Commons Sitting of 30 May 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Bankrupts'Fund.
Petitions presented. By Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, from Medical Profession (Warwickshire), Complaining of inadequate Remuneration under the Poor-Law.—By Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. FORT, from Worcester and Clitheroe' for Removal of Jewish Disabilities.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Excise Licences, (Ireland) Bill,—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places in Ireland, against Allowing Grocers to sell Spirits. — By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for a Bill to Promote the Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord C. FITZROY, from Bury St. Edmund's, Against Adoption of the Lords' Amendments.—By Mr. BROWNE, from Islandeady, in favour of Landlord and Tenant Bill (Ireland).—By Mr. HUTT, from Shipowners and Merchants of Hull, Complaining of their Claims not having been liquidated.—By Mr. HOME, from Caher, for Revision of the Criminal Code; and from different Tradesmen of the Metropolis (three Petitions) for the Repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers.

TRADE WITH CAPE COAST CASTLE.
Sir Robert Peelrose to present a petition of a peculiar nature. It had come to him, accompanied with a letter through the Post-Office, and he had no doubt of the genuineness of the document. The petition was an appeal to the House of Commons for protection, and was signed by Quoffee Abberrapoo or (King Aggry) on
1142
behalf of the inhabitants of Cape Coast Castle. The Prince expressed great gratitude to the House for the vast benefits they had conferred on the black population of the world by the abolition of negro slavery? but the principal object of the petition was, that the House of Commons would take measures to secure to the natives of the neighbourhood of Cape Coast Castle the benefits of free trade, or prevent the merchants of Cape Coast Castle from interfering to prevent the free traders of Bristol and Liverpool from affording the natives the commodities they wanted at a much cheaper rate than they (the merchants) would do. The Prince stated himself to be an ally of England, and had sent the petition to that officer who could best forward their interest. He was sure that the House would not receive the petition with levity—as it was on the subject of the commerce of the country.
Laid on the Table.

DUBLIN ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. O'Connellrose to move the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the subject of the petition which he had presented, which was in substance, though not in form, an election petition, from the constituency of Dublin. At the last election for that city two persons were returned as duly elected, A petition was presented from certain electors against that return, praying for a scrutiny, and the substitution of the defeated candidates. To that petition the defeated candidates were no parties—it was merely the petition of certain individuals, and on being presented it was referred to a Committee, who determined that the evidence should be taken in Dublin before a Commission appointed under the Act, and special rules were framed by the Committee to limit and confine the evidence to be given. The Committee, among the limitations which it imposed on the Commissioners, had pre scribed one, the 16th rule, in the words which he would read to the House: —"That no recriminatory evidence be admitted against the defeated candidates, except as far as regards the disqualification of their voters, they not being petitioners, nor any parties to the investigation before the Committee." Thus the petitioners had disclaimed the candidates as parties; they had called on the Committee to decide that they were not parties, and to draw the inevitable inference that no evidence could

1143
be given affecting them personally; and the Committee had accordingly unanimously so decided. Now, there was not the least doubt that the petition prayed a substitution and a scrutiny; that it charged bribery and intimidation on the part of the sitting Members; that the sitting Members, on the other hand, retorted those charges; and the petitioners came forward before the Committee, and insisted that the Committee should determine that the unsuccessful candidates were not parties before them, and that consequently the evidence should be so limited. Thus the unsuccessful candidates remained scatheless, and no evidence could be adduced against them. There was no exaggeration of that fact, because a Member of the House had stated, that that view of the case bad been distinctly come to and acted upon by the Committee. He had only one more fact to state, and that was, that there were eight persons struck off the poll for having been promised money for their votes be fore they voted, and having been sub sequently paid for their votes after they had voted. The fact, therefore, of bribery having existed, was so clear that it could not be disputed. He believed, that the facts which would bring that bribery home personally to the now sitting Members were equally clear, so that if the House were compelled to decide that this evidence was not to be gone into, it might suppose the case of sitting Members having given these bribes themselves — having actually made the promise,—and yet that was a case in which there was no kind of remedy whatever. If such a decision was made in the Court of King's Bench, people would ask how a Judge dare to arrive at such a decision? The case turned upon two Acts—the 9th of George 4th, cap. 22, and the 46th of George 3rd, cap. 106. This last was the Statute which gave legal power to appoint Commissions. The hon. Member read the 14th section, by which the Committee were empowered to specially assign and limit the facts which the Com missioners were to try. The Committee accordingly limited the inquiry as to the fact, by excluding evidence upon the point to which he had referred. He would then come to the 9th George 4th, which was said to be the perfection of legislation. It was alleged that this Statute made the decision of the Committee final, and that, therefore, no more evidence could be let in against the parties, Could any pro-
1144
position be more monstrous? The Statute enacted, that the Committee were to decide whether the petitioners or the sitting Members were duly elected, and that such a decision should be final between the parties. The House was now called upon to declare that the decision of the Committee was to be final between persons who were no parties before the Committee. The Committee had decided that the present sitting Members were no parties before them, and refused, upon that ground, to hear evidence against them. He hoped, therefore, that party spirit would never induce that House to depart so far from what was the clear intention of the Legislature. The Legislature stopped there, and now it was attempted to carry the principle much further by construction. What did the Act say in another part? It provided that eleven Members should be chosen as a Committee. The eleven were to retire and choose a chairman; and then it provided, that, in case those eleven should be equally divided in opinion, they should settle the point in another way. There was a Statute for them! He contended that the 40th section did not include the present case; it expressly excluded it, and there was no ground why the petition of his late constituents, or those who voted for him— they certainly did not vote for the present Members—should not be received; why a Committee should not be appointed, and an investigation had as to who committed the bribery. There had been an allegation of bribery against him, and the witness who had been produced to sustain it was now tinder sentence for perjury; that was a tolerable refutation of the charge. All the petitioners desired was investigation, and it was the duty of the House to inquire whether the bribery happened by accident, or whether there had been hands to set it in motion. That investigation might not be very convenient for—he did not allude to the sitting Members—but a gentleman of the Irish Bar, whose handwriting, dated "Committee-Room," made a portion of the evidence by which some of the voters had been struck off. It might also be inconvenient for some persons on that side the water, for thousands of pounds do not fly over the Irish Channel without some persons to send them across. It had been asserted that the Canterbury case was a decision against him. What was decided in that case? That the petitioner ought to have been returned, and that the sitting

