Commons Sitting of 3 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Court of Chancery; Imprisonment for Debt; Bills of Exchange.—Read a third time:—Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay; Church Building.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
Dr. Nichollmoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report of the Church Discipline Bill.
Mr. Warburtonexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give up the bill for the present Session, for it was now too late for parties interested to make known their objections to it.
Dr. Nichollsaid, that that objection had been made on a former evening, and had been disposed of on a division by a majority of about two to one. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press it.
House in Committee.
On Clause 5 Mr. Warburton proposed that a copy of the depositions and opinion should be transmitted to the party complained of.
Dr. Nichollhad no objection when the case came to a hearing to give the party accused a copy of the depositions on the usual terms.
The Attorney Generalrecommended his learned Friend to adopt the amendment. In all proceedings, although there might be an acquittal, the party accused had a right to a copy of the depositions.
Dr. Nichollsaid, such was not the case before the grand jury.
The Attorney Generaldid not think that a parallel case. No object could be gained by refusing a copy of the depositions. The party might attend by himself or his agent, cross-examine the witnesses, and take down an account of everything sworn against him. The amendment would give an authentic instead of a garbled account. He hoped the bill would pass. It was paying a small price for a very great boon. He trusted also that before next Session the 340 courts would be consolidated, their jurisdiction curtailed, and
1216
rendered more suitable to the present temper of the times.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause as originally framed stand part of the bill:—Ayes 20; Noes 43:—Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Neeld, J.

Archdall, M.

Norreys, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Perceval, Colonel

Boldero, H. G.

Pusey, P.

Broadley, H.

Richards, R.

East, J. B.

Sandon, Viscount

Estcourt, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hamilton, Lord C.

Heathcote, G. J.

TELLERS.

Herbert, hon. S.

Kemble, H.

Irton, S.

Nicholl, J.

List of the NOES.

Baines, E.

Lushington, C.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Briscoe, J. I.

Morris, D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Brotherton, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Bryan, G.

Paget, F.

Callaghan, D.

Palmerston, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Pattison, J.

Courtenay, P.

Protheroe, E.

Divett, E.

Roche, W.

Euston, Earl of

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Grattan, J.

Stock, Dr.

Harcourt, G. G.

Style, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Thornley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Yates, J. A.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Ewart, J.

Hutton, R.

Warburton, H.

Clause amended and agreed to.
House resumed. Bill to be reported.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill. He had to state, that the bill now sent down from the House of Lords (owing partly to the state in which it was originally brought in, and partly to the points of agreement which had been arrived at by the two Houses of Parliament in previous years) in its present shape differed far less from the bill sent up to the House of Lords than had been the case in preceding years. At the same time he could not

1217
conceal from himself, that in the bill as it now stood, as amended by the other House, there were still some points in which that House had felt itself called on to differ from the other House in previous years; so that he could not now state on grounds of abstract principle that the reasons of that difference were removed. He alluded particularly to the permanent establishment of a rated qualification of 10 l., and to the alteration in the mode of electing sheriffs. But, taking a general view of the whole past history and of the present position of this question, of the approximation which had been gradually arrived at between the two great political parties in the State, of the reciprocal advance made towards each other on each side, of the feeling of satiety which it could not be dissembled had begun to overspread the whole subject, and, above all, of the balance of indubitable good to be obtained from passing the bill, and of the amount of actual mischief thus to be got rid of, the Government did feel, and he trusted that House would also feel, that it would be expedient to bring this much discussed and long-pending question to issue. Therefore it was with this view, and in this spirit, that he now invited the attention of the House to the consideration of the amendments agreed to by the House of Lords; and he stated fairly, that he should not call on the House to disagree from any of those amendments which involved party differences between party politicians and between the two Houses of Parliament. He should confine himself to points of mere detail connected with the machinery and practical working of the measure, and having thus explained the spirit in which he wished the House to deal with the amendments, they had, perhaps, be better put as they arose, and when they occurred his hon. Friend, the Solicitor-general for Ireland, would state the words of such simple alterations as they proposed to make in the amendments of the other House of Parliament.
Mr. J. Grattanthought, that the Lords' amendments as to the rating of 10 l. and as to the mode of electing sheriffs objectionable. Many persons would not be enabled to enjoy the franchise for twelve months. He should move the reinsertion of the words in the bill relating to the Recorder of Dublin, and also empowering the Lord-lieutenant
1218
to direct quarter sessions to be held. He strongly objected to the striking out of that clause which would prevent the Recorder of Dublin having a seat in that House. That gentleman was a violent partisan, and neglected his duties as a judge to come over there and vote for the Tories. The question was, whether that judge should be week after week discharging the unfortunate prisoners in the gaols, or sitting there (the House of Commons) night after night. He conceived that the Recorder's first duty was to perform the functions for which he was paid. Measures of this kind lost the respect of the people of Ireland to that House; and if the Recorder of Dublin were not prevented, as a judge, from having a seat in that House, the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would be justified, that they dealt out one measure of justice to England and another to Ireland, as they were about to exclude the Member for the Tower Hamlets from a seat in that House because he was a judge.
Mr. W. Rocheon the whole was disposed to take these amendments after the five years' struggle which the measure had led to, feeling as he did that the bill in its present shape would break up that most vicious and mischievous system which had so long prevailed in Ireland, though it would fail to build up in the place of the old corporations institutions of a perfectly sound and satisfactory character. He objected to the 10 l. franchise fixed by the bill, and he also thought, that the appointment of sheriffs ought to have been left in the hands of the town-councils. He therefore gave a reluctant consent to the adoption of the bill as amended by the other House of Parliament.
Amendments read a first time and agreed to.
Mr. Pigotsaid, that by the bill, as it originally stood, the Crown was empowered to grant charters to towns upon the petition of a majority of the rated inhabitants. The other House of Parliament, in amending this particular clause, had limited the power of petitioning for a charter to those inhabitants who were rated at 10 l., or, in other words, to the constituency by which the town-council was to be elected. On this he had an amendment to propose, to the effect which would give the right of petitioning for or refusing a charter, not only to those

