Lords Sitting of 14 April 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Printed Papers; Exchequer Bills; and a number of Private Bills.—Read a first time:—Augmentation of Maintenance.—Read a third time;—Rated Inhabitants Evidence.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from several Dissenting Bodies, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and of Ecclesiastical Courts, and against any Grant to the Clergy of the Established Church for Education.—By the Duke of Newcastle, from Derby, and the Duke of Wellington, from Southampton, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws,—By the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, from several places, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By the Marquess of Bute, from several places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By the Marquess of Westminster, and Lord Ashburton, from several places, for Church Extension.— By the Earl of Charleville, from the Coroners of Clare, for Amending the Law relating to their Office.— By Lord Redesdale, from Norwich, for Medical Reform.— By the Marquess of Bute, from Ayr, against the Sale of Spirits during Divine Service.

DISTURBANCES IN LIMERICK.
The Earl of Charlevillebegged to remind the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of the question he had asked on the 30th of last month— whether the Government had received any information respecting the disturbed state of the county of Limerick, and particularly the outrages which had been committed on the farm of Mr. Hill? He wished to know whether any information had been received as to the state of the district, and what steps had been taken for the restoration of the tranquillity of the county.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that having perused all the accounts which had been published respecting the occurrences to which the noble Earl had drawn his attention, and having compared them with the constabulary reports— making allowance for some degree of exaggeration — he must say, that the statements of the noble Earl were in the main well founded. Some outrages, of an agrarian character (he did not mean by that expression to qualify this violence) had taken place in two parishes of the county of Limerick— land had been turned up— and a threatening letter of a very atrocious character had been sent to Mr. Hill, reminding him of the death of Mr. Fox. But as the event which was so alluded to by way of threat had taken place four years ago, he (the Marquess of Normanby) was inclined to believe that the county had been in a comparatively peaceable state since that time. As soon as the reports of the outrages in January last reached the Irish Government, rewards were offered and an increased constabulary force, amounting to sixty, was sent to Limerick from Longford, where they were unnecessary, and peace had since been effectually maintained in Limerick,

1083
He had come down to the House several evenings, with the intention of giving the noble Earl that explanation, but he was prevented from doing so by the whole of the early part of the evening being occupied by the discussions introduced by the noble Marquess opposite (Westmeath). When ever similar accounts reached the Irish government, every exertion would promptly be made in all cases to repress disorder, and bring the delinquents to punishment.
The Earl of Charlevillehad received last night a letter from Mr. Hill, in which, after describing the alarming state of the district, he said he had been offered the assistance of some police; but the authorities refused to give him less than four or five, and insisted on his paying a certain sum daily for each of the men. Until the noble Marquess became Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, such a demand had never been made. The order then given called forth the strong reprobation of all the magistrates; and in a case which occurred in the county with which he was connected, where a person having had the assistance of the constabulary, refused to pay the sum required, he had not heard that the Government had been enabled to enforce the claim. The first duty of the Government and of the police was undoubtedly to give protection to the loyal and peaceable inhabitants, and to preserve, if possible, the peace of the country. But it was at once grievous and insulting, to tell a farmer, "We know your life is in danger, and your property insecure, but if you have the protection of the police force, you must pay 5s. a-day for it." If it was the opinion of the authorities, that the protection of the police was necessary, it should be given without payment.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the noble Earl spoke under a misapprehension. The general rule was, that persons could not claim the exclusive service of the police, without remunerating them for the period in which they were at their command, though if the Government, on inquiry, saw reason for their being sent to protect any particular person, no charge was made. The mere fancy of an individual was not deemed a sufficient ground for transferring them to his disposal.

BERGARA CONVENTION.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to have an answer to the questions of which he had given notice last night, in order to enable
1084
him to bring the whole subject of the Bergara convention before the House in a substantive shape immediately after the holy-days. The questions he had to put to the noble Viscount were the following: — 1. Lord John Hay is stated in No. 4 despatch from Colonel Wylde to Lord Palmerston, to have first sought the Carlist General Maroto. Had he any instructions for such proceedings as early as July, 1839, to authorize his being the bearer of communications between Maroto and the Duke of Vittoria? 2. It appears in Lord John Hay's letter to the Earl of Minto, No. 22, that the Christino Government, in whose cause the war was carried on, did not approve or sanction the raising of the Muniagorri standard of Paz y Fueros.' Had Lord John Hay instructions to act independently of the Christino Government in aiding the views of that chief in a plan which terminated in disgrace, and who was so despicable a character, that no Basque had the slightest confidence in him, although he represented himself as being patronized by the agents of our Government? 3. In consequence of the part her Britannic Majesty's Government have borne in the negotiations carried on between Maroto and Espartero, is it their determination to urge on the Spanish Government that the Fueros should be fully accorded to the Basque provinces? It appears that in the opinion of her Britannic Majesty's Government the local privileges of the Basques and their institutions should be preserved as far as they are compatible with the representative system of Government, which has been adopted for the whole of Spain, and as far as they are consistent with the unity of the Spanish monarchy. Were these, then, the grounds and principles on which Lord John Hay supported Muniagorri's standard of 'Paz y Fueros,' and were no further hopes than these held out?"
Viscount Melbournehad to state, in reference to the first question, that Lord John Hay had no precise instructions, but acted on the general knowledge he had of the views, intentions, and wishes of her Majesty's Government. His conduct in that respect had been subsequently entirely approved of. As to the affair of Muniagorri, the whole of the facts had already been laid on the table. Lord John Hay, in that instance, also acted without precise instructions, and solely on his

