Lords Sitting of 18 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Metropolis Police; Register of Births; Gaol Delivery; Lower Canada Government.—Read a second time:—Indemnity; Soap Duties Drawback; Stannaries Courts (Cornwall); Highways and Turnpike Roads Returns.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Bute, from the General Assembly, for further Grants to the Church of Scotland; from Glasgow, against forcing a Minister upon any Parish.—By Lord Wharncliffe, from Suitors of Halifax, against the Delay in passing the Small Debtors Court Bill.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from Merchants and others of Glasgow, against the Russian Blockade in the Black Sea.—By the Marquess of Bute, the Earl of Stanhope, and Lords Ashburton, and Segrave, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

MELLERAIE REFUGEES.
Earl Stanhopepresented a petition, signed by seventy-two British subjects, late of Melleraie, in France, but now of Mount Melleraie, in Ireland, complaining of having been "dragged out of their domicile, evicted out of their property, incarcerated, and transported," and praying for the production of the documents, and for the adoption of measures to obtain compensation for indemnity and damages. The noble Earl wished to know, whether there would be any objection to the production of the documents the petitioners prayed for.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that his noble Friend had incorrectly described the petitioners. He believed, that they were originally settled at Lowther, and in consequence of an arrangement with the government of France, in 1817, the inmates of this convent left this country and passed over to De Melleraie, in Brittany, where they settled. Soon after the revolution, by which the present dynasty was seated on the throne of France, namely, early in 1831, it was wished by the Legislature of that country, that certain monastic institutions should be abolished, and this convent came within the description. The inmates were unwilling to leave it, and appealed to the English Government, which took the subject into consideration, and a lengthened corres-

437
pondence took place on the subject. The inmates of the convent were at present in the south of Ireland. The opinion of Sir Herbert Jenner had been taken on this subject, and he stated, that what had been done was in conformity with the law of France, and that it appeared, that no unnecessary violence had been used to eject these persons from the monastery; and, under all circumstances, there was no ground for the Government of this country calling for satisfaction from the Government of France for the treatment these persons had experienced. He was not aware, that there was any objection to the production of the documents alluded to by his noble Friend.

MESSRS. LOVETT AND COLLINS—RIOTS AT BIRMINGHAM.
Lord Broughamcalled their Lordships' attention to a subject of very great importance, growing out of a petition he had to present, because involved conduct the most shameful he had ever heard of, reflecting the greatest disgrace on all the parties connected with it, and at the same time most discreditable to any Government. He had two petitions in his hand: the first did not so immediately refer to this object as the second. The first was the petition of William Lovett, of North-place, Gray's-inn-road, and Joseph Collins, of Birmingham, and he should shortly state the facts to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and more particularly that of his noble Friend near him. It appeared, petitioners were apprehended in Birmingham by some constables in that town, on the 6th of July, and taken before the bench of magistrates, charged with publishing and circulating a seditious libel, calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. He had read those alleged libels, which were in the form of resolutions agreed to at a meeting in that town, called respecting the conduct of the police in the town. He would not give any opinions about this alleged libel, suffice it to say, that the language used in it was very strong, and it might be a question as to the propriety of putting the men on their trial or issue. He had no complaint to make as to the putting these men on their trials, but he had to complain of the mode in which these petitioners had been treated. They state, that after they had been taken before the bench of magistrates they were lodged in a gaol in the town;
438
that at half-past eleven o'clock, on the morning of the 7th, they were removed to the country gaol of Warwick, having been finally committed for trial; personal bail to the amount of 500 l. having been demanded, and two securities each in the sum of 250 l. The petitioners justly complained of the exorbitant amount of bail demanded, and as they were only working men, it would be almost impossible for them to procure the bail among men in their own sphere of life. They stated, that when removed to the country gaol they were stripped stark naked in the presence of two turnkey, and examined all over to discover if there and examined all over to discover if there were any marks on their bodies, an indignity which they emphatically remonstrated against. If Sir F. Burdett, who in the same county was, within our recollection prosecuted, tried, and convicted of the same offence, viz. of publishing a seditious libel in that county—if he had been incarcerated by warrant of the Birmingham justices, and carried to Birmingham gaol, the treatment which the petitioners had undergone must, of course, have been the lot of Sir F. Burdett. He confessed, that he did not believe the statements in the petition when he first read them, but a most respectable inhabitant of London, who had applied to him to present the petition, had made the most strict inquiries on the subject—he had subjected the parties petitioning to the most scrutinizing investigation and to the most rigid examination; and no man that he was acquainted with was better qualified, out of the profession to which he belonged, therefore, having received the assurance of this person, had no hesitation in saying, that he would pledge himself, as far as he possibly could, to the accuracy of this extraordinary statement. The petitioners, in allusion to the further in dignities to which they were exposed, were taken into a room in which there were no less that eight prisoners some of whom were in a filthy state; that they were complled to strip themselves naked, and to bathe in the same cistern of water with those men, and to dry themselves with same towel, and that a common felon was ordered to cut the hair off their heads—an indignity to which they had been compelled to submit—[Laughter.]—He was astonished and extremely mortified to find that such a statement as this should produce, in any part of the House, tokens of merri-

439
ment. He deemed it to be the most disgraceful conduct he had ever known; and he felt ashamed to belong to a House in which such a statement could excite a smile. He really was ashamed to belong to any place where any set of men were, who could hear a detail of such indignities offered to their fellow-subjects, and who could consider such details as a source of merriment. It could only, however, be with a very few of their Lordships. The petitioners then stated, that their shirts were taken from them, and marked with the initials of their names, in characters almost an inch in length; that they were put into a room in which there were twenty-two other persons on various charges, and one of them was infected with the itch; and under these circumstances, they were kept in confinement for eleven days in the county gaol of Warwick. They also state that they were compelled to fall into ranks in the open yard with other prisoners to receive their food, and to be examined by the doctor to see if they had taken the itch; that they were exhibited to persons who came to the gaol from curiosity; that they were confined to the common gaol allowance, a small loaf, which they believed did not weigh more than one pound and a half, one pint of oatmeal gruel, without salt, and two ounces of cheese each day, except Sundays and Wednesdays when they were served with one pint of what was called beef soup, but in which there was not the appearance of anything like meat, but it was so offensive that they were obliged to abstain from eating it. In addition to the common gaol allowance, they were allowed, with the untried prisoners, to spend three-pence a day on butter, eggs, and bacon, but they were not allowed any fire to cook them, and were obliged to eat them raw; that during eight out of the twenty-four hours, they were locked up in a cell, and that they were compelled, under the pain of solitary confinement, to make their own beds, and to roll them up in so compact a form as totally to exclude the air, the result of which was that when they were unrolled the smell was most offensive. In addition to this they were prohibited from seeing any person but the gaoler;, except at certain hours, their watch money, and every thing were taken from them, and they were not allowed to use either knife or fork. No books were allowed them, or pens or paper, anti they
440
were not allowed to read any letters that were addressed to them until they had been previously read by some officer of the gaol. In making these statements, the petitioners did not complain of the personal conduct of the governor, but prayed the House to take their case into consideration. The result, therefore, was, that the petitioners were detained eleven days, upon the ground that they had not offered sufficient bail, although they had in vain urged, that it was difficult for men in their situation to find it in a place where they did not reside. Bail, however, was tendered, but it was refused without any inquiry being made as to its sufficiency. Two Members of the other House then went down to offer bail for one of these petitioners, who, he was told, was a most respectable man, but with whom he was not acquainted. Instead, however, of its having been found necessary to call for further bail, inquiry was made, and then the magistrates discovered that the bail offered at first was perfectly sufficient, and these persons were then allowed to go out. Why were these persons confined for eleven days? Why was not the sufficiency inquired into for this long period, while the petitioners were treated as common felons, when they had not been apprehended upon any charge that called for rigorous treatment. He contended, that no man charged not merely with a political offence, but with felony, or even murder, should be treated in this way. No right existed to treat any felon before trial in this manner, according to the law of any civilized country, nor was power given to do more than detain a man in save custody. Here, however, were men not charged with any serious offence, exposed to every indignity, their persons exposed, their property torn from them and themselves drawn up in the tilt-yard of the gaol, to be made a show of and spectacle to the visitors of the prison; and this merely because they were unable to put in sufficient bail, when, in fact, the bail they offered on examination was found to be ample for the purpose; and this, too, when non constat a bill would be found against them—when non constat that further proceedings would be carried on—when non constat that they would be tried—when non constat, that even in case of conviction, they would not be discharged on paying the fine of a shilling. He appealed to his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, as to whether he was not right in the view that he had taken

441
of the law of the case. He had seen what was called the libel for which these persons were served, and hardly a day passed that he did not see a worse libel in the newspapers. With respect, however, to the treatment that these; petitioners had experienced, he would only say, that it was impossible that they should not go out of gaol degraded and irritated men, and with feelings not becoming loyal subjects of the Crown, nor was it likely that they could have feelings of respect for the laws and the magistrates who administered them. He was sure that men who had had such indignities passed on them in a common gaol would feel themselves disgraced men the whole of their lives. He had also a right to assume that these persons were innocent of the charge brought against them, on the ground that all persons before their trial were presumed to be innocent. With respect to the conduct of the magistrates, it was not at all surprising that persons who had been too active in the first instance should afterwards become too supine when they saw danger approaching. Indeed the general feeling was, that when there was over-activity in the first instance, a want of activity would follow. The other petition was from the chairman of the Working Men's Association in Birmingham, and alluded to the violent proceedings of the police at a public meeting held on the 11th instant in that town. They complained that they had been attacked by an armed body of the London police, headed by the mayor of Birmingham, and men, women, and children were most severely and inhumanly beaten. He had not made any inquiry into this, but he took the statement in the petition as he found it, and it was possible that it was somewhat exaggerated. This, however, bore him out in what he had previously stated, namely, that the magistrates who were too active before the 14th July, would become too supine afterwards. This was an occasion on which those who had always taken a part on behalf of the rights of the people, and on behalf of free public discussion, and on which it was the bounden duty of the Parliament of this country, and of those anxious to extend the political rights of those who did not at present enjoy the Parliamentary franchise, to express their firm and decided opinion in reprobation of all acts which even tended to a breach of the peace. There could be no enemy more implacable,
442
no opposition more perilous, none likely to prove more fatal to the establishment and extension of the rights of the people, than those men who urged the people on to breaches of the peace, in which violent and guilty operations those very men were too often themselves not found to be engaged. Very active and forward to urge others on, they shrank from the danger which their machinations created. Those who, by their pens and pamphlets, and still more by their tongues at public meetings, had done the work of sedition and mischief, were not found in the hour of danger at what they were pleased to call their posts, at which, in their writings and their speeches, they were fond of saying they would always be, but were skulking in the dark, and leaving tie suffering and the danger to the victims of their seduction. One such occurrence as this which had taken place at Birmingham would do more towards putting back reform, than any act or omission of either Government or Parliament. For these reasons, and in mercy to the people themselves, he hoped that vigorous measures would be taken to prevent a recurrence of such scenes. He remembered a frequent saying of a most gallant Friend of his now no more, the late Lord St. Vincent, a nobleman as much distinguished as a statesman as naval commander—that no error could be more fatal than theirs, who, from misplaced humanity (which he often called timidity), abstained from taking immediate measures to put down mischief and preserve the public peace; and that the true humanity was to be vigorous in season. No one who knew the individuals who held at the present time the office of magistrates at Birmingham, would think of imputing to them more than an error of judgment, and a mistaken feeling of humanity; but however amiable and venial such errors and such motives might be in private life, yet when a man takes upon himself the office of magistrate, it should be with the determination to brace himself up to act as a magistrate was sometimes bound to do. He hoped, however, the investigation that he understood was to be entered into, might lead to their acquittal of even that venial offence; and pending that investigation, it would be manifestly improper to say one word in accusation of them.
The Earl of Warwickfelt himself bound to state to the House what he knew with

