Lords Sitting of 7 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Sugar (Excise Duties); Church Discipline; Church Building; Clergy Reserves (Canada); Marriages Act Amendment; Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; Metropolitan Police Courts; Chimney Sweepers; Bills of Exchange; Imprisonment for Debt; Metropolis Improvement (No. 1); Sale of Beer (No. 2); Notice of Elections; County Constabulary; Grammar Schools; Admiralty Court; Admiralty Court (Judge's, &c. Salary); Pilots; Isle of Man; Fisheries; Friendly Societies; East India Shipping; Insolvent Debtors (India); Slave Trade Treaties; Slave Trade (Venezuela); New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land; Law of Evidence (Scotland); Oyster Fisheries (Scotland); Bank of Ireland; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland); Poddle River (Dublin).—Read a third time:—Railways; Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Westminster, and Lord Portman, from St. Pancras, St. James's, and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, for the adoption of measures for the better Supply of Water to the Metropolis.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from Coleraine, and other places in Ireland, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Viscount Duncannon, from the British Medical Society, to specify in the ensuing Population Returns the number of Sick and Infirm in each District.—By Lord Brougham, from Prisoners confined Debt for in the Queen's Bench Prison, to Amend the Law for the Relief of Debtors; and from the Anti-Slavery Society of Birmingham, to put down the Foreign Slave Trade.

MAURITIUS.—M. BERTIN.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from M. Bertin, formerly a printer and publisher in the Mauritius, praying for compensation for certain losses which he had sustained in consequence of the conduct of the government. At the time when M. Bertin was in the Mauritius, party spirit ran extremely high there, and had, in fact, broken out into acts of violence; and it was admitted, as set forth in the petition, that during that period, M. Bertin had acted as a loyal subject, that his conduct was exceedingly good, and that he gave the most zealous support to the government. At one of those periods of disturbance, when party spirit ran unusually high, the printing-office where the petitioner's business was conducted was assailed by the populace, owing to the part which he had taken in favour of the government. His life was exposed to great jeopardy, and he was obliged to put himself under the protection of the military. His partner, however, compromised with the anti-government party, and thus escaped unmolested; but he preferred running any personal risk rather than compromise his opinions. He was afterwards tried before the Supreme Court of the island for a libel published in his paper, and sentenced to pay a fine of 50 l., and the governor withdrew his licence of residence, in consequence of which he lost the sum of 7,300 l., which it had cost him to establish his printing-office and newspaper. He stated that the article which he had published in his paper was for the purpose of vindicating his character against charges of a false and calumnious nature. He was, however, afterwards suffered to return to the island. In consequence of his great losses he applied to the Colonial Secretary for compensation; but the sum awarded was so small, that he felt it necessary to pray their Lordships to grant him relief.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, the facts, as set forth by the petitioner, were somewhat exaggerated. In 1831 the petitioner came to the island. In 1832 he set up a printing establishment, and commenced a newspaper, although he was told that he could not be recognized by the government as the registered proprietor. In the month of August, 1833, in consequence of the violent course which had been taken by certain individuals, the governor thought it necessary by proclamation to apprise aliens that they were prohibited
1380
from interfering, by writing or otherwise, with the political discussions that were then going on in the island. In 1834, M. Bertin and his partner, M. Petitguen, were tried before the Supreme Court of the island, and sentenced to pay a fine of 50 l. for a libel on the Procureur-general. The governor, Sir W. Nicolay, admitted that the protection of the government had been extended to the petitioner so long as he conducted himself with propriety. The character of the paper, with which it afterwards appeared that the petitioner was intimately connected, had, however, entirely changed, and it had become extremely violent in its attacks on respectable officers. The petitioner was long suspected of a close connexion with the paper in which the libel appeared, but the fact was not clearly proved until the trial took place. Under these circumstances the governor had, in consequence of the state of the island, withdrawn M. Berlin's licence of residence. The petitioner then represented his case to Lord Glenelg, who gave him permission to return, stating at the same time, that he considered the sentence of the Supreme Court a perfectly proper one; and, further, that the Supreme Council formed the best tribunal for awarding compensation for the amount of losses sustained by him in consequence of his removal from the island, without reference to his situation as editor of a newspaper, he being a foreigner, and only a resident by sufferance. M. Bertin made a claim for 7,000 l. as compensation, besides which he sent in a claim for damages and interest, amounting to 4,000 l. more. The Legislative Council, to which body his claim had been referred by Lord Glenelg, awarded him, as expenses which he had unavoidably incurred, 160 l. for his passage to London, and 1l. a day during his stay there, and this award was assented to by Lord Glenelg. M. Bertin then returned to London, and, as his noble and learned Friend had truly stated, had repeatedly complained of the injustice of this award to the Colonial-office; but his noble Friend at the head of that department, considering that under all the circumstances of the case, M. Bertin had not been treated in the harsh and cruel manner which had been represented, declined to interfere.
Lord Broughamcontended, that it could have been no secret to Sir W. Nicolay that M. Bertin was engaged in the con-

1381
duct of the Balance newspaper, because in August, 1833, the government had lent him some soldiers to assist in working the presses, and therefore he certainly did not wait till the trial to find out for the first time that an alien was conducting the paper.
Petition laid on the table.

BRITISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that having- read the correspondence which had recently been laid on the fable respecting the claims of the British Legion, he was bound incandour to tell the noble Viscount opposite, that nothing could be more completely satisfactory than this correspondence. Their Lordships would find by a letter from our Ambassador, that a sum of 50,000 l. had actually been transmitted to this country, and that the payment of the men was now going forward. It appeared, also, that there were in the hands of our Ambassador; securities for the payment of five more separate instalments of 50,000 l. each; and, what was still more satisfactory, on the day of the last payment her Catholic Majesty would also allow compensation to the men, the amount of which was to be settled between the two governments. He thought that nothing could be more satisfactory to the officers and men of the Legion than this arrangement.
Subject at an end.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Haddingtonwished to ask one or two questions of the noble Marquess at the head of the Home-office, relative to the instructions which had been issued to the Poor-law Commissioners to inquire into the slate of disease in Scotland. When he last made any observations on the subject to their Lordships, he stated his regret that these inquiries were not to be made by some other body, because he certainly felt that the employment of these gentlemen would create a feeling in Scotland that there was some idea of tampering with the Poor-laws in that country, and assimilating them to the Poor-laws of England. He had not been altogether mistaken on that point, because, as the noble Lord well knew, considerable opposition had been given by an institution in Edinburgh to the prosecution of these inquiries by the Poor-law Commissioners, and last Tuesday, in the Edinburgh town council, a petition to her Majesty, praying
1382
that she would cause inquiry to be made whether want and destitution had led to disease, and whether there were adequate means for the relief of such want and destitution, had been rejected on a division. He should therefore be very glad to hear from the noble Marquess that these gentlemen were directed only to inquire into the state and progress of disease, and that those inquiries would be confined to the large towns. As the investigation had been undertaken, he hoped it might prove successful, although he could have wished that it had been carried on by other persons than those employed; but the noble Marquess might depend on it that he would find it very desirable to remove from the public mind in Scotland anything like an impression that an intention existed of interfering at all with the system of Poor-laws in that country.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad stated, when his noble Friend had last called the attention of the House to the subject, that the inquiries of the commissioners would be confined to the specific object of ascertaining the state and progress of disease. He was well aware that any inquiry of this kind, to be successful, must be so conducted as to conciliate the good will of those amongst whom it was carried on. The inquiries of the commissioners would be confined to the large towns, although, in his opinion, the inquiry would not be ultimately complete until it was extended in some shape or other to the rural districts.
Subject at an end.

RIBANDISM.—REPEAL (IRELAND).
The Earl of Charlevilletook occasion, on presenting a petition, to read a letter in reference to the late debate on the letter addressed by Mr. Macdonald to Mr. Langford, in which the writer stated that a memorial had been presented to the Lord-lieutenant, signed by those magistrates who had been named by Mr. Jackson in his letter to Colonel Macgregor, in which they denied, in the strongest and most, indignant manner, the statement of the police officers.
Lord Wharncliffebegged to be allowed to remark, that it appeared to him, upon reading the late Riband trials that the evidence of Mr. Rowan, given before a committee of their Lordships last year, as to the character of these associations, was perfectly well founded. The facts of their