1145
Member was not duly admitted. Now, he would ask, ought any man to have been returned who was not duly elected? If he was in a Court of Justice, he should laugh to scorn the pitiful chicanery that made such a distinction, and would consider such a decision final and conclusive between the parties. This was not a final decision, because it did not include all the particulars. It did not follow that this decision was a decision under the Act. The Canterbury case met this. There was a class of cases that did not come within the finality of the Statute, and this was one of them. He had laid the case of these electors before the House, and he trusted that there could be no reasonable doubt that the House would take care that what ought to be investigated should be. He did not of course suspect that either of the Gentlemen (the defeated candidates) had themselves bribed, but there was no doubt that bribery existed, whatever doubt there might be as to the quarters from whence the money came. That that money had been found by some party was perfectly clear, and the only question was whether, under the circumstances, the House would send back the petition to the Committee to review their decision.
The Attorney-Generalthought, that this petition could not be received, it being contrary to the statutes. He felt it his duty most attentively to consider the case, and he must acknowledge that it was with very great reluctance he had at length arrived at this conclusion.
Mr. O'Connellrose, amidst loud cries of "Chair," and "Order." He begged the Attorney - General's pardon. He wished to say but one word. [Cries of "Spoke."] It would save the time of the House. ["Chair, chair."] He wished to withdraw the petition. [Cheers.] His wish to withdraw the petition whatever his own opinion might be, the principal law officer of the Crown having pledged his legal reputation to a contrary opinion he did not think it would be becoming in him (Mr. O'Connell) to persevere.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that his opinion was of comparatively slight value, but the question was one on which the Speaker's immediate predecessor had be stowed much consideration, and he believed it had received the serious attention of the present Speaker. He felt anxious that the opinion he had pronounced should be contradicted or corroborated
1146
by that of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair.
The Speaker: As I collect, that it is the wish of the House that I should state the opinion which I have formed on the question raised by the petition now tendered, I shall do so. The object of the Grenville Act, and of the Acts which have followed it, was to take from the House the power of deciding on controverted re turns and elections, and to vest it in a Committee, to be chosen in the way pre scribed in the Act. Where a petition, complaining of an undue election, alleges that the unsuccessful candidates were the parties who ought to have been declared to have been duly elected, the intention of the Act clearly is, that the judgment of the Committee should be final. It is competent either to electors, to the unsuccessful candidates, or to both, to present petitions claiming the seats. But it is to be remembered, that the constituencies are the substantial and real parties. The parties petitioning only represent their interests. In all cases, therefore, where the seat is claimed, the Committee are bound to un-vestigate and decide all points by which the right to the seat can be effected. If a Committee should decide that either of the parties has been duly elected, having omitted to investigate and decide any point by which the right to the seat might have been effected, they must be held to have come to an imperfect and premature decision. In this case, voters were struck off the poll, because they had received pecuniary consideration for their votes, and certainly it does appear to have been the duty of the Committee to have ascertained whether the candidates were privy or par ties to the bribery, on account of which the votes of some of the electors who supported them were disallowed. Unless this point was fully sifted, I cannot imagine how the Committee could have come to the conclusion that the parties in whose favour such votes were given were duly elected. It is surprising that any question should be raised as to whether the Members declared to have been duly elected, were parties or privy to giving money, because the Committee has reported that there was no evidence to connect the now sitting Members with the bribery which was proved. Their Report on this point is expressed in the exact form of words that would have been used if the matter had been thoroughly sifted and examined. I therefore did feel

