Lords Sitting of 30 May 1842

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS. Public.—2a Jurisdiction of Justices.
Reported.— Pentonville Prison; Fines and Recoveries (Wales and Cheshire); Roasted Malt.
3a and passed:—Punishment of Death (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company; The Duke of Bridgewater's Trustees Estate (Archbishop of York's);Rosuma's Pierre Lambert Flavian, and others Naturalization; Lesbazeilles, Jean Baptiste, and others Naturalization; Verconsin, Pierre Frederic Eugene Naturalization.
2a Rudyerd's Estate.
Reported.—Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway; Charterhouse Estate; Bristol and Gloucester Railway; Slug Roads; Forth and Clyde Navigation (specially).
3o. and passed:—Greenock Harbours.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Lorton, and Lord Lord Blayney, from Lismore, and Killevan, for the Encouragement of Schools in connection with the Church Education Society (Ireland)—By the Earl of Rosebery, from Midmar, and Magilligan, for the Alteration of the Law respecting the Scottish Church. —From the Roman Catholics of Bristol, for a Retter Religious Instruction for the Catholics in the Army and Navy.

IRISH POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
The Earl of Glengallhad to submit a motion to which he did not anticipate that there would be any objection. It related to the salaries of the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland. He understood that those commissioners had each a salary of 800 l. per annum, besides which, there was an allowance of one guinea per day for table money, and an allowance of another guinea per day for travelling expenses making the receipts of each commissioner amount to from 1,500 l. to 1,600 l. a-year. This might be right or it might be wrong, but it would be well to know what the fact was. He would, therefore, now move—
" That there be laid before the House, an
964
account of the salaries, allowances, and travelling expences of the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland."
Motion agreed to.

STATE OF TIPPERARY.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that he had now another motion to submit, to which also he did not think there would be any objection on the part of their Lordships. It was for a return of the number of rewards offered by order of the Government of Ireland, for the apprehension of offenders, and also the number of such rewards claimed and paid in the year 1841, and also a return of the number of outrages reported to the Government in the same year. He would now, in a very few words, call the attention of their Lordships to the disturbances which had taken place lately, in the North Riding of the county of Tipperary; but he would not have adverted to this subject, or submitted the present motion, did he not feel that some observation was called for, lest there should be some misconception or misconstruction of some words which had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) in a short conversation on the state of the county of Tipperary on Friday evening last. Any one who was thoroughly acquainted with the state of that county—he alluded more particularly to the North Riding—mast agree with him that there was great danger from any misconception as to the acts of the magistrates, or resident gentry there. The magistrates themselves, were fully aware of the perilous situation in which they were placed, and how easy it would be to make that situation still more perilous, by any misconception gaining publicity as to their conduct. Some allusion had been made to the conduct of some of the petty landlords of the country as not being kind to their tenants. He did not mean to say, that some such might not be found, but it so happened, that none of the outrages to which he had referred had occurred in consequence of any act of such landlords. Indeed, even the most Radical newspapers had not ventured to charge any act of outrage to the con- duct of any such parties. It was now notorious that murders had been committed in the open day, and outrages of all kinds had been perpetrated with impunity. Such, indeed, was the state of the county, and such was the extent to which intimidation was carried, that a respectable