1383
having secret signs and passwords, of there being a confederacy for the purposes of murder, and of obedience paid to the orders of superiors, completely came out in the evidence given on the trials. If it were not a political society, it was at least so formed as to be turned with ease into a political engine. He had thought it his duty to make these few observations, and it was only justice to say, that having sat on the committee, and having read the evidence that was now lying on the table, he was satisfied that Mr. Rowan had given most excellent evidence.
Lord Portmansaid, that having been a member of the committee, he could say that the facts stated by Mr. Rowan could scarcely be disputed; but the doubt thrown on his evidence had arisen from the inferences which he drew from those facts.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas anxious to say a few words on another matter which materially related to the peace of Ireland. He adverted to that agitation which, if the newspapers were to be believed, was now going on for the repeal of the union. It appeared that not long ago in the west of Ireland a very great meeting had been held, where the real character of repeal had shown itself. There the word "separation" was used, though he never had had a doubt on his own mind that if "repeal" meant anything it meant "separation," and nothing but that. This matter appeared still more serious when they considered who the leaders of that repeal agitation were; that they were persons—whether in the confidence of the Government or not he did not know—but they were persons many of whom were the most active friends and supporters of the Government, and yet they never heard any disapprobation expressed by the functionaries or the high authorities in Ireland of that agitation. It was the political character and connection with the Government of the patrons of agitation in Ireland that was one of the most dangerous incidents connected with the question of repeal. He must say, he thought the Government were highly culpable for not having expressed that disapprobation, which every man gave them credit for feeling deeply, at such mischievous and alarming agitation. That agitation too was taking place in a country where Ribandism was universally spread, and where that society might be turned by its leaders into
1384
an engine for effecting the purposes of the repeal agitation.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad stated a fortnight ago, that it would be extremely inconvenient during the progress of these trials that any discussion on this subject should take place. He now only wished to say, that on the part of the Government there was every desire to give all information on the subject. Discoveries had been made of a very important nature, and the extent of the conspiracy was perfectly well known; and the Government had a right to take credit to themselves for the manner in which they had conducted the prosecutions that had arisen out of those discoveries. With regard to Mr. Rowan, he perfectly concurred in what had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord Portman). He did not think it necessary to say more on this subject at present, but if his noble Friend wished for more information in the next session of Parliament, there was every disposition on the part of the Government to furnish it.
Petition laid on the table.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (BIRMINGHAM).
The Marquess of Norman,by moved the second reading of the Administration of Justice (Birmingham) Bill. It would have been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, but the Government had been waiting for the decision of the judges on the legality of the charter. Not having been able to obtain that decision, they had brought in this bill to make temporary provision for the administration of justice in Birmingham, and leaving the question of the legality of the charter wholly untouched.
The Earl of Warwickthought they had got into difficulties which this bill would only tend to perpetuate. From the length of time the judges had taken for their decision, there must be great doubt upon the question of the legality of the charter, but his belief was, their decision would be against it. When the Government discovered the doubt, they ought to have stopped their proceedings, and left the administration of justice in the same hands it was in before. The quarter sessions of Birmingham were now held and paid for by funds paid out of the Treasury. The prisoners were sent over first from Birmingham to Warwick gaol, then back to Birmingham to be tried, and afterwards

1385
were returned to Warwick to be imprisoned. Now, let the charter turn out how it might, that could not be altered, as there was no gaol at Birmingham. Birmingham had hitherto been without a corporation, and might it not have gone on in the same way for another year? The Government might now restore matters to the former system, but, having got into this danger, they now called on Parliament to sanction their proceedings. Suppose the charter was declared illegal, he would ask, in such case, whether the prisoners who had been convicted during the charter were legally convicted? It was embarking in a difficulty which lie could not sanction, and he should therefore move, that this bill be read a second time this day three months.
Lorn Wharncliffesaid, the question was, had there been any legal quarter sessions whatever? He believed, that every man tried had been illegally tried.
Lord Calthorpesaid, it would be difficult to imagine any circumstances less favourable than those under which it was proposed to admit Birmingham to the functions of a corporation, and this was especially the case as regarded that part of those functions which related to the administration of justice. He always thought that so important a town as Birmingham ought to possess a corporation, but he was unfavourable to the present bill, because it would not effect that object; it would give to Birmingham not the reality but the fiction of a corporation, and he apprehended that the course which Ministers were taking would lead to the necessity of passing bills of indemnity. Now, although he should not much object to a bill of indemnity where the parties acted in ignorance, he should by no means concur in any step which would invite the commission of acts requiring such remedies.
Second reading put off for six months.

COURTS OF EQUITY.
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham moved, that the amendments made by the Commons in the Administration of Justice (Court of Chancery) Bill be then agreed to. The noble and learned Lord observed, that there were two of those amendments in which which he fully concurred; one related to the increased control proposed to be given to the Lord Chancellor over the officers of the court; the other to the necessary means for in-
1386
creasing the efficiency of those officers as to numbers. There were several amendments made by the Commons which he should have gladly introduced into the original bill, and he, therefore, very much rejoiced to find that those alterations had been made by the other House. He was, also, glad to find that they had introduced the necessary money clauses and the clause for compensation. He confessed he felt some surprise that so much had been said elsewhere upon the subject of the Six Clerks, seeing that that department had long since been the subject of a bill which even reached a second reading. He hoped, that the next measure would be a bill for improving the administration of justice by the committee of the Privy Council. One of the evils of that tribunal was, that the judges who composed it were under no obligation to give their attendance, and in that respect they resembled the House of Lords. In former bills for improving the administration of justice the difficulty which presented itself related to the means of providing for the expenses of the proposed alterations; but he believed it would now be admitted, that that which was so precious as the administration of justice could not be purchased at too high a price.
Commons' Amendments agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved, that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill (No. 1).
The Bill went through committee.
On the bringing up the Report,
The Earl of Devonproposed the addition of a clause to the bill, to the effect that John Thorogood should not be released until the rate and costs were paid either by himself, or some other person or persons.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the insertion of such a clause would frustrate the purpose of the bill. Besides no act of Parliament was necessary to make it imperative on persons in the situation of John Thorogood to pay the debt and costs of the suit, before they were released from prison.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the case was a very simple one, and that there could be no doubt as to the course which should be taken. Here was a man who had been sued for a sum of money, which it was understood, was lawfully due by

