Sitting of 27 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bill brought in. By Mr. SPRING RICE, to amend so much of an Act for the Management of the Customs as allow certain Fees to be taken by Officers of the Customs.

KILDARE STREET SOCIETY (IRELAND).
Lord Castlereaghpresented a Petition in favour of the grant to the Kildare Street Society, from the town of Glenarns. He took that opportunity to assure the House, that a very strong feeling of dissatisfac-

663
tion pervaded that part of Ireland with which he was connected, at the course which the Government had determined to pursue with regard to this Society. This feeling was general in the province of Ulster. The Protestants ought not to suffer because they were the smaller number; it was most unwise to legislate for one part of a people. He feared that the measures of Government would alienate the industry, wealth, and intelligence of Ireland from this country, to which they had hitherto looked up for countenance and support.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the objects of the Society had failed, and many of its principal Members had seceded, after finding that its system did not work well.
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, that Irish Members would give their support to the Reform Bill, whether the Government made grants to the Kildare Street Society or to the College of Maynooth.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that Government had done but tardy justice to the Catholics of Ireland; but, though tardy, he was not surprised that the violent partisans on the other side felt more and more irritated as this justice was evinced.
Sir Robert Batesonthought, that what fell from the Catholics in that House looked very like the beginning of a new Catholic ascendancy.
Colonel Sibthorpdeprecated all allusion to religious opinions in that House, and the continuance of such discussion as that.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REFORM (SCOTLAND.)
Mr. Robert A. Dundaspresented a Petition from the Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh, being trustees of landed property, purchased by a legacy which had been devised for charitable purposes, complaining that the Reform Bill, by destroying superiorities, which they had hitherto sold, would take away their property. He contended, that superiorities were private property, and ought not to be taken away without compensation. The petitioners also prayed that they might be heard by counsel at the bar, and receive compensation.
Mr. Pringlesupported the prayer of the petition, and deprecated the language which had formerly been used by the Lord Advocate.
Mr. John Campbellblushed for his na-
664
country. To the honour of England, it ought to be stated, that not one demand for compensation had been made by any one of the proprietors of rotten boroughs which had been annihilated by this Bill. He was therefore sorry to find, that it was left for Scotland to ask compensation for the loss of that which she ought never to have had. No property would be taken away by this Bill from these Trustees, for the superiority would still remain unimpaired. The property would remain; but the right of voting attached to it would be taken away.
Mr. Dixonsaid, that the hon. and learned member for Stafford was misleading English Members, when he instituted a comparison between the rotten boroughs of England and the superiorities of Scotland. Did he mean to say, that the right of voting attached to a superiority was illegal? Superiorities might be legally sold—would the hon. and learned Gentleman say the same of a rotten borough?
Mr. Gillonwas surprised at the extraordinary language held by the hon. member for Glasgow. In his opinion, the holders of superiorities had no more claim to compensation than the holders of rotten boroughs. He had heard with pleasure the declaration of the Lord Advocate, that he intended by his bill to destroy every rag and tatter of the abominable system of Scotch elections.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the burgage tenures of England were quite as much legal property as the superiorities of Scotland, and yet the holders of burgage tenures had never put forth any claim to compensation, because much as they disapproved of the English Reform Bill, they felt that private advantage ought to give way to the public good. He was much surprised to hear so stanch a Reformer as the hon. member for Glasgow plead for compensation for the holders of Scotch superiorities. He (Sir E. Sugden) would never consent to give to the holders of Scotch superiorities that which had not even been asked for by the English holders of burgage tenures.
Mr. Kennedycontended, that the petitioners would lose no property by this Bill. They could not vote themselves on this superiority, but they could sell the right of voting on it to others; and it was only right that they should be deprived of that pecuniary advantage which others obtained from political jobbing.
Mr. Robert A. Dundas,in moving that this petition be referred to the Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill, took occasion to observe, that the petitioners, in bringing forward this petition, were influenced by public and not by private and selfish considerations.
Lord Stormontbegged to remind the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that though the borough of Old Sarum might be legally sold, the right of voting for members for Old Sarum could not be legally sold. Now, superiorities were sold, and sold daily by auction, in pursuance of processes issuing out of the Courts of Law in Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, knew nothing about the right of voting in Scotland, however well he might be acquainted with the right of voting in Stafford.
Mr. John Campbell: The right of voting for Old Sarum is in the burgage tenures of Old Sarum; and a burgage tenure may be sold by auction quite as legally as a Scotch superiority.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, if any jobbing had taken place it was on the part of his Majesty's Ministers and the Lord Advocate in the Reform Bill. Ministers had demolished the English Constitution, they had plundered the English people, and now they were going to do the same thing with the people of Scotland. By the Scotch Bill, the freeholders of that country would be deprived of more than 2,000,000 l. sterling, on account of losing the superiorities attached to the freeholds. The subject was one of vast importance, and he wished it to meet with the serious attention of the House. He was surprised to hear the assertion of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes (Sir E. B. Sugden) as to the Scotch superiorities, considering the manner in which he had been returned for Weymouth. He trusted that the Legislature would not inflict upon Scotland the Reform Bill now promulgated. The people of that country, he could assure the House, did not desire it—they did not wish for Reform. It would be a great curse to that country, which had flourished with the present system, and was now proceeding prosperously, to have the tenantry made politicians. Instead of attending to their rural occupations, cheerfully and contented, as was the case at present, they would lose their valuable time in going to elections, and engaging in political matters. He would, however, endeavour to prevent
666
the evils of that description from being introduced among his tenantry, for he would not have one voter under the Bill if possible. He would let leases—supposing seven years was the qualification—for six years and eleven months; and his tenants who had a house rented at a certain sum, should have them a few shillings lower—an arrangement, he apprehended, to which they could have no objection. He begged to tell the learned Lord, that he would set this Bill at defiance. The excitement about Reform had subsided, and he begged to recommend the learned Lord to adopt some measures before another election to prevent a repetition of the scenes which had so disgraced the country at the last.
Sir Edward Sugdenassured the last speaker that he had not made any attack upon the Scotch superiorities: he had only compared them to the burgage tenures of England. As to the burgage tenures of Weymouth, he knew not what they had to do with the matter now under debate. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that there were a great many freeholders in Weymouth, holders of large property, who were unconnected with burgage tenures.
Sir Robert Ingliswas of opinion, that those who had purchased superiorities for the purpose of exercising the elective franchise were entitled to compensation. An action would lie for the recovery of the purchase money of a superiority; and from that it was obvious they were as much property as any thing else. He also was of opinion that the English boroughs which were to be disfranchised were entitled to compensation; there was a precedent for it in the 1,200,000 l. given to the proprietors of Irish boroughs abolished at the Union. That the borough proprietors of England had not demanded that compensation to which they were of right entitled, was owing to the system of terrorism which had prevailed ever since this Bill was introduced. The petitioners in this case, instead of asking too much, had asked for much less than they had a right to claim.
Petition referred to the Committee.

CALL OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. O'Connellrose to move that his Motion, for the Call of the House, be postponed till Monday. He should have contented himself with simply making that Motion, but he understood his Motion was to be opposed. In-

667
dividuals complained; but was he not right to take measures to ensure a full House, when the Irish Reform Bill was to be postponed till October 8th? It was not to be read a second time till after the Scotch Bill was completed. Gentlemen complained of being kept in town by his motion—but for what were they kept in town? To do their duty. The subject was of vital importance to Ireland. The subject was the amendment of the Representation; all other matters were mere details which might be attended to or neglected without any very serious consequences; but correcting the Representation was a vital matter. Even those Gentlemen who were opposed to Reform must desire that the question should now be settled, and that the plan should not again require altering. He, therefore, felt it his duty to use all the constitutional means in his power to secure a full and complete attendance of the House. He did not mean to keep the Order inconveniently suspended over the heads of the Members of the House, and he therefore now gave notice of his intention to postpone the Call until Monday, the 10th of October. At that time he should either enforce the Order, or move that it be discharged, as he might see fit from the nature of the attendance. The uniform neglect with which all business respecting Ireland was treated in that House required such a step on his part on the present occasion; and the more so, as the Irish Members had attended so regularly to secure the success of the English Reform Bill. He moved therefore, that the present Order be now discharged, and that a fresh Order for a Call of the House be issued for next Monday week, the 10th of October.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, if he wanted a reason for opposing this, it was to be found in the speech of the member for Kerry. Whenever the name of Ireland was mentioned, that Member took an opportunity of speaking to his countrymen, through that House, and complaining that their interests were neglected. He appealed to the House if this was fair and just. No part of the empire received so much of the attention of that House as Ireland. No man in the House spoke so often as the hon. member for Kerry; but he seemed to think that every vestry squabble in that country was a fit subject for the interference of the Imperial Legislature. If the hon. Member's wishes were to be
668
consulted, 365 days of sitting would not be sufficient for the affairs of Ireland itself. He believed that Ireland had more than a fair proportion of the attention of the House; and feeling that there was great inconvenience in this unnecessary suspension of a Call over the heads of the Members, he moved, as an Amendment, that the Order be discharged absolutely. The hon. Member might renew it at some other time if he thought proper.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the cause of the great pressure of Irish business was the long mismanagement which had unhappily been allowed to prevail there, which rendered many legislative changes indispensably necessary to its present quiet and future welfare. Yet, at the moment when a question of paramount importance with respect to that country was coming on, the member for Oakhampton (Sir R. Vyvyan) wished the hon. Member to discharge the Order for a Call, that the Members of the House might be at liberty to go and amuse themselves, and take their pleasure in the country. He hoped the member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell) would persevere, and not abandon the Order.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwould support the motion of the hon. member for Kerry, who was not in fault as to the postponement of this Call, because he could not know that the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill would be postponed, and it was necessary to give full notice, in order to have a full attendance. The hon. Member was, however, most unjust in saying that Irish affairs were not attended to, for every proper attention was given to them. As to the objection that the Scotch Bill came before the Irish Bill, he, as a Scotchman, would have no objection to give the precedence to the Irish Bill.
Mr. Huntsaid, half the time of the House was occupied with Irish affairs. What was the object of the member for Kerry making such imputations as he did, or why not have a Call for Scotland as well as Ireland? He repelled with indignation the attack of the member for Kerry on the Members of that House. That hon. Member seemed to think that no voices should have any weight in that House unless they sat for counties. As to the attack on the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Vyvyan) it came badly from the hon. member for Kerry, who was never yet returned twice for any place—neither was

669
he present at the division on the Scotch Reform Bill the other night. He hoped and trusted the House would not be dragooned by the hon. Member, and concluded by asking, was the British House of Commons to bow to the hon. Member, once for Clare, once for Waterford, and now for Kerry?
General Palmerrose to support the Motion, and had also a personal reason for it. Having hitherto failed in his endeavours to be heard upon the question of Reform, he was still anxious to do it whilst the attendance of Members justified the attempt, and encouraged him to make it; inasmuch as the view he had taken of the question was different from all who had risen in the Debate. He confidently hoped (notwithstanding the speeches of the right hon. Baronet upon the Bill which had passed the House) to show the necessity for it, in a light to satisfy the minds of all who were open to conviction on the subject. And as, in what he had to say, if allowed the opportunity, he should spare the House the repetition of any argument already urged in the debate, he hoped it would be considered a claim to its indulgence, and an earnest that he would trespass as shortly on its time as the deep importance of the question would allow him.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he hoped his hon. friend (Sir R. Vyvyan) would persevere, as the hon. member for Kerry had followed his usual course of throwing imputations upon other hon. Gentlemen. He felt, however, that he did not come under his lash, as he had been constant in his attendance, and intended to continue so, and would be as ready to oppose the Irish, as he had been the English Reform Bill. He did not think there was any occasion for the Call, for he was sure Members would be constant in their attendance, without any other obligation than their duty to their country.
Lord Althorpthought, that the hon. member for Kerry, in anticipating opposition to his Motion, had gone rather too far. The experience of many years enabled him to give a decided contradiction to the assertion, that the affairs of Ireland were not attended to in that House. The Catholic Question had been brought forward by Mr. Fox and Sir Francis Burdett, and, on all other occasions, English Members were ever ready to advocate the cause of Ireland. The hon. and learned member
670
for Kerry had not pursued the course most likely to ensure a large attendance by his speech to-night. As to the question before the House, the postponement of the Call was no more than what constantly occurred in the case of election ballots, which hung over from day to day, and the hon. member for Kerry was not to be blamed for the course he had adopted. It was most essential that there should be a full attendance of Members on the question of the Irish Reform Bill, and he should feel most reluctant to oppose any motion with such an object. It was the duty of Members to attend on all occasions; but that did not always occur, and the season of the year might, perhaps, render a Call more necessary. If, however, there was a full attendance, probably the hon. Member might not persevere in his Call.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the most painful thing in any discussion that arose was, that whenever Ireland was mentioned, it led to angry altercation. He wished that the time had arrived when all subjects of the State would feel they had but one country. If there were any part of the empire in which injuries were especially felt by England, Ireland was that part. As to postponing the Irish to the Scotch Bill, where was the offence to Ireland? None, no more than it was an offence to Scotland not to have a Call on the Bill for that country. The hon. Member was not to blame for the postponement of the Call, but five or six postponements made it highly inconvenient. He should vote for the Amendment if it were pressed to a division; at the same time, if it were to be considered an offence to the feelings of the people of Ireland, he should regret such an occurrence.
Mr. Sheilcontended, that the postponements of the Order for the Call of the House were not at all attributable to the hon. and learned member for Kerry, but to the measures of Government. The Irish Members had hitherto given a persevering and undivided attention, and they had a right to expect the same from others when the affairs of that country were under consideration.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the Irish Members had been instructed by their constituents to press upon the Imperial Parliament the condition of their country, and the necessity for an additional number of Representatives for that part of the

