V INDICATION . L . HOUSE OF LORDS, *" &C. &C. &C. £n a iratcs of Heltais, ADDRESSED TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. )i\ KNEAS MAC DON NELL, ESQ BARMSTEK AT LAW our of ray life, the independence and privileges of this Housi 0/ Earl Grey, page 12, of this publication ) LONDON: EDWARD CHURTON, LIBRARY, 20, HOLLES STREET PRICE ONE SHILLING, Or fur Distribution 8s, />< , Dozen, 01 f° 10s. per Hundred. Wilsher and Pile, Printers, Manor Street, Chelsea. >/ • MMrv VINDICATION HOUSE OF LORDS. LETTER I. SIR, In the year 1831, when submitting to the Irish public my J— views respecting" an important question, I observed upon the position °°of my country, that "all who love her pity her, and mourn over her ^condition and prospects." §5 The calamities which were then apprehended are now unhappily """"realized, and we recognize their pernicious results. But then, it may be asked, why should I interpose ? I answer this interrogatory — first, by stating that it comes with little grace or con- sistency from the professed advocates of free discussion: and secondly, I answer it by putting another question — Why should I not interpose? Those who object to my interference could not name a single individual more involved in the present circumstances than the late agent of the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; or one more entitled by services, to think, and speak, and write, of Ireland, than myself. Yet, I can with perfect truth declare, that if I were governed merely by personal considerations, F I should still adhere to the habit of silent endurance which I have hitherto preferred, notwithstanding the excitements of unparalleled y-h provocation. ix» In consequence of the public statement of my views upon the obli- gations of the Roman Catholic oath, I have been assailed by men whose hearts (if they have hearts) should recoil from any imputation or suggestion that could give me the slightest pain. I have been calumniated by that portion of the Irish press which claims to be con- sidered pre-eminently liberal and independent, at the same time that they take care not to insert one line of the publications against which they seek to raise an outcry, even although money was offcred by me in one instance, for the insertion. My name, when noticed in the House §j?of Commons, last June, by a Right Hon. Baronet, with whom I have Snot the honour of enjoying the slightest acquaintance, was received 2§by shouts of hostile incivility by Irish members, marshalled by the ostentatiously prominent voice of Mr. O'Connell : yet, the only measure B 2 of retaliation resorted to by me was to send, on the next day, a copy of each of my pamphlets on the oath to every Roman Catholic member of the two houses of parliament. In the committee for enquiry as to bribery at elections, I have been traduced by a witness, the Rev. John Sheehan, produced by Mr. Sheil, who was present, and assisted at his examination. I remonstrated against the proceedings, but was informed that the committee did not think it necessary to take any steps re- specting it. The Most Rev. Dr. M'Hale has also introduced into one of his letters some vilifying insinuations respecting my conduct, and the Rev. Mr. M'Donneil, of Birmingham, has joined in the calumnious assault. These and similar demonstrations have more than once prompted the ejaculation, that it was well for the Catholic Lord Monteagle, of 1605. that his discovery and counteraction of the Gun- powder-plot did not occur in our times. I think I may be permitted to claim some credit for an indisposition to be moved by personal resentments, when I assure you that, when those attacks were made, I possessed, as I still do possess, most ample means of confounding every one of those assailants, principally by proofs emanating from themselves. Here I should add that, being anxious that the subject should be fully and fairly considered, I for- warded last June copies of each of my three pamphlets to every one of the RomanCatholic prelates of Ireland ; and, although four or five months have elapsed since they were delivered to them, and to the Catholic members of parliament, I have not received from any one of them, nor have I read in any publication of any kind, one word controverting any one of my statements. In addition to this important and undeniable position, I feel well justified in referring to the fact, that the Irish Church Bill did not receive the support of the Duke of Norfolk, or Lords Shrewsbury, Fingall, Stourton, Petre, or Arundell, who were all within a few hours' journey of London ; or of Lord Stafford, who was in Brussels, and could, of course, have attended in his place in parliament, without much inconvenience. Nor should I omit here to add, that all those Catholic Peers are general supporters of the present Government, and that there never was an occasion when that Govern- ment stood so much in need of the support and attendance of its friends, in the Upper House of Parliament. Sir, you will readily imagine that these plain, incontrovertible facts, so far from mining doubts in my mind, must rather confirm my former impressions. I do adhere to my views upon the obligations of the Roman Catiiolic oath. Again and again have I considered the subject, and turned to every document that could assist my judgment, and all my reflections and references have tended to the settlement of my opinion ; parti- cularly when aided by the fact, that, although many have assailed me, nobody has attempted to answer me. Will any one of them venture to do so, even now ? Never was more cruel cajolery practised than by some of the sup- porters of that Church Bill: I have considered it repeatedly with anxious attention, and I now declare my decided conviction that the rejection, by^he House of Lords, of several of its clauses was a great boon and blessing- to Ireland ; and that any bill containing such clauses, instead of being considered a measure of concession and pacification, should be deemed and entitled a bill to perpetuate religious and political discord and discontent in Ireland, and to place the Roman Catholic clergy of that country in a position most painfully invidious and embarrassing. Nothing can be less warranted by justice or truth than the censures and attacks raised against the house of Lords, for their eonduct in reference to this and other bills sent up to them from the Commons, in the last session. Sir, that there has been guilty conduct somewhere, perhaps in more quarters than one, I am not disposed to deny ; but 1 am at this moment perfectly prepared to sustain, by unquestionable Whig proofs and authorities, that the guilt is not with the House of Lords, but with those who, in the House of Commons, and in the Minis- try, and its supporters and patrons, have raised the outcry against their Lordships. Nay more, what I most complain of is this, and without which I probably should not have interfered, at all, in