Lords Sitting of 15 June 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, of the Number of Writs of Subpœna issued during the last ten years by the Court of Exchequer (Scotland), &c.
Bills. Read a third time:—Army Prize Money; Regent's park Act Amendment.—Read a second time:—King's County Assizes.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of WICKLOW, from Tullamore and Frankford, in favour of the King's County Assizes Bill.—By the Earl of MINTO, from the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in favour of the Anatomy Bill.—By the Earl of FINGALL, from Garrocloyne;—by the Earl of RADNOR, from three Places in Ireland; and by Lord KING, from White Church, and other Places,—for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Lord KING, from the Northern Political Union, for a better Appropriation of the Revenues of the Bishoprick of Durham; and from the Rate-payers of Cheshire, against certain Grievances existing in that country.—By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Dungarvon, for continuing the Franchise to the 5l. Householders—By the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from Parishes in Dublin and Westminster, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By the Earl of RODEN, from ten Places, and seven Orange Lodges, against that Plan; and from Oxford, for a Revision of the Criminal Code.

POLITICAL UNIONS.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that seeing the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government in his place, he would take the liberty of trespassing for a few moments on the House, while he asked that noble Earl a question relative to a meeting, which had been lately held, of a Political Union at the town of Sunderland, in the north of England. In the first place, he repeated the expression of the deep regret with which he heard the noble Earl, at the conclusion of which a speech he made when the subject of Political Unions was before the House, declare that it was not his intention to interfere with those bodies, conceiving that the good sense of the people of England would put an end to them after the Reform Bill was passed, and the excitement which had called them into action had subsided. He was sorry that the noble Earl had made any such declaration, and he was sure that if he had narrowly followed the conduct of those political bodies, since the Reform Bill was passed into a law, he would find good grounds for changing his opinion; and he was convinced if, in particular, he looked at the nature of the language held at the meeting to which he was about to refer, the noble

729
Earl would feel the responsible situation in which he was placed, and see the necessity of reconsidering his determination. At that meeting various speeches were made, all of a violent nature; but the Mr. Larkins who spoke on the former occasion, and who was described to him as a friend of Dr. Headlam, delivered a speech more inflammatory than the rest. He would not occupy the House by reading extracts at any length from those speeches, but merely state one or two passages from that of Mr. Larkins. In one place that person said "that Earl Grey was but a weak instrument in the hands of the people, and without the Political Unions he would be nothing." But the thing did not rest there; for the Political Unions, not content with their meetings and inflammatory harangues, circulated cheap publications, and he held in his hand a copy of one which was circulated, according to the account of a very respectable informant, to a not less extent than 150,000. It was entitled "The People's Charter, with an introduction relative to the King's conduct." The first part was so libellous that he would not waste the time of their Lordships in repeating it; but, what he wanted to point out was, that the latter part was neither more nor less than a copy of instructions to the people of England with respect to their conduct at the approaching general elections. He was sure that one of the consequences of these Political Unions would be, that whenever an election did take place, or in whatever part of the country, it would be ruled at their dictation. The publication he referred to had this passage. The people must remember that the battle of freedom is but begun; and that its next, its grand, its sacred objects, are—a free Press, Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments. They must remember that the best means of obtaining these is to enrol themselves in Political Unions, to call incessant public meetings, and widely diffuse such works as the present. They must remember, that if they exact not pledges in favour of these four great objects, from parliamentary candidates, then slavery is sanctioned by their own consent. They must remember that, to refuse to pay taxes is the best mode of hastening every opposed Reform; and, on the contrary, that to pay these is to purchase a precisely corresponding duration of oppression. The time will soon arrive when they will
730
have an opportunity of following the excellent advice of Sir James Mackintosh, "to tolerate nothing ancient that reason does not sanction, and to shrink from no novelty to which reason may conduct."' Even the favoured town of Gateshead had a Political Union, which had already gone the length of starting a candidate, and that Union called on the people to vote for no man who was not pledged to dissolve what they called the sacrilegious union between Church and State—to do away with septennial Parliaments—to abolish the Corn laws, and to act as a delegate for the people. Now, he submitted those things to the calm consideration of the noble Earl, and he appealed to his good sense and experience to determine whether, in the event of a general election, the country would not be so convulsed under this dictation as to render the idea of a free election of Representatives utterly impossible. When he reflected on this subject he naturally turned to the almost parallel case of 1799, and he found that at that period Mr. Pitt was seriously impressed with the necessity of putting an end to the similar societies which existed at that period. Mr. Pitt's propositions were these:—'I therefore submit, that whoever shall continue to be a member of such Societies, after a certain day to be named, shall have a small fine inflicted on him upon conviction before a Magistrate. There must, however, be degrees of guilt in the cases of individuals; I therefore wish to give an option with respect to the recovery of the penalty, or to proceed against the offender in a Court of Record, leaving it to the discretion of the Court to punish him by fine, imprisonment, or by transportation.'