Lords Sitting of 21 April 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time, Money Payment of Wages; Composition of Tithes. Post Office Sale Committed.
Petitions presented. For the Repeal of the Law allowing Beer to be drank on the Premises, by the Duke of NORFOLK, from the Western Division of Sussex:—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Magistrates of Berkshire. By Lord DURHAM, from St. John's, Wapping, praying for an alteration of the Metropolitan Police Act. For the Repeal of the Union (Ireland), by Lord FARNHAM, from the Inhabitants of Black Roc. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the Archbishop of TORK, from many places in his Diocese. In favour of the Grants to the Kildaie Street Society, by the Marquis of DOWNSHIRE, from Sligo and Rosstrevor:—By Lord FARNHAM, from the County of Cavan, and five other places. In favour of Reform, by the Duke of NORFOLK, from Shore-ham, and Carrick-on-Suir: — By Lord DURHAM, from Durham, and from the Ward of Billingsgate:—B Lord TENHAM, from Erpingham:—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from Perth:—By Earl CAWDOR, Llansawell:—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Halifax, Maldon, and Wineanton. Against Reform, by the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Freemen of Rochester; and against uniting that City with Chatham and Stroud:—By Lord FARNHAM, from Drogheda, Sligo, Kilnish, and other places.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
The Marquis of Lansdownpresented a Petition from the Merchants, Manufacturers, and other inhabitants of Glasgow, praying for a free trade to China, a free trade to India, and for permission freely to settle in India. It was not his intention then to discuss the important subjects referred to in the petition, as they must come under their Lordships' consideration at no distant period. The petition represented the general feeling of Glasgow on these three important points, and the petitioners stated, that their own opinions on these subjects bad been confinned by the valuable evidence collected by a Committee of that and the other House of Parliament. He agreed fully with the petitioners in their opinion of that evidence, and thought it afforded ample materials for their Lordships to form a safe and sound judgment on one of the most important questions of State policy that could possibly come under the consideration of the Legislature, involving not only the prosperity of the commerce of this country, but the welfare of 60,000,000 of people, who, by the course of events and the will of Providence, had been placed under their Lordships' superintendence, and who, he had no doubt, would find, in their love of justice and equity, the most indulgent consideration. He would give no specific opinion on these great questions, but he had no doubt, that
1738
the petition would receive their Lordships' deliberate consideration.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, when he proposed the Committee to inquire into the affairs of India, he had stated to their Lordships, that the question, whether the country at large could be permitted to participate directly in the China trade, would depend on whether the great expenditure of the Government of India could be reduced. From the first formation of the late Government, the efforts of his noble friend who preceded him (Lord Melville), and his own efforts, were directed to the great object of diminishing the expenditure of India, that the Government might be enabled to present to the people of England the freedom of the trade to China. Their efforts had, in a great measure, succeeded, and they had reduced the expenditure of India, in the course of three years, to the amount of 1,850,000 l. He must claim for his Majesty's late Government the merit of having adopted measures for giving the people a free trade to China, and they meant to effect their object by reducing the expenditure, without which it could not be accomplished. He would recommend the Ministers, whoever they might be, constantly and strenuously, to direct their efforts to obtain a gradual and temperate reform of the expenditure. That required daily and hourly attention to every minute branch of the Government. It must be, above all things, gradual and temperate, for hasty and violent reductions, such as a Parliament might direct, would endanger the stability of the empire in India.
Petition laid on the Table.

REFORM PETITIONS.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition from the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. The petition was signed by 7,000 persons, and the whole number of inhabitants did not exceed 9,000: these circumstances afforded a sufficient contradiction to the assertion that had been made elsewhere, to the effect that the inhabitants of Spitalfields, of which this parish constituted a considerable part, were opposed to the Bill that had been introduced into the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord also presented a Petition from the County of Cornwall, and fifty other Petitions from various places, in favour of the Reform Bill.
The Duke of Sussexpresented a Petition from Non-resident Voters of Rochester, living in London, in favour of the Reform Bill. The noble Duke observed, that the petition was signed by three-fourths of the whole number of out-voters. He had also to present a petition agreed to at a county meeting of the inhabitants of Denbigh; and a petition from a hundred in the county of Norfolk, in favour of Reform.
