Lords Sitting of 10 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Constables, Public Works (Ireland); Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Administration of Justice (Court of Chancery) Acts Amendment.
2a. Foreign Lotteries.
Reported.—High Constables; Documentary Evidence; Seal Office Abolition.
3o. and passed:—Arrestment of Wages (Scotland); Brazil Slave Trade; Jurors (Ireland); Timber Ships; Assessed Taxes Composition.
Private.—1a. Marquess of Westminster's Estate; Saint Matthew's (Bethnal Green) Rectory.
2a. Saint Helen's Canal and Railway; Marsh's (or Coxhead's) Estate.
Reported.—North Walsham School Estate (Lord Wodehouse's); Glossop Gas; Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Sir Robert Keith Dick's Estate; Preston and Wyre Railway; Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway; Bermondsey Improvement; Londonderry and Coleraine Railway; Sheffield Water Works; Saint Helen's Improvement; Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Branches); Glasgow Junction Railway; Bristol and Exeter Railway Branches; Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway.
3a. and passed:—Great North of England, Clarence, and Hartlepool and Junction Railway; Keyingham Drainage; Forth and Clyde Navigation, and Union Canal Junction; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; North Wales Mineral Railway; Great Western Railway, Ireland (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Warrington and Latchford, for the Suppression of Intemperance, particularly on the Sabbath.—From Ministers and others of Southampton, and several other places, for substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths.—From Wiveliscombe, against the Real Property Deeds Registration Bill.—By Duke of Richmond, from Brede and numerous other places, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax. — By Lord Lyttelton, from Charles Miller, M.A., for Repeal of the Tithe Commutation Act.—By Duke of Richmond, from Stockholders and others of the Colony residing at Clarence River, for Alteration of Law relating to Territorial Revenue and Disposal of Land (New South Wales).—From Matthew Phillips, Surveyor, &c., praying that evidence given by him before a Committee of this House some years since, may be reconsidered, and in favour of the Field Gardens Bill.—From Committee of Church Missionary Society of Africa and the East, for effectually securing to Natives of New Zealand, the full enjoyment of their Lands.
* For Division List see End of Volume.

PRIVILEGE.
The Duke of Richmondwished to call the attention of their Lordships to a petition relating to privilege. It was from Thomas Baker, of Albion House, Great Church-lane, Hammersmith, formerly superintendent of the C division of the Metropolitan Police Force, but now retired upon a pension. It stated, that he had been called upon to attend and give evidence before their Lordships' Select Committee on the Laws relating to Gaming; and that a person of the name of John Harlow had commenced an action for damages against him for words spoken upon that occasion; that John Harlow intended to proceed to trial on the 31st instant, at the Croydon assizes. The petitioner had not pleaded to the action, but prayed their Lordships to take the premises into consideration, and to grant him such protection as might seem meet. The noble Duke observed, that Mr. Baker had not volunteered his evidence, but had been called upon to give it, having been inspector of that division of the Police, whose duty it was to watch the gambling-houses in the district. He had been examined upon oath, and, under the sanctity of that oath, had no doubt spoken the truth. The noble Duke said, that he had known Inspector Baker for a great many years, and he had served not only during the Peninsular war, but at Waterloo, and he believed that a more honourable man did not exist. It did not become him, not being a law Lord, to offer any opinion on the question; but he begged to be informed what course it was fit, under the circumstances, to pursue?
The Lord Chancellor: It is perfectly clear that if the statement contained in the petition be true, this action cannot be sustained. The petitioner alleges that the words, for the using of which the action has been brought, were spoken by him before a Committee of your Lordships' House. I believe an indictment may be maintained for perjury against a party who has sworn falsely before a court of justice; but I apprehend it is perfectly clear no action can be sustained for words spoken by a witness in evidence before any such court. But that is not the question at present—the question is, whether, under the circumstances disclosed by the petition, we should protect the defendant. It is stated in the declaration that the words were spoken "in the presence and hearing of the Committee." It

293
is possible, therefore, that the plaintiff may represent his case to be of this description, that the defendant had repeated the words in the presence and hearing of the Committee of the House, and yet may not have been at the time speaking as a witness upon oath. I should recommend your Lordships to appoint a Committee for the purpose of searching for precedents to regulate our proceedings. Circumstances make it incumbent on your Lordships to attend more particularly to this matter, because we are ourselves a court of justice in the last resort. If this case should go on, it may ultimately come before us for decision as a Court of Appeal. I, therefore, beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed to search for precedents, and that the said petition be referred to such Committee.
Lord Campbell: I move, my Lords, as an Amendment, that the plaintiff and his attorney be summoned to attend at the bar of this House. In my opinion there is no occasion for any Committee—no Committee can be of the slightest service. There is no doubt that you have here an action brought against a witness, for evidence given on oath before a Committee of your Lordships' House. I entirely agree with what has been laid down by my noble and learned Friend, that no such action in point of law can be maintained; but shall you allow a witness who has been summoned before your Committee to be harassed by such an action? Nay, more my Lords, will you allow your privilege of summoning witnesses, and of examining them before a Committee, to be submitted to any Judge who may happen to sit on the trial of that case? I do say, my Lords, that if you are prepared to imitate the example set you by your ancestors, you will immediately interfere, and put a stop to this action. The most recent case on the question of this privilege which has occurred before your Lordships' House was one which took place during the time when that illustrious Judge, Lord Eldon, presided on the Woolsack. It arose out of an action brought against one of your messengers for taking an umbrella belonging to a visitor, who was standing at your Lordships' bar when the House was sitting as a court of justice. Upon the Motion of Lord Eldon, the plaintiff and his attorney, who had commenced an action before the
294
court of requests, were summoned to the bar, and informed, according to your Lordships' determination, that they would both be committed if they did not at once abandon all legal proceedings. I cannot doubt that your Lordships are now prepared to summon both this plaintiff and his attorney at your bar; and if it shall turn out that the action is brought for words spoken by the witness in evidence before your Committee, that you will commit to prison the plaintiff and his attorney, if they persist in prosecuting the action. It will be utterly impossible for you to exercise your iniquisitorial powers, unless you protect the witnesses in the evidence they give. The Committee in question was a most important one. It was to inquire into the frauds alleged to arise from gaming. There were many witnesses examined, and many transactions inquired into, and a great deal of fraud and dishonesty disclosed. If any person is permitted to bring an action against a witness who should have disclosed that person's infamy, in what situation would the witness stand, and in what a situation would your Lordships be? You would ever after deprive yourselves of the power of instituting any such inquiry. Your privileges are now assailed in the most alarming manner, and unless you make a resolute stand they are irrevocably gone. I have heard it suggested that the witness might have repeated these words at another time; that after having given evidence before the Committee he might have repeated in the presence of the Committee, not upon oath, and not judicially, what he had said before, and therefore that might be considered malicious, and sufficient to form a ground of action. But in his petition the party declares that he never did use the words unless when he was examined upon oath before the Committee. It, however, may be learned from the plaintiff and his attorney, if called to the bar of the House, what is the real ground of the action. If it be for words spoken on some other occasion, then let the action proceed, and let a jury give a verdict upon it; but if it should turn out, as I have no doubt it will, that the action has been brought for words spoken by the witness when on oath before the Committee, then I implore your Lordships, in accordance with all the precedents you have ever acted upon, that you will at once interpose to protect this witness. In

