Lords Sitting of 10 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Sale of Beer.—Read a second time:—Masters in Chancery.

TIMBER SHIPS.
On the motion of Viscount Duncannon, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Timber Ships Bill.
On the first clause,
Lord Colchesterrose for the purpose of moving the omission of certain words in order that its operation might be more extensive. The object of the bill was to prevent the great loss of vessels employed in the transportation of timber from North America. In the last session a committee of the House of Commons had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and from the evidence adduced before that committee it appeared that the loss of vessels employed in this trade had for a series of years been lamentably great. The committee, in their report, state—
"In 1838, eighteen ships are reported as wrecked on the shore, and forty-eight at sea; of twenty-seven of which there had been no accounts of the crews; of the remaining twenty-one the sufferings of the crews of two had been extreme; in one, the Earl Moira, four bodies only having been found under the maintop, all dead, with part of one of their comrades hung up like butcher's meat in a stall; and in the other, the Anna Maria, five bodies were found dead, with part of the leg of a woman by the side of one of them, who had evidently been feeding upon it; and one more, the Frederick, of St. John's, fallen in with by the Hope, with her crew lashed to the maintop, without the power of assisting them."
The noble Lord quoted other passages from the report to show that no less than
590
73 ships, with crews amounting to 949 men, were lost in three years. The committee having thus stated their opinion that the carrying of deck loads of timber was the cause of such a fearful loss of life and property, an act was passed, in conformity with their recommendation, confining to the summer months the liberty of loading the decks with timber, and excluding the winter months. That measure, however, only applied to vessels crossing the Atlantic to the ports of the United Kingdom, and he wished to extend it to vessels proceeding to the West India colonies. He should, therefore, propose to strike out the word "any ports of the United Kingdom," for the purpose of rendering the provisions of the bill more extensively efficient.
Viscount Duncannonbelieved, that the noble Lord had not exaggerated the extent of the losses sustained in this particular trade; and he also was of opinion that those losses were occasioned by piling up large quantities of timber on the decks of these vessels. He was anxious to adopt any measure that appeared likely to check such an evil; but many difficulties presented themselves against adopting the proposition of the noble Lord. Last year, when the subject was under consideration, the strongest possible representations were made to the Government from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all of them setting forth, that if the bill was attempted to be applied to the colonial passages of timber ships, it would, in fact, put an end to that part of the trade between North America and the West Indies, which was one of the most important portions of their traffic. He could not, therefore, agree to the amendment.
Lord Ashburtonconcurred in the observations of the noble Viscount: if the restriction, with respect to deck-loading, were extended to timber ships bound to the West-India colonies, it would immediately put an end to the trade in lumber.
Amendment withdrawn, bill went through Committee.
House resumed.

TEETOTALERS (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he saw by the papers of this day a proclamation, purporting to have been issued by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of what was called "the Teetotalers' pledge."

