Lords Sitting of 26 April 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of DURHAM, from several places, against any further Grant to the Church of Scotland.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, and Lord HATHRTON, from several places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from several places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws; and from other places, for Church Exsension in Scotland.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
The Earl of Aber- deensaid, that in presenting to the House the petition from Newfoundland of which he had given notice, he begged to state very shortly the condition in which this unfortunate colony was placed. In doing so, it was not necessary for him to detain their Lordships for one moment by explaining the value or progress of that province; it would be sufficient to remind their Lordships, that ever since the missions in the time of James 1st and Charles 1st it had been considered a great nursery of our seamen, and consequently of the highest importance to this country. That province, however, was now in that wretched and distracted state which required an immediate and speedy remedy. Last year he had presented a petition to their Lordships, signed by all the persons of property and respectability of St. George's, in which they detailed their sufferings and set forth their complaints, stating, that the grievances under which they laboured were perfectly intolerable. The noble Lord who then presided over the colonial department admitted the correctness of the statements made, and held out hopes of relief; but from that time to this, nothing whatever had been done, and the grievances of the colonists had become considerably aggravated. The petition which he had now to present, prayed for the abolition of the colonial legislature established in that province. This, no doubt, was a startling proposition, and the circumstances of the case must be desperate indeed to induce a colony to seek to repudiate the charter of their liberties. He did not say, that he was prepared at once to support this prayer, but he certainly thought, that ample grounds were stated to induce Parliament to institute an inquiry into the subject; for as to the Government he was compelled to admit, though he meant no offence in saying it, that he expected no remedy from them. The petitioners complained in express terms of the character and proceedings of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, of their tyrannical and oppressive conduct, of their legal assumption of the supreme powers of the State, of their constant and capricious appropriation of the public revenue, of their unjust partition among themselves and families of the public funds of the colony, and of the base composition of the House of Assembly itself, and the disgraceful character of its proceedings, which were en-
554
tirely calculated to bring it into universal and deserved contempt. He had reason to believe, that all the allegations of the petitioners could be amply proved, and that satisfactory evidence to substantiate them was in this country at this moment, and a great portion of it in the Colonial-office itself. The House of Assembly, and the commission in virtue of which it existed, was granted to the colony in 1833. The qualification of electors was the occupation of a tenement, of any description for a year, that of members the occupation of a tenement of any description, for two years. He was ready to admit, that any other or higher qualification, in the case of electors, would probably afford no constituency at all, and that, therefore, the qualification in their case, was the one which it was right to establish, but the question was the fitness of the House of Assembly itself. The situation of Newfoundland was in many respects a peculiar one. The population mainly consisted of merchants and fishermen. Indeed, it had been compared to a great ship moored in the ocean, for though the territory was of great extent, the climate and soil were utterly unsuited for agricultural purposes, and the population was consequently almost entirely made up of employers and persons actively employed under them in trade. When their Lordships heard speak of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, the term sounded imposing enough, and they naturally associated with it ideas of respectability, not to say dignity. The House of Assembly in question, however, was not altogether of a composition to fulfil such an idea. It consisted of fifteen persons, and these, hardly without exception, were individuals very ill calculated for any purposes of legislation which could have been contemplated by those who framed the constitution of the province. He would not trouble their Lordships with a regular analysis of the composition of this very remarkable Assembly; it might be sufficient to state, that one hon. Member was a hired servant, at a salary of ten pounds a year, who attended the house by permission of his master, and received a guinea a day for his attendance. There was another member of pretty much the same description, and it might be generally stated, that the members of this House of Assembly were per-sons of no means adequate to the under-

555
