Lords Sitting of 10 March 1857

MINUTES AND JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. RESOLU- TIONS.
  Order of the Day for considering the Report of the Select Cemmittee on the Minutes and Journals of the House, read.
  EARL STANHOPE,in calling attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the Minutes and Journals of the House, said that in the absence of any material difference of opinion on the recommendations of the Committee he need not detain their Lordships at any length. Their Lordships were all agreed that the present mode of taking their divisions was extremely defective and unsatisfactory. The lists at present published in the newspapers contained constant errors and inaccuracies, of which frequent complaints were made, but which could not be avoided under the existing system. Some very interesting divisions were not recorded at all. The other night a division took place upon the Bill for altering the law of divorce. Ten noble Lords voted on one side and twenty-five on the other. The names of many Peers who voted on this division would have carried great weight, but the Lords who acted as tellers did not happen to take the names, and it was therefore impossible to say at present who voted. Great delay sometimes took place in the publication of the division lists. On the first day of the Session a division took place on the Amendment moved by his noble Friend opposite (Earl Grey) upon the Persian war; the list of the majority against it appeared next day, but the names of the Peers who formed the minority were not published until two or three days afterwards. The Com-

  2113
  mittee had agreed to recommend the adoption of the system which had been tried with such excellent effect in the House of Commons. It had been apprehended that the system in question would take up more time than the present mode; but from the evidence given to the Committee by an experienced and able officer of the other House (Mr. May), it appeared that a positive saving of time would accrue by adopting the House of Commons' mode of taking divisions. The Committee, however, thought it would be desirable to make an exception in the case of those Peers who, from age or infirmity, could not walk into the lobby without pain and inconvenience, and such Peers might be "told" in the House. He would mention a point to winch the Committee had not adverted; it had been hitherto held as a rule of the House, that the tellers should always be of equal rank; but he (Earl Stanhope) thought that this rule (for which not a shadow of a reason could be given) was frequently found to be attended with great inconvenience, and he proposed that it should not be necessary that the tellers should be appointed with any regard to their degree. It was also thought desirable that the names of Lords who make Motions for the production of Papers, or Motions of which they have given notice, should be entered on the Minutes. The Minutes of their Lordships' House were inferior to those of the House of Commons in some respects, they were in others superior. For example, they gave full information as to the progress of every Bill before their Lordships, so that the amount of business that had been transacted and the number of Bills still in progress through their Lordships' House could be seen at a glance. It was proposed that to these particulars should be added a notice of such Bills as had passed their Lordships' House, and had reached the House of Commons, with the fate of those Bills as soon as they were disposed of in that House. He trusted that their Lordships' Minutes and Journals would, if the recommendations of the Committee were adopted, become a faithful record of the manner in which their Lordships discharged the duty intrusted to them. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Resolutions of the Committee be agreed to, and be made Standing Orders; and that the Standing Order No. 25, be vacated.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONsaid, that he approved generally of the Resolutions
  2114
  proposed by the Committee, but wished to point out one or two matters to which their attention did not appear to have been directed. They did not state which of the galleries should be cleared, and which should not be cleared. Now some little delay was caused by the clearing of the gallery between the cessation of the debate and the putting of the Question, which gave time for Peers who might be in the library or lobby to return to the House; but if the galleries were not cleared, he thought there ought to be some fixed interval between the close of the debate and the Question, as in the Commons. The Resolutions recommended that the names of the Peers should be recorded according to the titles by which they sat, the higher titles appearing in brackets. He thought the higher rank ought to appear first, and the lower title to be inserted in brackets. He entirely approved of the Resolution which proposed to put an end to the provision that the tellers should be of equal rank.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he doubted if it would be worth while to take the course proposed in the Resolutions of adopting the House of Commons' practice of going into separate lobbies at divisions. Such a system might answer in the House of Commons, where there were hundreds of Members voting; but in their Lordships' House, where perhaps two or three Peers voted on one side, and half-a-dozen on the other, the formal proceeding of going out at one door and coming in at another might have a ludicrous effect. He doubted whether the desirable object of greater certainty in the taking and recording of divisions might not be attained without resorting to such a formidable process. He also thought that some rule must be adopted as to the time at which the Question should be put, which at present was regulated by the clearance of the galleries. In cases where there was only one Peer on one side, he did not see how two tellers could be appointed.
  EARL STANHOPEimagined that the Resolutions, in their present form would enable a division to be taken, even if no second Peer offered as teller. He thought that a trial might be made of the plan of permitting strangers to remain in the gallery during divisions, and if it was not found to answer they could revert to the present arrangement.
  LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved, that during divisions, unless the House should

  2115
  order to the contrary, strangers might be allowed to remain, except in the space below the bar and before the throne.
  Several other noble Lords suggested Amendments in the proceedings suggested, some of which were adopted.
  The following are the Resolutions agreed to.

