Lords Sitting of 10 July 1832

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of CARNARVON, from Sir Harcourt Lees, for Protection to Church and State.—By Lord KING, from Hamilton, for an alteration in the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill; and from five Places in Ireland for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Cess.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE—SECOND DAY.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Reform (Scotland) Bill.
House in Committee.
On the question that the Committee should agree to the clause for regulating the order of proceedings at elections for counties,
The Earl of Rosslynthought it advisable that the election for the county of Mid-Lothian should not take place in the city of Edinburgh. The chance of riot at a period of excitement like that of an election, was much greater in a large and populous town than in a small place. For this reason, perhaps, the elections for the county of Middlesex took place at Brentford. Upon the same principle, he would suggest that Dalkeith should be substituted for Edinburgh, as the polling-place for the county of Mid-Lothian. The probability of tumults and disorders in Edinburgh would be much increased, if the elections for the county and the city should happen to be going on at the same time.
The Earl of Roseberysaw no reason for adopting the suggestion of the noble Earl. Edinburgh was the most central spot in the county; the residence of the Sheriff, and the place for transacting all the county business. The noble Earl was apprehensive that tumults might arise if the elections for the county and the city should be carried on at the same time. But that would be the Sheriff's fault. It was not likely that the Sheriff would appoint the two elections to take place at the same period. He saw no reason to depart from the rule which had been followed in similar cases.
The Duke of Buccleugh, living within a hundred yards of Dalkeith, would, for his own convenience, prefer that the election should not take place there. At the same time, he was bound to admit that there was great weight in the objection his noble friend had urged against holding the election at Edinburgh.
Clause agreed to; as well as several others, with verbal amendments.
On the clause relating to the writ for the election of a member for Orkney and Shetland,
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the union of those two places, for the purpose of returning one Member, had excited great surprise amongst those acquainted with the places. These two clusters of islands are divided from each other by eighty miles of stormy sea. There was no regular communication by post between them; but when a person in Orkney wrote a letter to a person in Shetland, he sent it to Edinburgh, where it remained until some trading vessel carried it to its place of destination. Under these circumstances, it appeared to be impossible that the Sheriff of Orkney could execute the duties imposed upon him by this Bill, unless a Government steam-vessel were placed at his disposal during the time of the election. In November and December, all communication between the islands was stopped. He hoped that his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would propose such amendments as would render it possible for the Sheriff of Orkney to perform the duties imposed upon him by this Bill.
The Lord Chancellordid not think his noble friend had sufficiently considered the clause. The writ to Orkney and Shetland was not returnable until fifty days after it had been issued; which appeared to him sufficient time for the purpose, allowing for all the impediments to the communication between Orkney and Shetland.
The Earl of Rosslyncould say, that within his recollection, the return of the writ for Orkney never had taken place in less than fifty-eight days.
The Lord Chancellordid not believe that there was any physical impossibility of communicating between Orkney and Shetland. The Sheriff of Orkney was not bound to send his precept to the Sheriff Substitute in Shetland by post; but, like the English Sheriff, he must communicate with his officers in the best way he could.
The Earl of Haddingtonwished to know how the Sheriff of Orkney could issue his precept to the Sheriff Substitute in Shetland, if the stormy nature of the seas would not allow of communication? and what, he would ask, was to be done if the person bearing the precept should be wrecked?
Clause agreed to. The remaining

207
clauses, with verbal amendments, were also agreed to.
The schedules were also agreed to.
On the question being put on the Dumfries district of borough,
The Earl of Selkirkbegged to make a request to their Lordships on the part of the people of Kirkcudbright, namely, that they should be removed from this district, and added to No. 14, consisting of New Galloway, Stranraer, Whithorn, and Wig-ton. The town of Kirkcudbright was more nearly connected with the district of Wig-ton, in its geographical position, than with that of Dumfries. The former was by far the smaller district of the two; that of Dumfries containing 24,051 inhabitants, and 1,623 10 l. houses, and paying assessed taxes to the amount of 27,000 l.; while the Wigton district had only 7,209 inhabitants 342 10 l. houses, and paid 525 l. assessed taxes.