stood position, and without any qualifications for duly exercising legislative functions. It certainly seemed no better than a burlesque on legislation. The petitioners stated that for a short time after the establishment of the House of Assembly matters were somewhat better, and that the first one or two elections were conducted without that monstrous system of oppression and intimidation which had been exercised in all the late elections; that several competent persons were consequently returned to the house, and that a few hundred pounds had sufficed to defray all the expenses of the house and its officers, but that now the colony was greatly in debt; that the debt was every year considerably increased by the proceedings of the house; and that the members of the house engrossed amongst themselves and their families one-sixth of the net revenue of the colony. It was incumbent upon the mother country to remedy such monstrous grievances as these. Of the arbitrary conduct of the Assembly one instance might be a sufficient illustration. A gentleman of the medical profession happened to quarrel in the streets of St. John with a member of the House of Assembly. High words took place, but there was no assault. The member complained to the Assembly, and the gentleman was taken into custody on the Speaker's warrant. On the case being brought before the judge, the gentleman was discharged on a writ of habeas corpus. Could their Lordships imagine that, upon the House of Assembly being informed of this circumstance, they, by the agency of their messengers, seized the judge on the bench and the high sheriff who had officially executed the writ, dragged them like malefactors through the streets, and put them in prison. The Governor, to put an end to these outrages, prorogued the House of Assembly, and thus released the prisoners. Their Lordships had heard much of the high privileges of the House of Commons, but he doubted whether they had ever heard of the assertion of so high a privilege as this. It was represented that this state of things was exclusively owing to the paramount influence exercised by the Roman Catholic priests. No man knew better than the noble Marquess opposite what was the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood at elections, where they had the opportunity of exercising it; and it was stated by the
556
petitioners, that in the case of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, that class of persons returned by their influence nearly every member of that Assembly. The petitioners distinctly stated, that as soon as the Roman Catholic priests in the colony saw how greatly the House of Assembly could serve their purposes, they set every engine to work to obtain the return of a house nominated by themselves. Whoever refused to vote for their nominees was denounced from the pulpit; all persons were charged to cease in their dealings in trade with them, under the same penalty; and all the rites of the church, considered most sacred—even the service of burial—was refused them. Whatever might have been the motives that led to the introduction of the constitution he would not stop to inquire. It was described at the time as having been brought forward and tried as an experiment, and he was sure that those who proposed it must now be anxious to amend it. The petitioners declared that, in the social situation of that colony nothing could remedy the evils they laboured under but the abolition of the Colonial Assembly as it existed. They, therefore, prayed, that some measure might be passed which would promote the peace of the colony by abolishing this Assembly, and instituting in its place some body that would insure the good government of the colony. He was not prepared exactly to agree to grant all that the petitioners prayed for; but it was clear that some remedy ought to be applied to the evils under which the colony suffered; he was not prepared to state exactly what these should be, but he trusted that the subject would be properly investigated, with the view of adopting some remedial measure.
The Marquess of Normanbydid not think it was necessary to follow the noble Earl through the various details of the petition, and more especially as the noble Earl stated, that he did not entirely concur in the prayer of the petition. With respect to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, he felt bound to state that, during his short experience in his present office, he had seen enough to say, that he did not think that it would be possible for him to justify all the acts of that body; at the same time, it was only justice to state, that there were two stories, and many of the allegations in the petition,

557
and the complaints that were made by his noble Friend, were denied by persons in this country connected with the House of Assembly, who stated, that they were ready to disprove them if an opportunity were afforded. In the present state of things he had written to the Governor of Newfoundland to make inquiry into the complaints made on both sides, and the grievances that were urged, and to make a report on the subject to the Colonial Office. When he had obtained the information contained in this report, he should be prepared to state to the House the views of her Majesty's Government on the subject. He felt bound to add, however, that he had not vet found sufficient reasons in any communications that he had received from the Governor to justify him in recommending the adoption of the extreme remedy alluded to by his noble Friend and the petitioners. He thought that the grievances complained of might be remedied by a much less extreme mode of proceeding. All that he could further say was, that the matter had engaged his attention, and that he was in communication with the Governor of the colony, and he was not at present prepared to say, that a Parliamentary inquiry was necessary.
