Lords Sitting of 10 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Committed; Cotton Factories. Read a third time; Management of the Customs.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the Duke of RICHMOND, and other NOBLE LORDS, from places in Ireland, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. In favour of Reform. By the Marquis of WESTMINSTER, from the Inhabitants of Batley, in the County of York:—By the Duke of SUSSEX, from the Town of Masham, in the County of York:—By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from Stockton-on-Tees, Durham:—By the Duke of NORFOLK, from the Inhabitants of New Shoreham:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, numerously and respectably signed, from the Inhabitants of Horsham, Sussex:—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Haslingdon, Lancashire:—By Lord TEMPLEMORE, from the Inhabitants of Fiskard:—By Lord KING, from the Mayor and Inhabitants of Beverley, and Inhabitants of Sileby. By a NOBLE LORD, from Thurnham and Debtling in Kent. By a noble LORD, from Inhabitants of Killegny and Chapel, to disband the Yeomanry in Ireland. By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Inhabitants of Dublin, complaining of the Grievance of Minister's Money. Against the Reform Bill. By Lord ROLLE, from Kingsbridge, Devon. By the Earl of FIFE, from the Inhabitants of Marylebone against Cruelty to Animals; and from the Landholders of Banff, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries.

STANDING ORDERS—PROTESTS.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that being anxious, as other noble Lords were, to enter his name in the protest against the amendment of the noble Baron (Wharncliffe), which had been carried on Saturday morning last, he rose to move, and he supposed that no objection would be taken to his motion, that they should be allowed to do so. Their Lordships were aware that it was competent for any noble Peer to enter his protest to any vote of the House before two o'clock the next sitting day after such

377
vote had been come to, and to sign his name before the rising of the House on that day. Now the House rose so early on Saturday, that many noble Lords who came down for the purpose of signing the protest which had been entered on the Journals were prevented from doing so. As it would be only fair to give them an opportunity, he begged to move, that all noble Lords who wished to sign the protest in question should be at liberty to do so until the rising of the House that day.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid, he had no objection to the Motion, but he begged it to be understood it was not acceded to as a matter of course, or upon which a precedent was to be founded.
Motion agreed to.

SCOTCH APPEALS.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to submit a Bill to their Lordships, for the purpose of reversing a decree of their Lordships with reference to an appeal case from the Courts below in Scotland, as the said decree was utterly and completely inconsistent and at variance with the Scottish law on the subject. The case to which he was alluding had been decided by some of their Lordship who were unacquainted with the law of Scotland, and the consequence was, that the decision was quite contrary to that law and completely contrary to Scotch practice, and that no man that knew any thing of Scotch law would have ever pronounced such a decision. The thing had happened in the press of business, and arose from that inopia consilii with regard to Scotch law which they had often to lament. The decision, however, being utterly at variance with the Scotch law, it was necessary to rescind it, and for that purpose, on the suggestion of the Judges of the Courts below in Scotland, with whom he had had a correspondence on the subject, and with the consent of the parties on both sides, he now brought in a Bill, with a view to reverse that decision, and to place the case in the same circumstances that it was in previous to that decision being pronounced. His noble and learned friend who preceded him in the situation which he (the Lord Chancellor) filled, quite concurred with him as to the necessity of such a measure. He felt it due to himself to state, that the decision in question was pronounced some months before he (the Lord Chancellor) had the honour of a seat in that House, for it was pronounced
378
in the Spring of 1830. As the case was pressing, and as there might be but very short time for passing this Bill, he begged to move that it be read a first time now; and he gave notice that to-morrow he would move the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that the Bill might be passed through all its stages as a matter of course.
Lord Lyndhurstquite concurred with his noble and learned friend as to the necessity of passing such a Bill. He felt bound to state, that the judgment in question was pronounced during his (Lord Lyndhurst's) absence from the House, by a noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Wynford).
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had given him no intimation of such an attack as this upon a judgment pronounced by him.
The Lord Chancellorwas greatly astonished to hear such a statement made by the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord's memory quite deceived him. The noble and learned Lord had only to look amongst his papers, and he was sure he would find a draught of this very Bill, which he (the Lord Chancellor) gave to him some months ago. He also mentioned to the noble and learned Lord the correspondence which he had with the Judges of the Courts below in Scotland on the subject, and the absolute necessity there was for such a measure as this. The fact was, that in consequence of his having given the draft of the Bill to the noble and learned Lord, he was obliged to send, a few days ago, when he wanted a draft of it, to the professional gentlemen engaged in the case. He brought in the Bill thus suddenly, as it was most desirable that in the present state of the Session no time should be lost in passing it through the House.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that if the noble and learned Lord had sent him a draft of this Bill, he could assure him that this was the first time that he had ever heard of this Bill. He had heard something before of a draft of a bill, but he had not heard of what description it was.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble and learned Lord certainly laboured under a mistake on this point. He (the Lord Chancellor) distinctly remembered having mentioned the subject to him at the Table. He remembered having told the noble Lord on that occasion, that he

379
was informed by the Judges in Scotland, that the judgment of the House in the case of M'Gabbin and Stewart could not be executed, as there was no such thing known under the Scotch law as a Special Jury of merchants, to which the case was ordered to be referred. He remembered his conversation with the noble and learned Lord as if it were but of yesterday; he could attest it upon oath before any Jury, and he was as certain of that fact as he was that the noble and learned Lord had the draft of the Bill which he (the Lord Chancellor) sent to him, and would find it in his private depositary if he looked for it.
Bill read a first time.

PUBLIC WORKS—IRELAND.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the third reading of the Public Works (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Carberyregretted the Bill should have been brought forward at so late a period in the Session, when it could hardly receive the attention to which it was well entitled: he was friendly to its object, although he objected to that clause which gave additional power to Grand Juries to make assessments.
The Marquis of Westmeathstrongly objected to that clause in the Bill which gave additional powers to Grand Juries in Ireland with regard to levying money. After the delinquencies which had been proved on the part of such bodies, it was to be hoped that some check would be placed on their proceedings, instead of having additional powers thus given to them. He would oppose that part of the Bill, were it not that his doing so might prevent the Bill, which would be otherwise productive of advantage to Ireland, from passing this session.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that this Bill would be a most useful one to the country, and he entirely approved of that part of it to which the noble Marquis had objected.
Viscount Melbourne, referring to a complaint which the noble Lord (Carbery) made, of this Bill having been brought on at this late period of the Session, observed, that that circumstance arose from the vast quantity of business which was to be done, and the difficulty there was found in transacting it; and that such a complaint did not refer more to the business of Ireland than to that of any other portion of the empire. The object of this Bill was, to
380
assist and relieve Ireland by the loan of money for the erection of public works, and he was assured, that if Grand Juries were not to be empowered to borrow money for that purpose, the Bill would be a dead letter, and of no practical use whatever. Great checks were at the same time provided in the Bill, to prevent the abuse of such powers.
Bill read a third time and passed.