Sitting of 17 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Churches Building, read a first time. The Sugar Duties, read a second time. The Interpleader, Witness Examination, Prohibition and Man-
496
damus, and Arbitration (Lord TENTERDEN'S Bills), committed.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WILKS, that the Churchwardens of every Parish, and the Chapelwardens of every Chapelry in England and Wales, at the time of finally settling their respective accounts for their year of office, commencing at Easter, 1830, and ending at Easter, 1831, do prepare an account, shewing the total amount of Money received by them as such Churchwardens or Chapelwardens for such year; distinguishing the monies received from any church-rate or chapel-rate, and from any estates or funds applicable towards the repairs of such churches or chapels, and from and out of any poor-rates, or other public monies in aid or instead of such church or chapel rate, or for any mortuary, or burial fees, and for any pews or sittings in such churches or chapels; and also, the total amount of Money expended by them in that year; distinguishing in the account of monies expended, the money paid for the repairing the church or chapel, and for any furniture and ornaments thereto, and for and about the worship of Almighty Cod therein, and for any salaries to clerks, sextons, or other officers, and for any other church purposes; and that such churchwardens do, as soon as may be, transmit such account to the Clerk of the House of Commons, with any observations that may be thought necessary.
Petitions presented. For Reform, by Mr. HODGES, from Ramsgate, Hawkhurst, and Deal: —By Mr. HUNT, from Kidderminster and Foston: —By Mr. J. MARTIN, from Tewkesbury: —By Mr. LEGH KECK, from Castle Donnington, Market Harborough, and Loughborough: —By Mr. EVANS, from the Borough of Leicester, signed by 7,000 persons; from Melton Mowbray; and from Sileby, in Leicestershire; —By LORD STANLEY, from Tiverton: By Mr. CURTEIS, from Maxwell Town: —By Mr. JAMES JOHNSTONE, from Dumfermling. Against any Alteration in the Timber Duties, by Mr. GREENE, from the Cinque Ports: —By Mr. R. GORDON, from Aberdeen: —By LORD LOWTHER, from Maryport and Whitehaven: —By Mr. EWART, three from Merchants and others at Liverpool: By Sir M. S. STEWART, from the Chamber of Commerce at Greenock; from the Shipowners of the Port of Glasgow; and from the Shipwrights, Sailmakers, and Ropemakers of Greenock. By the same hon. Member, from the Weavers of Paisley, and the Calico-printers of Scotland, against the additional Duty on Cotton Wool By Mr. LEGH KECK, from Hinckley, for the Amendment of the Law relating to Masters and Servants. For the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Bill, by the same hon. Member, from Licensed Victuallers at Loughborough. By Lord LOWTHER, from Kendal, against the Registry for Deeds Bill. By—Mr. EWART, from the Coach-masters of Liverpool, against Steam Carriages. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Mr. Evans, from Berkeley:—By Mr. WILKS, from Tunbridge.

PETITIONS FOR REFORM.
Mr. Hodgespresented a Petition in favour of the Reform Bill from the Lathe of Aylesford.
Mr. Bernalsaid, he had been requested to support the petition, and which he would do most cordially.
Mr. Horace Twiss.—I rise, not for the purpose of entering into the merits of this petition, but to repel a charge which, for the last week, has been daily repeated against me, that in the original debate on this Bill I spoke of the middle classes with ridicule; and though at the earliest possible moment—that is, when the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) concluded the speech in which he misunderstood me as implying such a ridicule, —I distinctly disavowed any expres-

497
sion or insinuation to any such effect, yet the charge has been circulated in a most industrious manner out of doors, and even repeated here, in a way which, after my immediate explanation, I cannot but think was as un parliamentary as it was calculated to prove injurious. The classes in whose hands I said, and still say, not that all franchise would be dangerous, for they have much already, but that it would be dangerous to place this monopoly of franchise, were not those who, even in the largest phraseology, could be termed the middle classes of this country. Of the middle classes I never spoke at all—the phrase "middle classes" never passed my lips. The idea of the middle classes was not even in my mind, for my argument related to a totally different order of persons. It was to the predominance of a body far below the middle class, both in property and intelligence, that I objected; and even of this body, as a body, I spoke in no terms of disrespect; on the contrary, though I objected to place the overbearing majority of votes throughout all the town elections of England in the hands of a single class, and that the lowest in property and intelligence, and comprising, together with many whose respectability is unquestionable, many other very dangerous politicians, yet I distinctly, and more than once, repeated, that I meant no sort of disparagement to the general bulk even of the lowest rate of voters. I did, and do still, protest against giving to the inhabitants of houses rated at from 10 l. to 20 l. (as the printed returns show that this Bill will give to them in every quarter of the kingdom except the Metropolis), a decisive majority, somewhat, more than 3-5ths, of the elective power of all the towns in England. I did object to placing this overbearing force within the immediate sphere, not of the respectable solicitors of the country, but of inferior practitioners of the law—the description of persons whom the Act for Petty Courts would bring into operation against the more respectable members of the profession. I did not object to increase the franchise of that lowest kind of shopkeepers who, whether as out-voters or as residents, have always been found the most open to bribery; but I did not object, as has been unaccountably represented, to even the humblest class of my fellow-subjects enjoying, proportionately with every other interest, its just share in that
498
elective power. Neither did it enter into my thoughts to attempt what has been called making merry at their expense. The absurdity which I endeavoured to expose, and that in no strain of merriment or levity, was the absurdity chargeable, not upon the voters, but upon the Bill itself, in making the whole Government of this country, its legislation, its finance, its foreign policy, responsible to a majority composed of the uninformed, however respectable, householders of the manufacturing towns. And as to the middle classes, to whose number I myself belong, —classes which I never once named, nor even alluded to, but which I am daily calumniated as though I had sought to libel—men who, in whatever branch of their various professions, or trades, or pursuits, are placed by their character and intelligence altogether upon a different level from that of the indiscriminate multitude now proposed to be made absolute in all the towns, —in a word, as to all the middle classes, so far from uttering one word of ridicule, I did not even deny their competency for the possession of political power, although I avow myself unwilling, even for the sake of these valuable electors to make any extensive alteration in the principle of the existing constitution.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MANCHESTER RIOTS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from Blackley, in the township of Manchester, praying for Reform, and for an inquiry into the Manchester massacre. It was his intention, he said, to bring that subject before the House on some future occasion. Murder, it was said, would out, and he knew no. reason why that murder should be palliated more than another. He moved that the Petition be printed.
Lord Althorpsuggested, that as the language of the petition was so strong, the petition ought not to be printed. His own opinions on the occurrence alluded to were well known.
Petition to lie on the Table.

THE PARISH OF CHRIST CHURCH (SURREY).
Mr. Hunttook that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the parish of Christ Church, Surrey, which contained a population of 10,000 or 12,000 persons. It appeared that the inhabitants of that

499
parish, under the proposed Bill, would not have the right of voting either for the district of Lambeth or for the borough of Southwark. A deputation had waited on him on the subject, and he stated his opinion, that the omission was accidental, and that the framers of the Bill probably supposed that the inhabitants of Christ Church were in the habit of voting for the Borough, of which it was really a part. From some circumstances, however, too tedious to explain, the inhabitants of this parish had never voted for the Borough; and the question he wished to put was, whether the omission of Christ Church in the Bill, as forming part of the Lambeth district, was intentional, or merely an accidental omission?
Lord Althorpreplied, that he was not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances to give a direct answer. The hon. member for Preston, however, must be aware that there was a clause in the Bill to enable parishes or districts to be added which had been omitted, and which were not otherwise provided for. Whether the case adverted to by the hon. Gentleman was one to which the clause would apply, he was not prepared to say; but, if the parish of Christ Church had a fair claim, no doubt that claim would be considered.

