Sitting of 17 May 1827

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonrose to move for certain papers relative to the Administration of the Cape of Good Hope, and particularly for the correspondence which had passed on that subject between the Colonial Office and sir Butane Donkin. He would have thought it unnecessary to have said much at present, since it would obviously be much better to postpone all discussion until the whole of the proper documents should be on the table of the House, had it not been for the publication of a pamphlet by sir R. Donkin, which had been widely and very industriously circulated. He would, however, abstain from entering at that time into any discussion of the merits of the administration of the Cape, as the proper opportunity would be afforded, when the motion relative to the coal-administration of the Cape, of which notice had been given for
884
the 18th of June, should be brought forward. But it was on account of the circulation of the charges against lord C. Somerset, by sir R. Donkin, that he thought it highly expedient that the House and the public should immediately know the nature of those charges, and the situation in which they at present stand. Sir R. Donkin denied strongly that he was actuated by any acrimonius motives against lord C. Somerset, and asserted that he (Mr. W. Horton) was sorry in having said that he was so actuated; observing, that it was a new system of tactics, to charge those who complained of any malversation on the part of government officers, with personal hostility against the individual; whereas, sir H. Donkin, as he said, had always disclaimed all idea of personal animosity. With respect to that matter, he had only to repeat what he had said before, that it appeared to him, that sir R. Donkin had been actuated by acrimonius and personal motives against lord C. Somerset; and he was mistaken if sir R. Donkin would not find himself obliged to own it. But what had all this to do with charges against lord C. Somerset, or any other officer of government? The only question was, whether the charges were well or ill founded, without any reference to motives; but, if it should turn out that the accusations against lord C. Somerset were ill-founded, sir R. Donkin could not expect to escape from the consequences which might result from the preferring of such accusations. The House would please to observe, that on the 17th of June, 1823, sir R. Donkin had expressed himself to lord Bathurst to this effect, that he could make disclosures relative to the administration of lord C. Somerset at the Cape, that would shock the noble earl, and lead to the utter ruin of lord Charles. This communication, coming from such a quarter, could not be passed over without an investigation into the circumstances; and therefore, under the direction of lord Bathurst, he (Mr. Horton) had, on the 21st of June, written to sir R. Donkin, informing him that lord Bathurst called upon him to substantiate the charges which he had made against lord C. Somerset, on account of the mal-administration of the Cape; in order that the matter might be thoroughly investigated. In answer to this, sir . Donkin had, on the 23rd of June, written to lord Bathurst to the effect—that until

885
he (sir R. Donkin) was willing to make disclosures to the government on the subject of the mal-administration of the Cape, he did not wish to censure, or mean to attack, an individual, with whom he had little acquaintance. After the receipt of this communication, he again wrote to sir R. Donkin, stating that lord Bathurst still thought that the charges must be brought under investigation, and put to the proof, unless sir R. Donkin meant to retract them. So that the government, and especially lord Bathurst, so far from showing any disposition to stifle inquiry, most earnestly called upon sir R. Donkin to proceed with his charges against lord C. Somerset. Sir R. Donkin again wrote to the Colonial Office, stating in substance, that he could not retract any allegations which he had made, so far as the truth of them was concerned, as that would be unworthy of a gentleman, and of the situation which he held in his majesty's service; but that he had no objection to say, that, upon further consideration, he would retract the particular words in which the charge had been advanced; and sir R, Dunkin also added these words, "I feel, on due reflection, that my coming forward just now, in any official way, on such a subject, would appear like an ill-timed interposition on my part between the commissioners now at the Cape of Good Hope and the object of their inquiries; and I trust that this explanation will be satisfactory to lord Bathurst, and will render unnecessary the urging of the other part of the alternative to which your letter points; namely, my preferring charges, in consequence of the turn which this matter had taken." The only course of proceeding which appeared most proper was, to send to the commissioners at the Cape of Good Hope all the information which they had been able to procure from sir R. Donkin, or any other quarter, with instructions to investigate every thing to the utmost of their power. To this course sir R. Donkin surely could not object, after having made the proceedings of the commissioners one of his reasons for not interposing; and, considering the conflicting charges brought forward, sir R. Donkin complaining that lord C. Somerset had upset his measures for the good government of the Cape; and lord Charles, on the other hand, complaining that sir R. Donkin had, while his locum tenens at the Cape, upset his measures
886
for the same purpose. The Colonial Secretary was of opinion, that this reference of the whole matter to the commissioners was the most satisfactory course of proceeding which, under the present circumstances, could be adopted. The commissioners had, accordingly, investigated the matter, and he had their Report now ready to be presented to the House. It would be recollected, that, in 1825, when charges were brought forward against lord C. Somerset, it was the unanimous feeling of the House, that lord Charles should not be allowed to remain at the Cape, but should be brought home to face his accusers, when they chose to come forward; and he had now come over. But the government, and lord Bathurst particularly, felt themselves bound, in common justice, not to take any measures against lord C. Somerset, before the charges against him had been thoroughly investigated. Various charges had been made against lord C. Somerset, besides that of Mr. Bishop Burnet, but nobody could be found to bring them regularly forward; and, under these circumstances, it was fitting that the whole of the matter should be laid before the House, in some shape or other, that the question might be at length finally set at rest. With regard to the notice of motion for the 18th of June, he hoped the hon. Member who had given that notice would state its object, with somewhat more precision than belonged to the general term mal-administration. He hoped the hon. member would take care to bring the whole matter before the House, and, in the meantime, state what was the specific nature of the motion which he intended to submit to the House. Sir R. Donkin had said, that some material papers had not been submitted to the commissioners. This was a mistake; for all the material papers had been sent to the commissioners, both relative to the defence of the country against the Caffres, and every other matter about which the government had obtained any information. The Report of the commissioners would be laid before the House, with the opinion of major Holloway, about the defence of the colony, which was a very material document.—The hon. gentleman then commented on the impropriety of publishing official documents in this manner, in which the parties accused had no opportunity of reply. Among the charges brought against lord C. Somerset by sir

887
R. Donkin, was one, that Mr. Parker had been sent back to this country, in order to criminate colonel Bird and himself, and that the Colonial Department had lent itself to that purpose. To refute this charge, the hon. gentleman read the letter of lord C. Somerset to lord Bathurst, accompanying Mr. Parker on his return. In this letter, Mr. Parker was described as an individual who, from his disposition and turn of mind, appeared to be of all others the least calculated to superintend the work of emigration. Lord C. Somerset further described Mr. Parker as a man sanguine in all his views, prone to blame public measures, and an enthusiast in the cause of Protestantism. The candor and fairness of sir R. Donkin might be judged of by the fact, that when he had been twelve or fourteen months at the Cape, he stated in a letter to lord Bathurst, that he had directed his efforts to follow up the plans of his noble predecessor, lord C. Somerset. What was to be thought of a public officer capable of acting in this way? Was it his duty, if he then believed lord C. Somerset's measures to have been wrong, to induce lord Bathurst to think they were the best he could have selected as a rule for his own guidance? Sir R. Donkin complained, that he had received no information respecting the plans he felt it his duty to adopt in the colony, and that in consequence of lord C. Somerset's personal conduct towards him, he was prevented from acting upon them. He complained also that lord C. Somerset would hold no communication with him. Now, this was not a true representation of the case. Lord C. Somerset had requested a visit from him; but sit R. Donkin replied, that personally he could have no intercourse with the noble lord. This was clearly a violation of his duty. As an official man, whatever his feelings might have been personally, he ought to have disregarded them on such an occasion as this. Yet his answer was distinctly, that he had no official communication to make. This note was dated 1st December, 1821. He had thus placed the colonial office in the unpleasant situation of being unable to do justice between the parties. The hon. gentleman said, that the papers he should present consisted of a variety of documents bearing on the general subject of the affairs of the Cape, and on the particular accusation which sir R. Donkin had thought fit to
888
publish to the world against lord C. Somerset. Sir R. Donkin complained also that he had not been allowed an interview with lord Bathurst. The fact was, that he had not asked for one in such a manner as implied that he had any circumstances to discuss, connected with the Cape of Good Hope. But he had claimed from that noble lord some mark of royal favour, in reward for his services as head of the government of that colony. Now, his government had lasted only a year and a half; and, during that time, he was but locum tenens and not absolutely the governor. Any body who thought that a period of service which called for any mark of royal favour, held a most exaggerated opinion of the estimate usually formed of colonial labours. Sir R. Don-kin had received the approbation of the Colonial-office; but it was another of his charges, that even this had been withheld from him. It was the constant practice, known to every clerk, that when any general officer, or other person, mislaid a letter of this kind, he was furnished with a private copy, which he substituted instead of the original until that could be obtained. The honourable gentleman declared of his own knowledge, that there never was an idea of withholding this letter which lord Bathurst had transmitted, as a meed due to the services of sir R. Donkin. There was, undoubtedly, no distinct proof that a private copy had been sent to him, but he (Mr. W. Horton) firmly believed such to be the fact. That charge, therefore, like the rest, was wholly without foundation. With regard to the general subject of the affairs of the Cape, he could assure the House, that the inquiry had been commenced in the spirit of improvement towards all the institutions in the colony. The commissioners had been sent out with that view; and, if their time had not been so much employed in investigating charges of a personal character, the delay that had taken place would have been avoided. The intention was, that the improvements should be extended to all the range of departments—judicial, financial, and administrative; and they would, by this time, but for the cause to which he had referred, have been more or less in operation. There was nothing connected with the welfare of the Cape which had not been delegated to these commissioners. As to the merits of lord C. Somerset's government, or the com-

