Sitting of 17 July 1832

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir GRAY SKIPWITH, from the Leamington Political Union; and, by Mr. DIXON, from Eaglesham,—in favour of the Factories

499
Regulation Bill.—By Lord HOWICK, from the Workmen of Manchester, for assistance to enable them to Emigrate.—By Mr. HUNT, from Manchester, for an Inquiry into the Manchester Massacre of 1819; and from the Debtors in Horsemonger-lane Gaol, for an Inquiry into the Management of that Prison.—By Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, from Carlisle, against the Vagrants (Scotland and Ireland) Removal Bill.—By Mr. WALKER, from Bagnalstown and Wexford, against the Punishment of Death.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from four Places in Ireland; and by Mr. WALKER, from Ballingarry,—against Tithes.—By Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from the different Congregations of Dissenters in and about London and Westminster; and by Mr. WALKER, from Enniscorthy,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland); and by Mr. JAMES E. GORDON, from Kilmoe; and by Captain POLHILL, from the Clergy of Bedford,—against that Plan—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the National Political Union, for assimilating the Irish to the English Reform Bill; and from the Irish Law Society, against the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill.

SALUTING DON PEDRO.
Lord Ingestrealluded to the report of Don Pedro's having landed in Portugal, and of the British Commander, Sir Thomas Trowbridge, having saluted him on that occasion, and begged to ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if Sir Thomas Trowbridge had any instructions from Government to salute Don Pedro?
Lord Althorpsaid, that Sir Thomas Trowbridge had been only sent to the Tagus, to protect British subjects in that quarter. He admitted that intelligence had been received from that officer of the landing of Don Pedro; but he had made no mention of firing a salute. Sir Thomas had received positive instructions from Government not to interfere between either of the contending parties, and therefore he did not believe that the salute had been fired.

INNS OF COURT.—LAW STUDENTS.
Mr. Harveysaid, he felt great pleasure at an intimation which he had received, that it was not the intention of Ministers to oppose the Motion of which he had given notice. He should, therefore, spare the time of the House, feeling confident, that if any hon. Member should oppose it, he would be allowed the privilege of reply. The hon. Member then moved, that—"An Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to direct the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state and practice of the Law, to examine into the course of proceedings before the Benchers and Visitors of Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn, upon the application of persons seeking to become students thereof, or to be called to the Bar, and to report the evidence thereon, with any special circumstances, to this House,"
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion.
Mr. O'Connellwas desirous of knowing from the hon. member for Colchester, whether the facts stated, relative to the refusal by the Benchers to hear Mr. Youngman, Mr. Rixon, and Mr. Reeves, were correct, or the contrary. These gentlemen had offered to prove to the Benchers the erroneous ground upon which they had proceeded, in the case of Mr. Harvey.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that as the Motion was now put on a general ground, and as he knew what was the feeling of the House on the former discussion, he should not oppose it. He wished the question to go fairly and unembarrassed before the Crown, and he, therefore, recommended that no further discussion should now take place. He thought it but fair to add, that the leading members of the Bar thought that the power of altogether excluding men from being admitted to an Inn of Court, with a view of being called to the Bar should undergo some examination.
Sir Charles Wetherellasserted, that he had never heard a case in which the Benchers of any of the four Inns of Court had been guilty of abusing the power with which they were intrusted. He thought the power ought to be left, as at present, in their hands. They were in the same situation as heads of Colleges, whom it would be most improper to compel to receive students; or Bishops, who ought not to be compelled to institute; or the College of Physicians, or of Surgeons He must say, that he was surprised that the Ministers should concede this Motion; and, as he thought the Benchers ought not to be deprived of their power, he should divide the House on the question.
Lord Althorpsaid, there could be no doubt there must be a discretion somewhere, to admit or reject a candidate for the Bar. In the same manner there must also be a discretion after his admission, in the calling or refusing to call a gentleman to the Bar. The Motion, however, did not go to take away the discretion, but to inquire whether any improper restrictions existed with regard to admission to the Inns, and calling to the Bar. He thought the cases which had been compared to this, were by no means analogous, and he agreed with his hon. and learned friend that the feeling of the House on the former occasion was decidedly in favour of an inquiry of this sort. He should, therefore, offer the Motion no opposition.
Sir Francis Burdettthought, that the