PETITION AGAINST REFORM.
Colonel Beresfordpresented a Petition from the Corporation of Berwick-upon-Tweed, against the measure of Reform proposed by His Majesty's Ministers. The petitioners complained that the number of resident voters in that borough would be greatly diminished by this Bill in the course of a few years and insisted strongly on the injustice of that part of the Bill which went to disfranchise the sons and apprentices of freemen in boroughs and cities. The inhabitants of Berwick, too, complained, that the right they possessed to vote for the county would be also destroyed by the Bill.
Sir Francis Blakesaid, he should shortly present to the House another petition from the borough, most numerously signed, of a very opposite tendency. He stated that, to shew that the whole of the inhabitants did not agree with the petitioners.
Mr. Humewas a non-resident freeman of Berwick, and he cheerfully gave up that privilege, which the Bill would take away.
Colonel Sibthorp, in supporting the peti-
500
tion, took occasion to complain, that he had been in constant attendance on the House for several days, and had not had an opportunity of presenting some petitions which had been intrusted to him. He proposed that the period for receiving petitions should be prolonged to eight o'clock, until after the Reform Bill was disposed of one way or another.
Colonel Daviesprotested against any prolongation of the period for receiving petitions. The hon. and gallant Colonel was anxious, no doubt, to get rid of his petitions, but he was also anxious to get rid of a motion which he had to bring forward.
Lord Althorpexpressed his willingness to enter into any arrangement which Members considered most convenient for the public benefit. Important as the Reform petitions were, however, Gentlemen must be aware that other public business must be got through.

SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS.
Colonel Daviesrose, to move for a Committee to inquire into the best mode of giving effect to Secondary Punishments. He regretted that a great increase of crime in this country accompanied our increasing wealth and civilization. Notwithstanding our freedom, we were distinguished above all other countries for numerous crimes. He was sure that did not arise from any evil disposition inherent in the people, but from some defect in our institutions, which made it incumbent on the Legislature to seek out the cause, and apply a remedy. In his opinion, much of the evil arose from the want of a proper system of secondary punishments, and from the imperfections of our prison discipline. He would first advert to the increase of crime. It appeared, from documents laid on the Table, that since 1811, when the number of persons convicted amounted to 3,133, they had increased, in 1827, to 12,564. There was no such increase in other countries. It would appear, on a comparison of the convictions in France and England, that the balance was very considerable against this country. In 1826, the total number of the persons accused of criminal offences in France was 6,988; of these 2,640 were acquitted, and 4,348 convicted. But, in England, during the same year, 16,147 were committed, 5,052 acquitted, or the bills thrown out, 11,095 convicted. Thus it appeared, that there was two-and-a-

501
half times more crime in England, with a population of 14,000,0.00, than in France, with a population of 32,000,000. Certainly, these accounts presented a contrast very unfavourable to this country, especially when the population of the two countries was taken into account. It was the duty of a good Government to endeavour to repress crime: was this attempted in England? —if so, the attempt had not been successful. There was much of our law which tended to generate or augment crime—for instance, our Revenue laws. But the great evil lay in the manner of administering our penal code with respect to secondary punishments. It was this which fostered crime after having called it into existence. He would remind Members in corroboration of this opinion, of the glorious uncertainty of the law, and its effects in increasing crime. While the chances of escape were greater than the chances of conviction, people would be encouraged to commit crimes. That was now the case in this country, and the law was so uncertain, that no crime was surely followed by its proper punishment. Then, again, the nature of our secondary punishments incited to crime rather than otherwise; for, generally speaking, the condition of men was improved upon conviction and imprisonment. He was satisfied by the evidence taken before a Committee of the House, that imprisoned convicts were better off than our agricultural labourers. They were better clothed, better lodged; and to commit a crime, and be sentenced to what was called hard labour, amounted, in fact, to receiving a very comfortable provision. In the evidence given before the Committee which sat to inquire into criminal convictions and commitments, there were many proofs of this fact he would quote one or two. Sir John Eardley Wilmot, in his evidence, said, —"In one county, half of the prisoners, at least, are boys under twenty, and many of them come back two, three, or four times to gaol, before they are seventeen or eighteen years old." Talking of boys, he says, "Sometimes I have known them, on the very day they are discharged committed again, and often they are extremely impertinent; they thank you if you transport them, and very often make use of very improper language." Again, another witness, Captain Waldegrave, said, "The diet in our House of Correction is so superior to that of the agricultural labourers,
502
that I think some of them are induced to commit petty offences, for the sake of getting into good winter quarters." Again, Mr. W. Tayne, speaking of the increase of crime at Birmingham, said, "One great cause is the comforts that a man finds in prison; instead of being a check upon his conduct, it is an incitement, comparatively speaking." But this was not only the case in the country, it was so also in the metropolis. In confirmation of this he would read an extract from the Report of the Sub-committee of the Corporation of London on the gaol of Newgate. —"On one point the Committee feel themselves called upon to speak in terms of strong reprobation, —the permission given to the prisoners, both tried and untried, to receive any quantity of cooked food their friends may bring, and a quart of porter a-day. It besides frequently occurs, that the prisoners who have money, employ others to draw their full allowance of beer;" —and here he would ask, why are they allowed any beer? —"so that individuals may obtain a very considerable quantity of liquor. On the female side a chandler's shop is kept, from which the men also obtain tea, sugar, tobacco, and other similar luxuries. The Select Committee cannot forbear here to remark, that the condition of these prisoners is, in many respects, superior to that of the labouring poor. Clothed at the expense of the City of London, an ample allowance of food provided, besides the private supplies, and a very sufficient supply of fuel furnished to each ward, and total remission from labour." Again, Mr. Lister Ellis, who was examined before the Select Committee which sat to inquire into the state of the Poor-laws two years ago, and who is much connected with the management of the workhouse at Liverpool, after giving a statement of the diet of the paupers—a most ample allowance of animal food every day—and after stating that they have leave to go out twice a week to see their friends, said: —"I think they work harder in the workhouse than in the house of correction; there is not one in twenty who is sent to the House of Correction for behaving ill, but universally, on their liberation, they say they would rather be sent back to the house of correction than conform to the rules and regulations of the workhouse in question." Mr. Lister was then asked "If you feed them so well in the workhouse, how is it that they prefer the

503
House of Correction"? He answered, "they feed them quite as well at the House of Correction, but, with a few exceptions, the labour of the tread-mill is not so irksome as that of picking oakum and pumping water. The treadmill is mere play to outdoor labourers." He was aware that a great many Committees had already sat on this subject, and that few practical measures of great utility had resulted from their labours. This, however, ought not to be urged as an argument against further investigation; for two or three Committees sat, and reported on the state of the Metropolitan Police, before the right hon. Baronet, formerly Secretary of State for the Home Department, introduced his salutary reform and improvements into the system of police. One of the principal evils in the present prison discipline, in this country was, a want of uniformity. The portion even of what was called "hard labour" in the different Houses of Correction, varied in every case. He had before him an account of the quantity of work performed at the tread-mill in some of the principal Houses of Correction in this country, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. The hon. Member accordingly read the document which we subjoin below.* After reading it the hon. Member continued. —He had no hesitation in stating it as his deliberate opinion, that hard labour would never reform a prisoner. At present, however, from the small quantity of work that criminals had to perform in gaol, and from the superior food they set there, a premium was held out to the commission of crime. Indeed, if they got good food, they had no objection to such labour as they generally had to perform in prison. He did not think that working at the tread-mill was viewed by any portion of our population as a severe punishment;

* Comparative Statement of Labour performed in the undermentioned Prisons.

Hours Labour. (nominally.)

Time actually on the Wheel

Height of Steps.

Steps in a Minute.

No. of Feet per Day.

Summer.

Winter.

Summer.

Winter.

Summer.

Winter.

Bedford County Gaol

10h.

7h.

6h.

40m

4h.

40m.

