Lords Sitting of 31 May 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Incumbents Leasing (H. C.)
3a. Roasted Malt; Pentonville Prison.
Received the Royal Assent.—Excise Duties Compounds; Ecclesiastical Residences; Queen's Prison; Dublin Police; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Clerkenwell Improvement.
2a. Tyne Fisheries; Market Harborough and Brampton Roads; Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal; Yate Inclosure; Toxteth Park Paving and Sewerage; Holywell Roads.
3a. and passed:—Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway; Charterhouse Estate; Bristol and Gloucester Railway; Slug Roads; Forth and Clyde Navigation.
Reported.—Sir F. Bathurst's Estate; St. Phillip's Bridge (Bristol); Faversham Navigation; Great North of England Railway; Cwm Celyn and Blaina Iron Company.
Received the Royal Assent.—Saundersfoot Railway; London and Blackwall Railway; Bristol Floating Dock; Ellesmere and Chester Canal; Gosport Pier; Equitable Gas; Kirkintilloch Roads; Aberdeenshire Roads; Huish Champflower Inclosure; Glegg's Divorce; Bates's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Bakers of Newry, against the Practice of Working on the Sabbath.—From Attornies and Solicitors of Bury, for Relief from the Payment of the Certificate Duty.—From William Johnston, for Preventing Railway Travelling on the Sabbath.

ATTACK ON HER MAJESTY—ADDRESS.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: Your Lordships must have heard with sorrow and indignation, the reports circulated of an attempt having been made last evening upon the life of her Majesty. It falls to my lot, on the part of her Majesty's Government, to inform your Lordships that such an attempt was last evening made on her Majesty's life as she was returning in her carriage, accompanied by his Royal Highness the Prince Consort, to her palace of Buckingham House, which attempt, by the blessing of Divine Providence, failed. It was made by a person stationed within a short distance of her Majesty's carriage, who fired a pistol at her Majesty. Her Majesty, as I have stated, by the blessing of Divine Providence, escaped unhurt. The person who committed this act—this atrocious act, I will call it—was immediately taken into custody, and his crime is now undergoing the usual course of legal inquiry, and in due form, he will be brought to justice. I avoid entering into the details of this painful transaction; I confine myself simply to the performance of the duty of stating
996
the fact to your Lordships, and of moving your Lordships to concur in presenting to her Majesty an address of congratulation upon the occasion of this atrocious and treasonable attempt upon the life of her Majesty, which, by the interposition of Divine Providence, was defeated. I will, therefore, now propose, that such an address be agreed to, and I will afterwards move, that it be communicated to the House of Commons in a conference, for the management of which, Members of that House will be appointed. I recommend that the address should be in the following terms:—
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN;
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to approach your Majesty's Throne, to express our abhorrence of the late treasonable attempt against your Majesty's sacred person, and our heartfelt congratulations to your Majesty and to our country on your Majesty's happy preservation from the danger to which your Majesty has been exposed. Attached to your Majesty by every sentiment of loyalty, by a sense of the benefits we derive from your Majesty's just and mild Government, we acknowledge with gratitude and humility the merciful interposition of Divine Providence which has been manifested on this occasion; and we make our earnest prayer to Almighty God, that he will confer on your Majesty every blessing, and continue to watch over and guard a life so justly dear to us."
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, I hardly know whether it be excusable in me for a single moment to prevent the adoption of a proceeding which must meet with the universal concurrence of this House; but in the absence of a noble Friend of mine, who I am sure would have been present on this occasion if he had not been at such a distance from London as prevented his becoming apprised of the event to which the attention of your Lordships has been directed, I trust I may be permitted merely to say, that every sentence uttered by the noble Duke on this sorrowful occasion, must find an echo in every one of your Lordships' bosoms. There can be but one feeling; there can be no hesitation; there can scarcely be a thought or the possibility of doubt as to the fit course of proceeding to be adopted; and it is quite a sufficient ground for that proceeding, that the noble Duke has stated a fact of so grave and so melancholy a nature as that which has become but too well known to your Lordships and to the

997
country. It is far from my wish, or my intention in the present stage, to put any further question on the subject to the noble Duke; to ask. for information in the present state of the inquiry would be improper, and if required, it would be most expediently withheld. At the same time, with the feelings I entertain, it is impossible for one to avoid adding a hope, that after giving way to the feeling which prompts your Lordships immediately to go up to the throne, with the expression of the warm and deep sentiments common to us all, you will hereafter feel it your duty as legislators, not to stop here, but when you have contemplated the source, whatever it may be, of this extraordinary crime, to direct your attention, if it can be usefully so bestowed, to the causes which may have led to that which is as great a phenomenon in human nature, if we look to the absence of all motive, as it is the greatest of crimes, if we look to the character of the consequences which might unhappily, but happily did not, follow the attempt. At present, however, there can be but one feeling in the House, and we ought not to lose a moment in recording and giving effect to that feeling. I beg leave, therefore, to second the motion of the noble Duke.