The Earl of Durhamhad been intrusted with a petition directly impugning the statements made in that presented by the noble Earl. Before he made any public observations, however, he wished to ask the noble Earl whether the petition he had presented was from persons residing in the colony, or from merchants in Liverpool and other places? [The Earl of Aberdeen: from persons in the colony.] He had asked this question because he understood that certain unfounded statements had been made in a memorial to the Colonial Office by certain merchants residing at Liverpool. The petition which he had received bad been sent to him by the Speaker of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, and was signed by 2,780 persons, including the clergy, magistrates, merchants, and others residing in the colony. This petition represented that there was no truth in the statements which affirmed the colony to be disorganized or disturbed; but they stated that their loyalty and devotion to the mother country might be relied on at all times. It appeared that in this island there were two parties—the one the agri-
558
culturists or settlers, anxious to promote the cultivation of the land, and the other the adventurers or mercantile portion of the community, anxious for the predominance of the merchants' interests. These parties made the most contradictory statements as to the state of society. The persons who had signed the petition which had been confided to him stated, that the colony had long enjoyed a state of almost perfect tranquillity, and that for many years there had been an almost entire abstinence from crime, and they were anxious that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the whole case. The noble Earl read extracts from the petition, confirming these statements, and justifying the conduct of the House of Assembly. The noble Earl opposite had called the attention of the House to the composition of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland, but the other party made equally strong complaints as to the composition of the Council in the island. The House of Assembly were anxious to promote the cultivation of the land in the colony, which, until within the last few years, had been entirely neglected; to do that bad almost been regarded as a criminal proceeding, and in consequence of the Council having taken a very different view of the matter differences had arisen. He could not make any statement on this subject from his own knowledge; for, during the time that he was in North America, he was unable to give much attention to the proceedings in this colony. It was very important, however, that an inquiry should be instituted, with the view of seeing which party was in the right or wrong. If there were any foundation for the statement made by the noble Earl, it was necessary that some notice should be taken of the proceedings, and if there was not, some declaration should be made by her Majesty's Government to set the minds of the people at rest. The petition of the noble Earl prayed for inquiry, and the petition which had been intrusted to him prayed that a commission might be appointed to inquire into the matter on the spot. Under these circumstances he trusted that some investigation would take place, and he hoped that the result would prove satisfactory.
The Earl of Riponstated, that it was clear that these two petitions contained the most contradictory allegations. His noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies

559
said, that he could not give an opinion on the subject until he had received certain information from the governor of the colony, which he had written out for. It was clear that the question could not be allowed to remain as it was; and the most serious charges were brought by one party against the other, which were met by the most vehement denials. He believed that the state of things which were described to exist in that colony was quite incompatible with the continuance of tranquillity and prosperity. He was a party to giving a House of Assembly to this colony, and was quite willing to bear his share of the responsibility of the proceeding. Whether the present state of things had grown up from giving this charter he could not say, but there could not be the slightest doubt that it was a state of things that required the vigilant attention of her Majesty's Government. He did not know whether he should be justified at present in stating the reasons which induced the Government to grant a charter to this colony; he should therefore abstain from doing so. He might, however, be allowed to observe, that there were striking peculiarities in the nature of this colony, and that formerly almost all the people in the colony returned to England or Ireland in the winter season, and went out again to Newfoundland in the spring. There were several expences attending this colony, and as it was not thought proper that the English Government should be permanently saddled with these charges, it was determined that they should be defrayed by taxes levied on the colony, and that these should be raised with the consent of the people themselves. It was, therefore, recommended that the Crown should exercise its prerogative, and give a House of Assembly and Council to the colony; and he thought that this was much better than coming down to Parliament and asking for an Act for the purpose. The charter given to Newfoundland was almost a copy of the charter given to the other North American colonies, and more especially to that of Nova Scotia. Another feeling also operated, namely, that Newfoundland was almost the only colony of England entirely inhabited by natives of this country, or their descendants, that Lad not a House of Assembly; and as all the neighbouring colonies had a system of self-government, it was also determined that it should be extended to this colony. If blame was to attach to any one for giving
560
this charter, he was as liable to it as any one; and notwithstanding the alleged failure of the constitution, he still thought that it was an experiment that it was politic to make: and, indeed, the petitioners that made the complaints admitted that the plan had succeeded in the outset; and they also stated, that all the evils that had since arisen had flown from causes which were not inherent in the constitution. He had also received a petition on this subject, which he should shortly present, similar to that presented by his noble Friend behind him, from merchants of Liverpool trading to Newfoundland, and although he had informed those parties that he was in office when the colony had a constitution conferred on it, they had, notwithstanding, chosen to intrust this petition to him. All that he would further say was, that it was the duty of the Government or the Legislature, if they possibly could, to provide a remedy for some of the admitted evils, which, if they were allowed to continue, must ultimately destroy this colony.