8 Inches.

20

5333

3733

Berks County Gaol

10

8

6

40

5

20

9 Inches

48

14400

11520

Knutsford House of Correction

10

7

6

40

4

40

8¾ Inches

48

14000

9800

Devon County Gaol

7½

6

5

9

4

30

7¾ Inches

48

10701

7830

Durham County Gaol

9

6

6

45

4

30

7 Inches

46

10867

6411

Gloucester, Northleach House of Correction.

8½

5

5

12

3

8

8 Inches

50

10400

6266

Worcester County Gaol

10

8

6

40

5

29

8½ Inches

48

13600

10880

and consequently, instead of this so called hard labour, accompanied with comfortable diet, solitary punishment and bread and water ought to be substituted. He was justified in believing that there would be great efficacy in this mode of punishment by adequate authority; and he would read some passages from the report of the Prison Discipline Society, in order to shew the advantage of this system over every other. "There has been an experiment tried at Lamberton upon the men in solitary cells, the result of which was different from that at Milbank. At Lamberton, the men on whom the experiment was tried were confined the whole time of their sentence in solitary cells. They appeared as well in health as any class of prisoners who have been visited in this country, and the keeper, who has been thirteen years in the institution stated that the effects of solitary confinement had been extremely good, and that the prisoners all left the cells with a strong determination never to return to them, and no one has yet returned." The Superintendent of the New Jersey Prison also stated "that the greatest improvement that has been made, or can be made, in prison discipline, is by solitary confinement. The solitary cells in this prison, in which one-fourth part of the whole number of prisoners are placed under sentence of the Court, have answered all the purposes which it was ever expected they would, so far as trial of them has been had. No person who has been once confined in them has ever returned to prison." It was also stated, that "few persons were confined beyond eighteen months or two years, and that in most instances an effectual reform is worked. The prisoners are allowed half-a-pound of bread, and the same quantity of oatmeal and vegetables." What a contrast did that afford to the de-

505
scription given by Sir J. Eardley Wilmot, of the gaols of this country, and of the conduct of the prisoners on being discharged! In consequence of the prisoners mixing together in large masses, in the prisons of this country, they saw nothing but what tended to degrade them. He was convinced that, by adopting the system of solitary confinement, the Legislature would greatly increase the chances of reform, and lessen the expense of imprisonment materially. Two months' solitary confinement, upon bread and water, would be considered by offenders as a severer punishment than twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, as at present. If a criminal had a family requiring parochial relief, ten months of such assistance would be dispensed with by substituting two months solitary confinement for twelve months in gaol, while the county rates would be saved by the adoption of a regimen of bread and water, instead of the costly diet, for a longer period, at present in use. The majority of the persons sent to a prison entertained no feelings of degradation on that account; the pickpockets of London had no such feelings, and therefore imprisonment was scarcely a punishment to them. The hulks had been mentioned as a means of punishment, and he thought, that if the labour was rendered more severe, and the provisions and accommodation less attractive, the hulks might prove a good punishment. But he was afraid that they were far from being so at present. A very active Magistrate of the City of London—Mr. Alderman Wood—was examined on this point, and he said, "The system of sending to, the hulks for seven years is very bad. Convicts, if they behave tolerably well, are allowed to come out at the end of four or five years —many of whom return to their old practices; for they are allowed, during their confinement, constant intercourse with their friends." Another witness, Mr. Gregorie, a Magistrate—said of a person well known by name to most who were in the habit of reading the newspapers, — "Ikey Solomons was a notorious pickpocket thirty years ago, and was sentenced to be transported for life. He was, however, sent to the hulks, where he remained only four years, and was discharged." Again, Mr. Capper, the Superintendent of Convicts, said, "The boys on board the hulks are very lightly worked, and their
506
daily allowance of food is great. The allowance of bread to them is ten ounces a day, seven ounces of beef and soup, three-quarters of a pound of potatoes, and six ounces of oatmeal: The male convicts are equally well-fed." he also states, "that eight out of ten, of both boys and men, return to their old haunts." Was not such an allowance of food too much? Did any hon. Member know an instance of agricultural labourers getting so much? Mr. Lester stated to the Committee on the Poor-laws, "That in the Isle of Sheppey the wages of agricultural labourers are 15 s. a-week, and that the convicts employed on the public works are a great deal better off than the labouring poor, let the convict be ever so bad." Again, he said, "I consider that the convicts do not work as much nor as long as common labourers; they do not work so many hours, nor do they work so hard, as our common labourers, and they live better. It is a very common thing, when they have served four years, that they leave the ship with from 10 l. to 40 l., and some receive from 60 l. to 70 l. on going away from the ships." These convicts were allowed a portion of their earnings. He had no objection to their receiving a small sum when they left the hulks, as it would be cruel to drive them away totally destitute; but he objected to their being allowed to carry away with them anything like the large sum he had mentioned. Mr. Lester, in answer to the question, "Do they work in all weathers?" said, "Whenever there is a shower of rain they are taken to the ships, and I have heard our labourers at 15 s. per week declare, that if they could commit any act so as to be sure to be condemned to labour in the hulks, they would gladly do it." The hulks ought to be made a place of punishment instead of pleasure, which those condemned to them cannot enjoy out of prison. The allowance of food ought to be greatly reduced, and the convicts restrained from having any intercourse with their friends. They ought to be allowed nothing more than wholesome food, enough to sustain existence, and to be kept from associating together as much as possible. If such a plan were adopted, it would be much better to send convicts to the hulks, than to transport them to Botany Bay. From Mr. Capper's last report it appeared, that the total charge for

507
4,426 convicts, for the six months, from the 1st of January to the 30th of June, 1830, was 36,500 l., and that the total amount of their earnings was estimated at 30,870 l.; consequently, the total charge to the public was 5,630 l., or about 1l. 5s. per head. Again, the total charge for 3,858 convicts for six months, from the 1st July to the 31st of December, 1830, was 31,672 l., while the total earnings amounted to 27,396 l.; the total charge was, therefore, 4,276 l., or about 1l. 2s. per head. The total charge for each convict per annum was about 2l. 8s. This expense, might be considerably reduced by coarser food and more work, and not giving them any portion of their earnings. The cost of sending a convict to Botany Bay was about 35 l., or equal to the cost of maintaining him in the hulks for more' than fourteen years. He considered the system of transportation most objectionable; and any individual not satisfied with his situation in this country, had only to commit some crime short of murder, and he was sent out to a land of promise. In Mr. Cunningham's "Letters on the Colony at New South Wales," a work written with great ability, he stated: —The Irish convicts say, they were never half so well off in their lives before, —that they formerly were fed on potatoes, but now they lived on beef, pork, &c." When the convicts arrived at their destination, such was the scarcity of labourers, and such, consequently, the demand for them, that there was a general rush made from Sydney, to obtain the services of the new comers, who, by evidence given in the Third Report of the Committee on Colonial Revenue, page 77, appear to be thus disposed of, —"The mechanics and artificers are generally retained by the government, and the remainder are at once assigned to such free settlers as may require them; in the year 1829, the number applied for was 6878, the number assigned vvas4258." Mr. Cunningham also observed, "I question much whether many English labourers live better than our convict servants here, whose weekly ration consists of a sufficiency of flour to make four quartern loaves at least; of seven pounds of beef; two ounces of tea; one pound of sugar; and two ounces of tobacco; with the occasional substitution of two or three quarts of milk daily, for the tea and sugar allowances." He had conversed a great deal with a friend of his who had received a large grant of land in that colony;
508
and having observed to him, that these convicts were as well off as the poorer classes at home, he replied, they were better off, for if they were not well fed, well-paid, and clothed by their employers, they (the proprietors of land) could not get any work done by them. When it was considered that this colony cost 400,000 l., and that it was a penal settlement; but that it actually served as an incitement to crime, he thought the sooner some inquiry was made into the subject, and some alteration made, the better. When a convict arrived at his destination, he became possessed of all the privileges of the country, and had opportunities of amassing wealth. Mr. Cunningham stated, —"We have individuals, who, fifteen years ago, were working as convicts in the government gangs, now possessed of incomes, larger, by all accounts, than I can mention with a hope to be credited. In fact, it is truly astonishing to see how rapidly many of these men prosper in business." Again, he said, —"All the beautiful legal technicalities which adorn our English laws, and seem to fill the minds of culprits with joy, and the pockets of the lawyers with money, have been duly imported, and are made daily available, as well in the cases of convicts, even at the very instant of suffering the sentence of the law, as in those of freemen who had never before committed any offence." And also, —"It was no uncommon thing to see receivers of stolen goods driving up to court to receive sentence in their carriages, with livery servants. A new and severe course of discipline is now followed; and, in consequence, the press of Sydney is endeavouring, by menaces, to force the governor to return to the old practice, and to deter him from punishing the convicts." As to the enjoyment of stolen property, Mr. Cunningham observed, "A convict, at the termination of his punishment worked his way home as a common sailor in the ship I went home in; the very next year I met him again at Sydney, he having been again transported for a robbery, and allowed to retain the fruits of it, sixty guineas. I cannot see the propriety of permitting the most notorious thieves to retain the property they have dishonestly acquired, in defiance of the rights of those they have robbed. Why could not the fellow I have before alluded to have had the sixty guineas taken from him, and the person he robbed compensated with it as far as it would go? Even the notorious Her-