  1. "That upon every Division the House be cleared of Strangers, except the Galleries and the Space within the Rails of the Throne, which shall not be cleared unless the House shall so order:

  2. "That after the Question shall have been put, the Contents shall go forth through the Door on the right Side of the House, near the Throne, which leads to the right Lobby, and shall proceed through the right Lobby, and re-enter the House through the Door on the right of the Bar:

  3. "That, in like Manner, the Not-Contents shall go forth through the Door on the left of the Bar, which leads to the left Lobby, and shall proceed through the left Lobby, and re-enter the House through the Door on the left Side of the House, near the Throne:

  4. "Both Lobbies shall be cleared of Strangers and the Doors locked when the Question hath been entirely put, and shall continue so 'till after the Numbers are declared:

  5. "That any Lord may, on the Ground of Infirmity, by Permission of the House, have the Privilege of being told in his Seat; and that the Votes of such Lords and of the Lord on the Wool sack or in the Chair be taken first:

  6. "That Two or more Tellers be appointed for each Division, without respect to their Degree; and that Two Clerks be in attendance at each Division, to take down or mark the Names of the Contents and Not-Contents respectively; and that such Clerks be stationed in the respective Lobbies, as near as conveniently may be to the Doors through which the contents and Not-Contents re-enter the House:

  7. "That when Proxies shall be called, the Names of the Lords Content and Not-Content who vote by Proxy shall be respectively taken down and marked by Two Clerks in attendance for that Purpose:

  8. "That the Tellers shall count the Votes, and announce the Numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, as at present:

  9. "That from the Names of the Lords present and voting, thus taken down or marked by the Clerks, Lists shall be framed, in which the Names shall be inserted in Alphabetical Order; and in like Manner Alphabetical Lists shall be framed of the Lords who have voted by Proxy:

  10. "That such Lists shall be printed, and appended to and circulated with the Minutes of the Day:

  11. "That in such Lists the Names of the Lords shall be inserted according to the Titles by which they sit in Parliament; but in Cases in which they have higher or more ancient Titles or Dignities, the higher or more ancient Title or Dignity shall be added in Brackets:

  12. "That each Division, and the Number and Names of the Lords voting thereon, be also inserted in the Journals, the Names of the Lords being placed in the order in which they stand in the Roll, the Proxies being recorded in a separate List:

  2116

  13. "That the Hour of final Adjournment on each Day be noted in the Minutes, and in the Journals:

  14. "That the Names of Lords who make Motions for or in respect of the Production of Papers, or who make Motions, of which they have previously given notion, be entered in the Minutes and in the Journals:

  15. "That the Minutes do contain a List of all Bills which have passed this House, and have been sent to the House of Commons, but have not been returned, omitting such Bills as by the Votes of the House of Commons appear to have been disposed of."

  Then it was moved, That Standing Order No. 25, be vacated: agreed to.

PROSELYTISM IN IRELAND.
  CASHIN AND SPELLACY v. RYAN.

    MOTION FOR A PAPER.
    VISCOUNT DUNGANNON: My Lords, I wish to move for return of a "Copy of the Memorial addressed by the Members of the Dublin Protestant Association to The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland relative to the Conduct of E. Smithwick and Thomas Harte, Esqrs., Justices of the Peace for Kilkenny, in a Case of alleged Assault, in which Michael Cashin and Matthew Spellacy, Two Persons in the Employ of the Society for Irish Church Missions, were Plaintiffs, and James Ryan, Defendant, at the Petty Sessions held in the City of Kilkenny on Monday, Jan. 19, 1857; together with the Reply from the Castle of Dublin, bearing Date Feb. 13, 1857." My Lords, from the information which has been transmitted to me, it appears that the two persons who were the complainants before the Kilkenny magistrates were employed by the Irish Church Missionary Society to distribute some of its pamphlets, tracts, notices of meetings, and the like, and the defendant, James Ryan, a Roman Catholic, was the servant of one of the justices who took part in the proceedings. One of the complainants, it is admitted, tendered to James Ryan a handbill. Ryan received it, entered into some conversation respecting it, and then, without the slightest provocation or apparent reason, proceeded to assault with a heavy whip, not only the boy who presented the handbill, but also his companion. An information was laid against him, and a summons issued, requiring him to appear before the justices in Kilkenny to answer the charge of assault; which he did. On that occasion Mr. Smithwick, the person in whose employment Ryan was, came there, as he stated, to give him a charac-