Lord Beresfordpresented a Petition from out-voters of Berwick-on-Tweed, praying that they might not be disfranchised. The noble Lord stated, that the number of voters in the borough would be reduced from 1,143 to 300 by the proposed disfranchisement, of which he expressed his disapprobation, as well as of the attack made upon Corporations in general by the Reform Bill. He saw no reason why the Corporation of London should be allowed to retain its noxious privileges if the corporations of other towns were to be broken up. He meant to resist the Reform Bill.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a Petition, agreed to at a numerous and respectable meeting of Freeholders of the county of Sussex, in favour of the Reform Bill. The petition was well deserving of their Lordships' attention, as expressing the almost unanimous wish of that great county. In it, county meetings were not common things, for there had not been one before this for forty years.
The Duke of Norfolkexpressed his hearty concurrence in the prayer of the petition. Every day he lived, he became the better satisfied of the necessity of carrying into effect the Ministerial plan of Reform, with a view to secure the welfare of the country.
The Duke of Wellingtonpresented a Petition from the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Commonalty of Cork, against the extension of the Elective Franchise to 10 l. householders; and a second from the Protestants of Cork, against the Ministerial plan of Reform, on the ground of its tendency to give a preponderating power to Roman Catholics at elections. He agreed with the petitioners in the opinion which they entertained, that in the event of the passing of the Bill, it would be found difficult to maintain that article of the Union with Ireland which guaranteed the safety of the Church of Ireland. In passing the Reform measure, Parliament exposed his Majesty to the risk of consent-
1740
ing to a Bill calculated to break down the Church Establishment in Ireland. He could not but express the surprise he felt the other night at hearing the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack assert that the Reform Bill had put down agitation in Ireland on the subject of a Repeal of the Union. He thought it impossible that the concession of the elective franchise to 10 l. householders in a few towns in Ireland could have any such effect. He hoped and believed, that, the Irish Government would resort to those wise measures of relief, accompanied, if necessary, by measures of severity, which might put down the insurrectionary spirit that existed in parts of Ireland; and he thought it would be better for Parliament to occupy itself with the consideration of such measures, than to spend its time upon the Reform Bill.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, if the noble Duke had not argued, that the measure of Reform would destroy the Church of Ireland, he should not have thought it necessary to notice the subject, and state that he entertained a contrary opinion. The noble Duke supported his arguments in an extraordinary way, when it was considered that he had given the Roman Catholics political power; for the noble Duke now asserted, that doing that would endanger the Church; but, for his part, he had always denied that assertion, and denied it now. If the noble duke entertained that opinion, it was strange that he should have introduced the great measure which had laid the foundation of the prosperity of Ireland by tranquillizing it. He believed that, as the country improved, the great measure of Reform would become the foundation of the prosperity of Ireland. He did not deny, that it would enlarge the constituency, but that was now necessary, for the noble Duke had began his reform at the wrong end, by curtailing the constituency. The enlargement of the constituency would, he believed, be beneficial to the country. He had heard no argument which could convince him that it would be disadvantageous. He believed that no danger would accrue to the Established Church from the admission of the Catholics to political power. Their Lordships had, in fact, decided that question, when they agreed to give the Catholics political power, and that measure had been attended with great benefits.
Lord Farnhamexpressed his astonishment that any noble Lord who had resided in Ireland could doubt that, by the passing of the Reform Bill, a constituency would be created under the direct influence of those who, from North to South, were unanimously opposed to the Established Church; and he wished to know whether such a state of things could exist, consistently with the safety of that Church? He could but express his astonishment at such a measure being contemplated by those who pretended to wish well to that Church, and he challenged any Peer—he challenged the noble Marquis—to prove that extending the elective franchise would not create the constituency he had described. With respect to the Repeal of the Union, if a strong feeling were not now openly at work upon that subject, it was only because the Roman Catholic clergy, and the agitators, had issued their orders to the people to remain quiet till the Reform Bill should be carried. The hon. member for Clare had publicly addressed the Irish people, and advised them not to agitate the subject of the Union at present, lest they should impede the measure of Reform, at the same tune assuring them that a reformed Parliament would grant what they wanted. He wished to take that opportunity of observing if the reports that day current in both Houses of Parliament should turn out to be well-founded, that tremendous responsibility would rest upon Government for not having attempted measures cither coercive or remedial with respect to that country. He did not say which species of measures ought to have been adopted at the present moment; perhaps a mixture of both would have been best; but he repeated his opinion, that tremendous responsibility must rest upon those who had given the advice stated to have been given, without previously adopting measures to prevent the ill effects to be apprehended from the present state of things in Ireland.
