Sitting of 20 April 1831

MINUTES.
Sir H. PARNELL for Queen's County, and Colonel W. L. MABERLY for Shaftesbury, took their seats.
Bills. Went through a Committee; Oaths before the Lord Steward. Printed Cottons. Read a third time; Money Payments Acts Repeal Bill.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. W. O'BRIEN, the Total Expense hitherto incurred in Building the New Bridge and Docks at Limerick, together with an Estimate of the amount required for their completion; the produce of the Tonnage Duties applicable under the provisions of the Limerick Bridge Act (4 Geo. 4th, c. 94) to the construction and maintenance of the Bridge and
1720
Docks; and any sums of money which may have been borrowed under the authority of the above Act; together With an account, in detail, of the manner in which tine whole amount expended has been applied:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Sums annually voted, and annually expended, during each of the last twelve years, for Building, Repairing, and Furnishing the Government House at Newfoundland; and a statement of the authority under which such expenditure has taken place; Copy of the original Estimate for such Works, an account of the sums expended, and a detail of the amount required to complete the Works; the number of persons appointed, and now acting to make Returns of sale of Corn, under the 7th and 8th George 4th, c. 58; stating the places where residing, the Salaries paid to each, and from what Fund paid: — On the Motion of Mr. WARBURTON, the Limits to the East and West, of the Port of Lyme, in Dorsetshire, and the Out-Stations comprehended in the said Port, and the distance of each Out-station from the Head-station; also, of the number of Officers employed in the collection of the Customs at the Head-station, and at each Out-station of the said Port, and the Name, Salary, and Emoluments of every such officer; also, of the number and aggregate Tonnage of Ships entered inwards and outwards, and cleared coastways, at the said Head-station, and each Out-station, during each of the last ten years, distinguishing the number and the aggregate Tonnage of the Ships above and below 100 tons; also, of the Imports and Exports, and the Duties upon Imports, at the said principal and Out-stations respectively, during each of the last ten years.
Petitions presented. Against the Grant to Maynooth College, by Mr. HODGSON, from Newcastle. By Mr. J. WOOD, from certain Retail Dealers in Beer, for an extension of the time their houses might be kept open. For a Law to enable individuals to endow Churches, by Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from the Clergy of the Diocese of Hereford. By Mr. W. O'BRIEN, from Lome, in favour of Poor Laws for Ireland; and from Loughgilly, to compel men to provide for their illegitimate children. By Mr. SCHONSWAR, from Hull, against the proposed Duty on Steam Boats; and for the Abolition of Fees on Vessels under Quarantine. By Mr. BAINBRIDGE, from the Inhabitants of Tauuton, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death. By Mr. FARDELL, from Freeholders of Lincoln, against the Registry of Deals Bill. By Mr. HUME, for the Repeal of Newspaper Stamp Duties, from Proprietors of Newspapers at Edinburgh; and from Mr. Ruspini, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duties on Medicines. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Colonel TYRELL, from Newport (Essex) Saffron Walden, Stansted and Chesterford. Against Reform, by Mr. HODGSON, from certain Inhabitants of South Shields:—By Mr. MACKINNON, from the Burgesses of Ipswich:—By Mr. CORNERWALL, from Bishops Castle:—By Colonel GRANT, from Elgin:—By Sir C. WETHERELL., from the Common Council of Norwich, and from Boroughbridge:—By Mr. MAXWELL, from three Parishes in Ireland. In favour of Reform, by Mr. T. H. FOLRY, from Slourbridge, Worcestershire:—By Mr. MORISON, from Banlf:—By Lord STRATHAVEN, from the County of Huntingdon:—By Mr. JEPHSON, from Whitechurch: — By Mr. BEAUMONT, three, from different places in the County of Northumberland:—By Colonel POWELL, from Cardigan:—From Wickham, by Mr. CARTER:—From Aberystwith, by Mr. PRICE:—By Mr. HODGES, from Brasted:—By Mr. HUME, from Wappen, Kensington, Brompton, Chigwell and Shaftesbury, and ten other places.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Mr. Bellsaid, he had to present a Petition, which he considered of very great importance, from the county of Northumberland, against the proposed Reform Bill. It was signed by two right rev. Prelates, the Bishops of Exeter and Durham, by ten Peers, by sixty Gentlemen in the Commission of

1721
the Peace, and by a very large number— he would say about 2,700—of the Freeholders of the county of Northumberland This petition, so numerously and respectably signed, formed a convincing proof, in his opinion, that the unanimity throughout the country, in favour of this measure, was not so complete as many people believed to be the case. The petitioners prayed, that this Bill should not pass into a law, because they were of opinion, that if it did so pass, it would be subversive of the best interests of this country. In their prayer, and in the propriety of their opinion, he perfectly concurred. He could not avoid expressing his disgust at the intimidation which had been held out for the purpose of compelling individuals to support this measure. He had not given way, and he should not give way, to any such intimidation; and if it were necessary, he would continue to offer his utmost opposition to every part of the measure. He had been taunted, as not being a Reformer. In answer to that he would say, that he was a moderate Reformer, but he could not support such a Reform as was now contemplated.
Mr. Beaumontdid not mean to deny that the petition which had been presented by his hon. colleague was most respectably signed; but it would be wrong to give to it all the weight and importance which would be attached to a petition agreed to at a county meeting regularly convened. He considered the present petition as speaking the sentiments of the Duke of Northumberland, and not those of the county at large. When his hon. Colleague spoke of intimidation, he could not avoid alluding to the circular which had been sent round to the tenants of the noble Duke, and which had appeared in the public papers. He did not mean to assert that that circular had emanated from his Grace; but if it did not, his Grace's Commissioners had used his name in a way which he should suppose his Grace could not approve of. The circular ran thus:—
"The Duke's Commissioners send to Mr. — for his own and the signatures of the tenants of his bailiwick, counterparts of Addresses to the King and the two Houses of Parliament, in respect to the present Reform Bill, the originals of which his Grace has signed, and in the promotion of which, his Lordship desires activity may be used, as a return is expected in a few days; trusting that all persons connected with him will join in the prayer of the petitions, which their neighbours
1722
should have an opportunity of signing if they think fit. The Duke requires the names of tenants who do not sign, and hopes that they will not embark rashly in politics, if they wish to place confidence in his opinions, which can only be truly learnt through his Commissioners."
"Commissioners'-office, Alnwick Castle, April 5th."
Now let the House look to the concluding paragraph—"The Duke requires the names of tenants who do not sign," and make their own comment on it. Could any man, either in or out of doors, suppose that this list was called for merely to be left on his Grace's breakfast-table, without any intention of making further use of it? Having seen this document in The Times, he had written to a friend in the country on the subject, and he answered in these terms:—"I have not seen The Times; but the conduct of the agents and sub-agents is such as The Times could scarcely misrepresent. The tenants and undertenants have been called on to sign; but it is a complete failure. They have got 2,700 signatures of men, women, and children; for wives and daughters signed for husbands and fathers." He greatly lamented that the noble Duke should have descended from the high station which he held to countenance such proceedings. He repeated, that the petition spoke not the sentiments of the county, but those of the Duke of Northumberland.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, when he saw that this 'petition was signed by a great majority of the nobility—when no less than sixty Magistrates had affixed their signatures to it, and 2,700 freeholders, he could not but consider it as a county petition of the most respectable character. With respect to the document to which the hon. Member had called the attention of the House,, he could state, most distinctly and positively, that the Duke of Northumberland never saw that document until it appeared in The Times newspaper. The Commissioners considered that circular as a private and confidential communication; but a copy of it had been procured improperly, and sent to a newspaper at Alnwick. With respect to that part of the circular which expressed a hope "that parties would not embark rashly in politics if they wished to place confidence in his (the Duke's) opinions, which could only be truly learnt through his Commissioners," it arose from the

