Lords Sitting of 18 July 1836

MINUTES.
Read a first time:—Church of Ireland; Valuation and Civil Bill Courts' (Ireland); Admiralty Jurisdiction (Prince of Wales's Island); Insolvent Debtors' (India); Post Horse Duties; Administration of Justice (New South Wales).
Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from various Places, against the Registration of Births and Marriages' Bill.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from various Places, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Huntingdon, for the Repeal of the Poor-Law Amendment Act.

TOLLS ON STEAM CARRIAGES.
The Marquess of Salisbury, seeing a noble Earl who had taken charge of the Steam Carriages Tolls Bill, the Report of which stood for the present evening, in his place, suggested the propriety of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, for the purpose of examining witnesses with reference to the interests of certain persons, which were likely to be affected by the measure. He should be sorry to be compelled to give the measure a decided negative, which he should be obliged to do, if an opportunity were not afforded to those parties to state their case; and, therefore, he hoped that the noble Earl would accede to his proposition.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, if it were the wish of the House that such a course should be taken, he would not oppose it; but he did not know how it could be regularly adopted. The Bill had gone through a Committee of the whole House, and the Report was ordered to be received this day. After that proceeding had taken place, he did not see how the Bill could be recommitted. The facts stood thus:—Mr. Gurney, a gentleman of considerable talent, had devoted all his attention to the construction of steam-carriages applicable to the road. He had given up a lucrative business, and applied himself wholly to that point. He had brought his invention to a state of great perfection; when, all at once, a Bill was introduced, not directly affecting his invention, but, by a side-wind, entirely obstructing it, and laying such a tax on steam-carriages, as would completely defeat his object. His invention had been used without any accident whatever occuring; and this Bill was intended merely to take off that burden which indirectly

249
would operate greatly to the prejudice of Mr. Gurney. The only objection he had heard stated against the measure was, that it would interfere with the claim of another individual.
The Marquess of Salisburywas of opinion that the subject ought to be further investigated, in order to secure the public against the occurrence of accident.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, no ground whatever had been laid for delaying the progress of the Bill. The public were secured from accident by the peculiar construction of the boiler.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, it was originally proposed to consider, in a Select Committee, that clause which enacted, that no steam-carriage plying on the road, should have a boiler of more than certain dimensions. Now, it was understood that a steam-carriage plying in the neighbourhood of London, had a boiler of larger dimensions than those pointed out by the Bill; and on that point he had presented a petition from a patentee of locomotive carriages, praying to be heard by counsel against the present Bill.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the individual clause to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, had been struck out of the Bill, so that there was no necessity to hear counsel on that point.
Lord Lyndhurstwas not aware that the clause referred to had been struck out. Still he was of opinion, that it would be right to send the Bill to a Select Committee, to see that due security was provided against accident.
The Earl of Radnoronly hoped, that those noble Lords who were so anxious to send the Bill to a Committee, would take care and attend that Committee. He wished to know, how long they were likely to detain the Bill in Committee, and whether the noble Marquess could state the names of the witnesses whom it was proposed to call?
The Marquess of Salisburysaid these were questions which no noble Lord could be expected to answer, and which he believed very few noble Lords would ask.
Bill referred to a Select Committee.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved the order of the day for resuming the debate on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, and brought up a clause to be added as a rider to the Bill, the object of which the noble Duke de-
250
scribed to be, to afford persons an opportunity of obtaining copies of the depositions of witnesses, upon whose evidence they were committed for trial, upon the payment of a reasonable sum, not to exceed three half-pence per folio. The noble Duke moved the adoption of the clause.
The Lord Chancellortook that opportunity of explaining the course he had taken on a former evening, during the debate on this Bill, in reference to what had fallen from a noble and learned Lord, who stated, that it was the practice of the present law, to allow fresh witnesses to be examined before magistrates after the committal of a prisoner, and in his absence. He had since applied to Sir F. Roe for information upon that point, and had received a letter in reply, assuring him, that in no case was it the practice of magistrates to hear evidence after the committal of a prisoner, nor in the prisoner's absence, except when preliminary applications were made for warrants. When fresh witnesses were discovered after the commitment of a prisoner, they were sent before the grand jury, without being examined by the magistrates.
Lord Wynfordsupported the clause, observing, that though when it was first proposed he had taken another course, yet, upon reconsideration he had altered his opinion, and was now convinced that it was very proper to be inserted in the Bill.
Lord Hollandcongratulated the noble and learned Lord and the House on the change which had taken place in his Lordship's mind on this point.
Clause agreed to, and the Bill passed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' ACT AMENDMENT.
The Lord Chancellorrose, to bring under the attention of the House the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' amendments in the Municipal Corporations' Act Amendment Bill, and the amendments which the Commons had made to this Bill. After proposing the adoption of several verbal amendments, which were agreed to, the noble and learned Lord proceeded to explain the nature of an amendment of the Commons upon the 5th Clause, by which it was provided, that, in the event of the Council not being able to agree in the election of a mayor, the decision should be referred to the burgesses at large. By their Lordships' amendment it was provided, that, in the event of an equal divi-