Petition to be laid on the Table.

DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, as an allusion has been made by the noble Lord (Farnham) to certain reports that are in circulation on the subject of a dissolution of Parliament, I wish to ask his Majesty's Ministers whether there is any truth in the statement, that they have advised his Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and that it has been resolved
1742
to adopt that course? I ask this question, because, if I should receive an answer in the affirmative, it is my intention to adopt some measure in relation to the subject, and, I can assure the noble Earl opposite, very speedily.
Earl Grey.—I believe the noble Lord's question will be admitted to be one of a very unusual nature, and I can hardly bring myself to believe that when he put it the noble Lord expected an answer. But whatever the noble Lord's expectation may have been, I have only to say, I must decline answering his question. As to any measure which he may think it necessary to propose on that subject, he will consult his own discretion, and take whatever course he sees fit. I can otter him no advice whatever.
Lord Wharncliffe.—My Lords, I now give notice that I shall to-morrow move your Lordships that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will be graciously pleased not to exercise his undoubted prerogative of dissolving Parliament.

REFORM PETITIONS.
The Earl of Winchilseapresented Petitions from Sandwich, Great Marlow, and Nairn, in favour of Reform. He observed that the noble Duke (Wellington) had expressed his opposition to the Reform Bill on the ground of probable injury to the Established Church in Ireland. Friendly as he was to the greater part of the Bill as it affected the Representation of England, he agreed with the noble Duke, that its effect, by increasing the political power of Roman Catholics in Ireland, would be to endanger the Established Church in that country. He regretted that the noble Duke did not entertain his present apprehension of Catholic power at an earlier period. In the present state of political agitation in Ireland, which had for its purpose the effecting of the disunion of the empire, and in the present state of organization which exists in that country, carried on under the control of the Catholic priesthood, who were all influenced by the great political agitator, who had not as yet been made amenable to the laws which he had violated, he could not see how any further political power could be extended to Ireland, without endangering the established institutions of the country. He had taken the present occasion of expressing his sentiments, because he was afraid

1743
another opportunity would not be attended him. He did sincerely regret that he was compelled to make these observations, and hoped he had done so without hurting the feelings of any noble Lord in that House connected with the Roman Catholic religion, every one of whom he was convinced felt as much veneration and attachment for the Constitution as the humble individual who had the honour to address their Lordships; but he did entreat those noble Lords to lose no time in endeavouring to put down that state of insubordination which existed in Ireland, and to have not the slightest connexion with any of those individuals who were labouring for the total destruction of the Church Establishment in that country, and the total dissolution of the Union.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad but two words to offer with respect to what had fallen from the noble Lord. He was not willing to enter into the question as to the expediency of having granted the Roman Catholic claims, for he hoped that question was for ever set at rest. The former Government of this country derived some advantage from the settlement of that question, and he believed, that at least this advantage would be admitted to have flown from it, viz. that now there was no question either in that or the other House of Parliament, or among the public, respecting the necessity or expediency of repealing the Union. When he introduced the Catholic Relief Bill he stated, that political power already existed in the hands of the Roman Catholics, and that was a statement generally admitted by noble Lords on both sides of the House. What the Bill effected was, to give the capacity of enjoying political power to the higher classes of the Roman Catholics, and to take it out of the hands of those of the lower classes who did not exercise it themselves for their own purposes, and according to the dictation of their own sentiments, but at the suggestion of a body among the Catholic people, who, it would be admitted by every body, ought not to possess political power—he meant the Roman Catholic priesthood.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the noble Earl having opposed the Catholic Relief Bill, was perfectly consistent in the view he took of that part of the proposed measure of Reform, which related to Ireland. While that noble Earl approved of the rest of the measure as regarded England,
1744
it was impossible for him, without changing all the opinions he had ever held and expressed on the subject of the danger to the Protestant interests in Ireland, to abstain from offering his most decided opposition to the part of the Bill which applied to that country. Such was the natural conduct of the noble Earl, for he was one of those who at all times opposed extending to the Catholics equal civil rights. And now he (Lord Ellenborough) hoped to be permitted to state what he felt to be his duty on that subject. From the first moment that he had a seat in Parliament, he had been a zealous advocate of Catholic Emancipation, and he never entertained a doubt of the advantage which would ultimately result to the country from the concession of that measure. He had the honour of being a member of that Government by which the Catholic Relief Bill was introduced. That Bill was not an insulated measure, but was accompanied by two others. One of them was an Act for the suppression of the Catholic Association, and in pressing that measure upon their Lordships for adoption, the noble Duke then at the head of his Majesty's Government pledged himself to the House and to the country to bring forward other and stronger measures for the suppression of that and similar associations, if the bill which was introduced did not prove efficient. The Catholic Relief Bill was accompanied also by another measure —novel in its nature, violent, perhaps, in its provisions—he meant the Bill for the disfranchisement of the 40 l. freeholders. That Bill, however, was an essential part of the Catholic Relief Bill—and he could not, without a breach of public faith— without a breach of private confidence— without dishonouring himself for ever as a public man, violate that understood compact which then prevailed with many of those in that and the other House of Parliament, who constituted the majority in favour of the Catholic Relief Bill—he could not, he said, so far dishonour himself by now, at the expiration of only two years, consenting to an alteration in the Representation of Ireland, which would effect an entire change in that state of things on the faith of the duration of which alone the Parliament, the King, and the people of England, consented to remove the Catholic disabilities. These were his opinions from the first introduction of the Reform Bill, and he would not allow himself to

1745
consider for an instant whether or not that part of the proposition which applied to Ireland might be advantageous to the public, or form properly any part of a general measure of Reform. For he considered himself bound by that compact to which he was a party, and he would not act with less scrupulous honour to those who supported the Catholic Relief measure, upon the understanding which he had mentioned, than Government exercised towards that party which was then the Opposition. Let him recall to the recollection of noble Lords opposite, that the late Government likewise had an understanding with them, that they would waive that opposition which, tinder other circumstances they would have offered to the Bill for the suppression of the Catholic Association. That understanding was, that the Bill was to form part of a general measure, that on the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, their opposition would be modified or entirely withdrawn. How, then, did the late Government act? They would not advise his Majesty to give his royal assent for the suppression of the Catholic Association till within fifteen minutes of the time when, with his Majesty's continued sanction, they proposed to Parliament the Catholic Relief measure. He could not, therefore, enter into a consideration of that part of the Reform measure which tended to alter the state of Representation in Ireland, on the faith of the duration of which the Catholics were admitted to an equality of Civil rights.
Petitions to lie on the Table.
The Earl of Carnarvonhad to present a petition from the inhabitants of New-bury, neither, the noble lord stated, against Reform nor in its favour, but praying that if the Reform Bill, which he looked upon as a measure calculated to produce calamitous effects, should be permitted to be passed, that they might not hereafter be debarred from sending representatives to Parliament. The petitioners stated, that in ancient times Newbury was a borough, and they prayed that their right of returning Members to Parliament might be revived. The population of Newbury, together with the two adjoining hamlets, as stated in the census of 1821, exceeded 7,000 inhabitants. It was now a very flourishing town, and the greatest corn-market in the south of England. He submitted to their Lordships, that in the event of the Reform Bill being agreed to,
1746
the prayer of the petitioners was entitled to consideration. If ministers thought that their Reform Bill was one on which they ought to make a stand, they would do well to consider whether, after making such an immense alteration in the Representation of the country, it would be right to stop where they proposed leaving many towns possessed of Representation, which scarcely possessed a constituency, and excluding the great town and ancient borough of Newbury from any portion of Representation whatever. Could, he asked, any measure more deserve the name of a half measure, or rather a quarter measure—could any proposition be more properly called a bit-by-bit Reform, than that Bill which the Ministers had introduced, and which, he contended, was calculated to subvert all the institutions of the country, and overturn the Monarchy? The principle of their Bill—if principle it could be called which principle had none