this part of the controversy, — namely, that an affected peculiar anxiety for the Irish peasantry should be put forth as the grounds of this attack. This pretence is utterly unfounded. Deeply and earnestly do I deprecate the results of the connexion between the Government and its Irish Parliamentary supporters: as an Irishman, I lament them, because they are injurious to my country ; and as a Catholic I denounce them, as injurious to the character and efficacy of my religion; for believe me, that you wrong those laical and clerical leaders, if you imagine that the Protestant establishment is the only sufferer by their conduct. In this at least they have given no cause for jealousy ; for, I have not the least doubt that they have done more to "disturb and weaken" the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, and its legitimate discipline and authority, within the last two or three years, than has been done by all the Orangemen that ever were created. I am not ignorant of the difficulties which beset a large portion of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland ; but they must wholly dis- regard the lessons of experience and of recent history, if they do not apprehend that the agitation with which too many of them are con- 6 nected may ultimately, and not remotely, be turned against themselves. There is not one amongst them that must not feel, in his heart, that this suggestion comes from a tried and trusty friend to themselves and their congregations, — a friend who never cajoled them, who never vilified them, who never compromised them, who never betrayed them. Can they say the same of their leaders ? Nevertheless, Sir, some of the most prominent of those leaders are now associated with the labours of men, in high places, to bring the House of Lords into hatred and contempt with His Majesty's subjects, particularly in Ireland. Indeed, there is no apparent disinclination to admit the desire, though there may be an occasional relaxation in its pursuit. Those persons in high station, whose names I am prepared to set forth, should 1 obtain your permission to proceed in this inquiry, and furnish my proofs — those noble Lords and " honourable and learned" gentlemen manifest a coincidence, or rather concurrence, if not actual criminal combination, with other persons in this unjustifiable, unconsti- tutional, and mischievous attempt ; and it happens, most strangely, that those most forward are the very men whose official stations and obliga- tions (if there be any respect or reverence due to the Whig precedents and authorities now before me) should induce them, nay, compel them, to be the most active and energetic in counteracting or correcting that attempt. I demand some proof in support of the position so industriously circulated throughout Ireland, that the present Ministers have exhi- bited peculiar regard for the Irish peasantry — I deny it. The two most prominent occasions of the session connected with that order of my countrymen were, the starving condition of large numbers in my native county of Mayo, and the truly heart-rending scene at llath- cormac. As to the first, I can produce the testimony of their own friends and adherents in that county, to disprove any pretensions on their part to public gratitude; and, further, I assert distinctly and positively, that when Mr. Crawford brought forward his proposition for tho relief of the starving peasantry, he was not only not encou- raged or sustained by the Ministers, or their Irish supporters in Par- I lament, but was actually thwarted and threatened with resistance by a large majority of them. As to the afflicting collision at Rathcormac, I shall dispose of it, for the present, very briefly by submitting some few questions to public consideration; merely reminding you, in the first instance, that this calamity was, in Parliament, and upon all public occasions, the greht stock-piece of Ministerial exhibitions, and is still referred to, in almost every instance, by themselves and their friends in the press, and at public meetings, as an illustration of the wisdom of their policy. First, then, I ask, how comes it that no Parliamentary inquiry has been instituted respecting- that important subject ? Why did all the Irish friends of Government neglect to demand such inquiry ? Secondly, why did not Mr. O'Connell move for such inquiry when the petitions of the relatives and friends of the deceased were placed in his hands, praying for such inquiry ? Thirdly, will any man believe that it was declined, in deference to the tithe proprietors who distrained ; to the magistrates, or military, or police, who attended ; or to the judges, or the grand jurors, to whom the question was submitted, and who decided adversely to the views of those Irish members ? Fourthly, and lastly, does any man doubt but that the inquiry would have been demanded and proceeded upon, if it had been expected to justify the Ministers and their Irish supporters ? I am not aware of any true and sufficient answer to these plain questions; but I am aware of facts, yes, recorded facts, which would lead me to doubt that any such answer can be given to them. Where, then, are we to trace the evidence of those advantages which we are told to recognize as resulting to the Irish peasantry from the con- nexion subsisting between the Ministers and those Irish members ? Not in the Irish Church Bill, for the reasons already given, and which I am ready to sustain ; neither is it to be found in the Registration Bill, for its most favoured clause appears to be eminent only in its fitness to kidnap the consciences of an excited population. I am unwilling to trespass further upon your columns upon this occasion, but I cannot conclude without admitting that, in adopting this course, I am bound to be prepared with reasonable proof of every statement and suggestion which I offer. Be assured tiiat there- shall be no just cause for complaint on that point. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, ENEAS MACDONNELL. 