The Duke of Wellingtonmoved, that a committee be appointed to draw up an address to her Majesty.
Lord Portman: My Lords, I beg your Lordships will allow me to interpose for a single moment, in order to state a fact which will tend to increase, if any fact can, the sentiments of gratitude to the Almighty, and of affection and admiration for her Majesty, which we all feel, and are about to express in the address proposed by the noble Duke. Her Majesty, my Lords, relying with full confidence on the protection of the Almighty, to shield her from any danger to which she might be exposed, mindful of the safety of those engaged in her Majesty's service, and probably thinking that the ladies who generally accompany her in her afternoon drives might yesterday run some risk, abstained from commanding the attendance of any of them. Whatever danger was to be encountered, her Majesty seemed to have resolved that no other lady than herself should be exposed to it. As an individual, my Lords, whose nearest and dearest relative is in waiting on her Majesty, and who might, but for her Majesty's magnanimous
998
determination, have on that occasion been placed in a situation of peril, your Lordships will, I hope, think it not unbecoming in me to have mentioned a circumstance which is so truly ennobling to her Majesty, and which must render her still dearer not only to those amongst us whose relatives are in her service, but, I may venture to add, to all her subjects.
Lord Brougham:On the subject of the proposed address there can be but one feeling in doors and out of doors; but I beg to have it distinctly understood that it is my deliberate opinion, in reference to what fell from my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that the law of England, as it at present stands, is abundantly sufficient to repress such atrocities, and by condign punishment to prevent a repetition of them.
The Marquess of Lansdowne:I did not mean to refer to the necessity of any new legislative enactment, but merely to say that all the circumstances connected with this crime should be minutely probed and made known for the satisfaction of the public mind.
Lord Brougham: I am not to understand my noble Friend, hen, to contemplate any change in the criminal law in consequence of this melancholy and atrocious event.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Certainly not.
The question that a committee be appointed to prepare an address to her Majesty carried, and the committee named, the Peers forming it retired for the purpose of drawing up the address, and the House adjourned during pleasure.
In a few minutes the committee, headed by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, returned to the House, and the Lord Chancellor resumed his seat on the woolsack.
The Duke of Cambridgesaid, that he had been authorised by the committee of their Lordships to propose the address to her Majesty, which was precisely in the terms previously read by the Duke of Wellington.
The Earl of Shaftesburymoved that it be communicated to the House of Commons, as the concurrence of that House desired.
Question carried.
The following noble Lords were appointed to communicate the address in a conference with the Commons:—
The Lord President of the Council; the

999
Lord Privy Seal; the Duke of Richmond; the Duke of Wellington; the Marquess of Lansdowne; the Marquess of Normanby, and the Bishop of London.
Conference held, and
Lord Wharncliffereported, that the Peers appointed had met the managers on behalf of the Commons, and had placed in the hands of Sir Robert Peel the address to the Queen to which their Lordships had agreed.
Shortly afterwards, Sir Robert Peel and others brought up from the Commons the assent of that House to the address voted by the Lords to her Majesty.
On the motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury the joint address was ordered to be presented to her Majesty by the whole House, and that the Lords with white staves wait upon her Majesty to know her Majesty's pleasure when she would receive the address. It was subsequently announced that her Majesty would receive the address at three o'clock on the following day.

THE BISHOP OF CANADA.
