Lords Sitting of 22 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law and in Equity; Metropolis Buildings.
2a. Sudbury Disfranchisement; Charitable Trusts; Parish Constables; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Western Australia; Farm Buildings; Loan Societies; Party Processions (Ireland); Soap Allowances; Trafalgar Square.
Reported.—Actions for Gaming Discontinuance; Colonial Postage; Assessed Taxes Compositions, etc.; Detached Parts of Counties.
3a. and passed:—Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland); Art Unions; Butter and Cheese.
Private.—1a. Ayr Bridge.
2a. Gaspé Fishery and Coal Mining Company; Sir George Gervis's (or Pemberton's) Estate.
Reported.—Bowyer's Estate.
3a. and passed:—Gape's Divorce; W. H. B. Jordan Wilson's Estate; Lady Le Despencer's Estate; Mariners and General Life Assurance; London Gas Light Company; Croydon and Epsom Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Marquess of Normanby, from Medical Practitioners of East London, for the Adoption of Measures for the Improvement of the Sanatory Condition of the People.—By Lord Cottenham, from Debtor Prisoners of Qneen's Prison, and Whitecross-street, in favour of the Creditors and Debtors Bill; and from St. Helen's, Lancashire, against depriving Courts for the Recovery of Small Debts of their present powers.—By Duke of Richmond, from Steyning, for Protection to Agriculture.—From the Nobility, Gentry, and others of

1145
Portarlington, respecting the Waldenesian Protestants of Piedmont. — From Marylebone, for Inquiry into the operation of the Anatomy Act.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, and for Counsel to be heard, read. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Talbot appearing as Counsel in support of the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Sudbury against the said Bill, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham was heard on behalf of the said Petitioners. The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE (No. 2).
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, and for James Thomas Russell to attend, read: Counsel, and the said James Thomas Russell, were called in: The evidence given by the said James Thomas Russell on Friday last, was read to him by the Clerk at the Table: Witness further examined—
The Earl of Radnor: I speak to order.
Counsel and Witness directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that on Friday he refrained, with reluctance, from interrupting the examination of his noble and learned Friend. Knowing the great legal abilities of his noble and learned Friend, and hearing it stated that the Lord Chief Justice of England was of opinion that the witness was bound to answer the question, he (the Earl of Radnor) was unwilling to state any reasons why in his opinion the House should not require the witness to answer the question; but the more he considered the matter after he left the House, the stronger the reasons appeared to him why they ought not, in justice or in law, to call on the witness to answer the question, or to commit him if he refused to answer it. Their Lordships would be pleased to consider the situation in which this witness stood, and the circumstances under which he appeared at the Bar of the House. A Bill had been introduced, brought up from the other House, extending for twelve months a Bill brought in and passed early in the Session, for discontinuing certain qui tam actions, brought on account of horse-racing. That Bill discontinued these actions for twelve months, and the object of the present Bill was to further discontinue them until the end of the next Session of Parliament. On the second reading of that Bill his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) presented a petition from a person signing
1146
himself Charles Henry Russell, stating that he was interested in opposing the Bill, and praying that he might be heard by Counsel at the Bar against its passing. That petition was presented after the second reading, but previously to going into Committee, and the prayer of the petitioner to hear Counsel against the Bill was agreed to. After the Counsel had been heard, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack stated that it ought to be shown that the petitioner was interested in the case, and the Counsel was desired, by producing the writs, to prove that the petitioner was interested in the case. This he (the Earl of Radnor) thought was a little late in the day, particularly after Counsel had been heard. However, the omission having been made in the first instance, it appeared to him only fair, that the matter should be set right. The Counsel said, that he was not aware that he should be called upon to prove that fact by evidence—the production of the writ he had apprehended would have been sufficient evidence—but he produced not the writ but the attorney, the person employed to bring these qui tam actions, to prove the fact required. The witness just now at the Bar was that attorney, and he told their Lordships that his brother was the plaintiff in these qui tam actions—that that brother of his, being his clerk, was aided in carrying on these actions by a person who wished to have his name concealed, and that was the name for refusing to divulge which the witness was threatened with commitment. An order was made on Friday, directing that the evidence should be printed, and likewise certain evidence which had been given before a Committee of that House, sitting on the subject of the Gaming Laws, and which had been circulated amongst their Lordships. He (the Earl of Radnor) understood at the time, that the reason for publishing that evidence was to prove that this witness had contradicted himself in the evidence which he had given before the Committee, and in the evidence which he had given before the House. He (the Earl of Radnor) had carefully gone through that evidence, and he did not believe that there was any such contradiction; but even if there were, he must submit that there was no cause for committing him. But in this evidence he found that this man gave a very fair account of the transaction. He did not mean to say that the character of the persons concerned was a fair character; but this man gave a very

1147
fair account of the transaction. He said that a person came to him whom he knew not, who wished to put an end to the practice of those great and ruinous bets upon the turf, which were so common, and he asked him whether he could not do so, by bringing qui tam actions? The witness said that at that time he did not know that person; but that, in consequence of the application thus made to him by this person, whether gentleman or non-gentleman he (the Earl of Radnor) did not know, he instructed him to take the opinion of Mr. Erle, and Mr. Erle's opinion was favourable to proceeding by qui tam actions. This he communicated to this person, who was still unknown to him, who said that he did not wish to appear in the transaction, and that he wished that the witness, the attorney, would point out a person who would act as plaintiff in the transaction. He (the Earl of Radnor) had never had anything to do with qui tam actions, and he must say that this appeared to him to be a fair and natural proceeding. Here was a person, gentleman or no gentleman, and he thought that it was quite consistent with the most respectable character that a man could have, that he should wish to put an end to these gaming transactions, which were notoriously taking place in consequence of horse-racing, and he could conceive that however respectable he might be, he might not like to be handed up and his name put forth as the promoter of these qui tam actions, especially as a very large portion of the penalties would go into his own pocket. He (the Earl of Radnor) could not help thinking that the transaction on the face of it was perfectly fair, and that the gentleman, whose name they had been endeavouring to get at, had acted justifiably in employing an attorney to put an end to such transactions, and in directing that attorney to employ a person to be the plaintiff in these actions. From the evidence given by this witness, his brother, Charles Henry Russell, the petitioner, was, to all intents, his client; and he told their Lordships in his petition, that he was aided in this business by money advanced to him by other parties. There appeared to be nothing improper as far as this went, and he (the Earl of Radnor) could not understand, for the life of him, what right the House had to call for this person's name. He likewise learnt, from the printed Report of the evidence taken before the Select Committee, that great anxiety had been shown there to fish out
1148
this person's name, and for this particular purpose (which was one to which he thought their Lordships would not lend themselves), that if the Earl of Eglintoun, a Member of their Lordships' House, against whom one of these actions was pending, should not be cast in the action, he might find out who were the parties against whom he might recover whatever he might by law have a right to recover, in consequence of the proceedings which had been taken against him. He thought that their Lordships would not lend themselves to aiding such an object, as they had this witness before them for a totally distinct object. This witness was threatened with being committed. He (the Earl of Radnor) knew that the House had power to commit him, and that if he were unjustly committed he would have no remedy. Every Court had an undoubted right to commit for contempt. But had this man been guilty of any contempt of this Court? He spoke under correction; but he believed that mere want of respect—or refusing to answer what was desired—did not amount to contempt; he believed that it must be something which impeded the proceedings of the Court. In the case of Mr. O'Driscoll, which was before the House a few nights ago, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack argued that Mr. O'Driscoll did perfectly right to commit the man Dineen, he being a witness before him (Mr. O'Driscoll), and being able to give evidence upon the subject of inquiry, but refusing to do so, and was, therefore, guilty of contempt. But this man's contempt was nothing of the sort. What did they want to know in the present instance? They wished to know, whether Charles Henry Russell was interested, and this witness came before them and said, Charles Henry Russell was his brother, that he was the plaintiff in these actions, but that he was aided by some one. It therefore appeared to him, that they had no right to fish out anything further from this man, or to cross-examine him any further as to this particular point, There seemed to be no use in doing it, as it would not facilitate any proceeding, and as it had no connexion with anything which they had to do. On these grounds he therefore objected to the question being put by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Broughamsaid, he regretted that his noble Friend had given so little of his excellent understanding to the particular question which he had put to the witness.

