§ The Duke of Richmondmoved the second reading of a short Bill brought in to amend the Act granting remedies in case of outrage against the Hundred. The Bill was introduced chiefly to supply the words 298 "threshing machines," which were omitted inadvertently in Mr. Peel's Act.
Lord Ellenboroughrecommended that the whole of the law on this subject should be reviewed. He hoped the noble Duke would not confine himself to the correction of one error—the omission of the words "threshing machines"—but take the present very defective law into consideration.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, there was some misunderstanding on the subject. So far as he could say, the words alluded to were not left out by inadvertence.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the noble Duke and the noble Viscount were at utter variance in their account of the present Act; the one insisting that the words "threshing machines" were left out by inadvertence, while the other maintained that they were designedly omitted. As the noble Lords appeared to be so ignorant of the Bill, he hoped some noble Lord would move an amendment in the second stage.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the noble Earl was mistaken in supposing that he and his noble friend were at variance. He did not refer to any measure of the present Ministry, but to a Bill introduced by Mr. Peel, where the words referred to were inadvertently left out.
Lord Ellenborough, then, thought that it was full time to correct this inadvertence, and the sooner a bill was brought in to make perfect the whole Act, the better.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that a revision of the law was most necessary. As the case now stood, any person, whose windows were demolished by a mob, had no remedy against the Hundred. He had suffered in that respect himself, and bad consulted Counsel on the subject; but he was informed that he could have no remedy against the hundred, and he was compelled to put up with the demolition of his property. He submitted, therefore, as it was quite possible that riots might be again renewed, that the law should be altered, so that innocent parties might be enabled to obtain redress.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that this question should not be taken up as affecting only persons in high stations; for people in the middling classes were just as liable to have their shop or house windows broken by a mob as richer individuals were. So far as he and his noble friend were concerned, they were able to get 299 their windows repaired, if they were broken during the progress of a riot; but those persons who could not so well afford to bear the loss should not be left without a remedy. They and their property had a right to a specific and precise protection.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, he had no objection to extend the protection of the law to "threshing machines," though he believed they were not left out inadvertently in the former Bill. He would not propose any alteration of the principle of Sir Robert Peel's Bill, as he thought that the qualification of making the breaking felonious, as well as by violence, was necessary. He had great doubts of the prudence of giving an easy remedy against the Hundred, inasmuch as it tended to diminish the stimulus which every man should feel to protect his own property. He believed, if the idea had not prevailed, previous to a late occasion, that remedies against the Hundred were easily sustained, that more care would have been taken in not exposing windows to the violence of the mob.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the noble Viscount made the necessity of protection being afforded more evident than ever. What he proposed tended to anything but the preservation of the public peace, and might lead to the loss of lives. He hoped the noble Lord would consider the subject well, and recollect, that outrages of this description proceeded from the most disgusting motives, and were committed by the most cowardly persons. If the noble Viscount was not induced to amend the law himself, he at least requested that he would give notice when the present Bill was to be committed, in order that other noble Lords might have the opportunity of considering whether it were desirable to propose remedies or not.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, he could not see in what manner the proposed Amendment would answer the purpose intended by the noble Baron. It could not tend to repress any tumult: it merely was calculated to provide, that those who lived in the district, and had no means of preventing the riot, yet were to be called upon to pay for whatever damage chanced to be done.
§ Bill read a second time.