671
empire. He therefore hoped, whether there was to be a Call of the House or not, the English Members would make a point of attending when the Irish Reform Bill was before the House, that they might fulfil their obligations, and that they would all consider themselves as Members for one common country.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, he should support the motion of the hon. member for Kerry, for he at all times desired to see a full attendance of Members; but, with regard to the precedence of the Scotch Reform Bill, he should insist upon the right of Scotland to stand next to England, and would not allow any thing that the hon. and learned Member could say, to convince him that Ireland ought to be thrust in between two countries that stood in such direct juxta-position. The Irish, therefore, had no reason to be dissatisfied.
Mr. O'Connell,in answer to the member for Preston, stated, that he had choice of three counties at the last election, and decided for his native county of Kerry. This was entirely owing to the opinion which his countrymen entertained of him, for they knew his honesty, they were sensible of his candour, and they were aware that double-dealing was not amongst his habits. He had never, like the member for Preston, spoken on one side and voted on another; for the Ultra-Tories had got the benefit of his speeches, though they lost his votes, and he wished them joy of their bargain. He did not mean to contend, that the postponement of the Irish Bill was a slight to Ireland, but there could be no doubt that it was an injury to her interests, which he considered a still more serious ground of complaint. But when he was told that Englishmen had brought forward the Catholic Question—it was easy to say that Mr. Fox had brought that question forward, but it was convenient to forget other circumstances of Mr. Fox's conduct with respect to it. It was convenient to forget, that two years after his having brought it forward, Mr. Fox entered into office under an agreement with George 3rd, that he was not to bring forward that question while in office. Talk to him of English justice, when he had the fact now before him, that a Motion for a Call of the House, which was never resisted on any former occasion, was now opposed by the hon. Member (Sir R. Vyvyan), when he saw those crowded benches ready to support
672
that opposition, because the question was only an Irish question. Was that justice or fairness? Whatever might be the fate of his Motion, he should feel that he had performed his duty. The country should know how that duty had been performed, and how it was met in that House.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that the hon. Member should not have the satisfaction, which he seemed to desire, of making a complaint that his Call was put off. He should have the Call on the day which he had named for it, for he (Sir Richard Vyvyan) would withdraw his opposition to it. The hon. and learned Member, who wished to bear down that House, would find that Englishmen, and Scotchmen, and Irishmen, would not allow themselves to be borne down by him, or be driven from their purpose by any course which that hon. and learned Member might please to take. The hon. and learned Member stated that in which he was not borne out by the fact, when he asserted that Englishmen were negligent of matters which related to Ireland. On all matters of importance, affecting the interest of that country, Englishmen attended with as much desire to benefit that country as the hon. and learned Member, or any others who joined in opinion with him. These kind of charges, therefore, about want of justice on the part of Englishmen, were without foundation.
Mr. Humesaid, that the charge of the hon. Baronet, the member for Oakhampton, that his hon. friend, the member for Kerry, wished to bear down the House, was most unjust and unfounded [cries of "No, no."] He repeated that it was. The course taken by his hon. and learned friend was perfectly justifiable. He postponed his Call, because the second reading of the Bill to which it applied, was also postponed. What other course could he have adopted? The conduct of the hon. Baronet, and those who supported him on this occasion, was such as he had seldom witnessed—and such as, in his opinion, was unbecoming English gentlemen ["No, no," and "Order."] He would assert that it was—it was at least unbecoming English legislators. He had seen such opposition to his hon. and learned friend as he thought wholly unbecoming hon. Members, sitting as a legislative body. Was it not natural that his hon. friend should resent such con-

673
duct, and speak of it in the manner it deserved? If hon. Members wished to be treated as English gentlemen, let them behave as English gentlemen ["Order."]
The Speaker: It must be obvious to the hon. Member himself, that such an imputation as his language conveyed was quite out of order.
Mr. Humerepeated, that the conduct of several hon. Members to his hon. and learned friend (the member for Kerry) was altogether indecent and unbecoming them as legislators. Such opposition was most unfair, and his hon. friend was justified in complaining of it as he had done.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwished to ask the hon. member for Middlesex, whether he accused him of acting in a manner unbecoming an English gentleman.
Mr. Humespoke of the hon. Baronet's conduct as a legislator ["No, no."] He believed he had used the words "English gentleman," but he did not mean it as personally offensive, for he had no wish to hurt the feelings of any man, but he had good reason to complain of the conduct of several hon. Members to his hon. and learned friend, who was perfectly right in the course he had adopted. He had a right to defer his motion for a Call of the House, as the business to which it referred was also postponed. He was perfectly right to take the opportunity of speaking out the wishes of his countrymen. It was what they expected of him. He (Mr. Hume) should be extremely sorry to find that Irishmen should have reason to complain, that a different measure of justice was dealt out to them from that which had been dealt out to other parts of the United Kingdom. If any such impression existed in the mind of his hon. and learned friend, he was right to seek the opportunity of stating what were his opinions, and those of his countrymen, as to parts of the Bill, in as large an assembly of the Members of the House as possible; and, therefore, he did right to move the Call of the House, in which he hoped he would persevere.
Lord Althorpwished to correct a mistake into which the hon. and learned member for Kerry had fallen with respect to Mr. Fox. The hon. and learned Member stated, that Mr. Fox had taken office under a pledge or agreement with George 3rd that he would not bring on the Catholic Question during his Administration. Now this was not the fact. On the con-
674
trary, it was well known that Mr. Fox and his friends went out of office in 1807, because they found they could not carry the Catholic Question.
Question put, and ordered, that the House be called over on the 10th of October.

FRANCE—BELGIUM—GREECE.
Sir Richard Vyvyanrose to call the attention of the noble Viscount (Palmerston) to a subject connected with the present state of Belgium, and to ask a question concerning it. The House was aware that the affairs of Belgium had now arrived at that state at which they might congratulate his Majesty's Government on having obtained that which he had no doubt they would obtain by a firm perseverance—on having obtained from those at the head of the government of France a promise that the whole of the French troops should be withdrawn from Belgium. This was, in his opinion, a most important point gained, and he congratulated Ministers upon it. But he had been given to understand, that an arrangement had lately been entered into between the governments of France and Belgium, by which officers of high rank and great reputation in the French armies were to be allowed to enter the Belgian service, and to take the chief command of her armies under the King, and to be placed at the head of the several divisions of the army in different parts of the kingdom. Now it was well known, that the troops of one country, officered by the subjects of another, were, generally speaking, under the control of that country to which the officers belonged. This was the case with the native troops in India, which were all officered by British officers.
Lord Althorprose to order. He would beg to remind the hon. Baronet, that there was no question before the House, and that it certainly was, to say the least of it, an inconvenient course to enter into discussions, as the hon. Baronet was now doing, on putting a question to a member of his Majesty's Government. As there was no question before the House, he would venture to suggest to the hon. Baronet, that any questions he had to put, he ought to put with convenient brevity.
Sir Richard Vyvyanclaimed the indulgence of the House, while he put the questions he was about to ask, in that way

675
which appeared to him the best to have his object understood. He repeated, that it must be obvious, that an army so officered as that he had mentioned, must be under the control of that country to which the officers belonged. The question which he wished to put to the noble Lord was, whether it was correct that such an arrangement as he had mentioned had been made between France and Belgium, and whether that arrangement had become the subject of any communications between the governments of France and of this country? Another question which he wished to ask related to the present condition of Greece. He understood that disturbances had recently broken out in several parts of that country, which made its internal condition as unsettled as when the war was carried on there between the Turks and the Greeks. What he wished to know was, whether the three Powers who had taken an active part in settling the affairs of that country, had made any arrangement as to the future government of Greece, or as to who should be placed at the head of its government?
Viscount Palmerstonwould not then enter into any discussion on a subject which the hon. Baronet had himself voluntarily postponed yesterday. As to the first question which the hon. Baronet had put, he must again throw himself on the indulgence of the House, when he stated, that he ought not to be called upon to answer questions as to the arrangements which an independent sovereign, whom we had acknowledged, might think proper to adopt with respect to his own army, or to the defence of his country. He must, therefore, decline answering the hon. Baronet's first question. As to the second question, respecting the state of Greece, he would admit that accounts had reached this country of the occurrence of some unfortunate events in Greece; but he trusted that they were only temporary derangements, and that by this time they were at an end. The conference of the three Powers was still continued, for the purpose of making arrangements by which the tranquillity of that country might be restored and placed on a permanent basis.

CASE OF JOHN LEARY.
Mr. O'Connellrose to submit the motion of which he had given notice, for the production of any correspondence which took place between Baron Pennefather and the Irish
676
Government on the subject of the conviction and sentence of John Leary, at the late Special Commission at Cork. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that Leary, who was a small farmer, was accused, with three or four others of a conspiracy to murder. He was tried separately, and found guilty and sentenced to death, without any hope being held out of any mitigation of his sentence. On the next day one of the conspirators was tried on the same evidence, but the Jury could not come to an agreement as to the verdict, and were at length discharged without giving any. The two others were afterwards tried, and though the Jury were, he might say, selected by Government, there having been no less than forty-seven Jurors challenged by the Crown before the twelve were sworn, they acquitted them without leaving the box. The prisoner about whom the Jury could not agree was tried at the following assizes and also acquitted. On this Leary was respited, and at length his sentence was commuted to transportation for life, though the Judge before whom he was tried had made two or three communications to Government on his behalf. Now it appeared to him that this prisoner's case was extremely hard. His alleged fellow conspirators were all acquitted by the breaking down of the chief witness against them. Had that event taken place on the trial of Leary, he also would have been acquitted. Or had he had the good luck to be tried second or third, he would now be at home with his family instead of being under sentence of transportation for life and sent to New South Wales. What he contended was, that if the Government believed the evidence against the man sufficient, they ought not to have mitigated his sentence; but if they did not believe it, he was entitled to a full acquittal from all punishment. In order to let the House see what was the opinion of the Judge who tried him as to his case, he now moved for the production of the correspondence between that learned Judge and the Irish Government on the subject.
Mr. Callaghanseconded the Motion.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that this was not the first time this subject had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member, though now for a very different object from the former occasion. On that occasion he had moved for the production of the Judge's notes of the trial, which the

677
House refused, on the same ground on which he (Mr. Stanley) now objected to this Motion—that the House was not the proper place for the introduction of such a question, as a sort of Court of Appeal from the decision of a Court of Justice. The breaking down of the chief witness against Leary and the others was not from any contradiction in his testimony, but from the mention of a fact—an important one, he admitted—which he had omitted to state in his original depositions, and which did not come out till after the trial of Leary; but a most respectable Jury afterwards convicted two men on the testimony of the same witness.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the men who were thus convicted were not for the same offence of which Leary was accused. They were accused of firing at a Magistrate in his carriage, with intent to kill him, and the fact was put beyond doubt. The charge against Leary was quite a different thing.
Lord Althorpobjected to the Motion. He thought it would be a dangerous precedent that the communications of Judges respecting the case of prisoners should be submitted to Parliament.
Sir Charles Wetherellalso objected to the Motion, on the same grounds as the noble Lord. The communications of Judges as to any case before them must be founded on their notes, and the same objections would lie to the production of those communications as to the production of the notes themselves.
Mr. Jephsonwould have felt satisfied if the Government had undertaken to investigate this affair; but, as the case stood, he must support the Motion.
Mr. Cramptonobjected to the disclosure of confidential communications, and contended, that even if the House were to agree to the production of the papers called for, the object of the Mover would not be obtained.
Mr. Callaghansupported the Motion. The objections made to it were altogether of a technical nature.
Mr. Henry Grattanmaintained that the papers moved for were of a public and not a private nature.
Mr. Daniel Whittle Harveyconcurred in the observations which had been made respecting the general inconvenience of making that House a place of appeal from a Court of Justice; but he thought that a case like the present, in which so many
678
attestations of innocence had been made, formed an exception to the general rule.
Mr. Humesupported the Motion.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that those hon. Members who spoke in favour of the Motion, proceeded on two assumptions,—that John Leary was innocent, and that no investigation had been made into his case. Now the fact was, that the late Government went into a full investigation of his case, and came to the conclusion that that person was guilty. Whether his own opinion on this matter coincided in every particular with that of the late Government he would not say, but he thought the present mode of proceeding improper. After what had occurred he should certainly again investigate the papers, and if he could come at any additional facts, he should feel it his duty to take the opinions of the law officers of the Crown upon them.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that after the promise made by the Secretary for Ireland to investigate the case, there was no use in pressing the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Motion.