Lord Howdensaid, that seeing the right rev. Prelate to whom was officially confided the spiritual welfare of our colonies in his place, he would take the liberty of asking him a question. He would not detain their Lordships long, but he thought that many of their Lordships would be somewhat surprised at the statement which he was going to make, and which appeared to be rather a tradition of the middle ages than an occurrence which had taken place in a British colony hardly a year ago. An officer of rank in her Majesty's army died at Quebec, while he was serving with his regiment in Canada. He was well acquainted with that officer, who was long a brother officer of his, and it was in his power to speak of his irreproachable character and uniformly good conduct. After his decease the officers of his regiment, anxious that, in a distant and he might say a foreign land, some testimonial might remain of their regard to his memory, caused a tablet to be engraven, merely inscribing upon it a few words, stating the circumstances of his death, and the respect and affection of his brother officers, which he carried with him to the grave. This testimonial—a very innocent one he should have thought—being completed, the friends of the deceased wished to place it in the church of the city, and they applied pro formâ to the colonial bishop for leave to do
1000
so. This permission was refused. What were the reasons for refusing it he knew not, but he did think it would be difficult to find any justifiable reason whatever under any possible circumstances for offering insult to the dead. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that this officer was born of parents belonging to the church of England; he was baptized and brought up according to the rites of that church; he was accustomed to attend divine service with the officers and men of his regiment, and he was not aware that there was any occurrence upon record which could justify any inquisitorial surmise that that gallant officer did not die in that persuasion. He would ask the right rev. Prelate, first of all, whether the statement he had made were correct? and if so, then he would ask whether the conduct of the colonial bishop had met with the confirmation and approval of his spiritual superior at home?
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the noble Lord having had the kindness to communicate to him his intention to ask this question, he was prepared to answer, though he did not admit that a bishop was responsible to their Lordships, much less to any one Member of their Lordships" House, for any regulations he might think fit to establish for the government of his diocese, and the administration of the rites of his church. The noble Lord had fallen into an error in describing him in having the superintendence of the spiritual affairs of the colonies. He had nothing whatever to do with it, except with respect to those colonies which did not enjoy the advantage of episcopal superintendence. The spiritual government of those colonies had been considered to fall upon the Bishop of London; but the province of Canada had its own bishop, and was in no way subject to his jurisdiction, interference, or control. Any communication that might have been made to him by the right rev. prelate of Canada had been made to him merely as a brother prelate, in consequence of personal friendship, and not from any supposed subjection on the part of the Bishop of Quebec to him as his ecclesiastical superior. For any acts of misconduct or abuse, the Bishop of Quebec was answerable to the Primate of all England, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It did so happen that the circumstances of this case had been communicated to him by the right rev. Prelate. With respect to the question of the noble Lord, whe-

1001
ther the circumstances of the case as he had stated them were true, he believed that the noble Lord's statement was strictly in accordance with the truth as to the facts of the case, but not as to the inference drawn from them; because nothing was further from the mind of his right rev. Friend than to offer a gratuitous insult to the memory of any gentleman, or to do anything that should be painful to the feelings of the friends of any deceased person. In August, 1840, and some time before the death of this officer, the Bishop of Quebec, having had for a considerable time the subject under consideration, thought it desirable to establish some new regulations with regard to the permission given thenceforth for the erection of tablets within the walls of the church. This was a matter upon which the Bishop had power to act as he pleased. No person had a common law right to erect a monument in the church without the consent of the bishop. In August, 1840, the bishop addressed to the clergy of his diocese a letter, stating that the question having fallen under his notice, whether it would not be proper to establish certain restrictions in his diocese relative to the admission of monuments to be erected within the walls of the church, he had given the subject the best consideration in his power, and had come to the resolution to adopt two regulations—first, that no monument should be put up within the walls of any church in the diocese, if the inscription thereon was not first approved of by the clergyman who had charge of the spot; and secondly, that the privilege of erecting any such monument should be confined to the case of persons who had been communicants of the church. Shortly after these regulations were made, it unfortunately happened that the gallant Officer, whose case had been introduced to their Lordships, died, and his was the first instance of an application being made for permission to erect a tablet after the regulations had been framed. Thus the bishop had his regulations very soon put to the test, and the right rev. Prelate did not, on the application being made to him, see any reason, looking at the circumstances of the case, to make an exception to those rules in favour of the gallant Officer. This was the simple state of the case, and he was not aware that it was necessary for him to add anything to it. He thought it was not competent for their Lordships to judge from what was the practice in
1002
this country, as to what it was expedient should be done in a province circumstanced like Canada. But it was well known that, even with regard to this country, the right of prohibition was one frequently exercised. Their Lordships all knew that the dean and chapter of Westminster had thought fit to refuse the erection of monuments in memory of certain persons, who, as far as their literary acquirements were concerned, were fit persons to have that honour paid to their memories. The present case was not, therefore, without precedent. But were it so, that would have nothing to do with the question of the bishop's undoubted right to establish such a regulation. If indeed the bishop had, after the death of this officer, framed these regulations with special reference to his case, then there would have been soma ground for censure. He would just advert before sitting down to the circumstance which had led to these regulations. They had been framed in consequence of a tablet having been erected, without the bishop's permission, in memory of a person who was of a notoriously profligate character, and, in consequence of the notice passed upon him by the inscription on that monument, became the subject of painful remark among the members of the congregation. He did not wish to enter more particularly into the case; but if anything should be said to make it necessary, he could adduce the words of the Bishop of Quebec himself in justification of his conduct; but he trusted he had stated enough to show that these regulations were framed by him on good grounds, and that, seeing no peculiar circumstances in the gallant Officer's case, he did not feel himself justified in receding from them.
