Lords Sitting of 7 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Courts of Equity.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord ROLLE, the Bishop of CARLISLE, the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, Lord KENYON, the Bishop of LONDON, the Earl of HAREWOOD, and Lord STRADBROKE, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Bishop of LONDON and Lord KENYON, from the Poulterers of London; and from the Wesleyans of Bolton-le-Moor,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Arran, for Protection to the Church—By the Earl of ABINGDON and the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Places in Berkshire and Yorkshire,— against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities; also by the Bishop of CARLISLE, the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, the Bishop of EXETER, and Lord KENYON, from a Number of Places,—to the same effect.—By the Earl of DURHAM, and Lord DENMAN, from Dissenters at Castle Cary and St. George's in the East, and other Places,—in favour of the Dissenters.

CHURCH COMMISSION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklowpresented a Petition, very numerously signed, from the Protestant inhabitants of the parish of Kilbucar, in the county of Westmeath, praying for the revocation of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission. The petitioners declared, that they viewed this measure with deep apprehension, and that the whole Protestant population of Ireland were greatly alarmed at it. They were the more astonished at such a measure having been adopted, since it had been stated by two influential Members of his Majesty's Government that opinions were divided on the subject.
Earl Greydid not know where this information came from, but of this he was certain, that no person could, consistently with his duty, disclose any circumstances that had occurred in the Cabinet. A communication had, at an early period, been received from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and in consequence the subject had been taken into consideration. He did not mean to deny, that the individuals alluded to, had a right to offer objections to the step proposed to be taken, if they thought proper; but he must say, that it was irregular to state what had taken place in the Cabinet.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that what he had said in explanation on a former occasion, in consequence of what fell from his noble friend opposite, was not stated without the express sanction of his

1213
Sovereign. In cases of that sort, when the honour of an individual was concerned, he was anxious for the House to know that he had not stated anything without that sanction. In consequence of despatches from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, recommending that a Commission should issue, the subject was taken into consideration, and from that time till he left the Cabinet, he heard nothing further about it. That, he believed, was exactly what took place.
Earl Greysaid, his noble friend's declaration, that he had received his Majesty's permission to state what he had done, was perfectly correct; but as he had received no such permission, he could not, consistently with his obligation as a Cabinet Minister, disclose what passed on the occasion referred to. He was sure, that his noble friend meant to state correctly what had happened, and he (Earl Grey) did not feel it necessary to say more than this—namely, that the question was, at a very early period indeed, brought under the consideration of the King's Ministers, despatches having been received with reference to the subject from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and it was again taken up, and most maturely considered, before the measure was decided on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Wharncliffehaving presented a petition from the Liverpool Guardian Society for protection to trade, took the opportunity of adverting to the state of the public business in that House. They had now arrived at the 7th of July, and, as yet, very little had been done. He had hoped, that the business would have been so managed between the two Houses, that all the Bills of consequence would not have been put off till a period which rendered it quite impossible to proceed with them in that deliberate manner which measures of importance required. Very many important questions were yet to be brought under their consideration, and now they had arrived at the 7th of July. Any one of the subjects to which he had alluded would take a very considerable time to deal with it properly. In that House, they at present had the Poor-laws' Bill, which would require most laborious investigation. Then there were in the House of Commons the Irish Tithes' Bill, the Church Temporalities' Bill, the General Registry Bill, the Church-rates Bill, the Bill relative to the imprisonment
1214
for debt, and several Bills for altering the Criminal Law of the country, such as the Capital Punishment Bill, and the Punishment of Death Bill. There were also the Bill for the Registration of Votes and the Bribery Bill. All these subjects were of sufficient importance to call for the most serious consideration; and yet, at so late a period, how would it be in their Lordships power to bestow that necessary consideration on them? He could, for his own part, see nothing in the mode of doing business in the other House of Parliament to lead him to believe that the country would be satisfied if those measures were passed without due notice being taken of them in that House. That several of these measures would be beneficial, he did not mean to deny; and in the principle of some of them he concurred; but he hoped, that their Lordships would not agree to one of them as a mere matter of course, and he was convinced, that if this House did its duty, many of these Bills would not be passed this Session, on account of the shortness of time. With respect to the Poor-laws Bill, he did not believe there was one class of persons in the country who properly understood it, or who were aware of the consequences that were likely to arise from it. Should these measures be introduced this Session, he should be obliged to oppose several of them, on account of the shortness of the time allowed for their consideration.
Earl Greyadmitted, that the measures alluded to by the noble Lord were very important. It must, however, be confessed that no time had been wasted by the other House of Parliament. They had sat, throughout the Session, from 12 o'clock in the morning until a very late hour at night; and therefore any delay that had taken place was not to be imputed to them. Some of those Bills were of such a nature that he trusted their Lordships would pass them in the present Session, and more particularly that of which it would be his duty to propose the second reading to-morrow. The noble Lord said, that the country was not aware of the principles and provisions of that Bill. That he did not think was the case. When he considered the time that had elapsed since the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners was laid before Parliament—the time that had been taken in discussing the measure in another place, and the constant communication of those discussions to the public—when he recollected that no pains had been spared, not