CASE OF THE DEACLES.
Mr. Paulett Mildmaysaid, he had a Petition to present upon this subject, signed by a number of the most respectable persons in Winchester and its neighbourhood. The petitioners were not bound to Mr. Bingham Baring by any political ties, nor were they at all under his influence, many of them having been opposed to him at the last election. The petitioners prayed for an investigation into the circumstances of this case, and they declared their belief that Mr. Bingham Baring was guiltless of the things that had been laid to his charge. The petition had been signed, in the course of forty-eight hours (Sunday intervening) by no less than 360 persons, who expressed their gratitude to the Magistrates, whose decision of conduct had last winter relieved them from the continuance of those dreadful disorders that were at that time committed. They expressed their earnest wish that one of these Magistrates should be cleared from those unfounded calumnies that had been directed against him. People were now ready enough to forget the feelings with which they had once been agitated, and he knew that it was not very flattering to their pride to remind them of those feelings, and of the fears that then perplexed

679
and disturbed them; but he felt it his duty to remind them of these things. He called on them to remember the taunts that were then directed against the magistracy for supineness—to remember that his Majesty had called on them to display energy, decision, and resolution—and that his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to them to perform their duty, and threatened them, that if they did not, they must expect to incur his Majesty's displeasure. The Magistrates had done their duty; they had interfered effectually, but their services were now forgotten. The Judges who went on the Special Commission praised them for their conduct: even prayers were offered up, thanking Providence for the interference which had saved the people at that time. He presented this Petition because he was anxious, with the petitioners, to relieve a sensitive and manly mind from that state of suspense which every honourable man must feel to be most painful.
The Petition was read as follows:
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled;
"The Humble Petition of the undersigned Inhabitant Householders of the City and Suburbs of Winchester, and of the Gentry, Clergy, and Yeomanry residing in the immediate neighbourhood thereof,
"Showeth—That your Petitioners have read with feelings of indignation the allegations which are contained in the Petition presented to your Honourable House on the 22nd of August last by Thomas and Caroline Deacle, of Marwell Farm, in the vicinity of this City.
"That the statements made in the said Petition appear to your Petitioners to contain such gross misrepresentations, as to render it necessary for your Petitioners to express to your Honourable House the opinion which is entertained in this city and neighbourhood relative to the conduct of the individuals against whom such injurious statements have been thus artfully and maliciously sent forth.
"That your Petitioners have noticed with deep regret the Petitions which have recently been presented to your honourable House from distant parts of the country on behalf of the said Thomas and Caroline Deacle; not on account of the inquiry which is sought by such Petitions, but because your Petitioners feel convinced that they have been sent up to your honourable House under the erroneous impressions which the statements contained in the Petitions of the said Thomas and Caroline Deacle were evidently intended to produce in remote parts of the country, where the real facts of the case are unknown, and where
680
the characters of the several parties are not duly appreciated.
"That your Petitioners take the earliest opportunity of recording their opinion, and expressing to your honourable House the very strong feelings which prevail in this city and neighbourhood as to the calumnies which have been thus industriously propagated against Messrs. Francis and Bingham Baring, and other Magistrates of this county, to whose active, judicious, and unwearied exertions, your Petitioners conceive they are, in a great measure, indebted for the restoration of the public peace in November last—a period when this county was in a state of unparalleled excitement and too well grounded alarm, and when, it should be remembered, it was, in almost every instance, found impracticable to procure the due execution of the Magistrates' warrants without the aid of military.
"That several of your Petitioners were present at the trial which took place in this city at the last Assizes, and witnessed with unfeigned regret the situation in which the Messrs. Baring were unavoidably placed, in consequence of the only individuals of whose testimony they could have availed themselves having been made co-defendants, obviously, as appeared to your Petitioners, for the sole purpose of excluding their evidence, and exposing the Messrs. Baring to the overcharged statements of the two individuals, on whose evidence a verdict was returned against Mr. Bingham Baring alone.
"That should your honourable House see fit to order an investigation into the facts of the case, your Petitioners would hail with satisfaction a proceeding so well calculated to elicit the truth, and to place the characters of the several parties in their proper light. And your Petitioners desire further to express their conviction, that a full exposure of the real circumstances of the case would render the same feelings which exist in this city and its vicinity, as to the conduct of the Messrs. Baring, generally prevalent throughout the country at large."
Colonel Evanssaid, he had to present a Petition with the same prayer, from Tonbridge, in Kent; but declaring a very different opinion on the subject. He would only now observe, that as indulgence was asked to be shown to the conduct of the Magistrates, on account of the excitement that existed in November last, he thought an equal degree of indulgence ought to be shown to the poor people who had engaged in these riots, on account of the severe distress that drove them to commit these offences.
Mr. Humeonly wished to say, that he seemed to have been guilty of some injustice to the persons whose petition he had presented when he did not have that read,

681
and yet, when he suffered the petition just now presented to be read to the House. He must say, that that reading, and the statement of its contents, were against the understanding that there should be no discussion previous to that upon the appointment of a Committee. He would only add, that the Petition he presented was signed by 246 persons in six hours.
Mr. Paulett Mildmaysaid, he had not entered into the case at all, but merely stated the feelings and wishes of the petitioners.
Mr. Baringadmitted that it had been agreed there should be no discussion, but there was no agreement that the petitions presented should not be read at length. The petition presented by the hon. member for Middlesex, was said to come from Winchester, but he, (Mr. Baring) having carefully read it over, was at a loss to believe it was sent to that House by the inhabitants of that city, for he asserted most distinctly, that the petitioners committed the most marked mistakes in their statement of the circumstances of the case. They stated in distinct terms, that Mr. Walter Long, a Magistrate, had put the handcuffs on Deacle, when the fact was, that that gentleman not only had not done so, but actually was not present at the time of the transaction, having been otherwise engaged in a part of the county several miles distant from the place where the whole affair took place. He wished the hon. Member had read the Petition before he presented it, if he wished, as he professed to do, that justice should be done to the parties concerned. The petition now presented by the hon. member for Winchester, was signed by all the people of the first respectability in the place—by the merchants, bankers, the clergy, and all the persons connected with the college there, while he would defy any one to say, that there were more than six respectable shopkeepers among those who had signed that presented by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Humesaid, he was not bound to answer for the situation in life of the persons who signed the petition: he believed them to be respectable.
Colonel Evanssaid, that if the statement of the hon. member for Thetford were correct, it only showed that the farmers signed the petition in favour of their brother-farmers, while the gentry and clergy signed the one in favour of a Magistrate.
Sir Thomas Baringasserted, that the petition now before the House in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, was signed by persons of all classes, and particularly by a number of the yeomen of the county, persons, precisely in the same rank and sphere of life as Mr. Deacle: it could not, therefore, be regarded in the light in which the hon. and gallant Officer was pleased to place it.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaw affixed to the petition which had been just presented, the signatures of clergymen and professional men, many of them his friends, who would not have come forward but at the call of justice. Therefore, he thought that the gallant Colonel had made a most censorious and unjust charge, in drawing the distinction which he had done. He seemed to suppose that the gentlemen who had signed this petition, had done so on account of the rank of Mr. Baring; but he was certain that they would not take such a course with respect to Mr. Baring, or any other person. If the gallant Colonel withdrew the sentiment, there was an end of the matter; if not, the gallant Colonel had made a most unjust and unfeeling observation on persons of the highest honour.
Colonel Evanssaid, all he had asserted was, that as the petitioners, in the present instance, moved in the rank of the accused, they were likely to have a bias in favour of them, while those who signed the other petition, and moved in a different rank, would probably be more favourable to the complaining parties.
Colonel Trenchasserted, that this was only a repetition of the imputation to which his hon. and learned friend objected. The petition presented on behalf of the Deacles, was well drawn up, by a clever and skilful hand, and calculated to raise a great prejudice against the Magistrate whose conduct was in question. He hoped that in the inquiry upon this subject, the character of the persons concerned, and the character of those who signed the petition, would be borne in mind: they had on one side, a petition signed by persons of the highest worth and respectability, and on the other, a petition containing the representation of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, whose character, he hoped, would be thoroughly examined when the matter came before a Committee. He believed that the whole would be found to be a conspiracy, not so much to inflict injury on the person against

683
whom it professed to aim, but on one of the most liberal, most enlightened, able, and excellent men in that House, or in the country. He believed that through the son, it was intended to inflict a wound upon the father.
Colonel Evanswished to ask, to whom the gallant Colonel alluded, when he used the word conspiracy.
Colonel Trenchsaid, certainly not to the gallant Colonel, who had stated, and stated truly, that he had no connection with the matter, except so far as his public duty as a Member of that House went. He was not bound to say to whom he did allude, and he did not wish to do so, as the persons to whom he might allude, had not the power to reply to what a Member said in his place in that House.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had no doubt that there was a gross and foul conspiracy,—a conspiracy against an unoffending man and woman. He was of opinion that grosser, fouler, or more unfounded charges, were never made against any man or woman in this country.
Mr. Baring,with respect to what had been said as to the signatures of the farmers and of gentlemen, wished to observe, that the petition presented by the hon. member for Winchester had been shewn to the farmers assembled there at a dinner on the market-day, and that they signed it without an exception.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should not trouble the House with the pedigree of the petitioners whose names were subscribed to that which he held in his hand. He would just say, by way of illustration, ho would warrant one fact—that, though it was upon the same subject as the last petition, it was signed neither by a Mayor, a Magistrate, nor a Clergyman. It was the petition of the Western Branch of the great Northern Union of the working classes of the metropolis, held at the Bazaar coffee-shop, in Castle-street, Oxford-market. The subscribers designated the petition as that of the petitioners on behalf of the Union.
Sir Charles Wetherellobjected to the petition being received, on account of the irregularity of the manner in which it was signed. It did not appear whether the parties signing formed a portion of the meeting at which the petition was agreed to.
The Speakerobserved, the practice was
684
against the petition being received, because it was not shown, or even stated by the petitioners, that they were part of that body whose representations or complaint they made to the House. They acknowledged they petitioned on behalf of the Union, not stating they were members of the Union. Finally, it was a maxim in the Common-law, that they, as an Union, not being a Corporation, could not have been empowered to sign for any others of that Union but themselves.
Mr. Huntmerely observed, that it was very respectfully worded, and only joined in the prayer of both the former petitions that an inquiry should be instituted. Under the advice of so high an authority, however, he should be ruled by former precedents.
Petition withdrawn.
Mr. Humepresented petitions from High Wycombe, in Bucks, and from Louth, in the county of Lincoln, praying for an inquiry into the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; and a petition from Thomas and Caroline Deacle, stating their case, and praying for redress.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had received a communication which led him to think that it would be extremely desirable for the ends of justice to postpone the motion of which an honourable and gallant Member had given notice, relative to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. He would therefore beg leave to suggest, to the hon. and gallant Officer, to postpone his motion for the present.
Colonel Evanssaid, that although he had fully intended to bring forward his motion to-night, still he had no objection to postpone it, if the hon. and learned member for Kerry was prepared to show that the ends of justice would be impeded by its being brought forward at present.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the parties having originally understood that a Committee was to be moved for, had since learned, that it was to be opposed by the Government, and it was to show that an inquiry ought to be granted that they now wished the matter to be postponed. The documents which he had seen, satisfied him that the parties were entitled to have an opportunity of making out their case.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he, as an individual Member, had no particular objection to the motion being postponed, if the hon. and gallant Member felt it right to do so; but he thought that postponing it,