889
parative merits of that of sir R. Donkin he would not say one word. The papers he was about to present would give an ample opportunity to the House to form a correct judgment on that subject. This step had become necessary, on account of the increasing charges brought by sir R. Donkin, who had published a second edition of his pamphlet, with postscripts and other additions, which had been copied into the daily newspapers, accompanied by a multitude of comments. Sir R. Donkin had first brought an accusation against lord C. Somerset; he had then denied that he was an accuser; and finally he had retracted the denial, and revived his accusation. Among these papers would be found the reports of the commissioners; and by them and the other documents, the House would be able to decide the question of the comparative merits of the two governments, as well as to judge the course most proper to be pursued for the permanent welfare of the Cape. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, that the papers be brought up.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he should not exercise the duty of a friend to justice, if, in seconding this motion, he did not put the House in possession of some facts, which they could not gather from the statement of the hon. gentleman. His gallant friend, sir R. Donkin, had brought no accusation against lord C. Somerset. He had been again and again invited to become a public accuser, and again and again he had refused. In the pamphlet he had published, he had not acted the part of an accuser; but he had been obliged to defend himself from a variety of reports in circulation respecting his own conduct; and his defence was taken to he an accusation of the noble lord. He could state positively, that his gallant friend never intended to be an accuser, nor had offered himself to lord Bathurst in that capacity, It was true, he had offered to communicate with lord Bathurst, but not to lay accusations against any one. In his pamphlet, sir R. Donkin had stated his views as distinctly as possible. The hon. gentleman read some extracts in support of this statement. These passages, he contended, were at variance with the idea of his gallant friend becoming an accuser. His own character had suffered, and he felt bound to offer some explanation. In the beginning of the pamphlet, he stated, that he should not have adopted that course, if he could have
890
obtained an interview with lord Bathurst. In what he should further say in defence of his gallant friend, he should refer only to public documents. As evidence of the public merits of sir R. Donkin, he would read the letter of approbation written to him by lord Bathurst; the address of the chief justice, and other members of the judicial body, on his resigning his government; and some addresses, on the same occasion, from the merchants and principal inhabitants of the colony. He eulogized the measures of sir R. Donkin's government. It had produced security, and was administered with economy. The moment he had resigned it, insecurity, murder, plunder, dissatisfaction, and, in fact, utter ruin ensued.
Lord Edward Somersetwas not disposed to detain the House upon the present occasion, but he could not avoid expressing the satisfaction he felt in seeing the hon. Secretary lay those papers on the table of the House, which would at last enable it to go into a full and fair investigation of all the charges which had been put forth against his noble relative; and, at the same time, tend to place the character of lord C. Somerset in that honourable light before the public, to which he was satisfied it was entitled. The House would now, perhaps, be able to judge, as well from the observations of his hon. friend, as from the letters and extracts to be laid on the table, in what kind of a spirit, the accusations against hls noble relation had been preferred. They would be able to judge, whether the spirit of the one had been rancorous, or whether the other had fulfilled his duty as a public accuser. The House would now be able to pronounce an impartial judgment upon the conduct of lord Bathurst and his noble relation. There were but two courses which lord Bathurst could pursue, under the circumstances. One was, to believe all the charges to be true, to the prejudice of lord C. Somerset; the other, to disbelieve them, and to call upon the accuser to substantiate them, if it was in his power. Lord Bathurst had called upon sir R. Donkin to maintain his charges, and he had abandoned them. He would not trouble the House with any further observations upon the inferences to be drawn from this conduct. The proper time for remark must be when the House came to consider the nature of the charges; and he would, therefore, beseech the House not to allow

891
itself to be influenced by those reports which had been, for years, circulated from all quarters, and reiterated in the public prints. When they had the whole of the papers containing these charges before them, he was satisfied they would see reason to exonerate lord Charles from the accusations which had been preferred against him.
Mr. Freemantleexpressed his regret that the charges against the noble lord had been allowed to remain so long hanging over his head. When the subject was last before the House, he was both surprised and pained at hearing the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs state to the House, that his majesty's government had sent out a commission to that noble lord to return home. What could the House or the country conclude from such a statement, but that there was a very strong case, in the opinion of the government, made out against him? It was a thing very much to be regretted, that his hon. friend had not, two years ago, laid these documents upon the table of the House; for if the case against the noble lord was so groundless that the facts of every petition to that House had, upon inquiry before the commissioners, been fully disproved, he thought the noble lord had been very ill used.
Mr. Humesaid, the question was not at present, whether they were to go into the inquiry upon the conduct of lord C. Somerset, but whether certain papers should be laid on the table of the House. When the question of lord Charles's conduct came to be discussed, he doubted not that there were many gentlemen ready to give their opinions, and state the grounds of those opinions. A great deal had been said of the conduct of general Donkin; and he now hoped, that as the hon. gentleman had at last laid the correspondence on the table, he would consent to produce all the papers which might be wanting for a thorough examination of every thing connected with the question. He did not, he hope, misunderstand the hon. member, who asserted that every petition which had been laid on the table of that House, implicating the conduct of lord Charles, had been regularly sent out to the commissioners at the Cape, and made the subject of inquiry. Now, if that was really the case, it was not a little extraordinary that the House had never been put in possession of the result. The hon, member then de-
892
fended the conduct of sir R. Donkin, and declared his opinion that he had acted rightly in leaving the matter to the commissioners. If the hon. Secretary had read that letter in which sir Rufane declared he had charges which, if preferred against lord Charles, would cover him with infamy and ruin, he would find, that when he was asked to become the accuser on those charges, he at once said he could not retract what he had said; but he would rather wait and hear the result of the inquiry before the commissioners, than at once come forward in that capacity. That was in 1823; and it was no wonder, therefore, that the gallant officer expressed his surprise at the delay which had taken place.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he could not avoid making one or two observations upon some expressions which had fallen from hon. gentlemen, with respect to the course he had pursued. It had been said, that he had brought a charge against lord Charles Somerset, and that it had failed. Now, the fact was, that he presented a petition; and he thought it due to the noble lord, who had on that occasion, as well as on every other, when the case had been mentioned, defended his noble relation with the greatest regard to honour and propriety, as well as with the greatest spirit; and it was but fair also to himself, to declare, that he had never taken any step upon the case, except in presenting that petition. He had then stated most distinctly, that he desired not to be under the slightest responsibility for the veracity of any thing contained in that petition—a fact of which he was the more certain, as he had, in addition to his own distinct recollection of the circumstances, even looked into the debates of the period, which he found to be, as they almost always were, exceedingly correct. He had then, he repeated, most distinctly guarded himself, in opening the charges of Mr. Bishop Burnett against lord C., from being considered answerable for one tittle of the allegations; but he had, at the same time, felt himself bound to say, that he had seen the accuser, and examined him upon the facts—that he had, upon the strictest cross-examination he had been able to give him, adhered to those facts—that he had been consistent in his statements, and clear in his answers; and he had concluded by observing, without saying any thing further, that all these circumstances were

893
primâ facie evidences of the truth of the accusations—slender proofs, he allowed, but that still they went somewhat to support the allegations. The presentation of that petition was the only act of his connected with the question. As to the progress which the commissioners had made, or as to the failure of the charges, he knew nothing; nor did he wish, without further information, to say any thing of those commissioners. One of them, Mr. Bigg, had been a most esteemed friend of his for many years; and he certainly felt disposed to speak with respect of any commission which included him as a member. All he would say at present was, that if the charges had been, as it was said, disproved, then lord C. Somerset had not been fairly dealt with. The charges ought not to have been left hanging over his head so long. If they were capable of being disproved, he would say at once that they ought to be disproved, or totally abandoned. Mr. Bishop Burnett persisted in these charges, and had even given publication to several additional accusations; and he agreed, therefore, most fully with the noble lord, that these charges ought to be either dismissed if they were false, or proved if they were capable of proof. It had been said, however, that he had pledged himself, on the occasion of that debate, to impeach lord C. Somerset. The House had that night heard, that all the charges against lord Charles had been inquired into, save one; but that one he considered to be the only grave charge among all those preferred against the noble lord. The charge was no less than one of judicial corruption—the taking a bribe in a court of appeal, where he sat as a judge. It had been his opinion at the time, that the charge could not be true: he had said, he could not believe it to be true. He had felt himself hound also to say, when the noble lord, on that occasion as on this, repelled the idea of such guilt—that the charge was to be found certainly in a parenthesis only of Mr. Bishop Burnett's statement, and did not form an integral part of the accusations. Now, the commissioners might have been right, or they might have been wrong, in saying that lord C. Somerset was not guilty, and that the charges of Bishop Burnett had been disproved, but this charge had not been inquired into; and, although he thought lord Charles could not be guilty, yet, if he thought that the statement was founded in
894
fact, it was his duty to impeach the person who had been guilty of such an offence. It had been his determination, then, to have the whole matter investigated, because he thought it due to himself, as well as to others; hut, within four or five days after that debate, he was called upon to appear before the privy council in his professional character, upon a case which very much surprised him. He had the brief, he believed, for ten days before, and previous to the evening of the debate; but every one knew well, that it was not the practice of lawyers to look much into their briefs before the time they were called upon to argue them, and in the pressure of business, he had not opened it until the time he mentioned. He was therefore not a little surprised to find, that he was a counsel in the very cause which was founded upon that grave charge against lord C. Somerset. It was an appeal cause from the Cape of Good Hope against a decision pronounced by lord Charles, sitting, by one of the ridiculous regulations which prevailed in the colonies and most of our foreign possessions, as a judge or chancellor—a regulation, by-the bye, just as absurd as if the duke of Wellington were to be made lord chancellor. The appeal was against the decision of lord Charles as a judge, and he was counsel for the respondent. The appellant objected to the decision, among other things, upon the very ground stated by Bishop Burnett in his charges—that of corruption; and it was the part of the respondent to repel by every means in his power, the charge of that corruption. Now, he would put it to any hon. member to say, whether, while he was arguing in one place that there was no corruption in the case, and that lord Charles was innocent, he could appear in another place, for the purpose of attempting to support charges proving him not innocent? He thought he was bound to keep separate the duties of the judge and the advocate, and he had therefore thought it right to cease from any further prosecution of those charges, while he remained in that condition. He now, however, agreed most fully with the noble lord, that the time was come, when they ought to determine whether lord Charles was guilty or innocent; so that the House might be at once able to determine whether he was to be confirmed in, or dismissed from, the government in which he was placed.

