Lords Sitting of 6 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—The Merchant Seamen Bill.
Petitions presented. By Viscount DUNCANNON, from the Inhabitants of Leuchars, against Church Patronage (Scotland); from the Inhabitants of Lennoxtown, against granting Money for Additional Churches (Scotland); from the Inhabitants of Lochee, for granting Money for Religious Education (Scotland); from the Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, St. Margaret's, and Screen, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).

ISLINGTON MARKET BILL.
The Marquess of Salisburybrought up the Report of the Islington Market Bill. It stated in substance the doubts that had arisen on the minds of the Committee as to the rights of the City; and they wished to hear counsel at the Bar, and that the Judges do attend to hear the arguments and assist their Lordships.
Lord Broughamsaid, that there were cases in which the Judges were summoned, but there must be something peculiar to justify such a proceeding. He did not mean to say that such was not the case in the present instance. He should not oppose the Motion.
The Bishop of Hereford thought that it would he better to have the opinion of two of the learned Judges upon the question of the rights of the city of London.
The Marquess of Salisbury could not consent to the proposition of the right reverend Prelate, which, indeed, he did not think to be quite regular. He should, therefore, now give notice, that it was his intention to move that the Judges be summoned, and that this question be put to them—whether matters relating to the vested rights of the Corporation of London would be affected by this Bill. He should move that this question be argued by one counsel on each side. He was not aware that a Bill of this nature was ever referred to two Judges alone.
The Bishop of Hereford said, that if the Bill was to be referred to the Judges, he suggested whether this question ought not to be argued—whether, under the charter to the city of London, Parliament was not precluded from establishing other markets.
The Marquess of Salisbury could not possibly agree to frame the question in such a manner.
The Duke of Richmond presented a petition from—Rhodes, Esq., a gentleman residing in the county of Essex, praying to be heard by counsel against a certain part of the Islington Market Bill.
The Marquess of Salisbury was very sorry to be compelled to oppose this Petition. The subject had already been discussed before the Committee. If, with reference to any agreement which the petitioner had entered into, he felt himself aggrieved, the matter ought to be investigated in a Court of Law.
The Duke of Richmond said, he wished justice to be done to all parties who were affected by this Bill; but it would not be doing justice to the petitioner to take his land without giving him a proper equivalent. The petitioner stated, that in signing the agreement to which allusion had been made, he had been mistaken, and that the other party had taken an unfair advantage of him. The petition ought to be referred to the Committee; and though it might occasion a delay of a few days, still he

253
would say, let the petition be inquired into, and let the petitioner have justice. As the Committee had reported, it was no longer in existence; but when it was moved that the Bill should be re-committed, he should certainly propose that the petition should be referred to the Committee.
Lord Broughamcomplained of the manner in which Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament conducted the business intrusted to them. He recollected, some years ago, when a Bill was referred to a Committee of the other House, and a proposition was made respecting it, which was supported by fourteen Members who had attended to the evidence, down came sixteen Gentlemen who had never heard the evidence, and they decided the other way. The proceeding was, however, complained of in the House, and by acclamation the decision was set aside. In consequence, the Bill was ultimately thrown out. Such was the conduct of those Judges—not Judges of Oyer and Terminer, but Judges of Terminer sans Oycr. This being the mode of carrying on the Private Bill business, he should always, as he had heretofore done, protest against such a course of proceeding. Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen ought to recollect that on these occasions they were deciding rights as judges. They were making laws which suspended in many cases the course of the Common Law, and of the Statute Law of the land. They, however, concocted laws, and decided on important points, in away in which no judge or juror would dare to decide a case involving property to the amount of 10 l.; that was, without hearing the evidence or examining the parties who were interested on both sides.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, their Lordships were acting as judges; and if they read the evidence, they could always make themselves masters of the subject. The evidence in these cases was always printed for the House of Lords, which was not the practice with the House of Commons.—[Lord Brougham: Yes, it is.]—He had applied for evidence given before a Committee of the other House, and could only get it in manuscript. They were not, it should be observed, bound by the Report of the Committee. They might throw out the Bill on the third reading. It was still a matter for their consideration, notwithstanding the Report of the Committee.
Lord Broughamsaid, the process of the House was this; they referred a Bill to a Select Committee, and they placed faith in
254
the decision of that Committee. It was just the same as the Court of Chancery sending an issue to be tried for the purpose of getting at the opinions of a jury. Their Lordships would unquestionably proceed on the Report of the Committee to whom a particular inquiry on the merits of a Bill was intrusted. That Committee was the body by whom the question was to be tried, and it was supposed that they would give their opinion upon hearing and seeing evidence. The House adopted their Report, because it was supposed that the Committee had fully and fairly performed its functions.
The Duke of Richmond agreed with the sentiments of his noble and learned Friend much more than with the observations that had been made on the other side. Nothing would make him, for one, vote on a private Bill, unless he had listened to all the evidence, and seen the witnesses.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he merely objected to the extreme principle as laid down by his noble and learned Friend.
The Marquess of Salisbury said, that in his opinion no noble Lord ought to vote on a Bill of this sort, without, at all events, having previously made himself fully master of all the evidence.
Petition to lie on the Table.