1147
great surprise when it appeared that a doubt existed on this point—that the Committee appeared to have thought it possible, that, after their Report so ex pressed, it was in the power of this House to countenance any proceeding by which this question could be further investigated. It may be a cause of regret if the Committee has conducted this important portion of the case imperfectly; for my opinion is clear that, according to the true construction of the Act, the decision of the Committee must be final. I have referred to no authorities, because it seems to be plain on the reason of the case, that no party can be declared by a Committee to have been duly elected, if any point, by which the right to the seat could be affected, has been omitted. There is, how ever, one recent case in 1833, which is so similar to the present that I cannot refrain from alluding to it, especially as I think that it must have been brought under the notice of the Committee, as one of the Gentlemen who was counsel in this case, was also counsel in the one to which I am about to refer. In the Southampton casein 1833,one of the Members who had been returned, was unseated, and it was decided that one of the unsuccessful candidates ought to have been declared duly elected. After the Re port of the Committee had been made, there was a desire, as in this case, to pre sent a petition charging the Member who had been seated, by the Report of the Committee, with bribery and treating. The opinion of my predecessor was asked, and he decided, that if there was an intention of preferring any such charge it ought to have been made, heard, and decided, before the Committee reported; that it was then too late, as the Report was final. In this opinion I entirely con cur. I think, therefore, that there is no legal ground on which this petition can be entertained. I am quite as clearly of opinion that there is no equitable ground for entertaining it. I do hope that this House will never be induced, under the pressure of any circumstances, to shake off the fetters which the law has imposed on its own powers. If it should ever establish such a precedent, I fear that it would prove to be a bad and mischievous precedent, and that the day would come when, for different reasons, and under different circumstances, it would be induced to shake off the fetters which the law has imposed on others.
Lord John Russellobserved, that after
1148
the very clear exposition of the Speaker, the House, he thought, could not do otherwise than confirm the decision of the Committee. While he entirely agreed in the observations that had been made upon the law of the case, and thought it would be improper in the House to disturb the decision of the Committee, yet he could not allow the question to pass without ex pressing his opinion that by the Act of the Committee (whom he had no doubt had discharged their duty conscientiously,) a very gross injustice had been committed. The Report of that Committee stated, that the sitting Members had been duly elected; and by that it was to be inferred that every circumstance relating to the election had been properly and duly investigated. The fact, however, was other wise. He did not mean to find fault with the motives of the members of that Committee, but certainly their decision ought to lead the House to consider whether some remedy could not be adopted for the future to prevent that which had occurred in this case, and which operated most injuriously, and, he must also say, most unjustly. It was admitted by the Committee for inquiring into the election for the City of Dublin that there was a case which required investigation, and yet they refused to inquire into that which required investigation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the petition could not now be received, but he considered the Committee had come to an erroneous conclusion in refusing to investigate what was so material to the case.
Mr. Williams Wynnfelt, after what had been said by the Speaker, in which he concurred, the difficulty of adding any thing on the subject before them, yet he could not avoid saying a word or two respecting it. He felt fully the inconvenience of altering the decision of the Committee, and he also felt the inconvenience of allowing an illegal decision to remain. In his opinion, the decision of the Committee was a most mistaken one as regarded one part of the case before them, in refusing to receive evidence criminatory of one party before they decided on their Report as to whether the petitioners were duly elected. That course was most certainly wrong, but the great difficulty now was, what could be done to remedy the error? Under all the circumstances he thought it would be better not to interfere with the decision as it stood.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the 26th section of the Act; that section prevented the Committee from receiving any further evidence after they had made their Report. The mistake was in the Statute.
Mr. Rigby Wasonobjected to the course proposed, as lending the sanction of the House and the law to an obvious injustice. There was a great difference between the Canterbury and Monaghan cases, which had been relied on as authorities and the present. In both the former the petitioners never attempted to prove a case of bribery against the sitting Members, nor had they ever asked the Committee to receive evidence on such a point. It would be contrary to every principle of justice if the parties could keep in their pockets the best part of their case, and take the opinion of the Committee upon the least important part of it. The present case, therefore differed entirely from those alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Montgomeryshire. What he should propose was, that the House should resolve to give to the electors of Dublin fourteen days to present a petition, which, in his opinion, was the course pointed out by the forty-second section of the Reform Bill.
Mr. George Youngsaid, that it was with deep regret that he felt it his duty to offer himself to the attention of the House for a few moments in consequence of the severe illness of the Chairman of the Committee, which threw upon him the task of giving to the House a short explanation of the course which the Committee had pursued. After the opinion which had been so decidedly expressed from the Chair, and from so many other quarters of the House, as to the illegality of the decision of the Committee, it would ill become him to question the justness of that opinion, and he should therefore not attempt to do so; neither should he waste one word in vindication of the motives which had influenced the decision of the Committee, because the motives of those highly-honourable men with whom he was proud to have been associated on the Committee had not been impugned. His object in rising was, to offer A word of explanation, in order to elucidate some circumstances of which the House was not aware, it would be recollected that the Commission was sent to Dublin in the month of March, 1835, and the Committee, in granting that Commission,
1150
passed a resolution restricting the Com missioners in the reception of evidence. It was well known to the House, and to all the parties, that such restriction was placed upon the Commissioners, and vet this was the first time that the slightest intimation was given that, by that resolution, the Committee had shut out the electors of Dublin from an investigation of the charge of bribery. The consequences of the resolution to which the Committee had come ought to have been pointed out at the time, when there would have been an opportunity of reconsidering it. When the day came lately for going into the investigation of the charge of bribery, the counsel for the sitting Members proposed to go in to the whole of the cases upon that charge. The Committee, however, were at the time engaged in the scrutiny of votes, and they came to the decision that it was better to go on with that scrutiny; and that if in the course of it any case of bribery should be made out, it would be competent to the Committee to reconsider their decision on an application being made by counsel to that effect; but no such application had been made. The Committee would not have passed the resolution restricting the Commissioners against going into any evidence to bring home bribery to the pre sent sitting Members, unless they had believed that it would be open to the electors to go into that question on a future occasion. Mr. Austin, the counsel, said that he had not yet touched upon the most important part of his case, namely, the charge of bribery. The Committee upon that point reserved to themselves the reconsideration of whether or not they would send the matter back to the Commissioners to inquire into the bribery part of the case, on any subsequent application being made to them by counsel to that effect; but the application was never made. He would not of course pretend to say what the decision of the Committee might have been had they been applied to; but he was sure the application would have met with the same deliberate and dispassionate consideration which every other part of the case did. The Committee were, however, unanimous in their reservation of the right to reconsider the point, had they been applied to. The motives of the Committee had not been impugned; but the legality of their decision had, as being opposed to the statute law. He was free to admit that he was, and he believed most