1723
following circumstance:—It was found that at the very Castle of Alnwick, an individual who had been an agent to a noble Lord (Howick), when he stood for the county, actually applied for, and obtained the signatures of a great number of individuals, some of them belonging (he might say) to the Duke's household, to a petition for Reform,—that person declaring, that it was a petition which would receive the Duke's approbation, and that, by signing it they would shew their loyalty to the King, and regard for the Constitution. Therefore it was, that the Commissioners had conceived it to be their duty to state, "that the noble Duke's opinions could be only truly learnt through his Commissioners." They had been forced to take this step in consequence of the unfair means which had been resorted to by the other side, in procuring signatures to the Reform petition. He could proudly refer to the noble Duke's strictly honourable and impartial conduct in Ireland; he could refer to the munificent disinterestedness with which he relinquished 10,000 l. a year of his salary; he could refer to the whole course and tenour of his life, as affording sufficient evidence to repel the idea that he had ever improperly or unjustly interfered with the opinions of his tenantry.
Mr. Beaumontsaid, he had carefully abstained from making any charge against the noble Duke, because he could not prove that he had participated in the publication of the circular. He threw the whole onus on the Commissioners, not on the noble Duke.
Mr. Cornewallreminded the hon. Member, that he had expressed his regret that the noble Duke should have descended from his high station to countenance such a proceeding.
Mr. Beaumontwas obliged to his hon. friend for having reminded him of the circumstance, and he was sorry that such an observation had inadvertently slipped from him.
Mr. Hodgsonobserved, that undoubtedly there was in the county of Northumberland a considerable division of opinion on this subject.
Mr. Belltook that occasion to observe, that he had not described the petition as emanating from a county meeting, but as a petition of great importance, being signed by many of the most influential persons in the county.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonpresented a Petition from Kirkcudbright in favour of Reform. The hon. Member observed, that at the meeting at which this petition was agreed to, which was most respectable, the numbers were twenty-four at each side, and the casting vote was given in favour of this petition, which supported the principle of the Bill introduced by Government (for Scotland), although it differed from some of its details.
Sir G. Murrayadmitted the great respectability of the petitioners, but said, that the majority of the wealth and education of Scotland were against the Bill.
Mr. Kennedymaintained, that the people of Scotland were in favour of the Bill. Out of thirty counties, nineteen had already expressed opinions favourable to the Bill.
Sir George Clerkwas sure, that the opinions of the people of Scotland were not in favour of the Bill. He admitted, that there were faults in the representation of Scotland, but the proposed Bill was the most ill-digested production that ever was offered to the House in shape of a law.
Sir C. Forbeswished to know of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland and the learned Lord the member for Malton, what they would have done for seats in that House but for the close boroughs which had elected them. He hoped that would reconcile these Gentlemen to those places of refuge. He could not avoid recurring to the disturbances in Scotland, which he contended were the result of the excitement caused by the Bill.
Sir R. Vyvyandeprecated such discussions on the presentation of petitions. If the practice were adhered to of debating minor points only of local interest on presenting petitions, it would be impossible to get through the business of the House, or to have time for presenting the petitions of the people, unless the time fixed for receiving them was enlarged, which he hoped it would be this evening.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. J. Woodpresented a petition from Preston, signed by 2,400 persons. He was sorry he was obliged to present the petition in the absence of his hon. colleague. The meeting at which the petition was agreed to, was called by the mayor; only two persons spoke against the Reform Bill, upon the ground of its

1725
not going far enough; and when the question was put, only a few hands were held up against the question. He therefore had a right to assume that the petition spoke the sentiments of the electors of Preston. He also had a petition to present from the Manchester Political Union, in favour of the Bill. The petition was signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Union, who were present at the meetings which his hon. colleague had attended, and they stated, that the petition expressed the sentiments of 600,000 of the working classes, residing in Manchester and its vicinity. He had also received numerous letters expressing surprise at the statement which had been made by his hon. colleague respecting the feelings of the working classes with respect to the Reform Bill.
Mr. Fylersaid, he had received a communication from the Spitalfields weavers, expressing their indignation at the statement which had been made by the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Hunt). He was also authorized to say, that the freemen of Coventry were willing to surrender their own privileges for what they conceived to be a national advantage.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had received a petition, very numerously signed by the working classes of Darlaston, the town which was visited by the hon. member for Preston. The petitioners expressed their strong surprise at the description which had been given of their conduct by that hon. Member. An advertisement had appeared in a Birmingham newspaper, containing the resolutions passed at a meeting of the working classes and he knew from that advertisement that the meeting came to a resolution declaring Mr. Hunt deserving of their censure.

SUPPLY. — ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
On the motion of Mr. Tennyson, the House went into a Committee of Supply. In the Committee, on the motion of Mr. Tennyson, the following sums were voted without opposition; 5,210 l. to defray the expense of pay and allowances to seventy six master gunners at the garrisons and batteries in Great Britain, Guernsey, Jersey, and in Ireland, for the year 1831: 81,328 l. to defray the expense of the royal engineers, sappers and miners: 278,436 l. to defray the expense of the royal regiment of artillery: 36,216 l. to defray the expense of the royal horse artillery and
1726
riding house troop: 1,223 l. to defray the expense of the Director-general of the artillery and field-train department: 9,218 to defray the expense of the medical establishment for the military department of the Ordnance: 3,402 l. to defray the expense of the establishment of the professors, masters, &c. of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich: 64,200 l. to defray the expense of the superintendence and management of ordnance and barrack works and repairs: 391,965 l. to defray the expense of ordnance and barrack works and repairs in the Store-keeper's departments; but, after deducting 296,182 l. for rents, sale of old stores, and unexpended sums of former grants, 95,783 l.: and 64,389 l. to defray the expense of Barrack-masters' expenditure, &c. in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies. On the vote for granting 146,219 l. to defray the expense of military and civil contingencies, stores, &c. being moved,
Mr. Humesaid, that, for the first and only time in his life, he perfectly acquiesced in the estimate of the year for this service, for it was all in vain now, after what had occurred last night, to expect that any thing would be conducted in the way of business, satisfactorily by a House constituted as it was proved to be, by the two trials of strength between the two great parties in that House, which had been run neck and neck on each occasion. It was, therefore, to be hoped this state of things would be put an end to by a prompt dissolution, and they would all be sent back to their constituents, when, no doubt, a Parliament would be returned which might effect something for the public good, and not take up important public measures in the light of party questions.
Colonel Trench,alluding to the savings which had been alleged to have been made in this department by the present Ministers since their accession to power, believed they could not be fairly taken at more than 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. sterling, whilst the hon. Member had been silent on the very important saving which had been accomplished in this department last year by his predecessor, amounting to above 47,000 l.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, he was in hopes he should be able to propose a reduction in next year's estimates larger than that which he felt authorised in proposing on this occasion. He believed the saving this year would be found to be fall 5,000 l.
Sir Henry Hardinge,from intimate acquaintance with the subject, would take upon himself to correct the statement made by the hon. Member, and state his opinion that the real saving to the public in this year's estimates would not be found to exceed 3,000 l. He should not oppose the vote.
Vote agreed to. The following sums were also voted; 27,974 l. to defray the expense of services performed by the office of Ordnance, and not provided, for by Parliament, in the year 1830: 69,930 l. to defray the charge of the military store branch for Great Britain, Ireland and the Colonies: 1,600 l. to defray the expense of Exchequer fees: 297,116 l. to defray the charge of the military superannuated and half-pay retired General Officers, &c.: 60,116 l. to defray the charge of superannuated civil servants: 535 l. to pay Exchequer fees on the superannuated allowance.
House resumed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).
The House then went into Committee on the Administration of Justice in Ireland Bill, on the Motion of Mr. Crampton.
Mr. Ruthvenwished to take that opportunity to say a few words on the abuses of Sheriffs in empanelling Juries in Ireland. He could shew, by a reference to the Reports already laid on the Table of the House, that parties were continually obliged to purchase an exemption from serving as Jurors. The evidence of Mr. John Dodd, a Dublin auctioneer, proved that Sheriff's, on some occasions, received compliments of 50 l. and 60 l. for certain indulgences by them extended to the donors in return. He would take this opportunity of stating, that he had lately received a communication from a gentleman in Ireland, whose feelings it appeared were wounded by the observations which he had made upon this subject already, and he much regretted that any thing he had uttered should have been productive of annoyance to any one; but he could by no means consent to retract a word of what had fallen from him during the debate alluded to, for he had made no strictures whatever which were not fully justified by the information on which he acted, nor had he been, in any degree, influenced by personal considerations.
Mr. Cramptondisclaimed being an apo-
1728
logist for any one abuse, whether public or private, whether in the Sheriff's-office in Ireland, in the administration of the laws, or in the rotten boroughs, of which he trusted so soon to witness the disfranchisement. The Special Jury system was not indeed quite so bad as it had been represented. At the same time, he admitted, that the system might want amendment, and to its amendment he should be ready to contribute his exertions. He had further to observe, that the statements to which the hon. Member had alluded were ex-parte statements against the individual to whom they referred, and it was scarcely fair to make them the grounds of a charge against a gentleman who had no notice of the intended accusation, and, consequently, was not prepared to defend himself.
Sir C. Wetherell,with all due deference for the learning and station of the hon. Gentleman who filled the office of Solicitor General for Ireland, deprecated in the strongest terms his very ill-timed and unwarrantable allusion to what he was pleased to call rotten boroughs. The allusion on this occasion was equally uncalled for and out of place, and, he must say, did but little credit to the hon. and learned Gentleman's prudence and good sense.
Mr. Leaderobserved, that the most odious abuses were daily taking place in the Sheriff's-office in Ireland, and he hoped, ere long, to witness their effectual and permanent abolition.
Mr. Jephsonwished to call the attention of the learned Solicitor General for Ireland to the inconvenient operation of the Registry Act, and requested to know whether it was likely that any legislative measure would be applied to remedy the evil.
Mr. Ricesaid, that the reason why the abuses in the Register's Office had not hitherto been rectified; was the difference between two Minutes drawn up by the Treasury in consequence of a report on this subject, which made it difficult to decide upon which it would be preferable to proceed. A further Report on the subject had, however, lately been laid upon the Table, which so far disembarrassed the Government on that point as to enable him to state, that an effective remedy would be brought forward with as little further loss of time as possible.
Bill read a second time.