509
ring, who robbed the Stirling Bank, cartried out gold and jewels to the amount of nearly l,000 l., to revel upon in his captivity." Was it not monstrous that a man should be allowed to retain l,000 l., which never belonged to him? He had heard an instance of an individual who robbed his employers, London bankers; and who, soon after the expiration of his term of transportation, came in his carriage, and asked some of his late fellow clerks to dine with him. Let the House look at the immoral tendency of such a system; particularly if these young men had not had too high a principle to accept the proffered hospitality of such an associate. Though the country was put to the expense of 400,000 l., per annum, the whole system of the management of the convicts was faulty, and did more harm than good. He knew an instance of a man transported the year before last, a clever smart fellow, and a good accountant; and the very moment he came on board ship, he was made ship's-steward; and, when he arrived at Sydney, he was made a clerk in the Commissariat Department. This man had been sentenced to transportation, and had formerly been a private soldier. The object he had in view was, that inquiry should be made into the whole system of the management of convicts, and that a remedy should be applied to the existing defects. It was absolutely necessary that a prison should be a place of punishment, and a place looked upon with dread, and that the practice of sending men on board the hulks should be modified. He was most anxious that transportation, instead of being a sure road to prosperity, should be rendered a bitter punishment. If this were the case, these worthy gentlemen, who now preyed upon the public, and swarmed in every town, would wonderfully diminish. They would not be received by old friends on their return from transportation; and they would cease to write to their friends to say how comfortable they were at Botany Bay. If a proper system were adopted, instead of thinking transportation at all agreeable, they would have so great a dread of it, that they would say—"For God's sake do not transport us, do anything but that." It was the more necessary that some better system should be adopted, because the sentiments of the public of this country were becoming every day more vitally fixed upon the question of capital punishments; and the Legislature could not proceed with that topic, unless
510
it turned its attention to the consideration of secondary punishments, and the whole system of criminal law. The gallant Colonel concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the best mode of giving efficiency to Secondary Punishments."
Mr. G. Lambsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, neither did he mean to follow his hon. friend through all the facts which he had collected with reference to this subject. He must, however, observe, that the difficulties which surrounded this question were much greater than his hon. friend seemed to suppose. He admitted that there was, of late years, a considerable increase of crime, and that, undoubtedly, was a point well worthy the consideration of all good citizens. His hon. friend complained of the state of the prisons, and observed, that the culprits who were confined in them were much better off than the agricultural labourers; and that, consequently, those places had ceased to be a terror to offenders. Now it was true, that the Legislature might have made the gaols too comfortable, but what was the reason? Why this was the necessary consequence of the horrible situation in which the prisons formerly were. At the time to which he alluded, the gaols were the nurseries of vice. They were at once injurious to the health, and destructive of the morality (where any morality remained) of the prisoners. What then was to be done? Where the sentence was imprisonment, the Legislature felt it right, that, while in prison, the health of the individual should not, suffer more than could be avoided. His hon. friend said, that, of late years, the prisoners lived too well. Here again what was to be done? He did not know how this was to be remedied, when they gave the prisoners an assurance that they should be maintained without injury to their health, and at present, no more food than enough for that purpose was given in prison. All prisons, he allowed, must, to a certain degree, be productive of vice; and, His hon. friend wished, as he understood, that such vicious properties should be checked by solitary confinement, conjoined with the exhortations of the chaplains and officers of the gaols. There was one point, though perhaps not a very important point, connected with that system, which ought not to be over-looked. He alluded to the expense attending the

511
solitary confinement of each prisoner. Of late years, the counties of England had not been put to any great expense by the classification of prisoners; but the accommodation necessary for solitary confinement would necessarily create a considerable additional expense. Solitary confinement was, also, a punishment which he should be very unwilling to inflict. It appeared from the report of the Police Committee, that it might, in cases of tender age, produce a beneficial effect; while, with reference to some who were of adult age, it would produce no good effect, and the minds of others would be incapable of bearing it. He, however, confessed there was a necessity for considering some of the useful suggestions of his hon. friend; and therefore it would be right that they should be laid before a Committee. Transportation he considered to be a punishment from which the greatest benefit was derived. By sending men out of the country, they subjected them to a very great punishment; at the same time that they gave to individuals an opportunity of reforming, and becoming respectable members of society. By proceeding thus, they also best consulted the ease and safety of the honest part of the population. His experience at the Bar enabled him to say, that more horror was expressed at the sentence of transportation than at the sentence of death; because the execution of the one was certain, while that of the other was uncertain. He believed that transportation was viewed with feelings of deep regret; for, since he had been in the Home-office, numberless applications had been made to him by the friends of convicts, to obtain leave for them to return to this country, and many applications were made by those condemned to be permitted to remain in England. They had selected New South Wales as a penal colony, on account of its fruitfulness; and he could never approve of sending those people to a miserable country, such as Fernando Po (which the Government was on the point of abandoning), where they might perish through hunger and fatigue. He was anxious that the inquiry should be entered into, but he had thought it right to shew that it was connected with difficulties greater than, he was afraid, his hon. friend was aware of.
Mr. Huntmeant always to speak whenever the subject of prisons and confinement came under the consideration of the
512
House. He saw that the present discussion was attended by Judges, Barristers, and other learned persons, but none of them knew the inside of a prison so well as he did; and, in his opinion, no punishment was so proper and effectual for hardened offenders, as solitary confinement [a laugh.] The hon. Gentleman might laugh, but if he knew as much about solitary confinement as he (Mr. Hunt) did, perhaps he would laugh at the other side of his mouth. He believed that solitary confinement for two months would effect more good than ordinary confinement for two years. He knew what solitary confinement was, for he had suffered it for two years at Ilchester. The gaoler there had the arbitrary power of placing a prisoner in solitary confinement whenever he pleased. [No, no.] "No, no," He would say "Yes, yes!" The gaoler, he knew, possessed that power while he was in Ilchester gaol for two years and six months. The visiting Magistrates, some of whom, perhaps, denied his assertion, knew nothing about what passed in the inside of that gaol. He had seen men sentenced to solitary confinement by the gaoler, but he never knew those who had been so confined to again commit the offence for which they had been punished in that manner. Besides solitary confinement, there were some species of torture in our gaols. He was a decided enemy to torture; and he considered the tread-mill, in many instances, as a torture. To a man who could walk up and down stairs, or who was used to walking about the fields, the sway of the tread-mill was a matter of amusement: but if they put a tailor, or any other sedentary artisan on the machine, it produced a very different effect. What, he asked, was the object of Government? Was it, or was it not, the prevention of crime? Certainly it ought to be to prevent crime; but it was quite clear that the present system did not prevent crime, which appeared to be daily increasing. Was it not right, then, to try some new experiment for the achievement of that object? He conceived that they ought, and no punishment was more likely to reform and deter prisoners than that of solitary confinement, if not carried to an extreme. He, however, wished that it should be introduced by degrees. He hoped that what he was about to say would be communicated to some of the Ministers connected with the Navy. He knew that great dissatisfaction prevailed