965
individual, who had made an agreement to let his house for a police-station, was compelled to break his engagement, and the police were obliged to encamp under canvass for a time. There was also the case of Mr. Hall, who had been assaulted, and who was a gentleman against whom no charge had ever been made, of any unjust or harsh conduct to his tenants. In the case of Gainor's farm, which be- longed to a respectable individual, there was, as in that of Mr. Hall, not a shadow of a pretext for charging the owner with any harshness to those who might be said to be dependent on him. But it was use- less for him to cite cases of this sort of outrage. He looked upon the whole of these outrages as the result of a general conspiracy against the authorities and laws of the land, and against all social order. No class, however estimable, was safe from becoming the victims of such outrages. Their Lordships, no doubt, recollected the melancholy case of the late lamented nobleman (the Earl of Norbury), who was shot almost at his own door. What had been his offence? He had extensive estates, and to that part of one on which he resided, he was anxious to add about 120 acres to his park. To complete this, it was necessary that the holders of some small tenements on the land should be removed. But that was done without anything like harshness, and all the parties who were removed, were paid; but that, it appeared, did not satisfy the disaffected, and the noble Earl soon after perished by a brutal assassination. There was the case of another large landed proprietor— a noble Lord, who, at the close of his office, as the representative of his Sovereign in Ireland, had purchased large property in the country, and who was one of the best landlords in Ireland, yet no man in the country was more annoyed and persecuted than he was. What let him ask, was the cause of those outrages? What was the cause of those systematic attacks on all law and social order? How was it, that such acts were allowed to escape with impunity? The cause would be found in the fact, that such was the state of society that witnesses could not be found to give evidence, or jurors to convict. If witnesses were found willing to give evidence as to the commission of any serious outrage, they, and their families, were obliged to be sent to the Canadas or to the Cape of Good Hope, to prevent
966
their being murdered. Formerly, it was the practice to intimidate jurors, so as to induce them to stay from the assize courts, but now they were compelled to attend; and, as was stated by Mr. Carmichael in his report, instances were not unfrequent of one man holding out against his eleven brother jurors, until it was found impossible they could agree. They were discharged, and the trial was put off to the next assizes, but long before they came about, the wit- nesses were all removed, so as to be out of the reach of any process of the court. These things took place, let it be borne in mind, on trials for outrages of the mostatrocious character, and in this way some well- known—some most notorious offenders, got off with impunity. It was perfectly well known in Ireland that the murderers of Mr. Bryan were now walking about without molestation, having obtained an acquittal by means such as those to which he had alluded. It was known that between December, 1836, and December, 1840, there had been 3,905 rewards offered by Government for the apprehension and conviction of offenders. Those rewards generally amounted to from 50 l. to 100 l. each; but out of these how many did their Lordships think were claimed and paid? Just 107 out of the 3,905. How different was the result of the administration of the law in England ! He had taken the number of commitments and convictions in four large counties in England, and contrasted them with four counties in Ireland. He had taken Staffordshire, Surrey, Warwick, and York, and contrasted them with Cork, Limerick, Sligo, and Tipperary, and he found, that in the English counties two-thirds of those committed were convicted, while in Ireland it was the reverse; for there two-thirds of those committed were acquitted—and, considering the way in which the people were excited by the priests, he should not be surprised if the acquittals were much greater. Considering the numbers whose whole occupation was that of exciting the people against the Government and the local authorities, it would not surprise him if the state of Ireland were to become much worse than at present. The whole country was inundated with those chapmen of sedition and dealers in revolution, for the purpose of unsettling the property of the country; and to what end? To sow dissensions between the landlords and tenants in Ireland. It was to this end that so many declarations and