REFORM—OPINIONS OF THE HUMBLER CLASSES.
Mr. Lennardpresented a Pe-

1729
tition, which had been adopted at a public meeting of the Freemen of the Borough of Maldon, resident in London, in favour of the Reform which had been proposed by the Government. The petition was peculiarly entitled to attention, as corning from persons whose personal interests and rights would be so materially affected by the measure in question. The petitioners stated truly, that the number of nonresident freemen of the borough of Maldon very far exceeded those of any other borough in the kingdom; but, so far from grounding on this circumstance any claim in their own favour, of exemption from the general provisions of the Bill, they state that they cheerfully sacrifice all personal considerations for the public good. He thought this petition highly honourable to his constituents; and he must claim for them the same praise which had been so justly bestowed on the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Cleveland, and others, who had declared their willingness to sacrifice their own interests in favour of the great measure of Reform which had been introduced by the Government. He hoped that the petition he had the honour of presenting would tend to satisfy the hon. member for Preston, that there were many persons favourable to the Reform Bill besides those who derived a particular and private benefit from it. There were some of his constituents who were deprived of a valuable privilege by it, and who yet, on public grounds, were anxious to give it their support—a conduct which he thought highly creditable to them.
Mr. Huntgave very little credit either to those members of the aristocracy or of the middle classes who now came forward by compulsion in support of this measure. As to the great body of the people, he maintained that they would derive no advantage whatever from it.
Mr. Humedeprecated the course adopted by the hon. member for Preston, who had gone on maligning the views and feelings of the people. He utterly denied, that those persons among the upper classes who had now stood forward as the advocates of Reform were actuated by the unworthy motives imputed to them by the hon. Member. He knew it to be a fact that, long before the present measure was thought of, many of those persons had shown themselves ready to do all that they had since done. He was assured that several petitions would be presented to the
1730
House from the operative classes, denying, and utterly disclaiming, the representations made respecting them by the hon. Member.
Mr. Huntmust still contend, that the Bill excluded the great body of the people from any practical benefit. A great deal was said about his having misrepresented the views and feelings of the working classes, and he understood that the hon. member for Stafford had a petition to present from Darlaston on the subject. With regard, however, to such petitions, he set very little value upon them. He would engage, on any day in the week, to get one or two petitions up, with double the number of signatures attached to them that, any petition had which the hon. Member had presented, for five shillings. He admitted, at the same time, that a very strong feeling prevailed in favour of the Bill, and on that ground alone it was, that he gave it his support. He would maintain that the Bill was a delusion upon the country. He wished to know what good this Bill would do for the people? Would they get bread cheaper by it? Would they get a reduction of taxes? Would they get a reduction of that accursed Pension List? No; Ministers had defended it through thick and thin, and had told the House that there was no prospect of amelioration for the people in a reduction of taxes, which was the thing most likely to prove advantageous to the community. He had no party views whatever in the course he had taken, and had only expressed his sincere opinions.
Mr. Humewished it to be understood, that he had made no attack upon the hon. member for Preston, but, on the contrary, had risen to defend him. He regretted exceedingly that the hon. Member should have expressed his opinions with regard to the Bill in the manner he had; and he hoped that he would not continue to throw out those remarks, which could have no practical good effect upon the measure.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the Bill, in its amended state, ought to have remained longer before it had been pressed on the consideration of the House, in order that the people of the country might have a full opportunity of seeing all its objects. He concurred with the hon. member for Preston that the Bill was a delusion—a fraud, he would say—upon the people of England; and the more it was exposed and developed, the greater

1731
would be their disgust. The public was far from being contented with it. He had voted invariably against the measure, and felt that he had done his duty. By so doing he had not consulted his own interest probably, but he had obeyed the dictates of his own conscience. In all public matters he would invariably attend to a conscientious discharge of his duty, disregarding any considerations of private interest. Something had been said respecting the sacrifice made by borough proprietors in forwarding the measure of Reform, but they had not come forward with this generous sacrifice on behalf of the country until the Bill was introduced. They had disregarded the old maxim, bis dat qui cito dat, in the course they had taken. He feared not the being sent back to his constituents on account of the line of conduct, which he had pursued with regard to the opposition he had given to the Bill; and he hoped that the Bill would never meet with the sanction, of the Legislature, fraught as it was with injustice towards so many individuals who had never been proved guilty of any impropriety or delinquency, in the discharge of their political rights and privileges.
Mr. Hughes Hughesdenied, that this Bill was either a fraud or a delusion on the people of England. He had wished to ascertain the feelings of his constituents on it, and he had in consequence spent three days out of the last ten in calling upon his constituents in Oxford. He had called in that time upon more than a thousand of them personally, and he would undertake to say, that not fifty individuals out of that number disapproved of the principle, or even of the details, of the measure. He had seen some of their children playing about, in whom the right of voting was only inchoate. The circumstance of their children being deprived of that franchise which they themselves enjoyed, was the only objection which any of his constituents had urged to the measure, but they had unanimously agreed to waive that objection rather than endanger the success of a Bill which was calculated to confer so much benefit upon the country. Now the rights of the children of freemen were secured by one of the late amendments introduced into the Bill, and therefore he was certain that his constituents would not have any the slightest objection to the Bill as it. now stood.
Sir C Wetherellasserted, that from
1732
his long connexion with the University and city of Oxford, he had as extensive a knowledge of the feelings of the inhabitants of Oxford as the hon. Member who now represented them; and he would take upon himself to deny the assertion, that the constituency of the city of Oxford, whose Representative he had been, and to whom he still was strongly attached, were favourable to this measure of Reform. As a proof of his opinion, he would only state, that in the Common Council of that town, which consisted of sixty persons, a petition in favour of Reform had only been carried by the casting vote of the Mayor. He contended that nine out often persons in Oxford had neither read nor understood the details of this Bill.
Mr. Tennysonwas sure that the citizens of Oxford understood, that this Bill would destroy fifty-five rotten boroughs; and that, after it was passed, Boroughbridge would cease to exist, arid that when it ceased to exist, his hon. and learned friend opposite would be compelled to go back to the electors of Oxford, or of some other populous borough. He must say, that he should like to see how his hon. arid learned friend Would be received by his quondam constituents of Oxford, when he went back to them after his present declaration, that they neither knew nor understood any thing about the present Bill.
Mr. Hughes Hugheswished to say a few words in explanation. He contended that he was justified in declaring that there was almost an unanimity of opinion in favour of this Bill among his constituents at Oxford. Of his constituents, 2,145 had signed a petition in favour of Reform, which had been agreed to at a public meeting at Oxford, at which more than 1,000 persons were present, and at which there had been only one dissentient voice. At a subsequent period, the Chamber of the Corporation had met, and had wished to get up an anti-Reform petition. The promoters of that petition had been defeated, however, by a majority of one. There Were thirty persons for that anti-Reform petition, and thirty against it. Those thirty persons formed part of the fifty dissentients to whom he had alluded in his former speech. As the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge seemed inclined to disbelieve the statement which he had given of the feelings of his constituents on this Bill, he only Wished that the horn and