295
the present case there is not time for any Committe to inquire for and examine into precedents. The trial is to take place on the 31st of July in the county of Surrey; and I have no doubt he will be called upon to plead in four days from the time declaration is filed. Before the Committee have made their Report, a judgment may be obtained, and a verdict for 1,000 l. may be given by a jury against the defendant; and this because he has obeyed your Lordships' summons. It may be said that the defendant may justify; but how? Are you to expose him to the same peril to which all your own privileges appear now to be exposed? My Lords, I shall move as an Amendment, "That the plaintiff and his attorney be summoned to appear at the bar of this House to-morrow at five o'clock."
The Earl of Ellenborough: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord as to the course it is essential, for the maintenance of the dignity and privileges of this House, and of its authority, for your Lordships to pursue, and I shall give my vote in support of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
Lord Brougham: My doubt is this, and I fairly state it to your Lordships. This is the first time that the question has ever been brought before the House. We have not had one quarter of an hour by the clock to consider what course it would be the best for us to take. We have not had one quarter of an hour to look into precedents. We are surrounded by very serious difficulties. We have at present the statement, an donly the statement, of the party against whom the action is brought. If you look at that statement, he does not himself say that the action is brought for words spoken by him in giving his evidence upon oath. He says, he believes it is for words spoken by him in the presence and hearing of the Committee. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has suggested that it does not at all follow from necessity that those were words used by him in giving evidence before the Committee. Though he says (it is his own assertion, no doubt), that he never did, except upon the occasion of being examined before the Committee, say anything respecting Mr. Harlow, still he may have done it upon that occasion without being at the moment giving evidence on oath. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) is ready to denounce
296
this as a breach of privilege. I have had some experience on questions of privilege. I was present and took part in the argument of the great case of privilege at your Lordships' bar; and I will venture to say that whoever has the most considered the question of privilege will find the most difficulty in reconciling the conflicting decisions and precedents on the subject, and especially in deciding, as my noble Friend, who is not a member of the profession, has done off hand, that this is a breach of privilege. Taking such extremely breathless haste as our guide is never safe. We ought never to come to a hurried decision when a little time for deliberation might make our proceeding more useful and satisfactory in its results. In all cases arising in the House of Commons, the first thing done is the adoption of the course suggested by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—namely, the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents. You are not like the House of Commons, a mere inquisitorial body. You are a high criminal court of justice in the last resort. The matter propounded is, that you shall call the plaintiff and his attorney before you, with the manifest intention, that if you are satisfied, on examining those parties, that this action is brought for words spoken under certain circumstances, you will stay the action by exerting your power of force against the author of that action. That is a great step for any court of justice to take. It is a very novel position for your Lordships to find yourselves in: that you, a court of judicature, who as a criminal court in the last resort, may have to decide this very case, should at once say "we will not allow this action to proceed." But it is said—"Only examine the plaintiff!" Is it nothing, my Lords, for a plaintiff, upon the mere application of the defendant—his adversary — to be called upon to disclose his case? But that is what you are doing, and upon what ground? Simply because the defendant tells you his story, he being the adversary of the plaintiff. I am not the man to advise your Lordships, without further consideration, to pursue this extraordinary, not to say extreme course of calling upon a plaintiff to tell you what his case is, merely because the defendant asks you to do so by telling his account of the matter. I am, above all things, for maintaining the purity and independence of

297
the administration of justice, and I believe that the privileges of both Houses of Parliament never can be safer, and never can be rested upon a more secure foundation than if they are left, like the rights and privileges of all the rest of the community — the Sovereign included — the Crown included—left to the administration of civil and criminal justice in those courts which are not political tribunals, the courts of the law of the United Kingdom.
Lord Cottenhamsaid: As to what course your Lordships ought to pursue, if the facts stated in the petition be correct, is a question well deserving consideration; but as to what the petitioner has stated, it appears to me he puts the matter beyond all dispute. He, in the first place, states what the declaration itself states, that the action professes to be brought for words spoken in the presence and hearing of a Committee of this House. He then goes on and states, that he never upon any occasion, except upon giving his evidence before the Committee, spoke or published any such words as are charged against him in the declaration, and that he verily believes that the action has been brought for words so spoken. Of course he could not state more than his "belief," as he speaks of the reasons that actuate another man's conduct. Under these circumstances (there may not be a word of truth in it, but looking at the allegation) it does appear to be a most direct and distinct breach of the privileges of the House. Therefore, the only question is, in what way will the House assert its privileges? Beyond all doubt, the House will take as much time as circumstances will admit; but my apprehension is, that there will be no time if you do not act this evening by summoning the parties to-morrow. The mischief will have occurred before Monday. I trust your Lordships will not follow an example set elsewhere, and permit the party to plead, and thus involve yourselves in difficulties from which it may not be possible to escape. If your Lordships' privileges are to be asserted at all, it is at the time when they are first invaded. Therefore, although I am anxious to take as much time for deliberation as circumstances may admit, yet if your Lordships do not act to-day, you will, in all probability, lose the opportunity of acting at all.
Lord Denman: With great respect, then, I hope your Lordships will not act at all.
298
I hope the plaintiff will be allowed to assert his right in a court of law. The evidence may have been maliciously given to his prejudice, and he may be ruined in consequence of that evidence being given. I think your Lordships, being in the last resort a high court of justice, ought to be very slow before you say to any one of Her Majesty's subjects, on bringing an action against another for an alleged injury done to him, "You shall not proceed in a court of justice to show that you have been injured, and to obtain redress for that injury." But it is said that this petitioner and witness would be harassed if this action were allowed to be brought against him. Would he not be equally harassed if he were indicted for perjury? and yet are your Lordships prepared to interfere in such a case? Would your Lordships prevent such an indictment because the party indicted came and told you that he was guiltless of the crime of perjury alleged against him, and that he had said nothing but the truth? Are your Lordships prepared, on such an allegation, to declare that you will not allow the law to take its course, nor will allow the question as to the falsehood or truth of the party's statement to be investigated by a competent legal tribunal? I think your Lordships will incur a most serious responsibility if you undertake to interfere thus without great deliberation. It will not be in my power to attend the House after this day, because I shall be obliged to proceed on the circuit. For that reason, I am induced to enter rather more fully than I otherwise might have done, into my views upon this most important question. I do not think any injury will arise to the parties from delay. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) says that all the precedents are one way, and that it will not be very difficult to find them. He mentioned but one precedent—that known by the name of the umbrella case, a precedent which I trust your Lordships will not be eager to follow when you know the facts. A person, while attending at the bar of your Lordships' House, when sitting as a court of justice, lost his umbrella, and believing that one of your Lordships' messengers had taken possession of it, he brought an action in the court of requests against the messenger. The House of Lords thought it became its dignity and sense of justice to interfere, and prevent the plaintiff from establishing his right to his property, and