Lord Howdenhad taken considerable pains to put himself right in respect of the facts of the case, but it often happened, that the greatest efforts to do so failed. He would leave it to their Lordships to decide upon the validity of the explanation given by the right rev. Prelate. He at all events thought their Lordships would agree with him, that these regulations were neither politic, nor perhaps quite in harmony with what was called the mild spirit of the Church of England.
Lord Brougham:I listened with very great interest and with some anxiety to the explanation of the right rev. Prelate, and when I consider the ability of that right rev. Prelate, I can have but one feel-

1003
ing and one opinion with respect to the case which he has defended. The defence was, 1 have no manner of doubt, as powerful as the nature of the case permitted; but that defence, notwithstanding the ability of the right rev. Prelate, appears to me to have been feeble in the extreme. I can only explain that feebleness of defence in such hands from the badness of the case. My Lords, I rejoice that we have not such regulations in this country as the Canadians appear to lie under in their spiritual concerns. I rejoice that St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey are under other and belter—more judicious—more charitable—and more liberal superintendence. I will go into no particulars, but of this 1 am absolutely certain, that if, instead of the most rev. Prelate, (the Archbishop of Canterbury), whose ability, whose admirable judgment, whose constant and charitable forbearance, where forbearance is consistent with his duty—if instead of the right rev. Prelate to whom I am now replying, and who exercises his high functions with all those attributes which I have humbly taken leave to ascribe to his superior, we had had a provincial superintendence of the erection of monuments in St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey, many of those marbles which adorn the inside of those great national structures would not now have been found to grace their walls. And when I advert to the only precedent which the right rev. Prelate has been able to cite on behalf of his absent brother, I must needs add, that that precedent is the very one which ought to have been selected by the Bishop of Quebec in order not to follow it.
The Bishop of Londonhad certainly thought, that the tone he had adopted on this occasion, confining himself, as he had done, simply and strictly to a statement of facts, would have precluded the animadversions which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord. He had thought, and he still was of opinion, that a simple statement of the facts was a sufficient defence of the right rev. Prelate, because those facts showed most clearly, that it was from no want of charity that he had been led to make those regulations, but from what he considered at least to be a due regard to the just interests of the church under his superintendence. He did not hold, that where no personal feel-
1004
ings entered into the conduct of men there any want of charity could be imputed. After what the noble and learned Lord had said, it became an act of justice on his part to go a little farther, and to state, that although he might have considerable difficulty, looking to the circumstances of society in this country at the present moment, in framing regulations in contravention of long-established custom, yet he approved of the conduct of the Bishop of Quebec in making the regulations which had given occasion to this discussion, supposing the circumstances of the case to be such as he had stated them to be. And he must go further still, by saying, that if the noble and learned Lord grounded his attack on the right rev. Prelate upon the unquestionable facility with regard to the monuments erected in our churches, he, on the contrary, looked rather with shame at the fact, and pleaded guilty to the accusation, rather than adopt the fact as a ground of attack upon the right rev. Prelate for not having adopted that course. He thought the regulations of the Bishop of Quebec were more consistent with the spirit and regulations of our Church. He never could go into a church without feeling a sense of shame at seeing monumental inscriptions in memory of persons who, neither by their lives nor their deaths, showed that they valued the high privilege of being members of that Church. In this country he was aware it might be difficult to prevent this practice, but if the Bishop of Quebec thought it possible in what might almost be called a nascent church and an infant congregation, to establish those regulations, he would say that the right rev. Prelate had done it in strict accordance with the legal discipline of the Church, and also in strict accordance with the most genuine Christian charity. It was a violation of Christian charity to extend posthumous religious honours in our churches to those who had lived without God in the world, or to those who had not been baptised in the faith, and been efficient and constant communicants of the Church. He should not have ventured to hold this language had the point in question the least reference to the person in whose memory the tablet was required to be elected. It was a general regulation, and, looking entirely at the principles of our Church, it was a wise and charitable regulation; and he

1005
again insisted upon it, that it was strictly consistent with the policy of our Church, and the dictates of pure Christian charity. Having said thus much, he felt bound to mention one instance which had more immediately led to these regulations, and which, he believed, would have led him under similar circumstances, to have acted as the Bishop of Quebec had done. The right rev. Prelate here read a statement prepared by the Bishop of Quebec, which set forth the case of an officer having had a monument erected to his memory in a church at Montreal, with an inscription stating that this gentleman "had died as he had lived, a gallant soldier and an honourable man," although it was notorious that he had been killed in a duel, arising out of a supposed intrigue with some lady.