443
respect to the recent unfortunate occurrences at Birmingham; especially as insinuations had been thrown out elsewhere, that in the high office which he held, as Lord-lieutenant of the county of Warwick, he had not fully discharged his duty towards the Government in respect of these events, and had held back from the Government that support to which they were entitled from him. With regard to that accusation he felt quite sure that he need not call on any noble Lord then present, nor refer to anybody, nor to any authority but his own declaration, when he stated that such had never been his practice. No one could be more aware of that fact than the noble Viscount himself, with whom, when filling the office of Secretary of State, he had had repeated communications, some of them with respect to occurrences very similar in their origin to those which were now under consideration. It had, however, been insinuated in another place, that he (the Earl of Warwick) had withheld from communicating with the Secretary of State on the late events at Birmingham, and he had been in a manner animadverted upon for it; but he could assure their Lordships that he had had no reason for doing so until the moment when he rose on a former evening to address their Lordships on the subject; and he could further assure their Lordships, that in the course which he took on that occasion he had not had the slightest wish to interfere with a single arrangement which the Government might have had in contemplation. He felt that it would be unbecoming in him to enter into any further statement with respect to these unhappy occurrences at Birmingham, as some investigation was about to take place—an investigation which he hoped would prove satisfactory. If, however, his information was correct, and he had no reason to doubt it, it would appear that no magistrates were present at the scene of outrage until after the houses were burned and plundered. He was far from desiring to prejudice the case of the magistrates, but that there was cause for blame somewhere was indisputable, and the question was, on whom to affix that blame. He had been found fault with for having said that these Birmingham magistrates were many of them members of the political union, and there was only a shade of difference between the political unionists and the Chartists. Why, some of these very magistrates had been
444
accustomed only a short time since to walk arm in arm with the men now in gaol on account of these disturbances. These political unionists had been taught that, some time or other, force must be used before the people could attain their rights. Many meetings had been held, at which sentiments of this kind were publicly stated, but the magistrates having gone as near the wind as they could, were at last obliged to state that those meetings must be held no longer, when up started half a dozen of these Chartists and argued, "if what they wanted could not be got without force, then they would be justified in using it." He maintained, that those who by their presence at such meetings countenanced such opinions were quite as culpable as the individuals who had been taken up for their participation in these riots. Yet the political unionists called themselves Whigs—and Mr. Attwood maintained he was no agitator, though for the last ten years he had been engaged in agitating the people of Birmingham. He could not feel surprised that those who had been agitating Birmingham for so long a time past, should find themselves now unable to control the people and prevent them from appealing to that physical force which, by some of their leaders, they were told was their only means of obtaining a concession of what they conceived to be their political rights. The mode in which the magistrates in the different borough towns in Warwickshire had been appointed by the government was not calculated to preserve the peace of the country under the Municipal Corporation Act. With regard to Birmingham, in particular, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not sufficiently regarded the claims of individuals professing Conservative opinions in his appointment of the magistrates. Of the old magistrates of Birmingham ten out of twenty-two were retained, four only being of the Conservative party, while the remaining six were of the other party, to whom were added no less than thirteen persons, more or less connected with the political union, thus leaving only four Conservatives to nineteen of the other party. This was a species of fairness which he could not understand, the more so as it was volunteered by the Secretary of State, and was not the result of any particular application. He thought what he had stated afforded ample reasons why some inquiry should be instituted into

445
the appointment of magistrates in the borough towns; and he should, therefore, certainly take an opportunity of moving for a return of the magistrates appointed under the Municipal Act in the corporate towns in Warwickshire.
Viscount Melbournefelt himself called upon to say a few words on the subject of this petition, and on what had fallen from the noble Earl who had just sat down. It must, in the first place, be quite evident to their Lordships, with reference to the petition that had been presented by the noble and learned Lord, that it was utterly impossible for him on the present occasion either to contradict, deny, or give any explanation of the charges and statements which it contained. If the noble and learned Lord had informed him of the circumstances stated in the petition, it would then have been possible for him to make himself master of them. Undoubtedly, the petition of these persons confined in gaol in default of bail complained of much treatment that was very harsh and severe. The noble and learned Lord, although he acknowledged that the alleged libel was a violent writing, urged that writings equally violent appeared every day in the newspapers here, and that nobody thought for a moment of prosecuting the writers; but surely the noble and learned Lord would make some allowance for the different state of society here and in Birmingham. There were many matters which might be very well passed over in times of peace and tranquillity which in times of violence and danger, it was quite justifiable to prosecute. Whether the magistrates improperly refused to take bail, or whether they did not sufficiently inquire in to the bail, or whether they kept the petitioners too long in confinement, were all questions that might be quite worthy of being inquired into; but surely it was not too much to ask from their Lordships a little calmness and deliberation—that they should not be quite transported by the mere statements they received—that they should not pronounce upon the conduct of magistrates when they were only attacked on ex parte statements, and were not in a situation to be heard in their own defence. With respect to what these individuals were said to have suffered in gaol, by being bathed and having their hair cut, he did not know whether it might not be considered that such gaol regulations were very wrong and a great hardship, where persons were lodged there merely for the
446
purpose of awaiting their trial; and certainly it did appear to him that some of our gaol regulations were rather strict. And as to what the noble Lord had said about Sir Francis Burdett, that had he been convicted of the libel in Leicestershire, he might have been subjected to the same treatment; why, was not the object of all our laws, and particularly our penal laws, to equalize as much as possible punishment to persons of all ranks. Whether we did not push this equalizing principle too far, and in our eagerness to secure justice and equality, run the risk of producing injustice and inequality, was another question; yet to attain this equality had been the object of all our modern legislation. With respect to the petition itself, he could only say that the matters in question would be inquired into, and if the grievances complained of had actually been suffered, unquestionably the utmost possible remedy and redress should be applied. If, however, these proceedings in gaols were so very harsh, their Lordships must not forget what a great number of persons were necessarily subjected to them, whose sufferings were never heard of at all, and that it was only when the parties were confined for political offences that the attention of Parliament was excited towards them. He now came to what had fallen from the noble Earl the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Warwick. The noble Earl had commenced his statement with some vindication of his own conduct. He knew nothing of any observations made in another place with regard to the noble Earl, and he had had no reason to speak of him otherwise than with praise and approbation, while he (Lord Melbourne) was officially in communication with him as Secretary of State for the Home Department. His noble and learned Friend seemed in some observations he had made to countenance an opinion expressed in this House on a former occasion—that there had been supineness, want of attention to their duty, neglect, and inactivity on the part of the magistrates of Birmingham. Without desiring to enter into any detail on the the subject, he nevertheless felt bound—the charge having been so strongly brought forward, and supported by such high authority—to put the House in possession of a statement which had been addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by the Mayor of Birming-

447
ham himself. It was received by the Secretary of State this morning, and it stated the course which had been pursued by the magistrates, and the circumstances which had taken place in the recent melancholy occurrence. The noble Viscount read the following letter:
"Birmingham, July 17, 1839.
"Wednesday Night 11 o'clock, P. M.
"My Lord—The hurry in which I have been compelled to address your Lordship during the two last nights, has prevented my sending any details of the existing disturbances—details now rendered necessary, not only by the directions in your Lordship's letter of yesterday, but by some statements of a most unfounded character, which the magistrates understand have been lately sent to your Lordship.
"The magistrates, after several days of perfect quiet (from Tuesday the 9th, to Sunday the 14th inst., both inclusive), thinking Monday the 15th a day very likely to need protection, on account of its holiday character, sat at the Public Office till five o'clock, P.M., to consult as to the means of defence in case of any outbreak. Although their sittings on former days had been marked by the production of numberless reports of the most alarming character (scarcely one of which proved true) they received at their sitting only two reports of any moment; one, that a meeting was to be held at half past twelve (noon) at Holloway-head; the other, that the mob intended to arm themselves at night. With regard to the first, if a meeting were designed, none took place; and with respect to the second, it came before the magistrates, backed by evidence no better, or more specific, than that which had characterised all previous rumours, and was, like them, too vague, even if true, for definite action. At five o'clock the magistrates adjourned, leaving word at the Public Office, that if any the slightest appearance of disturbance arose, they were to be sent for forthwith—an arrangement adopted for one or two evenings since the town had resumed its wonted appearance of quiet. At seven, one of the magistrates was at the Public Office; he found all tranquil, and went home. At half past seven a gentleman saw the close of the meeting held, without the knowledge of the magistrates, at Holloway-head, and observed the members of it move towards the centre of the town. He arrived at the Bull-ring at eight, and declares, (so little did he anticipate any evil effects from this meeting) that even at a quarter past eight, when he was in the Bull-ring, and after seeing so much more than was then known by the magistrates, he had not the slightest fear or expectation of riot or disturbance. At a quarter past eight one of the magistrates was in New-street, a very short distance from the Bull-ring, and although engaged in conversation for some minutes in that street, neither saw any symptoms, nor heard any rumours of
448
disturbance. At about the same hour another magistrate passed through the Bull-ring, and, seeing no semblance of disturbance, went home. About half past eight it appears that the Bull-ring began to fill—the upper part of it being especially crowded, when a body of men, women, and lads, appeared at the lower part of the Bull-ring. This body, there is every reason to believe, came from the Warwick-road, where great numbers had congregated to receive two "convention delegates," who were to have been released from Warwick gaol that evening on bail. The delegates did not arrive so soon as was expected, and the mob moved towards the town. On its arrival, the attack was begun by a party, consisting chiefly of women and lads, on the shop of Mr. Bourne; after assailing it for some minutes, breaking in, and commencing the plunder of it, many of the assailants moved higher up the Bull-ring, and deliberately attacked other shops, on both sides of the place, breaking their windows. In the mean time, the chief of the police started on the first material symptom of disturbance (at about half past eight) for the house of the nearest magistrate (Dr. Booth), whence he immediately drove up to my residence, about a mile and a half from the Bull-ring. He reached my house about nine o'clock. Without a moment's loss of time, we returned to Dr. Booth's, when we were informed that the crowd were breaking the windows of the Public Office. Dr. Booth and myself instantly gallopped to the barracks, about a mile on the other side of the town, and by twenty minutes before ten, had brought to the Bull-ring a considerable number of the military (dragoons), who were immediately employed, some in guarding the Bull-ring, and others in scouring the streets for a great distance round. By this time many other magistrates had arrived at the Public Office. We found Mr. Bourne's house in flames, as also the house of Mr. Leggett (the only two fired, or materially injured by fire). Several bodies of soldiers were dispatched to guard the fire-engines on their route to the Bull-ring, and in a few minutes the first engine appeared, and was followed in rapid succession by others. All were immediately set to work, and by dint of the indefatigable exertions, at once of the firemen, and of all the spectators, the fires by twelve o'clock (midnight) were mainly overcome, although they continued to burn with diminished fierceness for about an hour longer. A question has been raised, whether it was not perfectly within the power of the London police force to put down the disturbance at the first outbreak. The general opinion I find is, that it might have done so; but, it is said, the London police were ordered not to act without a magistrate. Such, in fact, is superintendent May's statement of the instructions he received from the magistrates through myself. I can only say, I do not remember having either sanctioned or conveyed any such instructions. At the same time, I am sure that if such instructions were given, they were

449
meant to be conditional upon the number and force of the mob they would have to encounter. If small, and within their power to overcome it, it is manifest the magistrates could not have desired to keep the police inactive; but if the mob were large and dangerous, assuredly the magistrates would have been most culpable had they allowed the police to attack it, until, by the presence of a magistrate, such a military force had been collected as would have prevented the possibility both of needless injury to the police, and of the more fatal effects of a repulse. From the evidence of Superintendent May, however, it appears that there was no period, from the moment the outbreak began, at which the police force could with safety and discretion have interfered with the mob in the Bull-ring; all they could do was, to clear the street in the immediate vicinity of the Public Office, and this they did before the military arrived. Thus far, my Lord, I have stated facts; from these I think I am fairly entitled to draw the following inferences—that the magistrates were duly in attendance at the Public Office on Monday, as on the other days, since the commencement of the disturbances—that they left the Public Office on Monday evening only when they were satisfied there was no just ground of fear that the peace of the town would be disturbed—that no riot could be anticipated from the information given to the magistrates, and it was so sudden, that the requisite summons so especially enjoined could not have been conveyed at an earlier moment—that the instant it reached them, its call was obeyed; and that the troops, with admirable alacrity, were on the spot in the shortest time that, under the circumstances, was practicable.
"It is not for me, my Lord, to eulogize the body to which I belong, however warmly I may and do approve of the conduct of its members; during the distressing scenes of Monday night; and though, as an individual member of it, I feel that I should, by no implication, permit such eulogy to apply to myself; but my entire confidence in the proofs that can be adduced of their readiness, their untiring zeal, and the prudence as well as the firmness and personal courage which characterised their acts throughout the whole of the recent disturbances, makes me share most largely in the anxious wish of my brother magistrates, that at the earliest convenient moment, a commission of inquiry may test their proceedings, and try the correctness of the disparaging statements which have been so abundantly urged against them. It is, perhaps, not a little remarkable, that, though throughout the disturbances every outbreak has been promptly suppressed, this has been done without the loss of a single life.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord,
"Your Lordship's obedient humble servant,
(Signed) "WILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD, Mayor.
"The rt. hon. Lord J. Russell."
450
Therefore, in answer to the question put to him by the noble Earl, and in compliance with the wish expressed by the writer of this letter, he begged to state, that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to institute art inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates of Birmingham. At the same time, however, he trusted that their Lordships would upon this, as upon all other occasions, consider the difficulty of the situation in which both the Government and the magistrates were placed by an occurrence of this description. If they were one moment too quick, as they were accused of having been in a former instance, by those who instructed his noble Friend—if there was any doubt with respect to the line of conduct which they pursued—they were assailed with a torrent of invective, condemning them for their haste, their rashness, their precipitancy, and their unnecessary violence, and with allegations that they had provoked that violence on the part of the people, of which they would never have been guilty but for their indiscretion; while, on the other hand, if they were what was deemed too late to check those mischievous and dangerous consequences which might be produced by the conduct of the mob—and much might be done in a very short time—they were invariably subjected to reproaches of the most violent character. He considered then, that the best plan which their Lordships could adopt, would be, as far as they could, to support and maintain the magistrates in their efforts to obtain peace, and not to thwart them, and by that means weaken their authority—not to consider their acts in a party point of view—not to be always inquiring what was their former political conduct or opinions, but to remember that they were now placed in authority—that the peace and safety of the country was committed to their hands—and that the manner in which they discharged their duties, and the effect which was produced, must be, in a great measure, determined by the degree of support which they should receive from the Government, and from Parliament.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas not at all surprised that his noble Friend, who spoke from that side of the House, should have felt a little anxious respecting what was stated from authority with regard to his not being present in the county of Warwick on the occasion of these dis-

