Lords Sitting of 28 August 1833

MINUTES.
Paper ordered. On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Number of Offices in the Court of Chancery, which have been Abolished during the years 1831, 1831, and 1835.
Bills The Royal Consent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Customs' Acts' Repeal; Customs' Management; Customs' Regulation: Smuggling; Navigation; Registry of Vessels; Customs' Duties; Warehousing; Customs Bounties; British Possessions; Isle of Man Trade; Disembodied Militia; East-India Company's Charter; China Trade Slavery Abolition; Slave Trade Conventions; Buckingham Palace Furniture; Stage Carriages Act Amendment; Spirite, Wine, and Beer Licenses (Ireland); Grand Juries (Ireland); Cholera Prevention; Juries (Ireland); Quakers' Affirmation; Separatists' Affirmation; Chancery Offices Regulation; Bankruptcy Judges; Commissioners of Lunacy; Uniformity of Process; Fines and Recoveries; Notaries Public; Bank Notes; Stamp Duties; Composition; Court of Chancery; Civil List Charges; Sugar Refining; Assizes Removal; Parish Apprenticeship; Metropolitan Police; Land-Tax Commissioners' Names; Merchant Seamen's Wages; Infirmaries (Ireland); Trial of Offences (Ireland); Land Revenue (Scotland); Burghs Magistrates (Scotland); Royal Burghs (Scotland); Turnpike Road Accounts; Lighting and Watching; Inclosure Acts Awards; London Scavage and Package; Thames Tunnel; Woolwich Lands.—Read a third time:—Tithes Arrear (Ireland); Consolidated Fund; Edinburgh Community; Estates; Church Building; Stamps Forgeries.
Petitions presented. By the LORD CHANCELLOR. Lord AUCKLAND, and Lord WESTERN, from a great Number of Places to be relieved from Tithes Suits.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from thirty-four Places in Scotland, for an Alteration in the System of Lay Patronage; also from several Places, in favour of the Local Jurisdiction Bill; from Brechin, for the Establishment of Local Schools; from the Ward of Vintry, London, for the Repeal of the House and Window Tax; from the Protestant Dissenters of Swanage, for Relief; from several Places, for the Removal of the Civil Disabilities of the Jews; from Wakefield, &c., against the Scotch and Irish Vagrant Bill; from the Scnatus Academicus of Edinburgh, against the Apothe- caries Act; from Glasgow, to Extend the Sheriff's Jurisdiction to Bankruptcy; three Petitions from Cupar, for different Legal Objects; and from Kingley, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill.

SMALL DEBTS' (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that there was now on the Table, a Bill of which he most highly approved, but which nevertheless, he did not feel bound to press through Parliament in the present Session. It was a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Small Debts' Courts in Scotland. There were two reasons why he should not press the Bill at this moment. The first was, that there had been Commissioners appointed, among other things, to inquire into the jurisdiction of these Courts, and to report whether any and what alterations were necessary—a reason sufficient in itself: and the second was, the late period of the Session. The Bill had certainly come up to their Lordships on the 23rd of July, but the discussion on the Irish Tithe Bill, the Bank Bill, the East-India Company Bill,

895
and others of paramount importance had always interfered to prevent its being taken into consideration. It should, however, have his best assistance next Session.

TITHES—STAY OF SUITS.
Lord Westernpresented a great number of Petitions from Kendal and other places, against these suits, and in favour of the Bill for staying them, and commented upon the hardship that was felt by all those against whom these actions had been brought. One of these Petitions was from a Solicitor, who was professionally employed for no less than 1,000 defendants in one parish. He trusted, that the evils thus felt would not be increased now that the Bill for staying these suits was thrown out.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was undoubtedly true that there was considerable hardship in these cases, but still as the law had opened the door to these suits, those who brought them were not to be blamed. At the same time it must be admitted that great expense had been incurred, for the first thing that a man did under these circumstances was to send for an attorney, whom he could not see without incurring some costs. He was sure that those who had brought these actions had chiefly intended to show that they did not, on the part of those who might afterwards be interested, give up what they considered their legal rights; but he repeated the wish he had before expressed, that further expense might not be incurred.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

TITHES' ARREARS (IRELAND) BILL— BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Earl of Wicklowpresented a petition from the rev. Mr. Hincks against the Irish Tithe Bill. He was not aware till now, that that Bill had been passed. It was passed at the Morning Sittings.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad been equally taken, by surprise by the passing of this Bill at the twelve o'clock sitting. He was the more surprised, as he found that a clause which he had introduced in Committee had been this day struck out on the Motion of the noble Viscount opposite. He complained of this mode of proceeding, and protested against it. The proceedings of that House seemed to be in confusion, and he trusted that more regularity might be observed for the future.
Viscount Melbourneregretted this misunderstanding, for it was no more. He thought, that every noble Lord was aware
896
that the Bill would be passed at the early sitting. To do so was necessary, for the House of Commons had a right to expect that they should have some time to consider the Amendments that had been made in their Lordships' House. He had not been aware, that the noble Duke had intended to persevere with the clause.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad not had the slightest intention to give up the clause; and what he said on the subject now was, that the House ought to have had notice of this intention to pass the Bill at the early Sitting.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he must take the liberty of declaring, that this was a most unwarrantable proceeding on the part of his Majesty's Ministers. Were their Lordships' proceedings in Committee to be treated with contempt, and Amendments which had been agreed to in Committee to be afterwards surreptitiously taken out of a Bill? It was a degree of contempt really not to be tolerated. Now, that he was upon his legs, he wished to ask whether, if any of the persons to whom, under the Irish Tithe Bill, the loan was to be made, should not wish to avail themselves of that loan, but should, as he believed many of them desired, have recourse to their former legal remedies, to recover their property, the Government would continue to afford them that aid in collecting tithes which had been given before the order of the month of June last?
Viscount Melbournesaid, that it was not for him to state what would be the conduct of the Government in circumstances which had not yet happened. It would determine what to do when those circumstances did occur. The assistance given by the army and police before June last was, because the tithes had then become a Government revenue. They were not so now, and matters reverted to their former state. It was not the policy of any Government to employ military in the first instance to enforce the payment of a legal claim; but if legal proceedings were resorted to, and legal process was openly resisted by force, it might become the duty of a Government to see that that legal process was obeyed.
Conversation dropped.