The Earl of Roseberythought their Lordships ought not to disturb the arrangement of this district, by agreeing to the wish of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had been requested by the people of Kirkcudbright to make this proposition, but he had not stated whether he had been similarly applied to by any others in this district; there was, therefore, no ground whatever for making the change.
The Earl of Selkirksaid, his object was, that the two districts should be equalised, by transferring a moderately-sized town from the large to the small one.
Motion agreed to. The remainder of the Bill agreed to, and ordered to be reported.—House resumed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' CONTEMPT BILL.
The Marquess of Westmeathwished to know from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether it was his intention to press the Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt Bill through the stage appointed for this night in the Orders. If it were, he had to express his dissatisfaction with the course pursued last night, when, at a very late hour, and in his absence, the Bill was reported. He had hoped, that their Lordships would, on this occasion, have given that Bill precedence to the Scotch Reform Bill, as he had no doubt it would be opposed by other noble Lords besides himself.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his readiness to acquiesce in the postponement of the Bill alluded to, if it should be con-
208
sidered desirable by their Lordships, or convenient to any noble Lord particularly interested. [The Marquess of Westmeath: "No, no, I ask no such thing."] Well, then, if nothing was asked as concession, then the Bill would go on in the usual course, as the noble Marquess had been apprised it would, both last night and this. Last night it had been reported in the usual way; and, if the noble Marquess chose to wait, as he had been apprised it would come on, he might have opposed its going through that stage, as the noble Marquess might do, whenever he should move the House, at the proper time, that the Bill be read a third time.
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped it would be brought on as early as possible, so that the discussion should not be cushioned, and the Bill disposed of in a quiet snug way.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there was certainly no ground for the latter part of the noble Marquess's complaint as to the snug disposal of the Bill. The noble Marquess had received full notice that the Bill would be brought on last night; there could, therefore, have been no surprise practised upon him, and it was rather remarkable that the reason, as the noble Marquess now said, why he thought it would not be brought on, was precisely because a notice had been given that it would be brought on.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of this Bill being read,
The Marquess of Westmeathrose to object to the Bill. He should be glad to know whether this Bill was meant to be an ex post facto measure and, if so, whether there was any ground for it. He should be able to show, that the introduction of the Bill was a most foul and scandalous transaction. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, on a former night, endeavoured to throw dust in the eyes of their Lordships, by talking of the necessity of the Bill, from a supposed case where a party might seek to shelter himself from a contempt of any of the Ecclesiastical Courts, by means of his parliamentary privilege. The Bill was not for any such supposed object, and, with that want of memory which distinguished those who said one thing when they meant another, the noble and learned Lord had proved that the Bill was not for any general object, but was aimed personally at him (the Marquess of Westmeath), and was, as he

209
should be able to show, as ty rannousand unprecedented a transaction as could be cited in the annals of legislation in this country. [The noble Marquess then entered into a detail of the circumstances in which the contempt which he had committed had arisen, in nearly the same terms which he had formerly employed.] After the discussion, he continued in the House of Lords had terminated, Sir Edward Sugden had proposed to put an end to the litigation, on terms of mutual accommodation to both parties. He declared his willingness to accede to any reasonable terms of accommodation, and asked Sir Edward Sugden to draw them up. Sir Edward Sugden said, that his professional avocations in general prevented him from engaging in such a task, but that, in consequence of the very handsome manner in which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had behaved, he would deviate from his usual practice, and look over the terms. Dr. Lushington, on the other side, said, that he had power to consent to terms of accommodation. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) then left the House, and met Sir Edward Sugden in the Earl Marshal's room, and, anxiously wishing to get out of his troubles, agreed to the terms which Sir Edward Sugden proposed. Sir Edward Sugden then desired him to go to the library of the House of Commons, and said, that there the matter might be settled. A solicitor then brought a paper, containing the terms of accommodation, in his hands, and Sir Edward Sugden proposed that it should be carried forthwith to Dr. Lushington in the House of Commons. It was carried accordingly to Dr. Lushington; he (the Marquess of Westmeath) waited for the Doctor's answer; and that answer was, that the Doctor thought the accommodation right in substance, but not in terms. That paper he had never seen since. It had remained in Dr. Lushington's pocket until the noble and learned Lord gave judgment. The day after that judgment, a bill was brought into the House to enable his opponents to do that which the law of the land had hitherto prevented those harpies from doing. In making this statement, he felt it necessary to ask their Lordships, whether this Bill was not an ex post facto law, directly levelled against himself? On Wednesday last the noble and learned Lord had stated his anxiety that this transaction should be accommodated.