451
turbances; and he must say, that however right the noble Viscount who had last spoken might have been in offering his explanation of the conduct of the magistrates of Birmingham—however he might have, with great reason, deprecated any blame on the part of their Lordships in reference to the conduct of the mayor of Birmingham, and of the magistrates of Birmingham upon this occasion—the noble Viscount had been so much taken up with that part of the subject, and with the justification of the magistrates and of the Government, and with his observations upon their having seized the exact opportune moment for their interference, neither a moment too soon nor a moment too late, and he was so desirous of having credit given for the course of conduct which had been pursued, that he had really totally forgotten to do justice to his noble Friend, as to the part which he had taken with regard to these disturbances. Now, he must, in justice to his noble Friend, take leave to remind their Lordships, that his noble Friend, although lord-lieutenant of the county of Warwick, had really, in consequence of the measures which had been adopted by the noble Viscount, no more to say or to do with those disturbances in the town of Birmingham than he had at this moment. Her Majesty's Ministers, in the course of the last Session of Parliament, when certain friends of his entreated that the charter of incorporation might not be granted to Birmingham, until a full and fair inquiry respecting the acceding to the application made for it had taken place, had stated, in a discussion which took place in that House, that he had understood that the matter should be fully and fairly investigated, and that it should not be made the subject of party consideration—what he understood by that was, that it should be inquired into by the Privy Council—that was, the Privy Council consisting of the noble Lords opposite—that there should be a full and fair inquiry. Whether the inquiry which took place would have been sufficient to satisfy any one else, he knew not; but the noble Lords thought proper to grant to Birmingham the charter of incorporation. The town of Birmingham was, therefore, now a corporate town, and as such the appointment of its magistrates rested with her Majesty, according to the Act of Parliament; and being so appointed, the issuing of the commission would
452
be with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on whose discretion in the selection of proper persons to fill the office of magistrates every one would place the greatest reliance. But it happened unfortunately, that a noble Lord in the other House of Parliament, when this Act of Parliament passed, declared in his place that so long as his Majesty's existing Government was in office, he should consider it to be his duty to consult the town-council in respect to the appointment of the persons who were to be the magistrates in these corporations. He mentioned this as a matter of history of what passed four years ago, and that declaration was made at the time when the clause now in existence was agreed upon, and when another clause which had been proposed was rejected, the effect of which was that the town-council should elect the persons to be recommended to his Majesty to be magistrates. Of course, when that declaration was made, the effect of it would be that the town-council would proceed by election, and that the noble Lord would recommend that the Lord Chancellor should appoint the persons so elected. Thus, then, the King, Lords, and Commons declared that the town-council should not elect the magistrates. Her Majesty must appoint, according to the law of the kingdom, the persons who were to be magistrates, but the effect of it would be that although the Parliament declared that the magistrates should not be elected, the very persons elected by the town-councils would be appointed by the Government. This was the way, then, in which the magistrates were appointed to this corporation, and the noble Earl had no more to do with it than he had. He was not at all surprised, that the noble Viscount should be so exceedingly anxious that the House should pause before pronouncing any opinion against these magistrates for their conduct in these proceedings, or that the noble Viscount said that it must be inquired into, for in reality the noble Lord and his Colleagues were themselves responsible for these appointments, and for the conduct of those persons who had been appointed at their recommendation. The noble Viscount said that the matter must come under investigation, and he was sure, that the less that was said about it now the better. On a former occasion the noble Viscount had found fault with him, because he had said, that there was

453
no blame to be attached to the troops, but that it was the magistrates with whom the difficulty rested, and the noble Viscount did not scruple to intimate, that the blame might be due to the troops or to the police, and he censured the conduct of some yeomanry, who had acted, some years ago, when the castle at Nottingham was burned, in consequence of those very troops having obeyed the law, in refusing to interfere until they were ordered by the magistrates. There was no scruple on the part of the noble Viscount, though he desired, that nothing should be said of the magistrates, a few nights ago to hint, that it might be the troops who were in the wrong. He did not think so, but his information was derived from the newspapers, and it might be, that the police had not acted rightly; but it appeared now that the magistrates had given an account of this transaction, and they said, there was no reason to interfere, for there was nothing from which a not might be apprehended. Now, he had heard from a person who was in Birmingham, that a man went through the town in the middle of the day, ringing a bell, guarded by men, armed with bludgeons, giving notice, and this, too, very near the Public Office, of an intention to assemble that afternoon. It was very easy to cast blame upon persons who were incidently called upon to act, but their Lordships knew that those were most to blame who had deliberately made a party appointment of magistrates, not only in Birmingham but in all parts of the country. He just begged leave to mention one circumstance to the House, in respect of this appointment of the magistrates and of the bench of justices of Birmingham, and to say, that the clerk of the peace, and they all knew what the clerk of the peace was, of this very bench of magistrates, was the person who defended one of the persons taken up for these disturbances, before the magistrates. He would not now say any more upon this subject, except that he hoped, that this inquiry would take place at no distant period, and that the House would be acquainted with its result, and with the manner in which it was carried on, as soon as possible.
The Earl of Warwicksaid, that the accounts which were given in reference to the interference of the magistrates were certainly contradictory. There were four or five statements which he had heard,
454
and which were diametrically opposed to one another. In one of them, however, and he believed a true one, it was stated, that during the not the people of Birmingham were crying out for assistance, and asking where they should find the justices. He hoped, that the inquiry would be made and that it would terminate successfully.
Lord Lyndhurstcould not suffer this discussion to pass without making a few remarks; but, at the same time, he did not think it right to enter into any detail with respect to the conduct of the magistrates. They were upon their trial, and therefore he thought, that it would not be fair to enter into any detail upon this subject, but he must say, with reference to what had taken place, that he thought her Majesty's Ministers were deeply responsible for the transactions which had taken place. He begged to be allowed to remind their Lordships of circumstances which were past—which had taken place in September and October last, when meetings were held in every part of the country, of which no notice, or at least no unfavourable notice, was taken by the Government. They all knew, that on those occasions great multitudes assembled together, and that most inflammatory language was used—language of a most seditious nature—and that the parties who were met threatened publicly to make use of physical force for the purpose of obtaining the redress of what they were pleased to term their grievances. The inhabitants of this great city at that time blame the supineness of the Government, but there was another circumstance which called for still further observation. At the time when these meetings were being held day after day, and particularly in the northern part of the island, a Minister—a Cabinet Minister—who was presiding over the domestic transactions of this country, at a public meeting at Liverpool made a speech which, in its scope and tendency, was calculated to encourage these meetings. At that public meeting a Minister of the Crown thought proper to advert to those transactions to which it was his duty to allude in terms of strong condemnation. But instead of using such terms—and he thought that noble Lords would agree with him on his reading the speech—the words used by the noble Lords, and the whole scope of his speech, ware calculated to give encouragement to,

455
and to incite those persons who were engaged in this transaction. He did not mean to say, that if that speech had been addressed to a private meeting in the time of calmness and of peace, it might not have been considered as free from blame; but the noble Viscount had said in this discussion, that everything depended on the circumstances under which a publication was made, or under which a speech was pronounced; and when he had called the attention of their Lordships, as he should do, to the terms of that speech, he should ask whether it had not a direct tendency to influence and to incite those who were engaged in this transaction? He held in his hand an extract from that speech, which was published at the time of its being delivered, and which had never been disputed, and which he was sure would justify him in what he had said. The noble Lord, her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, at a public meeting held at Liverpool, at a time when Chartist meetings were daily held at places around him, expressed himself in these terms:—"He would not," he said, "before such a party, enter into the field of politics; but there was one topic connected with his own departmet"—(Let the House mark that: his was a department in which he had to provide for the safety of the country)—"on which he might be allowed to dwell for a few minutes. He alluded to the public meetings which were now in the course of being held in various parts of the country." The noble Lord, therefore, alluded in terms to these Chartist meetings. "There were some, perhaps, who would put down such meetings; but such was not his opinion, nor the opinion of the Government with which he acted. He thought, that the people had a right to free discussion." [Cheers.] But what sort of free discussion? The noble Marquess (Lansdowne) cheered, but of what was the noble Lord speaking when he said this? He was speaking of Chartist meetings, where physical force had been spoken of, and where language of the most inflammatory nature had been used. Was that the ideal entertained of free discussion by a Minister of the Crown. The noble Lord then went on: "It was free discussion which elicited truth." [Cheers.] There was another cheer from the noble Marquess. "If they had grievances they had a right to declare them, in order that they might be
456
known and redressed." Now he begged to ask, whether a Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, presiding at a public meeting, in a district much agitated, in which torch-light meetings were frequently held round him was right in using such language, or whether his doing so was not calculated to encourage feelings of discontent, and to produce the most disastrous consequences. What did the noble Viscount say? He said, that he deeply deplored the occurrence which had taken place; that he had foreseen the consequences of what was going on, that he had anticipated the result which had taken place, and that he was surprised that it had not come sooner; and yet here was a Minister of the Crown, the colleague of the noble Viscount, making use of language tending to excite and encourage the discontented. Was he right then in saying that the Ministers of the Crown, that the Government of the country were deeply responsible for what had occurred? But was this all? Let him advert a little to the appointment of magistrates. The noble Viscount had said on a former night, that he did not think that the proceedings of the people should be put down by force, or by violent means; that such was the state of the law and of public feeling, that he thought it would be better that the inconvenience of these meetings should be submitted to, rather than that they should be put down by forcible means. Granted; but should not the Government have abstained from giving them direct encouragement? They had selected to fill the office of magistrates, to superintend the maintenance of the peace of Birmingham, persons who were directly implicated in these transactions. Among others they had appointed one who was said to possess considerable talents, who was a member of the Political Union, afterwards a member of these Chartist associations, who was appointed by the Chartists as one of their delegates in London, and was one of their co-trustees to enable them to manage their financial concerns, who was a delegate sent to Scotland to incite the people there to agitation and tumult; and, if what was said by his coadjutors were true, who had said that moral force was a mere farce, and that it must come to physical force, and that he would advise his friends to provide themselves with rifles to be ready for the occa-