8, Manor Terrace, Chelsea, Nov. 7, 1835. LETTER II. SIR, Availing myself of your indulgence, I beg leave to return to the most urgent topic of my former letter — the hostile proceedings against the House of Lords. I shall, at the outset, furnish a very brief summary of those attacks, in chronological order ; which estab- lishes the existence of that coincidence, or rather concurrence, if not combination, between members and high officers of the present Govern- ment, and other persons, for such purposes, particularly those servants of the Crown whose official stations and duties should make them the most active in resisting and correcting them — nay, further, it establishes that those high officers of the Crown actually commenced those pro- ceedings, which were followed up by others ; thus : — Aug. 24 — His Majesty's Prime Minister, Viscount Melbourne, me- naced the Lords, at the conclusion of a debate on the Irish Church Bill. Aug. 27 — His Majesty's Prime Minister menaced the Lords, on his opening a debate on the English Municipal Corporations Bill. Aug. 28 — His Majesty's Attorney-General for England, Sir John Campbell, assailed the House of Lords, in vilifying, offensive, and un- warranted terms, in the House of Commons, in the presence and so- ciety of His Majesty's Ministers. Sept. 2 — Mr. Rippon, a supporter of His Majesty's Ministers, gave notico of bringing in a bill early next session, to remove the Arch- bishops and Bishops from the Upper House of Parliament. Same day — Mr. Roebuck gave notice of bringing in a bill to take away the veto now possessed by the House of Lords, on all legislative measures. Same day — Mr. Hume, a supporter of His Majesty's Ministers, gave notice of moving for a select committee to inquire into the numbers, qualifications, privileges, constitution, powers, immunities, and con- duct of the Peers. Sept. 4 — Mr. O'Connell, supporter, patron, missionary, and prompter of His Majesty's Ministers, gave notice of moving for a select com- mittee to inquire into the necessity of introducing the principle of representation into the House of Lords. Sept. 8 — Mr. O'Connell assailed the Lords in his letter to the Duke of Wellington. Sept. 10 — Mr. O'Connell assailed and denounced the House of Lords, at public meetings, in Manchester. 9 Sept. 14 — Mr.O'Connell assailed and denounced the House ol Lords, at public meetings, in Newcastle. Sept. 17- — Mr.O'Connell assailed and denounced the Houseof Lords, at public meeting's, in Edinburgh. Sept. 18 — His Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. O'Loghlin, denounced the Lords, in a long detail of most unjust and unfounded imputations against their Lordships, and at the same time performed homage to Mr.O'Connell, then on his mission in Scotland; which denunciation, by His Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, was addressed to the electors of the borough of Dungarvan, at the opening of the election, for which he was duly rewarded, by being nominated by His Majesty's Ministers, in ten days after, a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. Sept.21 — Mr. O'Connell assailed and denounced the House of Lords, at public meetings, in Glasgow. Mr. O'Connell subsequently extended his mission to other parts of Scotland, denouncing their Lordships. Throughout his whole course he called upon his hearers to assist him in putting down the Lords, proclaimed himself to be the friend and ally, as he was the paneg-y- rist, of His Majesty's Ministers, and designated himself as a missionary. Oct. 1 — Mr. O'Connell addressed a letter, since published, to Mr. William Roche, member for the city of Limerick, and supporter of His Majesty's Ministers, denouncing the Lords. Oct. 4 — Mr. O'Connell addressed a long harangue to the " Trades' Union" in Dublin, violently and virulently assailing the Lords collec- tively, and several individually, including the next brother of His Majesty. Oct. 7 — Mr. O'Connell's services in England, Scotland, and Ireland, were duly and openly recognized, honoured, and rewarded, by His Majesty's representative and Lieutenant in Ireland, the Viceroy and Chief-Governor, Earl Mulgrave, who invited the hon. and learned member to his society and table, at the same time that he was a con- stant visitor to the public offices of His Majesty's Castle of Dublin. Oct. 12 — Mr. Walker, member for the town of Wexford, a sup- porter of His Majesty's Ministers, assailed the House of Lords, at a public dinner in that town, stating that " Mr. O'Connell, as the Irish lion, would put his paw on them ;" for which he has since been duly rewarded by being placed at the head of a newly created board of commissioners, concerning the fisheries. Oct. 15 — His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord John Russell, in an answer to an address, publicly assailed the Lords, as resisting the good measures of the Government. 10 Oct. 1C — His Majesty's Attorney-General for England, Sir John Campbell, again assailed and denounced the Lords, at a public meeting in Edinburgh, convened by himself; this being- nearly two months subsequent to his attack on the Lords from the Treasury bench of the House of Commons. The subdued tone of Lord John Russell, on the 15th of October, and of the Attorney-General four days after, indicates an impression in high quarters, that Mr. O'Connell's mission was not successful. Accordingly, we find all recommendation of " organic changes" now declined, and the measures confined to mere charges of guilt; leaving to others to suggest the chastisement. I shall now proceed to illustrate, more at large, the nature, injustice, and mischief of those proceedings against the Upper House of Parlia- ment. Aug. 24 — His Majesty's Prime Minister, Viscount Melbourne, (as re- ported in the Morning Chronicle,) addressed the following language to the House of Lords : — "My Lords, the two principles involved in the bill have been decided by resolutionsof the House of Commons, (cheers.) * * * I have determined that, if you carry this proposition, if you leave out this clause, I shall certainly not be a party to proceeding any further with the measure. (Loud cheering.) I shall decline to take any steps towards sending it back to the House of Commons in such a shape that it is impossible it can either, in point of form or principle, be agreed on." (Cheers.) Assuredly, this was menace and prostration of their Lordships, with a vengeance. There is no occasion to pass bills, or to appoint select committees, for " putting- down the Lords," if this doctrine of the Prime Minister can be practi- cally and uniformly enforced ; for no legislative enactment could be devised or conceived, more complete, for the purpose of making the House of Commons everything - , and the Lords nothing. Such was the feeling of the noble Peers who were addressed, as I collect from the language of the Duke of Wellington, given in the same report, thus : " The Duke of Wellington. — One word in consequence of what has fallen from the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount has stated what were his intentions, in case the proposition of my noble friend (Lord Haddington) shall be carried. * * * My Lords, I earnestly entreat, notwithstanding the menaces of the noblo Viscount, and the noble learned Lord, (Brougham,) that you will agree to the motion of my noble friend." It is worthy of observation, that Lord Melbourne did not deny, dis- claim. <>r qualify the menace so directly imputed l<> him or offer one word of explanation! 