Lord Brougham:I hope the right rev. Prelate will forgive me for reminding him, that I made no attack upon him. He rose to defend himself, as I understood him to say, against an attack which I had made upon him. An attack upon the right rev. Prelate! To the utmost of my humble ability, I endeavoured to pronounce a panegyric upon him. I appeal to noble Lords—I appeal to the right rev. Prelate himself, for he heard me—he listened to me—and I venture to say, he does not forget one single word I said—I appeal to the right rev. Prelate himself, whether I did not speak in language diametrically opposite to the very appearance of an attack upon him? To have been told, therefore, that I had made an attack upon him, when, on the contrary, the whole gist of my argument was, that the speech of the right rev. Prelate, with all his talent, having proved insufficient to make out a better case for his absent brother, was to me an absolute demonstration of the badness of that case. However, bad as he first left it, I do not think the right rev. Prelate has mended the case in his reply; but I think he has worsened it, and that most considerably. What is the only instance which he says had given rise to this rule? It is the instance of an officer killed in a duel—in the commission of a great offence; I entirely agree with the right rev. Prelate—a duel arising out of an immorality—[Lord Denman: A suspected immorality.] A suspected immorality in his private life; which observation of my noble Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, induces me to step aside, for one moment,
1006
to enter my protest (and I do it with all humility towards the right rev. Prelate, especially upon such a subject), against the gloss which he has furnished, upon what he called the charity of the Christian religion. "How," says he, "could there be any want of charity, when there was no private or personal feeling upon the matter? "But I have always understood, that charity is that which thinketh no evil, whether of those we know, or of strangers; and now it turns out, that because a man was" suspected" of an immoral course of life, and afterwards fell in a duel, where, undoubtedly, no question can exist, it turns out that it was deemed fit, not to visit him, but to visit the commuunity, and more particularly, the profession to which he belonged, with this general rule—what? that all persons who die in the commission of an unlawful act, shall be excluded from having marbles erected to their memory, within the walls of the cathedral?—that all persons, whose lives are immoral, shall, after their decease, be deprived of the honour of a monument in the cathedral?—that all persons who are even suspected of immorality in private life, shall be excluded? No such thing; a rule of that sort would have some application to the case, and might be supposed to have been drawn from the particular instance cited in its defence. But it is no such rule—it is a rule, that all persons who are not communicants,—whether their lives have been moral or not—whether their lives have been suspected of immorality or not—whether those suspicions of immorality have been grounded or groundless—whether they have fallen in a duel or not, but that those who have been communicants, be their crimes what they may, which led to their death—be their lives as immoral as they may, which preceded their decease—or if they died by a duel the day before, and up to that day were ever so immoral—may all be buried within our cathedrals, and have monuments erected to their memory notwithstanding; and after, and in spite of this rule, drawn from that one instance, and for the purpose of preventing its repetition.
The Bishop of Londonwas not anxious to have the last word, but he wished to observe, that the rule laid down by the Bishop of Quebec, was one which did not impose the invidious task of inquiring into the character of the deceased. He had

1007
taken the simple test, which ought to be the test and broad line—that of living within, or living without the pale of the Church. He must say, as a Minister of that Church, that while, not the rites of religion, but the honours of religion, were refused to those who in their lives refused to comply with its most sacred injunctions, there was no want of Christian charity. The rites of Christian burial were not denied, only the posthumous honour of a monument.
