Lords Sitting of 24 July 1845

MINUTES.
Sat First—The Lord Churchill, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Stamp Duties; Coal Trade, Port of London; Fees, Criminal Courts; Testamentary Disposition; Militia Pay; Lunatics; Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics.
2a. Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics; Commons' Inclosure; Merchant Seamen; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland); Drainage (Ireland); Unclaimed Stock and Dividends; Spirits (Ireland); Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands).
Reported.—Geological Survey.
3a. and passed:—Art Unions; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance; Militia Ballots Suspension; Colleges (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Duddeston and Nechells Improvement; Darby Court (Westminster); Manchester and Leeds Railway; London and Croydon Railway Enlargement; Grimsby Docks.
2a. Gravesend and Rochester Railway; South Eastern Railway (Greenwich Extension); Rothwell Prison.
Reported.—Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Galway); Severn's Estate; Yoker Road (No. 2); Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road.
3a. and passed:—Cromford Canal.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Magistrates and others, of Ayr, for Adopting certain suggestions relating to the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.—From Trustees of Tewkesbury Severn Bridge and Roads, praying that the Exemption granted to Carriages and Horses conveying the Mails in the General Turnpike Acts may be repealed.—From Tottenham, for the re-insertion of a Clause in the Field Gardens Bill.

GUILDFORD AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY.
The Duke of Richmondpresented
1026
petitions from the promoters of the Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Junction Railway Bill, complaining that they had not been allowed a hearing by the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, now sitting on the Portsmouth Railway projects. There had been three Bills referred to one Committee; and the petitioners complained that they were not allowed by the Committee to be heard against the Atmospheric, or Direct Portsmouth Line. He begged to move that the petition be referred to the Committee for consideration.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, the Committee were anxious to discuss the case in all its bearings, and with the most mature deliberation; but having found a clause in one of the Bills consenting to a junction between the petitioners' line and another line, the Committee felt that they had no alternative but to act as they had done; as otherwise they would be permitting the petitioners to oppose what might be regarded as their own line.
Lord Broughamsaid, he thought the House ought to feel great delicacy in interfering with any of their Committees, while the inquiries which those Committees were delegated to make were still pending. But after the Report of a Committee was presented, it would, of course, be quite open to any noble Lord to bring forward a Motion on the subject of the manner in which that Committee had discharged its duties, and to require that the Report be sent back for reconsideration.
The Earl of Ellenboroughsaid, he had intended to express the precise opinion which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. He did not think any discussion should take place on the subject of the petition, until the Committee had made their Report.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he had only moved that the petition be referred to the Committee. He felt so strongly on the necessity of no party being decided against without a hearing, that he would be under the necessity of moving that the Report be recommitted, should the Committee persevere in not permitting the petitioners to be heard.
Petitions read, and referred to the Select Committee on the Bills, but without leave to be heard.

IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL—PRIVILEGE.
Earl Bathurstbrought forward the Report of the Select Commit-