685
unless a strong case of necessity were made out, would not be fair justice to the parties against whom the charges were made.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, it was known when the matter was before the House on a former occasion, that the motion for a Committee was to be postponed; and, consequently, the parties had had ample time to prepare their case. He therefore saw no good reason for a postponement now.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that this was a question which might be brought before the House in various shapes—for instance, by motions for the production of documents. But it was extremely desirable that there should be but one discussion upon it. The question was one of vast importance in every point of view. It was important to know whether England was to be transferred to Ireland, and whether the same system of magistracy was to be introduced in this country as prevailed in Ireland—which, he hoped, would never be the case. Under the circumstances of the case, he advised the gallant and learned Member, not to make his motion at present.
Mr. Baringsaid, that whatever the learned member for Kerry might say of justice, what he now proposed was the grossest piece of injustice that could be done; and it was impossible for him to listen to the manner in which it was propounded, without being convinced that there did exist a conspiracy to oppress and to do a cruel injustice to an individual. He very well understood the threat conveyed by the manner and gestures of the learned Member, and was aware that he was at his mercy, or that of any other man who would choose to get up petitions from the dregs of the community, for the purpose of vilifying him, and slandering the character of his relatives. But he should be quite confident in appealing from the candour of the hon. and learned Member to the honour and feeling of a body of gentlemen—If the hon. and gallant Member should refuse to go on with his motion, he (Mr. Baring) would immediately submit one to the House. Although the learned Member might bring forward his calumnies day after day, and make himself the tool of this vile and dirty conspiracy, he (Mr. Baring) would make a motion, that under the difficulties of the case, the House should go on with the present inquiry, and he would not hereafter, con-
686
descend to answer any calumnies which might be uttered. He felt deeply on this subject, and hoped he should be excused if he had used any strong expressions. But if any hon. Member had a charge to bring forward, let him bring it forward fairly and manfully, and not advance it one day, and postpone it the next, for no other purpose than to create excitement and hostility.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that having been assailed, he hoped the House would allow him to defend himself. Having been assailed by the hon. Member in a more brutal manner than he had ever been assailed in that House ["Order," "Chair."]
Sir Robert Inglisrose to order, and begged that the Speaker would have the kindness to state whether it was allowable for any Member of that House to address an hon. Member as having assailed him in what he termed a brutal manner.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had used the word hastily.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, if the hon. Member apologised.—
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he did apologise at once. He had no hesitation in doing so. He had never meant what the word would imply—[The Speaker resumed his seat.] He had not identified himself with this transaction but as a Member of that House, having been called upon by the British subjects who alleged that a woman had been handcuffed—that a verdict had been returned against those who had been parties to that act—that the rich—the exceedingly rich—were in that House—and that the assailed had nobody to standby them, because the wealth, the power, and the station of their oppressors would bear them down. When these persons demanded an advocate in that House, if they had not a zealous one before, they had one zealous now, and he told the hon. Member, that the people of England should have an investigation. The hypocritical pretence—if such a one there had been—of looking for an investigation and at the same time crushing it by other means, should not continue. Conspiracy? What had he to do with your English conspiracies? He had been more assailed than any man that ever lived, and he could bear it patiently. He could bear even the self-exultation which shone upon him now. He would now suggest to his excellent friend to bring on his motion, that the House might see whether the feeling which was professed

687
was real. Let them have an investigation, and see whether it would be followed by an acquittal, which, notwithstanding all that had happened, he hoped might be the case. Let them see if now the inquiry would be resisted. If it were, he should know what to do.
Colonel Evanssaid, that he felt he must, under the circumstances, bring forward his motion. But he must first observe, that the moderation with which he had treated the subject was not fairly returned by the violent—as he must call it—and unprovoked language which was indulged in by some hon. Members. He really did not see that the hon. member for Kerry had said anything which called for the attack that had been made upon him. The word "conspiracy" had been used in the discussions, in a most unsparing and a most unwarrantable manner. What! because Members presented petitions from the people, was it to be said that they went about raking up petitions from low persons through the country? He considered such language an insult, and while he held a seat in that House he would not silently suffer it to be applied to him. The hon. and gallant Member then referred to the particulars of the case, reading from the Morning Herald a passage from the speech of the learned Judge upon the trial, condemning the unnecessary coercion applied to Mrs. Deacle, and also adverting to a letter, published by Mr. Bingham Baring, which, he said, had induced him to bring the matter before the House, as he conceived that letter to amount to an admission of the charges made against him. The former debate had taken such a turn that it was impossible for him not to take a further step in the matter, upon being applied to by Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to do so. The arguments used were not defensive, but criminatory. Then, as now, the imputation of conspiracy was freely thrown out. It was evident that if a conspiracy existed, the witnesses on the trial must have been perjured, and the Judge must have abandoned his duty. When a question of this nature was made the ground of imputations of which no tribunal in the country could take cognizance, he hoped the House would, for the sake of its own character, if not that of the magistracy, see the necessity of instituting an inquiry. If it were urged that that House had no right to inquire into the conduct of the Magistracy, he would
688
reply by referring to the opinion of the noble Lord now at the Head of the Home Department, who, in 1819, declared himself in favour of an inquiry into the conduct of the Magistrates at Manchester. He would also mention the case of Mr. Kenrick, in 1825 and 1826. The hon. member for Thetford then took a very different course from that which he now pursued. The Government did not, on that occasion, object to the inquiry which was sought for, but raised some difficulties as to certain papers, and the hon. member for Thetford said, that their doing so would almost lead to a suspicion that they meant to screen the individual. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petitions of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, respecting the conduct of the Magistracy of Winchester.
Mr. Lefevrethought, that the minds of the public would never be satisfied until the charges of the petitioners against his hon. friends should have been investigated by a Committee of that House. It was impossible that the conduct of those Magistrates could be justified otherwise than by showing what was the state of the country at the time of the transactions respecting which the petitioners complained. He admitted that there was one part of the conduct attributed to his hon. friends, which nothing could justify but resistance on the part of the persons arrested; he meant the handcuffing of Mrs. Deacle. But, after a careful examination of all the conflicting testimony that had been brought forward on the subject, it was his entire conviction, that that proceeding was the act of the constable himself, without any instructions or authority from Mr. Francis or Mr. Bingham Baring. Upon the whole, he thought that the public had dealt unfairly with his hon. friends, in giving to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle the benefit of their acquittal at the Assizes, and refusing to allow to Mr. Francis Baring the benefit of his actual acquittal in the action for damages, or to Mr. B. Baring the benefit of his virtual acquittal, for such the verdict of merely nominal damages must be considered. He thought, that under all the circumstances, the House ought to give his hon. friends an opportunity of setting themselves right with the public, by the investigation of a Select Committee; and he should, therefore, second the Motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when, on a former evening, he stated his intention to oppose the motion of his hon. and gallant friend (Colonel Evans), he did so with considerable reluctance, because he thought it probable that his taking that course might prejudice the parties accused. He felt so much doubt as to the course which he ought to take, that he had consulted others, for whose judgment he had much deference; and upon the best consideration, he had come to this conclusion, that it would not be consistent with his duty to vote for the Committee. He pledged his honour that he had come to that determination without any communication with the hon. member for Thetford. He made that assertion upon his honour as a Gentleman. He opposed the motion with great unwillingness, because he had a high esteem for the hon. member for Portsmouth (Mr. Francis Baring), and it gave him pain to do anything which might have the effect of preventing that Gentleman from setting himself right in the estimation of the public. But considering the nature of the investigation for which the Committee was required, and how little it was likely to give satisfaction to the public, he felt that it was inexpedient to go into it. As to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, they had had their option to proceed against the Magistrates, either by a criminal information or by an action for damages, and they chose the latter course. Upon the trial it was proved that acts attributed to Mr. Francis Baring had been done by Mr. Bingham Baring, and that the former Gentleman, instead of having acted with harshness, had treated the petitioners with great humanity. But in the petition which it was now proposed to refer to a Committee the whole weight of the imputations was thrown upon Mr. Francis Baring, contrary to the evidence given upon the trial. That appeared to him to be a good reason to believe that the accusations against Mr. Francis Baring were wholly unfounded. If the persons accused were not Members of that House, would it be said that the House ought to inquire into their conduct by a Select Committee? Were every such complaint against every individual Magistrate to be brought before that House, and tried by a tribunal, the decision of which, as every Gentleman must know, would not give satisfaction, for many people out of doors would suppose that the Committee could not be impartial?
690
He hoped and trusted, therefore, that some other means of arriving at the truth of those transactions would be found. As to the case referred to by the gallant Member behind him (Colonel Evans), in which the conduct of Magistrates was proposed to be made the subject of inquiry by a Committee of the House, he had himself certainly moved for the Committee on that occasion. But there was no parallel between the present case and that. The transaction in Manchester was one of such magnitude, such enormity, and the conduct of the Magistrates appeared to him to be so unjustifiable, as to call for an investigation by a Committee of the whole House, In the case of the petitioners, the conduct blamed was that only of an individual Magistrate; and, therefore, not thinking that a Select Committee was a proper tribunal before which that conduct should be tried, he felt bound to oppose the Motion.
Lord Ebringtonfelt great regret at being obliged to oppose the Motion; and the more so, as he had had a communication that day with Mr. Bingham Baring, who was most desirous that the inquiry should be gone into. But he did not think that any person who had not been convinced by the clear and satisfactory statement of his hon. friend, the member for Portsmouth, would be convinced by the evidence taken before a Committee, especially as that evidence would not be given upon oath. If all questions like the present were to undergo an investigation before a Select Committee, every hon. Member must perceive, that the greatest inconvenience would be the consequence. He, therefore, felt it to be a matter of public duty to oppose the Motion.
Mr. Humehad hoped, when the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed out the difficulty of meeting the wishes of the petitioners and of the accused Magistrates, by investigating the subject in a Select Committee, that the noble Lord would not have concluded without pointing out the course by which a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at. It was not for the sake of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle that he so much desired that the whole of those transactions should be inquired into, but for the satisfaction of the public, in whose minds there was a strong impression that in this case justice had not been done, He admitted that

691
the statements of the two parties were very much at variance, but there were no allegations of either party which were not open to proof. In presenting petitions upon that subject, when it was first mentioned in the House, he had been satisfied to wait until he should see whether a satisfactory inquiry could be had in the Courts of Justice. But as that had not been the case, he could not see the justice of refusing the fair inquiry which was called for by both parties. He could not allow himself to be set down as one of a conspiracy for the course which he had thought it his duty to follow, and he would assure the hon. member for Thetford, that it was not his practice, as that hon. Gentleman had asserted, to bring up petitions from the dregs of society without regard to truth. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman had been betrayed into those expressions by the irritation of the moment, and that he would take the first opportunity of retracting them. When the petition which he (Mr. Hume) had that evening presented was put into his hands, his first inquiry was, whether the allegations contained in it were capable of proof? He was answered that they were capable of proof; and more, that the proof was at that moment ready to be produced. In that petition the Magistrates were charged, not only with unjustifiable harshness, but with subornation. He did not see in what way injury could be done by the inquiry which was demanded; and he thought that when the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) opposed the Committee, he ought to have been prepared to suggest a better means of inquiry. As the noble Lord had not done so, then he was driven to adopt the next best mode of coming at the truth which he could obtain. If his Majesty's Ministers were desirous to maintain the character of the magistracy, they ought themselves to be the first to go into the inquiry. It was not the character of the Messrs. Baring alone that was involved, but that of the whole magistracy of Hampshire; and although the question had not been made personal, and Mr. Bingham Baring was one of the accused, yet he was not the only one accused. There was one fact which had not been denied; that a female had been handcuffed without any appearance of resistance to excuse such harshness; but if the allegations were wholly groundless, he thought that when they had made such an impression
692
upon the public mind, it was incumbent upon his Majesty's Ministers to go into the inquiry for the satisfaction of the public.
The Attorney Generalthought, that the House must have been gratified by the tone of moderation in which the hon. member for Middlesex had supported the Motion, and must feel that the excuse which he had found for the hon. member for Thetford was creditable to himself. As to the proposed inquiry, he (the Attorney General) thought that it must turn, not altogether upon the allegations of the petition, but in a great degree upon the state of the country at the time when those transactions took place. It was to be considered that at that time no man could feel himself safe, and that depositions (whether true or false) had been made, deeply implicating Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in the proceedings of the rioters. An hon. Member behind him had censured Mr. Justice Taunton (who presided at the trial) for censuring the conduct of the Magistrates in attending to see their warrant executed. Certainly, in ordinary times, it was better that Magistrates should leave the execution of their warrants to the constable; but in a time of such great excitement and danger, he (the Attorney General) could not concur with the learned Judge in censuring the Magistrates for taking the trouble to see that the warrants were executed, and that the constable was not interrupted in his duty. He considered a Committee of that House a tribunal the least calculated that could be devised for attaining the ends of justice in the present case. The persons arrested under such circumstances were acquitted at the Assizes, and they proceeded by action against the Magistrates. The trial then took place; or, in other words, the Jury having thought that the assault against Mrs. Deacle was made out, gave such damages as they thought would meet the case. These proceedings having taken place, he really could not see why that House ought to be turned into a Court of Appeal. It was said, he knew, that both parties were desirous that a further investigation should take place; but, as far as he was able to foresee, he thought that neither side could gain any thing by such an event. It was also said that there were precedents to justify such an interference on the part of the House of Commons; but he must confess that