1219
who could elect the council by which a borough-rate could be made, bat to reserve the option to those who would have to pay that rate. The hon. and learned Member then moved a proviso to this effect, which was agreed to.
On the Lords' amendments which exempted the Recorder's Court of Dublin from the liability of having its periods of sitting increased by the Lord-lieutenant,
Viscount Morpethsaid, that though he did not see any ground for the exemption in favour of the recordership of Dublin, still, considering the spirit in which the amendments had been sent down from the other House, he would put it to the hon. Member for Wicklow not to press the House to a division upon this point. However, after what had already occurred with respect to judges not having seats in that House, and when the Lord-lieutenant should have had sufficient time to take cognizance of the wants of Dublin upon this, to inform himself as to the state of the gaols and the number of prisoners in them, if it were shown that it would be important to have more frequent gaol deliveries, it would then become the duty of Government to look to the matter.
Colonel Percevalwas highly gratified with the course which had been taken by the noble Lord with respect to those amendments, but must repudiate the insinuation that the Duke of Wellington had been influenced in the course which he adopted with respect to this amendment by any personal feeling towards the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That right hon. and learned Gentleman's judicial conduct was above all imputation, and he would appeal to the noble Lord opposite, and ask whether Government could possibly find fault with it. He must express his approbation of the amendments sent down from the other House.
Lord John Russelldid not object to the first part of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but when it was insinuated that the clause as the bill was sent up to the other House was inserted for the purpose of throwing a stigma upon the judicial character of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin, he felt himself called upon to disavow that such had been the intention. He was sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should entertain such an opinion, and he likewise regretted that it should be entertained in the other
1220
House of Parliament by the greatest man now living He was sorry for this, as there was no shadow of foundation for such an opinion. For his own part, he did not think that the situation of judge incapacitated the person holding it from being a Member of Parliament. Indeed, he should be sorry to lose the assistance of men of their talent and influence. This opinion he had mentioned before, and in doing so, he took occasion to name the right hon. Recorder of Dublin as one of those to whom he alluded. There, however, appeared to exist some difference of opinion upon this subject, and the objections were extended to the Recorder of London, whose official duties could scarcely be said to interfere with those which he owed to that House. It was another question how far the judicial duties of the Recorder of Dublin, were incompatible with his functions as a Member of Parliament. He did not wish that this question should be made matter of party contest. Since it had been made matter of dispute elsewhere, he was very glad that his hon. and learned Friend had agreed that it was better to omit the original clause. But he never could carry his opinion in favour of a judge sitting in that House to the extent, that in order to enable him to be a Member of that House, they should take away from his efficiency as a judge, and require in him a less attendance upon the seat of justice than they required of any other man. That was a principle which it was utterly impossible to support. There was no doubt, as stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that the Recorder of Dublin performed his duties as a judge in a most satisfactory manner; but that was not precisely the question. The question was, by how frequent attendances those duties ought to be performed. When that question should come forward in a separate form, they must take care to provide that those judicial duties be performed at stated times. If it should be found, that the due performance of them was incompatible with the functions of a Member of Parliament, that would be a reason for modifying his opinion in this case, and saying that such a judge should not be a Member of that House. To exclude from that House by act of Parliament, a Judge of the Admiralty Court because he was a judge, and at the same time to say respecting the Recorder of

1221
Dublin, that it was no matter how his duties were performed, or at what time he attended to perform them—to say that respecting a judge who voted and made speeches in favour of a particular party, and to contravene by the strength of that party a principle which upon other and greater grounds had been insisted upon, was certainly not a consistent course, or one which he was prepared to sanction.
Amendments agreed to, and managers were appointed to conduct a conference with the Lords on the subject of the said amendments and amendments thereto.

