Lords Sitting of 13 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Brought up from the House of Commons and read a first time; the Relief and Employment of the Poor; and the Barbadoes Importation Bill. Committed; Arms (Ireland); Consolidated Fund Appropriation. Read a third time; White Boy Offences (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By the Earl of MULGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Kinsale:—By Lord KING, from Inhabitants of Great Wigston, for the Elective Franchise in Galway to be extended to Catholics. By the same NOBLE LORD, from the Catholic Inhabitants of Merchants Quay, Galway. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Inhabitants of Rosern. By LORD KING, from inhabitant Householders of St. Giles's in the Fields, and St. George's Bloomsbury, in favour of the Vestries Bill. By the Earl of MULGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Lismore for the Abolition of Slavery.

IRISH YEOMANRY.
Lord KingPre-

679
sented a Petition from the Landed Proprietors, Householders, and Inhabitants of the county of Carlow, praying that the Yeomanry force of Ireland should be disbanded, and another force substituted to preserve the peace. The petitioners stated, that the Yeomanry of the county of Carlow were men of the lowest ranks, and the employing such men to preserve the peace was itself a cause of much violence and disturbance, and therefore on that account they were anxious that their Lordships should adopt some measure to dispense with the Yeomanry force. It might, perhaps, be difficult to dispense with that force at present, but he agreed with the petitioners, that another force would answer the purpose better. During the Administration of Lord Cornwallis, the Yeomanry were kept in the back ground, and it was improper to employ them at all, except in times of great difficulty and danger. They could not be employed in ordinary times, without perpetuating the evils of animosity and dissension, which were too prevalent in Ireland. He took this occasion to present the petition, as he saw several noble Lords connected with Ireland on the opposite bench.
The Earl of Rodenthanked the noble Lord for presenting the petition when they were in attendance, and could give an answer as to the charges against the Yeomanry. The noble Lord was totally mistaken when he stated that the Irish Yeomanry were men of the lowest rank. They were a body of substantial men, and remarkably well adapted for effectually putting down disturbances, and they were men attached to the best interests of Ireland. As to their being men of the lowest order, he could answer that by a direct negative. He was himself a Captain of one of these corps, and could answer for their general good conduct.
Lord Kingsaid, that he himself knew little of Ireland, and had, therefore, only expressed the opinion of the petitioners, when he stated, that the Yeomanry of the county of Carlow were of the lowest description. He did not dispute the devotion of the Yeomanry to their country, but he was of opinion, that they ought to be employed only in times of difficulty and danger, and at present they might well be dispensed with.
Viscount Lortonbegged to confirm in the strongest manner what had been so well said by the noble Earl, with respect
680
to the efficiency of the Yeomanry of Ireland. The noble Baron, who professed to know so little of the country, was misinformed by interested persons, and he had also to be told, that he was not correct in his observations with respect to what he said of the system pursued during the government of the Marquis Cornwallis.
The Marquis of Westmeathwas himself an Officer of the Yeomanry, and could speak to their general good conduct. Some unhappy occurrences had lately taken place, to which the attention of Government had been directed; Ministers had done everything to repress and restrain such occurrences,
Petition to lie on the Table.

GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL.
On the Motion of the Marquis of Clanricarde, the House went into a Committee on the Galway Franchise Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he was surprised the noble Marquis had not moved the repeal of the Act of the 4th of George 1st, instead of bringing in a Bill partially to repeal it, and admit Catholics to the rights of freemen of that Corporation. When he had taken up the subject he had sought to do away with the Bill altogether, as it was inconsistent with the spirit of the law now adopted towards the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom; and it was only by inadvertence, when he brought in the Catholic Relief Bill, that he omitted to propose to repeal this among the multitude of other obnoxious Statutes which that measure got rid of. He wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the preamble of the 4th of George 1st, with a view to show the true meaning of that Act, and how inconsistent it was to allow any part of it to remain in force: the preamble stated the great importance of the loyalty and fidelity of the garrison of the town of Galway to the Protestant interest; it also set forth the disposition of the majority of the Corporation to favour Popery, and to create freemen favourable to that religion. Among the various enactments there was the very important one, that four Magistrates of the county of Galway, being Protestants, should have jurisdiction as Justices of the Peace within the county of the town, and that from the 40 s. freeholders, being Protestants, should be selected the Juries to try offences committed within the town. And further, that any Protestant artizan or tradesman resident within the town

