Lords Sitting of 20 March 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Fever (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (India); Consolidated Fund.
2a. Print works.
Reported. Metropolitan Buildings.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Stanley, from Landowners and others of Kingsbury, and several other places, for Protection of the Agricultural Interest.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Landowners, Tenants, and Labourers, of the Parishes of Camerton and Radstock, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From Charles Green, of Liverpool, complaining of the Inefficiency of a Commissioner appointed to the Court of Requests there, and praying for Relief.—By Lord Brougham, from Landowners and others of the Town of Penrith, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Lord Stanley, from the Bishops and Beneficed Clergy of the Diocese of Kilmore, praying that the Sums paid for the Poor Rate may be deducted from the Gross Value of their Benefices, for the Purpose of computing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Tax.

IRISH POOR LAW—PRIVILEGE.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, that in consequence of what had passed yesterday evening in their Lordships' House, with regard to the examination of a witness before the Committee on the Irish Poor Law, the Committee had again examined him, and had come to the opinion that the date of the document in question was anterior to the sitting of the Committee, and that the citation to Mr. Gulson was to produce it suo motu, and not by order of the Committee. This was the substance of what had passed before the Committee to-day, and he should not go any further into the matter.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory as far as it went, because it showed that there was not a requisition by the Committee, and a refusal to comply with it by the witness. He quite disagreed in what had been said yesterday of the irregularity of the discussion, for the noble Earl had been asked, as Chairman of the Committee, as to a matter which had taken place before them. There was nothing irregular in this, if their Lordships were to have any privileges.
The EARL of CLANCARTYadmitted that he ought not to have used the term "irregular." He did not mean it in the sense given to it by the noble and learned Lord, whom he would be the last person in that House to charge with being irregular.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was justified in yesterday withholding any opinion condemnatory of the Poor Law Commissioners, by what he had since learned. Mr. Gulson wrote to the Poor Law Commissioners
1272
on the 12th of February, asking their permission to make use of certain documents on being examined before their Lordships' Committee, he being then totally ignorant whether those documents would or would not be called for, and desiring to have them, for the purpose of enabling him to make his statement before the Committee fair, clear, and satisfactory. The answer he received did not for a moment suggest that the Commissioners would withhold any information whatever, either oral or written, that their Lordships' Committee or either Houses of Parliament might require; but contained this statement, that they (the Commissioners) did not conceive, without further communication on the subject, that those documents should be voluntarily produced. There had, therefore, been no refusal on the part of the Commissioners to grant the required Papers, and no obstruction to the proceedings of that House. The matter was one certainly which called for the instantaneous interference of the House; but, on seeing that no obstruction had been intended, and no refusal made to any request of their Lordships, he conceived they were bound as rapidly and as decidedly to free the parties from imputation — the Poor Law Commissioners as well as Mr. Gulson.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the best way to decide the question was, by producing the letter of Mr. Gulson and the Commissioners' answer.
The EARL of CLAREsaid, he believed there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners to withhold any Papers or information from their Lordships' Committee.

LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY BILL.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that the petitions of Mr. George Pryme, of Cambridge, and Mr. James Tyler, of 15, Holloway-place, Islington, which he had presented on the previous day, praying to be heard by counsel against this Bill, had been put into his hand on Monday last; but owing to his not having been acquainted with the Standing Orders on this subject, which were entirely novel to him, he overheld those petitions, instead of laying them on the Table of their Lordships' House, three days after which they could have gone regularly before the Standing Orders Committee. The whole blame rested with him; and that being the case, the parties themselves having done

1273
all that it was in their power to do, he hoped their Lordships would allow them to be heard before the Standing Orders Committee, which, if he had laid their petitions on the Table of the House the day, or even the day after, he received it, they would have been entitled to. He therefore begged leave to postpone the Motion of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee to inquire and report upon those two petitions, and to move that they be referred to the Standing Orders Committee on the Bill, and that leave be given to the petitioners to be heard against it.
LORD BEAUMONTthought the course proposed by the noble Marquess was quite irregular. Such petitions should be three clear days on their Lordships' Table before they were sent to the Committee; and he saw no reason for giving an advantage to the petitioners in this case which was refused to others.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the other House of Parliament, where a party had done all that depended on them to do, and that the Member to whom they forwarded their petition, through absence or some other cause, failed to present that petition in due time, had uniformly extended the period not only in courtesy to one of its own Members, but in justice to the case itself. It would undoubtedly be a great hardship on parties who had done all that was necessary, if they were to be damnified by an accidental circumstance, or by neglect on the part of the Member of Parliament in not presenting the petition. If there were neglect on the part of the agents or the parties themselves, the case would be altered; but after the statement of the noble Marquess, he did not think their Lordships could refuse to grant his Motion.
EARL GREYhad no objection to the Motion. He thought those parties ought to be heard, in order that the question which they sought to raise should be settled, viz., whether the contract deed now before Parliament was a good and valid instrument, and whether the Bill had been regularly introduced. He did not think any injury could accrue to the promoters of the Bill from having such questions mooted.
LORD CAMPBELLwas also of opinion, that, as not a shadow of blame could be attributed to the parties themselves, the right course to pursue would be that pointed out by the noble Marquess.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYwas understood
1274
to suggest that if the noble Marquess allowed the question to stand over until Monday, he could then bring it regularly before the House.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEconsented.
House adjourned.