895
The motion for the several papers was agreed to.

SPRING-GUNS' BILL.
The Order of the day for taking into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Spring-Guns' Bill having been read,
Mr. Charles Calvertobserved, that, by the amendments which had been introduced into the bill in the House of Lords, it was rendered general; and Spring-guns were prohibited from being set for the protection of any property, except in houses. In houses they might be set both clay and night; which latter permission seemed to him to be an extraordinary one, and calculated to produce accident. Some time ago, at the request of a number of market-gardeners in the neighbourhood of London, he had presented a petition on the subject in their behalf; and, at their further request, he was now prepared to move an amendment to the amendments introduced into the bill by the Lords. It was well known that there were large gardens in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, which, although walled, were accessible; and, to deter from the robbery of which by boys and others, the appearance of spring-guns was the surest means. The market-gardeners declared, that, unless they were allowed to set spring-guns and man-traps, they could not adequately protect their property. He meant, therefore, to move as an amendment to that amendment of the Lords—that nothing in the act should be construed to render illegal the setting of spring-guns or mantraps in houses—the addition of the words, "or in any garden, hot-house, or conservatory, enclosed by a wall seven feet high; due notice being conspicuously given of their being so set."
Mr. W. Bankessaid, that this bill had come back from the Lords, different not only in its details, but in principle. He was one of those who agreed that such deadly engines as spring-guns were hardly justifiable for the protection of game, but he was far from thinking that it was right to carry the principle of their abolition so far as to withdraw them from other and more valuable property. Their very existence inspired a salutary terror in trespassers, and he trembled at the consequences of its being known that they were withdrawn altogether. For these reasons, he should dissent from these amendments.
Mr. Peeladmitted that game, as a
896
source of amusement, was a species of property which ought to be protected, but he was far from thinking that it was justifiable to use means for that protection destructive of human life. Upon that principle, therefore, he had supported the present bill in its progress through the House, and more particularly because it took away that wide arena which existed of woods and plantations, in which such engines were before permitted. But there appeared to be a broad distinction between the use of spring-guns in uninclosed and extensive grounds, where their deadly effects might be visited upon inadvertent trespassers, and such places as market-gardens, by the security of which from robbers a large class of men obtained their subsistence. When a man inclosed his ground by a wall seven feet high, and thus took the best precaution in his power to exclude trespassers, his case was most undoubtedly different from those, where there was nothing to protect but a pheasant, and no safeguard but a fence. He therefore dissented from the Lords' amendment in this respect. And really the House should know that there was no class of men which required protection more than these market-gardeners, for in no place was the police more lax than in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns. Within the towns themselves the police was generally well-regulated; but this strictness drove the vagabonds out a few miles upon the roads, about the places where these market-gardens were situated. He had, early in the session, without reference to this question, moved for a committee to inquire into the state of the police near the metropolis; for he had reason to know, that the consequence of having horse and foot patrols in London was, that the bad characters were banished four or five miles out upon the roads. In order, therefore, to an effectual suppression of crime, it would be necessary to place that particular branch of the police upon a more efficient footing. In many places it was most mischievously ineffective. Throughout the whole of that extensive district comprehending Twickenham and Richmond, the peace of the county almost depended upon the individual activity of colonel Clitheroe. Many of the market-gardens were situated in that district; and, until a better police was set on foot, he thought it not unreasonable that the market-gardens should be protected by spring-guns. At the same time, he

897
thought it would be better if the market-gardeners were called upon to provide for the protection of their grounds by taking into pay a sufficient number of ordinary constables, who, if they did their duty, would be sufficient for all purposes. He had not the smallest doubt but that if an investigation took place into the causes of the increase of crime, it would turn out to be closely connected with depredations upon such property. Whilst the amount of great crimes was diminished, the sum of offences against property had greatly increased. This he ascribed to the defective state of the police in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. Until something else was done, he could not dispense with this species of protection to the market-gardeners.
Mr. C. N. Pallmeragreed, that, until some other protection was afforded the market-gardeners by a more efficient police, they ought to be allowed to protect their grounds by spring-guns. The subject seemed to have been viewed in rather a curious light in another place, for the only instance in which they permitted the setting of spring-guns was that in which a man was most unlikely to use them; namely, in his dwelling-house. The market-gardens were a species of property especially subject to depredation, from being so near town, and they were therefore entitled to special protection.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had supported the bill originally, upon the ground, not that spring-guns were unjustifiable for the protection of game only, but because he would not permit such deadly weapons to be used in any case in which a man would not be warranted in firing a gun from his hand. He did not understand that a market-gardener would be justified in firing upon a trespasser with a gun; and therefore he would not allow the use of spring-guns in such cases.
Mr. Tennysondenied the validity of the arguments which had been urged by the hon. member for Corfe castle. The principle of the bill had undergone great extension in the House of Lords; and, in his opinion, the improvement was commensurate with the extension. If the House adopted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southwark, they would make a material change in the criminal jurisprudence of the country. It ought also to be recollected, that the same amendment had been ineffectually proposed in another place.
Mr. Monckopposed the amendment.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the real question for the House to consider was, whether, by disagreeing to the Lords' amendments, they would postpone for a year the advantages to be derived from the bill; or, by agreeing to those amendments, would merely subject the market-gardeners to a temporary inconvenience, which might be remedied next session.
Mr. FranklandLewis remonstrated against any allusion to the opinions of the other House. Those opinions ought never to influence the decisions of the House of Commons. By its merits, and by its merits alone, ought the bill under consideration to be tried. It ought to be recollected, that the market-gardens were the property of a very large and industrious class of individuals, who ought to be encouraged to supply the London market as cheaply as possible. It was impossible that they could fence round their extensive grounds so securely as to prevent persons who were determined to get over the fence from doing so; although the fence were such that no person could violate it by accident. That was the distinction between gardens and woods. No case had been made out of any individual having suffered from spring-guns set in these gardens. The only objection to them therefore was theoretical. It would be most unjust to deprive the persons in question of protection, and to put their property in jeopardy without any grievance having been shown to exist. On all these grounds he supported the amendment.
Dr. Lushingtonobserved, that there was much good sense in taking all the benefits that could be obtained from any measure, when all that it was desirable to obtain could not be secured. He who adhered rigidly to what was called principles, frequently lost opportunities of accomplishing much practical good. He was disposed to assent to the amendments which had been made by the Lords; first, because they were in conformity to the general principles of our law; and, secondly, because they were in conformity to the view which, in his opinion, the legislature should take of the manner in which property ought to be protected. He said "ought;" because he believed the security of property in this country by severe enactments was carried much further than it ought to be carried. Although the acquisition and the just security of property were advantageous to

899
the community as well as to the possessor, there were limits beyond which neither the acquisition nor the possession ought to be protected. Property was only one means of happiness; the happiness of all was the end of the security of property. They who maintained the justice of setting spring-guns in woods for the protection of game, might as well say that it would be justifiable at any hour of the night to fire guns through the wood, in the hope that if any poachers were there they would be killed. Such an act, however, would be murder. An hon. friend of his, lately a member of the House, had the misfortune, during his absence from home, to have a spring-gun set in his garden. He had the still greater misfortune of having a man killed by that spring-gun. He (Dr. L.) had been an eye-witness of the misery in which this accident had involved his excellent friend. The loss of his garden, or of his whole property, would not have inflicted upon him half the pain that he endured for weeks and months; and yet he was not to blame, for he had given strict orders to his gardener to load the spring-gun only with powder—an order which was, unhappily, disobeyed. This example was sufficient to show, that, if the setting of spring-guns were allowed at all, it would frequently happen that the indiscretion of inferior persons, who were reckless or thoughtless of consequences, would be the cause of the loss of human life. With respect to gardens, where was the necessity for this kind of protection? Large gardens were watched. He spoke of his own knowledge, of such large gardens as those at the bottom of Highgate-hill. Those gardens had persons to guard them at night. It would be otherwise impossible to prevent the intrusion of stragglers. If persons would have valuable property in open fields, easy of access, it was their duty to guard it against depredation; and if they did not do so, they must bear the loss. It was on this principle that some of the wisest and best men in this country had reprobated the practice of tradesmen who left their goods exposed at their shop-doors. The expense of guarding these gardens was nothing as compared with the profit derived from them. Had any hon. gentleman an idea of the advance in the retail price of garden-stuff sold in the market? It was a thousand-fold. The small increase of expense, therefore, which the employment of watch-
900
men would occasion, would be comparatively trifling. Justice and humanity called for the total abolition of the practice of setting spring-guns. The House ought to consider, that on this subject they were legislating with respect to a description of offence which no member of it was likely to commit. There was, therefore, no community of feeling between the legislature and the criminal; and that consideration ought to induce them to pass the bill in its present state, by acclamation.
Sir C. Wetherellopposed the lords' amendments, and fully concurred in all the views of his right hon. friend. He contended, that, according to the law of England, protection to property from injury was justifiable.
Lord Sandonasked, if it was justifiable by the common law, for a person to do that by agency which he would not do by himself. If a person could not shoot a man climbing a wall, could he do so by a spring-gun, or any other engine? He contended, he could not. Such doctrine was alike repugnant to the common law and natural law, which was anterior to it.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. C. Calvertmoved, respecting the setting of Spring-guns in the next clause, that after "continued," there be added, "from sun-set to sun-rise."—Agreed to.
Mr. W. Bankesmoved the next amendment, on the lords' amendment, which rendered the bill general in its operation, with the exception of dwelling-houses; he proposed, with the intention of bringing the bill back to its general form, that instead of dwelling-house, there be inserted, "unless in woods, under-woods, greenhouses," &c.
Mr. S. Riceurged the inexpediency of altering the lords' amendments, which were, perhaps, made in the very expectation of their being rejected here. He hoped the House would not be seduced to lose the bill altogether, by now negativing some objectionable clauses, but would carry the bill in its present shape, and trust to chance for future improvements.
Lord Miltonconcurred in these suggestions. They had no right to look on the amendments made in the bill in the Lords, in any other light than as the amendments of the lords generally; although, out of that House, if he were asked the question, he could point out the author of those amendments. Let the House take the bill as they found it,

901
and not take on themselves the odium of throwing it out altogether, which would in all probability be the result of pressing these amendments. The House then divided; For the amendment 24; Against it 46; Majority for the bill as it was 22.
Mr. C. Calvertsubmitted an amendment for permission of spring-guns to the owners of gardens, hot-houses, or conservatories, surrounded by a wall seven feet high, by setting a conspicuous notice on the wall.
Lord Miltonsaid, that persons who could keep such places, could also keep a watchman to protect them.
Mr. C. Calvertsaid, that it was not so; as many of the persons for whose benefit this clause was proposed were market-gardeners, who cultivated the gardens and conservatories attached to large houses which had been dilapidated. The House divided: For the Amendment 23; Against it 40; Majority against it 17.
The other lords' amendments, with amendments, were agreed to, and ordered to be sent back to the Lords.