*** But as it is impossible to guard against all the various shapes and forms which treason may assume, it will be necessary to define those Societies, the members of which are to be subjected to the proceedings now proposed to be instituted against them. I will therefore observe, that their peculiar characteristics are contrary to every engagement prescribed by the Constitution, by morality and religion.'*** 'But, this is not sufficient; and it will be found requisite to accompany this measure by provisions against the owners of public and private houses who shall harbour such Societies.'***'The second object will be, to prevent the existence of other Societies

731
which are evidently calculated to corrupt the morals and vitiate the understanding of the community,—I mean Debating Societies, in which questions are agitated little suited to the capacity of the audience, and which operate to loosen the foundations of morality, religion, and social happiness. In a former Session measures were adopted to prevent the delivery of political lectures, but attempts have been made to elude them by delivering historical lectures, which by misrepresentation, and the force of erroneous inference, are rendered equally dangerous. With this view of the subject, I trust there can be no objection to extend the proposed provisions to all societies where money is taken for admission; and that none shall be held unless licensed by a Magistrate, and liable to his inspection.'* Mr. Pitt then moved for leave to bring in a bill to suppress Societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes. He really thought that some law like this might safely be enacted at present, or that, at any rate, effectual measures should be taken to suppress the Unions; and his object in rising was, to ask the noble Earl, whether he meant to put the common law in force against those Societies, and whether, in case the common law was not sufficient, he should be prepared to adopt some more efficacious means of putting an end to Political Unions?
Earl Greysaid, that he was afraid that what he had to offer in reply to the noble Marquess would not be satisfactory to him, as the noble Lord had commenced his observations with expressing his dissatisfaction with the remarks which he (Earl Grey) made, on a late occasion, with reference to the bodies called Political Unions. If he remembered correctly what had then fallen from him, he allowed that these Societies, were inconsistent with the well-being and good government of the country in ordinary times, but he had stated, that as they were called into existence by the particular circumstances of the day, and were but the creatures of its excitement, he thought it more prudent not to act with hasty severity against them, and that it was more wise to wait for the good sense of the people of England to put them down, than to have recourse to new laws, which might not be in exact accordance with the principles of the
Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxxiv. p. 986–7.
732
British Constitution, and which experience had shown were not always competent to accomplish the objects for which they were intended. The noble Marquess had referred to a speech of Mr. Pitt's, but even there he would see that the example of that great statesman would not be in his favour. He would find that few of the laws which Mr. Pitt proposed to enact in that speech were ever carried into effect, and he would also find, that but little good resulted from those that had been carried into operation. He hoped it was not necessary for him to disclaim any participation in the sentiments which the noble Marquess had quoted on this and on a former occasion. In the instance referred to he had expressed not only his dislike, but his abhorrence and disgust at such language and opinions, and he still felt as strongly as ever on the subject. But with regard to the meeting at Gateshead, to which the noble Marquess now referred, he had seen no account of the proceedings, and he had as little to do with the speech of Mr. Larkins as he had with that person's violent speech at Newcastle. When the noble Marquess said that he (Earl Grey) was a friend of Dr. Headlam, the House should know that Dr. Headlam was not a gentleman to countenance such language, as there was no more respectable or loyal character in society, and it was not fair to hold him responsible for sentiments which were foreign to his nature. With regard to the speeches of Mr. Larkins, he (Earl Grey) had no reason to mitigate the censure which he passed on them on a former occasion, and the very passage which the noble Marquess had read showed in what manner that person proposed to deal with him. He repeated, that no one could have heard such language without disgust, and he thought it was rather too much to hold Dr. Headlam, as chairman of a meeting, or the meeting itself, which was composed of most respectable persons, and where much good was effected, responsible for the words of such a person as Mr. Larkins. It was an unfair rule to make any number of persons responsible for what an individual amongst them might say, and even their Lordships generally would be sorry to be held accountable for the language or sentiments of every noble Member of the House. With respect to the Political Unions, he could only repeat, that he looked to the good sense of the people to put an end to

733
them. If they transgressed the law, he hoped the law as it now stood would be sufficient to correct them. In answer to the question of the noble Marquess, asking whether he had not an intention of applying for a new law, he had only to reply, that he had not. He had no such intention, nor had he any instructions from his Majesty's Government to propose it.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND).