513
among the workmen of Portsmouth Dock-yard, because they were obliged to work with the convicts. He had received a great many letters on the subject, and he trusted this disgraceful practice would not be continued. Twenty years ago, he could safely say, that persons in prison were better fed and lodged than the labourers under the power of Magistrates, who, at that time, fixed the rate of wages. With respect to transportation, he must say, that it was better than confinement on board the hulks, which was a most disgraceful thing to the country. But, whatever treatment ordinary offenders then received, political offenders were, at that period, most harshly treated. In 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, persons who only called for what would be termed moderate Reform in these days, were visited by a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. They were plunged into solitary confinement, —excluded from the use of pen, ink, and paper, and sent into various gaols, from one end of the country to the other, without their friends knowing where they were. Look to the melancholy victims who were sent to York gaol. He recollected two brothers, named Reilly, who were sent into solitary confinement for attending political Reform meetings in a parish in Yorkshire. One of them was a man of weak mind, and he inflicted on himself the same sort of death which individuals in much higher situations had done—he cut his throat in his solitary cell. His body was removed, and his brother was placed in the cell, which had not been cleansed of the blood of the unhappy suicide. [Oh! oh! oh!] It was so; he knew it was so, and he should be ashamed of himself to state any thing there which he did not know to be a fact. Yet these two reformers, who were thus punished, were moderate, when compared to his Majesty's Ministers. These days, however, were now gone by, and he sincerely hoped, as he believed, that they never would return. Such was the humanity of gaolers, —of whose conduct the visiting Magistrates knew little or nothing. He remembered that on one occasion, thirty or forty prisoners were confined at Ilchester gaol, under sentence of death. Among the number were two pretty women. Previous to the transportation of the prisoners, whose capital punishment had been commuted, the visiting Magistrates came to the gaol, and were advised by the gaoler not to send the two
514
pretty women out of the country, but to let them serve their time out in the prison. His advice was followed, and the consequence was, the birth of a child, who continued in the prison for the period of six years, without the knowledge of the Chaplain of the gaol, or the visiting Magistrates. It was the constant practice of the ruffian gaolers at Ilchester gaol, when they found among the prisoners a woman who pleased their fancy, to send her into solitary confinement, in order to have an opportunity of visiting her in private. Yet this was the gaol which Mr. F. Buxton had declared to be the best conducted in England.
Sir E. Sugdenhad never heard an address which he considered more merited deprecation than that which had just been delivered by the hon. member for Preston. Could any thing be more outrageous than for the hon. Member to make such assertions as he had done, with respect to transactions which took place in 1817? Were the people of this country to be told, that because a man was a reformer, and a moderate reformer, in 1817, he was unfeelingly thrust in the solitary dungeon which was still flowing with his brother's blood? He was sure that there was no man living who would give the slightest credit to that story. For his own part, he did not believe a single word of it; and notwithstanding the confident assertions of the hon. member for Preston, he challenged the hon. Member to prove the matter to the House. He was perfectly satisfied that no such practice ever existed. This he knew, that if any such proceeding had taken place, and evidence of it had been brought forward, that House would have reprobated it as most nefarious and atrocious, and punishment would have been sure to fall on the guilty parties. The hon. member for Preston might laugh, but he was sure he expressed the feelings of every hon. Member, on both sides of the House, whatever his political opinions might be. But he asked the hon. member for Preston, whether it was proper to bring accusations against individuals who had no opportunity of defending themselves. The hon. Member had made use of the expression, "ruffian-like gaolers." Of the persons alluded to, he knew nothing; but ought the hon. Member to stigmatize in that way individuals, without bringing a distinct charge against them before the House? Those persons might have

515
friends and connexions, who would deeply feel the observations made by the hon. member for Preston. It was the duty of the hon. Member, then, to abstain from making such observations, or else to bring the subject manfully forward; when, if the parties were guilty, they would be condemned, and if innocent, they would be relieved from the stigma which had been cast upon them. The hon. Member had also alluded to the conduct of the visiting Magistrates: he utterly denied the correctness of the hon. Member's observations on that head. He had been a visiting magistrate for many years; and he had discharged his duty with the greatest anxiety. He had visited every ward, and gone through every room, in the prison. He had asked every prisoner whether he had any complaint to make, and if any was made, he had considered it his sacred duty to attend to it. What he had done, thousands of others in the same situation had done still better; and therefore he felt it his duty to contradict the statements which had been made by the hon. Member, that visiting Magistrates were utterly careless of the feelings of those whom it was their duty to protect; and that the most terrible scenes took place in the prisons, of which they were totally ignorant. Passing from this topic, however, and referring to the point before the House, he must say, that he had always, very unwillingly, supported the necessity of punishing the crime of forgery with greater severity than some other hon. Members. At the same time, he was very anxious that every inquiry should be made to ascertain whether the last dreadful punishment might with safety be remitted. He meant, therefore, to give his support to the motion of the hon. and gallant Member. He did not anticipate that much good would result from it; but, at the same time, that was not a sufficient reason why the Motion should not be acceded to. One word upon the subject of solitary confinement. He confessed he was opposed to it. It had already been tried to a great extent, and, in his opinion, had altogether failed. Of necessity, such a punishment must, at all times, be extremely unequal. All punishments, indeed, —even the punishment of death, —were necessarily unequal, depending on the habits and manners of individuals; but, of all punishments, that of solitary confinement was certainly the most un-
516
equal, depending upon the construction of men's minds. If solitary confinement were tried upon any two given individuals, the effect upon each would be found to be very different: in one, perhaps, it would produce only a sort of torpor and indifference, while the other would be driven by it to madness and despair. Under any circumstances, however, a man's bodily health must always be prejudicially affected by it, and he, therefore, was not disposed to resort to it. At the same time, he would keep his mind open to conviction; and if, upon due inquiry, it should appear that nothing short of that or the last fatal punishment would be sufficient to prevent the crime of forgery, he should be ready to accede to any proposition for its adoption. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Member expressed his hearty concurrence in the gallant Officer's motion, and assured him, that he should be ready at all times to assist him in his inquiries into the subject.
Mr. Huntbegged to acquaint the hon. and learned Member, who had asked him why he did not bring the charge he had made manfully before the House, that he had already done so. While he was in confinement in Hchester gaol, he had sent petitions to that House: and the consequence was, that a commission was sent down, and all the facts he had stated were proved to be true.
Sir E. Sugden.—I spoke of York.
Mr. Hunt.—The hon. and learned Member spoke about the gaoler at Ilchester; and that person was dismissed from his situation, because the charges brought against him were proved to be true. With respect to the transaction at York, he recollected that a petition was sent to that House.
Sir E. Sugden.—At what time?
Mr. Hunt.—In the year 1816 or 1817, at the time of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. Hon. Members, he knew, got up in that House, and contradicted the statements contained in those petitions, just in the same manner as the hon. and learned Member had contradicted his (Mr. Hunt's) statements, every word of which had been proved to be true.
Lord Sandonsupported the Motion. He considered that solitary confinement would be very beneficial and effectual, if proper care and attention were paid to the condition of the different persons subjected to it. He had seen instances of its ad-

