Sitting of 6 July 1832

Preamble
MINUTES. Bills. Read a second time:—Sea Apprentices; Sale of Beer.—Read a third time:—Representative Peers (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. BEAUMONT, from the Owners of Coal Mines on the Rivers Tyne and Wear, for a Committee to inquire into the Cause of the Disturbances among the Pitmen.—By Mr. WILKS, from Parsons Town (KING'S County), for substituting Secondary Punishments for the Punishment of Death in Cases of Forgery; from Tottenham High Cross, against the Vagrants (Scotland and Ireland) Removal Bill; and from a Benefit Society at Eckington, against the Friendly Societies Bill.—By Mr. DOMINICK BROWNE, from Kilvine, and three other Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. WYNN ELLIS, from Leicester, for an efficient Reform to Ireland.—By Mr. A. LEFROY, from Longford, for the Repeal of the Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. STANLEY, from Tuam, for a Representative for that Place.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF BURGHS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Horatio Rossstated, that he had a Petition to present, very numerously signed by the inhabitants of the Burgh of Baniff, which referred to a subject of great importance, and one in which all the Burghs of Scotland took a deep interest. The petitioners prayed, that the present system of Municipal Government in the Scotch Burghs might be reformed, and that the resident Burgesses and Citizens might have the power of electing their Magistrates and Town Councils. When he informed the House, that for some hundred years past the Magistrates and Town Councils had had the power of electing their successors, who, in their turn, invariably re-elected their predecessors; that the whole influence, both parliamentary and local, had been vested in certain families, as a sort of heir-loom, they could not be surprised that the inhabitants of those burghs complained loudly of this system, and that they anxiously looked for redress at as early a date as possible. He (Mr. Ross) had had this petition in his possession for a considerable time, but had refrained from presenting it, as he did not wish to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, during the progress of the Reform Bill, by calling upon them to bring forward more extensive measures of Reform. Now, however, as they had triumphantly carried that great measure, he thought the time was come when it was necessary to call
152
their attention to the subject. He was quite aware that nothing could be done this Session; but they might, during the months that must elapse before a Reformed House of Commons could be elected, and meet for the despatch of business, draw up a bill for reforming the municipal government of the Scotch burghs, and be prepared to submit it to Parliament at the commencement of the next Session. He could assure the House that, next to the great question of Parliamentary Reform, there was no subject in which his countrymen, residing in towns, took so lively an interest as in that of Burgh Reform; they would never rest satisfied until the gross abuses and absurdities of the present mode of election were completely eradicated. His Majesty's Ministers were the fittest persons to devise, and carry into effect, a proper plan of Burgh Reform; and, if they took the matter up in the manner in which he was sure they would, they should, in the event of his sitting in the next Parliament, receive his most cordial support and assistance; but if, on the other hand, they neglected this subject, he should, very early in the next Session, again bring it forward; and, if no person of greater experience undertook the task, he should consider it his [duty to bring in a bill to reform the abuses of the present municipal government of the burghs of his country,—Petition to be printed.

IRISH CHURCH.
Mr. Goulburnwished to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, relative to a subject upon which he had before asked for information—he meant with respect to the deanery of Down. Two or three years ago, his Majesty had appointed an Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland, consisting of several eminent persons, amongst others, of the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Armagh, and the Master of the Rolls. Their duty was, to examine what unions could be separated, so as to avoid pluralities. These Commissioners stated, that there were many parishes united with dignities where the working clergy had small incomes, while Deans and other dignitaries possessed large revenues from the same livings, although they were complete sinecures. In this condition stood the deanery of Down, producing to that dignitary, 1,200 l. per annum, to which were annexed six parishes, in which the clergy had incomes averaging from 95 l. to 99 l., and the Commissioners recommended, that on the next avoidance these livings should be separated from the

153
deanery. Last October that had taken place on the removal of Dr. Knox, and Mr. Plunkett had, notwithstanding the former decision of the Commissioners, been appointed to it. His question was, had the recommendation of the Commissioners been carried into effect by this appointment of Mr. Plunkett? The Lord Chancellor of Ireland was now here, and, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had an opportunity of consulting with him, he was now probably able to answer his question.
Mr. Stanley: I agree in the general principle that has been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman; but when it is remembered how voluminous the documents are to which he has referred—that the Commission was only signed in April last year, and printed in July—and that it was in September last year that the vacancy in the deanery occurred, I trust that there will not be much blame attributed to us, when I candidly confess, that, when this appointment was made, the Government did not advert to the recommendation of the Commissioners; in the propriety of which, however, I most entirely concur. Let me also add, that at the time the present Dean was appointed to the deanery, he gave up in consequence a more valuable living; and certainly no such arrangement as that alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was entered into with him on the occasion. It is, however, but justice towards him and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to state that, although he had made this sacrifice, on adverting to the report of the Commissioners he had signified, that there would be no objection made on his part to the Legislature taking such steps as it might think necessary for carrying into effect the recommendation of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that there would be great difficulty in passing an Act on the subject during the present Session; but I pledge myself, next Session, if connected with the Irish Government, to bring forward a bill for the purpose of making the proper arrangement.

CASE OF SOMERVILLE.
Mr. Alderman Wood: I wish to know, whether any steps have been taken by the Government towards an inquiry into the proceedings of the Court-Martial on private Somerville?
Lord Althorp: In answer to the question of my hon. friend, I have to inform him that the Commander-in-chief is about to institute a Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of that Court-Martial;
154
and I can assure my hon. friend that that Court of Inquiry will be so constituted, and the proceedings (I hope) so conducted, as to give satisfaction to the public.
Mr. Hume: After what has fallen from the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my notice on this subject for next Tuesday.
Sir John Hobhouse: I beg to move that the Petition presented relative to this Court-Martial be printed, because I consider it important that every publicity should be given to the case.
Petition to be printed.