501
question was one of a very simple kind. There was no need of citing cases, or making comparisons. The question was not, whether the rights now claimed were germane to others, but whether they were germane to common sense. At present, the Judges had nothing to do with the matter, and that was the thing objected to, and which it was the aim of this Motion to remove, and in that manner to provide that no man should be condemned unheard. He asserted that there had been cases in which the Benchers had been guilty of abuse; and, without going further, he would mention the case of his intimate friend John Home Tooke. That was a case in which the greatest possible talent, and the most unspotted integrity of character, availed their possessor nothing against the capricious exercise of the power of a few individuals, who had endeavoured thus to extinguish talent that might have been most advantageously exercised in an honourable and lucrative profession. There had besides been a case that recently occurred, in which the power of the Benchers had been abused. It was against all common sense and common justice that such an arbitrary and irresponsible power should be vested in any set of men; he, therefore, wished to see the subject examined into. He should give his support to the Motion.
Mr. Pollockthought the hon. Baronet was wrong in attempting thus to introduce a premature discussion on the subject. He himself was a Bencher of one of the Inns of Court; and he took that opportunity of stating that, in his opinion, an inquiry ought to be instituted, and that part of the present practice ought to be corrected. That part related to the power of refusing to admit to the Inns of Court. He did not understand why any one should be kept from becoming a Member of one of these voluntary societies, without having any power whatever to make an appeal against the decision that excluded him. When an individual was once admitted, and was then prevented from being called to the Bar, the Judges had the power to do so, and would give him a fair hearing. That part of the practice, therefore, might be left as it now was. The other, he thought, should be altered. Under these circumstances he hoped it would not go forth to the world that there existed in the Inns of Court practices that were dishonourable, or a course of conduct that was tyrannical. With regard to the case of Horne Tooke,
502
he could inform the hon. Baronet, that the reason why that Gentleman was refused to be called to the Bar was, that he was at the time a clergyman, or person in priest's orders, and was, as such, incompetent to be called to the Bar.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, with reference to the second case alluded to by the hon. Baronet, he was ready to acknowledge that the refusal to admit in this case was one of which he could not approve. In a free country, every one of a fair character ought to have a right to be admitted; and the practice of excluding him without hearing, and without appeal, was one which ought not to be endured for a moment. He opposed the Motion, because he thought it unnecessary, since the grievance complained of was already well known; but if any one would bring in a Bill to remove that grievance, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas strongly in favour of the Motion. He took the same view of the subject as the hon. Baronet. In reply to the observation that the Benchers had never abused their power, he begged to refer not only to the individual cases which had already been mentioned, but to a general resolution passed by the Inns of Court, that no Gentleman who had been connected with the Press should be admitted in order to be called to the Bar. Was not that a piece of tyranny? He approved of that part of the present practice which referred the refusal to call to the Bar to the consideration of the Judges; and he should certainly support the Motion for inquiry as to the other part.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the Inns of Court had passed a resolution, declaring that no one who had been connected with the Press should be called to the Bar. He could only say, that the Inn of Court to which he had the honour to belong (the Inner Temple), had never to his knowledge passed any such Resolution.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that as the parties who did so were all dead, and there was no question now of any acrimonious or personal feeling, but of a mere matter of fact, he thought himself at liberty to say that many years ago such a Resolution was passed at Lincoln's Inn, and had been mentioned in that House by his hon. and learned friend Mr. Stephen.
Mr. James L. Knightwould not have spoken but for the tone of the hon. Baronet,