681
for seven years, should, at the expiration of that term, claim as a right his freedom both of the town and the Corporation upon taking the oaths. There could be no reason whatever, that such an anomaly as any part of this Bill should continue, when the 40 s. freeholders throughout Ireland generally had been disfranchised, unless it was with a view to admit into the Corporation of Galway a body of 4,000 or 5,000 persons of the lowest class, who would claim the right of voting for Members of Parliament. On account of these reasons, it was evident the Bill of the noble Marquis was altogether at variance with the 4th of George 1st, and it never could be consistently engrafted on it. The better way, therefore, was, to repeal the old and offensive law altogether, for which purpose he should beg to move as an Amendment, "That from and after the passing of this Act," at page 3, line 2nd, there be inserted the words "the whole of the above-recited Act to be repealed."
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, he was somewhat surprised at the course pursued by the noble Duke. If his amendment were carried, it would effect a great and extraordinary change in the Corporation and constituency of the town of Galway. The noble Duke proposed to repeal the whole of the Act of the 4th of George 1st, but it was not only by virtue of that Act, but by a charter granted by Charles 2nd, that the freemen of the Corporation had a right to return Members to Parliament. Even prior to that by some centuries, in the reign of Richard 2nd, about the year 1376, they had received a charter from that Monarch. There was evident proofs that the borough of Galway was a Corporation, not only by virtue of various charters, but also by prescription. Previous to the Act of the 4th of George 1st, the right of admission into the Corporation was enjoyed by all persons resident in the town. In 1715, however, the matter had been brought before the Irish House of Commons, who had resolved, that the freemen of the several trades of the county of the town of Galway were part of the constituency; and, therefore, as such entitled to vote for the town this was of course subsequent to the charter of Charles 2nd, by which the privilege of voting was to be obtained, either by admission into the inferior guilds, or by admission to the Corporation. This charter was afterwards followed by the Act of 4th George
682
1st, which gave the right of admission to the freedom of the town and Corporation of Galway, and also to the Company or Corporation to which their respective trades might belong, without the payment of any fees, to artisans of all descriptions who had followed their trades for seven years within the town, and which also exempted such persons from certain Corporation taxes and fines. This, then, was the footing on which the Corporation of Galway now stood, and he knew many Protestant freemen who had supported their right although the guilds of their trades had fallen into disuse, and notwithstanding the opposition of the Corporation of that place. The noble Duke did not dispute the policy of putting the freemen of both religions on an equality, but he adopted the novel principle of legislation, that because a certain wrong had gone on for some time it was necessary to take away an unquestioned right which had previously existed and been exercised. There was another very important reason for not repealing the Act of 4th George 1st, for it enabled the Lord Lieutenant to appoint four additional Magistrates, besides those of the Corporate body, to which, before, the Magistracy had been entirely confined. This power had been most beneficially exercised on several occasions. So far from violating Corporate rights by passing the Bill now before them, their Lordships would be only protecting existing privileges. It was the Corporation of Galway which had violated Charters; they had been guilty of peculation, and were insolvent. The Corporation had made no complaints of injustice being done to them by this Bill worth notice, and the petitions that had been presented, and public opinion, were decidedly in favour of the Bill. It had been said, that a number of persons had been excluded from the right of voting under the 4th George 1st, but there was no proof of the number being large. It was, however, for their Lordships to consider, whether by the repeal of the whole of the Act under which the Protestants had enjoyed the right, they would consent to commit an act of great injustice. He felt assured the Committee would not think of upholding a monopoly which had prevented individuals of a particular class from locating in Galway, and which had obtained the whole power and control over the municipal affairs of the town. The prayer of the whole respectability of the