Lord Broughamwas satisfied that the Government should immediately apply itself to this subject, at the same time he thought that a parliamentary inquiry was the best course that could be taken to investigate the matter, when there was such a distinct denial of facts on both sides. Although a constitution similar to that bestowed on Newfoundland might be advisable under other circumstances, yet it was by no means clear that it was the best adapted to a small colony like Newfoundland, where there were many peculiarities. He knew many eminent persons who entertained the highest admiration of the British constitution, but who were by no means satisfied, and who entertained serious doubts as to its results when applied on a small scale. It would require, however, a much stronger case to justify the Legislature in revoking a constitution than it would in inducing them to withhold their assent to granting one. He should abstain, however, from giving a decided opinion one way or the other on the present case, until he had got the facts before him. As he understood it, one of the most serious grounds of complaint was, that the House of Assembly in Newfoundland had taken up the case of an assault on one of its Members as a breach of privilege, and dealt with it accordingly. This, however, was by no means a singular proceeding, for both

561
the House of Commons and that House had committed persons to Newgate, or to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and had refused to enlarge them until they had paid the fees, which was going much further than the House of Assembly at Newfoundland had pretended to go; and that for matters which were just as relevant to breach of privilege as that which the Assembly of Newfoundland had dealt with. He had met with upwards of 200 cases of persons having been sent to New-gate by that and the other House of Parliament for most singular cases of alleged breach of privilege. He recollected one case of a man having been brought to the bar for a breach of privilege for having broken into and entered the fishery of Admiral Lucas, a Member of Parliament; and this man was committed to prison, although he claimed the right of fishing in the waters in question. At last he was induced to petition to be released, and he had to go down on his knees at the bar of the House, and to beg pardon, and to declare that he never would fish in these waters again. It might have been supposed that this took place at an early period in the history of Parliament, but in fact it occurred in the reign of George 3rd, and about the year 1769. This, however, was by no means the worst case that he could quote of a similar alleged breach of privilege. He need hardly mention the celebrated umbrella case in that House, and there were several of a similar character. There was also a case in the reign of Charles 2nd, where a Member of Parliament had legal proceedings instituted against him, and the party opposed to him had employed a sergeant-at-law and an attorney to prosecute his suit in the Common Pleas. The House chose to take up the matter, and summoned not only the party, but the sergeant-at-law and the attorney to the bar, and the two latter had to go down on their knees and beg pardon, and had to assure the House that they would never proceed against a Member of Parliament again. He knew many persons who justified this mode of proceeding, and contended that it was essential to the independence of Parliament. He had heard the late Mr. Windham, Mr. Elliot, and other distinguished Members contend for the principle, and assert that it was the only mode of proceeding that could be adopted to prevent Members of Parliament being
562
involved in endless litigation. This prin. ciple, then, which had been acted upon by former Houses of Commons had been adopted by the present House of Assembly at Newfoundland, and the practice had been defended by the most eminent men in this country. He had mentioned these cases to show that this was not a new principle taken up by the Colonial Legislature. Nor did he intend to justify that body, and to say that they were more in the right than former Houses of Parliament were. Again, it had been stated by the noble Earl that a gentleman had been elected a Member of the House of Assembly, but he had refused to take his seat, as he was unwilling to mix in such company as he would have to associate with in that place. But this was also by no means a singular proceeding, for he recollected a very worthy and excellent friend of his, who some years ago had been elected a Member of the other House, and who refused to take his seat, because, as he stated, he did not like either the bad hours or the bad company he should be obliged to keep. This Gentleman was now a noble Earl, and a Member of that House. Thus, then, the commoner of Newfoundland, who had been alluded to by the noble Earl, had said exactly the same as the distinguished commoner of England, and he certainly did not think that the observation should be taken as implying a very serious stigma on the character of the colony.