1027
tee appointed to inquire into the charges brought against the Irish Great Western (Dublin and Galway) Railway Company. The Committee reported that they had met and considered the petitions which had been referred to them, and had heard counsel, and had examined witnesses in support of the allegations in the said petitions; and upon a perusal of the minutes of evidence, and a consideration of the whole case, the Committee were of opinion, that most systematic frauds had been used for the purpose of obtaining the necessary number of signatures to the subscription contract; that no attention appeared to have been paid to a proper distribution of the letters of allotment; that unauthorized names had been inserted in the contract, and false addresses given; and that packets of letters were proved to have been sent down to country postmasters, being applications for shares, with a request that they might be returned to London through the Post Office. It also appeared that a petition was presented to the House of Commons, but it was not prosecuted; a sum of 250 l. being paid down to the petitioners, with a promise of a further sum of 500 l. on the Bill passing the Standing Orders' Committee. Sufficient evidence was also produced to satisfy the Committee, that the subscription contract was not entered into bonâ fide, and the estimated cost of the undertaking was a false one. The Report concluded by stating, that the result of their inquiry had induced the Committee to express their entire concurrence in the Report of another Select Committee of their Lordships' House, that the decision come to by the House of Commons last Session, reducing the amount of deposit money required, had the effect of facilitating the commission of fraud; and that the Committee had, under these circumstances, not thought it necessary to proceed with the consideration of all the allegations contained in the petition of James Pim, jun., or to inquire into the merits of the Bill, without further instructions from the House.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, the Report was a very peculiar one; and he thought it better to give Notice respecting it, that he would move to-morrow (this day) that the Bill should not be further proceeded with.
Report ordered to be considered to-morrow; and Notice of Motion given—
1028
"That the further consideration of the Bill be postponed for three months."
Lord Brougham: I have now to state to your Lordships — having lately brought before you a case in connexion with the privileges of this House—that I have seen a statement, giving an explanation on the part of the newspaper in question, which certainly greatly confirms me in my opinion, that your Lordships ought not to proceed against the editor or printer of that newspaper; and my noble Friend, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wicklow), will forgive me for saying, that there was a misunderstanding with respect to my having ever intimated the propriety of that course. He and I agree on the question of privilege on the whole; and he would also agree with me on the propriety of rather leaving me, as the aggrieved party, to proceed at law by criminal information, if I might so choose. It is quite clear that I might do so, the paper having undoubtedly published a libel: and even if that which the paper stated to have passed in the House of Commons had passed there, that would be no justification whatever for the publication. Therefore, both my noble Friend and myself would have declined calling the parties to the bar of this House, for the purpose of punishing them for a breach of privilege. But I have to add, that it now appears a statement has been made by the same party, in the same paper, and in another paper also, against which it would have been my duty likewise to proceed, if I had proceeded against any paper, namely, the Morning Chronicle, for it has published the same speech, or pretended speech, verbatim, in the same words. I should, therefore, have proceeded against both papers, or against neither. But I have since seen a speech, or statement, in both these papers, purporting to be made by the same individual Member of the other House of Parliament who was represented to have made the unjustifiable speech—a speech which no person endeavours even to extenuate. That Member is made to say, in the same paper—and I have no doubt with his entire concurrence and consent, and I am therefore bound to believe it—that what he said, or rather, I should say, what he is represented to have said, was under an entire misapprehension of the facts; that he was not present in the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, as, of course, he could not be and that he was misled

1029
by the reports which had reached him, and by not knowing that the questions put to the witnesses were the questions suggested by the petitioner. But the question of which he so much complained was a perfectly justifiable question, and it imputed no kind of impropriety to him, but merely referred to his having been canvassed for on some other occasion, for some other situation or appointment. It also appears in this statement, that, in alluding to the suppression of evidence, he did not refer to Mr. Parkes at all, but to some other persons; though that, too, must have been under a total mistake, as no evidence had been suppressed, every word given in evidence having been reported and printed, except what had been stated by Mr. Parkes, and which was not evidence at all. The same individual is stated to say—and I believe correctly to say—that he was exceedingly sorry he had given any pain to any individual, alluding to me; but I am sure the only pain the words gave me, was the pain of being obliged to talk before your Lordships of a subject connected with myself; for never could there be anything so absurd as the charges made. As it would appear that he had been under a total misapprehension of the matter, and exceedingly sorry that any pain should have been given to me, I am quite sure, such being the case, that I may anticipate the decision to which your Lordships are likely to come; and I would, therefore, wish to suggest, whether it would not be better not to discuss farther the question as to whether this be a breach of privilege or not, but rather to proceed no farther with it. My opinion is, that you ought never to proceed with questions of privilege of this nature; but that even such of your Lordships as differ from me as to the length to which I would carry this principle, will, I believe, under the circumstances of the case, and allowing for the great irritation of the party, concur in the course which I now recommend, of not proceeding farther in it, leaving it, of course, still open to me to prosecute the parties by a criminal information if I please—that is, the parties who published this libellous attack; because it is no protection to them to say that the words were spoken in Parliament, even if they had been spoken there, which I do not say was the case. The Member in question is stated to have said, that having seen a statement in a newspaper, of his having made a speech somewhere, he admitted the
1030
correctness of the report, because he had himself taken a note of what he had said—which note he must have taken after the speech was made; because it was added that he had stood up to speak wholly unprepared with what he was to say—and that he had afterwards compared this note with what had been published in the newspapers. He found his own note and the newspaper account fully to tally. No doubt he did. I am quite sure they tallied. Unless there happened to be an error in the press, they were sure to tally. And I will tell also of another tally. The Times and the Morning Chronicle have been compared in this matter; and they, too, have tallied precisely in words. There is, therefore, I think, no doubt of how the speech got into the newspapers. Now, one word more. I must say that I take for granted that this statement, as the newspapers represented it, was not at all the statement made elsewhere. I am bound to conceive that such "privilege" authorities as the House of Commons—holding, as they appear to do, the doctrine of privilege so highly—could never have allowed anything of that kind to have been uttered in their presence, if they had heard it. But still less can I imagine that that House could have allowed hours to have passed away next day, after having read, as of course they must, what had been printed in the newspapers, as having been said in their presence; and, therefore, I cannot, for the life of me, believe for one moment that the newspaper account—pretending to be an account of what passed in the other House last night—is true; that nobody had got up to complain of what was printed as having been spoken in their presence, and which was admitted to be the grossest libel—until rather latish in the day, when the party himself stood up, and made his statement. I take it for granted, the House of Commons, on seeing what had been published, would, for its own protection, and out of common courtesy to your Lordships, have at once taken notice of it. I cannot conceive the House of Commons to have acted otherwise; and I cannot believe that it acted in the way in which it was this morning represented to have acted, One word more, and I close my speech. One of the papers which published the libel, and which is now liable to prosecution for having done so—the Morning Chronicle—is pleased to say this morning, by way, I suppose, of making their conduct appear

