Lords Sitting of 10 July 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bishops of London and Durham Retirement.
2a I abourers' Dwellings Act, 1855, Amendment; Saint Sepulchre's Manor (Dublin); Church Building Commission.
3a Distillation from Rice; Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Scotland).

SALE OF POISONS—QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELL LORD CAMPBELL rose to ask his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack the question of which he had given notice respecting a subject of great importance. He would not now revert to the facts which had been disclosed during the trial of a recent case, as they must be well known to their Lordships; but, he was shocked to say, that for too many years past the crime of poisoning had become most alarmingly common in this country, and it was to be feared that the facilities which existed for the commission of the crime were what had led to its frequency. Many crimes of the kind had been caused by the institutions called burial societies, the members of which had in several instances been proved to be accessory to the death of their own offspring. Another class of these cases arose out of the present system of life insurance. Life insurances had been effected by parties who possessed no interest whatever in the lives of the persons insured, and this had been done with the premeditated object of committing murder by the administration of poison. Irrespective of anything that had recently been disclosed, he knew, from his own observation and experience on the bench, that many cases had been proved where insurances had been effected with a

541
view to afterwards committing murder, and that on the consummation of the act, the money insured under the policy had been received. Until very lately there had been no regulation with respect to the sale of poisons, and accordingly arsenic could be purchased just as easily as Epsom salts. The consequence was, that poisoning by arsenic became alarmingly common, particularly in the counties of Essex and Norfolk; and the first case of capital conviction that he tried after he had the honour of a seat on the bench was that of a woman whose familiarity with the use of that poison was so notorious that it had procured for her the name of "Sally Arsenic." The Act which had passed for regulating the sale of arsenic had had a very beneficial effect, and arsenic had gone somewhat out of fashion; but, unfortunately, another poison equally deadly in its effects, nux vomica, had taken its place. A person might now go to any druggist's shop in England and buy a pennyworth of nux vomica; he had only to say that he wished to poison rats, and at once the nux vomica was sold to him without the smallest hesitation or reluctance. True, nux vomica was not so powerful a poison as the alkaloid of strychnia, which was extracted from it, but its administration was attended with the same results. In fact, however, they could not only buy nux vomica, but strychnia itself, from the druggists, without difficulty of any sort. It was a matter of serious importance, then, that some restraint should be put upon the sale of these poisons, and he thought it the duty of the Government to consider and decide what other substances besides arsenic there were, the sale of which ought to be restrained or prohibited. He should be happy to assist them in framing a measure for regulating the sale of poisons, and would be glad if his noble and learned Friend would inform him whether the Government intended to introduce a Bill for that purpose.
LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, that, before the Lord Chancellor answered the question, he wished to suggest that it might be advisable to institute some further regulations with reference to insurance companies, which might have the effect of checking the crime of poisoning. He thought that in every case where a company had such reasonable suspicions with regard to the cause of death of a party insured as to conceive themselves warranted in giving notice to other insurance
542
companies, it should also be incumbent upon them to give information to and lay the circumstances of the case before the Home Secretary, in order that due inquiry might be made by those whose duty it was to protect the lives of Her Majesty's subjects.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the noble and learned Lord had committed a breach of the orders of the House by the course he had adopted in this instance. It was the rule of the House that the first quarter of an hour of their sitting should be devoted to the reception of petitions; but no sooner had the Lord Chancellor taken his seat on the woolsack than the noble Lord had risen and put the question of which he had given notice, although in the proper order of proceeding it should have come after the other business on the paper. He trusted the Lord Chancellor would not answer the question of the noble and learned Lord until the orders of the day were disposed of.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question put to him by his noble and learned Friend had been followed by some observations from another noble Lord; and if putting the question had justified that noble Lord in observing upon it, it certainly justified him (the Lord Chancellor) in giving it an answer. The only answer he could give, however, was, that five years ago this subject was under the consideration of his right hon. Friend who was then, as now, Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the result of the investigation which then took place was the introduction of a measure confined to the sale of arsenic; and he understood from his right hon. Friend that the reason for that measure being confined to arsenic was, that there were difficulties of a serious nature in the way of defining the different poisons. He thought that a number of other ingredients might be put in the same category with arsenic; but it was the opinion of one of the most eminent medical men in the metropolis, that great evil might be done by furnishing the public with a list of seventeen other articles, all of which were quite as deadly poisons as arsenic; and this was the reason that the measure did not go further and include those articles. But there were now some other poisons—and strychnia amongst them which recent events had made familiar to the public, and he did not see, therefore, why they should not be placed in the same category; and his right hon. Friend the

543
Home Secretary had authorised him to state that the question should have his careful and attentive consideration.

MUTINY OF AN IRISH MILITIA REGIMENT—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdrew attention to the fact that a statement had appeared in the public journals of that day to the effect that a militia regiment stationed in Nenagh, in the county Tipperary, had mutinied against its officers, and that regular troops had been employed to suppress the émeute. He wished to know if the noble Lord the Minister at War could give any explanation of the affair to the House?
LORD PANMUREsaid, that as yet he had no official information upon the subject, though he had received a private letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which stated that such an occurrence as that to which the noble Earl referred had taken place, but did not give him any particulars further than those which were contained in the public papers. It appeared that there had been a mutinous movement arising from some misunderstanding which existed with respect to giving up the clothing of the militia; but he trusted that the affair had been exaggerated, and that their Lordships would suspend their judgment respecting it until they had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the case.

DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion for the third reading of this Bill,
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHobjected to the seventh clause, which prohibited landlords who were magistrates from acting in matters in which they were personally interested. He had had the honour of holding Her Majesty's commission for fifty years, and he did not know of the occurrence of a single case of the kind. It was a libel on the magistrates of Ireland to insert such a clause. The clause further prohibited agents from acting in the causes of their principals. Now, what constituted an agent? An agent was one who did anything for another person, and the most nonsensical objection might be taken under such a clause. The clause was an insult, from whatever quarter it came, upon the magistrates of Ireland. He should move that
544
the seventh clause be expunged from the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORintimated that the Motion could not be made upon the third reading of the Bill. It could only be taken before the Motion that the Bill do pass.
Bill read 3a.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthen moved that the seventh clause be struck out of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, after suggesting some verbal amendments, said that as to the seventh clause, although he had the greatest respect for the Irish magistracy, who had done their duty in times of great uncertainty, yet he must say that the noble Marquess opposite was quite mistaken in supposing that no cases of magistrates sitting in judgment in their own case bad occurred. He himself had been personally concerned in the removal from the magistracy of a magistrate for having done this very thing. There could be no doubt but that the thing was done. Still he did not think that this part of the clause was of any great importance. But the part which related to agents was of importance. The noble Marquess was mistaken when he said that an agent could not be defined. There could be no doubt as to the meaning of the term, and it was perfectly understood in Ireland. As to the insult on the magistracy, it was no more an insult than a precaution taken against offences by clergymen were insults on the clergy. These things were not insults; they were only safeguards against human frailty.
LORD CAMPBELLwished to preserve their Lordships from the discredit of passing such a clause as the seventh clause of this Bill in its present form. It was absurd to prohibit that which was actually illegal, and nothing was more certain than that it was unlawful for a judge of any degree to be a judge in his own cause. Any justice of the peace so offending could not only be removed from the commission, but would be liable to a prosecution at common law for a misdemeanor; and if a case came before a bench of magistrates, present was interested Now, what constituted an in such case, he was bound to leave the bench, and if he did not the Queen's Bench would quash the decision. He therefore considered the clause, so far as it related to landlords who were magistrates, was quite unnecessary. As to what was said about laws passed respecting the clergy,

545
these laws were intended to prohibit practices which the clergy had previously done and considered lawful; but there was no instance of a law being passed against that which by law had been already declared illegal and void. If, however, its operation was restricted to agents of landlords, who might also be magistrates, he should feel inclined to support the clause. Their Lordships knew very well what an Irish agent was—one who often had a very strong personal interest in his principal's property, and who therefore could not be an impartial judge in any dispute affecting that property. There ought, therefore, to be a disqualification against his sitting where his principal was concerned.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONregarded the clause as an uncalled-for reflection on the magistracy of Ireland, and would support the Motion of the noble Marquess for expunging the clause.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that there were no body of men who performed their official duty better than the Irish landlords. They had done so in times of difficulty and danger. However, he looked upon the measure as so useful a one, that he would not wish to see its progress through Parliament endangered by a division on an Amendment such as that moved by his noble Friend.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWhoped that his noble Friend would not withdraw his Motion. He looked upon the clause as unnecessary. No magistrate would act in the way contemplated by the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHcould not consent to withdraw his Motion, for he thought the clause offensive and unnecessary.
LORD DENMANwould vote with the noble Marquess if he divided the House, but he recommended his noble Friend to withdraw his Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), and would propose to amend the clause by confining its operation to the agents of landlords, instead of referring to landlords and agents indiscriminately.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONobjected to casting a slur upon the agent of the landlord any more than upon the landlord himself. Most agents in Ireland were magistrates, and their conduct as magistrates was, generally speaking, unexceptionable.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWpresumed that if the landlord who sat in judgment upon his own case was violating the common law, the agent of the landlord, if he sat to hear the landlord's case, would be guilty of the same offence. Why, then, should the agent be prohibited by this clause if the landlord was not to be? If they omitted the word "landlord," which he thought they should, there was no reason for inserting the word "agent."
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the case of the landlord and that of his agent were not quite parallel. The landlord would clearly be sitting in judgment on his own case. There could be no difficulty about that. But could they say that the agent sitting on the landlord's case was sitting on his own?
On Question, their Lordships divided:— Content 25; Not Content 13: Majority 12.
Amendment negatived.
The Amendment of the Marquess of CLANRICARDE was then agreed to, and the clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Bill to provide for the retirement of the present Bishops of London and Durham, and said it was perhaps known to their Lordships that two distinguished members of the episcopal bench were unfortunately in such a state of health as to disqualify them for the discharge of their several duties, and that they had signified their wish to retire from their respective bishoprics. Under such circumstances it was but reasonable that provision should be made for retiring allowances for those right, rev. Prelates—he alluded to the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Durham. He therefore asked their Lordships to assent to the first reading of a Bill to effect that object. The measure was one to enable those right rev. Prelates to retire, and to make provision for them after the resignation of their sees. If their Lordships assented to the first reading, he would propose to take the second reading to-morrow (Friday).
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the principle of the Bill was one that demanded considerable attention. It was no doubt desirable that some general measure should be adopted to meet such contingencies;