The Earl of Gallowaydid not wish to detract from the force of the observations of the right rev. Prelate, by the admixture of any remarks of his own; neither would he make any remark upon the case mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord Howden), but that it might not go forth, that no one rose to support the views of the right rev. Prelate, he begged to say, at the risk of being deemed uncharitable, a bigot, and an enthusiast, that in his very heart, he concurred in every observation, that had fallen from that right rev. Prelate.
Conversation ended.

NEWGATE REGULATIONS.—SYMPATHY WITH CRIMINALS.
The Marquess of Clanricarde,in rising to move for a copy of the regulations observed in the gaol of Newgate with regard to criminals after condemnation for capital offences, said that he did not pretend to any particular qualification for bringing this case before their Lordship; at the same time, he did not think it necessary to make any apology, because he was about to bring under their Lordships' notice a case which he considered to have been shameful, disgusting, and profane, and one which, if it were allowed to pass without any notice, might well cast a stain upon the manners and condition of the lower orders of society. He wished the subject had been taken up by some right rev. Prelate, because he conceived it was not only an act of justice to our feelings as civilized persons, but that it involved, in a great degree, the profanation of the house of worship, the reprehension of which would come well from such authority. He held in his hand an extract from the Times, of Monday the 23d of May, from which he would read a few passages:—
"Yesterday a great number of respectable persons of both sexes were admitted, by orders from the sheriffs, to the chapel in Newgate, in which the rev. Mr. Carver (the ordinary) read divine service, and preached a sermon adapted
1008
to the awful condition of Daniel Good, who has been ordered to be executed this morning. Before half-past nine o'clock the common door of admission to the gaol was blocked up by the multitude, and at ten o'clock all were accommodated in the most satisfactory manner in the different parts of the chapel allotted to visitors. At about that hour the Lady Mayoress and some of her ladyship's friends entered the governor's pew. The body of the chapel was furnished with benches and chairs by the direction of the governor; so that, although we never recollect to have seen the chapel so numerously attended, every individual in it was provided with a seat. Immediately before the service commenced, the general-mass of the prisoners confined in Newgate entered, and took their seats within the railings on each side of the building, attended by turnkeys, and then Good was led in by two of the officers of the establishment, and placed in a chair in the midst of the congregation by the governor. His appearance indicated extreme mental suffering. He clasped this hands together sometimes, and sometimes he raised them up and pressed them against his breast in great agony, the tears streaming from his eyes whilst he endeavoured to catch a glimpse of some old acquaintance or friend amongst the surrounding multitude. So strong was the expression of horror in his face and demeanour, that a respectable female, who was prompted by the curiosity which will induce even persons of the weakest nerves to witness the 'condemned sermon' once in their lives, shrieked and fainted. The culprit looked with evident anxiety towards the spot from which the alarm proceeded; but, finding that a stranger was the cause of it, he seemed to retire within the awful circle of his own meditations, and to struggle with feelings beyond the power of any human being to describe. The service was interrupted for some moments by this incident, and the Ordinary did not proceed until the lady who had ventured to try the experiment of abiding the presence of so dreadful an offender was carried away from the scene,"
Then came a description of the service and of the conduct of the culprit, which he did not think it necessary to read. The article went on to say,
"During the first part of the service it was considered necessary to give him a glass of cold water, by which he was, or seemed to be, relieved. The Ordinary took his text from the General Epistle of James, chapter 1, verse 15. 'Then when lust hath conceived, it bring eth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bring eth forth death.' With a great deal of power he addressed himself, after many general observations upon the consequences of indulging the passion to which it was acknowledged the convict was the slave, to the miserable wretch himself who was so soon to be separated from kindred and acquaintance in this I world for ever. He called upon the mur-

1009
derer, convicted as that murderer had been upon the clearest testimony, to make an avowal of his guilt, as the only reparation now in his power to offer for the transgression of the laws of his country and of humanity. Good repeated the shake of the head, and the upward motion of the hands and eyes upon being thus solemnly invited to make a salutary confession, in order, no doubt, to impress upon the congregation that his defence was founded in truth; and when the service was concluded he raised up his hands once more, and said, 'Oh! God bless you all.' He was then conducted back to his room. He did not appear in the prison dress, his wish to attend chapel in his own clothes having been complied with."