683
town and its vicinity was in favour of the Bill now before their Lordships.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, as far as he understood the argument of the noble Marquis, he appeared to object to the amendment proposed by the noble Duke, because it would tend to disfranchise certain Protestant freemen who had obtained the right of voting under the 4th George 1st. He assured the noble Marquis there was no such intention on the part of those who proposed the total repeal of that Act. At the same time there would not be the least objection, if the Amendment was carried, to preserve the right of voting to those individuals for their lives, such a proposition was perfectly consistent with justice and reason. As to himself individually, he was ready to acknowledge, that he had great objections to disfranchise any person, but the noble Marquis had no such scruples, for he had recently voted for the disfranchisement of upwards of fifty boroughs without the electors having been guilty of any offence. He (Lord Ellen borough) had voted for the second reading of the Bill now before them, because, after the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill in 1829, he considered the principle of this measure, which went to equalize the franchise between persons of both religions, Protestants as well as Catholics, was a proper one to be adopted. The 4th George 1st, for certain reasons stated in the preamble, drew a distinction between Catholics and Protestants, and gave the latter specifically certain rights. If that was so now, when every other distinction between the two religions had been abrogated, it was quite right that an Act which kept up local distinctions should be wholly repealed. He, therefore, was of opinion, that the course recommended by the noble Duke was the safest, and he thought it was a better plan to expunge from the Statute-book an Act totally at variance with the spirit of the present times towards Roman Catholics, than to engraft on it an Act like that proposed by the noble Marquis. The Bill proposed to enfranchise a certain number of persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and to give them the rights of freemen of the town of Galway; but it should be recollected that, according to the assurances of his Majesty's Government, a Reform Bill would soon pass into a law which would destroy the rights of those very freemen; and if the predictions he heard were true, they would
684
never be called on to exercise their votes' unless the calamity, which God forbid, occurred—namely the death of the hon. member for Galway before the next Session of Parliament. He could not understand why this Bill was brought in, instead of one for the repeal of the Act of George 1st; and if it were supported by his Majesty's Ministers, he could only say, it bore the appearance of being a most scandalous job.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he did not understand that the Charter gave the right of voting to those freemen claiming that right in respect to the exercise of their trades; but in order to form a correct opinion of the Charter it ought to be before the House. He was ready to admit there was a Resolution of the Irish House of Commons in 1715, which stated, that persons holding their freedom as artizans had the right of voting, but then the Act of the 4th George 1st passed two years after, in 1717. Now, with respect to the difference which existed between the Act and the Resolution, it might be accounted for easily, because in framing the enactment it was found necessary, in all probability, to revert to the terms of the Charter. If there were any persons whose interests would be effected by the total repeal of the obnoxious Act, let a special provision be made in their behalf. He wished everything to stand on the same footing with respect to Galway as before the passing of that Act; that would leave the whole question respecting the Corporation open for decision hereafter.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, after the remarks that had been made, he wished to state some facts relating to the local situation of Galway itself, and his connection with that district. In the first place, there was the town of Galway itself, and then there was the county of the town, which extended some distance round it, and contained a numerous population. His property was in the county of the town, and a considerable number of persons who resided in it had the right of voting. Another gentleman was in the same situation with himself as to property and influence, and there were several smaller proprietors who possessed a less number of tenants. His influence was, therefore, considerable as it stood at present, but this Bill would let in so many town voters, that it would be completely swamped by their number; this was the

685
best answer he could give to the charge of this Bill being a job on the part of Ministers.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he thought it impossible that the noble Duke's amendment could be adopted, because, if the whole of the 4th of George 1st was repealed, the power of appointing Magistrates for the town of Galway would be taken away. He wished also to suggest to the noble Duke, that he was in error as to the constitution of the Corporation of the town of Galway. The noble Duke appeared to suppose it was only regulated by the Charter of Charles 2nd; but he assured him that was not the case. The Corporation, to his knowledge, held their rights under more than one Charter. Indeed, there could be no doubt but that it was a borough by prescription, and if the whole of the 4th George 1st was repealed, it would create great inconveniences with respect to the municipal government of the place. For the last century the facility of obtaining the freedom of the place had been possessed without a question, and so long as these facilities had been enjoyed exclusively by Protestants there had been no objection to them. The change of circumstances, however, consequent upon the great measure of Catholic Emancipation had made it necessary that this privilege should be extended to Catholics. The noble Baron (Lord Ellenborough) however, considered that because a measure might be hereafter introduced which would ultimately do away with, or at least, alter the principle of voting in Corporations, therefore it was a work of supererogation to confer the right of voting by means of this Bill on the persons who would be entitled to it; but really no such thing would take place, because the rights and privileges of such persons would be continued for their lives, and, therefore, if they once got possession of them, they would, of course, retain them.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, all he had contended for was, that if the Reform Question was to be brought forward again next Session, these parties would stand precisely in the same position they did now. They were not freemen at present, and the effect of that measure would be to declare that such freedoms would not in future be allowed to exist.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that by the 7th of George 4th, the Lord Lieutenant could authorize the Lord Chancel-
686
lor to appoint four Justices of the Peace for Galway, and that obviated any inconvenience that could arise from a repeal of the Act alluded to by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Plunkettsaid, the noble Duke was quite right as to the provisions of the Act he had quoted, but the appointment could only take place under particular circumstances, and much inconvenience might arise if vacancies in the event of the decease of any of the present Magistrates could be only filled up by the Lord Chancellor, alter application to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. With respect to the noble Baron's remark that it was inconsistent to bestow a franchise now, to take it away next year, he had not shown that it was to be taken away, and therefore his remark went for nothing.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he would persist in saying, that it was inconsistent on the part of the promoters of the Reform measure, which went to abrogate Corporate rights, to create a constituency of that character at present.
The Earl of Mulgravesaid, he considered it perfectly consistent with the promoters of the Reform Bill to pass this measure, and he regretted the noble Baron had not put the House in possession of his sentiments when that question was before them, rather than now deal out his bit-by-bit speeches on a subject of so important a nature.
Amendment negatived, and the Bill went through the Committee.

