock's office was the perhon. Friend the Member for North War- son who received the 3,000l., who comwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The right hon. mitted the forgery by signing the name of Gentleman says that my hon. Friend in- Moore and Company, and who ceased to sinuated a charge against the Government. be a clerk in Mr. Coppock's office to beNow my hon. Friend merely read evidence. come a clerk in the Custom House. I

[ocr errors]

think this passage is extremely illustrative of the occurrences that may be brought before us. It seems to me to prove that the system was going on so far back as the election of 1841, and to afford an additional reason why the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield should be supported by the House. Whether notice is given or not, I think, after what has transpired to-night, it will not be in the power of any Minister to prevent that Motion being carried.

MR. ROEBUCK said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and should move on the second reading of the Bill, that Mr. Coppock be called to the Bar of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn ; Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered "That Sir George Grey and Mr. Attorney General do prepare and bring in the said Bill."

BURGHS (SCOTLAND).

The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend certain provisions in the Laws relating to the number and election of Magistrates and Councillors in the Burghs in Scotland.

Leave given; Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Sir William Gibson Craig.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND).

The LORD ADVOCATE moved"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider of abolishing Tests in the Universities of Scotland." It was not his intention to make any statement at this stage of the measure, and he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be brought in. The subject having been twice fully discussed, he thought it would be best to take any further discussion on the second reading.

House in Committee.

VISCOUNT MELGUND thought the Bill was a good one, so far as it went; but the fact was, that the law was, to all intents and purposes, obsolete at the present moment, and there were many persons holding offices in the Scotch Universities who were not members of the Church of Scotland. One very desirable point omitted in the present Bill wrs the abolition of Tests now imposed on parish schoolmasters, who were now subject to the same Tests as were now proposed to be repealed in the case of University Professors. He could not see why MR. EWART begged to call the atten- the Government should select only one of tion of the right hon. and learned Lord the classes of educators, Professors in UniAdvocate to a defect which existed in the versities, as the objects of their legislation, present Municipal Law of Scotland. When and exclude from the benefits of the present the Municipal Corporations Bill was before measure all those who were included in the the House, there were nine boroughs in the operation of the old Acts. If the Goschedule which were stated to require re-vernment did not take up this subject, he form, but they were omitted from the Bill on the understanding that they would be dealt with by a separate Bill; but this was never done, and there was one borough which was connected with the district he (Mr. Ewart) had the honour to represent, in which the magistrates were self-elected, and disposed of the funds of the corporation without being responsible to any constituency. It was also the case with a borough forming part of the district of Montrose. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deal with this question. He would at present leave it in his hands; but if the right hon. and learned Lord did not turn his attention to the matter, he (Mr. Ewart) would bring forward a Motion on the subject.

The LORD ADVOCATE said, any communication made to him by the hon. Member would meet with his immediate attention.

would endeavour, by every means in his power, to prevail on the House to abolish the laws which were a disgrace to the Statute-book.

The LORD ADVOCATE said, there was a clear distinction between the two cases mentioned by the noble Lord who had just spoken; he did not desire to mix up the two matters in the present discussion. The consideration of the question mooted by the noble Lord would be better disposed of in another Bill.

MR. FORBES MACKENZIE was glad that the two subjects were not mixed up in the present Bill, which, as he understood it, applied only to lay professors, he should not now oppose. If the people of Scotland were prepared to let those tests be abolished, and took no steps to strengthen their hands in that House, he would not, single-handed, take upon himself to fight their battle. If, on the contrary, they detitioned against the abolition of those

Tests, they would find him ready to take up their cause.