967
statements were sent forth from the Corn Exchange in Dublin; and, considering the zeal and perseverance with which these statements were circulated through the country, it could not excite surprise to find the whole country in a state of revolt; and so it would be but that, fortunately for the country, there was—in despite of all efforts to prevent it—a better feeling growing up between landlords and tenants. With respect to the priests, he was far from denying, that there were amongst them many very excellent and well disposed individuals, who did all in their power to dissuade the people from violent and outrageous courses. He was aware that there were in this county two highly respectable Roman Catholic clergymen, who openly denounced this system of outrage and endeavoured to dissuade the people from joining in it. It was high time that such a step was taken, for if it had not been so, the North Riding of Tipperary would before this have been in as great a state of insurrection as the country was in the year 1798. He sincerely thanked those rev. Gentlemen for their exertions. He hoped the example which they had set would be followed by others of their rev. brethren in Ireland; sincerely should he feel grateful to them for it. He was well aware that there were in Ireland as good Roman Catholic clergymen as there were Protestant clergymen in England or Ireland, and he gave to all such full credit for their intentions; but he must draw a broad line of distinction between such clergymen and those who might be called the youthful agitating Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. To them and to the excitement they caused, was Ireland indebted for many of the evils which she now suffered. They were the most active agents at the hustings—they took the lead in the registrations—they were the active agitators for the election of men of their own party as Poor-law guardians. The youthful Catholic clergy were the most active agitators in the cause of repeal—the earnest collectors of the subscriptions for that object. It was notorious that, but for their exertions, the repeal fund would not have reached to one- tenth of its present amount. These were facts which could not be denied by any who were acquainted with the state of Ireland at the present moment. While he was on this subject let him advert to one circumstance. It was well known
968
that sums of money had been forwarded from the sympathizers in the United States of America, but they were not sent for such purposes as those to which they had been applied, such as they were, by the keepers of the Repeal treasury. The money was sent in the hope that recourse would be had to arms by the Repealers, and that it would be used for the purchase of powder and ball and other munitions of war; and no doubt the "sympathizers" would feel much disappointed at finding that their money had been applied so very different from what they intended. No doubt, after learning its application, the remission of further sums for repeal "agitation" would be stopped. Let the young priests of Ireland, then, take warning and stop in time. Let them take the excellent example of many respectable members of the Catholic priesthood. Let them look to what had been gained by the Catholic church from revolution in every part of the world. Let them look at what took place in the united provinces of Holland. Let them look at what had been the consequences to their church by the revolution of England in 1688. Let them look at Spain, for the church of which so much sympathy had been expressed in Ireland. What had the Catholic church in Spain gained by revolution? If they considered these circumstances they would perceive how little they could gain by agitation for purposes which if they were gained could produce only revolution. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the returns already mentioned.
Lord Wharncliffewould be sorry were there to be any misconception or misconstruction of observations that fell from him, and still more should it risk any injury or danger to others. What he said on Friday last when this subject was a matter of conversation for a short time was, that when he was one of the select committee on Irish affairs a few years ago, he was much gratified at finding an improved feeling on the part of Irish landlords towards their tenants, and a desire to better their condition, but he added that he had known instances in which landlords had used the rights of property in a manner which was indefensible. These, he had added, were instances not confined exclusively to the Tory or Conservative party, but might have been observed in those who called themselves Liberals, and

969
who were so—at least in their speeches. He, however, did not impute the state of Tipperary as matters of blame to any party. If outrages existed, much of them might, no doubt, be regarded as the effects of former disorders and misleadings, and much, perhaps the greater part of the re- cent outrages, might be traced to feelings of private revenge, arising out of family disputes: and such disorders could not be cured until the return of the people to a better state of feeling.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, as the noble Earl had brought on this motion without notice it could not be expected that other noble Lords would be prepared to follow him in his statements. No doubt the noble Earl had a perfect right to take that course, and he would not have arisen to offer a word, but he did not wish to have it inferred that his silence might be taken as acquiescing in the observations of the noble Earl. Leaving the question of the proportion of committals and convictions, on which he did not wish to enter at present, he would say a word as to the Catholic priests, and in justice to that body he must express a hope that the noble Earl did not impute to them a desire to encourage crime. No doubt there were Catholic as well as Protestant clergymen who in Ireland, as well as in this country, interfered more actively in politics than was desirable, but their political agitation was not connected with agrarian outrages. That was always to be regretted, but then let him state what he knew as coming within his own observation—that while acting as Lord-lieutenant of Ireland he had received the most effective assistance from Catholic priests, and from that body generally. He understood that the noble Lord who now filled the office of Irish Secretary had recently availed himself of an opportunity of bearing similar testimony to the services of the Roman Catholic clergy.
Earl Fortescuesaid, that having heard only a part of what had fallen from the noble Earl, he could not follow him into all his remarks, but in what he had heard he could not concur. All who had at- tended to the subject would admit that of late years, say within the last three or four, there had been a diminution of crime in Ireland. During the time in which he held the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland homicides had diminished fifty per annum; and from what he had heard, he
970
believed the diminution continued to the present time. With respect to the Catholic priests in Ireland, he would admit that there, as well as in this country, were men in holy orders who mixed themselves up very indiscreetly in political affairs, but when he said this, let him in justice add, that from no men or party in Ireland had he received such able assistance in the prevention and suppression of crime as he had from Roman Catholic priests.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould bear his testimony to the able assistance derived from the Catholic clergy of Ire- land in the prevention and suppression of crime. As one means of the latter he would suggest a discreet enforcement of the Arms Act. This subject received, he thought, too little attention from the police. When they found a district quiet they kept no sharp look out for concealed arms. He thought that if a sharp look out were kept at the beginning of winter the police might be soon in the possession of every gun in the district.
The Earl of Glengall:The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) had said, that agitation was not necessarily connected with crime; but did the noble Marquess recollect the remark of one of his most distinguished predecessors in the Government of Ireland—he meant the Marquess Wellesley—than whom no higher authority could be quoted? That eminent statesman had said, with respect to Ireland, that he could not separate crime from agitation. In that remark he most fully concurred. He thought it impossible to separate crime from agitation. If they wanted an illustration of this stronger than another, let them look at the murders and outrages which had been committed with the view to prevent men from voting at the election for Tipperary. Men were taught first to combine to defeat the law—they were taught to combine in attacks on person and property — they were next taught to combine to prevent voting at elections, and, if nothing less could avail, to do so by murder. With these facts before him, to what other conclusion could he come than this, that agitation, intimidation, and crime, went hand in hand, and law and justice were defeated, because men were deterred from coming forward in serious cases ! As to the diminution of crime, he did not deny that the returns showed some, but it did not appear that there was any increase of convictions as

