Lords Sitting of 26 February 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Exchequer Bills; Transfer of Aids; and Waterford House of Industry.
Petitions presented. By Lord WYNFORD, from Charles-worth, for an alteration in the Poor-law.—By Lord REDESDALE, from Kidderminster, against the power vested in the Poor-law Commissioners.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Tynemouth, from Ross (Hereford), from Leek, from places in the counties of Durham and Monmouth, from Dumbarton, Lauder, and other places, all for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship; from Oldham, and Sheffield, for a commutation of the sentence passed on the Glasgow Cotton Spinners; and from Liverpool and Haddington, for a reduction in the rate of Postage.

THE PENITENTIARY—SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
Lord Lyndhurstrose to call the attention of the House, and especially of her Majesty's Ministers, to a subject of very great importance connected with the administration of criminal justice, and the manner in which the sentences pronounced in the courts of law were carried into execution. Their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that the Penitentiary at Milbank was exempted from the general jurisdiction of the magistrates of the county of Middlesex, and was placed under the direct superintendence of one of the chief secretaries of state, namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that every thing which took place in that prison should be observed with the greatest vigilance, and that anything like an abuse of power or an irregularity of proceeding should become the subject of careful and strict investigation. He was induced to make these observations because he had been informed from very good authority that three very young female children had been for a very considerable period of time confined under the separate or solitary system, as it was called, in that establishment. Their Lordships would be surprised to hear, that the youngest of these children, when first committed to the Penitentiary, was only of the tender age of seven years and a half; that another of them had reached to no more than eight years; and that the third and eldest had hardly attained its tenth year. He felt himself called upon to bring this subject before their Lordships principally in consequence of the part which he took during the last Session of Parliament with respect to those bills which came up from the other House of Parliament for the purpose of mitigating the severity of our criminal code. Their Lordships would remember, that in those bills as they came up from the House of Commons there were clauses empowering the judges in the criminal courts of justice to inflict in some instances two years solitary confinement, and in some instances three years of solitary confinement, for certain offences and crimes. He had called their Lordships' attention to those provisions of the several measures as they came under their consideration, and their Lordships agreed with him that a punishment of that nature ought not to exist in our criminal code; and so satisfied were their Lordships of the correctness of the principle he then laid down, that they unanimously agreed that

83
in no instance should any individual be subjected to solitary confinement for a period of more than one month at a time, and for not more than three months, at separate intervals, in any one year. In the instance to which he alluded upon the present occasion, the youngest of the three children had already been subjected to separate and solitary confinement, for in this instance no difference whatever had been made in the mode of punishment, for a period of nearly thirteen months under a sentence of confinement of, he believed, three years. The other two children had also been committed for periods of about the same duration; but they had not yet suffered a punishment so severe or so extensive as that of the child to whom he had referred, and who, as he had already observed, was the youngest of the three. To show their Lordships how utterly improper, a punishment of this description must be for children of suet, tender years, he was enabled to state, that when one of the children came into the prison, being asked by the matron what she could do for her, the reply of the child was, that she should be most pleased if the matron would kindly give her a doll! And under this system of separate and solitary confinement, so strongly did the children yearn for something upon which to exercise their sympathy, that in the morning they were found sleeping with their bedclothes rolled up in the shape of a doll, and pressed close to their bosoms for the sake of having something like ideal society, at least, in their dreary confinement. He was told, further, upon the authority of a most respectable magistrate, that in this prison, which was under the immediate jurisdiction of a Minister of the Crown, that a person conversing with these children could at once discern that the system of solitary confinement produced in them a marked infirmity of mind, manifested by great impediment of speech, and general difficulty in the expression of ideas. It was extraordinary that in an establishment of this kind, which was meant as a pattern for similar prisons throughout the country, such abuses should exist. But he had not stated the only part of the case which was worthy of their Lordships' attention. The child to whom he had more particularly referred, the youngest of the three, was convicted of theft; that theft was committee at the instigation of its mother; the mother was tried for receiving the goods, and sentenced to six months' im-
84