1151
of the Committee were unacquainted with the statute law on the subject, but he knew that they came to the decision at which they had arrived as honest and conscientious men. Their decision in this instance was certainly unfortunate in respect to its illegality, but it was impossible to impugn the motives by which it was influenced.
Mr. O'Connellwished, in justice to him self, to state, that he had not said one word of the motives of the Committee; but he did of their erroneous decisions, of which this was a very small sample. He could not, however, allow the hon. Member who had just sat down to fritter away the distinct admission he had made on a former night, or to qualify it now by any circumlocution. That hon. Member had stated distinctly, that he thought the Committee had come to an erroneous conclusion in having excluded evidence, and he came now down to the House, and with a great number of words sought to qualify that admission. He could not allow the hon. Member to do away with that admission, by attempting to make them believe that he really did not know what the effect of the limitation imposed upon the Commissioners might be. The hon. Member said, that when the Committee came to that resolution, they ought to have been informed that the resolution they then adopted could have the effect which it had been since proved to have. The House must be astonished when he told them, that the Committee decided that they would not hear counsel. One of the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Harrison, spoke in terms to the Committee which were not the most flattering upon that decision. And the hon. Member now came down to say, "Why were we not informed that such would be the effect of our resolution he having prevented counsel from giving him that information. He did not arraign the hon. Member's motives, but he did his capacity. Again, upon the very occasion to which the hon. Member had just alluded, Mr. Austin was interrupted and prevented by the chairman or by what he might call his mouthpiece, the hon. Member for Tynemouth. Counsel was prevented from going into a statement by the opinion irregularly delivered by the hon. Member. He did not impugn motives—the human mind could not be well searched; and therefore it was that
1152
he did not impugn the motives while he impeached the decisions of the Committee.
Mr. Younghad not used the first person in speaking of the Committee. It was therefore an injustice to him to make him singly responsible for the acts of the Committee. What were his acts, were the acts of the Committee. And now he should say this—let the hon. Member for Kilkenny account to the House how it happened that he was so unfortunate in his Committee, composed as it was of all parties, that it should, when it gave a decision adverse to that hon. Member, be always unanimous in its decisions. Now, it was peculiarly un fortunate for that hon. Member, that if the Committee came to an erroneous conclusion, that those whose political sentiments were well known to coincide with those of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, should be unanimous in coming to such a conclusion. As to the "want of capacity," of which he with others was accused, he should not answer it, as he considered the observation unworthy of an answer, and he received it with the contempt that it de served.
The Speakerremarked that the case had been substantially disposed of, and he therefore hoped that the discussion would not be pressed farther.
Mr. Hollandremarked, that all the Members of the Committee had come into that House honourable men, and he trusted that no imputation could now be cast upon them for the decision which they had come to.
Petition withdrawn.

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Lord John Russellwished to know from the hon. Gentleman - opposite (Mr. G. Price), whether it was his intention to bring forward that evening his motion to have the notice of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, with reference to a change in the constitution of the House of Lords, expunged from the books; or whether he would wait, and bring it forward on some future day on going into a Committee of Supply?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he intended to move that the hon. Member's (Mr. G. Price's) notice be expunged from the book.
Mr. Grove Pricesaid, that he would shortly state to the House the course which it was his intention to pursue with reference to the notice of motion to which the

1153
noble Lord alluded. It certainly had been his intention to bring forward his motion when he gave notice of it, with a view to prevent a discussion respecting the other House of Parliament, from which, it was his conviction, that nothing but evil con sequences could arise. Although he entertained not the slightest doubt of the over whelming majority with which the House would repudiate the notice which it was his object to have expunged from the books, and the attack upon the privileges and constitution of the other House of Parliament which it designed, yet he was un willing to bring about a deliberate debate upon such a subject. Since he had given his notice, he had been informed by some gentlemen to whose judgment and opinions he was at all times ready to pay the greatest deference, that there were some technical objections in the way of his motion; and, that being the case, he would not risk the loss of a question of such tremendous magnitude upon a mere point of form. While he thus waved, for the present, bringing forward his motion, for the reasons he had stated, he begged it to be distinctly understood that he did not abandon it on any principle connected with the important subject which it embraced, and that at a proper season, in tempore et in loco, he should bring it forward, in order to place upon the Journals of the House, the strongest expression of the feelings which he entertained upon the subject of it. He knew the dexterity of those with whom he had to contend, and how adroitly they would endeavour to turn him round upon a point of form; and as he looked upon this question to be the most important and momentous that had been brought under the consideration of the House since the year 1648, he should take the necessary time to consider what would be most judicious for him to pursue respecting it hereafter; but at the same time he begged to repeat his determination not to lose sight of the object he had in view.
Mr. O'Connellbegged also to assure the House, that he should not lose sight either of the object which he had in view. He knew of no technical objection to prevent the hon. Member from bringing forward his motion, and he (Mr. O'Connell) was ready to meet it, whatever opinions might be entertained upon the subject either at the camp of Don Carlos or by the Morning Post. The question would ultimately be
1154
decided as the people of England willed that it should be.
Mr. Grove Priceexplained. He had already stated, that he withdrew his motion on technical grounds. There was, how ever, another reason. If he had succeeded in his motion, for which there was but one precedent, and that a hasty one, the hon. Member for Kilkenny, or some other hon. Member, might have brought it forward on any supply night.
Lord John Russellwas glad the hon. Gentleman had expressed his determination not to persevere in the motion of which he had given notice. It was his intention to have opposed that motion, as it was his intention, whenever it came on, to oppose the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. It was certainly his opinion that, as it was the undoubted right of that House to entertain Bills to regulate the succession to the Throne, and to reform the representation of the people in Parliament, so, likewise, it was the undoubted right of that House to introduce and to favour, if they should think fit, Bills respecting what was called reform, but what he did not consider reform, in the constitution of the other branch of the Legislature. That was the -opinion he entertained—the opinion he should have been prepared to maintain and argue upon, if the hon. Member had gone on with his motion. He was very glad, as he had already stated, that the hon. Gentleman had listened to the advice of others—as he presumed, the advice of the right reverend Prelates of the Church. A motion, it would be recollected, had recently been made in that House, not for any reform with respect to the number of Prelates sitting in Parliament, but to remove Bishops from sitting in Parliament altogether. Now, as the Lords spiritual had as full a right, and he was determined to maintain that, right, to sit in the other House of Parliament, it certainly would have been a bad compliment to those right reverend Prelates if the House of Commons had shown itself ready to discuss and divide upon a motion with respect to the removal of the Bishops, while it could not entertain a motion with respect to the removal of the lay Lords. He thought it was very likely, therefore, that the right reverend Prelates, feeling somewhat hurt at the course in tended to be pursued by the hon. Member, had suggested to him the propriety of