503
a tone which was not at all warranted by the facts. It was quite clear that the Motion must be amended; and in order, then, to accomplish the end in view, a new Commission must be issued under the Great Seal. He denied that the power of the Benchers was capricious, or that it had been tyrannically exercised. It belonged to the highest authorities of the law—men of rank and character—and under it the Bar had always flourished; and the most learned Judges had thence been drawn to dispense the law of the land. If a young man applied to be admitted a student and was refused at one Inn, he might resort to a second, to a third, and even to a fourth; and if, after having remained the usual time a student, he wished to be called to the Bar, and the privilege were refused, he had his remedy in an appeal to the fifteen Judges.
Colonel Evans rejoicedto find, that there was now a prospect that the matter would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He gave his hearty support to the Motion.
Mr. Hunthoped that ultimately a Bill would be brought in to remedy the abuse, for abuse it must be called, when under it such men as Horne Tooke, Wooler, and Mr. Whittle Harvey had been rejected.
Mr. Goulburnwas of opinion, that a discretionary power ought to reside somewhere, and that it could not be placed in better hands than those of the Benchers of the different Inns of Court.
Mr. Harvey, in reply, contended that it was a perfect anomaly to suffer a close and secret court of jurisdiction in England, to which the public had no ingress. It might do very well for Gentlemen who were Benchers, and modestly sung their own praises, to say that there was a power of Appeal to the Judges; but the fact was, that in the instance which had been quoted, the Judges had distinctly refused to hear any witnesses.
The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 2—Majority 24.
There not being forty Members present, the Speaker declared the House adjourned.

List of the AYES.

Lord Althorp,

Forbes, Sir C.

Briscoe, J. I.

Freshfield, J. W.

Burke, Sir John

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Brown, Dom.

Hunt, Henry

Campbell, John

Kennedy, F. F.

Crampton, P. C.

Leader, N. P.

Denman, Sir T.

Macaulay, T. B.

Evans Col. De Lacy

Pollock, Fred.

Fergusson, R. C.

Paget, Thos.

504

Parnell, Sir H.

Wallace, Thomas

Russell, Lord John

Wason, Rigby

Ruthven, E. S.

TELLERS.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E.

Harvey, D. W.

Torrens, Colonel

Hume, Joseph

Villiers, Thos. H.

List of the NOES.

Gordon, J. E.

Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.

TELLERS.

Knight, G. L.

Wetherell, Sir C.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—CASES OF MR. ALLISON AND MR. THORPE.
The Lord Chancellorasked whether James Allison, who had been accused by John Joseph Wright, solicitor for the parties opposing the Sunderland Dock Company, of a Breach of the Privileges of the House, was in attendance, and being informed by the officers of the House that he was,
Lord Dundasmoved, that James Allison be brought to the Bar, and he was brought to the Bar, attended by the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod.
The evidence given by Mr. Wright on the day before, the purport of which was, that Allison had given him a blow on the face, while attending a Committee, was read to him, and
The Lord Chancellorasked Mr. Wright whether he had any other account to give of the matter.?—No.
Mr. Allisonwas then examined. He was described as a ship-builder, and stated that he had been examined as a witness in the Committee on the Sunderland Dock Bill, on behalf of the supporters of the Bill, and that Mr. Wright, one of the Solicitors for the opposing party, had, in the course of an address to the Committee, cast, what he considered to be, very injurious reflections on him in reference to his evidence, and that he had, under the influence of excitement and irritation, taken
496
Mr. Wright by the nose. He was very sorry for what he had done; he acted under the influence of irritation, not merely on account of the reflections cast upon him, but also on account of a scornful look cast at him at the time by Mr. Wright; and at the time of the transaction he was not aware that he was committing a breach of their Lordships' privileges. He was sorry that he had allowed his feelings to get the better of his judgment, and threw himself on the mercy of their Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: Did you consider that Mr. Wright meant to insult you.?—I did, my Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: Have you since made any apology to Mr. Wright?—I have not; I am very sorry for what I have done.
Ordered to withdraw.
Lord Dundasmoved that James Allison had been guilty of a gross breach of the Privileges of the House, which was agreed to nem. diss.
Lord Dundasthen moved, that James Allison be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, which was also agreed to nem. diss., and Allison was taken away in custody.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought it his duty now to state, that this was not the only case of Breach of Privilege that had occurred in reference to the proceedings on the Sunderland Dock Bill. There were other Breaches of Privileges that had arisen, or were likely to arise out of the same proceedings. It had been intimated to him that a message, implying a challenge, had been sent to Mr. Wright by Mr. Abbs, the Solicitor for the other party, and he was informed, not by Mr. Wright, but by another person, that the parties only delayed settling their differences in a hostile manner till their return to Sunderland. He moved, that John Joseph Wright be brought to the Bar, and questioned about this matter.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. John JosephWright was brought to the Bar, and, being questioned by the Lord Chancellor, stated, that on Saturday gone a week (as he expressed it), he met Mr. Abbs the Solicitor on the opposite side, in Parliament-street, and that Mr. Abbs said to him, that when the business of the Bill was over, he intended to call upon the witness for an explanation. The witness said, that if he wanted an explanation from him, he had better tell him what it