PRESENT TO THE KING OF PRUSSIA.
Mr. Robinson: I see by the papers that an expensive toy has been sent to the king of Prussia as a present, and I wish to ask whether the Government has gone to this expense without the authority of the Parliament.
Lord Althorp: The only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is, that no authority has been issued from the Treasury; but I am not further acquainted with the circumstances.
Sir Byam Martin: The hon. Gentleman is under a mistake if he supposes that any great expense has been incurred. I see it stated in the papers at 20,000 l; but I believe that I am pretty near the mark when I say that it will not exceed 500 l or 600 l. The frigate has been sent abroad at the King's express desire, and under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp the House went into a Committee of Supply.
Lord Althorp, in Committee, said, that when the civil contingencies were last before the House, a vote of 1,000 l. to Mr. Telford was withdrawn, in consequence of the absence of the hon. member for Westminster, whose name was introduced in the discussion on that vote. The hon. Baronet being then present, he (Lord Althorp) wished to state the circumstances of the vote to the Committee. Several years ago great complaint was made relative to the supply of water to the Metropolis; and a Committee was appointed, of which the hon. Baronet was Chairman; and that Committee recommended that a Surveyor should be employed to ascertain whether such a supply as was required could be obtained. The Ministry of that day, however, finding that the expense of such a survey, according to Mr. Telford's

155
Report, would be extremely large, did not think themselves authorised in spending the public money for that purpose; and in this position the case rested till the present Ministry came into office. Application for a survey was then again made; to which his first answer was, that he entirely concurred in the opinion of the former Government. The hon. Baronet, however, pressed upon the Government the necessity of the survey taking place, and stated that, in case the Ministry thought proper to institute an inquiry, he himself would be answerable for any expense that might be incurred. He (Lord Althorp) was ready to admit, that the course which the Government adopted on this occasion was a course which ought not to have been taken; because on more mature consideration, he thought that they ought not to have permitted a private individual to defray expenses incurred for an object of public benefit. This, however, was not the view that was taken at the time; and in consequence the offer of the hon. Baronet was acted on. It now appeared that the expense would be something between 3,000 l. and 5,000 l.; and when he considered how much the health of the metropolis depended on a good supply of water, he thought himself justified in moving for a vote of 1,000 l. in part payment of the expense of the survey.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that when this subject had been last under discussion, the noble Lord had supposed him (Sir Robert Peel) to have been influenced by some personal feeling on this subject, than which nothing was more remote from his mind, as he had taken the subject up solely upon public grounds. There were two questions '—first, whether the expense incurred were justifiable in itself; and, secondly, if justifiable, whether it ought to be defrayed by Parliament. He had always been of opinion, that it would not be just to charge the public generally with the expense of making surveys for the benefit of the metropolis; and he had also been of opinion, that the supply of pure water would be best obtained by public competition, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to sanction a grant for London, on grounds which were not equally applicable to Manchester and Liverpool, or, at all events, to Dublin and Edinburgh. He had never undervalued the importance of a supply of water for the metropolis, but, as a general principle, he thought it better that it should be undertaken by companies or individuals. The moment Government
156
stepped in, there ceased to be a check upon its proceedings. Hitherto the metropolis had been supplied with water by the exertions of five or six companies competing with each other. Many of these had exerted themselves to improve the supply; they had constructed reservoirs, but the moment Government stepped in, their exertions would cease. They would have done more; and it had been the intention of some of them to draw their supply from the river Colne: for this purpose they had gone to great expense in surveys, and a Bill had been introduced into that House; but, on finding that the Government had taken the matter up, they stopped at once, after incurring, as he was informed, an expense of upwards of 5,000 l. In every case he was opposed to interference by Government, and the propriety of his opinion was proved by the superiority of the supply of London, as compared with Paris and other capitals, where the governments chose to interfere. He admitted that there were justifiable complaints as to the badness of the water, but he objected to the expense of the survey. Suppose, however, the expense of the survey incurred, he could not understand how it was to be made available; for the Government could not force the water companies to make alterations, or do as they wished. He quite agreed that, in the first instance, it would not have been right that the hon. Baronet should be allowed to undertake this at his own charge: but, when the noble Lord had urged his objection to the principle, and that the hon. Baronet still persevered, and offered his guarantee for the expense to be incurred, he certainly did think that the hon. Baronet was called upon to fulfil that guarantee. From the papers on the Table, it was clear that the Treasury had been studious to fasten the expense on the hon. Baronet. Mr. Telford had said, that he felt a difficulty in acting under any authority, except that of the Treasury, and the noble Chancellor was right in giving that order; but he was also equally right in reminding the hon. Baronet of his guarantee. He maintained that the whole matter had much better be left to private speculation, and for that reason, in addition to the others which he had stated, he should certainly oppose this vote.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that as the water companies enjoyed a monopoly, under which they gave so bad a supply of water, and, at the same time, gained such enormous profits, he was clearly of opinion, that they ought to bear the expense of the