299
to the fact of his having been illegally deprived of it. I cannot think that that is a case which your Lordships will feel proud or anxious to act upon. I beg to express my very great disapprobation of actions being brought for the sake of producing collisions between Parliament and the Courts of Justice—a circumstance at all times much to be deplored—actions brought for the purpose of obtaining from the prejudices or excited feelings of a jury damages which greatly exceed the amount of injury sustained. I do, at the same time, think that there is no more certain mode of encouraging such proceedings, than by interfering with a view to stop the due course of justice between the Queen's subjects by the high hand of power on the part of Parliament, under the pretence that the parties against whom such proceedings were taken were acting under its protection. I should be very slow in offering any opinion upon this case. The facts at present before your Lordships are merely ex parte. I know that the proposition before your Lordships is, that the facts be inquired into by summoning those parties to the bar who are supposed to have injured this petitioner, that is, to summon the plaintiff and his attorney. But, by summoning those parties before you, your Lordships pledge yourselves to take some course, provided certain disclosures are made; but which disclosures, I humbly apprehend, ought not to be sought for from any of Her Majesty's subjects who are only seeking to establish their rights in a court of justice. I am very unwilling to commit myself without necessity upon a point of law; but I have not the least difficulty in saying, that if this statement be true, and I have no doubt it is—if this respectable person, of whom the noble Duke has spoken so highly, has really done no more than what is stated in his petition, then I have not the least difficulty in saying, nay, it admits of no doubt, that the plaintiff cannot hold up his head in a court of justice. What! when a competent tribunal, justly held in the highest respect by the country—a Committee of the House of Lords, appointed to inquire into the necessity of making an amendment in the law of the land—when such a tribunal summons before it a public officer, a man competent to speak of the conduct of certain parties having relation to that law, and when that officer shall have fairly and fully disclosed what he knows on oath—is he to be accused as a malicious slanderer
300
because he makes that disclosure? It could not be endured for a moment: and do your Lordships believe that any court of justice would say that a plaintiff could possibly succeed in such an action, or that a witness so conducting himself should be punished? Why should it be supposed that a court of justice would overlook all circumstances of this nature? All confidential communications, that are made bonâ fide, are privileged communications; but the privileges of the House of Lords, and of your Lordships' Committees for the purpose of public inquiries, stand beyond the reach of any criminal or civil proceeding by way of action. I venture to think, although I know what has been said in another place, that there is nothing in the conduct or in the disposition of the courts that disentitles them to the credit of wishing to put down any action brought under such circumstances. But, on the other hand, is it to be maintained, if parties will vent any personal malice, or will indulge in any personal and unjust reflections to the prejudice of others, while giving evidence before a Committee of your Lordships' House, that those persons are not be pursued in order that the facts may be inquired into, and be decided upon in due course of law? But upon this more general ground—a ground which has been considered and felt at all times by those Judges who were aware of the high privilege they enjoyed, of standing between irresponsible power and those whom it was sought to make its victims—I am opposed to the undue interposition of privilege to impede the due administration of justice between subject and subject. The feeling which has actuated all those Judges who have thus appreciated their own high privilege, has been this—"We know our duty, and that duty we will perform; we will perform it without fear or favour, for the protection, not of one class, not of an individual who happens to have been a witness before a Committee either of this place or of another place, but for the protection of all; for doing equal justice to all, in order that those who are injured may obtain redress, and that those who complain that they are injured may have the right to show how and wherein they have suffered." These are general grounds, I think at least, sufficient to induce your Lordships to pause before any steps are taken. I should have thought the Motion of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, if any course was to be taken on the subject, was the only course