11 This conduct of the noble Lord does not accord with Whig prece- dent, or Whig- principles, as expounded by Whig authorities. And first let us look to precedent. In the year 17C3, the House of Commons passed the following- resolution, in reference to proceedings instituted against one of its members, Mr. Wilks: — " 29th November, 1763. — Resolved by the Commons, in Parliament assembled, that privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the law, in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence." The Commons prayed the concurrence of the House of Lords with their resolution, to which their Lordships, after conference, agreed. But a very long protest was entered upon their journals, by 17 Whig Peers, who declared their dissent, with many other reasons, in the following terms: — "Because it must be further considered, that this house is thus called upon to give a sanction to the determination of the other, who have not condescended to confer upon this point, till they had prejudged it themselves." Yet, although at that time it was not considered right or lawful, in a mere matter of privilege, so comparatively trifling, to admit the power of the Commons to " determine" or " prejudge it," the Lords of the present day, when a question of the first importance is brought before them, are told in menacing terms, by the Whig Premier, that he will abide by the 'decision of the other house/ and insist that the Lords should stoop to have that most important question " pre-judged" by the Commons, without their presuming to exercise their legislative or deliberative functions respecting it. I do not think the voluminous report of the " Bribery and Intimidation at Elections Committee," recently published, could furnish a stronger instance of intimidation, than was attempted to be practised on this occasion. But let us now turn to the Whig principles touching these points, as expounded by the most eminent Whig of our times — Earl Grey. On the 13th of June, 1827, the Corn Bill having been brought up to the Lords from the Commons, the Duke of Wellington moved an amendment, and the Ministers threatened to abandon the bill alto- gether, if the resolution proposed by the noble Duke were carried. Upon which Earl Grey observed, (Hansard's Reports} — " He had voted for the amendment, thinking it to be an improvement. Think- ing as he did, that the manner in which the bill was introduced, in a season of clamour, was highly objectionable — thinking also that the Government was much to blame in listening to that clamour, it became 12 a question with him whether he could give it his sanction without too great a sacrifice of that interest which he was anxious to uphold. However, he acquiesced ; but never with the most remote idea that in any of the stages of the bill, the deliberative powers of that House should not be exercised ; and therefore it was that he voted for the amendment of the noble Duke ; every other part of the bill remained unchanged. It was simply this alteration with regard to bonded corn, that was objected to by noble Lords opposite, and he did not think that, in their view, such alteration could be supposed so far to vitiate the bill, if they considered it beneficial in other respects, as to make them feel it their duty to abandon it." " I have no doubt, (says his Lordship,) that he (the Minister) pursues that course from a sincere conviction that he is only discharging his duty ; but it is not a little extraordinary, that the amendment should be thought so to alter the bill, as to make it necessary that it should be abandoned. I do not think that any noble Lord who is held worthy of taking part in His Majesty's councils, can act so unworthily as to abandon the bill, for the purpose of exciting the discontent of the country. All I shall say is this — that if it should produce that effect, I shall be ready to meet it. I stand here, one of a body which will always be ready firmly and honestly to resist such effects : which always considers anxiously and feelingly the interests of the people, even when it must oppose the people themselves, and which will never consent, under the influence of fear, to give way to clamour. (Cheers.) If I am told that we run the risk of having a worse bill, I shall never suffer myself to be intimidated by any such threat ; and if a worse bill should be sent up, I am sure your Lordships would pursue the same course you have pursued by the present bill. You would consider it, and you would amend it, and if you could not make it good, you would reject it. I have said this much, and I might say a great deal more. If there should come a contest between this house, and a great portion of the people, my part is taken ; and with that order to which 1 belong, I will stand or fall. I will maintain to the last hour of my life, the independence and privileges of this house." (Cheers.) Let it not be conceived that this was a hasty, inconsiderate ebullition of the noble Earl, and afterwards retracted, or modified, upon more mature consideration. By no means ; for in twelve days after, on the 25th of the same month of June, he again expressed his sentiments in the course of the proceedings on the Warehoused Corn Bill. The noble Earl says — "After what has fallen from the noble Duke (Wellington), I am sure there is no man with a spark of candour nnd honesty, who can Bay thai the amendment was proposed with the in- 13 tention of defeating the bill. This has been, I know, calumniously asserted, but the calumnious assertion has been met by the indignation that it merited." After stating- the grounds of the amendment on the Corn Bill, moved by the Duke of Wellington, the noble Earl pro- ceeds — " Yet, for such a course of conduct was the noble Duke, and. those who acted with him, visited with the most calumnious asper- sions — aspersions, however, which no one had the indecency to cast upon him in this house. * * * In the deliberate judgment of the whole country, I am satisfied it will be admitted that we should have acted inconsistently with our duty as legislators, if, from the apprehension of such calumnious aspersions as I have alluded to, we had hesitated in the adoption of such amendments as we conscientiously conceived to be an improvement of the bill, and a corrective against posMble dangers. But if this bill has been lost, it was not by this amendment. The bill was lost by the refusal of the noble Viscount to persevere in carrying it through with this amendment annexed to it. * * * Yet, it was given out that this bill was rendered necessary ? in consequence of the passing- that amendment in this house. What is this, I ask, but a wilful misrepresentation ? A mistake may be set right, a prejudice may be removed, an argument may be combated by reason, but a determined spirit of misrepresentation could not be fairly encountered, for its malignity was only excited by every exposure of its falsehood. * * * One reason for withdrawing the late bill, it is alleged, was, that the amendment would be fatal to it in the other house of Parliament; and it was desirable that the privileges of the two houses might not be brought into collision. * * * As I have touched on the question of privileges, and as it is one on which great misre- presentation has gone abroad, I must