prisonment; the unfortunate child, who, at the mother's instigation, committed the theft, was sentenced to transportation, which sentence of transportation was commuted for three years imprisonment n the Penitentiary, under the system of separate and solitary confinement to which he had directed their Lordships' attention. By the law of England a wife could not be found guilty of felony committed in the presence of her husband. For what reason? On account of the influence which the husband was supposed to possess over the wife. What comparison was there between the influence of a husband over a wife and the influence of a mother over a child of the age of seven years or seven years and a half? He did not say, that by the law of England, as it at present stood, the child should not have been convicted; but still in the administration of punishment, the influence of the mother, which in this instance was proved to be direct, ought to have been taken into account, and ought to have weighed not only with those by whom the sentence was passed, but also with those who were employed to carry it into execution. It was by mere accident that these circumstances had come to light. A gentleman, from motives of curiosity or for the purposes of science, obtained an order to inspect the interior of the prison, when he made the discovery, and immediately communicated it to one of her Majesty's Ministers. Had it not been for that accidental circumstance, it was probable that the three children would have been kept in a state of separate and solitary confinement for the whole term that they were sentenced to remain in the prison. Whether any one of her Majesty's Ministers had interfered to prevent that from being the case he was not at that moment correctly informed; but he trusted that this public mention of the circumstance would induce them to interpose, though late, to prevent such an act of injustice. This was only a part of what he had to say with respect to the Penitentiary. He had another circumstance to relate connected with the same subject. He was informed that two young men—one of them seventeen years of age, and the other of the age of something more than twenty—had been committed to solitary confinement in that prison for the period of a year. What had been the result? One of them, who had previously been a young man of great activity and intelligence, came out in a state of

85
idiotcy, and was now confined as an idiot in St. Marylebone workhouse, being reduced to such a state of utter and hopeless imbecility as to be incapable of being employed even in the breaking of stones. The other was not a person of the same intelligence, but a similar change was produced in him also. Was it possible, having these facts correctly authenticated and communicated to him, and knowing that this prison was under the immediate superintendence of the Government, the magistrates having nothing whatever to do with it, that he should not take the first opportunity of stating them publicly to their Lordships and to her Majesty's Ministers, for the purpose of preventing such abuses for the future. He felt this duty the more incumbent upon him when he was informed, as he had been upon good authority, that it was intended to extend this system of prison discipline and prison government generally throughout the country. He stated the facts, therefore, which had been communicated to him for the purpose of leading their Lordships to consider the absolute necessity of observing great caution in the exercise of the power they possessed, to weigh well what they were doing, and not to proceed without the most careful and the most anxious inquiry, because it was a subject which deeply interested every man who possessed the common feelings of humanity, as well as every man who took an interest in the public welfare. For these reasons he had thought it his duty to bring the subject before their Lordships, and he should now conclude by moving for a return of the number of children under the age of sixteen who had been committed to the Penitentiary during the last seven years, distinguishing the age of each, the sex, the period of commitment, the offence for which committed, and whether committed under the original sentence or under a commutation of the original sentence.
Viscount Melbourneadmitted, that the noble and learned Lord would in the highest degree have neglected his duty if, being in possession of such facts upon such a subject, he had failed to state them to the House, with the view of inducing their Lordships to interpose and to prevent the continuance of such grievances and such evils, if upon investigation they should be found really to exist. But at the same time, he must be allowed to say, that considering the manner in which the
86
charges contained in the noble and learned Lord's speech affected the character of those who were at the head of the establishment to which he referred, considering the effect which the statement of those charges was likely to leave upon the public mind, he could not help thinking that the noble and learned Lord had acted in a manner not the most fair, nor the most just to those whose characters he had so deeply implicated, in not giving some notice of his intention to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, in order that some one, at least, might have been prepared to enter into the details of the case, and to have stated how far the noble and learned Lord's statement was well-founded and correct, and how far it was exaggerated, as in some respects exaggerated it undoubtedly was. The noble and learned Lord, from the habit of his profession, well knew the importance of the first word upon every occasion. The noble and learned Lord well knew that the effect of a calm and artful statement was not afterwards very easily done away with. The noble and learned Lord very well knew that an explanation, however satisfactory, came a little too late after such a statement as that which he had just made. The noble and learned Lord well knew that the first impression was not easily removed from the minds of men when it was engravers so deep as it was likely to be by the manner in which the noble and learned Lord had made his statement. He said, therefore, that it was due, not to the Government—for that signified nothing—but due to the officers at the head of the establishment to which the noble and learned Lord's observations applied, and whose characters unquestionably were very deeply implicated in the statement he had made, that an opportunity should have been afforded to them of defending their conduct, and of replying to the charges which were alleged against them. With respect to the circumstances of the various cases to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, he was totally unacquainted with them. In the general principles which the noble and learned Lord had laid down it was impossible for him not entirely to concur, because they were completely self-evident. But he must again say, that, considering the effect which such a State, went was likely to have upon the mind of the public and upon the character of those who had an awful and respon-

87
sible duty to perform, he thought the noble and learned Lord would have acted more properly if he had given some notice of his intention to bring the subject forward.