517
vantageous operation. Limited transportation he believed, was never followed by any good effects on the convicts, and he would, therefore always make that perpetual or only redeemable by good behaviour. Imprisonment for a great length of time was not so beneficial as for shorter periods accompanied by wholesome severity and great watchfulness. He believed, however, that on all these subjects inquiry was yet necessary, and therefore he should like to see the Committee appointed.
Mr. H. Sumnerstated, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, that the Act which required the classification of prisoners, also required the separation of the male and female prisoners. All the hon. Member's observations had applied to the year 1819, and the prisons were now regulated by the Act of 1824: since that time be believed that they had been well attended to- He knew several instances, in which solitary confinement had had a beneficial effect. He remembered in particular one of the most daring prisoners who ever entered a gaol being completely subdued by it. On his first entering in, he glanced his eye towards the walls (which, by the bye, were of a very considerable height), and said, in a deriding tone, "You dont expect to keep me here three days?" —"Yes, we do," it was replied; "You won't do it then," said he; and before he had been confined three days, he attempted to force the door of the gaol. He was discovered, however, and secured; and, on a report being made to the Magistrates, he was sentenced by them to a short period of solitary confinement. The man submitted to the punishment with apparent indifference, and had not been out a week before he committed an assault upon the gaoler. This being represented to the Magistrates, his punishment was doubled; but still he endured it with apparent indifference, and on being liberated, his first act was to turn the pockets of one of the prisoners who sat near him in the chapel inside out. For this offence, the Magistrates again sentenced him to solitary confinement, and at that time he appeared perfectly hardened. Afterwards, however, when he was about to be removed to his solitary cell, he fell down upon his knees, and exclaimed, "For God's sake save me from that dreadful punishment, and I will promise to behave in the best possible manner." The change effected in this man's mind, from the an-
518
ticipation of again enduring a period of solitary confinement, was most remarkable. From the most undaunted and daring ruffian possible, he became perfectly subdued and tractable; and on his sentence being remitted, did not again misconduct himself. As he was fully persuaded that the occasional investigation into these subjects by the House of Commons was useful, it was his intention to support the Motion.
Mr. Alderman Wood, alluding to the contradiction which had been given to the statement of the hon. member for Preston, respecting the transaction at York, told the House to remember, that the hon. Member's statements respecting Ilchester gaol were denied with equal indignation, and that they were afterwards proved to be true. The hon. Member was proceeding to make some observations on the hulk system, which he considered to be entirely bad, when
An Hon. Membertold him to "make haste."
Mr. Alderman Woodprotested against such an improper interruption, and declared, that he would not be dictated to in that way by any person. The manner in which the managers of the Penitentiary obtained the prisoners which were confined in that place was not such as to give a fair view of the effects of the system adopted at the Penitentiary. They went to Newgate, and selected the best characters; and yet, after all, two-thirds of the prisoners at the Penitentiary found their way back to Newgate again.
Sir C. Burrellalso thought favourably of solitary confinement. The hulk system he considered the worst of all; but whatever mode of punishment was followed, he wished that no man, after being confined, should be turned loose on society without the means of subsistence. It was a practice, too, for some of the greatest scamps to procure a remission of their sentence by pretending to virtue and religion; that he hoped would be avoided. He supported the Motion.
Mr. Shawhad also witnessed very beneficial effects from solitary confinement, and thought that it might be advantageously extended.
Sir T. Fremantlehad been long connected with the Penitentiary, but had never heard of the practice the hon. Alderman had alluded to. Even if the keeper of the Penitentiary took the most healthy prisoners from Newgate, that would not

519
invalidate the great fact, that two-thirds of the inmates of the Penitentiary were made respectable members of society.
Sir Edmund Carringtonthought no subject more difficult or more worthy of consideration than that of secondary punishments, particularly as there was a disposition in the people to object to capital punishments. For his own part, he preferred transportation to solitary confinement.
Mr. John Martinbelieved, that the hon. member for Preston's statements, particularly as to female prisoners, were by no means unexampled. He thought the whole subject well worthy of inquiry, and he gave his support to the Motion.
Mr. Wilksreturned his thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for having brought forward so important a motion in such an able manner.
Colonel Davies, in reply, said, he wished that before prisoners were sent to New South Wales, they should undergo a severe examination, and that all offences against the laws should be expiated by hard labour. The expense of solitary confinement was not so great as some hon. Members imagined. The expense of convening the day rooms into cells at Worcester had been estimated at 9l. a cell; new cells might cost about 11 l., but no county would require more than 100 cells. The expense, therefore, would be very trifling, and the good might be immense. The manner in which his motion had been received made it quite unnecessary, however, that he should trespass any further on the attention of the House.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

