Lords Sitting of 17 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—General Turnpike Act Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord MONSON, from East Surrey, for Protection to the Protestant Church.—By Lord ASHBURTON, from Miramichi and other Places in British North America, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.

ADMISSION OF LADIES.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he wished to put a question to his noble Friend at the head of the Committee for Re-building the Houses of Parliament, or to his noble Friend at the head of the Woods and Forests, on the subject of a matter which he found mentioned in the Votes of the other House. He referred to the matter of providing accommodation in that House for Ladies to hear the Debates. On this subject he must say, that he differed from some other people in this matter; and, disliking the introduction of politics into private society, he thought that the Ladies would be infinitely better employed in almost any other way than in attending the Debates of that House. He should, therefore, if no other noble Lord
680
opposed a proposition for setting apart a gallery for their use, oppose it himself. His noble—he might almost say his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Wharncliffe) seemed to laugh at what he was saying. He could assure his noble Friend that not even his noble Friend felt a more absolute and entire devotion to the sex than he did; but he wished also always to sec them in their proper places.
Lord Wharncliffeassured his noble and learned Friend, that he did not wish to ridicule what his noble and learned Friend had said. On the contrary, he entirely agreed with it.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that in the Report of the Building Committee it was stated, that after providing accommodation for various persons, a certain quantity of room would remain, which might be dedicated to other purposes. The name of the ladies was not, however, introduced into the Report; and, as far as he was concerned, it never should be introduced there.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS.—MR. HOGG.
Lord Wharncliffewished to ask whether the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government had any objection to lay before their Lordships a protest made by one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Municipal Corporations, against the Report of his brother Commissioners. He was perfectly willing to admit, that it would be extremely inconvenient to have each Commissioner allowed to make a separate Report; but he thought if one Commissioner dissented from those with whom he was appointed to act, Parliament should not be deprived of the benefit of his opinion. He did not then wish to say anything of the merits or demerits of the measure which was introduced on the subject of Corporate Reform into the other House of Parliament; and still less desirous was he to state any opinion adverse to the question of Corporate Reform. He was quite willing to state, that great Reform was necessary in Municipal Corporations; and the only difference which existed between him and the noble Lords opposite, was as to the mode in which that Reform was to be effected. Parliament had a perfect right, however, to require that all the important evidence laid before the Commissioners should be submitted to their jurisdiction, in order that they might determine whether the conclusions drawn from facts deposed, were just and well

681
founded. He must say, that the protest which had been some time since sent in by Sir Francis Palgrave, had gone far to substantiate the charge which had been brought against the Commissioners, viz.:—that their Report was not drawn up on fair grounds; but, on the contrary, was marked by party views, and a predetermination to view the subject in a certain light which suited their own purpose. Mr. Hogg also, the Commissioner to whose opinions he (Lord Wharncliffe) had now called their Lordships' attention, had sent in a paper, in the shape of a protest, to the Secretary of the Home Department, which would not be received by the noble Lord in that shape, but which contained this Commissioner's reasons for refusing to accede to the Report which had been returned by the other Commissioners. He thought it most desirable that their Lordships should be made acquainted with the contents of this document; and he therefore wished to know whether the noble Lord opposite had any objection that the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Hogg and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also the paper which Mr. Hogg sent in the shape of a protest, should be produced.
Viscount Melbourneconceived that the noble Lord had fully answered his own question; for he admitted, that if each Member of a Commission were suffered to send in a separate Report, there would be no end to such proceedings, and no advantage could be derived from the appointment of a Commission to inquire into any subject. But then the noble Lord had said, that if this paper of Mr. Hogg's were not received as a Report, it might nevertheless be sanctioned as a protest. Why, if it were not right that it should be received as a Report, it followed as a matter of course that it ought not to be received as a protest, which was a mere change of its name. [Lord Wharncliffe: Then why receive the protest of Sir Francis Palgrave?] That protest was erroneously received at the time the measure on Corporate Reform was in course of preparation, and formed no ground for the reception of the paper from Mr. Hogg. He apprehended, however, that no disposition whatever to stifle Mr. Hogg's Report would be displayed; and he was sure, if the noble Lord was anxious to obtain the information contained in that Report, that the Gentleman from whom it proceeded would be most willing to communicate it. The noble Lord might, there-
682
fore, enjoy the full benefit of the Report, and introduce it to the close and immediate attention of their Lordships, by embodying it in his speech on the question of Municipal Reform, when the Bill relating to that question was brought up for discussion in that House.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that nothing was more common than for a Member or Members of a Commission to enter a protest against the Report on which the majority of their brother Commissioners might have decided. This was done in reference to a question which had come under their Lordships' notice that night:—he alluded to the subject of the Scotch Universities. Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the state of learning in those Universities, and some of them had returned a Report, which was accompanied by a protest from others. He was convinced that the same course might be pursued in the present case consistently with precedent and with advantage to the public service; and he was the more convinced of the expediency and justice of having Mr. Hogg's protest received, because he thought that Parliament would have lost much valuable information on the question of which it treated, if the protest of Sir Francis Palgrave had not been made and admitted.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the only question in the present case appeared to him to be whether Mr. Hogg was a fit person to be placed on this Commission; and as it seemed to be acknowledged that he was, his opinions were, he thought, exactly those which it was necessary that their Lordships should be made acquainted with. When he stated that protests were frequently the means of conveying the most useful information to Parliament, he felt it his duty to allude to the very valuable Reports of the Common Law Commissioners, a comparison of which with the protest appended to it, had alone enabled him to make up his mind on a most important question—the Bill of Non-imprisonment for Debt, which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that Mr. Hogg complained that he had not been allowed a fair opportunity of stating his opinions on the subject of Municipal Corporations. If Mr. Hogg had a right to complain that he was hardly treated, he thought Parliament was justified in saying that they were still more hardly treated, by being deprived of such valuable information as that contained in this Gentleman's