210
The other party desired to choose a man who should settle the terms To that proposition he had said 'no;' but he had offered to give them the names of nineteen gentlemen at the English Bar, and to leave them to select one of the number. The other party would then hear of no accommodation, and their answer, if not in word, at least in effect, was, that they would have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Now, should he not have been something less than a man if he had failed to bring this transaction before their Lordships? He must accuse Dr. Lushington, that learned civilian, that righteous Judge, that retrospective bill-drawer, that Reform Bill supporter, that slavery abolitionist, that sinecure hater, of having drawn up this Bill for the purpose of making it press heavily upon the individual, and that individual the humble one who was then addressing their Lordships. A time might come when the venerable Judge who now presided in the Court of Arches might retire from that Court, and if that learned civilian was elevated to his dignities, what would then be the effect of this Bill in the Court of Arches? Why, that learned civilian would have to sit there to effect that arrangement, which might, indeed, suit his fancy, but which could not be brought about in any equitable manner. He must also say, that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack had misrepresented the circumstances of his case, and always misrepresented them to his disadvantage. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the first judgment in the Ecclesiastical Courts was given against him. The reverse of this was the case. The first judgment had been in his favour, the second had been against him. The third, before the Delegates, was given against him; but the votes were as three to four, and Mr. Justice Bayley had given his opinion in his favour. He contended that the noble Lord ought to have introduced the whole, and not a part, of his system of Ecclesiastical Reform on this occasion, and that he ought not to have omitted that fact, which he had suppressed on the last night of this discussion, when he falsely enumerated the judgments given against him (the Marquess of Westmeath). The noble Lord had glossed over the whole conspiracy which had been formed against him. That conspiracy he had detected, and brought to light; all the conspirators

211
had been sent to Newgate—all save one, whom, from feelings which he could not control, he had forborne to prosecute. If the noble and learned Lord was not aware of that circumstance, he knew little of the case, and ought not to have entered upon it at all. He trusted, that he had now said enough to show how this transaction really stood. Its tyrannous nature had excited his opposition; and he was not a man to be deterred by feelings of a personal nature from coming forward to state the truth. If he were to portray the measure as it deserved to be portrayed, he might again be sent, as he had been sent already for resenting his wrongs, to the King's Bench Prison for three months; but that was a measure on which he was afraid to meditate, as it might lead to consequences which he should be sorry to see accomplished. Their Lordships would do what they pleased with this Bill, but he should give it his strenuous opposition, and should always denounce it as a tyrannous and nefarious measure.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that, after the singular and extraordinary tone of the noble Marquess's speech, he much doubted whether he ought to make any reply to it. The noble Marquess had introduced a history of his domestic transactions, and of the suits in which he had been engaged, of which he (the Lord Chancellor) had no knowledge whatever, except of that part of them in which he had been engaged as his counsel, which was a very slight and unimportant portion of them. It was perfectly immaterial whether the noble Marquess might have had some interlocutory decisions in his favour. The final decree was given against him, and that decree was confirmed on his appeal to the Court of Delegates, and subsequently in a Court of Review. The noble Marquess complained of his suppressing some parts of the transactions. How was he to know what had occurred in Doctors' Commons? Had he been Counsel in Doctors' Commons?
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, what he had stated was, that the noble and learned Lord ought to have known the whole case before he undertook to put their Lordships in possession of it; and, as the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented it, he wished to set the noble and learned Lord right.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had never undertaken to put their Lordships
212
in possession of the facts of the noble Marquess's case. But to return to the point to which he was adverting when the noble Marquess interrupted him. The noble Marquess had charged him with the wilful suppression of the truth. He put it to their Lordships, whether such an attack had ever before been made upon any of their Lordships in that House, or indeed upon any man in any public assembly. One of the grounds of the noble Marquess's attack upon him was, that he knew nothing of the particulars of the quarrel between himself and his wife.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I did not enter into that question at all.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he was not bound to know the whole history of the conspiracy, in which the noble Lord had prosecuted to conviction all the parties save one, whom his feelings prevented him from prosecuting, and that one the principal conspirator.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I said, conspiratress.
