Lords Sitting of 9 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Irish Linen Trade. Petitions presented. By Lord DYNEVOR, from the County of Carmarthen, for the Adoption of Poor-Laws (Ireland).

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that he should take that opportunity of calling the attention
350
of their Lordships to an article which had appeared in one of the public prints of this country, and which had most severely and most unjustly reflected upon his character. He alluded to The Morning Herald of the 7th inst., which contained in a leading article the remarks of which he now complained. The observations which the editor of that print chose to make were ushered in with the most solemn introduction in the following manner:—"We entreat the attention of the Legislature and the public to the following article, which we copy from The Star Irish newspaper." The noble Earl then read the article which was in the following terms:—"We beg to call the attention of our readers to a most important article, copied into our columns from the London Morning Herald, relating to the state of the starving poor upon the Earl of Limerick's property. We can bear witness to the truth of the heart-rending description given by the London editor of the state of the poor in St. Mary's parish; and further the very last human being that died in that parish, from absolute starvation, was a tenant of the Earl of Limerick." It was quite true that he happened to be in possession of a considerable portion of ground on which the city of Limerick was built, but his property there was leased out to a number of persons, and by these persons had again been leased out to others, for whose conduct or condition it was impossible that he should be answerable. He knew nothing of the particular instance here referred to, but supposing it true, he asked whether any one imputed blame to the person who happened to be the proprietor of St. Giles's for the poverty or misery or the deaths that might happen there? The paragraph thus proceeded: "To that Nobleman who so recently stated in Parliament that there was no real case of distress in Ireland that did not meet instant relief." He had stated no such thing. He did not believe that in any country whatever was instant relief afforded in all cases of distress. He said, and he now repeated, that notwithstanding all the horrors sometimes exhibited in Ireland, there was no country in which there existed among the people more kindly and charitable feelings, greater attachment to their families and children, and greater readiness to relieve the wants of the poor. "This occurred within a few weeks, and as our object is at present to confine ourselves to this one fact, though hundreds of similar

351
instances might be adduced, we shall, if its correctness be for a moment doubted, give the name of the unhappy sufferer. It may be asked, why allow such scenes to occur on his property without applying to the Earl of Limerick, who it might be supposed would relieve this case of real distress?—we answer, that whenever such applications were made to the humane Earl," (a very complimentary phrase, as their Lordships would see) "he has not had the condescension even to answer the letters however respectable the medium might have been through which such applications were made." Now, the only real fact in all this was, that he did receive one letter from the parish priest, of so atrocious and daring a nature, that he treated it with the contempt it deserved. He should now proceed with The Morning Herald. "Can this, we ask, be true of the Nobleman who would have us believe that no case of real distress occurs in Ireland that is not immediately relieved? We will at once place the noble Lord on the horns of a dilemma from which there is no escape. He either is or is not aware of the state of things on his own estate. If he is aware of it, we can only hope, looking at his conduct as a landlord and a legislator, that in the whole dominions of his Majesty, an imitator, or defender, or even apologist for it, cannot be found." On his word, the public press was a most tyrannical tribunal. There was a time when such an imputation on a Member of their Lordships' illustrious House would have been severely punished. "If he be not aware of it—if he be not thus totally ignorant even of the situation of his own estate, wilful though that ignorance be—if the article which we quote be correct, how can he rise in his place in the House of Lords to speak from actual knowledge, derived from years of residence, as to the state of Ireland generally? We give him the choice of these positions, and we cannot envy him the opinions which the world will form of the course he has pursued towards his unfortunate and deserted countrymen. If he imagine, however, that he can persuade the people of England to let their fellow subjects in Ireland starve unpitied, without an arm stretched forth to save them, he is mistaken. Through the medium of the press public opinion shall force their oppressors to do them justice, and our most strenuous exertions shall not be wanting in a cause which we have long looked upon as sanctified by every feeling
352
of humanity and religion." Here was a stroke made at the freedom of debate in their Lordships' House. Their Lordships' were not to be allowed to utter their opinions in that House, without being called to a severe account by the public press of this country. He was no enemy, but a friend of it, in restraining it from making these wanton attacks on the characters of individuals. It was not his wish to close his observations by moving to call to the Bar of the House the printer of the paper; he should pursue another course. He had applied to his legal advisers to inform him whether these paragraphs were really libellous; and if they should inform him that the paragraphs were so, he could assure their Lordships that neither trouble nor expense should prevent him from prosecuting these libellers of his character.
Subject dropped.