157
survey, for which this vote was asked. In answer to the right hon. Baronet, he had only to state, that he was willing to bear all the cost of the survey, should the Committee decide that he was the responsible person. Indeed, he felt so strongly a conviction of the great benefit which would accrue to the public from a supply of pure water, that he should feel that he had not lived in vain, if he could persuade himself that he had been at all instrumental in obtaining for his fellow-citizens so important and salutary a necessary of life as pure; water. It would be for the Committee to decide whether he or the Government: should bear the expense: but, whatever was the issue, he would, at every personal cost, persevere. At the same time, he I thought it would be but just that the House should comply with the recommendation given in the Report of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into this subject, and which was unanimously of opinion that the survey should be made.
Mr. Robinsonthought, so much money should not be voted for the completion of a survey, from which it was doubtful if any practical benefit would result.
Mr. Spring Ricedefended the vote. It was in principle similar to the cost of surveys of new lines of road (the Holyhead, South Wales, and York, for example), which the Government took upon themselves, though the forming of the roads was left to private enterprise. Though the money thus expended had, in the first instance, benefitted private individuals, it had ultimately proved a great public advantage. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong, therefore, in supposing that there was no precedent for this sort of vote. But the precedent went further; for, in the case of Dublin, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, the Government had not only obtained information, but had gone far to supplying the water itself to Dublin. It would be establishing a very objectionable precedent, to make the hon. Baronet pay for an undertaking from which the public would derive the benefit, and in which he could have no personal interest, and he was sure the committee would not for a moment entertain the proposition.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he objected to the inquiry being further pursued at the public expense—at least if it was to be conducted in the way in which it had hitherto been. There had been originally much exaggeration as to the state of the Thames water, why it was celebrated all
158
over the world; and he was convinced that if it was examined fairly, it would be found to be better than the water which it was proposed to fetch from a distance.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the proposed survey, for he did not believe that any ulterior result could be obtained from it beneficial to the public, for the companies would not avail themselves of the suggestions that the Report might furnish. It was true that the Government had paid for the information that was given to the water companies of Dublin, but then they had bound the water companies, at the same time, to erect public fountains for the use of the poorer classes there, so that a great public benefit was the immediate object in view.
Mr. Vernon Smiththought, there was no difference between the case of the Government furnishing information with respect to the formation of roads, and their furnishing it with respect to the means of supplying water. The Thames water would not necessarily be excluded from use by this examination; and as to the assertion that the companies would not avail themselves of the information, he believed that the effect of competition would enable them to do so. Indeed, the New River Company had already declared themselves ready to avail themselves of the information which might be afferded. He thought that the money would be well expended in carrying into effect an object which Committees and Commissioners had equally recommended.
Mr. Briscoesaid, he shouhd vote for the Motion, as he thought the inquiry might be productive of great public benefit. He believed that the water companies would take no steps to improve the supply of water, if they did not see the Government moving in the matter. He gave his sincere testimony of respect to the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, fin his liberal offer, but thought that the House ought not to take advantage of the hon. Baronet's generosity.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that when he had, during the time he was in office, been applied to for an order, directing Mr. Telford to go on with the examination which was recommended by a Committee, he had declined to grant the order, solely because it was irregular in any officer of the Government to incur any such expense upon the mere recommendation of a Committee. He; was not entitled to do so till the recommendation had received the sanction of that House.
Lord Althorpcertainly thought it desirable that something should be done, and unless the Government took up the matter, he feared that the survey would not be made. It was asked, what good would arise from the survey? Why, this good—that the public would know that means did exist for furnishing them with better water than they were supplied with at present. If that information was given, he was sure that there would be found plenty of individuals who, if not for any other cause, at least for their own benefit, would take advantage of it.
Sir Robert Peel,after what had passed, saw clearly in what way the vote would be carried, and he should not waste the time of the Committee by a division. He should only say now, that it would be a great advantage if Mr. Telford was called on to say in what state the survey was at present, and what was the prospect of its being finished.
Lord Althorpstated, that the survey was in a very advanced state, and had been suspended only from what had taken place in the Committee on the former occasion.
Mr. Huntwas astonished at the disposition shown to resist the trifling expense for the improvement of the supply of water, when millions and millions had been so freely voted away for other "purposes not half so good. There was no doubt the Thames water was excellent, but then a great many things got into it that were very bad, and, in his opinion, the money required would be well expended in trying to ascertain how that could be avoided. This was an expenditure for the good of the poor, and he should support it. He should now say a word as to the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster. When he (Mr. Hunt) was in Ilchester Gaol, which he was at the time that this discussion first began, he thought that the hon. Baronet's interference in the matter was very well—that it was doing something for his constituents in return for their electing him free of expense—that, in short, it was a good electioneering scheme; but since then he had investigated the matter out of doors, and the result was, that he thought the whole of the hon. Baronet's conduct in the affair was such as to reflect the highest honour upon him. As he (Mr. Hunt) entertained that opinion, he felt bound to express it, though he and the hon. Baronet differed on so many points. He hoped the Government would go on, and complete the inquiry as to improving the water. If the attempt succeeded, it would be a
160
great public advantage; if it failed, the money would not have been thrown away on a worthless object.
Mr. Alderman Woodshould support the Motion. The discussions on this subject had already occasioned a great improvement in the water that was furnished to the metropolis.
Vote agreed to.
The sum of 202,482 l. 10 s. 10 d. was then voted for the charge of the Disembodied Militia of the United Kingdom, from January, 1832, to March, 1833.
The House resumed.—The Resolutions reported.