1149
In the first place, the speech which his noble Friend had just delivered ought to have been reserved for a future stage of the proceedings, when he (Lord Brougham) or any other noble Lord was proceeding to compel the witness to answer the question by threatening him with imprisonment, or if he refused to answer, by moving that he be committed, Then the question would have arisen, whether his refusal to answer was a contempt; and then his noble Friend would have been right in urging, first, that the question was immaterial to the inquiry—for that would be an answer to the question of contempt; and second, that it was a question the witness was not bound to answer, whether it was material or not. But they had not yet come to that stage of the proceeding; for he was inquiring as to a fact of which evidence had been read, but not sufficiently expounded, and upon which they were not in a position to form a correct opinion as to whether the witness was compellable or not to answer the question. But if his noble Friend was wrong in that matter he would permit him to say that he was more marvellously in error as to the grounds which he laid down for protecting the witness from answering the question; for it was the first time in the course of his life that he had ever heard this proposition—that a witness could be protected from answering a question put to him by a Court. Why? because he had taken the opinion of counsel, and counsel learned in the law had told him that he was not bound to answer a question. He also begged his noble Friend to consider whether this was a tenable proposition—that they could not put this question because an unknown person came to the witness and told him to bring these qui tam actions. Why, was not that man his client? If he went to an attorney who did not know him and instructed him to bring some qui tam actions for a public spirited purpose as his noble Friend thought, but at the same time told the attorney not to make him the qui tam plaintiff, but some man of straw, and the attorney employed his clerk to act as plaintiff, was not that a juggle? Could any mortal being doubt, that the real employer in this case was the unknown person? Could any man say that the witness was not bound to disclose the name of his client? It was clear the witness could not protect himself against it. He might protect himself against answering what he had heard in the presence of his client and in consultation on that
1150
client's case; but that was not the ground of refusal which this witness took. He (Lord Brougham) admitted that this witness was not bound to answer the question he had put to him, unless he made it clearly appear that he had no knowledge of the name of that person; but it was quite the contrary. Then came the other question. His noble Friend said they had nothing to do with this inquiry, but he (Lord Brougham) said they had, and that this question was quite material. It was for the House to consider whether they had a right to have an answer to that question; and they should recollect that the Bill related to whether the petitioner had a right to have this Bill stopped, for if it turned out that this party had no interest in the Bill, but that another person was interested, it was quite clear they had a right to have that other person's name, and that it was most material to the inquiry. [A noble Lord: Why?] Because they could not get through the inquiry without it. [Lord Wharncliffe: The question is,—who is the party injured by the Bill?] That was the question; for when he was about to injure a party had he not a right to know against whom he was levelling this Act of Parliament? The law of the land was this,—if there were two parties before a court, one party had a right to ask his opponent in cross-examination any question he pleased for any purpose, and the court had a right to examine him on any one subject for any purpose which it thought would help the inquiry. Now, if his noble Friend had permitted him to put another question, he (Lord Brougham) and his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack anticipated that the answer to that second question would have put an end to the inquiry, and would have rendered the committal of the witness unnecessary.
The Duke of Richmondsaid that his noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) had taken up this case with great warmth and but little consideration. The noble Earl had accused the Committee of striving to fish out the name of an individual to serve the purposes of Lord Eglintoun. If that had been said out of the House, he (the Duke of Richmond) would have given it a very short answer—he had had no commucation with Lord Eglintoun upon the subject. The facts of the case, however, were these. The Committee of the House of Commons having refused to examine this person, he complained that he was aggrieved and the Committee of their Lordships' House consented to call him in order that he might

1151
have an opportunity of clearing his character: and the only thanks they now got for so acting was, this charge of having put questions to him for the purpose of serving persons of their own party. The matter into which the Committee had to inquire was, the operation of the laws relating to gaming, and he thought it was quite consistent with this inquiry that they should ascertain who was the party who brought these qui tam actions. Why, it might happen that this very person who was afterwards to get half the proceeds of the penalties might be the foreman of the jury who was to try the case. This question, therefore, had been put by the Committee, but the witness having declined to answer it, they did not press it.
The Earl of Eglintounsaid, that he had an equal right with the noble Chairman of the Committee to feel aggrieved at the accusation made by the noble Earl (Radnor). He begged to say, in answer to the surmise thrown out by the noble Earl opposite, that until he had mentioned the circumstance he (the Earl of Eglintoun) was not aware that the Committee had asked the question to which the noble Earl objected. He (the Earl of Eglintoun) believed tkat many Members of the Committee were very good friends of his, but he did not think that any of them would ask any questions from such unworthy motives as the noble Earl had imputed to them.
The Earl of Radnorbegged to explain that he did not know until after he had got into the House that any action had been brought against the Earl of Eglintoun; and the impression which he had received from reading some of the questions put to the witness—he alluded more particularly to questions 229 and 238—was, that they were put with a view of ascertaining who was the real party who had brought these actions with a view of recovering the costs. He begged to add, that nothing which he had heard from the noble and learned Lord had removed his objection to this course of inquiry.
Counsel and witness again called in, and the witness further examined; and counsel and witness were again directed to withdraw.
The House was then put into Committee.
Bill reported without Amendment.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he wished
1152
to call the attention of the House to the second reading of this Bill. He did not know whether their Lordships had seen the evidence on which this Bill was founded, but he was sure if they had they would come to the conclusion that a more flagrant case of bribery and corruption had never before come under the notice of Parliament. This being the case, it became necessary, as an example to others, and as a punishment to the offenders, that this Bill should pass into a law. He would now shortly call the attention of their Lordships to these transactions as they appeared in the evidence before the House. It appeared that at the last election, in 1841, for the borough of Sudbury, Mr. Villiers and another Gentleman were candidates upon the Liberal side, and Mr. D. Jones and Mr. Taylor were candidates on the Conservative side. The two former Candidates were returned by a small majority, and two petitions were presented against this return; one of these two petitions prayed for a scrutiny, and the other prayed the House of Commons to declare the election void. It appeared that the petition for a scrutiny was unpopular, and none of the petitioners for the new election would join in that petition for a scrutiny, unless the petitioners for a scrutiny would join in a petition for a new election. The petition praying the House to declare the election void on the ground of bribery and corruption was presented and gone into. The House of Commons was satisfied that the case was made out, and declared the election void; and so satisfied were the Committee of the extent of bribery and corruption that had taken place in the borough, that they made a Special Report to that House, and in consequence a Bill was introduced in 1842 for the purpose of disfranchising the borough. That Bill passed through the House of Commons and came up to their Lordships' House late in the Session. The consequence of the Bill coming up at so late a period was, that a noble Marquess made that a ground of opposing the Bill—their Lordships concurred in opinion with him, and the Bill was consequently rejected. In the following Session, a Bill, directed to the same object, came up to their Lordships' House very early in the Session—he believed that it came up before Easter; counsel was heard at the Bar, and the Bill went through the usual course. In the interval, however, between the election, the declaration of the Committee of the House of Commons that the election was void, and since