1733
learned member would meet him on the hustings at Oxford, to see whether his constituents would not verify it.
Sir C. Wetherellrepeated the assertion which he had made on a former occasion, that the petition which the hon. member for Oxford had presented had come from persons who did not understand the Reform Bill.
Petition to be printed.
Sir C. Wetherellpresented a Petition from the Corporation of the city of Giocester, against the Reform Bill.
Colonel Webbobserved, that as he had the honour of being one of the members for the city of Gloucester, he must be permitted to say a few words upon this petition. During the last fortnight he had visited his constituents, and he could say of his own knowledge, that a great majority of them were in favour of this Bill.
Mr. Huntwished to take the opportunity of stating, that he had never asserted that no credit should be given to the noblemen and gentry who had surrendered their borough patronage. All that he had said was, that he should have given them greater credit had they surrendered it before this Bill was introduced, which would compel them to part with it. He should give them still more credit, if they would give up the borough influence which they still retained, as, for instance, the boroughs of Calne and Malton.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that if the noble personages to whom the hon. member for Preston alluded had given up their boroughs before the present time, they would have defeated the object which they had in view equally with the people of England. They acted no less wisely than patriotically, in giving up their borough influence as part of a general measure; but till that general measure was carried they ought to hold it and to use it as trustees for the public, arid for the public benefit.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Wysepresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Cashel, in favour of the Reform Bill. The Reform Bill was most popular in Ireland. He trusted that, his Majesty's Ministers would, by dissolving the Parliament, appeal to the people, and he would answer for it that the result of that appeal to the people of Ireland would be favourable to the measures of Reform which had been brought forward.
Mr. Shielsupported the prayer of the petition. Not having had an opportunity of addressing the House last night, he wished to take that occasion to state, that if the Reform Bill passed, it would be most satisfactory to the people of Ireland, and that one effect of it would be, to allay the feeling which existed there at present in favour of a Repeal of the Union. He concurred with those who thought that Ireland was fairly entitled to an additional number of Representatives. The two countries now formed a United Kingdom, and Ireland should be treated like Yorkshire, or any other component part of this country.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldjustified the vote which he gave last night for the Amendment moved by the gallant member for Liverpool, on the ground that he was anxious to retain as many Members as they had at present for England. At the same time he was as anxious as any man to give such additional Members to Ireland as she was entitled to.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that the effect of the vote which had been given by his right hon. friend last night in favour of the motion must be to prevent Ireland from getting additional Representatives.
Mr. O'Briensaid, in reference to the vote which he had given against the Amendment, that if he had been the bitterest opponent of Ministers, he would yet, as an Irishman, have opposed that Resolution, the effect of which would be, to prevent Ireland from getting those additional Members which Ministers had proposed to give to that country.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Littletonpresented a Petition, numerously signed by the workmen of West Bromwich and the neighbouring parishes, in the county of Stafford, in favour of the Reform Bill. The petitioners stated, that they heard with astonishment and indignation that declarations were made that the workmen of Staffordshire were, to a man, opposed to the Bill, and such declarations they now declared to be utterly false. As the petition was very short, he begged that it might be read by the Clerk of the House.
Petition, being read.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had no doubt that the hon. Member wished to make it appear that the petition alluded to a declaration industriously reported to have been made by him, but which he had never

1735
made. What he said was, that he had conversed with some of the working people in Staffordshire and elsewhere, who disapproved of part of the Bill brought in by Ministers.
Mr. Littletonhad no doubt that the petition alluded to the report of what the hon. member for Preston had said in that House, and the petitioners unanimously denied that they disapproved of the Bill.
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. Member stated that the petition adverted to any thing that had taken place in that House, it was irregular, and could not be received; it must be withdrawn.
Mr. Littletonhad not meant to state a fact, he had only uttered his individual opinion. There was nothing in the petition to lead the House to conclude that it alluded to what fell from the hon. member for Preston, though he (Mr. Littleton) entertained that opinion.
The Speakerobserved, that such an excuse, though good from any other Member, could not be considered satisfactory from the Member who presented the petition.
Sir C. Wetherellthought, that the petition had been got up to contradict a statement which had been made in that House by one of its Members, and it therefore ought to be rejected.
Mr. S. Ricethought, that there was nothing in the petition, to warrant a conclusion that it referred to what had been said in Parliament, for the matter to which the petition alluded had appeared in various publications, as statements made out of doors.
The Speakerobserved, that his objection was founded upon what had been stated by the hon. Member who had presented the petition, and not upon the contents of the petition itself. It certainly was not usual for that House to put a forced construction on the language of any petition. As the hon. member for Staffordshire had stated his impression, however, that the petition referred to the report of a speech made in that House, if the House concurred in the impression of the hon. member for Staffordshire, it could not consistently with the rules receive the petition. There was nothing in the phraseology of the petition which led necessarily to the conclusion that it referred to what had taken place in that House, and, therefore, the House might receive it; but in doing so, the House would declare in effect that it
1736
did not agree with the hon. member for Staffordshire in the construction which he put on the petition.
Mr. Huntdeclared, that the petition had been got up in London, and the hon. Member who had presented it had only insinuated that it alluded to him, for the hon. Member would not charge him with having uttered a falsehood in respect to the sentiments of the working classes, for fear of the personal consequences.
The Speakercalled the member for Preston to order. He begged to remind the House, that the hon. member for Staffordshire had not construed the petition to allude to the hon. member for Preston—it was the latter Gentleman that had applied the contents of the petition to himself.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the hon. member for Staffordshire had come to him, and had told him that he had received the petition, and that it contradicted what he (Mr. Hunt) had asserted respecting the hostility of the working classes to the Reform Bill. He treated the petition as altogether fraudulent.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that there never was a more groundless statement; and the hon. member for Preston well knew, that there was not the shadow of a foundation for his assertion that this petition was fraudulent. The petition was written in the country, and he had received from every part of the county assurances of the indignation with which the people had heard of the hon. member for Preston's assertion that they were hostile to the Reform Bill.
Sir C. Wetherellmerely looked upon the question as one of privilege. If the hon. member for Staffordshire did not think the petition referred to a declaration made by a Member of the House, lie should not assume that it did, and should not object to its being received.
Sir C. Forbeshad no doubt that the petition referred to what had fallen from a Member of that House. Long as he had been in Parliament he had never heard such personal attacks as had been made for the last few days on the hon. member for Preston, If any such attacks had been made on him, he would make the Member indulging in those attacks eat his own words.
Petition to be printed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time, Civil List. Read a second time, Post Office Sale.
Petitions presented. Against Reform, by the Earl of KINNOULL, from the Freeholders, Justices of the Peace, and Commissioners of Supply, of the County of Perth:—By the Duke of GORDON, from the Counties of Ross and Elgin:— By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Edinburgh. In favour of Reform, by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Ward of Castle Baynard:—By Earl GREY, from Carnarvon, Fife, Reigate, Hastings, and eight other places:—By Earl GROSVENOR, from the County of Chester, and from several other places. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord AUCKLAND and Lord SUFFIRLD, upwards of 600 from various Places and Congregations of Protestant Dissenters.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF "THE TIMES."
Lord King.—My Lords. I have a Petition to present to your Lordships from the gentleman who was at the Bar of the House yesterday—I mean Mr. Lawson, the Printer of The Times newspaper, who is now in custody under your Lordships' order. I move that the petition he now read.
The petition was read by one of the clerks of the House as follows: —
"To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.
"The humble Petition of John Joseph Lawson, the Printer of The Times, now in custody,—
"Showeth,—That your petitioner feels the sincerest regret at having given offence to your right honourable House, arid to the Earl of Limerick in particular, and craves pardon for the same; and humbly begs, in consequence of this acknowledgment of his error and regret, he may be set at liberty by your right honourable House.
"And your Petitioner will ever pray.
"JOHN, JOSEPH LAWSON."
The Earl of Limerick.—My Lords, I know not whether it is necessary for me, after what I have already said on a previous occasion, again to repeat, that in bringing forward this subject, I have been actuated by no personal feeling or motive. I did it merely on the ground of what I considered a gross attack having been made, through an individual Member of it, upon your Lordships' House, by the publication in question. Having so done, and your Lordships having- come to the decision that the paragraph complained of contained a gross libel on the individual who has the honour to address you, I conceive that I have done my duty towards your Lordships and myself. I declared at the time of bringing this sub-
1702
ject under consideration, that which I now repeat—namely, that I sought not then (nor do I look now) for the infliction of any severe punishment whatever upon the individual concerned. I am, however, perfectly aware that for former offences of a nature similar to this, but inferior in point of atrocity, very severe punishments have been inflicted. My Lords, I can show that parties have been sent to Newgate for three months for matters much lighter than the present. There was put in my hands this morning a paper containing two precedents of very serious punishments for Breaches of Privilege. The first case is that of Flower, and the other is the case of Mr. Perry, the Editor of the Morning Chronicle. It occurred on the 21st and 22nd of March, 1798. There was something comical in this Breach of Privilege. I refer, of course, to the terms of the libel, which arose under these circumstances:—Some observations were made in the House of Lords on the late hours observed at the Opera, and on the fact of the amusements being sometimes continued, so as to push them into the Sunday morning; also upon the almost naked dresses of the ladies. In reference to this the Morning Chronicle made the following remarks; — "The House of Lords must now be admitted to be highly important as a political assembly notwithstanding it has of late appeared to be nothing more than a Chamber where the Minister's edicts are registered for form's sake. Some of their Lordships are determined to vindicate their importance. It is there that the dresses of the opera dancers are regulated! One of the Roman emperors recommended to the senate, when they were good for nothing else, to discuss what was the best sauce for a turbot. To regulate the length of a petticoat is a much more genteel employment." This paragraph having been brought under the consideration of the House, was declared to be a gross and scandalous libel, and a Breach of the Privileges of the House; and Mr. Perry, and Lambert, the Printer of the paper, were committed to Newgate for three months. My Lords, I merely mention this, to show your Lordships what were the feelings, and what the conduct of the House of Lords at the period referred to, in reference to facts not nearly so gross as the present; but at the same, time that I refer to the precedent, I have no intention to push this

