Lords Sitting of 5 June 1832

GRAVESEND PIER BILL.
The Earl of Darnleymoved the Order of the Day for reconsidering the Report of the Committee on this Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburymoved, that the Report be taken into consideration that day six months.
The Earl of Darnleymoved, that the Bill be recommitted, in order that further evidence might be obtained, and in making the Motion he begged to state the grounds of it. The parties interested in the Bill were exceedingly anxious to obtain it, and they considered that it would be useful to the public. They had, however, been opposed in the Committee in an unwarrantable manner. Insinuations had been thrown out, that the signature to a petition was a forgery, which was a serious but unfounded charge. A noble Viscount (Viscount Beresford) had attended the Committee, and stated, that his brother, who commanded at Sheerness, objected to the pier, as injurious to the river, though the Corporation of London, which was the Conservator of the river, did not object. On the noble Viscount's statement, though his gallant brother was not examined before the Committee, he had postponed the proceedings, and after they had been postponed, several noble Lords, who had not heard one word of the evidence, came down to the Committee and voted against the Bill. As to the objection made by another noble Viscount (Viscount Strangford) on the score of vested rights on the water, he could only say, that no evidence on that subject was given before the Committee.
400
Considering that the subject had not been fairly dealt with, he moved that the Bill be recommitted.
Viscount Beresfordopposed the Motion. He certainly had submitted his brother's letter to the Committee; he had also stated, that Sir George Cockburn concurred in opinion with his brother, and, on these grounds, he conceived further inquiry was necessary. He was still of the same opinion, and begged the noble Earl to allow the matter to lie over for another year.
The Earl of Radnorthought the Report ought to be reconsidered, because the most of the noble Lords who voted in Committee had not heard the evidence. The question was decided against the Bill in Committee, by a majority of seven to six, and he was one of the six. He had heard the greater part of the evidence, but he could assure their Lordships that only one noble Lord of the majority had ever attended the Committee.
Viscount Beresfordsaid, that he had read the evidence, and it was upon a consideration of it that his vote in Committee was founded.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, it was sufficient to enable noble Lords to come to a correct conclusion, that they had read the evidence. It was the general custom of their Lordships to sustain the Reports of their Committees, and he, therefore, should oppose the recommitment of the Bill.
The Duke of Richmondwould not express any opinion upon the merits of the case, but, under all the circumstances, he thought it best to have the Bill recommitted.
Lord Wharncliffewas of the same opinion, and he thought that the dignity of the House would be best consulted by reconsidering a Report upon which any imputation had been cast. It was plain that neither the parties interested nor the public were satisfied with the decision of the Committee.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that he was so convinced by the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), that he should certainly vote for the recommitment of the Bill.
Viscount Strangfordcongratulated the noble Lords opposite, and the noble Duke in particular, on the incalculable importance of the conquest which the noble Duke's eloquence had just achieved. As he had been one of the mutes who had