1387
him. The law rendered him liable to pay that sum of money, and the law supported the proceedings against him for the recovery of it. This person could have easily avoided these proceedings by simply paying the sum of 5s. 6d. which was demanded of him, or he could have gone into court and have had the question fairly tried whether he were bound to pay it or not, according to the laws of the country in which he resided, for, of course, he must be bound by the laws of his country as well as all other British subjects. But he did not choose to do either. He said," I will not pay that money," and in consequence of his own conduct a large sum of money was incurred in the way of costs. Those costs were not matters of amusement, they were realities; they were sums of money paid for the labour of certain individuals for certain services performed in the execution of their duties under the legal authority of the ecclesiastical courts, and in this suit. Now, those costs must be paid. Were they to let the man off from paying the 5s. 6d. for the rate, that remission would not got rid of his liability for the costs; they must be paid either by himself or his friends, or else they must be paid by the other party, by the lawful suitors, by the lawful plaintiffs, who had a right to recover the money. They were the persons who would have to pay the costs unless their Lordships consented to insert the clause proposed by his noble Friend. Somebody must pay the costs after all. But it was said, that the defendant was not to pay the costs, and that he was to be let out of prison. Well, they might let him out if they pleased; but surely, they would not call upon the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred by his conduct. That was not justice. That was not fair between man and man. Not a soul in the House could be of that opinion; it was not consistent either with law or justice to throw these expenses upon those upon whom the law of the country had laid the necessity of incurring them. Not they, but he who by his own conduct had rendered the proceedings imperative, ought to be made to pay the costs. He, therefore, entreated their Lordships to adopt the proposition of his noble Friend.
Lord Eldonentirely concurred in the observations of the noble Duke. If the question was, as to the release of an insolvent after long imprisonment, he might
1388
perhaps take another view of the matter. But this person was not insolvent; it was very well known, that those who entered into his feelings, and supported him in the church-rate contest, bad got up large subscriptions on his behalf. Therefore, he could not expect to be released from prison on the ground of his inability to pay. It was clear, then, that his conduct was contumacious, and if he chose to carry on his contumacy to annoy the other parties concerned, surely he ought to be prepared to suffer all the effects of his own conduct.
Lord Wharncliffeinquired who would pay the costs if the defendant did not? If he were released from prison without paying them, no one who refused to pay church rates hereafter would be proceeded against, because the churchwardens would naturally say, "It would be foolish for us to go to so much expense for 5s. 6d., for the person may go to gaol, and come out in six months saddling us with the costs. If the amendment were not adopted, their Lordships would virtually repeal all church rates by passing this bill.
The Lord Chancellorhad given no opinion upon the question as to whether it would be unjust to make the plaintiffs or the defendant pay the costs. He might however, freely declare, that it would be quite unjust to make the plaintiffs pay them. But the fact was, that an experiment had been tried with this man for upwards of twelvemonths, without producing the effect desired—namely, the payment of either rate or costs. The defendant had preferred paying in person, and still seemed disposed to do so. The noble Lord proceeded upon the supposition that somebody else would pay these expenses. But suppose nobody did so, would the plaintiffs be in a better condition? By still keeping the defendant in gaol they would be giving him the character of a martyr, and enlisting popular sympathy in his favour and against themselves. All that might be avoided by agreeing to the bill as it stood. If the question were which ought to pay, the defendant or the plaintiff, he should not consent to let the defendant out unless he paid. The noble Lord on his left (Lord Wharncliffe) had suggested what might be the effect of the bill in other cases. In answer to that he would observe, that the cases were very rare in which men would rather go to prison for

1389
twelve months than pay 5s. 6d. or other smaller sums demanded as church rates.
Their Lordships divided on the Earl of Devon's amendment:—Contents 28; Not-contents 15: Majority 13.