1085
acquaintance with the general views of the Government, and the purposes of the service on which he was employed. With respect to the other question, whether we were bound to see the treaty of Bergara executed, he begged leave to state, that the British Government had not been guarantees of that treaty; they had been no party to it, and although they were anxious that the Spanish Government should fulfil its stipulations, and indeed entertained no doubt that it would strictly and faithfully execute the treaty, yet the British Government were in no respect bound to see it carried into effect. The Marquess of Londonderry thought it could be proved by the papers which had been laid on the table, that the British authorities had so directly interfered throughout the whole arrangement, that they must be considered pledged to see the terms of the convention carried into effect.— Subject at an end.

POOR LAW (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeath The Marquess of Westmeath moved for copies of "any correspondence on the records of the Poor-law commissioners, on the necessity of the provisions of the act 2nd and 3rd Victoria, cap. 1, to amend the Irish Poor-law of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, cap. 56, particularly respecting the 5th section."
Viscount Melbournecould not undertake to say that any such correspondence existed. If it did exist anywhere, it would be impossible to find it under the vague terms of such a notice as that of the noble Marquess.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it would be but fair, after the course which had been taken last night, that every information should be given by the Government, why so important an amendment had been introduced at the very last stage of such a bill. The Poor-law commissioners were bound to keep copies of all their correspondence, and their Lordships had a right to know in what quarter that amendment had been suggested.
Viscount Duncannonwas quite ready to produce all the information in his possession, but he believed no correspondence had taken place on the subject. The fact was, the commissioner had been in London at the time, and suggested to him in the lobby the necessity of introducing this amendment, even at the last stage of the bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had certainly seen a great many instances of surprises upon his side of the House, by noble Lords on the other side, but the introduction of this clause into the bill, upon the third reading, was the most flagrant case of surprise that had ever been practised in that House. Upon the 25th of February, he had stated, that he saw no objection to the measure as explained by the noble Viscount opposite, in his speech on the second reading. On the 26th of February he was absent from the House. Now, he was never absent from the House, except when he was prevented from attending by illness, which very seldom happened, or by public duties elsewhere. On the 26th, when he had left town to attend the judges upon circuit, the bill was committed; and no amendment was made, nor any notice of amendment given. On the 27th, he had the honour of receiving the judges at his House, and on that day the bill was reported, but no notice was then given of any proposed amendment. On the 28th, when he was not in the House, and without any notice, this objectionable amendment was introduced.' Now, what he wanted to know was this— who it was that suggested this amendment? Was it suggested by Mr. Nicholls? or had there been any correspondence with any magistrate upon the subject? It could not be suggested without communications of some kind passing. Some correspondence must have taken place beforehand, and if no such correspondence were forthcoming, the Poor-law commissioners had not done their duty, for they were bound to keep copies of all correspondence, and to be prepared today them before the Houses of Parliament. His desire was to sift the matter completely, for he considered the amendment to be a very gross violation of the principles of the bill, and if it had formed part of the bill originally, he, for one, should have voted against it. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would persevere in his motion. If the return to it were nil, be it so; then it would appear that the Poor-law commissioners had not performed their duty.
The Earl of Wickowfelt confident, that when his noble Friend opposite had introduced this amendment, he had no idea he was departing from the usual course of proceeding, or introducing a clause which was in any way inconsistent with the general objects of the measure.