1031
better, that though I rendered a great service to the public, with the help of your Lordships—for some little credit is really attributed to your Lordships—in throwing out the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill, which they suppose I have done, yet that I was greatly to be reprobated for the manner in which I did it; for that, being a judge in the case, I had prejudged it, before I acted upon the Committee that reported against it, and threw it out. It is a gross slander—a gross breach of privilege—to make such an assertion. I do not apply against the newspaper for saying so. I leave it in your Lordships' hands to decide whether you will choose to enforce your Lordships' privileges consistently in every case, to use it now and then, by way of relaxation. Now, I was not a Member of the Committee on this Bill; I could not, therefore, have prejudged the Bill. I had nothing whatever to do with it. I never gave an opinion one way or another upon it; and, for all these slanderers knew, I may have been in favour of it. It is not only not true that I got the Bill thrown out; but the Report was not even made, and the Bill is actually not yet thrown out. So much for the slander, that I had prejudged the Bill, and had got it thrown out of your Lordships' House; and so much for the value of contemporary history. I hope I may be allowed to say one word on these railway jobs. Every hour I live convinces me more and more, that Parliament will have a duty imposed upon it next Session to clear and protect itself, and to protect the public against these railway schemes. Members of Parliament ought to know—in this House they do know—but all Members of Parliament ought to know, that if a man is interested, directly or indirectly, in any railway, or in any other Private Bill, he is the last man in Parliament who ought to vote upon it, either in the Committee, or in the House. My Orders, as they are called—or the Orders that I succeeded in inducing your Lordships to adopt in 1837, respecting the Committee of Five—had introduced the greatest practical reform and improvement in this department; and it was one of these Orders which has had the greatest practical use, viz., that no Peer shall have anything to do with any Bill, either in Committee or in the House, with which he has any connexion whatever. I hope the same rule is adopted elsewhere; and I am sure it is only a rule which common
1032
justice would suggest, that men ought not to be judges and parties at the same time.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, now that the question had been most happily set at rest, he felt obliged to make a remark with respect to the construction that had been put upon what had fallen from him on the last evening when the subject had been before the House. His object in suggesting that the editor and printer of the newspaper be called to the bar, was not for so unjust and unconstitutional a proceeding as to call the printer or reporter to the bar, and ask them about the accuracy of the report, with a view to punish them for a breach of privilege, when they had been made to criminate themselves; but his intention was to give his noble Friend an opportunity of changing the whole proceedings from a question of privilege into one for the decision of a court of criminal jurisprudence; and if the question had not been settled in a satisfactory manner that evening, he would have persisted in moving that these parties be called up for the purpose of getting such evidence from them as would have enabled his noble Friend to clear his own character elsewhere. He begged to add, with respect to the responsibility of editors and reporters, that he considered it would be the grossest injustice and the most unprovoked cruelty, if, after allowing these parties to take and publish accurate reports of speeches made in Parliament, they should afterwards hold them amenable for a breach of privilege for doing so. He begged to assure the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), that in requiring the parties connected with the newspaper to be brought up, it was with no intention of requiring them to criminate themselves.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he could not but think it was necessary to come to some new arrangement with regard to railway deposits. There was also a practice of examining witnesses before they were sworn, and swearing them on the following day in the lump to all they had been examined about the day before. He thought this system was very objectionable; but it was nevertheless a course of proceeding which prevailed to a great extent in the Committees of that House.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it was a subject which deserved consideration, and it should be represented in the proper quarter.
The Earl of Devonwas of opinion that