FORMS OF PROCEEDING.
Lord Althorp,in rising to move the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill, begged to ask the Speaker a question. When they were last in Committee, his hon. friend, the member for Mayo, wished to introduce an amendment to disfranchise certain towns in Ireland, for the purpose of enfranchising certain others. He thought that his hon. friend could not move such an amendment without an instruction from the House. He had been since informed, that it was competent for his hon. friend to move his amendment in Committee, without a previous instruction. Certainly that would be the more convenient course, but he wished to ask as to the point of form.
The Speaker, before putting the question on the reading of the Order of the Day, would answer the question of the noble Lord. It was no doubt competent to the hon. Gentleman to offer the amendment, of which he had given notice in Committee. The House knew that instructions were only necessary to give a power to a Committee to do acts which the Committee would not otherwise have power to do. Under any other circumstances they were, to say the least of them, useless; for they took up the time of the House by a discussion which could lead to no result. They had also this bad effect; that they went, to a certain extent, to limit the freedom of the Committee, the question involved in the proposed instruction having been prejudged by the House. Any amendment of the description of that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, could be moved in Committee, provided it did not go to alter a part of the Bill previously agreed to, for the Committee could not go back. If he understood the nature of the amendment, its place in the Committee would be after the Bill had been gone through; so that

161
the hon. Gentleman had not lost anything by the delay. The question was, that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill he read?
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, that he would move in the Committee the Amendment, for which it had been his intention to move an instruction to the Committee.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-BILL FOR IRELAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTH DAY.
House then went into Committee.
The 10th and 11th Clauses were agreed to, with verbal amendments.
On the reading of the 12th Clause,
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he desired to propose an Amendment, by which a great inconvenience would be removed in the existing mode of registration. In every county a large number of the electors were compelled to travel to a great distance, to give twenty-one days' notice to the Clerk of the Peace, before they could register their qualifications. Now he proposed, that the notice should be served upon the High Constable of the barony in which the elector resided, and that the Constable should be hound to transmit the notice to the Clerk of the Peace.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Amendment was highly satisfactory, and would effect a great improvement in the registration.
Clause agreed to.
The 13th Clause, after some verbal amendments, was also agreed to.
On Clause 14 being read,
Mr. Wallacemoved an Amendment, the object of which was, to prevent the interference, in the business of registration, of any persons, except those claiming to be electors, or their attorneys. His object was, to prevent captious objections, and to prevent persons being taken by surprise.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the Amendment. Although the registry had been improved, it still imposed hardships on the Irish electors to which the English electors were not subject, and this Amendment would get rid of one of them.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, it would have the effect of reproducing the evil which it was intended to prevent.
Mr. O'Connellmentioned, that he had received a letter from Westmeath, in which the Barrister was blamed for partiality, inasmuch as, during the sessions, he remained at the house of one of the members for the county.
Mr. Chapmansaid, as individual character was in question, he fell himself, how-
162
ever unwilling, compelled to say a few words. He certainly had heard that, during the sessions, the Assistant-barrister did stop at Rochfort; but, in so far confirming the truth of the hon. Member's information, he did not at all mean to, in any degree, insinuate any charge against that gentleman. He was really incapable of giving any opinion as to that gentleman's merits in respect to registering voters, as he had never attended any of the county registries; he must be considered, however, as in no way wishing to join in any censure of Mr. Mayne, or as intending to convey any imputation respecting his conduct. As to the fact of attornies having been employed to assist at the registries, he could state, that two had been so employed at the last sessions in Westmeath. He thought, however, that in the end every candidate would be obliged to have recourse to legal assistance, to enable him to register the voters in his interest.
Mr. Cramptonobserved, that the Amendment would not limit the interference with registration, which might proceed just as extensively under the Amendment as under the original Clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that on the following day he should transmit to the learned Solicitor General for Ireland the words which his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Wallace) had used, and he proposed to introduce; and, if they were approved of by the promoters of the Bill, they might be inserted on the bringing Up of the Report.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15,16, and 17, were then agreed to.
On Clause 18 being pat,
Mr. O'Connellobjected to greater facilities being enjoyed by 40 s. freeholders in towns, than were open to freeholders in counties. Equal privileges should be extended to all.
This was concurred in by Mr. Wallace and others; and, after a few words from Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley, it was agreed, that words should be introduced to effect the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.
Mr. Dominick Brownebegged to relate an instance of the mode in which the registry of the 40 s. freeholders was occasionally conducted in Ireland: 700 of them were, in a town in Mayo, registered by two Magistrates in one day. But how was this? They were brought up in batches of ten, and the Clerk wiped the book in one fell sweep against the lips of all, and the oath was taken.
Clause agreed to, as were the intermediate Clauses to the 30th.
On the Motion that Clause 30 be agreed to,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that care should be taken that no one should be able to vote on the production of a certificate of registry that had been granted to another man. He recollected more than one instance in which this had been attempted. On one occasion in particular, when he was acting as Assessor, a man came up with a certificate granted to a person named John Moran. The certificate was signed with a cross for John Moran; but it was suspected that the certificate had not been originally granted to the person who then bore it, and he was informed that the man who presented it was not an illiterate man. In order to determine that point, he said to the man, "John Moran, write your name." The man took up a pen, and wrote "Thomas O'Brien." To prevent this sort of fraud, he recommended the annual publication of the list of voters, as in England.
Lord Althorpsaid, he saw no great objection to this annual publication of the list ; but he wished the Irish Members to wait, in order to see how that plan worked in England before it was introduced into Ireland. He believed it was a good plan, but he wished it to be tried here first.
Clause agreed to, as were other Clauses up to 53 inclusive.
Clauses 54 and, 55 were postponed.
The remaining Clauses, and several additional Clauses proposed by Mr. Stanley, were agreed to; and the Chairman reported progress.
The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Lunatics; Contempts in Ecclesiastical Courts.—Read a third time:—Trespasses (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Lord DUNDAS, from Stromness, for a Representative to Orkney, and another to Shetland; and from Shetland, for a separate Representative.