301
that a deliberative body, with due regard to their own high station, and to the great power they possess, and the great injury they may by possibility inflict, could have taken on such proposal being made. My Lords, I venture to warn you against the notion that dignity consists in taking sudden offence, and in putting down all who question your proceedings. There may be good grounds for the statements of those who come before you for protection. Your Lordships do not possess the means of investigating the merits between the contending parties; but if those grounds exist, the assertion and proof of them will be available to the party complaining in any court of justice in the kingdom.
Lord Campbellwould warn their Lordships of the infinite importance of the step they were now about to take. If they refused the Amendment he had proposed, they would be declaring to all the world that let an action be brought against any one for what he might have said before a Committee of their Lordships' House, they would not interfere to protect him, even though he should be a Peer of the realm.
Lord Broughamhad always said that the House had the right to commit for contempt of its privileges. The courts of law had the same right. He would ask, however, if an action were brought against a witness for something which he had said upon oath in the Court of Queen's Bench, would the Lord Chief Justice call the plaintiff and his attorney before him and ask him on what account his action was brought; and if they replied "On account of what the defendant had said before you," would the Lord Chief Justice then say, "Then I commit you for contempt?" Yet that, he considered, would be tantamount to acceding to the Motion of his noble and learned Friend near him. He would only add, that if the statements contained in the petition were true, this was one of the most ridiculous actions that had ever been brought against any person.
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of Motion? House divided:—Content 33; Non-Content 22: Majority 11.
Resolved in the Affirmative. Then the original Motion being put,
The Marquess of Clanricardecontended that if they allowed their privileges to go to the courts of law, they gave up their prerogatives and submitted themselves to
302
the other courts. He wished to know with what justice they could ask witnesses to give evidence before their Committees, by which they would subject themselves to penalties such as that which the petitioner had incurred? He said penalties, because the petitioner had already incurred expenses, and which would be further increased. If witnesses were to be subject to such actions, they could not, in justice, be expected to come forward and tell the whole truth on matters upon which it was necessary for the House to be informed.
Lord Stanleyprotested, on the part of the Government, against the doctrine that the House was abandoning those persons who gave true and faithful evidence in obedience to their Lordships' orders. There could, he believed, be hardly a dissentient voice to the proposition that it was their duty to protect those persons. By the vote the House had just come to, they had not abandoned one jot or tittle of the privileges of the House; but what they had done was to abstain, on the recommendation of his noble and learned Friend, from taking a hasty course the moment a petition had been presented. They had been recommended to take some short time to examine into precedents of the course adopted on former occasions, in order to assist them in arriving at a decision upon the course to be taken in the present instance. He conceived that neither their Lordships' privileges nor the cause of those persons who had given evidence before them, were compromised, if, upon conflicting opinions being expressed by the highest authorities upon such a question, their Lordships took twenty-four hours to consider the wisest course to pursue.
The Earl of Ellenboroughcould not but feel apprehension if, after the Report of the Select Committee, the House should adopt the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord opposite, that a most serious effect would be produced upon evidence given in future before Committees of their Lordships' House. It was essential that evidence given before those Committees should be given without the apprehension of punishment—it was essential that it should be given without fear. If witnesses—even although they should ultimately receive indemnity—were to give evidence under the apprehension, so embarrassing and distressing to nervous minds, that they might be forced into a

303
court of justice as a result of their testimony, they would flinch from telling the truth, and their Lordships would find themselves unable to exercise one of the most important of their functions, that of extracting truth from witnesses before Committees.
Lord Broughamagreed, that nothing was more important than that evidence should be given without apprehension; but he feared their Lordships could not carry out the principle contended for by his noble Friend opposite. Suppose in this case the petitioner had given false evidence before the Committee against Mr. Harlow, the latter had only to prefer his bill of indictment before the grand jury, and, upon the bill being found, the witness would then be put upon his trial for his evidence.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, that the House having rejected the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, the question before them was the original Motion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. The petitioner had stated a most distinct breach of privilege; and that having been brought under the attention of the House, they had postponed the consideration of the case to search for precedents. What were the Committee to inquire into? Into the question what their privileges were? Or into the mode of asserting them? He apprehended that both those points were perfectly clear and plain, and could not be elucidated by the labours of any Committee.
Lord Campbellbelieved, that the House would hereafter regret that his Amendment had been lost. They must now, he supposed, adopt the Motion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; but he hoped that the Committee would enter to-night upon the consideration of the question, and make their Report to-morrow, by which course only twenty-four hours would be lost.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that so far as he was concerned, no delay should take place; but his noble and learned Friend seemed to consider that the inquiry of the Committee was much more limited than it really was. They had to inquire into the whole cause of proceeding from beginning to end; and when their Lordships considered the result of the course which had been pursued in the other House of Parliament, he would suggest a little caution, in order that they
304
might weigh the consequences of every step.
The Earl of Ellenboroughapprehended, that the duty of the Select Committee would only be to examine into and report to the House what had been done on former occasions.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, it had been suggested by some noble Lord, whether the words spoken by the petitioner might not have been in conversation with the Committee, and not as strict evidence upon oath. He (the Duke of Richmond) was chairman of that Committee, and could inform the House that the witness stood in the witness box, and answered upon oath the questions put to him, and which he was bound to answer. In an examination of the kind that took place before the Committee upon Gaming, it was necessary to put the most searching questions. With all the blackguards the Committee had to deal with, it was most difficult to get any evidence at all, except from the police, The petitioner had given his evidence in a very proper way; and it was to be hoped the House would protect him. If the minutes of evidence had not been printed, the House must have trusted to the Committee's Report. But in these cases the House sent their evidence to the other House, and they choose to sell it. No men would give evidence if they could help it, when they found they might be subject to inconvenience and pecuniary loss by so doing.
Motion agreed to, and Committee nominated.

