Lords Sitting of 13 August 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following:—Exchequer Bills; Assessed Taxes Composition; Newspaper Postage; Stamp Duties Repeal; Excise Revenue Management; Pensions (Civil Offices) Act Amendment; Capital Punishments; Militia Ballot Suspension; Militia Pay; Newspaper Stamps (Ireland); Arms Importation; Fever Hospital (Ireland); Valuation of Counties; House of Commons' Offices; Land
1234
Tax Amendment; County Rates; Spring Quarter Sessions; Justices of the Peace (Scilly Islands); Insolvent Debtors f Merchant Seamen's; Weights and Measures; Courts o; Justice (Dublin) Offices; County Bridges (Ireland) Norfolk Ireland; Roads Act Amendment (Ireland); Lancaster Court of Common Pleas; Dean Forest Boundaries; and to eight Private Bills.—Read a third time:—Customs'; Insolvent Debtors' (India); Assessed Taxes' Repeal; Exchequer Bills; Public Works; Bank of England Debt; Starch &c. Duties' Repeal; Spirit Duties; Payment of Creditors' (Scotland; Tithes Stay of Suits; Turnpike Road Act Continuance; Fines and Recoveries (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLlNGTON, from Deal, against the Cinque Ports' Pilot Bill.—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from two Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Shareholders of the London and Westminster Bank, for a Bill to Incorporate their Society.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Parish of St. Pancrass, Middlesex, for Protection to the Church of England.

JUSTICE OF PEACE BILL.
A conference having been held with the Commons, on the subject of this Bill, the Report of the Conference was presented.
The Lord Chancellorwished to say a few words to their Lordships on a subject that gave him great concern, he meant on the subject of the disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament upon the Justice of Peace Bill. The House of Commons had refused to agree to the Amendment of their Lordships, who had omitted two clauses which had been in the Bill when sent up from the Commons. On the first of these he should have said nothing; but he could not assent to the other. He could not avoid expressing the discontent he felt on this subject; and he must say, with all due deference for the House of Commons, that it was impossible to comply with their wishes on this point. One of these clauses required, that all Justices should, in all cases, take down all the evidence that was offered on any subject brought before them. Any one who knew what sort of evidence was frequently offered, and, from the want of professional assistance, what sort of evidence was often admitted, would know that this could not be done. Anything so wild, then, as this proposition he had never heard of. He never could bring himself to agree to the restoration of those two clauses. The Bill itself was a beneficial measure; but rather than impose upon it the two clauses which their Lordships had rejected, he would consent to lose the Bill. The second of these clauses gave to the Justices of the Peace authority to set aside or annul all Acts of Parliament affixing a penalty upon certain offences. He had great respect for the magistracy, but he could not consent to give them such power

1235
as this. He could not consent that they should say, that certain penalties should not be paid, though the Legislature had imposed them. One of the results of investing them with such a general power, would be to make the Legislature itself careless about imposing penalties, inasmuch as the discretion of the Justices could correct any error. He should, therefore, move, that the Amendments of the Commons be read a second time this day six months.
Lord Wharncliffesupported the Motion, on the ground that it would be impossible for the Magistrates to do what was required by the first clause, and improper to intrust them with the discretion given by the second.
The Motion agreed to, and the Bill was put off for six months.

