The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-27 00:00:00

when th!), had
hv Bop, to
T)oth

a lawyer, that a copy ought never to be use..
the original—( A laugh)—he would proceed, step
compare the original with the notice on the books, anti
with the printed copy sent round to their Lordships. He
found by this comparison that the original notice ran this :
" Notice, by the Bishop of Exeter, to present a petitbn on
Thursday next from the incumbent of the parish of Borithoole,
in the county of Mayo, complaining of partial conduct sn the
part of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, and of per-
secution carried on against the Protestant Churches of Eng-
land and Ireland." This was the Right Rev. Prelate's origi-
nal notice. He ( Lord Brougham) had also before hin the
other two, but he could not read all three at once ; but 1 any
Noble Lord who had learned to read and write wouh: take
the copies in his hand, he might compare them word by word,
as he ( Lord Brougham) read the original, and the whole three
would be found to be precisely and literally the same. Indeed,
so exact was the copy, entered on the books, that he must
take that opportunity of lauding the remarkable accuracy and
precision of his friend the clerk at the table, for he copied
even the very abbreviations in the original. For instance, the
letter P. was put for parish in the original, and so it was by
the clerk in the copy.--( A laugh.) There could be no doubt,
then, that all the notices were perfectly correct.
The Bishop of EXETER said that perhaps he had not
heard the Noble Viscount ( Duncannon) distinctly, but he
certainly understood him to impute to the petition of Mr.
Stoney that it charged the Commissioners with persecution of
the Protestant Church, whereas the petition which had been
entrusted to him (the Bishop of Exeter) complained of gene-
ral persecution.
Lord BROUGHAM said that this explanation would not
tally with the argument of the Right Rev. Prelate, because
his argument was, that the notice was not accurately printed in
the paper sent round to their Lordships, and this, therefore,
except by a sort of second sight, which he supposed the Right
Rev. Prelate was not gifted with, could have no reference to
a speech delivered a week before by his Noble Friend.
The Bishop of EXETER here made some slight inter-
ruption.
Lord BROUGHAM would strongly recommend the Right
Rev. Prelate for his own sake not to interrupt, or doubtless
he would bring down on himself the censure of their Lord-
ships. It was but just now that he (Lord Brougham) ventured
to utter only one word, which was immediately con-
strued into an interruption of the Right Rev. Prelate, and in
an instant twenty throats were open against him.—( A laugh.)
Now, of course, when he was thus censured for only looking
as if he meant to interrupt—( A laugh)—the Right Reverend
Prelate would have the same twenty throats open against him
for a real interruption. He wished, therefore, to save the
Right Rev. Prelate from his own undoing. He should now
come to the more important matter involved in this discussion.
He fully acquitted the Right Rev. Prelate of all blame for
not presenting the petition that had been entrusted to him, for
every Noble Lord in that House had a right to exercise his
own judgment in such a matter, and would think it very odd,
indeed, if he were called upon to present a petition contrary
to his judgment. With respect to the petition that had been
just presented by his Noble Friend ( Viscount Duncannon) he
should be much surprised if his Noble Friend had any expec-
tation that the House would agree to the prayer of that peti-
tion. It was impossible that any one could comply with that
prayer, which was nothing more nor less than that Mr. Stoney
should be compelled to present his petition. The House had
no power or right to enforce such a prayer as that any one
should come forward to prefer a charge against another. He
admitted, however, that, as a vehicle of self-defence, the pe-
tition was very properly presented by his Noble Friend. The
Right Rev. Prelate had asked if the Commission that had
been laid upon their Lordship's table were really a Commission
or not? It certainly was not the original Commission, but it
was a copy ; and a copy of such a document was all that
could be had access to. They never could have access to the
original, because, from the very nature of a Gommission, the
original must go forth, and the original Commission in this
case was no doubt in Ireland, in the hands of the Com-
missioners or their clerk. It was not like a record, to
which access might be had at all times; but, although the
Commission was not forthcoming, there was the copy with
the warrant attached to it. It ran in the usual form of all
Royal Commissions, revoking the former Commissions, and
substituting this ; and after naming the Commissioners and
directing the powers and authority they were to exercise, it
s 7 .includes, " And for so doing this shall be your warrant."
This document, when drawn up at the Secretary of State's
Office, is sent to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-Ge-
neral to report upon, and after these reports it goes to the
Privy Seal, and then to the Great Seal. There was not,
therefore the slightest difference between the document now
before their Lordships and the original Commission, except
the warrant, and the words "To the Attorney and Solicitor..
General." Now as to the case of these two Commissioners,
against whom Mr. Stoney was about to complain, or had ex-
pressed an intention to complain, he, for one, thought they
had fully vindicated themselves, and fairly met the charges in-
sinuated against them—not by any general denial either,
but by telling in detail what really did take place. As to the
complaint that a Protestant had been turned out of Court,
was it not the uniform practice of all Courts and Com-
missions, and Committees, after giving notice to that effect,
to turn out all persons who disturbed the proceedings ?
In this case notice was given both to Protestants and Ca-
tholics, but the Protestant happened to be the first who vio-
lated the order and decorum of the Court, and was accordingly
the first to be turned out, He had every respect for the cha-
racter of Mr. Stoney, and he was not at all disposed to say
anything to his discredit. They had been told by the Arch-
bishop of Tuarn that Mr. Stoney was incapable of telling an
untruth; but he (Lord Brougham) would take leave to say that
there was a very material difference between a man's not
telling an untruth, and our believing every word he said,parti-
cularly if he be a man giving an account of a transaction in a
country distracted by religious discord, and in the midst of
which he himself resided. He would not believe such a man
under such circumstances, influenced by his passions, on his
word, no, nor on his oath. Mr. Stoney was, moreover, a pub-
lic accuser. He charged the Commissioners with gross and
infamous partiality; and was his bare, unsupported allegation
of facts to be believed? This was a mode which Mr. Stoney
had adopted to stab the Commissioners through the Right
Rev. Prelate's notice to present a petition. When he said
that Mr. Stoney was so entirely under the guidance of passion
that he would not believe him, he said so because he read the
answer he had given to the Commissioners, and which had
been circulated and printed by Mr. Stoney himself. He would
ask if any Noble Lord could give credence to any witness in
such a frame of mind as Mr. Stoney must be in when he gave
those answers ? Answers, indeed, they could not be called,
for, in the whole of his replies, there was not an answer to a
single question that had been put to him. He talks of the
Papists worshipping stocks, and stones, and wafers, and he
gives them texts from Scripture, but not an answer does he give
to a single question. He tells the Commissioners that the
Rev. Mr. Hughes, the Priest, whips his parishioners into the
river, and that the state of the Irish peasantry is worse than
African slavery ; but no question does he answer. For his (Lord
Brougham's) part he doubted very much if Mr. Sloney's mind
was perfectly sound, for he never knew in any case of inquiry as
to a man's sanity that he had been present at, stronger indications
of a paroxysm than Mr. Stoney exhibited on the occasion re-
ferred to. The idea of convicting a cat, much less two Commis-
sioners—(A laugh )—on such evidence, was ridiculous, for, to
say the least of Mr. Stoney, his mind was evidently a mind
without calmness. But the Commissioners were not the only
persons of whom Mr. Stoney complained. He complained of
an Hon. Baronet in the county, who had accused him (Mr.
Stoney) of being a scandalous, litigious, troublesome, dis-
graceful Clergyman. These are the terms used by Mr.
Stoney himself in his letter of complaint. Now, as the Arch-
bishop of Tuam had vouched for the veracity of Mr. Stoney,
he (Lord Brougham) was under Archiepiscopal dominion in
this matter, and was therefore bound to believe that wha

