Lords Sitting of 4 June 1830

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord HOLLAND, from Chorlbury and its vicinity, and from the Baptist Congregation assembling in South-street, Exeter, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Chymists and Druggists of Norwich, against the Patent Medicine Stamp Duty. By Lord CALTHORPE, against the Birmingham Free-School Bill. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from the Inhabitants of Grantley, in the County of Salop, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By Earl GREY, from the Inhabitants of Clonmel, against any addition to the Duty on Spirits and Stamps in Ireland; and a similar Petition from another place in Ireland. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from certain Inhabitants of Dublin, against any increase of the Duty on Stamps; from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery; from the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, in Tralee, to the same effect; from the Landowners of the Queen's County, against any additional Duty on Irish Spirits; from several Parishes in the County of Cork, against any additional Duty on Spirits and Stamps in Ireland; from the same Parishes, against the Irish Vestry Act; from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the Parish of Skreen, County of Meath, for the Abolition of Tithes; from the High Sheriff and Inhabitants of the County of Kerry, against the Equalization of Taxes between England and Ireland; from the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Bankers, Merchants, and Solicitors of Dublin, against any increase of Taxation, particularly with reference to Stamps; from Mr. Carden,
1346
explaining his Plan for the Formation of a National Cemetery, and praying their Lordships to take the subject into their serious consideration.
The Parishes general Lighting and Watching Bill was read a second time.
Witnesses were further Examined on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill.

SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.
The Earl of Westmorlandpresented a Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, Ireland, praying to be heard by Counsel and Witnesses at their Lordships' bar, in order that he might have an opportunity of disproving the charges that had been brought against him. The noble Earl said, that he presented the Petition on two grounds; first, because he held it to be the duty of every Peer to present the petition of any man who thought himself aggrieved, and asked for a fair hearing; and secondly, because he had long known Sir Jonah Barrington, and ever found him honest, faithful, and zealous. He was sure that a fair and impartial hearing would be afforded the petitioner, and he hoped that it would restore him to his rank in society.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington moved the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Message which their Lordships had recently received from the House of Commons relative to Sir Jonah Barrington. Having briefly adverted to the proceedings which had taken place in the House of Commons in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, the noble Duke observed, that in his opinion, the most proper course to pursue would be, to institute an inquiry at their Lordships' bar, which would enable them to form their own opinion on the subject. The noble Duke then moved "That the further consideration of this subject be proceeded with on Monday se'nnight, that Counsel be heard, and that witnesses attend on that day."
Ordered.

STATE OF BUSINESS.
The Marquis of Downshire The Marquis of Downshire moved that the Order of the Day, for the second reading of the Irish Bog Drainage Bill be read for the purpose of being postponed.
A short conversation took place, with respect to the propriety of withdrawing the Bill altogether for the present Session, on account of the impossibility of rendering it an effectual and palatable measure before Parliament broke up; in the course of which,
The Earl of Darnleytook occasion to

1347
observe, that their Lordships were placed in a very difficult situation, not only with respect to this Bill, but with reference to many other important measures. By some means or other the public business was most unaccountably delayed. He saw by the votes of the House of Commons, that last night nearly l00 subjects were debated. There were on that paper ninety-six items, forty-two of which were debated after twelve o'clock at night. The consequence was, that the business came before that House at a very late period of the Session, and could not be properly considered. This was contrary to the dignity of their Lordships, and the interests of the realm. He had pointed out the inconvenience over and over again, and he hoped that some mode would be adopted to prevent the evil in future.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the manner in which the business was regulated was fraught with inconvenience. He felt as great a respect for the privileges of the other House as any man could feel, but he must say that the doctrine which was held relative to money-clauses in bills had latterly been carried to an extreme point. The Commons insisted, that a clause in bills imposing penalties was a money-clause, because possibly money might be levied under it. He, however, was at a loss to know how such a clause could be so interpreted. The result was, that no bill, with a clause imposing a. money penalty, could originate in that House, although it was a place peculiarly fit for the consideration of measures connected with penalties; for instance, bills for the regulation of police, or bills for the regulation of law proceedings. The consequence of this system was, that all such bills began in the Commons, who were overlaid with business, and hundreds of accumulated orders. Ultimately, the bills were sent up to that House at a period of the Session when it was utterly impossible for the House to consider them properly. This matter struck him very forcibly, and he had some communication with the Members of the House of Commons on the subject, and he was glad to say, that a general feeling did exist, that the Commons had carried the point to which he had adverted too far. He now gave notice that it was his intention to bring this subject forward, in some shape or other, at a future day, in order that their Lordships might inquire whether a practice which was productive of so much delay should be persevered in.
The Bill to be read a second time on Tuesday next.