1153
the appearance of that Bill in their Lordships' House, a great change had taken place in the borough of Sudbury. He had already stated, that one party had supported a petition for a scrutiny, and the other a petition for declaring the election void; but, when it came to be a question of the disfranchisement of the borough, both parties united and determined to support what they called their "rights;" namely, their right of receiving bribes. When the case came to be heard at their Lordships' Bar, scarcely a witness would give evidence with respect to the case so clearly made out before the Committee of the House of Commons. All acted on the principle which had been put forward, that they were not bound to criminate themselves. The consequence of this course of proceeding was, that no evidence could be obtained, and the Bill was withdrawn from a Second Reading. When, after some inquiry, both Houses of Parliament were satisfied of the grossness of the case that had been made out before the Election Committee, a Bill was introduced for the purpose of appointing a Commission to go to the spot and examine evidence as to the existence of bribery at the last election. That Bill having passed the House of Commons, was introduced to their Lordships' House, and passed without any objection, and became the law of the land. In consequence of that Bill having passed, Her Majesty appointed certain Commissioners, who went down to the borough to make inquiry as to the actual state of things. Those Commissioners made their Report, which contained a considerable body of evidence. He was sure that if their Lordships would look to that Report, and to the evidence, they would be satisfied that this was such a case as he had described. He was sure that their Lordships would be satisfied that it was a case of flagrant corruption, not merely of the freemen alone, but extending, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought, to the great majority of the electors of the borough. When the Commissioners went down to the borough, they found great difficulty in accomplishing the objects for which they had been sent. They found every obstruction thrown in their way, and every possible difficulty opposed to their inquiry. They found on their arrival, that in one of the shop-windows of the borough the following placard was pasted; "Advice to Freemen;" and that advice was as follows:—"By a Clause in the Act of Parliament, no individual is bound to answer any question tending to
1154
criminate himself." In consequence of this knowledge of the immunity they possessed, when the Commissioners came down, the first gentleman they examined, an attorney by profession, refused to answer the questions put to him, on the ground that his answers would tend to criminate himself. He (the Lord Chancellor) was, however, bound to admit, that on a subsequent occasion, the gentleman gave very full and very clear evidence so for as it went; but unfortunately, the example he set on the first occasion in refusing to answer questions, was followed by the inhabitants of the borough, and the Commissioners found the greatest difficulty in obtaining evidence from them. It happened, however, that persons no longer resident in the borough, and no longer influenced by the feelings that prevailed there, were found to come forward to give evidence. The Commissioners stated with great truth and propriety, that many of the persons who had been brought forward for the purpose of contradicting the charge of bribery, in the course of their evidence contradicted themselves, and stated stories so improbable, as to render their evidence doubtful. It appeared that an old man of upwards of eighty years of age, who was listening to the evidence, was called forward to be examined. He asked, was it a solemn oath he was about to take? He was told that it was; and if the evidence which he gave was not true, he would be liable to a prosecution. In reply to a question, this old man stated that he had been listening to the account given by the witnesses of these transactions, and he must say that (such was the expression he used) "many of the witnesses had swallowed sweet morsels." This witness then went into a statement of his own experience of the bribery which had prevailed. The Bill under which the Commissioners were appointed to inquire, only related to the proceedings of the last election; as it was thought that it would lead to too much expense and delay to embrace the proceedings of former elections. However, the circumstances arising out of the inquiry with respect to the last election satisfied everybody that what had occurred then was only a repetition of what had occurred at every former election. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to detail circumstances of flagrant corruption and bribery which occurred in the borough of Sudbury at the last election, by which it appeared that the one side spent 1,600 l., and the other 3,000 l.; and that the party

1155
who spent the least lost. He now came to the evidence. The Commissioners stated that on the Liberal side 200 votes were purchased at an expense of 1,400 l.; and it appeared that the other side also expended a sum of 1,400 l., so that they must have obtained a similar number of votes. With respect to the balance of the 3,000 l., there could be no doubt that it was applied the same way; for it was clear that there had been immense treating. The instant Massey went down the public-houses were opened, and not only were no legal expences paid, but the public house expences remained unliquidated. There was no doubt, therefore, that the balance of the 3,000 l. was spent for improper and corrupt purposes. The proof of bribery did not extend beyond the 10 l. householders; and he neither said nor suggested that the respectable portion of the population of the borough received bribes. It was, however, a material fact, that the respectable portion of the constituency did know all that was going on, and even sanctioned it; and this was undeniable, as the lists were handed in to Mr. Francis Goodday: they were consequently, responsible for all that had occurred, and quite as much so as the parties who had actually received the bribes; and, having a guilty knowledge, they ought to be made responsible, and had no right whatever to complain, if they were made to bear the consequences of the corruption which they had sanctioned. As honourable and upright men they were bound, instead of countenancing corruption, to have prevented and exposed it; but this they did not do; and the extraordinary thing was, that when asked questions, they sheltered themselves under the Act of Parliament, and excused themselves from answering the questions put them, by saying that they were not bound to criminate themselves. He, therefore, asserted before their Lordships, that a case was made out against all parties; and that in the course of the inquiry circumstances crept out which went to show, that in this borough there was an Inveterate habit of bribery and corruption—the very fact that names were given to particular classes, proved that. Those who were designated "party men," had long been in the habit of going round among the constituency to procure votes, and the "rats," who belonged to the other side, did exactly the same for their party. There was another name known in the borough of Sudbury, viz. "fixtures;" and he would
1156
explain to their Lordships what this term meant. The instant a contest was expected, the public-houses were thrown open, and when the candidate got sick of the result, he went away, leaving the public-houses expences unpaid; and when a new candidate presented himself he was told, "we cannot support you unless you discharge the debts due to the fixtures." Now, this showed that in this borough there was an old and inveterate system of bribery and corruption. He thought he had stated enough to justify him in asking their Lordships to read this Bill a second time; and although he had only given an outline, he was satisfied that those of their Lordships who had read the evidence, and were acquainted with the details, would admit that he had not overstated the case. That this Bill was one of disfranchisement they were all agreed, but the difficulty was as to the two seats, and how they were to be disposed of. On this subject there were a variety of suggestions—some saying that they should enlarge the sphere by giving the borough to the county; while others thought that it should be joined with some other large and populous town. There were various objections to the Bill, on the ground of the seats; but he agreed with what Lord John Russell said in the East Retford case—and he regarded the noble Lord as an authority on that point—that their Lordships' best course was to disfranchise the borough now, and in the next Session consider how the seats should be disposed of. If their Lordships adopted that course, he thought the example would prevent the recurrence of such practices, and it was on this ground that he should now move that the Bill should be read a second time.
Lord Broughamsaid, no one could have heard the very luminous statement of his noble and learned Friend without quite going along with him; and often as he had had occasion to admire his noble and learned Friend, he had never admired him more than in the delivery of that perfect model of a clear and perspicuous, and, at the same time, convincing statement of facts. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend in the conclusion at which he had arrived. He wished, however, merely to remark, by way of protest sgainst this being rashly and inconsiderately drawn into a precedent—that it was without example to legislate as the other House had done on a great constitutional question—the question of the disfranchisement of a