971
compared with commitments. He did not find in the returns which had been made any mention of the 3,905 rewards offered, and the comparatively small number of claimants of those rewards for apprehending and convicting felons. As to what the noble Marquess had said of his remarks on the conduct of the priests in Ireland, the noble Marquess should recollect what he had said—that a broad margin and wide distinction should be made between the respectable Catholic clergy of Ireland and those young agitating priests who made themselves so prominently busy on all public occasions in which they ought not to interfere. With respect to these he again would say, that he could not retract what he had said—that he could not separate crime from agitation, and that he charged with such agitation those young priests who were constantly inciting their flocks in chapels and chapel-yards on Sundays and festival days. This agitation he looked upon as the fruitful source of much mischief to Ireland.
Lord Cloncurrylamented as much as any one the amount of crime now prevalent in Ireland. It gave him much pain, and it reflected great disgrace upon the people where it occurred; but it was to be borne in mind that these crimes were the fruit of past errors in the government of the people. Noble Lords ought to bear in mind that there were 3,000 Catholic priests in Ireland, and he would undertake to say that there was not 10 per cent.—he would say not 5 per cent.— of the whole engaged in the work of agitation. There were many whose daily efforts were exerted to put down crime and agitation. It was true, there were many of the young aspirants in the Catholic priesthood who did take a part in agitation, which it would be better for them to abstain from doing; but it should be remembered that they depended upon the eleemosynary subscriptions from their flocks for their subsistence, and who were, in a manner, obliged to act in accordance with the feelings of their flocks. The only support they derived from Government was the small pittance granted to Maynooth College, and which many noble Lords were constantly presenting petitions to withhold from them. The Catholic priesthood of Ireland were, as a body, as well-conducted and as religiously and peaceably inclined as any body of men could be, But there were many of the
972
magistracy of that country whose conduct could not bear comparison with the priests —men who, if not convicted of crime, were often guilty of the greatest improprieties. This fact was borne out by the necessity of the Government being dependent upon stipendiary magistrates. What was the cause of the fact which the noble Lord opposite had mentioned of the convictions in England being much greater in proportion to the committals, than in Ireland? It arose from the circumstance that the Irish magistrates often committed men without sufficient evidence to warrant their committal—[" No, no."] He was quite convinced of this, and he was certain that if a different principle of acting towards the people of Ireland were adopted, they would be found as obedient to the laws as any people upon earth. In his own county (Limerick), which was adjoining the county of Tipperary, throughout the extent of his own property, no offender had been apprehended for several weeks.
The Marquess of Downshireheard the speech of the noble Lord with great pain. The noble Lord appeared anxious to stand up for the character of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland, and for that he did not quarrel with him. He felt great respect for that body of men, but he must draw the same distinction that had been so forcibly drawn by his noble Friend on this side of the House between those rev. Gentlemen who attended to the spiritual duties imposed upon them, and those who mixed themselves up with political agitation. The noble Lord had, in order to strengthen his argument in favour of the Roman Catholic priesthood, cast some reflections upon the magistrates of Ireland, which he (the Marquess of Downshire) could not concur in. He believed there was no body of men in any country who more zealously devoted their time gratuitously to the best of their ability to advance the interests of the people, and administer the laws amongst them than the magistracy of Ireland. With respect to that county where unfortunately these murders and outrages had lately taken place, he believed it would be found upon inquiry that the magistracy there had devoted their time and exposed their lives in endeavouring to do justice towards all, and administering the laws to the best of their power.
Lord Lortonwould make only one ob-