NEW ADMINISTRATION.
Earl Manvershoped he might be permitted to trespass for a few moments on their lordships' time, whilst he stated the motives which had induced him to refuse his
854
confidence to the present administration. Of the difficulties which the right hon. gentleman at the head of it had experienced in forming the new government, he knew nothing but from newspaper authority; and of the motives which induced the late cabinet to resign, he was equally uninformed, except from the same source; but surely it could not be denied that the basis on which the present administration rested must be Catholic emancipation. He understood that a vital change in the constitution was the object of the present government; and with that impression on his mind, having resisted that important question in every shape and form for the last twenty-five years, he trusted he should not be stigmatized as acting from any factious motives, if he felt it impossible to afford his support to the advisers of the Crown.
Lord De Dunstanvillesaw no reason for withholding his confidence from the present ministry. With regard to the question of Catholic emancipation, he thought that the Protestant religion would gain more by conceding than by opposing the claims of the Catholics; that more converts would be made by emancipation than by any other means.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he could not avoid making a few observations on the situation in which the existing administration was placed, and on the transactions which had recently taken place; but he felt it necessary first to declare, that he belonged to no class of opposition, whether factious or otherwise. He differed from the noble earl as to the support which should be given to the present administration, seeing the declaration which had been repeatedly made, that it was formed on the principles of lord Liverpool's government: therefore any resistance to such a ministry must be founded on personal objections,—a course which he decidedly disavowed. The present government had been called a provisional one. He thought that more importance was attached to that circumstance than it deserved. If it pleased the king to engage any portion of his ministry for limited service, as he did his troops, he saw no great reason to complain of such an exertion of the royal prerogative. No man who knew the abilities of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs so well as he did, could doubt his capacity to discharge the duties of his situation; and that being

855
the case, it did not appear to him a matter of much importance whether he held it permanently or not. There were, however, some circumstances connected with the formation of the administration which prevented him from giving it his entire confidence. He referred to the condition in which a question which had occupied much of their lordships' consideration was placed. He had never viewed that question in the same light as other noble lords, either as to the great benefit or the great danger which was supposed to be likely to result from its success. He thought that the results which were anticipated, on either side, were in a great degree imaginary. He had, notwithstanding, always given his support to the measure; and it was probable that he should still continue to do so. Some noble lords, however, entertained a stronger opinion than he did of the importance of emancipation; and that those noble lords, having those views, should pass over to the other side of the House to support the administration, and even to form a part of it, did certainly appear to him very extraordinary. It was, he repeated, extraordinary, that those noble lords should so act, when they knew it was not even to be attempted to make Catholic emancipation a cabinet measure—that, in fact, a species of engagement existed, by which the administration was bound not to make either that question, or any matter connected with it, a cabinet measure. In lord Liverpool's administration, when the majority of the government was opposed to Catholic emancipation, it could not, of course, be made a cabinet measure; but now that an immense majority of the ministers maintained that the measure was indispensable, urgent, and admitting of no delay, that these individuals should agree to postpone it indefinitely was indeed most extraordinary. For that the measure was practically so postponed, and its success thereby rendered infinitely less probable than at any former period, could not, he thought, be doubted. There was a matter connected with this subject to which he wished to direct their lordships' attention. He alluded to the report of a speech addressed by a right rev. friend of his, to the clergy of his diocess. Most of their lordships had, no doubt, seen that report, which he had ascertained to be perfectly correct. The speech in question advanced the most cogent arguments against the probability of the speedy
856
success of the Catholic question. How those arguments ought to be considered—whether as coming under the knowledge of the present administration—whether any of the present administration were to be considered as responsible for them—whether, finally, ministers were to be looked upon as the authors of those arguments, he did not know: but their lordships would observe, that this speech was not made on an unimportant occasion. The occasion was one of great solemnity. He would ask the rev. bench, if they should lend their support to the government—as most likely they would—whether they would not adopt that course mainly in consequence of the cogency of the arguments employed by his right rev. friend? He would ask the right reverend bench, whether they did not think that the chance of the Catholic question being carried was not further removed at the present moment, than it was under the administration of lord Liverpool? The noble lords who had gone over to the other side of the House declared, that the main cause of their adherence to the administration was the probability, nay, the certainty, which they saw of the Catholic question being carried. If such were their opinions, why had they entered into an engagement to get rid of the question? It could only be upon the principle that the end sanctified the means employed to attain it; for certainly such conduct was, to say the least of it, strangely inconsistent. On the one hand, the right rev. bench supported the administration, because they were persuaded the question was out of all danger; and, on the other, the noble lords who had passed over to the government side of the House professed to do the same thing, because they thought emancipation would speedily be accomplished. This state of things, though very convenient perhaps, did not present to his mind that plain, honest, and direct, course of proceeding which was so congenial to the minds of the people of this country; and he was much mistaken if the feeling which he entertained on that point was not becoming general throughout the empire. He did not mean to impute bad motives to any person; and, with respect to the question of Catholic emancipation itself, he attached much less importance to it than most of their lordships. He thought that the fair and honourable character of public men was of infinitely more importance; and at the present

857
moment it appeared to him, that that I character was liable to be called in question. Under all circumstances, he must repeat, that it was impossible for him to give his entire confidence to the administration.
The Earl of Abingdonrose for the purpose of denying what it seemed the intention of the last noble speaker to assert; namely, that the noble lords who sat on that side of the House constituted a factious opposition. Though he spoke from those benches, he trusted he should not be classed as one of a factious Opposition. He had always been the strenuous supporter of a regular government, and entertained a strong feeling of loyalty for his king, and of attachment to the constitution of the country, in church and state. An adherence to those principles had supported the country through all its difficulties, and had procured for it permanent peace and prosperity. A departure from those principles he considered dangerous to the welfare of the empire. Such being his opinion, he found it impossible to give his support to the administration.
Lord Hollandsaid, that in the discharge of his duty as a peer of parliament, he had always endeavoured, though perhaps he might not always have been successful, to confine the observations which he addressed to their lordships to such points as were immediately under consideration; or at least to such as were likely soon to be brought under consideration. However, since the meeting of parliament, after the recess, it had been greatly the fashion to enter into discussions totally irrelevant to any motions before the House, and, instead of standing upon general principles, to make professions of political faith, not only of the government or the individuals representing it, but of almost every person who sat on that side of the House. As it generally happened that people caught something of the manners of the company amongst whom they sat, it would not be surprising if he should himself indulge in some of those irregular observations of which he had heard so much from others. He, amongst others, had been put on his trial—not for any opinion he had expressed—not for any vote he had given—not for any principle he had abandoned—but only because he had changed his seat. He was called upon to explain why he had changed his seat in that House; and this call, be it
858
observed, was made particularly by those who had themselves changed their seats at the same time that he had changed his. He believed he might venture to say, that he disagreed upon every point with the noble lords who had lately left the king's service. There was scarcely one of the various topics which pressed upon the consideration of parliament, with respect to which he did not disagree with them. That very circumstance, then, would sufficiently account for his supporting the remnant of the late administration, when he found those noble lords opposing it. Such a course of conduct proved the consistency of both parties. The noble lord who spoke last but one, had put the withdrawal of his confidence from the government entirely on the ground of the state of the Catholic question; although at the same time he said, that the government was formed on the principle of lord Liverpool's administration. Now, he held, that the government was not founded on the principle of lord Liverpool's administration. The present government did not hold out the same prospects as that of lord Liverpool. He had heard it stated by those who had left the administration, that the principle of lord Liverpool's government was, that there should be a person who was inimical to the Catholic claims at the head of it. He had heard it so stated in that House. Either that statement was true or it was not. The noble lords opposite alleged, that it was one of their reasons for retiring from office, that the principle of lord Liverpool's administration had been departed from, in the appointment of a prime minister who was favourable to the Catholic claims. Let it not be supposed that he was blaming the noble lords for retiring from the administration. On the contrary, he rejoiced so much at that event, that he was, perhaps, too prone to view it with a certain degree of favour. He thought they had a perfect right to resign if they thought proper. They had, however, stated in justification of those proceedings, that the principles of lord Liverpool's administration had been departed from. That had been stated over and over again; and the particular in which this departure was most evident was the appointment of a person to be at the head of the government who was friendly to the Catholic claims. A noble lord who had lately been called up to that House, had told their lordships,