REFORM.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition from the Royal Burgh of Inverness, signed by 929 persons, in favour of the Reform Bill.
Lord Hollandpresented a Petition to the same effect from Deptford, in Kent, signed by 1,300 persons.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he did not rise to oppose the reception of such petitions, but, on the contrary, to express his satisfaction at seeing such petitions presented. Their presentation was a proof that the people did not consider that the late decision of that House shut the door upon all Reform. The fact of such petitions being presented, showed that the people looked on that decision in a proper light, and that they did not take for granted, that all who opposed the specific measure which was then brought forward, did not entertain sentiments favourable to

687
a change in the constitution of the House of Commons to a greater or lesser extent. From what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, in the course of the discussion on the Reform Bill, and from other noble Lords on that side of the House, the inference might be attempted to be drawn, that the opposition of their Lordships was extended to all Reform, and that it was not confined, as it really was, to the specific measure of Reform which they had then to consider. He, at least, was not to be included amongst any individuals, if such there were, who had expressed an opinion against all Reform whatever. In order that there should be no misconception on that point, he would just briefly re-state what he had said in his former address to their Lordships, in the course of the discussion last week, with regard to the extent and species of Reform to which he (the Earl of Harrowby) was willing to give his assent. He then stated, that he felt, that if any change was to be effected in the constitution of the House of Commons, it should be effected only when it was demanded by a large portion of the intelligent community of the country; and when, if such a change were not effected, the Government would not be able to conduct the affairs of the country with efficiency, and for its advantage, happiness, and tranquillity, on account of having lost the confidence of the intelligent part of the public. Believing that they were placed in such circumstances at present, he was not the man to say, that he would oppose any change which in his conscience he believed would not place us in a worse situation than we now were in. He would take the liberty to repeat what he stated last week—that he was friendly to the extension of the franchise to wealthy and populous places, possessing such distinct and important interests that it would be for the good of the country at large that they should obtain a separate Representation. He was for an extension of the franchise in that way, and he begged to say, that he would not be niggardly in carrying that principle into practice. He would further say, that he would be far from objecting to an extension of the constituency in the large counties, and if he was ready to do that, as a consequence he would be ready to agree to the cutting off of a certain number of boroughs on the other side, in order to make room for such
688
new Representatives. He was, in questions of this description, not disposed to act upon a general principle in reference to all individual and particular cases; nevertheless, by diminishing or extinguishing the franchise in places the least considerable in point of wealth and population, he would propose to make room for the additional Representatives from the larger and more wealthy places to be enfranchised. He would not, however, admit any precise limit of population as a standard for the disfranchisement of boroughs. That he looked upon as one of the very objectionable parts of the late Bill. Whatever objections might be urged against making population merely the basis of Representation, there were great objections to making it the criterion and the basis of disfranchisement, and to the disfranchisement upon such a principle, and without any proof of corruption, of a number of boroughs, possessing a great diversity of franchise, rights, and privileges. He objected to the establishment of one uniform kind of franchise, and he objected to the qualification of the voters as being too low, and as being thereby calculated to lead to bribery and corruption. Those were his principal objections to the Bill which his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward. Instead of objecting to the regulations for diminishing the time of elections, and for taking the poll in one day, he, on the contrary, thought that the adoption of such regulations would be most desirable. These were the sentiments which he entertained on this subject. Their Lordships could not be surprised that he was anxious to re-state them, in order to set himself and the body to which he belonged, right with the public on this point, and to do away with the impression, if any such prevailed, that because they had thrown out the late Reform Bill, they were opposed to every species of Reform.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas anxious to express his entire concurrence in what had fallen from his noble friend who had just sat down. He was not opposed to all Reform, and whenever a measure of Reform should be brought forward, founded upon principles which he should consider consistent with the safety of the established institutions of the country, and of the Constitution itself, he would be most ready to give such a measure the fullest consideration, trusting to see it carried into effect.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the petition which he had presented was not in favour of Reform generally, but was in favour of that particular Bill which their Lordships had postponed. Glad, however, as he was to hear the sentiments which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) he should not quarrel with that noble Earl's logic, which deduced from the presentation of such a petition, the inference that the people did not think that their Lordships were opposed to Reform, and he was ready to agree in the conclusion to which that noble Earl had come, that the decision of their Lordships the other day, with regard to the Reform Bill, was not final or fatal on that subject. He (Lord Holland) confidently believed and trusted that such a measure as that which had been recently postponed, would, ere long, become the law of the land. As that Bill had been, strictly speaking, only postponed by their Lordships, the presentation of petitions in its favour was not irregular.
The Lord Chancellorhad but one word to say on this subject. He would not go into the subject now, nor would he discuss the question whether the scanty contribution of the noble Earl was one that would be calculated to satisfy the people. He wished merely to state, that the petition which he had presented did not prove any such thing as that which had been assumed by the noble Earl. That petition was from Inverness, and it was not, physically possible that the decision of that House on Saturday last could have been known there time enough to allow of a petition, now presented, to be adopted subsequent to the arrival of the intelligence in that place. The fact was, that this petition was on its way to town last week, and it would have been presented before this to the House if it had reached him sooner.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