683
protest. Mr. Hogg had also said, that he sent in Reports with respect to Liverpool and other places, which were not printed. The noble Lord had no objection, he presumed, to the production of the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Hogg and the Secretary of State.
Viscount Melbourne: None whatever.
The Earl of Harrowbydid not consider the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, justified in rejecting the protest of Mr. Hogg. From what had been already stated, their Lordships were aware that it was a very common practice to make such protests; and if this were not so, such a practice ought, in his opinion, to be encouraged. If the Report of the majority were in every case to be taken as the result of the deliberations of any set of Commissioners, the most unfair conclusions might be arrived at; for that majority might have been decided by a single Commissioner, and the opinions of all the dissentients, which it might be most important to hear, would thus be shut out from the consideration of Parliament. The case was different with a Committee of that or the other House of Parliament, the minority of the Members of which had the opportunity of stating, in their places, the grounds on which they might feel it their duty to differ from the statements made in a Report agreed to by the majority. Such Commissioners as Mr. Hogg, however, had no such opportunity, and their opinions were completely shut out by those of the majority. He trusted, then, that some mode would be devised by which the important information contained in the protest of Mr. Hogg should be laid before Parliament.
Viscount Melbournedid not think that it was attaching any undue importance to a Report to have it decided upon by a majority of Commissioners, as those only who assented to it affixed their names to the document. This proceeding did not, however, put Parliament in possession of the grounds on which the assent of those who refused to sign the Report was withheld. As it was far from his intention that any information which could be properly afforded should not be laid before their Lordships, he should take care to see his noble Friend the Secretary of the Home Department on the subject, before Monday, and determine on what course to pursue with a view of meeting the wishes expressed by some of their Lordships.
The Bishop of Exeterrecollected a re-
684
markable precedent for the adoption of the course proposed to be taken with respect to Mr. Hogg's protest. It was the Report of the Commissioners on National Education in Ireland, three of whom decided on a Report which the two other Members of the Commission dissented from. To the Report, however, was subjoined the protest of the dissentients. Subject dropped.

STATE OF CRIME (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that he should trouble their Lordships with but very few words on the subject of which he had given notice, and to which it was his intention to call their Lordships' attention that evening. He should not, perhaps, trouble their Lordships upon this subject were it not for the very peculiar circumstances in which the country was likely to be placed by the measure which it was intimated it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce into Parliament. He might possibly be liable to the suspicion of wishing to gratify a feeling of enmity or animosity to his fellow-countrymen of the Romish persuasion in Ireland. But it would be rather too late for his Majesty's Government, at least, to make such a charge. It would be too late for them, after the circumstances attending the religious census which they had appointed, to charge him in making this motion with any intention of drawing an unnecessary or improper distinction between persons of different religious persuasions in Ireland. By granting the return for which he was about to move, certainly no worse consequence, in this respect, could follow than was produced by the census to which he had adverted. He admitted that very many circumstances which were to be regretted had occurred in the progress of that inquiry which might have been wholly avoided, if the Commissioners had adhered strictly to the instructions of the Commissioners under which they acted. He had gone carefully through the whole of the Report of the Commissioners, and it struck him that they had studiously avoided the instruction which had been given them. He only found one notice of this instruction in the Report, to which he should call their Lordships' attention. [The noble Marquess read an extract from the Report of the Commissioners, adverting to the view they had taken of the instruction given them in the Committee.] And to this lame conclusion were their Lordships left. This was all the informa-