859
that he knew of no such principle existing in lord Liverpool's government. If, however, such were the principle of lord Liverpool's government, in the opinion of all those members of it who were inimical to the Catholic claims, and such opinion were not communicated to those members who were friendly to it, he must say that the latter did not seem to have been dealt fairly, directly, and plainly by. He would now, having been called upon, explain the reasons why he sat on that side of the House, and why he was able to support the government. They were shortly these—because, on most points, he thought he could agree with those who conducted the government. He would briefly state what were the points to which he alluded; but he begged to inform their lordships that they must not look at only one side of the picture. When he was asked to account for giving his support to the government, he begged in return to ask, what would be the consequences if he did not? And here he wished it to be understood, that, though speaking of himself, he meant his observations to apply to persons of much greater consequence than he could pretend to. Whether the present government was composed precisely of those individuals whom he would recommend to the king for his ministers, he had no right to say; but he would ask this plain question—"If the government cannot stand without such support as I can give it, what will be the consequences of its falling?" The consequences of its being overturned must of necessity be the establishment in full power, of that very party and those principles which he had spent his whole political life in opposing. He thought it would be for the advantage of the country to prevent the consequences which he had pointed out; but he did not think that it would tend to the dignity of parliament, or the honour of public men, to be constantly harping on the state of the government, without bringing it to the test, whether the majority of the House placed confidence in it or not.—The noble lords opposite found fault with being called a factious Opposition; but, when they had sat a little longer on those benches, they would not be very sore about the use of any particular phrase. If the phrase meant, that the noble lords were doing any thing illegal or improper, in their own view of the subject, they had a right to reject it. He saw nothing unconstitutional in their
860
conduct; though he certainly could not help discovering something like impatience in their proceedings. Their conduct reminded him of an anecdote which a noble earl had related, more than twenty years ago. To the best of his recollection it run thus:—"It happened, once upon a time, in a certain country, that all the men were changed into women, and all the women were changed into men. In the course of the transformation, it fell to the lot of the maids of honour to be changed into dragoon officers, and the dragoon officers to be changed into maids of honour. The dragoon officers who had become maids of honour, were at first accustomed to take too long strides, and behaved in other particulars a little indecorously. However, at the end of a month, they became as decorous, and as decent maids of honour as were to be found in any court of Europe. But, when the maids of honour became dragoon officers—oh, such a set of quarrelsome, impudent, troublesome, men were never before seen in the world. They were constantly engaged in swearing, drinking, and breaking heads. They were also in the habit of placing themselves at the head of the blackguard boys who went about with Guy Fawkes, and seizing that opportunity for exciting riot and alarm, and almost setting the town on fire" [a laugh]. He hoped the noble lords would not be angry with him for repeating the story, because it was in some degree applicable to most oppositions. The task which they had undertaken had long been his. He saw nothing factious in their exercising their undoubted privilege, of endeavouring to enforce their opinions. He only wished that they would bring forward some plain and direct question, for he considered it derogatory from the dignity of the House, and injurious to the service of the country, for public men to be flinging dirt at each other, and speculating as to what might be the principles of this or of that man. Why not bring the matter to a direct question, with respect to which men might honourably differ or honourably agree. If it be asked, what principles I have abandoned, what opinions I have altered? I answer, none. The present was not the first time in the course of his political life, that he had sat on the side of the House from which he was speaking, to support an administration in which he had confidence. What were the circumstances under which he last sat on those benches?

861
The Catholic question had been discussed and lost; subsequently to which an administration was formed, chiefly of persons who were favourable to the measure. That administration was, he believed, formed in the earnest hope that, by means of a prudent, conciliatory system of government, and by keeping the question for some time at rest, the country would be gradually prepared to accede to the measure. When he supported that administration on those grounds, he was not taunted with inconsistency; though he felt then, as strongly as he did now, the importance of removing the remaining disabilities under which the Catholics laboured. There was nothing which he would not do, either in the House or out of the House, to forward that great question; and even to accelerate it. But, how should he best accelerate it? By supporting the present government, or by opposing it; and opposing it, too, for the purpose of restoring to power the sincere but inveterate enemies of emancipation? The present administration was, in some degree, composed of the materials of the old one; but it contained none of the strongest enemies of emancipation who were included in the late cabinet. A noble lord had stated, that he (lord Holland) had been constantly opposing every act of lord Liverpool's government. Now, during the last three years, he had never divided in that House without voting on the same side with his majesty's present President of the Council. He might safely say, that, during the period he had mentioned, he had not divided twice against lord Liverpool's government on any subject except the Catholic question. Was it to be expected that he should, at the present moment, ask the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government, whether he intended to pursue the same policy with respect to foreign affairs, and particularly with reference to the South American States, and also with respect to commercial matters, with which, in the main, he had for some years past concurred? Was he to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether he still persisted in his admiration of Mr. Pitt, in which he (lord H.) never could join? If such a course were pursued, the differences between public men would be perpetual. All views of government and legislation would be as isolated and unconcerted as the learned lord on the cross bench described the late resignations to have been. That declaration certainly
862
surprised him. The learned lord said, that he had himself long intended to retire, and that it was a consolation to know it. He had, however, kept his intention in abeyance for forty years, before he carried it into execution.—But to return to the question.—On what subjects, he wished to know, did he disagree with lord Liverpool's government? The lords seceders (he really did not know how to designate the mass of retired ministers) had their share of responsibility in all the acts of lord Liverpool's government with which he agreed; and therefore he might say that he agreed with them. When he considered the changes which had taken place in our commercial system, and the policy which had been observed with respect to the South American States—when he looked at the situation in which the country now stood, with reference to foreign powers, and contrasted it with that in which it stood immediately before the right hon. gentleman now at the head of the government acceded to office, he could not help thinking, that the changes which had taken place would not have happened but for the right hon. gentleman; and that if he were no longer in the administration, but, in his stead, the noble lords who had resigned, a very different line of policy would be pursued. He thought, then, that though disagreeing with the administration on some points, he might honourably give it his support.—An allusion had been made to parliamentary reform. No person had a right to taunt him on that subject. Twenty years ago he formed part of a government for half a year; and, during that time, he never felt it his duty to submit the question of parliamentary reform to the consideration of parliament. In early life he had certainly formed a strong opinion on the subject; and he still differed from many of the opinions of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government respecting it. However, it so happened, that the question of parliamentary reform had never been mooted in their lordships' House during his recollection. A vote had never been asked on it; but it was his firm determination to vote upon that and every other question (excepting, perhaps, with regard to the propriety of bringing the Catholic question forward this session) precisely in the same way as he would have done had he retained his former seat. He admitted that want of confidence was a good

863
reason for withholding it from the government in which that individual was placed; but it was too much to charge individuals who did not feel that degree of distrust, with acting inconsistently in supporting that minister, because they did not agree with him on all speculative points. The worst of this mode of argument was, that it imposed a sort of tax on political opinion. Besides which, it led to crimination and recrimination; in the daily practice of which no great body of men could indulge without lowering their character in the opinion of the public. He, therefore, thought the practice unsalutary. When he heard a noble duke declare, that he had no hesitation in stating the person at the head of the government to be the most profligate minister that ever existed; and when he recollected, that that noble duke had supported a government which had placed in the hands of that individual the important trust of negotiating with foreign powers, and also of managing the business of his majesty's government in the other House of parliament, he could not help thinking, that the noble duke was himself guilty of that inconsistency with which he was so ready to charge others, who had given a cordial, disinterested, and uniform, support to lord Liverpool's administration, whilst the noble duke's support had been rather lukewarm on sundry topics. It was impossible fairly to charge him (lord Holland) with inconsistency in the course he was now pursuing with respect to the Catholic question; for he thought he was doing all in his power to advance that cause, by giving his support to government, rather than by withdrawing it at the risk of the formation of a new administration, decidedly hostile to emancipation. There was one point to which he begged leave to direct the attention of their lordships. It was a question in which the body of the Dissenters were deeply concerned. They proposed to bring their case before parliament during the present session, if, on better consideration, they should not think proper to adopt another course. He wished, however, to state fairly to the House, that, if he should be called on to move for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, he would do so. That was a question which had never been moved in the House in his time. Those persons who affected to idolize the memory of Mr. Pitt, ought to consider what had been the
864
conduct of that minister, before they condemned others for inconsistency. Did Mr. Pitt never form part of an administration the members of which differed on particular points? Did he not, when chancellor of the Exchequer, move Parliamentary Reform? Did he not continue, year after year, to recommend the abolition of the Slave-trade, though he had heard persons say, that, if Mr. Pitt had exerted himself to the utmost of his ability, he might have carried the latter measure sooner than it was carried. Yet he never heard it said, that Mr. Pitt had dishonoured himself by differing from his colleagues on those questions. Those persons who were most desirous that Mr. Pitt should be thought highly of, described, as the subversion of the Protestant interest, the measure which Mr. Pitt was most earnest to carry into execution. Were he disposed to go more minutely into the history of Mr. Pitt, he should have little difficulty in proving, that he often sat in a cabinet, where the difference of opinion that prevailed rendered it what might be considered a provisional government.—He would now say a few words as to the declared motives of the noble lords who had resigned. He had at once to declare, that all notions of concerting, and of dictating to the king in the exercise of his prerogative, was mere stuff and nonsense. If those noble lords believed, that the appointment of the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government would be injurious, they did right to resign; and he thought, that if they did not do wrong, they at least acted very foolishly in not concerting. He thought further, that with their opinions it would be perfectly constitutional to combine for the purpose of persuading his majesty to reconsider the exercise of his prerogative. He would go a step further, and say, that no political event, no public proceeding, had ever given him such heartfelt joy as their resignation. He was ready to thank them for what they had done. He agreed with those noble individuals in thinking, that the appointment of the right hon. gentleman was a great step towards the accomplishment of that measure which they deprecated. A noble baron had stated, that he would oppose the government because he thought its present construction, and the exclusion of the exclusionists, was likely ultimately to lead to some relaxation of the restrictive laws