1215
to inform the public, but to excite the feelings and prejudices of the public against the measure—when he considered these different points, he could not think, that the public, and particularly that portion of the public who were most seriously interested in the Administration of the Poor-laws, were not aware, not only of the principles and objects of the Bill, but even of its minute details. With respect to the other Bills, a list of which the noble Lord had given, he felt that it would be hardly possible to expect some of them to be passed in the present Session. Amongst those Bills there were two for effecting alterations in the Criminal-law of the country. Those were the Capital Punishments Bill, and the Punishment of Death Bill. There was also a Bill granting counsel to prisoners in cases of felony, and also a Bill for altering the law with respect to imprisonment for debt. Of these measures he did not wish to give any opinion. He certainly was not for a general and indiscriminate rejection of these Bills; but he felt that they were subjects that ought to be extremely well considered. Alterations of so important a nature ought not to be made on the mere suggestions of individuals, but should be founded on the mature judgment of persons competent to decide on their propriety. He therefore should wish, with the noble Lord, that those Bills should lie over to another Session. There was another reason why it would be desirable to defer proceeding with those measures, and that was because, in his opinion, it was necessary before such alterations were effected, that something should be done with respect to a system of secondary punishments, to which subject the noble Lord had already turned his attention. Till some particular system could be laid down with reference to secondary punishments, he thought it would be better that such alterations should lie over. There were, however, several measures of very great importance, to which he hoped the House would pay due attention, and pass them in the present Session.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the measures respecting the alteration of the Criminal-law, to which reference had been made, were unquestionably of the utmost importance. But there was one Bill, which respected imprisonment for debt, that it would, in his opinion, be impossible for their Lordships to pass in the present Session. Indeed, he doubted whether the other House could agree to it in this Session of Parliament; but he was certain
1216
that it was hopeless to expect that their Lordships would make so great a change in the law without very mature consideration. At the same time, he thought the object of the Bill was most beneficial. Here he begged leave to state, on behalf of his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) in whose hands the measure was, and in answer to complaints made out of doors—in answer to attacks that had been most ignorantly and unnecessarily launched at him, that his hon. and learned friend could not possibly have brought forward this Bill one day sooner. Those who had attacked his hon. and learned friend had gone so far as to state, that though at the time his hon. and learned friend was out of Parliament, yet he had previously been in Parliament long enough to have carried the Bill half a dozen times over. Now, how stood the fact? Parliament met on the 4th of February, and on the 20th his hon. and learned friend, having accepted the situation of Attorney General, of course vacated his seat. So that, according to those persons, there was time enough between the 4th and 20th of February to carry a measure of this complicated and difficult nature. He had introduced it the moment he had taken his seat, and it was no fault of his that the measure was not more forward. As to the Bills relating to the alterations in the Criminal-law, he agreed with his noble friend, that it was of the greatest importance that the subject should be taken up on a more systematic principle than had heretofore been the case. He could not help hoping, that the Criminal-law Commissioners, several of whom were deeply versed in this matter, and who combined sound practical knowledge with a perfect acquaintance with jurisprudence, would have their attention drawn to this subject during the ensuing vacation, and that before the next Session of Parliament they would produce a Report with reference to it. In that Report they would be able to direct the attention of Parliament to those changes that it would be proper to make, as well as to those points where change would be necessary. This would enable Parliament to legislate with much better effect. Wish respect to any delay which had taken place in the other House, it could not be attributed to any deficiency of assiduity. During the whole Session, they had sat in the morning from twelve till three; and their evening sittings extended frequently till four or five o'clock the ensuing morning. For his own part,

1217
he did not know, if they were to carry the measure to which allusion had been more particularly made, how they could possibly have done more than they had done. This was not the first time complaints had been made similar to that advanced by the noble Lord. Every Session since he had sat there, and indeed long before either the noble Lord or himself had a seat in that House, the delay of business had been a regular source of complaint. Indeed, a late noble friend of his, the Duke of Norfolk, annually made a complaint on the subject, nearly in the same words as were used by the noble Lord, and standing also in nearly the same place which the noble Lord now occupied. The Woolsack was at that time occupied by Lord Thurlow, and when the noble Duke made his complaint it was generally received with a rebuke by the Lord Chancellor. Lord Thurlow said, that they in that House had no right to know, that the end of the Session was approaching. That was a matter that concerned the Royal breast alone; and he understood from his noble friend near him (Lord Holland) that the noble Lord, his predecessor on the Woolsack, had upon one occasion called the noble Duke, to order when making his complaint. Let, therefore, the noble Lord who now complained congratulate himself that he lived in so mild a reign. He was not called to order; he was suffered to make his remarks; and it was very proper that the noble Lord should do so. He thought that what was complained of was a great evil, because in consequence of measures being introduced very late in the Session, many of them did not receive that sifting examination which the House was competent to bestow on them.
The Duke of Cumberlandrequested to be informed as to the course intended to be taken with the Non-Residence and Pluralities Bills.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had formerly stated, that if he found that a sufficient opportunity was not given to the clergy in the country to understand that Bill which more immediately affected their interests than it affected the interests of the right reverend Prelates in that House—if he found that, as a measure of justice towards those meritorious and laborious men, the working clergy, further time should be given them for examining the details of the measure—he would willingly afford them that opportunity by letting the
1218
Bill lie over; indeed, he was ready, if necessary, to take that course, not with respect to one of those Bills, as had been incorrectly stated, but with reference to both of them, for it would be absurd to postpone one without postponing the other.
Lord Suffieldobserved, that when it was known that crime had greatly increased, and when the Government either had not the opportunity or the inclination to take up the subject of the Criminal-law, it was a little too much to say, that no individual in either House of Parliament should stand forward to effect such alterations in the law as the public safety and security required. He meant not to impugn the conduct of his Majesty's Government, but it was a little too much to say, that if they would not do that which was right, therefore no one else should do it. The measure that related to capital punishment had been much discussed in the House of Commons. Great alterations had been suggested in it, some of them by a Law Officer of the Crown, and if that did not afford a reason why Ministers should not oppose it when it came into that House, then he despaired of finding a more conclusive one.
The subject was dropped.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill being read,
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he would take that opportunity, as he did not mean to propose any Amendment, to make one or two observations. On the evening when the noble Earl brought forward this Bill, he felt some surprise that the noble Earl had not alluded to the improvement in the Juries of that country to which it related. He had removed an odious clause (the Court-martial clause), for such he always considered it—a clause which nothing but the actual and urgent necessity of the case could justify. Now, when the noble Earl stated, that he had made that alteration, he expressed his surprise, that the noble Earl had not given the House any information to enable them to understand distinctly why he had taken that course. He had stated his satisfaction at the alteration, but he wished to know distinctly the grounds on which it had been made. In looking at the voluminous documents that had been laid on their Lordships' Table, he found, that neither the