497
was about. Mr. Abbs replied, that it was about a statement made in a printed paper circulated by the witness and his party among their Lordships. On the following Monday, at twelve o'clock at night, after he had been for some time in bed, he heard a noise at the door of his bed-room, and on his asking who was there, a person answered that he had come to him with a message from Mr. Abbs. He opened the door and admitted the gentleman, who stated that his name was Thorpe, and that he came on the part of Mr. Abbs for an explanation relative to some expressions in the printed statement already mentioned. This printed statement was an answer to a previous statement circulated by the parties supporting the Bill, in which it was stated, that the adverse feeling of the people of Sunderland to the Bill, arose from the misrepresentations of the Solicitors for the parties more immediately opposing the Bill. In the printed statement in answer, which was prepared and circulated by him and his colleague, under the direction of their clients, it was said, that the other party had, in their usual course of misrepresentation, stated, that the adverse feeling of the people of Sunderland arose from the misrepresentations of the opposing party, and it was then denied that such was the fact, and asserted that the adverse feeling of the people of Sunderland to the Bill arose from a conviction that its passing would be most injurious to their interests. Mr. Thorpe asked, on the part of Mr. Abbs, whether Mr. Abbs was alluded to in the passage about misrepresentation? The witness said, that he and his colleague had acted professionally in the business, and by direction of their clients, and that he did not consider Mr. Abbs entitled to any explanation about the matter. He added, however, that he wished that the explanation required should be distinctly stated to him in writing. A copy of a letter from Mr. Abbs was then brought him, requiring an apology or a disavowal as to the misrepresentation. He then required a more exact statement in writing, and to this he received an answer that his request was a mere subterfuge, and Mr. Abbs would expect to hear from him, or something to that effect, but not having expected to be called upon, he had not the letters with him. He had denied the right of any one to call upon him for an explanation of what was done professionally, and by direction of his clients. In answer to this he had been told, that he had no right to
498
shelter himself under his professional character, and there the matter rested for the present.
The Lord Chancellor: Did this matter originate from the printed statement circulated among the Lords?—That was the origin of it, as alleged on the part of Mr. Abbs; but he believed the real cause was something which he had thought it his professional duty to say in his address to their Lordships' Committee.
Witness ordered to withdraw.
The Duke of Richmondobserved, that the witness had spoken only to copies of letters, and did not appear to know of his own knowledge whether such letters were written by Mr. Abbs; and the first step ought to be to summon Mr. Thorpe to attend, that they might get the requisite information from him.
The Lord Chancellorconcurred in this. In the last case there was a direct and immediate Breach of Privilege committed in the House, and it was therefore a case which required immediate notice. In the present case the Breach was more remote, and it was not committed in the House, and therefore proceedings so immediate were not called for. But if in the meantime, and while the question was pending in their Lordships' House, there should be any further breach committed, it would be a breach of the grossest kind, and one which would call for proceedings of exemplary rigour. But there certainly did exist in the minds of many Members of Parliament considerable doubts whether the circulation of such statements among them was strictly regular or proper, although it was, no doubt, a common practice to circulate such statements among the Members of both Houses. He wished not to be understood as meaning to say, that the irregularity of the practice would be any justification of a breach of Privilege; but it might be proper to take a little time for consideration.
The Marquess of Londonderryagreed that there was a difference between the two cases.
The Duke of Richmondmoved that Mr. Thorpe be summoned to attend at the Bar of the House to-morrow.
Ordered nem. diss.