FEES IN SUPREME COURTS (INDIA).
Mr. Stuart Worthyrose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill, the nature of which, if the House would allow him, he would very shortly state. The object of the Bill was, to regulate the offices of the Supreme Courts of India, and it might properly be divided into two parts. The first related to the offices which existed in the Supreme Courts, and were originally established at the suggestion of the Judges of those Courts. The parties filling them were remunerated by fees arising out of the proceedings. In the course of time these fees had amounted to so large a sum, that it was absolutely necessary to regulate them. To give the House
520
some idea of these emoluments, he would mention one or two instances. The Equity-Registrar, who holds several other offices as was the case with every officer affected by the Bill—the Equity Registrar of Bengal received emoluments to an amount very little short of a lac of rupees in a year. The emoluments of another officer in that Court amounted to 9,000 l. a-year, and the emoluments of a third officer were 7,000 l. a-year. In Madras, the fees were not so great as in Bengal, but the principal Registrar there received 6,000 l. a-year; and in Bombay, the emoluments of the Chief Registrar amounted to between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l. a-year. These fees now amounted to a sum which was never intended, and certainly ought not to be allowed. That such emoluments were inconsistent with the offices to which they were attached would be at once perceived when he stated, that while the Chief Justice of India received a salary of 8,000 l. a-year, the principal Registrar of Bengal was in the receipt of an income very little short of 20,000 l. a-year. The object of the first part of the Bill, therefore, was, to regulate these enormous emoluments, and to reduce the incomes of the different officers connected with the Courts of India to their proper standard, by as-signing them a regular salary, to be derived from the fees, but to be fixed by the government of India, with the sanction of the Board of Control at home. It was proposed that the surplus arising from the fees beyond the amount of salaries should be carried to the Territorial Fund. The second part of the Bill related to the Judges' Clerks. Ever since 1799, the Judges' Clerks in India had been in the habit of practising as attornies. In the course of the year 1829, his noble friend, then at the head of the Board of Control, wrote to the Judges in India upon this subject. The Judges replied, that they were perfectly aware of the practice, that it had existed for a long time; but they were not aware of any evil arising from it. Rather, however, than that any practice should exist which would throw them open to any suspicion, they begged that steps might be taken to abolish it. The object of the second part of the Bill, therefore, was, to provide that Judges' Clerks should not be allowed to practise as attornies of the Supreme Courts of India, These were the only objects of the Bill, and he moved for leave to bring it in.
Mr. Charles Grantwas aware of the extreme importance of this subject; but was unwilling then to enter into any of the particulars of it. He only wished, in giving his assent to the introduction of the Bill, to reserve to himself the right of objecting to any of its details in a subsequent stage. His hon. friend knew that his opinion differed from that of his hon. friend upon some of the points connected with this subject. The two points upon which he particularly wished to reserve to himself the right of objecting, were—first, the continuing of these enormous emoluments, even during the lives of those who now enjoy them; and, secondly, the carrying of the surplus fees to the Territorial Fund.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonadmitted that it appeared improper that any secondary officers in Courts of Justice should receive such enormous emoluments as the Registrars and other officers of the Courts of India. In legislating upon the subject, however, it was necessary to consider how the public service might be affected by it. The emoluments of the principal Registrar of Bengal were certainly prodigious; but he did not believe that any other single individual could be found to discharge the duties of all the offices which he filled. He should have been better pleased if the returns, upon which this Bill was founded, had contained an account of the emoluments paid to these officers for a series of years, than for only one. He was certain that during his stay in India the amount of these fees and emoluments was not near so great as at present. The offices, from the increase of the business of the Courts, had become more lucrative than formerly; and it had been considered that barristers of a proper standing and ability could not be induced to accept them, unless their emoluments were, at least, equal to those which they derived from the Bar. The fees attached to those offices were not fixed by Act of Parliament, but by the Judges; and after they were approved of by them, they received the sanction of Government. It would not be just towards the persons who accepted these offices, upon the faith of receiving the fees attached to them at the time they accepted them, that a part of those fees should be taken from them. He would not enter into details, but would reserve his remarks for a future stage of the bill.
Leave given, Bill brought in, and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Churches Building, read a third time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by Lord DURHAM, from Old and New Brentford, and from Baling:— By the Earl of RADNOR, from Ramsgate, Market Laving-ton, and West Lavington:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Joseph Sparrow. By the same noble Duke, from the Clergy, &c., of Hailsham, Sussex, praying for a Repeal of that part of the Beer Act, which allows Beer to be drunk on the premises. By Lord CALTHORPE, from the Clergy and Churchwardens of Bristol, for additional facilities for the Building of Churches; and from the Clergy and Churchwardens of Kingston-on-Hull. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from the. Chamber of Commerce of Londonderry, for an inquiry into the misapplication of Funds by the Corporation of Londonderry; from the Newtownards, for the Abolition of the Duty on Sugar produced by free labour.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE — CASE OF LIEUTENANT WOODCOCK.
Earl Greymoved, that Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock, who had written a letter to Lord Farnham, which was considered as a Breach of Privilege, be called to the Bar.
The Lord Chancellorasked the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, whether Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock was in attendance, and was answered in the affirmative. His Lordship having given directions, Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock was called in and placed at the Bar. Mr. Courtney came to the Bar, and showed him a letter, and the Lord Chancellor inquired whether that letter, addressed to a noble Peer of this House, was written by him?
Lieutenant Woodcockreplied, that it was, and that the signature and address were his.
The letter was then read, and the substance was, that the writer had observed in The Sun Newspaper of the 22nd of February, a report of some remarks made in the House by Lord Farnham, on the conduct of the writer, in having encouraged the populace of Ireland to resist the payment of tithes — that the half-pay Lieutenant of Dragoons mentioned by the noble Lord, must have applied to him— that the accusation was a base and false one, and that the writer demanded that the noble Lord should give up the author of the calumny, or that he himself must be held responsible; that the writer owed the noble Lord no account of his actions, but that he could prove that he had not encouraged the populace on the occasion mentioned to resist the payment of tithes, but that, on the contrary, he had persuaded them to disperse without disturbance.
The Lord Chancellor:—Have you anything to say in justification or excuse of your conduct, in writing that letter?
Lieutenant Woodcockreplied, that he had nothing to say in justification, as he was now satisfied that it admitted of no justification. By way of excuse and apology, he had to say, that the letter was written and sent to the noble Lord in a moment of irritation, occasioned by the imputations on his character, and without being aware at the time that it was a Breach of their Lordships' Privileges; and that he had since sent a written apology to the noble Lord, with which he hoped the noble Lord was satisfied.
The Lord Chancellor:—You must withdraw; but remain in attendance.
Lord Farnham:—The apology which has been made to me is full and ample, and perfectly satisfactory. I have, therefore, nothing to say or propose, as far as I am personally concerned. As to the matte of your Lordships' privileges, I leave it in your Lordships' hands.
Earl Greyobserved, that there could be no doubt that this was a manifest Breach of the Privileges of the House, and their Lordships were indebted to the noble Lord (Farnham) for bringing the matter before them. But, as the noble Lord had stated that an ample and satisfactory apology had been made to him, and as an apology had been made to the House, and

489
the error ascribed to a momentary irritation, on account of an imputation on the writer's character, it did appear that their Lordships ought not; to proceed with more severity than in similar cases. In 1810 a precedent had occurred, which was exactly in point. In that year, a Colonel Ross and a Mr. Alexander Maxwell had committed a similar Breach of Privilege. They were brought to the Bar of the House, and stated, that they had acted from an erroneous impression, and without any intention to violate the privileges of the House, and apologised for what they had done. The House, on that occasion, resolved, that the writing in that case was a Breach of Privilege; and secondly, that, in consideration of the apology made, and the offence having apparently proceeded from inadvertence, they should be reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and discharged. This was the slightest degree of notice that could be taken of the present case. He moved, therefore, first, that the Letter in question was a Breach of the Privileges of the House, second, that Lieutenant Thomas Woodcock be Called in and reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and then Discharged.
The Resolutions were agreed to, and Lieutenant Woodcock was again brought to the Bar.
The Lard Chancellorsaid to him: Thomas Woodcock, this House, after due consideration had in this matter, has resolved that the letter which you sent to a Peer of Parliament, relative to words supposed to have been spoken by him in his place as a Peer of Parliament, is a manifest Breach of the Privileges of this House. That letter contains expressions and insinuations, both express and implied, which, if permitted to go unnoticed and uncensured, would make Peers of Parliament liable to be questioned out of the House for words spoken in it. The privileges of Parliament are given by the law and constitution of this country for the benefit of the people, and they are not merely the privileges of Members of Parliament on their own account, but the privileges of the subjects of 'the realm; and if the noble person to whom the letter was addressed had neglected to bring the matter before the House, he, as well as you, would have been guilty of a Breach of Privilege, and have tarnished the honour and dignity of this House. It is absolutely necessary, in
490
order to preserve the freedom of Debate in Parliament, that no Member of Parliament should be questioned out of it for whatever he may say in it, and if matters of this kind were suffered to pass without notice, there would be an end to the dearest, the highest and most important functions of the House. But as you have made an apology to the noble Lord, with which he is satisfied, and as you have apologised to the House, and flung yourself on its mercy, this House, tempering justice with mercy, and considering that you have been brought from a great distance, and necessarily put to great expense and inconvenience, has resolved that you be merely censured and reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, as I hereby do reprimand you, and then discharge you from your attendance.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE KING'S GUARD.
The Marquis of Londonderrytook that opportunity of calling the attention of their Lordships to an occurrence which, in his mind, deserved as much of their notice as the business which had just occupied them. They had just reprimanded a military person for having disregarded their privileges: and standing, as he did, in the situation of one attached to the same profession, he felt himself called upon to sustain the military authority, which had been as he understood, infringed, on a late occasion, by a noble Personage then present. He would, therefore, call upon his noble and gallant friend, the Commander-in-chief, to state whether there was any foundation for a statement which had appeared in the newspapers, and by which it would seem that the authority of his gallant friend had been treated with very little ceremony. Their Lordships must see how necessary it was that military orders should be upheld, and that no individual, however high his station, should be permitted to contravene them; and he was sure that, when it was alleged that the first law-officer of the country had broken through that authority, some explanation was due, and would, he had no doubt, be given. It was not too much for him to say, that, the first law-officer of the State had no more power to break through the regulations imposed by military discipline than any other person. He would not trouble the House with further details, but state, that the Lord Chancellor had been charged with