693
those which had already been mentioned did not appear to him to bear any resemblance to that which was now before them for consideration. With respect to the Manchester case, that was very different. What had taken place there was on a very large scale; besides which, the yeomanry were thanked by the Government for what they had done, which circumstance, of itself, rendered it imperative on those who thought that the yeomanry had misconducted themselves, to bring forward a specific motion on the subject in that House, and to demand that inquiry should take place. The case of Mr. Kenrick, which had also been mentioned, appeared to him to differ materially from that of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; for in the former, though it was a Magistrate that was implicated, it ought also to be remembered, that he was likewise a Welsh Judge, and that there was no mode of getting him removed from that office in the event of misconduct but by an Address to the Crown. Another argument that had been made use of in favour of an inquiry in this case was, that it had made a great impression on the public mind, and that it ought, therefore, to be publicly investigated; but that impression appeared to him to be now rapidly subsiding; and he thought that inquiry, therefore, so far from doing good, would only give rise to still further excitement, at a time when, if left to itself, it would entirely disappear. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, he must contend, that no ground had been made out for taking this inquiry out of the hands of a Court of Justice. It appeared to him that to do so would be giving a premium for bringing forward a succession of such charges as these. If this attack upon Mr. Deacle had taken place during times of ordinary peace and tranquillity, it would, perhaps, have been advisable to have investigated the question; but, when they remembered in what agitated and excited times these circumstances had taken place, he thought, that to institute such proceedings would be putting an undue check upon the vigilance and activity of Magistrates.
Mr. Daniel Whittle Harveywas surprised at the course adopted by his Majesty's Ministers upon this occasion. He wondered how they could consent to allow a case of this importance, affecting, as it did, the conduct and character of the magistracy generally, to pass without
694
notice and without inquiry. It was impressed strongly on his mind, that those who were accused of misconduct in this case had, on the first mention of it to the House, invited hon. Members to suspend their judgment until they had taken legal measures to challenge that verdict, of which the effect was, to strengthen the imputation which the inquiry at the trial raised against them. He also recollected the statement made by an hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been professionally engaged in these transactions, and who, in commenting on the trial, had asserted, that the defendants were taken by surprise, by the turn of that trial, and by the evidence produced against them. He had likewise not forgotten the declaration of the hon. member for Portsmouth, that they intended to move for a new trial as soon as the Courts were re-opened in Westminster Hall. Now, however, it turned out, that the defendants did not intend to venture upon any further judicial proceedings. He did not find fault with them for adopting that resolution. No doubt they had been ably and judiciously advised. He agreed with the hon. member for Hampshire, that considering the opulence of Mr. Bingham Baring, the verdict on the trial at Winchester was a mere nominal verdict. He supposed, therefore, that his legal adviser had told him, either that that verdict would operate in his favour as an acquittal with the public, or that he was very lucky in gaining a verdict with such small damages, and in having it tried in Hampshire, where his influence was so great, instead of having it tried in some county where he must have met the plaintiff on a footing of greater equality. He would not conceal from the House, that after all the statements which had been made by the opposite party, it was his opinion that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and all their witnesses, had been most shamefully calumniated in that House. An hon. and learned Gentleman, who had once filled a high legal situation, had even gone so far as to say, that he had no doubt that all the witnesses had perjured themselves. It was not enough when the defendants in a cause met with defenders of the first rank and importance in that House, and were fortified against all attacks by a family of Representatives ready to come forward at any moment in their behalf—it was not enough, it appeared, that they should have the benefit

695
of such a defence, but they must also have every assistance which could be afforded them by charging the Jury with partiality, and by accusing the witnesses of perjury. But, in his opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had little to do with the grave question which was then before the House. That was evidently the opinion of his hon. and gallant friend, for he had submitted their case to the consideration of the House long before he received any petition from them. His hon. and gallant friend, on reading the newspaper report of the trial, and the strong remarks made on it by the Press, determined to bring it before the House on his own responsibility. It was not until hon. Members had discharged the fire of their artillery upon these individuals, who were unknown in that House, and without any relations, friends, or political associates to defend them—it was not until their characters had been whispered away, and their witnesses had been traduced as guilty of perjury, and the Jury which gave them a nominal compensation had been charged with partiality—that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle felt themselves called upon to make, in their petition, a full disclosure of the injury which they alleged that they had suffered. He had read their petition through with great attention. He would not say what credit he was inclined to give to the statements which it contained; he would only say, that they appeared at least to require investigation. Still the case was not, as he said before, a mere case between Mr. Bingham Baring and Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; but it was a grave case between the magistracy and the unprotected people of England; for it had been gravely stated, that not only Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, but also 200 or 300 of the peasantry of Hampshire had been carried hand-cuffed to prison. Indeed, it had been gravely argued, that no hardship had been suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in this respect, inasmuch as it had been suffered by so many others. For his own part, and in this respect, he would say, that as Mr. Deacle was a gentleman of rank and education, the defendants had a right to take some credit to themselves for having administered the laws with impartiality, for it appeared they had hand-cuffed both the rich and the poor, the gentleman and the labourer, without the slightest distinction of rank. He was surprised to hear that it was a matter of trivial importance that the magistracy of England—hereafter
696
to be an irresponsible magistracy, if such oppression as this were to remain unnoticed—should possess the power of placing irons on the wrists of unoffending individuals, who, when brought to trial, were proved to be not guilty. He contended that by law the magistracy possessed no such power: he contended that, even where parties were guilty, it was contrary to the law and Constitution of England, both in practice and in theory, to subject them to this iron degradation, unless they presented resistance to the authorities in whose custody they were. It was against this that the people of England raised their protest—it was against this assumption of arbitrary and irresponsible power that they had in all quarters of the island given expression to their indignation. He had heard with the same indignation as his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that the charges brought against the Messrs. Barings in that House were the result of a dirty conspiracy. He was not conscious of the existence of any such conspiracy; but if it were supposed that by such taunts he would be deterred from raising his voice on behalf of the injured and oppressed in that House, those who used such taunts would find themselves grossly mistaken. As long as he had a seat in that House, he would always be ready to raise his voice in behalf of the poor, however much such conduct might displease those Gentlemen whose arithmetic was puzzled in counting their millions, and whose immense fortunes were accumulated at the expense, and almost by the destruction, of their poorer fellow countrymen. He would not vote for a Committee, if Government would point out any other mode of inquiry into the circumstances of this case. He had not yet heard, that the Home Secretary had offered to receive depositions upon oath from both parties on this subject. If the Home Secretary would do that, truth might yet be elicited, and justice done between both parties. If some such measure were not granted, he should be compelled to vote for a Committee of Inquiry, in spite of the inconvenience to which such Committees generally gave rise. He concluded by stating, that if such a Committee were granted, he should enter upon its duties with a mind open to conviction, and influenced by no other feeling than a wish to vindicate the justice of the country—the rights of the people, and the equal claims of the parties.
Mr. Baringhad had no intention of imputing any improper motives to the hon. member for Middlesex; and he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have imagined that he had done so. He admitted that he felt strongly on this question, and he certainly had no pretensions for saying he was able to form an impartial opinion upon it: perhaps he might be allowed to say, that he felt still more strongly on the subject, from the impression that the late prosecution which had been instituted against this young person (Mr. Bingham Baring) took its origin, not from his own demerits, but from the line of politics which he (Mr. Baring) had adopted. At the time that these transactions were taking place, there were 400 persons confined in the gaol at Winchester; and he thought that when that circumstance was taken into consideration, it would in some measure account for the confusion and excitement which had prevailed in the country. But the case had been mis-stated with respect to the Deacles. The Barings did not accuse the Deacles—it was the Deacles who accused them; and the whole extent to which the Barings went was to show that the statements of the Deacles were not founded in fact; and with this addition certainly, that there were primâ facie grounds for taking up the Deacles, and for instituting proceedings against them. He came down unprepared for the discussion, expecting that the Committee would be granted. He could only refer, therefore, to the various depositions given before the Magistrates, to show that there was good reason to apprehend Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. The Magistrates would have neglected their duty if they had not apprehended them. Several of the people who were tried, said, in their defence, that they were ordered by Mr. Deacle to go to certain places to get money. The Judges too stated, that there were farmers who instigated the people, and deserved to be tried more than the misled peasantry. The people themselves were much aggrieved, and perhaps no class deserved more pity than the agricultural labourers. They had no criminality in their minds. They were goaded on by others. The verdict was good evidence, and it acquitted all the Magistrates, except Mr. Bingham Baring, and he was only condemned because he was said to have struck a blow. The verdict of the Jury was the safest guide for the House.
698
It was not the Magistrates who accused Mr. Deacle's witnesses of perjury, but Mr. Deacle himself. He wished it to be made out, according to his petition, that the witnesses had not deposed to the truth. The hon. Member also animadverted on the contradiction between the statements of Mr. Deacle's own witnesses and his own petition. Mr. Bingham Baring, at a time of great danger, exerted himself more than any other Magistrate, and nearly lost his life by an attempt to resist a mob. That fact, which was much to his credit, had been laid hold of by a powerful writer, who circulated his slanderous attacks throughout the land, who had for many years spread poison throughout the country. This man had stated that he would ruin the Barings; and to effect that object he continually brought forward the case of that unhappy young man who lost his life for making an attempt on that of Mr. Bingham Baring. He must take the liberty to refer to the testimony of Mr. Justice Alderson in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, to show that his conduct had been what it ought to be. The choice of the cart was the act of the constable. The Magistrates went to arrest the people who were suspected, because there were no military in the county. It was proved that Mr. Bingham Baring could know nothing of the Deacles, by his asking of the constable who they were. It was impossible that Mr. Bingham Baring could have been on the spot when the handcuffs were put on Mrs. Deacle; they were not put on either by Mr. Francis Baring. It was the general rule at that time to handcuff the prisoners who were sent to Winchester gaol; and it was in compliance with that rule that the handcuffs were used. It was physically impossible that the order to handcuff Mrs. Deacle could have been given by Mr. Bingham Baring. He admitted, with reference to the fact of who carried Mrs. Deacle, that a mistake as to the person was of no consequence. Mrs. Deacle, however, was carried carefully across the dirt, and thanked Mr. Francis Baring for his care. On the arrival of Mr. Deacle at Winchester, he too thanked Mr. Francis Baring, and said he hoped Mr. Baring would call again to-morrow. He believed, too, that there was no intention of rescuing the Deacles; but, looking at the state of insurrection in the village, it was very natural that the Magistrates should fear a

