Lords Sitting of 21 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent by Commission:—Soap Duties; and a Number of private Bills. Read a third time:—General Turnpike Act Amendment. Petitions presented. By Lord ASHBURTON, from St. Mary, Newington, against the Consumption of Spirits.—By Viscount DUNCANNON, from Lismore and Tallow, for Equalizing the County Rates in Waterford; from Dungarvon, against—By the Earl of WICKLOW, from several Places, in favour of the Assizes' Removal (Ireland) Bill.—By the Earl of WICKLOW, from Rath Clara, against the Tithe Bill to be introduced into their Lordships House.—By Lord POLTIMORE, from Bridgewater, in favour of; and by Lord DYNEVOR, from York, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Marquess of BUTE, from Liverpool, and by the Duke of NEWCASTLE, from Cardigan, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.

CORPORATION REFORM.
Lord John Russelland others from the Commons
786
brought up the Municipal Corporations' Reform Bill, which was read a first time.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannon,referring to certain returns which had been moved for by a noble Baron opposite, relative to the convictions and sentences upon certain offenders under the Irish Processions' Act, said, that he had to state that the circumstances to which the motion referred were those which related to a recent conviction of offenders at Derry. The offenders were both Catholics and Protestants. They had been tried before Baron Joy, and the sentences, upon the Protestants had, in every instance, been for a term of one, two, or three months' imprisonment, while the sentence upon the Catholics had been six months. In consequence of this difference an application had been made to the learned Baron, and his answer was, that unless new facts were disclosed, he saw no necessity for altering the sentence. A memorial on the subject was afterwards addressed to the Lord-lieutenant, stating that the sentence upon the Protestant offenders having expired, and the circumstances under which the Catholics had acted being nearly the same, the memorialists prayed that the Lord-lieutenant would remit the remainder of the sentence which had been passed upon them. This memorial was signed by the Mayor of Derry, and by nearly all the jurymen who had tried the persons. The Lord-lieutenant, in the exercise of the undoubted right of his Majesty, had remitted the remainder of the sentences without any further application to any individual.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that it appeared from the noble Viscount's statements, that the facts were exactly such as he had previously represented them. In granting this remission of the sentences, no application whatever had been made to the judge who tried the prisoners. He was justified in saying, therefore, that had such application been made, the answer would have been unfavourable. The learned Judge must have considered the criminal circumstances attending the offence as committed by the one party to be greater than those attending the other, or he would have been wholly unjustified in passing a different sentence upon them. There was no doubt that the Lord-lieutenant had the full power and discretion to do what he had done, but he (Lord

787
(Farnham) must say, that he did not think that that discretion had been wisely exercised, since the sentence had been remitted, not only without the approbation of the Judge, but, as he was justified in presuming, contrary to the Judge's opinion.
Viscount Duncannonhad not intended to cast any blame on the learned Judge who tried the prisoners; but in the same way that he gave credit to the learned Judge for discretion in the exercise of the duties of the judicial office, he must also say, that he was sure that the Lord Lieutenant had taken full pains to ascertain whether the remainder of the prisoners sentences ought to be remitted or not.
Subject dropped.

ARDENT SPIRITS (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathtook the liberty of directing the attention of the noble Viscount to the concluding paragraphs of the Report made by the Commons' Committee of 1832, on the evils arising from the want of proper powers being vested in the Magistrates of Ireland to grant or refuse licences, and from the abuse of the use of ardent spirits in that country. This was a subject of considerable importance. The Bill which now regulated these matters in Ireland had been passed at a late period of the session, and the effect of the measure was to take from the Magistracy the right of licensing, and to place it elsewhere, so that the consumption of ardent spirits was now indefinitely increased, and unless something was done to prevent the consumption of them in remote parts of the country, where the police had little or no control, the results might be fatal. It was in vain to legislate to prevent crime if something was not done on this subject, for most of the crimes now committed arose from those sinks of iniquity over which the Magistrates had now no control.
Viscount Duncannonwas sorry to believe that the Bill which had been passed upon this subject had not produced the good effects which were anticipated from it. He thought, however, that in the Corporation Reform Bill for Ireland, of which notice had already been given in the other House, some Clause would be found to meet the evil. As there was something of the sort in the English Bill so he thought there would be in the Irish Bill. It was most desirable that something should be done, for the Magistrates had now no proper control over these places.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that as to the Irish Municipal Corporations' Bill he hoped that their Lordships would not consent to entertain it during the present Session. They had not the documents on their Table which would enable them thoroughly to inform themselves on the subject, and they could not go into it without a lengthened inquiry which the advanced state of the Session rendered quite impossible. He should certainly oppose their entering on that measure at all during the present Session.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, it had given him much pleasure to hear the noble Viscount state that the Bill now regulating the licences in Ireland, had not worked well, and must be altered; but at the same time, he wished to observe, that there were some of the provisions of the Bill not at all objectionable, and he should like to see them continued. He trusted that such would be the view of the noble Viscount on further consideration.
Subject dropped.

SINECURE CHURCH PREFERMENT BILL.
The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to move the Order of the Day, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill, the principal object of which was to prevent the lapse of benefices where there was no cure of souls. The most reverend Prelate observed, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had entered into very extensive inquiries with respect to such benefices, and had collected a vast mass of information on the subject; but that they were unable to devise any general plan for carrying the object desired into effect. The fact appeared to be, that various cases must be made the subjects of separate consideration. The Commissioners had been engaged in preparing two Bills, the one to enforce the residence of the Clergy, the other to restrict pluralities; but they found that it was impossible to bring them in in the present Session. Reflecting, indeed, on the evils which frequently attended partial legislation, and on the inconvenience of introducing at different times measures which might afterwards be found to contain conflicting provisions, the Commissioners had thought it better to wait until they might be able to bring the whole question of Ecclesiastical affairs under the consideration of Parliament. They had, however, as

789
as he had already said, collected so man facts, that they hoped to be able to propose a Bill in the next Session for regulating Bishoprics and Dioceses, for placing collegiate churches on a better footing, for enforcing residence, and for restricting pluralities. In the mean time, he had the satisfaction to say, that his Majesty had been graciously pleased to declare his intention not to prefer to any Ecclesiastical dignity or benefice, of the nature in question which might fall vacant, The Archbishops and Bishop; and a number of private persons, possessing ecclesiastical patronage, had made a similar declaration. Under these circumstances, however, it became necessary, in the first place, and in justice to the various patrons, to secure the several dignitaries and benefices which might become vacant from lapsing to the Archbishops, Bishops and others, to whom, as the law now stood, they would fall. The Bill before their Lordships provided for that point. It was his intention, however to propose in the Committee two additional Clauses; the one to prevent the Bill from having any retrospective action; the other to declare (as a mistaken inference might otherwise be drawn) that nothing in the Act should prevent his Majesty, or any other person or body possessing the patronage of any benefice having a cure of souls, from presenting in the event of a vacancy. These Clauses and some alterations in the Bill, he would propose in the Committee; and on the reception of the Report, he would move that the Bill, as amended, be printed.
The House resolved itself into the Committee. His Grace introduced the two new Clauses he had mentioned, which, with several other Amendments, were agreed to. The House resumed. The Report was received, and the Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed.