Lords Sitting of 16 July 1832

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RODEN, from the Corporation of Joiners, Dublin, for a Repeal of the Union.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Newport (Monmouth), in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Educa-

425
tion (Ireland); and by a NOBLE LORD, from Youghall, against that Plan.—By the Earl of FINGALL, from four Places in Ireland, against Tithes and Church Cess.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Prisoners confined in the King's Bench, for making Coroners' Courts, open Courts.

CORPORATE FUNDS' BILL.
The Earl of Radnormoved the third reading of the Corporate Funds' Bill.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, as this was precisely like a bill which their Lordships had rejected, two Sessions ago, he hoped that they would now reject this Bill. If corporate funds were illegally applied, the law gave a remedy, but this Bill was another invasion of private property, and he should be wanting in his duty if he did not oppose it.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the object of the Bill was, to prevent Corporations from expending their funds for electioneering purposes; and it originated in consequence of the conduct of the Corporation of Leicester, which could not be remedied. The funds of a corporation, so far from being private property, belonged to the whole of the people in the corporation; and this Bill, instead of being an invasion of private property, was, in fact, intended to secure it.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF MR. ALLISON.
Lord Dundaspresented a Petition from Mr. John Wright, complaining of having been struck by a witness in one of the Committee-rooms of their Lordships' House, and praying that he might be heard at the bar.
Mr. Wright was accordingly called to the bar, and sworn.
In answer to questions put to him by the Lord Chancellor, he stated, that he was an agent for the Ship-owners of Sunderland opposed to the Sunderland Dock-Bill, then under the consideration of a Committee of their Lordships; that immediately after he had quitted the Committee-room that morning, and while still in the House of Lords, he was accosted by Mr. James Allison, a ship-builder of Sunderland, who was a witness on the other side of the question, who said to him, "How dare you allude to me in your speech?" and then struck him in the face; that he made no reply, but thought it his duty, both to their Lordships and to himself, to bring the matter before the House. He had certainly addressed the Committee on behalf of his clients, and in the course of that address had certainly
426
alluded to Mr. Allison; but he hoped that when the observations which he had made should come to be read by the short-hand writer, it would appear that they were perfectly fair, and such as he was entitled to make in the discharge of his duty.
Mr. Wright withdrew; and Mr. Allison, on the motion of the Lord Chancellor, was ordered to attend at their Lordships' bar the next day.

MOFFATT'S DIVORCE.
The Earl of Eldonmoved the second reading of Moffatt's Divorce Bill. The noble Earl explained, that it was the case of a lady seeking to be divorced from her husband; and, though she had married him against her father's consent, he did not think that was a good reason for denying her prayer. Her husband had been guilty of gross acts of adultery, and drunkenness; she had done all in her power to obtain redress, and as their Lordships had already granted prayers of this description, he thought Mrs. Moffatt was entitled to relief.
The Earl of Radnoropposed the Motion. He did not deem it sufficient ground for an act of legislation, that a lady had been ill treated by a husband whom, before she married, she knew to be worthless: her sufferings were the consequence of her own imprudence, and the Legislature ought not to help her.
The Lord Chancelloralso opposed the Motion. There were only two cases in which a woman had obtained a divorce, and that was in cases where the husband had committed the adultery with the wife's sister, and the incest was the main ground for passing the bills. But here there was no incest, but the simple adultery, accompanied by desertion. At present, when the wife behaved well, there was no way by which a profligate husband could obtain a divorce, but by committing adultery and spiriting the wife up to demand it. If, therefore, their Lordships were to encourage women in coining to their Lordships' House for a divorce, they would only enable profligate husbands to get divorced from the women they disliked, and marry others. The right of property, and other things, depended on the wife's not committing adultery; and there was, therefore, a good reason why the man should have a remedy not granted to the woman. This was, he admitted, a case of great hardship as far as Mrs. Moffatt was concerned; but, if Parliament should

427
adopt this new precedent, it would open the widest door to collusion.
Lord Wynfordopposed the Bill. The difficulty of dissolving the marriage-tie, was one of the greatest securities of social life, and as relief could not be given to Mrs. Moffatt without granting impunity and indulgence to Mr. Moffatt, he should oppose the Motion.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, there was no evidence whatever of any collusion in this case.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be read a second time—Contents 8: Not Contents 16;—Majority 8.