"Distinguishable by member, joint, or limb,
Which nonsense seemed"—
the principle seemed to be this: population was taken as the test which was to determine the continuation of the removal of Representation from boroughs, and a totally different test, that of property, was taken to decide as to what class of persons the elective franchise should be given. And what was the result of this? A large portion of the boroughs which were left untouched had scarcely any constituency, and the Ministers were obliged to find, by means of Privy Councillors, a constituency where there was no borough, while they overlooked large towns, with an ample number of constituents, which existed ready to their hands. For what purpose could the country imagine that such an arrangement had been adopted? The people did suspect, for they could come to no other conclusion, that there was jobbing in the Bill; that that strange and unintelligible line had been drawn, in order to preserve particular boroughs, and to get rid of others. Perhaps Ministers had had no such intention; but if they had not, it baffled all human ingenuity to discover, what their intention was. Why had they not taken a straightforward and intelligible course? Why, if they wished to make so great a change in the Constitution of the country, had they not made this their plan—to disfranchise all boroughs not containing 300 10 l. householders, and to transfer the fran-

1747
chise to such places, as contained a real constituency? He did not mean to say that he would have advocated so sweeping a measure as that would be, because he did not think that the interests of the country called for it; but such a proposition would at least, have been an intelligible and rational one; and if the Reform Bill proceeded, the Ministers would see the expediency of having adopted a principle of that nature, when the question with respect to the case of Newbury was raised. But how was the strange constituency, which Ministers proposed to create to be made up? Was there no jobbing in the Bill; and would the country believe that there was no political jobbing in it, when, in order to make up the required constituency, an expedient had been hit upon, which no Minister had ever before proposed to Parliament. That constituency, which was wanting, was to be supplied by the arbitrary act of the Privy Council; and thus not less than eighty Representatives would be appointed to different parts of the country, simply by the King's Ministers themselves. Was there no jobbing in that proposition? Had Mr. Pitt once a reformer, come down with such a proposition when the Society of the Friends of the People existed, would not the noble Earl (Grey) have designated it as the most impudent and profligate jobbing ever proposed to Parliament? He wished to advert to the question of a dissolution; but as a motion on the subject stood for to-morrow, he thought it best to reserve what he had to say till that motion came before the House. He hoped, that at least the existence of Parliament would be preserved for twenty-four hours; and he should content himself with presenting the petition. His noble friend (Earl Mansfield) shook his head, dissenting from what he had stated. He could not, however, believe, notwithstanding the alarming rumours to the contrary, that Ministers had determined on advising the King to dissolve Parliament. In the present state of Ireland and of this country, the man who would dare to give such counsel to his Sovereign, must have a fool's head on his shoulders, or a traitor's heart in his bosom. He could not believe that the King's Ministers would so counsel the King; for such advice would be tantamount to advising the King to abdicate the Throne.
Petition to lie on the Table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF THE TIMES.
On the motion of Lord King, the order of the day, "That the petition of John Joseph Lawson, printer of "The Times" newspaper, be taken into consideration," was read.
A noble Lord, whose name we could not learn, rose to present a petition, and insisted upon his right to do so, amidst loud cries of "Order."
The Lord Chancellorsaid—I beg to remind your Lordships, that the order of the day has actually been read, and that you are now, properly speaking, in the consideration of it. If, under such circumstances, your Lordships receive petitions, or occupy yourselves with any other business, there will not be even the semblance of regularity in your proceedings. Besides, a matter of' privilege has always precedence; and, when you have a man in custody whose liberty depends upon your decision respecting this matter of privilege, I must suggest to your Lordships that justice, as well as the observance of regularity, demands in your proceedings that the consideration of it ought not to be deferred.
The same noble Lord again attempted to present the petition, but resumed his seat amidst loud cries of "Order."