FORGERY OF NAMES IN RAILWAY DEEDS.
The Duke of Richmondcalled the attention of the House to two petitions of James Pym; and which had been placed upon the Table, making a direct charge against certain directors of a railway company, or rather stating, that in their deed of contract, there were ten or fifteen cases of forgery. So serious an allegation should not be made without an inquiry being instituted; and he would suggest that a Select Committee be appointed to which these petitions should be referred. He was aware that some difficulty might be experienced in obtaining a full attendance of Peers, on account of so many being engaged upon Railway Committees; but it would not be satisfactory to the public to allow such allegations to pass unnoticed.
The Marquess of Clanricardewished to know if the noble Duke proposed to refer the Bill, to which petitions related, to the proposed Select Committee.
The Duke of Richmond: Only the petition; but I think the Bill ought not to pass until the Report of the Committee has been received.
The Marquess of Clanricardeobjected to the progress of the Bill being delayed.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he knew nothing of the case but this—the petitioners stated that they had never signed or authorized any one to sign their names for them, whereas people had sworn that they had seen the parties sign.
The Marquess of Clanricardeapprehended that it was a case of perjury, punishable in the ordinary way before a court of law; but he did not see why the Bill should be delayed on account of this allegation, because, supposing all these names erased, there would still remain a sufficiency of surplus to carry on the work.
Lord Brougham: The House might in pœnam of such proceedings delay the Bill.
After a short conversation,
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he did not desire to delay the Bill long, but only until an inquiry had taken place. He must inform the noble Marquess that the amount of 100,000 l. had been struck off the subscription for noncompliance with the Standing Orders, and then would remain the question, whether enough surplus still remained to carry on the works. It would be absurd to pass the Bill through all its stages until that fact was ascertained.
The Earl of Devonsaid, he was tempted to move the adoption of an intermediate course, as an Amendment on the Motion of his noble Friend. Why should not the petitions be referred specially to the Committee of the Bill, with power to inquire into the allegations contained in those petitions; and also whether, if the fact were proved, it ought to delay the further progress of the Bill.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, his noble Friend could not take that course; for by the Standing Orders of the House, the Committee could not entertain the inquiries proposed, and his noble Friend must, therefore, give a day's notice of moving the suspension of the Standing Order.
After a few words from the Marquess of Clanricarde and the Earl of Charleville,
Lord Monteaglesaid, such a case as an allegation of the forgery of fifteen names should not be suffered to pass without strict inquiry. Only last night a statement had been made regarding a Member of the other House, who had been rendered liable to the amount of 30,000 l. by the insertion of his name in an Act of Parliament without his authority. No inconvenience could result from postponing the measure; and although he should regret this particular Bill being lost, he would rather that should happen than these allegations pass without inquiry.
Committee nominated.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL.
Lord Broughammoved, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Documentary Evidence Bill. The noble and learned Lord explained the state of the existing law respecting documentary evidence, and the defects which the Bill was intended to remedy. Railway Bills had introduced sundry anomalies in this branch of the law; and whilst providing for the admission of documentary evidence, omitted to attach penalties in cases of fraud. The Great Western Railway Company had obtained the insertion of a clause stating that—
"Whereas, the books of the Company were by law evidence against them, it was very expedient that they should be also evidence for them."
It therefore enacted, that, with respect to all questions of rate, the entries in the books of the Company should be evidence for the Company of all matters contained in them. The Bill corrected all these anomalies, and made it forgery to counterfeit certificates of documents. There was likewise a clause to enable the Journals of either House of Parliament to be given in evidence. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be committed, in order that when the Report should be brought up, he might propose his Amendments, and have the Bill reprinted, and afterwards recommitted.
The Lord Chancellorhighly approved of the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend with respect to constituting the printed Journals of their Lordships House legal evidence in a court of justice, and agreed entirely in the proposal to introduce a clause to that effect into the Bill.
Lord Campbellhighly approved of the Bill. It would simplify the proceedings save expense, and prevent anomalies
House in Committee. Bill reported without Amendment. Amendments made.

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Marquess of Breadalbanepresented petitions from the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, the Inhabitants of Wick, and of the Free Church congregation at Peebles, complaining of the conduct of certain landowners in Scotland, who peremptorily refuse to grant sites for the erection of churches for the use of congregations of the Free Church of Scotland; also a petition from the Presbytery of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in connexion with the Presbyterian Church in England, praying that "the law of property may be so far modified as to admit of the purchase of sites for churches and chapels for the use of members of the Free Church." The noble Marquess stated, that great dissatisfaction had been caused by the refusal of landed proprietors to grant sites among the community of the Free Church. That community embraced 800 congregations, with 620 ministers. The amount subscribed for the use of the Free Church since the disruption, was 776,000 l., of which 320,000 l. had been applied in the erection of churches. He hoped that the prayer of the petitioners, which was confined to obtaining the accommodation indispensable for the free exercise of their worship, would be acceded to; and that their Lordships' would pronounce by an authoritative declaration that men who were good citizens and obedient to the laws, although dissenting from the Established Church, should not be precluded from that free exercise of their religion which was guaranteed to the professors of all forms of Christianity by the great principle of toleration inseparable from the British Constitution. If large proprietors were to exercise their rights of property in direct contradiction to that principle, we might say that we had a theory of religious liberty, but that our practice would be totally at variance with it.
The Earl of Cawdordenied, that in the Conduct which he had observed with regard to the adherents of the Free Church, he had been actuated by the harsh and oppressive motives attributed to him by the Rev. Mr. Begg and others, or that he had wished to exercise an extreme right in order to obstruct the enjoyment of religious liberty. He had, in the first instance, objected to the erection by them of a permanent place of worship, because
308
he had some reason then for believing that the delusion would be but temporary, and that the people would return to the Establishment; but he had given consent for the erection of a temporary building, on the condition that it should be removable at six months' notice, which he thought a perfectly reasonable one. He was only anxious to promote the permanent interest of the country. The question between his tenantry and him, was not one of principle but of time, and he trusted that in the end all differences would be amicably adjusted.
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, he should not have troubled their Lordships with any observations, had it not been that his name was mentioned in the petition as one of those who objected to and took means to prevent the building of a Free Church; and he also wished to take notice of the extraordinary zeal and diligence with which some people laboured to put forward the seceding party, as if they were the great body of the Church of Scotland. For his own part, he thought, instead of any complaints being made against him, that he, on the contrary, had great right to complain of the treatment that he had received, and of the conduct of many persons connected with the seceding body, in the part of the country with which he was more immediately connected. In those districts, every species of agitation was resorted to, and no pains spared to excite the worst passions of the people. The agitators talked of toleration—it would be well if they only practised a little of that toleration themselves which they so loudly demanded from others. They had described him as a godless tyrant, who would trample down their rights; and this description of him had been given to one of the congregations during that most solemn period of divine service, the administration of the sacrament, and that language was applied to him by the person officiating. Though the worst feeling was thus exhibited against him, he hoped that he had preserved his own mind free from the influence of any angry sentiments. As he had so far occupied their Lordships' attention, he should just add, that having heard it was intended to perform divine service and administer the sacrament in one of the parishes with which he was connected, literally on the roadside, he wrote in order to have arrangements made for preventing this; it

