Lords Sitting of 7 September 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Foreigners Consecration; Administration of Justice.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Chichester, from the Clergy and Archdeaconry of Chichester, for an Alteration in the mode of Rating Tithes.

DELAYS OF THE LAW.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had to present a petition from Isaac Winter, a poor man of Wilton, in the county of somerset. This unfortunate man stated, that he was suitor in a case pending before their Lordships as an appeal, and his complaint was of the delay which had arisen in its consideration. In the course of the discussion on the appeal, some questions of law had arisen, on which it became necessary to have the opinions of the judges, and the questions had been referred to those learned persons some time in 1839, but they had not agreed upon the answers that should be given. The fact was, the questions involved points of law of great difficulty, and he believed that of the judges to whom the questions were referred, half were of one opinion, and half of another. However, it was of great consequence to this poor man, who was now seventy years old, that a decision should be given as early as possible, for the case was one of great hardship. He had mentioned the case, knowling that the mere mention of it would be enough to direct the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to it.

OLD PENAL STATUTES.
Lord Broug- hamwished to call the attention of their Lordships, and more particularly that of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, to another, and in his opinion, very important subject—he meant the state of our penal statutes. It was a fact well known to very many of their Lordships, that there existed on cur statute-book many penal statutes, which contained very high and severe penalties attaching to the commission of certain acts, or the omission of certain forms, and instead of these being allowed to remain a dead letter, or erased, they were sometimes made a handle for the infliction of great oppression. The case of the bill which their Lordships had passed yesterday, was an illustration of the kind of penal statute to which he had referred. There were on our statute-book certain high penalties to be inflicted on Members of either House of Parliament, for taking their seats and voting, without taking the oaths, and subscribing the Parliamentary roll, but those were so extremely severe—so far out of all proportion to the acts or omissions to which they were attached, that no one ever dreamed that they ought to be inflicted. If the penalty were a fine of 40 l. or 50 l., or 100 l., it would be considered quite enough, and it would be at once paid, without for a moment rendering a bill of indemnity necessary; but what were the penalties as they now existed on the statute-book, applying to the case he had referred to? They amounted to a total and perpetual disqualification for holding any situation of trust or honour or profit; they incapacitated the unfortunate offender, however much his act might have been an error of which he was unconscious at the time, for ever having a seat in either House of Parliament; they incapacitated him from the power of suing, or of entering any plea in any court of law or equity, or from taking any legacy or any gift or profit by any legal document. In fact, this was total civil incapacitation, and almost equivalent to civil death, and the consequence was, that no one thought that the penalty ought to be enforced; and as it ought not to be enforced, it ought not to be allowed to remain on the statute-book. There were other penal statutes which, though not so severe in the penalties they enacted, were nevertheless extremely annoying and harassing, and might be made a means of gratifying private rancour or animosity. He alluded to those statutes intended to

495
enforce attendance of persons at their parish churches on Sundays: by one statute the fine was 1s. for each omission to go to church on Sunday; but by another statute, the fine was raised to 20 l., if the party omitted to attend his parish church for four successive Sundays. These, he repeated, were in themselves most annoying, not so much from the amount of the fines they inflicted, though in the second case to which he had referred, the fine would be ruinous to many, but from the harassing and abuses to which they might give rise. It was not, he believed, more than a month back from the time he was speaking, when eleven persons were convicted in 1s. penalties for non-attendance at church on Sundays. The fines, it was true, were not much, but there were, besides, the costs where the parties refused to pay. In one case the costs were 14 s., and in another 23 s., and for non-payment one party was sentenced to be imprisoned sixty-three, and the other sixty-one days. Now, he supposed their Lordships would agree with him in thinking, that any person who was anxious to see the parish churches duly attended on Sundays, could not well hit upon a mode worse calculated to insure that object than those coercing fines. Indeed, it was about the best mode of insuring church non-attendance that could be devised; besides, as he had said, this power was liable to be perverted to most capricious purposes. He cast no blame on any body; but surely our statutes ought not to be left in a state in which to enforce them would be disgraceful. He had heard blame cast for having many of these fines received on account of the Sovereign, or of the State, but there was no option, when once the statute was enforced. He repeated, that he mentioned these circumstances for the purpose of having the attention of Government, and particularly of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, directed to the subject. The law ought to be altered on these matters, or perhaps, what would be better, there ought not to be any law at all on many of them.
Subject at an end.