Lord Lyndhurst: I hope the statement I made was calm; but I assure your Lordships it was not artful. I stated the facts exactly as they were represented to me. The noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government professes to be ignorant of the circumstances of the case. Why, there is not an individual in the metropolis who does not know of them. Besides, they have been the subject of a correspondence with the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department. That the noble Viscount, therefore, and the other Members of the Government who sit near him, should be ignorant of the facts contained in the statement I have made, shows that they are as ignorant of their domestic duties as they are incapable of managing the colonial government and foreign relations of the country.
Lord Brougham: I must trespass upon your Lordships' patience for a few minutes upon the subject of the present motion, because I certainly have had my feelings very powerfully affected and very strongly roused by statements which have been made to me also, as well as to my noble and learned Friend, with respect to the system of punishment practised in the Penitentiary. In consequence of the representations which had been made to me upon that subject, I came down to the House this evening, as my noble and learned Friend accidentally happens to know, with the intention of making a statement similar to that which he had made; but finding that my noble and learned Friend had had his attention called to the subject, and was prepared to make a statement upon it, I was much better pleased to leave it in his hands, knowing that it would gain much and lose nothing by being transferred from mine to his more powerful advocacy. I feel, therefore, although by the merest accident I have not myself committed the offence which is charged by the noble Viscount upon my noble and learned 'Friend, that I am morally guilty of that offence—that it was no fault of mine, but by mere accident only, that I did not stand in the place of my noble and learned Friend upon the same occasion; in which case, I well know by painful experience, I should have called down upon my own
88
head all that fierceness of the noble Viscount's vituperation which has accidentally fallen upon the more powerful head of my noble and learned Friend opposite. I should have been told that an ex-Chancellor, in which character I am in pari delicto with my noble and learned Friend—that an ex-Chancellor interfering by any remarks upon the administration of justice, including the execution of sentences as well as the passing of judgments—I should have been told, that that was an abuse, a crying abuse, which was full of evil example and of pernicious consequences to the tranquil management of public affairs. If there be anything that I more utterly abhor than another, it is, that tranquillity, so agreeable to all men in power, to all occupants of place, whether they have power in it or not. To be comfortable and easy, tranquil and quiet—to have a solitude made all around, and have that solitude dignified by the name of peace—I know by long experience that this is a favourite wish of all men who occupy place in this country. I am astonished that the noble Viscount should be ignorant of the facts contained in my noble and learned Friend's statement. I will not go so far as my noble and learned Friend has gone in flinging back upon him who made it the sneer which applied to himself; but I take leave to say that, if the noble Viscount be in the state of ignorance which, from his statement, I am compelled reluctantly to believe, he is certainly the only person in this country, who attends at all to public affairs (for, from his situation, I presume, the noble Viscount does now and then bestow some attention on what is passing around), who is ignorant of the facts which have been referred to by my noble and learned Friend. But, says the noble Viscount, "This is a charge." Ay, truly, a charge it is; but a charge against whom? "Not against her Majesty's Ministers," says the noble Viscount; "that is neither here nor there; but a charge against the responsible persons at the head of the establishment—the superintendents of the prison in question." Not so. It is not a charge against them that I have heard. No rule of the prison has been violated—no imputation of unwarranted harshness or cruelty has been cast upon the superintendents of the prison. But the prison having certain rules, one of which rules, as notoriously as the sun at noon-day, is, that the persons there confined shall undergo the punishment of

89