1033
the Committees should have the power of administering the oath.
Lord Campbellsuggested that such an act might also empower the House of Commons to administer an oath, and might abolish the absurd rule which prevented so many Bills from originating in the Upper House.

ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY—THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord Brougham, pursuant to notice, rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to give the necessary directions for having the New House of Parliament ready for the reception of this House at the beginning of the next Session. Nothing could exceed the suffering they endured in the morning sittings, sometimes from the heat, and at other times from the cold. Two or three thousand pounds expended in temporary fittings would enable their Lordships to occupy their new House by next Session.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that there would be great inconvenience in acceding to the Motion of his noble and learned Friend. It was impossible that the ventilation of the new House could be completed by the next Session; added to which workmen would be employed all around them, and the noise from the chipping of stones and other operations would be very great. He doubted, therefore, whether the new House, with the proposed temporary fittings, would be as convenient as the present.
Lord Campbellthought if they waited the convenience of Mr. Barry, he would put off till the Greek kalends the day of their assembling in the new chamber. He had suffered severely in his health from the unwholesomeness of the present house. He would beg to remind their Lordships of what they suffered during the three nights of the Maynooth debate. It was quite unnecessary that they should suffer so much inconvenience, as it appeared, from the evidence given before the Committee, that the House might be easily got ready by next Session.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas sorry that the noble and learned Lords, for whose services they were so greatly indebted, suffered so much inconvenience in consequence of the new House not being completed; but he would beg their Lordships to recollect that the House of Lords was not the only consideration, but it was the
1034
chamber of Parliament, and there must be easy access for Her Majesty, and convenient communication between the existing House of Commons and the new building.
Lord Campbellsaid, Mr. Barry had told him that there would be no difficulty in getting the temporary fittings ready for the accommodation of Her Majesty by the next Session.
Lord Sudeleywas aware of the inconvenience experienced in the morning sittings; but he did not think they would be better off if they were placed in the new building before it was sufficiently finished and warmed. It would be injurious, in his opinion, to press the matter for one year, if in the course of the following year they could get in with comfort for a permanency.
The Earl of Wicklowsupported the Motion. He thought they would not get into the new House for the nest five years unless it was adopted. The objection as to the noise of the workmen was of little moment, as they must leave work in the winter months before their Lordships would commence their sittings, and in the summer they ceased working at six o'clock.
Lord Brougham, in reply, said there was no probability that the law Lords who had occasion to sit in the early part of the day would attend to the masons when they were hearing counsel; the walls of the new House would, in fact, be so thick that they would not hear anything which took place outside. If there was any question about the accommodation for Her Majesty being complete, he had no doubt that illustrious lady would be pleased to open and prorogue Parliament by Commission for one year. He could not understand why the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) objected to the Motion, unless there was something behind which they could not comprehend—unless it was contemplated in some high quarter to make the Houses of Parliament subservient, not only to legislative, but pictorial purposes. Now, ornament was an excellent thing, but business was of greater importance. He should certainly divide the House upon his Motion.
On Question, House divided:—Contents 16; Non-contents 40: Majority 24.
Resolved in the Negative.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS AND PAUPER LUNATICS BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved that this Bill be now read 2a. His Lord-

