Lords Sitting of 3 March 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Vagrant's Removal.—Read a first time:—Horse Racing.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Aberdeen, from a number of places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes without the Consent of the Parishioners.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Wroxford, against the Rating of Union. Workhouses

CORN LAWS.
The Duke of Richmondstated that he had sixteen petitions to present from parishes in Sussex, praying that their Lordships would not sanction any measure for the repeal or alteration of the Corn-laws. He need not say that is

845
cordially agreed in the prayer of the petition; and he hoped that the farmers of this country would lose no time in forwarding to both Houses of Parliament petitions embracing the same opinions on the subject; for they must be aware that persons were going through the country lecturing on this question, and getting persons to sign petitions who in reality knew very little about what they were signing. He trusted, therefore, that the farmers would immediately do as they had done last Session—humbly petition both Houses of Parliament not to accede to the wishes of those who were desirous of repealing the Corn-laws. That was the wise and proper course for them to pursue, and he was confident that if they adopted it, their efforts would produce the same result which had attended them last year.
Petition laid on the Table.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
The Earl of Gallowaypresented a petition from the Protestant Association of Edinburgh, and as it was very short, and the subject was of importance, he begged leave to read it. The noble Earl read the petition, which prayed for an enquiry into the nature and tendency of the books used as class-books at Maynooth College; and setting forth that if those books were such as they had been described to be, it was inconsistent with the duty of a Christian Government any longer to supply funds for the support of that college. The noble Earl proceeded to say, that in laying this petition before their Lordships he did not pretend to be acquainted with the books in use at the College of Maynooth; but he had no hesitation in asserting, that if the books were of such a nature as was stated in this petition, it was a subject that ought at once to be dealt with by Parliament. In presenting this petition he begged it to be observed that he entertained no hostile feelings towards the Roman Catholic body. Indeed, he was one of those who, from the very first, entertained a conscientious opinion in their favour, and in the other House he had voted in favour of what was called Catholic Emancipation, and he was sorry that that measure had not produced those happy results that were anticipated from it by the many Protestants who had supported it. Of this, however, he had no doubt, that a Roman Catholic college, established for purely Roman Catholic purposes, was incon-
846
sistent with the security and safety of a Protestant state. Such a college it appeared by the petition, was now receiving, aid and assistance from the country. Against the noble Lords opposite he made no accusation on that account; but he conceived that if, after duly considering the subject, it was found that such van establishment was inconsistent with the public safety, the grant for its support ought to be rescinded. At an influential meeting which was held some time ago, extracts from the books in use at Maynooth were read, and they were found to agree with the allegations contained' in the petition. It was therefore a proper subject for serious inquiry. About a month ago a right rev. Prelate bad moved—
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to command that inquiries be made into the diffusion of blasphemous and immoral publications, and especially into the tenets and proceedings of a society under the name of Socialists, which has been represented in petitions to this House to be a society the object of which is, by the dissemination of doctrines subversive of morality and religion, to destroy the existing laws and institutions of this realm."
To that address her Majesty was pleased to return the following most gracious answer:—
"I will give directions that inquiry be made into the important matters which form the subject of your address; and you may rely upon my determination to discourage all doctrines and practices dangerous to morality and religion."
Now, he founded his appeal for inquiry in this case on the address which he had read, and the gracious answer in reply to it. He hoped that an inquiry would be instituted on this subject, in order that no further public grant should be continued for the support of this college, if, as had been described, and as he believed to be the fact, books were used in it which promulgated doctrines dangerous to morality and the welfare of society.
Petition laid on the Table.

KEW BOTANIC GARDENS.
The Earl of Aberdeenwished to ask a question relative to a subject which was in some degree, if not directly, connected with the situation which the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Duncannon) held. He alluded to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew.