1155
withdrawing his motion, in order that they might not be placed in an invidious situation as compared to the lay Lords. He had much greater respect for the right reverend Prelates than the hon. Gentle man. He would maintain their right to sit in the House of Lords—-he would maintain the right of the lay Lords—he would maintain them both equally, and therefore he was not prepared to make that invidious distinction between the spiritual and temporal Lords of Parliament, which was involved in the motion of the hon. Member.
Notice of motion withdrawn.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of

SUPPLY. — MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Mr. F. Baringmoved a grant of 64,450 l. for public works and public buildings.
Mr. Goulburntook that opportunity of directing the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the havoc made in Kensington-gardens by the cutting down whole rows of ornamental timber, which had so long served the purpose of an agreeable shade, and to which the public had been accustomed to look with feelings approaching to respectful veneration. It was much to be regretted that those who had the power of doing such extensive mischief were not subjected to some better control before they applied their axe in so indiscriminate and destructive a manner. He very much regretted that persons who had it in their power to commit greater mischief than they could ever repair, were not placed under more efficient control.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if future generations were to be gratified by the existence of any trees at all in Kensington-gardens, it was indispensably necessary that the decayed and sickly trees should be cut down.
Mr. Goulburnreplied, that a great number of the trees which had been cut down were not at all decayed.
Mr. Humebore testimony to the judicious nature of the alteration. If the right hon. Gentleman would only look at the trees in question next spring, his objection would, he was quite certain, be removed. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) wished to know on what ground 3,000 l. should be voted for the repairs of Marlborough-house, when that building had been settled on the Queen? He also
1156
wished to know whether it was likely that Buckingham Palace would be used for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, the residence of the King?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware that any circumstance had arisen that could justify the supposition that Buckingham Palace was not to be used as the King's residence. At present it required one or two further alterations; but he had the satisfaction of being able to say that it would not be necessary to apply for any more grants for the completion of it. With respect to Marlborough house his hon. Friend laboured under some misapprehension. That building was undoubtedly the jointure-house of the Queen, but it did not become the property of her Majesty until a certain event took place, which he was sure the House and the country would not anticipate. In the mean time, that building was not of more expense to the public than the mere charge for repairing the roof and other parts of it, which they were bound to keep in repair.
Mr. Wakleycould not help complaining that the British Museum was shut up in holiday time, when many of the labouring classes were able and anxious to visit it. It had been shut during the whole of the Whitsuntide week. He also wished to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the state of the Re gent's-park on Sundays. He did not object to the Zoological Gardens; on the contrary, he thought that they were of great advantage to the public; but he could not help complaining of the great collection of carriages there on a Sunday; indeed, to such an extent that it became a nuisance. [Hear, hear! from Sir Andrew Agnew.] He perceived the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigtonshire in his place, but he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the park-gates should, be shut to carriages on Sundays. Yesterday the accumulation of carriages was so great, that the passage was stopped for nearly an hour, both to carriages and foot passengers. He thought that it would not be difficult to make some arrangement by which this objection could be obviated.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that he had always felt that it was most expedient and wise that the British Museum should be open during the holidays, and chiefly, because it enabled the junior branches of families, who were

1157
brought home for the holidays, to become acquainted with the valuable contents of that institution. It was necessary that some time should be allowed the attend ants in the Museum, to clean it and to make new arrangements; but he thought other periods than the holidays should be devoted to that purpose. He would pledge himself to bring the subject under the attention of the trustees for the purpose of making an alteration. With respect to the other objection made by the hon. Member, namely, to the crowd that assembled at the Zoological Gardens on Sunday, he would only observe, that it was incidental to the anxiety of the public to visit that place, and above all, in consequence of the peculiar source of attraction at the present moment. He should be extremely sorry to close the Zoological Gardens on Sundays, as he thought that they afforded good means of relaxation and instruction. He went there very often himself on Sunday, and if he was not bettered by it, at any rate he thought that he devoted a part of the Sunday for a perfectly legitimate and proper purpose. Some alteration might, perhaps, be made with respect to arranging the carriages conveying persons to the Zoological Gardens on Sundays.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that he should not have made a single complaint on the subject if the public participated in the ad vantages of the Zoological Gardens on Sundays. Each proprietor had the right of admission for himself, and also the liberty of introducing; two friends; these persons were generally of the higher orders, and the great bulk of the public, and more especially the poorer classes, were excluded.
Sir Andrew Agnewdid not think that it was a proper use of the Sabbath to visit the Zoological Gardens on that day. On the contrary, he considered it a desecration of the Sabbath, and that the Zoological Gardens as well as all other places of amusement for the rich should be closed on that day.
Mr. Ridley Colbornebegged to observe, as a trustee of the British Museum, that he entirely concurred with all that had fallen from his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on the subject. He trusted that arrangements would be made to allow that, national institution to be opened in the holidays.
Sir Smith O'Brienconcurred in the
1158
opinion that the British Museum should be opened to all classes on Sundays. At that place there was a much more instructive and quite as interesting an exhibition as at the Zoological Gardens. The public also had a right to have admittance there at all times, as it was national property, but they had no right to claim admission on that day to the Zoological Gardens.
Sir Andrew Agnewprotested against making the attendants of the British Museum work on Sundays against their consciences, and trusted that such a proposition as that just made by the hon. Gentleman would never receive the sanction of the House. He hoped also that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the opinion which he had that night expressed with respect to visiting the Zoological Gardens on Sundays, and which he (Sir Andrew Agnew) had heard with surprise. Such an opinion was not in conformity with the religious feeling of the great body of the people.
Motion agreed to.
The sum of 25,860 l. was then proposed to defray the charge of the new buildings at the British Museum, between April 1, 1836, and March 31, 1837.
In answer to a remark made by Mr. Hawes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that he did not intend that this sum should be appropriated till the recommendations of the Commissioners were received. He thought that the best course would be, to leave the wishes of the public on subjects of intellectual improvement to develope themselves, and in support of that opinion he referred to the steps recently taken in several provincial towns with the view of establishing institutions for the intellectual culture of the people. The case of the British Museum was, however, an exception to all rules of that description—it was a national museum, and he thought that at least one national museum ought to be maintained at the general cost of the nation. In giving literary and scientific institutions at the public charge to provincial places, there was danger that the wants and wishes of the people would be supplied with more than they required, and, therefore, he recommended that there should be a limitation to the metro polis of grants of that nature. He de sired further to state, that he intended to lay before the House a small supple-