457
sion—this was one of those persons who were appointed to hold the high office of magistrate in Birmingham. The Ministers would not put down these proceedings by force—the law in its existing state might not permit it; but would they select persons like the individual he had referred to, whose being connected with these transactions in the manner he had described might lead the public to believe that the opinions which he held were not altogether disagreeable to the Government? This species of agitation which they permitted might be for the purpose of advancing party views and party objects. But it was more extraordinary still, that, in a proclamation issued by the Government, of which the noble Viscount and the noble Lord to whom he had referred were Members, in the year 1831 or 1832, these meetings were declared in express terms to be unconstitutional and illegal, and all his Majesty's subjects were warned to take no part in them, for that they by so doing would draw upon themselves the penalties of the law; and yet in opposition to this proclamation, and in direct defiance of its terms, some of the actual members of the associations by which those meetings were held were not only not subjected to prosecution, but were elevated to a situation of the highest trust and importance, in which it was their duty to keep the peace of the town of Birmingham. The House and the country had seen the consequences of that proceeding. He agreed with the noble Viscount; he was not surprised at those consequences; and he still further agreed with the noble Viscount in being: surprised that such a line of policy as had been pursued by her Majesty's Government had not sooner led to such an event as had recently occurred. With respect to the transactions of the last few days he would say nothing. He had no doubt that a sufficient force, both military and police, was collected to preserve the peace of Birmingham. There was ample notice given of what was going to take place, and he thought that it was impossible to suppose that the Ministers of the Crown could have been so supine and so inactive after that warning as to have omitted to take this precautionary step. If they had neglected to do so, they would have been guilty of a high misdemeanor, and of a gross dereliction of duty, This however was quite certain, not to enter into detail, that there was a force sufficient to keep
458
the town in order, and to repress any tumult which might arise; that persons began to assemble soon after seven o'clock, and that it was not until a quarter before ten that any force was collected to offer any opposition to their proceedings. These facts, he thought, spoke for themselves. If there was a sufficient force, then those who had the command of it, having suffered the time to pass when they should have interfered, without taking measures to repress the tumult, had been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. A country like this, so extensive, so powerful, so intelligent, being placed in the situation in which it now stood, must regret the supineness which had been exhibited on the part of the Government, It lad had its interests and its faith compromised, not by the supineness of the Government alone, but by what must be considered as an improper stimulus which had been directed to that class of persons whom they should have repressed, restrained, and checked, but whom, by their own conduct, they had contributed to encourage and support.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the outrage at Birmingham was one which every person must deeply deplore, and there could be no doubt but the case must be the subject of an inquiry hereafter. The noble and learned Lord who had just sat down at the moment when he recognised the unfitness of the present time for any discussion as to the conduct of the magistrates of Birmingham, had shown, by the course which he had pursued, that he considered this a convenient and fit opportunity to bring a charge against the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, not for any part of his conduct on this occasion, but for a speech which he had delivered some time ago, and which, for reasons brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, but which reasons were unfounded in fact, he attempted to connect with these disturbances. He begged to state, however, to the noble and learned Lord, and to the House, that although he laboured under the disadvantage of not being possessed of the documents which the noble and learned Lord had brought down in his pocket on this occasion, and from which he had read extracts, and extracts only, to the House, for the purpose of endeavouring to fix upon those sentences which he had quoted a meaning which they did not bear, he took upon himself to affirm that

459
the meaning attempted to be given to them was not that which they really conveyed. [Lord Lyndhurst had read all that related to this subject.] Then, he said, that what the learned Lord had read could not bear the construction that had been put upon it, inasmuch as the phrases in it had no reference to the Chartist meetings, and inasmuch as it contained no expression except that in favour of that for which he had incurred the indignation of the learnedLord—an expression in favour of free discussion in this country, which the noble and learned Lord thought ought not to be approved of in that House—but an expression which he concurring with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, hoped would ever be the maxim of this country, that on every subject of grievance there should be free, fair, and open discussion; and for himself, he thought that no man was fit for office in this country who did not recognise the justice and necessity of free discussion. But the noble and learned Lord insinuated that by free discussion his his noble Friend lent his countenance to that spirit of violence, of disorder, and of outrage against property, which was totally alien to free discussion. He challenged the noble and learned Lord to produce one word to countenance a course which his noble Friend had disclaimed again and again. There was not, he asserted, one word in his noble Friend's speech, bearing upon those proceedings, with which the learned Lord had used all his ingenuity and all his astuteness to connect it. When words were quoted as having been used in one place, he begged to quote others used in another place, to explain his noble Friend's views. He found in the expressions of his noble Friend, referred to by the noble and learned Lord this explanation. His noble Friend had said—
"My opinion is, that whatever may be the number of persons assembled, and however large the meeting may be, yet if they really meet for nothing more than discussion—"
Was that the case of the Chartists of Birmingham did that encourage the Chartists of Birmingham—did this let in the employment of that brute force which unhappily appeared to prevail among the Chartists? His noble Friend said—
"My opinion is that whatever may be the number of persons assembled, and however large the meeting may be, if they really meet
460
for nothing more than discussion, no attempt should be made to prevent the expression of public opinion."
His noble Friend went on to say, that this was more particularly the case with regard to the Poor-law, in reference to which subject at that time many meetings had been held. Did the learned Lord object to that? Did the noble and learned Lord think that meetings on the Poor-law were the sort of meetings to be put down by that insane energy which the noble and learned Lord had invoked? Was the Government to inflame the country by putting down these meetings? That was the sense which his noble Friend gave to the expressions which he had used upon that occasion. He would assert again that there was no one assertion in the document which bore out the insinuation of the learned Lord. What part of it, however, had the noble and learned Lord omitted? His noble Friend the Secretary of State went on in the same speech to say, which the learned Lord took care not to quote, that—
"He thought that it was not too much to expect that those who took advantage of free discussion would not abuse it by exciting others to the violation of the law, and to the injury of those who were employed in its execution."
That was the countenance his noble Friend gave to Chartist agitation—that was the countenance he gave to the employment of brute force—that was the invitation which he gave to the people, according to the gloss which the noble and learned Lord had put upon the speech—to have recourse to those acts of which not only his noble Friend near him (Viscount Melbourne), but his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken every occasion, both in public and in private, to express his detestation of and his determination to repress them. With regard to the exact point, and the exact degree of discretion when it was proper for her Majesty's Government to interfere to enforce the law against violence—short of those actual outrages, which left no doubt—that must be a question to be left to the sound discretion of any Government, and of any Parliament to determine. He thought that the noble and learned Lord, as he well knew all that had been passing in this metropolis during the last five or six months, would admit that a certain degree of for-

461
bearance, on the part of the Government, had been of good use; that when there had been a disposition to take a violent course, it had had no mischievous effect, and that the efforts of the Chartists had recoiled against themselves in the Metropolis. Whilst the Government did not look upon their proceedings with indifference, it was a satisfaction to see that they had wasted their power; it was a satisfaction to find, from the declarations of the misguided persons themselves, that whilst they were unopposed by the Government, they were unable to affect the sound spirit of the people of this Metropolis, which repudiated their advice; and that though there might be some recommendation of a violation of the law, those plans were not adopted, and that the whole ended in leaving this great city free from apprehension, peacefully continuing that commercial tranquillity on which its happiness and its security depended. If the noble and learned Lord had seen in the speech of his noble Friend anything that was inconsistent with his duty, or anything that encouraged a violation of the law, either against the Government of the country, or against its peace, it was the duty of the learned Lord to have made a substantial and direct charge against his noble Friend at the first meeting of the Parliament. If his noble Friend had used language which the learned Lord deemed inconsistent with his situation, he ought to have made this charge; but although the learned Lord had not thought proper to bring it forward, it had in another place been the subject of discussion, and had produced the explanation to which he had referred. And now the noble and learned Lord revived the accusation, but to the explanation made not a single reference. Having said thus much, he hoped that he might detain their Lordships a few moments whilst he set them right upon a few facts, or a few supposed facts, which had been stated. In the first place, with respect to the charter of incorporation for the town of Birmingham—he had never given any pledge that the question of that charter should be subject to any other or different tribunal than the ordinary tribunal of the Privy Council. A pledge was given, that as circumstances had been stated which led to a fair doubt whether a majority of the inhabitants, including both the majority of the population and a majority of
462
the rate payers, was in favour of such a charter, that no charter should be granted without a reconsideration of the question, and without the most detailed inquiry. That detailed inquiry was gone into; it was conducted by persons of business unconnected with any party, who had been sent down to Birmingham, and it was after minute inquiry, and after a report from them, that the Privy Council became satisfied, that both a majority of the inhabitants and a majority of the rate-payers, of those who had signed any petition expressing any opinion, were in favour of a charter; and after having been greatly blamed for the delay, the council did come to the opinion, that there was such a majority of the inhabitants in favour of a charter as required the Privy Council, according to the terms of the Municipal Act, to issue a charter of incorporation. In his opinion, and in the opinion of the Council, it was the intention of the Parliament that a charter should be granted where a majority of the inhabitants had expressed a wish for it, and when the population and circumstances of the town were such as required a corporation. In the next place, the noble Duke had stated, that in violation of the Act of Parliament, the Secretary of State had felt bound to act upon the opinion of the town councils with respect to the appointment of the town magistrates. Now, he assured the noble Duke, that such was not the case. In almost all the cases his noble Friend had not taken that course. There was nothing to prevent him, as there was nothing to prevent the Lord Chancellor or Lord-lieutenant, from collecting by inquiry from persons in the neighbourhood, evidence of the fitness of persons about to be appointed. In this particular case, however, his noble Friend had not taken the opinion of the town council exclusively, and he knew cases in which his noble Friend had rejected the whole of the lists furnished by that body, and had appointed the whole of the magistrates from his own inquiries of other parties. It could not be fairly said, therefore, that his noble Friend had taken only the opinions of the town councils, and had rejected the rule laid down expressly in an Act of Parliament. On another point he could not sit down without saying a few words, although he felt, that there were others in the House much more competent than he was to give an opinion ripen it, and if he was wrong,

463
he trusted that they would set him right. He meant the point of law put by the noble Lord, the lord-lieutenant of the county of Warwick, when he entertained a doubt whether the magistrates of the county were entirely excluded, by the grant of a charter, from acting within the limits of the chartered town. He apprehended that there was no such exclusion. [Lord Lyndhurst: They were excluded when there was a separate quarter sessions.] He believed, that they were not excluded by the Municipal Act, except by the rate-paying and rate-imposing clauses, and there was nothing to prevent their interference in criminal affairs. In such cases, he apprehended that their jurisdiction was co-extensive with that of the local magistrates. As to a communication between the towns and the lord-lieutenant, it did exist. By the Act authorising the swearing in of special constables, it was required that communication should be had with the lord-lieutenant of the county; and he had himself, as lord-lieutenant of one county, received such communications from places having corporations with regard to the appointment of special constables. This established that there was communication between the lords-lieutenant and the places so incorporated; and he believed, that their relative position remained the same, except with respect to recommendations for the magistracy, although, doubtless, if even in that matter the opinion of the lord-lieutenant should be given to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would meet with due respect.
The Duke of Wellingtonknew nothing of what the Secretary of State had done, but he supposed that the Secretary had done as he said. By the Act of Parliament, the nomination of the magistrates was vested in the Crown, and not in the town council; but the noble Lord had expressly said, that "he had no hesitation in saying, that so long as his colleagues and himself should be the advisers of the Crown, they would feel it their duty to adopt the most natural mode of appointing the justices, by requesting the town councils to send in a list of persons on whom they thought the magistracy ought to be conferred." With respect to the other parts of the case, he bad only to say, that the Act of Parliament requiring the magistrates nominating special constables to send their names to the lord-lieutenant was an Act passed
464
long before these local magistrates were appointed. In Birmingham there was a corporation having magistrates of its own, and that he believed, that as there was a local magistracy, with a grant of quarter sessions, the magistrates of the county of Warwick had nothing to do with any transactions within the precincts of the corporation of Birmingham. With respect to the lord-lieutenant, up to the 15th July, his noble Friend, the lord-lieutenant, had not been called upon any way to go, or to give any opinion. He had nothing to do with these transactions. Her Majesty's Ministers were alone responsible for the conduct of the magistracy, and that responsibility they must bear.
Viscount Melbourne:It was not necessary to call upon the lord-lieutenant to go there when he was at a distance from his county; he ought to go there of himself.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that whatever might be the duty of the magistrates, if the Lord-lieutenant had anything to do with their town, it was their duty to make communications to him, and to afford him every information; and if they did not do this, it was not the Lord-lieutenant who was responsible. So much for the wisdom of those magistrates. But the object for which he rose was to refer to one point of the observations which had been made connected with the grant of a charter to the town of Birmingham. It happened, that with respect to this subject, the discussions in that House had originated with himself. The persons in Birmingham who were opposed to the charter, feeling, that it was called for by a small number of rate-payers, and by those who contributed but a small amount to the whole rates of the town, and that the town would be liable to be heavily taxed by the corporation if it should exist, had petitioned the Privy Council not to grant the charter. The noble Lord had heard the statement courteously, and he had afterwards under. stood, that it was the intention of the Privy Council to give the charter, notwithstanding the representations of those who were opposed to it. That opposition was not confined to the proportion of ratepayers, who were for or against it, but to the general question of policy. The parties then again petitioned that House to take such steps as might be thought necessary to procure the Privy Coucil to enter upon a further consideration of the case, because it was understood, that the