FOREIGNERS CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS
The Archbishop of Canterburymoved the third reading of the Foreigners Consecration of Bishop's Bill.
The Earl of Radnordid not exactly understand the grounds upon which this
496
bill had been introduced, and looked upon it as being quite unnecessary and useless.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid that the bill had been introduced with a view to the better regulation of the congregations of English persons, who may be settled in foreign countries, and more particularly on the shores of the Mediterranean and in the Turkish empire. The bill, it was to be observed, could be put into operation only upon the concurrence of her Majesty being expressed—and it had been introduced with the perfect support of her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The Earl of Radnorsaid that his objection was that the bill was not called for by necessity. It was an enlargement of the act of George 3d, and it assumed that it was unlawful for any Archbishop to consecrate a Bishop without the license of the Crown. It did not appear to him, however, that this was the case. With respect to the consecration of Bishops in England, no doubt the license of the Crown was requisite, but that was required in reference, net to the spiritual affairs of the Bishops, but to their temporalities. This bill, however, related solely to the spiritual matters of the new Bishops proposed to be appointed, and he conceived that it was quite unnecessary.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that several eminent learned persons had been consulted on the subject, and they were all of opinion that such an act as the present was necessary. The law was liable to great doubts and exposed him and others to a charge of acting illegally. To remove these doubts was the object of the Bill. It was brought forward by the advice and recommendation of the law officers of the Crown.
The Earl of Radnorthought it was somewhat of an anomaly that Archbishops and Bishops, who claimed the right of ordination by virtue of their spiritual succession from the apostles, and down from our Saviour himself, should still consider themselves not entitled to exercise that power without license from the Crown. He would not oppose the passing of the Bill, but he considered it wholly unnecessary.—Bill read a third time and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Lord Cottenhammoved the third reading of the Administration of Justice Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Campbellhad prepared a clause, in pursuance of the intention he had given on a previous evening, in order to remove doubts as to the eligibility of Irish barristers for the situation of Vice-Chancellor under the Bill then before their Lordships. It appeared to him that as the Bill at present stood such a clause was necessary. The Bill referred to the English Court of Chancery and the English Court of Exchequer, and when it stated barrister-at-law, it might very naturally be inferred that it merely applied to English barristers. With every deference to the opinion of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, he continued to think that such an amendment as this was necessary. To obviate the objection of his noble and learned Friend, that the insertion of the declaration might render other acts doubtful, he had worded the clause so as to apply to the present and to all acts which had passed in which the word "barrister" might occur. The noble Lord moved his amendment, to the effect, "And be it further enacted and declared, that in the construction of this Act, and of every other Act relating to offices and appointments, the expression barrister, or barrister-at-law be taken to mean barristers practising in England or Ireland, unless where it may be otherwise expressly provided."
Lord Broughamthought it a very useful addition to be made to the bill, and if it satisfied a respectable, a learned, and able body of men, it ought to be introduced. He would remind his noble and learned Friend, however, that when the bill was sent down to the other House last year, when his noble and learned Friend was a Member of that House, he had not then thought of introducing such a clause. It appeared to him, that the bill would merely make them eligible, and it was very proper that they should be so; but let it not go for more than it was worth— let it be understood, that there was no intention of appointing an Irish barrister to such a situation.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the amendment was most comprehensive, for it went to include all acts in which the word "barrister" occurred; but there were some appointments which were only by Irish, and some only by English barristers, such for instance as the barristers revising the registration.
Lord Brougham.—There the proviso
498
came in, "unless otherwise provided;" but it was not so in the present bill.
The Lord Chancellorhad no objection to the amendment, but he had always understood, that "barrister" meant a member of either bar. There were, he was aware, instances of exceptions—for instance, the revising barristers in Ireland must be altogether Irish, to the exclusion of the English bar; and there were some other instances where the members of the Irish bar were named, to the exclusion of English; but when this was done, and when the particular bar was named, the fair inference was, that when not so named the word "barrister" should be taken to mean a member of either.
Lord Campbellsaid, that his attention had been called to the clause by some eminent Irish barristers, and by some of the Irish judges.
Bill passed.