1157
borough — upon evidence taken, not by themselves, but by a Commission appointed for the purpose. He believed this was the first instance in which such a course had been taken. At the same time, as this was not a Commission appointed by the Crown, that made a material difference as to the constitutional view. He could never recommend their Lordships to legislate upon a Commission appointed by the Crown, but this was a Commission appointed by both Houses of Parliament, with the Royal Assent, and consequently these were Parliamentary Commissioners to whom were delegated, for convenience sake, the powers of Parliament. It was on that ground that he did not take a preliminary objection. On the evidence he should make no comment, but his noble and learned Friend was abundantly borne out in the statement he had made, but he wished only to state that this was a gross and lamentable case, mixed up, no doubt, with circumstances which it was impossible not to feel were of a ludicrous character; but the melancholy part of the case was as mournful to contemplate as if there were no tinge of ridicule cast over the surface, and blended with all the transactions. There were some scores, perhaps hundreds, of our fellow-subjects, who had all incurred the guilt of bribery, or by giving, or countenancing the gift of sums of money, to swerve for the lucre of gain, from sordid, base, and venal motives—to swerve from the discharge of a duty—to forfeit a trust—to violate a responsibility which the Constitution of their country—of their free country—invested in the hands of the voter—and to make a mere means of traffic that which ought to be an exercise of conscience—to sell that conscience, and to make it liable to the dictates of fear in some instances, and of corruption in others. But this was not all. The parties bribed, and the parties bribers, and those who were cognizant of and countenancing these acts of bribery, incurred the guilt of perjury as well as bribery. What though the bribery oath were not administered in each case to those venal wretches, they were ready to have taken it if it had been administered. He had frequently taken occasion to express his opinion on this important subject, because the course of public feeling was not in the right direction upon it—the matter was too lightly treated, and men did not reflect sufficiently upon the evil which they were causing and enticing and seducing others to commit. If these things were kept before the minds of men,
1158
candidates as well as electors, his belief was that we should gradually reclaim and improve the practice, and lay the foundation of wholesome practices at elections. He knew that Sudbury was far from being the only case of the kind, and he regretted that other cases had not been brought forward which had occurred in various other parts of the Kingdom, where equally corrupt proceedings had taken place. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that they ought to proceed with the disfranchisement now, and they could hereafter consider any other measure it might be necessary to adopt.
Bill read a second time.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move the second reading of the Bill, and said, that it appeared from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Charitable Bequests, that there were 13,000 Charitable Trusts, whose annual incomes did not severally exceed 5l. per annum; 17,000 or 18,000 under 10 l.; and nearly 20,000 under 20 l. The powers of the Court of Chancery could not be, in consequence of the great expense, rendered available for superintending those crusts, and the consequence was, they were left without any control. That a sum exceeding 30,000 l. a year should be left without any superintending control created surprise, and even astonishment; and the evil could only be provided against by giving to some tribunal a summary jurisdiction, to regulate those charities, consistently with the amount of their income as compared with the necessary expenses, The object of this Bill was to provide a proper tribunal and meet that evil. The Bill had a limited application, only applying to charities in which a certain amount of property was concerned, and thus applying merely to such cases as absolutely required this tribunal. The Bill proposed that Commissioners should be appointed by the Secretary of State with power to superintend these charities, and prevent abuses in their distribution; but he was ready, if any noble Lord proposed a better mode than that of meeting the evil, to adopt it and renounce his own. Their Lordships would admit that it was extremely desirable that some mode should be adopted of investigating the accounts of those charities, and obtaining returns, and he intended to propose a power to effect

1159
that. He proposed that an Inspector should be appointed to examine into the condition of the charities which would be affected by this Bill, and to make a report to the Commissioners, who would, whenever it was necessary, lay any particular case before the Attorney General. It was very desirable that the funds of such charities as those to which the Bill applied should be looked after, for in many cases the property had altogether been lost from want of such a controlling jurisdiction. It often happened that property vanished altogether, in consequence of the non-appointment of trustees after the death of the former trustees, and he proposed to give a power of appointing new trustees where it was necessary for the interests of a charity to do so. A power of that kind was now exercised by the Court of Chancery, but it was one of a very expensive nature, and, therefore could not be applied with advantage to charities in which only a small amount of property was involved. The appointment by the Court of Chancery was made by application to the Chancellor, who then referred it to the Master and the Master examined witnesses, and made his report to the Lord Chancellor, and the Chancellor finally gave his decision; but as all the parties concerned, or who thought they were concerned, had a right to be heard, it was an expensive proceeding, seldom costing less than 60 l. or 70 l. Now, he proposed a mode of obviating that by this Bill. It might, perhaps, not be the best mode which could be adopted, but when the Bill went into Committee he should be glad to adopt any suggestion with a view to obtaining a better mode. He wished to have it read a second time, in order that they might adopt any alterations which could have the effect of improving it.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, the country was indebted to the noble and learned Lord for taking up the subject, for there was no doubt that many of the smaller charities of the country had suffered greatly from the effect of the present mode in which they were regulated, and that much of the good which would otherwise arise from them was thus lost. He fully concurred in the principles laid down by the noble Lord; and, indeed, he concurred in the principles of the Bill, but he nevertheless would intreat the noble and learned Lord not to press it through Committee during the present Session. The object of the Bill was to prevent a continuance of evils which
1160
now exist, and it was therefore a good one, yet he feared that great evil would arise, and much injustice would be done, by an Act which was intended to prevent it, if they did not properly consider and deliberate upon its provisions before they agreed to it. The Bill, though limited to charities with particular incomes, yet included nearly all the educational charities of the country. The Bishops were visitors of those educational charities; fer where they were not officially or legally the visitors, Bishops or other ecclesiastics were bound by their duty to act as such, and he thought that no provision ought to be agreed to which would interfere with the influence which the Church had over charities which were established for educational or Church purposes. This was a period of the year at which many of the Bishops were called away from their Lordships' House to the country by their official duties, and he thought that no measure affecting the Church, or the interest of education as connected with the Church, ought to be passed at a period of the Session when they were unavoidably absent. He acknowledged the obligation of the country to the noble and learned Lord for his exertions to remove those evils which pressed like an incubus upon the charities of the country; yet he wished that the noble and learned Lord would not press the Bill through any further stage at this period of the Session. It ought, in his opinion, to be introduced at an early period next Session, when there would be sufficient time to consider its provisions, and when all those who were interested in the Bill could be present.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had considered the question to which the right rev. Prelate referred, and it was his intention to introduce a Clause for the purpose of preserving that control where there was a legal right to exercise it.
Lord Wrottesleywas anxious to see the Bill pass into a law, and he hoped that if it were not agreed to during this Session it would be introduced at an early period next Session. There were some important omissions in the Bill as it now stood. There was no power given, as he understood it, for the appointment of new trustees in cases of real estate, nor was there any authority given to the Commissioners to vary the directions of the founders of charities in cases where they were found impracticable, or unsuited to the present position and character of society. There