Lord King—My Lords, I have already given way once, when I believe that I was in possession of the House; but since the order of the day has been read, there can, I apprehend, be no dispute as to my being in possession of the House now. There will be no necessity, I trust, for my moving that the petition be read again, for I hope that all your Lordships bear fresh in your minds that petition,—that very proper petition, as I must call it,—which was yesterday presented by the gentleman now in confinement. I think that no petition could have been more properly worded, and I think that no man could have made a more becoming, or a more satisfactory apology, than Mr. Lawson has made to your Lordships. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I hope that there will be no difference of opinion with regard to the Motion I am about to submit to your Lordships; and I entertain that hope the more confidently, in consequence of the understanding—or what was tantamount to an understanding—to which we came yesterday. I cannot suppose, my Lords, that the gentleman who has been once at your bar,

1749
will be considered by your lordships as guilty pf contumacy, and as deserving of some greater punishment, because he refused to answer a question that was put to him. Such a course would, to say the least of it, be extremely inconvenient, and of that I trust your Lordships were convinced yesterday. Let me remind your Lordships, that to act so, would not be to act like a Court of Justice. A Court of Justice never asks a man who is tried for publishing a libel, whether he will give up the author of the libel. The Attorney-General, or the prosecutor, may ask such a question; they may say to the publisher "If you will give me up the author of the libel, I will drop the prosecution against you, and suffer you to go free;" but a Court of Justice never holds such language; no judge would be allowed to take such a course. If, therefore, my Lords, you should do this, you would do what I can compare to nothing but the conduct of a Judge who, after passing sentence upon a prisoner, calls the prisoner up to the bar again, in consequence of something which he has said, and alters the sentence: as, for instance, if a judge should sentence a man to seven years' transportation, and because the man made some observation upon the sentence, the Judge should call him back, and say, "I gave you seven years' transportation, but for that observation I give you fourteen. Nothing can be more indecent than such conduct in a Judge, and I am happy to say, that I believe it has never occurred but once. I heartily hope it will never occur again, and I am sure that your Lordships will never be brought to act in such a way,—that your Lordships will never, be brought to imitate he conduct of such a Judge. With regard to the question which Mr. Lawson refused to answer, I am sure that, as honourable men, your Lordships would have thought very badly of him if he had not refused to answer it. I am quite sure your Lordships, as a body of gentlemen, would have despised Mr. Lawson if he had been guilty of so gross a breach of confidence as he must have committed if he had answered that question. With these observations I have now only to move your Lordships "that Mr. Lawson be called to the bar; that he be reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor; and that he then be discharged upon the payment of his fees."
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid—I move
1750
your Lordships that the Standing Order for the exclusion of strangers be enforced. [Cries of" Withdraw" "Clear the bar."]
The Marquis of Londonderry—I do hope that the noble Earl will not persevere in that motion, considering that the discussion yesterday was public.
The Earl of Eldonsaid a few words, which were totally inaudible below the bar.
The Lord Chancellor, in reply to the noble Earl, said—I should not be at all sorry to avail myself of that, if I could, and go below the bar, for a momentary relief. My noble and learned friend well knows, that however enviable a seat on the Woolsack may be in many respects, the close confinement which is incident to it is neither agreeable nor enviable.
Loud cries of "withdraw" were repeated, and the Lord Chancellor said—"Strangers must withdraw." and the bar was cleared.
At the expiration of two hours and a half the public were re-admitted.
A discussion somewhat to the following effect, is said to have token place during the absence of strangers. As no contradiction has been given to it we think it right to preserve it.
The Marquis of Londonderryrepeated his observations respecting the atrocity of the libel, and the power of the House to punish either by fine, or imprisonment, or lay reprimand; he would not, however, press against the sense of the House his original intention of having the affidavits respecting the proprietors of The Times, lodged at the Stamp-office, laid before the House.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield, in a long and elaborate speech, insisted upon the power of the House to impose a fine certain, and to imprison for a fixed period. He had no angry feelings against the individual now in custody, but as the noble Lord on the Woolsack had expressed considerable doubt as to the extent of the privileges of the House, he wished, in order to remove that doubt, and to make their right manifest, that the individual should be sent to prison for a time certain, however short that time might be. If, however, the House should be content with the milder punishment of a reprimand, there was another point for their serious consideration. The House had heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pronounce an eulogy on the purity of the Press, he had

1751
also thrown doubt on their Lordships' privileges. Under these circumstances, was it likely that he would administer the reprimand with that severity befitting the nature of the case and their Lordships' dignity? Would it not be right for the House to move an instruction to his Lordship that he would not, in the reprimand, take occasion to hint any doubt of the authority of the House, and that he would impress upon the offender the full magnitude of his offence against their Lordships' privi1eges?