remark that the late bill was unaccountably sent up to us a bill of supply," &c. After repeating that the proceedings had been " calumniously mis- stated, and the consequence of that amendment exaggerated by persons who owed their very existence to the noble Duke/' he proceeded — " I have little more to say, after having fulfilled the purpose for which I had risen — the attempt to set myself right with the house, and with the country, as to the part I have taken upon this subject ; and what is more important, to vindicate the character and uphold the propriety of the proceedings of a majority of this house. * * * Popular rights I have ever upheld, whenever and by whomsoever they were assailed. I have made some sacrifices for them ; I am ready to make more. At the same time, when I have met wild and extrava- gant claims and doctrines under the name of popular rights, I have not flinched from the obloquy to which an opposition to them ma\ 14 have exposed me. To that obloquy I am as ready again to expose myself, as I am to endeavour to retrieve the constitution from those invasions which I have considered as most dangerous to popular secu- rity. But at the same time that we should be anxious to uphold the dignity of the Crown, and to protect the just rights of the people, we should remember that we as well as they have rights and privileges given to us, not so much for our benefit as for theirs ; that we are an intermediate body, forming - a link of connexion between both, and standing- as a barrier to resist the encroachments of one upon the rig'hts of the other. These respective rights I am anxious that all should enjoy." Such was the language of Earl Grey in 1827, and I do not hesitate to desire your assent to this position, that it furnishes an admirable and, even in details, most appropriate lecture to our noble Premier and his Whig- Cabinet at the present day. Indeed, I should recommend to those noble lords and rig-ht honourable gentlemen, to devote their first council to the perusal and consideration of this exposition of un- tainted old Whig principles. Let it not be said, on their behalf, that the amendment moved by Lord Haddington was one which they could not consistently admit. The fact is directly the reverse, if we are to judge by their proceed- ings in the last year ; neither should the resolution moved by Lord John Russell be set up as a ground of menace by the Ministers, as they found no difficulty in disregarding such incumbrances on the consist- ency of themselves or the House of Commons, when English objects were to be attained : I refer particularly to the English Corporation Bill. The average majority of votes on the Irish tithe question, in its various forms, in the last session, was about 30, including, in the number of voters, all the Roman Catholic members, not one of whom, in my opinion, should have voted. The majorities on several import- ant questions embodied in the English Corporation Bill were not only equally large, but actually much larger — thus, June 30, the clause requiring qualification for town counsellors was moved by Sir Robert Peel, and after a long debate rejected on a division ; the numbers being — for the clause, 204 ; against it, 207 ; majority against the clause, 63. This qualification clause was again introduced into the bill by the Lords, and notwithstanding the majority of 63, was ultimately adopted by the Commons. Again, the Lords having rejected the provision by the Commons, that the councils should nominate the persons from whom the Crown should select justices, Lord J. Russell moved (on the 1st of September) that the provision expunged by the Lords should bo reinserted in iho bill, which, after a debate, was car- 15 ried ; the numbers being-, for the original clause, as inserted by the Commons, and rejected by the Lords, 164; against it, 69; leaving a majority of 9 J>, or more than two to one in favour of preserving the clause. Nevertheless, the Lords (September 4) again expunged the reinserted clause of the Commons, and the Commons ultimately and speedily accepted the amendment of the Lords, vesting the right and responsibility of the selection of corporation justices absolutely in the Crown. I could refer also to the clauses respecting the arrangement of wards, the rights of freemen, the aldermen, and others, attended with similar circumstances, but I select these two, as to the qualifica- tions of counsellors, and appointment of justices, because they were stated, at the time, to involve questions of principle, which they cer- tainly did ; and principle, too, upon which practical measures were to be immediately constructed. The appropriation clause in the Irish Church Bill, and the resolu- tion of Lord John Russell were nothing more than resolutions of the House of Commons, and were carried by trifling majorities, when contrasted with those majorities on the English Corporation Bill. Moreover, the appropriation clause was a mere question of principle, or rather " clap-trap," as the noble Premier would call it ; for it was not even pretended that it would produce any immediate result, like the provisions in the English Corporation Bill ; on the contrary, the notable alteration made in the bill by the Ministers themselves and the House of Commons, even before they sent it up to the Lords, proved that it could scarcely have been either intended or expected that such practical benefits would ensue; for the provision in the bill, as presented to the Commons, originally, that the surplus should be applied to purposes of education, was abandoned before it was brought up to the Lords, and another enactment substituted, providing thai. " in consideration of" such surplus, there should be an annual grant of £50,000 out of the Consolidated Fund ; and the mover of the alter- ation admitted that it was effected in consequence of the necessarily unavoidable scantiness of the surplus. Still, however, the principle of appropriating the church property to other than church purposes was, with other irrelevant matter, retained in the bill ; and thus the adjustment of the tithe question was postponed. I should not feel warranted in trespassing further upon your kind indulgence this day, and will therefore conclude with the renewed pledge of establishing, by proof, every statement or suggestion that I have offered. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, ENEAS MACDONNELL. Manor-terrace, Chelsea Nov. 11. 