1703
question to an extremity of punishment, and whatever your Lordships may decide in relation to it will be perfectly acceptable to me, knowing as I do that your determination will be guided by justice, temper, and moderation.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, he felt disposed to move, that the petition do lie upon the Table, and that it be taken into further consideration to-morrow.
Lord King.—I am sorry that the noble Earl has made that observation. According to the feeling of the House yesterday, when Mr. Lawson was called to the bar (if he had not declined to answer some questions put to him), the course to be pursued would have been to have had him reprimanded and discharged at that time. Following up the course which the opinion of the House seemed yesterday to dictate, I feel inclined to move, that the petitioner be now called to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged.
Earl Bathurstwished the House to be cleared.
The Earl of Malmesbury.—I cannot approve of the noble Lord's suggestion, because, so far from wishing to conceal our proceedings from the public, I hardly conceive it possible to give them sufficient publicity. I am one of those who are disposed to maintain your Lordships' privileges, but I feel confident that our privileges can be better maintained by public than by private discussions. With respect to the proceeding to be adopted in this case, I had a motion in my hand yesterday, that the Printer be called to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged. I propose that, the noble Baron who presented the petition, should make a like motion to-morrow. It might be thought premature to make it to-day, as many Lords who were present yesterday may not be prepared to entertain it at this moment. Under all the circumstances of the case, I think it will be better for the noble Lord to give notice of motion for to-morrow.
Earl Grey.—I entirely agree with my noble, friend who spoke last, that when we are called on to consider a case like the present, and to enter into the question of privilege, there is considerable advantage in having our proceedings more especially public. Let it be borne in mind that in making this remark I by no moans say that cases may not arise for proceeding with closed doors, but, generally speak-
1704
ing, I am of opinion, that in order effectually to maintain the character, dignity, and privileges, of the House, it is better for your Lordships to proceed without any secrecy whatever. I am the rather anxious to lay down this principle, as in many cases of privilege the House has been cleared, at the same time that in others a contrary, and as I think a better, course has been taken. In the case of a complaint of Breach of Privilege arising a short time ago out of a message sent by an individual to a noble Lord, which message was interpreted to be in the nature of a challenge, I objected to the House being cleared, as was proposed, stating that I thought it better that the proceedings should take place in public, and accordingly they were so conducted. It was upon the principle of expediency in that (as in the present case) that I recommended that the orders of the House for the exclusion of strangers should not be enforced. With respect to what is to follow, I feel inclined towards the course recommended by the noble Earl opposite. My Lords, I should feel inclined in the present case, taking into consideration all the circumstances of it, and recollecting the noble Earl's disposition not to enforce any extreme penalty (although he quoted examples of severity—for what purpose it is not for me to say), I say I should feel well contented to call Mr. Lawson to the bar immediately, to have him reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and then discharged in the usual manner, on payment of his fees. But perhaps with a view to conciliate unanimity of opinion, and for a reason stated by the noble Earl opposite, it may be better to adjourn the consideration of the Petition till to-morrow, on the understanding that the motion be then! agreed to for calling the individual to the bar, and having him reprimanded for an offence which he has acknowledged, with an expression of contrition and regret at its occurrence. I trust that there will be no objection to the individual being then discharged, and that the discussion may terminate here.
The Marquis of Londonderry.—I confess, my Lords, I did understand, from the course yesterday taken, that it would be competent to any noble Lord, to deliver his sentiments on this subject in the event of the presentation of a petition, and to take the opportunity to state whether, in his opinion the punishment now pro-

1705
posed, or a greater punishment, should be inflicted. My Lords, when the resolution of the House is, that this individual, or the editor of the Paper, has been guilty of a scandalous libel, it appears to me that confinement, for a short period and a reprimand are but small punishments for the offence. I am not the individual to urge a strong measure of punishment, but I think it should be stated distinctly, that if we are disposed on the present occasion to allow the individual to escape with a small mark of our displeasure, still if such practices be continued, and if the privileges and the dignity of the House be attacked in future, that we will not be satisfied with the infliction of a light punishment, but will take measures to bring forward the editor, and individuals really guilty; for I cannot believe, that the person who appeared at the bar was the real author of the libel. I say, my Lords, we must then proceed to discover and adequately punish the individual who masks himself under the unfortunate man at the bar. I would here observe, that if there are individuals connected together for the purpose of writing such offensive paragraphs in this or any other Papers, I trust they will, if they have any feelings at all, sustain bitter pangs within their minds, when, on this occasion, they see your Lordships reprimand their publisher and printer, who, perhaps, has been merely obliged to comply with the orders of his employers. My Lords, when I saw the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who I thought should have been a defender of your privileges, rather than a supporter of their impugners—when I saw him last night placing himself between the House and such an offender, for the purpose of shielding the latter, "I really was almost disposed to believe, that the noble and learned Lord was acting as counsel for a defendant in this proceeding. The Lord Chancellor.—My Lords, I rise to order: at the same lime I must say, that, personally, I have no objection to the noble Lord's course, so little do I dread its consequences. If I were the noble Lord's friend; I should dread the consequences to himself: he is perfectly at liberty, so far as I am concerned, to go on and make what exposition it may please him to make of me or of himself to your Lordships. I care not one rush for what the noble Lord can say—he may go on with his sarcasms, insinuations, or charges, as he pleases; but I would rather have
1706
the noble Lord's charges than his insinuations. I never use insinuations, I always bring direct charges; I would rather have the noble Lord's open hostility than his covert enmity. I am sure he is incapable of persisting in insinuations—the noble Lord has too much honour and high-mindedness for that: therefore, as the noble Lord has hinted something but charged nothing, I put myself on my defence before your Lordships and call upon the noble Lord to charge me with something.
The Marquis of Londonderry.—I beg the noble and learned Lord to believe, that no one has a higher respect than I have for his great and splendid talents; but with all his logic, and talents, and oratory, the noble and learned Lord shall not put me down, nor prevent me from discharging what I conceive to be my duty. The noble and learned Lord's great abilities and acquirements may often enable him
"To make
The worse appear the better reason."
He possesses commanding eloquence which carries every thing before it like a torrent, and an individual like myself can have but little chance in an encounter with him; but, pigmy as I am, I tell the noble Lord, that neither he nor any oilier person shall deter me from taking a proper course. I shall now continue the observations I was about to make when interrupted by the noble and learned Lord; and I must say, that I did expect the noble and learned Lord to have taken a different part on the occasion in question. The noble and learned Lord set out last night with telling your Lordships that there was no use in proceeding with the case; but the House came to a. Resolution, nemine contradicente, directly against the noble and learned Lord's recommendation. What was the next step taken by the Lord Chancellor? The noble and learned Lord near me having proposed fine and imprisonment, the Chancellor again started up and opposed a punishment which, for my own part, I. think would have been well applied in the present instance. The Lord Chancellor's opinion did weigh with your Lordships, and the proposition was abandoned. What I submit is, that the noble and learned Lord did not take the part which became him in reference to the gross outrage committed on the feelings of the noble Earl, and against the privileges of the House. These are the sentiments which I was about to give utterance to, when interrupted by the