1159
mentary estimate for the purpose of establishing a school of design, with a view generally to the cultivation of the popular taste, and to the practical improvement of our manufactures. He trusted, that the proposed institution would be well suited to serve as a model according to which other schools might be formed in provincial places. There would also be a supplementary estimate for two acquisitions connected with the arts which the Treasury had made for the British Museum. Of these he wished to give the present notice, that hon. Members might not be taken by surprise.
Mr. Humesaid, that properly there should be no more money voted for the Museum until a distinct promise was made by the Government that the Museum should be placed under such improved regulations as would enable the whole public to derive advantage from it. At present the Museum was closed precisely at the hour when mechanics and others might have the chance, if it were left open, of going over it; and on the precise days, holidays, when the classes he spoke of were in a situation to devote the whole day to an examination of the Museum, on those precise days was the Museum closed. The Museum was now opened at ten and closed at four; but he could see no reason why these hours should not be altered so as to enable all classes to derive every possible advantage from an institution which they were called upon to sup port at so heavy an expense.
Mr. Wakleysaw no reason why the Museum should not be opened on Sundays.
Sir Andrew Agnewprotested against such a desecration of the Sabbath.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he certainly thought that it was very desirable to make some changes in the pre sent regulations of the Museum, with reference to the extension of the hours of exhibition, holidays, &c. As to the Museum being open on Sundays, his own individual opinion was not opposed to such a proposition being acted upon to a certain extent, but he did not see how that could be done without interfering with the observance of the Sabbath by the parties employed on the establishment.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, however he might subject himself to the taunts of a portion of the House, he would add his protest to that of the hon. Baronet against any encouragement being given by the
1160
Legislature to such an employment of the Sabbath. If the Museum were to be opened on that day, on the same principle the Legislature would be called upon to throw open the Adelaide Gallery, or other similar exhibitions, and possibly the Theatres.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. Baronets were mistaken if they thought that their views upon these subjects conveyed the moral opinion of the country. As to the Adelaide Gallery, that was a trade; whereas the British Museum was an exhibition maintained at public cost, and which, therefore, ought to be open to the public upon ail possible occasions. For the mechanic to spend his Sunday after noon with his family in the Museum appeared to him (Mr. Hume) a much better disposal of his time than if he were to resort to the public house or the gin pa lace. If the hon. Baronet would but consent to open his mind to the plain testimony of fact, he would find that the soldier and the mechanic of Paris derived a much higher elevation of mind, and a consequent higher tone of morality, from spending their Sunday afternoon in the Louvre than from besotting themselves in a cabaret.
Sir Thomas Fremantlebelieved he was quite as open to conviction as the hon. Member, whose character in the House was precisely that of the extremest obstinacy, and an indisposition to open his mind to the opinions of others.
Mr. Humehad not intended to affront the hon. Baronet, but he was certainly indisposed to be dictated to by the hon. Baronet, however much the hon. Baronet might wish to force every body to be of his way of thinking. As to the hon. Baronet's charging him with obstinacy, it was quite a question whether it was his obstinacy or the right hon. Baronet's dullness which had most to do in the matter.
Vote postponed.
On the motion that 31. 112 l. be granted to defray the expense of completing the National Gallery,
Mr. Ewartsubmitted to the consideration of the Committee the propriety of not allowing the Royal Academy to occupy the wing of the new National Gallery. He objected to one-third of the building being devoted to the Royal Academy, and the reason he did so was, be cause it was a private institution, except