MR. FOX MAULE said, the people of Scotland, even those belonging to the Established Church, were beginning to see the impropriety of imposing on the lay professors Tests which it was perfectly well known had been to some extent taken by people who were notoriously not of the faith which they professed. Now, nothing could possibly be so damaging to the characters of the instructors of youth as to tender to them any test which did not appear to bind, and which was not of bond fide utility, and he saw no object whatever in the Tests at present imposed. As to theological professors, he was willing that the Tests in their case should be maintained; but in regard to the instructors of youth in the dead languages and the positive sciences, he must say that the Tests had long operated to prevent the Universities from obtaining the services of the best men; and the sooner therefore they were done away with the better. He agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Melgund) in much of what he had said as to the Tests for parochial schoolmasters; but that was a subject for another Bill and another discussion. He hoped that at present the two points would be kept separate.

MR. FORBES MACKENZIE said, that any measure brought forward to abolish Tests for parochial schoolmasters in Scotland would meet with his most uncompromising opposition.

MR. COWAN would give the Committee an instance of the absurdity of the present law regarding Tests in the University of Edinburgh. The Greek Professorship, one of the most important chairs there, being vacant, was applied for by upwards of twenty candidates, among whom were some of the most eminent men the country could produce; but out of those twenty only four were legally qualified to be inducted. It was in the power of the Town Council to prevent the induction to the chair of the most accomplished scholar. He hoped this Bill would meet with the hearty support of both sides of the House. VISCOUNT MELGUND wished to know whether the Government intended to introduce a clause in the Education Bill which they had promised, for the repeal of the Test imposed on parochial schoolmasters;

but

MR. FOX MAULE said, that when the Bill was introduced, its provisions would

be explained to the House; but it was rather too much to expect that its provisions should be explained on a Motion for the introduction of another Bill.

"Resolved-That the Chairman be directed to

move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish Tests in the Universities of Scotland."

House resumed.

Resolution reported; Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Fox Maule.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Tuesday, February 17, 1852.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-2a Office of Messenger to the Great Seal Abolition.

THE OATH OF SUPREMACY. VISCOUNT CLANCARTY (EARL OF CLANCARTY, in the Peerage of Ireland), presented himself at the table, with his Writ of Summons, to be sworn. His Lordship said, that in accordance with a communication he had made to the Lord Chancellor, he now presented himself to be sworn, adding, that although he retained. the objections he had expressed at different times by petition to their Lordships' House to taking the Oath of Supremacy, yet, being desirous of resuming his place in the House, as he was unable as a member of the reformed part of the Catholic Church, conscientiously to take that oath, he was ready, if legally permitted so to do, to take the oath prescribed for persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, which he considered unobjectionable.

Lord CAMPBELL, the LORD CHANCELLOR, and Lord BROUGHAM expressed their opinions that this proposal could not be entertained.

The EARL of CLANCARTY then referred to the Standing Order of the House providing that no oath should be imposed by a Bill or otherwise upon the Peers, with a penalty, in case of refusal, to lose their places and votes in Parliament, or liberty of debates therein; and stated that he was willing, although retaining objections to the oath, taken in its grammatical sense, to take and subscribe it secundum sensum imponentis, if he was informed authoritatively by the House what was the sense in which they imposed the oath.

Lord CAMPBELL and Lord BROUGHAM | Standing Order of the House of Lords, dated considered that the House could not give a 'Die Veneris, 30th Aprilis, 1675.') Having therelegislative exposition of the meaning of the oath, which could only be done by a Bill in Parliament.

[blocks in formation]

The EARL of CLANCARTY replied, that he had not taken the oaths in the present Parliament.

The DUKE of WELLINGTON considered, in that case, that it was most irregular, and contrary to all the rules and forms of the House, that Viscount Clancarty should be allowed to address them.

LORD CAMPBELL expressed his opinion, that all that was intended by the oath was to deny the legal power of the Pope. The EARL of WICKLOW conceived that no Protestant Peer could take the Oath of Supremacy without a mental reservation, and stated that he knew noble Lords who had taken that oath with a mental reservation. There was no clause in this oath—as was the case in the oath of abjuration-requiring that it should be taken without any mental reservation, and therefore Peers were enabled to take it with such reservation.