699
rescue. That was the reason for making so much haste. As to the blow, Mr, Deacle had put his hands upon the reins, and Mr. Bingham Baring, seeing that, had ridden up to the cart from behind, and did put the riding-stick he had in his hands upon Mr. Deacle. All the gentlemen who had been with Mr. Bingham Baring were made co-defenders, and were unable to give their evidence that they did not see the blow, though they were about, and would most probably have seen it if a blow had been inflicted. They never heard even of any blow, and yet, if a blow had been given, that would have been the first thing complained of. Mr. Bingham Baring knew nothing of the aggravated circumstances that were related on the trial, till they came before the Court, and he accordingly left his case entirely in the hands of the attorney, who was the Clerk of the Peace. Under the circumstances of the county, the young Magistrate who acted so vigorously deserved praise. As to not going for a new trial, the reason was, that it could not be done without giving the plaintiff an entirely new trial, and without, at the same time, obtaining the advantage of separating the defenders. The verdict, however, when translated into English, only meant that the Magistrates were acquitted of all the other charges except the blow. He had his doubts whether going for a new trial would benefit the defenders, because the gentlemen had not seen the blow, and their denial would not weigh against the assertion of other men, who said that it had been given.
Mr. O' Connellthought, that as the parties involved in the transaction had courted inquiry, the refusal to institute that inquiry would only tend to increase the slander—for slander he trusted it would prove to be. Many charges were from time to time preferred against the magistracy for an improper exercise of their functions, and if it were seen that that House was disposed to give such charges a fair degree of consideration, it would greatly tend to tranquillize the public mind. Numberless instances in his own country justified him in advancing this opinion. He was decidedly in favour of inquiry, in order, if the allegations were false, that an end might be put to popular agitation.
Sir Robert Peelwas sorry that a sense of duty obliged him to oppose a measure
700
which he believed the parties themselves sincerely desired. He was opposed to it, because he was persuaded that those parties were entirely innocent of the misconduct with which they were charged. He did not think that House the fittest tribunal for instituting a trial of the kind. If an appeal were to be made to any tribunal, it should be to one of those where the truth or falsehood of conflicting statements was established on oath. He discovered nothing in the present case, more than in many others of alleged misconduct of Magistrates, that demanded or warranted extraordinary interference. He believed those men to be innocent, and he did so without having the honour of their acquaintance further than meeting them in that House. From his own official experience, he could see much in the disturbed state of the country that might countenance the adoption of measures of more than ordinary precaution. Placing himself in the character of a Grand Juryman, and believing these persons to be altogether guiltless of the proceedings laid to their charge, he could not, consistently with a sense of duty, accede to their wishes for a new trial.
Mr. Huntregretted that the Government did not consent to grant the inquiry, because the printing of the petitions had been refused on the express ground that there would be an inquiry. He thought it was plain that a female had been ill-treated, without the least justice in the accusations brought against her, and that in such a case there was ground for the interference of that House. The country would not be easily led to believe that there had not been some understanding between the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the powerful family of the Barings, and this again was a reason why an inquiry should not have been refused.
Mr. Goulburnthought that the proposed appointment of a Committee would be most inconvenient, and was highly inexpedient.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that when he came into the House that evening, he had a strong impression on his mind to vote in support of this Motion; but what he had heard in the course of the debate which had since occurred, had completely altered his determination on the subject. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam-

701
worth. He considered that as far as the parties were concerned, this case had been entirely set at rest by the verdict of a Jury. He must say, that he could not bring himself to believe the charge made against Mr. Bingham Baring of having struck a man in handcuffs a blow. He should vote against the Motion, because he did not think that any parliamentary grounds had been laid for the appointment of a Committee.
Colonel Evanssaid, he should trouble the House with a very few words in reply. In the first place, he felt much pleased at the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, had treated the subject, although he was opposed to the inquiry. In the second place, he begged leave to assure the House, that as the word "conspiracy" had been made use of as affording one of the grounds upon which he would justify the appointment of a Committee, he had no such impression on his mind; the only ground he went upon was, that in a case which involved so much conflicting testimony, and on which neither party appeared well satisfied, it might be proper for the House to interfere, and make due inquiries.
The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 78; Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Blackney, W.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Baring, Sir T.

O'Connell, D.

Baring, A.

O'Connell, M.

Baring, H. B.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Baring, F. T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Ewart, W.

Sheil, R.

Grattan, J.

Stanley, E. G.

Grattan, H.

Thicknesse, R.

Harvey, D. W.

Tomes, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Wason, W. H.

Hunt, H.

Wood, J.

Jephson, C.

Walker, C. A.

James, W.

Wyse, T.

Lambert, H.

Wilks, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

TELLERS.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Hume, J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Evans, Col. de Lacy.

CHARITIES INQUIRIES BILL.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, he wished to know what difference there was between the new Commission to be appointed under this Bill, and that which had previously existed, as there had been a considerable outlay of public money connected with the subject, and he thought material savings could be made.
The Attorney Generalassured his hon. friend, the Bill was in the same form as the former one, and the Commissioners were to have the same powers; but it was intended to reduce the number of paid Commissioners from ten to eight, and the salaries were also to be reduced from 1,000 l. to 800 l. per annum, and they were to be employed for a longer term during each year; the nature of the inquiry made it necessary to collect a great mass of evidence, to be borne out by the necessary documents, previous to a report being made.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, in the former Bill a clause had been introduced, preventing Members of either House of Parliament from being paid Commissioners. This clause had now been omitted, but he trusted there was no objection to have it inserted in the present Bill. Under the previous Bills there were ten paid, and ten unpaid Commissioners; now he presumed there were to be twelve unpaid, and eight paid, who were to have salaries of 800 l. per annum each.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he had no possible objection to introduce the clause recommended by the right hon. Gentleman; it must have been left out by inadvertence. It was proposed the Commissioners should bear the proportions, both as to number and payment, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested.
Mr. John Weylandsaid, he wished to suggest an amendment in the present Bill, in consequence of certain schools having been endowed for a specific purpose, such, for instance, as teaching grammar, which implied that the candidates for admission should have some previous knowledge of reading and writing. The scope of his Amendment, therefore, was, to enable the Commissioners, in cases of such a description, to ascertain whether the funds of the charity could not be distributed with greater advantage to those for whose benefit they were intended, than according to the precise rules laid down by the founder of the charity. He had understood that the gross amount of the funds intended for the purposes of education, amounted to upwards of 1,000,000 l., and he was quite sure the persons who had bequeathed this money, desired that the greatest possible good should be done with it; and could they have seen the alterations that time had made on society, they would desire the State should make

703
such alterations in their bequests as would best fulfil the objects they had in view, in improving the condition of those for whose benefit these funds were intended. Many schools were now without scholars, from the absurd rules laid down by the founders, which, according to the existing law, it was necessary to enforce.
The House went into Committee, when several verbal amendments were made.
On arriving at the clause relating to the salaries of the Commissioners,
Mr. Humesaid, the public should be relieved from the expense of the Commissioners; the charge should be defrayed by a per centage out of the funds of the charities, which had greatly profited in general by the labours of these gentlemen.
The Attorney Generalremarked, in answer to his hon. friend, that some charities might recover property immediately, and others might not receive it for a series of years. The former class, therefore, would have to pay the whole of the charges, while the latter would be exempt—he did not see how his hon. friend could make the burthen apply equally.
Mr. Daniel Whittle Harveysaid, he was fully persuaded that neither the trustees of charities, nor the persons who were to profit by them, could have any objection to pay the Commissioners for recovering their money, and he was also sure there could be no difficulty in placing charities which were now worse than useless upon a sound footing, so as to promote the general interests of the poorer classes. The hon. member for Hindon had estimated the probable income of charities at 1,000,000 l.; he (Mr. Harvey) had no doubt it was nearly double that amount. Some years since the rental and income of charities then inquired into by the Commissioners, amounted to 700,000 l. annually. He was fully satisfied the country did not know the extent of the property which had been bequeathed for charitable purposes, and had been devoted to other objects. There were at present about 400 suits instituted by the Attorney General against the trustees of charities, for the non-performance of their duties, and there was 1,000,000 l. sterling locked up in Chancery. One of the Companies in the city of London had recently been compelled to pay into that Court upwards of 100,000 l., which they had received on behalf of a charity, but which had not been applied in the manner directed by
704
the will of the donor. Now, when such sums of money were recovered, it was not too much to require those who received such benefits to contribute a certain percentage for the payment of those through whose instrumentality the money had been recovered. Several other of the City Companies had also large funds intended for charitable purposes, which had been misapplied. In one instance he (Mr. Harvey) had compelled one of them to lay out 20,000 l. in the erection of alms-houses, from monies bequeathed for that purpose. He, however, proposed to call the attention of the House to the whole subject at a convenient opportunity.
Mr. John Weylandsaid, the amendment he wished to see introduced into the Bill would have a prospective operation only; he had no desire that the charities should pay the expense of the Commission.
Mr. Benettsaid, he feared the reduction in the number of the Commissioners would protract the inquiry very materially; they had hitherto discharged their duties in a most exemplary manner; he would, therefore, recommend their number to be increased, by which means the duration of their labours would be shortened, and probably the expenses be ultimately less
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he had very strong objections to give the Commissioners power to decide whether the funds of a charity ought not to be appropriated to other purposes than those designed by the founder. He, therefore, should recommend the hon. member for Hindon to postpone his amendment, as it was likely to give rise to a lengthened discussion.
Mr. John Weylandobserved, if the right hon. Gentleman objected to his proposition he would withdraw it.
Mr. Humesaid, he hoped the Commissioners would ultimately have authority to inquire into the charities connected with the Universities; he had reasons to believe the funds intended for education had been misapplied. He would take this opportunity to suggest to his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) the propriety of introducing a clause into this Bill, similar to that recently annexed to the Bill for Public Works in Ireland, declaring the Commissioners employed under it were not to be entitled to allowance for superannuation.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he had no objection to agree to his hon. friend's suggestion.
Several verbal amendments were made, and the Bill ordered to be reported.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent; the Waterloo Bridge New Street; and the Ways and Means. Committed; the Game Acts Amendment; Administration of Justice (Ireland); Special Constables; Decrees in Equity. Read a second time; Wine Duties. Read a third time. The Bankruptcy Court.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Mayor and Corporation of Queenborough, from the Resident Burgesses of that Borough, and from the Electors of the Town and Port, of Seaford, against the Reform Bill. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Inhabitants of the Ward of Walbrook, London, to pass the Reform Bill. By the Earl of CARLISLE, from the Burgesses and Inhabitants of Morpeth, to the same effect. By the Marquis of WESTMEATH, from the Protestant Landholders of Galway,
646
in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. By the Marquis of WESTMINSTER, the Earl of FINGALL, and Lord CLONCURRY, from Freeholders of Moycullen; Catholic Inhabitants of Newtownsmith, and St. Nicholas Galway, to the same effect. By Lord DACRE, from Royston, Hertfordshire, and from the City of Perth, in favour of Reform. By Lord BEXLEY, from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Harwich, against the Reform Bill, praying to be heard by Themselves or Counsel, against their Disfranchisement. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Inhabitants of Romsey, Hampshire, and from the Weavers of Glasgow, in favour of Parliamentary Reform.

REFORM—PETITION.
Lord Cloncurrypresented a Petition from a place in Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. The noble Lord said, that he had another Petition to present to their Lordships, to which he begged to call their Lordships' attention. The petition was from the Lord Mayor, the nobility, gentry, and inhabitants of the city of Dublin, and it prayed their Lordships to pass the measure of Reform which was now before that House. The city of Dublin, from which this petition came, had long ranked as the second city in the British dominions; but he was sorry to say, that it had fallen from that high station, and that it had become the victim of poverty that had generated discontent and dissatisfaction. This petition had been adopted at a public meeting of the inhabitants, convened by the Lord Mayor, and several thousand signatures had been affixed to it. The city of Dublin, as well as a great part of Ireland, had been long looking forward for some measure to relieve the great distress in which that country was plunged. Some persons called for a Repeal of the Union for that purpose, but the great majority, the moderate, and the well-judging part of the population, and more especially the well educated and the industrious classes, were anxious that the measure of Reform should be passed, in order that justice might be done to their country. They hoped, that after the Reform was passed, that attention would be given to the interests and the affairs of Ireland, which, he was sorry to say, had been long withheld from them. It was their confident expectation, that when the Reform Bill was carried, their Lordships and a reformed Parliament would bring forward immediately such measures as were necessary for the salvation of Ireland, and of the empire at large.
The Petition to be laid on the Table.