309
did, however, take place within a field at no considerable distance. But it was not alone the congregation of one parish which met there; it was a vast concourse of people assembled from all the adjacent parishes. What he said at that time was, that he saw no reason why the parties, whose case was now under consideration, could not do as other Dissenters did—why, for example, they might not go to the next town. Then he had been accused of dismissing servants of his for joining the Free Church. So far from that being the fact, he had not interfered with overseers of his who had exercised their influence with the labourers in his employment to induce them to join the Free Church. He had not been actuated by any illwill towards the Free Church of Scotland; and he might state that he had in his employment persons who had become members of that Church, and in whom he placed the most entire confidence. A great number of his tenants in different parts of the country had also become members of the Free Church, but with them he had had no difference. He believed that not one quarter of the discontent to which the noble Marquess had referred would have been manifested but for the itinerant agitators who had gone about the country, and who, instead of inculcating charitable feelings, had excited feelings of hostility against the Established Church and the landed proprietors. They had, in effect, used the language of a rev. gentleman who had taken a prominent part in that movement, that "the Establishment was a great moral nuisance, which ought to be swept from the face of the earth."
Lord Campbellsaid, he did not wish to throw any blame upon the noble Duke (Buccleuch), or the noble Earl (Cawdor), but he was anxious to state generally his sentiments upon a subject so interesting to his native country. He considered the noble Earl (Cawdor) was fully justified in doing everything in his power to prevent the disruption of the Church of Scotland; for in his (Lord Campbell's) opinion the disruption of that Church would be a tremendous national calamity. He thought that the Church of Scotland, for which he entertained the highest respect and reverence, had, for many generations conferred the greatest benefits upon that country. But he must say, that any great proprietor in a county or parish, who would endeavour to persecute those who
310
had left the Established Church, by refusing them the means of erecting places of worship, abused the rights of property, and placed those rights in great jeopardy. Though he did not agree in the principles upon which the recent secession had taken place, it was impossible not to admire and respect the motives by which the seceding members of the Church had been actuated—they had acted in a most noble and disinterested manner, and had sacrificed all prospects of worldly advantage for conscience' sake. It could not be said that the Free Church did not inculcate sound doctrine and pure morality; but he regretted, with the noble Earl opposite the intolerance manifested by some of its members. He thought, that while not a few of them would resist persecution themselves, they would not be slow to persecute others; but he considered that the conduct of great landed proprietors, who, after the disruption had taken place, endeavoured to embarrass and harass the members of the Free Church, by preventing them from purchasing sites in localities where a place of worship was needed, was greatly to be deprecated. He believed there was no proprietor in Ireland, who, however strong his Protestantism might be, and however he might disapprove of the Popish religion, would not allow a site for the erection of a Roman Catholic Chapel. The law, as it now stood, was certainly in favour of those who refused such grants The petition presented by his noble Friend prayed that the law might be altered, and he considered that if these refusals were persisted in, some alteration would be necessary. In the case of the railroads their Lordships had interfered with the rights of private property in a manner which called forth the nightly vituperation of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who had left the House. Having done this, he did not see why, if it became indispensably necessary, it would be any violation of the just rights of property, if, under certain restrictions, they should provide, that on reasonable compensation being given to a proprietor, sites should be granted for the erection of places of worship in connexion with the Free Church. This might be done by appeal to the Court of Session, or some other tribunal. He hoped, however, that such a step would not be necessary, and that if a reconciliation between the Established Church and the Free Church

311
was hopeless, both parties would remember that they were Christians.
The Marquess of Breadalbanereplied. He thought the charge of intolerance imputed to the Free Church somewhat misapplied. He believed they were ready to act on the principle of giving toleration to all religious persuasions — amongst others, to the Roman Catholic. This was the description given of one of these meetings by the clergyman who officiated:—
"I too, Sir, have been at Canobie; and never shall I forget the scene that was there presented to my sight. I went to Canobie amid snow and storm, and had formed the resolution within myself not to speak to them of the privations and sufferings they were undergoing. I was glad, Sir, that I had formed this resolution, for I could not have trusted myself to speak to them of the wrongs they were called to endure. When I went from Langholm on Sabbath morning to the place where I was to preach, the roads were covered with the melting snow, the wind was biting cold, the Esk was roaring in full flood, and a more bleak and wintry prospect it is impossible to conceive. On turning a point in the road, I suddenly came upon 500 people collected together to hear the Gospel; and so sudden, impressive, and desolate was the whole scene, that when it broke upon our view, the man who drove me to the spot looked in my face, and burst into tears. I never saw such a scene before; God grant that I may never see such a scene again! Had the Duke of Buccleuch been there, he could not have withheld his tears at the sight. The hardest heart must have melted to see so many, young and old, assembled on that open road for the worship of the God of their fathers. A tent was erected for me under the leafless branches of a tree, which, in truth, afforded little protection to me or to them: but, Sir, I found I could not preach in that tent, It may seem to some an unaccountable kind of feeling in me; but you can understand it. I felt as if I could not preach in that tent while those poor people stood shivering round me. I have been much struck to find that, in very similar circumstances, when preaching on a bleak moor, Richard Cameron, in his wanderings, was accommodated with a tent; but he felt that, while the people stood unprotected around him, he could not preach in it. It was with the same feeling that, upon this occasion, I could not preach to those people from the tent. I left it and took up my place upon the ground. Before I was half through with the sermon, lashing torrents of rain came down upon me, and soon I was almost as wet as if I had been dragged through the river that rolled by us in winter floods. On the conclusion of the service—while the rain fell heavy—I said to some gentlemen who were present, that it would be cruelty to
312
ask these people to come back again; but with one voice, they protested against my resolution, and said, with an earnestness which bespoke the earnestness of their hearts, that if I would remain to preach, they would come back, and remain to hear me if it were till midnight."
Were not such things enough to excite the feelings of the people? As toleration was, in theory, a part of the Constitution, it ought to be observed in every part of the country.
Petitions read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW ZEALAND.
The Earl of Chichesterpresented a petition from the Church Missionary Society of Africa and the East, respecting the rights of the natives to the full enjoyment of their lands, and praying that the same may be effectually secured to them. It stated, that there were 35,000 attendants at religious worship, 15,000 scholars, and 300 native teachers. The petitioners stated, that from the period of the cession of the land by the native princes, they did everything to promote harmony between the aborigines and the colonists: that they were deeply impressed with the necessity of having the land question speedily and finally settled. That the Queen, by the Treaty of Waitangi, guaranteed full and undisputed possession of their lands to the natives, and that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, affecting the rights of the native princes, was contrary to the principles of justice, and to the express declaration of the Treaty of Waitangi. Their Lordships could understand the alarm felt by the Society, whose petition he had read, as well as the alarm of all those who took an interest in their happiness and welfare. The missionaries of the Society were alarmed at a course of policy being suggested, the pursuance of which would set aside the Treaty of Waitangi, which provided, that natives should not have lands taken away from them by virtue of the sovereignty over the island, ceded by them to the British Crown. Nothing, he thought, could be more clear, than the actual meaning of the Treaty; and he believed that the New Zealanders were sufficiently enlightened and educated, perfectly to understand the interpretation which common sense would put upon it. To act in any way in contravention to the Treaty,