separate or solitary confinement—the charge, in this instance, is not that the superintendents have been guilty of a breach of duty—they would have been guilty of such a breach only if they had failed to inflict the cruelty complained of. The charge is, that by virtue of an order, which, as I understand, is not denied—by virtue of an order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, three children, of the several ages of seven, eight, and nine years, are subjected, as I am at present informed, to two years, but as I now learn from my noble and learned Friend's statement, to three years imprisonment in this establishment, a great portion of which time they have already passed in separate and solitary confinement—an enormity, in my opinion, enough to call down the thunder of public indignation upon the administration of justice and execution of the law in this country. But it is quite unknown to the noble Viscount and to her Majesty's Ministers whether these things are true or not. No notice is taken of them—no inquiry made. How do we know of them? We are not Ministers of State; we are not at the head of the Home Department; the prison is not under our custody; we have no visitorial power over it; we have no right to apply for admission into it; except in the same way as my excellent and valued friend Mr. Fulke, to whose laudable curiosity we are indebted for the discovery of that mischievous iniquity which otherwise would long have remained shadowed and veiled from the public eye—we have no such means of information as her Majesty's Ministers possess—we have no special channels of intelligence—we have no secretaries nor under secretaries, no clerks nor messengers— in fact, none of the machinery by which a Government acquires its information and distributes its commands. And yet it does so happen that, without the slightest communication with each other, I and my noble and learned Friend had heard the very same statement which separately and unknown to each other had put both of us in motion upon the present occasion. The thing was not done in a corner. The offence was created in a corner I admit, and, as I said before, was covered in darkness until accident brought it to light; but the discussion through which alone the knowledge of the offence reached my noble and learned Friend and myself was as public as that which is now going on before your Lordships, with only this difference, that
90
it was much more public, being at a meeting of magistrates, where the public had a right to be present, whereas they are present here only by the courtesy or connivance of the House. Last Thursday—the sun has risen and gone down four times since then, affording ample time to the Government, with its legion of secretaries, clerks, and messengers, to make full inquiry upon the subject—last Thursday it was stated, not in the newspapers, whose assertions might not be credited, but at a public meeting, not of agitators—if it had, perhaps, the statement would have been credited—but at a public meeting of the magistrates of the metropolitan county of Middlesex, by no less a person than the chairman himself, that the circumstances described by my noble and learned Friend were stated to have actually occurred within the walls of the Penitentiary. All London knew of it; it has been a topic of universal reprobation, coextensive with the hourly increasing sphere in which it has been known. All Westminster had talked of it. All Middlesex has pointed its eyes towards the quarter in which the abuse occurred. I will venture to say that it has been more talked of, more discussed, more indignantly commented upon in every corner of this great town, and of this populous country, than any one subject either in or out of Parliament, or in any one of the courts of justice, civil or criminal. How, then, it happens that the only persons who are unacquainted with this matter are those whose duty it is to be most watchful upon subjects of this description is not for me to tell. I make no charge—I impute no blame—I only express my wonder that it should be made a charge against us—against him who brought forward the subject, and against him who intended to bring it forward, that upon a subject so universally and notoriously known a formal notice of motion had not been given in order that the Government might be fully prepared upon such a subject: an active Government would not have been unprepared one hour after circumstances so disgraceful had come to light. There is an additional reason which induces me to take up the statement of my noble and learned Friend, and to support it by every means in my power. Since these abuses in the administration of punishments in the Penitentiary have been discovered it has been very earnestly urged upon me by a very powerful acid very valuable body of

91
friends, that it is inconsistent with my duty to confine myself to the condition of the suffering negroes, and not to cast an eye nearer home, where similar enormities are known to exist. Of this I am absolutely certain as that I stand here addressing your Lordships in the face of the people of this country, that had I found among the records of the West Indies—had I found in the history of the cruelties inflicted upon the unhappy African race in our colonies a passage like the present, where children of tender years—it would there have been of the ages of four, five, and seven, answering to what in our colder climate (where the progress towards maturity is more slow) would be six, seven, and nine—had been subjected to such cruelty—if I found that such atrocities had been committed by the sentence of colonial magistrates under the authority of a colonial Government or a colonial secretary upon children of these tender years in the solitary gaols of the Antilles, I should hardly have thought that I could have found so terrible a climax, or brought the statement I have lately harrowed your Lordships feelings by making in this place, so appropriately to a close, as by narrating such a case as that which has been so ably and so calmly described by my noble and learned Friend.