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his opinion as an individual Peer, that though the House had the undoubted right of imprisonment, as the House of Commons had, in order to remove an obstruction to their proceedings, yet, that he agreed with many great legal and constitutional authorities that their right to imprison for a time certain, and to fix a fine certain, was a disputable question. At all events, if he was in error on this point, he must say that it would be a strange sort of justice if the House should make the unfortunate printer the vicarious sufferer for his (the Chancellor's) fault. Surely the doubt might be solved in some better, way than by sending the printer to Newgate. A solemn decision of the House would be more convincing and more reasonable. He denied that he had eulogized the Press, though he certainly thought it purer and better conducted than it was twenty-five years ago, with the exception, indeed, of some Sunday papers, which, while they profaned the Sabbath by the grossest libels, indecent and blasphemous, yet professed the warmest attachment to the Church Establishment, and were, no doubt on account of that attachment only, so warmly patronized by the clergy and their friends. As to the concluding passage of the noble Earl's speech, he repelled its insinuation with the utmost indignation and contempt. Was it not monstrous to suppose, that he should be so wanting in a sense of the respect due to the dignified office which he held, so wanting in respect to the House, so wanting in self-respect, as to pervert the occasion of administering the reprimand ordered by the House into a paltry medium of spitting his spite against their privileges? Whatever doubt he might individually entertain as to one branch of those privileges, was it likely that when, called upon as their official organ to declare their will, he should, be at
1752
once so base and so foolish as to disgrace his important functions by abandoning the plain line of his duty? The imputation was unworthy of the noble Earl—it was unworthy of him (the Lord Chancellor)—and he flung it back with disdain.
The Earl of Eldonentered into a long argument to demonstrate the power of the House to imprison for a time certain, and to impose a certain fine. He referred to the case of "Flower," quoted largely from Lord Kenyon's judgment, to show that the Court of King's Bench had fully recognized the powers of the House of Lords. He had so much taken it for granted that the individual in custody would have been discharged yesterday, on presenting his petition, without discussion, that he had not come down to the House; but seeing the Debate in the papers, he had thought it his duty to come and assert the authority of the House. As to the mode of the reprimand, he would give the noble Lord on the Woolsack credit for administering it with due solemnity; if not, the House had the means of animadversion in their power. The noble Earl, as well as Lord Mansfield, hinted that they had privately advised that this matter should not be brought before the House.
Lord Wynfordfollowed. He re-asserted the privileges of the House, and said he believed there was not a lawyer—he was sure there was no Judge—in Westminster-hall, who had a doubt on the subject. He professed himself a friend of the liberty of the Press, but thought that Government should keep a strict watch on its excesses.
The Earl of Fifethought it would have been better, both for the House and the country, if this Debate had been public. He regretted that their Lordships' time was wasted on such inquiries: if their privileges were to be asserted, let them wait for some great offence against their body, and not take up a mere attack on an individual Peer, who had other means of redress. Some of their Lordships pretended to undervalue the Press; but if he was not misinformed, there were some Lords who had shares in newspapers. He concluded by passing an eulogy on the Queen.
The question was then put for calling in Mr. Lawson, reprimanding, and discharging him.
Mr. Lawsonwas immediately put to the bar, when
The Lord Chancelloraddressed him in the following words;—"John Joseph Law-

1753
son—the paragraph of which you have acknowledged yourself to be the printer and publisher, has been pronounced by the unanimous voice of this House to be a gross and scandalous libel upon Edmund Henry, Earl of Limerick, a Member of this House, and it has also been pronounced to be a high breach of the privileges of this House. Those privileges of this House are conferred upon it by the Constitution of the country, and they have been recognized most amply in all times by the law of the land. Those privileges are possessed by this House, not for the benefit of any individual Member of the House, nor to confer power or aggrandizement upon the Members of the House collectively, but they are possessed for the protection and for the defence of this Assembly, and for the better execution of those high functions which, for the benefit of the State, the Constitution had conferred upon it. It would be a strange thing, indeed, if these privileges, which are enjoyed, not only by the other, the inferior branch of the Legislature, but also by every Court of Record in the realm, should have been denied either by the policy or the justice of the law to this illustrious Assembly, which combines in itself the character of being the hereditary counsellors of the Crown, of being the superior branch of the Legislature, and of being the highest Court of Judicature in the kingdom. These functions, that of hereditary advisers of the Crown, that of enacting laws, and that of deciding as Judges in the last resort, and without appeal to any human authority, on all cases, as well criminal as civil—these high functions, these great powers, and this solemn and important duty, are enjoyed by this Assembly for the sake of the whole people of England; and in order that they may be exercised with advantage, and in such a manner that the country may enjoy the benefits which result there from, it is absolutely necessary that the undoubted privileges of such an Assembly should be unquestioned and inviolate. It is, therefore, the duty of this House, to deal with you, a self-acknowledged culprit, in such a manner as the grave offence which you have committed merits, in order that you may be deterred from the repetition of it, and in order also—which is the sound end of all punishment—that others may be deterred from the commission of a similar offence. But the House mingles mercy with justice, and is anxious to take into
1754
consideration the mitigating circumstances which are connected with the situation in which you are placed. You have freely and at once acknowledged, that you are guilty of the offence: you have acknowledged that you are guilty in fact, by admitting that you are the publisher of the libel; and you have acknowledged that you are guilty in law and in substance, because you have expressed your contrition for that publication. You have also most amply, by petition, and in your own person at that bar, made submission to the House, and to the noble Earl who was the object of the slander. Moreover, you have suffered, not a long, but a close confinement, by the authority of this House, and in the custody of the officers of this House. For these reasons, and because the House is anxious to temper justice with mercy, their Lordships have thought proper to impose on me the painful duty—which I have now performed—of reprimanding you; and having thus reprimanded you, I have to tell you, that you will be forthwith discharged out of custody, upon payment of your fees."
