Lords Sitting of 24 July 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Gauge of Railways.
3a. and passed. Coal Whippers (Port of London).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Cirencester, for the Adoption of a Measure making the Landlords of Tenements where the Rents are under £6 liable to the Poor Rates.—By Lord Campbell, from Blackburn, and several other places, in favour of the Small Debts Bill.—From Public Carriers, praying that the Recommendation of Her Majesty's Commissioners for Establishing a National Uniformity of Gauge may be carried into effect.—From Guardians of the Bradford Union, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.

THE ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR AND MANCHESTER DIOCESES BILL.
The EARL of POWISmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Motion that the Bill do pass.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he had stated to the House upon a former occasion, with respect to this Bill, that his own impression was, that the tenor of the Bill being entirely permissive, it did not appear necessary that the consent of the Crown should be asked. If the Crown thought fit, it was at liberty to do so and so. Upon this ground he thought that the Crown would not be in the same position as it would have been under the other Bill. He had, however, requested his noble Friend to delay the last stage, and he had thought it the most wise and prudent course to obtain the consent of Her Majesty; and he was authorized on the part of the Crown not to oppose any obstacle to the further progress of the Bill.
Bill passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE CITY OF LONDON.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from a most respectable person in the city of London, complaining of a practice repugnant to the pure administration of justice; he meant that of magistrates entertaining questions before them which they had by law no more right to entertain, than they had to enter into any of their Lordships' houses and seize upon their property. This was formerly a practice existing not only in the city of London, but in the city and liberties of Westminster and the borough of Southwark. While he had held possession of the Great Seal, he took the opportunity, seeing the evil, to call the attention of his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) then Secretary of State for the Home Department, to these practices; and he had, as the matter was manifestly in the department of his noble Friend, asked him seriously to represent to the magistrates of the city of Westminster—he having no power over the magistrates of London, who were corporate magistrates merely — the great grievance and inconvenience to which this practice led. The evil which invariably resulted from the entertaining of complaints, or of requests for advice by a magistrate, might not at first be apparent; but it was always to be remembered, that when a man came before a magistrate, he not only told a story for himself, but he told a story against another man, and so far injured that man. And this story was not only heard by the magistrate—that would not much matter—but it was heard by others—by the public in the court, and by those who reported for the newspapers, and who, for aught he knew, reported very correctly; so that when a man spoke against his neighbour, that neighbour being absent and unable to reply, the slander, if it were a slander, went all over the country. He would give an instance of this—and indeed he might find thousands, for it had become a regular and ordinary proceeding to come before a magistrate, as it was called, "to complain and to take advice." A noble Lord, now dead, a very dear friend of his, and who had held a high judicial station, had made an unfortunate marriage; and, on his death, his widow was left in great pecuniary difficulties. With very great benevolence and generosity, the Prince Regent issued a certain sum of money to two noble Friends of his (Lord Brougham's) to be paid to this lady at the rate of 40 s. a week; for,
1402
such were her habits, and so improper were her associations, that it was impossible to give her the whole sum at once; and the condition of trust was, that only 40 s. a week should be paid. But this did not satisfy the lady; and when she wanted more money, she went before a city magistrate for advice, and to him she told her story. It was bruited over the three kingdoms, and the tale went as she had told it, that these two noble Lords wrongfully held possession of the funds granted out of the public purse—though in reality by the private munificence of the late King George IV.; that they withheld the money from her, and that they applied it to their own particular purposes. And—would it be believed?—the then Lord Mayor, instead of saying, as he ought to have said, "Go about your business," heard the whole story out, and then said, "The woman tells a consistent story. Is it to be endured that these two noble Lords, wallowing in wealth, shall take this miserable pittance of the bounty of the nation from this helpless widow, and apply it to their own uses?" And, of course, with the story went the authority—valeat quantum—and that was not much, of this Lord Mayor, charging these noble Lords with embezzlement. This might be an extreme case; but many believed it, and did believe it to this day, and the story was put in one of the black lists against the House of Lords. In another case a charge was brought before the Lord Mayor against a noble Duke for unjustly keeping a poor man out of a farm in the county of Northumberland, worth 150 l. a year; and the Lord Mayor told the person, "Go to his grace, and let him know my opinion upon Iris conduct." Instances of a similar kind formerly occurred in the city of Westminster, and in the borough of Southwark, as well as in the city of London; but his noble Friend effectually put a stop to the evil, by notifying to the magistrates there that they would be struck out of the commission of the peace if they were again guilty of such conduct. Since 1831, they had heard no more of such cases in Westminster; but in the city of London they continued to this day; and in the petition he now presented there was an instance well deserving of attention. The petitioner, on the 9th of March last, was Drought before the Lord Mayor and another Alderman for misdemeanour, a trespass; and after investigating the charge, they thought fit, without any legal authority whatever, to adjudge a fine of 20 l., or

1403
if that were not paid or could not be paid, imprisonment and hard labour for two months. Now, that was utterly and absolutely illegal; it would have been just as legal had they ordered him to be hanged. This man had no friends in London; but a relation in Scotland went before one of the Judges of the superior courts of Westminster, who being made aware of the petitioner's case, directed him to be set at liberty forthwith. But then the petitioner had been illegally fined, he had been illegally imprisoned, and he had no redress, no compensation, unless he were to bring an action; and in that there would be a difficulty, inasmuch as it would be said, that though this magistrate had no right to inflict that amount of punishment, he yet had a jurisdiction over misdemeanour. He (Lord Brougham) sincerely and heartily hoped that a very long time would not elapse before they saw a thorough reform in the police, and of all that was connected with police, in the city of London, and that it would be put on a footing with Westminster and other places. He considered that the administration of police in the city of London was exceedingly hurtful, and tended much to impede the due administration of justice.

THE INDIAN VICTORIES.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted their Lordships that he had received two letters addressed to the Lord Chancellor from Viscount Hardinge, the one dated the 10th of May, and the other the 25th of May.
"Simla, 10th May, 1846.
"My Lord—I have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of the 9th March, conveying to me the Resolutions of the House of Lords, which I have communicated to the Commander in Chief, General Sir Hugh Gough, G.C.B., and to the several General Officers referred to therein.
"The Expression of the Approbation of the House of Lords is an Honour highly valued by the General Officers, Officers, and Soldiers, European and Native, of the Indian Army employed in the late Operations against the Sikh Nation.—With the utmost Esteem and Respect, I have the Honour to be, my Lord, your obedient Servant,
"H. HARDINGE.
"The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."
"Simla, 25th May, 1846.
"My Lord—I have had the Honour to convey to the Commander in Chief Lord Gough, G.C.B., to Major General Sir Harry Smith, Bart., G.C.B., to the General Officers, Officers, and Troops of the Army of the Sutlej, the Thanks of the House of Lords, which have been unanimously voted to them for the Victories of Aliwall and Sobraon.
"During the same Session of Parliament this
1404
is the Second Occasion on which it has been my good Fortune to convey to the Army of the Sutlej the Thanks of the House of Lords.
"This Honour, so promptly and so unanimously voted, is a Reward highly valued by our Country men serving Her Majesty in India, as well as by our Fellow-subjects the Native Troops of the In dian Army, who recognize in the Vote the Proof that their Services are acknowledged and esteem ed by their Sovereign, the House of Lords, and their Fellow-subjects of Great Britain.—I have the Honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's very obedient Servant, "HARDINGE.
"The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."
The same being read, was Ordered to lie on the Table; and to be entered on the Journals.
House adjourned.