The Earl of Aberdeen,in reply, observed, that the persons who were now most desirous for the repeal of the Colonial Legislature had formerly been the most active in procuring its establishment; their opinions had been completely changed. He had no doubt that his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office would pay the greatest attention to this subject; but he was afraid that it was too late for any efficient remedy to be applied by means of accommodation, and he could not say that he looked for future communications with much expectation. If the accusations were, as he had no doubt they would be, confirmed, the result must be to grant the prayer of the petitioners.
The Marquess of Normanbyexpressed great confidence in the judgment of Captain Preston, who now administered the affairs of Newfoundland, and he hoped by his means the House of Assembly might

563
be brought to see the impropriety of some of their proceedings, and that something might be done to meet the views of those who wished to maintain the Constitutional Government.
Petition laid on the Table.

DEANERY OF EXETER
Viscount Melbourne,referring to the order of the day for the third reading of the Deanery of Exeter Appointment Bill, stated, that he had received an intimation that there would be a meeting of the Chapter on Friday next, and that there was an anxiety on the part of some of the Members of the Chapter that the bill should not be passed until after that meeting. He was desirous of complying with their wish, and he should therefore move that the third reading be deferred till Friday next.
The Bishop of Exeterwould take that opportunity to correct a misstatement made by the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) on a former evening. The noble Viscount then said, that the Dean of Exeter had, since the year 1560, been regularly elected at the recommendation of the Crown. Now, the facts were these. In 1560 Queen Elizabeth addressed a letter to the Chapter of Exeter, recommending a Dean to them, and not doubting that they would comply with that recommendation by electing him. Considering the notions of that Queen on the subject of her prerogative, he must say that this did not appear a very strong mode of exercising it. Subsequently to the letter of Elizabeth, however, three deans in succession were appointed without the interference of the Crown. Charles 1st, also a Prince entertaining a great regard for his prerogative, subsequently sent down a letter recommendatory, but at the same time mandatory. After the Restoration, Charles 2nd. continued to pursue the same course, always recommending, however, persons qualified according to the Statute. At length it suited him to recommend a person who was not qualified according to the statute, and then was adopted the system of letters patent. It thus appeared, notwithstanding the statement of the noble Viscount, that this practice had no higher origin than the time of the Stuarts—a period generally considered the worst with regard to all precedents relating to extension of the prerogative.
Third reading postponed.

GAOL DELIVERIES.
The Duke of Richmond,in moving for the returns of which he had given notice, begged their Lordships' attention while he explained what had been the course pursued by a noble and learned Lord at the last assizes for the county of Sussex. In that county there were at the present time two houses of correction and one gaol. One of these houses of correction was situated at Lewes and the other at Petworth, twenty or twenty-five miles from Lewes. The situation of the latter, however, was so inconvenient, that the judges objected to go there. At the last assizes the learned judge who presided in the criminal court, ordered, that four prisoners whose names were not in the calendar should be brought up for the purpose of being discharged in the usual way by proclamation. One was committed for stealing a large faggot of the value of a few pence, two others were committed for stealing two birch faggots each, and the last (a woman) was committed for stealing some petty articles in a union workhouse in the eastern part of the county. These prisoners had been committed by the magistrates for trial at the quarter sessions, which would be held subsequently to the assizes. The learned judge, however, desired the gaoler to take those prisoners out of the custody of the keeper of the house of correction and bring them to court, in order, that they might be discharged in the usual way by proclamation. The clerk of the arraigns also called on the gaoler to proceed forthwith to Pet-worth, twenty-five miles off, to bring over to Lewes eighteen prisoners who were there awaiting their trial, the learned judge having declared, that he felt it his duty not to allow a single untried individual to remain in any house of correction in the county. The answer of the gaoler was, that for him to go over would be useless, first, because there would not be time, and next, because the keeper of the house of correction would certainly refuse to give up his prisoners. He was glad to find the gaoler had so discharged his duty; and, in his opinion, the keeper of the house of correction would not have been justified in giving them up except under a writ of habeas corpus. The clerk of arraigns was then applied to for a written order from the judge to the keeper of the house of correction, authorising him to deliver up the prisoners, but