313
would be to pursue a course at once fraught with disaster to the natives and to the settlers in New Zealand. He wished to take the opportunity of making a statement to the House upon the part of the Church Missionary Society, because, among other charges made by the friends of the Company, was one which accused the missionaries in New Zealand of having acted in an improper manner; of having, in fact, impeded the progress of the Colony, and of having obtained—not by the most reputable means—a very large quantity of land. Now, the land in question was held under certain regulations made by the Missionary Society, which allowed a certain sum of money to the missionaries for every child above fifteen years of age; that money had been invested in the purchase of land, obtained, not for the private advantages of the missionaries, but for the public good. The regulations had been strictly acted upon in these purchases, and he possessed authentic information of the exact quantity of land so obtained. The Society had also purchased a certain portion of the land for the purposes of the mission, but the whole of this property had been placed at the disposal of the Crown. No missionary held more land than he was strictly entitled to hold under the regulations of the Society, and there was no instance of a missionary's claim having been disallowed by the Government Commissioner. In the cases in which a reduction had been made in the quantity of land possessed by missionaries, the reduction had been effected with the perfect consent of the holders. He would remind the House of the favourable testimony borne to the conduct of the missionaries of the Church Society, by all who had had an opportunity of witnessing it. New Zealand had been visited by many travellers—some of them in an official capacity; it had been recently visited by two bishops, and the conduct of the missionaries had also been watched by witnesses not likely to be partial to them—he meant the emissaries of a neighbouring, not a rival institution—the Wesleyan mission—the missionaries of the Church Society had been watched, and their conduct had been commented upon by all those witnesses to it, and he had never heard it asserted that they had been led away from their ministerial duties by any occupation connected with the possession of land. On the contrary, every report
314
which he had seen on the state of New Zealand was most creditable to the missionaries, and proved them to be most worthy and disinterested men. One of the great objects he had in making these remarks was, if possible, to draw from Government some assurance that the alarm felt by the petitioners, from the cause to which he had alluded, was unfounded. He believed that the maintenance of that interpretation hitherto put upon the Treaty of Waitangi was of the greatest importance to our own reputation for good faith, and to the cause of the civilization and progress of New Zealand. So long as the missionaries had been unmolested by voluntary settlers, nothing could have been more satisfactory than the way in which the natives had conducted themselves, and nothing more rapid than the progress they had made in Christian knowledge. He hoped that the Government would feel the great importance of promoting that object, and would recollect that it could only be attained by maintaining the strictest good faith towards the natives themselves—by showing that we were alive to their bet interests, and that we had taken New Zealand under our protection, as much with a view to their benefit as our own.
Lord Stanley: Your Lordships will feel that it would be very inconvenient were I at all to enter at this time upon the general question connected with New Zealand. I have no intention of troubling you with a single word upon that subject; but the noble Earl has indicated a desire to hear the views of Her Majesty's Government as to that Treaty by which the sovereignty of New Zealand was ceded to the British Crown. I have no hesitation in giving the noble Earl the assurance which he seems to desire. At the same time, however, I should have thought—whatever may have been the suspicions—whatever may have been the blame cast upon the Government in the matter—that the course which they have pursued would have prevented its being imagined for a moment that they entertained an idea of avoiding, or in any way violating a Treaty by which they consider themselves to be bound. Almost the whole of the difficulty with which the Government has had to contend in New Zealand, has arisen out of the apparently conflicting engagements entered into towards the New Zealand Company on the one hand, and, under

315
the Treaty of Waitangi, towards the natives on the other. Had we felt ourselves at liberty to depart from the strictest fulfilment of the terms of that Treaty, we should have met but little difficulty; and in proof of the fact, our embarrassments have arisen mainly from our feeling that, however desirable and important it is to promote the colonization of New Zealand, yet that object would be very dearly purchased were it to be obtained by the slightest reflection on the good faith of this country, or by any liability to the imputation that we wished to shrink from an engagement we entered into with the natives—an engagement which I think the natives perfectly understand, the full importance of which I think they are as deeply impressed with as we can be—and an engagement which we have always felt that the Government of this country were bound to adhere to in its fullest integrity. I assure your Lordships that we have strictly, in every instruction we have issued (and the Papers upon the Table prove the fact), insisted on the strict fulfilment of the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Waitangi. Our instructions upon that point have been uniform. They were given to Captain Fitzroy, and whatever instructions may have been since despatched to his successor, they have in this respect remained unaltered. We have told him—our declarations to the effect have been reiterated—that while he should seek in every possible mode to promote the amicable settlement of the affairs of the New Zealand Company, that he should always consider it to be the paramount duty devolved upon him, specially, and scrupulously, and religiously to fulfil our solemn engagements with the natives of New Zealand.
Lord Monteaglethought that it would be very satisfactory were the noble Lord to state more definitely what was the precise construction put by the Government upon the Treaty in question. He would wish to know whether he carried the principle so far as to assume that there was to remain to a semi-barbarous population such a right over the whole of the immense territory of New Zealand as would preclude the possibility of our exercising a right of government, except by the permission of the natives themselves. With respect to the general subject, he was far from adopting all the views of the New Zealand Committee. He knew the difficulties which the
316
Colonial Office had to contend with in the cases of Colonies founded by unauthorized settlers. Most of the difficulties of New Zealand had arisen from that cause, and from the character of many of the original settlers in New Zealand, comprehending, as they did, some of the worst portion of the population of Australia and of this country. He repeated that he did not by any means fully adopt the Report of the New Zealand Committee; but still the opinion of that body was entitled to very considerable weight, when it was recollected that it had been appointed with the approval and concurrence of the Colonial Office. He did not want to go beyond the fact that the Report of the Committee had been generally adverse to the system pursued by the Colonial Office in the administration of New Zealand; and the members of the Committee so far had been amply supported by events which had occurred in the Colony itself. But he entirely protested against the doctrine that the finding fault, even by inference, with the management of New Zealand, was to suggest that there had been any bad faith or double dealing on the part of the Colonial Office. Any such charge was as much unsupported by proof as it was contradicted by the character of the noble Lord at the head of that branch of the public service. Still, however, a more melancholy instance of mismanagement than that displayed in the local government of New Zealand, never was exhibited in the colonial administration of any country; and he was convinced that until there should be a clear and distinct exposition, upon the part of Government, of the exact construction which it would be prepared to put upon the Treaty of Waitangi, that the state of confusion which now existed in New Zealand would continue. He wished to guard himself from being supposed to acquiesce in all the statements of the petitioners; but he did believe that had the missionaries been left unmolested by the vicious population which had settled around them, the results of their labours would have been such as had been anticipated by his noble Friend who had presented their petition. But from the evil influence exerted upon New Zealand by its first settlers, a train of calamities arose. Insults had been offered to the British name, crimes had been committed, wars waged to an extent unequalled in the