Viscount Melbourne: Notwithstanding the statements which have just been made, and made by a very great authority, I still retain my former opinion, that if it be the object of the two noble and learned Lords not to excite impatience in the public mind, not to create a clamour—and surely upon topics of this kind the public mind is sufficiently disposed to be clamorous—if it be their object to have the matter discussed fairly with respect to all the parties concerned, it was incumbent upon the noble and learned Lord who spoke first, just to have intimated to the Government his intention of bringing the subject forward. Where was the difficulty of his just telling me yesterday, when these circumstances came to his knowledge, that he should bring it forward this evening in the House. Would that have been unfair towards me? Would it have been discourteous in itself? Would it have been unfair towards the cause which the noble and leaned Lord had to bring forward? Was it not the general course to pursue? Was it not the course usually—nay, I may almost say invariably—pursued upon such occasions? I wish the noble Duke (Wel-
92
lington) had been here. The noble Duke would rather have cut off his right hand than have taken such a course as that taken by the noble and learned Lord. The noble Duke is a man of honour and a gentleman, the noble Duke is actuated and governed by the feelings of a gentleman and a man of honour, and I feel confident that he would not have acted in this manner. What is the conduct of the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst)? Does it not put an end to every thing with respect to notice in this House? Is it to be expected that a minister of state is to be prepared at once, when noble and learned Lords—even of a learned profession—men who have filled the highest offices in that profession—men who from long practice have acquired all the artfulness which belongs to the profession—is it to be expected when such men make themselves masters of the circumstances of any case which may exist in the country, that a minister of state is at the moment to be in possession of such general knowledge, of such complete information, not only of the general aspect but of the particular circumstances of the case, as to be prepared at once to rise and enter into a full detail in reply to any interrogatories that may be put to him on the subject? It is impossible—no man could do it. It is perfectly impossible, and perfectly unreasonable to expect it. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) says that full publicity has been given to the subject, that it is very well known, and that the circumstances have become the topic of common talk and almost universal comment. That which attracts the attention of one man does not attract the attention of another—and that which, under particular circumstances, may be much spoken of in one part of the country, may not in any respect have reached the knowledge or attracted the attention of persons in another part of the country. I do not say that I have not seen something of this case in the public newspapers; but I have not yet seen such an account of it as would enable me to make a statement upon it in this House, particularly in answer to the very cool, the very calm, and the very artful (I do not intend to use the word in an offensive sense) statement which the noble and learned Lord has made, and in the making of which, more than any other man of the present day, the noble and learned Lord particularly excels. Therefore I do not feel that I have in any re-

93
spect neglected my duty with respect to the home interests of the country, any more than with respect to the colonial or foreign politics of the country, by not being prepared to make a complete, full, and true statement of facts in reply to the questions of two very learned lawyers—I was going to say—but of two lawyers, I will say, of great eminence, having filled very high situations in the profession of the law. I beg leave, therefore, to say that I adhere to my first statement—that I consider the conduct of the noble and learned Lord upon this occasion to have been highly unfair and highly unjust towards the parties concerned, highly injurious to the public service, and highly inconvenient to the fair and temperate discussion of the question.
Lord Lyndhurst: When I brought forward the question I did not for a moment suppose that the Government could be ignorant of the circumstances to which I was about to refer. It has been distinctly stated, and not denied, that the subject has been brought under the attention of the Government. I ask them whether a minister of state discharges the duty he owes to the country if, having such a subject brought under his consideration, he do not immediately commence an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining how far the statement he has received be consistent with the fact? The noble Viscount says, that he wishes the noble Duke had been here, because the noble Duke is a man of honour and a gentleman. That observation, which is true of the noble Duke, was employed by the noble Viscount in such a manner as to bear a different construction as applied to others. I wish to know in what sense the noble Viscount applies those terms? I beg an explanation.