He could not refrain from expressing the indignation and disgust with which he had read that statement. He was justified in saying that there could hardly be found in the history of barbarous nations, in the records of violence and bloodshed, or in the sacrifices committed in remote ages, an exhibition of a more degrading and disgusting kind than that which this audience had assembled to witness for the mere sake of gratifying a morbid and depraved appetite. In those remote ages, persons assembled merely to witness the physical sufferings of the individual, but here the man was dressed out and brought into this assembly in order that they might witness not his physical, but his mental sufferings. Yet this was an exhibition which was called a numerous assembly of most respectable persons of both sexes. He begged their Lordships to observe that the criminal was not—as he imagined he would have been—put into a closet or pew apart from the congregation, where he might have indulged in his meditations undisturbed by the gaze of those whom morbid curiosity had drawn to the scene. On the contrary, it appeared that the criminal was purposely dressed for the occasion; he was led into the middle of the congregation, to a place where every person had a good view, and where all were accommodated with seats. This was the sort of Sunday pastime which took place in one of the chapels of this metropolis, and over which a Christian minister was called to preside. He did not blame the clergyman—he had a duty to perform, and he was, perhaps, the only individual present for whom pity could be felt. He did not wish to blame any particular person, because he did not know where the blame rested, not being aware what changes had been made in the regu-
1010
lation of the prisons in reference to this point. He had looked into several reports of the inspectors of prisons, but he had found nothing to guide him in the matter. He thought, however, that some notice ought to be taken of the practice, in order to prevent the recurrence of it. In making this motion, he wished to guard himself against being supposed as having any particular sympathy with the unfortunate criminal, or as pronouncing any opinion on the publicity of execution. Not knowing the prison regulations, of course he spoke liable to correction, when he said that he thought the allowing Good to take off the prison dress, and appear in one of his own, was against the spirit of all such regulations. The prison dress was a mark of degradation, and whether it was at the criminal's desire, or against his wish, that it was exchanged for a private dress, in either case the exchange ought not to have been made. The object of granting some delay previous to execution, was to enable the culprit to make his peace with the offended Deity, and to devote some hours or days to receiving the comforts of religion. But if a man was to be visited and brought out and exposed, as the criminal Good had been, how could his thoughts take the direction which it was the end of religious instruction to produce? From the statement which he had read, it would be seen that during the whole time of the service the attention of the criminal was devoted to observing the audience, and the effect produced on them. This was surely contrary to the spirit of the law. The case was different as to executions. He thought the utmost publicity ought to be given to executions; and even this was to be justified only by the belief that such publicity tended to prevent crime by the awe which it inspired. The sheriff, therefore, was perfectly justified in acting acccording to the law, in making executions public, but the law never allowed any church or chapel to be desecrated by an exhibition of the criminal during divine service. He would not trouble their Lordships further on this matter, because he had brought the subject forward merely for information. If any inconvenience should result from granting the information, he would at once withdraw the motion, but he hoped it would be agreed to in order that their Lordships might mark their sense of what bad taken place, so as to prevent the re-

1011
currence of the practice on some future occasion. He begged to move for a copy of the regulations observed in the gaol of Newgate, with regard to criminals after condemnation for capital offences.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that having called the attention of their Lordships to a similar subject four years since, he rose to offer his thanks to the noble Lord for having brought this subject under the consideration of the House. It appeared to him, that the placing of the criminal in the midst of the congregation was a most reprehensible act, and of all means the least calculated to excite the sympathy of those about him; for what man could see an individual criminal, though he might be suffering under all the terrors of a guilty conscience, and not for the moment feel some degree of sympathy for the man, though others might suppose the sympathy was for the criminal. He objected to the practice on another ground. It was wrong to the criminal himself to bring him in, and thus induce him to act a part, to induce him to bring his hypocrisy forward, and to stifle the feelings natural to his situation. It would be far better if he were permitted to remain in a solitary cell, and there to endeavour to make his peace with his Creator. He knew, that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would do his utmost to prevent the recurrence of these scenes, but, at the same time, if, on inspection of the person regulations, it should be found, that the Secretary of State has not the power to furnish this, he feared unless some change took place in public opinion that some legislative enactment would be necessary to prevent the recurrence of an exhibition which was wrong to the criminal, and injurious to the public.
Lord Wharncliffeentirely concurred in the opinions expressed by the noble Lord opposite, and he felt exceedingly glad that the subject had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships, because he had to state, as far as Government was concerned, that they had no share in the exhibition alluded to. He agreed with what had been said as to the effect which such a display had on the criminal who was the subject of it, and who was made to pander to the morbid passion of those individuals. He thought that from the moment the person was condemned to death, up to the time of his execution, he ought to be left as much as possible in
1012
solitude; that he ought to have no communication, except with the ministers of religion; and that he should be at liberty to receive the sacrament, but beyond that, he should be kept by himself, and not exposed to the morbid curiosity of those around him.