The Lord Chancellor: Conspiratress! There again. He could not help thinking, that the advice which he had given to the noble Marquess, on the last discussion of this question—not to enter into a public explanation of his domestic grievances—was the best and most judicious advice that could possibly have been tendered to him. He had no doubt but the noble Marquess entertained a serious belief that all the sentences given against him were wrong, and that he, therefore, refused to obey them; but the noble Marquess ought to recollect, that it was only in consequence of that refusal on his part that this Bill operated against him at all. It was not brought into Parliament against the noble Marquess individually, it was not levelled against him personally, but was intended to apply to the case of every Member of Parliament who might be in a similar situation. It was in the month of April last that the present defect in the law was originally discovered, and he had then said openly in Court, that, if nobody else would introduce a bill to remedy it, he would. He denied entirely that this was a retrospective Bill. As to this Bill having been prepared by the excellent and learned civilian on whom the noble Marquess, in his excitement, had made so extraordinary an attack, or by the solicitor employed under him, he (the Lord Chancellor) had said, that it might

213
have been drawn by him. It might have been so—it might not have been so. All he knew was, that the draft of the Bill which he had received, was not a draft of that solicitor, but was a draft prepared by a most learned and excellent person, in whose great experience, learning, and skill he had every reason to place the most implicit confidence. The Bill, too, was not unprecedented in its provisions, as the noble Marquess contended. Every act abrogating the privilege of Parliament, declared, that the person of the Member should be protected, though no judgment, decree, &c., obtained against his chattels should be impeded, stayed, or delayed, under his plea of privilege. He (the Lord Chancellor) would abstain from all comment on that part of the noble Marquess's speech, in which the noble Marquess almost regretted that he had not taken steps of outrage against two judicial personages; for the noble Marquess must have meant that, when he stated, that he had controlled his feelings so far as not to pursue towards them that course of action which had already procured him three months imprisonment in the King's Bench. He had no doubt but that, on cool reflection, when this excitement was over, the noble Marquess would see, that language like this was in itself an outrage on the decorum of their Lordships' proceedings. He should like to know what motive the noble Marquess supposed him to have for pressing hard upon the feelings of the noble Marquess. The only connexion which he had with the noble Marquess arose out of his having once been counsel for the noble Marquess, and of his having received some kindness and courtesy from the noble Marquess. If the noble Marquess thought that for that kindness and for that courtesy he was to abandon his public duty, the noble Marquess had entirely mistaken his character. As to the other party in this question, he had nothing but the most common and ordinary acquaintance with her. What inducement could he have to exercise his high functions unfairly in behalf of a person of whom he knew much less than he did of the noble Marquess—for whom he had never been counsel—against whom he had been counsel, and against whom, as counsel, he felt it his duty to use very strong language? He left the noble Marquess to guess and their Lordships to divine, what that inducement could be.
214
Latterly he had felt that that party was ill-used, and had, therefore, a right to redress: but no redress should that party or the other party have at his hands except by regular and legitimate proceedings. That public benefit would be derived from this Bill, he looked upon as certain. If it should fall lightly upon the noble Marquess he should be better pleased by it; but if it should fall heavily, the noble Marquess would have nobody but himself to blame for it. If the noble Marquess obeyed the orders of the Court which administered the law, he would have no reason to complain of the Act of Parliament, which, however, was necessary to show that no man in England should set himself above the law.
The Duke of Leinstersaid, he thought it would be hard if the retrospective clause were introduced in the Bill, and he should be glad if it were omitted.
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped that he had not made the House the scene of a disorderly debate. He disclaimed any such intention; but added, that a sense of duty to himself had compelled him to make the statement which he had made. Notwithstanding all the declarations of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, that this Bill was not retrospective in its operation; he called upon him to reconcile that statement, if he could, with the letter which he had addressed to him, stating that if he did not set the law at defiance there would be no need of a retrospective clause.
The Lord Chancellordenied that such was the construction of his letter, and maintained that the Bill was no more retrospective than every other law.
The Bill read a third time, and passed.