565
such order was not given; indeed, it could not legally have been given. Independently of which it would not have been right for the prisoners to be driven over twenty-five miles to Lewes two days before their trial, during the very time which they would require for preparing their defence. He (the Duke of Richmond) understood the noble and learned Lord to maintain, that he was bound to discharge every prisoner remaining in the county prisons at the close of the assizes, even though they might have been committed for trial at the quarter sessions. The noble and learned Lord adverted to the examples set by former judges under similar circumstances; but the question had been brought before the whole of the judges, and a majority had pronounced a different judgment. Under such circumstances it was surely better for an individual judge to how to the decision of the majority rather than to act on his own views. In 1810, Baron Wood thought fit to discharge eight prisoners at the close of the assizes, in all of whose cases the witnesses and prosecutors had been bound over to appear at the next quarter sessions. No bills having been found against them, they were discharged by proclamation. The question of the right of the judge to discharge prisoners under such circumstances was brought before the whole of the judges a majority of whom were of opinion, that it was not incumbent on the judge to discharge all the prisoners, but discretionary to keep those whom he thought fit, if even the witnesses who had been bound over did not appear. But the act of the noble and learned Lord himself proved, that he did not at the time think it incumbent upon him to deliver all the prisoners, or why did he stop short at the four prisoners? Why did he not remain until he had transmitted a written order to the keeper of the house of correction at Petworth to deliver up his prisoners, and until he had discharged them by proclamation? He must be allowed strongly to object to the exercise of any such power as that claimed by the learned judge. To discharge prisoners without trial was to offer a premium to crime, and to inflict a serious injury on some of the best interests of the country. Another evil engendered by such a system was, that prosecutors were placed by it in a false position, exposed to all the odium attending the preferring a charge against
566
one who had been discharged without punishment. A prisoner going back to his parish under such circumstances, would be able to impose on his ignorant neighbours, by representing the prosecution as a mere trumped up affair, countenanced by the magistrates certainly, but which had been disregarded by the judge. Uniformity of decision on the part of judges in such cases was most important, and evils innumerable would follow the adoption of a principle which encouraged crime, by opening to the criminal a loop hole for escape. He imputed no blameable motive to the noble and learned Lord, but he deeply regretted, that he had supposed his duty called on him to take the course adopted by him. The noble and learned Lord might have made allusion to the subject in his charge to the grand jury, or he might have communicated with the Secretary of State, or with the chairman of the quarter sessions (who was sitting during a part of the time occupied by the trials). From what he knew of the magistracy of the county, he must express his conviction, that had the noble and learned Lord taken the latter course, the circumstances connected with the Lewes house of correction never would have happened. He (the Duke of Richmond) had been called upon by the noble Lord, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, to bring in a bill on this subject. That noble and learned Lord at the same time stated, that he coincided in his view of the question. If the House wished him to undertake such a measure, he would not shrink from it, but at the same time he must request the noble Viscount on the Treasury bench, to get some Member of Government to take the charge of the bill in the other House, as he could have no possible means of doing so, and indeed because he understood, that it was very difficult for any Member of that House, not a Member of the Government, to bring forward a measure with any chance of success. The noble Duke concluded by moving for a return of all prisoners for trial in the different gaols and houses of correction in England and Wales, at assizes during the last year, but who were not inserted in the calendar; specifying their offences, and also whether any, and which of them, were discharged by proclamation.