The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his opinion in accordance with that of Lord Campbell, and observed that the question was entirely one of law.

The Earl of CLANCARTY thereupon withdrew.

fore determined, when presenting myself to be sworn at the table of the House, to state that I cannot conscientiously take and subscribe the oaths as at present administered to Protestant Peers, and that I therefore claim to be admitted on taking the oath prescribed for persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, which oath I consider unobjectionable, and am prepared to take, if I may legally do so, as a member of that reformed part of the Catholic Church that is by law established within this realm, I have felt that

it might be convenient, as well as most respectful towards the House and to your Lordship, as Speaker, to notify to you such my intention.

[ocr errors]

My objections to taking the oath of supre macy, more fully explained in the three publications I have the honour of transmitting to you, apparent inconsistency with certain provisions of may be briefly stated to have arisen from its two Acts of the late Parliament, viz., the Irish Charitable Bequests Act, and an Act (local) for the maintenance of certain cemeteries in the county of Dublin, the former involving a legislative acknowledgment of the establishment of a branch of the Church of Rome in Ireland, and giving, in certain cases, a legal efficacy to the exercise of the foreign ecclesiastical authority by which it is governed; and the latter expressly recognising the spiritual jurisdiction in the diocess of Dublin of a succession of archbishops in known ecclesiastical subjection to the Pope. I cannot pretend to interpret with certainty the exact legal bearing of Acts of Parliament which afford subjects of controversy among lawyers, preter of its own Acts, my belief of the inconbut, assuming Parliament itself as the best intersistency of the Bequests Act, with the denial the oath contains of all foreign ecclesiastical authority, is much confirmed by the concluding secof the last Session, the most recent, and therefore tion of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Act the most binding exposition of the Legislature on the subject of foreign jurisdiction. The last clause of that Act contained a proviso to the effect, that nothing therein contained should be construed to annul, repeal, or in any way affect any provision contained in an Act passed in the 'My Lord-Having, with the Earl of Brad-S8th year of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An ford, repeatedly represented, by petition to the House of Lords, that as Protestant Peers we were excluded from Parliament on account of conscientious objections to the form of the oath called 'the Oath of Supremacy,' and prayed, but without effect, to have those objections examined into with a view to their removal; I should, on merely personal grounds, be disposed to regard the silence of the House as a refusal, and be content to remain excluded from a seat in Parliament, to which I could only be admitted by affirming upon oath what I believe to be untrue; but public duty requires me, no less in vindication of the rights and privileges of the Peerage, than in obedience to the Queen's writ of summons, not to acquiesce in my exclusion from Parliament upon a ground alike unconstitutional and at variance with one of the most ancient of the standing orders of the House, still, I believe, unrepealed, to the effect that no oath shall be imposed, by any Bill or otherwise, upon the Peers, with a penalty in case of refusal to lose their places and votes in Parliament, or liberty of debates therein.' (See

The following is a copy of the letter addressed by the EARL OF CLANCARTY to the Lord Chancellor :

[ocr errors]

"Garbally, Feb. 9.

Act for the more effectual application of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland,' thereby implying that the provisions were an exception to the general law with respect to foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction. An oath I am aware is only binding in the sense in which it is imposed and known to be taken; but, in the absence of any exposition more authoritative, that sense is only to be gathered from the language of the oath itself. Regarding, therefore, the oath of supremacy in the sense its wording conveys, I am constrained to refuse it; but, should this objection be met by an authoritative exposition from your Lordship on the woolsack, or from the Speaker of the House for the time being, of the legal construction of the oath, or the sense in which it is to be understood as administered, I can have no doubt that then, viewing the oath secundum sensum imponentis, and not in the sense its wording appears to convey, I should be enabled to comply with the requirement of the law, by taking and subscribing the oaths in the usual manner.