591
If that proclamation was authentic, it contained one sentence which he must say greatly surprised him, and which he much regretted to see. The passage was this:—" To the benefit which the temperance pledge has conferred upon Ireland in the improved habits of the people, and the diminution of outrage, his excellency bears a willing and grateful testimony." With respect to the merits of sobriety, he would not say one word; but it astonished him to find the representative of the Sovereign expressing his approbation of what was called "the Temperance pledge," which he considered to be nothing else than a piece of mere slipslop. The necessity of cultivating sobriety was, or ought to be, impressed on the mind of every Christian. He thought that the noble Lord was trifling with the duties of his high office when he expressed his approbation officially of a Popish device. A sort of popularity might be gained by the course which the noble Lord had taken; but it was that species of popularity which he believed individuals in that House would seek to gain. He asked whether the proclamation were authentic or not.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad received no official information on the subject. He had, however, seen the proclamation, and he had no reason to doubt its authenticity. He believed, that the pledge to which the noble Marquess alluded had produced very great and beneficial effects. He would not dispute with the noble Marquess about the "pledge" being "slipslop;" but he would say, that from all the information which he had received on the subject, he was convinced that a most beneficial change had been effected amongst the people by what the noble Marquess had been pleased to denominate a "Popish device."
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the proclamation contained matter more worthy of observation than that to which the noble Marquess had referred. He alluded to the new law which it laid down. The old doctrine was, that the assembling of large bodies of people to create terror was illegal, and it was forbidden. Here, however, it appeared that large bodies of people, sufficient to create terror, had assembled—as, in the town of Clonmel, where a large procession sufficient to create terror had assembled: but those assemblages appeared not to have been
592
forbidden on that account, but on account of their wearing certain badges. The best course would be, not to allow the people to assemble, under any circumstances, in such numbers as to create terror. That was the true doctrine of the law he believed; but not a word was said upon that point in the proclamation.
The Earl of Devonconfessed that he had heard with great regret the observations of the noble Marquess. He was sorry that it should go forth that one of the Members of their Lordships' House had expressed such an opinion of what had been beneficially going on for some time in Ireland. He did not wish to commit himself by speaking decidedly; but his individual opinion was, so far as he had an opportunity of judging that a great and substantial good had been done. He believed that it had been effected by perfectly legitimate means and legitimate exertions, and that it was as little connected with fanaticism, with party, or with appeals to religious feelings of a peculiar character, as could be imagined. He had himself heard Father Mathew address the people; and his manner was such as any noble Lord who heard him might adopt in addressing a public body in support of such an object. It was, he conceived, pessimi exempli to speak in reproachful terms of that which had been productive of very great good.
The Earl of Wicklowdiffered in opinion from the noble Marquess (Westmeath). He thought that the temperance societies were calculated to effect much good, and the individual who had devoted himself to the futherance of the plan deserved the greatest praise for what he was doing. The temperance societies, he believed, were set on foot with the best motives, but there were parties who would not scruple to make them subservient to other purposes, and use them as instruments to create alarm.
The Marquess of Westmeathdid not wish to withdraw any expression he had used, because he had expressed the sentiments of his mind. He had formerly stated, that he loved sobriety as much as any man, and that he sincerely wished the people to abstain from drunkenness. He did not regret that the people should be sober; but he did not approve of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, by an act of his government, bringing prominently forward this "Temperance pledge" as the

593
great means of amending the morals and manners of the people.
Subject dropped.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Aberdeenwould take the opportunity of answering a question which was addressed to him by a noble Duke on the cross bench the other day, and which he could no longer defer answering, although he perceived the noble Duke was not then present. The question referred to the future progress of the Scotch Churches Benefices Bill, and, upon the best consideration which he could give to the subject, he had come to the conclusion, although very reluctantly, that it would not be expedient for him to press the third reading of the bill during the present session. Their Lordships were aware that this measure was opposed by the majority of the General Assembly on the ground of its unwarrantable interference with the spiritual independence and proper jurisdiction of the Church, and indeed he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had been described in consequence of having brought this bill into Parliament as the enemy and persecutor of the Church. Their Lordships were also aware that out of the Church of Scotland the only reason assigned for offering any opposition to the measure was, that it conceded too large powers to the Church, and recognized an extent of jurisdiction that was quite unjustifiable. Now, he had endeavoured to show, and he thought had shown, that an opinion of this kind was without foundation, but he would admit, that if he had erred at all, it was undoubtedly on the side of a too large and liberal concession to the Church of Scotland. The pretensions of the General Assembly were so manifestly unreasonable and preposterous, that if the bill had passed into a law he might safely have hoped for the acquiescence of a large body of the clergy and a majority of the laity of the General Assembly, from whom he had received several communications stating their approbation of the measure. Unfortunately, however, her Majesty's Government had thought proper to oppose the progress of this bill. Now, the measure was intended to promote peace, and he was unwilling to do anything which could deprive it of that character, more especially as he was sure that if any measure could be carried into effect which should tend to the pre-
594
servation of the welfare and the interests of the Church it must be one which took for its basis the bill which he had proposed. The objection, however, which her Majesty's Ministers took to the bill, although perfectly different from those entertained by the majority of the General Assembly, still arriving at the same conclusion and practical result, he feared that the evils which he had hoped to obviate by the passing of the bill, would not be removed if he carried it in opposition to her Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount had cautiously abstained from expressing any opinion upon the merits of the bill itself, but the noble Viscount's colleagues entertained objections to the bill in consequence of the great powers which it gave to the Church. As both objections, however, agreed in their practical conclusion, he was led to fear, that at the meeting of the General Assembly next month, the same intemperate course which had already been pursued would be adopted, and the same illegal opposition offered to the law. In withdrawing this bill for the present session of Parliament, he was aware that he should excite great dissatisfaction on the part of a very numerous body in Scotland, and cause great disappointment. It was only this morning that he had received a letter from a minister in the west of Scotland, who had heard a report of his intention to withdraw the bill, and who said,
"If this be so, I can only assure your Lordships that you will disappoint nine-tenths of the people in this district, and, I believe, in the whole of Scotland."
He had received similar letters from many other quarters, and if the noble Viscount had not thought it his duty to oppose the bill, he believed that a great proportion of the people of Scotland who had opposed the measure would have acquiesced in it. The gentleman to whose letter he had referred said,
"It is the opinion of very many, and it is decidedly my own, that many of the clergy and elders who opposed the bill in the present Assembly would be glad of an opportunity of retracing their steps if they could do so."
He believed, that a great number of the rational and orderly members of the Church were in favour of this measure. He had been unwilling, for the reasons which he had stated, to complicate the difficulties which existed, or to create any fresh