1219
Lord Lieutenant, nor the Judges of Assize, nor the Lieutenants of counties, nor the Assistant Barristers, nor the Magistrates, had given any information which could enable the House to understand on what precise grounds the alteration had been made. He hoped that information existed which could be alleged in justification of the change, and if the noble Earl stated, that he was in possession of such information, he should be satisfied, although it were not adduced. Last Session, simultaneously with the Coercion Bill, the noble Earl brought forward a measure for changing the venue for one year, and he had suggested to the noble Earl the propriety of continuing that Bill for five years. The noble Earl said, he thought it better to pass the Change of Venue Bill for one year in the first instance, as an accompanying measure to the Coercion Bill, but it would be open to any noble Lord to call for the renewal of it this Session, if it were considered desirable. Their Lordships were about to dispense with that part of the measure (the Court-martial clauses) which was last year considered so necessary; they were about to leave cases for trial in the hands of the Courts of Law, as usual; and he wished to learn from the noble Earl, whether, under such circumstances, he considered it necessary to propose the renewal of the Change of Venue Bill.
Earl Greysaid, it was true, that the ground on which the extraordinary power of trying offences by Courts-martial was called for, consisted partly in the intimidation which prevented Juries from discharging their duty; and he was certainly liable to blame for omitting, through a defect of memory, to explain the grounds on which it was intended not only to leave out that clause, but to abstain from a renewal of the Change of Venue Bill. There were certainly no papers formally applicable to the point, among those laid before Parliament; but he could assure the noble Earl and the House, that the Government were not inattentive to the matter, and that they saw reason to be satisfied, that the powers conferred by the Protection Act might be left to the ordinary tribunals of the country. It was under this impression, and acting on the information that had reached them on the subject, that Ministers recommended the omission of the Courts-martial clauses. Among other authorities he might refer to that of Lord Oxmantown, as proposing, that offences should be disposed of by the ordinary tribunals. From the general in-
1220
formation which reached them, and acting on the notoriety of the fact, that Juries did not hesitate to discharge their duty, Government had brought forward the Bill as it now stood. A noble Lord on the cross-benches stated, that the conduct of the Juries at the last spring Assizes had satisfied him, that the trial of offences might safely be left to the Courts of Common-law. The Change of Venue Bill was founded on the same apprehension which gave rise to the Courts-martial clauses—namely, that Juries would not venture to do their duty; but the grounds of that apprehension being now removed, there did not appear to be any sufficient reason for re-enacting the Change of Venue Bill any more than the Courts-martial clauses. Whether, in the present improved condition of Ireland, they would renew the Change of Venue Bill, it was for their Lordships to consider; but he was inclined to think that Parliament should do what it could to avoid a recurrence to such a measure. He did not at present propose to renew that Bill, but if it should appear necessary to do so, in consequence of any change of circumstances, he would not shrink from his duty.
The Duke of Buckinghamexpressed the deep regret which he felt at finding himself again obliged to concur in a Bill so much opposed to and so destructive of the best principles of the Constitution. He had stated last year, that not being able to place confidence in the Ministry of the day, be nevertheless felt bound to assent to their unconstitutional Coercion Bill, because he thought that the safety of the country required such a measure. If he felt a degree of difficulty then with respect to the Bill, it was doubled and trebled now, when the Administration was placed in hands in which he could see no security whatever for the safety of any of our establishments. He might here observe, that whatever difference might have arisen between some of the Ministers on the subject, the Marquess Wellesley (as appeared from the papers on the Table) had never ceased to express his anxiety for the renewal of the present measure. In agreeing to the Bill, he felt that Ireland was severely punished for having listened to the appeals made to her passions, and attended to the cries "to agitate," which had proceeded from various quarters the highest as well as the lowest.
Earl Greysaid, that the noble Duke acknowledged that the state of Ireland was such as to make the re-enactment of a

1221
severe law—such he must admit the present Bill to be—absolutely necessary; but, although he acknowledged this to be a very severe law, he did not wish to hazard the excitement of an unnecessary degree of feeling against it by describing the measure, with the noble Duke, as a violation and destruction of the Constitution. He acknowledged the Bill, however, to be one of great severity, beyond the principles and ordinary practice of the Constitution, and such as could he justified only by a peculiar and urgent state of things. On this ground the noble Duke himself concurred in the measure, although he felt disposed to place less confidence now than ever in Ministers. He did not expect the noble Duke's approbation. He felt satisfied that the noble Duke consented to strengthen the hands of Ministers with powers which he admitted to be necessary, although they excited his disgust. As to the use that Ministers would make of those powers, he appealed to the use that they had already made of them, and he asked, whether the powers of this unhappy law, so he would term it, had not been exercised with the greatest moderation, though with all necessary firmness? Could there be any doubt that Ministers would act in future as they had done heretofore? But there seemed to be some strange disquiet in the noble Duke's mind, the source of which he did not well understand, for, dreading the designs of Ministers against existing establishments, the noble Duke appeared to have a latent fear, that the present measure might be turned against them, in what manner, however, was not very intelligible. The noble Duke talked of appeals in favour of agitation from quarters high and low. It was to prevent agitation and its consequences, which he (Earl Grey) had always opposed, that the present law was proposed. Of the noble Duke's confidence, he was unhappily deprived, and must bear the loss as he might; but he should persevere in doing to the utmost of his ability, and in the best way be could, his duty to his Sovereign and his country.
The House went into Committee on the Bill, the Clauses of which were agreed to.
The House resumed.

BODIES OF CRIMINALS.
Lord Suffield, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to abolish the practice of hanging criminals in chains —a practice unsuited to the present state of public feeling. Indeed, he was at a
1222
loss to find any reason for continuing such a practice, the only effect of which was, that of scaring children, and brutalizing the minds of the people. It could produce no good moral effect whatever. The object of the Bill was to repeal so much of the law as gave the option to Judges in England and Ireland to hang the bodies of certain criminals in chains, and to direct, instead, that they should be buried within the precincts of the prison. If there must be vengeance on the judgments of the law, surely burying the bodies within the precincts of the prison was carrying that vengeance as far as it ought to be pursued. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill, which was agreed to.