973
servation. The conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy had been much eulogized, but he believed they were to a man Repealers; if that did not constitute them agitators, he did not know what would.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas not aware of the fact, but if he were in favour of a repeal of the union he would not be ashamed to avow it. The Act of Union was only an act of Parliament, and he saw no more harm in asking for its repeal than in asking for the repeal of any other act of the Legislature.
The Marquess of Normanbywas able to deny the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that all the Catholic clergy were Repealers, from his own experience.
Motion agreed to.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that on moving that this bill be committed, he would take the opportunity of requesting his noble Friend (Lord Colborne) not to press his motion for a copy of the report of Dr. Bailey relative to the General Penitentiary. He had read that report, and admitted that it was very ably drawn up. It contained many excellent suggestions, but there were reasons which made it desirable that the report should not be printed at present. Many of the evils of the existing system would be avoided by the plan to be adopted in the new model prison, and it was of importance that every facility should be given to have a fair and complete trial of the system of secondary punishment which this bill would establish in this country.
Lord Colbornesaid, that after the statement made by his noble Friend, he certainly could not press for the production of the report.
The Marquess of Normanbyconcurred with the noble Lord opposite that it was very desirable, at least for the present, that Dr. Bailey's report should not be made public. Dr. Bailey had devoted his attention to the subject with very great ability and success, and had furnished a very able report. He hoped that the measure would be considered merely as an experiment, and that it would have a fair trial.
Bill went through committee.

JURISDICTION OF JUTICES.
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of the Jurisdiction of Justices Bill. It was
974
founded upon a report made by a commission appointed to inquire into the criminal jurisprudence of the country, and that bill had been prepared by the late Government. The object of it was to transfer the trial of many offences that were not of a capital description from the assizes to the court of quarter sessions. Those offences that were punishable with death or transportation for life, were still to be tried at the assizes; but other offences, except certain specified ones which were of a peculiar character, were to be tried by the magistrates at quarter sessions. There were, however, some offences, such as those that were likely to lead to local excitement—cases arising out of combinations amongst trades—out of the Municipal Reform Bill, and the Parliamentary Reform Bill—which it was thought advisable should be tried at the assizes, not so much with reference to the judges who presided, as to the juries. What he now proposed was, that the bill should be read a second time, and that if any noble Lord had any objection to make to any of the clauses it would be competent for him to do so in committee. He believed the bill had been framed with great care and attention, under the immediate inspection of the commissioners appointed by Lord John Russell.
Lord Godolphinwas understood to say, that he did not consider the magistrates at quarter sessions ought to be placed on a par with the learned judges of the land, and that there were many cases proposed by this bill to be tried at quarter sessions which ought still to be tried at the assizes. He would: confine all offences to the as- sizes for which parties on conviction were liable to be transported for fifteen years.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would take the subject into consideration between then and the period when the bill should go into committee.
Lord Wharncliffethought, that if the quarter sessions were not competent to try offences liable to fifteen years' transportation, they were not competent to try persons for offences that were punishable with ten years' transportation. The objection of the noble Lord would apply quite as strongly to the one set of offences as the other. But there appeared to him to be a fallacy on this subject. If the noble Lord had had as much experience of the business done at quarter sessions as he had, the noble Lord would have known