Lord Farnhamthen moved that the reprimand be entered upon the Journals.
Agreed to.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Lord Wharncliffebegged to bring under the notice of their Lordships, and to inquire the reason of, a circumstance connected with the Civil List Bill. That Bill was passed, but he found that his Majesty had not given his consent to it, which was the usual course. In the cases of the Civil List Bills of George 3rd, and George 4th, the regular consent of the Monarch had been given to the bills. It might have been, that many Peers would not have agreed to the Bill unless they had believed at the time that his Majesty was consenting to it. This Bill, too, differed materially from other bills on the same subject, and it was, therefore, the more necessary that the customary mode—that of receiving the King's consent to it — should not be departed from on this occasion. He might be met by the observation, that the King, in his Speech from the Throne, had told them that he placed his hereditary revenues at their disposal; but circumstances had altered since then. The then advisers of the Crown had left office, and it was known that they intended to bring in a different Bill. He begged,

1755
therefore, to ask the reason of this departure from the ordinary course.
The Duke of Richmond (who Was the only Minister present, except the Lord Chancellor)The Duke of Richmond (who Was the only Minister present, except the Lord Chancellor), said, that not knowing that the noble Lord meant to put this question, he was not prepared to answer it. He supposed that the noble Lord did not mean to deny, that the King was a consenting party to the Bill; and the noble Lord's objection, therefore, related to a matter of form only. He was sorry he could not satisfy the noble Lord, who, however, would have received satisfaction upon this point if he had given notice of his intention to ask the question, or if he had asked the question before his (the Duke of Richmond's) noble Colleague had left the House. He would just observe, however, that he had been informed, that neither George 1st, nor George 2nd, had given their consent to the Civil List Bills.
Lord Wharncliffehad only noticed the subject because he thought a gross mistake had been committed, and that some measure ought to be taken to rectify it. He had no objection to ask the question to-morrow.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that as the Bill made a great alteration in the Crown as to Civil Government, they ought to have had his Majesty's consent to the Bill. He did not believe that there was any instance in which that had not been done. He did not mean to pretend that this want of form vitiated the proceeding, but he thought that some notice ought to be taken of it in the Journals.
The Marquis of Londonderrythought that the other Ministers ought not to have left the House.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that if any noble Lord had given notice of his intention to bring forward this subject, the other Ministers would not have left the House. How could the other Ministers have known of, or expected, anything of the kind?
The Lord Chancellordid not rise to prolong this conversation, which could lead to no practical good, except correcting a matter of form, which, if it required correction it would be as well to notice. His ignorance upon the subject, however, was extreme, for he really was not aware that there was the least necessity that the King's consent should be formally given. He thought that for such a Bill to be
1756
brought in by his Majesty's Ministers was enough for the Parliament—though he knew very well that the King could not be bound by such a Bill, if he chose to withhold his consent from it. He had no doubt, however, that his noble friends would explain the matter satisfactorily to any noble Lord who desired to have it explained.
On the Motion of Lord Bexley, it was ordered that the entry in the Journals of the House, relative to the consent of the late King George 4th, with regard to the hereditary revenues of the Crown, signified to their Lordships in May, 1820, on, the occasion of his accession to the Throne, should be read and considered to-morrow, previous to the discussion in reference to the Civil List.