ZEMINDAR OF NOZEED—BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the third reading of the Zemindar of Nozeed Bill.
The Lord Chancellortook an elaborate view of the claims of Mr. Hodges, and the whole of the case, and opposed the Bill on the ground that the claim was not just, and that allowing it, would open the door to numerous similar claims on the East-India Company. The claim had been suffered to lie over so long, when the petitioner had had numerous opportunities of bringing it forward, that, however reluctant he was to oppose such a demand, he most object to the Bill being read a third time.
Lord Wynfordsupported the Bill. He viewed the claim in a very different point of view from that which the noble and learned Lord had adopted. If the claim were a good one thirty years ago, he thought that it must be equally admissible now. In his opinion, the demand of the petitioner was founded in justice, and he rejoiced that, by the Constitution of this country, justice might be done to the petitioner by the Legislature, although he might not, on account of some technical objection, be able to obtain it in a Court of Common Law.
Lord Ellenboroughopposed the Bill. The noble Lord on the Woolsack, and the noble Baron near him (Lord Wynford), had both admitted that the claim advanced by

139
Mr. Hodges could not be supported in a Court of Justice. That very admission on their part, who took such opposite views of the question, was sufficient to guide their Lordships in throwing out the Bill. The original transaction upon which the claim was founded was illegal, for the Act of Parliament regulating loans to natives, distinctly prohibited the servants of the Company from lending money at an interest of more than ten per cent. The interest on the principal in this claim far exceeded this, and this very circumstance rendered the whole transaction illegal. For the reasons which he had stated, he begged to move that the Bill be read "a third time this day six months."
Lord Wharncliffesupported the third reading of the Bill, and contended, that the Company had sanctioned the claim of Mr. Hodges, by the approval it gave to the arrangement made by Lord Macartney and his council, with respect to it. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the rejection of the Bill would be a great hardship and injustice to Mr. Hodges.
Their Lordships divided on the Amendment:—Contents 14; Not Contents 23—Majority 9.
On the question being put that the Bill be read a third time.
The Lord Chancellorentreated their Lordships not to come to an immediate decision on a matter of such high importance, and involving as it would such serious consequences. After the decision to which the House had just come, he would not again divide it on the question that the Bill be then read a third time, but he begged to express his earnest hope that they would postpone the third reading to a future day.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that the noble Baron (Lord Ellenborough) had asked their Lordships to look at the question judicially. They had done so, and he certainly saw no reason why, on this occasion, they should depart from the usual course. The decision to which the House had come was, no doubt, very different from that which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had expected. He put it to him whether, if the result had been other than it was, he would have asked them to take the course he now advised.
Lord Ellenboroughadmitted, that what was asked by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was unusual, but he must say, that so were the circumstances under which he asked it. For his own part, he must say, that in his opinion, the individual
140
making this claim had not a shadow of justice or equity to support it. He, for one would be extremely unwilling to take the responsibility of the government of India, if claims such as this were admitted. He did trust, therefore, that looking to the justice of the case, and not to what might be their feelings towards the individual, their Lordships would give the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack an opportunity of stating his case in a fuller House.
Lord Wharncliffeconfessed, that there did not appear to him to be any reasonable ground urged for the further delay of this question. The Committee to which it had been referred had, after mature deliberation, reported, that the preamble was proved, and then the supporters of the Bill had consented that it should be decided as it were judicially. After the consideration which it had received, and the vote to which their Lordships had just come, he felt fully justified in moving, that the Bill be now read a third time.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had no right, in a case of this kind, to ask their Lordships to receive his opinion, as he should in a case where he was giving it judicially. He would, however, ask their Lordships to postpone the third reading, on the ground that many noble Lords went away before the division, not expecting that any would take place. On the Bill itself, he had no personal feelings of any kind. He had acted in the discharge of what he considered his public duty. He bad never canvassed in any way, or asked a single individual for a vote on it. He would not say, that there had been any canvassing on the other side, but he felt, that in all oases of individual claims, it was difficult to prevent it. The thing had been carried so far in the other, and to some extent in this House of Parliament, as to make canvassing not without a precedent; but he hoped it would not be without a remedy. He did not, however, ask for any delay on that ground. He asked it on those grounds he had already stated, for the sake of the character of their Lordships' proceedings, and on the ground of the absence of many noble Lords who would be disposed to take a part in the debate.
Lord Napiersaid, that with regard to the noble Lords who had left the House, he had personally communicated with several of them, and knew that their reason for leaving was, because they could not vote against the Bill. It was a question between a powerful body—the East-India Company—and a private individual, and if the Bill

141
were now delayed, to wait for a stronger opposition to it, it might be well said, that the weaker was allowed to go to the wall. He had given the subject all the attention in his power, and felt hound to support the Bill.
Viscount Goderichhoped that more time would be taken for consideration, and that the Bill would be discussed when there was a greater attendance of their Lordships.
The Earl of Harewooddenied any canvassing for the Bill. He had been applied to by an individual, till then an utter stranger to him. He had heard the statement of his wrongs, had read all the documents, had attended the meetings of the Committee: and he voted for the; Bill from a firm conviction that the individual had fully established the justice of his claim. If the delay now sought for, was given, it could only be to defeat the Bill.
Lord Wharncliffedeclared, upon his honour, that he had never asked a single soul in that House to give a vote on the subject—that he felt the justice of the case himself, and must persist in moving that the Bill do pass.
Lord Wynfordsaid, his opinion was wholly uninfluenced except by the evidence, and upon that he should support the Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the opposition of the East-India Company was given to the Bill officially, just as the Government might feel itself disposed to oppose any claim on the public purse, for which no valid grounds had been shown.
Lord Holland, thought, it would be much for the dignity and character of their Lordships' House that the question should be postponed. He, therefore, moved that the debate he adjourned.
Their Lordships divided upon this Amendment: Contents 15; Not Contents 24—Majority 9.
Bill read a third time and passed.