1161
was another point to which he would beg to call their Lordships' attention in connection with this subject. The distribution of certain trust funds at present was of such a nature, that although there might be no abuse in that distribution, yet it was calculated to be injurious to the interests of the poor for whose alleged benefit the trusts were intended, and to be destructive to their morals. Very large sums were given in small amounts, and without any due discrimination of the persons to whom they were distributed, or the selection of proper objects. Very important evidence was given on that subject before the Poor Law Commission, and in consequence of that the Poor Law Commissioners alluded to it in their Report; but nothing had been since done with reference to it. He thanked the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the 26th Clause gave a power to appoint trustees as well with regard to real estate as personal estate. There was also a provision with respect to cases in which the intentions of the founder were not carried into effect under certain circumstances. In cases where the income of Charities was beyond the limit proposed by the Bill, the subject could be brought before the Court of Chancery.
Lord Campbellsaid, they were all indebted to his noble Friend near him for the information which he had given them upon this subject. He (Lord Campbell) felt strongly the importance of legislation on this subject, and he believed that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, with alterations and amendments, would be a great improvement as regarded the branch of charities to which it was to be applied. He concurred with the right rev. Prelate in requesting the noble and learned Lord not to press the Bill this Session. It was of infinite importance that such a number of trusts, involving so large an amount of property, should be subjected to a proper regulation and supervision. He believed that there were some important omissions, but they might afterwards be supplied. He thought the matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, and he (Lord Campbell) would willingly serve upon it, and afford all the information which he was capable of giving. He felt that, in the present Session, it was impossible that justice could be done to the subject, as it was so far advanced, and so many right rev. Prelates
1162
were necessarily absent. A similar Bill had been introduced last Session into the other House of Parliament by Sir George Grey, but withdrawn on the assurance that, early in the present Session, the Government would bring forward a Bill on their own responsibility. On the meeting of Parliament, Sir George Grey asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Bill would be brought forward, and he said it would be brought forward at an early period of the Session. The inquiry was several times renewed, and a similar answer given, and it was not until the 22nd of June last that a Bill of such vast importance was introduced — a Bill which proposed to deal with about 13,000 trusts, and property to a vast amount. The noble and learned Lord would consider next Session whether the power which he proposed to give to the Commissioners was not a formidable one. He (Lord Campbell) considered the principle of the Bill unobjectionable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he wished the Bill to be read a second time, and allowed to go through Committee, in order to see what amendments might be suggested from any quarter; and if there was anything suggested which he thought would be an improvement, he would show the utmost readiness to adopt it. Some such measure had been recommended eight or ten years ago by the Commissioners of Inquiry into Charitable Bequests, but nothing successful had been done as yet with respect to it. He had framed the Bill at an early period of the Session, but their Lordships were of course aware, that when in order to make the Bill as good as possible he laid himself open to any suggestions to that effect, that weeks or months might elapse before he had an opportunity of carrying his object into execution. In consequence of what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, he would propose to read the Bill a second time, and go into Committee, with a view to consider and improve the Bill, and when that was done, in all probability the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate would be adopted. It was desirable to make the Bill as perfect as possible during the present Session, in order that it might be proceeded with next Session without delay.
The Bishop of Londonthought, that the worst course they could adopt was to go into Committee, when those who would be the most likely to suggest advantageous alterations would be unavoidably absent.

1163
He should be sorry to see it pass through Committee, because he knew from experience that a Bill having once passed through Committee, would be looked upon as a deliberate act of their Lordships and would not be likely to receive much further attention.
Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellorthen stated that it was not his intention to take any further steps with respect to the Bill this Session.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion of Lord Wharncliffe, this Bill was read a third time according to Order. Several amendments having been inserted, on the Motion of Lord Wharncliffe,
Lord Monteagleexpressed his cordial thanks to the Government for this Bill, which, in its present form, would be in the highest degree satisfactory to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. He would take this opportunity, also, of offering to the Government his earnest thanks for the declaration which, in another place, they had, with so much courage and honesty, made of their intentions with reference to the promotion of education in Ireland on liberal and comprehensive principles, embracing the academical education there of the middle and higher classes of the Roman Catholics, and, above all, the improved education of the Roman Catholic Clergy, the enabling the College of Maynooth to extend its sphere of usefulness. The declaration thus made by the Government entitled it to the gratitude, not only of the Roman Catholics, but also to that of the Protestants of Ireland.
The Bill then passed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Lord Beaumontmoved that the House resolve itself into Committee.
The Bishop of Londonobjected to the Bill, which, he said, was a measure which would go to no less than the establishment of the supremacy of the Pope in this country, and the repeal of some thirty Acts of Parliament, affecting the most important interests of this country, as well as the prerogatives of the Crown, and the religion of the kingdom. Some of the provisions of this Bill would interfere with the Act of Uniformity, and others with more recent enactments, including the great settlement of the question between
1164
their Roman Catholic and Protestant fellow subjects. It would go to repeal those securities—though nominal, certainly, it might be said they were — which were taken on the concession that was recently made to the Roman Catholics; and to this he, for one, was not prepared to consent. What he had chiefly risen for, however, was to protest against their Lordships going into Committee, or, indeed, legislating at all with regard to this Bill, in the necessary absence, at the present moment, of those who were the natural and legally constituted guardians of the religion of the eountry. He well knew that the feeling of the country was in that unsettled state on this subject, that, if their Lordships took upon themselves to legislate upon it at this period of the Session, and in the absence of his right rev. Brethren, the Church of England would have great cause to complain. He understood that it was the intention of the noble Lord to strike out a considerable portion of the provisions of this Bill, and only to carry such parts of it as the Government and the noble Lord (the Chancellor) did not object to. But he thought that, under the circumstances he had stated, discussion upon it at the present moment would be objectionable and improper, and he was persuaded that the country, if they did, would hear it with surprise and astonishment. He did did not go so far as to say that all the enactments in this measure were dangerous to the Church, but at the same time, holding the opinions which he entertained upon other portions of it, he begged to move as an Amendment, that their Lordships resolve themselves into Committee upon it that day three months.
[Amendment moved to leave out "now" and insert "this day three months."]
Lord Beaumontsaid, he entirely acquitted the rev. Prelate of being influenced by personal feelings on the present occasion, but he (Lord Beaumont) must beg leave to state his astonishment at a rev. Prelate being found in this the nineteenth century, willing or ready to defend such enactments as the Bill was intended to repeal. Had the rev. Prelate looked into those Statutes, had he studied their character, was he aware of the penalties they inflicted, or the deeds both of commission and omission which they made capital crimes? If he had examined those Acts, if he spoke with any knowledge of the subject, he (Lord Beaumont) would not only express his surprise but his indigna-