The Marquess of Normanbymerely rose to confirm what had fallen from his noble Friend who had just sat down, as to the Government having no share in this transaction. It was known to every one who had filled the office of Secretary of State, that the government of the gaol of Newgate was exclusively in the corporation of London, as represented by the sheriff. During the time that he had held the office of Secretary of State, no instance exactly similar to the present one occurred; but he was obliged to interfere in reference to another practice which very improperly prevailed at the time that of making an exhibition of the criminal in the previous stages of his confinement. He was obliged on one or two occasions to send for the sheriff, and represent to him that though he was aware he had no authority to interfere, yet if such practices were continued, he should feel it his duty to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. He was happy to say, that he met with every co operation from the gentleman who at that time filled the office of sheriff, in checking the practice, as long as his authority existed. He hoped that the present motion would not be without its effect on the civic authorities, and that the practices complained of would not be allowed to recur.
The Marquess of Lansdownecould not help joining his voice in this matter. There was one view, in addition to those which had been taken, which he was anxious to impress on the attention of the House. Although it was indispensable, for the sake of example, that executions should be public, still there was no necessity for making public the last few moments of the life of the unhappy individual. These ought to be left to the criminal himself. The notice taken of the criminal when introduced into the crowded chapel could not be a matter of indifference to him; for though to some minds this would be an aggravation of the punishment, yet to others it would prove a source of morbid gratification. He believed that many crimes, particularly in latter years, had been committed, or attempted to be com-

1013
mitted, from a morbid appetite for notoriety, created, in a great measure, by criminals being exhibited to those, he would not say mischievous or wicked, but to those most injudicious persons whose ill-constituted minds could derive a vicious sort of pleasure from such an exhibition. All this tended to create an opinion in the criminal that he was an object of interest; and it was, no doubt, the source, the motive for the committal of some of the most horrid outrages that disgraced humanity in this or in any other country. He trusted something would be done to prevent the recurrence of so disgraceful a practice, and he was glad the noble Lord had brought the question under the consideration of the House, because the present discussion would not, he thought, be without its effect.
Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY TRAVELLING.
Lord Gallowaysaid, he was interrupted last night in presenting the petition which he now held in his hand. It was a petition from Edinburgh against railway travelling on Sunday. In the discussion which had taken place on the subject of Sunday travelling on canals, the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) said he should give the subject his consideration with the view of applying some remedy. He thought the subject of railway travelling on the Sunday equally deserving the attention of Government.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the answer which he gave the noble Lord who brought forward the motion relating to canal travelling on the Sunday was, that Government could not undertake to introduce any measure on the subject this Session; but that if the noble Lord brought in a bill, he would give him his best assistance. The noble Lord who presented the present petition was not, perhaps, aware that the committee which sat last year on the subject of canal travelling on the Sunday had reference to the boatmen employed on the canals. If they were to put a stop to one sort of Sunday travelling, they would be obliged to stop Sunday travelling of every kind. He knew there was a strong feeling in Scotland against the practice, and perhaps that feeling was founded on praiseworthy motives, but he could not help thinking that it was carried to excess. Government was not prepared to legislate on the subject, because they were not pre-
1014
pared to say to the people of England that Sunday was a day on which no one should be allowed to travel.
Lord Gallowaysaid, that he had given no opinion as to Sunday travelling, but he had felt it to be his duty to present the petition. He was not an advocate for extreme legislation on any subject, more particularly on a subject of this sort, because he did not think it possible to make men religious by act of Parliament.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that having moved for the committee last year on the subject of canal travelling on the Sunday, he drew a clear distinction between travelling on canals and on railroads. In moving for the committee, he stated that no part of it would have reference to railroads, and that no report could be expected from it which would in any way interfere with the perfect freedom of railway travelling on Sunday.
Lord Campbellconcurred in the views taken by the noble Lords opposite. He rejoiced excedingly at the manner in which the Sunday was generally observed in Scotland; but, at the same time, he must say, that he thought the horror expressed in some parts of Scotland against railway travelling on a Sunday was extravagant in the extreme, and had no foundation either in reason or Scripture. He hoped that feeling would subside, and that that country would continue to enjoy the advantages of that rational religion for which it had so long been famed.
Adjourned.