465
representions which had been made to the Privy Council had given an inaccurate report of the balance of opinion in Birmingham, for or against the grant of a corporation. He had presented the petition, and upon that occasion asked his noble Friend, the Marquess of Lansdowne, whether he would give an assurance, that there should not be any charter till the petitioners had had an opportunity of being again heard. His noble Friend did give that assurance. He certainly did not say, that no charter should be granted; but he said, that the Great Seal should not be affixed to it till the persons opposing it had had an opportunity of being re-heard, of proving their own case, and of disproving the case of the other persons. The noble Lord did send down persons to Birmingham perfectly fitted for the duty to make the inquiry, and he did not make any further application, because he felt the inconvenience of any interference on the part of that House with the prerogative of the Crown. The inquiry was prosecuted, but from some parts of the inquiry which he had seen he was astonished beyond measure at his noble Friend's stating, that there was such a clear preponderance of opinion in favour of the charter, that her Majesty's Government had found, that they were bound by the wording of the Act of Parliament to give the charter. In the first place, the Government was not bound to give it even if there was a majority of inhabitant ratepayers in its favour, and next he believed, that those who had applied for the charter were but a small proportion in number of the rate-payers, and next, that a great number of persons had petitioned against it, almost equal in number to those who had petitioned for it. The amount at which the respective parties were assessed was an important ingredient for consideration before giving a charter, and he believed a great preponderance of the ratepayers was on the side of those who had petitioned against the grant. If he were wrong, the papers when they were laid upon the table would correct his error. For himself, he thought, that the Privy Council had come to a most unfortunate decision, and he doubted whether it had contributed, or whether it ever would contribute to the well-being of that important town.
The Duke of Wellingtonagain said, that when he spoke, he spoke only of the
466
altered relation which the noble Lord, the Lord-lieutenant, had with the town of Birmingham, in consequence of a corporation having been granted by her Majesty. The noble Viscount, in reply, had taken the opportunity of making an insinuation against his noble Friend (the Earl of Warwick), as if it was his business to go down to Birmingham, and not the duty of the Government to state to his noble Friend their wish that he should go down, if his services were required. The noble Viscount would give him leave to say, without getting into one of those towering passions without any cause—if the noble Viscount would allow him without incurring the noble Viscount's ire—he would remind the noble Viscount, that a short time ago, whilst addressing that House, he was very anxious to avoid any aspersions on the character and conduct of the magistrates, and on the character and conduct of the Government, but the noble Viscount was rather light in making aspersions against other parties, and against his noble Friend. His noble Friend was as ready to do his duty upon the present occasion as he had done upon others; but considering the state to which the town of Birmingham had been brought by her Majesty's Government, he thought, that it was better for his noble Friend to abstain from going to Warwick, holding himself, however, ready at all times to go to Birmingham, or to any other part of the county of Warwick in which his presence might be required.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it might be in the recollection of the House, that there had been petitions for, and that there had been a petition against the grant of a charter; and that the question was, on which side was the preponderance? His noble Friend, the President of the Council, caused an inquiry to be made, not only as to the proportion of population that had signed these petitions respectively, but also as to the proportion of the rate-paying persons. The result of that inquiry was communicated to him; and looking at the report of the gentleman who had been sent down to inquire, it appeared to be not altogether satisfactory. He found, that a great part of those who had petitioned against the charter were fictitious signatures, for the commissioner could not find the parties where they were said to reside. He thought, that the inquiry had not been sufficient, and instruc-

467
tions were given for an accurate inquiry into many circumstances. The commissioner again went down; he took the petition for the charter, and examined into its accuracy. He then took the petition against the charter to see that it was accurate, and he found that there were whole streets of fictitious signatures; and when he called upon the persons who opposed the charter, and told them, that he was ordered to investigate the names, and was ready to go into the inquiry, they declined to enter upon it. The commissioner pursued the inquiry so far as concerned the persons who had petitioned for the grant, and as those against it had declined to give him a similar opportunity, the Privy Council had, consequently, come to the decision, to which he had no doubt their Lordships, under similar circumstances, would have come, as to which side the preponderance really was.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that this was a serious charge against all persons who had entrusted the petition to him, and it was their Lordships' duty to see whether the report was sufficient to prove those persons guilty of a fraud, in presenting a petition to that House with fictitious names. He believed that it would turn out to be far otherwise.
Lord Denmanwas unwilling to take part in that discussion; but the House would allow him to say, that nothing was so inconvenient as for noble Lords to refer to doubtful facts, which were afterwards to become the subject of inquiry in courts of law. He would venture to suggest to them, that nothing was more likely to excite strong feelings beforehand, and to cause persons to form preconceived opinions, and to come to the consideration of the facts with biassed judgments. He would venture also to offer this suggestion to the House, that if noble Lords pledged their personal characters to facts which were likely to come before the courts for decision, it would only produce injurious effects to the course of future inquiry. He was unwilling at all times to give legal opinions in that House, but he thought one of the matters which had been stated was so erroneous in point of law, and might have such a prejudicial effect in the country if it were not set right, that he thought he ought to notice it. He believed that the subject was without doubt, and that all his learned Friends in the House would concur with
468
him in opinion, and it was, therefore, better for him to state the law than that it should go forth to the public that there should be any doubt whether the magistrates of the county had a concurrent jurisdiction when a charter had been granted, and when there was a separate Quarter Sessions. When a separate Court of Quarter Sessions was appointed by the Crown for any borough, it was clear that the jurisdiction of the county magistrates was at an end. If it were thought that they had the jurisdiction they might be required to exercise it; and if they had the power, and did not use it, they would be placed in a situation as serious as the Gentlemen into whose conduct the noble Viscount intended to institute an inquiry. Therefore, it was of great importance that it should be understood clearly, that the county magistrates could not be called upon to act within boroughs having a separate Court of Quarter Sessions upon such an occurrence as the present; but that the peace of the town must rest with the town magistrates, who, however they might be appointed, must take upon themselves the responsibility of preserving the peace of the town, and must answer for it when called to account. The Lord-lieutenant of the county, as the head of the military, had the power of calling on the yeomanry to act in any part of the county he thought proper, for the purpose of putting down riots and breaches of the peace, and one could only wonder that any doubt could exist in the minds of any of the Queen's subjects of their right to act and put down riots whenever and wherever they might occur.
The Lord Chancellor,in explanation, said that the applications made by Manchester and Birmingham to the Privy Council for charters were under the consideration of Government at the same time; and, upon reflection, it struck him that he might possibly have made a mistake by applying that to Birmingham which really had reference only to Manchester.
Lord Broughamentirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend in the construction he had put upon the Municipal Corporations Act, and that its provisions confined the concurrent jurisdiction of the county and borough justices to those corporate towns where there were no Corporate Sessions. There were Quarter Sessions at Birmingham; which consequently

469
brought that town within the rule excluding a concurrent jurisdiction. He also entirely agreed with the position laid down in respect to the noble Earl (the Earl of Warwick) having no right to act in the town of Birmingham quasi custos rotulorum—the head of the justices of the peace; but that, quasi Military Lord-lieutenant, he was not excluded from acting in that town. He wished also to notice another mistake of a practical nature. It appeared by the statement which their Lordships had heard to-night, and of which he would say not a word, as he understood that the whole matter was about to undergo a strict investigation—but it appeared by that statement that the authorities in Birmingham had proceeded upon a supposition as erroneous in point of law, and as likely to be attended with as mischievous consequences, as any man could imagine. It not only seemed to have been thought that without the presence of the magistrates the police could not act, but also that without the presence of the mayor, one justice of the peace—in the present case Dr. Booth—could not act—Now, he begged leave to inform those worthy magistrates—if they would be pleased to take the law upon the subject from him—that Dr. Booth was just as good as the Mayor, and that there was no occasion whatever for him to have waited for the Mayor. If any delay took place before the authorities acted, it no doubt arose from that mistake. He entirely agreed with the observation that had been made as to the improper appointment of one of the magistrates of Birmingham. If it were true that the gentleman in question had thought proper to go to Perth and preach the doctrine of physical force, and talk to the people of arming, advising them not to trust to moral force, but to fire-arms and rifles, he should no more consider the public peace to be in safe custody, if such a person were appointed a magistrate, than if its keeping were entrusted to one bereaved of his mental faculties. It was not that such a man would not be disposed to do his duty properly, that he should object to his appointment, but it became necessary to consider what the effect of such an appointment would be on the minds of the people who were placed under his magisterial control. He was glad he had brought this petition before the House, because he was quite sure the effect of the
470
present conversation would be to correct many mistakes both as to the facts of the case, and the nature of the law that bore upon them. He also rejoiced at having had the opportunity of bringing the subject forward, inasmuch as it had been the means of enabling his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman) to declare what the state of the law really was; and to whose opinions, from his position and great and eminent talents, the utmost weight would unquestionably be given.
Petition laid on the Table.
The Earl of Warwickthen moved for a return of the names of all the magistrates appointed under the Municipal Corporation Act in the different boroughs in Warwickshire. If he had gone down to Birmingham on hearing of the disturbances, he should not have had the least knowledge of what his situation would have been there. He knew that as Lord-lieutenant he would have had the right of acting in a military character; but he would appeal to the noble Viscount, whether he thought it would have been proper for him to have gone down and exercised that right. He never knew, till he saw an account of the fact in the public papers, that the yeomanry had been called out. He naturally supposed that the Home Secretary, if the magistrates had regularly applied to him for assistance, would have informed him of it, and then he should certainly have gone to Birmingham.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that if the noble Earl asked his opinion upon the subject, he most unquestionably thought that the noble Earl ought to have gone down. It should be recollected, that there had been disturbances in the town of Birmingham for eight or ten days, and he certainly thought, that the Lord-lieutenant of the county ought to have gone to the spot. It would not do for the noble Earl to say, that he should have had nothing to do at Birmingham if he had been there, because a disturbance at Birmingham was calculated to produce mischievous effects in other parts of the county; a great portion of which was under the jurisdiction of the noble Earl, as a magistrate.
The Returns ordered.

REMOVAL OF ELECTORS.
The Earl of Clarendon,on moving that the Electors' Removal Bill be read a second time, said, he was induced to do so from no other

471
motive than that of a desire to effect a remedy for what he considered a great injustice to a large portion of the constituency of this country, who, by the operation of the Act for registering voters, were often disfranchised, although they retained all the qualifications required by the Reform Bill. There appeared to be two classes of objectors to this bill; the one consisting of those who considered that it would interfere with the finality of the Reform Bill, and the other of those who, while professing not to object to an improvement of that measure, contended that the bill before their Lordships offered no improvement. With respect to the argument founded upon the final character of the Reform Bill, he would not say anything. He would not enter into a discussion respecting the possibility of regarding as final any act of legislation whatever, although it might at the time of its enactment be the best and soundest that human reason could devise. He did not believe that any man, in possession of his rational faculties, could maintain such a doctrine. Among the objections urged by those who considered that this bill did not offer any remedy for the evil complained of, the principal objection, he believed was, that it would revive the system of outvoting. He should be as adverse as any one to the revival of that system; but he did not think the present bill would have that effect. Was it probable that mechanics and tradesmen would go into a town, and pay rent and taxes, in order to obtain the franchise, and then quit the borough immediately, knowing that within a very few months they would lose their votes at the next registration? As an instance of the evil that now existed, he would mention the case of the borough of Salford. Among a constituency of 2,000 there were 190 annual removals; and of these not more than ten on the average left the borough; but the remaining 180 were by the law, as it now stood, disfranchised. The bill before their Lordships would prevent that injustice; and he really thought, that it was a measure which they might pass with safety. It was much desired by the people, and what he thought ought peculiarly to recommend it to their Lordships was, that it proceeded upon the safe principle of remedying grievances as they arose, thus preventing the necessity of great and sweeping, and it might be, hazardous, measures of reform.
Lord Redesdaleadmitted, that this bill affected the rights of the whole constituency of the country, of whatever party; and if he thought it was calculated to afford any relief, he should be most ready to support it. But he entertained many and strong objections to the measure. The noble Earl had confined his observations to one portion of the bill only—namely, as it regarded the voters who removed in the same borough after registration. But this was not the only grievance under the registration system. Others, of which the complaints, were, however, less loud, were equally caused by the present system. Men coining into possession of property one day after the 20th of July were kept out of their franchise for nearly eighteen mouths. Now, if by the law of registration, they prevented property from obtaining the franchise, they ought to be very careful not to give the franchise to persons who had no property at all. This bill would not cure the evil he had just mentioned; and he feared it was impossible so to amend the bill in Committee as to remove all the objections which might be urged against it. According to the Reform Act, no man who did not reside within seven miles of a borough could vote for the place; but, according to this bill, a man might remove to any distance from the town, and demand the right of voting at the election of Members of Parliament. Such a measure was against the spirit and letter of the Reform Act, for it would give out voters the right of voting. Thus, a man who had been placed in the register for the town of Berwick-on-Tweed might remove to Exeter, and, in case of an election, might be sent to the former place to vote. The bill would confer the right of voting on a man who had got rid of his qualification, and he might be a beggar at Exeter, and sent to Berwick to vote for Members for Parliament. If this bill passed, they would have to get rid of the third question put under the Reform Act to a man who came up to vote, namely, whether he was still possessed of the qualification under which he was registered? He thought that the Legislature should examine into the whole subject of registration, and pass some general measure on the subject, which would get rid of the defects which were admitted, on all hands, to exist under the present system. These defects must be remedied, and, he trusted, that during the vacation, the attention of