ABSENCE OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
The Marquis of Londonderry,in rising to

647
put the question of which he had given notice last night, to the Lord Chancellor, with regard to that noble Lord's absence from the House, said, that he could assure their Lordships, that nothing would have made him so presumptuous as to rise in that House for the purpose of making any observations on the Standing Orders of their Lordships, did he not feel that it was necessary to do so in consequence of what had fallen on a former evening from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He did suppose, on that occasion, that some noble and learned Peer more conversant with the Orders and the rules of that House than he was, would have stood up in his place, and have defended their Lordships against the imputations which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then cast upon them. Their Lordships would recollect, that on that occasion the noble and learned Lord told them, that they were the most disorderly assembly that he had ever heard of—that several noble Lords were in the habit of getting up at once to speak—that other noble Lords would explain three or four times in the course of the same debate; and that, in fact, such was the disorder, and such was the neglect of the rules of the House, on the part of their Lordships, that it was frequently impossible that any business could be done. He, however, must assert, that since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he had never seen the noble and learned person who presided on the Woolsack rise to address their Lordships, or to state any circumstance, that an immediate deference and respect were not paid to him by all their Lordships. He would therefore say, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could at any time, owing to the deference which was properly shown to him, repress any improper or disorderly proceeding which might arise in that House. He felt that at all times, but at the present particular moment especially, it was incumbent on the noble and learned person who presided on the Woolsack, to take care that nothing should fall from him that might by any possibility be construed into a contumelious attack upon their Lordships. It was at all times the duty of that noble and learned Lord to uphold and maintain the dignity of that House, and if ever there was a time when it was the special and bounden duty of that noble and learned person to uphold the important privileges and the invalu-
648
able rights of that House, the present was that time. It was with great regret, that on the occasion to which he had already alluded, he had heard the noble and learned Lord cast such imputations on the Members of that House, and nothing but the wish not to undergo the charge of presumption, prevented him from replying to the noble and learned Lord at the time. He felt it necessary, however, now to declare, that the first duty of that noble and learned person was, to attend to the service of that House. He moved yesterday, that the Standing Order, No. 3, should be read. It was not his intention now to argue the meaning or the object of that Standing Order, for they had been already sufficiently declared by the noble and learned individual who was one of the noble Lord's predecessors on the Woolsack. This, however, he would say, that if general custom, if immemorial usage, if constant habit should be taken as the best rule and guides for the conduct of a Lord Chancellor, he believed that it would be at once granted that the first duty of that high functionary was to attend to the service of that House. He would go further, and shew, that such was the opinion which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself entertained. He remembered, that when that noble and learned Lord was absent from that House some eight or ten days together, he felt it his duty to come down, and in his place in that House, to make an apology to their Lordships, and to state the reasons why he had been so absent. Nothing was said by their Lordships then, and it might be that they thought that the noble and learned Lord was perfectly right in being so long absent from that House. The fact, however, shewed that the noble and learned Lord himself thought that his first duty was to attend to the service of that House. The circumstance that had more especially induced him (the Marquis of Londonderry) to call their Lordships' attention to this matter was the absence of the noble and learned Lord from the House last night. A motion, of which he (the Marquis of Londonderry) had given notice, with regard to a portion of our foreign policy, stood for last night, and, but for the absence of the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government—an absence occasioned by a lamented calamity in the noble Lord's family—that motion might have been brought forward. If such had

649
been the case, he should have had to regret much the absence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, because that noble Lord had put himself forward as the champion of Government in all questions brought forward in that House, and had particularly interested himself in the foreign affairs of this country. He was therefore greatly surprised to find that the noble and learned Lord did not attend in his place yesterday evening, aware as he was, that such a Motion was to come on. But though that Motion was postponed, their Lordships had been occupied with a measure which was of the greatest importance to the property of the country. With regard to that measure two noble and learned Lords, Members of that House, differed from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and it would have therefore been a matter of satisfaction to their Lordships, who were anxious to discharge their duty, if that noble and learned Lord had been in his place to give his opinion on the subject. When noble Lords were anxious to do their duty—when they came down regularly day after day to that House to do their duty, and to protect the country—was it too much to expect that the noble and learned Lord should attend in his place in that House to discharge the important duty which devolved upon him? The noble and learned Lord was endowed with large emoluments for the duty which he performed, and he should bear in mind, that the first, the most important duty which he had to perform, was to attend regularly in that House. The noble Lord's excuse was, that he was prevented from attending regularly in that House, in consequence of his being obliged to attend to the business of the Court of Chancery; and it had been made a subject of boast, that the noble and learned Lord had got through a greater mass of business in that Court than those noble and learned Lords who had been his predecessors. If the noble and learned Lord conceived that any degree of eulogium attached to him for having done so, he would say, on the part of his noble and learned friend near him, that if his noble and learned friend, when he held the Great Seal, had deserted the service of that House, and had given up the whole of his time to the Court of Chancery, he would probably have done quite as much, and got through quite as much, as the noble and, learned Lord on
650
the Woolsack. He should be the last person to deny the noble and learned Lord's ability, or to attempt to depreciate the power of his talents. He would be always ready to bear testimony to the noble and learned Lord's great powers, though those powers had been frequently exerted against himself in that House. That circumstance, however, should never prevent him from doing justice to the abilities of the noble and learned Lord: he had always frankly and honestly acknowledged them. But let him tell the noble and learned Lord, that he had not been the first or the only person that had employed his days assiduously in the service of the country, when called by the King to fill the highest offices in the State. They knew that Ministers of the Crown had, before this time, fallen a sacrifice to their zealous and unwearied exertions in the public service. It could not be forgotten that such men as Canning, Castlereagh, and others, had fallen a sacrifice to their intense application to the public business of the country. He would not have the noble and learned Lord imagine, that he alone could plume himself on that point, though great merit certainly was due to the noble and learned Lord's exertions. The noble Lord, however, should not have deserted the service which was paramountly due from him to that House. His predecessors had not neglected their duty towards that House, and if the noble and learned Lord thought that he was justified in giving greater attention to his duties in the Court of Chancery for the public good, and the good of the suitors there, he begged to inform the noble Lord, that his duty towards that House should take precedence of all others. He would not deny, that the patent under which the Earl of Shaftesbury acted as their chairman enabled him to preside, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, on the Woolsack; and there could be no objection to his doing so occasionally, provided that a due and fitting excuse were made for the absence of the Lord Chancellor, and that such a communication was made to the House, as in deference to it should be made to it, to account for that absence. He would, however, repeat, that the service which the Lord Chancellor had to discharge in that House was of a most important nature, and that it should on no account be neglected by him. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord would be

651
able to give a satisfactory explanation as to the cause of his absence from the House last night. The very first day of their Lordships' meeting in the present session, when many noble Lords came down to be sworn, and when the noble Lord should have been in his place, the noble Lord was not there. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord had not arrived from the country at that time. These frequent instances, however, of the noble and learned Lord's absence from his duty in that House, had induced him to bring the subject under their Lordships' notice. In doing so, he exercised that right which belonged to any individual peer of that House, and his object was, to have the usual course of proceedings in that House strictly observed and adhered to. He did not imagine that their Lordships would find any difficulty, if there should be a necessity for it, in coming to a resolution that that House always required the presence of the Lord Chancellor. The presence of the noble and learned Lord was necessary to preserve order in that House; and for himself he would say, that upon all occasions when that noble and learned person declared his opinion on a point of order, he should be most ready to bow to his decision.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if he did not feel that there never was a charge brought against any human being who might happen to be placed in any public office, which was more entirely without foundation than that which had been preferred by the noble Marquis against him, if he did not feel, he repeated, that such was the fact, he should have experienced considerable distress in having been the occasion of a discussion that occupied so much of their Lordships' valuable time, and he should have been still more distressed, if he had done any thing that would bear the outward semblance or appearance of his having been wanting in that respect which he owed to their Lordships, or in that diligence which was indispensably required for the discharge of the important duties which devolved upon him. He felt confident, however, that when he stated a few circumstances which he was about to detail to their Lordships, their Lordships would see that there had not been any want of due respect and deference on his part, or any want of a due sense of his important duties toward that House. As to the point of diligence,
652
he entertained no anxiety whatever on that ground. The charge against him was, that he had constantly neglected his important duties in that House—that he had absented himself from that House without any proper excuse, and that he had left their Lordships, without the benefit of the presence of the person who filled the chair of that House, to give them his advice and counsel in all matters that came before them, and to preserve due order and regularity in the course of their proceedings. He took no merit to himself other than for an ardent and diligent desire to discharge the duties of his office. He must disclaim the many compliments which the noble Marquis had been pleased to bestow upon him, for he felt himself totally undeserving of them. To the superior merits of the learned and distinguished individuals who had preceded him in the office which he now held, he was always ready, as he ought to be, to give way; but there was one point on which he would not yield even to them: he would not yield to any one, and he would not be exceeded by any one that ever preceded him in that office, in a constant and perpetual desire always earnestly and thoroughly to discharge the important duties which appertained to it. Party was, to be sure, a good thing, but it was not so when it so far blinded a noble Lord as to make him bring forward a charge against him, as if he had been, as Keeper of the Great Seal, idle and negligent, and as if he had not attended to the due discharge of the duties of his office. That such a charge should have been preferred against him was indeed a most extraordinary thing, and it only showed how much further the spirit of party carried men than he, reasoning à priori, supposed was possible. Judging from the manner in which the charge was received by that side of the House from which the noble Lord spoke, he supposed he was to assume, that in bringing forward this charge, the noble Lord only spoke for the noble Lords on the Opposition benches [no, no.] He was to assume, then, that the noble Marquis, in bringing forward this charge, merely spoke for himself, and with the noble Marquis alone, therefore, he had to do on this occasion. He would not complain that there had been any thing discourteous in the manner in which the noble Marquis had introduced this matter. There was no discourtesy whatever in the

653
manner in which the noble Marquis had brought it forward. The noble Marquis was perfectly justified in calling him to account, if he supposed that he had been in fault; but he was sure, that before he sat down, he should satisfy their Lordships, and he should be much disappointed if he did not succeed in satisfying the noble Marquis himself, that there was no foundation whatever for the charge which the noble Marquis had thought fit to prefer against him. It would appear from the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquis, as if he (the Lord Chancellor), with a view to get rid of the arrear of business which was before him, had entirely neglected the service which he owed to that House, and had given all his time and attention to the Court of Chancery. Now, he was the last person in the world to detract from the merits of the exalted and illustrious individuals, Members of that House, who had preceded him in the office which he now held. It was only a few days ago that he had expressed his sense of the great and superior merits which those noble and learned Lords had displayed while the duties of that office were confided to their care, and he would now add, that if they had left him an arrear of cases, they had left him also the means of getting rid of them, by leaving him a body of wisdom and learning in decisions which fixed upon an imperishable basis the law of the Court of Chancery, and left him little to do but to act upon the principles which they had laid down and established. He was ready to acknowledge that obligation to the eminent individuals who had held the Great Seal before him. From the manner in which the noble Marquis had spoken of his attempts to get through the arrears of the Court of Chancery, a stranger would be led to imagine, that he had made a boast of the matter, though the idea had never once crossed his mind, nor had a word to that effect escaped his lips. The noble Marquis said, that he had been enabled to do what he had done, by giving the hours which were due to that House to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. Now the fact was, that the Chancery suitors had benefitted at the expense of their Lordships to the amount only of six or eight hours at the utmost. He remembered that he was absent from that House during one whole week, including Wednesday and Saturday, but he was not absent on that occasion without notice. He came down to the
654
House and told their Lordships of his intention; he asked leave, in fact, to be absent for that week, and he stated his reasons for asking it. Amongst those reasons he mentioned that he was anxious to go through all the business which remained in the Court of Chancery, before he proceeded to sit and hear appeals in that House. He recollected that on that occasion, the noble and learned Earl on the bench below him, stated it as his opinion that the first and paramount duty of the individual who held the Great Seal was to attend in the House of Lords. That noble Earl certainly said so then, and it would probably be recollected by their Lordships, that he did not differ from the opinion of the noble and learned Earl. He recollected, however, that that noble Earl had given another opinion to a learned predecessor of his in his present office. He heard with his own ears the noble Earl give that opinion, and on looking since into the reports of the Debate on that occasion, he found his recollection of what the noble Earl then said fully confirmed and established. The noble Earl on that occasion said, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack should always bear this in mind, and should never let it escape from it, that his constant and his principal duty was to sit in the Court of Chancery. It might be supposed that these were irreconcileable propositions, but they were not so, for as the one did not mean that the Lord Chancellor, in the right performance of his duty, should give up the Court of Chancery for the House of Lords, neither did the other mean that the Keeper of the Great Seal should desert the House of Lords for the purpose of attending solely to his duties in the Court of Chancery. Therefore, while he assented to the noble and learned Earl's first proposition, that the paramount duty of the Chancellor was to attend to the service of that House, he also fully agreed with him in the opinion which he had expressed, that the Lord Chancellor should never forget that his principal duty was to sit in the Court of Chancery. In the absence of the Lord Chancellor, other noble Lords could officiate as Deputy Speakers of that House; but the Court of Chancery must be shut up if the Lord Chancellor did not sit there. The office which the Lord Chancellor held there combined two distinct species of duties, and he was sure that his noble and learned friend who had expressed the