On the question that the Order of the Day be read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Exchequer Court (Scotland) Bill,
The Duke of Buccleughrose to remind their Lordships, that he had on a former occasion urged several objections to this measure, which he would not then repeat. He must, however, further object to the Bill, that there was no right of appeal given by the Bill from the decisions of the new Judge, which might be attended with a great deal of inconvenience. He could not help also adverting to the hurry with which the Bill was urged forward; as to which there were rumours out of doors which he would not mention. The evidence taken before the House of Commons did not at all bear out the arguments in favour of the Bill. He required, therefore, further evidence before he could give it his support. He was of opinion that the evidence already taken did not support the allegations in its preamble. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, that this Bill, instead of being committed, should be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the duties of the Court of Exchequer, to consider how far its duties could be performed by the Judges of the other Courts, and to report their opinions thereupon to the House.
The Earl of Camperdownthought, that the thanks of the country were due to his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for bringing in this Bill, The Bill was not founded on economy merely, although that was not without importance, but was founded mainly on principle. It was of the last importance to preserve the respectability of our Courts of Justice, and nothing could be more incompatible with that object than the having sinecure Courts of Justice. This measure had not been adopted without adequate inquiry, for it had undergone considerable investigation and discussion both in this and the other House of Parliament, and the principle on which it
734
proceeded had been fully acted on during the Administration of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), when the Court of Admiralty and Commissary Court had been abolished as separate tribunals, and when two Judges had been taken from the Court of Session, and two Barons from this very Court, without any previous investigation; but still he thought that measure a very proper one. There was no precipitation in carrying forward this Bill, and the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, of which the Report was before their Lordships, was amply sufficient to justify it. A Judge of the Court of Session, from his legal habits, must be fully competent to do the duties of this Court; and he would have ample time, for the Judges of that Court had seven months' vacation. He might refer to the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleugh), and the noble Earl (the Earl of Haddington) opposite, whether it was not a matter of notoriety in Scotland, that the business of this Court was merely nominal.
The Earl of Haddingtonhad often heard it said in Scotland, that the business of the Court was merely nominal, and he had heard this as often denied. His own opinion was, that there was but little business; but that what business there was, required considerable legal knowledge and attention to do it well. This Bill had, indeed, passed this House last year without inquiry, but that was no reason why it should now pass without inquiry. No practical lawyer of the Scotch Court of Exchequer, nor any Judge of the Court of Session, had been examined, and the opinion of Sir Samuel Shepherd, the late Chief Baron, was adverse to the supposition that a Judge of the Court of Session was competent to do the business of the Court of Exchequer, and he had an experience of eleven years as Chief Baron, while the present Chief Baron had only had an experience of two years. Then, it was one of the Articles of Union that Scotland should have a Court of Exchequer, and, therefore, this Bill was an infringement of these Articles, which the measure of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) was not, for it only regulated the Court, which was consistent with those Articles. The meaning was, that the Scotch should have the jurisdiction in their own country.