865
against the Catholics. That was all very well, so far as it went; but then the noble baron turned round, and called upon those who supported the Catholic question to vote against the ministers, because that question was abandoned. This might be a very good mode of getting votes from two parties. To one the noble baron would say, "You must oppose the government, for it is clear they intend to carry the Catholic question, of which we disapprove;" and, in the next breath, he would turn round to the other party, and say, "You must he blind if you do not see that the government has completely abandoned the question—that they have put it off ad Grœcas calendas." This was like painting black and white with the same brush.—The government was not exactly what he could wish it to be; but, being compelled to make his choice between two things, neither of which he perfectly approved, he could not be blamed for taking that which he liked best. He had made his option to support the government; though he wished some of its principles were other than they were. It was impossible that the supporters of a great government should not see in its measures much which they would wish to have altered. The allegiance of party did not imply the surrender of opinion on every point. He liked the measures of the government in the gross; and thought that, by supporting it, he was assisting the cause of religious liberty. He differed from the views of all the noble lords who had retired from office. With respect to the learned lord who had quitted the wool-sack, however mischievous he might conceive his public conduct to hare been to the liberties of this country, he felt great regard for him, on account of the personal courtesy with which he had treated him. Nevertheless, he could not help expressing his surprise at having heard the learned lord say, that he had resigned his office for the sake of civil and religious liberty. Was it by constantly opposing the admission of one third of his majesty's subjects to the enjoyment of equal rights, that he manifested his attachment for religious liberty? Then, with respect to civil liberty, during thirty years that he had been in parliament, he never recollected any bill which directly or indirectly tended to abridge civil liberty, that the learned lord, and most of those who sat around him, had
866
not supported. For the reasons which he had advanced, he would give the government his support.
The Earl of Winchilseadeclared his intention to support any measures emanating from either side of the House, which he conceived to be calculated to promote the welfare of the country. The only means of forming an opinion, with respect to future conduct was, to look at what had been the tenor of the past. What confidence, then, could be placed in an administration which had been formed out of a coalition of the most opposite parties? What security for sincerity—what pledge of uprightness—could such a government give? It had been stated, in the other House of Parliament, that the administration was to be conducted on the principles of lord Liverpool's government. But the noble lord had just informed the House, that the administration was not to be conducted on those principles. For that open and manly avowal, he returned the noble lord his sincere thanks. Their lordships now knew how matters stood. There was now an end of the bone of contention which had existed for so many years. The sacrifice of opinion had not, it was clear, been made by the Whig party. It must have been made, in a certain degree, by the individual at the head of the government. From the observation which he had made of that individual's career, he believed he had made the profession of Tory principles only the stepping-stone to the eminence he had attained. He had no personal hostility to the individual. He had never possessed the honour of his acquaintance. He, however, entertained a strong political hostility towards him, which was founded on a review of some of the principal acts of his public life. Public acts were public property, and formed a fit subject for comment by a British senator, in the discharge of his duty. There were some parts of the public conduct of the present head of the government which had made a strong impression on his mind. There were circumstances connected with the political history of that right hon. gentleman, which were calculated to excite suspicion and alarm. Let the House call to its recollection the conduct of that right hon. individual, on the occasion of an important trial which occupied the attention of that House. There was not that straight-forward, open, and consistent line of conduct observable in

867
the political dealings of that right hon. gentleman, for which the House and the country had a right to look, in one who held the first situation in his majesty's government. When he considered that the present government was supported by individuals who all their lives were distinguished by their zeal in forwarding the question of Catholic emancipation—when he recollected that the powerful prerogative of the Crown had been exerted, in selecting persons favourable to that measure—he owned he felt alarm at such a state of things. If, as it was confidently said, the question of Catholic emancipation was to be carried by the present ministers, in God's name let them at once honestly and openly say that such was their intention. Let not the country be deceived by a show of neutrality, when the intentions of ministers were to carry that very question. Feeling strongly the impolicy and danger of conceding emancipation to the Catholics, he would, to the last hour of his life, raise his humble voice in opposition to their claims.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the noble baron opposite had shown a degree of official soreness which he had not expected from him, and which appeared to have no other foundation than the existence of an Opposition, which was usual on occasions like the present, and whose right to question the proceedings of government his noble friend seemed so desirous to control. He hoped, however, that his noble friend would have a better regard for the useful rights of an Opposition, and not apply the term "factious" to those who felt it their duty to stand forward on the present occasion, for no other purpose than simply to ascertain the principles on which his majesty's government had been formed. His noble friend had declared, that he differed from those individuals who had left his majesty's councils, on every topic; and yet he now supported a government, which was said to maintain the same principles on which the late government was founded. Now, he could not exactly comprehend why his noble friend should have opposed the government of the late lord Liverpool, and yet avow his support of the present administration, if the fact were so, that the principles of both were similar. The truth, however, was, that the country was wholly at a loss to know the principles of the present government; and he could not but consider, that it would be highly
868
convenient and expedient, if the noble viscount opposite would at once inform the House as to what those principles were. He was of opinion that the noble viscount should distinctly state whether any and what engagement ministers had entered into with those who gave them their support. His noble friend had avowed, that in going over to the other side of the House, he had not changed his principles. If it was the case, however, that the present administration was founded on the same principles as those professed by lord Liverpool's government, he felt inclined to think that his noble friend would find the seat which he had taken not the most comfortable. What was the security held, in the other House of Parliament, by those who professed the opinions of his noble friend? Did the mint offer that security, or the woods and forests? Had any of those individuals in the other House, who had avowed their support of government, taken any official situation, by which they were identified with the acts of ministers? Did his noble friend and his new supporters forget that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government proposed to form an administration on the principles of lord Liverpool; by which means the Catholic question could not by possibility be carried? Where, then, would be found any desire on the part of the right hon. gentleman to push forward the claims of the Catholics? and on what other ground had the right hon. gentleman claimed the support of that party, who now came forward to give him their countenance and assistance?—His noble friend had declared, that the Whigs had not compromised their principles in joining the present administration; but the Whigs as a party, were no longer in existence. That name, which at one time was connected with all that was high and honourable—that name, under which his noble friend had, for so many years, rendered his services to the country, following the footsteps of his ancestors, and supporting their principles—that name was for ever annihilated, and in future would exist only in the records of the country. The Whigs, as a party, might have had their errors; but the name was associated with many noble recollections; it was the great land-mark to which the country looked with confidence, whenever a period of national difficulty occurred. The party, however, was now no more; and it could not be concealed,

869
that their extinction was occasioned by their late unworthy alliance, and by that sacrifice of personal dignity, of which there was no similar example in the history of the country. Was it possible to look back—not for the last three weeks, but for the last three years—and call to recollection that system of adulation which had been practised by some of the members of his majesty's government towards that party whose political existence was now no more? Was it possible to remember the flattery which had been used, and which had so disgusted the public mind, and not perceive that the coalition which was now effected had long been preconcerted? There existed, however, one honourable exception to the sacrifice of dignity and consistency, and that exception was afforded by his noble friend behind him (lord Grey), whose speech on a late occasion was distinguished by an eloquence to which no words could do justice. If high and honourable feeling—if consistency of political conduct—were in these times worthy of approval, that speech would reflect an honourable lustre on the character of his noble friend. That speech had removed every inch of ground from the noble lord opposite. Religious liberty was one of the reasons assigned by his noble friend for the course he had pursued; but the speech of the noble lord entirely crushed that argument, and the country would henceforth learn to form a better estimate of the value of such professions.—But there were circumstances connected with this coalition which required explanation. It had been publicly stated, that the right hon. gentleman, now at the head of the cabinet, received an intimation, prior to the formation of the ministry, that if he were placed at the head of affairs, a certain party would give him their assistance. He had one or two observations to offer on this proposal. The first was, that if such an intimation had taken place, it should have been publicly stated in parliament. In the next place, such a union of interests was, on principle, highly objectionable; because, the responsible leaders of a party always in opposition to the government should not be allowed suddenly to give that government their support; unless they consented to take office, and were thereby, in some measure responsible for the assistance they afforded. On constitutional principles he objected to such a proceeding; and he hoped it would
870
not be found, that the leading minister in the House of Commons had been holding communion with individuals of opposite principles, for the purpose of ousting those with whom he had been acting. Hearing these things pretty broadly hinted, and knowing that there were prima facie proofs of conduct worse than this, he was justified in viewing the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, with reference to the late arrangements, with the greatest distrust. His noble friend (lord Lansdown) had given proof that the acceptance of office was not an object of desire to him; but there were others, who, like the spectres described by the poet, stood in miserable nakedness on the banks of the Styx, in expectation of being ferried over:—
"Stabant orantes primi transmittere eursum, Tendebantque manus, ripæ ulterioris amore."
His noble friend, he was sure, was not over desirous to possess himself of office; and when he conferred with his noble friend upon the subject, he told him that he had every disposition to support an administration of which he should he a member, but that he could not bring himself to support a government of which Mr. Canning should form the head. His noble friend, no doubt, believed that, by passing to the other side of the House, the Catholic cause would be forwarded. That cause, however, could not be accelerated by any ministerial arrangement, so long as it was known that a disposition hostile to it existed in a high quarter. Although he professed feelings of the greatest distrust towards the present government, he did not mean to oppose its measures through any factious feeling; but it was his firm determination at the same time to view every measure brought forward by ministers with the greatest suspicion and distrust.—With regard to the supposition, that the Catholic cause would be forwarded by the preponderance of interest in its favour, in consequence of the new arrangements, that circumstance could have no other effect, than to excite hopes in Ireland that must, in the end, be blasted, and to raise the fears of Protestants in this country. No man wished more fervently than he did to see the question of Catholic emancipation carried; but he could not shut his eyes to the difficulties by which it was surrounded. If he went into the cabinet of the king, those difficulties met him there. In every church they met him. The withholding of that great national question, deprived