401
assisted in strangling the noble Earl's Bill when in Committee, and as much personal allusion had been made to him, he begged to say a word as to the share which he had in that transaction. The chief, indeed the only, point on which he had looked to the Committee for information was, as the noble Earl had truly stated, the question concerning vested rights. He was free to confess, that the case of vested rights had not been made out to his satisfaction, and therefore he had withdrawn opposition to the Bill with respect to that ground. But with respect to the general merits of the question it was not necessary for him to attend the Committee at all. He had made up his mind on the subject from the petitions against the Bill which he had presented, with the truth of the allegations contained in which he was perfectly satisfied when he presented them. These petitions had been referred to the Committee, and to the Committee he had gone merely for the purpose of supporting them. He did not object to the noble Earl's Motion from any apprehension as to what the result of a second Committee would be. On the contrary, he was sure that the more the Bill was sifted and examined, the more flagrant and the more cruel would its provisions appear to be as respecting those unfortunate and hard-working individuals whom it would deprive of bread for themselves and families. It was all very well to talk about public convenience and accommodation. It might be very proper that the good citizens of London, when they went down to amuse themselves at Gravesend, should have a comfortable place to land at. It might be proper too that the limbs of the ladies who attended them should not be too rudely exposed to the rough breezes of the Thames. He did not pretend to know at what precise angle of elevation a lady's garments might with propriety he held on leaving a boat; but a very grave personage, the Mayor of Gravesend, was better informed on those matters, and had exhibited to the Committee an interesting diary, representing a lady stepping out of a boat, and all the inconveniences to which she might be exposed. This argumentum ad verecundiam was, after all, the only decent one which he had heard in support of the Bill. Still he thought, that even this protection to modesty would be dearly purchased by throwing several hundred individuals and their families on the parish. He objected to the
402
Motion on account of its principle. He thought it not right, and certainly not usual, that the votes given in Committee by individual Peers should be afterwards dragged before the House, and those Peers pointed out, almost by name. He would, however, waive his objection to the Motion if the noble Earl would, as a man of candour, get up in his place and say, that if the determination of the Committee, instead of being against the Bill, had been for the Bill, and that that determination had been carried by a majority of Peers who had not, regularly attended the Committee, he (the noble Earl) would in that case have equally thought it his duty to impugn that determination on bringing up the Report.
Bill to be recommitted.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that he had intended to propose the addition of certain clauses to the Reform Bill, for the purpose of preventing bribery at elections, but indisposition had prevented him from attending the Committee latterly. He now begged to propose the clauses in the shape of a Bill, and he moved that it be read a first time.
The Duke of Richmonddirected the noble Lord's attention to the votes of the House of Commons of last night, where he would find, that Lord John Russell had given notice of his intention to introduce a bill for the prevention of bribery; and he begged to submit to the noble Lord, whether the House of Commons was not the best place in which such a bill could be originated.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the best answer he could give to the observations of the noble Duke was, that the only good Bribery Act in existence had originated in the House of Lords.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had informed the noble and learned Lord, that Government had prepared a measure on this subject. He, however, saw no objection to allowing the Bill just proposed to be read a first time, and to be printed, provided it was not pressed forward until the other measure came before the House.
Lord Hollandsaid, that if he were not mistaken, the Bribery Act, stated by the noble and learned Lord to have originated in that House, was the Act passed in 1726. He felt it necessary to say, for the noble and learned Lord's information, that the Act did not originate in the House of Lords.
Lord Wynford: Some of the clauses of it did.
Lord Hollandcontinued. That was exactly the point to which he wanted to bring the noble and learned Lord; for he wished him to understand properly the precedent which he had quoted. The bill to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and which had contributed as much as anything else to render the great measure which had just received their Lordships' sanction necessary, originated in the House of Commons; and had for its object to make the decision of that House conclusive and irreversible, with respect to the right of voting in boroughs. When the bill was sent up to that House, their Lordships perceived the effect which had since been produced by that measure—namely, that of narrowing the right of voting, and the Lords, though adverse to the proposition, yet, wisely thinking that a collision between the two Houses ought at all times to be avoided, did not reject the bill. They, however, added some clauses to it, for the professed purpose of preventing bribery at elections, but with the real intention of getting rid of the bill altogether, by compelling the House of Commons, in vindication of their privileges, to reject it. But the House of Commons acquiesced in the unusual and irregular proceeding of the Lords, and adopted the amendments in order to secure to themselves the power which the bill would give them. This was the true history of that bill, and the noble and learned Lord was welcome to all the value of his precedent.
Lord Wynfordadmitted, that the statement of the noble Baron was generally correct, but he was not aware that there existed any constitutional objection to originate a bill of the nature he now proposed in the House of Lords.
The Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

EXCHEQUER COURT BILL, SCOT- LAND.
On the Motion that this Bill be committed,
The Duke of Buccleughproposed, that the Committee on the Bill should be postponed till next week, as he had not had sufficient time to consider the Report of the Commons' Committee on this subject.
The Earl of Roseberrythought it would be sufficient to postpone the Committee till Friday next, in order to insure its passing this Session.
The Earl of Camperdownconcurred in this opinion, and observed, that a similar bill had already passed this House, and had been lost in the Commons by the prorogation.
The Duke of Hamiltondeprecated any haste in proceeding with the Committee. Making rash innovations in the Scotch law, merely to assimilate it to the English law, was, he thought, very unadvisable, as the foundations were entirely different.
The Lord Chancellorthought his noble friend had not sufficiently attended to the Bill, or he would not have alluded to its altering the Scotch law. Neither this, nor the bill for reducing the number of the Court of Session to thirteen, had any such effect. As to the Bill, it only went to put an end to sinecure judicial appointments. The average number of defended causes in the Exchequer had been, of late years, only two in each year; and it was therefore proposed that a Judge of the Court of Session should do the duty at a small increase of salary, while a judicial appointment of 4,000 l. a-year, and another of 2,000 l. a-year, would be put an end to.
Bill to be committed on Friday.