491
forcing his way through the King's guard on the day of the last Drawing-room. From the statement that had appeared in public, it would seem that all regard to military form was cast aside; but he had no doubt the statement was overcharged, for it was, in his opinion, impossible for the noble and learned Lord to have acted in so violent a manner. It so happened, however, that he had been informed of the circumstance by a noble friend of his, who was in part a witness of the transaction, and, in consequence, he had made further inquiries; from all which he collected, though there might be exaggeration in the accounts that appeared in the papers, there was no doubt of the main fact, that the King's guard had been forced by the Lord Chancellor. In order, therefore, that their Lordships should be in possession of the facts, he would ask his noble and gallant friend three questions— first, whether the King's guard had been forced by the Lord Chancellor, on the day of the last Drawing-room? Second, Whether that arose from mistake, or from a misconception of the orders given to the guard? Third, Whether the officer whose guard was forced had been put under arrest, or had satisfactorily explained his conduct? He hoped his noble friend would give the House and the country an explanation of the circumstances, as he was sure their Lordships were as deeply impressed with the necessity of maintaining the military discipline of the armed force, as they were of upholding the privileges of their House.
Lord Hillsaid, that he had no difficulty in giving the explanation required by his noble friend. In the first place he must state, that in the year 1815, an order proceeded from the late King, relative to the arrangements to be observed in the Parks on the occasions of his birth day, which order was still in existence; and it was in particular commanded that no carriage should be allowed to pass through the Horse Guards on days of ceremony. On the day of the late Drawing-room, the officer in command gave the proper orders to the non-commissioned officer of his guard, and a corporal was stationed outside the gate to prevent any carriage driving in. Several carriages had been stopped in the course of the morning, and when the Lord Chancellor's carriage came to the passage, the corporal held up his hand to the coachman to keep back; but the horses' heads having got inside the
492
gate, the sentinel laid hold of the reins, and prevented further ingress. The Lord Chancellor then, as he understood, inquired why he was detained, and, being informed that the soldier acted by orders, he desired to see the officer of the guard; and when the officer appeared, he first inquired did he know him. The officer replied, that he believed he had the honour of speaking to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor then inquired why was he detained? and the officer informed him, that no one but the Speaker of the House of Commons had the privilege of going through with the exception of the Earl of Shaftesbury, who had obtained leave for that particular day. The Lord Chancellor having asked, was he to understand that he could not go through, and being answered that it was not possible, said, then "we must go back," on which the officer waved his hand to the sentinel to let go the reins, and the coachman, who, it was supposed, had not heard the last observation of the Lord Chancellor, whipped his horses, and passed through the gate before he could be stopped. He had taken care to see the officer who had been then on duty, and the corporal and soldier, and to make inquiries into the subject, and he was bound to say, that after the fullest investigation, he came to the conclusion that the officer was not to blame, and that the corporal and soldier had both fulfilled their duty, and he was quite satisfied, from his communication with the noble and learned Lord himself, that the Lord Chancellor had no idea whatever of forcing the guard.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he must feel grateful to the noble Marquis for having called on his noble friend for the explanation which he had just made to their Lordships; but in the first place he should say, that he had not been aware of the comments that had been made on his conduct with regard to this transaction until his particular attention had been lately called to it. He must, at the same time, be allowed to mention that he wished the noble Marquis had chosen any other day but this for the discussion of such a subject, and that he, at least, had entered upon it without connecting it with that reprimand, which he, as Speaker of their Lordships' House, had just delivered, in obedience to their commands. He saw no reason why this case should be put in converse to the other, and because a military

493
attack (which, by the way, the other was not) had been made on the privileges of the House, it should be held forth that an attack had been made by a civil functionary, a Member of that House upon the military. It was thus he had been put on his trial by the noble Marquis not at the Bar, certainly, but on the Woolsack; but he must tell the noble Marquis that there was no more comparison between the two cases than existed between any of the two most opposite things in the world. Still he could not be otherwise than obliged by the noble—Marquis having drawn forth the clear and explicit, statement of the noble and gallant Lord, and he had little more to do than to confirm the statement of his noble friend. He could assure their Lordships, that no one in the world thought less of the state and pomp of the office which he held than he did. The observances of that state and pomp were to him certainly the most irksome and the most oppressive parts of his public duty; and it was not from any foolish wish of passing through the Horse Guards, instead of going round by Piccadilly and down Constitution-hill, —though, indeed, this was the way he should have preferred, if time permitted, inasmuch as he would have attained a little more air and exercise—that he had ordered his carriage to the Horse Guards. But the fact was, he had been sitting in the House the greater part of the day, having made a great effort to bring to a conclusion the hearing of a cause which had been Long protracted, in which one of the parties was in distress, and in which it was, therefore material to save expense; and he had extended his sittings for an hour longer than he intended, in order to keep down an expense to that partly of 80 l. or 90 l. But, as the time approached when he ought to be at the Drawing-room, he thought he should greatly shorten the road if he ordered his carnage to go through the Horse Guards. He should mention that he had before gone through the Horse Guards on the occasion of the Queen's Drawing-room; and when he was stopped, on the occasion in question, he supposed it was done by mistake. On being told too by the officer of the guard, that only the Speaker of the House of Commons had permission to pass, he observed, it was very extraordinary that the same privilege should be denied to the Speaker of the House of Lords. The officer then said, that Lord Shaftes-
494
bury also had the privilege for that day; and when he heard that, he was confirmed in his opinion that the whole arose from a mistake—for he might mention, as their Lordships had been occupied on the subject of privileges, that his noble friend was only Chairman of the Committees, and he concluded that his noble friend was not the person to whom the accommodation, which he thought was meant for the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament, was intended. The officer, however, satisfied him that there was no mistake, and he then said, that he must turn back. He would now mention a circumstance which he had been compelled to withhold from the noble Marquis when he had the kind ness to inform him of his intention to bring this matter before the House, which was, that he had given orders to turn back, but he supposed the footman had not communicated them on the instant to the coachman—and certainly he was never more surprised in his life than when he found his coachman had taken him through, and he was in the Park before he could pull the check-string. Certainly, he then thought it would have been ridiculous to have turned back, as the mischief had been done by the mistaken zeal of his coachman, who had acted upon his former peremptory orders to make as much haste as possible. He had, in his conversation with the noble Marquis, taken the whole blame upon himself, being desirous to save the man; and he could only assure their Lordships, that he was the last person, either in or out of the House, to set an example of placing military discipline at defiance, and that he was far from entertaining the idea of forcing the King's Guard. He did not, indeed, well see how he could do that single-handed, even with the aid of the Mace and the Purse. English guards were not to be forced by the one, nor to be bribed by the other—and far be it from him to make the attempt. Nothing could be more foreign from him, than to sanction the breaches of any of the orders of his late or his present Majesty; and he entertained too high a regard for, and was too well aware of the necessity of maintaining military discipline, to attempt to violate it. He had only to add, that nothing could have been more correct than the conduct of the officer who commanded the guard—and he must also say, that the corporal and the soldier behaved with Strict propriety.

EXPLANATIONS.
The Earl of Fifepresented a Petition from Banff, for Parliamentary Reform. He would take advantage of that occasion, to correct a misstatement which had appeared in some of the public prints, of what had fallen from him on a former occasion. He was represented as having disapproved of the measures of legal Reform brought forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. This was an error. So far from disapproving of the bills brought under their Lordships' consideration by that noble and learned Lord, he cordially approved of them, regarding the noble and learned Lord as one pre-eminently competent to effect those improvements in our laws, which the growing intelligence, and the growing-liberty of the people required. His censures were intended to apply to two bills, which had passed that House under the auspices of the noble and learned Baron opposite, (Wynford) as he conceived them to involve principles seriously affecting the liberty of the subject. One of those bills, —the Suits in Common Law bill, —went in degree, to interfere, —indeed dispense, with that safeguard of liberty, Trial by Jury; and the other, the Frauds on Creditors' bill, would place the most dangerous power in the hands of creditors. By the law as it stood, the creditor had, under certain circumstances, the option of redress between the person and the property of his debtor; but the noble and learned Lord's bill would give him a power over both, which no wise and liberal-minded man could, as it struck him, regard without horror. He regretted that bills so constitutionally objectionable should have passed that House sub silentio, and that, too, in the presence of those competent from their professional habits, to hold them up to the House in their true colours. The laws of arrest for debt, as they now stood, were an anomaly which called loudly for amendment; and either their Lordships should forego their own privileges of personal exemption, or they must equalize more than at present the relations in which they and their less wealthy and less privileged fellow-subjects stood with respect to creditors.