871
his majesty of many excellent subjects, whose talents would be devoted to his service; and, so long as the claims of the Catholics were disallowed, the sanctuaries of private life would not be respected, the ties of friendship would be violated, and those of kindred severed. In England the withholding of that measure might be called a grievance, but in Ireland it was a malediction. He therefore deprecated any attempt to awaken hopes that must end in disappointment, and be attended perhaps with worse consequences; for despair would infallibly be the result in Ireland, when the expectations so improperly excited should be blasted. He wished the question not to be agitated at present, but left to the good sense and growing liberality of the people of this country, who, he was convinced, would, at no very distant day, be induced to forego their prejudices on the subject.
Lord Goderichsaid, that the noble baron who had just sat down had frankly stated his intention of taking every opportunity, convenient or inconvenient, of manifesting to their lordships and the country his determination to carry on that which he had, in the early part of these discussions, described as an uncompromising hostility to the present government. He had plainly avowed, that his object was, by those separate, inconvenient and unsatisfactory, debates, to produce an impression on the public mind. Such might be his object; but, in effecting it, those who were thus put upon their trial had the most unjust imputations cast upon them, and were reviled as men almost incapable of honourable and proper feelings. He complained of this course as most unjust; and he declared that, if fair dealing was intended, it ought no longer to be pursued. If they were to be told that they did not deserve the confidence of the country, for God's sake let a motion be brought before the House for that purpose; he sought for nothing else. It was impossible for those who were engaged in the service of his majesty to do justice to the duties they had undertaken, if they were to be attacked in this way. When those imputations were thrown upon them they were expected to treat them with indifference. For himself; he must declare, that he should meet the decision of such a question, when it came—if ever it did come—with that perfect fearlessness which he had hitherto shown upon political questions; and, if the results should prove
872
different from his anticipations, he should still feel the greatest indifference. But he was not indifferent to the language with which he and his friends had been, for some time past, assailed. It was impossible to remain altogether insensible to the violence of that language. Did the noble lord imagine that ministers were ice or stones? True it was, that they had hitherto thought it necessary to their honour and character to repress the feelings which the language to which their lordships had recently listened, was calculated to excite in their breasts. It had hitherto been the duty of the side of the House on which he sat to repress those feelings; but he trusted that in future such a distressing necessity would cease to exist, as he expected that, in candour, a question and a vote, to determine what the real sentiments of the House were, would be introduced. He did not quarrel with the noble lord for doing all that it might be in his power to do, to hurl ministers from their present seats. If it was the opinion of noble lords in that House, and of honourable gentlemen elsewhere, that he, and those with whom he had the honour of acting, had forfeited the confidence of parliament and of the country, in the name of God, let their lordships definitively pronounce an opinion to the effect, and let the present ministry be sent about their business. But if, on the other hand, we have not deserved to be thus stigmatized; let there be an end to so petty and harassing warfare. All that he or his friends could say was, that they were anxious to meet the question fairly, if any noble lord would bring it fairly forward. But he must, once for all, protest, in the most decided manner, against being thus baited, night after night, with questions so artfully contrived, as that silence, upon the part of himself and his colleagues, could be tortured into the most unjust and injurious constructions. The questions which the noble lord had, that night, thought proper to put were not, however, of a nature, even though unanswered, to justify such conclusions; but he would, nevertheless, give, without the slightest hesitation, the most explicit answer to those questions; still maintaining that he might, with perfect propriety, stand on his right of refusal. The noble lord had inquired whether, in the formation of the present government, there had been any stipulation either in favour of or contrary to the Catholic; claims? For

873
himself, as well as for his colleagues, he could assure their lordships, that he had never heard of any such stipulation, either the one way or the other; and that, as far as he knew, it only had existence in those vague rumours to which the noble lord had thought proper to lend the weight of his name and character. If any such engagement had been proposed to him, he would at once have rejected it—he would not say with scorn, but in a manner which must have for ever precluded the renewal of a proposition of a similar nature. He had spent some time in parliament; and he must say that, during his political experience, he had never heard made, against any administration, a charge more false and groundless than that which their lordships had recently heard. For himself he could only say, that he appealed to the tenor of his whole life, as the best refutation of such a calumny. While making this assertion, he was far from accusing noble lords with having alleged that which they knew to be untrue. He doubted not that their lordships believed all that they asserted; but he was sure that their lordships and the country would concur in his opinion as to the error under which these noble lords laboured. He professed to know nothing concerning the proposals of assistance and conjunction asserted to have been tendered by those, whose usual seat was on the opposite side of the House to that of the right hon. gentleman who was at the head of the government. But even were he better instructed in this respect, he saw no reason which could induce him to be communicative. He was totally at a loss to understand how noble lords could possibly justify to themselves a system of hostility, founded upon idle and groundless rumour.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that his questions were grounded on admissions from noble lords opposite.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that the only admission of which the noble lord could avail himself was, that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the administration had done his utmost to form an efficient and powerful administration, without any sacrifice of public principle.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed with the noble viscount, but still asserted, that that administration could not go on.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that that remained to be proved, and he most anxiously desired to have the question solved
874
by a parliamentary vote. The mode of assault to which he was now directing a repulse, was not of that species which the manliness and candour of the noble lord would have induced him to expect; he had thought that the noble lord would have immediately come into collision with ministers, and fairly contested the debateable ground, instead of skirmishing at the out-posts, and annoying his opponents, without any definite object. It was contrary to the expectation which he had formed of the noble lord's conduct, to be bemired and baited daily like a malefactor. The administration was not tried, and all he desired was fair play. Ministers wished to justify their characters; they were mutually anxious to rescue themselves from such a species of harassing persecution. He would not touch upon the Catholic question, as it involved too much discussion. On the present occasion he could not, however, refrain from testifying his advocacy of that measure, as sincerely as any of his present or former colleagues. But that attachment had its bounds, and would not carry the question by main force; neither would the noble lord himself, under the circumstances. The noble lord's speech contained a most extraordinary charge. It implied, that there should be an equality on both sides on the Catholic question. He would ask the noble lord, if that was not the state of the cabinet, at the head of which lord Liverpool sat for fifteen years? And yet that cabinet did not receive the noble lord's support. He had often wished its dissolution, and now proposed it as a model. He (lord Goderich) did not adopt the principle of necessary equality upon the Catholic question; and he felt that, as the cabinet was formed with respect to it, he was left open to take office under the right hon. gentleman. The component parts of lord Liverpool's government still remained, and let the test be its acts. The remaining members of that cabinet had given their counsels to the king for more than fifteen years; and had, through good repute and through evil repute, borne the country through all its most alarming perils. Could any sacrifice of principle be alleged against the members of the present government? The political members of it repelled any such insinuation. Their principles were unchanged, and all he asked of their lordships, was to suspend their censure until proofs were adduced to justify it.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he could not but express his surprise and regret at the unexpected discussion which had taken place. He should feel most happy to give the noble lord opposite, or any other noble lord, the fullest explanation on any subject connected with his majesty's government, provided the question was brought forward on proper notice in the regular form; but he must condemn in the strongest manner, these irrelevant discussions. When any question was brought before their lordships that called for inquiry, he should feel no objection to discuss it item by item, but he would not be induced to give any explanation to rumours gleaned from newspapers, and reports gathered from the registers of past times, for the purpose of heaping odium on a government which was framed on principles as honest and as honourable as any that had ever been formed in the country. He should not, however, be betrayed by his feelings—though he left the House to judge what those feelings were—out of that track which he felt most consistent with his own character, and most conformable to the wishes of those with whom he had the honour to act. It was said by the noble lord opposite that the coalition which he (lord Lansdown) and his party had formed with Mr. Canning's government was unworthy the confidence of the country. The noble lord, also, in direct terms spoke of a correspondence carried on for unworthy motives. Such charges he at once asserted to be false. He did not mean, of course, to attach a direct falsehood to the noble lord; but his assertion was certainly one of the most extraordinary proofs of a disposition to believe that which happened to agree with his own views and wishes. He hoped his majesty's government would be judged of by its acts. The characters of public men should not be aspersed by the imputations of unworthy motives. The day would shortly come when those who were connected with that government would be found to have acted from the most disinterested, patriotic, and honourable, motives. If the noble lord who commenced the attack really credited one tenth of the reports to which he had given such ready belief, he would not be doing his duty to the House or to the country, if he did not speedily bring forward a motion, the effect of which would be, to bring the whole question before parliament. The noble lord, who had
876
stepped into the ranks of the Opposition before he knew the principles of the government he stood forward to oppose, ought in justice, and consistently with his own manliness of character, to bring forward a motion, such as that to which he had alluded. For the honour of parliament, and for the satisfaction of the country, this ought speedily to be done. Not only the character of government required that inquiry, but the character of the Opposition also demanded it; and he could assure the House, whenever that motion was brought forward, it should be readily met by his majesty's government.

CASE OF MISS TURNER.
The Earl of Eldonpresented a petition from Edward Gibbon Wakefield. The petitioner stated, that the most material allegations of the petition of William Turner were untrue. He prayed their lordships' permission to be heard personally at their lordships' bar, against any bill that might be introduced to dissolve the marriage between him and Miss Ellen Turner; and he stated in the event of their lordships' allowing him to appear at their bar, that he should be unable to avail himself of that permission, unless by an express order of the House, as he was at present confined in gaol by the judgment of the Court of King's-bench. The order of the day for a committee of the whole House was then moved. The petition of W. Turner was read by the clerk. It contained a statement of the facts relative to the marriage of Miss Turner which were proved on the trial of E. G. Wakefield. The petition of E. G. Wakefield was also read.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he thought much credit was due to the noble and learned lord who had brought this question before their lordships, and he hoped they would do the promptest justice to the unfortunate girl who was the cause of the present proceeding. If it was their lordships' intention to act in the manner in which it was proposed for them to act, every moment was lost, if they did not at once proceed to act in that way. It was impossible for their lordships to conceive the distress and agony of mind of that unfortunate family, in whose favour it was proposed to legislate. With respect to the view he took of the question, he did think that, supposing no precedent could be found to bear upon the case, their lordships ought to go a little out of their way and adopt a