317
history of our colonial administration. He repeated that the Colonial Office was not to be blamed for this. He had been for a short time in that Office himself; and he could not forget not only the difficulties but the perfect impossibility which, as it seemed to him, existed in many of the duties of that Office, as at present constituted, being satisfactorily performed. In 1834 a change had taken place in the Colonial Office, which it would have been well to have adhered to. Our Colonies had increased in numbers and in importance, to such an extent, that his noble Friend, with all his energy and ability—or, indeed, that two equal to his noble Friend, would be incapable of carrying on the manifold duties of the Colonial Secretary in such a manner as to be generally satisfactory and generally successful, and as it had been comparatively easy to manage them fifty years ago. He expressed his regret that the improvements introduced into the constitution of the Colonial Office, in 1834, had not been adhered to.
The Earl of Chichesternever considered that the Government could be fairly charged with any breach of faith in their administration of the affairs of New Zealand, The Church Missionary Society, however, had reasonable grounds for the fears expressed in their petition. He was satisfied with the distinct intimation of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, and he was sure that that intimation would be equally satisfactory to the petitioners.
Lord Stanley: I beg to say one word. I should have wished that my noble Friend had either abstained from touching on the topics to which he has alluded, or that he had brought forward the subject in a more distinct form, and at a period of the evening, and in a state of the House, when I could have entered into a full explanation of the different points alluded to. Under present circumstances, then, I will abstain from doing anything but answering the demand made upon me by my noble Friend as to the construction which Government is prepared to place upon the Treaty of Waitangi, The whole question of that Treaty I will not argue now. If my noble Friend will give me an opportunity of arguing it, I will undertake to prove to demonstration, that not only by the present, but by all former Governments—that not only by the noble Lord who preceded me, but by the noble Mar-
318
quess who preceded him—that not only by the present but by former Parliaments, has the same construction been placed upon the Treaty of Waitangi—that construction which never was disputed by any authority, by any party, until the year 1842. I am prepared also to show, and whenever I am called on I shall show, in this House, that whatever may be the apparent discrepency between the conditions of arrangement entered into by Lord John Russell with the New Zealand Company, and those concluded under the Treaty of Waitangi, that discrepancy is not real, but apparent, and that it arose from Lord John Russell acting on the misrepresentation of facts made to him by the New Zealand Company. He conceded to that Company, on the past of the Crown, a certain number of acres, providing that that number of acres should be taken within a certain district—the foundation of the whole arrangement being the assertion and declaration of the New Zealand Company, that they had purchased the whole of that district, comprising a space of about twenty millions of acres, from the natives themselves. In that way, and in that way alone, can the arrangements of the noble Lord be consistent. In that way they are consistent, and in that way the declaration and agreement made by Lord John Russell, confirming, instead of contradicting, the Treaty of Waitangi—namely, that on the part of the Crown, he confirmed the claim of the Company to a certain tract of land, on the assumption that they had bought it from the natives. In that way I contend the arrangements of the noble Lord are perfectly consistent. His assumption, proved by his agreement, leads to the inference, that, in his opinion, the natives had a right to sell to the Company that tract of land which they did not inhabit; and I can show by repeated Acts of Parliament that that right to sell on the part of the natives, not the land which they occupied and enjoyed, but the waste land which they did not occupy or enjoy, was uniformly recognised during the period from 1836 to 1842. I am not prepared to say that there may not be some districts wholly waste and uncultivated—there are such in the northern island—but they are few in number; but I know that a large portion of the district in question is distributed among various tribes, all of whom have as perfect a knowledge of the boun-

319
daries and limits of their possessions—boundaries and limits in some places natural, in others artificial—as satisfactory and well defined, as were, one hundred years ago, the bounds and marshes of districts occupied by great proprietors and their clans in the Highlands of Scotland. With respect to the greater portions of New Zealand, I assert that the limits and rights of tribes are known and decided upon by native law. I am not prepared to say what number of acres in New Zealand are so possessed; but that portion which is not so claimed and possesed by any tribe, is, by the act of sovereignty, vested in the Crown. But that is a question on which native law and custom have to be consulted. That law and that custom are well understood among the natives of the islands. By them we have agreed to be bound, and by them we must abide. These laws — these customs — and the right arising from them on the part of the Crown—we have guaranteed when we accepted the sovereignty of the islands; and be the amount at stake smaller or larger; so far as native title is proved—be the land waste or occupied—barren or enjoyed, those rights and titles the Crown of England is bound in honour to maintain; and the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, with regard to these rights, is, that, except in the case of the intelligent consent of the natives, the Crown has no right to take possession of land, and having no right to take possession of land itself, it has no right—and so long as I am a Minister of the Crown, I shall not advise it to exercise the power—of making over to another party that which it does not itself possess.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

FOREIGN LOTTERIES BILL.
Lord Stanleymoved that this Bill be now read 2a.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that nothing had been farther from the intention of the Government of which he had been a Member, than to encourage lotteries for the advantage of speculators at home or abroad; in fact, a Bill had been framed with the contrary effect; but he did not approve of that part of the Bill which deprived the informer of all inducement to follow up a prosecution where the law had been violated; he feared that, if the pecuniary motive were withdrawn, very few
320
prosecutions would be instituted especially by informers.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that the object of Government had of late been to get rid, as far as possible, of prosecutions by common informers for penalties, since nothing could be worse than a system under which they were encouraged. Prosecutions by the law officers of the Crown had, in many instances, been substituted, and an alteration might, he thought, be introduced into this Bill in Committee without endangering it.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.