1161
so far as it had a Royal Charter. It had no right to claim a preference over other private societies, and, least of all, to have a part of a gallery which was built at the expense of the nation for national purposes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that they did nothing for the Royal Academy but give them Room for their Exhibitions. Except the occupation of the rooms at Somerset-House, they had no exclusive privileges; and be it recollected, that they were in the occupation of the rooms at the present moment. Suppose the amendment of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, what would be its effect? It would not take away from the Royal Academy the rooms they had; on the contrary, it would leave them in undisturbed possession of them. They were held under the grant of the Crown. The only question was, whether it was most for the public convenience that the Royal Academy should have a place of exhibition at Charing-cross or at Somerset House. Now the Government thought it better to wholly appropriate Somerset-house to the business of Government, and it appeared to him to be more convenient to bring the works of art together, so that the public might have the opportunity of comparing readily the works of British art with the great productions of the ancient artists. Having seen the way in which the Royal Academy administered their funds, he must say, with reference to this question, that he believed it would be wrong in the House to withhold from the arts the very small encouragement which in this country was afforded them.
Mr. Humesaid, he for one did not object to the Royal Academy having the room, provided it was not wanted for other purposes, but he could not but think that they had a monopoly which was injurious to the arts. They had the power of granting honours and excluding per sons from participating in them, who might be fairly entitled to do so.
Mr. Warburtonexpressed it as his belief, that if it were once known that house-room was provided for the reception of works of art, donations of valuable pictures would be sent in to a very considerable extent, and thus a fine collection of pictures would be formed without its costing a shilling of the public money.
Mr. R. Colbornecorroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Bridport, as to the effect of a national gallery being
1162
erected. He said there had been donations already sent in to the amount of 60,000 l. His Majesty had lately presented six pictures to the Gallery.
Vote agreed to.
On the motion that 15,300 l. be granted to restore that part of the Penitentiary at Millbank which had been destroyed by fire,
Mr. Humesaid, he had frequently questioned the propriety of keeping up this establishment, which he considered to have completely failed in its object. He was opposed to the principal of the establishment, and thought they ought not to sanction any new disbursement for its repairs. The management of the institution was in the hands of Commissioners, who were in reality irresponsible. The place ought to be under the direction of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Gladstonecalled the attention of the hon. Member for Middlesex to the fact, that the charge was not for the repairs only, part of it was to provide accommodation for military prisoners.
Lord J. Russellsaid, it was true a portion of the expense was to adapt a building for the reception of soldiers, that they might not be kept longer in county gaols, which had been found very objectionable. Though the management of the institution was vested in Commissioners, they referred to the Secretary of State when questions arose, and the opinion he gave was generally acted upon by the Commissioners. The management of the Penitentiary was much more under the Secretary of State now than it was formerly.
Vote agreed to.
On the resolution that 7,000 l. be granted to defray the expenses of the prison and works at Dartmoor being proposed,
Mr. Hawesexpressed a hope that as imprisonment for debt would soon be abolished, the country would be spared a considerable expense for the maintenance of prisons. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the Report which had recently been made to Government on the state of Newgate, and said, that it reflected the greatest discredit and disgrace on the magistrates of the city, to allow that prison to remain in so shameful a condition. Indeed, he knew not, even if those magistrates were to be removed, from their situations, the duties of which they so grossly neglected, that the punishment would be more than the offence deserved.
Lord John Russellsaid, that with respect to the abolition of imprisonment for debt, nobody would rejoice more than he should, if he could say, that he believed it would speedily take place; but he was afraid there was not much chance of it. Judging from what he had heard else where, he was not very sanguine that there would be a speedy abolition of the existing system. With respect to the observations which the hon. Gentleman had made in reference to the state of the gaol of New gate, he begged to say, that the inspectors had bestowed great attention in the inspection of Newgate prison, to which he had especially directed their notice immediately after their appointment. The opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman with respect to that prison, certainly did not differ from the character given of it in the report of the inspectors. At the same time, as there was one present who, in an especial manner, represented the Corporation of the City of London, it was but fair to say, that he had lately made inquiry of the Lord Mayor as to the state of Newgate, and his Lordship had in formed him (Lord John Russell) that a Committee had been appointed by the Corporation to investigate the subject. He ought also to state, that the gaoler and officers of the prison had given certain explanations to the inspectors, which they complained had not been fairly set forth by the inspectors in their Report, and which ought to be seen by the public before a final opinion was formed upon the subject. He, therefore, hoped hon. Gentlemen would suspend their judgments until they had seen the statement of the gaoler and officers, and also any report which the Committee appointed by the Corporation might make.
Vote agreed to.
On the Question, "That a sum, not exceeding 12,270 l., be granted to his Majesty, to make good the deficiency of the Fee Fund in the department of his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
Mr. William E. Gladstonesaid, he wished on that occasion to notice the dismissal of Mr. Hay, and the reduction of an office which he considered equivalent in importance and efficiency to an Under Secretaryship. Unpopular as it might be to find fault with any economical change, he did not hesitate to express his regret at that reduction; because he was convinced that if the business to be done were
1164
properly allotted in the office, there was abundant employment for three Under secretaries. He did not insinuate that any deficiency had been found to exist in consequence of the alteration; for he was aware of the energy of his hon. Friend opposite, and of the remarkable talents, and still more remarkable industry of Mr. Stephen, who had been advanced to the post lately occupied by Mr. Hay. But the arrangements of every office ought to be calculated with reference to average abilities, and if they were to be governed by reference to the extraordinary resources of Mr. Stephen, the reduction might have been carried still further, and perhaps the salary of the Chief Secretary himself saved to the public. At the time of Mr. Hay's dismissal, The Globe newspaper stated 1,000 l. a-year had been saved to the public by the new arrangement, and that Mr. Hay had retired upon a pension secured to him by the late Government, the Government of Sir Robert Peel. He was not precisely cognizant of the pecuniary stale of the question, and the words of the present vote did not enable him to ascertain it; but before the change, he believed, the expenses were—Mr. Lack's salary at the Board of Trade, 1,500 l.; Mr. Hay's, at the Colonial Office, 2,000 l.; Mr. Stephen's, at the Colonial Office and Board of Trade, 1,500 l.; in all 5,000 l. Now, the salary of Mr. Lack's successor, M. Le Marchant, was 1,500 l.; the re tiring pension of Mr. Lack, 1,500 l.; Mr. Stephen's salary, 1,500 l.; Mr. Hay's pension, 1,000 l.; total 5,500 l.: so that the public, instead of gaining 1,000 l., appeared to lose 500 l. annually. Mr. Hay, a gentleman in the prime of life, was here represented as retiring upon his pension, and thus entailing a charge on the public; whereas, in fact, his removal would be more correctly described by any other name, and was an absolute dismissal. The public then paid 500 l. a-year, and lost the services of an officer, against whose efficiency no charge whatever had been advanced. As Mr. Stephen offered to go to the Board of Trade, it was perfectly competent to the Government, sup posing them to prefer considerations of economy before everything else, to have continued Mr. Hay in his office, and appointed a successor to Mr. Stephen in the Colonial Office.
Sir George Greysaid, Mr. Hay was requested to retire because the duty could

