Lords Sitting of 24 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Dublin Police.
Petitions presented. By several NOBLE LORDS, from various Places, against the Universities' (Scotland) Bill.— By the Earl of WILTON, from Middleton; and by the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from Horsmonden, in favour of their Lordships' Amendments to the Irish Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from Haverfordwest, against the Amendments made by their Lordships to the Irish Municipal Reform Bill By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of SHREWSBURY and the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Liver pool, for Removal of Jewish Civil Disabilities.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.
The Duke of Richmond, after calling their Lordships attention to the Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, relative to the state of Newgate, begged to ask his noble Friend at the head of his Majesty's Government, whether it was the intention of Ministers to remove the Prisoners now confined in Newgate to the Penitentiary, where he believed there was plenty of room for them. The Government possessed this power under a Bill which he (the Duke of Richmond) had introduced last Session. He wished to know whether Government had taken any steps for this purpose, and if not, whether it was their intention to do so?
Viscount Melbournereplied, that the Report of the Inspectors of Prisons had engaged the most serious attention of his Majesty's Government, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken measures to remedy, so far as his power extended, the defects they had pointed out. Those defects, he fully admitted called loudly for the intervention either of the executive or of Parliament. He had great pleasure in being enabled to inform his noble Friend, that a Bill was in preparation for amending the Gaol Acts, agreeably to the suggestions of the Com missioners, although, perhaps, the pres sure of other business, and the advanced period of the sittings of the Houses, would prevent its being introduced this Session. With respect to Newgate a proposition had been made by Government to the Corporation of London, which, if accepted by them, would have the effect of remedying
848
the evils which existed, not only in the gaol of Newgate but in all the city prisons. No answer had yet been received to this communication, but there was every reason to believe that it would be acceded to. He was not aware that there was any present intention of removing the prisoners con fined in Newgate to the Penitentiary, but the matter should be reconsidered. At all events, measures were under consideration for providing an effectual and fundamental remedy for the evils that prevailed in New gate and in the other city prisons.
The Earl of Riponwas very glad the subject had been brought forward by the noble Duke. He trusted the Corporation of London would receive the communication favourably, and he hoped the notice now taken of the subject might be an additional inducement to them to do so.
The Duke of Richmondonly wished to add, that he considered the Report of the Inspectors of Prisons a very excellent one, and that he entirely concurred with every statement contained in it. The state of the borough prisons was very bad; and he thought it important that in the event of the Bill to which his noble Friend had alluded not passing in the present Session, they should not be allowed to alter their gaols without previously submitting to his Majesty's Ministers copies of the proposed plans. Subject dropped.

ENTAILS(SCOTLAND).
On the Motion of the Earl of Rosebery, their Lordships resolved themselves into a Committee of the whole House on the Entails (Scotland) Bill.
The 1st and 2nd Clauses were agreed to.
On the 3rd Clause,
The Earl of Mansfieldrose to move, that it be expunged. He objected to it because it gave to heirs of entail a power to grant interminable leases, which they were expressly forbidden to do by the entails themselves. Many persons he knew were desirous, particularly since the Reform Act passed, to prevent building on their estates, which it was the object of this clause to allow. He knew that a man could not take his property to the grave with him, but it had not yet been, and he hoped it never would be declared in that Assembly, that no man should possess the means of controlling the application of his property after his death. He would divide the House on the question, that it be expunged.
The Earl of Roseberysupported the clause; he thought he had so modified it in the Select Committee as to ensure the noble Earl's approbation.
The Earl of Devoncould not consent to such an immense alteration as this clause would make in the law without some absolute necessity, and none such had been shown to exist. Some restriction should be preserved over the distribution of land, and this clause must be put out.
The Committee divided on the original motion: Contents 17; Not Contents 27— Majority 10.
Clause struck out.
The remainder of the clauses were agreed to. The House resumed.