877
precedent, on a case which was so extraordinary. There was a precedent on their lordships' Journals, which, though it was not exactly in point, yet, with a little alteration, might be adopted in the present case. He alluded to the case of Miss Wharton, in the year 1691. That case, he considered, might, with a little allowance, be applied to the present one. There was certainly some difference between the two. Miss Wharton had been originally carried away by force; yet, by subsequent persuasion, the marriage had taken place with consent of the lady. In the present case, though there was no actual force employed, yet there was—that which was equivalent to actual force—moral force used, in the manner in which the young lady had been taken from the place where she had been placed for instruction, to the place where the ceremony of the marriage was gone through. He felt, however, somewhat relieved from the anxiety under which he laboured, by the remark made by a learned lord, whose opinion was entitled to considerable weight. That learned lord stated, that, in many instances, fraud was equivalent to force; and, if there ever could arise an occasion in which fraud ought to be considered equal to force, it was the occasion now before their lordships. In that case justice could only be real, in proportion as it was prompt. If the cause were to be tried in the Ecclesiastical court, there was no saying for how long a period it might continue in that court, before a decision would be pronounced. He understood, besides, that relief could not be administered in the Ecclesiastical court, because the person who alone could prove the facts of the case could not he brought forward as a witness. It had been suggested, that it would be better to legalize the admission of that particular evidence in the Ecclesiastical court, which at present could not be admitted, rather than meet the case promptly by an act of parliament. But, if such a course were to be adopted, it would be attended with great delay; and besides, the admissibility of the lady's evidence, in the present case, might be argued against, under the circumstances of the course which had been suggested. The law would be considered as an ex post facto law, and could not with propriety be applied to the present unfortunate case. Whether the marriage was a good one or not, he thought their lordships would feel themselves justified,
878
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to pass a law, declaring that the marriage which had taken place between E. G. Wakefield and Ellen Turner, whether a valid marriage by the law of Scotland or not, should be considered null and void.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, be could assure their lordships that no man had read with greater horror the proceedings of Wakefield than he had. There was no man who wished more sincerely than he did, that the young lady in the present case could be released from the engagement which she had entered into; but, as a member of their lordships' House, he had a duty to perform, superior to that which was dictated by his feelings. It was his duty to guard the law of the country, and to guard the proceedings of their lordships' House; and to prevent any precedent from being formed, which might, in his opinion, be prejudicial to the future welfare of the country. If, in the present case, it was proposed to form a precedent, there was a danger to be guarded against, of making the House pass a precedent upon subjects which went to the feelings of a man. On such subjects reason only was to be consulted. With respect to the question before the House, he begged to say, in the first place, that the case of "Campbell and Wharton" formed no precedent that could apply to the present. The peculiar circumstances of that case were, that the moment marriage had taken place, Mr. Campbell absconded, and therefore was out of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical court, and it was impossible to render him amenable to any court in this country. This circumstance formed a most material distinction. He desired to know what was the jurisdiction of their lordships' House? In the high court of parliament all injuries which the subject might sustain, and for which he could get no redress in the common courts of justice, would find their remedy; and therefore the high court of parliament was the last resource. There was no court which had the power of divorcing a matrimonio: the courts of Scotland possessed that power; but in this country there was no court which had such power, excepting the high court of parliament. Now, it was proposed to their lordships to take up the present case, because no court in this country had any jurisdiction upon it. But, what was the case? The petitioner stated,

879
that he was informed the Ecclesiastical court would not take the evidence of the parties. He was not sure that that was the fact; and he should like to hear the best legal authorities on the subject, before he made up his mind. In the first place, before their lordships proceeded in this view of the case, they ought to call for the assistance of those judicial authorities which, by the constitution, they were permitted to consult, to ascertain whether that which had been stated was the real state of the law; namely, not to take the evidence of the parties in the Ecclesiastical court. If this should prove to be a real evil, what was the direct remedy, but that their lordships should pass a law, giving a power, not only in this case, but generally, to the judge, at his discretion, not to examine the plaintiff, but to examine the parties in every case of such a nature as the present where fraud might be urged. He said, that this power should be left to the judge; for fraud might be urged for the purpose of obtaining the evidence of the parties, in cases where there was no actual appearance of fraud. The learned lord before him was aware, that in actions in the course of common law the parties could not be examined: even a trustee who had no personal interest could not be examined. But, in the court of Chancery, the parties to a cause could at all times be examined, and must be examined. If the lord Chancellor sends an order out of the court of Chancery, which was a frequent custom of that court, stating that he grants the power to any court of law to examine parties in the course of their proceedings, he administers the same remedy which was prayed for in the present case. But it was objected, that, after having this order, the cause might depend for four or five years in the Ecclesiastical court. If the form of process in that Ecclesiastical court was bad, it was for the noble lords to bring in a general bill to amend that form of process. But it might be said, that the present case was one of peculiar hardship, and that the sooner it was settled the better. That might be the case; but he was bound to think what would be the effect of the precedent that was proposed to be established. He had sat in that House for many years, and no man in it had attended more regularly than he had to the business connect-with divorce cases; and he had not the least hesitation in saying, that he had often
880
witnessed proceedings which struck him with disgust. When a case approached the time of decision, he had seen noble lords come down, and, without having heard the evidence, deciding causes, in opposition to the opinions of those who were entitled to the attention of the House. He was one who did not wish to see the jurisdiction of that House extended. The present case was, no doubt, one of gross fraud; but there were degrees of fraud. A case of minor fraud might hereafter come before their lordships, founded on the precedent of this case, and of which their lordships might be persuaded to take cognizance. Their lordships having thus furnished two precedents, a case of still minor fraud might come before the House; and their lordships would, step by step, be drawn into this situation—that whenever a man runs away with a young heiress, her parents or guardians might come to their lordships' House for relief. He did not think that their lordships intended to go so far as to legislate upon every matter of that nature; but such, he thought, was not an improbable result of forming a precedent as proposed. He had heard the petition of Mr. Turner read, and, from an extraordinary allegation which the petition contained, he should wish to have different authority than the simple statement of Mr. Turner respecting the forms of the Ecclesiastical courts. The statement he alluded to was the following —"that such marriage, as the one he prays the House to dissolve, could not, under the law of Scotland, be dissolved." There was a book with which every man who had attended to the law of Scotland, was acquainted. The book was edited by Hutcheson, and in it their lordships would find the following entry, in a case where a marriage was dissolved." The case was that of Allen, a schoolmaster, and Ann Young. It appeared, that the marriage ceremony had been regularly performed, and the girl was aged twelve years; that she was placed under Allen's care for the purpose of being taught; that undue influence, and a train of fraud and imposition had been used, to obtain her consent to the marriage; but that no consummation had taken place. This marriage was dissolved. The petitioner, however, stated, that such dissolution could not take place; and he himself had a little doubt on the subject of what the law in the Ecclesiastical

881
courts was; but he thought it preferable, at all events, to the proposed mode of proceeding, to pass a law to enable, at the discretion of the judge, parties to be examined in all cases of fraud; by which means their lordships would keep that jurisdiction which they now had, and would not extend it; to do which, he thought, in his conscience and honour, would be dangerous.
Lord Redesdalethought, he had followed the best course in referring the petition to a committee of the whole House. The present case was certainly one of considerable doubt; and he thought that, in some way or other, relief ought to be given, provided the case could be proved in point of fact. Their lordships were all aware, that, if the cause was argued in the Ecclesiastical court, it might occupy a very considerable length of time. If he mentioned the space of three or four years, he was sure he was stating a duration much shorter than that which such a proceeding might occupy. Their lordships would recollect, that the young lady in the present case knew not whether she was married or not—that her father, her uncle, and, in fact, that all the world were ignorant whether she was married or not. The case of Miss Wharton had been cited. That lady, after her divorce, married a person of the name of Ireland. The principal offender made his escape to France; but one of the conspirators was executed. The act in that case passed in the year 1691, a period when there were in that House, persons every way competent to frame it with effect; persons who had been engaged in the Revolution. The bill came up to their lordships from the other House of parliament; but he thought it preferable that the present measure should originate here, where questions of law and equity were frequently tried, and where their lordships were accustomed to have the assistance of the judges. The proceeding suggested by the noble earl could not be adopted; for their lordships must perceive, that the present case was one which was not provided for by any existing law. In cases of disputed property, delay of judgment would not alter the situation of the parties; but here there was a doubt as to whether the parties were husband and wife. In the event of the death of either of them while the suit was pending, there would be no possibility of annulling the marriage; their respective rights must remain whole and
882
entire. If Wakefield died first, the lady would be regarded as his widow, and, in that character, entitled to dower. If she died first, the alleged husband would be intitled to all his marital rights, so far as regarded her personal property, and the custody of her lands. Here, then, a man might, in this latter event, become possessed of considerable property, by means of fraud of which he had been found guilty in a court of law. He believed it was generally understood, that the lady could not be examined in the Ecclesiastical court, as to the circumstances relating to the marriage. In cases, however, of a criminal prosecution, such an examination was allowed in the temporal courts, and Miss Wharton, under such circumstances, appeared as a witness. It was suggested, that a bill should be introduced to legalise the evidence of the parties in all cases of fraud; but if that were done, there would still, in the present case, be a difficulty in obtaining relief, as the person against whom the proceedings were instituted would endeavour, by all the means in his power, to delay the final decision. Their lordships would have an opportunity of taking into their consideration all the particulars the case while the bill was in progress; but if they should reject the prayer of the petition, the lady and her family would be left in the most cruel state of suspense. There was no possible mode of extricating her, unless by a bill; and death might, by possibility, prevent that justice which their lordships would desire to see done. To what a deplorable state would this young lady be reduced, if she were allowed to remain the wife of a felon! Their lordships, in his opinion, were perfectly warranted, by the case of 1691, in allowing the bill to be brought in.
Lord Tenterdensupported the prayer of the petition. He said, that the facts stated in the petition must be assumed to be true, and that the young lady had been taken away by means of fraud and forgery. The learned lord then recapitulated all the particulars of the case, and said, that the principal offender and his accomplices had been convicted of a conspiracy, originating in the basest motives of lucre, and conducted throughout by fraud and force. He thought the House bound to afford the relief prayed. The friends of the unfortunate girl had, by prosecuting the defendants, done all in their power, and now came to the House for that relief which the

883
peculiar nature of the case demanded. He considered the precedent of 1691 sufficient. There were certainly circumstances in the present case which did not exist in that. In that instance, the husband had fled the country: but the fact of Campbell having so done did not form any material matter of consideration on the minds of those who passed that bill. If any other course were adopted, their lordships must recollect the great delay which must take place, and the anxiety and distress to which the parties must be subjected in the mean time. Public justice demanded that they should pass the bill. The punishment in this case had been too sparingly administered, considering the inflictions which the defendants had imposed on the unhappy young woman. He thought it was the duty of their lordships to take care to inform these persons, and not only them, but all others who possessed themselves of the persons of young women for the sake of base lucre, that such conduct would be visited with the severest penalties—to tell them, by what their lordships would now do, that they not only exposed themselves to the punishment which the courts of law might inflict, but that there was a power in the country, which would deprive them of all possibility of reaping advantage from their crimes.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.