473
the Government would be turned to the subject, so that early in the next Session some general and satisfactory measure might be introduced on the subject. It was also a ground of objection to the present measure, that it would throw impediments in the way of a sound system of general registration, and it was a matter in which there should not be mere piecemeal or partial legislation. Under these circumstances, he should oppose the further progress of this bill, and move that it be read a second time this day three months.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, there was one objection which had not been alluded to by his noble Friend, to which he wished to direct the attention of the House—it was the effect that a measure of this kind was likely to have on the constituency of Ireland, should it be extended to that country. The registration of county constituencies in Ireland occurred once in seven years. Now, a man might lose his qualification; and if the principle of this bill were adopted, he would have the right of voting for seven years. The result would be, that a system of fraudulent and fictitious voting would be adopted, which would completely upset the registration in that country, and would establish a state of things, if possible, worse than universal suffrage.
Lord Colbornesaid, that it was to him a matter of surprise, that a measure of this kind had not been long ago the law of the land. He agreed with the noble Earl, that if this measure were applied to Ireland with the present registration, it would be objectionable; but the registration in Ireland was essentially different from that which existed in this country, and the bill was not intended to apply to the county constituencies. Therefore, the objections of the noble Earl were not directly applicable to the bill. It was possible that a person might part with his qualification altogether, but if he did so, he could not vote under this bill. The object of the bill was, that when a voter moved from one house to another in the same borough, that he should not be considered to part with his qualification, but that he should still have the right of voting. He thought that a measure of this kind would not give one party an advantage; but be equally satisfactory to both parties, as they must be equally affected by it.
The Duke of Richmonddid not think, that a satisfactory case had been made
474
out to justify the House in passing this bill. His noble Friend who moved the second reading of it, stated that 180 persons who were on the register the year before last had changed their residencies, and had gone into other houses in the same borough. He could hardly think that such a large proportion of the electors had changed their residence and lost their qualifications in the course of a year in such a comparatively small town. Before they consented to a change of this extent, they ought to feel assured, that there was ample security that the persons who parted with their qualifications continued residents in the borough with which they might be connected, and that they were bonâ fide holders of houses of sufficient value to entitle them to the elective franchise. Under this bill, however, a man might part with his qualification in Hastings or elsewhere, and go to reside in London or Birmingham or any other place, and be still entitled to vote. It appeared to him to be very objectionable to open the doors in this manner to all sorts of fraud, for persons might not only go into the workhouse, but into prison, and be still entitled to vote. He agreed with the noble Lord that a measure so deeply affecting the registration should be a general measure, and that it was most objectionable to legislate in detail on such a subject. He should oppose this bill as a piece of petty legislation, and which would open the door to all kinds of abuses. If this principle were to be made applicable to boroughs, he did not see why it should not be extended to counties, and if a farmer who was on the register for one county removed into another he did not see, if this bill passed, why he should not be allowed to vote at the elections for the latter, although he might not be on the register.
The Earl of Fitzwilliamthought that all the objections that had been urged against this bill might be much better enforced against it in Committee. He trusted, that as that bill had been sent up twice from the other House, noble Lords would allow it to go into Committee, for if they did not, it might appear invidious to the other House.
The Earl of Devonobjected to the bill as interfering in detail with the qualification and register enacted in the Reform Act. The great thing was, that security should be afforded that the household

475
qualification existed at the time of voting, but this bill would remove the great check that existed to ensure this object.
The Earl of Clarendoncould not help feeling that some of the opposition that had been offered to this bill was somewhat of a personal character, and he was satisfied that six months ago it would not have been characterised in the way that it had been by the noble Lord who moved the amendment.
Lord Redesdaledenied that he bad said anything of a personal nature, or that he was actuated by personal feeling in his opposition to this bill. He objected to it, because he thought that it was a very narrow mode of dealing with the subject of registration.
Lord Hollandobserved, that although the observations of the noble Lord might not have been very personal, still the observation of his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) in stating, that the objections to the measure would not have been urged six months ago were very pertinent.
Their Lordships divided on the amendment.
Contents 80: Not-contents 39; Majority 41.

List of the CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOPS.

Delawarr

Canterbury

Mansfield

Armagh

Roden

DUKES.

Clanwilliam

Richmond

Wicklow

Rutland

Bandon

Montrose

Rosslyn

Dorset

Chichester

Wellington

Oxford

Buckingham

Harrowby

MARQUESSES.

Verulam

Salisbury

Glengall

Abercorn

Eldon

Bute

Munster

Downshire

Ripon

Cholmondeley

VISCOUNTS.

Westmeath

Hereford

Ormonde

Strathallan

EARLS.

De Vesci

Pembroke

Hawarden

Devon

St. Vincent

Jersey

Gott

Morton

Canterbury

Falmouth

BISHOPS.

Moray

London

Kinnoull

Lincoln

Galloway

St. David's

Airlie

Carlisle

Dartmouth

Exeter

Tankerville

LORDS.

Harrington

De Ros

Warwick

Saltoun

476

Sinclair

Forester

Monson

Rayleigh

Sondes

Bexley

Montagu

Wharncliffe

Douglas

Feversham

Calthorpe

Lyndhurst

Dunsany

Tenterden

Farnham

Cowley

Redesdale

Wynford

Ellenborough

De L'Isle

Glenyon

Ashburton

Ravensworth

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKE.

LORDS.

Argyll

Saye and Sele

MARQUESSES.

Holland

Lansdowne

Seaford

Conyngham

Colborne

Normanby

Stanley of Alderley

EARLS.

Methuen

Fitzwilliam

Wrottesley

Zetland

Lilford

Effingham

Foley

Ilchester

Denman

Charlemont

Vaux

Cork

Segrave

Burlington

Byron

Clarendon

Cottenham

Fingall

Mostyn

Uxbridge

De Freyne

VISCOUNTS.

De Mauley

Melbourne

Poltimore

Torrington

BISHOPS.

Falkland

Ely

Lismore

Winchester

Duncannon

Paired off.

NOT-CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

Shrewsbury

Caernarvon

Kintore

Doneraile

Strafford

Exmouth

Sherborne

Bradford

Kinnaird

Leven

Sefton

Clare

Lovat

Wallace

Camperdown

Dalhousie

Sutherland

Orkney

Bruce

Mary borough

Carew

Courtown

Yarborough

Beresford

Rosebery

Sydney

Petre

Digby

Erroll

Kenyon

Cloncurry

Downes

Hatherton

Thomond

Lovelace

Ely

Thanet

Huntley

Radnor

Beaufort

Headfort

De Grey

Crewe

Wilton

Gardner

Prudhoe

Ducie

Reay

Langdale

Strangford

Tavistock

Sandwich

Lichfield

Aberdeen

477

Gosford

Fitzgerald

Montfort

Beverley

Somerset

Londonderry

Scarborough

Stuart de Rothesay

Portman

Sheffield

Carrington

Limerick

Breadalbane

Haddington

Bp. Chichester

Bp. Gloucester

Belhaven

Eglintoun

Lynedoch

Mountcashel

Cowper

Canning

Bill thrown out.

PRISONS.
Their Lordships in Committee on the Prisons Bill.
On clause 4, which provides that the prisoners shall be furnished with the means of moral and religious instruction, "and with such suitable books as may be selected by the chaplain, or such as may be approved of by the visiting justices."
The Bishop of Londonobjected to the power of selecting books being given to the visiting justices independent of the chaplain. In his opinion, the chaplain was the proper person to intrust with the selection of books, and he should therefore move an amendment to that effect.
The Duke of Richmondcould see no objection to the visiting justices, with the chaplain, having the power of selecting books.
The Marquess of Salisburyhad intended to have proposed an amendment on this clause, but which would not have gone quite so far as that of the right rev. Prelate. If, however, the right rev. Prelate persisted in his motion, he should certainly vote with him. Perhaps, however, it would meet the right rev. Prelate's views, if a sort of concurrent power was given to the chaplain and justices. He would, therefore, propose, that the clause should be altered so as to run—"with such suitable books as may be selected by the chaplain, and approved by the visiting justices."
The Earl of Wicklowwas sorry that the present amendment preceded the consideration of one on which it was likely there would be such difference of opinion, one relative to the appointment of chaplains, because it appeared to him that the chaplain would very probably think it his duty not to attend a Roman Catholic prisoner to read Roman Catholic religious books. In the part of the country in which he lived, there were many clergymen who would feel it to be totally inconsistent with their duty, to allow a Roman Catholic
478
to peruse books advocating the tenets of a creed different from their own. On this account he was anxious to avoid the possibility of such an intervention, and he should therefore vote against the amendment of the right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that if he were appealed to, as the diocesan, he should take any clergyman to task who refused to allow a Roman Catholic prisoner the perusal of books written by members of his own religious persuasion. He did not, however, think it unnecessary, that a discretion in the selection of such books should be confided even to a Protestant clergyman, as there were some books used by Roman Catholics, which were highly objectionable. One he would refer to in particular, which was a very favourite book—he meant the Garden of the Soul.
The Bishop of Exeterwas bound to vote against the amendment of his right rev. Friend, because he felt it impossible, for his own part, to put into the hands of a Roman Catholic, books containing doctrines of which he could not conscientiously approve; and he should have thought it impossible, if he had not heard the contrary from so high an authority, that any clergyman could be a consenting party to putting into the hands of one of the prisoners, books which advocated doctrines different from his own.
Amendmentwithdrawn.—Clause agreed to.
On the 17th Clause, which provides that Roman Catholic chaplains shall be appointed to the gaols, being proposed,
The Marquess of Salisbury The Marquess of Salisbury moved that it be expunged.
The Bishop of Lincolnobjected to the principle involved in this clause. It was the first instance in which they had proposed to legislate for the payment of ministers of any other religion than the Established Church. Were the inmates of prisons the only persons who deserved the commiseration of the Government of this country? If they provided instruction for Dissenters and Roman Catholics in prisons, they would shortly be called upon to find instruction for Roman Catholics and Dissenters in other cases. He acknowledged that all who contributed to the support of the State were entitled to receive education, but then it ought to be given by the clergy of the Established Church. Whether chaplains should be