CONTEMPTS IN ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of this Bill.
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped there would be no objection to postpone it. A noble and learned Earl was absent on account of indisposition, who, he knew, was anxious to offer some observations upon the measure. He himself had some very strong objections to it.
The Lord Chancellorsaw no reason why their Lordships should postpone the second reading. It could not be the absence of the noble and learned Earl, who, if he (the
142
Lord Chancellor) were not very much mistaken, was in favour of the Bill. The only object that could be gained by the present postponement would be delay, and of that there had been more than enough already. This Bill had been passed through their Lordships' House last Session, and was sent down to the Commons, where it was stopped only by the prorogation of Parliament. He did hope that no further impediment might now be opposed to its progress. It was a Bill which had for its object to do away with that privilege by which about 1,100 persons. Members of both Houses of Parliament, might set the authority of Ecclesiastical Courts at defiance; so far, at least, as obedience to their monitions or citations was concerned. Thus, for instance, suppose a man died, leaving by will a charge of 10,000 l. on his estate, in favour of his second son—the will was in the pocket of the eldest son, who might not like to produce such an evidence of a charge on his estate, and, if he were a Member of Parliament, he might laugh at any monition or citation to produce it. There were many other cases in which a privileged person might, with impunity, set the authority of the Ecclesiastical courts at defiance, and defeat for a time the ends of justice; but that which he had supposed, and which might happen, was enough to show the necessity of this Bill. There were other cases arising in questions of divorce and alimony which would equally prove its necessity. Under these circumstances, their Lordships would admit that, unless some strong ground were made out (which he could not expect, and for the simple reason that he did not believe it possible to make out such a case), to show why the Bill should not pass, no further delay ought to take place to prevent the second reading of the Bill, which he now moved.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the argument of the Ecclesiastical Commission having recommended the Bill amounted to nothing, because the noble and learned Lord had brought it in on a former occasion before that recommendation was given. The noble and learned Lord said, that the Bill was dropped in the House of Commons in consequence of the prorogation. Now, on that point, he supposed his word was as good as the noble and learned Lord's, and he asserted that it was dropped because it was threatened that if the Bill were proceeded with, an exposure would be made of all the circumstances connected with it. The noble and learned Lord might not know that; but it was the fact. He would

143
not shrink from entering into the circumstances of the case, if the noble and learned Lord courted investigation. He wished to know, why the noble Lord did not enter into an explanation similar to that with which the Bill that affected Members of Parliament was accompanied.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had done so.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that he did not recollect it, and his memory was usually tolerably acurate. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) had not opposed the Bill in that House, but he knew that it was brought in for the mere purpose of oppressing and persecuting him. This he could prove. The report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had recommended certain improvements in the practice in the civil law Courts, and particularly that the examination of witnesses should be conducted publicly, instead of, as at present, in a private room. It would have been better if the noble and learned Lord had brought in a bill which would have comprised all these points, instead of a partial measure, directed to only an isolated part of the subject. It could not be said, that the Lord Chancellor of England, who possessed so many offices and instruments to carry his intentions into execution, could not find time to effect the objects recommended by the Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord, with his well-known activity, might, if he had pleased, have brought forward a complete measure, and if he had done so, what man would have had the face to stand up in the House and oppose it? He had made every effort which it was in the power of man to exert to avoid this discussion. He called upon the noble and learned Lord to declare, whether that was not the fact. He would now proceed to state the grounds upon which he conceived that, quoad himself, this Bill was an injury. In April last he had occasion to see the noble Lord, who then contemplated the introduction of some such measure as that before the House. At that time he happened to be in contempt to the Ecclesiastical Courts, on account of a small sum of 200 l. He had intended to avail himself of his privilege of Parliament, on account of the unhappy affairs in which he was involved. At the interview to which he had referred, the noble and learned Lord told him that he had better comply with the order of the Court, otherwise he would be shopped; and he explained that a bill to abridge the personal liberty of Members of Parliament would be introduced, not by himself, but some other
144
noble Lord. The noble and learned Lord suggested, that the question should be submitted to arbitration. He told the noble and learned Lord, that when the case was heard before their Lordships he had consented to an arbitration, and it was not his fault, but owing to the persevering determination of the other party, that it had not been carried into effect. He did not see the noble see learned Lord again till the 29th of August last year, when Lord Lyndhurst and the Earl of Eldon delivered judgment in the case, and, in the interim, he had not the honour of hearing from the noble and learned Lord. Subsequently to that period, the noble and learned Lord sent him a communication, in which he expressed a hope that he (the Marquess of Westmeath) would comply with the decree of the Court, in order to prevent the necessity of having a retrospective clause inserted in the bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I did no such thing.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that he would read a passage from the noble and learned Lord's letter. The noble and learned Lord said, 'I wish you would settle the matter in dispute, in order to prevent it from being mentioned in debate. I must give your case as a ground for the measure, therefore I wish you to comply with the sentence. It cannot be endured that anyone should set the power of the law at defiance. I know you will not think of doing so, and therefore no retrospective clause will be wanted.' The noble and learned Lord was well acquainted with his case. He knew that some years ago it was the subject of arbitration before Mr. Phillips, now Under Secretary of State, nominated by him and a person of eminence at the Bar, on which occasion the evidence of his witnesses was so clear, that the arbiters desired the opposing party to withdraw. The circumstances of the case must be fresh in the noble and learned Lord's recollection, and he was well aware that he had done every thing in his power to prevent the transaction from being dragged before the public. He had spoken of only one part of the subject, but he could prove at the Bar that the present Bill was actually drawn up by the solicitor of the party who is to be relieved by its passing. In one of the first communications with the noble and learned Lord, he (the Lord Chancellor) stated that the measure must proceed with breathless haste. He should like to know why, after that, the Bill was allowed to stand over for a fortnight before it was printed. He should very much wish to see the draught of the

