My Lords, I never have made, and I never will make, a charge which I am not ready to repeat, and able to substantiate, and I will forthwith prove that which the noble Earl calls upon me to explain. In doing this I beg leave to remind your Lordships, that some months ago I suggested to the noble Earl, (Grey) that an Act of Parliament, which had been passed for the purpose of suppressing illegal associations in Ireland, was about to expire, and I asked him, if he intended to propose a renewal of that act. The noble Earl replied that he did; but my Lords, you will recollect that parliament was dissolved without any further notice of the act, and of course it expired. The result of this was, that the noble Earl stated in the House, when it met again, that the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Administration felt that he could carry on the government of that country without any additional powers; and the consequences of the noble Earl having declined to apply to the legislature for any authority beyond the existing laws were, that agitation began again, and that meeting after meeting has been held, from that time to the present moment. This is not all, my Lords; the great agitator, the prime mover of the whole machinery, escaped the execution of the sentence of the law in consequence of the expiration of the Act of Parliament to which I have referred. Well my Lords, what has since taken place. This very person, the great agitator, whom the government had prosecuted to conviction, was considered to be a person worthy of the honours which the crown could bestow, and he received the highest favour which any gentleman of the Bar ever received from the hands of the noble Earl and his government; he received a patent of precedence, which placed him next the Attorney General, and above a gentleman who was once Attorney General, but was still a member of the same Bar. If this was not a premium given to that gentleman to continue his course of disturbing the country, I do not know what else could be so considered. I feel that no more effectual mode could be found to encourage agitation than to reward the promoter of it. But it is not alone in this respect that his Majesty's Government has encouraged agitation. What was the meaning, I ask, of the friends of government taking the course they have taken out of doors, with reference to the Reform Bill? What was the meaning of the letter of the noble Lord in another house, addressed to the Political Union of Birmingham, in which that noble Lord designated the sentiments of noble Peers on this side of the House as the "whisper of a faction?"—What was the meaning of two friends of government collecting a mob in Hyde Park, and the Regent's Park, on one of the days on which the House of Lords was discussing the Reform Bill? What was the meaning of those individuals directing the line of march of the assembled multitude upon St. James's, and publishing their orders in the papers devoted to government? And what was the meaning of the publications in the government newspapers, libelling and maligning all those who opposed the Bill? What was the meaning of all these deeds being allowed by government, and why did they tolerate and abet them, unless they calculated upon some advantages to themselves in encouraging such agitation? I don't accuse the noble Earl of instigating those mobs—I do not mean to say, that he was delighted at seeing my house assailed, or any other work of destruction committed; but I say some of his colleagues, and some of the friends of government, have encouraged and incited the people to works of violence. I must say, I have long felt on this subject very strongly. I feel that the country is in a most dangerous state. I find the country is in a most dangerous state, on account of government not taking the proper measures to put a stop to confusion and agitation; and on the contrary, in place of putting a stop to such scenes, allowing some Lords of his Majesty's household, to encourage and instigate the people to lawless acts.
February 27th, 1832.
[Earl Grey had risen and denied that the Government had encouraged agitation upon which the Duke made the previous short but energetic speech.]
* * * * *
Mr. O'Connell ought not to have had a Patent of Precedence.
It has been urged, that professional honours should not be withheld from a gentleman who is entitled to them, on account of political offences. I beg to set the noble Lord right on that point. The offences of which Mr. O'Connell was convicted, were not political or professional, but legal offences. They were pronounced such by the law of the country; and it was to an individual who had been convicted of such offences, that his Majesty's Government thought it right to give a patent of precedence in Ireland.
February 27, 1832.
* * * * *
Opinion of the "National" System of Education in Ireland.
I agree in opinion with the noble and learned Lord (Plunkett), who has declared that opinion with so much eloquence, that any system of education, to succeed, must be founded on religion; and that it cannot stand on any other foundation. The noble and learned Lord has truly said, that this is to be desired, not simply from the advantages to be derived from religious instruction, but for the promotion of those habits of obedience and discipline which it is necessary to instil into the mind of youth. I admit that the system proposed by Ministers is founded on, and justified by, the reports of the commissioners and of committees of the other House of Parliament; but the doubt I entertain is this—whether the system laid down in the reports, and in the letter of the Right Honourable Secretary for Ireland, is a system which would inculcate those habits of discipline and obedience which are required by the noble and learned Lord, and which would alone satisfy my own mind, that in adopting it we should be doing that which we ought to do: this is my apprehension. What I feel is this—that there is much doubt whether the new system of education in Ireland will apply to the education of nearly 500,000 persons, in the same advantageous way as is now the case with the existing Societies—the London Hibernian Society, the Sunday School Society, and the Kildare Place Society. What I would say is, that there is already going on a system of religious education, extending its operation to nearer 500,000 than 400,000 persons—a system of real religious education, founded on the Scriptures, which can be interfered with by nobody—neither by priest nor by any other man—and which is so directed by this Kildare Place Society, as not to give offence to anybody; and now, when the Government is about to establish another system, (which I have admitted they are justified by the reports in doing), I doubt much whether it will not be attended with less advantage than that which already exists.