1165
tion at hearing a Member of their Lordships' House declare in his place, that he thought it still necessary to keep these bitter enactments in force against so large a portion of his fellow subjects. What, was the rev. Prelate still anxious in these days of mutual toleration to keep the axe and the sword still suspended over the heads of his Roman Catholic countrymen? Did he still wish that the law of præmunire should be in force against them, and that for the most ordinary acts of their religion, they should be liable to the penalties of high treason. Was the rev. Prelate really aware of how these numerous Acts operated, or what inducement was held out to put them in execution? He (Lord Beaumont) would state to the House, albeit briefly, how the case stood. Under the combined operation of the Penal and Toleration Acts, the Roman Catholics of this realm were divided into two distinct classes—the one qualified, the other unqualified—the qualified class were such as had taken the oaths prescribed by the Toleration Acts or the oath substituted in place of such oaths by the Emancipation Act? The unqualified were those who had not taken the oaths, or not complied with each and every condition required by the 18th and 32nd of George III. The former were exempt from the direct operation of the Penal Statutes recited in the Bill, but suffered indirectly from them, as he (Lord Beaumont) would presently show. The latter, namely, the unqualified, stood in a very different position:—against them the whole of these Penal Acts were in force, and there was nothing to prevent any evil-minded person from proceeding under them against any unqualified Roman Catholic in the realm, however high his character or position might be. Their Lordships would be surprised when he stated the comparative numbers of the qualified and unqualified; but he (Lord Beaumont) felt that he was not exaggerating the case when he said that not more than one in a hundred had taker the oaths prescribed. Ninety-nine in even hundred Roman Catholics were liable to be dragged before the tribunals of this country, and there tried for offences, which the law punished with the utmost severity, but which were hourly committed in open day by every Roman Catholic; they were at the mercy of informers;—they had no legal status, but were in the eye of the law no more than aliens or public enemies. The daily acts of their religion came within the compass of a præmunire, and
1166
some of the highest members of the British aristocracy were subject under these Statutes to the most galling insults. Members of ancient families, who in loyalty and patriotism stood second to none in the kingdom, were designated by these Statutes as traitors to their Sovereign, and foes to the Constitution. Did the rev. Prelate deem it advisable that such a state of the law, should be continued, or that the heavy pains and penalties of former and more dangerous times should be still held in terrorem over the heads of loyal Catholics of the present day? Did he consider ii necessary either for the protection of the establishment or the interests of religion? Were these disgusting acts the bulwarks of the Church, and necessary supports of the Protestant Faith? Was the influence of Rome and the power of the Pope so great in Europe, that these fortifications were necessary to keep this Protestant country secure from a successful invasion? No, my Lords (the noble Lord continued) I will not accuse the rev. Prelate of entertaining such fond and ridiculous fears. The time has been, I confess, when similar alarms were neither ill-founded nor uncommon: there was a period in our history when the machinations of the Jesuits, the conspiracies of the nobles, and the general want of loyalty amongst the Catholics of England, made such laws as these not only excusable but advisable. The intrigues of Rome had then their ramifications in this country, and foreign plots found willing instruments even amongst the wealthy members of the Catholic body. But that state of things has gone by—those times are long past. The position of parties is changed not only in England but in the rest of Europe. Where are now the plots and counter-plots of Catholics to upset the constitution? Where are the deep-laid conspiracies of Jesuits and their pupils to establish a foreign supremacy? Will the rev. Prelate point out one single dark and treasonable design which could justify such enactments in the present day? My Lords, he cannot. Not one of your Lordships would venture to propose such enactments in these times: how can you then justify their continuance on the Statute Book? They are either good or bad: if they are good, they ought to be enforced; if they are bad, they ought to be repealed. Justify them by acting up to them, or disown them by repealing them. Do not imagine that they are dead letters; they may not directly,

1167
but they do indirectly work to the injury of Roman Catholics. If, for instance in a charitable donation or bequest for religious purposes, any of the parties concerned therein, testator, donor, trustee, or legatee, chance to be an unqualified person, the whole is vitiated and void. Recent judgments in the courts below, might be quoted as illustrations of the confused state of the law in respect to charitable donations, where the parties are still exposed to the Penal Acts, or the object of the charity is implied by them to be a superstitions use. But it is not so much the indirect injury they do, that I complain of, as the direct annoyance they may possibly give. Let it not be said that these Statutes are for ever laid upon the shelf, and not liable to be again taken down. The experience of the present Session should convince us that there are in the world a sufficient number of ill-conditioned people, who would for trifling rewards, commence proceedings under obsolete Acts, and render it necessary for the Legislature to adopt the inconvenient course of passing Indemnity Bills. This has been the case in respect to the now well-known Gaming Laws; this has also occurred in the forestalling and similar Acts which have recently been repealed by a Bill of my noble Friends; not two days since, you were told of proceedings under an obsolete Act which rendered the Butter and Cheese Bill necessary. Why then, my Lords should you fancy that these old Statutes will be allowed to slumber on their shelves, and that no Angelo will he found to awake the enrolled penalties, and put the drowsy and neglected Acts freshly on us? But whether they are put in force or not, there they are, a disgrace to the Statute Book, a blot on the history of the Legislature and the grounds for imputations of intolerance against the Established Church. In this respect I beg of the right rev. Prelate to reconsider the subject, and weigh well the impression the world will receive of Protestant toleration, when they hear that he on behalf of the Church came down to the Parliament, and in his place implored the House of Lords, to retain on the Statute Book these cruel and revolting enactments. I would not remove one single proof which really supported the Church, for I believe that the Protestant Church has generally been friendly and of use to the liberties of the subject; but these stringent laws are in the present state of society rather detrimental than advantageous to the interests of the Estab-
1168
lishment. I believe that they furnish grounds for attack against it, and are often quoted to inspire horror of its temporal policy. But I will be fair in my dealings with the rev. Prelate's objections, and promise him, that if he can establish clearly the utility of one of these Acts in respect to the Church, I will strike it out of my Bill, and leave it on the Statute Book. I will go further; the Bill has been maturely considered by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and if he assures me that one of these laws is necessary to the defence of the religion of the State, I will bow my humble opinion to his superior judgment, and that law shall remain unrepealed. Can I act more candidly—can I act more justly? I cannot suppose that the rev. Prelate, or indeed any of your Lordships have been so indifferent to the social revolution which is always going on, as to have totally disregarded passing events in the north of Italy and the whole of Germany. I cannot imagine you to be insensible of the gradual decrease of the temporal power and political influence which the Papal See in its day of grandeur formerly exercised in those regions. The arm which once overawed Europe, is annually shrinking, and its temporal sway is now scarcely felt beyond the frontiers of the Pontiff's own dominions. Yet these countries neither employed weapons such as these Acts to repel the Roman Propaganda, nor fortify themselves with a line of Penal Statutes in the dread of an invasion. The result has been that in those parts of the Continent where the Governments have not insulted liberty of conscience by Penal Laws, persons of both creeds live together in peace, amity, and good-fellowship. There are fewer Sectarian animosities, and fewer polemical controversies. Let not this experience be thrown away nor this example set in vain; but by removing what is offensive to the feelings of a large portion of the community, deprive the discontented of their stock-in-hand of complaints. The rev. Prelate accuses me of taking the House by surprise, and not allowing sufficient time for the subject to be considered—but what is the true history of this Bill? I presented it early in May, I immediately on its being printed, called the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to it: my noble and learned Friend wished it to be referred to the Criminal Law Commissioners, who though they had already gone through the