1S3,V LETTER III. SIR, I proceed again in my exposure of the injustice of the attacks, the apparently organized and combined attacks, upon the House of Lords, and am compelled to direct attention, a second, time to those of the noble Lord, at the head of the Government. August 27. — His Majesty's Prime Minister, as reported in the same Ministerial journal, addressed the House of Lords, thus: — " Viscount Melbourne (after rising - to move that the report on the English Muni- cipal Corporation Bill be brought up, and guarding against his being- supposed to give any sanction to the amendments introduced by their Lordships, proceeded.) Considering, too, the strong feeling existing in the country on this subject, a feeling very much increased, allow me to say, by the sudden and unexpected manner in whieh the oppo- sition to this measure has been made, and the alterations which have been introduced into it in your Lordships' house, I must beg leave also to say, that I cannot answer for any support being given in that House (of Commons) to these amendments in toto, or any one of them." Here, again, as in the case of the Irish Church Bill, the Prime Minister of the Crown declines to sanction any pretension, on the part of the House of Lords, to offer any amendment in an important bill sent up to them by the House of Commons. I come next, in chronological order, to His Majesty's Attorney-Gene- ral for England, Sir J. Campbell, who appears to have reversed his offi- cial course, according to the general, and I may be permitted to add, the constitutional, and legal—ay, and according to Whig doctrines, the right conception of his duties. If the reports of his speeches (for his attacks were repeated after a long interval) be correctly given in the public journals most favourable to himself and his party, I do no wrong to the learned knight when I state, that the first law officer of the Crown, the legal adviser of the King and of his Ministers, has sought to scan- dalize, asperse, and vilify, the House of Lords, as one of the houses of Parliament, and to bring it into hatred and contempt with His Majesty's subjects. I adopt the precise terms of complaint which he himself should and would adopt, were he directed by the Crown, upon an address from either house of Parliament, to exhibit a criminal inform- ation against any other person for the use of such language as be is reported, by the Government journals, to have repeatedly used — thus; August 28th — (according to the report of the proceedings in 17 the House of Commons in the same Ministerial journal:)- Crm* mittee to search the Lords' Journals." — The Attorncy-Gerferal said he rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for the appointment of a select committee to search the journals cf the House of Lords, in order to ascertain, if possible, what had become of two very important measures sent from that House (the Commons) to the other. He hoped this motion would not be deemed disrespectful towards their Lordships, and that it would not be expected that after passing- bills, and carrying- them to the House of Lords, they might not reasonably feel disappointment at hearing no more of them. (Hear, hear.) A very important bill, as the House was aware — a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, had passed from that house into the Lords ; and as to that bill, he was in a condition to tell the House what had become of it. (Hear, hear.) He understood that that very important bill was not to pass their Lordships until they had examined witnesses upon it. Probably, in accordance with precedent, their Lordships would call to their bar, all the bumbailiffs, (a laugh,) all the gaolers, the gentlemen who served the useful purposes of sham bail, and all the attorneys, (continued laughter and cheers,) and from these truth- speaking and disinterested witnesses, their Lordships would no doubt hear that the law of arrest for debt was a most excellent law, that it never was in any one instance abused, and that it would give great dis- satisfaction to the country if it were abolished, (continued laughter :) and upon such evidence, the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Bill would share the fate of other measures sent from that House to the Lords. The bills for the delivery of which he now moved the ap- pointment of a select committee were two measures of considerable importance. They were — the bill regulating the law respecting the execution of wills, and the bill for the reforming of the law relative to executors and administrators. They passed on the 3rd of June, nearly three months ago. (Hear, hear.) What had become of these bills he did not know. He had seen the learned Masters in Chancery come to their table day after day, announcing that the Lords had passed this bill and that, but upon no occasion had he heard any mention of these lost measures. The only mode, therefore, by which they could gratify their curiosity upon the subject, was by acceding to the proposal he now made, of appointing a select committee to search the journals. Whether upon such search any trace of the bills would be found, or whether it would be discovered in what manner they had been burked, he could not tell." I may here refer also to the language used by this high legal functionary when addressing the electors of Edinburgh, at a public meeting- convened by himself, on 18 the 19th of October, alter Mr. O'Connell s mission had concluded, i quote from the report of his speech in the London Courier, in which he is stated to have assured his auditory of the mischievous conduct of the House of Lords, imputing - to their Lordships in their legislative capacity, "infatuation," and "obstinacy," adding- that they "will learn nothing, and forget nothing." " He contended that the object of the Lords was to irritate and disgust the Commons, and to bring about a collision which would ultimately restore the Tories to power." He added, " The Lords have opposed, for years past, every liberal measure." * * * "You must not wonder that their Lordships should be a little restiff." * * * •' Give us again our majority of 250, the Lords will give us no trouble at all." * * * " Let them find that they are very unpopular, and that their doctrines are exploded, you will find them extremely accommodating." The time, the place, the circumstances for delivery of those senti- ments, amid the cheers and laughter of his hearers, were chosen by himself as the most fit for announcing, on his return to the discharge of his official duties, the advice which he is disposed to give to his Royal master respecting a subject upon which he must be considered the most fit person to be consulted. Before I proceed to illustrate the utter injustice in form and substance of his charges, allow me to invite your attention to the legal and constitutional character of his language. In the second volume of Starkie's Treatise on Libel, pages 202, 203, and 204, I meet the following doctrine, viz. : — " The same policy which prohibits seditious comments on the King's conduct and Government, extends to reflections on the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament. These bodies, so essential a part of the constitution, are, at all events, entitled to reverence and respect on account of the great and important public services which they are bound to discharge," &c "Willi: mOwen (Michaelmas, 25 Geo. II., K.B., MSS. Dig. L. L. 07.) was tried upon an information exhibited against him, for publishing' a malicious libel, entitled, 'The case of the Hon. Alexander Murray, Esq.' in an appeal to the people of Great Britain, &c. tending to scandalize and vilify the whole body of the Commons in Parliament assembled ; to represent the proceedings in Parliament as cruel, arbitrary, and oppressive ; to make it be believed that the Commons in Parliament assembled, had acted, in their legislative capacity, i" open violation of the constitution; and also to represent the said House of Commons as a court of inquisition," &c. Upon the publication of this alleged libel by the defendants, the " Commons" addressed the King, desiring His Majesty to give orders to prosecute the publisher, which was done. 19 Mr. Starkie next rotors to Stockdale's case, which is more fully stated in the report of the trial, and in the periodicals of that lime. It is eminently apposite ; being- a House of Commons, and purely Whig- precedent. 