Commons Sitting of 26 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Prisons (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. MAUNSELL, Sir J. BECKETT, and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. G. BERKELEY, Mr. GRATTAN, Mr. WILKS, and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Alderman THOMPSON, from Sunder-land, praying that all letters conveying purely commercial intelligence should pass free of postage; for the repeal of the Window-tax; and in favour of a Bill for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. J. YOUNG, from Cavan, Cootehill, and Belturbet, for a general revision of the Education System, with a view to the Establishment of Schools, to be conducted on scriptural principles.—By Mr. HANDLEY, from Bourne, for the abolition of the punishment of death except in the case of murder.—By Captain ALSAGER, Mr. MORRISON, and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, from St. George-in-the-East, in favour of the plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Sir G. SINCLAIR, from a place in Scotland, that in all Railway Bills relating to that country a clause should be inserted prohibiting travelling on Sunday.

PRIVILEGE.—GLASGOW WRIT.
Sir James Grahamwished to draw the attention of the House a question inolving the privileges of the House, the freedom of elections, (and as we understood) a violation of the law. In consequence of the abuses which prevailed in the Crown-office in the year 1813, an act was passed, ordering the Clerk of the Crown for the future to issue two writs, one to be sent to the Crown, the other to the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General, on receiving the writ, was to send it off at once by the regular post or mail. Now, he had that morning received a letter from Glasgow, from an authority not to be disputed, in which it was said that the writ for a new Member for Glasgow had been sent, not by mail or post, but by express. He wished to know whether that were true? And if true, whether the departure from the regular mode was in conformity with instructions from the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, or with instructions from the Secretary for the Treasury.
Mr. E. J. Stanleystated, that when the writ had been forwarded in the usual

1091
way, he had written a note, desiring that the writ might be forwarded with as little delay as possible. If there were anything extraordinary in the mode of forwarding it, the Post-office was answerable.
Sir J. Grahamwould then move that the Messenger from the Crown-office, and the officer of the Post-office, who had received the writ and signed the receipt for it, be ordered to attend at the bar on Tuesday next.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that having had no opportunity, from not knowing that the question was to be put, to consult the Act of Parliament, he must suppose that the right hon. Baronet was right. In making no objection, however, to the motion of the right hon. Baronet, he must guard himself against implying anything against his hon. Friend, either that he had acted against an Act of Parliament, or inconsistently with his duty. He himself often received his regular letters by express, the ordinary post being sent occasionally in that way.
Mr. Humesaid, it was quite right that the rules of the statute should he complied with, as neither party ought to have an advantage. He would submit, however, that in agreeing to the motion, the House would be acting as if a violation of the law had been proved. The right hon. Baronet should first give notice of his motion; he should then state his case and make his motion. The noble Lord in agreeing to the motion, seemed himself to admit that there was something wrong. He (Mr. Hume) thought that it was not right to throw suspicion; and as the authority on which the statement was made was not made known, he hoped the House would not agree to the motion. He suggested to the right hon. Baronet that he had better take the course which he had pointed out.
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, that as his conduct was brought into question, he hoped there would be no interposition of hon. Gentlemen, and he requested his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) to wave his opposition.
Sir J. Grahamdid not give notice because he could hardly believe the statement. He had reason to believe it, and ho had in his place asked whether it was founded in fact. The Secretary for the Treasury said, that he did write a note, directing the writ to be forwarded with as little delay as possible. Now, he wanted facts cleared up, and the persons who were able to put the House in possession of those facts were the individuals whose attendance
1092
he moved for. He did not give a positive opinion before examining them, and therefore he was not premature.
Mr. Warburtonthought that the right hon. Baronet was premature and also irregular. He might, perhaps, agree to the motion at another time, but he thought that it was, as brought on then, a departure from the uniform practice of the House. [Expressions of dissent.] It certainly was, and he would instance the Carlow Election Committee, at which the challenge was objected to because not noticed. He saw no reason why an exception should be made in this case.
Mr. Williams Wynnhad been forty years in the House, and till then had never heard it doubted that it was the duty of a Member of Parliament, on receiving information of a breach of privilege, to complain of it immediately to the House. The House was accustomed to proceed to the consideration of it at once, causing it to supersede every other business, even the consideration of the King's speech, as was the case when Mr. Heed's pamphlet was published.
Mr. Wasonremarked, that if the writ were not properly sent, the election would be void.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that in the case of Poole there had been a delay of three weeks, in the case of Kirkcudbright of four months, and yet there had been no void election. The House of Commons had thought it right that the Executive Government should have nothing to do with the issue of writs. So important did the House think it, that it voted a sum of 520 l. per annum, as a compensation to the Messenger of the Great Seal.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the case appeared to him a fit subject for inquiry, although he did not think the right hon. Baronet had made out a strong case, or indeed any case at all; but after the observations of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury he should not oppose it. There were portions of the Act of Parliament directory, as was the case with respect to the transmission of the writ; but to suppose that a non-compliance with that directory part would vitiate the election was absurd. If any proof was given of the electors not having had an opportunity of fully and fairly expressing their sentiments, then there would be good grounds for setting the election aside, but nothing of the kind could be proved in the present case.
Mr. Wakleybegged to know if the right hon. Baronet meant to found his motion on the 53d of Geo. 3rd? The right hon. Baronet nodded assent; and that being the case, he (Mr. Wakley) would deny that the House could exercise any jurisdiction in the matter. If the right hon. Baronet would read the sixth section he would acknowledge such to be the case. The sixth section provided that if any person wilfully neglected or delayed to deliver the writs, they might be proceeded against by indictment in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench. Now, he begged to ask whether the House meant to summon the parties before it, and compel them to confess that they had been guilty of this offence? If so, he for one would most decidedly oppose such an inquisitorial proceeding.
Mr. Lambtonbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) if he had any objection to furnish the House with the authority upon which he made the statement.
Sir J. Grahamstated most distinctly that he would not mention the name of the party from whom he had received his information. As it appeared to him to touch the privileges of the House, he thought it to be his duty to have the matter cleared up without delay; and as his Majesty's Ministers had the power to clear it up, he felt himself compelled to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department whether the writ had been sent by express or post; and if by the former, whether it had been done under his direction. The noble Lord had stated he was not aware of the manner in which the writ had been transmitted, and that if sent by express, it had not been done by his direction. Upon the noble Lord making that statement, he (Sir J. Graham) then asked the hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasury whether the writ had been transmitted in the usual manner? To that question the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had written a note to the Postmaster-General, or his deputy, stating that it was of importance that the writ should be transmitted without delay; but that right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether it had been transmitted by the mail or not. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he would only say, if there had been any infraction of the law it was competent for the House to direct his Majesty's Attorney-
1094
General to prosecute the party who had infringed it.
Motion agreed to.