1169
subject, again reconsidered it, and again reported on it to my noble and learned Friend. My noble and learned Friend then laid it before several of the rev. Bench, and I was informed that their attention was particularly called by the noble Lord on the Woolsack to the provisions of the Bill. I have never let the subject rest since I first introduced it, but have troubled my noble and learned Friend early and late, in order that he might not say he was taken by surprise, when I determined to proceed with the Bill. What becomes then of the complaint of the rev. Prelate? The matter is not new—the question of repealing these Statutes has long attracted attention—their continuance on our Statute Book, was considered a disgrace to society by Sir William Blackstone. His recommendation to revise them, was given more than a century ago, and has the violence of religious fanaticism, or the inclination to establish a foreign supremacy advanced or retrograded in the lapse of time which has intervened since Sir William Blackstone wrote his opinion of these severe laws, and the date when the Criminal Law Commissioners quoted that learned authority in support of their own convictions. So powerful an expression, and so conclusive in its argument this document appears to me to be, that I cannot refrain from imitating the example of the Commissioners, and quoting it at length to the House.
"This is a short summary of the laws against the Papists under their three several Clauses of persons professing the Popish religion, Popish recusant convicts, and Popish priests; of which the President Montesquieu observes, that they are so rigorous, though not professedly of the sanguinary kind, that they do all the hurt that can possibly be done in cold blood."
But in answer to this it may be observed (what foreigners who only judge from our Statute Book, are not fully apprised of) that these laws are seldom exerted to their utmost rigour, and indeed if they were, it would be very difficult to excuse them. For they are rather to be accounted for from their history and the urgency of the times which produced them than to be approved (upon a cool review) as a standing system of law. The restless machinations of the Jesuits during the reign of Elizabeth, the turbulence and uneasiness of the Papists under the new religious establishment, and the boldness of their hopes and wishes for the succession of the
1170
Queen of Scots, obliged the Parliament to counteract so dangerous a spirit by laws of a great and perhaps then necessary severity. The powder treason in the succeeding reign, struck a panic into James I., which operated in different ways. It occasioned the enacting of new laws against the Papists, but deterred him from putting them in execution. The intrigues of Queen Henrietta, in the reign of Charles I., the prospect of a Popish succession in that of Charles II., the assassination plot in the reign of King William, and the avowed claim of a Popish Pretender to the Crown in that and subsequent reigns will account for the extension of these penalties at those several periods of our history. But if a time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant when all fears of a Pretender shall have vanished, and the power and influence of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despicable, not only in England but in every kingdom of Europe, it probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these rigorous edicts, at least till the evil principles of the Roman Catholics called again upon the Legislature to renew them, for it ought not to be left in the breast of every merciless bigot to draw down the vengeance of these occasional laws upon inoffensive, though mistaken subjects, in opposition to the lenient inclinations of the civil magistrate, and to the destruction of every principle of toleration and religious liberty. After such language as this, which I have read to your Lordships, it would be presumption to add any further remarks of my own.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that the noble Lord had replied to a speech which he had probably supposed would have been made, rather than to one which had been made. He did not mean to say that it would not be desirable to repeal some of these laws, for he went so far as to say, that he was of opinion that some of them might be safely repealed; but at the same time he thought, that such a change in the law required great consideration, and ought to emanate from the Government and not from any private quarter. He also objected to the Bill on the ground of the time at which it had been brought forward. He objected to such a measure being brought forward at nearly the close of the Session, when it was impossible it could receive that attention in the other House which its importance required, and, above all, he objected to its being brought

1171
forward when so few of his right reverend brethren were present, to whom the guardianship of the Church was more particularly intrusted. He denied that any practical inconvenience could arise from letting the matter stand over until next year, and during the meantime the attention of the Government might be directed to the subject. It was notorious that these laws were, in point of fact, obsolete, and no attempt had been made for the last sixty years to put them in force, and there was not the slightest probability that any such attempt would be made.
The Lord Chancellorbelieved that the House would recollect, that he stated on a former occasion, that the Criminal Law would undergo the consideration and revision of the Government during the recess, with a view to make some proposition with respect to its consolidation next year. On this ground he had recommended his noble Friend not to proceed with this Bill; but as his noble Friend was unwilling to do so, he (the Lord Chancellor) requested to have an opportunity of considering the Bill, and then referred it to the Criminal Law Commissioners. Those gentlemen revised the Bill, and they struck out several clauses, and introduced certain alterations, but most of the Bill remained. He had afterwards referred the Bill to a gentleman in the confidence of himself and the Government, who, on consideration, did not think that it was desirable, or that it was expedient, to strike out so much as the Commissioners recommended. He had then asked the right rev. Prelate to name a person in the confidence of the Church to whom the Bill might be referred, but the right rev. Prelate replied, that it was too late to give an opinion on it during that Session. He then told the right rev. Prelate, that he would consent to strike out any Clause about which any doubt was entertained. Some of the old laws, which it was proposed in this Bill to repeal, were of the most severe character, and of which he was sure that the right rev. Prelate would not approve. For instance, by an Act of Elizabeth it was enacted, that any one who disputed the Queen's supremacy as head of the Church, for the first offence was liable to punishment for a misdemeanor, with fine and imprisonment; for the second offence was guilty of felony, and was liable to all the punishment of præmunire; and if guilty of a third offence, he was to be adjudged
1172
guilty of high treason. Now, in the alterations which he proposed in the Bill, he left in the misdemeanor for certain matters contained in the Act, and struck out felony and high treason. He was quite sure, when the alterations which he proposed to introduce were made in the Bill, that there was not a single Clause in it which could be objected to. With respect to the complaint as to the late period at which it had been brought forward, he must at once admit that it was ascribable to himself, for the matter in question was a complicated subject, and he had been obliged to consult several persons. He would suggest that the Amendments which he recommended should be introduced at once into the Bill, and that it should be reprinted, so that the provisions of the Bill might be made known both in and out of Parliament. If this course was adopted, he felt assured that all parties would regard this as a judicious and moderate measure.
Lord Campbellsuggested that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, so as to introduce the alterations, and to be reprinted without delay. The right hon. Prelate would then be able to consider and examine the subject, and he (Lord Campbell) felt assured that he would not entertain the slightest objection to the Bill. It was quite clear that many Acts, which it was the object of this Bill to repeal, were absolutely disgraceful to the Statute Book, and he was sure that the right rev. Prelate would not wish them to remain in that Book if he was aware of their nature. Many of these Acts had been lost sight of, and if any informer should happen to get hold of them, he might commence an enormous number of qui tam actions. He objected to the introduction of Bills to stop actions in Courts of Law already commenced, and to obviate this it was the duty of Parliament to repeal such laws, as they were disgraceful to the Statute Book.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that there had been a general understanding that the Bill, as amended by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, was to pass into a law. He therefore deeply regretted the opposition which had been manifested by the right rev. Prelate. He believed that the Bill, if it passed, would give great satisfaction to the Catholic body both in this country and Ireland; and he was sure that the measure would be attended with