Viscount Melbourne: When I said, that the noble Duke was a gentleman and a man of honour, I did not say that anybody else was not a gentleman nor a man of honour.
Lord Lyndhurst: Not directly, but by construction. I ask an explanation.
Lord Brougham: I do not think that the noble Viscount durst have said, I do not think that any man durst have said—using the term in its Parliamentary sense—I do not think that the noble Viscount or any man in this House dared have said that a peer in the discharge of his duty, bringing forward a subject, and asking for further information upon it from the
94
Government, acted unlike a gentleman or a man of honour because he did not think fit by mere courtesy to give a notice, which it is not the duty of every man to give upon every occasion, and which no man until to-night ever pretended any man had a title to expect as a matter of right. It is uniformly admitted to be a mere matter of courtesy—as a matter of right, never. But, says the noble Viscount, "Oh! that the noble Duke were here, he would never have done anything of this kind; he is too much of a gentleman and a man of honour; the noble Duke would rather have cut off his right hand than have done—." What? Why, that which my noble and learned Friend is charged with having done, and which I most undeniably should have done if my noble and learned Friend had not forestalled me. I now repeat my intention to have brought the subject forward, the more emphatically and distinctly because, if the epithets I have heard used—if the construction indirectly applied to my noble and learned Friend—if the language employed by the noble Viscount—if any of these are to have force, I willingly go into the same predicament, willingly embark myself in the same boat with my noble and learned Friend, now that I find that predicament, by insinuation, so dangerous, and now that I see that boat call down the sharp fire from the heavy artillery of the noble Viscount. While the noble Viscount, enraged and goaded by the substance of my noble and learned Friend's statement much more than by his manner of making it—while the noble Viscount, enraged and goaded by the substance of the charge much more than by the time and manner of bringing it forward, chose to adopt the course of using such language. [Order!] I hear a cry of "Order!" from one of the patrons of order—I suppose from one of the "order" Lords—from one of those who are the friends of a stern and inflexible system of discipline in this House: I heard no such cry of "Order!" when the noble Viscount was using language which, to say the least of it, did not seem to be strictly agreeable to the ordinary courtesies of debate. When the noble Viscount, the head of the Government, expressed his indignation in a richness and exuberance of language not common in this House, there was a dead silence; the patrons of "order"—the stern disciplinarians, had not a word to breathe; but the instant that I began to give a com-

95
mentary upon the language employed by the noble Viscount, a cry of "Order!" burst indignantly from their previously closed and silent lips. I beg to have it understood, in answer to what the noble Viscount says, that I quite agree with him when he asserts that a person in his situation is not chargeable with a neglect of duty merely because he does not know what every other person knows. I quite agree with the noble Viscount on that point. I expressly said that I did not go so far as my noble Friend in his second speech, in which he blamed the noble Viscount for ignorance. What I said was, this, that the noble Viscount's ignorance furnished him with a valid defence against the charge of my noble and learned Friend. True it was, that my noble and learned Friend had no right to suppose the noble Viscount ignorant; but it turned out that he was ignorant, and, therefore, not liable to the charge of neglect. Had my noble and learned Friend happened to know that the noble Viscount was not acquainted with the circumstances he wished to bring under the consideration of the House, he would no doubt have pursued a different course; but, unfortunately, my noble and learned Friend took it for granted that the noble Viscount had the same information as all the world beside. I, in common with my noble and learned Friend, should certainly have thought that the noble Viscount must have known the circumstances of the case, because the magistrates knew it and had publicly spoken of it, because Lord John Russell knew it and had for some time been engaged in a correspondence upon it, and because I never doubted that a thing of this sort once discovered would be brought under the immediate consideration of the Government.
Lord Lyndhurst: I must insist upon knowing whether the noble Viscount meant to convey any imputation upon me—whether he meant to imply that in the course I have taken on this occasion I have not acted as a man of honour and a Gentleman?