PRESENTS FROM THE KING OF OUDE.
Mr. B. Hoyrose, pursuant to notice, to move for copies of the papers relating to certain presents sent to this country for their Majesties by the King of Oude. The presents were sent from Calcutta under an escort of British troops, and embarked under the sanction of the Governor-General; and after having arrived in this country, they were so sent back as amounted to treating the Prince who sent them with contempt. The mere sending them back was a great contempt; but the contempt was greater when unaccompanied with any explanation. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would clear the matter up, and lay before the House those papers which were necessary to give a full explanation of it. He believed that the charge of misgovernment had been brought against the King of Oude by discarded servants or otherwise dissatisfied persons. He must say, that having received presents from other princes in India, and refused those in question, we had offered an insult to this unhappy prince, whose ancestors had given up the half of their territories to the Indian government for promised protection. He concluded by moving for copies of the correspondence on the subject of the presents sent by the King of Oude.
Lord John Russellrequested of his right hon. Friend near him not to address the House on the present occasion. He did so, not that he did not believe but that his right hon. Friend had to give an explanation which would be satisfactory to the House; but he must submit to the House whether, on the Order of the Day, by which it was proposed to proceed with the Committee on a measure with respect to which the House had already proceeded some way—whether, upon the proposal of proceeding with that Committee, it was desirable and convenient to arrest the progress of that Committee, and for the House to stop, and this for the purpose of attending to a discussion upon a question relative to presents made by the King of Oude to his Majesty? If the speech of the hon. Member had demonstrated anything, it was the necessity of having a Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring whether the business of the House

1095
could be thus impeded, and whether it would not be more convenient for the House to go on in a manner which would be more conformable to the ancient practice. If every Monday and Friday were to be taken up by two or three Members on matters which were more interesting to themselves, and if they could thus set aside that business in which the greater part of the House took an interest, then it would be utterly impossible to proceed with the public business. That was the simple question for the House to determine, and not that which had been brought forward by the hon. Member, and which his right hon. Friend was prepared to defend. The simple question before the House was, whether they were prepared to enter upon the discussion of the subject submitted by the hon. Member, or to go on with the Order of the Day. That was the question which he wished to have decided. He hoped that the House would support him in going on with the Order of the Day.
Motion negatived.

DROPPED ORDERS.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved that the House go into Committee upon the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill.
Sir R Peelobserved, that this was the first instance of a dropped notice taking precedence of all other business.
Lord John Russellreplied, that it had occurred more than once.
Sir R. Peelconsidered that the practice would be inconvenient if generally adopted. He was aware that there was a pretty general feeling in the House of forwarding the Irish Poor-law Bill as much as possible. It was this general feeling that induced, on the present occasion, a general concurrence in the motion of the noble Lord. He should acquiesce in that feeling, and offer no objection. He felt it necessary, however, to protest against the precedent being generally acted on.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
House went into Committee,
Upon the 24th Clause, enacting the appointment of ex officio guardians, being proposed,
Mr. Lynchobjected to the clause. He was opposed to magistrates being made ex officio guardians. Clergymen were exempted, and he saw no reason why magistrates should be included. He knew that the introduction of such a clause would tend materially to injure the operation of
1096
the Bill. He proposed, as we understood, to strike out the clause.
Viscount Morpethconsidered, that it would be a very ungenerous act to exclude the whole of the magistrates. He did not think that it would tend to harmony or to the efficient working of the Bill to exclude the whole body of the magistrates.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that it would be wrong to exclude the magistrates; but it was a different thing to make them members. If they were elected they should not be excluded from acting. The noble Lord seemed to think that the magistrates would only elect the best members of their body to be guardians. What he was afraid of was, that the election would go in the contrary direction. He did not wish to make any accusation against the magistrates. They had been already spoken of by others in that House, and the opinions of Lord Redesdale and Lord Manners were recorded against them. He begged to assure the noble Lord that with such a clause as the present the Bill never would be accepted as a boon in Ireland.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had no feeling upon this subject, except that of making it an efficient measure. He thought that it would be very desirable to have the magistrates ex-officio guardians.
Lord John Russellobserved, that it was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny that in case magistrates were approved of by the people they would be elected. He did not think that this would follow as a necessary consequence, for there might be prejudices against them as magistrates. The constant meeting of magistrates would, he hoped, do away with all such feelings, if they existed. He could not give up as hopeless the chance of producing a good feeling between those elected by the rate-payers and the magistrates.
The Committee divided on the clause Ayes; 61 Noes: 28—Majority 33.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved that the number of ex-officio guardians should be one-sixth instead of one-third of the whole number.
Lord Morpethsaw no good reason for the alteration proposed; but he had no objection to make the number one-fourth instead of one-third.
The Committee again divided, on the amendment, Ayes 23, Noes 58:—Majority 35.
Mr. Hindley Mr. Hindley moved an amendment on the same clause, to the effect that the ratepayers should elect the number of magis-

1097
trates which by the act, were to be members of the board of guardians.
Lord J. Russellwas very sorry that he could not agree to the alteration proposed. He thought that the magistracy ought to be allowed to select out of their own body such of themselves as they thought best fitted to perform the duties of Members of the Board of guardians.
Mr. Humesubmitted to the noble Lord whether he would not reconsider what he had stated. He was sure that the noble Lord must be anxious to make this Bill popular, and he (Mr. Hume) was quite sure that that object would not be answered by the rejection of this amendment.
Viscount Morpethhoped that the Bill would prove popular and work well, but he did not think that popularity should be the only consideration. They had not this consideration only in view when they introduced the English Poor-law Amendment Act. There was in that act a corresponding provision to the present, the only difference being, that whereas in England all justices of the peace might be Members of the board of guardians, they proposed that for Ireland a certain number of the magistrates only should be elected. He thought that the magistrates were themselves the best judges of the persons who were best qualified to represent them, and he must therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. Jephsonwould oppose the amendment, as he thought that the effect of it would be to do away with ex officio guardians altogether.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 32; Noes 50; Majority 18.
The clause agreed to.
On clause 26,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordobjected to the arbitrary power proposed to be given to the Commissioners of appointing Guardians under certain circumstances. He moved the omission of this passage from the 12th to the 32d line of the clause.
Sir R. Fergusonobjected also to the power given in the two previous lines, of removing the guardians if they did not act with due diligence in obedience to the orders of the Commissioners.
Mr. O'Connellthought the jealousy of the Commissioners was a very unfounded one. This clause would give the means of correcting many of the evils of the former clause. The question was, whether the Commissioners were to have an efficacious and controlling power over the guardians, if so, the words were essentially necessary.
Lord Morpethsaid, that unless some power of this kind were given to the Commissioners, they might run the risk of having the whole system stopped for want of efficient means of carrying it on.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 23; Noes 68: Majorty 45.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 35th agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.