595
difficulty, which would rather provoke opposition than conciliate obedience, and, therefore, he should leave the Jaw in the state in which it was before he undertook this measure, and which he begged the noble Viscount would recollect he did not undertake until the noble Viscount had said, that he would not bring forward any measure on the subject. A large party in the Church had cast in their lot with the suspended ministers, and had determined to support them in their obedience to the law of the land, which had led to the sentence of deposition. It was for the noble Viscount and the Government to consider whether such a state of circumstances as this should be permitted to continue. He must also observe, that several parishes had been vacant two or three years, and it was, he apprehended, the duty of the State to see that these parishes were filled up. He would fain hope that, although no measure had been passed in the course of the present Session, the discussions which had taken place upon this bill might not be altogether without their use. He did not inquire what had induced her Majesty's Ministers to take the course which they had chosen. It was needless to add, that the subject was one of great urgency, and he hoped that the noble Viscount would turn his best attention to it, and endeavour if possible to restore peace to the Church.
The Earl of Haddingtoncould not help expressing his unfeigned sorrow at this issue of his noble Friend's disinterested exertions. Although no doubt his noble Friend was the best judge of the propriety of withdrawing his bill, he could not help expressing his conviction that this good, at least, would have resulted from discussions upon the bill in the other House of Parliament—namely, that the vehement and imprudent leaders of the dominant party in the Assembly would have plainly seen that few, indeed, were the individuals who opposed the bill upon the ground which they themselves had taken. He could not help thinking that the Ministers of the Crown had taken upon themselves a very serious responsibility in opposing this measure. He did not say, that Ministers ought to have given the measure a full and plenary approbation, but they need not have offered it any opposition, and might have left the responsibility with his noble Friend, in which case, in his firm opinion, many impending evils
596
would have been averted. His noble Friend had been made the subject of much abuse and misrepresentation with regard to this question. But if there were anything more plain than another it was this, that the principles which he had laid down at the commencement were contained in the present bill, and that in no other way could he have fairly carried out those principles. He would add that he considered the country deeply indebted to his noble Friend, and he felt quite assured that those who had raised this opposition against him would never from any other quarter get anything so favourable as the provisions of this bill.
The Earl of Camperdownentirely concurred with all that had fallen from a noble Earl who had spoken last as to the conduct of the noble Earl who had introduced this bill.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Report of the Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill brought up.
The Bishop of Exeter,in reference to a conversation which had taken place on a previous evening between him and the Marquess of Lansdowne, observed that when the noble Marquess referred to the evidence of Alderman Beresford as to the mismanagement of the property of Dublin; he forgot to quote the next words of the alderman's testimony, namely, that "he did not recollect any thing of this kind to have occurred for the last sixty years." The noble Marquess had also urged as a charge against them their granting leases to corporators. True, Alderman Beresford said this, but when? Why, these leases were made out about sixty-six years ago. All this was stated distinctly in the report of the commissioners: "But we do not find any instance of this nature occurring within the last sixty years." Was he not borne out, then, in saying that the corporation of Dublin had no charges of this kind brought against them which they were in any way bound to answer? Was it quite fair in the noble Marquess, imposed on by this garbled statement, to get up in his place, and make so strong and emphatic a charge of disingenuous, ness, not only against the individual who now addressed them, but also against the learned counsel.
The Marquess of Lansdownehad certainly referred their Lordships to the