    2117
    ter, and declare his conviction that he was utterly incapable of committing the offence with which he was charged. Had Mr. Smithwick confined himself to that course undoubtedly he could not have been found fault with, because it was his right, and perhaps just that he should do so; but he took the extraordinary course of sitting upon the bench and adjudicating upon the case. I am convinced that every man in the commission of the peace in your respective counties would agree with me that such a proceeding was wholly irregular. But that is not all. Mr. Harte, one of the other magistrates present, was previously known to have declared that in any case where a Scripture-reader, or any person connected with the Irish Missionary Societies, brought forward any charges against other persons, he never would take the evidence of any such person as proof of the fact unless their evidence was corroborated by that of other witnesses; while Mr. E. Smithwick had been heard to declare that he considered it a great indignity to Roman Catholic constables that they should be directed to protect Protestant Scripture-readers against the attacks of a Roman Catholic mob. I am not going to enter into any argument as to whether it is a judicious proceeding upon the part of Protestant missionaries to circulate tracts among their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, with the intention of converting them; but it must surely be admitted that so long as they are doing nothing to disturb the public tranquillity, or to provoke a breach of the peace, they are entitled to the protection of the Executive. They have a right to that which every British subject claims—protection from assaults or from any unlawful impediment; and if they are assaulted, and deem it necessary to bring their case before persons to whom is delegated magisterial authority, it is most important for the interests of the public that they should have the protection of at least an impartial hearing. Certainly a different course to that seems to have been pursued upon the occasion to which I have referred. It appears, as I am informed, that the justices who were engaged in hearing this case have, upon more occasions than one in which similar charges have been preferred before them, allowed their party prejudices and religious zeal to get the better of their good sense and sound judgment; and in this case they appeared to have come into the court as prejudiced
    2118
    men, having prejudged the case. A letter has been written by the stipendiary magistrate at Kilkenny, Mr. Green, stating his opinion that the decision, which was for the dismissal of the charge, was entirely contrary to the evidence. Three magistrates sat together upon the bench, the case was dismissed by a majority of one, and the two magistrates who agreed were both Roman Catholics. I think that the House will agree with me that nothing can be of more importance to the interests of the British Empire than that there shall be an impartial administration of justice, especially in Ireland, where there is a great deal of party and religious feeling; and it is impossible, if cases such as this happen frequently, that the public mind will be satisfied upon this point. A remonstrance was made by the parties to the Dublin Protestant Association, who, having investigated the case, sent a special memorial to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, setting forth all the facts of the case, and praying for an investigation. The answer was, as it seemed to me, of a most unsatisfactory character. It stated that an inquiry had been made, that they were satisfied with the reply that had been made, and that they did not think it necessary to investigate the case any further. But what may be considered as sufficiently satisfactory by officials may not be so satisfactory to the Protestant portion of the public in Ireland, who feel that a fair inquiry had not been made, and that such proceedings have a tendency to bring the magisterial bench into contempt. The Dublin Protestant Association having submitted the case to me, I have thought it right to bring it before your Lordships, trusting that no opposition will be made to it. Whether I shall feel myself called upon to bring the matter before the House in another shape I am not at present prepared to say. I shall probably not do so during the very short time that remains of the existence of the present Parliament, but I shall feel myself at liberty to take it up again when your Lordships' House re-assembles. I have had all the facts from the most respectable authorities, and I assure your Lordships that I am animated by no party spirit or religious partisanship, nor am I in any way connected with the Dublin Protestant Association, or Irish Church Missions. I am only anxious that the strictest impartiality should be displayed in all our courts of justice; and in bringing forward an instance in which it is alleged that that

    2119
    spirit of impartiality has been departed from, I conceive that I am only discharging a duty which I owe to the public.
    THE EARL OF DESARThoped that Her Majesty's Government would make no objection to the production of these papers, and said that if the facts of the case turned out to be as stated by the noble Viscount, and no further proceedings were taken by his noble Friend, he himself would bring the whole case before the House. If the information which had reached him was correct, the affair reflected little credit on the Irish Government. As in all probability he should have to refer to the case again, and as he was unwilling in its present stage to make remarks which would not be very complimentary to the magistrates, he should postpone any further observations till the production of the papers.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion; but was understood to say, that he did not recognise the position which the Dublin Protestant Association had assumed in relation to this business.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at Half-past Six o'Clock, to Thursday next, Half-past Ten o'Clock.