479
appointed to workhouses under the poor law, depended entirely on the board of guardians; but what had the Poor Law Commissioners done? They said to the board of guardians, "If you appoint a chaplain at all, he must be of the Established Church." They had by that shown that they understood on what the connexion of Church and State in this country rested. This clause went, in his opinion, to the co-establishment, if he might coin the word, with the Church, of all religious denomination.
The Bishop of Durhamsaid, the inmates of prisons were deprived of any religious instruction which they might get elsewhere; and he would ask whether they were to go without it at all, or whether they were not precisely the persons to whom religious instruction and consolation were most necessary, to whom it was most charitable to give it, and most cruel to deny it? The case was entirely sui generis, and therefore not likely to become a precedent, or to be of that dangerous character which the right rev. Prelate seemed to think.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that, according to law, the ministers of any religion to which a prisoner belonged had access to him at all times, and therefore there was not, in point of fact, any want of spiritual instruction in the prisons; and he agreed with the right rev. Prelate, that their Lordships ought not to open the doors wider in favour of Catholics and Dissenters.
The Duke of Richmondconcurred entirely with what had just been stated by the noble Lord. If the principle were good for any thing, why should they limit it to fifty persons? It ought to be as applicable to one as to fifty.
The Earl of Fingallwould support the clause. He regretted to hear the opinion of the noble Duke who preceded him, knowing that the noble Duke had paid great attention to this subject, and had had great experience in all matters connected with it, and also because he had heard the noble Duke recently say, he thought great advantage would result from separate confinement, which was one of the objects of this bill, and the greatest advantage from instruction by Roman Catholics. The noble Duke had said the principle was bad, or why limit the clause to the number of fifty; but surely there must be some definite number, and after an inquiry
480
in the gaols, the number of fifty had been fixed on. It appeared that in many of the gaols the number of Roman Catholics was very considerable; in Liverpool, on an average, 174, so that fifty was thought to be a very good limit. The right rev. Prelate had said, that the principle was new. Undoubtedly, in England it was so; but it had been recognised in Ireland; for every gaol there had a Catholic as well as a Protestant chaplain.
The Earl of Wicklowagreed with the noble Earl who had just spoken, that the principle had been established in Ireland, so that it could not be called a new principle in the British dominions. The question was, whether it were advisable and just to adopt the principle in the gaols of this country. It was, however, a curious fact, and he believed it was not less true, that between the Roman Catholic and Protestant chaplains in the gaols in Ireland there was not a single instance of any ill-will or dissension having arisen. It appeared to him that the right reverend Prelate who first spoke would have been more justified in asking whether the Roman Catholic priesthood were to be at all admitted into the gaols; but that was allowed by law, so that the present question was one rather of prudence than of principle, as to how far their Lordships would sanction this claim as a guard, and watch over the manner in which that duty should be performed. As to the limit being so large a number as fifty, the power of the clause would probably only be exercised in large towns; and could anything be more objectionable than that every prisoner should choose some person to whom he would apply for spiritual instruction? He thought, therefore, that prudence and good policy required this regulation of appointing one chaplain, and that the visiting magistrates should have control over the education of the gaols. The result of that would be infinitely better than under the present system. Their Lordships would, see, too, that there was nothing compulsory in the clause. It rested with the visiting magistrates, if they thought fit, to appoint a chaplain; and he thought that London and Liverpool were the only two places that would avail themselves of the power.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the noble Earl had taken notice of this clause not being compulsory on the magistrates

481
to exercise the power which it conferred. A little consideration, however, would show that that which was said to be discretionary would be virtually compulsory on the magistrates. Then, as to the advantage to be derived from the circumstance of any chaplain not of the Established Church being chosen by the visiting magistrates, that, he thought, would in all cases be questionable; but as to the case of selecting Roman Catholic chaplains in Ireland, it was merely nominal, for the selection was always made by the Roman Catholic bishops. With regard to this not being altogether a new principle, they were come to that at last. Their Lordships were told when the bill in question and another bill for extending privileges to Roman Catholics in Ireland were before them, "the Established Church need never fear that this would be drawn into a precedent for England; the cases are quite different." Upon many noble Lords in that House an impression had been made by that statement. It was undoubtedly a new principle in this country, and he hoped their Lordships would not sanction it. Great inconvenience, too, would arise from it, because it was a wrong principle. It was impossible to doubt, that if this advantage were given—he spoke with the greatest respect towards the Roman Catholic Church—looking to the present state of controversy between the two churches—that it would be made the means of making proselytes in the prisons. The Roman Catholic priest would take advantage in the prisons of these peculiar opportunities which his religion afforded him for dissemminating his faith, and many months would not elapse before many Roman Catholics would be found in the gaols. But supposing the number of Roman Catholics to be so low as forty or forty-five in any prison, how would they get rid of the Roman Catholic priest? With respect to paying and not paying these ministers was all the difference, and not between the inmates of these prisons receiving or not receiving spiritual consolation. He believed there was no difficulty of persons of different religious persuasions receiving consolation in our prisons, but there it was wholly gratuitous. If their Lordships sanctioned this clause, they might at some future day have the melancholy satisfaction of looking back and saying, that they, from motives of charity, had done that which had ended in the subver-
482
sion of true religion, and the subversion of all religion—veneration and respect being paid to none. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not accede to this clause.
The Lore Chancellorsaid, this did not involve any general question; and if there were on the part of the right rev. Prelate any apprehension of danger from Roman Catholic priests being admitted into the prisons, and thereby making proselytes, he should say that the clause ought to be adopted to guard against that danger because if there was danger as the law now stood it would be lessened by this clause, as there would be only one Roman Catholic priest admitted where many were admitted before; and that one, too, in the power of certain individuals and capable of being removed. Let their Lordships consider what they did if they rejected this clause. They were denying to the Roman Catholic in prison spiritual consolation altogether. Could it be supposed that they would receive it from the clergy of the Established Church? They might be disciplined by the clergy of their own persuasion, but it was not in the nature of things, that gratuitous attendance to 170 Roman Catholics would be furnished by any member of the Roman Catholic clergy. The question, therefore, for their Lordships was, whether these unfortunate persons were to go without spiritual consolation or not?
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that it was rather remarkable that two very different modes of argument had been used for supporting this clause. In Ireland, it was said, the number of Roman Catholics was supreme, and therefore, it was right to adopt it, and in England it was to be adopted because they were so few. Now, if there were any principle involved in this clause, and that there was, he thought the speech of the right rev. Prelate below him had shown—was that to be sacrificed for those two instances? But he would in candour say to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that if there were any justice in his argument, it would grown very rapidly why this clause was passed, and within a very short time there would be a great proportion of Roman Catholics in our gaols. The effect of this clause would be, that the Roman Catholics of England, who were very anxious to disseminate their religion, would actually bribe the prisoners to declare themselves Roman Catholics, so that soon there would

483
be Roman Catholic chaplains in every gaol in England. All that the Roman Catholics would be required to do, who profess themselves members of that Church would be, to attend a service which every peer and every commoner, of the highest rank in this country, did attend for many years after the Reformation. The Roman Catholic religion had some very peculiar considerations connected with it, which made it exceedingly desirable that they should ask what effect this measure, if passed, was likely to have. If there were one system of religion more than another that was dangerous for prisons, it was the Roman Catholic. When he reminded their Lordships of the tremendous doctrine of absolution of the Church of Rome, he thought they would find no difficulty in that belief. He did not want their assent to the danger of this doctrine without proof. He had got the evidence given before their Lordships' House in 1825, by John Burnett, a Dissenting Independent minister, on this subject. He was hostile to the Church of England, and very friendly to what was called Catholic Emancipation. That gentleman said,—
"No Roman Catholic of the lower orders has any dread of final perdition. I have spoken with them frequently on the subject, and never found one of them that supposed he could go to hell. If they die in mortal sin, their doctrine is, that they must go to perdition; if, however, they apply to the priest for absolution, he must give it."
He went on further, and said,—
"The confidence of the people in their absolution, which follows confession, is such as completely to destroy in their minds any fear of future punishment. I have found this to be the case generally, and in cases where they are convicted in courts of justice they very seldom show anything like a feeling sense of their situation, which I conceive arises solely from the conviction, that the absolution enjoyed at the hands of the priest will do everything for them. I have seen myself thirty-five individuals in the dock together, sentenced to death, and I could not perceive the least degree of emotion, in consequence of the pronouncing of sentence, all which I attributed to the confidence placed in the absolution of the clergy."
When he found this to be the effect of the Roman Catholic religion, he should hesitate long before he assented to any measure like that proposed to their Lordships. He should feel bound in principle to resist such a measure if the
484
cases of hardship were numerous, though he should do it with pain; but as it was, when such was not the case, and such tremendous consequences were involved, he should certainly resist the measure.
The House divided on the question, that the clause be expunged—Contents 76; Not-Contents 34: Majority 42.

List of the CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOPS.

Strathallan

Canterbury

De Vesci

Armagh.

Hawarden

DUKES.

St. Vincent

Richmond

Melville

Rutland

Gort

Dorset

Canterbury.

Wellington.

BISHOPS.

MARQUESSES.

London

Salisbury

Lincoln

Bute

St. David's

Downshire

Carlisle

Cholmondeley

Exeter

Ormonde.

Ely.

EARLS.

LORDS.

Pembroke

De Ros

Devon

Saltoun

Shaftesbury

Sinclair

Morton

Colville

Moray

Monson

Galloway

Sondes

Airlie

Grantley

Dartmouth

Montagu

Harrington

Douglas

Warwick

Calthorpe

Delawarr

Dunsany

Mansfield

Farnham

Roden

Redesdale

Clanwilliam

Ellenborough

Bandon

Glenlyon

Rosslyn

Ravensworth

Chichester

Rayleigh

Manvers

Bexley

Harrowby

Wharncliffe

Verulam

Feversham

Glengall

Lyndhurst

Eldon

Tenterden

Falmouth

Cowley

Munster

Stuart de Rothesay

Ripon.

Wynford

VISCOUNTS.

De L'Isle.

Hereford

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Zetland

Argyll.

Charlemont

MARQUESSES.

Gosford

Lansdowne

Clarendon

Normanby

Scarborough

Conyngham.

Wicklow

EARLS.

Cork.

Ilchester

VISCOUNTS.

Effingham

Melbourne

Fingall

Duncannon

Uxbridge

Falkland

485

Torrington,

Saye and Sele

LORDS.

Poltimore

Holland

Cottenham

Lilford

Byron

Wrottesley

Vaux

Seaford

Foley

Denman

Vernon.

De Mauley

BISHOP.

Colborne

Durham.

Paired off.

NOT-CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

Mostyn

Buckingham

Stanley

Forester

Segrave

Westmeath

Lismore

Abercorn

Burlington

Jersey

Roxburgh

Selkirk

Shrewsbury

Caernarvon

Kintore

Doneraile

Strafford

Exmouth

Sherborne

Bradford

Kinnaird

Leven

Sefton

Clare

Lovat

Wallace

Camperdown

Dalhousie

Sutherland

Orkney

Bruce

Maryborough

Carew

Courtoun

Yarborough

Beresford

Rosebery

Sydney

Petre

Digby

Erroll

Kenyon

Cloncurry

Downes

Hatherton

Thomond

Lovelace

Ely

Thanet

Huntley

Radnor

Beaufort

Headfort

De Grey

Crewe

Wilton

Gardner

Prudhoe

Ducie

Reay

Langdale

Strangford

Tavistock

Sandwich

Lichfield

Aberdeen

Montfort

Beverly

Somerset

Londonderry

Portman

Sheffield

Carrington

Limerick

Breadalbane

Haddington

Belhaven

Eglintoun

Lynedoch

Mountcashel

Cowper.

Canning.