685
tion they were to obtain after the instruction which had been given, and the expectation they had been led to entertain. In moving for a return of this kind, it might probably be necessary to say something of the gross and relative amount of crime committed in Ireland at different periods. Without trespassing upon their Lordships' attention at any length, he should just observe, that the difference in the number of persons committed for crime between the years 1833 and 1834, was 1,783. It might be said that there would be a difficulty in obtaining the information sought for in the return; it might be difficult to ascertain the number of persons committed for crime, who were Roman Catholics, and the number who were Protestants. For his own part he could see no difficulty in the case. If a return could be procured, as no doubt it could, of the absolute number of persons committed for offences, why could they not be distinguished into Roman Catholics and Protestants, or professors of any other creed? His object in moving for this return was twofold. He wished, in the first place, to show the House and the country the effect which the Protestant religion produced upon the morals and the conduct of its members. No doubt in the arduous struggle in which the Protestants of Ireland might be now supposed to be engaged in the protection of their religion, they had strong claims upon, and would obtain the sympathy and assistance of those who were able to protect them; but it was their duty to show the salutary and the beneficial effects which the Protestant doctrines produced upon the minds of those by whom they were professed. The Protestants of Ireland should show by their conduct what was the character of their doctrines, and thus entitle themselves to the respect of the Protestant community of the entire kingdom. It was with this view that he was about to move for the returns to which he had adverted. He could not suppose his Majesty's Ministers would oppose his Motion, for he saw no ground to justify them in doing so. It might be said, that the Catholic population in Ireland was much larger than the Protestant; and that, therefore, it was only natural to expect that the amount of crime amongst them would be greater. But what he meant to contend for was, that the amount of crime amongst the Catholic population was much greater, even in proportion to their numbers, than it was amongst the Protestants. Without trespassing further upon the atten-
686
tion of the House, he should conclude by moving for a Return of the number of persons committed in Ireland for crime, from June, 1834, to July, 1835, distinguishing them into Protestants or other Dissenters and Roman Catholics.
Viscount Duncannonshould certainly oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. Indeed the noble Lord, in the course of his speech, had stated quite sufficient to justify their Lordships in refusing to accede to his Motion. The noble Lord had stated, that under circumstances different from those in which the country was at present placed, he should not have thought of moving for such a return; and in the course of the noble Lord's subsequent statements, he had certainly failed in stating any Parliamentary grounds to induce their Lordships to order the return for which he had moved. That return he could not help regarding as extremely invidious, and of a nature that would be highly offensive to the people of Ireland. The noble Lord had, in effect, moved for a return which would require those who made it out to go into the gaols in Ireland, and ascertain what proportion of its inmates were Roman Catholics and what Protestants. He, as well as the noble Marquess, was quite aware that the Grand Juries of Ireland granted a sum of money for the payment of clergymen who attended the gaols, to administer religious consolation to such of its inmates as might be willing to accept it at their hands. The prisoners might have the aid of a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister; but no record, he apprehended, was kept of their several religious persuasions. He did not know, then, how the noble Marquess proposed to obtain these returns, even if he succeeded in carrying his Motion. He could imagine no other means for the accomplishment of this measure than the issuing a new Commission, for the purpose of ascertaining the religious persuasion of individuals committed to the different gaols in Ireland. The only ground urged by the noble Marquess to justify the House in granting this return was, that a Commission was issued by the Government for the obtainment of an object similar to that contemplated by the Motion of the noble Marquess. Now the object with which the Commission was issued by the Government was to ascertain the relative proportion of Roman Catholics, and Protestants and Dissenters, for the better guidance of the Legislature in framing a measure for the regulation of the Church Establishment in