1707
noble and learned Lord, and which I am not I now ashamed to express. I shall now observe that the unfortunate individual who was yesterday at the bar, is not, in my opinion, the person most worthy of being visited with punishment. If the petition be brought up, I shall move for a copy of the affidavit deposited at the Stamp-office and containing a list of the names of the proprietors of The Times. I give notice of my intention to move for this document to-morrow, and I mean to have it produced, because I think we may thus find individuals to tell us at the bar who the real writers of those paragraphs are. Sure I am that Mr. John Joseph Lawson is not one of the writers; I am convinced that in this respect he is as innocent as myself. My Lords, I have so far stated my sentiments on this subject, and when the petition is brought up, or taken into further consideration, I shall also consider myself at full liberty to express my opinion. I beg the noble and learned Lord to believe that I am the last man in the world to fail in respect for his great talents, but if he thinks to overwhelm me by the torrent of his eloquence, he will find himself mistaken. I shall always stand up firmly for what I conceive to be right.
The Lord Chancellor.—I know not whether I should not better consult your Lordship's feelings and my own by taking no notice of what has been just uttered by the noble Lord, in one of the most extraordinary speeches which I have ever heard; but I am desirous of setting myself right with your Lordships, and with the noble Marquis whose indignation we have witnessed without knowing the grounds of it. As for my reason for calling the noble Lord to order—it being the first, as it may perhaps be the last time in my life that I shall call any noble Lord to order under similar circumstances—I did so because he saw fit to stigmatise the conduct of an individual Peer, by saying that that, individual had acted the part of an advocate or counsel for an offender, at a time when that offender was before him, as one of the Judges of the highest Court in the kingdom.
The Marquis of Londonderry.—One word in explanation. I meant to convey and, indeed, said, that the conduct of the noble and learned Lord was such as almost to make me believe that the noble and learned Lord was the advocate of a defendant.
The Lord Chancellor—My Lords, able and skilful orators, like the noble Marquis frequently have a cunning way of rendering it difficult to get at their meaning according to the known and ordinary acceptation of the terms which they employ, they wrap up and mystify so successfully; but I, as your Lordships well know, am a plain man, and I say, without any subtlety or refinement, that the noble Lord's mode of expressing himself, even now, is such as would almost make me believe that he meant to insinuate that my conduct on the occasion in question was more worthy of a hired advocate than of an impartial Judge, sitting in the highest Court in the realm. My Lords, the noble Marquis is quite right in not allowing any man to prevent him from doing what he conceives to be his duty; far be it from me to attempt to make the noble Lord refrain from any given proceeding, or to impede or obstruct him in the discharge of his parliamentary duty; but what I beg him to do for bis own sake, seeing he has hinted a complaint, for my sake, and for the sake of the dignity of your Lordships' House (of the privilege of which he is so staunch an upholder), is, that if he has any charge, in connexion with this subject, against me, or any other Member of the House, to state it in an open, manly, and straight-forward way. The charge which the noble Lord has insinuated is, that in respect of the individual who yesterday appeared at the bar, I played almost the part of an advocate, although that person was admitted to have committed a breach of privilege, and that, to the noble Lord's great and unmixed astonishment, instead of taking the part of the House, and siding against the culprit, I went with the offender, and against the House, upon a matter declared, nernine dissentiente, says the noble Lord (and if declared without dissent, then must even I have been a party to the declaration), to be a gross infringement of privilege—a false and scandalous libel. Now just look at the noble Lord's argument: the noble Lord says I sided with the culprit, and unfairly endeavoured to bring him off; yet it appears I agreed to the proposition for declaring the paragraph a gross and scandalous libel; so that, according to the noble Lord's reasoning, I must have been a party to the rejection of my own plan. But the noble Marquis has given a very imperfect account of the transaction, considering that I myself stat-

1709
ed to your Lordships, whatever might be my advice, founded on experience, as to the expediency of your Lordships not getting much deeper in the difficulty created by prosecuting this breach of privilege, that at all events, if you were disposed to go on, it was quite a matter of course that your decision must be against the accused, it being perfectly evident that the article complained of was a breach of privilege. Whether this was an abandonment of the privileges of your Lordships' House (and the noble Lord accuses me of abandoning them) I know not; I leave it to your Lordships to determine. Having, in the outset, expressed my opinion as to the character of the offence, I only offered my advice—advice that might have been dictated through imprudence, as to the result of getting into unnecessary discussions on the privileges of your Lordships' House, discussions which can tend to nothing less than to the support of your privileges and dignity. Nothing has passed this night in the face of the public, any more than last night behind the backs of the public, to alter my opinion as to the inexpediency of these discussions. But I was the first to declare myself a friend to the maintenance of the privileges and dignity of the House, and I was also the first to advise such a course to be adopted as might render every measure to be taken in this proceeding a measure sanctioned by the unanimity of the whole House. As has been stated, when fine and imprisonment were proposed, I entreated the noble and learned Lord who suggested them, not to press the proposition, which, by the way, was never formally made, but only thrown out for consideration. It is only justice to the noble and learned Lord to admit, that he was under the impression that fine and imprisonment were the least punishments that had ever been inflicted under similar circumstances, and upon that account only the noble and learned Lord proposed them. But that I should ever agree with the noble Marquis to fine a man 100 l. and commit him to Newgate for six months, for a breach of privilege such as this, is altogether impossible. I must first have this question of your Lordships' privileges debated at length. I must open up the question of the right of the House to imprison for six months and inflict a fine—it may be of 10,000 l.—on an individual, tried by no jury, and defended by no counsel, because a noble Lord may complain of
1710
his feelings being injured by a newspaper paragraph. Why, my Lords, if such a principle were to be admitted, one noble Lord would complain of one newspaper, another would direct your attention to a breach of privilege in a second, and the practice might be extended till your Lordships' House would be converted into an Inquisition instead of a Court of Justice. My Lords, before I can admit such a principle, I must have this matter argued; and if the noble Marquis thinks it a mere motion of course, that the King's subjects shall be sentenced to imprisonment and fines, he is very much mistaken, and will find, that every time such a thing shall be proposed, he and I must meet and battle, first, the point of law, secondly, the point of privilege; and if, upon these points, the right of fine and imprisonment be established, then we must dispute the point of justice to the public, of humanity to the individual, and of prudence and discretion in your Lordships. For these reasons, and because I am a friend to the character, privileges, and dignity of this House, and desirous of upholding them, and not that I act the part of counsel to an offender against your Lordships' privileges, I shall give my vote for the measure that will soonest get rid of the difficulty, and it is no fault of mine that it has been created.
The Marquis of Londonderry.— My Lords, I wish to say a few words in explanation, and though I may be supposed to be writhing under the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, I still think I am able to answer one or two points of his speech. As to the charge which he says I brought against him, I certainly did state that the noble and learned Lord's course in the matter, and the arguments which he used, put me in mind of an advocate; and it appeared to me, that if the noble and learned Lord had really been arguing the case in the capacity of counsel for the criminal, he could not have spoken with more zeal or eloquence on his behalf. As to the noble and learned Lord's not tip-holding the privileges of the House, my remark is fully justified by the speech which he has just delivered; for in the latter part of it he appears to doubt the existence of those privileges. If the noble and learned Lord doubts them, I do not; and I must say, I should much rather have heard the sentiments which, he has uttered on the subject expressed by any one rather than by him. I think the privi-