Mr. Stoney said in his letter was true.—( A laugh.) In ano.
ther letter written by Mr. Stoney, in March, 1833, he also
complained that he had been told that he was a scandal to
the Church, and more fit to be an attorney than a Clergyman.
—( Laughter.) Now he (Lord Brougham) did not at all
join in the implied censure here cast upon attorneys—( A
laugh)—but it was certainly a general, although doubtless an
erroneous, mode of imputing unworthiness to compare a mar,
to an attorney. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, too, not
the present Lord Lieutenant, entertained no very favourable
opinion of Mr. Stoney, for in one of his communicationi he
says—" The decision appears to be a correct one, and from
what I know of the Rev. Mr. Stoney, I believe it to be so."
This referred to a decision of the Lord Lieutenant of the
county of which Mr. Stoney had complained. He thought,
therefore, he was justified in saying that, on controversial

- -
points, he would not believe Mr. Stoney, although, in an:
other respect, he did not wish to say any thing disrespect.
ful of him.

The Bishop of EXETER was anxious to set himself right
upon one point. He misunderstood what the Noble Viscount
had said. He thought the Noble Viscount had represented
the petition that had been confided to him as charging the
Commissioners with persecution. Labouring under this mis-
understanding it was, that he had said that there had been a
mistake of the clerk in entering the notice. If he had been
right the clerks would have altered the notice, but he wished
it to be borne in mind that he distinctly said in his notice,
persecutions carried on in Ireland, but not by the Commis-
sioners. It was clear he misunderstood the Noble Viscount,

and, therefore, the whole matter fell to the ground.
Viscount DUNC A NNON said a few words in explanation,
which were quite inaudible in the Gallery.
Lord FARNHAM denied that he had ever said one word
against the Commissioners. On the contrary, he always
said, and thought, that nothing could be better than their
conduct. When the Commissioners first came down to the

part of the country was situated, he wrote to Dub-
lin to state that no person should be Admitted to the
schools under his controul and direction in that part of the
country without an authority from him, but that the Commis-
sioners should have every facility afforded them in this and
every other respect to forward the object of their inquiry,
which, in fact, was the case. He took this precaution to
prevent the access of strangers, of whom he knew nothing,
and who might come there for other purposes than those of
the Commission.

Viscount DUNCA NNON said that what he had stated
was, that four charges had been made by Clergymen, and one
by a Noble Lord, against the Commissioners, but he did not
say 4hat the Noble Lord (Farnham) had made any.
The Earl of RODEN said Mr. Stoney had been charged
L-7 the Noble and Learned Lord opposite with unsoundness of
Mind. :1"
(Earl Roden) wished that the Noble and Learned
Lord, with all his
.nts, had half the soundness of mind of
Mr. Stoney.--(A laugh.) Aid not rise to vindicate the
language that had been read as used by
Stoney
answers
to the Commissioners ; on the contrary, he cons:,- his
L7d
such language most improper. He had, however, the pleasure
of knowing Mr. Stoney personally, and he knew him to be
deserving of the character which his diocesan had given of