14th February, 1788, the present Earl Grey being then a Member of the House of Commons, Mr. Fox complained of a pamphlet entitled " A Review of the Principal Charges against Warren Hastings, Esq. from which the clerk, by his desire, read several passages, including the following, which appears to have been considered the most offen- sive, — namely, " No abilities, however great, no situation, however exalted, no services, however beneficial and meritorious, not even the smiles of the Sovereign, and the approbation of the people, could screen a British subject from impeachment." I pray you, Sir, to contrast this language with the language of His Majesty's Attorney-General, in the Hoiue of Commons, and in Edin- burgh, and bear in mind that the former was used by a Scotch parson in reference to an individual, and the latter by the first law officer of the Crown, in reference to the conduct of the Upper House of Parlia- ment towards the whole body of His Majesty's subjects. The following resolution, moved by Mr. Fox, and supported by Mr. Sheridan, and other Whig leaders, was ultimately carried on the loth:— "Resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Majesty, humbly desiring His Majesty, that he will he graciously pleased to give directions to his Attorney-General, to prosecute the author or authors, printer or printers, and the publisher or publishers, of the said pamphlet, in order that they may be brought to condign punish- ment for the same," which was done accordingly. Now, I am not so unmerciful as were the Whig leaders, and House of Commons of that lime; for I do not mean to urge the House of Lords that they should desire His Majesty to " give directions io his Attorney-General to prosecute the author," plain Sir John Campbell, that he " may be brought to condign punishment." The Attorney-General thereupon exhibited an information against Mr. Stockdale, the publisher, and the trial was had on the 9th of December, 1789. The offence charged in the information was, that the pamphlet was intended to " asperse, scandalize, and vilify the Commons of England, — to bring the Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, into hatred and contempt with the subjects of this kingdom, and to raise, excite, and create, most groundless distrust in the minds of all the King's subjects, as if from the profligacy and wickedness of the c2 20 t Commons in Parliament, great injustice would be done," Sec, " to ihe great scandal and dishonour of the Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, and in high contempt of their authority ; to the great disturbance of the public peace and tranquillity of this king- dom ; in contempt of the present sovereign lord the King, and his laws ; to the evil and pernicious example of all others in the like case offending," &c. Substitute but one word, " Lords," instead of " Commons," and the description is complete, of the language of His Majesty's Attorney- General. What other objects could he have contemplated ? The truly eminent and eloquent Whig barrister, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Erskine, counsel for Stockdale, having observed, that the prosecution was instituted by the desire of his political friends, told the jury that if they believed that the words were written with the intentions attributed to them, they had his full permission to find the defendant guilty. I should not omit to add, that in both cases, — namely, of Owen and Stockdale — the prosecuting propensities of the Commons, and the Whigs, were corrected by the juries, who, in each instance, acquitted the defendant. Having thus established, upon Whig or House of Commons prece- dents, and principles, the legal and constitutional character of the lan- guage of His Majesty's Attorney-General for England, I shall, for the present, confine myself to an undertaking' to prove, by the very means and authorities to which he himself has appealed, that the attacks attributed to him, are, in all their details and bearings, destitute of the slightest foundation injustice or fact ; and I shall, at the same time, to avoid repetition, notice the charges, equally criminal, because equally unjust, of His Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, against their Lordships: of which latter gentleman it may be truly slated, that there is not in the community, an individual less likely to make any advance, without previously ascertaining the circumstances of his po- sition ; and, therefore, the public may rest assured, that his hostile language towards the House of Lords, on the 18th of September, was i»i perfect accordance with his conception of the views of His Majesty's Ministers, and of His Majesty's representative in Ireland, of whom he is practically the principal confidential adviser. 1 have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, ENEAS MACDONNELL. 8, Manor-terrace, King's Hoail, Chelsea, Nov. 16, 183.5. LETTER IV. SIR, The charge made against tlie House of Lord> by His [Majesty's Attorney-General for England, and His Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, to which 1 shall here particularly advert, is that of general neglect and delay of public business, and referring- most prominently to the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, the Execution of Wills Bill, and the Executors Bill, upon which Sir John Campbell's denunciations were founded, and the several Irish bills upon the alleged neglect of which Mr. O'Loghlin dwelt with such acrimonious tediousness ; con- cluding with that most unfounded, vilifying sneer, that "in truth they could not be expected to legislate in the month of August !!" The Imprisonment for Debt Bill was not brought up to the Lords until the llth of August, when it was accompanied with seven other public bills, and at a time when the Lords were overwhelmed with other public business, as we shall see, very shortly ; so that it was utterly impossible to give it due, if any, consideration ; and we all know that Lord Brougham has repeatedly admitted, nay, proclaimed, that the postponement of that bill was resolved upon in pursuance of his advice and desire, and he claimed a right to control its ma- nagement, as his own measure — his own Parliamentary property. Some, indeed, will have it believed, that this bill is not the only "good tiling" that was once Lord Brougham's, which Sir John Campbell would consent to call his own, even though its possession might ex- pose him to a painful association with those hated and horrible Lords •' And even the story goes, that although in Edinburgh he repudiated the "Derby Dilly," nevertheless, he would not, in Westminster, object to travel for a stage in the Melbourne " Omnibus," (and verily it is an " Omnibus,") even though he should be taken up in Whitehall, and set down in Old Palace-yard. Mr. Speaker was, not a little, in error, on the 28th of August, when he stated that the course pursued by Sir John Campbell in reference to the Execution of Wills Bill and the Executors Bill was the most usual course in such cases. In truth, I apprehend that it was, on the contrary, an unusual, if not an unprecedented course, to search the journals with the view of exciting comp'aint or hostility against the other House of Parliament. In conformity with the desire of His Majesty's Attorney-General for England to " search the journals," I have examined them to the '22 extent of my means of inquiry ; I have also sought information in those quarters which I considered most likely to furnish accurate results ; and I could not discover a single instance of a resolution having been adopted by the Commons to " search the journals of the House of Lords," except in a spirit of friendly adjustment, as a necessary pre- liminary to the re-instatement of a bill which had been interrupted in its progress by some formal difficulty, affecting the privileges of the House : whereas, in this case, no new bill was proposed or promised, and, in fact, the whole proceeding- was one of sheer, gratuitous, un- profitable, offensive, hostility to the Lords. Those bills were brought to the Lords on the 12th of June, and on the 22d of that month were, upon motion of Lord Brougham, referred to a select committee, nominated by his Lordship, including himself and Lord Denman. This fact was stated in the journals of their Lord- ships which were printed and published every day — nay, even on that very 28th of August, when Sir John Campbell proposed to " search the journals," and grounded upon that proposition his vilifying denun- ciations of their Lordships, as detailed in my last letter. Lords Brougham and Denman were successively chairmen of the House of Lords on the 26th and 2/lh of August, and Lord Denman was chairman on the 2Sth, when His Majesty's Attorney-General made the attack. If his object had been any other than that imputed to him, why did not he communicate discreetly with those noble and learned Lords, or either of them, who could have given him more in- formation, if he really desired it, in six minutes, than he could have obtained by searching the journals in the six days that intervened be- tween his motion and his report, on the 3d of September, and which, report left him in the same position as that from which he started; except so far as it furnished another illustration of the fact, that his sole object and motive was to vilify and unjustly assail the Upper House of Parliament. It is now, as it was then, notorious that those bills were both postponed, on account of insufficiency of evidence, and absence of the judges on their circuits. Let us now " search those journals" and the reports in the Ministerial newspapers, still further, with a view to ascertain the real merits of those imputations of neg- ligence of business, made against the House of Lords by His Majesty's Attorney-General lor England, and His Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland. Mark the results, in reference to one of the bills before it — the English Municipal Corporations Bill : — Augiibt 1. — Counsel were heard on the English Corporations Bill. August 4. — The principle of that bill was debated. August 5, 0, 7, and 8. — Witnesses were examined during nearly the whole of each day. ■23 Augti>t 12. — The bill considered, in committee, till twelve o'clock at night. August 13. — The bill further considered, till twelve o'clock at bight. August 14. — Further considered, from eleven o'clock in the morning till a late hour. August 17- — Further considered, till tw r elve o'clock at night. August 18. — Further considered, till twelve o'clock at night. August 25. — Report brought up and considered, till twelve o'clock at night. August 27. — Report received and considered till two o'clock the next morning. August 28. — Bill read the third time and passed, with amendments. Here we find this indolent and negligent House of Lords engaged in consideration of the principle and details of a most important mea- sure, for fourteen days of this idle month of August ! Nay more, Sir, in that same month of August, the House of Commons sent up to the House of Lords no less than 55 new bills, and of these 50 were public bills, including the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, the Irish Church Bill, the Irish Corporations Bill, the Irish Constabulary Bill, the Irish Registration of Votes Bill, and the Dublin Police Bill, upon the neg- lect of which important Irish measures His Majesty's Attorney-Ge- neral for Ireland dwells in such melancholy sneer. If His Majesty's Attorney-General for England should adopt his own rule, and " search the journals," he will arrive at the following- result as to the new bills sent from the Commons to the Lords in that month of Augrust : Day of Month. 3d No. of now bills sent up. 3 as™ No. of new bills sent up. 6 4th 3 20th 11 5th 2 21st 4 6th 1 24th 3 12th 2 25th 2 13th 4 2/th 2 17th 8 29th 4 Here, then, are 55 new bills, including 50 public bills, kept back till the month of August by the House of Commons, for the despatch of which 50 public bills, the King's Ministers, and particularly His Majesty's Attorney-General for England, and His Majesty's Attorney- General for Ireland, being both in attendance, as members of Parlia- ment, should be held pre-eminently responsible. To whom now, I confidently ask, should the charge of neglect be justly imputed whether to the House of Lords, or to their accusers ? 24 Look, again, to the Irish bills upon which His Majesty's Attorney- General for Ireland has raised his unwarranted charges against the Lords ; at a time when he would have been much more fitly occupied in offering" some apology for his own neglect of them : — ■ Presented to the Broud. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. AT L08 ANGELES LIBRARY J:! iftLcttonnell - 621 Vindications of "14 v — the IIouso of L ar ls UCLA-Young Research Library JN621 .M14v y AA 001352 849 2 621 M0.4v