"I purpose leaving this place on Monday next,

and, should I arrive in sufficient time on the fol- | the magistrates of the counties of Louth, lowing day, shall present myself to be sworn, Down, Monaghan, and Armagh, under the unless I should in the meantime hear from your Lordship anything to alter my intention; and I respective Lords Lieutenant of those counneed hardly say, that should your Lordship's ad- ties, with the Lord Lieutenant of the county vice be afforded in the matter, it would be received of Armagh at their head. At that meeting with great deference and respect.-I am, &c. those magistrates agreed to a series of resolutions, respecting the state of their

"CLANCARTY.

"The Lord High Chancellor, House of Lords." counties, much stronger than anything

STATE OF IRELAND.

The EARL of RODEN moved, in pursuance of his notice, to put a question to the noble Marquess opposite respecting certain Returns connected with the Disturbances in the North of Ireland, and said that he would avail himself of that opportunity to call the attention of their Lordships to that important subject. He begged their Lordships to grant him their pardon for the anxiety which he felt on this question, which involved the safety of all who were near and dear to him in that part of the kingdom. He believed that the very security of their lives depended on the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue. Since he had last had the honour of addressing their Lordships, he had waited for accounts from that part of Ireland in which he lived, in the hope that he should have to congratulate them on the prospect of better hopes for the future; but he was sorry to say no such prospect was reserved either for him or for their Lordships. Since the failure which had taken place at the special commission in Monaghan, there had been a great increase of spirit in the rebel conspiracy, and many threats had issued from it against some of the most useful and respectable proprietors in the north of Ireland. He had read an account, which he had received from an authority he was not at liberty to disclose, that two of the most useful men in his own immediate neighbourhood had been denounced by the Ribband conspiracy, and had received two notices, and it was quite certain that after two warnings they would suffer death if steps were not taken to protect them in the meanwhile, or if the arm of Providence were not stretched out in their behalf. He had communicated to those two gentlemen the account which he had received, and he hoped that they would take the necessary means for the preservation of their lives. The statements which he had made to their Lordships when he addressed them the other night might appear to some of them too highly coloured; but since that time there had been a meeting at Armagh of

he had said. They stated that

"A succession of murders, attempts to murder, assaults, burning of houses, acts of intimidation, &c., had taken place within the district, all marked with the same agrarian character, and evidently proceeding from the same secret conspiracy; that this secret association possessed the sympathy of many, and had overawed the whole of the population to such an extent that the evidence of the most atrocious murders, perpetrated in the open day, could hardly be obtained; that jurors, from disaffected or intimidated; that the audacity of whatever class impanelled, were too often either the conspirators had fearfully increased with their impunity; and that the conspiracy was rapidly extending into the neighbouring districts; and that population, was proved by facts which would come the sympathy, and yet more the terror, of the under their notice daily, and were well known to the authorities-such, for instance, as an unwillingness to render the common offices of humanity to the victim of assassination or outrage, and the levy of forced contributions for the purpose of defending agrarian criminals.” Such was the testimony which these magistrates gave to the existence of the outrages now prevailing in those districts. He informed their Lordships that they were much mistaken if they conceived that this Riband conspiracy was applied only to agrarian objects, and was not applied to political and religious objects. It was guided by a secret hand and head, and appeared first in one part and then in another part of Ireland. Such was the conspiracy, and after all that their Lordships had done at different times with the view of suppressing it, they had never been able to come to the root of it. What means ought to be taken to enforce or strengthen the law, it was not for him to say; but it was the duty of Government not merely to inquire, but also to execute, for so long as this conspiracy had sway, there never would be either peace or security in Ireland. Even now the High Sheriff of the county of Louth was obliged, for his protection, to have two policemen resident at his house; and only the other day, when he paid him (the Earl of Roden) a visit, he came attended by two policemen as the guardians of his life. Was this no hardship or punishment to individuals? and had not they who suffered it a right to look up to Government for protection against such an

« PreviousContinue »