1711
leges of the House go much further than the noble and learned Lord seems to imagine, and I am sorry for the latter part of his argument, because, being of opinion that fine and imprisonment may be justly inflicted by the House, I am sorry to see the fact questioned by such an authority as the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Wynford.—I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for his explanation of what fell from me on this subject last night. What I said upon that occasion has been altogether misunderstood. I never moved, that fine and imprisonment should be inflicted; I did not propose that fine and imprisonment should be inflicted on Mr. Lawson, but I proposed that what the noble Lord on the cross-bench threw out on the subject of fine should be adopted; and, as usual in all such cases, that the party should be imprisoned till the fine was paid, consistently with the practice adopted in all the Courts. But. I never dreamt of uniting the two punishments of fine and imprisonment and I never thought of inflicting a fine till the person at the bar had refused to disclose who was the party concerned in the publication in question. I certainly thought that his refusal, and his putting himself upon his confidential situation, in justification of that refusal, had aggravated the case, and on that account I proposed a fine. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, although he did not directly dispute the authority of the House to inflict fine and imprisonment, appeared disposed to throw some doubt upon it. For my own part, I should tremble to hazard an opinion contrary to that of the noble and learned Lord upon this or any other subject; were I not fortified by some decided authority. Such an authority does exist in the present instance: I allude to the case of "The King and Flower;" the defendant having been committed by the House, applied to the Court of King's Bench by Habeas Corpus, and no case was ever argued with greater ability than this by the defendant's counsel; yet the Court, without hearing any answer, at once confirmed the authority of Parliament. This decision sets at rest the question of right, and I thought it due to the House to quote it, as the privilege seems to have been questioned by my noble and learned friend. But although I stand up for the power of the House, and insist upon its authority to fine and imprison,
1712
I would disclaim any intention of acting up to the extent of the power, or any thing like it: on the contrary, I shall be quite content with whatever may be done on this occasion, which, in the opinion of those more conversant than so young a Member of the House can possibly be with the practice and privilege of Parliament, shall appear fit.
The Marquis of Lansdown.—I think that this case should be disposed of at the time proposed by the noble Lord, and, if possible, with a complete unanimity of feeling on the part of the House; and I am happy to collect, that there is at present but little difference of opinion as to the course which it may be ultimately expedient to adopt. What I protested against last night was, the principle of bringing an individual to the bar without sufficient notice. I have not expressed any opinion as to the existing authority of the House, but I said that upon a question on which great doubts had been thrown, we ought not to come to a resolution hastily, or act upon the feeling of the moment, when we might afterwards wish that our resolution had been adopted after better and more mature consideration. It is but justice to the noble and learned Lord opposite, to admit that his proposition was not persisted in. The first feeling —namely, that the individual at the bar should be called up and reprimanded—was abandoned, on a comparison of his case with one which had recently occurred, and in which a similar course was taken. It was thought, that what was considered sufficient punishment in the one case might be too light in the other: besides, in the case of the individual who had received the reprimand, the party was brought, at a considerable expense to himself, from Ireland, so that the punishment was greater than it could be in the present instance. Upon that consideration, and also in reference to a doubt whether Mr. Lawson's apology to the House, and to the noble Earl, was sufficiently ample, the idea of reprimanding and discharging him last night was abandoned. But now both objections appear to be got rid of. The individual has been subjected to some further confinement, and may be retained in custody till to-morrow. The petition, which has been read, expressing his deep regret at having failed in respect to the House, and to the noble Earl whose feelings have been hurt on this occasion, seems

1713
to be ample. Thus, both pleas, the inadequacy of the punishment and the want of a proper apology, have been removed, and under these circumstances, I put it to your Lordships, whether the more reasonable and lenient course will not be, to direct Mr. Lawson to attend at the bar to-morrow, in which case he can be reprimanded and discharged. In these proceedings, my Lords, I can most readily concur; but, my Lords, I beg to state now, that if any noble Lord shall to-morrow propose to carry the matter any farther than this, I shall most certainly oppose the proposition of that noble Lord.
Earl Balhurst.—I rise, my Lords, merely to observe, that even if the proposition for taking this discussion with closed doors can justify the imputation which has been made by the noble Earl opposite, still I think that it would have been far better if such a proposition had been acceded to. I am far from contending that it is always necessary that your doors should be closed upon every discussion respecting the privileges of your Lordships; but I do say, that when you have to debate a complaint of libel, or an imputation of libel, or other matter of the like nature, it would be much better, in my opinion, to deal with such things with closed doors. I am sorry, therefore, that the order of your Lordships was not enforced to-day; and after what we have heard, I believe that I am addressing very few indeed among your Lordships who do not concur with me in that expression of regret, and who are not now, whatever they might have thought at first, of opinion that it would have been much better to have taken this discussion with closed doors.
Earl Greysaid, I am sure, my Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships, that I only differed from the noble Lord as to the propriety of excluding strangers. The ground of my opposing the exclusion of strangers is this, namely, that I do not think that it is to the advantage of the privileges of your Lordships, and much less to the dignity and the character of your Lordships, to take such a discussion as this with closed doors. I did not, however, my Lords, throw any imputation, even the most distant, upon noble Lords who took a contrary view of the manner in which, upon such occasions, the privileges, the dignity, and the character of your Lordships would be best consulted.
Lord Tenterdensaid (as far as he could be understood, for his Lordship spoke in a very low tone)—My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think myself bound to inform your Lordships, that it is the constant practice of all Courts of law, in inflicting a fine, to add to that infliction this farther term—namely, that the party fined shall be imprisoned until that fine be paid. I speak, my Lords, of the superior Courts in Westminster-hall; and I am sure that instances of this practice will be found in all of those Courts. Now, my Lords, I cannot bring myself to think, that while the Courts of Westminster-hall possess this privilege, it can properly be denied to your Lordships. In what cases, under what circumstances, and to what extent, your Lordships should exercise that privilege, is quite another question, and one upon which I do not propose to say one word; but I must declare, that I think the right of your Lordships to the exercise of that privilege is clear, distinct, and indisputable. And why, my Lords, was this power conferred? It was conferred, my Lords, not for the protection of those who possess it—-not for the sake of the House of Lords—not for the sake of the House of Commons— not for the sake of the Courts of law, all of whom are in equal possession of the power—but for the sake of the nation at large, for whose welfare and well-government it was absolutely necessary, that all men should be taught to pay due reverence to the great legislative council of the kingdom, and to those tribunals of justice in which the laws of the land are administered. These, my Lords, are the reasons why the two Houses of Parliament, and why Courts of law, possess this power; these are the reasons why each of them ought to possess it: and I am quite sure that if they, and especially the two Houses of Parliament, did not possess this power of vindicating themselves, it would be impossible that their respective duties could be performed with dignity to themselves, or with advantage to the country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid—My Lords, I am once more compelled to embark in this unfortunate discussion. I say compelled, because, after what has fallen from my noble friend, the Lord Chief Justice, upon the subject of parliamentary law, I feel myself under the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the sake of the dignity