655
opinions to which he had referred, would not deny that the paramount duty of the Lord Chancellor was to attend to the Court of Chancery as often as that House would allow him. It was true that for six or eight days he (the Lord Chancellor) had been absent from that House, attending to his duties in the Court of Chancery. But he had given notice, as he had said already, of that absence, and there was nothing of importance for the consideration of their Lordships that week. He remembered that throughout that week the House did not sit any evening beyond an hour or an hour and a-half, and that it was always up between six and seven o'clock. It was true that on each of those days he could have adjourned the Court of Chancery at a quarter before five o'clock—have come down to that House and have resumed his sitting in Chancery after the House rose. It was true that he could have done that, at the inconvenience of postponing his dinner till twelve or one o'clock in the morning. He had, in fact, done so on several occasions, but, though he was not possessed of a very weak constitution, he soon found that there would be a very quick termination to his labours if he continued such a practice. By remaining absent, however, from the House for the six or eight days he had already mentioned, he had been enabled to get entirely through the arrears in the Court of Chancery. He had sat without intermission in that Court from the 22nd of November. He had done so without intermission from that period, and, with the exception of the short absence already stated, he had also attended to his duties in that House. The noble Marquis appeared to imagine, that on the first day of the Session, when the ceremony of swearing their Lordships commenced, that his (the Lord Chancellor's) absence on that occasion was caused by his being in the country. He could assure him that he was at that moment sitting in the Court of Chancery, and he was sure that he should stand excused with their Lordships for not leaving an important and expensive cause which he was then hearing, and coming over to that House at twelve o'clock on that day, for the purpose of hearing their Lordships sworn—a ceremony that could quite as well be performed in his absence. With the exception of the week at Easter, there had been no intermission in his sittings in the Court of Chancery. He, in fact, gave up one
656
week at Easter, which he might have otherwise spent in the country, to the Court of Chancery, for the purpose of disposing of fifteen heavy appeals. He sat on Good Friday, and on Easter Monday, when almost all other persons were resting from their labours and enjoying the vacation. He was the first Chancellor that ever sat on that day, and he was the first Chancellor that had ever sat on Easter Saturday and Easter Monday, since the institution of the office. He claimed no merit for all this, he sought no praise for doing so, and it was only mere justice to himself that compelled him to state the fact. In performing his duty in the Court of Chancery, he had uniformly acted upon the maxim—"Take care of the minutes, and the hours will take care of themselves." Acting up to that maxim, he had made it his constant practice to take his seat in the Court as the clock was striking ten, and he continued to sit there until eleven or twelve o'clock at night. He attended to every thing that was said there—he endeavoured to get acquainted with the case before him as quickly as he could—to shorten as much as possible the discussions with regard to it; and, in fact, to go through it with as much rapidity as he could. That was the way in which he endeavoured to despatch the business of his Court. He had never had the idea, however, nor had he ever said a word that could, by any possibility, be construed into the idea, of setting himself above, or even on a level with, his learned predecessors, except in diligence, and in that quality he would not be surpassed by any of them. The noble Marquis said, that noble Lords came down each day to that House to do their duty, and that it was hard if the Lord Chancellor would not also attend there to discharge his duty. It was quite true, that the noble Marquis, and other noble Lords, after the relaxation of the day, came down there to discharge their duty in the evening—they came down to hear the nightingale in the evening—but it should be recollected that he (the Lord Chancellor) had been up hearing the raven in the morning. He was sitting every day from ten o'clock till five in that House hearing appeals, and it was not therefore to be expected, seeing that he had no breathing time at all, that he should come to the evening song quite as fresh as other Members of that House, who came down to it from less laborious occupations. It should not be forgotten,

657
too, that after the public business of the House was over, he resumed the hearing of appeals up to nine o'clock at night. Such had been the course of his proceedings, and whatever the noble Marquis might think of it, this he knew, that the Bar did not complain of it. On one day he had sat in that House from ten in the morning until nine at night, and had disposed of three cases after the public business of their Lordships for that day had been concluded. He mentioned that circumstance to show that he was as anxious to attend to his services in that House as to the Court of Chancery. He had now the great satisfaction of being enabled to inform their Lordships, that, so far from neglecting that House for the Court of Chancery, he had got rid of the appeals in the House of Lords. He had got rid of all but one or two. There were three cases which had been entered since the 14th of June—that was to say, since the beginning of the present Session. He had got rid of the whole of the arrears; and there were now only two cases (not counting the three he had mentioned)—only two substantial cases—remaining to be heard out of all those which had been fully entered for hearing in their Lordships' House on the first day of this present Session of this present Parliament. He could not say, therefore, that there were any arrears at all at present. He meant to go through the remaining Scotch appeals which had been set down for hearing since the commencement of the Session. They amounted to fourteen, and after he had disposed of them, for which he feared he should have abundant time, he would then proceed to the English and Irish appeals, which were less numerous. He did not like to take them at present, as it would be necessary to consult the Judges with regard to them; and as it would not be convenient to call for the opinion of those learned persons during the vacation, he should let those appeals stand over. So much then for his neglect of the judicial business of that House. The noble Marquis had complained of his absence from the House last evening. He sat in that House from Saturday morning till the evening of that day, and he disposed of an important case at that sitting. And here he should state, that for the last ten days he had been affected by a serious illness. Yet, if he had been well, what better could he have done? If the noble Marquis had been present in the House any
658
time during the last week, while he (the Lord Chancellor) was hearing appeals, he would have seen, that he had been obliged to take a quantity of medicine. He suffered extremely from an inveterate cough, which was at all times distressing enough, and especially to persons arrived at his period of life. He found that all the draughts which he took did him no good, and the consequence was, that he had it in his mind to go for a few days into the country, in order to prepare himself for the discussions and labours of the approaching week: and he would have gone to the north for the recovery of his health, but for the kind and delicate invitation which he had received from a quarter to which he might not more particularly allude, and which enabled him to spend two days in the country for that purpose. He took advantage of that kind offer, and though he had previously suffered from incessant coughing for hours together, he could assure the noble Marquis that he was now perfectly recovered, and that, in fact, he had never been better in his life than he was at this moment. He would resume his sittings to-morrow at ten o'clock, and would go on during the week. He would do the same next week, notwithstanding the Reform debate. He would be down every morning to hear appeals, though that debate might be very long and very wearisome. The noble Marquis complained of his having been absent last night when an important motion was to come on relative to our foreign policy. The fact was, that being aware on Saturday of the calamity which had occurred in the family of his noble friend at the head of the Government, he knew that his noble friend would not attend last night, and he felt equally certain that the noble Marquis would, in consequence of his noble friend's absence, put off his motion, as in fact he had done. He therefore took advantage of two entire days in the country, and he hoped that that was a satisfactory explanation as to his absence last night. He wished to have it distinctly understood, that his absence was not on account of illness; but he had been induced to state the fact to their Lordships from the respect he bore that House. It did not appear to him, on referring to the Standing Order, that any Chancellor was imperatively expected to be in attendance there. According to the wording of the Order, the Keeper of the Great Seal was to attend in "ordinary,"

659
—a form of expression which certainly, according to his power of interpreting the vernacular language, seemed in itself to contemplate the occurrence of absence. When it did happen that the Chancellor was not present, the House might then proceed to choose a Deputy Speaker, provided such an officer had not been appointed by the Crown. But there were the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and another noble friend of his, who were authorized to fill that office. The House had been already indebted to the Lord Chief Justice for hearing causes in Spring. When the sittings of that noble and learned Lord's own Court had terminated, and the pressure of business was over, he preferred remaining in town to assist in the operations of another Court, to retiring to the country for recreation. His noble friend was unlike the generality of men, who were disposed to regard pleasure as their business; with him business was pleasure. He thought he should be able to show to their Lordships, that the absence of a Lord Chancellor, and the appointment of a Deputy Speaker by the House, was not an unprecedented circumstance. On turning over the pages of their Lordships' Journals, he found that, in 1797, the House was informed of the Lord Chancellor's absence, and not only of his absence, but of that of the Deputy Speakers also. The House then (no reason being given for the absence of these officers) proceeded to choose a Speaker; and on whom did the choice fall? Not upon a law Lord, but upon no other than the Duke of Portland, and the business on hand was not of trifling moment—it was nothing less than the prorogation of Parliament. From these facts which he had taken leave to lay before their Lordships, he trusted it would appear that his conduct was not utterly without excuse. He begged their Lordships' pardon if, by any act of his, he had occasioned inconvenience to the House, but he had been impressed by the conviction, that he best testified his duty to that House, for whose honour and privileges he entertained the most inviolate and profound respect, by bestowing his best, his most conscientious attention on the business of his office.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, it was necessary that the Speaker or his deputy should attend, in order to protect the prerogative of the Crown, but still the House, if both were absent had the power to ap-
660
point a Speaker, and this showed that there might be times at which the Chancellor might be absent, and also that his Deputy might be occasionally absent, and there might sometimes be good reason for their being both absent. But the rule had been, that when the Lord Chancellor was absent, one of the most eminent Judges at the head of the Courts in Westminster Hall should be appointed Speaker. Lord Shaftesbury was a very good Speaker, and that noble Earl knew how highly he respected him. But considering what important questions of law might arise in the course of the discussions in that House, and what an immense amount of property might be involved in them, it was of the highest importance that the Lord Chancellor, or some other eminent Judge at the head of some of the Courts at Westminster, should sit as Judge. As for himself, he had not been able to get rid of the arrear of appeals in that House; but then he never recollected the House sitting until the month of October, and this year the Session had commenced in June, or at the beginning of July. He had used all the exertions in his power to bring up the arrear of appeals that the forms of the House at that time allowed him. And then, after all that had been said about the delays in the Court of Chancery, he was not the person who ought to be blamed for them. In consequence of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, he had been withdrawn from the Court of Chancery for three days in the week, in order to attend that House, and it was impossible to dispose of as much business in three days as in six. The rule as to this House was, that the Speaker might be absent if he had a good and sufficient excuse for not attending; but in the times of his predecessors, the invariable usage was, that the Speaker was never absent without stating to the Deputy Speaker that he was to be absent, and the reason for that absence. Last night there was a most important Bill—the Pluralities' Bill—before the House, to which a noble and learned friend of his (Lord Wynford), not now present, had stated unanswerable objections, to which no reply had been given; and it was of the highest importance that the Lord Chancellor should have been present on that occasion, for if he had confessed that the objections were unanswerable the Bill might not have pass-

661
ed. He thought, that after the explanation which they had heard from the noble and learned Lord, they ought to put an end to the present conversation; but he should certainly not let the next Session pass away without submitting to their Lordships a motion the better to provide against the inconvenience complained of.
Lord Hollandwould trespass a moment on the attention of the House, although he felt that there was no question before it, for it was impossible to entertain any doubt respecting the conduct of the noble and learned Lord, who was the admiration of the country, and who, in particular, was entitled to the gratitude of their Lordships. How could that noble and learned Lord's duties be better done than in furthering the ends of justice in the kingdom? Was he not more usefully occupied in devoting the evening hour to the prayers of anxious suitors, than in occupying a place on the Woolsack, when their Lordships were considering matters of no pressing or especial importance at their Table? There was no question before the House, for the noble Earl had concluded his speech without a motion, whereby they might know the Contents from the Not-contents; yet he would crave leave to trace the history of the Standing Order referred to on the occasion. That Order was framed under extraordinary circumstances, and he much doubted whether it ought to be on their Journals at all. It was framed in the year 1660; and he was far from being certain that the House, previous to that date, acknowledged the Lord Keeper's right to take his seat as their Speaker. The right of nominating a Speaker had been contested by that House with the Crown; and the Standing Order was a compromise between them. He would refer to the documents of the period for the purpose of setting the matter clearly before their Lordships. [The noble Lord then proceeded to read from the Journals of the House the report of the 6th of June, 1660, on the question of the right of the Peers to choose their Speaker.] From those historical records it was clear, that the Standing Order did not make it obligatory on the Chancellor to attend in that House. The Keeper of the Great Seal, according to the Constitution, was no more the legal adviser of their Lordships than any other Peer of Parliament, and he would oppose the reception of such an opinion. It went to throw the
662
judicature of the House into the hands of an individual, and not the collective body. The case of a Chancellor had been cited, who, it was alleged, was censured for absence, although his excuse was attendance on the King. This was the case of the Earl of Macclesfield, but the authority quoted was not that of the House, but the language of a protest—a protest emanating from a violent faction in times remarkable for the bitterness of party spirit. He confessed that this quotation from a protest had tickled his vanity no little, for he had been a great protester in his day—greater than the noble and learned Lord, and had every respect for the symbols of conscientious opposition. This act, of the noble and learned Lord, by which he placed the language of dissentients above the authority of the House, had not only tickled his vanity—had not only surprised him extremely—but he had been induced to hail it as an auspicious omen of their future and more momentous proceedings. But the attempts of a faction had failed against the Earl of Macclesfield; and with respect to the conduct of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would contend, that, neither according to the spirit of the Constitution, nor the provisions of the order of the House, could any blame be attached to it.
The Marquis of Londonderrydid not mean to impugn the talent of the noble and learned Lord, nor to question the propriety of the mode in which he spent his time; but he still was of opinion that the Order on their Lordships' Journals should either be enforced or expunged. He felt that he was but discharging his duty as a Member of that House, in establishing the point, whether it was imperative on the noble and learned Lord to be in attendance or not.