145
Bill which was originally brought into the House. Was ever such a thing heard of as a solicitor bringing in an Act of Parliament in order to obtain money for himself? He had been placed in a most cruel situation by the proceedings in the Civil Courts. The most abominable charges had been made against him, which could not be examined into without sending a commission into North Wales. He brought over a shipload of witnesses, and maintained them at an enormous expense; and, upon investigation, he was acquitted, and his character cleared, but not a single sixpence of the vast sums which he had expended in costs would ever be repaid to him. Was this just? The noble and learned Lord might treat these matters with scorn—be treated men as mere units—as things here to-day and gone to-morrow—and, perhaps, he thought that a defenceless man could be more easily trodden under foot. He (the Marquess of Westmeath), however, would not shrink from the noble Lord's attack. He had been roused—goaded—into an explanation, and he would not sit down until he had made his charges good. He objected to the retrospective clause which the noble and learned Lord in his letter said that he would withdraw. Was there in the history of jurisprudence anything so monstrous known as the passing of a Bill to give a Court of law a retrospective power? The noble and learned Lord had already decided on his cause in the Court of Chancery according to the law as it now stood, and this Bill was to give him the power to sit again, and give a different decision on the same cause. This was such an instance as he had never heard of before. There had been a bill lately introduced to assimilate the practice of the Courts of Chancery in England and Ireland. No such principle as appeared in this Bill, however, had been introduced into the bill he referred to, and he did think it was a principle perfectly novel in legislation. In the proceedings against him no costs had been awarded in any Court of Law, or in the Court of Chancery, and yet here was a Bill brought in to make an award against him. Perhaps it might not be considered as bearing on the case, if he referred to the state of his fortune. He might state, however, that he had lost nearly one-third of his disposable income, in consequence of the measures which the noble Lord's Administration had adopted in Ireland. The noble and learned Lord might have shown a little mercy therefore, and contented himself without bringing in a Bill against him. Having
146
made these remarks, he should only say that he would leave it to the noble and learned Lord to pass his Bill now as he could.
The Lord Chancellorcould not say he was surprised at the statement which their Lordships had heard from the noble Marquess, but he was surprised that any person should assume, as the noble Marquess seemed to do, that a general measure affecting all other persons as well as himself, was intended merely to meet his particular case. The noble Marquess really founded his complaint upon a mere quibble; and, in order to make out his case, thought fit to refer to a private letter.
The Marquess of Westmeath: how is it a private letter? was it marked private?
The Lord Chancellorcontinued: he had no objection to the noble Marquess's reading any letter which he had ever written, whether it was marked private or not, though he had yet to learn that a letter not being marked private, when addressed by one Peer to another, or by a Counsel to a client, which was the character in which he had first the honour of making the noble Marquess's acquaintance—he had yet to learn, he said, that the omission of the word private, necessarily made a letter public which had reference only to a private matter. Be that as it might, he left it entirely to the noble Marquess to judge as to the propriety of making the letter public. Now, as to the statement that he had informed the noble Marquess that his case must be stated in the House, the fact was, that he bad attended to the case, though without mentioning the noble Marquess's name. The case of the noble Marquess was the first which caused the flaw to be discovered in the 53rd George 3rd; it was his case which pointed out the necessity for the Bill; but his case was a very' small part of this great and important measure. Now, it was quite impossible, he thought, for any man who bad heard his letters read, not to say that he had given the noble Marquess as friendly, and (though he said it himself) as judicious, advice as he could give him, when he recommended the noble Marquess to avoid needless discussion in that House, after the discussion which had taken place in the Courts below. The noble Marquess talked of the judgment of Courts being in his favour. The judgment of Sir John Nicholl was certainly against the noble Marquess, and so was the judgment of the High Court of Delegates, when the noble Marquess appealed from Sir John Nicholl's judgment. If his memory did not