251
sion of the town-council, and there being no probability of agreement, the presiding officer should be chosen by lot, and to have the casting vote; the alteration made by the Commons was, that in such cases, which he (the Lord Chancellor) considered would be very rare, the decision should revert to the burgesses, by whom the town-council itself was elected.
The Duke of Wellingtonexpressed his dissatisfaction at the alteration which had been made in this amendment by the Commons, and contended that it was a departure from the principle which had been laid down, when he and his noble Friends consented to wave their opposition to the decision of the Committee above stairs, and unanimously to adopt the amendments as they were framed by that Committee. The amendments were adopted by the noble Lords opposite, and unopposed by the noble Lords on his side of the House for the sake of unanimity, and therefore he could not but feel surprised that some measures were not taken to insure a similar decision in another place. With respect to the particular clause, now before the House, he had before opposed a proposition to the same effect, and he must still oppose it, as being essentially at variance with the principle upon which the House had unanimously passed the amendments, and to which principle he thought they were bound to adhere.
Viscount Melbournethought the observations of the noble Duke rather unparliamentary and unconstitutional in their character. It was not to be expected that the other House should be bound by the decision of a Committee of their Lordships' House. The Bill had not been sent down to the House of Commons as the Bill of a Committee, or of any party in that House; and the amendments were subject to the approval or rejection of the House of Commons. It was quite new to him, that any man or any set of men in that assembly should have the power of destroying the independence of Parliamentary proceedings.
The Duke of Wellingtonbegged to explain, that his observations were confined to the course which had been pursued in reference to these amendments, and not to the right of the House of Commons to interfere with them. What he complained of was, that while the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had supported the amendments of the Committee of that
252
House, they should be opposed and altered by the Attorney-General in the other House.
Lord Ellenboroughexpressed his surprise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, after acquiescing in the amendments, now should request their Lordships to abandon them. The Bill had gone down to the other House as a Government measure in one shape, and it came up in another shape, but still it was called a Government measure. It appeared to him that there were two Governments, one in that House, and one in the other. He had seen these alterations with regret; and he must say that he very much disliked that disposition which prevailed, to look upon Municipal Corporations as composed of two different parties, for he was convinced that politics had nothing whatever to do with their character and constitution.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas as much surprised as the noble and learned Lord to hear even a hint thrown out, that a party in that House could compel a party in the other House to take a particular course, because that course had been agreed to or recommended by a Committee of their Lordships' House.
Lord Lyndhurstthought the effect of the amendment, as it now stood, would be to give at all times an undue influence to the extreme popular party, because it would destroy that wholesome check which would exist under the other regulation, and by which that party, to a certain extent, would be controlled.
The Earl of Devonexpressed his concurrence in the opinions of the noble and learned Lord.
The House divided—Contents 33; Not-contents 63: Majority 30.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNTS.

DUKES.

Melbourne

Richmond

Duncannon

Sutherland

BISHOPS.

MARQUESSES.

Durham

Lansdowne

Hereford

Headfort

Bristol

EARLS.

BARONS.

Chichester

Audley

Radnor

Mostyn

Burlington

Gardner

Granville

Templemore

Ilchester

Teynham

Carlisle

Lilford

Leitrim

Holland

Minto

Segrave

253

Plunket

Dinorben

Barham

Hatherton

Dacre

Ducie

Commons' amendment disagreed to.
The other amendments were agreed to.