POLISH REFUGEES.
Viscount Sandonrose to bring under the consideration of the House the case of certain Polish Refugees who had lately come into this country, and which, he said, he was induced to do solely upon the common principles of humanity, He could not appeal to the justice of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the nature of the case would not allow him to do so, but he would appeal to his feelings of generosity and charity. It was not now a question whether a miserable pittance should be granted by that House for the support of those individuals who were suffering exile from their country for the sake of its independence. It had long ago been decided that the hand of charity should be extended to them with kindness and consideration. With this view, a vote had been taken in 1834 for 10,000 l., at which time the number of Polish refugees on the list was 466. The following year the number was 477, and the year after, 462; thereby showing, that the assistance afforded by Parliament had not been such as to induce any influx of those unfortunate persons into this country. In the following year, took place the events of Cracow which had the effect of driving to our shores a considerable number more of Polish refugees; and in consequence of the strong recommendations which were made by men of all parties in Parliament, Parliament had been induced to increase the vote from 10,000 l. to 15,000 l. The number of refugees then upon the Government list, was upwards of 600. Whether by death or by departure from this country, that number had since been diminished by about 165. The prayer he had now to prefer was in behalf of 52 others who had recently arrived, and whom he hoped the
1222
Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow to starve in our streets, but suffer them to become participators in the liberality of Parliament. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to increase the vote in the slightest degree. He merely asked him to consider the case of those fifty-two individuals who were only as one to three compared with the diminution that had taken place, and to extend to them, if he should find it possible, the benefit of the vote he was about to take. He asked for no additional vote, or for anything that might induce others to come here. He only required that where three claimants had, been got rid of one might be added. The sum allowed by this country was not superior to that of other countries, and held out no particular inducement to those unfortunate refugees. There was a general impression, that all Polish refugees were under the protection of Parliament, and receiving Parliamentary assistance. The sources of private benevolence being thus dried up, it was in vain to expect, that the means of subsistence could be obtained for those on whose behalf he pleaded, otherwise than through the Government. It was scarcely necessary for him to tell the House, that those persons had been driven from their country by political persecution, that they had not the means of returning to the places from whence they came, and that, not speaking the English language, they could not of themselves make out a livelihood in this country. He felt, that to refuse the prayer of these fifty sufferers in the cause of national independence, and to allow them to perish at our doors, merely for the sake of not infringing the rule, which prohibited persons who arrived in this country after a certain period from being put upon the list, would be a disgrace to a country which had a character for generosity to maintain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the House would recollect that it had, in the first instance, voted 7,000 l. for this purpose, and that it had been stated by those who asked for the vote, that it was for one year only, and that no further application would be made. When that year expired, the House again gave way. Then an application was made to extend the vote for a certain number of years, and his noble Friend, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stipulated that it | should only include those persons who

1223
were then in this country, otherwise it would hold out an inducement to other individuals to come. His noble Friend and the House again gave way. Then the Cracow affair occurred, and, the case being pressed upon Ministers and the House, they gave v. ay a third time. They had first granted the vote for a year, then made it a permanent vote, and then gave way in the Cracow case. Now, the House was asked to give way a fourth or fifth time, and unless a line were drawn, he did not see where it would end. At this moment they were, in fact, paying new claimants, the families of the original refugees. If cases of distress occurred, means would be found to relieve them. He believed that these public votes did, in fact, stop private benevolence. He could not, however, agree with the noble Lord in considering the sum which had been granted a "miserable pittance," or that this country had acted ungenerously in the matter; already 70,000 l. or 80,000 l. had been voted. However disagreeable it might be to appear obstinate, he was bound to give a denial to the noble Lord.
Sir F. Burdettfelt great interest for these unfortunate individuals, who, notwithstanding their heroic exertions, and that their character and conduct were untarnished, had nothing to subsist upon but the miserable pittance granted by the House of Commons. He thought it would be discreditable to the House if it refused a relief which would not increase the burthens of the country. He understood that there were only about fifty persons who sought relief, and a great number of old claims had been obliterated. He flattered himself that the House, considering the feeling it generally showed in these cases, and that the Administration also, would think it discreditable to the country to reject a claim for so trifling an additional relief for persons who had not disgraced themselves—persons of the most virtuous character, who had sacrificed their all in the hope of defending their country, the independence of which had been guaranteed by the other powers of Europe. He should hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, after a little reflection, feel no difficulty in conceding the relief desired towards a few persons who had such strong claims upon the liberality and the charity of the House.
Mr. R. Gordonconsidered that the
1224
giving of 78.000 l. to the Poles in a few years could hardly be considered a "miserable pittance." If additions were constantly to be made to the list, he did not know where they were to stop, and he trusted, therefore, the House would not express so strong an opinion upon the matter as had been expressed by the noble Lord.
The matter dropped.