Viscount Melbourne: I beg leave to say that when I made reference to the noble Duke who is not present, what I wished to say was this; that from his very scrupulous conduct upon similar occasions—from the great care which the noble Duke invariably took to advertise those who sat opposite to him of anything he intended to move, or of any course he intended to
96
take, I was satisfied he would not have acted in the same way as the noble and learned Lord has done upon this occasion. The exact manner or the exact terms in which I expressed that opinion I cannot immediately recollect; but I beg leave to say at once, that if I employed any term or said anything which could be construed as implying that the noble and learned Lord had acted in a manner unlike a man of honour and unbecoming a gentleman, I at once retract it.
Lord Lyndhurst: I am perfectly satisfied with the noble Viscount's explanation.
The returns were ordered.

MISREPRESENTATION.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he would take the opportunity which presenting some petitions afforded him of contradicting some statements respecting himself which had appeared in a Government paper of yesterday (Sunday,) intimating that he had no doubt altered his opinion on the Poor-laws, and that he had set on the hon. Member for Southwark (an individual not very likely to be set on or set off by the opinions of any other person) to carry into execution some plan, the nature of which he (Lord Brougham) was really not at all aware of, for the purpose of not committing himself with respect to the Poor-law Bill. The same paper also asserted, as a matter which was not at all doubted, that he (Lord Brougham) had also set on another hon. Gentleman (one in all probability as little subject to influence as the hon. Member for Southwark), the hon. Baronet the Member for Leeds to give notice of a motion respecting the administration of the colonial department. With that hon. Baronet he had never been in a room but once; and although he had great respect for the talents and integrity of the hon. Baronet, and agreed with him in many of his political opinions, he by no means agreed with him in them all. But the fact was, that he had never had any political communication with either of the individuals alluded to; and had never had any communication whatever with any human being on the subject of the hon. Baronet's notice. Nay, there was one and that an important part of the hon. Baronet's notice on which he differed from him. As he had already stated in that House he did not think the noble Lord at the head of the colonial department should be exposed to bear the whole of the blame respecting the Canadian

97
question; and if the notice were his he would strike out the noble Lord's name, and extend the charge to the whole Government; every Member of which was, in his opinion, equally liable to the accusation. He wished all public secretaries, and private secretaries, and under secretaries, and over secretaries would employ themselves in earning their respective salaries, rather than in telling such stupid tales to the editors of newspapers; for he was sure that no man in that capacity would invent anything so absurd.

PRESBYTERIAN OATHS.
Lord Denmanbegged leave to present the more comprehensive measure to which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had adverted in an earlier part of the evening, at being called for by the withdrawing of the Presbyterian Oaths (Ireland) Bill. It was well known that there were many persons not included in the classes, who by law were exempted from the necessity of taking oaths, who nevertheless doubted the propriety of taking them. There was an instance which immediately presented itself before his mind, that of a gentleman of the name of Wedgewood, a son-in-law of Sir James Mackintosh, who withdrew himself from the commission of the peace on becoming convinced of what he considered the unlawfulness of oath-taking. This conscientious conviction also prevented him from taking oaths as a witness in a court of justice. Now the duty of a judge was very severe in such a case. If a party (not already protected by the law) refused to give evidence in a court of justice, it was the duty of a judge to commit him for contempt of court; and he became liable to heavy fine and imprisonment. There was a probability, therefore, that the testimony of the most conscientious persons might thus be lost to the cause of justice. Nor was that a fanciful danger. He remembered last year a respectable gentleman belonging to the Ordnance-office, who felt reluctant, by his sense of what was right, to come forward and give evidence against an accused person; and the consequence was, that there was the greatest danger that a criminal would have escaped conviction. As the law stood, the Quaker was excused from the necessity of taking an oath; but the conscientious minister of the Church of England was not excused. It was, therefore, that he had added a clause to this bill to the effect that whoever declared in a court of justice that
98
he entertained conscientious scruples on the subject of taking an oath should be admitted to make his verbal affirmation, and that that should be considered as evidence; providing, of course, that if his statement were proved to be untrue, he should be held guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to the same penal consequences as if he had committed perjury. He was not aware whether or not their Lordships would regard this proposition with favour; but in his opinion it would be inconsistent on their part if they refused to pass this clause as well as the first. He would much rather, however, that the question should not be discussed until after the bill had been printed, than that there should be any hurry with reference to a matter of so much importance.
Bill read a first time.