Lords Sitting of 4 June 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Dukes of BEAUFORT and WELLINGTON, Earls SHAFTESBURY, BROWNLOW, and ELDON, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and Lord TENTERDEN, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By Earl BROWNLOW and Lord TENTERDEN, from several Places,—against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and by the same, from several Places, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—By Lord WYNFORD, from four Places, against employing Children in the Sweeping of Chimneys.—By the Earl of DURHAM and Lord WYNFORD, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Baldock, for Relief to the Dissenters; and by the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from four Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the same, from Shepton Mallet, for an Act to regulate the Appointment of Trustees, &c.

IRISH CHURCH.—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Earl of Wicklowgave notice, that, on Friday, he would move, that a copy of the Commission issued to inquire into the state of the property of the Church of Ireland should be laid before that House. Having given this notice, the noble Earl stated, that he thought it a duty he owed to the House, to detail the circumstances which prevented him from giving it last night. He came down to the House at four o'clock, with the intention, in the course of the evening, of giving this notice. He was prevented from executing his intention, by the sudden manner in which the House was adjourned. He did not mean to cast blame anywhere, but he was anxious that they should have a clear understanding as to the forms of the House, and the hour at which business
144
was to commence. He had been for several years a member of that House, and during the whole of his experience, public business had commenced at five o'clock. Lord Liverpool, many years ago, had introduced that practice, and ever since it had been strictly adhered to. He was aware, that the House met for other business at other hours. It met at ten o'clock for appeals. Sometimes the House assembled at three o'clock for Committees of Privilege; at present it was in the habit of meeting at four o'clock expressly to hear evidence upon the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill. He had never understood, however, that the meeting upon the Warwick Bill at four, was to interfere in any manner with the regular business of the House at five. This was his impression, and he believed it was the impression of many noble Lords besides himself, as he met a considerable number coming down to the House yesterday at twenty minutes to five o'clock, as he was going away, the House being then adjourned. He did not mean to say, that yesterday it was not competent to the House to have adjourned itself before five, or for a noble Lord to move the adjournment; but some notice of the intention to do so ought to have been given. He was in the House when the adjournment took place, but it took him by surprise. The adjournment, he believed, was put by the noble and learned Lord from the Woolsack, without any noble Lord having made a motion to that effect. He admitted, that the noble and learned Lord had a right to originate that or any other Motion in that House; but if he had acted conformably with the orders of the House, he would have left the Woolsack for the purpose of making it; instead of which the noble and learned Lord rose in his place, and at once moved the adjournment. He, for one, certainly did not hear the Motion. He had thus thought it right to explain the cause of his having allowed a single day to pass without giving notice of a Motion for the production of a copy of a Commission to which he had referred.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to state, for the information of their Lordships, some circumstances which the noble Earl had not stated in the account he had just given. He had twice put the question from the Woolsack, whether any noble Lord had any petition to present, or any Motion to make. He then asked if there

145
was any more business before the House. Half-a-dozen noble Lords announced, that there was none. The Warwick business, then, being over, he did not see why he was to sit there from half-past four till five o'clock, doing nothing, because noble Lords did not choose to come down before. He should certainly learn for the first time, that that was his duty, if he should be so instructed that night. He had at least fifty times adjourned the House at a quarter past four o'clock when there was no business or notice in the order-book, and no noble Lords present. It was generally his practice to ask some noble Lord, mostly the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), to move the adjournment before he put it from the Woolsack; and he (the Lord Chancellor) did not know that he had not done so yesterday. The House was of course aware, that such a Motion was a very simple thing; that it was done almost by a nod of the head; no argument or long speech was necessary in making it; and it might, therefore, easily pass unperceived. As a Member of that House, he had a right to move the adjournment. The noble Earl admitted this, but alleged that he had not stepped out from the Woolsack as he ought to have done. Really he ought to be proud to think, that this was the only charge of irregularity that could be brought against him. If he had but thought of taking one step to the left, and then one step to the right, backwards, and had then again returned to the Woolsack, he would have performed all the evolutions of office, and done all that the duties of regularity and etiquette which he owed to their Lordships required of him. Had he but made these simple movements, he would have been the most regular of all mortal Speakers of their Lordships' House. But the noble Earl was present, and did not set him right, or complain of the adjournment. He had asked more than once if any noble Lord had any Motion to make, and the noble Earl made no answer. The question he would ask, however, was, "Had substantial injustice been done?" The noble Earl's notice was for Friday; and was it not in time on Wednesday? Moreover, when he was told by the noble Earl last evening, that the noble Earl had a notice to give, he offered to come back; but several noble Lords, upon hearing that it was a notice for Friday, observed, that Wednesday would be time enough for it,
146
and that it could not signify. He should certainly be sorry, for the sake of going half an hour sooner, to violate any of their Lordships' rules, or do an act of injustice to any noble Lord. He certainly did avail himself of the opportunity to get, what was very rare with him, a little air and exercise. If he should he told, that it was his duty to sit there till the index of the hour stood exactly over the figure of 5 upon the dial, he would wait till then; but he thought it would be a very useless expenditure of time.
The Earl of Wicklowthought the question was, not what mischief had been done, but what mischief might accrue from the system of the noble and learned Lord. The question of adjournment ought to be put in an audible manner, so as to be heard by all Members of the House. This the noble and learned Lord had certainly not done. Then the noble and learned Lord told them that he was willing to return after having adjourned the House. This was another instance of the noble Lord's ignorance of the forms of the House. There should be some regular understanding as to the hour of commencing business.
The Lord Chancellorutterly denied that he had not put the question in a tone sufficiently audible to be heard in the back seat of the gallery. The noble Earl, he believed, was too much occupied to hear him. That was not his fault, for he was not bound to find ears for any of their Lordships. He acknowledged the superiority of the noble Earl over him in an acquaintance with the forms of the House. He was willing to admit, that the noble Earl's knowledge was as much superior to his, as the noble Earl himself believed it to be; and he could not carry concession to a higher point. To the noble Earl that House was, as it were, native; to him (the Lord Chancellor) it was only "hospitable." But it was really too bad of the noble Earl, with his knowledge of the forms, first to mislead him into the belief that he could come back to the Woolsack after adjourning the House—for he it was that recommended it—and then to condemn him for contemplating such a thing. The noble Baron, a son of a Lord Chief Justice (Lord Ellen-borough), it was who fired up, he might say constitutionally fired up, at the proposal, and saved him from putting it into execution.
The House again examined witnesses on the Warwick Borough Bill.