547
but the policy of passing a particular measure relating only to two sees, he thought was extremely questionable. In his opinion it was a dangerous precedent to lay down, and might be acted upon whenever an occasion arose of a bishop desiring to surrender his see; and it would be a far preferable mode of proceeding to introduce a general measure enabling members of the right rev. Bench, under certain restrictions, to retire when they felt themselves disqualified from performing their episcopal functions efficiently. He trusted their Lordships would not allow a Bill relating to particular sees to be brought hurriedly forward at a late period of the Session, and passed without that consideration which the magnitude of the subject required. If he were met by the argument that inconvenience would result from postponement, all he could say in reply was that the course which he recommended was open to less objection than, within a few weeks of the end of the Session, to pass a measure which ought to be maturely considered in all its parts; and, for his own part, before being called upon to agree to the second reading, he should like to have an opportunity of communicating with others on a subject of so much importance.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYhoped that the noble Lord did not intend to offer any protest against the Bill. Even if the present Bill passed, he was quite sure that a general Bill upon the subject would be ultimately adopted. The present measure, however, was of an urgent character and demanded their Lordships' immediate attention.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that the right rev. Prelates ought to be placed in the same position in respect as to retire resent as Her Majesty's Judges, holding their office while able to discharge their duties, a liberal provision being made for them when forced by age or other cause to retire. There was, however, no doubt that great care should be observed in laying down a general rule upon this subject. He should rejoice to see a general measure brought forward, but all their Lordships must feel that it was urgently necessary for the Government to pass the present Bill. The manner in which the two right rev. Prelates had voluntarily come forward to tender their resignations, must raise them in the estimation of the whole community. The most laudable disinterestedness and praiseworthy conduct had been evinced by those two right rev. Prelates.
548
It would not be fair to oblige those Prelates to wait for a general measure, and the delay would be felt as a disappointment to the whole community.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not wish to pledge himself to any particular course in respect to the present measure. He thought it would be most desirable that there should be time given to enable noble Lords who took an interest in the question to express their opinions upon the Bill on the second reading. There was much less evil to be apprehended from delaying legislation on the subject for six months longer than to pass without due consideration a Bill of this character, affecting only two particular sees. The result of this measure would, of course, be the placing the nomination of those sees in the hands of those who brought in the Bill. It was, in his opinion, most important that the object sought for should only be carried out by a general measure.
LORD DENMANsupported the Bill, which was but a measure of simple justice to the two right rev. Prelates who had made such voluntary sacrifices,
THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped that the noble Lord would not press for delay in the second reading of the Bill. If the noble Lord intended to move for any alteration in the measure, he would have the opportunity of doing so in another stage. At this late period of the Session he did not think it reasonable to seek for a postponement of the second reading. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that a general measure would be desirable if the Session were not so far advanced. Their Lordships owed it to those distinguished Prelates to pass the measure as speedily as possible. There were facilities for the carrying out the objects of the Bill in the case of the two right rev. Prelates which did not exist in the case of other Prelates. The retiring allowance for the Bishop of London, for example, could be made without trenching upon any fund at all; it would come out of the revenue which the right rev. Prelate was at present receiving. The Bishop of Durham was, to a certain extent, in the same position.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONvery much doubted whether the remedy now proposed might not establish a precedent of a serious character. He did not think that such a measure as this should be passed at so late a period of the Session.
THE EARL OF POWISsaw no reason why the second reading of the Bill should

549
not be postponed until Monday, at all events.
Bill read 1a.
Then it was moved, That the Bill be read 2a To-morrow.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did object to the second reading being taken so soon. It was most monstrous for the Government to bring on a Bill at such a time as that, in the absence of so many noble Lords, and when there was not a single Prelate in the House. If he were to stand alone, he was determined to divide against the second reading being taken to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill would only be placed upon the orders of the day for to-morrow.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONhoped that the Bill would be postponed until Monday.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not prepared to pledge himself to the principle of the Bill without further consideration. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would assent to the Bill standing amongst the orders of the Day for Monday.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn; and Bill ordered to be read 2a on Monday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.