Lord Abingersaid, that had not the noble Duke disclaimed all intention to

567
attack him, and impute blameable motives, he might, from the tone and tenor of some of his remarks, have fallen into the error of supposing that the noble Duke had been actuated by such an intention. This he would say, with reference to the subject matter of the noble Duke's statement, that were the same circumstances to occur again, he should be prepared to act in a manner precisely similar to that which had called forth the noble Duke's animadversion. With regard to the four prisoners who were discharged, the sheriff was desired to put their names in the calendar, as they were in the same gaol with the other prisoners. A return was made of their names in due course, and they were discharged by proclamation. With regard to the prisoners at Petworth, he would at once declare that he never entertained the least thought of having those prisoners over to Lewes. The noble Duke was labouring under a mistake on that head. He never gave any such authority, though, had he thought himself justified by law in doing so, he would not have hesitated to give it. With regard to the committal of prisoners for trial, he admitted the right of the magistrates to commit them for trial at the quarter sessions, provided the assizes did not intervene; but when the assizes were near at hand, then he maintained that they ought to be committed for trial at the assizes, because all prisoners ought to be committed to the place where they could most speedily be tried. If the assizes were the nearest, then they ought to be committed for the assizes: if the quarter sessions came on sooner, then they should be committed for trial at the quarter sessions. Unless this principle were adopted, much injustice was likely to be done to prisoners by their being detained in prison longer than the exigencies of justice absolutely required. All the prisoners in the county gaol at the time of the assize should, he contended, be brought up by the sheriff for trial or discharge by proclamation. The opinion which appeared to prevail among some of the magistrates of Sussex he felt bound to say was not universal; for in one instance a prisoner had actually been committed on the 18th of March, the commission day; the magistrate, therefore, Mr. Blackman, a gentleman of known constitutional knowledge, had given practical evidence of his belief that the prisoner had a right to be tried as early as possible. He could
568
assure the noble Duke, that in pursuing the course which he had adopted he had intended to convey no offence to the magistrates, or to the Lord-lieutenant of the county. He had acted for the best; and he could not but say, that if a similar case were to happen again, he should again act in the same manner.
Viscount Gagesaid, that a few years ago, it had been the practice of the Lewes bench of magistrates to commit the prisoners brought before them to the assizes or sessions which next succeeded; but in consequence of the complaints of the judges of their being overburdened with cases, many of them of a trifling description, it had ceased some time ago. He thought that, under the circumstances which had been detailed to the House, it would be exceedingly advisable that a bill should be introduced to make some general provision upon the subject.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he was of opinion that the power of taking bail should be extended, for he thought that no man should be sent to gaol for a longer period than was absolutely necessary. He was fully aware that there was no attack intended to be made upon the magistrates or the Lord-lieutenant; for he in the latter capacity could have nothing to do with it. He contended, however, that there should be uniformity of practice in all cases. There had been intermediate sessions appointed to be held in Sussex already, with a view to the speedy discharge of the prisoners; and so far from its being likely that any very great hardship would have been suffered in the present case, the court would have sat within ten days of the time when the prisoners were discharged by the noble and learned Lord. The magistrates, if they had been disposed to act harshly towards the offenders, or in opposition to the will of the noble Lord, might have issued their warrant for the re-committal of the persons discharged on the very day after the departure of the noble Lord from the assize town; but they abstained from doing so, because they would not appear to persecute the accused parties. He had felt himself bound to bring forward this subject as Lord-lieutenant of the county, and in that capacity he begged to express his sincere hope that her Majesty's Government would take charge of the bill which he proposed should be introduced, but if the Members of the Government declined

569
to do that, he should feel bound to introduce the measure himself.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he entertained no doubt that the magistrates in this case had acted in the manner which they conceived to be most correct, but the course which they had adopted at least established this fact—that their practice required to be set right. It could not be a wholesome state of the law, that magistrates should be permitted to commit offenders over the assizes to some sessions to be subsequently held, and that the judge of assize coming to deliver the gaol in which they were confined should exercise his discretion as to whether they should be tried or not. That was the effect of what had been done in this case, and the practice undoubtedly required alteration. It was exceedingly important that prisoners should be tried at the earliest possible moment, and although it was true that the imprisonment which they suffered before trial might be taken into consideration in the event of conviction after that event, yet it might be that no punishment at all was merited. A remedy should be applied to the evil which existed, and the best mode of informing the magistrates of the error of their system, would be through the means of a legislative enactment.
Motion was agreed to.