Remaining clauses agreed to. Bill reported.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS.
Lord Lyndhurstregretted at that late hour to call their attention to the Custody of Infants' Bill, but he thought he should be justified in their Lordships' opinion when he stated, that his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, was now present, and had attended there the whole evening; and in consequence
486
of his duties on the circuit, he would not be able to attend the discussion of this bill on any future occasion, and he was sure their Lordships must be most anxious and desirous to hear the opinion of his noble and learned Friend on this bill. He stated this in justification of bringing forward this question at so late an hour, but their Lordships would recollect, that this subject had been discussed on a former occasion, and twice in the other House of Parliament, and it would not necessarily occupy much of their time and attention. In a late Session of Parliament, a bill similar to the present, but differing in some of its details, came from the other House, which passed that House by a very large majority. When the discussion came on in their Lordships' House there was a very thin attendance; but after a long discussion, the second reading was lost by a small majority—a majority of two voices, there being nine votes for the second reading, and eleven against it. The bill had come again up to their Lordships, having passed the House of Commons by a majority greater than on a former occasion; and he thought, therefore, considering the sanction it had received—considering that their Lordships could hardly be considered as having expressed any opinion upon it, he came to the consideration of this question without any prejudice against it, and he was sure that on entering upon the subject it would receive their most anxious consideration. The first point to consider was, what was the state of the law with respect to the subject to which this bill applied? By the law of England, as it now stood, the father had an absolute right to the custody of his children, and to take them from the mother. However pure might be the conduct of the mother—however amiable, however correct in all the relations of life, the father might, if he thought proper, exclude her from all access to the children, and might do this from the most corrupt motives. He might be a man of the most profligate habits; for the purpose of extorting money, or in order to induce her to concede to his profligate conduct, he might exclude her from all access to their common children, and the course of law would afford her no redress: That was the state of the law as it at present existed. Need he state that it was a cruel law—that it was unnatural—that it was tyrannous—

487
that it was unjust? When he said that it was a cruel law, who was it that knew the love a mother had to her offspring, the delight she received in their smiles, the interest she took in all their sorrows, and the happiness she had in the superintendence of them; who did not agree with him in saying, that to deprive her of all this from base motives was one of the most cruel inflictions that could be put on her? But when he stated further, that the determination of the father might effect this without reference to the character of the mother, she being the most virtuous of women, whilst he might, for the base object he had stated, from motives of self-interest, deprive her of that access to her children—did he not make out the charge which he had originally made, that the law was a cruel, an unjust law? And if he made out such a case for the satisfaction of their Lordships, did it not follow, almost of necessity, that they would agree with him that it was the duty of the Legislature to find some remedy? He would further state, and it must strike their Lordships as an extraordinary feature in this subject, that the law he had stated applied only to legitimate children—it applied only to the issue of a virtuous mother. If the child were an illegitimate one, and the mother in consequence profligate, the law was then directly the reverse; the father then had no control over the child. In the one case, a pure virtuous female was deprived at the bare will of her husband of all access to her child; in the case of the profligate woman, as he had stated, the father had no absolute control over the child, and the mother might dispose of it as she thought proper. Mere general statements of cases of this kind were not sufficient to impress their Lordships with the cruel operation of this law; something of detail was necessary to make an impression on the mind; and, therefore, with a view of showing them how the system worked in practice, and also to satisfy them that he had correctly stated the law on the subject, he would refer to three or four cases arising out of this law, that their Lordships might see how cruelly it worked, and how it was abused. In the first case that he should refer to, the father was a French emigrant, who married a woman possessed of some landed property, yielding 700 l. a-year. A settlement was made on him on their marriage
488
of the interest of 200 l. in the event of his surviving his wife. They had one child, which was an infant at the breast at the time that he referred to. The husband was dissatisfied with the settlement, and endeavoured to induce his wife to make a will in his favour. There were reasons which induced her to refuse him. What did he do? He immediately threatened to take possession of the child, and take it to the continent by law. The child was not weaned, and the mother, in the greatest distress and agony, thought she had a right to it under the circumstances, and made her escape to her mother's. The father got hold of the child by stratagem, which made it necessary for the mother to make an application to the Lord Chancellor for relief. The case was heard by Lord Eldon; he said he was powerless, and the mother was obliged to see her child put in the care of a stranger. Here was a case of extreme cruelty and hardship, and all inflicted for the basest purposes. Another case, which was the second he would refer to, was the case of a man named Skinner, who had treated his wife with the extreme of brutality and cruelty. A separation had taken place between them; he was living with another woman in a state of adultery. He had a daughter, six years of age, and he insisted on getting possession of his child. The case came before his noble and learned Friend near him, and an agreement was come to to place the child in the custody of a third person. The husband, dissatisfied with this agreement, took the child from that person, and from all custody of the mother, and put her into the custody of Delavards, the woman with whom he was living. An application was made to the Court of King's Bench, of which court his noble and learned Friend was a judge, for a habeas corpus to have the child brought up and delivered up to her former custody. His noble and learned Friend, he believed, was most desirous to give relief. There was a breach of agreement, and his noble and learned Friend took some time to consider the case, and consulted the other judges of the court, but they were satisfied that be could not interfere, and he was obliged to desist. Here was a case of extreme hardship and cruelty—the father living with another woman. Another application was made to the court by the mother, but the court said as the law now

489
stood, it could offer no redress. The third case to which he should refer, was the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ball; they were separated by a decree of the Ecclesiastical Court in consequence of the adultery of the husband. In this case the child was above the age of nurture; she was desirous of remaining with the mother, and the father would not allow it. She was placed in a situation where she had no society but the society of a woman of all work. Application was made to the Court for assistance and relief. The case came on before Sir J. Leach, who at that time held the office of Vice-Chancellor. The counsel had stated—
"The question really is, whether a child is to be deprived, by the brutal conduct of the father, of the company, advice, and protection of a mother, against whom no imputation can be raised?"
The Vice-Chancellor said—
"Some conduct on the part of the father, with reference to the management and education of the child, must be shown, to warrant an interference with his legal right; and I am bound to say, that in this case there does not appear to me to be sufficient to deprive the father of his common law right to the care and custody of his child. It resolves itself into a case for authorities; and I must consider what has been looked upon as the law on this point. I do not know that I have any authority to interfere; I do not know of any case similar to this, which would authorize my making the order sought in either alternative. If any could be found I would most gladly adopt it; for in a moral point of view I know of no act more harsh or cruel than depriving a mother of proper intercourse with her child. I was myself counsel in two cases in which Lord Eldon refused petitions precisely similar. 'Smith v. Smith' one of them, was precisely similar in its facts to the present case, except that the father's object there was to compel the mother by such means as are now complained of, to give up to him some property, which was settled to her own separate use. My course of argument in that case was, that as the law allowed the mothers of bastards to retain possession of their children till the age of seven, à fortiori, must the law allow the care of legitimate children to be vested in the mother (the child in that case was under seven). The Lord Chancellor, however, refused the order, and before any further proceedings were had, either the mother's or the child's death determined the question. That was a very strong case; yet the Lord Chancellor held that the court had no jurisdiction. The petition in behalf of Mrs. Ball and her daughter was dismissed."
There was only one case more with
490
which he should trouble their Lordships. It was that of Mrs. Greenhill. That lady while residing in the country with her three children, for the benefit of her health, was informed that her husband, who was at sea in his yacht, was living in adultery with a woman named Graham, whom he had on board with him, and by whose name he sometimes passed. Astounded at this intelligence Mrs. Greenhill went to Exeter, to consult her mother as to what she should do. She was advised to institute proceedings in the ecclesiastical court for a separation, on the ground of adultery. The husband, knowing the power which he had, sent his attorney to her, offering, if she discontinued the suit, to settle an allowance on her, which she refused, and would have nothing but what the law allowed. He then sent again to inform her, that unless she gave up the suit, he would take away the children; and on the refusal of Mrs. Greenhill to give them up or to discontinue the suit, he issued a habeas corpus to obtain possession of the children. The case was argued in the first instance before Mr. Justice Patti-son, who took time to consider it, but he at length found that he was utterly powerless, and the order was made. It was then suggested that a court of equity might afford Mrs. Greenhill some relief, but there she fared no better; and this amiable lady, against whose purity of conduct not an imputation was even attempted to be cast, was obliged to separate herself from her friends in this country, and go with her three children to reside on the continent, to avoid the service of the process of the court, and the consequent separation from her children. He had now, he trusted, stated sufficient to show that the law as it now stood on this matter was cruel, unjust, and unnatural. If he made out that proposition, the next step was to show that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide a remedy, and then the only question was, whether the remedy proposed by this bill was such as they ought to agree to. He did not ask that the possession of the children should be taken from the father and given to the mother. What he asked was more moderate. It was, that the mother should, where she had cause of complaint in being separated from her children, go to a judge of one of the equity courts, and if' she made out a sufficient case, she should have access to the children under such restric-

491
tions as the judge should think proper. Another provision of the bill was, that where a sentence of a court separated the husband from the wife on the ground of adultery of the former, the court should make such regulations for the intercourse of the mother with the children as it might deem necessary. If any alteration in the form of these clauses were required, the committee would be the proper place for their discussion. He had heard of many objections to the bill, but he had not heard of any which appeared to him to be valid. It was said that the wife was so subject to her husband by common law, that a much larger alteration in the law than the present bill contemplated would be necessary to release her from many hardships to which she was exposed; but certainly it was no fair answer to this bill, that because you could not remedy all the grievances existing, you should not attempt the remedy of one particular case of which the remedy was in your power. But then it was said, that such an alteration should not be made in the law to meet only a few cases of the kind contemplated by the bill. Why were the cases so few? Because the law on the subject was so clear and precise, that no remedy could be obtained even where the grievance was greatest and the hardship most severe. Neither was it a good objection to the bill, that a large portion of the time of the courts would be taken up by such cases, which would thus be greatly increased. Give the power to a judge to redress the grievance, and what would happen? If the party complained of conceived that his conduct was bad, and that he was in the wrong, he would not go into court, but allow the matter to be settled by the mediation of friends. There was little fear, then, of having any great increase of these applications, for it was well known that women will suffer much before they resort to a court for redress, but surely that was a good reason why redress should be given when a case of grievous wrong had been made out. He was unwilling at that late hour to trespass longer on the indulgence of their Lordships. This measure had been twice under the consideration of the other House, once under that of their Lordships, and had frequently been discussed by the press, and it was impossible he could pass over all the objections that had been urged. He had laid before their Lordships cases of great hardship, and he
492
now called on them to sanction the remedy, by assenting to the second reading of the bill. The noble Lord moved that it he read a second time.
Lord Wynfordagreed with his noble and learned Friend that the law was as he had stated it, and that some change in it was necessary, but he denied that the bill would effect the alteration required. On the contrary, he thought the bill was a mischevious one, which would do much harm, and no good where the good was most required. He was anxious that in case of unhappy differences between the father and mother, care should be taken of the interests of the children, and at the same time of the rights of the husband. He had on a former occasion said that he should be ready to concur in any measure which would keep both those objects in view. His noble and learned Friend had truly said, that the custody of the children belonged by law to the father. That was a wise law, for the father was responsible for the rearing up of the child; but when unhappy differences separated the father and mother, to give the custody of the child to the father, and to allow access to it by the mother, was to injure the child for it was natural to expect that the mother would not instil into the child any respect for the husband whom she might hate or despise. The effects of such a system would be most mischevious to the child, and would prevent its being properly brought up. If the husband was a bad man, the access to the children might not do harm, but where the fault lay with the wife, or where she was of a bad disposition, she could seriously injure its future prospects. These were objections which would prevent him giving his support to the bill in its present shape. If, instead of this bill, his noble and learned Friend would bring in a bill to lessen the expense of debarring the profligate father from exercising authority over his children, he (Lord Wynford) would readily join his noble and learned Friend; but he thought they ought also to prevent the improper access of an angry woman to the children of her husband. In his belief, where the measure, as it stood, would relieve one woman, it would ruin 100 children. On these grounds, he moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Denmanwas of opinion that this bill ought not to be settled by the votes of

493
the Law Lords merely. They might bring forward the result of their experience, but he thought the measure ought to be carried or rejected by the sense of the House at large. Some alteration, and that of a sweeping character, in the present law on this subject, was absolutely necessary to the due administration of justice, and for the prevention of the frightful injuries to society which the present system gave birth to. In Skinner's case, which was tried before the court of Common Pleas, it was settled, that though the Court of Chancery had, the court of lacy had not, the means of depriving the husband of power to remove his child. In the case of the "King v. Greenhill," which had been decided in 1836, before himself and the rest of the judges of the Court of King's Bench, he believed that there was not one judge who had not felt ashamed of the state of the law, and that it was such as to render it odious in the eyes of the country. The effect in that case was, to enable the father to take his children from his young and blameless wife, and place them in the charge of a woman with whom he then cohabited. After having looked at this bill with the most anxious care, and with a deep feeling of the impolicy and impropriety of going about to change the law without a strong probability of great benefit resulting, he did believe that the measure did apply as substantial a remedy as could be applied, and that there was no ground for apprehending that any evil consequences would result from the change Indeed, the probable danger appeared to him to be nothing; while the present law was cruel to the wife, debasing to the husband, and dangerous, and probably ruinous to the health and morals of the children, who could not have any such sure guarantee against corruption, under the tutelage of a profligate father as the occasional care of a mother. The principle, then, of the bill seeming to him to be correct, he must say he thought their Lordships would incur a grave responsibility if they threw out, without reading for the second time, a bill which had been Sent up to them, now for the third time, by such large majorities of the House of Commons.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the great danger in the Legislature endeavouring to arrange the disputes of husband and wife Was, lest they should lose sight of that which ought to be the primary object of
494
all courts of justice—the conservation of the rights of the children. Now, he could not but think that in this bill that had been too little attended to. He thought besides, that objections existed to the machinery of the first two clauses, which must render it impossible for their Lordships to adopt the bill. All the beneficial purposes which the present measure was intended to effect might, he conceived, be secured by extending the power of that jurisdiction with which alone the control over matters of this kind rested. Such powers, however, when given ought to be exercised with the greatest caution, and always with a view to the interests of the children.
Amendment negatived. Bill read a second time.