Lords Sitting of 24 April 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time. On the Motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY:—Clerk of the Pipe (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RUTHLAND, from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church.—By Lord PLUNKETT, from several Places, for the Repeal of the Union; and from Kilrush, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Belfast, against the Repeal of the Union.—By the Earl of KINNOUL, the Duke of SUTHERLAND, and Lords ROLLE and DENMAN, from a Number of Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, Earls CAWDOR and FITZWILLIAM, and Lord DACRE, from several Places, and Dissenting Congregations,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, from several Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest, by the Repeal of Duties on Malt and Hops.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Alpheton, for the Renewal and Extension of the Labour-Rate Act.

BOROUGH OF HERTFORD.
The Hertford Disfranchisement Bill was brought up from the Commons.
The Earl of Malmesbury, with a view to the discussion of this Bill, moved that there be laid on the Table of that House the indictment and other proceedings in the case of James Russell, who was tried

1285
in the sittings after last Hilary Term for perjury, committed before the Election Committee in the borough of Hertford.
The Lord Chancellorwould in a moment explain to the noble Earl why this Motion could not be granted. The judgment in the case had not been pronounced, so that the indictment could not be now produced. The only way in which a conviction was ever proveable was by the production of the postea when finally entered up, which was, in fact, the production of the whole record, including the verdict of the Jury and the judgment of the Court. There was an instance of the sort last year, which, probably a noble Earl (Earl Eldon) then in the House would well remember. The record could not be produced till the proceedings were complete, for there might be a motion in arrest of judgment, and till the judgment was finally entered up, no one could say what the result might be. The noble Earl, however, might perhaps accomplish his object in another way. There was a course—he knew it had been objected to by the Judges—but there was a course of moving for the production of the Judge's notes at the trial. There might be an objection even to that if that trial never led to a complete proceeding. He, therefore, urged the noble Earl to let the matter stand over.
Lord Denmansaid, that it would be more convenient to allow the matter to stand over for a few days. It appeared to him, he must confess, a new suggestion, that the Judges' notes should be produced. He thought there were many strong objections to such a course, but he understood that it had been before adopted. He might mention that a great many of these notes might be in themselves imperfect, in consequence of references being made in them to documents which, though read at the trial, were of course not written down by the Judge. He might, perhaps, with reference to the particular case now under consideration, say, that he remembered the circumstance that a person of the name of Russell, had been convicted before him on a charge of perjury, stated to have been committed by him before the Hertford Election Committee. That statement would show the probability that, at no distant time, the defendant would be brought up for judgment, when the record of the conviction might be obtained; but if anything should occur to prevent that judgment being given, another course might then be adopted, with the view of giving their Lordships the information they desired.
Motion withdrawn.

UNSTAMPED PUBLICATIONS.
The Earl of Winchilseaseeing the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) in his place, could not avoid taking that opportunity of calling his attention to the subject of unstamped publications, one of which he had that day seen, and the language of which was so violent, so grossly seditious, that he did not think the Government could pass it by without notice. It would be in vain for the noble Earl to take measures to preserve the peace of the country, if publications like this were suffered to continue unnoticed; if the worthless part of the Press was allowed (and, he was glad to say, that he did not include the majority of the Press in the description) to pour forth its seditious effusions unnoticed. There was, he repeated, a part of the Press that always endeavoured to excite the people against the constituted authorities of the country, and thereby to place the country in the most terrible situation. These low publications—for which he felt the utmost indignation and abhorrence—published, as they were, without stamps, were read at beer-houses, and were calculated to do the utmost mischief among the frequenters of those places. He believed that the noble Viscount could not have read the publication to which he alluded; and therefore he thought it his duty to call the noble Viscount's attention to it.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that these publications had not escaped the notice of the Government. He agreed with the noble Earl, that nothing could be worse than the effects to which the noble Earl had alluded. The question of the notice to be taken of them was, however, often a question of prudence, and was not to be entirely decided by feelings of indignation and abhorrence. There were some things that, but for reasons of prudence, might call for notice and animadversion; but the question with him was, whether by prosecuting they were not more likely to increase than to diminish the circulation of publications they desired to put down, and thus play into the hands of those who were the authors of them.
The Earl of Winchilseacould not agree in the sentiments of the noble Viscount; for he knew that these publications were already extensively read in beer-houses, and places of that description. Besides, in another point of view, the Government ought to take notice of them. There were

1287
no stamps on these papers. The revenue, therefore, was defrauded; and the respectable part of the Press laboured under unfair disabilities, in being called on to pay for stamps, when others were suffered to enter the market without being subjected to such a charge.
Conversation dropped.

FEES OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Lyndhurstpresented a Petition from Mr. Radford Roe, an Irish Barrister, who had been convicted in Ireland, and had brought a writ of error from the judgment of the Court of King's-Bench there to the House of Lords. Upon that writ of error, his Lordship said, that that House had reversed the judgment of the Irish Court of King's-Bench. There were fees due to the officers of that House, which Mr. Roe was not in a condition to pay. Though the judgment of the Court below had been reversed, Mr. Roe was still detained in custody for the payment of the fees. Mr. Roe said, that the demand of those fees was erroneous, and he quoted some Acts of Parliament to show that they were so. It was his opinion, that these Acts of Parliament were not applicable to the present case; but he thought that the case was one of hardship, calling for some interposition on the part of the House or of the Government.
Earl Greyat once admitted the extreme hardship of the case. He had no hesitation in saying, that those fees ought not to be exacted. These fees did not now belong to the officers, they were now the property of the public. He thought, therefore, that they might be remitted. That had been done in a former case, and justice would be abused by a demand that they should be paid before the petitioner was set at liberty. Mr. Radford Roe proposed to bring a writ of error, but desired it might stand over. He had not been prepared, but at the trial never had been the humane fiction of the law more exemplified than on that occasion. He had not had counsel, but the Judge interfered and acted as his counsel throughout. He mentioned these facts to show that Mr. Roe had no present reason to complain of the administration of justice.
Petition to lie on the Table.