SCOTCH APPEAL CASE.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had made inquiry into this case, and found that no material loss would result to either party, by risking the postponement of it till another Session. Under these circumstances, and being of opinion that it would be much better not to proceed in the matter without investigating all the precedents that bore upon it, he should not, for the present, press the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughperfectly concurred
690
with the opinion which had been expressed by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Wynfordthought, there was a previous question which he wished their Lordships to decide. The Bill assumed two things which were false. It assumed that the judgment ordered the cause to be tried by a Special Jury of merchants, whereas the judgment only directed that the cause should be tried by a Special Jury, and said nothing about merchants. This was the order of their Lordships, and the Court of Session ought to have complied with it. The Court of Session, however, had not thought proper to do so. Now, if he, when presiding over the Court of Common Pleas, had thought proper to deal with any order of their Lordships as the Court of Session had dealt with this order, he had no doubt that he should have been brought before the House to answer for his conduct. Another thing which the Bill assumed was, that the Court of Session had no power to examine the parties before a Jury. This was not true. The Court of Session had the power, and if they were not aware of the fact, they ought to be informed of it. He took it, also, to be as clear as day-light, that the House had the power to amend their order without a Bill of this kind. The Bill, therefore, was unnecessary. As to rehearing a case, he spoke upon good authority when he said, that their Lordships ought not to re-hear any case, however erroneous the judgment they had pronounced in it might be; because it was better even that injustice should be done in one case, than that the foundation upon which all property was held should be uncertain and unsettled. As to the judgment in this case, it was not erroneous. He had the authority of his noble and learned friend (the Chief Baron) for saying this. His noble and learned friend had examined the case, and had pronounced the judgment to be right. In conclusion, he must again observe, that the parties would have been in possession of their money long before this, if the Court of Session had not taken upon themselves to neglect the order of their Lordships.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that this was a matter in which he could have no interest—a matter of perfect indifference to him. He did, however, think it necessary to notice what had fallen from his noble and learned friend respecting the Judges of the Court of Session, lest something

691
unfavourable to those learned persons—something to their disparagement should go forth. His noble and learned friend had blamed the Judges of the Court of Session for not paying instant obedience to the order of their Lordships: but he begged to assure their Lordships that he had seen the correspondence on this subject—correspondence than which nothing could be more respectful, but which, at the same time, proved that these learned Judges had felt great difficulty in carrying their Lordships' order into execution. They felt that they had not the power to carry it into execution. He thought it but fair and just to the Judges of that Court to assure their Lordships, that those learned persons were wholly free from the charge of contumacy, or of holding out against a judgment of their Lordships.
Lord Wynford: I did not charge them with that.
The Lord Chancellor: No: he knew his noble and learned friend had not used those words—had not made that charge—his noble and learned friend had only said that if he, as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, had behaved as the Judges of the Court of Session had behaved, he should have been made to answer for his conduct to that House. He was quite sure, however, that his noble and learned friend could not mean by this that the Judges of the Court of Session ought to be brought before the House to answer for their conduct. Of course his noble and learned friend could not have meant that. His noble and learned friend was quite satisfied that that House might amend its own order if it pleased.
Lord Wynford: Other Courts do it.
The Lord Chancellor: No doubt they did; but they were inferior Courts, whose judgments were subject to revision. He was one of those who thought that if a Court from which there was no appeal could amend its orders in substance— for clerical errors stood on different grounds—a door would be opened to the most perilous results. However great, therefore, might be the satisfaction of his noble and learned friend on this point, he could not go along with his noble and learned friend in that satisfaction, without diligently consulting all the precedents which bore upon the subject. He must be satisfied as well as his noble and learned friend, and for that purpose he now postponed the second reading of the Bill.
The Order of the Day discharged, and second reading of the Bill postponed.