1715
and the character of Parliament—for the sake of the country and of the subjects of the King-, as well as oat of kindness to my noble friend,—first of all to set my noble friend right upon a point of so much importance; and, next, to give my noble friend an opportunity of reconsidering what he has said, and then of explaining himself to your Lordships. I have said, my Lords—and I repeat it now once more—that I do very much doubt the existence of this power with which your Lordships are said to be invested, and to which some of your Lordships appear to cling with so much and such fond tenacity; and, my Lords, if I do entertain this doubt, I have at least the consolation of knowing that I am countenanced in my scepticism by some of the very highest constitutional authorities, and by some of the greatest lawyers, as well constitutional as general lawyers, that ever the Bar produced, or that ever adorned the Senate, or that ever added weight and dignity to the Bench. But, my Lords, in spite of the support which I receive from such great and learned men, I believe that I am quite wrong, and I believe so, my Lords, because you tell me so. True it is, my Lords, that you are judges in your own cause, and if I do not raise any argument upon that as between your Lordships and myself, with regard to the existence of this power, yet, let me tell your Lordships, that the fact of your being judges in your own cause ought to make you very slow to exercise this power: for though you will always be the judges in your own cause in matters of this description, if you possess this power, yet, let me tell you, that you will not always be what? judges ought to be— calm, temperate, dispassionate, disinterested, and just judges; but yet, without these, essential qualifications of judges, destitute of the only qualifications which can ensure a fair administration of justice, and being, moreover, at once a party to, and the judges of, the cause, your course of proceeding will be, to drag a man to your bar against whom there has been no indictment, to tell him what charges are made against him—to whom you allow no counsel to advise with him, either with regard to matter of fact or matter of law —whose defence, be it what it may, will be deemed good or bad according to your opinions, and not according to any other criterion: and upon this man, so situated, you will, without deliberation, and under
1716
a sense of wounded dignity, proceed to pass what sentence you may please to pass, for the sentence will be regulated by your pleasure and by nothing else; or if by any thing else, by some precedent laid down by men who before your times have appeared in the same character of party, accuser, and judge—whose object may have been punishment, not justice—who may have been influenced, not by respect for your privileges, but by vindictiveness arising from some personal offence, and may perhaps have taken as little time as yourselves to allow their resentment to subside. And this, my Lords, this is the course by which you propose to vindicate your privileges, and to preserve the dignity and the character of your Lordships' House unsullied! I know very well, my Lords, that this is no reason against the possession of this power—I mean no reason for saying that you have it not; but I think it may perhaps be a very good reason why you ought never to have had it: and surely, my Lords, it is a reason as strong as it ought to be convincing—surely, my Lords, it is the very best possible reason why you should abstain from the exercise of that power: surely, my Lords, it is the very best possible reason why you should have taken that advice which I took the liberty to tender to you—to tender to you for the sake of your privileges, and not for the sake of violating your privileges— namely, that you should abstain from the exercise of such a power, except in cases of imminent and absolute necessity. Now my noble friend the Lord Chief Justice may be very right—and I know your Lordships think he is—in saying that you have this power; but he cannot be right in the reasons which he has given for the possession of that power. Let him be quite right in saying that you have the power, but he must be quite wrong in the reasons which he has assigned for saying that you have it. What were those reasons? I heard them, my Lords, with wonder and amazement. He tells you, that because the Courts of law in Westminster-hall have the power to fine and imprison, so also must the Houses of Lords and Commons have that power. Good God! my Lords, who ever heard till this moment—when were you ever told till this day, when you have been told it by a Lord Chief Justice of England—that the House of Commons has the right to inflict fines and imprisonment upon his Majesty's subjects in vindi-

1717
cation of their privileges? No one who knows any thing about the law and the constitution of the country can hesitate for a moment in saying that the Lord Chief Justice is grievously in error here; and until I am told by my noble friend, in terms the most clear and the most explicit, I will not believe that he is prepared to defend and justify in law what he has thus said; for he has thereby conferred upon the House of Commons a power, which none of his least-learned, none of his worst, none of his most corrupt, none of his least calm, his least temperate, or his least respectable, predecessors, ever dreamt of arming the Commons with. But I may be doing the Lord Chief Justice wrong; he may think, in conformity with the reasons he has given, that the House of Commons has this power though it does not exercise it, for upon that, at least— the non-exercise of it—there can be no doubt. And if so, perhaps my noble friend thinks that the Commons have the power of examining upon oath as well as your Lordships, and that your Lordships and the Commons participate equally and reciprocally in all the privileges and powers incident to each. It is quite clear, however, that my noble friend supposes that the Speaker of the House of Commons may summon a man to the bar of the House, fine him 100 l., and imprison him till the fine be paid. Yes, this must have been the opinion of my noble friend, which I hereby give him an opportunity of retracting, as I have no doubt he will; for, upon reflection, my noble friend must see that that opinion is utterly untenable, although his whole argument was intended to support and demonstrate it—that argument being, that as the Courts in Westminster-hall had the power, so also must the Houses of Lords and Commons have it. My Lords, I have been dragged into this discussion—I have been compelled to say this; for, as a Member of this House, and filling the situation which I have the honour to hold, I could not, consistently with my duty as a Member of this House, or consistently with the character of the office which I fill, hear the Lord Chief Justice of England—no slight authority on a point of law—make this exposition of parliamentary law without at once contradicting, it. If my noble friend, the Lord Chief Justice, adheres to this opinion, let him make a motion upon the subject, and, bring his store of legal
1718
research to bear upon it, and support it if he can. Let him do this, and if, in doing this, he should succeed in persuading your Lordships that the House of Commons has this power and privilege — and I should not be at all surprised if he did persuade your Lordships of it—your Lordships will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have, by the sanction of your Lordships' high authority, invested the House of Commons with a power which the stoutest friend of parliamentary privileges never before ventured to arrogate to the Commons House of Parliament.
Lord Tenterdensaid—My Lords, I never was a Member of the House of Commons, and therefore I must be far inferior in the means of information on this subject to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who was for so long a time one of the most distinguished ornaments of that House. I spoke from recollection—it may be from imperfect recollection—but I was strongly impressed with the notion that there were instances in which the House of Commons had exercised this power. I was mistaken, I dare say: but with regard to this House, I think there can be no doubt that it has the power.
The Lord Chancellor.—I am very glad that I have given my noble and learned friend an opportunity of making this explanation, because these things, though very familiar to Members of the House of Commons, may not be so well known here, where still there can be no inconvenience in having them understood. The fact is, that the House of Commons has the power of commitment, but not for any certain time; they have the power to commit as a means of removing an obstruction; but the confinement of the person so committed can last no longer than the end of the Session. The House of Lords, on the other hand, being a Court of Justice—a Court of record—nay, the highest Court of justice—is said to have the power of committing for a time certain, and of fining; but that power has been disputed by many sound lawyers, and especially by Sir Arthur Pigot, who was one of those who denied that the House of Lords had the power of committing for a time certain. I know very well that the Court of King's Bench has decided otherwise.
Lord Kingsaid—As it appears to be the opinion of your Lordships that this matter

1719
should be postponed till to-morrow, I will not press that Mr. Lavvson should be called to the bar to-day. I should have thought it would have been much better, and much more convenient, to have disposed of the matter at once; but still I will not urge my own opinion in opposition to that of your Lordships.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid—I thought at first, and I still think, that the noble Earl who introduced this subject, and your Lordships who took it up, have acted quite properly. Still, however, I concur with the noble Lord who has just sat down, in the opinion that it would be much better to finish the matter at once, than to postpone it till another day. I think that the object has now been attained. However, if this proposition of mine is to create any considerable difference among your Lordships, I will not say another word about it. If the question were, whether Mr. Lawson should receive some considerable punishment, or whether he should only be reprimanded, I agree that we ought to take time for consideration; but as I understand it to be settled, that your Lordships do not propose to go farther than a reprimand, and that the only question is, whether that reprimand shall take place to-morrow or to-day, I must say, that I think it would be better if it were to take place to-day.
The Marquis of Londonderryconceived, that the better course would be, to postpone taking the petition into consideration till to-morrow. He congratulated their Lordships that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was not at present, so uncertain about their Lordships' privileges as at the beginning of the discussion.
The Lord Chancellorthen put the question, "That the matter contained in this petition be taken into further consideration to-morrow."
Agreed to.