1165
be done without him. The establishment was too large with three Under-Secretaries, the removal caused a reduction of 1,000 l. a-year, and it was unjust to state, that there had been no saving effected in the Colonial Department.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwished to state, that Mr. Lack had served thirty years and had a right to retire. It was his duty to inquire how the business of his office might be best carried on. Mr. Lack, in consequence of an increase of duty, found it impossible to render those services at the Board of Trade, which he was anxious to render. It was thought proper therefore to unite the office held by Mr. Stephen with that held by Mr. Lack, which effected a saving to the public of 500 l. a-year.
Sir Thomas Fremantlethought, that the public had lost an efficient officer in Mr. Hay, and had to sustain an increased charge; there had been a saving in the Colonial Department to the amount of 400 l., but the expense of the whole establishment, including the Board of Trade and Privy Council, was 2,500 l. more than the estimates of the last year.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwas surprised at the observation which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, because, from the official station he had held, he might have known the reason why there appeared to be an increased charge for the office of President of the Board of Trade. The Treasurership of the Navy which was held in connexion with it, had been removed, and the 2,000 l. salary which was formerly charged upon another item, now appeared as an increase of the expense of that office, so that there was no real increase, but there had been a decrease of expenses in the Colonial Department.
Sir Thomas Fremantle: There was nothing on the face of these accounts to show that an item was charged here which did not appear in the Estimates of the last year. He was, however, satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hume: The hon. Member for New ark complained of the dismissal of Mr. Hay. The ground-work of the dismissal of this gentleman was laid by the Government of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, who gave him the power of retiring whenever he pleased; which was as much as to say, "We will provide for our own friend." Having been made independent by the Government who appointed him, it was highly proper that the
1166
succeeding Government should dismiss him.
Mr. Goulburn: The argument of the hon. Member for Middlesex was, that because Mr. Hay was rendered independent, he was, therefore, unable to discharge his duty; but he had not heard that Mr. Hay ever violated his duty. Whether dependent, or independent, he would always discharge his duty honourably and faith fully, to the utmost extent of his ability. Mr. Hay accepted office on the express condition that he should receive the pension—the bestowing of which the hon. Member for Middlesex condemned; but it did not at all follow, that, having secured this point, he should retire from office for the purpose of enjoying it. If such had been his intention, he might have quitted office before his removal from it; but he preferred rendering his services to his country for the money he received.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, that there was a certain class of officers of the State not politically connected with the Government for the time being, but whose situations were permanent, and who stayed in office during changes in the Administration; and to them the Superannuation Act granted retiring allowances when their services were closed. There was another class of officers politically connected with the Ministry by whom they were appointed; they came into office with them, and with them they went out; for these the House of Commons had thought proper to provide pensions, not suffering them to depend upon the will of their opponents, without which security, perhaps, few or no efficient men could be found ready to take such office. Of the former class was Mr. Hay, and he was surprised Mr. Hay did not apply for his superannuation if he wished to retire from office.
Vote agreed to.
On the Question, that 15,600 l. be grant ed to defray the charges of the Penitentiary at Millbank for the year,
The Lord Mayortook this opportunity of replying to some observations which had been made when he was not in his place, finding fault with the conduct of the Magistrates of the city of London, in respect to the gaol of Newgate. He had to complain more especially of the course pursued by the Prison Inspectors, both in the manner they had proceeded in their inquiries, and in the Report they had made on the subject, and which he i declared had been got up entirely upon

1167
ex-parte statements. For himself, he begged to state, that when the Prison Inspectors entered upon their duties he (the Lord Mayor) told them that he should always be ready to give them every assistance or information in his power, but that he had never been applied to by them until the business of inquiry was nearly brought to a close; and when he took the opportunity of putting two questions, and two questions only, to Mr. Cope, the Governor of Newgate, which, with their answers, he would state to the House. The first question was, as to the nature and mode of the evidence taken by the Inspectors, in reply to which Mr. Cope stated the circumstance, that when he was asked by the Inspectors whether he took care to visit the prison every twenty-four hours, he replied, "I cannot, for these reasons;" upon which the Inspectors interrupted him, observing, "We don't want to hear your reasons; you have answered our question, and that is sufficient for our purpose." Now he put it to the House, whether this was a fair way of taking evidence on a great public question. The next question which he caused to be put to Mr. Cope was, "Have you any means of ascertaining, or any sort of record of the names of the prisoners who in the Report are designated as A, B, C, D, &c., &c." To which Mr. Cope replied, that he had no authentic information by which to individualize them all, but he believed that every one of them were then on their way to Botany Bay. He (the Lord Mayor) hoped that there would be a rigid inquiry into the circumstances connected with this Report, and that the Prison Inspectors should be in attendance at the inquiry; and he would ask the country to suspend their judgment upon the subject till the result of that inquiry was known. With respect to the management of the prison of Newgate, he would ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the case of that gaol was one which could be taken in comparison with any other prison in the kingdom? Newgate was almost entirely a prison of transit; in other gaols there were only two gaol deliveries in the year; in Newgate there were twelve. This was in consequence of the vast number of charges for the county of Middlesex, which were received into Newgate, and which the city authorities would gladly rid themselves of if they could, The pri-
1168
soners from the city of London would scarcely amount to two or three hundred in the year, but by the addition of the Middlesex county cases, the number of prisoners was increased to 3,000. These prisoners passed through so rapidly, being received into the walls on a Thursday perhaps, and tried on Friday, that it be came impossible to observe any of those regulations for the classification and discipline of the prisoners which might be practised with advantage in other gaols.
Lord John Russellhad no hesitation in concurring in the observation made by the Lord Mayor, that the gaol of Newgate was of that peculiar character which rendered it a matter of very great difficulty to enforce within it any system of prison discipline. With respect to the Prison Inspectors, he was inclined to believe that if they had fallen into any error on the subject it was not with the intention of misrepresenting the facts which had be come known to them.
Resolution agreed to.
The House resumed.