975
that greater skill, greater care and patience, was required on the part of juries to decide justly in minor offences, than larger offences. The most difficult cases were not felonies, but misdemeanors.
The Lord Chancellorwas understood to say, that those misdemeanors to which his noble Friend referred as being difficult to investigate, would be found to be included in the number of offences proposed to be tried by the judges at the assizes. Were this not the case, his classification of offences would be wrong.
Lord Campbellhoped, that the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions would be improved by this measure. If, indeed, those courts were always presided over by such men as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wharncliffe), then he would not hesitate to entrust cases of the greatest difficulty to them; but it did happen that many of the chairmen of quarter sessions were certainly by no means competent to administer the law. A bill was introduced three years ago, empowering any county which thought fit to appoint a professional chairman, with a salary to be paid out of the county rates. That bill did not pass into a law, but he thought some such measure absolutely necessary to the due administration of the law in this country.
The Lord Chancellorwished to observe, that the bill now before the House be- came necessary in consequence of certain alterations which had been made within a few years in the criminal law of the country. With respect to the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions, he knew not what his noble and learned Friend's experience was, but certainly for many years of his life he attended the quarter sessions in five or six counties, and he must say that according to his recollection and experience justice was admirably administered in those counties, and that the chairmen possessed a very accurate knowledge of the criminal law, and administered it most impartially.
Lord Campbelldid not mean to throw the slightest disparagement upon the county magistrates or chairmen, but certainly, he might make the observation, that a country squire, who occupied his time, and that very laudably, in agricultural pursuits, and the sports of the field, was not, however zealous he might be to do his duty, the most fit person
976
to administer the criminal law of the country.
The Duke of Richmondthought a country squire was much more competent than those who devoted themselves to politics. The noble and learned Lord was, no doubt, a very good advocate for his own profession, but he hoped, that if professional chairmen were to be appointed, they would not be paid out of county rates, but out of the consolidated fund. He thought this bill a great improvement; and though he did not agree with his noble Friend (Lord Godolphin) as to the incompetency of the quarter sessions, still he concurred with him in opinion, that such offences as sheep-stealing and horse-stealing, should be tried before the judges of the land. A sentence pronounced by them would produce a greater moral effect than one passed by the magistrates at quarter sessions. He thought the assizes ought to be held oftener than twice a-year. Why should a man be only kept a fortnight in prison before his trial at the sessions, if accused of sheep-stealing, but if committed for forgery, be kept five months in gaol?
Lord Broughamobserved, that the Home Circuit, till lately, had three assizes in the year. This had been altered by the establishment of the Central Criminal Court, There never was any reason why the Home Circuit should have three assizes, more than any of the other circuits; except this, that the counties in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, had a greater number of offences to try, and a third assizes was adopted, because it was thought expedient, that the offenders should not remain untried longer than was absolutely necessary. When that act passed in 1834, several of the counties in the Home Circuit were included in the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. He agreed with the noble Lord, that a more speedy trial of offences would be one of the greatest improvements in the criminal law. At the same time, the difficulty would be extreme of giving to all the counties additional circuits, because there would then arise a necessity for a greater number of judges. He differed from the noble Lord on the cross Benches, as to the expediency of having a chairman belonging to the profession of the law. He thought, that it would be of the greatest advantage, were the assizes presided over by a learned chairman, and he stated this without in-

977
tending any invidious application to those who had hitherto so meritoriously, diligently, and, generally speaking, so ably discharged that office. He did not think, however, that the bill adverted to by his noble Friend near him (Lord Campbell) would have produced the effect intended. He was afraid, that few counties would make application for a legal chairman, if the expense was to be borne by the county. But as it was highly expedient that an alteration should be made as to the appointment of chairmen, he begged to suggest to the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that this point would form a fit adjunct to the bill relating to county courts.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he had given no opinion as to stipendiary chairmen.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, his noble Friend stated, that he gave no opinion as to stipendiary chairmen. He might be allowed to say, that his noble Friend would be the last person to feel that which every other person felt—the accidental removal of a person, who, for a number of years, had meritoriously executed those functions. His own experience led him to believe, that it would be highly desirable to make a trial of the experiment of a barrister as chairman.
The Marquess of Northamptoncould not help expressing his surprise at the difficulty mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Why should not additional judges be appointed? and as to the ex- pence, this, in his opinion, ought never to be placed in competition with the benefits likely to arise from the alteration.
Bill read a second time.

ATTEMPT TO SHOOT HER MAJESTY.
The Earl of Gallowaypresented a petition against railway travelling on Sunday. The noble Lord was proceeding to ask a question in relation to this subject, when the Duke of Buccleuch entered the House and whispered to the Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of Wellington. These noble Lords, with the other Members of the Government immediately left the House. The Lord Chancellor almost instantly returned, and the fact that her Majesty had been shot at becoming known, their Lordships at once adjourned.