1087
But the result proved the necessity of making some regulation for the future, as to the introduction of new clauses upon third readings. They ought not to be introduced, except with notice, and after the proposed amendments had been printed.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that there was a necessity for the bill to pass by a certain time, and, so far as he could recollect, the amendment had, just before the third reading, been put into his hands by one of the Poor-law commissioners, who assured him that it was absolutely necessary to insure the working of the bill, and did not interfere with its principle. If he had conceived that the amendment would in any manner change the nature of the bill, he certainly should not have introduced it in the absence of the noble Duke opposite.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that if any correspondence had taken place with the Poor-law commissioners on the subject, it should be laid on the table. It was not intended, by the amendment, to alter the right of voting for guardians, and if such were conceived to be the effect of the amendment, there could be no objection to pass a declaratory act on the subject.
The Earl of Winchilseathought it extraordinary that the noble Viscount opposite should, at the suggestion of any individual, come down to the House with such an amendment, without being fully acquainted with its nature and effect.
Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF ARMS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Glengallrose to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of the registration of arms in Ireland, and to the laws connected with it, and in so doing he should take the liberty of asking the Noble Marquess opposite (Normanby) whether it were the intention of the Government to propose any alterations of the law now existing on that subject? He was not desirous of getting up a debate on the state of tranquillity in Ireland, and he would, therefore, in the remarks which he intended to make, confine himself exclusively to the possession of arms by improper characters. He would not trouble their Lordships at any great length as the subject had previously been before them, and no doubt they were well acquainted with it. It was a fact perfectly notorious
1088
that there was a great quantity of unregistered arms in the possession of persons of the worst description. This fact was so universally known and admitted, that no proof was necessary on the point. It was admitted on all hands, and by no parties more unequivocally than by the magistrates and gentlemen who were examined by the committee of their Lordships, up stairs, during the course of the last session. To prevent this great and alarming evil a bill was introduced into the lower House of Parliament by Lord Stanley, when his Lordship was Secretary for Ireland. The object of that measure was to tranquillise the country. But notwithstanding the necessity for some change, and the beneficial change proposed by Lord Stanley's bill, a great outcry was raised against it in Ireland. This bill, either by the dissolution of Parliament or the demise of the Crown, or some similar cause, fell to the ground. No measure, consequently, was adopted to remedy the evil which existed, and which had increased to a frightful extent. To prove to their Lordships that the evil had not been exaggerated, he would read a return of the number of outrages which had occurred from the 1st of January, 1836, to the 1st of January, 1838, which arose solely from the possession of arms by improper characters, and which were immediately and directly connected with the bad state of the registration:— Robbery of arms, 238; firing upon persons, 70; firing upon dwelling-houses, 23; and attacking houses, 411. This was the general return throughout Ireland. In some counties, of course, the evil was greater than in others. In Tipperary during fourteen months previous to February last, there had been 185 cases of outrage arising from the improper possession of arms. In other places the cases were very numerous. Cases of outrage in different counties of Ireland, originating from the improper state of the law on the subject of the registration of arms, were unfortunately numerous. The evil had in a great measure been increased by the loose and careless manner in which the punishments for carrying and having arms on the person were regarded. The custom of carrying arms had been allowed to go on to such a length that it was almost considered legal. This subject also was most worthy of the attention of the Government. He was not desirous of making this a party question, but

1089
there was a stringent necessity to alter the law, to give security to the well-disposed inhabitants of the country. He would therefore ask the noble Marquess if it were the intention of the Government to introduce any law on the subject? The noble Earl moved at the same time for returns of the number and expense of the police, and of rewards offered, and outrages committed in Ireland, since 1838.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no objection to the production of the returns moved for by the noble Earl. They were connected with a subject which had engaged the very serious attention of the Government. During his residence in Ireland several places had been submitted to him for a more strict registration of arms in that country. He could not at present say that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to alter the law connected with the subject; but he would at the same time state that he had been in communication with a learned Gentleman connected with the law department of Ireland, and that he intended to correspond on the subject with his noble Friend, the present Viceroy. When he had done so, he should then be able lo give a more explicit answer as to the intention of the Government. As to the returns which the noble Earl had read, showing the number of outrages which had been committed from the improper and illegal possession of arms; regretting as he did their amount, he could not refrain from congratulating himself that their number had diminished, and was still diminishing. The returns read by the noble Earl only brought down the cases to 1838; now he would read the number which had since occurred. In the three first months of 1838, there were 122 cases; in the whole of 1839, there were seventy-three; and in 1840, there had only been sixty-one. So, though the number was deplorably great, he was rejoiced to say that the outrages were diminishing.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that the noble Lord had not stated under what circumstances it was that the bill which was introduced for the purpose of remedying the evil was not proceeded with after being allowed to go so far as the second reading.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, there were certain reasons which had induced the Government, on mature consideration, to abandon the measure.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that
1090
under the present law persons were obliged to register their arms at the quarter sessions, which left it open to the ruffians of the country to consider whether the houses of those persons were in such a state as to give them any chance of seizing the arms which were so advertised. He thought, therefore, it was one of the first duties of the Government to consider this subject, and make the necessary alteration in the present law.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that the subject was one in which they ought not to act in haste or without deliberation. The registration law had not served as a protection to the peaceably-disposed inhabitants of the country, but had produced an entirely contrary effect, and therefore when any change was about to be proposed, they ought to take that circumstance into consideration. A false and unfair inference had been drawn from the returns read by the noble Earl. From his division of the subject, each outrage was divided into three separate crimes— 1st, being in possession of unregistered arms— 2nd, attacking the house— and 3rd,deprivingtheown-ers of their arms. And this, of course, swelled the list to a great amount.
The Earl of Glengallassured the noble Lord and their Lordships that this was not the case. The latter were taken from the returns of the stipendary magistrates, and the cases were placed seriatim. He wished, indeed, that the fact had been as represented by the noble Lord; but he could assure the House that the gross number consisted of separate and distinct cases. Nothing could be worse than the state of some parts of the country. The condition of the northern parts of Tipperary was fearful. Under such circumstances, he trusted that the Government would take upon themselves the introduction of some measure to remedy the evils existing.
Returns ordered.
House adjourned until the 30th April.