The Earl of Roseberryreminded noble Lords that this was not merely a measure

735
of economy, but a measure of principle. As to the infringement of the Articles of Union, the measure of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had infringed them, by abolishing the Admiralty Court as a separate tribunal. It could not be supposed that a Judge of the Court of Session was not perfectly competent to do the duties of this Court, considering the legal habits which he must have acquired; and, in point of fact, these revenue cases were often perfectly well managed by the Justices, Commissioners of Supply, and the Excise Courts. It was too late in the Session now to refer the Bill to a Committee up-stairs, and it was totally unnecessary.
The Duke of Wellingtonadmitted, that the inquiry, so far as it had gone, was in favour of the abolition of the Court; but it certainly was not to be forgotten that the late Chief Baron (Sir Samuel Shepherd) had maintained that the Court ought to be preserved. He was aware that the present Chief Baron held a contrary opinion; but then he presumed that the House would bear in mind, that the latter had had only two years experience, while the former enjoyed the advantage of eleven; he, therefore, considered the opinion of Sir Samuel Shepherd to be the more valuable of the two. Both, he was sure, were given with perfect sincerity, neither party having an interest one way or the other. He denied that there was any principle in the Bill, and his opinion decidedly was, that the Crown should not be deprived of the right of having its trials, whenever necessary, before its Court of Exchequer in Scotland because the Lord Chief Baron wished to retire on a pension. But whatever individual opinions noble Lords might entertain upon the subject, one thing at least was certain, that there ought to be a full, fair, and minute inquiry before the Court was abolished.
The Lord Chancellorwould offer one or two remarks as to what had fallen from the noble Duke who had just sat down. He begged to state, that there was nothing peculiar in the Bill, as regarded the discretion of the members of the Court. I was only following up the principle of the noble Duke's own measure—that by which he had reduced the Barons of the Exchequer to two, which was salutary as far as it went. The principle of the Bill was, that the Court should be abolished, because it was wholly unnecessary for the
736
discharge of the functions hitherto intrusted to it. The question then was, how this Court was to be put an end to, not only on the ground of its being expensive, but because also, that nothing could be more indecorous than having a Court of Judicature with sinecure Judges, having large salaries, without even the semblance of business. In order to effect the object in view, this Bill enacted that the Judges of the Exchequer Court, as they died off or resigned, should not be replaced by others; and it further made provision for a Court competent to do any business which might hereafter arise. It was, he conceived, far better to settle the matter by legislation, than leave it to the chance of a time arising when there should be none of that importunity, on the score of faithful services, to which every Government was subjected by its adherents. It had been observed that this Bill must await the pleasure of the Lord Chief Baron, for that it could not come into operation until he chose to retire. Now, if the Chief Baron should think proper to resign, upon the passing of this Bill, he (Lord Brougham) would look upon it as a strong proof of the irksomeness of the situation in which he found himself placed; for few things could be more irksome than receiving a large sum as a Judge, having no judicial business to transact. It certainly was not an enviable situation to be placed in—at least, speaking for himself, he should not think it so. With respect to the opinion of Sir Samuel Shepherd, he was not inclined to attach a great deal of weight to it, for he remembered that he had formerly given a strong opinion against reducing the number of the Barons of the Exchequer at all; and this at a time when the number of cases in the Exchequer was so small, that they amounted in one year only to seven, and in the following year to three, making an average of five cases in the year. Now, there were five Barons of the Exchequer, with an average of five undefended cases a-year, or one to each, and yet Sir Samuel Shepherd thought it impossible that the number could be reduced. It was then in contemplation to reduce the number by one only; but even that one he could not spare. Now, when it was proposed to abolish the Court, on the ground of its having no business to transact, only two cases having come before it in the last year, the learned Judge thinks that there should still be retained two Judges, thus

737
keeping up his former average of a Judge to each cause. As to the allegation that the Bill was hurried through Parliament, he had only to observe, that nearly a year had elapsed since it was first introduced, when it was discussed in that House, and afterwards more fully discussed in the House of Commons. Not being then passed into a law, a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and before that Committee it had been proved, that the little business formerly before the Court had been of late gradually becoming less. He was satisfied that the measure was most expedient.
The question was then put, and the Amendment negatived without a division; after which, the Bill went through a Committee, and was reported without Amendment.