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR LAWS.
A conference was held with the Commons on the subject of the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, and the report of the conference was presented.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it had been determined in their Lordships' House, to amend the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, by leaving out certain clauses. His proposition with respect to this Bill would not be the same as in the last case, because, although he disagreed from the Commons, he should be most unwilling upon that account so important a Bill as this should be lost. He was clear that the clause the Commons proposed to retain, giving the ministers of dissenting sects a right to enter the workhouses in order to administer religious assistance to the followers of their particular sect, was entirely superfluous; and but for the great respect which he entertained for the House of Commons, he should say it was absurd that this clause should be left in. For why were they to suppose that there was some sufficient cause to bind down the discretion of the overseers, and, above all, of the Commissioners, whom they were about to intrust with very large powers in this one case, when they did not think it necessary to bind them down in others. He should be inclined to reprehend, in the severest manner, any master of a workhouse who wished to preclude a sectarian minister from having access to his follower in the workhouse; and he could not conceive why this was the only case in which they should suspect the overseers of folly
1236
or harshness. In fact, overseers were less likely to err upon this delicate point of religious instruction than upon any other. There was another clause that the Commons wished to retain that was also unnecessary. Now, on this subject their Lordships had one of three courses to pursue. The first was, to reject the Amendments of the Commons, a course which, for the reason he had already stated, he should not propose to be pursued. The second was, to have a free conference with the Commons, and have the matter argued and discussed to-morrow morning; and the third was, to receive the Amendments of the Commons, but to enter a protest against them. He should feel inclined to adopt the last course, and to withdraw his objections to the clauses, but to give notice at the same time, that on the first day of next Session he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to correct what he conceived to be errors. There was a deficiency in the clause respecting the admission of Dissenters to workhouses; for, as it was now framed, it would not describe those to whom it was intended to apply. He knew from the legal advisers of those who had framed the clause, that they who introduced it would gain nothing by it; for the Methodists, for whose benefit it was, no doubt, specially intended, were not included in it as it now stood; and, indeed, as others appeared to be named when they were not, they might, perhaps, be actually excluded.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, there had been no intention whatever to place any restrictions on the admission of Dissenting teachers when this clause was omitted; but he felt with the noble and learned Lord, that there was no necessity for the clause, as there never would be any difficulty about their admission.
Lord Wynfordwas not so sure that a declaratory clause might not be necessary, because he did not feel the same confidence in the Commissioners that was felt by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He had every confidence in their integrity and knowledge, but not in their ability to carry this Bill into effect in all its very numerous enactments.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there was an objection, in point of form, to a free conference, and that was, that their Lordships must give their reasons for their resolution from which they could not afterwards re-

1237
cede, and by such means the Bill might be ultimately lost—a consequence that he would not by any means run the risk of incurring. The clause, however, was unnecessary, for the Commissioners after all would have, without it as with it, the power of giving admission to the workhouses—but there was the less evil in agreeing to the clause, as, however accurately this Bill might be now framed, he thought there would not more than four months elapse before practice would discover some Amendments to be necessary, and when they were introduced, this matter could be amended.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that in this age of liberalism, they ought, if possible, to exclude religious schisms and disputations from the workhouse.
The Lord Chancellormeant to protest against the clause, and therefore did not wish to be the person to move its adoption.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved the adoption of the Amendments of the Commons which was agreed to.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
The Marquess of Londonderry, seeing the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government in his place, wished to say a very few words relative to a subject on which a discussion took place a few evenings ago—namely, the contest now carrying on in Spain. On the occasion to which he referred he understood the noble Viscount to declare that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to interfere on behalf of either of the belligerents in that country; but, if he were rightly informed a demonstration had been made on the part of the Government of Great Britain which was altogether inconsistent with either the literal interpretation or the spirit of that declaration. He had heard, that a British officer, Colonel Caradoc, was now at the head-quarters of the army of General Rodil, but whether that officer was there as an accredited military Commissioner on the part of the Government of this country, he, of course, could not undertake to say. He trusted, however, that he was not, and for this reason, that if the Government of Great Britain had placed one of the officers of their army in such a position, it would go the length of demonstrating beyond all manner of doubt a disposition on the part of England to interfere in favour of one of the belligerents.
1238
Their Lordships must recollect that the officer to whom he alluded was employed in the trenches during the siege of Antwerp; but in that case they all knew it was the intention of this Government to act in support of Belgium. He noticed the information which had reached him on this subject merely to point out to the noble Viscount the effect which placing a British officer in such a position must have, and he would only add that if the demonstration were not real, it certainly wore that appearance, and was contrary to the statement which the noble Viscount had made. He had no doubt, however, that the noble Viscount would explain to their Lordships whether the fact were so or not, and under this impression he should advert to another topic which seemed to him to call for inquiry. He begged leave to call the attention of the noble Viscount to the affairs of Portugal, and to ask him if the Government of this country had received any information respecting, if they were cognizant of, the confiscations and spoliations which were now going on at Lisbon, on the part of the Government of Don Pedro, against the property of the parties who opposed him in the late contest for the Crown of that kingdom. By the Treaty which had been entered into a general amnesty was guaranteed, not only to the people of Portugal, but to all other persons; and he contended that the Government of this country was bound to see that the whole of the stipulations contained in that Treaty were properly and fully carried into effect. He therefore hoped that no time would be lost by his Majesty's Ministers in taking some steps for the relief of the parties thus oppressed. To show their Lordships the extent to which the proceedings he described had been carried, he had only to say, that he held in his hand a list of twelve British ships, worth 100,000 l., which had been confiscated by the new Board established by Don Pedro at Lisbon in the place of the Admiralty Court, which, with other old tribunals, had been abolished. An appeal lay from the decision of the Admiralty Court, but from this new Board there was no appeal, and therefore those merchants who had thus unjustly, as he contended, been deprived of their property, were left without redress. He hoped, however, that the subject would be inquired into by the noble Viscount, and that his Majesty's Ministers would see that justice was done