CERTIORARI BILL.
Lord Broughammoved the second reading of the Certiorari Bill. He said that he had been requested by his noble and learned Friend to take charge of the Bill during his absence. As this was the proper stage for the discussion of the principle of the Bill, he should state, for the information of such of their Lordships as had not been present on the former occasion, what the law now was, and what were the alterations proposed to be introduced by the present Bill. At present the prosecutor of an indictment could remove it, as a matter of course by a certiorari; the consequence of which was, the record of the indictment was carried from the inferior jurisdiction into the Court of King's Bench, and became a record of that Court; and instead of being tried by Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions of the county, it was tried by one of the learned Judges at the Assizes, or by writ of Nisi Prius in the Court of King's Bench itself. The prosecutor had this advantage, that he might take this step as a matter of right, and without giving any opportunity to the other party to resist the removal of the indictment. One of the consequences of this however was, that great delay might be occasioned, and the indictment might be kept hanging over the head of the defendant for a very considerable period; and another was, that considerably increased costs were incurred, though for this latter disadvantage the Court possessed the power of affording the defendant some remedy by making the prosecutor liable for the increased costs. The first remedy that the

353
Bill proposed for the evils of the present system, was to put an end to the right of the prosecutor to remove the indictment as a matter of course. The defendant had no such right; if he wished to remove the indictment he must satisfy the Court that there were points of law which could not satisfactorily be decided before the justices at sessions, or that there was some other sufficient cause why the proceedings should be removed. Upon the subject of the removal of indictments there was a statute passed in the reign of William and Mary, regulating the proceedings thereon, and limiting the recognisances to be given by the defendant to the sum of 20 l. so that this mischief often happened, that a defendant escaped altogether from justice. Preparatory to his being put upon his trial, on a bill found against him at the sessions, a defendant might be bailed, and the committing Magistrate had the power of ordering a defendant to find bail, himself in the sum of 200 l. and two sureties in the sum of 100 l. for his appearance. The moment he removed the indictment, the Statute of William and Mary applied, and the bail was limited to 20 l. The original recognisances were vacated by the grant of the certiorari, so that instead of the Court having a tie upon the defendant to the amount of 400 l., under circumstances where the Court ought to have a greater tie upon him than ever, the amount of security he gave was only 60 l. He had some doubts in his own mind whether, even as the law now stood, the Court might not, when the indictment was removed by him, impose on him certain conditions, in the same manner as the Court could impose on the prosecutor conditions as to costs. However, it was better to mate the law certain in this respect, and exactly to define the powers of the Court. The great defect in the law upon the subject had not escaped the observation of the learned Commissioners appointed to examine into the state of the law. It was now proposed that the Bill should be read a second time, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman) proposed to move certain amendments in Committee; that the Bill should be printed with the amendments, and, further considered, with a view of incorporating in it the recommendations of the Law Commissioners.
The Duke of Richmondoffered his best thanks to the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken, and to the noble and learned Lord now absent, for having so
354
promptly taken into consideration the suggestions he had ventured to make. He hoped that he should not be thought to be asking too much, if he expressed a wish that the Bill might be extended to the practice of taking bail in other cases. By one of those Acts which were known as Peel's Acts, the Magistrates had not the power of bailing, unless there was some doubt of the party's guilt. The effect of this was, that if a man was brought before a Magistrate charged with some small offence, he must be sent to gaol, and kept there, though the Magistrate would otherwise be willing, if the law allowed him, to take bail for the offender's appearance. The object of taking bail was to have a security for the appearance of the offender. There could be none of their Lordships who had not observed the increase of juvenile offenders of late years, and the increase of prosecutions since the costs of them had been paid out of the county-rates. On last Thursday he was at the Quarter Sessions of Sussex, where there were eighteen prisoners. One of the cases was that of two lads who had stolen three mackarel, value 9d. The Magistrate was obliged to send these lads for a considerable time to prison before trial, because he had not the power to take bail. He wished that power should be granted to the Magistrate to take security for the party's appearance if he thought fit. Another of these eighteen cases was that of two lads who were indicted for stealing one or two gallons of their master's cider. They broke open the door of the cellar, which constituted the felony. The prosecutor, in a moment of irritation, took them before a Magistrate. The lads got drunk with the cider, and they told their master what they had done, but he having taken them before a Magistrate, the latter was obliged to send them to gaol. His object was not to permit a man to be kept in prison if his attendance could be secured by other means; he, therefore, suggested whether it would not be expedient to extend the power in Peel's Acts so as to enable the Magistrates to take bail in cases of felony. At present the man who made the best atonement in his power, by confessing what he had done, and expressing his regret for it, was in a worse situation than the rascal who denied his guilt to the last moment. He wished to alter this system.
The Bill read a second time.