BISHOPS (IRELAND.)
Lord Wharncliffebrought up a report from a committee of their Lordships, naming the four Irish Bishops whose turn it was to sit in the House for the present Session, which was ordered to be printed. He then moved, that the Lord Bishop of Derry having taken the oaths and his seat by mistake, thinking that it was his turn to sit as one of the four Irish Bishops for the present Session, his name be struck off the roll.
Ordered.

DUBLIN CORPORATIONS.
The Earl of Glengallhad to present to their Lordships a petition on a subject of considerable importance, to which he was anxious to call the attention of her Majesty's Government. It was from Dublin, and signed by about 1,000 inhabitants, merchants, bankers, and others, being householders and ratepayers in that city. The petitioners complained of several gross practices with respect to the burgess-roll, on the insertion of the names on which, roll was founded the right to vote for members and officers of the corporation. The subject was one which very naturally excited very strong feelings. The petition detailed such scenes of fraud and corruption as never before, he believed, had come before their Lordships, even from Ireland itself. The object of those fraudulent practices was to influence votes in the election of municipal officers. The

499
burgess-roll was filled up, or ought to be, only with the names of those who were under assessments to the Poor-rates to the amount of 10 l. a-year. Now, the petitioners complained, that gross frauds were practised to create a fictitious constituency; for this purpose many alterations were made, and names were so entered, that it was impossible for the revising-barrister to know who had the right to vote, and who had not; names were entered to give facilities for personation. The net annual value was also altered. Some who had been assessed at 7l. had that changed to 10 l. Others again had an addition of 1l. 5s. 6d. made to the assessment, so as to bring it up to 10 l. The fraudulent practices were, in a word, so various and so numerous, that it was almost impossible to get a correct list. How all those evils were to be remedied he did not know, but he supposed the subject should be investigated in some way. He believed, that by one clause of the Irish Municipal Corporation Act, the Lord-Lieutenant and Council had the power to grant time for the purpose of entering into inquiries, were such abuses were proved, in order to have the false entries corrected. He did not suppose their Lordships had any power to interfere, but nevertheless, he felt it his duty to bring the subject under their notice as one which had created immense excitement in Dublin. When the Irish Municipal Corporation Act was under discussion by their Lordships, he had in common with many other noble Lords, strongly objected to the city of Dublin in the bill, because he foresaw the gross practices which would be resorted to by one party to carry the elections of corporate officers their own way. The facts now stated in the petition before the House fully bore out all that he had anticipated. The struggle which he had foreseen had now commenced, and if the churchwardens and others in authority permitted such scenes, they would become partisans, and in a short time it would be seen, that the corporation of Dublin would be in the hands of Repealers and other agitators, that the Mansion-house would become the arena for those scenes which now usually took place at the Corn Exchange, and that in "the King's-room "questions would be discussed whether Ireland was to continue under the sway of a British Sovereign. The petitioners earnestly
500
prayed their Lordships to take these matters into their consideration, and to do all in their power by inquiry to correct these gross abuses. If their Lordships had no power to interpose, why be it so; but he did hope that inquiry would be instituted in some quarter before the next month.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas obliged to the noble Earl for having called his attention to these matters, but the noble Earl must see, that the question was one in which the House of Lords had no power to interfere. If it was a question on which the activity of the Poor-law Commissioners of Ireland, or of the guardians of the poor, could be of use in putting an end to the grievances, then they ought to be required to lend their aid in any way they could. Or, if his noble Friend, the noble Earl, had said the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland in council had power to interfere, then that was the quarter to which application should be made. If, however, the noble Earl would give him a copy of the petition, he would direct that inquiry should be made into its allegations, and the practices to which they referred.
Lord Broughamexpressed his full concurrence in what had fallen from the noble Duke, that the House of Lords could not interfere in this matter. At the same time there could be no objection to the presentation of the petition, which properly enough prayed for inquiry.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not in any degree blame his noble Friend for presenting the petition, or for calling the attention of Government to it—quite the contrary. The petition was no doubt a very proper one. All that he said was, that it was a matter in which he did not think that their Lordships had any power to interfere.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Adjourned.