1239
to the injured parties. For his part he could not conceive that any Board should have the power of confiscating property to such an amount as 100,000 l. without the owners having the right of appealing to some other tribunal.
Viscount Melbournemust in the first place deny, that he said on the occasion referred to by the noble Marquess, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government not to interfere in the contest now carrying on in Spain. He had made no such statement, neither had he said anything to that effect; on the contrary, he had left the matter entirely open. He, however, had no objection to say, that Colonel Caradoc was at the head-quarters of General Rodil's army, because whatever related to the affairs of Spain at the present moment was of so much importance that it was indispensably necessary, not only for this Government, but for the other Governments of Europe generally, to have full knowledge of all that occurred in that country. With respect to the confiscation and spoliation which the noble Marquess said, had taken place at Lisbon, he was wholly uninformed. He had not heard of any transactions of the kind, and although he did not wish to say, that the noble Marquis's information was unfounded, he must be allowed to doubt the accuracy of his statement that the amnesty guaranteed by the Treaty had been violated by the Portuguese Government. It was undoubtedly the case that an amnesty had been granted, but he had no information as to its having been carried into effect. With respect to the confiscation of the ships which the noble Marquess said had taken place, all he could now say was, that proper inquiry should be made into the subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, it was not only his impression, but the understanding of other noble Lords, that the noble Viscount did the other night make the declaration which he had attributed to him. The noble Viscount might find it convenient now to back out of his former statement; but he must repeat, that according to his recollection, and the impression which remained on the minds of other noble Lords, the noble Viscount had stated distinctly that it was not the intention of the Government of this country to interfere in the contest now going forward in Spain, and that the Treaty bound them to no such interference. The Government
1240
of this country were, however, interfering in that contest, for were not our vessels actually cruising along the Spanish coast to assist, if there should be a necessity for it, one of the belligerent parties against the other? This was most unfair, and he would say to the noble Viscount, "If you mean to support the cause of the Queen why not candidly and openly avow your intention at once?" The conduct of our Government relative to the contest that took place in Portugal was extremely improper, and all he hoped was, that a similar course might not be pursued in the present instance.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the observations of his noble friend clearly showed how important it was for the Government to declare their intentions on this subject. Unless the noble Viscount did so, he was likely to be led into a situation of considerable embarrassment, for he ought to know that it was not usual for a Government to send an officer to the head-quarters of a foreign army without it being understood that they meant to take part with the power to whom that army belonged.
The conversation was dropped.