1035
ship passed rapidly over the clauses of the Bill; and said, that as to the objection that the county would have to pay the expense, the House of Commons represented the ratepayers, and they had passed the Bill; and he was convinced that under this Bill the expenses would be reduced fully one-half. There was an opinion amongst some of their Lordships that the Bill should be referred to a Committee up-stairs; but, if that were done, what hope could there be of the Bill passing this Session? Several counties were waiting for the passing of the Bill, and the delay would be very injurious. He therefore earnestly recommended their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
The Duke of Richmondadmitted that a Bill of the sort was much required, but he objected to the present, because it was a very bad measure. He, therefore, wished to refer it for amendments, in the first instance, to a Select Committee. He did not know why this anxiety for legislation had come upon the Government so suddenly; why did they think that these pauper lunatic asylums were necessary, when they themselves sent all the old lunatic sailors from Greenwich Hospital to Warburton's, at Bethnal-green, where they were well taken care of. He also resisted that part of the Bill which threw the whole expense upon the county-rates, by which they would be greatly augmented. He should have been glad to have seen a portion charged upon the owners, and not entirely upon the occupiers of the soil. To refer it to a Select Committee would rather promote the passing of the measure, when it was fit to become law. After the second reading he should move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative. Bill read 2a.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested that the farther proceeding on the Bill should be deferred, as a message was waiting from the Commons, in order to procure the expunging of a clause which had, accidentally and erroneously, been inserted.
After a remark from Lord Beaumont, on the disadvantage of hasty legislation,
The Message from the Commons was brought up, requesting their Lordships to expunge a clause in press 126, which had been erroneously inserted in the engrossment of the Bill, the same not forming part of the Bill as passed by the Commons.
Messengers informed that the Lords
1036
would send an answer by Messengers of their own.
A short discussion then took place as to the regular course of proceeding, and Lord Cottenham suggested that the Bill ought to be sent back to the Commons, that they might make their own Amendments.
The Lord Chancellorreferred to a case which he said was precisely in point, and occurred in 1836, when the Commons requested the expunging of a proviso wrongly inserted in the engrossment of the Marriages Bill. The proviso was accordingly expunged without sending the Bill back to the Commons, and then the Bill, as amended, went through its various stages. The Marriage Bill was then in the same stage as the Bill now before the House.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that the case of 1836 was then a new precedent, different from the mode of proceeding in any former instance.
The Lord Chancelloradded a reference to a case in 1803, which had been quoted and relied upon by Lord Melbourne in 1836, when what was now proposed by the Commons had been done. The other course would be attended with much inconvenience.
Lord Cottenhamstill recommended that the Bill be sent back to the Commons as the more regular course of proceeding.
Lord Wharncliffemoved—
"That the Proceedings already had in the said Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Bill be vacated, inasmuch as it appears, by the Message of the Commons of this Day, that the Bill as sent up to this House was not the Bill which had been agreed to by the Commons."
The said Motion was agreed to; and ordered accordingly; and the aforesaid clauses were ordered to be expunged; and a Message was sent to the House of Commons, to acquaint them therewith.
Then the Bill was read 1a.

COMMONS' ENCLOSURE BILL.
Lord Stanley, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, shortly stated its objects, and expressed the hope that late as it was in the Session, looking to the full investigation the subject had undergone elsewhere, and to the difficulty of passing a Bill of one hundred and fifty clauses through the other House, amidst the mass of other business, their Lordships would assent to the second reading, and not render it necessary to renew in another Session a measure which had been so fully discussed.
Earl Fitzhardingeexpressed his regret that the Bill should have been introduced so late in the Session. He did not say that the Bill was without value; but there were defects and objections in its details which ought to receive the consideration of the House, and he wished particularly to direct their Lordships' attention to the 151st Clause, giving retrospective powers to the Commissioners to reopen any former award, and alter any allotment, the lapse of time being no bar to their proceedings. A great deal of injustice might result from such a power, and he hoped the subject would receive special attention in Committee. He thought, moreover, that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Stanleyexplained that, although the Commissioners were to be clothed with the power the noble Earl had pointed out, yet, as provided by the 153rd Clause, it could not be exercised without the consent of three-fourths in number or value of the parties interested.
Earl Fitzhardingeinquired if the Bill could not be referred to a Select Committee?
Lord Stanleyfeared that at this late period of the Session he could not consent to the wish of the noble Earl, but he would be happy to confer with the noble Earl privately, when, perhaps, he might be able to remove his objections.
The Bill was then read a second time.
House adjourned.