147
deceive him, the noble Marquess also applied for a Commission of Review, and it was refused. Of that he was not certain, but he was quite certain that the other two judgments were awarded against him. The noble Marquess complained that costs were awarded against him in the Ecclesiastical Court and in the High Court of Delegates. By the law, as it was administered in those Courts, and according to the uniform practice, there could have been no other result. The noble Marquess could not have had costs even if he had succeeded, much less when the judgment was against him. When the parties in a cause were unfortunately husband and wife, the husband must pay all the costs, because it was supposed the wife could have no separate funds. Up to a certain point, therefore, in suits of that nature, the husband had the misfortune to be saddled with the costs of both parties. Doubtless, the noble Marquess thought himself right, and the other party to the suit thought him wrong; into that, however, he would not enter. The Court which gave judgment against the noble Marquess might be right or wrong. He was bound to presume it was right, but it might possibly be wrong, With that neither he nor their Lordships had now anything to do. He gave no opinion whatever on the merits of the case. Without any great want of charity, he should be rather disposed to conclude that neither of the parties were free from blame; but be that as it might, it was quite immaterial to the merits of the Bill. The only question was, whether or not the decrees of the Ecclesiastical Courts should be executed against persons having privilege of Parliament. It clearly appeared as the law now stood, that the Ecclesiastical Courts had no power to compel the noble Marquis to pay one shilling of costs. Though his contempt was undeniable yet he and all persons similarly situated—all persons having privilege of Parliament might laugh at the decrees of those Courts. The necessity of that haste to which the noble Marquess alluded arose from this, that after the flaw was discovered every one who could benefit by it might endeavour to do so, taking advantage of the flaw. He knew cases in which the grossest injustice had been done, and was doing at that moment, from the want of such a law as this Bill would supply. The noble Marquis had stated that the Bill was drawn up by the solicitor of the party opposed to him. Now, it often happened that a Bill was drawn up by a party whose experience showed them the necessity of an amendment
148
of the law. That was the way in which many Bills originated, but it so happened that on the day he (the Lord Chancellor) pronounced judgment in the noble Marques's case, he stated that the defect of the law being discovered, it was his fixed and firm intention to call upon the Legislature to remedy it. That was his declared and publicly announced intention. The Bill was not framed by any Solicitor, however; it was framed by persons having more learning, skill, and experience than could be reasonably ascribed to any Solicitor; and, he might add, that it was framed upon great deliberation, and had been altered after it was first framed. With respect to the retrospective clause, as the noble Marquess called it, it was the grossest abuse of language to say there was any retrospective clause in the Bill. There was no retrospective clause; but there was a clause to which the noble Marquess probably alluded, enacting that process should not issue upon judgments of more than six years' standing. A person who was in possession of a judgment proceeded to make his demand, founded on that judgment, by means of a process of the Court. It was setting at nought that process of the Court which was the contempt, and all that the clause did, was to limit the process from issuing after the judgment had been held for six years. There was nothing retrospective therefore, in the clause. Past contempts were not affected by it. The Noble Marquess would not be affected by it, unless he committed a new contempt. Any one who had heard the statement of the noble Marquess might have supposed that the Bill was limited to that class of cases in which the noble Marquess had been a party. It was a general measure, however, including all persons in Great Britain and Ireland, rendering the processes of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the two countries mutually interchangeable, and rendering the processes of the different Diocesan Court in this country also mutually interchangeable. The only question involved in the Bill was, whether the privileges of Parliament should secure a man's property against the decrees of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The Bill gave a remedy against the property as well as the person. In Courts of Equity and the Common Law Courts, a man's estate as well as his person was liable, and the Bill gave the same power to Ecclesiastical Courts. As the law now stood, a person having privilege might laugh to scorn the decrees of these Courts, and any man might do so if he could get his person out of the way,

149
Under these circumstances their Lordships could not wonder that he should say, he never was more surprised than when he had heard the noble Marquess represent this as a personal measure, and as if it was brought forward with a view to meet only the noble Marquess's case. There were, in point of fact, Members of the other House of Parliament precisely in the same situation as the noble Marquess. They could not now be touched by any process of the Ecclesiastical Courts, being shielded by their privilege, and would have precisely the same reason to complain which the noble Marquess had.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he should be as unwilling to publish a private communication as the noble and learned Lord, or any other noble Lord; but the letters he had read were written to him on a public subject—as an admonition to him, cautioning that he would be exposed in that House—and he had no right to look upon them in the light of private letters. One or two of his most important statements the noble and learned Lord had admitted. He admitted that the Bill was drawn up by the solicitor of the opposite party.
The Lord Chancellorbegged pardon—he had admitted nothing of the sort.
The Marquess of Westmeaththought it was admitted. However, there was a retrospective clause. The Bill would be eternally retrospective if it were not for the clause to which he alluded—it would go back to the flood; but the clause limited the retrospective operation to six years. He believed there was no precedent for such a clause, and he understood that a noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Eldon), who was not present, considered the clause objectionable.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to put their Lordships more distinctly in possession of the nature of that which the noble Marquess persisted in calling "a retrospective clause." It took away the benefit of issuing process upon judgment more than six years old. If it took away all the benefit of issuing process upon judgment, it was obvious that it must be a crying injustice.
The Marquess of Westmeaththought it a mere quibble to say that the clause was not retrospective in effect.
Lord Hollanddid not mean to give any opinion on the Bill, or on the noble Marquess's case, but it seemed quite clear to him that the clause was not retrospective, but quite the contrary, for it limited the retrospective operation of the Bill.
Bill read a second time.
Upon the motion that the Bill should be committed on Monday,
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped it would not be committed until the noble and learned Earl to whom he had referred was present.
The Lord Chancellorregretted the absence of the noble and learned Earl, but could not consent to delay a measure of so much importance at so late a period of the Session. He had no reason to doubt that, the noble Earl had given his attendance to the Bill last Session.
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped it would be understood, that he did not oppose the Bill merely with reference to his own case. If the noble and learned Lord had brought in a bill carrying fully into effect the recommendations of the Commission, and introducing Trial by Jury into the Ecclesiastical Courts, it should have had his cordial support.
The Lord Chancelloragreed with the noble Marquess, that there was a great deal more to be done with reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts than was effected by the Bills now before Parliament; and he should hope, that the noble Marquess would give his support to the other measures, which it was intended to bring forward as speedily as possible. There were great difficulties in following up some of the recommendations of the Commissioners; and it was thought best to select the most obvious amendments in the first instance. Some further measures, however, would be introduced early in the next Session of Parliament.
Bill to be committed on Monday.

SCHOOLS OF ANATOMY.
The Earl of Mintomoved that the Bill should be committed.
Lord Kenyonobjected to going into Committee on so important a measure, in the absence of so many noble Lords who were interested in the measure, and had taken a part in previous discussions.
The Earl of Mintocould not consent to any further delay at so late a period of the Session. One noble Lord had asked him to postpone the Committee, saying he could not wait, because he would be too late for dinner. He (the Earl of Minto) replied, that he had lost many dinners by the subject already, and he really should not consent to any further postponement.
Lord Hollandsuggested, that the Bill should go through the Committee, and that the objections might be discussed in a future stage.
The House in Committee.
Several verbal amendments were agreed to without discussion.—The House resumed.