LOWER CANADA.
The Earl of Riponpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Lower Canada residing at Quebec, on the subject of the present state of that province. He was not aware of any reason why the petitioners had placed in his hands this petition, except that they knew that he had always entertained the sincerest and most ardent wishes for the prosperity and happiness of the province, and had been desirous to contribute everything in his power to promote such an end. The petition was signed by persons chiefly residing at Quebec, and the numbers who had signed it were considerable. There were between five and six thousand of English descent, and between six and seven hundred of French descent. The petitioners stated the gratitude they felt to the British Government for the constitution given them in 1791, which they conceived was capable of being suited to all purposes of good government. They stated that the practical working of that constitution was not attended with the advantages they had anticipated. They complained of the law by which the rights of election were exercised, and stated that the effect of it in practice

255
was to exclude from the representation of the people those who would represent that part of the people of the province who were of British descent; that the House of Assembly arrogated to itself a degree of power and authority that did not properly belong to it; and that the intervention of Parliament was necessary to correct the evil. There were two circumstances connected with the province which were attended with injurious consequences; these were the composition of the Legislative and of the Executive Councils. The first was composed of gentlemen who were appointed for life; whereas the petitioners stated that they should be elective, and they wished to see some efficient regulations made and enforced, by which persons who, by fortune and situation, were independent alike of the Government and of popular control, should be appointed. It had been his (the Earl of Ripon's) duty, when connected with the Colonial Office, to attempt something of the kind, and he had issued instructions to the Governor strictly to abide by that principle in all the recommendations he made to the Home Government with a view to fill up any vacancies that might occur in the body. As to the Executive Council, which somewhat resembled what the Privy Council was in this country, it would be difficult to say in what manner any change should be made; but some change ought to be adopted which would give that body a just claim to the confidence of the public at large. It should not be composed in such a manner as to render its members objects of distrust and dislike to the community in general. He need not state how much he agreed with the recommendations in this petition. The circumstances in which Canada now stood rendered this an unfavourable moment for Parliamentary discussion respecting it; but he might be permitted to express his hope that the Commissioners who had been appointed, and who had now sailed—[The Earl of Gosford (the Commissioner) was here pointed out to the noble Earl]—he begged pardon, but he really believed that his noble Friend had gone—would have every success in the object of their mission, and that that important province would owe its tranquillity to their efforts, that the heats which were now prevalent there might be allayed, that the cause of animosity might subside, and the country be able to enjoy those blessings to which its position and its resources entitled it.
256
The Duke of Richmond presented a similar petition, very numerously and respectably signed, from the inhabitants of Montreal. The petitioners stated, that the Judges were held in a state of dependence upon the House of Assembly, and they complained of the old French Feudal Law, which still prevailed in the province, and which interfered with the freedom of the sale and transfer of land, so as materially to injure its value. He hoped that these subjects would attract the attention of the Commissioners, and that they would satisfactorily settle them.
Petitions to lie on the Table.