847
He had heard many reports, with respect to the intention of the Government to abandon and destroy that fine establishment. He should have given little or no credit to those reports, if he had not been informed that an offer had been made to the Horticultural Society of this city to give up to them the plants in the gardens on certain conditions. That society was very well known to be anxious to forward horticultural pursuits; but they nevertheless, declined the offer. They refused to become parties to a transaction which had for its object the destruction of those gardens. He considered the Botanic Gardens at Kew to constitute a part of the state and dignity of the Crown, which ought by no means to be alienated from it. He knew not what expense this establishment might entail on the civil list; but he should be happy to see assistance given by the country, if it were necessary, in support of an object of this description. So far from desiring to destroy this establishment, he should think that her Majesty could not favour a better object than the protection, encouragement, and cultivation of that delightful science with which those gardens were connected. He now asked the noble Viscount who was at the head of the department of Woods and Forests, whether any such intention as that to which be bad alluded, at present existed? or whether the tacit reproof administered by the Horticultural Society, to whom the offer was made, had induced the Government to forego their original intention?
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that the Botanic Gardens of Kew were not under the control of his department. But he could assure the noble Earl, that there was not only not the least intention now to break up those gardens, but there never had been any such intention. Indeed, the would have been next to impossible; for a great many of the plants could not be removed without insuring their destruction.
The Earl of Aberdeenhad no wish to allege anything against the noble Viscount's department, which he believed to be the best managed under the Government; though, perhaps, that was not saying a great deal in its favour. The noble Viscount had informed them that these gardens did not come within the range of his department. It therefore might be supposed, that the noble Viscount was not aware of all the circum-
848
stances of the case. Now, he could assure the noble Viscount, that an offer of the plants was made to the Horticultural Society of London, that society had refused the offer so made, thinking it would be injurious to the public interests that the establishment should be so broken up. The noble Viscount thought that the plants could not be removed without great danger. That might be so; but there could not be a doubt that the offer of the plants was made to the London Horticultural Society on certain conditions—Such, for instance, as that the public were to be admitted freely to the society's gardens one day hr the week, or something of that sort. He was, however, most happy to find, that the project was abandoned.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, though the care of the gardens was not in his department, he had the authority of the Lord Steward for stating, that no intention of breaking up the gardens now existed.

DESTRUCTION OF EXCHEQUER RECORDS.
Lord Redesdalecomplained of the enormous destruction of records connected with the Exchequer, and begged as ask by whose orders the records had been destroyed.
Lord Monteaglesaid, the documents which had been lately destroyed, were, for the most part, duplicates of documents connected with ancient proceedings in the Exchequer. They had not been destroyed until there had been a full inquiry and due deliberation upon the subject. Two gentlemen, competent to the task, were appointed to make the inquiry. They had reported on the subject; and if the House required it there would be no objection to furnishing the report.
Subject dropped.

HORSE RACING.
The Duke of Richmondrequested their Lordships to permit the first reading of a bill which had been rendered necessary by certain late transactions of a vexatious character. An act had been passed in 1740, which prohibited any person from running more than one horse in a race, or from running any horse otherwise than his own name. That act, up to the present time, had never been carried into effect. Neither, indeed, could it; because, if a person bought a horse under an engagement, it must run under that engagement, as a

849
matter of course. Yet, according to that statute, the horse was forfeited, and the owner become liable to a penalty, The act was hardly known, indeed, until some very clever solicitor lately ferretted it out, and served notice of action upon six gentlemen under its provisions. Now, according to that law, the Member for a borough or county subscribing 10 l. or 20 l. to the races held there, was liable to a penalty, or any number of gentlemen entering for a sweepstakes. His late Majesty, who kept race-horses for the purpose of encouraging an amusement which all could enjoy, and of maintaining the breed of horses, frequently ran three horses in one race, and that in the name of the Master of the Horse. His Majesty, by doing so, was liable, under this act, to one of the penalties, and the forfeiture of the horses, and the Earl of Albermarle to another penalty. The act had clearly fallen into desuetude, and therefore he called on their Lordships to repeal it, since it could only be made use of to extort money from persons who were perfectly ignorant of its existence. The bill would go to repeal that part of the 13th of George II. which contained the enactments to which he had referred. He had adopted the precedents afforded by a bill brought into Parliament by Sir W. Follett some time ago, and another introduced last year by the Attorney-General, the one relating to pluralities, the other concerning newspapers, so that in the case of actions already instituted, the party might get his costs, but not recover the penalties.
Bill read a first time.