597
evidence lying on their table, and among the rest to that of Alderman Beresford. He did not say, that this evidence referred to recent transactions, but to the transactions of the corporation generally. But he stated that, upon the evidence of more than one alderman, they had the fact that, for the last fifty years, its interest had been mismanaged. This he had quoted to the House. He had not the papers with him, but he would be able to quote them, if necessary, hereafter. The statement of the learned counsel at the bar was contradicted as to recent circumstances in their conduct—circumstances occurring within the last ten years in the history of the court of conscience, to which neither the right rev. Prelate nor the learned counsel adverted in the history of the pipe-water, to which the right rev. Prelate did not advert, and which was displayed in repeated exactions and impositions, of which the poor were the victims.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, the noble Marquess, the Secretary for the Home Department, had been misinformed as to one of the statements which he had made on a former evening. The noble Marquess had stated that Alderman Montgomery had had an opportunity afforded him of revising the evidence he had given. Such, however, was not the case, for the commission closed its labours suddenly, and several years were allowed to elapse before the shorthand writers' notes were written out. Alderman Montgomery had never had an opportunity of revising his evidence.
The Marquess of Normanbywould repeat that the learned counsel had stated at the bar that Alderman Montgomery had said, he had attended twenty grand juries, on each of which there were three Roman Catholics, and that statement he would again say, was not borne out by the evidence taken before the commissioners.
Lord Lyndhurstproposed a number of verbal amendments on the different clauses of the bill, which were agreed to, and said he would reserve those which might give rise to discussion till the third reading. The noble and learned Lord then said, he wished particularly to call the attention of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government to a defect in this measure. He must tell the noble Viscount that he would never give his assent to a bill which
598
took away the property of any party without affording compensation. By this bill a number of persons would be deprived of their offices, and by no provision of the measure would compensation be given to those individuals. He could not consent to such injustice, and he should therefore give the noble Viscount a list of those persons whom he considered entitled to compensation, and he hoped the noble Viscount would consider the matter before the third reading of the bill.
Viscount Melbournewished to ask the noble Lord whether the persons alluded to were not included under the provisions of the bills.
Lord Lyndhurst.—No, they are not. There were a number of persons affected by this measure who were elected to their offices from year to year, but who were entitled to expect that they would be continued in their offices during life, and who ought, therefore, to receive compensation for the loss of those offices as in the English bill. There were, in particular, two officers who would be effected by this bill, and to whom no compensation would be given as the measure at present stood. Those two persons had the power to appoint each a deputy, and those deputies held their offices for no longer period than the chiefs. In the other House a clause had been introduced by some one, he did not know for what reason, which gave compensation to the deputies, but without giving anything to those who appointed them. Such a course was extremely unjust, and he could not consent to this bill unless compensation was made to those, parties to whom he had alluded.
The Duke of Wellingtonsuggested the expediency of altering the taxation clause of this bill in another place, so as to reduce the power of taxation in cases where lighting, paving, cleansing, &c were carried on under private acts, to 3d. in the pound, and to 1s. when undertaken by the corporation. He hoped the Government would take that point into consideration.
Report agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
On moving that the House go into Committee on the Administration of Justice Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the committee which had sat upon this bill had suggested an alteration which he was

599
anxious to state. The bill left the appointment of successors to the two Vice-Chancellors in the hands of the Crown, and the alteration proposed was, that the Crown should only have the power of appointing a successor to one, and that the other should in the first instance be only appointed for life, thus rendering it necessary upon his death to apply to Parliament to appoint a successor in his place.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that the committee had examined the whole of this subject with the greatest minuteness, and had been perfectly unanimous upon every point they suggested.
Bill passed through Committee.