687
Ireland. Such was the single object of the Government; and he should ask, what was the object contemplated by the noble Marquess? Did that noble Lord suppose, if it reached Ireland that the House of Lords had ordered a return of the number of Roman Catholics and of Protestants committed to the different gaols, it would not be regarded as a most invidious proceeding, and would not be highly offensive to the great mass of the people of that country.
The Duke of Richmondhoped that the noble Marquess was not really in earnest in bringing forward this Motion. Did the noble Marquess really suppose he should be able to procure the relative number of Roman Catholics and Protestants who were committed to gaols in Ireland? Now he (the Duke of Richmond) was prepared to say, that the greater proportion of those who were committed to gaols had no religion at all. At least the fact of their being so committed was primâ facie evidence that they did not act up to the principles of any religion. And even though the noble Marquess were able to procure the return for which he moved, was he not aware that the great proportion of the wealth of Ireland was Protestant? And therefore the nobleMarquessmight as well move for a return of the number of pickpockets in the House of Lords, compared with the number in St. Giles's, as move for the number of Protestants compared with the number of Catholics committed to gaols in Ireland. Of course, where there was a large number of people uneducated and poor, they had a stronger temptation to commit crime than the wealthy and educated. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Duncannon), that a Motion of a more hostile and invidious nature, so far as the Catholics of Ireland were concerned, could not be made. Where could such a proceeding, if it were once established, cease? Similar returns would no doubt soon be moved with respect to the comparative numbers of the English Protestants and Dissenters committed to our gaols. The Motion, if complied with, would be of no use; and if they got the returns asked for, they could lead to no good end. The noble Lord was no doubt acquainted with the comparative number of Catholic and Protestant prisoners in the gaol of his own county; and he would recommend him to confine himself to the information which he possessed with respect to that part of Ireland; and to which he might direct the attention of their Lordships at the first favourable opportunity.
The Marquess of Conynghamsaid, that the Motion of the noble Lord must have precisely a contrary effect from that which he seemed to anticipate from it; for if it were acceded to, it must inevitably lead to an aggravation of the existing differences on the subject of religion in Ireland. It would be contrary to every principle of justice and moral right, if the Judge in Ireland were to ascertain the religion of every prisoner before his trial was entered on; yet this was a mode of proceeding which would be justified on the principle of the noble Lord's motion.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that he objected to the Motion, not so much because he considered that it would be difficult to comply with it, but because the returns could not possibly lead to any useful result. It was a complete fallacy, though a very popular error, to suppose that the number of crimes in Ireland was proportioned to the existence of the Catholic religion amongst the people. The fact was, that crimes attributed to the people of that country were not of such a character as were generally supposed. They were usually such as were likely to be committed by a population which were poor, and engaged in agricultural pursuits. He would only mention, in corroboration of his opinion, that in Tipperary the number of murders, larcenies, and crimes of that description, was much smaller than those committed in his own county, while the population of the former county was infinitely larger, and the calendar contained a greater number of offences.
The Marquess of Westmeathshould certainly not persist in his Motion, if the sense of their Lordships' House was opposed to it. The noble Duke who had addressed them had said, that he conceived those persons who were committed to gaol had no religion at all. He did not mean to say that they had much religion; but he wished to ascertain to what religious persuasion they belonged, in order that their Lordships might be able to see how far their conduct was influenced by the principles which they professed. He could not see any weight in the argument of the noble Duke. The noble Viscount opposite thought that the return moved for, if granted, would be offensive to the Catholics of Ireland. Upon this point he wished to be distinctly understood. He was anxious, if possible, to avoid giving any offence to any class; but the Protestants of Ireland were put upon their defence, and therefore called on for that return for which he felt himself bound

689
to move, and to which objection had been made. He was perfectly indifferent as to whether the Roman Catholics thought that the House meant to offend them or not. His object was to show the moral conduct of both classes, and for this purpose he thought the return he had moved for would be extremely valuable. However, if the sense of the House was, that he ought not to persevere, he would withdraw his Motion. He was not anxious to defend himself from the charge of having moved for a return which would require a census to be made that would be regarded as offensive by those who not only took no exception to, but supported the census ordered by the Government. That census, not only distinguished Catholics from Protestants, but the object for which it was taken tended to make the Catholics anxious to get rid of the Protestants. With these observations he should withdraw his Motion.
The Duke of Richmond,in explanation, said, that he did not mean to say, that all those who were committed to gaols had no religion at all. He merely meant to suggest that in the census which would be required if the Motion of the noble Marquess were agreed to, there should be a class for those who had no religion at all.
Motion withdrawn.