1173
none of those evils which the right rev. Prelate anticipated. It appeared to him, that the reasons assigned by the right rev. Prelate for opposing this measure were most extraordinary. If a measure was to be opposed and rejected in that House because it was brought forward in July, it would have the effect of almost entirely putting a stop to public business. It should be remembered that Parliament sat in February, and until July hardly any Bills were sent up to that House. Every Bill might be opposed on this ground, and there would be an end of all legislation. The right rev. Prelate also objected to the Bill on the ground that his brethren were out of town. He was aware, that in the early part of the Session they were absent, necessarily attending their visitations, but there was nothing of the kind now, and it was their duty, as much as that of any other noble Lords, to attend in that House.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that his right rev. brethren were absent attending to more important duties than being in that House. He should press his opposition to the Motion.
The Lord Chancellorthought that it was absolutely necessary for his own justification, that the Bill, as amended, should be committed, for the purpose of being reprinted. The right rev. Prelate would then, at a subsequent period, have every opportunity of moving that it be committed this day six months.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, he would not then persist in his opposition.
On question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? resolved in the affirmative.
House in Committee.

CHAPELS AND MEETING HOUSES REGISTRATION, &c. BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read:
Lord Teynhamrose to move the Second Reading. The object of the measure was to carry out to a still greater extent a principle that had been already recognised by the Legislature. Their Lordships would be aware that as the law now stood, every House or building used for the purposes of public worship was required to be registered, and a certificate of such registration obtained, before any minister could preach, or any number of persons over twenty (exclusive
1174
of the proprietor of such house or building, and his servants) assemble therein for religious worship. This exception had been made, in order that family worship in private houses should not be interfered with. Now his object was in the first place to increase the number who might be allowed to join together in the worship of God, without registration, from twenty to forty, and also to allow the building to be used antecedent—for what period it would be for their Lordships to determine, but he should propose three months—to registration. The Legislature had already recognised the principle of extending the numbers who should be allowed to assemble for religious worship by the 52 George III., which had been brought into the other House by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Mr. Vansittart, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the object of which was to extend the number from five, the original limit, to twenty. The Bill also gave a power to the magistrates to reduce the minimum penalty to be imposed upon persons infringing the Act from 20 s. to 1s. It was surely a most absurd law which, by imposing a penalty in every case where more than twenty persons were assembled in an unregistered house, placed any visitor over the number of twenty in any private dwelling-house in the dilemma of either infringing the law or neglecting his duty to his Divine Master. If their Lordships should consent to give the Bill a second reading, he should then propose to go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of inserting certain Amendments.
The Lord Chancellorwished to direct their Lordships' attention to what was the existing law on the subject, and what were the reasons for that law. As the law now stood, no meeting for religious purposes was permitted, in any dwelling-house or other building, of more than twenty persons, in addition to the family and servants of the proprietor of such house or building, unless the same were duly registered as a place for religious worship. The noble Lord who had brought forward this Bill did not object to the certificate of registration, he allowed that to remain. Now, what was the reason for the law as it stood? The Members of the family and the servants in any dwelling-house might, under the former law, assemble for religious purposes, without any certificate; but then it was con-

1175
sidered that persons might be in a private house as visitors, or accidentally present, and that, therefore, a margin should be allowed, which margin in the first instance had been limited to five persons. A few years ago an alteration was made in this respect, and on this ground, that five was too small a number, for that in many instances more than five or six or eight visitors, or other persons accidentally present, might be in a dwelling-house and desirous of joining in religious worship, and therefore it was proposed that the limit should be extended to twenty. The Legislature consented to that alteration on the principle that a still greater margin must be allowed in order that visitors or persons accidentally present in any dwelling-house, and joining in religious worship, should not be considered as infringing the law. He (the Lord Chancellor) considered the margin then adopted, viz. twenty, was sufficient, and that there was no ground whatever for extending it. But, then, asked, the noble Lord, if one more than twenty persons should be present, was that one to withdraw, to avoid being subject to the penalry for infringing the law? No, for he would not be liable to any penalty. It was the party to whom the house belonged who was liable, and be could protect himself by preventing a greater number than the twenty allowed by the Act, in addition to his own family and servants, from being present. Then the noble Lord had said, why should not persons be allowed to assemble in any building for the purposes of religious worship, antecedent to the certificate, and he proposed that any building might be used as a place of worship three months before the certificate; but if the building was intended to be used as a place of worship, what hardship was there in requiring that it should be certified at once? He thought the noble Lord had shown no grounds for the alteration he proposed.
The Bishop of Gloucesterhad not expected, at that late period of the Session, that such a measure as the present would have been pressed on the attention of the House, and without consultation with those who were the guardians of the Church. The noble Lord had said that it was hard persons should be placed in the dilemma of being compelled to violate either the law or their consciences; but he (the Bishop of Gloucester) knew of no law that placed persons in this country in such
1176
a position. The principles of religious toleration existed in this country in a peculiar degree; and acting upon those principles, if any real case of hardship could be shown as pressing upon any class of Dissenters from the Established Church, he for one should be ready to assist in their removal; but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, he thought, satisfactorily proved that there was no such case of hardship in the present instance, and that the law as it stood was a most liberal extension of the principle of private worship. He should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Teynhamcontended that at present the law of the land and the law of God were at variance, and that in consequence the law of the land was often necessarily, and he would say rightly infringed.
After a few words from the Bishop of Gloucester.
[Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this Day three Months."]
On Question that the word "now" stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative and Bill to be read a second time this day three months.
Their Lordships adjourned at eleven o'clock.